Magus - Spell Combat and TWFing, simultaneously?


Rules Questions

101 to 150 of 177 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Lantern Lodge

Hmm... max attacks IF FoB and TWF were to work together...

Shuriken Sohei + 2 levels of ninja! 1 TWF + 1 iTWF + 1 gTWF + 3 level 15 FoB + 1 Rapid Shot + 2 Flurry of Stars + 1 (haste) + 1 Ki Point + 4 BaB =

14 attacks in one round! (All at -8 at least)

Starry, starry night, anyone?


Quote:

Starting at 1st level, a monk can make a flurry of blows as a full-attack action.

When doing so, he may make one additional attack, taking a –2 penalty on all of his attack rolls, as if using the Two-Weapon Fighting feat. These attacks can be any combination of unarmed strikes and attacks with a monk special weapon (he does not need to use two weapons to utilize this ability).

What does this bolded line mean?

This is the line, I suspect, is where the disagreement stems from.

So let’s break it down. The whole quote, in fact...

When the monk uses Flurry, he gets an additional attack. I'm sure we all agree on this point. He gets an extra attack when he uses Flurry over and above whatever attacks his BaB gives him. This doesn't require a second weapon, and can be all unarmed strikes, which we know are never offhand attacks. So, we cannot conclude that this extra attack is a result of fighting with two weapons, as fighting with two weapons requires a second weapon, and using it in your offhand... the monk is doing neither to get this extra attack. Instead, he is simply using flurry.

He also takes a -2 on all of his attacks. Well, which attacks? Clearly it doesn't mean "all attacks he ever makes from now on forever". It is just the attacks he makes as a part of this full attack action.

Finally, we have the perplexing part. "as if using the Two-Weapon Fighting feat."

The extra attack isn't a result of two weapon fighting. The penalty to attacks isn't a result of two weapon fighting. So, what does the two weapon fighting feat do here??

All Two-Weapon Fighting feat does is reduce attack penalties for fighting with two weapons.

I sometimes get the feeling people responding in this thread don't know that...

There is, however, no way to interpret the extra attack from a flurry as resulting from fighting with two weapons rules. Nothing in flurry says that it results from fighting with two weapons. It even strongly implies that it does not, in fact, come from fighting with two weapons, by explicitly telling us that we don't need to use two weapons in a flurry! Top that off with the fact that a monk's unarmed strikes are never offhand attacks... and the notion that the extra attack from flurry being the result of fighting with two weapons is simply ludicrous.

The only reference we have to two weapon fighting is the Two-Weapon Fighting feat... but, again, the only thing the feat does is reduce penalties. Penalties we cannot possibly even have.

Example: Our hypothetical 1st level one armed monk only punches with his right arm. He does his full attack action, flurry style. He punches with his right arm, it is a light melee weapon, an armed unarmed strike, and it is never considered an offhand attack. He punches, and then punches again.

So what just happened?

Did he fight with the rules for Two-Weapon Fighting?

Quote:
If you wield a second weapon in your off hand, you can get one extra attack per round with that weapon

He didn't wield a second weapon. He didn't even use an off hand.

Remember... Flurry doesn't tell us that he is fighting as if he is fighting with two weapons. That is the assumption that people are making, but the flurry ability does not actually say that... instead, it says...

Quote:
as if using the Two-Weapon Fighting feat.

So, while he is Flurry-ing... the monk is treated as if using the Two-Weapon Fighting feat.

What does the feat do?

Quote:
Your penalties on attack rolls for fighting with two weapons are reduced. The penalty for your primary hand lessens by 2 and the one for your off hand lessens by 6.

The monk isn't fighting with two weapon, so he is not suffering penalties for fighting with two weapons. There are no penalties for his primary hand, nor to his off hand... because he isn't fighting with two weapons.

The feat does... nothing.

So, we can only conclude, using only the rules that are printed in the book... that the monk does get an extra attack, but not from two-weapon fighting, he instead gets an extra attack because flurry itself says he does. The -2 penalty to his attacks are not from fighting with two weapons, again... because he isn't fighting with two weapons... it is because flurry itself says he gets a -2 penalty.

And finally, he benefits from the two weapon fighting feat while he flurries, but the feat doesn’t really do anything...

unless...

he actually fights with an off hand weapon. Unless he picks up a monk weapon in his offhand and fights with unarmed strikes for his primary hand attacks, and then adds in the extra attack from the two weapon fighting rules for wielding a second weapon with his off hand. Then he would suffer the -2 to all attacks penalty from Flurry, and the -2 or -4 penalty from two weapon fighting feat modified two weapon fighting penalties.


No, we understand the function of the TWF feat. However, there's no point to saying you're doing something "as if using the TWF feat" unless the thing you're doing generally functions like the underlying action for which the TWF feat is actually relevant, namley TWF.

We all understand the point you're trying to make, Remy, it just doesn't make much sense. You also keep ignoring the question about ITWF and GTWF. You can't circumvent that by pretending it really is only supposed to be referencing penalty reduction because ITWF and GTWF both actually do provide the extra attacks and have nothing to do with penalties. Beyond that, the intent is unquestionably that Flurry functions like TWF - I provided quotes from SKR explaining it on the last page.

