The one reason that I remember seeing was that it is meant to limit debate as to which attack was which.
That and taking "pot shots" with lower attacks with rider effects to make sure the higher bonus attacks are more effective would probably be an issue. Don't forget some abilities are chosen per attack and not every attack of a sequence.
|
That and taking "pot shots" with lower attacks with rider effects to make sure the higher bonus attacks are more effective would probably be an issue. Don't forget some abilities are chosen per attack and not every attack of a sequence.
Agreed. Things like two-weapon feint could be exploited if you're were able to use your lowest power attack bonus first before your highest power one.
|
JohnF, I was talking about the limitations of attacking without TWF, so I'm not sure why you responded to me when asserting that the situation with TWF is more unclear. It's relevant to the OP but doesn't actually disagree with anything I said.
Also I went and found the actual CRB rule, since I don't think anyone's cited it directly:
If you get multiple attacks because your base attack bonus is high enough, you must make the attacks in order from highest bonus to lowest.
(A) If your BAB is +6 and you get an extra attack at +1, you must make the attack at +6 before the attack at +1.
(B) It's not explicitly stated whether extra attacks from a source other than BAB (such as TWF or Haste) must be taken in BAB order. Thus it is not RAW, though it may be RAI.
If you are using two weapons, you can strike with either weapon first. If you are using a double weapon, you can strike with either part of the weapon first.
(C) If you're two-weapon fighting, you are explicitly allowed to strike with your off hand before your primary. Off hand +6 / Primary +6 / Primary +1 is a valid attack order. Based on (B), Off +6/+1 / Primary +6/+1 and even Off +1/+6/Primary +6/+1 are also legal, though this may not be intended. Since things like Two-Weapon Feint seem to refer to your first primary attack, it may not matter so much if your off hand attacks are made out of order. On the other hand, it does add more tactical complexity in a way that might not be realistic (for example making weak attacks against a weaker opponent until they drop, then unloading remaining stronger attacks on someone tougher.)
(D) If you're not two weapon fighting but you are fighting with two weapons, you're still allowed to strike with either weapon first, but your attacks must by made highest BAB first because nothing has negated (A). So longsword +6 / mace +1 and mace +6 / longsword +1 are both valid, but longsword +1 / mace +6 is not.
Any disagreement with this summary?
What is the "explicit" part that allows you to attack with the off-hand first? I see that you can strike with either end of the double weapon first, but couldn't a case be made that the first strike defines the primary?
|
|
If you are using two weapons, you can strike with either weapon first.
It seemed pretty undeniably clear to me that "either weapon" means "either your primary or off hand" in the case of TWF. On closer inspection it is not in fact indisputable, but reading this as "you can strike with either weapon first, but the first weapon you attack with is considered your primary weapon" is a greater leap from what is written and thus is unlikely to be the case.
|
Other than the explicit instructions to make attacks in descending BAB order, I'm not really sure why this is being made into an issue.
The reality is that it doesn't matter. Attack with your primary hand first. Attack with your off hand first. Interchange between primary and off hand attacks. Who cares. It doesn't matter.
But, if you insist on being sticklers about it, since off hand attacks are "extra" attacks, a natural reading of the rules would imply that all of the off hand attacks would be made once the primary attacks have been completed.
If you are using two weapons, you can strike with either weapon first.It seemed pretty undeniably clear to me that "either weapon" means "either your primary or off hand" in the case of TWF. On closer inspection it is not in fact indisputable, but reading this as "you can strike with either weapon first, but the first weapon you attack with is considered your primary weapon" is a greater leap from what is written and thus is unlikely to be the case.
I'd say you can pick either physical weapon and attack with it as either primary or offhand by choice at that time making the other weapon the one you didn't pick. I don't see anything that you can clearly pick out of "If you are using two weapons, you can strike with either weapon first" that proves anything.
If I HAD to make a ruling, I'd most likely agree with HangarFlying. Extra attack going after normal attacks would seem the most intuitive way to go. But in the grant scheme of things, I'll also agree with him with "Who cares. It doesn't matter."
