What sort of action does it take to begin or stop "two handing" a weapon?


Rules Questions

101 to 120 of 120 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

This had come up before. The physical logistics alone make for an impossible likelyhood of being able to double weild two handed weapons without doing serious to the wielder. Most likely, if it was to be, it would require a feat and still be 1.0 / 0.5 STR damage.

There is also a whole separate thread about four arms and TWF vs. MWF. Both use one handed / light weapons.

Silver Crusade

thaX wrote:

See, but you are not following the written rules. You are extending the rules using the "but the rules don't say that I can't" fallacy.

It is a free action to "hold" the weapon in one hand and another to bring it back to fighting stance (with two hands). If you attack with it, you must first use two hands (for a Two Handed Weapon) to attack. After that, you don't have any off hands?!?!?

.....about that fallacy you mentioned!

The 'off hand', according the the rules which are written, is not an actual hand, nor is it a virtual hand. It is the name given to the extra attack(s) granted by TWF and that line of feats.

After you make an attack, the hands you used to hold the weapon that executed that attack haven't gone anywhere! What has been 'used up' is that attack.

There is no part of the CRB which says that there is a limit to the number of times you may use any particular hand in any turn. What the rules do limit is:-

• the number of attacks you can make in your turn

• the number of hands that need to be holding a weapon at the moment you make that attack

The fallacy extant here is the idea that if you use your hand to hold a weapon which makes that attack, then that hand is somehow 'used up'. No rule in the book states or even suggests that.

Fallacy much?

If you think that through, this would have devastating consequences on full attacks for every weapon user who is entitled to more than one attack.


thaX wrote:

This had come up before. The physical logistics alone make for an impossible likelyhood of being able to double weild two handed weapons without doing serious to the wielder. Most likely, if it was to be, it would require a feat and still be 1.0 / 0.5 STR damage.

There is also a whole separate thread about four arms and TWF vs. MWF. Both use one handed / light weapons.

You stated "TWF with two THW is still a no." as a fact. It isn't, it's a gray area as multiweapon combat isn't fully fleshed out.

TWF states "If you wield a second weapon in your off hand, you can get one extra attack per round with that weapon." There is NO limitation placed on the primary weapon. The phrase one handed never shows up in the combat section or the feats for TWF.


Threeshades wrote:

So I want to get this right, my lvl 3 Kensai magus can

-As a standard action cast daze and deliver it two-handed with her katana
-As a full round action make a one-handed attack at -2 to hit and cast daze and deliver it with an additional one-handed attack at -2 to hit.

But she can not as a full round action make a two-handed attack with her katana at -2 and cast daze and deliver it with another two-handed attack.

Is that right?

Yes


Thanks. Spellstrike is really something i hadn't completely figured out until now. And people complain that summoners are complicated.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

Spellstrike, and Spell Combat, are really not that complicated.

People just keep getting the rules for both, mixed together.


Threeshades wrote:

So I want to get this right, my lvl 3 Kensai magus can

-As a standard action cast daze and deliver it two-handed with her katana
-As a full round action make a one-handed attack at -2 to hit and cast daze and deliver it with an additional one-handed attack at -2 to hit.

But she can not as a full round action make a two-handed attack with her katana at -2 and cast daze and deliver it with another two-handed attack.

Is that right?

Daze is not a touch spell, so no.

Now, replace "Daze" with a touch spell so you're legal to use Spellstrike and you've got it.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

Arcane Mark.


Arcane mark then. Or acid splash with the close range arcana (which is what i was actually going to use)


Then yes, you're correct on it. Spellstrike can be used with any melee attack you like. Spell Combat is the one with a restriction; the moment you invoke it, you're limited to one-handing your weapon for the duration.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
PRD wrote:

Two-Weapon Fighting (Combat)

You can fight with a weapon wielded in each of your hands. You can make one extra attack each round with the secondary weapon.

Prerequisite: Dex 15.

Benefit: Your penalties on attack rolls for fighting with two weapons are reduced. The penalty for your primary hand lessens by 2 and the one for your off hand lessens by 6. See Two-Weapon Fighting in Combat.

Normal: If you wield a second weapon in your off hand, you can get one extra attack per round with that weapon. When fighting in this way you suffer a –6 penalty with your regular attack or attacks with your primary hand and a –10 penalty to the attack with your off hand. If your off-hand weapon is light, the penalties are reduced by 2 each. An unarmed strike is always considered light.

