Two-Weapon Fighting, Multiple attacks through high BAB, and Choice


Rules Questions

1 to 50 of 116 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

So I don't need answers to questions I don't ask. I know how many attacks you get, what TWF does, etc.

My question is one I haven't seen directly covered in the rules.

As I understand it (but correct me if I'm wrong), the rules are pretty clear that if you have, for instance, a +11 BAB so you get +11/+6/+1, you can't take the +1 attack first, no matter how clear you are with your GM that, "Hey, in this round I want to take my attacks +1 then +6 then +11, ok?" before you role the d20.

However, I haven't seen anything that would clear up whether you can switch back and forth between weapons before all the attacks available with one weapon are done.

It seems an open question whether the character above (say the character has Improved TWF and so gets +11/+6 with the off-hand weapon, before penalties for two-weapons are applied, of course) can

1. announce that the offhand goes first this round, make two attacks, then switch to primary hand and make 3.

2. announce that the two highest bonus attacks will go first, primary hand, then off hand, then the two attacks at +6 (primary first), then the primary weapon at +1

3. Begin an attack sequence with the primary hand, perform one or two attacks, then announce a switch to the off-hand, do both off-hand attacks, then announce the switch back to the primary hand to finish those attacks

and so forth. Note that in each of these cases, the +11s go before the +6s for any given weapon, so the rule that -5 applies to **subsequent** attacks maintains its integrity. We're not reversing time here or reversing BAB order. We're just talking about determining before the d20 roll which hand is being used instead of doing all primary attacks then all offhand attacks in that order (or, in some versions I've seen, all max bonus attacks, primary first, then off-hand, then all -5 attacks, then all -10 attacks, then all -15 attacks).

Is there a firm rule anywhere to which you could point? Or is a character free to decide with which hand the next attack will be made?


The rules don't say. They only say the you have to start with the highest bonus(seems to be referencing BAB) and go to the lowest bonus. While that does mean you have to go weapon 1, weapon 2, due to the fact that the first offhand attack will have a higher bonus than the 2nd iterative attack for the primary weapon you will likely end altering weapons for every attack unless something abnormal is going one.

edit: I am not saying the primary hand has to go first. I see nothing in the rules to indicate that, so you should be able to go off-hand, then primary hand if you wanted to.


You have to do your primary before you do the equivalent offhand, but you can do all main and then all off if you wanted to. Or you could alternate between the two.
1) no, Offhand cannot go first.
2) yes
3) kinda, if you did two you could switch and do two and then switch back.


Chess Pwn wrote:

You have to do your primary before you do the equivalent offhand, but you can do all main and then all off if you wanted to. Or you could alternate between the two.

1) no, Offhand cannot go first.
2) yes
3) kinda, if you did two you could switch and do two and then switch back.

I think I saw JJ say this once, but where is the rules quote? I don't care for my home games, but it might matter if I ever get involved in PFS.

Just to be clear I am asking about question 1.

Now I understand that the off-hand attacks are not based on BAB, but they still use BAB to determine their "bonus" to hit.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Fromg the FAQ:

Multiple Weapons, Extra Attacks, and Two-Weapon Fighting: If I have extra attacks from a high BAB, can I make attacks with different weapons and not incur a two-weapon fighting penalty?

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."

Scarab Sages

Multiple Weapons, Extra Attacks, and Two-Weapon Fighting: If I have extra attacks from a high BAB, can I make attacks with different weapons and not incur a two-weapon fighting penalty?

Linked it for you.

Scarab Sages

Don't forget that extra attack can be weapons not wielded in hands such as armor spikes, bladed boots, etc. It will still be considered either the Primary Hand or Off Hand. Even if it's not a Hand.


Komoda I don't understand the point of that post. I think the OP intends to take the extra attack.


wraithstrike wrote:
Komoda I don't understand the point of that post. I think the OP intends to take the extra attack.

The second part of the FAQ indicates you are stuck going through the entire routine with the weapon once you make the initial attack.

From OP wrote:
However, I haven't seen anything that would clear up whether you can switch back and forth between weapons before all the attacks available with one weapon are done.

The FAQ that was posted (but not indicated as a quote) answers this with a "No, you are unable to switch between weapons during your attack".

