Why would he not get the -4 penalty for using a non-light weapon? Your attack penalties are determined by the weapon you are using, change the weapon, change the maths. If you start attacking with a +5 weapon and quick draw a non magical weapon you don't get the +5 to hit.
It's about timing. When he performed the attacks with his Primary hand, he had a light weapon in his offhand. It was only later in his attack sequence that his offhand weapon was replaced with a non-light weapon.
In general, you take the penalties for the actions you take or that you plan to take. For example, if I plan to use TWF, I take the appropriate penalty from the first swing, even if my foe uses an immediate action that keeps me from taking a second one (and similarly for a monk using Flurry).
Ok, gotcha.
That works, technically he doesn't even need to make an attack with the dagger, does he? There's no hard and fast rule dictating which order off hand attacks are made. Is it worth it for an extra +1-2 damage and 5% chance of a crit (assuming an 18 hits with all the penalties)?
There is a debate as to the order of attacks. Tell him that he must take the attack as Primary/Off Hand/Primary 2/Off Hand 2 etc. etc.
Your scenario gives a good example as why this might be the best way to do it.
As you can choose each weapon with each attack, I do not believe that Orfamay's or Kazaan's suggestions would fit. They force you to plan out all attacks before making any. Yes, you do have to decide that you are two weapon fighting, but you don't have to plan them all out. I would not declare that someone that was disarmed of his off hand dagger all of the sudden could no longer two weapon fight just because he drew a second longsword.
I will try to find it but I think you make all of your primary attacks first.
Nevermind. I thought it had been proven, but it had not.
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."
This perhaps?...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
That was brought up in another thread, but it has also been pointed out that was an implication not a direct statement. Another thing is that statblocks always go hi/hi/low/low, not hi/low/hi/low, which would be the case of the primary hand had to go first.
edit: Yes, I realize the stackblocks could all be in error.
Which stat block? Every listing I've seen of two weapon fighting listed all of one weapon then all of the other.
Melee+1 rapier +19/+14/+9 (1d6+8/15–20), mwk dagger +18/+13 (1d4+5/19–20)
Elven Recluse
Melee mwk quarterstaff +26/+26/+21/+16/+11 (1d6+11), mwk quarterstaff +26/+21/+16 (1d6+9) or longspear +23/+23/+18/+13/+8 (1d8+6/×3) or kukri +22/+22/+17/+12/+7 (1d4+4/18–20)
Crime Lord
Melee+2 dwarven urgrosh +30/+30/+25/+20/+15 (1d4+12/19–20/×3), +2 dwarven urgrosh +30 (1d6+12/19–20/×3) or +2 dwarven urgrosh (two-handed) +32/32/+27/+22/+17 (1d4+14/19–20/×3) or +1 spiked armor +28/+28/+23/+18/+13 (1d4+8)
As I understand it, Two Weapon Fighting penalties are applied when the attacks are made. This is evidenced by the fact that they do not last through the entire round, but only through the turn.
For instance, if you make an AoO after you have completed your turn but before your next turn, you do not take Two Weapon Fighting penalties while doing so. This is different than Power Attack and Combat Expertise which continue until your next turn.
It is also clear that if you have Quickdraw, you are able to draw as many weapons as you have attacks. Nothing anywhere (that I am aware of) has ever stated that you must draw a weapon that requires the exact amount of effort (hands) as the previous weapons used in any given hand.
I do believe that this can open the door to nefarious behaviors. I do not think that limiting the options to the same type of weapon or penalty/hand are the best way to go. The draw of Pathfinder to me has always been the available options. It is the reason I don't play D&D 4 or 5.
Say someone has a weapon in their main hand that overcomes the DR of their target. The light one in their off hand does not. They did not know it and now have a useless weapon in their hand. I am not going to tell them that they cannot draw the second weapon that they have sheathed that will overcome the DR just because they attacked with a smaller weapon on their first attack.
As I stated earlier, I think this gives credence to the idea that one should attack main hand/off hand/main hand/off hand etc. This would allow for the test of weapon types for each set of attacks. If a situation were to arise that would give the player any reason to change weapons other then the two weapon fighting penalties, then I would allow it. Any benefit or loss would then only affect one attack.
I think the best way to address it is through social engineering. If a player tries to take advantage of the rules by starting with two daggers but ending up with two bastard swords at -2/-2, I will calmly steer them towards a more reasonable approach.
If that doesn't work, I will calmly show them where the door is.
This approach has worked wonders and left me with one of the best gaming groups (fun to argument ratio) that I have ever heard of.