Why would the extra attack going after normal attack seem intuitive? It is completely counter-intuitive.
Which makes more sense:
1) "Here, I am going to make my best swing on ya, then my next best, then I am going to go back to my best swing!"
OR
2) "Here, I am going to take my two best swings on ya and then my next best!"
#2 makes the most sense to me.
Why would the extra attack going after normal attack seem intuitive? It is completely counter-intuitive.
Just go with extra. When you add an extra, it's usually after the normal. Extra or in addition to. Attacks by BAB are the norm then you add in extra attacks from TWF.
As far as #1 or #2, if you look at it from a realism sense instead of a grammar sense, then neither makes sense. Logically, some strikes are going to be both hands at the same time, sometimes you block with one and attack with the other ect. Best to worst doesn't make any more (OR less) sense than mixing them up. How do I know my first strike is going to hit the best and the last the worst?
I think the order of attacks while TWFing was intended to be interlaced, here's why:
- It's a free action to switch grips on your weapon during combat (FAQ), so, in theory, it should be possible to make all your attacks with your main hand then switch grips to make your off-hand attacks with the same weapon, but you can't, because...
- You can only perform TWFing when you are wielding a weapon on each hand (CRB;TWF).
If it's normaly possible to switch grips as a free action or drop weapons and draw new ones also as a free action (with quickdraw) but specifically for TWFing you must be wielding a weapon on each hand, this implies that the weapons must be used simultaneously.
It's like typing. If you type with one hand, stop, and then type with the other, it would be the same thing as if you were typing with just one hand the whole time. You can only get the most out of your two hands if you use them at the same time.
One of the Devs commented that, if you can cope with this level of complexity, one could account every pair of attacks you make with your main hand and your off-hand as the same thing as one attack with a 2h weapon. So, you would be able to start your full attack by attacking once with your main hand and once with your off-hand, drop one of the weapons, and use the rest of your attacks with the remaining weapon with a 2h grip.
I wish I could find the right words to express this, but I belive most people will agree that TWFing was intended to be used with the two weapons at the same thime. If you could make all your attacks with your main hand and then all your attacks with your off-hand, then you wouldn't need two weapons at all, would ya?
RAW doesn't say this clearly, but I think the intent is clear.
Does anybody have a comment from the Devs as to Why must multiple attacks be made from highest to lowest bonuses, or even a comment from the previous Devs from D&D?
I can imagine a few reasons like:
- To speed up the game, by making it clear in which order attacks must be made.
- To prevent some metagame, like beeing able to choose to attack with your lowest damage attacks first to remove the enemy's stone skin spell charges.
- To.... Hell, I can only think of two reasons....I personaly like the idea of freely choosing which attack to use depending on the situation. The game becomes more complex, but also more tactical, rewarding clever planning.
So, if someone can come up with The Reason as to why must we attack in this order, I think that would be much more usefull then playing "The English Major Game, by Smauel El Jackson".
One thing that comes to mind is back in 3.5, it stopped a few borderline-cheesy things with Cleave. For example, you have 2 attacks, are likely to hit with both and then kill the target on the 2nd one, and there's a harder-to-hit opponent nearby, so if you hit with your +1 first, you'd get the higher bonus on your cleave when you killed the guy with the +6. Random stuff like that.
The way Cleave (and Cleaving Finish) work in Pathfinder, though, it would no longer be a concern.
|
|
I wish I could find the right words to express this, but I believe most people will agree that TWFing was intended to be used with the two weapons at the same time.
What I think you are you thinking about is the "hands of effort", and I think you're proposing the below
For each BAB attack you get, you get up to two "hands of effort" worth of attacks. You can use the two "hands of effort" to:
1) wield a two-handed weapon
2) only use one to wield a one handed/light weapon
3) you're allowed to wield two one-handed/light weapons at a penalty these on the first attack (TWF reduces this penalty).
4) ImpTWF and GrTWF give the reduced penalties to subsequent iterative attacks.
Kazaan, please show us where the rules state that you do not have to take extra attacks in order of highest BAB to lowest BAB.