You need to give this one up. Flurry is, essentially, just a specific form of TWF (one of the specific exceptions being that they released a FAQ allowing the Monk to Flurry with just one weapon).


fretgod99 wrote:

No, we understand the function of the TWF feat. However, there's no point to saying you're doing something "as if using the TWF feat" unless the thing you're doing generally functions like the underlying action for which the TWF feat is actually relevant, namley TWF.

We all understand the point you're trying to make, Remy, it just doesn't make much sense. You also keep ignoring the question about ITWF and GTWF. You can't circumvent that by pretending it really is only supposed to be referencing penalty reduction because ITWF and GTWF both actually do provide the extra attacks and have nothing to do with penalties. Beyond that, the intent is unquestionably that Flurry functions like TWF - I provided quotes from SKR explaining it on the last page.

You need to give this one up. Flurry is, essentially, just a specific form of TWF (one of the specific exceptions being that they released a FAQ allowing the Monk to Flurry with just one weapon).

As I said... If it is true that Flurry indeed functions as TWFing... then a monk cannot flurry unless he uses an offhand weapon.

The flurry would give the exception to using two weapons, but it does not give the exception to using an offhand for the extra attack.

You must have and use an offhand for the extra attack given by using twfing, and flurry makes no exception to this fact.

So... A monk couldn't flurry with unarmed strikes alone, as unarmed strikes are never offhand attacks.


Remy Balster wrote:
..."as if using the Two-Weapon Fighting feat." ...

The plain implication here is that if it were not treated as though using the TWF feat then he'd take the normal penalties as if doing TWF without the feat.

PRD wrote:


Normal: If you wield a second weapon in your off hand, you can get one extra attack per round with that weapon. When fighting in this way you suffer a –6 penalty with your regular attack or attacks with your primary hand and a –10 penalty to the attack with your off hand. If your off-hand weapon is light, the penalties are reduced by 2 each. An unarmed strike is always considered light.

In other words a -4 for main hand a -8 for off hand attacks. (Of course there is no off hand attack since FoB allows all main hand attacks).

The then clear implication is that other than some noted differences (just one noted difference actually ie, all attacks are main hand) this works just like TWF in that:
1) There are penalties associated with your attacks.
2) You get one extra attack out of it (just like TWF gives you one extra attack).

This then leads to the further clear implication that FoB is in fact TWF with some modified rules.

Sure the rules could spell this all out more plainly, but the intent and meaning are clear enough that 99% of people get it.


Yes, a Monk can. You're ignoring the whole specific/general thing. Plus, the last paragraph of Flurry addresses the issue (that really isn't an issue - you're just forcing it to be one). It says Monks off-hand attacks still deal full STR to damage (it even mentions off-hand attacks). That there are no "off-hands" for damage purposes for UAS does not mean they are no off-hands for other purposes, specifically fulfilling the "off-hand" slot utilized by TWF, the basic functions of which are mimicked by Flurry.

You cannot combine Flurry and TWF. Similarly you cannot combine Spell Combat and TWF. They are, functionally, the same things - Flurry and Spell Combat are just more specific versions of TWF (think Quadrilaterals, Kites, and Trapezoids - they're all Quadrilaterals, but the latter two are just more specific versions with special additional rules applied only to them).


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Remy Balster wrote:
There is, however, no way to interpret the extra attack from a flurry as resulting from fighting with two weapons rules. Nothing in flurry says that it results from fighting with two weapons. It even strongly implies that it does not, in fact, come from fighting with two weapons, by explicitly telling us that we don't need to use two weapons in a flurry! Top that off with the fact that a monk's unarmed strikes are never offhand attacks... and the notion that the extra attack from flurry being the result of fighting with two weapons is simply ludicrous.

This does, of course, conveniently ignore the fact that a monk making a Flurry CAN choose to use two weapons.

Let's say a monk decides to flurry using a temple sword in each hand. None of these attacks are off-hand attacks, by your reading, but he is clearly fighting with two weapons, alternating attacks between the two.

Would you argue that the monk can then use TWF to make another set of attacks with one of the swords he already attacked with, except this time calling them "off hand attacks"?


3 people marked this as a favorite.

This has reached the point of 'why are any of us even bothering?'

Remy has obviously settled on his opinion, and will run it however he wants at his own table (incorrect as it may be), because he is obviously incapable of being/admitting that he is wrong.

If he were to ever sit down at a PFS table, he would be told very simply that what he's wanting to do isn't possible.

If something functions as TWF, you can not gain a further benefit from TWF.

FoB Functions as TWF, Spell Combat functions as TWF, neither can be used in conjunction with TWF.

It is a very simple ruling, one that has been supported several times, and is chock-full of specific rules that trump general rules.

Stop trying to skew the wording to your own benefit when deep down you know you're just being needlessly difficult.

And Remy, if your arguements in this post are any indication of how you've argued your point in the past as Malachi says.. I can understand fully his position.


Neonpeekaboo wrote:

This has reached the point of 'why are any of us even bothering?'

Remy has obviously settled on his opinion, and will run it however he wants at his own table (incorrect as it may be), because he is obviously incapable of being/admitting that he is wrong.

Well, the original question was answered well enough. In Spell Combat it makes reference to the spell being your off hand weapon. Since there is a related FAQ that discusses only having what is essentially a virtual off hand that is only available for any one particular thing during any particular action, then the full round action used for spell combat would have the spell occupying the off hand, which would be unavailable for attacking.

You have to extrapolate from a FAQ to get there, but it seems reasonable enough.