Thus, the conundrum.
Kazaan, presumably your logic would also apply if the fighter initially started with two one-handed weapons, was disarmed of one, and quick drew the dagger instead? He'd be going from a -4 penalty to a -2 penalty, but it's the same deal... we can't go back in time and change the previously made attacks.
Now consider Mr. Uber, the 21st level two-weapon fighter, with a g'zillion attacks. After having declared a full attack using two one-handed weapons and making his first attack, he is disarmed of one of his weapons. He has no way to quickly return a weapon to the hand. Must his full attack now stop after the single attack, as he can no longer get back into his initial -4/-4 configuration? Not so Uber after all, eh?
There's no need to change previous attacks if stepping the penalty down. The Fighter with two one-handed weapons can kill his opponent in one lucky critical and have no more opponents to face. He took -4 to his attack in order to be allowed to make off-hand attacks, but now he can't make those off-hand attacks. But his penalties were already "paid" so to speak. Same applies to the issue of disarmament. Say our Fighter has been disarmed of one of his longswords and quickdraws a dagger. He had been "paying" -4/-4 penalties for the privilage of making off-hand attacks with a non-light weapon. But after he switches weapons, he no longer "needs" to pay such a high penalty fee. He could, at his option, if he still wants to be able to use a non-light off-hand in that turn (but if he did, he'd probably have drawn that instead of the dagger). So he can freely step down his penalty to -2 now as he is only using a light off-hand.
Regarding "Mr. Uber", the same applies. He started with a pair of one-handed weapons, he "pays" -4/-4 penalties to be able to TWF with any off-hand. On his first attack, he is disarmed and cannot recover a replacement weapon (we'll presume he doesn't want to use Unarmed Strikes as he lacks IUS). No,...
Why couldn't he just match up the "off-hand" debt and attack with a dagger at -2/-2 for the following attacks?
Which stat block? Every listing I've seen of two weapon fighting listed all of one weapon then all of the other.
** spoiler omitted **
I was going off of another poster, but a stat block with a double weapon and TWF would be nice for purposes of precedent. Your urgosh posting has two high numbers indicating primary, then offhand. That follows the hi/hi pattern. For different weapons they always do one weapon and then the other. I don't think it really matters, as in I dont think either method is a rule. If so then it needs its own specific FAQ.
I was going off of another poster, but a stat block with a double weapon and TWF would be nice for purposes of precedent. Your urgosh posting has two high numbers indicating primary, then offhand. That follows the hi/hi pattern. For different weapons they always do one weapon and then the other. I don't think it really matters, as in I dont think either method is a rule. If so then it needs its own specific FAQ.Which stat block? Every listing I've seen of two weapon fighting listed all of one weapon then all of the other.
** spoiler omitted **
The urgosh and the quarterstaff both list one end then the other end (with an additional attack which I assume is from Haste.)
PS: To those not familiar with the "off-hand debt" I mentioned above, if the Fighter in question had made 2 off-hand attacks and only 1 main-hand, he'd be obligated to make at least one more main-hand attack one-handed with appropriate penalties in order to "match them up" before he is allowed to drop penalties and wield it two-handed.
Can you provide rules quotes or developer commentary that allows mix-n-match between TWF and THF? I've yet to see anything that supports this notion.
Thus, the conundrum.
Kazaan, presumably your logic would also apply if the fighter initially started with two one-handed weapons, was disarmed of one, and quick drew the dagger instead? He'd be going from a -4 penalty to a -2 penalty, but it's the same deal... we can't go back in time and change the previously made attacks.
Now consider Mr. Uber, the 21st level two-weapon fighter, with a g'zillion attacks. After having declared a full attack using two one-handed weapons and making his first attack, he is disarmed of one of his weapons. He has no way to quickly return a weapon to the hand. Must his full attack now stop after the single attack, as he can no longer get back into his initial -4/-4 configuration? Not so Uber after all, eh?
No, he continues to take the -4 penalty for the rest of his attacks, even if they are with a light weapon.
Based on what?
Based on what?
You declare your attack sequence with a one-handed weapon and so every attack in that sequence gets -4. Even if you get disarmed before you take the offhand attack, the entire sequence has had the penalty declared.
So, if you draw your backup dagger, or change to two-handed grasp, you still take the -4, even if the attack sequence you actually perform could have been done at a -2 penalty, or no penalty at all.
Likewise, your options if you were fighting with a one handed/light pair are locked in. You take the -2 penalty to your entire sequence. This precludes you from using a one-handed weapon in the off hand for the rest of the sequence. If your off hand is disarmed you could quick draw another weapon but it will have to be a light weapon if you want to use it.
