Two-handed weapons, Two-weapon fighting, and offhand attacks.


Rules Questions

51 to 86 of 86 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

wraithstrike wrote:

They are not breaking their own rules. You just read them differently than a lot of other people.

I doubt this is always true. Several times a designer have stated that sometthing is not clear for them or even that they have no idea how something is supposed to work.


Jeff Merola wrote:
A monk flurrying always gets 1xStr, regardless of what monk weapon they're using, never 0.5 or 1.5.

Well, let's see:

Quote:
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 two hands.

So, what is a "full strength bonus"?

For an unarmed strike or one-handed weapon, a "full Strength bonus" is 1 X Str. For a two-handed weapon, a "full Strength bonus" is 1.5 X Str. "Full strength bonus" does not mean 1 x Str. It depends on the weapon being used. FAQ required? Probably so.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Cebrion wrote:
Jeff Merola wrote:
A monk flurrying always gets 1xStr, regardless of what monk weapon they're using, never 0.5 or 1.5.

Well, let's see:

Quote:
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 two hands.

So, what is a "full strength bonus"?

For an unarmed strike or one-handed weapon, a "full Strength bonus" is 1 X Str. For a two-handed weapon, a "full Strength bonus" is 1.5 X Str. "Full strength bonus" does not mean 1 x Str. It depends on the weapon being used. FAQ required? Probably so.

No, your full strength bonus is the strength bonus. 1.5x strength is more than your full bonus and 0.5x strength is less than your full bonus.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I don't understand why people can't understand the difference between 100% and 150%.

One is full. One is more than full.

Liberty's Edge

These discussions always make me a little nostalgic for AD&D 2nd Ed., THAC0 and all. Two weapon fighting was much simpler:

1. Only available to warriors and rogues.
2. One hand wields a one-handed weapon ONLY.
3. Second hand wields a weapon one size smaller ONLY.
4. Only one extra attack each round.

It didn't matter if you had 3/2 attacks; if you attacked with a greatsword, you couldn't attack with a second weapon. Period.

Gwen Smith wrote:

Aid Another says you can assist another player with a saving throw, but it gives no indication as to how you would do that--so can you do it or not? Raw, you certainly can do it. But "only allow what's explicitly defined" says you can't.

Dirty Trick becomes limited to "only those examples defined in the maneuver".
Going down the list of available clothing looking for "dress" clothes for a female cavalier, you will not find anything that's listed as "riding outfit", and descriptions of the other dress outfits do not sound as though they would be in any way appropriate for a mounted character. So is the cavalier naked? Or trying to ride a mount under layers of petticoats and BS from a courtier's outfit?

Then there are the conflicts between different books. For example, the general rules on charging do not say that a player is allowed to jump as part of a charge. However, in another book, a feat contains the text "when you jump as part of a charge, you get X benefit". Note that the feat does not say "you are allowed to jump as part of a charge". So by this interpretation, this particular feat is completely useless.

Most of this information is fluff and irrelevant to the numerical aspects of the game. (The saving throw assistance may be an exception, but I think it can be worked out since a standard action is required). Sure, the rules don't list specific types of dress clothing for a female cavalier. Does that mean she's naked? No. It means that no matter what she's wearing, it won't provide a numerical bonus/penalty unless the GM decides to ad hoc it.

However, when the rules cover a numerical adjustment, you can only do what they say as far as gaining the numerical adjustment is concerned. For Dirty Trick, you make a combat maneuver check and gain the bonus outlined by the GM, limited to the provided list of conditions. The fluff of the action is entirely up to the player (and the rules explicitly state this), while the numerical consequences are limited to those conditions provided in the description. So, you can only do what the rules say you can do: apply one of six specified conditions.

I think James Risner's statement should read:

James Risner wrote:
I think the key skill is changing your viewpoint from "it doesn't say I can't" to "it doesn't say I can" regarding the numerical facet of the game and I'm pretty sure most of the unwritten rules become clear.