So, you are wielding a weapon in both hands. Where is the second weapon?

If you do use a spiked Gauntlet or a fist, what would be the penalty for switching up like this? Would having a THW negate the bonus for having a light weapon in the "off hand?" (-4 to hit). Would you also add a -2 for steadying your sword as you swing with the newly freed hand? (-6)

I question if the feat would give you the reduced penalties, as you don't have two weapons wielded when you start attacking.

This isn't a rules question at this point, it is "what can I get away with?" moment. What really bothers me about TWF with a THW is that the benefit of doing it isn't there. TWF means you still will do 1.0 times strength with the THW, and the light "worn" weapon would not make up for the loss str damage most times, being .5 str to boot.

Why would you want to do this?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
thaX wrote:
PRD wrote:

Two-Weapon Fighting (Combat)

You can fight with a weapon wielded in each of your hands. You can make one extra attack each round with the secondary weapon.

Prerequisite: Dex 15.

Benefit: Your penalties on attack rolls for fighting with two weapons are reduced. The penalty for your primary hand lessens by 2 and the one for your off hand lessens by 6. See Two-Weapon Fighting in Combat.

Normal: If you wield a second weapon in your off hand, you can get one extra attack per round with that weapon. When fighting in this way you suffer a –6 penalty with your regular attack or attacks with your primary hand and a –10 penalty to the attack with your off hand. If your off-hand weapon is light, the penalties are reduced by 2 each. An unarmed strike is always considered light.

So, you are wielding a weapon in both hands. Where is the second weapon?

Unarmed attack, spiked armor, boot blade, Barbazu beard, boulder helmet, sea knife, tail blade, ect... It's clear from the existence of these kind of weapons that off hand isn't referring to an actual hand but an offhand attack.

thaX wrote:
If you do use a spiked Gauntlet or a fist, what would be the penalty for switching up like this? Would having a THW negate the bonus for having a light weapon in the "off hand?" (-4 to hit). Would you also add a -2 for steadying your sword as you swing with the newly freed hand? (-6)

It's been ruled this doesn't work but it makes little sense when you factor in both throw weapon TWF and the FAQ about being able to use any weapon you have to make multiple BAB based attacks.

thaX wrote:
I question if the feat would give you the reduced penalties, as you don't have two weapons wielded when you start attacking.

At start has 0 to do with it as thrown weapons work and you can quick draw and throw as many individual weapons as you have attacks. So you can totally TWF without having two weapons at the start of the round/attack.

thaX wrote:

This isn't a rules question at this point, it is "what can I get away with?" moment. What really bothers me about TWF with a THW is that the benefit of doing it isn't there. TWF means you still will do 1.0 times strength with the THW, and the light "worn" weapon would not make up for the loss str damage most times, being .5 str to boot.

Why would you want to do this?

A lot of us are mystified why they went out of their way to make it NOT work , by pulling out unwritten rules no less, since other TWF options are just plain better. There is some thought that getting better than the 1.5 normal damage is just uber, but the fact that the no hand off hand weapons are all low damage x2 crit weapons which MORE than offsets that 2 damage.

As an example, dual sawtooth sabers will net you more damage in the vast majority of situations. Add to that you only deal with one set of weapon feats...

To answer the question, people want to do it because they thing it's cool, likes the visuals or the fluff makes sense for them. Not every option HAS to be a grab for more power and some people are fine picking a weaker option. For instance, some people think rogues are great and like to play them.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

Commoners.

Commoners are overpowered.


blackbloodtroll wrote:

Spellstrike, and Spell Combat, are really not that complicated.

People just keep getting the rules for both, mixed together.

Because they really don't do a heck of a lot until they work together. When they do it amounts to magusflurry. getting that out of whats written sounds like rules lawyering chicanery though.


blackbloodtroll wrote:

Commoners.

Commoners are overpowered.

Don't be insane. Commoners are fine. The only problem they have is that all the new classes like the slayer, investigator, witch, bard and swashbuckler are stealing their niche as the undisputed best at what they do.

OT: Is it really that broken to allow this.

Heck, lets look at a level 1 martial - a fighter with 18 str and power attack (+5 attack bonus) and two weapon fighting or furious focus vs 13AC(that of an orc) and 16AC (that of a goblin). I am ignoring the fact that the TWF fighter needs a 15 dex for TWF.