Quote:
If he were to ever sit down at a PFS table, he would be told very simply that what he's wanting to do isn't possible.

I want to do something?

Quote:
If something functions as TWF, you can not gain a further benefit from TWF.

I follow you so far.

Quote:
FoB Functions as TWF, Spell Combat functions as TWF, neither can be used in conjunction with TWF.

This is where the problem enters. Many posters have said as much, unfortunately the rulebook doesn't. FoB doesn’t state that it functions as TWF. It just isn’t there. Maybe it should? Sure… but, well, it isn’t.

It doesn’t even matter how much you want it to say that it functions as TWF. It don’t.

Quote:
It is a very simple ruling, one that has been supported several times, and is chock-full of specific rules that trump general rules.

Simple and flawed. Oversimplified.

Quote:
Stop trying to skew the wording to your own benefit when deep down you know you're just being needlessly difficult.

My benefit? Wherever did you get the notion that any of this could possibly benefit me? Ha. I hate Monks.

This is just some tangent that popped up and has continued... for whatever reason.

I suspect people don't like to see that FoB doesn't really work right, by RAW. And are just pretending that it does, for, whatever reason they have.

Like when I brought up that Monks cannot have off hand unarmed strikes because; "There is no such thing as an off-hand attack for a monk striking unarmed."... and then folk responded that this extremely clear sentence doesn't mean what it says, and that of course monks can off hand with their unarmed strikes.

Well, frankly, no they cannot. Not unless you house rule it. The RAW is blatant, it is clear. They cannot. There is no such thing.


Neonpeekaboo wrote:

If he were to ever sit down at a PFS table, he would be told very simply that what he's wanting to do isn't possible.

If something functions as TWF, you can not gain a further benefit from TWF.

No. PFS must follow RAW, thus it would allow flurry + TWF to be used together. Since the rules don't explicitly forbid it.

They imply that they shouldn't be combined, and the linked post from SKR makes it clear that the text should be revised.

A 'home game' DM can just read it and see that paizo failed their rule crafting roll and fix the text to what it is supposed to be, but a PFS GM is supposed to follow the rules in the book (except for the many official PFS house rules of course).


Rikkan wrote:
Neonpeekaboo wrote:

If he were to ever sit down at a PFS table, he would be told very simply that what he's wanting to do isn't possible.

If something functions as TWF, you can not gain a further benefit from TWF.

No. PFS must follow RAW, thus it would allow flurry + TWF to be used together. Since the rules don't explicitly forbid it.

They imply that they shouldn't be combined, and the linked post from SKR makes it clear that the text should be revised.

A 'home game' DM can just read it and see that paizo failed their rule crafting roll and fix the text to what it is supposed to be, but a PFS GM is supposed to follow the rules in the book (except for the many official PFS house rules of course).

No, even by RAW Flurry and TWF cannot be used together. That it's not as clear as it could be does not mean it doesn't get the intended point across.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

Remy has his opinion and the rules, the developers, reality, and us can't change it.

You can't combine Spell Combat, Flurry, or TWF.

Scarab Sages

Davor wrote:
Spell Combat wrote:
As a full-round action, he can make all of his attacks with his melee weapon at a –2

Melee Weapon is singular, implying that the ability only works when using a single weapon. Also, you can only two weapon fight with a full attack. Two weapon fighting isn't an "effect". It's an option. As this is a special action that exists outside of full attacking, there are no rules to say that you CAN use two weapon fighting with the ability.

All those go for Flurry of Blows as well.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Remy Balster wrote:
Neonpeekaboo wrote:

This has reached the point of 'why are any of us even bothering?'

Remy has obviously settled on his opinion, and will run it however he wants at his own table (incorrect as it may be), because he is obviously incapable of being/admitting that he is wrong.

Well, the original question was answered well enough. In Spell Combat it makes reference to the spell being your off hand weapon. Since there is a related FAQ that discusses only having what is essentially a virtual off hand that is only available for any one particular thing during any particular action, then the full round action used for spell combat would have the spell occupying the off hand, which would be unavailable for attacking.

You have to extrapolate from a FAQ to get there, but it seems reasonable enough.

Flurry of Blows wrote:
A monk applies his full Strength bonus to his damage rolls for all successful attacks made with flurry of blows, whether the attacks are made with an off-hand or with a weapon wielded in both hands.

Huh? What's that? Flurry of Blows does specifically mention off-hand attacks? Interesting. And as you've noted, off-hand attacks are only relevant to TWF. So it's almost like the rules specifically mean for Flurry to be treated like a specific version of TWF ...

Quote:
Quote:
FoB Functions as TWF, Spell Combat functions as TWF, neither can be used in conjunction with TWF.

This is where the problem enters. Many posters have said as much, unfortunately the rulebook doesn't. FoB doesn’t state that it functions as TWF. It just isn’t there. Maybe it should? Sure… but, well, it isn’t.

It doesn’t even matter how much you want it to say that it functions as TWF. It don’t.

And I'll just leave this here again, one more time. I'm hoping one of these times you'll actually address it.
Flurry of Blows wrote:

At 8th level, the monk can make two additional attacks when he uses flurry of blows, as if using Improved Two-Weapon Fighting (even if the monk does not meet the prerequisites for the feat).

At 15th level, the monk can make three additional attacks using flurry of blows, as if using Greater Two-Weapon Fighting (even if the monk does not meet the prerequisites for the feat).