They are still based on BAB so yes, you have to take them in order. Of equal BAB which one is first is your choice.
Kazaan, please show us where the rules state that you do not have to take extra attacks in order of highest BAB to lowest BAB.
They are still based on BAB so yes, you have to take them in order. Of equal BAB which one is first is your choice.
It says "If you get multiple attacks because your base attack bonus is high enough" so the fact that off hand attacks are based on BAB is meaningless as you get them from two weapon fighting and NOT a high enough BAB.
Except that you have to have a high enough BAB to get those feats, so technically...
You also get them from your BAB.
Except that you have to have a high enough BAB to get those feats, so technically...
You also get them from your BAB.
That's a round about way to get there. And it doesn't acount for the first attack that can't be bootstrapped into fitting. So is the Tail Terror, Tail Weapon and Dangerous Tail feat are also governed by this? But Unusual Heritage and Razortusk don't?... yeah, going down that road makes little sense and gets quite contradictory.
When it comes to RAW, agreed. I am not sure what the RAI is on the matter.
When it comes to RAW, agreed. I am not sure what the RAI is on the matter.
To be honest, I don't know if there IS any RAI in this. Do we have any proof anyone's really given thought to a rule on offhand attack order compared to primary? Or is it one of those things that's meant to be left in the air? IMO the best thing is to do what makes sense to your group since there isn't any clear RAW.
I think you have to choose to Power Attack at the start:
You can choose to take a –1 penalty on all melee attack rolls and combat maneuver checks to gain a +2 bonus on all melee damage rolls.
I think the ALL is the key.
Bottom line is The Reason.
If the reason is simplicity, then BAB doesn't matter, just order all your attacks from highest bonus to lowest, like the way they present the attacks for almost all NPCs and monsters. This will address all attacks and end any doubt.
If the reason is to prevent "pot shots" or other metagame, then BAB doesn't matter either, just order all your attacks from highest bonus to lowest. If you're able to have any choice on the order, this will influence the "pot shots".
If these are the only reasons, then there is literally no reason the order of all attacks should not be from highest bonus to lowest, regardless of BAB.
Ordering all "regular, every round, passively free" attacks from highest bonus to lowest will also automatically place TWF attaks in the order they were intended.
The only attacks that can be made out of order are extra attacks that you can choose to use or not on the fly, like the monk's Ki pool extra attacks.
Haste attacks are a tough call. If you have only a limited uses of haste attacks, like from a Boots of Haste, then you should be able to use it's extra attack last to finish a foe, if you turned the boots ON after making all your regular attacks. If you were already under the effect of Haste at the start of the round, then I think the Haste extra attack should go first like the order demands.
|
|
When you add an extra, it's usually after the normal. Extra or in addition to. Attacks by BAB are the norm then you add in extra attacks from TWF.
George and Mary normally work 9am-5pm. On Monday, their boss tells them "I need you to put in 2 extra hours tomorrow to finish this report." George works 9am-7pm, Mary works 7am-5pm. Which of them did what their boss asked?
"Extra" does not itself imply order, without additional information or context.
I'd say you can pick either physical weapon and attack with it as either primary or offhand by choice at that time making the other weapon the one you didn't pick. I don't see anything that you can clearly pick out of "If you are using two weapons, you can strike with either weapon first" that proves anything.If you are using two weapons, you can strike with either weapon first.It seemed pretty undeniably clear to me that "either weapon" means "either your primary or off hand" in the case of TWF. On closer inspection it is not in fact indisputable, but reading this as "you can strike with either weapon first, but the first weapon you attack with is considered your primary weapon" is a greater leap from what is written and thus is unlikely to be the case.
The issue here is that "either weapon" doesn't spell out which two weapons it refers to, so you have to infer based on what makes sense.
I read "You can strike with either weapon first" as "You can strike with either your primary or off hand first."
This is an informative and complete rule. It adds to your understanding of attack order and there is nothing else that need be said for this rule to make sense.
You read, as far as I can tell, "You can strike with either your left or right hand first."