No TWF (0.65 to-hit with PA)
greatsword=(2d6(7)+6Str+3PA)*1.1*0.65=11.44

TWF
greatsword=(2d6(7)+6Str+3PA)*1.1*0.5=8.8
spikes=(1d4(2.5)+1PA+2STR)*1.05*0.5=2.8875
total=11.687

So the fighter needs to dump harder to meet that 15 dex requirement, and in exchange they get a whopping 0.247 DPR increase that doesn't happen on a charge. This seems...like a pretty weak deal actually.

lets try a goblin (16AC)
These have low HP(6hp), but even so spikes can at worst(EDIT: as in, when they deal max damage) bring the goblin to 0HP barring a crit. I will ignore those for the moment and assume that spikes are a 2 hit kill

greatsword
0.5 chance to-hit, guarenteed to put into negatives
0.75 chance to kill within 2 rounds

TWF
0.4 chance to-hit for both
0.1024 chance to hit both armor spike attacks but not any greatsword swings (if the greatsword connects, the spikes did nothing).
0.64 chance of hitting the goblin with the greatsword within 2 rounds.
0.7424 chance of killing goblin within 2 round

I won't run though the numbers here, but on the third round it is 0.875 non TWF vs 0.784+0.044=0.822 TWF

There you have it. Non-TWF is more likely to kill in the first round by a good deal, and it doesn't suffer on a charge. Non-TWF is still more likely to kill in the second round, but only by a small amount (so long as there is no initial charge, then the gap would be bigger). By the third round the gap starts widening again (since the chance by this stage that the goblin hasn't eaten greatswordy death is so small that the accuracy loss completely eclipses the armor spikes' chance of killing the goblin). Ignoring the 5% chance of an armour spikes crit and the 1/4 chance of staggering the goblin due to 0hp is favoring the greatsword somewhat, but not by much. TWF is still weak compared to just smashing face with the greatsword, which doesn't require a full attack before haste and +6 BAB shows up.

So there we have it, TWF with spikes and a greatsword is basically worse than just using the greatsword and skipping the TWF feat. Even with 1.5xstr/PA on the greatsword swing.

Because Math.


Redo the math with sneak attack or paladin smites, or bless, prayer, bardsong thrown on.


graystone wrote:
TWF states "If you wield a second weapon in your off hand, you can get one extra attack per round with that weapon." There is NO limitation placed on the primary weapon. The phrase one handed never shows up in the combat section or the feats for TWF.

Crap, now all Hell broke lose!

Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
Also, Pun-Pun.

We can't justify any grotesquely powerfull build we make by the existance of Pun-Pun, even if it's allowed by RAW, barelly. The very reason we know Pun-Pun is because he's grotesque, obviously above the intended power level. It is possible to create such powerfull builds, but we must have a very solid base power level for comparison, like the basic one-handed/light weapon TWFing, otherwise people will try to push the power level even further.

Silver Crusade

My point when I mentioned Pun-Pun was simply that an existence of a very powerful build does not equal the idea that the rule(s) which enable that build must be untrue.

I was answering the assertion that if TWF with a 2HW were allowed that it would be very powerful, therefore it must be that the rules do not allow it.

This is a fallacy. The rules are what they are, and the result of applying those rules cannot disprove those rules. The rules are not perfectly balanced.


Look, I love the idea of TWF with a Large Bastard Sword as main hand and and pommeling strike as off-hand (if there were such off-hand weapon), but if we allow TWF with 2HW, then we should try to find a way to make TWF with one weapon on each hand just as good.

I like how they try to make all weapons balanced so you can choose any weapon style you like without worrying if one weapon is better than the other. If the Longsword were better than the rest, almost everybody would pick the Longsword as their main weapon. Same goes for TWF, we should try to houserule things to make TWF with 2HW or "1WoeH" just as good.

As you say, the rules are not perfectly balanced, but when the Devs wrote a FAQ prohibiting TWF with 2HW, I think they were trying to make the rules more balanced. Houseruling against it would be a step towards unbalancing the rules even more, in my opinion.


Kchaka wrote:
Look, I love the idea of TWF with a Large Bastard Sword as main hand and and pommeling strike as off-hand (if there were such off-hand weapon), but if we allow TWF with 2HW, then we should try to find a way to make TWF with one weapon on each hand just as good.

How much better do you want TWF with one handed weapons than two Sawtooth sabre?

101 to 120 of 120 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / What sort of action does it take to begin or stop "two handing" a weapon? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.