Flurry calls out that it functions at higher levels as if using ITWF and GTWF. If the purpose is other than that it function like TWF, what is the point of calling out ITWF and GTWF? Those two feats have nothing to do with penalties, which is the erroneous escape you keep trying to use in regards to the explicit mention of TWF earlier in the entry.

So, the actual rules entry demonstrates the intent is for Flurry to function like TWF, with specific exceptions. We unequivocally know that the intent of the designer who wrote the entry was for Flurry to function like TWF, with specific exceptions. Could it have written more clearly? Sure. Most rules in pretty much every setting could be. But that doesn't change the fact that the rules function as intended in this particular instance: Flurry of Blows operates just like TWF.


Well it's a bit easier than that really - flurry requires using a full round action to use the 'flurry' feature.

TWF requires a full round attack - note that 'flurry' may be like a full round attack - but it's not - it's a full round action using the special monk action 'flurry'.

See the PRD (quoting for relevance)

Quote:
Flurry of Blows (Ex): Starting at 1st level, a monk can make a flurry of blows as a full-attack action.

Note that flurry of blows is 'a flurry of blows' - and it acts as a full attack action - so it replaces the full attack action with a special type of action - TWF only works with a full attack action - not a replacement.

Because of that they don't stack. I'm pretty sure (besides the fact that it's pretty much obvious based on the other wording) that this point shuts down any arguments at all that suggest otherwise.


Rikkan wrote:

No. PFS must follow RAW, thus it would allow flurry + TWF to be used together. Since the rules don't explicitly forbid it.

They imply that they shouldn't be combined, and the linked post from SKR makes it clear that the text should be revised.

"Starting at 1st level, a monk can make a flurry of blows as a full-attack action.

When doing so, he may make one additional attack, taking a –2 penalty on all of his attack rolls, as if using the Two-Weapon Fighting feat."

You can't FoB, gaining an extra attack at -2 as if using TWF, and then get another attack using TWF in the same round. Because you're already using TWF.

So, RAW, PFS wouldn't allow it.

Scarab Sages

Ckorik wrote:

Well it's a bit easier than that really - flurry requires using a full round action to use the 'flurry' feature.

TWF requires a full round attack - note that 'flurry' may be like a full round attack - but it's not - it's a full round action using the special monk action 'flurry'.

See the PRD (quoting for relevance)

Quote:
Flurry of Blows (Ex): Starting at 1st level, a monk can make a flurry of blows as a full-attack action.

Note that flurry of blows is 'a flurry of blows' - and it acts as a full attack action - so it replaces the full attack action with a special type of action - TWF only works with a full attack action - not a replacement.

Because of that they don't stack. I'm pretty sure (besides the fact that it's pretty much obvious based on the other wording) that this point shuts down any arguments at all that suggest otherwise.

I already tried explaining it that way. Got ignored... twice. Hopefully you're more apparent than I was :P


Here is an interesting notion Remy; If an unarmed monk doesnt have an off hand then is that a situation where they cant mix Flurry and TWF as they have no off hand to make the TWF attacks with? A monk under your stated interpetation could only mix Flurry and TWF specifically when making a Flurry of Blows with two one handed weapons as thats the only time they meet the requirements of the TWF action?


Neonpeekaboo wrote:
Rikkan wrote:

No. PFS must follow RAW, thus it would allow flurry + TWF to be used together. Since the rules don't explicitly forbid it.

They imply that they shouldn't be combined, and the linked post from SKR makes it clear that the text should be revised.

"Starting at 1st level, a monk can make a flurry of blows as a full-attack action.

When doing so, he may make one additional attack, taking a –2 penalty on all of his attack rolls, as if using the Two-Weapon Fighting feat."

You can't FoB, gaining an extra attack at -2 as if using TWF, and then get another attack using TWF in the same round. Because you're already using TWF.

So, RAW, PFS wouldn't allow it.

But you're not using TWF already, you're using flurry, which functions as the two-weapon fighting feat.

There is no reason why you can't use an ability which functions as-if 'X' in combination with 'X'.


Rikkan wrote:

But you're not using TWF already, you're using flurry, which functions as the two-weapon fighting feat.

There is no reason why you can't use an ability which functions as-if 'X' in combination with 'X'.

But you are already using a full attack action for FoB, as has been pointed out. You cant take two different full attack actions at the same time.


You know remy balster, I am wondering how one is supposed to use the two weapon fighting feat in your opinion. Clearly you have something in mind but as I can not figure out what it is I am kind of curious.


Rikkan wrote:
Neonpeekaboo wrote:
Rikkan wrote:

No. PFS must follow RAW, thus it would allow flurry + TWF to be used together. Since the rules don't explicitly forbid it.

They imply that they shouldn't be combined, and the linked post from SKR makes it clear that the text should be revised.

"Starting at 1st level, a monk can make a flurry of blows as a full-attack action.

When doing so, he may make one additional attack, taking a –2 penalty on all of his attack rolls, as if using the Two-Weapon Fighting feat."

You can't FoB, gaining an extra attack at -2 as if using TWF, and then get another attack using TWF in the same round. Because you're already using TWF.

So, RAW, PFS wouldn't allow it.

But you're not using TWF already, you're using flurry, which functions as the two-weapon fighting feat.

