PFS Ruling Required: Two-Weapon Fighting & Multiweapon Fighting


Rules Questions

251 to 300 of 344 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>

So then, how would improved and greater two-weapon fighting work with a kasathas 3rd and 4th hand attacks? Would each off hand receive the benefit of having an additional attack or improved and again for greater?

Sczarni

Todd Morgan wrote:
Nefreet wrote:
Todd Morgan wrote:
Nefreet wrote:
Double Slice would increase the damage bonus of your off-hand Longsword from x.5 to x1. How do you get x1.5?
Wielding a longsword with two hands.

If you wield a Longsword in two hands, you don't need Double Slice.

EDIT: And, after all this discussion, I hope you're not meaning wielding a 2nd Longsword with two hands...

Yep I am.

You can already dual wield long swords, albeit at a hefty penalty. Taking the TWF feat reduces those penalties and double slice normalizes the damage of the off-hand attack to match the primary attack.

By taking vestigial arms, you can grasp each sword with two hands, thus getting 1.5 str.

*facepalm*

No. No, you can't. I beg you to reread this thread again, or else we'll have another 200+ posts before we come to the same conclusion.


Shimesen wrote:
So then, how would improved and greater two-weapon fighting work with a kasathas 3rd and 4th hand attacks? Would each off hand receive the benefit of having an additional attack or improved and again for greater?

Sounds logical to me, but any DM would just tell his players to pick Improved/Greater Multiweapon Fighting and get the same results.


JiCi wrote:
Shimesen wrote:
So then, how would improved and greater two-weapon fighting work with a kasathas 3rd and 4th hand attacks? Would each off hand receive the benefit of having an additional attack or improved and again for greater?
Sounds logical to me, but any DM would just tell his players to pick Improved/Greater Multiweapon Fighting and get the same results.

improved/greater multi-weapon fighting don't exist. multi-weapon fighting only exists to replace two-weapon fighting for creatures with more than 2 hands. there is no need to create an improved'greater version since all they would do is the same thing.


Shimesen wrote:
JiCi wrote:
Shimesen wrote:
So then, how would improved and greater two-weapon fighting work with a kasathas 3rd and 4th hand attacks? Would each off hand receive the benefit of having an additional attack or improved and again for greater?
Sounds logical to me, but any DM would just tell his players to pick Improved/Greater Multiweapon Fighting and get the same results.
improved/greater multi-weapon fighting don't exist. multi-weapon fighting only exists to replace two-weapon fighting for creatures with more than 2 hands. there is no need to create an improved'greater version since all they would do is the same thing.

It's not like it would be THAT hard to convert into PF rules anyway.


Todd Morgan wrote:

By taking vestigial arms, you can grasp each sword with two hands, thus getting 1.5 str.

It's subtly different than the original argument. Using two hands to fight with a THW is different than using two hands to fight with a one-handed weapon.

As Nefreet has pointed out, no. Vestigial Arm does not allow you to gain a STR bonus on weapon if the hand is not "wielding" the weapon.

Wielding a 1H with two hands is mechanically identical to wielding a two-handed weapon. The same rules apply.

VA does not give you two extra "off-hands." An "off-hand" is a term of art. An off-hand can always make an attack with penalties. An off-hand can wield a manufactured weapon. You need an "off-hand" when using two hands to add a damage bonus. If one of your Vestigial Arms is designated as an off-hand, then your natural arm is no longer an off-hand and cannot wield a weapon or add a damage bonus.

Wielding a weapon and holding a weapon are not same thing mechanically. You must wield a weapon to attack with it and do damage. You cannot wield a weapon with a Vestigial Arm unless you designate that arm as either your Primary or Off-Hand in that round.

Technically, you can put a VA on a 1H weapon along with a Primary or Off-Hand, but it has no effect on damage.


Shimesen wrote:


so then how does a "naturally 4 armed race" work? would i be correct in saying that Kasatha have 4 attacks at level 1?

Barring some specific rule to the contrary, yes. And all of the off-hands can wield manufactured weapons. As stated, the penalty without the MWF feat would be -6 / -10 / -10 / -10.

Now, it's not clear if you can use two OFF-HANDS on the same weapon and get a 1x damage bonus instead of a .5x bonus. You probably can, but I haven't seen a rule which clarifies whether you must have a primary hand on a THW or not. Probably not, but I don't make the rules.