Scarab Sages

Like Wraithstrike, I can't find anything against Item 2. But based on the required high to low order, I don't think 1 is a possibility. 3 is possible if you switch after your first attack and then proceed with two attacks at a time (it's really just a specific version of 2).

I think the operative part of the FAQ Komoda is pointing out is that you can switch the primary/offhand designation on a round by round basis. (Note :that if you do so, you'll need to recalculate penalties and change strength bonuses)

It also notes that you are locked into using those two weapons for the rest of your iterative attacks, you can't for example kick someone with your boot blade as one of your attacks if you've already wielded the mace and longsword.

Edit: Lost my initiative roll off with Skylancer4


Skylancer4 wrote:


The FAQ that was posted (but not indicated as a quote) answers this with a "No, you are unable to switch between weapons during your attack".

I don't see this either. What is the "exact quote" in the FAQ.


wraithstrike wrote:
Skylancer4 wrote:


The FAQ that was posted (but not indicated as a quote) answers this with a "No, you are unable to switch between weapons during your attack".
I don't see this either. What is the "exact quote" in the FAQ.

The post wasn't quoted as the FAQ, just pasted. Not sure where you are getting me saying "exact quote" from.

The two options given at the end are 1) Attack with one weapon as primary, making 2 attacks and then after (the comma) one attack with the secondary or 2) Attack with the other weapon as primary, making 2 attacks and then after (comma) the single attack with secondary.

There were no options saying:
Attack with primary weapon at highest BAB, attack with secondary weapon at highest BAB, make attack with next highest BAB of primary weapon.


I was asking you to provide the portion of the FAQ that is sayingyou must go longsword, longsword, dagger instead of longsword, dagger, longsword as an example. That is why I said "exact quote". As an example if you asked me for the exact quote that said you can only make one AoO for movement I would find the quote in the combat chapter and do a copy-paste.

If you were not saying someone could not alternate between two weapons while TWF'ing then I misunderstood.


wraithstrike wrote:
Skylancer4 wrote:


The FAQ that was posted (but not indicated as a quote) answers this with a "No, you are unable to switch between weapons during your attack".
I don't see this either. What is the "exact quote" in the FAQ.
FAQ wrote:


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."


Ok. I just thought that was showing an example, not a locked in order, but I see how it can be read that way. It could fit the "bonus" statement under multiple attacks. I guess the OP will have to decide if that is good enough to count for him or not.


For the example before it, they did show all combinations of possible attack options. I would imagine they would have done the same for the second example. It is as "official" as we are going to get with existing material.


Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
Skylancer4 wrote:


The FAQ that was posted (but not indicated as a quote) answers this with a "No, you are unable to switch between weapons during your attack".
I don't see this either. What is the "exact quote" in the FAQ.
FAQ wrote:


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."


This one is like shooting fish in a barrel.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
B. A. Robards-Debardot wrote:


It also notes that you are locked into using those two weapons for the rest of your iterative attacks, you can't for example kick someone with your boot blade as one of your attacks if you've already wielded the mace and longsword.

If you are locked into those two weapons, then how does thrown weapons work? You can only ever throw two weapons in a round? SO a full round attack using rapid shot, TWF, ITWF, GTWG ends up with 2 thrown weapon attacks? I don't think that's right.


I do not think it locks you into using the longsword and mace. I think it locks you into Primary, Primary, Off Hand, Off Hand etc. I also think that once the weapon is Primary, it must be for the rest of the round, as in you cannot then make it Off Hand for the iterative attack.

If you have 4 weapons a Base attack of +6 and Improved two weapon fighting, with Quick Draw, I don't think anything is stopping you from using all in any order you wish. Just limiting your ability to use any weapon as both a primary and off hand attack in the same round (Monks, Brawlers and others like it excluded).


Komoda wrote:

I do not think it locks you into using the longsword and mace. I think it locks you into Primary, Primary, Off Hand, Off Hand etc. I also think that once the weapon is Primary, it must be for the rest of the round, as in you cannot then make it Off Hand for the iterative attack.

If you have 4 weapons a Base attack of +6 and Improved two weapon fighting, with Quick Draw, I don't think anything is stopping you from using all in any order you wish. Just limiting your ability to use any weapon as both a primary and off hand attack in the same round (Monks, Brawlers and others like it excluded).