There is no reason why you can't use an ability which functions as-if 'X' in combination with 'X'.

Except then you'd be doubly benefiting from "as if doing X".

It's similar to stacking issues from multiple "size" increases from spells or other sources (Lead Blades, INA, Strong Jaw, Enlarge Person, etc.). If you're already treated "as if" two sizes larger, you (usually) don't get to stack that with when you actually become two sizes larger via other magical means.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Davor wrote:
Ckorik wrote:

Well it's a bit easier than that really - flurry requires using a full round action to use the 'flurry' feature.

TWF requires a full round attack - note that 'flurry' may be like a full round attack - but it's not - it's a full round action using the special monk action 'flurry'.

See the PRD (quoting for relevance)

Quote:
Flurry of Blows (Ex): Starting at 1st level, a monk can make a flurry of blows as a full-attack action.

Note that flurry of blows is 'a flurry of blows' - and it acts as a full attack action - so it replaces the full attack action with a special type of action - TWF only works with a full attack action - not a replacement.

Because of that they don't stack. I'm pretty sure (besides the fact that it's pretty much obvious based on the other wording) that this point shuts down any arguments at all that suggest otherwise.

I already tried explaining it that way. Got ignored... twice. Hopefully you're more apparent than I was :P

Some posters on these forums are experts at ignoring the elephants in the room. I actually pointed this out as well, specifically in regards to spell combat being a full round action that is NOT a full attack. Inconvenient truths get ignored though :).


look a dead horse....


Rikkan wrote:

But you're not using TWF already, you're using flurry, which functions as the two-weapon fighting feat.

There is no reason why you can't use an ability which functions as-if 'X' in combination with 'X'.

Neither the TWF feat nor the Flurry of Blows class feature at lvl 1 grants you an extra attack. It's the combat rules available to everyone that allows you to do that. Both the TWF feat and FoB merely reduce the penalties associated. FoB also gives additional benefits in that it alters the general rule that the off-hand attack must be made with a weapon different from your main-hand weapon, adjusts your BAB, etc. But TWF, as a rules element, is available through general combat rules, not feats or class abilities.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Remy Balster wrote:
Quote:

Starting at 1st level, a monk can make a flurry of blows as a full-attack action.

When doing so, he may make one additional attack, taking a –2 penalty on all of his attack rolls, as if using the Two-Weapon Fighting feat. These attacks can be any combination of unarmed strikes and attacks with a monk special weapon (he does not need to use two weapons to utilize this ability).

What does this bolded line mean?

I think the rules assumption here is...

When doing so, he may make one additional attack, taking a -2 penalty on all of his attack rolls, as if fighting with two light weapons while using the Two-Weapon Fighting feat.

I believe the citing of the Two-Weapon Fighting feat also implies the use of the two-weapon fighting rules that the Two-Weapon Fighting feat modifies. While there is some rules ambiguity with the actual wording, fighting "as if using" the Two-Weapon Fighting feat does not make any sense without the implication that you are also using the two-weapon fighting rules themselves.

Provided you can accept that implication, it then follows that you cannot use the two-weapon fighting rules a second time in conjunction with flurry, as you are already treated as using them.


Torbyne wrote:
Here is an interesting notion Remy; If an unarmed monk doesnt have an off hand then is that a situation where they cant mix Flurry and TWF as they have no off hand to make the TWF attacks with? A monk under your stated interpetation could only mix Flurry and TWF specifically when making a Flurry of Blows with two one handed weapons as thats the only time they meet the requirements of the TWF action?

They'd need an offhand weapon, yes. And none of the BaB iterative or extra flurry attack could come from said offhand.

A monk would be absolutely incapable of doing a Flurry + TWF with just unarmed attacks, as an unarmed attack can never be an off hand.


Sophismata wrote:
Remy Balster wrote:
Quote:

Starting at 1st level, a monk can make a flurry of blows as a full-attack action.

When doing so, he may make one additional attack, taking a –2 penalty on all of his attack rolls, as if using the Two-Weapon Fighting feat. These attacks can be any combination of unarmed strikes and attacks with a monk special weapon (he does not need to use two weapons to utilize this ability).

What does this bolded line mean?

I think the rules assumption here is...

When doing so, he may make one additional attack, taking a -2 penalty on all of his attack rolls, as if fighting with two light weapons while using the Two-Weapon Fighting feat.

I believe the citing of the Two-Weapon Fighting feat also implies the use of the two-weapon fighting rules that the Two-Weapon Fighting feat modifies. While there is some rules ambiguity with the actual wording, fighting "as if using" the Two-Weapon Fighting feat does not make any sense without the implication that you are also using the two-weapon fighting rules themselves.

Provided you can accept that implication, it then follows that you cannot use the two-weapon fighting rules a second time in conjunction with flurry, as you are already treated as using them.

There is an implication there, yes. So, we look to see how the Two Weapon Fighting feat could even remotely be applied.

We punch a dude with two right hooks. That is our Flurry for the monk in question, so lets break it down.

He attacked twice with one weapon. Two weapon fighting rules don't apply.

Neither attack was an offhand attack. Two weapon fighting rules do not apply.

Nothing about two weapon fighting rules interact with this example in any way. So while there is an implication that they should, the fact is... that in this example... they don't.


Davor wrote:
Ckorik wrote:

Well it's a bit easier than that really - flurry requires using a full round action to use the 'flurry' feature.