Silver Crusade

Byakko wrote:

The number of attacks a player is entitled to (discounting natural attacks) is based strictly on his or her BAB and TWF feat chain.

Thus:
+0 to +5 BAB:
1 main hand and one offhand attack
+6 to +10 BAB:
2 main hand and one offhand attack
+6 to +10 BAB and Improved TWF:
2 main hand and two offhand attacks

When you make a two-handed attack, you consume one main hand attack and one offhand attack.
As an exception, if you are making entirely two-handed attacks, you can ignore the offhand attack requirement and simply count the number of main hand attacks.

Thus, if you have +6 BAB without ITWF, you can:
attack with a one-handed twice, and an offhand attack once
attack with a two-handed twice

If you have +6 BAB with ITWF, you can:
attack with a one-handed twice, and an offhand attack twice
attack with a two-handed twice
attack with a two-handed once, a one-handed once, and an offhand once

What you're holding in your hands during the round is actually pretty unimportant, especially with the free action release/regrip rules, unarmed strikes, and various ways to get things into and out of your hands.

The important thing to note is that each player is limited to a single offhand attack, barring feats like ITWF, and that using a two-handed weapon "consumes" one use of an offhand attack.

Note: These "handed" references don't have to be actual hands. They could be kicks, headbutts, etc. For example, the "attack with a two-handed once, a one-handed once, and an offhand once" above could translate to "slice the enemy with a two-handed sword, headbutt them as a one handed attack, then kick them as an offhand attack".

If you follow the 'logic' that the rules aren't referring to actual hands, but an unwritten unit called 'hands worth of effort', then you can use a greatsword in one hand as long as you use enough 'hands worth of effort'.

In fact, you wouldn't need any actual hands at all! You could have lost both actual hands in a tragic but infeasible nose-picking accident, but according to that interpretation of the rules(!) you'd still have the same amount of 'hands worth of effort' to spend.

Of course, this interpretation is total b&~+!++s. As will be pointed out, the book says you require two hands to use a two-handed weapon (there's a clue in the name!). The trouble is, those very words which mean you need two actual hands are also being used to mean the opposite concept of 'hands worth of effort'. Which meaning do those words have? We could disagree which meaning they have, fair enough, but it's not okay to say that they mean different things each time you make a new argument. If it means either one or the other, taking those words as meaning 'hands worth of effort' means they don't mean actual hands, allowing amputees to use greatswords.

What the actual rules mean is that the number of weapon attacks you get in a full attack is based on your iteratives (from high BAB), and possible extra attacks from TWF, feats or special abilities. None of these require actual hands, nor 'hands worth of effort' (which is a unit that doesn't exist in the game).

Where actual hands come in is that most weapons require one or two hands to use! Even then there are some which must be held in one or two hands to use, while others are worn so don't require hands at all. There are even some that are worn (so don't need to be held in order to use and don't need to be released in order to hold a different weapon) but still need a hand to use them (gloves/gauntlets).

In fact, the term 'off hand' only exists in the rules for TWF. There is no handedness, therefore no 'main hand' and no 'off hand', unless these terms are used to denote the attacks made in TWF. so these are neither 'actual hands' nor 'hands worth of effort', they refer to your iterative attacks (=main hand) and the extra attacks granted by TWF (=off hand).

This is how it's been since 3.5 eliminated handedness and the Ambidexterity feat, but the 'off hand' terminology remained only in regards to the extra attacks granted by TWF.

All this worked perfectly...until the FAQ, when devs who felt that players who used a 2H weapon an their 'main hand' attack were getting something for nothing and were determined to put a stop to it (despite the fact that this style was still worse than using two light weapons of the same type, which is perfectly legal). Instead of changing the rules to say 'you can't use 2H weapons in TWF', they changed the meaning of the written word and made out that they has always meant 'hands worth of effort', despite the fact that this new game mechanic unit is not mentioned anywhere in 3.5 or PF. If it had existed, then other things would exist to give you extra 'hands of effort' through feats, spells, special abilities and magic items. The entire ruleset is suspiciously bereft of any such mechanic or reference to such a game mechanic, including in the combat chapter which tells us how to play the game!

