faq wrote:
Yes. Basically, you only incur TWF penalties if you are trying to get an extra attack per round.
Let's assume you're a 6th-level fighter (BAB +6/+1) holding a longsword in one hand and a light mace in the other. Your possible full attack combinations without using two-weapon fighting are:
(A) longsword at +6, longsword +1
(B) mace +6, mace +1
(C) longsword +6, mace +1
(D) mace +6, longsword +1
All of these combinations result in you making exactly two attacks, one at +6 and one at +1. You're not getting any extra attacks, therefore you're not using the two-weapon fighting rule, and therefore you're not taking any two-weapon fighting penalties.
If you have Quick Draw, you could even start the round wielding only one weapon, make your main attack with it, draw the second weapon as a free action after your first attack, and use that second weapon to make your iterative attack (an "iterative attack" is an informal term meaning "extra attacks you get from having a high BAB"). As long as you're properly using the BAB values for your iterative attacks, and as long as you're not exceeding the number of attacks per round granted by your BAB, you are not considered to be using two-weapon fighting, and therefore do not take any of the penalties for two-weapon fighting.
The two-weapon fighting option in the Core Rulebook specifically refers to getting an extra attack for using a second weapon in your offhand. In the above four examples, there is no extra attack, therefore you're not using two-weapon fighting.
Using the longsword/mace example, if you use two-weapon fighting you actually have fewer options than if you aren't. Your options are (ignoring the primary/off hand penalties):
(A') primary longsword at +6, primary longsword at +1, off hand mace at +6
(B') primary mace at +6, primary mace at +1, off hand longsword at +6
In other words, once you decide you're using two-weapon fighting to get that extra attack on your turn (which you have to decide before you take any attacks on your turn), that decision locks you in to the format of "my primary weapon gets my main attack and my iterative attack, and my off hand weapon only gets the extra attack, and I apply two-weapon fighting penalties." SKR wrote: http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2n393&page=3?Str-bonus-during-multi-weapon- Ititerave-attacks#146
I deliberately wrote that FAQ entry so it wouldn't mention "off-hand" attacks until the section on using
the two-weapon fighting option. That's because the concept of an "off-hand" only applies when you are using the two-weapon fighting
option in the Combat chapter. Thus, if you're not using the twf combat option, there's no attack penalty and no Str bonus reduction."
CRB, Buckler wrote: You can also use your shield arm to wield a weapon (whether you are using an off-hand weapon or using your off hand to help wield a two-handed weapon), but you take a –1 penalty on attack rolls while doing so. This penalty stacks with those that may apply for fighting with your off hand and for fighting with two weapons. In any case, if you use a weapon in your off hand, you lose the buckler's Armor Class bonus until your next turn. You can cast a spell with somatic components using your shield arm, but you lose the buckler's Armor Class bonus until your next turn. You can't make a shield bash with a buckler. Don't get me wrong, I think the FAQ makes a reasonable change, but it seems to me it very clearly is a change to the previous rule that in any given round one of your hands is primary and the other is your off hand. Also note the line about "using your off hand to help wield a two-handed weapon". The decision to make that change is going to necessitate a bunch or erratae in various places, the buckler entry just being one of the more striking examples. At present, I can quite clearly gain the full shield bonus from a +whatever buckler while wielding a greatsword with both hands (neither of which are now my off-hand) for 1.5x STR bonus and the two-handed power attack bonus.
Now, as a seasoned player/GM, I can think to myself, "Hmm.. Sean probably didn't mean to break all this stuff when he made that decision" and then proceed to make all the erratae in my head to come up with something that could be loosely termed RAI. However, this kind of thing causes a ton of problems to newer players who I often find tend to get frustrated that the rules they have paid for often don't mean what they say (anymore) and give up. Discuss.
I don't understand the point you are trying to make. The section that you quoted from the CRB clearly says that you lose the AC bonus when using both hands to wield a weapon two-handed. The FAQ doesn't seem relevant at all since it is about two-weapon fighting, not two-handed fighting. The other quote isn't even an official rule.
Gisher wrote: I don't understand the point you are trying to make. The section that you quoted from the CRB clearly says that you lose the AC bonus when using both hands to wield a weapon two-handed. The FAQ doesn't seem relevant at all since it is about two-weapon fighting, not two-handed fighting. The other quote isn't even an official rule. The quote specifically states that you lose the AC bonus when using an off hand to wield a weapon. SKR clearly states that the FAQ means that there is no such thing as an "off hand" except when using the special Two-Weapon Fighting combat option from the Combat section.
Laureth wrote: Gisher wrote: I don't understand the point you are trying to make. The section that you quoted from the CRB clearly says that you lose the AC bonus when using both hands to wield a weapon two-handed. The FAQ doesn't seem relevant at all since it is about two-weapon fighting, not two-handed fighting. The other quote isn't even an official rule. The quote specifically states that you lose the AC bonus when using an off hand to wield a weapon. SKR clearly states that the FAQ means that there is no such thing as an "off hand" except when using the special Two-Weapon Fighting combat option from the Combat section. Actually no, on second thought, you are right. The FAQ in itself doesn't actually state that there is no such thing as an off-hand when not Two-Weapon Fighting. There is still the point that the current lead designer who wrote the FAQ has stated that he intended the FAQ to mean that. If your argument is that we should ignore anything devs post in threads because threads aren't official, I am prepared to agree with that to an extent.
That said, you state that "The section that you quoted from the CRB clearly says that you lose the AC bonus when using both hands to wield a weapon two-handed.". It doesn't, I don't know where you have got that from. It states "if you use a weapon in your off hand". The issue is whether or not you have an "off hand" when not Two-Weapon Fighting. If we don't ignore SKR's thread post, then you don't. The general consensus on these forum so far seems to have been that any thread post by Sean or Jason is official.