This is not informative; striking with your right or left hand is not meaningful in PF. In order for this statement to be complete and meaningful, you have to add a rule to it, namely: "The first weapon you attack with becomes the primary weapon." There's no way that the sentence "If you are using two weapons, you can strike with either weapon first" includes within itself a restriction on which weapon is primary. If no such restriction can be found in print, you are adding a rule that does not exist in order to force this interpretation to make sense.
Note that the lack of the restriction is not likely to be accidental. There is no reason to say "you may strike with either weapon," intend for that choice to designate your first weapon as primary, and not state that restriction. This is like saying "You may return your rental at any time Tuesday" if you mean "You may return your rental at any time Tuesday, but if you return it after noon you will have to pay a late fee." That's not an accident, that's being intentionally deceptive and I don't think the devs are.
Rules interpretations should make sense without adding additional unwritten rules. Since the first interpretation is informative and complete, the second does not make sense without additional rules that are not written, and this is not likely to be an accidental oversight, we should choose the first interpretation.
|
I think the order of attacks while TWFing was intended to be interlaced, here's why:
- It's a free action to switch grips on your weapon during combat (FAQ), so, in theory, it should be possible to make all your attacks with your main hand then switch grips to make your off-hand attacks with the same weapon, but you can't, because...
- You can only perform TWFing when you are wielding a weapon on each hand (CRB;TWF).
If it's normaly possible to switch grips as a free action or drop weapons and draw new ones also as a free action (with quickdraw) but specifically for TWFing you must be wielding a weapon on each hand, this implies that the weapons must be used simultaneously.
It's like typing. If you type with one hand, stop, and then type with the other, it would be the same thing as if you were typing with just one hand the whole time. You can only get the most out of your two hands if you use them at the same time.
One of the Devs commented that, if you can cope with this level of complexity, one could account every pair of attacks you make with your main hand and your off-hand as the same thing as one attack with a 2h weapon. So, you would be able to start your full attack by attacking once with your main hand and once with your off-hand, drop one of the weapons, and use the rest of your attacks with the remaining weapon with a 2h grip.
I wish I could find the right words to express this, but I belive most people will agree that TWFing was intended to be used with the two weapons at the same thime. If you could make all your attacks with your main hand and then all your attacks with your off-hand, then you wouldn't need two weapons at all, would ya?
RAW doesn't say this clearly, but I think the intent is clear.
So, two weapon fighting doesn't work with thrown weapons?
So, two weapon fighting doesn't work with thrown weapons?
Sure it does, as long as you don't try to use the weapon you made your main hand attack with again with your off-hand. It's ok to use several different weapons, what you can't do is make all main hand and off-hand attacks with the same weapon, you'll need at least two.
extra attacks
I was asked why I thought it was intuitive that extra attacks would come second and I explained. If you disagree, ok, but my intent wasn't to say which is right or to change your mind.
Rules interpretations should make sense without adding additional unwritten rules.
I agree. That's why I go with "You can strike with either your left or right hand first." Anything else is reading some unwritten rule into it. You make the mistake that the sentance HAS to have some informitive meaning besides restating the obvious. look at the feat Beast Rider or Destroyer's Blessing and note that it requires you to be an orc or a 1/2 orc. The 1/2 orc part it TOTALLY 100% unneeded and not informative as 1/2 orcs can already pick up orc feats.
Second, you're reading it right and left. I'm more looking at it as +2 dagger and +1 Sickle, and it's telling you that you can attack with the dagger OR the sickle first which IS meaningful. Remember it's a quote about the first WEAPON. Hand or type of attack has to be added to the quote.
|
|
I'm saying right and left because it's the easiest way to distinguish the general state of having one weapon in each hand without designating one as primary and one as off hand. Picking theoretical weapons like dagger and sickle probably would have been clearer, but I'm having a hard time explaining this because it seems so extremely intuitive to me. It's like trying to describe how I recognize colours.
Let's take this from a different angle:
Either: one or the other of two people or things.
In order for "either" to exist, there must be two distinguishable things.
Methods of distinguishing two weapons include their innate properties (+2 dagger vs +1 sickle) and their primary/off hand status.