Liberty's Edge

darth_gator wrote:

These discussions always make me a little nostalgic for AD&D 2nd Ed., THAC0 and all. Two weapon fighting was much simpler:

...

2. One hand wields a one-handed weapon ONLY.
3. Second hand wields a weapon one size smaller ONLY.
4. Only one extra attack each round.

It didn't matter if you had 3/2 attacks; if you attacked with a greatsword, you couldn't attack with a second weapon. Period.

FWIW, despite what some might say, that paradigm hasn't really changed. Though, now there are some feats and items that grant exceptions.


Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
Instead of changing the rules to say 'you can't use 2H weapons in TWF', they changed the meaning of the written word and made out that they has always meant 'hands worth of effort', despite the fact that this new game mechanic unit is not mentioned anywhere in 3.5 or PF.

That's all explained right next to how you can have multiple sources... :P


Malachi Silverclaw wrote:

If you follow the 'logic' that the rules aren't referring to actual hands, but an unwritten unit called 'hands worth of effort', then you can use a greatsword in one hand as long as you use enough 'hands worth of effort'.

In fact, you wouldn't need any actual hands at all! You could have lost both actual hands in a tragic but infeasible nose-picking accident, but according to that interpretation of the rules(!) you'd still have the same amount of 'hands worth of effort' to spend.

Of course, this interpretation is total b#$~!@~s. As will be pointed out, the book says you require two hands to use a two-handed weapon (there's a clue in the name!). The trouble is, those very words which mean you need two actual hands are also being used to mean the opposite concept of 'hands worth of effort'. Which meaning do those words have? We could disagree which meaning they have, fair enough, but it's not okay to say that they mean different things each time you make a new argument. If it means either one or the other, taking those words as meaning 'hands worth of effort' means they don't mean actual hands, allowing amputees to use greatswords.

Naturally, there are ADDITIONAL requirements for many attack options. For example, you need two actual hands to wield a two-handed weapon, and the like. Common sense type of stuff.

This doesn't change the limits I put down. The tragic victim missing two hands could still make the same number of attacks, they would just need to come from choices valid for his body. (unarmed strikes, perhaps a shield bash, etc) As this thread was asking about two-handed weapons in particular, I listed examples related to them.


graystone wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
Gwen Smith wrote:


Aid Another says you can assist another player with a saving throw, ....

There is no indications of this. It says you can help someone who has been affected by a spell not someone who might be affected. I think this refers to throwing water on people that are on fire or waking someone up who has been put to sleep.
Well to be fair, every other instance involves a modifier to a d20 roll (attack, AC and skill). It's not a big jump to saving throw when they say you can help someone "when he is affected by a spell". Initial or ongoing ones are both saves. For instance, going off your throwing water example, both the initial catch on fire and the per round check are saves.

The water example grants an additional save IIRC. I agree it could work that way but nothing indicates that as a general case. If you somehow provide cover from an AoE spell I see thay working. I dont see you getting a +2 for charm person. I do think its worth an FAQ since it is not really specific.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Cebrion wrote:
Jeff Merola wrote:
A monk flurrying always gets 1xStr, regardless of what monk weapon they're using, never 0.5 or 1.5.

Well, let's see:

Quote:
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 two hands.

So, what is a "full strength bonus"?

For an unarmed strike or one-handed weapon, a "full Strength bonus" is 1 X Str. For a two-handed weapon, a "full Strength bonus" is 1.5 X Str. "Full strength bonus" does not mean 1 x Str. It depends on the weapon being used. FAQ required? Probably so.

No.


wraithstrike wrote:
Gwen Smith wrote:


Aid Another says you can assist another player with a saving throw, ....

There is no indications of this. It says you can help someone who has been affected by a spell not someone who might be affected. I think this refers to throwing water on people that are on fire or waking someone up who has been put to sleep.

