PFS Ruling Required: Two-Weapon Fighting & Multiweapon Fighting


Rules Questions

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

But what about outside of pfs?

Sczarni

Starfinder Charter Superscriber

Just as a PSA for anyone new to this thread, who hasn't already read the entire thread, THIS ISSUE HAS BEEN SETTLED.

Any comments below are tangent discussions.


Way back when the whole TWF/2-H weapon situation was being hammered out with the Devs, I asked specifically whether you could have a 1-h weapon wielded in two hands and make "some" attacks two-handed and "some" attacks one-handed and which "potential" off-hand attacks it would eat. The response I got, from SKR IIRC, was as follows (paraphrased)

Q: If, say, I attacked with a Longsword and Unarmed Strike using TWF and had multiple off-hand attacks via ITWF and GTWF, made a 2-h attack with my Longsword first, then released it to make an off-hand attack, which off-hand attack would I lose? The one at highest-BAB or the last off-hand from GTWF? What if I reversed the order and made two of my three off-hand attacks first, then wanted to two-hand my Longsword? Would I be "obligated" to make a number of one-handed attacks with the sword to satisfy the "debt" to my off-hand for making the off-hand attacks, then lose my last off-hand attack in making a 2-h attack?

A: Yes, the order would matter in that case. Each time you make a 2-h attack, it "uses up" your next potential off-hand attack. If you use an off-hand attack first, you need to "even it out" by making 1-h attacks before you can make 2-h attacks. But that's all pretty complicated and it's probably best to stick to "either" TWF "or" 2-H for most purposes.

So, to answer the question of how, mechanically, you would TWF if you had more than 2 arms and using a 2-h weapon in your off-hand, it would take the next potential off-hand attack of both hands used. If each hand has one potential off-hand, you can use them both to make a single swing of a weapon wielded in two hands. If one of them has additional off-hand attacks available via ITWF or GTWF, you can get more since the "helping" hand can still help wield the weapon even if it has no more potential off-hand attacks to make, just as with 2-h weapon used to make iterative attacks.

Regarding the issue between TWF and MWF, remember that neither of those "allows" you to make off-hand attacks. You can do so without them; they only lessen the penalties. So the question should be, can a Kathasa or other 3+ armed race still make more than a single off-hand attack at normal ridiculous penalties even without the feat? Or would they still be limited to only a single off-hand attack despite having 3+ total arms? I can possibly see a rationale if they can still make multiple off-hand attacks, but that's a situation arising from PFS having ruled out a particular feat when the race in question was designed around being able to take said feat and it should be addressed by PFS officials specifically; and logic dictates they should either allow MWF for such races or allow TWF as an exception to reduce the penalty of one of those off-hands along with the main hand, if not all the off-hands. On the other hand, if even 4-armed races are still treated as if they had 2 arms, there's no good reason to say that they can't take TWF since, while they may have 4 arms, they're mechanically being treated as if they have two and any two-armed creature can take TWF.

Lastly, regarding MWF qualifying as a prereq for ITWF and GTWF, I see no valid reason as to why it shouldn't. It takes the place of TWF for applicable races and ITWF/GTWF still only benefit a single off-hand weapon so they'd get 3 arms worth of off-hands, and one of those arms would be able to attack a second and third time. If you claim that MWF doesn't serve as a prereq for ITWF, then there's a list of about a dozen feats involving shields and various two-weapon combat styles that would also be ruled out, such as two-weapon feint, two-weapon rend, shield slam, etc.


Nefreet wrote:
THIS ISSUE HAS BEEN SETTLED.

You keep using those words. I do not think they mean what you think they mean.


So I think it's safe to say I won this one, right? (Emoticon that denotes I'm slightly joking!)


Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
So I think it's safe to say I won this one, right? (Emoticon that denotes I'm slightly joking!)

You were winning until you said this:

Quote:
(Emoticon that denotes I'm slightly joking!)

Now you're in last place, in danger of getting lapped by Garble Facechomper.


Kazaan, I am with you all all but one aspect of everything you just said except for where you say that ITWF/GTWF only apply to one hand. As I'm reading it, there seems to be no restriction to a single off-hand in their wording.