I agree and that points out the issue I have with what B. A. Robards-Debardot's wrote. If I can quickdraw another weapon why couldn't I use another weapon what's already usable like spiked armor or bladeboots for iterative attacks after using another weapon for the first attack.

Scarab Sages

I agree, honestly it seems very wrong, compared to how (I think) it should work. This thread is only my first time really going through this particular FAQ and parsing it.

FAQ wrote:
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."

My reading of that statement looks like it lets you designate your primary weapon and your offhand weapon at the beginning of the attack and you follow through with your attack sequence. It even goes right and says before listing the Attack Sequences.

FAQ wrote:
Using the longsword/mace example, if you use two-weapon fighting you actually have fewer options than if you aren't.

Isn't drawing a new weapon functionally the same as switching which weapon is your primary weapon mid-attack? Which is what it's implying

Additionally, Imp.TWF fighting and Gr.TWF specifically call out the weapon you got the extra attack with.

Improved Two-Weapon Fighting wrote:
In addition to the standard single extra attack you get with an off-hand weapon, you get a second attack with it, albeit at a –5 penalty.
Greater Two-Weapon Fighting wrote:
You get a third attack with your off-hand weapon, albeit at a –10 penalty

Personally I don't see the harm in even letting you switch primary and off-hand weapons mid-full round action (switching at each iterative level that is, assuming of course you recalculate the TWF penalties and strength bonuses if you're fighting one-handed and light). Nor do I see why they shoehorned that restriction into a ruling that is only asking if you can switch weapons between iterative attacks.


?
If you have to use all primary then all secondary does that mean that a Monk or Brawler would have to go high to low then reset to make the attacks that are technically off hand?
Also that kinda breaks my concept of how two-weapon fighting works. I thought that they are supposed to be made at more or less the same time so they could all fit in the same round, but if you must take all primaries first followed by all off-hand then the full attack would logically be taking twice as long, and you should just be able to make all the attacks with the same weapon.


I imagine it is to stop something like this:

Primary Hand: +5 Longsword
Off Hand: broken dagger

Primary Attack 1: +5 Long Sword
Primary Attack 2: Broken Dagger
Off Hand Attack: +5 Long Sword
Off Hand Attack 2: Broken Dagger

If you could do that, the Longsword would benefit from the High Base Attack on both attacks.


B. A. Robards-Debardot wrote:
Additionally, Imp.TWF fighting and Gr.TWF specifically call out the weapon you got the extra attack with.

My question would be: Does it mean one particular weapon OR is it talking about the weapon you have in your off hand? If I throw a weapon from my off hand and then draw a second weapon, isn't that second weapon a off-hand weapon too? Much the same as a primary weapon.

Komoda wrote:

I imagine it is to stop something like this:

Primary Hand: +5 Longsword
Off Hand: broken dagger

Primary Attack 1: +5 Long Sword
Primary Attack 2: Broken Dagger
Off Hand Attack: +5 Long Sword
Off Hand Attack 2: Broken Dagger

If you could do that, the Longsword would benefit from the High Base Attack on both attacks.

I'm pretty sure it was to prevent someone from making their primary attacks, swapping hands, and then making off hand attacks with the same weapon.

Scarab Sages

graystone wrote:
My question would be: Does it mean one particular weapon OR is it talking about the weapon you have in your off hand? If I throw a weapon from my off hand and then draw a second weapon, isn't that second weapon a off-hand weapon too? Much the same as a primary weapon.

Again, I agree it should work your way. But in the FAQ rulings it does talk about quick-drawing a second weapon and using it as your primary weapon during your BAB-based (non-twf) extra attacks iterative attacks, before it goes on to talk about the limitations of TWF.

Improved Two Weapon Fighting wrote:
In addition to the standard single extra attack you get with an off-hand weapon, you get a second attack with it, albeit at a –5 penalty.

If it said you "you get another attack with an off-hand weapon" I'd definitely agree. But where the language is currently limiting is the "second attack with it", as you can't have a second attack with a weapon that hasn't had a first attack.

Scarab Sages

graystone wrote:
I'm pretty sure it was to prevent someone from making their primary attacks, swapping hands, and then making off hand attacks with the same weapon.