TWF requires a full round attack - note that 'flurry' may be like a full round attack - but it's not - it's a full round action using the special monk action 'flurry'.

See the PRD (quoting for relevance)

Quote:
Flurry of Blows (Ex): Starting at 1st level, a monk can make a flurry of blows as a full-attack action.

Note that flurry of blows is 'a flurry of blows' - and it acts as a full attack action - so it replaces the full attack action with a special type of action - TWF only works with a full attack action - not a replacement.

Because of that they don't stack. I'm pretty sure (besides the fact that it's pretty much obvious based on the other wording) that this point shuts down any arguments at all that suggest otherwise.

I already tried explaining it that way. Got ignored... twice. Hopefully you're more apparent than I was :P

It isn't a valid objection.

A flurry is a full attack action.

TWFing is something that can happen when you take a full attack action.

That is as compatible as it gets.

Silver Crusade

The 'off-hand' is not the determinant of getting an extra attack.

Of the three ways of getting a non-magical attack we're discussing:-

* Spell Combat (where the extra attack is swapped for a cast spell) was originally not a viable target for the haste spell on the grounds that the spell gives you an extra attack when making a full attack, and Spell Combat is not a full attack but a different full-round action which just resembles a full attack. The FAQ which changed this did not turn Spell Combat into a full attack, it just allowed haste to apply to other actions which resemble a full attack. Since both Flurry and TWF can only be used when you get a full attack, you can't TWF when taking the special Spell Combat full-round action, nor can you Flurry

* Flurry gets you an extra attack. Other things also apply. Note that 'there is no such thing as an off-hand attack' in a flurry does not mean there is no extra attack (because off-hand attack isn't a pre-requisite for an extra attack), it means that your extra attack(s) in the flurry don't have the penalties associated with off-hand attacks (which exist only in TWF)

* The extra attack in TWF is called 'off-hand attack'. This does not mean that extra attacks granted by similar abilities are off-hand attacks, nor do they suffer the penalties that off-hand attacks suffer: no half damage from Str bonus, no 'only the off-hand weapon can take the off-hand attack', no 'the off-hand weapon is forbidden to take any of the non off-hand attacks', none of the limits imposed on the extra attack from TWF apply to the extra attack granted by Flurry or Spell Combat, unless they say so

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Note that in 3.5 Flurry and TWF definitely could stack. This was a question asked, and answered, in Sage Advice.

The Sage's answer pointed out that the attack penalties would stack, and that the off-hand weapon limits apply to the entire attack, including half Str bonus to damage from the off-hand attack. This is despite the 'no such thing as off-hand in a flurry'. This showed that the 'no off-hand in a flurry' line was simply saying that the extra attack from Flurry doesn't have the penalties associated with the extra (off-hand) attack granted in TWF, not that unarmed strikes wouldn't suffer off-hand limits if TWF was how you got the extra attack instead of using Flurry.

The rules didn't change between 3.5 and PF...unless they say they did. That said, Flurry did change! In PF it became an altered version of TWF (that didn't have the off-hand limits), so it doesn't stack with itself, even its altered self. This isn't an accidental consequence of changed wording, it was a deliberate design choice by Jason.

TLDR:-

Flurry and TWF don't stack in PF even though it did in 3.5, and this change is deliberate.

Spell Combat does not stack with either TWF or Flurry, because SC is a special full-round action, not a full attack.


Remy Balster wrote:
Sophismata wrote:
Remy Balster wrote:
Quote:

Starting at 1st level, a monk can make a flurry of blows as a full-attack action.

When doing so, he may make one additional attack, taking a –2 penalty on all of his attack rolls, as if using the Two-Weapon Fighting feat. These attacks can be any combination of unarmed strikes and attacks with a monk special weapon (he does not need to use two weapons to utilize this ability).

When doing so, he may make one additional attack, taking a -2 penalty on all of his attack rolls, as if fighting with two light weapons while using the Two-Weapon Fighting feat.

I believe the citing of the Two-Weapon Fighting feat also implies the use of the two-weapon fighting rules that the Two-Weapon Fighting feat modifies. While there is some rules ambiguity with the actual wording, fighting "as if using" the Two-Weapon Fighting feat does not make any sense without the implication that you are also using the two-weapon fighting rules themselves.

There is an implication there, yes. So, we look to see how the Two Weapon Fighting feat could even remotely be applied.

We punch a dude with two right hooks. That is our Flurry for the monk in question, so lets break it down.

He attacked twice with one weapon. Two weapon fighting rules don't apply.

Neither attack was an offhand attack. Two weapon fighting rules do not apply.

Nothing about two weapon fighting rules interact with this example in any way. So while there is an implication that they should, the fact is... that in this example... they don't.

Untrue, as the usage of the adverbial clause "as if" allows us to ignore the general expectation of an off-hand attack, or second weapon. We are forced to assume that the flurry is treated as two-weapon fighting, specifically.

The only rules stretch is in the implication itself - ie, that the reference to the Two-Weapon Fighting feat must imply a reference to the two-weapon fighting rules.


Remy Balster wrote:

There is an implication there, yes. So, we look to see how the Two Weapon Fighting feat could even remotely be applied.

We punch a dude with two right hooks. That is our Flurry for the monk in question, so lets break it down.

He attacked twice with one weapon. Two weapon fighting rules don't apply.

