Yes, but TWF is what reduces the penalty from using an offhand weapon to attack. IMP TWF gets you an extra attack, but all four of your attacks will be at the -6/-10 penalty from fighting with two weapons without the TWF feat. That would be a little silly.
You'd get an additional attack, but at a -10 instead of a -5. In other words, there's no reason to do it. In fact, GTWF is generally thought to be a useless feat since that additional attack will almost never hit.
GTW fighting says you get a third offhand attack. Saying that you get a third attack naturally implies that you get a second attack as well does it not.
Only because naturally you'd have to have IMP TWF as a prereq.
|
Thus my question since you no longer need Improved TWF as a prerequisite
It doesn't grant you the attacks that the former feats are supposed to give you. There is a logical order but not an implied effect based off the wording. You get what it says you do and no more.
If you really want to be that pedantic about it then you won't even get the "third attack" as you don't have a "second attack" yet.
|
|
Thus my question since you no longer need Improved TWF as a prerequisiteIt doesn't grant you the attacks that the former feats are supposed to give you. There is a logical order but not an implied effect based off the wording. You get what it says you do and no more.
If you really want to be that pedantic about it then you won't even get the "third attack" as you don't have a "second attack" yet.
Don't be so snippy. It is just a question and a reasonable one at that. Without an official ruling, I guess we have exhausted the conversation.
At least I now realize that you have to take TWF at the very least, as DocShock pointed out early on in the conversation.
There is no snippiness, I merely answered your question.
GTWF gives you an additional attack at -10. It doesn't give you an attack at -5, which is what ITWF gives you.
|
|
GTW fighting says you get a third offhand attack. Saying that you get a third attack naturally implies that you get a second attack as well does it not.
Thus my question since you no longer need Improved TWF as a prerequisite
You gave me your opinion and I appreciate. Answered it, no!
I answered your implied question as per the posts above. Your original question has already been answered and didn't need further addressing.
After reading the above response, Doting for amusement.
|
|
Yes, I got your opinion that GTWF would give you nothing if you did not have ITWF. However, since your opinion is not expressly stated in GTWF, ITWF or the ranger combat style ability which makes possible the selection of GTWF without ITWF, I will have to take your opinion for what it is - made up out of then air.
Wait... Now I'm confused.. You think that if you take GTWF you get ITWF for free?
Wait... Now I'm confused.. You think that if you take GTWF you get ITWF for free?
You're not confused. That's exactly what he said. (Either that, or he thinks he gets the 2nd attack without even the -5... so GTWF would get him Improved Improved TWF).
Yes, my original question was answered by DocShock.
The second question, I answered myself. Since you are expressly given a third offhand attack and since you can't possibly get a third offhand attack without getting a second, then obtaining GTWF gives you the benefits of ITWF as well.
Yes, I got your opinion that GTWF would give you nothing if you did not have ITWF. However, since your opinion is not expressly stated in GTWF, ITWF or the ranger combat style ability which makes possible the selection of GTWF without ITWF, I will have to take your opinion for what it is - made up out of then air.
You could argue in the same fashion that the Dodge feat doesn't expressly say that it doesn't give you a +10 insight bonus to your attack as well as a +1 dodge bonus to your AC. Obviously, the Dodge feat doesn't give you any such thing. Feats give you what they say they give you and nothing else. For example, Kobold racial feats relating to tail attacks can be taken by a human with the Racial Heritage (kobold) feat. The human doesn't get a tail as a result of taking these feats.
GTWF gives you an attack with your offhand weapon at -10. It doesn't give you another attack besides this, regardless of the presence of the word 'third' in the text, which is obviously an expression of how the feat chain normally happens. Using an ability that lets you take the feats out of order will result in these normal occurances not happening, so the word is meaningless when you take the feats out of order.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
A feat does not give you something it doesn't say it gives you. GTWF does not give you any attack other than the one at -10. It doesn't matter if you want to call this a third, a second, or a seventy-fifth. You don't get it.
You know, one could easily use the same argument you're using to come to an exactly opposite conclusion; because you can't get a third attack without a second, and GTWF doesn't say it gives you a second attack but only a third, then GTWF has NO EFFECT, gives you NOTHING, GOOD DAY SIR, unless you take ITWF first. If the same logic gives you two contradictory results, chances are the logic is flawed.
[edit: Removed personal attack, as it really wasn't appropriate. Sorry.]
Driver, you're being purposefully obtuse if you think that the way this should work is skipping ITWF and picking up GTWF should grant you both the second and third attacks.