In addition, it's not clear if ALL of the off-hands must have light weapons to reduce the MWF penalty. I'd guess that yes...all the off-hands must wield light weapons to reduce the penalty, but ..I don't make the rules.

Sczarni

The interaction of MWF and races that naturally have four arms should probably be saved for a different thread, anyways. It will just confuse the original issue here.


N N 959 wrote:
Shimesen wrote:


so then how does a "naturally 4 armed race" work? would i be correct in saying that Kasatha have 4 attacks at level 1?

Barring some specific rule to the contrary, yes. And all of the off-hands can wield manufactured weapons. As stated, the penalty without the MWF feat would be -6 / -10.

Now, it's not clear if you can use two OFF-HANDS on the same weapon and get a 1x damage bonus instead of a .5x bonus. You probably can, but I haven't seen a rule which clarifies whether you must have a primary hand on a THW or not. Probably not, but I don't make the rules.

In addition, it's not clear if ALL of the off-hands must have light weapons to reduce the MWF penalty. I'd guess that yes...all the off-hands must wield light weapons to reduce the penalty, but ..I don't make the rules.

i'm not looking at trying to use a THW with this, im looking at lets say a longsword in main hand and 3 short swords in off hands.

at level 20 fighter i'd be looking at 13 attacks all subject to power attack, my STR bonus, Weapon Focus/Specialization, etc. etc....

this could get ugly fast...


Nefreet wrote:
The interaction of MWF and races that naturally have four arms should probably be saved for a different thread, anyways. It will just confuse the original issue here.

agreed, i'll Start a new thread for this and FAQ it so SKR can put his 2 cents in on the matter...


Shimesen wrote:
So then, how would improved and greater two-weapon fighting work with a kasathas 3rd and 4th hand attacks? Would each off hand receive the benefit of having an additional attack or improved and again for greater?

Most likely not. If I/G-MWF existed, it would most likely give you ONE extra off-hand attack, regardless of how many off-hands you had.


Shimesen wrote:

im looking at lets say a longsword in main hand and 3 short swords in off hands.

at level 20 fighter i'd be looking at 13 attacks all subject to power attack, my STR bonus, Weapon Focus/Specialization, etc. etc....

I don't know what type of feats you're including, but remember, barring some feat/ability to the contrary, each off-hand only gets one attack per round, regardless of how many iterative attacks you have.

So the base number of attacks at lvl 20 would be the 5 iterative attacks and three off-hand attacks.


N N 959 wrote:
Shimesen wrote:

im looking at lets say a longsword in main hand and 3 short swords in off hands.

at level 20 fighter i'd be looking at 13 attacks all subject to power attack, my STR bonus, Weapon Focus/Specialization, etc. etc....

I don't know what type of feats you're including, but remember, barring some feat/ability to the contrary, each off-hand only gets one attack per round, regardless of how many iterative attacks you have.

So the base number of attacks at lvl 20 would be the 5 iterative attacks and three off-hand attacks.

unless I/G-TWF applied to each off-hand, in which case you would have 4 primary attacks, and 3 off-hand attacks with each of your 3 off-hands...this is how i am getting 13.

i started a new thread for this. post responses there plz

Liberty's Edge

Shimesen wrote:
N N 959 wrote:
Shimesen wrote:

im looking at lets say a longsword in main hand and 3 short swords in off hands.

at level 20 fighter i'd be looking at 13 attacks all subject to power attack, my STR bonus, Weapon Focus/Specialization, etc. etc....

I don't know what type of feats you're including, but remember, barring some feat/ability to the contrary, each off-hand only gets one attack per round, regardless of how many iterative attacks you have.

So the base number of attacks at lvl 20 would be the 5 iterative attacks and three off-hand attacks.

unless I/G-TWF applied to each off-hand, in which case you would have 4 primary attacks, and 3 off-hand attacks with each of your 3 off-hands...this is how i am getting 13.

i started a new thread for this. post responses there plz

There is no improved or greater multi-weapon fighting. The creature is already getting all of the off-hand attacks upfront.