You do not declare an attack sequence. You declare each attack when you are attacking with a weapon. That weapon can change with each attack (assuming Quickdraw). The only thing that you would declare is that you are attacking with two weapons and you would start attacking.
There is no evidence that I have seen that says you declare any attack sequence.
I understand the leap in logic, but I do believe it is a leap in logic.
When you are no longer using the one handed weapon, you are no longer using that sequence and therefore you no longer suffer those penalties.
I declare attack phase.
Right after main phase, but before second main phase.
What? I'm not clear on what you are trying to say.
You do not declare an attack sequence. You declare each attack when you are attacking with a weapon. That weapon can change with each attack (assuming Quickdraw). The only thing that you would declare is that you are attacking with two weapons and you would start attacking.
There is no evidence that I have seen that says you declare any attack sequence.
I understand the leap in logic, but I do believe it is a leap in logic.
When you are no longer using the one handed weapon, you are no longer using that sequence and therefore you no longer suffer those penalties.
Once you declare you are using TWF, you suffer the penalties (even if you only make one attack and switch to standard + move).
Or declare spell combat then decide not to cast a spell. Or fighting defensively, power attacking, or with combat expertise (these last three are a little different in that they call out lasting till the beginning of your next turn).
There is no rules support for mixing TWF and then switching to a two-hander. This idea is a house rule (which is fine), but its not RAW.
That is a little different for TWF. TWF does not continue for the rest of the round. It does not affect AoOs that happen in the middle of the turn. It is handled differently than "normal" options that modify your attacks.
Nothing about TWF says anything about the penalties continuing when you are not using the TWF option. Nothing says you suffer the largest penalty or that you lose attack options if your penalty was not high enough to start.
At least that is how I read it and why you and I disagree. I really feel that penalty check is made when you make each attack and the appropriate penalty prevails.
That is a little different for TWF. TWF does not continue for the rest of the round. It does not affect AoOs that happen in the middle of the turn. It is handled differently than "normal" options that modify your attacks.
Nothing about TWF says anything about the penalties continuing when you are not using the TWF option. Nothing says you suffer the largest penalty or that you lose attack options if your penalty was not high enough to start.
At least that is how I read it and why you and I disagree. I really feel that penalty check is made when you make each attack and the appropriate penalty prevails.
So if you're using a light off hand weapon and it gets disarmed, forcing you to draw a one handed back up weapon, do you go back and apply the appropriate penalties to your primary attacks?
You can only move forward. I get that. But it is no crazier to move forward than it is to have an arbitrary line that says you can no longer choose an option that should still be open by the fact that you CAN draw another weapon (quick draw) and that you STILL have attacks (action economy). I really think you are adding an arbitrary line.
As stated before, any attempts to make this happen rather than it just be a situation that happens, would be met with disdain at my table. But if no nefarious plans are in place, I see no problem with it.
It is kind of like the Monk's Flurry of Blows. At higher levels, the Monk makes a Flurry at a higher attack bonus than his normal attacks. If he attacks making a Flurry and kills the enemy in one punch, he can still change his full attack action into a standard and move. It is not as if the Monk has its own special rules and then becomes the only class in the game that is not allowed to use this option.
You can only move forward. I get that. But it is no crazier to move forward than it is to have an arbitrary line that says you can no longer choose an option that should still be open by the fact that you CAN draw another weapon (quick draw) and that you STILL have attacks (action economy). I really think you are adding an arbitrary line.
As stated before, any attempts to make this happen rather than it just be a situation that happens, would be met with disdain at my table. But if no nefarious plans are in place, I see no problem with it.
It is kind of like the Monk's Flurry of Blows. At higher levels, the Monk makes a Flurry at a higher attack bonus than his normal attacks. If he attacks making a Flurry and kills the enemy in one punch, he can still change his full attack action into a standard and move. It is not as if the Monk has its own special rules and then becomes the only class in the game that is not allowed to use this option.
Sure, but the monk still took his TWF penalty on the first attack in the flurry even if he did get full-BAB as well. The monk DOES have a very special rules case in that both their BAB changes and they take a TWF penalty during a flurry.
That is a little different for TWF. TWF does not continue for the rest of the round. It does not affect AoOs that happen in the middle of the turn. It is handled differently than "normal" options that modify your attacks.
Nothing about TWF says anything about the penalties continuing when you are not using the TWF option. Nothing says you suffer the largest penalty or that you lose attack options if your penalty was not high enough to start.