I'm thinking of this:

Aid allies:
"At 2nd level, whenever an order of the dragon cavalier uses the aid another action to assist one of his allies, the ally receives a +3 bonus to his Armor Class, attack roll, saving throw, or skill check."

Here again, it doesn't say "This allows the cavalier to use the aid another action to assist with a saving throw, but otherwise he wouldn't be able to do so." This statement implies that aid another can normally be used to assist with a saving throw.

And this ability doesn't say how you can assist on a saving throw, so with the strict "unless the rules explicitly allow it" interpretation, you can't.


wraithstrike wrote:
graystone wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
Gwen Smith wrote:


Aid Another says you can assist another player with a saving throw, ....

There is no indications of this. It says you can help someone who has been affected by a spell not someone who might be affected. I think this refers to throwing water on people that are on fire or waking someone up who has been put to sleep.
Well to be fair, every other instance involves a modifier to a d20 roll (attack, AC and skill). It's not a big jump to saving throw when they say you can help someone "when he is affected by a spell". Initial or ongoing ones are both saves. For instance, going off your throwing water example, both the initial catch on fire and the per round check are saves.
The water example grants an additional save IIRC. I agree it could work that way but nothing indicates that as a general case. If you somehow provide cover from an AoE spell I see thay working. I dont see you getting a +2 for charm person. I do think its worth an FAQ since it is not really specific.

Oh, I agree not all saves would/should be affected. An FAQ with some guidelines and examples would be appreciated. This is one of those areas though that #1 doesn't come up very often and #2 you normally just make a quick judgment call to cover it. So while a FAQ would be nice, there are others I'd rather have before that one.


Gwen Smith wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
Gwen Smith wrote:


Aid Another says you can assist another player with a saving throw, ....

There is no indications of this. It says you can help someone who has been affected by a spell not someone who might be affected. I think this refers to throwing water on people that are on fire or waking someone up who has been put to sleep.

I'm thinking of this:

Aid allies:
"At 2nd level, whenever an order of the dragon cavalier uses the aid another action to assist one of his allies, the ally receives a +3 bonus to his Armor Class, attack roll, saving throw, or skill check."

Here again, it doesn't say "This allows the cavalier to use the aid another action to assist with a saving throw, but otherwise he wouldn't be able to do so." This statement implies that aid another can normally be used to assist with a saving throw.

And this ability doesn't say how you can assist on a saving throw, so with the strict "unless the rules explicitly allow it" interpretation, you can't.

I think it is possibly a correct interpretation, but I would not say with certainty that is the intent. I am about to FAQ it however. I did not even know this was a rule until you pointed it out so I do thank you for that.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

_Ozy_ wrote:
Gwen Smith wrote:
James Risner wrote:
graystone wrote:
It just irks me when the answer ends up being different than what it reads to me because I didn't 'look behind the curtain' to find missing 'unwritten' part of the rules.
I think the key skill is changing your viewpoint from "it doesn't say I can't" to "it doesn't say I can" and I'm pretty sure most of the unwritten rules become clear.

Actually, that doesn't help much.

You're being kind. Following that viewpoint makes the game unplayable.

Actually, my opinion is that it makes it unplayable. I've played with people who share the "it doesn't say I can't" point of view and that is pretty much unplayable. The only person having fun is the "it doesn't say I can't" guy.


James Risner wrote:
_Ozy_ wrote:
Gwen Smith wrote:
James Risner wrote:
graystone wrote:
It just irks me when the answer ends up being different than what it reads to me because I didn't 'look behind the curtain' to find missing 'unwritten' part of the rules.
I think the key skill is changing your viewpoint from "it doesn't say I can't" to "it doesn't say I can" and I'm pretty sure most of the unwritten rules become clear.

Actually, that doesn't help much.

You're being kind. Following that viewpoint makes the game unplayable.
Actually, my opinion is that it makes it unplayable. I've played with people who share the "it doesn't say I can't" point of view and that is pretty much unplayable. The only person having fun is the "it doesn't say I can't" guy.

