1) Yes, each iterative attack is it's own thing and doesn't care what's before or after it.
2) If using TWF, currently I think the rules are that once you start attacking you're locked in to either not doing TWF or doing TWF and you are locked in on what weapon is your off hand.
So no, no 2wf and then using a THW.
|
I think you're able to use your iterative to two-hand with a double weapon. I can't find anything explicit for or against it so it defaults to the normal rule for a weapon wielded in two hands. Kinda grey area there.
In any case, you are definitely able to two-hand it for AoOs during the round. The TWF doesn't carry over past the full round action.
According to this FAQ you can switch weapons between iteratives when not using TWF. Does this apply generally?
That is, can a character with improved two weapon fighting switch which weapon is considered primary between his first pair of attacks and his iterative?
1) Yes, each iterative attack is it's own thing and doesn't care what's before or after it.
I disagree with this part.
From the FAQ: "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."
If you decide to TWF, then the weapon you assign as your primary hand is your primary hand for all attacks until the end of your turn. The example list in the FAQ of TWF attack options appears to be exhaustive. Either Weapon A is your primary weapon or Weapon B is; once you determine that one weapon is the primary weapon, all iteratives must be made with that weapon. Any additional attacks allowed by additional TWF-chain feats must then be made with the weapon determined already to be the off-hand.
According to this FAQ you can switch weapons between iteratives when not using TWF. Does this apply generally?
That is, can a character with improved two weapon fighting switch which weapon is considered primary between his first pair of attacks and his iterative?
1) Yes, each iterative attack is it's own thing and doesn't care what's before or after it.I disagree with this part.
From the FAQ: "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."
If you decide to TWF, then the weapon you assign as your primary hand is your primary hand for all attacks until the end of your turn. The example list in the FAQ of TWF attack options appears to be exhaustive. Either Weapon A is your primary weapon or Weapon B is; once you determine that one weapon is the primary weapon, all iteratives must be made with that weapon. Any additional attacks allowed by additional TWF-chain feats must then be made with the weapon determined already to be the off-hand.
Sorry, I agree with lots you said, I misread the OP's example. I though his first case was about switching how you hold a weapon, aka turning it into an improvised weapon on the second swing to overcome DR.
But I do think you're maybe allowed to change your primary weapon, just you can't change your secondary. So you can do longsword P, dagger O, Kick P. But I hold that this view is fairly arbitrary and don't argue with those that feel you're locked in once you decide to TWF.
Sorry, I agree with lots you said, I misread the OP's example. I though his first case was about switching how you hold a weapon, aka turning it into an improvised weapon on the second swing to overcome DR.
But I do think you're maybe allowed to change your primary weapon, just you can't change your secondary. So you can do longsword P, dagger O, Kick P. But I hold that this view is fairly arbitrary and don't argue with those that feel you're locked in once you decide to TWF.
I probably wouldn't have much issue with that, either. I'd stamp down on free-action, grip-switching, or hand-trading shenanigans to essentially accomplish switching primary and off-hand weapons. But dropping and sheathing a new weapon, etc., I don't think should really be a problem.
|
Imagine "Bob", with BAB +6, wielding just a Longsword.
First attack at +6 is one-handed.
Then he regrips as a free action.
Second attack at +1 is two-handed.
We know this is possible. Likewise, the first attack could have been two-handed, and the second attack one-handed. Depending on your number of iteratives, each attack could be switched back and forth.
So, what's wrong with this scenario:
"George", with BAB +6, has a Longsword and a Shortsword.
First attack at +6 is one-handed, Second attack at +6 is off-handed.
Then he drops the Shortsword as a free action, and regrips as a free action.
Third attack at +1 is two-handed.
If this second scenario is not possible, what makes it illegal? In scenario #1, that off-hand could have been used; it just wasn't. In scenario #2, it's getting its full use.
While I will agree that you can't just use re-gripping shenanigans to make your main-hand weapon your off-hand and your off-hand weapon your main hand, I disagree that you are locked into a specific main-hand and off-hand weapon when using TWF for one simple reason: Throwing TWF builds. If that interpretation were correct it would literally be impossible to do a Throwing TWF build without a Blinkback Belt or Ricochet Toss, where-as being able to change weapons mid-Full Attack (Quick Draw permitting of course) means you can carry, say, 6 weapons and get 3 different Main and Off Hand attacks.