At least that is how I read it and why you and I disagree. I really feel that penalty check is made when you make each attack and the appropriate penalty prevails.
Can you list a rule that TWF is an exception, or that any of those others are exceptions to the normal rule? (Note that the exception for PA, Combat Expertise, or defensive fighting is that it lasts till the beginning of your next turn).
Again, I think it is fine as a house rule for a rather obscure edge case situation - or even as a ruling on the fly. But it should be stated as such, not stated as though it were RAW.
I started writing this yesterday, but lost it.
When you declare TWF (which you need to do on the first attack), you suffer the -6/-10 penalties. Those penalties can be reduced by two things: the TWF feat, and the off-hand weapon being light.
I posit that the penalties which exist at the time of a particular attack occur, regardless of what has happened before.
Note also that you must have a weapon in your off-hand to TWF, so there can't be any shenanigans around throwing a dagger and continuing to attack with the primary hand at no penalty.
Thanks, that is an interesting piece of information.
|
To be clear.
Two Handed weapons (Greatswords and the like) use both hands, so TWF with them is not actually supported in the rules. Specifically, TWF starts with one handed weapon in each hand.
But to the OP's question, it is possible to draw other weapons while still in the sequence of attacks, with Quick Draw of course. Look at the Ranged portion of the rules for this.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I beleive that once you decide to take only the lesser penalties for the light off hand, your bound to that decision and weapon selection for that entire full attack.
Or look at it this way, since you did not take the penalties for a non light off hand weapon, you cannot USE a non light off hand weapon.
What is it that makes you believe you are bound to it for the entire attack?
All the penalties state "when fighting this way"
If you are not fighting that way, you are not fighting that way.
And Two Weapon Fighting has nothing to do with hands. You can Two Weapon Fight with a bearded blade and armor spikes without using any hands.
So because if someone can abuse the system in an obvious manner by being a jerk, the system should automatically abuse the players that are not being a jerk?
I am not trying to be snarky, but the reason that I play this game as opposed to a computer game is because it is run by humans that can make the call as to when it is being used properly vs abused. It is not a computer program that has no way to tell the difference.
TWF specifically does not require you to make that contract or continue with the penalties for the round. AoOs made in the middle of the attack sequence do not suffer TWF penalties.
Who cares if there are cases that can be exploited? This is not a law where someone in the real world is going to get hurt if that exploitation somehow gets through. Again, we are humans running the game. Those exploitations should be dealt with on a case by case basis, not a blanket lack of valid options because someone might do something bad with it someday.
I have no problem with a person that was disarmed in the middle of an attack sequence drawing another weapon that now has a different TWF penalty attached to it as long as that person makes all future attacks with the new penalty.
I have a huge problem with someone that makes all of their primary attacks with a low penalty and then drops the secondary weapon and draws a new one that has a higher penalty and decides to attack with that.
But again, as I am a human that can make that distinction, I believe most others can as well. I see no need to limit the guy in the first scenario just because of the jerk in the second.
And I see no rule that backs the first.
There clearly is no blanket rule that states you must lose out just because you have a bonus or a lower penalty. Again, the Monk has the option to change his Flurry of Blows from a Full Round Action to a single attack action after the first hit. It doesn't matter that he got a bonus for doing so.
But just like the TWF scenarios above, my fellow gamers and I have the ability to tell if it is a legitimate move (the Monk dropped the target in one punch) or a gaming of the system. The first is welcome, the second is not tolerated.
|
|
The overall design philosophy is that the character has a main hand (1) and an off hand (the rest). Even when TWF with more than one hand, or with other unusual weapons such as beards, bites, guantlets or foreheads, you have two "hands" to use, and determine penalties from what you use with those hands.
My overall understanding, from rules and from reading this thread, is that changing a weapon (most likely from light to one handed) will change the penalties for that attack and successive attacks that use the different configuration.
Most of the time, it isn't something that will be done over and over again, but is situational to the circumstances.
As a side note, Two Handed Weapons are not figured in the whole TWF scheme, so what penalties one would accrue for using a THW with spikes or gauntlet seems, if allowed at all, a GM call. (Perhaps not even giving the advantage of TWF feats unless one handed or lower weapons are used)
What is it that makes you believe you are bound to it for the entire attack?
All the penalties state "when fighting this way"
If you are not fighting that way, you are not fighting that way.
And Two Weapon Fighting has nothing to do with hands. You can Two Weapon Fight with a bearded blade and armor spikes without using any hands.
Bearded blade and armor spikes use your metaphysical off-hand.