There is no reason to say that "you can strike with either weapon first" refers only to their innate properties, and not their primary/off hand status. Saying "either" refers only to the innate properties is just as much adding to the quote as saying it refers only to the primary/off hand status.
Thus, "either weapon" must refer to both. You can strike with either your dagger or your sickle first, and you can independently strike with your primary or off-hand weapon first. This is why my initial post actually included both:
(D) If you're not two weapon fighting but you are fighting with two weapons, you're still allowed to strike with either weapon first, but your attacks must by made highest BAB first because nothing has negated (A). So longsword +6 / mace +1 and mace +6 / longsword +1 are both valid, but longsword +1 / mace +6 is not.
|
|
What I am saying is, that you don't need a weapon in hand, to begin the full-round action, to two-weapon fight.
For example: Start with nothing in your hands, then begin the full-round action, to two-weapon fight, quickdraw a dagger for each attack, and end with nothing in your hands.
I just want to very clear, there is no need for anything to be held in hand.
Weirdo, you are still clinging to the idea that the text MUST have some deeper meaning beyond restating the obvious. As I have pointed out an area of the rules that does just that, I can't see how you can say "There is no reason to say that "you can strike with either weapon first" refers only to their innate properties, and not their primary/off hand status." I've proved that they indeed DO things for what you say they have "no reason" to do.
All I can say for sure is that it's telling me that I can attack with weapon a or weapon b first. If it meant hand, then it would NEED to actually SAY hand and/or primary/secondary.
CripDyke:
1) Yep.
2) Yep
3) There is no rule on this as it's not based on BAB. RAI as always is up in the air unless an actual post from an author/DEV/FAQ/errata comes up. I wouldn't be surprised if most people mirror the rule fof BAB bases attacks though (high to low).
4) Yep
|
|
Wait, you're agreeing with CripDyke's (1), why are you arguing with me?
1. Off hand can go first. Primary hand can go first.
Weirdo, you are still clinging to the idea that the text MUST have some deeper meaning beyond restating the obvious. As I have pointed out an area of the rules that does just that,
The reason some feats like Destroyer's Blessing list "orc of half-orc" is because at one point it was not obvious that half-orcs qualified as both humans and orcs for pre-requisites. There was an FAQ to clarify - multiple, actually, and they were revised when the devs changed their minds about what half-orcs could qualify for. The dev(s) who wrote "orc or half-orc" may actually have thought that half-orcs couldn't take orc feats.
Of course the fact that some things listed "orc" only and some listed "orc or half-orc" added to the confusion, so it's definitely true that the rules can be inconsistent or redundant. BUT...
I can't see how you can say "There is no reason to say that "you can strike with either weapon first" refers only to their innate properties, and not their primary/off hand status." I've proved that they indeed DO things for what you say they have "no reason" to do.
It's not that the rule has no reason to be redundant.
It's that the reader has no reason to decide that the rule has refers to only one of the possible distinguishing properties between weapon A and weapon B. The text does not indicate this.
Especially when there was an FAQ required to clarify that it's possible to fight with two weapons without two-weapon fighting; when the CRB says "When you fight with two weapons" the immediate association is TWF and thus the most obvious distinction between those two weapons is "primary and off hand" rather than "maybe one of them has a higher enhancement bonus."
And if the rule is intended to have strings attached to which weapon you attack with first (it becomes your primary) it needs to say so. Because as such there are no such strings, thus the first weapon you attack with does not become your primary weapon.
Thus you can attack with primary or off hand weapon first.
Weirdo, I'm disagreeing with your assertion that the quote "If you are using two weapons, you can strike with either weapon first." has anything to do with offhand/primary and only pertains to what is says, the WEAPONS.
The reason I agree with #1 is the fact that there is no listed limitation on which hand you use (primary/secondary) listed anywhere. Nowhere does it state what hand is first.
Note that this is the FIRST time you are talking about primary or off hand weapon and have instead talked of primary or off hand HANDS. Those are different things. AS I've said, the rule says you can pick your weapon, it's just silent on what handedness required (primary/secondary).