Imagine "Bob", with BAB +6, wielding just a Longsword.
First attack at +6 is one-handed.
Then he regrips as a free action.
Second attack at +1 is two-handed.
We know this is possible. Likewise, the first attack could have been two-handed, and the second attack one-handed. Depending on your number of iteratives, each attack could be switched back and forth.
So, what's wrong with this scenario:
"George", with BAB +6, has a Longsword and a Shortsword.
First attack at +6 is one-handed, Second attack at +6 is off-handed.
Then he drops the Shortsword as a free action, and regrips as a free action.
Third attack at +1 is two-handed.
If this second scenario is not possible, what makes it illegal? In scenario #1, that off-hand could have been used; it just wasn't. In scenario #2, it's getting its full use.
It's illegal because you're combining THW with TWF. SKR when clarifying the hand of effort FAQ said that it'd probably be okay to run it like that, but a strict reading of the info provided prohibits it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So, what's wrong with this scenario:
"George", with BAB +6, has a Longsword and a Shortsword.
First attack at +6 is one-handed, Second attack at +6 is off-handed.
Then he drops the Shortsword as a free action, and regrips as a free action. Third attack at +1 is two-handed.If this second scenario is not possible, what makes it illegal? In scenario #1, that off-hand could have been used; it just wasn't. In scenario #2, it's getting its full use.
If George is just TWF straight, he gets TWO main-hand attacks (at +6/+1, less any penalties for TWF, etc.) and ONE off-hand attack (at +6, less any penalties for TWF, etc.). That one off-hand attack keeps that off hand busy for the ENTIRE full-round action required by TWF. It is not available for use during the second main-hand attack. In your second scenario, the off-hand is not getting full-use, it's being overused.
once you've activated TWF you're doing it for the full round. TWF cannot be combined with THF.
If this second scenario is not possible, what makes it illegal? In scenario #1, that off-hand could have been used; it just wasn't. In scenario #2, it's getting its full use.
Normal: If you wield a second weapon in your off hand, you can get one extra attack per round with that weapon.
I'm not sure if that's illegal or not, but i would question whether you were wielding the weapon for that round. You got the benefit of the extra attacks but didn't keep it.
Alternately
If you wield a second weapon in your off hand, you can get one extra attack per round with that weapon. 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 when you fight this way
Your offhand weapon isn't light on your iterative, your offhand is being used to help make a longsword attack.
Alternately you could take no penalties (because you're not two weapon fighting), the light weapon penalties (because it takes a hand and a half and you have a hand and a half there)
Most things that make my head hurt that much aren't legal. Most...
Where are the rules that make two-handing during an iterative after TWF? Someone mentioned a "hands of effort FAQ" and I'm not finding it well.
I believe they were created with the FAQ.
Where are the rules that make two-handing during an iterative after TWF? Someone mentioned a "hands of effort FAQ" and I'm not finding it well.I believe they were created with the FAQ.
they were kinda codified with it, but they've been there since forever.
they were kinda codified with it, but they've been there since forever.Where are the rules that make two-handing during an iterative after TWF? Someone mentioned a "hands of effort FAQ" and I'm not finding it well.I believe they were created with the FAQ.
Perhaps, in a sense, but if dev commentary is rules then it only enhances the duality between "the game" and The Game (TM). As much as I like expounded explanation, those explanations should not be a vehicle for new rules, and, honestly, neither should be the FAQs. Those should simply be "official explanations." Errata is where the meat and potatoes can be swapped out for cornbread and hash.
Perhaps, in a sense, but if dev commentary is rules then it only enhances the duality between "the game" and The Game (TM).
not really getting your point here.
As much as I like expounded explanation, those explanations should not be a vehicle for new rules, and, honestly, neither should be the FAQs. Those should simply be "official explanations." Errata is where the meat and potatoes can be swapped out for cornbread and hash.
Its not really a new rule, it ... derives would be the wrong word, as it implies a mathematical certainty about the info you start with and the results you can, but it can certainly be interpreted from
the 2 weapon fighting rules, which specify a one handed weapon and an off hand, not any weapon and your off hand.
game balance, as am extra attack for 15? gold pieces of armor spikes is kinda nuts.
an absence of rules support , as there's technically no "attack with a two handed weapon and an offhanded option"
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
not really getting your point here.