HangarFlying wrote:
Shimesen wrote:
N N 959 wrote:
Shimesen wrote:

im looking at lets say a longsword in main hand and 3 short swords in off hands.

at level 20 fighter i'd be looking at 13 attacks all subject to power attack, my STR bonus, Weapon Focus/Specialization, etc. etc....

I don't know what type of feats you're including, but remember, barring some feat/ability to the contrary, each off-hand only gets one attack per round, regardless of how many iterative attacks you have.

So the base number of attacks at lvl 20 would be the 5 iterative attacks and three off-hand attacks.

unless I/G-TWF applied to each off-hand, in which case you would have 4 primary attacks, and 3 off-hand attacks with each of your 3 off-hands...this is how i am getting 13.

i started a new thread for this. post responses there plz

There is no improved or greater multi-weapon fighting. The creature is already getting all of the off-hand attacks upfront.

the creature is a player character, meaning they would have to take TWF and not MWF unless someone specifically FAQ/errata's it. which also means they WOULD qualify for I/G-TWF

Liberty's Edge

Shimesen wrote:
HangarFlying wrote:
Shimesen wrote:
N N 959 wrote:
Shimesen wrote:

im looking at lets say a longsword in main hand and 3 short swords in off hands.

at level 20 fighter i'd be looking at 13 attacks all subject to power attack, my STR bonus, Weapon Focus/Specialization, etc. etc....

I don't know what type of feats you're including, but remember, barring some feat/ability to the contrary, each off-hand only gets one attack per round, regardless of how many iterative attacks you have.

So the base number of attacks at lvl 20 would be the 5 iterative attacks and three off-hand attacks.

unless I/G-TWF applied to each off-hand, in which case you would have 4 primary attacks, and 3 off-hand attacks with each of your 3 off-hands...this is how i am getting 13.

i started a new thread for this. post responses there plz

There is no improved or greater multi-weapon fighting. The creature is already getting all of the off-hand attacks upfront.
the creature is a player character, meaning they would have to take TWF and not MWF unless someone specifically FAQ/errata's it. which also means they WOULD qualify for I/G-TWF

We might need to back up and specify what type of creature are we talking about here. From your post, it sounded as if you were referring to a creature who naturally had three or more arms. If that's the case, then their only option is multiweapon fighting, thus no improved or greater versions. If a human, then yes, TWF, ITWF, and GTWF, but they only have one primary and one off-hand.

Grand Lodge

I know I will likely be the only one banned for this, but:

There is a portion this debate that should never be here, but it is.

Unwritten rules, as a reason to disallow something within the rules.

Imagine, being arrested, for breaking an unwritten law.

Imagine being told to not discuss, or question, the unwritten laws, even whilst being punished for breaking them.

Nothing in this should ever be decided by unwritten rules.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

Sigh.

The unwritten rule that was mention is the baseline that the developers go by when writing the feats and other things that go with them. It was mentioned to explain that a first level character should only get the total of 1.5 of str to a melee attack.

This cheese of wielding two weapons in two hands (for a total of four) is trying to purposely go beyond this limit. It should not. Even those that have the proper multi limbs would not use more than one two handed weapon, unless they are using it with one hand (Monkey Grip). This is what the developer was trying to explain.

Multi weapon fighting is a monster feat in the bestiary, likely not known by the character to even contemplate taking as monsters he faces that use this do this sort of thing "naturally." Gaining new arms through an alchemist trick is not gonna give anyone extra attacks like a monster.

Two Weapon Fighting is what one will have, one handed weapons is the largest weapon to use with it, unless you can use a two handed weapon in one hand. Most likely, the character would have a one handed and a light weapon to take the penalties down to -2/-2.

It is decided by unwritten "guidelines" because that is the base from which one goes from to write the rules in the first place.

Grand Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I say the the unwritten rules disagree with you.

Read them.

They totally tell you that.


blackbloodtroll wrote:

I say the the unwritten rules disagree with you.

Read them.

They totally tell you that.

Nuh uh, the unwritten rules totally say something else! Did you even read them?

Arguments like this are why I avoid PFS.

Digital Products Assistant

Removed a few posts and replies. Let's not derail this thread, please.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
blackbloodtroll wrote:

I say the the unwritten rules disagree with you.

Read them.

They totally tell you that.

Cute.

The rule was spelled out as the man explained. Typically, one has either 1.0 and .5 with two attacks, or 1.5 with a two handed attack (Single attack)

That is strength mod damage added to an attack.