You know it shouldn't work this way, and are only arguing for it because you think you've found a cunning loophole.
While there is no clear rules answer to tell you no, I have no doubt in my mind that you know better than this.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Driver it says you get third attack. It does not say 3 attacks. As an example, if you need 3 codes to enter into a computer system and I give you the 3rd code, that does not mean I will also give you the first 2.
When TWF'ing the you get an additional attack to match your first BAB attack. ITWF give you the 2nd attack to go alongside your 2nd BAB iterative attack. GTWF give you the 3rd attack to go along side your 3rd BAB iterative attack.
As for your million dollar example. If I say I will give you the "millionth" dollar then yes you would have to get the 1st 999999 on your own. However if I say I give you 1 million dollars that is different.
1st, 2nd , 3rd are showing order more so than a volume(total number).
While 1, 2, and 3 show volume.
That is the difference between getting the 3rd code and getting all 3 codes from one source.
Claxon, I will respond to you because normally I find you insightful and helpful.
Driver, you're being purposefully obtuse if you think that the way this should work is skipping ITWF and picking up GTWF should grant you both the second and third attacks.That said, calling be obtuse (i.e. ignorant) is not insightful or helpful. Yes, I believe that the RAW allows me to skip ITWF to get GTWF because that is what the ranger combat style ability says.
You know it shouldn't work this way, and are only arguing for it because you think you've found a cunning loophole.How is it a loophole when it is what is expressly allowed by the ranger combat style ability? Further, I am not arguing about what it should be. We all have our opinions one way or another on that. I am simply stating what the RAW says. By the way, I think it is RAI as well, but I really don't care because it is neither here nor there.
While there is no clear rules answer to tell you no, I have no doubt in my mind that you know better than this.There is no clear no because the rules provide for a clear yes. You get a third attack. There is no clearer yes than that. By the way, I guess I am not purposefully obtuse - just obtuse, because I sincerely believe my position to be in line with the plain wording in the rules and thus correct.
I'm not trying to be insulting to you. But I hope you can understand my dismay with your position. I agree you can take GTWF without taking ITWF. The difference is what we both believe happens.
You are pretending to believe in earnest that skipping ITWF and taking GTWF will grant you a second and third attack because the feat is imprecisely worded. But I honestly believe that you think that's how this works. If a developer comments, I can guarantee they will not agree with the position you are purporting.
If you do truly believe your position...all I can say is think about it like this. The feat was written with the assumption that you would take ITWF and GTWF, not just the third. I agree it is possible for a ranger or slayer, but it does not mean you get a second and third attack by just taking GTWF. The mechanical effect is that it grants you an iterative attack at BAB -10. The wording that says third is not really part of the mechanics, just an explanation to players.
This os the kind of question that will get you asked to politely walk away from the table in most circles. Obviously "additional" would be a better wording than "third," but then would probably have to be worded to "stack" with the extra attack granted by ITWF. The fact that the intent seems clear to everyone save one is somewhat telling in situations like these.
Driver, this is seriously the type of argument that would get you kicked off my table. Ultimately it's up to your GM to say whether you can get this free feat or not. I know no GM that would allow you to. You have heard from many here in this thread say this, and continue to press the issue. If you are not going to accept the unanimous answer given in this forum, what was the purpose of asking the question?
You'd get an additional attack, but at a -10 instead of a -5. In other words, there's no reason to do it. In fact, GTWF is generally thought to be a useless feat since that additional attack will almost never hit.
I've never understood this argument. If your third offhand attack is missing, then so are your third (and fourth) primary hand attacks. Considering that the same general wisdom says that your first attack should only be missing on a natural one, then your third attacks should be at least a 50% chance to hit.
You'd get an additional attack, but at a -10 instead of a -5. In other words, there's no reason to do it. In fact, GTWF is generally thought to be a useless feat since that additional attack will almost never hit.I've never understood this argument. If your third offhand attack is missing, then so are your third (and fourth) primary hand attacks. Considering that the same general wisdom says that your first attack should only be missing on a natural one, then your third attacks should be at least a 50% chance to hit.
The thought isn't that the extra attack won't occasionally hit, the thought is that the minor chance of a hit is not worth the feat. The primary hand tertiary attack costs nothing, so of course it's worth taking the swing, but that feat can likely be used on something that is going to either improve survivability, or globally improve all the attacks.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Dude, just stop.
I'd normally avoid TWF builds unless they were either also Finesse builds or Ranger/Slayer builds that would avoid the Dex requirement entirely for exactly that reason - lack of accuracy from low Strength.