First off, SKR no longer works for Paizo. Second, let's rebold! CRB, Buckler wrote: You can also use your shield arm to wield a weapon (whether you are using an off-hand weapon or using your off hand to help wield a two-handed weapon), but you take a –1 penalty on attack rolls while doing so. This penalty stacks with those that may apply for fighting with your off hand and for fighting with two weapons. In any case, if you use a weapon in your off hand, you lose the buckler's Armor Class bonus until your next turn. You can cast a spell with somatic components using your shield arm, but you lose the buckler's Armor Class bonus until your next turn. You can't make a shield bash with a buckler. So yes, it specifically mentions using your off hand to hold a two-handed weapon.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
First of all, SKR's comments outside the FAQ are not official. The FAQ itself does not say anything about two-handed fighting, and so the CRB stands. You do lose the AC benefit of a buckler when wielding a weapon two-handed.
Secondly, I think we have to distinguish between the careful, precise writing style that applies to FAQ's and the more casual voice used in a typical post. The kind of parsing that is required for a rule book or FAQ, often isn't reasonable when applied to more "off-hand" comments. :)
It is possible that SKR believed that the phrase off-hand literally never occurs anywhere except in the section on Two-Weapon Fighting. If he did, then you have proven him wrong, although not in a way that affects the rules.
But I think it is more likely that he expected people to interpret his post in the context of a thread titled "STR bonus during multi-weapon iterative attacks."
Lots of ninja-ing there. It took me a while to finish typing my reply.
Bob Bob Bob wrote: First off, SKR no longer works for Paizo. Second, let's rebold!CRB, Buckler wrote: You can also use your shield arm to wield a weapon (whether you are using an off-hand weapon or using your off hand to help wield a two-handed weapon), but you take a –1 penalty on attack rolls while doing so. This penalty stacks with those that may apply for fighting with your off hand and for fighting with two weapons. In any case, if you use a weapon in your off hand, you lose the buckler's Armor Class bonus until your next turn. You can cast a spell with somatic components using your shield arm, but you lose the buckler's Armor Class bonus until your next turn. You can't make a shield bash with a buckler. So yes, it specifically mentions using your off hand to hold a two-handed weapon. There's also a fighter archetype that restores the shield bonus to AC when wielding a two-handed weapon: Thunderstriker.
Gisher, OK fair enough. I am fairly new to these forums, but what I have seen several times when Googling for information and landing in a thread here is a long thread debating an issue and then SKR coming in with a statement and then locking the thread, making his posts seem like they were official and an end to matters. This combined with the fact that his rulings often seemed to contradict RAW really started driving me crazy which is why I decided to take issue over this particular one.
To make myself clear, I am not trying to gain full AC while using a two-handed weapon with a buckler. I was merely pointing out that what I thought was an official statement seemed to allow that, which I thought was crazy. If thread posts are unofficial, the point is moot. Thanks for the time to listen to my rant :P
Gwen Smith wrote:
There's also a fighter archetype that restores the shield bonus to AC when wielding a two-handed weapon: Thunderstriker.
No it doesn't, it gives something different at level 15
EDIT: Never mind it does at LEVEL 19 lol
Laureth wrote: My whole point is about dev posts directly contradicting the pre-exisiting rules without erratae being made. That's why dev posts are not considered official for rules purposes - they don't always carefully consider all rules implications and might miss things outside of the context of the question.
Oh for goodness sake, one of my posts has disappeared. Maybe I edited it by mistake, pretty late here. Can't be bothered to retype, the gist was saying to BobBobBob that I pointed out the same line he bolded in my first post. The whole thing I was driving at was that the idea of never having an off-hand except when TWF as per the SKR post directly contradicts RAW in a whole heap of places.
Anyway, I am happy to accept that post in threads are unofficial (contrary to what I thought) and may not be carefully thought about/proof read and leave it there.
Laureth wrote: Gisher, OK fair enough. I am fairly new to these forums, but what I have seen several times when Googling for information and landing in a thread here is a long thread debating an issue and then SKR coming in with a statement and then locking the thread, making his posts seem like they were official and an end to matters. This combined with the fact that his rulings often seemed to contradict RAW really started driving me crazy which is why I decided to take issue over this particular one. Hah! You won't get any argument with me about that. The many contradictory developer explanations for the slashing grace/fencing grace debacle made my blood pressure soar. :)
But it's not as if game design is a purely logical, mechanical process. Designers often have different visions for the game, and different interpretations of the existing rules. During the design process, a person may change their minds on issues multiple times. The whole reason for having a formal team-based design process is to work through those differences, and hopefully arrive at an unambiguous final statement. Hopefully. :)
I think that designer comments usually represent a snapshot of that messy process. They tell us how the developer now remembers their thoughts at an earlier point. Because of that, I've resolved to stop giving them the weight that I used to.
But I've enjoyed the discussion, and I hope you will keep posting.
Designer posts are from them ex-officio.
FAQ entries are from the Design Team, and are debated, researched, and verified a lot more than an off-the-cuff post.
And, just to bear in mind:
How many pages of Pathfinder rules are there?
Even just the CRB is almost 600 pages long.
And that is no longer the sole/only source of rules.
Edit: And the CRB, being a single-book compilation and rebuild of a set of rules spread out over at least two books, can have some weird things.
E.G.: Making potions, some info is in the Brew Potions feat, some info is in the Potions section of the Magic Items chapter; and some info is probably in the general Creating Magic Items section elsewhere in the same chapter.
Recent threads in Rules Questions
|