Improved two-weapon fighting:In addition to the standard single extra attack you get with an off-hand weapon, you get a second attack with it, albeit at a –5 penalty.

Greater two-weapon fighting: you get a third attack with your off-hand weapon, albeit at a –10 penalty.

Greater might be up for debate, but improved is very clear (at least to me) that it can be applied to EVERY off hand weapon you are wielding.

Liberty's Edge

Shimesen wrote:
But what about outside of pfs?

That's a question for a different thread (which you already started). The focus of this thread is a ruling within the confines of PFS.


Shimesen wrote:

Kazaan, I am with you all all but one aspect of everything you just said except for where you say that ITWF/GTWF only apply to one hand. As I'm reading it, there seems to be no restriction to a single off-hand in their wording.

Improved two-weapon fighting:In addition to the standard single extra attack you get with an off-hand weapon, you get a second attack with it, albeit at a –5 penalty.

Greater two-weapon fighting: you get a third attack with your off-hand weapon, albeit at a –10 penalty.

Greater might be up for debate, but improved is very clear (at least to me) that it can be applied to EVERY off hand weapon you are wielding.

It's because they're written for the perspective a of a 2-armed character with only one off-hand. MWF may be a functional replacement for TWF, but ITWF and GTWF still work the same for a multi-armed creature as they would for a two-armed creature as no exchanges take place. A Human, even with a longsword, a dagger, a boot blade, armor spikes, and a boulder helmet still only chooses one of those with which to make his off-hand attack(s); standard, second from ITWF, and third from GTWF. MWF only changes how many potential off-hand attacks you have and includes an allowance that it replaces TWF for applicable creatures; it makes no changes to subsequent feats like ITWF or GTWF.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Nefreet wrote:

Just as a PSA for anyone new to this thread, who hasn't already read the entire thread, THIS ISSUE HAS BEEN SETTLED.

Any comments below are tangent discussions.

I really don't think they are listening.

I shall make it simple. One or the other. Two Handed Weapon, or Two Handed Fighting with weapons not Two Handed.

insert MWF where appropriate. (taking the place of TWF)

Digital Products Assistant

Removed a post and the replies to it. Please don't do this thing.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber
Chris Lambertz wrote:
Removed a post and the replies to it. Please don't do this thing.

Wait, which thing?

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

blackbloodtroll wrote:
Wait, which thing?

Pretty sure in this case it was "post offensive picture and get people respond they are offended."

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion Subscriber
James Risner wrote:
blackbloodtroll wrote:
Wait, which thing?
Pretty sure in this case it was "post offensive picture and get people respond they are offended."

Oh.

Yeah, this is not 4chan.

Liberty's Edge

I would like to make an edit to my previous posts stating that there was no legal way to get Multiweapon Fighting in PFS.

A summoner's eidolon could theoretically gain access to the feat, given enough evolutions. Since the current wording of the prohibitions against Bestiary feats would prevent the eidolon from accessing this feat, how does one adjudicate the remaining off-hand attacks that a four (or more) armed eidolon would get?

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

I shall have to look at the Eidolon again. They already have multiple attacks, though they may be natural attacks which would make the secondary attacks be at -5. I believe that a humaniod Eidolon may be able to access some monster feats, but I have to look to make sure.


Nefreet wrote:

Just as a PSA for anyone new to this thread, who hasn't already read the entire thread, THIS ISSUE HAS BEEN SETTLED.

Any comments below are tangent discussions.

yes, that settles the issue for vestigial arm. now that we're done arguing the irrelevant nuances of vestigial arm, can we move on to a means of gaining extra arms that doesn't have the same limitations (i.e. one that definitely grants hands with the additional limbs)? Incidentally, this was settled several pages before your link because the original question was a matter of whether or not the "Special:" entry for Multiweapon Fighting barred a creature with more than 2 hands that can wield weapons from taking the Two-Weapon Fighting feat. The answer? No, it does not. Depending on how you read the "Benefit:" entry of Two-Weapon Fighting, however, it may or may not actually help you.

can my lvl 10 summoner with the limb evolution for extra arms (via Aspect) can dual wield two-handed weapons? why or why not? we can guess that it was likely not the intent, but we've already established that lack of intent =/= not allowed. so per RAW, is it allowed?

note: it's really not relevant that the penalties would be horrendous because we aren't concerned with whether or not it's practical.

p.s. since it came up, eidolons are not listed as being unable to take monster feats.