It is the difference between the game someone might understand by purely reading only the books as printed, no 3.5 experience, and so on versus someone active on the forums, reads the FAQs, stays up on errata, with previous system experience, and so on. One of the biggest hurdles for me "getting" the game was that I never was into 3.5. Some of my earliest questions here were answered with "duh, noob" type responses or "it's always been like this" and was rather unfriendly even though this community likes to pride itself on its approachability.
Its not really a new rule, it ... derives would be the wrong word, as it implies a mathematical certainty about the info you start with and the results you can, but it can certainly be interpreted from
the 2 weapon fighting rules, which specify a one handed weapon and an off hand, not any weapon and your off hand.
game balance, as am extra attack for 15? gold pieces of armor spikes is kinda nuts.
an absence of rules support , as there's technically no "attack with a two handed weapon and an offhanded option"
This is what I'm talking about. It's apparently a rule that's supposedly "always been known." I hate these kinds of rules. They require a certain kind of meta knowledge that's seemingly an open secret.
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
It's apparently a rule that's supposedly "always been known." I hate these kinds of rules. They require a certain kind of meta knowledge that's seemingly an open secret.
Guess you hate a lot of rules.
Because there are a lot of these. Fortunately you didn't suffer through the miserable world that was 3.5 and all their FAQ were non binding. So the forums were useless for rules discussion since dumb busted and broken interpretations had no check. In Pathfinder, our FAQ are rules binding and most GM accept developer comments also. Life is good now.
It is the difference between the game someone might understand by purely reading only the books as printed, no 3.5 experience, and so on versus someone active on the forums, reads the FAQs, stays up on errata, with previous system experience, and so on.
Not really. The idea that you're a human with bi lateral symmetry and two arms, and that your arm cannot do two things at the same time is pretty much a matter of common sense, as is the immediate obvious game balance problems with letting someone hit with every part of their body, or any other attack routine not specified in the rules. It's not until people or the game start to finagle with that that it becomes unclear or a problem.
This is what I'm talking about. It's apparently a rule that's supposedly "always been known." I hate these kinds of rules. They require a certain kind of meta knowledge that's seemingly an open secret.
No. That is the exact opposite of what you're talking about. Those are the rules, they are written in the book ,. you don't need a forum to reach those conclusions.
Guess you hate a lot of rules.
The ones that get implemented in this manner absolutely. I've long voiced my dislike for several FAQs and Paizo's process for doing them and how there's no history of changes. They simply are. Done. Period. Forever changed.
Because there are a lot of these. Fortunately you didn't suffer through the miserable world that was 3.5 and all their FAQ were non binding. So the forums were useless for rules discussion since dumb busted and broken interpretations had no check. In Pathfinder, our FAQ are rules binding and most GM accept developer comments also. Life is good now.
That world may have been miserable, but no, things are not good. They are frustrating. I've also long since stated that, while there might not be a Pathfinder 2.0, the samesuch change is being done, just gradually through FAQs.
That world may have been miserable, but no, things are not good. They are frustrating. I've also long since stated that, while there might not be a Pathfinder 2.0, the samesuch change is being done, just gradually through FAQs.
That's hyperbole. They haven't changed remotely that much.
Not really. The idea that you're a human with bi lateral symmetry and two arms, and that your arm cannot do two things at the same time is pretty much a matter of common sense, as is the immediate obvious game balance problems with letting someone hit with every part of their body, or any other attack routine not specified in the rules. It's not until people or the game start to finagle with that that it becomes unclear or a problem.
The game is a far cry from using common sense as its underlying tenant. Otherwise, you could do things like anticipate an ambush and ambush your ambushers. The rules don't let you do that. It's also pretty common sense that you can just drop something and adjust your grip mid-swing. That you can't seem to reason how that actually works doesn't impact the fact it's quite very doable. Which, that speaks to the central problem: even with clear reasoning of possibility, the game is inherently inflexible. This even encroaches upon the topic of the game actively denying roleplay options or player ingenuity simply be issuing new feats. Just by virtue of a feat existing means you have to have that particular feat to do that particular thing. It's exhausting.