My quibble is your implication that handedness has anything to do with the quote "you can strike with either weapon first". The fact that there is no rule about what hand goes first, is something you never asked about because you where trying to prove there was a rule.
So I agree "you can attack with primary or off hand weapon first", just not on how you came to that conclusion.
PS: You are clinging to the idea that the quote MUST pertain to handedness. You forget (or didn't know) that 1-2e d&d had things like speed factors and weapon lengths that factored into which weapons could attack. Some weapons literally had to attack first. That quote could be in to let people from earlier editions that id doesn't matter in 3.0(3.5) and stayed in. The point is, adding anything extra to quote isn't raw. Primary, off-hand, ranged, melee, thrown, light, reach, 1 handed, two handed are all things that can be associated with the word 'weapon' and none show up in the quote.
Surely whichever weapon you strike with first is the Primary? It's sort of what the word means. "first in order in any series, sequence, etc."
Off-hand doesn't exist in PF until you try and get an extra attack via TWF and then all it means is "the "weapon" you use to get an extra attack".
Just a thought
Shouldn't we say "main hand" and "off-hand"? "Primary" and "secondary" sound like natural attacks.
Now that I think about it, if you are wielding several weapons, like a sword in one hand, an axe in the other, a bite attack, spiked gauntlets and armor spikes, you should be able to attack with anyone you want first.
What is this cosmic force that compels me to strike the mummy with my Flametongue sword fist, since it has a higher bonus?
I think you can strike with the weapons/natural attacks you wield in any order you want, but if you have several attacks with the same weapon, or some how manage to get more than one attack per round with a natural weapon, like 2 bites (with the same maw), then the order of the attacks must be from the highest bonus to the lowest with that specific weapon/natural weapon.
That means you could strike first with your sword, then make a bite attack, then strike again with your sword, but the first sword attack would have to be made with the higest attack bonus between the two sword attacks.
If you are TWFing, then I say you would have to interlace your main hand and off-hand attacks. That means, if you strike with your main hand first, you would have to strike with your off-hand before you strike with your main hand again.
@Kazaan I have no idea what points you just tried to make, but they seem very complicated.
Let me rephrase what I said, Kazaan:
If you are TWFing, then I say you would have to interlace your main hand and off-hand attacks. That means, if you strike with your main hand first, you would have to strike with your off-hand before you strike with your main hand again, and vice versa.
Remember that you would still have to abide by the hightest bonus to lowest order rule.
So, the two possible permutations of someone with BAB +11 and GTWF would be:
MH - Main Hand
OH - Off-Hand
1) MH/OH/MH-5/OH-5/MH-10
2) OH/MH/OF-5/MH-5/MH-10
well... maybe these 2 other permutations too...
3) MH/OH/OH-5/MH-5/MH-10
4) OH/MH/MH-5/OH-5/MH-10
In these last two permutations, you'd always have to complete a set of MH+OH attacks before you can start the following set at -5, and so on.
At every round you can choose freely which hand is the main hand and, consequently, which is the off-hand.
You'd also be able to strike at any moment in the middle of this order with a secondary natural attack, a monk's Ki pool strike, or some other extra facultative attack.
This can get confusing, keeping track of the attacks order, but I think this would be the way that makes the most sense.
|
|
I'm inclined to interlace them in that way, Kchaka, and I think it's the intent, but I don't think it's strictly required by the rules. The fact that only your attacks derived from high BAB are required to be taken in order from highest to lowest feels like a loophole to me, but it does create some uncertainty.
Weirdo, I'm disagreeing with your assertion that the quote "If you are using two weapons, you can strike with either weapon first." has anything to do with offhand/primary and only pertains to what is says, the WEAPONS.
The reason I agree with #1 is the fact that there is no listed limitation on which hand you use (primary/secondary) listed anywhere. Nowhere does it state what hand is first.
Note that this is the FIRST time you are talking about primary or off hand weapon and have instead talked of primary or off hand HANDS. Those are different things. AS I've said, the rule says you can pick your weapon, it's just silent on what handedness required (primary/secondary).