The PFS Additional Resources Page wrote:
Feats: none of the feats are legal for play for PCs, animal companions, or familiars unless specifically granted by another legal source.

so unless there's a FAQ or something I missed, eidolons are free to take bestiary feats.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

I have said that Eidolons could take the MWF feat on one thread or the other, though I may not have been definate about it.

One of the FAQ's, I belive, says that however many attacks a creature has, it has one main hand and the rest are off hands. A two handed sword takes a main hand (with an off hand) to wield, so at best, one can wield a two handed sword and a one handed or lesser in another (or others) off hands.

This, of course, has been disputed in this thread as "Unwritten rules" shouldn't have merit somehow. I don't think it could be done physically, since the high arc of a two handed swing is a whole body event, not just swinging a sword as you would with only one hand.

Even if you could do it, one would only get the bonus damage of Str x1 and x.5 for the offhand, just as you would TWF/MWF. The only advantage is the higher damage die on the weapon.

As I type this, I see my post above... silly me.

I know, I am repeating some stuff I have already said, but I still can't believe one would want to use THW with TWF/MWF.


thaX wrote:

I have said that Eidolons could take the MWF feat on one thread or the other, though I may not have been definate about it.

One of the FAQ's, I belive, says that however many attacks a creature has, it has one main hand and the rest are off hands. A two handed sword takes a main hand (with an off hand) to wield, so at best, one can wield a two handed sword and a one handed or lesser in another (or others) off hands.

This, of course, has been disputed in this thread as "Unwritten rules" shouldn't have merit somehow. I don't think it could be done physically, since the high arc of a two handed swing is a whole body event, not just swinging a sword as you would with only one hand.

Even if you could do it, one would only get the bonus damage of Str x1 and x.5 for the offhand, just as you would TWF/MWF. The only advantage is the higher damage die on the weapon.

As I type this, I see my post above... silly me.

I know, I am repeating some stuff I have already said, but I still can't believe one would want to use THW with TWF/MWF.

why not? if it WERE legal, why would you NOT want str x1.5 on even more attacks? that sounds like a win in my book....that being said, i agree that there is no legal way to do this, even with 4 fully functional arms because, as has been stated by thaX and a few others, you need a second main hand to wield a second 2HW.

[EDIT] right after i posted this, i remembered that a monk does not distinguish between main hand and off hand for unarmed strike....if you could someone make a 2HW count as an unarmed strike, you might be able to pull this off....just thinking out loud here...

Liberty's Edge

Shimesen wrote:


why not? if it WERE legal, why would you NOT want str x1.5 on even more attacks? that sounds like a win in my book....that being said, i agree that there is no legal way to do this, even with 4 fully functional arms because, as has been stated by thaX and a few others, you need a second main hand to wield a second 2HW.

[EDIT] right after i posted this, i remembered that a monk does not distinguish between main hand and off hand for unarmed strike....if you could someone make a 2HW count as an unarmed strike, you might be able to pull this off....just thinking out loud here...

A reasonable outcome would be that the "primary" 2HW would get the 1.5 STR, while any remaining 2HW would just get 1 STR.


HangarFlying wrote:
Shimesen wrote:


why not? if it WERE legal, why would you NOT want str x1.5 on even more attacks? that sounds like a win in my book....that being said, i agree that there is no legal way to do this, even with 4 fully functional arms because, as has been stated by thaX and a few others, you need a second main hand to wield a second 2HW.

[EDIT] right after i posted this, i remembered that a monk does not distinguish between main hand and off hand for unarmed strike....if you could someone make a 2HW count as an unarmed strike, you might be able to pull this off....just thinking out loud here...

A reasonable outcome would be that the "primary" 2HW would get the 1.5 STR, while any remaining 2HW would just get 1 STR.

i could agree with that, because an off-hand is STR 0.5 and with two you'd get 50% of the 2nd off hand added which would be .75, and that's not something EVER used in this game, so rounding up would make sense to give STR x1. but again, you'd need a 2nd main hand to even wield another 2HW. and off-hand can only ever carry one without a main-hand.

so again, unless you can make a 2HW be treated as an unarmed strike and have levels in monk, you're SOL.