No. That is the exact opposite of what you're talking about. Those are the rules, they are written in the book ,. you don't need a forum to reach those conclusions.
That you can't do what this rule is about is NOT in the book. Two general rules existed about two types of combat. That a player might combine them should not be surprising or new.
That's hyperbole. They haven't changed remotely that much.
It's really not. Changes don't have to be sweeping. They've gotten a bad habit of changing things wholesale. Many are not tweaks; they're rewrites.
It's really not. Changes don't have to be sweeping. They've gotten a bad habit of changing things wholesale. Many are not tweaks; they're rewrites.
Such as?
|
Nefreet and BNW; would this be legal, Sam the swordsman is armed with a 2-handed sword and wearing cestus. he has GTWF. Sam is fighting oink the orc. Sam strikes onik with his great sword at +27 then bats him in the snout with his cestus at +18 and re-grips his great sword and strikes onink a second time at+22 [as Sam is making a full attack] bats onik again at +13 regrips his great sword whacks onink a third time at +17 and takes a finial swipe at oink at +8
The game is a far cry from using common sense as its underlying tenant. Otherwise, you could do things like anticipate an ambush and ambush your ambushers. The rules don't let you do that.
The rules for starting combat and encounter distance are largely left to the DM (and many dms are ambush happy it seems), but this is in fact entirely possible by the rules. If you make your stealth and perception checks and the ambushers make neither, you ambush them.
It's also pretty common sense that you can just drop something and adjust your grip mid-swing.
To do what? I would not want to try to start with my left hand holding a baseball bat and then try to drop another baseball bat with my right hand, grip, and swing, to hit a fastball. Especially not when the fastball is trying to eat my head.
That you can't seem to reason how that actually works
Speaking of baseball I'm going to consider that strikes one and two. Backhanded insults to peoples intelligence are no more welcome, relevant, or correct than just saying them outright.
actively denying roleplay options or player ingenuity simply be issuing new feats. Just by virtue of a feat existing means you have to have that particular feat to do that particular thing. It's exhausting.
They do do that on occasion.
I'm more than willing to point out the problems with it
That you can't do what this rule is about is NOT in the book. Two general rules existed about two types of combat. That a player might combine them should not be surprising or new.
The vast majority of people reading the book DID get that idea. The idea IS in the book. It is being conveyed from the authors to the readers with an acceptablish rate. To get that rate a little higher they toss on faqs. Nobody gets EVERYTHING in the book right, and sometimes what's there is messed up. The authors are human(oid. ish) these things happen
Nefreet and BNW; would this be legal, Sam the swordsman is armed with a 2-handed sword and wearing cestus. he has GTWF. Sam is fighting oink the orc. Sam strikes onik with his great sword at +27 then bats him in the snout with his cestus at +18 and re-grips his great sword and strikes onink a second time at+22 [as Sam is making a full attack] bats onik again at +13 regrips his great sword whacks onink a third time at +17 and takes a finial swipe at oink at +8
Whats his BAB?
I think no. Two weapon fighting incurs penalties. I believe you have to "turn it on" at the start of the round. I think that in order to get those off hand attacks you need to be wielding the weapon for the entire round.
Such as?
They rewrote how grappling and pin works while concentrating. They changed the alignment requirements for Arcane Archer. They removed damaging magic weapons and introduced hardness and hitpoints for weapons. They completely rewrote the exceptional abilities entry. The entire concept of an "ex-barbarian" was an add-on.
That's just the CRB over 6 entire editions. This doesn't even approach the situations such as the Crane Wing rewrite. There was also the blog on an entire new stealth system.
With these behaviors and lots of dev admissions over time along the lines of "if we could do it again", one can come to a very reasonable conclusion they're gradually doing those changes over time and is no surprise why people keeping talking about it encouraging Paizo to just do it already, and rip the bandaid off the wound. It's clear what their intent is. I, personally, agree with it. The manner they're doing it in simply leaves much to be desired.