Which is something monk's and brawlers can already do, and doesn't seem too overpowered to me (really just lets you save some gold). Currently as is TWF is saying "I'm willing to spend feats and money to be kinda cool and do a little less damage".

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

Basically, if you have prevented two-weapon fighting with a single weapon(not unarmed strikes), and you have not made it impossible for thrown weapons, then you are doing it right.


B. A. Robards-Debardot wrote:
graystone wrote:
I'm pretty sure it was to prevent someone from making their primary attacks, swapping hands, and then making off hand attacks with the same weapon.
Which is something monk's and brawlers can already do, and doesn't seem too overpowered to me (really just lets you save some gold). Currently as is TWF is saying "I'm willing to spend feats and money to be kinda cool and do a little less damage".

LOL It can save you a LOT of gold. Getting a competitive weapon for your level can cost around 25% of your wealth. So not having to pay ANOTHER 25% cost is pretty significant and much bigger than "some gold".

B. A. Robards-Debardot wrote:
But where the language is currently limiting is the "second attack with it", as you can't have a second attack with a weapon that hasn't had a first attack.

I read it as 'a second attack with [an off hand weapon]' since the first part is "an off hand weapon". Reading it the other way makes thrown weapon attacks not work correctly so I'm going to read it this way.

Scarab Sages

graystone wrote:
LOL It can save you a LOT of gold. Getting a competitive weapon for your level can cost around 25% of your wealth. So not having to pay ANOTHER 25% cost is pretty significant and much bigger than "some gold".

Oh it's definitely a boon, but lets take the case of a monk which gets the equivalent of TWF as a class feature, can do it with a single weapon, can possibly save more money by not buying armor too, and gets the best saves in the game. Yet people seem to feel they're underpowered.


Graystone has it. Monk's and Brawlers can use one weapon. I am pretty sure no one else can.

Scarab Sages

Komoda wrote:
Graystone has it. Monk's and Brawlers can use one weapon. I am pretty sure no one else can.

I'm not disagreeing with that, I just don't think it's that overpowering of a benefit.


B. A. Robards-Debardot wrote:
graystone wrote:
LOL It can save you a LOT of gold. Getting a competitive weapon for your level can cost around 25% of your wealth. So not having to pay ANOTHER 25% cost is pretty significant and much bigger than "some gold".
Oh it's definitely a boon, but lets take the case of a monk which gets the equivalent of TWF as a class feature, can do it with a single weapon, can possibly save more money by not buying armor too, and gets the best saves in the game. Yet people seem to feel they're underpowered.

Monks HAVE to keep up several stats that greatly overshadows any savings they might have in the weapons. And these days, the monks unarmed strike is the way to go (pummeling style+) and that requires a necklace for that isn't as cheap as a single weapon. Then monks have to pay extra to boost AC vs a fighter's cheaper armor. Then they need more attack bonuses since they don't have class buffs...

It's really better to compare apples to apples: fighter style vs fighter style.


Okay, Komoda and BA, the only part of the FAQ that's relevant to my question is:
<blockquote>
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
</blockquote>

It says these are the only attacks you can take.

It does NOT say that this is the specific order in which you must take these attacks.

There IS a rule that says you must take highest BAB first.

***IF** we interpret this not merely as the exhaustive list of the attacks you get, but also the exhaustive list of the options a character has for the **order in which the weapons are used**

(I think that interpretation requires an inference that isn't directly supported in the text, but isn't entirely unreasonable...just not specifically supported)

THEN the order listed here contradicts the rule that highest BAB attacks go first, and then next highest, etc.

What evidence, if any, do you have for interpreting the rule in this FAQ to contradict and supersede the rule about highest BAB first?

The only firm rules (that are explicit, I consider this FAQ arguable on the relevant point) that I can find are
1. that your primary weapon must attack before your off-hand weapon (and yes, I know that could be armor spikes or something else not in a hand). (I hadn't actually found this before, but someone did say that upthread, so I'll assume it's true...linking the rule for exact wording would help)
2. your higher BAB attacks must come before lower BAB attacks.

It seems to me, then, that if you have, for instance, Primary: +11/+6/+1 and Off-Hand: +11/+6

that proceeding: P+11/O+11 is required. You couldn't take your O+11 after taking P+6.