Good thing there are DMs that recognize a middle ground.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber

Personally, I go by the following house rule:

Characters can use two weapon fighting with a two-handed weapon and a weapon that does not require hands (armor spikes, dwarven boulder helmet, unarmed strike to kick, etc.), but they do not get the 1.5 x Str bonus or the +3 damage per -1 attack penalty from Power Attack on the two handed weapon when doing so; it's treated the same as a one-handed weapon, similar to how double weapons work. From a "fluff" standpoint, the stances and techniques required to pull off the combo prevent the character from swinging the weapon as hard as normal (balance and footwork, shorter follow-through, etc.). Since the primary reason for many players is to "exploit" the added damage from Str and Power Attack with two-handed weapons when using this combo, this keeps the option from overshadowing normal two-weapon fighting (and normal two-handed weapon fighting, as well) to any significant degree (as the difference between base weapon damage, even with a greatsword, is fairly minor).

Silver Crusade

@Dragonchess Player: that would all make sense, balance-wise, if the combination of 2H weapon/spiked gauntlet (or armour spikes/boulder helmet, whatever 'worn' weapon) wasn't already worse than using two identical light weapons!


Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber

Not quite true, from a DPR standpoint. Two light weapons can't really benefit from Power Attack (+1 damage for each -1 on attack rolls), which pushes many to pursuing a Piranha Strike/Dex focus. Unfortunately, that is costly in feats and magic items to come close to matching a Str focused two-handed weapon character.

A character fighting with a two-handed weapon already does decent damage with that weapon; "better" than any light weapon. The extra attack(s) from the "off-hand" weapon may be "worse" than "normal" with paired light weapons, but it tends to balance out because the primary (two-handed) weapon is so much "better." Also, because the character doesn't have to chase as hard after getting as many attacks as possible (because the damage from each attack is low), the investment in Dex and feats is lower.

Trade offs...


While not specifically writen it is implied in the power attack rules in their many iterations that the damage to attack ratio is linked to the amout of strength bonus you get to attack.

if the bonus is str 1.5x then power attack is -1/+3
if the bonus is str 1x then power attack is -1/+2
and if the bonus is 0.5x str then its -1/+1

read over where power attacks interacts with natural attacks that do 1.5 str and the regular power attack rules and i think thats clear. a light weapon wielded in one hand shoule get the -1/+2 ratio. by extention i would think once you take the....double slice feat? and increase your off hands steangth bonus you should also increase the power attack ratio too.

at least thats how i read the rules, i do want to just point out against the post above that light weapons arnt speciffically called out to be stuck to the -1/+1 ratio, just the off hand is, so with power attack at base you get total the -1/+3 ratio, assuming both attacks hit


Dragonchess Player wrote:

Not quite true, from a DPR standpoint. Two light weapons can't really benefit from Power Attack (+1 damage for each -1 on attack rolls), which pushes many to pursuing a Piranha Strike/Dex focus. Unfortunately, that is costly in feats and magic items to come close to matching a Str focused two-handed weapon character.

A character fighting with a two-handed weapon already does decent damage with that weapon; "better" than any light weapon. The extra attack(s) from the "off-hand" weapon may be "worse" than "normal" with paired light weapons, but it tends to balance out because the primary (two-handed) weapon is so much "better." Also, because the character doesn't have to chase as hard after getting as many attacks as possible (because the damage from each attack is low), the investment in Dex and feats is lower.

Trade offs...

Not true. A light weapon gets -1/+2 unless it is an off hand weapon.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

_Ozy_ wrote:
Good thing there are DMs that recognize a middle ground.

True that, which begs the question why so many people on here take the stance of "this 'doesn't say I can't' way of interpreting is the only way a GM can interpret", when actually it is always GM call for any undefined or interesting interpretation and in the case of PFS "expect table variance".