Nefreet and BNW; would this be legal, Sam the swordsman is armed with a 2-handed sword and wearing cestus. he has GTWF. Sam is fighting oink the orc. Sam strikes onik with his great sword at +27 then bats him in the snout with his cestus at +18 and re-grips his great sword and strikes onink a second time at+22 [as Sam is making a full attack] bats onik again at +13 regrips his great sword whacks onink a third time at +17 and takes a finial swipe at oink at +8
No it wouldn't. Not unless he's wearing the cestus on some third member. Cesti are gloves, fited on hands, and both of those are taken up with the sword for the full round if you do as much as one attack on it.
|
|
Earlier, I was asking what made my scenario illegal. It was a question.
The same question can be asked for Greater Two-Weapon Fighting. With a +11 BAB, aren't all of these possible?
----------------------
+11/+11
+6/+6
+1/+1
----------------------
+11 (two-handed)
+6/+6
+1 (two-handed)
----------------------
+11/+11
+6 (two-handed)
+1/+1
----------------------
Since you can free action regrip.
All of these attacks would be at -2, since the feat applies the penalty on all attacks during your full attack (that shouldn't be in question).
EDIT: assuming a Gauntlet and a One-Handed Weapon that can be wielded Two-Handed. Nobody uses Cestus.
They rewrote how grappling and pin works while concentrating.
They did not.
In the change from 3.5 to pathfinder they consciously changed the grapple condition to be less of a "you're hosed" condition. To that end they let you use any spell, not just a stilled spell, in a grapple (albeit with a concentration check that aproaches astronomical fast enough to make nasa envious). However they missed that the old rules were referenced in more than one place, so they changed some and missed a few others.
They changed the alignment requirements for Arcane Archer.
... really? That makes it a whole new edition?
They removed damaging magic weapons and introduced hardness and hitpoints for weapons.
Same as grapple, they included the new rules in some places but not everywhere. Resolving a contradiction between two places where the rules say different things is not making a new edition.
That's just the CRB over 6 entire editions. This doesn't even approach the situations such as the Crane Wing rewrite.
One feat is not a new edition. 6 new feats come out every book, do we have a new edittion every month?
There was also the blog on an entire new stealth system.
Which (sadly) didn't fly. A new paragraph was added so you could sneak from spot to spot and make stealth almost usable.
Agree to disagree, then. I fundamentally see the overarching series of events differently than you. You seem to want a single "aha!" event.
There never were alignment requirements for the Arcane Archer... they just rmoved the racial requirement... just as they did for the Defender.
...
So, what's wrong with this scenario:"George", with BAB +6, has a Longsword and a Shortsword.
First attack at +6 is one-handed, Second attack at +6 is off-handed.
Then he drops the Shortsword as a free action, and regrips as a free action.
Third attack at +1 is two-handed.
If this second scenario is not possible, what makes it illegal? In scenario #1, that off-hand could have been used; it just wasn't. In scenario #2, it's getting its full use.
For the sake of argument, let's assume that this is legal. If "George" doesn't have the TWF feat, then two-weapon fighting imposes a -4 penalty with attacks made with his primary hand and a -8 penalty with attacks made with his off-hand. Since he is using both hands for the final attack, what penalty do you think he will take?
Similarly when two-weapon fighting he deals half his Str Bonus with attacks made with his off-hand and his full Str Bonus with attacks made with his primary hand, but when using a longsword two-handed he would normally get one and a half times his Str Bonus. Which do you think should be used for that final attack?
|
|
During conversations with SKR in years past I came to understand the concept of why Two-Handed Weapons got 1.5x Str and why Two-Weapon Fighting gets 1x/.5x
In either case, you're getting the same bonus from Strength.
You say, "let's assume that this is legal". I ask, "what makes it illegal?".
With the FAQ on regripping, the scenarios I'm laying out seem plausible.
During conversations with SKR in years past I came to understand the concept of why Two-Handed Weapons got 1.5x Str and why Two-Weapon Fighting gets 1x/.5x
In either case, you're getting the same bonus from Strength.
You say, "let's assume that this is legal". I ask, "what makes it illegal?".
With the FAQ on regripping, the scenarios I'm laying out seem plausible.
I'm not yet sure whether it's illegal or not. I'm just trying to understand how you visualize the mechanics working if it is. Which attack penalty do you think applies in this case?
Can you provide a link to a FAQ that explicitly says you are "locked in" to anything? I don't remember seeing that or similar phrasing anywhere.1) Yes, each iterative attack is it's own thing and doesn't care what's before or after it.