However, not having seen the exact language of the "primary weapon must attack first" rule, your primary weapon **has** attacked, and +6 = +6.

Therefore, unless we consider the FAQ authoritative even though it contradicts Higher BAB B4 Lower BAB (HBb4LB), the following would seem to be your legal options:

1. P+11/O+11/P+6/O+6/P+1
2. P+11/O+11/O+6/P+6/P+1

Switching the order of P+6 and O+6 violates neither the commandment that HBb4LB, nor the commandment that the primary weapon attack first.

Switching any other attacks will violate at least one of these commandments.

BUT if the FAQ overrides these other commandments, then there is only one option (though labeled #3 here for clarity of reference if someone decides to comment back on these):

3. P+11/P+6/P+1/O+11/O+6

Have I got it?

Either the FAQ was meant to be interpreted as not just the attacks available but the attack orders available, which indicates there is no wiggle room at all: there is only one possible order for your attacks
OR
there are 2 and only 2 options so long as you have only 2 Off-Hand attacks.

(If you use a feat to get a third, the ordering becomes more complicated, but I can work that out on my own simply by maintaining the rules used to determine the available orders for characters with 2 off-hand attacks).


One thing you missed CripDyke. Read the quote: "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." Attacks from TWF/flurry ect are NOT 'multiple attacks because your base attack bonus is high enough", they are multiple attacks because you are using multiple weapons/special attacks and there is NO ruling that those must go from "highest bonus to lowest".

Therefor, you can't say that the FAQ contradicts anything as there IS no ruling for the order of off-hand attacks.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

This is a classic example of reading a FAQ out of context. The context of this FAQ was to indicate that you can use two weapons for regular iteratives without going the TWF route. Ie, you can +6 with one weapon and +1 with the second weapon.

It then went on to clarify that you could not go +6/+6 with one weapon and +1/+1 with the second weapon when using TWF.

FAQs only answer the question being asked. The question is:

FAQ wrote:
Multiple Weapons, Extra Attacks, and Two-Weapon Fighting: If I have extra attacks from a high BAB, can I make attacks with different weapons and not incur a two-weapon fighting penalty?

The question the OP is asking is (summarized):

What order do I have to make my TWF attacks in? Do I have to go +6/+6/+1/+1 (ie: Primary +6, Secondary +6, Primary +1, Secondary +1) or can I use a different order?

This is an entirely different question and one that the Devs DID NOT ANSWER in the FAQ.
Their post did not reflect an answer on this, they were not checking for accuracy against this concept and they have stated that a FAQ only answers the question asked.

In short, all those using the FAQ as evidence cannot do so. It in no way answers the OP's question and is not evidence that secondary attacks can be taken after the primary attacks because the Devs were not answering that question.


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

ITWF: Benefit: In addition to the standard single extra attack you get with an off-hand weapon, you get a second attack with it, albeit at a –5 penalty.

GTWF: Benefit: You get a third attack with your off-hand weapon, albeit at a –10 penalty.

As was just covered, off hand attacks aren't due to high BAB, they are a benefit of a fighting style (and later feats which have a prerequisite of certain BAB).

You choose your primary weapon, go through the BAB routine as per the rules, from highest to lowest. Then take your additonal attacks with your off hand weapon from highest to lowest, as per the rules.

No contradiction.


Skylancer4, please show where extra attacks are taken after your first attacks.

There is nothing in the book that states extra attacks at your full BAB occur after your iterative attacks.

The statblocks certainly do not list them like that. They list them as +6/+6/+1/+1.

At best, it doesn't state it one way or the other, at which point we are left with the default, all of your attacks go from highest to lowest. This includes extra attacks from TWF or Haste or whatever.


Gauss wrote:

Skylancer4, please show where extra attacks are taken after your first attacks.

There is nothing in the book that states extra attacks at your full BAB occur after your iterative attacks.

The statblocks certainly do not list them like that. They list them as +6/+6/+1/+1.

At best, it doesn't state it one way or the other, at which point we are left with the default, all of your attacks go from highest to lowest. This includes extra attacks from TWF or Haste or whatever.

Except the FAQ where it states two options, both where the primary is to go first and the secondary after.