A hay maker would be considered a two handed attack with 1.5 x str mod added in.

This nice Nacho Cheese tries to break the chain, to get more than a typical character would get, sliding in the back door of the rule's intent of TWF. The player knows this, as mentioned earlier in the thread, and he is trying once more in another home game once again.

Reading unwritten rules. I am sure that there are other "limits" that some know that are not actually written in a book sold to the consumer. Spells a character would get per day, how it is changed for differing mechanics, and what a spell can do at certain levels is something everyone can figure out by how each class is layed out in the various books. It isn't, however, a "written rule" per sey, but a measure of what a character gets at certain points in the levels of play.

It isn't as bad as a certain edition that shall not be named, variety is actually expanded in PF than it was in 3.5, but these "Unwritten Rules" are guidelines that the developers use to keep things balanced and... (Yes, I am gonna say this...) Fun.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

137ben wrote:
blackbloodtroll wrote:
I say the the unwritten rules disagree with you.

Nuh uh, the unwritten rules totally say something else!

Arguments like this are why I avoid PFS.

Ironically, arguments like this is why I avoid everything but PFS.

I hate to my core the absurd rules arguments that result from avoiding the unwritten rules and other "common sense" lines of thinking.


thaX wrote:

Sigh.

The unwritten rule that was mention is the baseline that the developers go by when writing the feats and other things that go with them. It was mentioned to explain that a first level character should only get the total of 1.5 of str to a melee attack.

This cheese of wielding two weapons in two hands (for a total of four) is trying to purposely go beyond this limit. It should not. Even those that have the proper multi limbs would not use more than one two handed weapon, unless they are using it with one hand (Monkey Grip). This is what the developer was trying to explain.

Multi weapon fighting is a monster feat in the bestiary, likely not known by the character to even contemplate taking as monsters he faces that use this do this sort of thing "naturally." Gaining new arms through an alchemist trick is not gonna give anyone extra attacks like a monster.

Two Weapon Fighting is what one will have, one handed weapons is the largest weapon to use with it, unless you can use a two handed weapon in one hand. Most likely, the character would have a one handed and a light weapon to take the penalties down to -2/-2.

It is decided by unwritten "guidelines" because that is the base from which one goes from to write the rules in the first place.

the problem with this is that there are races available to players that DO naturally have 4 arms and CAN take MWF as a feat. when they do, there is nothing i would think, that stops them from wielding 2 2HW with this feat other than the ridiculous penalties you would incur from not using a 1h/light combo.

the only real issue here with this guys idea, is that he's trying to use VA to get the other 2 arms needed for this, which by doing so does not qualify him for MWF because his two "new" arms arn't considered off-hands like they are for a naturally born 4-armed race. Because of this he CANT take the MWF feat and he CANT use his other two hands to help wield the weapons in question. if he really wanted to do this he should have played a NON-pfs game and chosen a race born with 4 arms....

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

More likely, there would be a feat more akin to upping the bonus to 2x the str mod for using four hands to swing one Two Handed Weapon. The coviate would be that it would need to be a Two Handed Weapon, not a weapon used with Two (Four) Hands.

I have mentioned this in the other thread, but the extra oomph used to get the 1.5x bonus is because your concentrating all your weight and power to that swing (and follow through for iterative attacks). Swinging two at a time like one would use a longsword and dagger would be like trying to swing a couple of buildings around withing hitting one on the other. To be frank, there is no advantage to wielding two Two-Handed Weapons except to get a little bit more from the damage die. If your TWF, more than likely your still only getting 1x from the first weapon and .5x from the second. And huge pentelties even with MWF/TWF feats. (I would think doing this would be an additional penalty on top of the CRB rules)

I also believe that if you do this, you wouldn't be using the weapons in the same way, but following one after the other, like a single swing. I believe it is to the monster/character's advantage to wield four weapons instead.

I need to point out one thing. Until the Bestiary 4 came out, there was no option for a character race that had four arms in PF. We did have one in 3.5.