2) If using TWF, currently I think the rules are that once you start attacking you're locked in to either not doing TWF or doing TWF and you are locked in on what weapon is your off hand.
So no, no 2wf and then using a THW.
I believe that is a reference to the FAQ linked to in the opening post. It says, in part:
...
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."
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I find myself agreeing with Buri on some points; there definitely IS a disconnect between the game as understood by reading (the most recent edition of) the book, and the more esoteric concepts such as "hands of effort" which we can only infer the existence of through FAQs.
And that's not a good thing. While I can see the usefulness of "hands of effort", as a piece of rules writing, it's very badly explained and promulgated.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
They rewrote how grappling and pin works while concentrating.
They changed the alignment requirements for Arcane Archer.
They completely rewrote the exceptional abilities entry.
The entire concept of an "ex-barbarian" was an add-on.
There was also the blog on an entire new stealth system.
I've been playing since beta in 2008 and I didn't detect or notice those above until after. Some times (like stealth) because I used the rules the way they ultimately got changed to be more clear. Other because I was oblivious of an issue.
They removed damaging magic weapons and introduced hardness and hitpoints for weapons.
situations such as the Crane Wing rewrite.
These two needed changed, they didn't make sense and were awkward for two different reasons. One was a strange system and the other was a broken feat.
In short, all your complaints come down to minor things or broken things fixed. I'm not sure why fixing broken things is an issue for you?
I've been playing since beta in 2008
Hey, me too! If only I had maintained an exhaustive index of these events over the years...
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
I've been playing since beta in 2008Hey, me too! If only I had maintained an exhaustive index of these events over the years...
I guess the main difference, is that I rarely ever have the emotion "aw that sucks I liked it the old way". In fact, I can't remember a time where I had that emotion.
Some other seem to have that frequently, based on the 30 to 40 consistent posters around errata time.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I guess the main difference, is that I rarely ever have the emotion "aw that sucks I liked it the old way". In fact, I can't remember a time where I had that emotion.
Some other seem to have that frequently, based on the 30 to 40 consistent posters around errata time.
It's not so much a blanket "aw that sucks" for me. Rather, I simply wish they maintained on the prd a history of changes so they could be seen, compared, and still give players the choice of the version they want to play. Frequent updates aren't an issue. Change management is.
Yes, I do prefer some of the older versions. That doesn't mean I don't want to see new material. I do hate the idea that the books I've purchased years ago aren't the same I can go with today. They're mostly the same but not quite.
If you play with someone who came into it later, there's a dissonance between your perception of the game and theirs which can easily lead to misunderstandings. This has actually happened to me on more than a few occasions. It doubly sucks when it's a GM because you can so easily come across as simply ignorant when, really, you're just playing the game you've always played with the books you've always owned. As someone with more than a little bit of social anxiety, each and every one of these instances is incredibly painful and quite literally so.
So, the end result is a system that keeps slipping further from what I purchased, and yes, to a degree, I feel cheated out of that purchase so I'm a bit sensitive to it.
The most unfortunate thing is I rarely ever use my books to actually build characters. To avoid those painful moments, I simply use online resources every time. That puts me in a really bad place as a consumer. It means my book purchases are simply membership dues to a club to keep the club going, and a book is simply a token of a particular instance I helped keep the club going. It doesn't feel like a stand alone product I feel I can actually use. Of the last dozen characters or so, I've only used books to look up either fluff material or gear which the sweeping UE errata on pricing just removed the gear aspect going forward.
I don't know when the ship of thesius needs a rechristening cerremony but i'm pretty sure its not every time they pump the bilges.
|
|
Can you provide a link to a FAQ that explicitly says you are "locked in" to anything? I don't remember seeing that or similar phrasing anywhere.1) Yes, each iterative attack is it's own thing and doesn't care what's before or after it.
2) If using TWF, currently I think the rules are that once you start attacking you're locked in to either not doing TWF or doing TWF and you are locked in on what weapon is your off hand.
So no, no 2wf and then using a THW.
I believe that is a reference to the FAQ linked to in the opening post. It says, in part:
...
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 primary weapon gets my main attack and my iterative attack" doesn't disqualify the iterative attack being two-handed.