My quibble is your implication that handedness has anything to do with the quote "you can strike with either weapon first". The fact that there is no rule about what hand goes first, is something you never asked about because you where trying to prove there was a rule.
I'm only trying to prove there's a rule because that's what that rule looks like to me. I had no prior investment. I had no idea whether there was such a rule at the start and it felt reasonable to me that the primary attack was required to be first. Then I went and looked up the order and it appeared to me that there was a rule.
The TWF fighting feat refers to your "off hand weapon;" it says different penalties apply when your off hand weapon is light. Off hand (and by extension primary) is therefore a descriptor that can be applied to the weapons. It's not solely a quality of the actual hands or of the specific attack rolls.
I am using the phrase "primary and off hand" rather than "primary and off hand weapon" simply because it did not seem necessary to me to spell out the fact that I'm referring to weapons every time. I thought it was obvious by context that when I am interpreting "either weapon" as "primary or off hand" I mean "primary or off hand weapon." Apparently not.
Methods of distinguishing two weapons include their innate properties (+2 dagger vs +1 sickle) and their primary/off hand status.
The above quote hopefully makes it clear that I have indeed been using "primary and off hand" as a quality of a weapon, rather than referring to physical handedness, prior to this post.
PS: You are clinging to the idea that the quote MUST pertain to handedness. You forget (or didn't know) that 1-2e d&d had things like speed factors and weapon lengths that factored into which weapons could attack. Some weapons literally had to attack first. That quote could be in to let people from earlier editions that id doesn't matter in 3.0(3.5) and stayed in.
That's right, I didn't know that, because we've had three rulesets since then (I don't even remember 3.0 rules properly and I've played more of that than 2E). That does not seem a likely explanation to me since 3.0 didn't feel the need to explicitly state "classes don't have racial or minimum stat requirements;" the lack of such rules is clear enough to people converting.
The point is, adding anything extra to quote isn't raw. Primary, off-hand, ranged, melee, thrown, light, reach, 1 handed, two handed are all things that can be associated with the word 'weapon' and none show up in the quote.
This is true; none of these qualities are specified. Therefore, the rule as-is applies to all of them.
If something says you get an extra attack, no qualifiers, you can make that attack with a melee, ranged, thrown, reach, two-handed weapon, whatever.
If something says you can attack with either weapon, no qualifiers, you can attack with either the dagger or the sickle, the +1 or the +2 weapon, the melee or the thrown weapon, the primary or the off-hand weapon.
|
|
Surely whichever weapon you strike with first is the Primary? It's sort of what the word means. "first in order in any series, sequence, etc."
Off-hand doesn't exist in PF until you try and get an extra attack via TWF and then all it means is "the "weapon" you use to get an extra attack".Just a thought
I don't think that comes to play here. Pathfinder does not recognize "handedness". That is, if I'm holding two weapons (say, a sword and a club), I can swing either of them at full BAB for a single action. If I kill the zombie with the sword in my right hand, then next turn I can move to the skeleton and swing the club with no penalty for using the left. I don't have to drop my sword, and I don't have to switch hands.
Either weapon can already be your "primary" weapon, so there would be no reason for them to state that "you can attack with either weapon first" unless they meant "you can attack with your off-hand weapon first."
Maybe you're standing near two enemies - one is the squishy caster and the other is the druid's high AC tiger. In one hand you're carrying your +3 Longsword of Tiger Bane. In the other hand you're carrying a kukri. Your GM has told you the caster looks "critical", so you think you could probably drop him this round, and dropping a bad guy is always better than hurting another bad guy. The tiger has not been hit yet, but the low-level guy playing up is standing next to him and aiding your attack. Let's say you have TWF but not ITWF. So you only get one attack with your offhand weapon. Now it matters which it is.