Except it has already been stated that the FAQ you are referencing in no way applies to this question. It was answering an entirely different question.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Gauss wrote:

Skylancer4, please show where extra attacks are taken after your first attacks.

There is nothing in the book that states extra attacks at your full BAB occur after your iterative attacks.

The statblocks certainly do not list them like that. They list them as +6/+6/+1/+1.

At best, it doesn't state it one way or the other, at which point we are left with the default, all of your attacks go from highest to lowest. This includes extra attacks from TWF or Haste or whatever.

Not to say you're wrong but I've never seen a statblock list it like that. Every statblock that I can remember lists all the attacks for one weapon then all the attacks of the second weapon (and so on if more than two weapons.)


Gauss wrote:
Except it has already been stated that the FAQ you are referencing in no way applies to this question. It was answering an entirely different question.

Besides the fact that it broke down the two weapon possibilities completely for the initial section, and they didn't list the the main hand, off hand, main hand as an option for the section about multiple attacks?

It is as close as we have to RAW on the subject. Unless you can point to the place in the rules where it states it does allow you to choose which weapon you attack with at any point during a TWF'ing routine.

We'll have to agree to disagree about it. I don't care one way or another personally, but the FAQ is as relevant as we have and it does in fact pertain to the topic on hand.


You are ALL Wrong. Shame on you.

Sgd; The Opposition.

Shadow Lodge

Skylancer4 wrote:
Besides the fact that it broke down the two weapon possibilities completely for the initial section, and they didn't list the the main hand, off hand, main hand as an option for the section about multiple attacks?

It broke down the initial section completely by options for assigning a weapon to each iterative attack. There's no way to tell whether they considered order or not because there's only one possible order for attacks without TWF - highest to lowest BAB - so there are no additional possibilities to be listed when taking order into account.

That, combined with the fact that the FAQ is answering a different question, makes me agree with Gauss that it does not give us any information about the intended order of TWF attacks.


I see where you are coming from. I think the only thing we can be sure of is that once a weapon is used as a Primary, it cannot then be used as an Off-Hand and vise-verse.

Monk type stuff excluded, of course.

Shadow Lodge

Pathfinder Card Game, Companion, Lost Omens, Maps, Pawns, Rulebook Subscriber
Weirdo wrote:
It broke down the initial section completely by options for assigning a weapon to each iterative attack. There's no way to tell whether they considered order or not because there's only one possible order for attacks without TWF - highest to lowest BAB - so there are no additional possibilities to be listed when taking order into account.

While this is the way I often see it played, that's not actually what the rules require.

RAW states that the regular and iterative attacks with any particular weapon must be taken in order of decreasing BAB. They are silent on the issue of how attacks with two different weapons are interleaved, or just when you can take an extra attack such as one granted by 'haste'.

The following sequence:


  • Off-Hand (full BAB)
  • Primary (full BAB)
  • Primary (BAB -5)
  • Off-Hand (BAB -5)
  • Primary (Haste)
  • Primary (BAB -10)

satisfies the letter of the rules. Personally I'd never run my characters that way - I take my extra 'Full BAB' attacks at the beginning of the sequence - but I regularly game with a player who takes extra attacks only after having made all the regular attacks.


In some cases a player might not have an extra attack until the end of the sequence, such as Monk's Ki use gaining an extra attack.

Shadow Lodge

Pathfinder Card Game, Companion, Lost Omens, Maps, Pawns, Rulebook Subscriber

A monk's flurry is actually a little more explicit in the order attacks are taken; it specifies the attacks go, say, at +11/+11/+6/+6/+1, so they are taken in decreasing BAB order, even though the monk could be using more than one weapon during the attack sequence. The attacks can be assigned to the weapons freely - it's perfectly allowable to take three unarmed strikes, use a monk weapon for the fourth attack, then go back to an unarmed strike for the final attack.

As the decision to spend a point of Ki to get an extra attack is a swift action, that choice can be made at any point in the attack sequence.


Yes. A monk's flurry breaks all the rules. It also doesn't matter because each gets x1 str bonus to damage so Primary vs Off Hand means very little, if anything at all.


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".

1 to 50 of 116 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Two-Weapon Fighting, Multiple attacks through high BAB, and Choice All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.