I think you lack a little imagination here. If I had 4 arms and wanted to use 2 great swords, I would be holding them as follows: 1st one with my upper-right and lower-left hands, and the second with my upper-left and lower-right hands. By doing so I can still effectively get a "full body swing" with each weapon and not forgo the ability to attack with more than one weapon. In fact, I believe that this would actually make any offhand attack I make hit for a bit more damage due to how much weight I'm throwing around with every swing. But this is a literal interpretation of physics using a fictional 4 armed race, so...my point is that you don't have to hold each weapon with both right/left hands. Because I agree that by doing so you wouldn't be getting extra damage, but crossing arms like I explained is no different than normally using a 2hw with a 2armed creature except you have 2 2hw instead of 1.

Any yes, until beastiary 4, we didn't, but now that we do, it warrants the need for clarification/errata. Which is why I posted my thread about natural 4-armed races.


Pure RAW, even a naturally four armed creature could not two weapon fight with two two-handed weapons. Again, a two handed weapon requires a primary hand and a off hand. A four armed creature would have one primary hand and three off hands. There are no rules (that I am aware of) that deal with a two handed weapon used in a off hand (or two off hands).

Grand Lodge

Well, the six armed Lhaksharut Inevitable multiweapon fights, with 3 weapons, each wielded in two hands.


Not according to the link you provided. It has a spear, a long sword, and a mace while keeping two hands free to fire bolts.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber

Durngrum, look at the damage on the spear.


What about it?

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber

How do you get a +15 with a +10 Str bonus?


By using that one weapon two handed. Did you notice the bonus on his other two weapons? Or the fact it clearly says it keeps two hands free? How exactly is this two weapon fighting with two (or more) two handed weapons?

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber

The interesting part is that the other attacks get full Str bonus instead of half. I guess he doesn't have off-hands.


Or the multi weapon mastery might be affecting that, or it might be wrong. (The entry mentions the CMD might be wrong.) It's clearly not two handing multiple weapons. Two of its arms don't even have hands!

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber

But it certainly could two hand that long sword.


It could if it dropped one of its weapons and it wouldn't necessarily get extra damage from it.

Grand Lodge

You know, SKR has given specific examples of weapons that can be used with two-handed weapons, whilst two weapon fighting.

Sczarni

Those are exceptions to the general rule, though, because they each carry additional penalties when being used.

Grand Lodge

Nefreet wrote:
Those are exceptions to the general rule, though, because they each carry additional penalties when being used.

Yes. His stance seems to be "You can do it, if you pay for it."

He noted some other exceptions, but the point is, it's not impossible.


My 2p:

By RAW, you can't wield 2 handers while TWF for 1 & 1/2 str for the same reasons listed above. Primary hand and off hand are just abstract concepts game wise that mean that most humanoid creatures, unless listed otherwise via a Monster Ability, can't fight that way.

Now I don't think that a TWFer should be denied wielding 2H while TWF if they have the requisite hands to do so. It just doesn't make sense and seems overly gamey. I think that the rules just weren't built to do so due to them being largely copy pastes from 3.5 the rules. So the real question is, what should the TWF penalties be?

By RAW/RAI: They're not light weapons in the off hand, so the penalties should be -4/-4 for the sequence, since they have the TWF feat. Offhands only get 1/2 STR unless you take Double Slice, so only 1/2 STR on the off hand.

That said: I'd also come up with a custom feat line for my players to let them get more benefits. One to reduce the penalties back to the regular -2/-2. A second or third tier feat with around a 10 BAB req, that lets them apply 1 & 1/2 STR on both eventually. That way, players get what they want but it's expensive.

Liberty's Edge

Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
Pure RAW, even a naturally four armed creature could not two weapon fight with two two-handed weapons. Again, a two handed weapon requires a primary hand and a off hand. A four armed creature would have one primary hand and three off hands. There are no rules (that I am aware of) that deal with a two handed weapon used in a off hand (or two off hands).

There are no rules dealing with this situation because the rules are, generally, written for "normal" humanoids. Four-armed creatures and using two two-handed weapons are beyond the scope of the rules as they are currently written. That doesn't mean that it's outright prohibited by the rules. There are ways to fairly adjudicate such a situation that is within the spirit of the rules as they are currently written.

Regardless, the need for a hard "RAW!" answer for PFS is moot because there are no legal possibilities that a player would find him/herself in that would require such an answer.

251 to 300 of 344 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / PFS Ruling Required: Two-Weapon Fighting & Multiweapon Fighting All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.