Ah. I see. Flurry is considered two weapon fighting, but without an effective off-hand. Also, a two-handed weapons (double weapons or not) use by a monk in flurry of blows still counts as being used as part of a two-weapon fighting attack, and so do not get the 1.5 X Str bonus. It is always just the 1 X Str bonus no matter what sort of weapon is used. Just for the flurry of blows attack form though.

And yes, any "The rulebook doesn't say I can't do this..." conversation isn't even worth having, as it is just going to go something like this:

Player 1: "The rules don't say I can't do this..."

Player 2: "Well, the rules don't say that my character can't light your character sheet on fire, but he just did! I am pretty sure that means your character is dead, because the rules don't say that he is not dead. So, we go to the DM for a ruling."

DM: "Oh, he's totally dead. However, his items were also burned up."

Player 2: "Hmmm. I didn't consider that. Well, nobody can say the DM isn't fair and just with regards to people engaged in rules chicanery."

So don't be "that guy", or you character sheet is going to get burned up. :p


Cebrion wrote:
Ah. I see. Flurry is considered two weapon fighting, but without an effective off-hand. Also, a two-handed weapons (double weapons or not) use by a monk in flurry of blows still counts as being used as part of a two-weapon fighting attack, and so do not get the 1.5 X Str bonus. It is always just the 1 X Str bonus no matter what sort of weapon is used. Just for the flurry of blows attack form though.

Technically, the "monk doesn't have an off-hand" text only applies to unarmed strikes:

PRD, emphasis mine wrote:
Unarmed Strike: At 1st level, a monk gains Improved Unarmed Strike as a bonus feat. A monk's attacks may be with fist, elbows, knees, and feet. This means that a monk may make unarmed strikes with his hands full. There is no such thing as an off-hand attack for a monk striking unarmed.

Flurry of blows specifically mentions off-hand attack:

PRD, emphasis mine 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.

He still gets his full strength bonus, but any other effects that modified by an off hand (like the half bonus for Power Attack and Piranha Strike) should still apply.

So a monk using Power Attack and Piranha Strike in flurry of blows gets pretty complicated:
Unarmed strike: 1x Str, PA and PS -1/+2 on all attacks
Two handed weapon: 1x Str, PA -1/+3 on all attacks (PS not applicable)
One-handed or light weapon: 1x Str on all attacks, PA and PS -1/+2 on main hand, -1/+1 on off hand


James Risner wrote:
_Ozy_ wrote:
Good thing there are DMs that recognize a middle ground.
True that, which begs the question why so many people on here take the stance of "this 'doesn't say I can't' way of interpreting is the only way a GM can interpret", when actually it is always GM call for any undefined or interesting interpretation and in the case of PFS "expect table variance".

The variant I see most often is "this doesn't say I can't, and this other rule kind of implies that I can (or I saw it in a book/movie/real life), so can I?"

Which is probably the best way to go.


Yes, I understand it is technically not an off hand attack, which is why the full strength bonus applies. In every other respect flurry of blows is the same as two weapon fighting (and as further feats in that feat tree, as the Monk advances in skill, as cited in the Flurry of Blows section).

Also, "This feat [Piranha Strike] cannot be used in conjunction with the Power Attack feat."


Okay so I have a sort of related question. I'm playing a game as a kasatha and therefore have 4 hands (1 main and 3 offhands as stated in the racial trait) so when I'm weipding a two handed weapon in my two off hands what is my strength bonus? Is it 1.5 for being two handed? .5 for being off handed? Or 1 times using the regular 1.5 times strength but with a .5 penalty?

Note: im playing a musket master and using a polarm weapon to take AOO on anything that tries to come close.

Out of curiosity if I did want to two weapon fight with two two-handed weapons is there any OFFICIAL reason I can't?


Wow. This was a 70+ post discussion?

I had a character that had Improved Unarmed Strike and TWF, used an Estoc in two hands for the "main hand" attack with 1.5x STR, then he would let go and punch with his now free "off hand"... nobody at the table had a problem with it.

Mechanically it doesn't change anything. It just doesn't.

Even though they made it so you can't use a greatsword and armor spikes with TWF, the question still remains... why?