Liberty's Edge

I disagree with your assessment of needing a "2nd main hand" as well as how you work your math.

But it's all fascinating theory-crafting, no matter what we may do.


earlier in this thread it was stated by someone (not sure who, and dont feel like scrolling back through 300 posts to find it) official that wielding a 2hw requires a main hand and an off hand...so 2 off-hands doesnt qualify for this.

but yes, its all just theory crafting.


Without an explicit exception there is no basis for secondary attacks getting full or 1.5 str while I don't think thetes any basis for the whole twf thw thing if it were the off hand hand attacks are still secondary and do half str damage.

In regards to the eidolon in pfs example nothing stops the eidolon from attacling wity 6 weapons ot just gets all the penalties. It can't twf with some limbs and not others.

Basically you do one or the otjer not both because thetes no rule for combining them


yeah, it's been several days, ThaX. i don't expect you to have perfect recall of the thread so far.

anyway, from what i've read there is nothing stating the type of hands required to wield a 2h weapon. the entry only says that two hands are required. of course, we know this is written from a baseline assumption of two hands (one promary and one off), but we also know that lack of intent doesn't disallow something, so by RAW, it's doable.

someone above pointed out that you wouldn't use them in your top and bottom pairs of arms but cross them to be more effective. i would argue that each new pair of limbs should come with an addition primary "hand" since that is meant to mimic side dominance and you'd still have another hand on your dominant side, but what i think is irrelevant since RAW it's only one primary hand.

i don't actually want to use two 2h weapons, but RAW it may be better than 1 2her and 2 light weapons since i can't take MWF.

Mojorat wrote:
Without an explicit exception there is no basis for secondary attacks getting full or 1.5 str while I don't think thetes any basis for the whole twf thw thing if it were the off hand hand attacks are still secondary and do half str damage.

but there are other rules that say that if you wield a one or two handed weapon in two hands you add 1.5 str. i'm on my phone now so it's hard to check, but unless that part says something like "instead of 1x str", it's ambiguous which rules would trump which.

Liberty's Edge

Shimesen wrote:

earlier in this thread it was stated by someone (not sure who, and dont feel like scrolling back through 300 posts to find it) official that wielding a 2hw requires a main hand and an off hand...so 2 off-hands doesnt qualify for this.

but yes, its all just theory crafting.

Expanding on the theory-crafting a bit, I had an idea while I was on my "thinking throne" this morning. It would be interesting to do a comparison of DPR for a four armed creature wielding a primary greatsword (1.5 STR) and an "off-hand" greatsword (1.0 STR)—each at a -4 to attack—vs. a four armed creature wielding a primary greatsword (1.5 STR) and two light off-hand weapons (each at 0.5 STR)—each at a -2 to attack. I imagine one could even run one with the two off-hands wielding longswords, or something like that, thus giving -4 to all attacks.

My initial gut feeling is that, all else being equal, the two greatswords, at best, are going to be relatively equal, but definitely not something that is overpowered or unbalancing.

Now if I can figure out how they do those fenangled DPR calculations.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

When two weapon fighting, one gets 1.0 str from the primary and .5 from the secondary. Having one of the weapons in two hands does not change that as the character is dividing attacks between weapons, getting more attacks in lew of the uptick in damage.

This is also something in another thread I have been on, where one is double wielding Earthbreakers. (each in one hand)

This is something that was mentioned earlier and had a quote from one of the developers that proffered the damage set up as such.

Seeing the Thunder and Fang feat, I would think that it would be much like how one would use a different stance to effect more attacks. Not all the power is behind the swing of the two handed weapon as the other attacks would have to be prepared for execution at the same time. The character's attention would be divided.


thaX wrote:
When two weapon fighting, one gets 1.0 str from the primary and .5 from the secondary. Having one of the weapons in two hands does not change that as the character is dividing attacks between weapons, getting more attacks in lew of the uptick in damage.