Neither attack was an offhand attack. Two weapon fighting rules do not apply.

Nothing about two weapon fighting rules interact with this example in any way. So while there is an implication that they should, the fact is... that in this example... they don't.

I'm still wondering what your view is on how one is supposed to use the two weapon fighting feat. If the player of a character with the two weapon fighting feat says I use the two weapon fighting feat then what actually happens.


WWWW wrote:
Remy Balster wrote:

There is an implication there, yes. So, we look to see how the Two Weapon Fighting feat could even remotely be applied.

We punch a dude with two right hooks. That is our Flurry for the monk in question, so lets break it down.

He attacked twice with one weapon. Two weapon fighting rules don't apply.

Neither attack was an offhand attack. Two weapon fighting rules do not apply.

Nothing about two weapon fighting rules interact with this example in any way. So while there is an implication that they should, the fact is... that in this example... they don't.

I'm still wondering what your view is on how one is supposed to use the two weapon fighting feat. If the player of a character with the two weapon fighting feat says I use the two weapon fighting feat then what actually happens.

The Two-Weapon Fighting feat simply reduces penalties associated with fighting with two weapons. If you have the feat, it is always on. It is always 'in use'.

For a monk without the two weapon fighting feat, the only time they may use the feat is while they flurry. So the only time their penalties for fighting with two weapons are reduced is while they are using flurry. Whether they are fighting with two weapons or not, whatever penalties they would suffer if they were are reduced.


bbangerter wrote:
Davor wrote:
Ckorik wrote:

Well it's a bit easier than that really - flurry requires using a full round action to use the 'flurry' feature.

TWF requires a full round attack - note that 'flurry' may be like a full round attack - but it's not - it's a full round action using the special monk action 'flurry'.

See the PRD (quoting for relevance)

Quote:
Flurry of Blows (Ex): Starting at 1st level, a monk can make a flurry of blows as a full-attack action.

---->Note that flurry of blows is 'a flurry of blows' - and it acts as a full attack action - so it replaces the full attack action with a special type of action - TWF only works with a full attack action - not a replacement.<-----

Because of that they don't stack. I'm pretty sure (besides the fact that it's pretty much obvious based on the other wording) that this point shuts down any arguments at all that suggest otherwise.

I already tried explaining it that way. Got ignored... twice. Hopefully you're more apparent than I was :P
Some posters on these forums are experts at ignoring the elephants in the room. I actually pointed this out as well, specifically in regards to spell combat being a full round action that is NOT a full attack. Inconvenient truths get ignored though :).

I will just bump this and wait for Remy to reply..

PS: That section between the arrows is the relevant part.


Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
The 'off-hand' is not the determinant of getting an extra attack.

For TWF, it certainly is.

Quote:
* Flurry gets you an extra attack. Other things also apply. Note that 'there is no such thing as an off-hand attack' in a flurry does not mean there is no extra attack (because off-hand attack isn't a pre-requisite for an extra attack), it means that your extra attack(s) in the flurry don't have the penalties associated with off-hand attacks (which exist only in TWF)

Well, here is the thing...

The 'No such thing as an off hand' bit isn't actually in Flurry, it is in "Unarmed Strike". It is a fundamental quality of a Monk's Unarmed Strike, that they cannot be off hand attacks.

Other than that, I essentially agree with you on most everything else here. For Flurry, you don't need to use an off hand to gain the extra attack. For two-weapon fighting you do have to use an off hand to gain an extra attack.

So, if you are not using an off hand, you most clearly are not using TWFing.

Since you are not already using TWFing... there is nothing stopping you from using TWFing in conjunction with a Flurry, just like you could with any other full attack action.

Quote:
* The extra attack in TWF is called 'off-hand attack'. This does not mean that extra attacks granted by similar abilities are off-hand attacks, nor do they suffer the penalties that off-hand attacks suffer: no half damage from Str bonus, no 'only the off-hand weapon can take the off-hand attack', no 'the off-hand weapon is forbidden to take any of the non off-hand attacks', none of the limits imposed on the extra attack from TWF apply to the extra attack granted by Flurry or Spell Combat, unless they say so

TWFing isn't an ability. It is a core rule.

That is like calling 'Initiative' an ability...

Anyway... TWFing is a core rule, and can be modified by feats and abilities. The TWF feat is chief among anyone who might want to regularly make use of the TWFing rules. The feat greatly reduces the penalty for making use of the TWFing rules.

But, that is all the feat does. It reduces penalties. And it only reduces the penalties for fighting with two weapons.

The feat doesn't in any way grant extra attacks. It just doesn't.

So, if you have an ability that says 'You get an extra attack, all your attacks suffer -2, as if using the TWF feat'... there isn't a way to go from that to 'using said ability already counts as fighting with two weapons so you cannot also fight with two weapons'.

I find it odd how people cannot see that they are inventing "Using the TWF feat = using the TWFing rules options". Especially in situations where the TWFing feat couldn't possibly be the reason we are getting an extra attack, because it doesn't grant one... or that the TWFing feat couldn't possibly be the reason we have that -2 penalty either, because we're not using a primary/offhand weapon, the only thing the feat even applies to.

So not only is the TWFing feat not the causal factor for the extra attack or penalty, but even the use of the feat would still not mean we are using TWFing rules.