If the first strike you take is automagically designated as your primary, then in order to have a HOPE of swinging the +3 Longsword of Tiger Bane at the hard-to-hit tiger, you HAVE to swing it first. You have a few options:
1) +11(-2+3+1+2) LS vs Tiger regardless
Remaining attacks vs. caster until he drops then switch to tiger
2) All attacks (start with LS) with caster until he drops, then switch to tiger
If you can swing your secondary first, then you can swing the kukri against the caster first, even though it's your off-hand. If it kills the caster, you can drop the kukri, two-hand the long-sword, and bring all 3 attacks to bear on the tiger with an extra bonus to damage.
|
|
Making an off hand attack (with an off hand weapon) is incompatible with wielding a weapon in two hands, even if you free up the physical hand, per armour spikes FAQ. So you can attack the caster first with the kukri but you cannot get bonus damage from two-handing the longsword. I think someone referenced a Dev comment saying that the off hand is only occupied for the number of attacks you make with your off hand weapon and you could two-hand your last iterative(s) with the longsword, but that's not RAW.
|
|
Making an off hand attack (with an off hand weapon) is incompatible with wielding a weapon in two hands, even if you free up the physical hand, per armour spikes FAQ. So you can attack the caster first with the kukri but you cannot get bonus damage from two-handing the longsword. I think someone referenced a Dev comment saying that the off hand is only occupied for the number of attacks you make with your off hand weapon and you could two-hand your last iterative(s) with the longsword, but that's not RAW.
While I'm tempted to get into the list of free actions and say "peh" to your assertion that it's not RAW, that would deflect from my main point, which was that there is a mechanical reason to WANT to be able to attack first with the weapon you've designated as the off-hand weapon.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Making an off hand attack (with an off hand weapon) is incompatible with wielding a weapon in two hands, even if you free up the physical hand, per armour spikes FAQ. So you can attack the caster first with the kukri but you cannot get bonus damage from two-handing the longsword. I think someone referenced a Dev comment saying that the off hand is only occupied for the number of attacks you make with your off hand weapon and you could two-hand your last iterative(s) with the longsword, but that's not RAW.While I'm tempted to get into the list of free actions and say "peh" to your assertion that it's not RAW, that would deflect from my main point, which was that there is a mechanical reason to WANT to be able to attack first with the weapon you've designated as the off-hand weapon.
I linked the faq for you should you desire to revisit the derailing issue.
Armor Spikes: Can I use two-weapon fighting to make an "off-hand" attack with my armor spikes in the same round I use a two-handed weapon?|
|
Making an off hand attack (with an off hand weapon) is incompatible with wielding a weapon in two hands, even if you free up the physical hand, per armour spikes FAQ. So you can attack the caster first with the kukri but you cannot get bonus damage from two-handing the longsword. I think someone referenced a Dev comment saying that the off hand is only occupied for the number of attacks you make with your off hand weapon and you could two-hand your last iterative(s) with the longsword, but that's not RAW.While I'm tempted to get into the list of free actions and say "peh" to your assertion that it's not RAW, that would deflect from my main point, which was that there is a mechanical reason to WANT to be able to attack first with the weapon you've designated as the off-hand weapon.I linked the faq for you should you desire to revisit the derailing issue.
Armor Spikes: Can I use two-weapon fighting to make an "off-hand" attack with my armor spikes in the same round I use a two-handed weapon?
Fair enough. :)
|
|
Fair enough. :)Making an off hand attack (with an off hand weapon) is incompatible with wielding a weapon in two hands, even if you free up the physical hand, per armour spikes FAQ. So you can attack the caster first with the kukri but you cannot get bonus damage from two-handing the longsword. I think someone referenced a Dev comment saying that the off hand is only occupied for the number of attacks you make with your off hand weapon and you could two-hand your last iterative(s) with the longsword, but that's not RAW.While I'm tempted to get into the list of free actions and say "peh" to your assertion that it's not RAW, that would deflect from my main point, which was that there is a mechanical reason to WANT to be able to attack first with the weapon you've designated as the off-hand weapon.I linked the faq for you should you desire to revisit the derailing issue.
Armor Spikes: Can I use two-weapon fighting to make an "off-hand" attack with my armor spikes in the same round I use a two-handed weapon?
Don't worry. There is no RAW to support that FAQ. It was specifically noted that it was based off of "unwritten rules" by Developers.