It doesn't say this anywhere in the rules for TWF. As far as I can tell, this is an assumption.

thaX wrote:
This is something that was mentioned earlier and had a quote from one of the developers that proffered the damage set up as such.

I believe you're referring to how it was mentioned that you couldn't get more than 1.5x STR for free (i.e. without spending resources). The ability to wield two two-handed weapons came at a price (i.e. you spent resources; it wasn't free.), and it also enables getting more of your STR modifier per RAW whether or not this was the intention.

thaX wrote:
Seeing the Thunder and Fang feat, I would think that it would be much like how one would use a different stance to effect more attacks. Not all the power is behind the swing of the two handed weapon as the other attacks would have to be prepared for execution at the same time. The character's attention would be divided.

Divided attention is represented by the penalties to hit.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

It was an "Unwritten rule" that was proffered by a designer to explain a particular, of which I do not remember. It is earlier in this thread and mostly likely linked.

The normal character (With two arms) would not be able to wield a two handed weapon and a third (one handed or light) at the same time.

The last part is trying to delve behind the intent of the rules to further explain/propose why the damage is split up as it is.

The penalties to hit are negligible and lessened with the TWF (Or MWF) feat. I don't see a point where one would have anything less than -4/-4 as the THW would not be a part of the OHW/Light combo needed to take it down to -2/-2.

To be frank, I do not see how one would get 1.5 str mod bonus for any situation that isn't spent wielding the one two handed weapon exclusively. I try to see how the character would swing the weapon, putting all his power into momentum and coming around for the iterative attacks. Trying to do so with other weapon attacks, wouldn't the other weapons get in the way? It looks complicated enough when wielding four lightsabers in Star Wars.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

In my home games, we ignore this "unwritten rules" stuff, and allow any PC to two-weapon fight with a two handed weapon, and an off-hand weapon, provided that off-hand weapon didn't require a hand.

We just allow for x1.0 for the Primary attack, and x0.5 for the off-hand attack.

In home games, only the DM should make the unwritten rules, and that's the way it should be.


I'm sure it is complicated; that's what feats are for. A feat represents extensive training in order to accomplish something that would be very difficult if not impossible for most people to do effectively. I agree with you that you would be taking -4/-4, but, again, the 1.5x STR is not a hard cap; it's a baseline. It's all you can do without expending resources such as feats and class levels. With feats and class levels, there's no reason per RAW that putting two hands on your one or two-handed weapon would not give you 1.5x STR on attacks with them.

Liberty's Edge

Using the formula from the DPR Olympics thread, I decided to test my theory that I had mentioned above. My assumption that a Kasatha with two greatswords would be at least equal to a Kasatha with a greatsword and two light weapons was wrong, in fact it was inferior.

I ran the test using simple assumptions:


  • The Kasatha was a 1st level fighter,
  • had an 18 STR,
  • had the Multiweapon Fighting and Weapon Focus (greatsword) feats,
  • and the target had a 14 AC.

Furthermore, I based the calculations using my presumptions of 1.5 STR for the "primary" 2HW, and 1.0 STR for the "off-hand" 2HW (or just 0.5 STR in the case of the off-hand longswords and shortswords).

greatsword +2 (2d6+6 19-20/x2) and greatsword +2 (2d6+4 19-20/x2) DPR = 11.88

greatsword +2 (2d6+6 19-20/x2) and 2 longswords +1 (1d8+2 19-20/x2) DPR = 11.715

greatsword +4 (2d6+6 19-20/x2) and 2 shortswords +3 (1d6+2 19-20/x2) DPR = 13.365

It's something interesting to keep in mind. It pretty much tells me that if you're going to let your player play a four-armed race, it's not going to break anything to let them "multiweapon fight" with two greatswords.


@ hangarFlying - theres a problem with your calculations....try running them at level 5 (all three setups using power attack). then run again at level 15 and again at level 20.

the issue is that 2hw ALWAYS deals less DPR at the low end of the level spectrum and never overcomes TWF until after you take powerattack. eventually, however, the sheer number of attacks you are getting with twf stops adding up to as much damage as fewer attacks with a 2hw.