That is a two degree jump in reasoning that you must ignore or invent an answer for.


wraithstrike wrote:

I will just bump this and wait for Remy to reply..

PS: That section between the arrows is the relevant part.

I replied. Read upthread several posts...

bah... for your convenience:

Quote:

It isn't a valid objection.

A flurry is a full attack action.

TWFing is something that can happen when you take a full attack action.

That is as compatible as it gets.

Silver Crusade

I'll try again, Remy.

Note that in 3.5 Flurry and TWF definitely could stack. This was a question asked, and answered, in Sage Advice.

The Sage's answer pointed out that the attack penalties would stack, and that the off-hand weapon limits apply to the entire attack, including half Str bonus to damage from the off-hand attack. This is despite the 'no such thing as off-hand in a flurry'. This showed that the 'no off-hand in a flurry' line was simply saying that the extra attack from Flurry doesn't have the penalties associated with the extra (off-hand) attack granted in TWF, not that unarmed strikes wouldn't suffer off-hand limits if TWF was how you got the extra attack instead of using Flurry.

The rules didn't change between 3.5 and PF...unless they say they did. That said, Flurry did change! In PF it became an altered version of TWF (that didn't have the off-hand limits), so it doesn't stack with itself, even its altered self. This isn't an accidental consequence of changed wording, it was a deliberate design choice by Jason.

TLDR:-

Flurry and TWF don't stack in PF even though it did in 3.5, and this change is deliberate.

Spell Combat does not stack with either TWF or Flurry, because SC is a special full-round action, not a full attack.


Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
in 3.5

I don't even read replies which discuss the rules of other games. I know you are fond of doing this, using the rules from other games to explain your position, I just don't see any relevance, as this isn't D&D, it is Pathfinder.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Remy, you're wrong. You hate to admit it, and now you're just arguing your point because you dont want to admit that youv'e been proven wrong in several different ways. The people who MADE THE GAME have proven you wrong via the FAQ. That being said.. you do whatever you want, run it however you want.

Tryin to get you to see the truth of it is like talking to a brick wall. Twist what you read however you want to support your own conclusion, instead of dealing with the truth of the matter.

That being said, I'm done. There's no point in trying.


fretgod99 wrote:
Rikkan wrote:
Neonpeekaboo wrote:
Rikkan wrote:

No. PFS must follow RAW, thus it would allow flurry + TWF to be used together. Since the rules don't explicitly forbid it.

They imply that they shouldn't be combined, and the linked post from SKR makes it clear that the text should be revised.

"Starting at 1st level, a monk can make a flurry of blows as a full-attack action.

When doing so, he may make one additional attack, taking a –2 penalty on all of his attack rolls, as if using the Two-Weapon Fighting feat."

You can't FoB, gaining an extra attack at -2 as if using TWF, and then get another attack using TWF in the same round. Because you're already using TWF.

So, RAW, PFS wouldn't allow it.

But you're not using TWF already, you're using flurry, which functions as the two-weapon fighting feat.

There is no reason why you can't use an ability which functions as-if 'X' in combination with 'X'.

Except then you'd be doubly benefiting from "as if doing X".

It's similar to stacking issues from multiple "size" increases from spells or other sources (Lead Blades, INA, Strong Jaw, Enlarge Person, etc.). If you're already treated "as if" two sizes larger, you (usually) don't get to stack that with when you actually become two sizes larger via other magical means.

I'm pretty sure you're mistaken there. Being under the effects of lead blades (as if you are one size larger) and enlarge person (being one size larger) stacks just fine.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
ShadowcatX wrote:
Remy Balster wrote:
Kudaku wrote:
Flurry of Blows already treats you as having the TWFing feats, so gaining them a second time gives you no benefit.

How does having TWF feats stop you from TWFing????

That's not even close to what was said. Don't try and twist people's words just because you're not getting the answer you want.

Judging from the rest of thread, this is his thing that he does:D

its a stupid question that deserves stupid answers:)

so here goes: One cannot TWF and do spell combat because the action of doing so will cause Orcs to break out into Musical numbers which will then spook the Gazelle giving the Gnome a f@++ing back rub

so, as you see it all goes back to The Butterfly Effect:)


I'm just going to be a human monk and take TWF twice, so I can use a full attack and get four attacks, punch punch kick kick.


Neonpeekaboo wrote:
I'm just going to be a human monk and take TWF twice, so I can use a full attack and get four attacks, punch punch kick kick.

You still seemed confused about what the TWF feat does.


Remy Balster wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:

I will just bump this and wait for Remy to reply..

PS: That section between the arrows is the relevant part.

I replied. Read upthread several posts...

bah... for your convenience:

Quote:

It isn't a valid objection.

A flurry is a full attack action.

TWFing is something that can happen when you take a full attack action.

That is as compatible as it gets.

A flurry is not a full attack action - nothing you can show would say this.

It uses the same wording as the TWF to say full attack - so by your logic either it's not a full attack action *or* the same wording makes it use TWF.

Your own logic traps you.


Ckorik wrote:

A flurry is not a full attack action - nothing you can show would say this.

It uses the same wording as the TWF to say full attack - so by your logic either it's not a full attack action *or* the same wording makes it use TWF.

Your own logic traps you.

Hrm.

Quote:
Starting at 1st level, a monk can make a flurry of blows as a full-attack action.

101 to 150 of 177 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Magus - Spell Combat and TWFing, simultaneously? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.