It doesn't change anything. But martials can't have nice things, so of course they take it away.

All this crap about handedness and hands worth of effort... lol. Are you serious?

Swing your one-handed weapon in two hands, get the minor Strength bonus increase, let go with one hand and punch the fool with your half Strength off-hand. How is this a 70+ post discussion?


Jeff Merola wrote:
Cebrion wrote:
All of the strikes can be either with a monk weapon or not, though it is more beneficial to make them all with a two-handed monk weapon so as to get a 1.5 X Str bonus instead of the 1 X Str bonus to damage on each attack.
A monk flurrying always gets 1xStr, regardless of what monk weapon they're using, never 0.5 or 1.5.

Unless they take Dragon Ferocity. Then they get 2 X STR on their first attack and 1.5 X STR on the rest of their attacks.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
VoodistMonk wrote:

Wow. This was a 70+ post discussion?

I had a character that had Improved Unarmed Strike and TWF, used an Estoc in two hands for the "main hand" attack with 1.5x STR, then he would let go and punch with his now free "off hand"... nobody at the table had a problem with it.

Mechanically it doesn't change anything. It just doesn't.

Even though they made it so you can't use a greatsword and armor spikes with TWF, the question still remains... why?

It doesn't change anything. But martials can't have nice things, so of course they take it away.

All this crap about handedness and hands worth of effort... lol. Are you serious?

Swing your one-handed weapon in two hands, get the minor Strength bonus increase, let go with one hand and punch the fool with your half Strength off-hand. How is this a 70+ post discussion?

Because rules design specifically did not want a two-handed creature to be able to deal two and a half hands worth of damage. That's really all it is. They balanced stuff around PCs having two hands worth of things to do, which is why they took great pains to make sure that things like vestigial arm couldn't add to that.

Now, was it a reasonable goal to aim for? That's plenty debatable by us peons, especially given all the other ways to sneak in more effective "hands" of attacks, but that's the design principle they decided on.


Two and a half hands' worth of damage.

Hands' worth. What crock of BS.

This game doesn't even have directional facing rules, but it's going to regulate how much/many hands' worth of attack each hand can do?

It's attacks that you can make in a round, not how many hands' worth of attack you have.

How/if you use your hands for these attacks is completely irrelevant.

TWF gives you an extra attack, that's it, forget the off-hand BS entirely.

Normally you get one attack. Once again, how many hands you use, or even if you use hands at all, is irrelevant.

Why break it down any further than the number of attacks per round?

We already have action economy rules which dictate the time interval of certain types of attacks, which in turn dictates how many attacks we can do in a round.

We already have BAB rules that increase the number of attacks we can make in a round.

Literally everything in this game is already based on how many attacks you can make in a round.

Hands' worth. Lol.

It's absolutely asinine to break it down past the existing action economy system, and the existing BAB system... which clearly define how many attacks you can make in a round, and don't give a $#!+ how many hands you use.

Without TWF, if you have high enough BAB for two attacks in a round, you can switch hands with your rapier between your attacks and it changes absolutely nothing. Both hands provide the same Strength bonus.

You don't have an off-hand.

TWF added the off-hand nonsense.

It's just another example of piss-poor wording in the description of a feat.

They could have said you can get an extra attack per round that must be made with another weapon and only gets half your Strength bonus. All your attacks suffer the associated TWF penalty.

Forego all mention of hands.


pyro85x wrote:

Okay so I have a sort of related question. I'm playing a game as a kasatha and therefore have 4 hands (1 main and 3 offhands as stated in the racial trait) so when I'm weipding a two handed weapon in my two off hands what is my strength bonus? Is it 1.5 for being two handed? .5 for being off handed? Or 1 times using the regular 1.5 times strength but with a .5 penalty?

Note: im playing a musket master and using a polarm weapon to take AOO on anything that tries to come close.

If you aren't trying to use Two-Weapon Fighting then there shouldn't be any difference. You'd get 1.5x Str on your AoO.

pyro85x wrote:
Out of curiosity if I did want to two weapon fight with two two-handed weapons is there any OFFICIAL reason I can't?