Liberty's Edge

Shimesen wrote:

@ hangarFlying - theres a problem with your calculations....try running them at level 5 (all three setups using power attack). then run again at level 15 and again at level 20.

the issue is that 2hw ALWAYS deals less DPR at the low end of the level spectrum and never overcomes TWF until after you take powerattack. eventually, however, the sheer number of attacks you are getting with twf stops adding up to as much damage as fewer attacks with a 2hw.

Interesting you should ask that, because I was just about to post a new set of calculations with the Kasatha at 10th Level.

General Assumptions:


  • The Kasatha was a 10th level fighter,
  • had a 20 STR,
  • had Multiweapon Fighting, Power Attack, Weapon Focus (greatsword, shortsword), Greater Weapon Focus (greatsword, shortsword), Weapon Specialization (greatsword, shortsword), Improved Critical (greatsword, shortsword),
  • weapon training 2 (heavy blades), weapon training 1 (light blades),
  • followed the WBL guidelines for a 10th Level character (25% allocated to weapons): 15,500 gp to purchase weapons,
  • did not make purchases for enhancements (belts, potions, other wondrous items, etc)
  • +2 greatsword for the primary weapon, all off-hand weapons were +1,
  • target had a 24 AC. (I think I've got all the pertinent information).

Again, I continued the presumption that off-hands were added together when wielding a 2HW, so Power Attack contributed +6 to damage for the "off-hand" greatsword, whereas it contributed +3 to each off-hand shortsword.

+2 greatsword +14/+9 (2d6+22 17-20/x2) and +1 greatsword +13 (2d6+15 17-20/x2) DPR = 42.78

+2 greatsword +16/+11 (2d6+22 17-20/x2) and 2 +1 shortswords +14 (1d6+9 17-20/x2) DPR = 52.38

At 1st Level, using two light weapons in addition to the greatsword is a 12.5% increase in output over two greatswords. At 10th Level, it's a 22.4% increase in output. I am sure a 20th Level Kasatha will yield similar results.

The reason why this breaks the paradigm of 2HF vs. 2WF, is that, normally, the 2HF isn't suffering penalties to attack, whereas the 2WF does. In this case, whether wielding two 2HW or one 2HW and two light weapons (or one 1HW and three light weapons), all attacks are receiving the penalties for wielding multiple weapons.

In the case of the two greatswords, the penalty to attack is greater (-4 to all attacks) than one greatsword and two shortswords (-2 to attacks). The driving issue is the attack bonus. All else being equal, the greater attack bonus will yield a greater DPR every time.

Now, if you replace the +1 shortswords with +1 longswords, the DPR = 40.14, though this isn't surprising considering that in this test, the Kasatha doesn't have any feats focusing on the longsword. If the shortsword feats are changed to longsword feats, the DPR = 46.38.

Liberty's Edge

I did run a test at 20th Level, though the only additions I made were to add Greater Weapon Specialization (greatsword, shortsword) and ran it against a target AC of 36. This obviously accounts for a lower than "normal" DPR, considering I didn't increase weapons or stuff for the extra 10 levels, but the core lesson from the results are the same:

primary greatsword/off-hand greatsword DPR = 55.92
primary greatsword/off-hand shortsword/off-hand shortsword DPR = 71.76

It's a 28.3% increase in output even though it's using the weapons of a 10th level character.

Fear not letting your four-armed characters wield two greatswords.


It's threads like this and the Conductive Bows thread that make me never want to touch PFS.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

I wonder why the Kasatha would not two hand two Sawtooth Sabres.

Less penalties, and still the boon from two handing a weapon.


Because sawtooth sabres only look cool when a red mantis uses them ;)

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

Kasatha Red Mantis Assassin?

Could it be cooler?

Liberty's Edge

blackbloodtroll wrote:

I wonder why the Kasatha would not two hand two Sawtooth Sabres.

Less penalties, and still the boon from two handing a weapon.

That's an excellent question! Granted, my posts were aimed towards the general theory, rather than specific combinations. The inclusion of sawtooth sabers would give an honest baseline. I won't be able to do it until late tonight (CST).

My initial hunch is that four sawtooth sabers is going to be marginally better than two, but that they'll be close enough that it doesn't matter.

301 to 344 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.