Who knows. There are some unwritten 'rules' spread out across a couple of FAQs that touch on some "hands of effort" limitation, but I don't care enough about weird Paizo rulings to bother looking them up.

Also, please refrain from posting in old threads. Otherwise people start quoting and arguing with people who stopped posting long ago.

====

@VoodistMonk

Did you somehow miss that this thread is in the rules forum?

Your aggressive anecdotes don't contribute to the rules discussion that ended five years ago, and you seem to be aware that the FAQs actually state the opposite to how you want to play the game.

So yeah, the rules are dumb. Sure.
Don't shoot the messenger, though.


@VoodoistMonk

Welcome to the party, pal.


blahpers wrote:

@VoodoistMonk

Welcome to the party, pal.

Thanks. Lol.

No lie, though, I would probably walk away from the table/game if a GM started breaking down the action economy into percentages per hand. That is stifling to the creativity that drives this game.

I don't argue with the greatsword/armor spikes thing because it is rule of law not allowed, as per official errata/ FAQ.

But I still don't agree with it. And I would gladly allow it at my table for my games, because I don't care if martials have nice things.

AND, I am definitely not ever going to be breaking the action economy into percentage per hand in any of the games I run.

I get this is a rules section for official rules answers, but it's also a high fantasy game based on creativity and communication.

Use your imagination should have been the official and final answer... not some still-unquantifiable "hands' worth" nonsense metric that will never be officially established or explained outside of BS "developer's intent unwritten rules" that we still allow to override our own creativity.

*rant over*


So since this thread has been necromanced... have there been any new features, faqs, etc. that shed any more light?
What other feats and items can we mix in now?
The brawler's flurry?
Two-handed thrower (or Raging Hurler)?
An alchemist's Vestigial Arm?

If you put effortless lace on a one-handed weapon can you wield it in two hands and apply power attack for 1.5 * str damage?


Is there even an official answer to the original question?

Has the "hands' worth" metric ever been officially stated to work with how it works with the existing BAB/action economy rules?

Or are we stuck with unwritten rules governing the TWF feat chain and everything that states "off-hand"?

Because unwritten rules means use your imagination, not stifle the creativity that drives this game...

Honestly, DOES allowing the Fighter to TWF with a greatsword and armor spikes break the game? DOES IT? Ever?

Compared to other methods for gaining extra attacks, methods that are concrete and seldom argued, no it doesn't.

All sorts of silly free AoO builds, which ultimately are pure shenanigans and munchkin madness in a lot of cases, but are totally allowed... Felling Smash/Great Trip/Viscous Stomp, for example. Somehow not overstepping your allotted "hands' worth" of attacking?

But TWF with a greatsword and armor spikes, OH NO! That's way too many "hands' worth" of attacking. Lol.

What? The free AoO is a new attack? Kind of like the free attack granted by TWF, as long as it's with a different weapon? Hmm.

No matter how many "hands' worth" of attacking a martial has, the CRB base Wizard focusing on crafting feats can still kill you by accident, and no matter how many "hands' worth" of attacking to have in a round is going to raise a martial up in the tiers of power... it's almost like it doesn't matter what you do either way... so why even bother with making the distinction?

Let the martials have nice things.

Let creativity and imagination be the governing rule, rather than completely unnecessary and ultimately useless arbitrary metrics such as "hands' worth" of whatever...

But this is the rules section. And we are talking about the cloaked in shadows "unwritten rules" of the developer's intent... the developer's intent is to clearly build a fantasy game that doesn't allow martials to do anything no matter how creative they may be, yet gives spellcasting classes unfettered access to the wilds of their imagination.

And by that logic, the answer to every question about combat feats is unequivocally "No!"...

Martial: "Bladed Brush?"

Unwritten Rules: "No!"

51 to 86 of 86 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Two-handed weapons, Two-weapon fighting, and offhand attacks. All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.