blinkback belts, TWF and starknives

[aroke453]

would wearing a blinkback belt allow someone to use TWF with a single starknife? as worded, it appears to allow a full attack with a single throwing weapon, but it's unclear whether this extends to TWF.

[Protoman]

Unless you're using flurry of blows/brawler's flurry or something that specifically states you can flurry/TWF with a single weapon, you're supposed to use at least two different weapons. So have a second starknife.

[aroke453]

the belt allows you to act as if you were just drawing from multiple sheaths or however else you store weapons, and since drawing a weapon with quickdraw allows you to free action draw, could you not make all of your mainhand attacks using the belt, and then all your offhand attacks in the same way? basically, if you weren't using the belt, and were instead drawing 4 different weapons over the course of the full attack, you don't need to start with a weapon in both hands.

[Protoman]

You don't need to start with a weapon in both hands, you need a second weapon.

PRD Combat wrote:

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

Imagine someone with the quickdraw feat and one shortsword. He COULD have quick draw'ed a second short sword out and TWF, but he makes the argument that instead he's gonna attack with the short sword already in main hand, and free action swap the sword to off-hand and TWF with that same sword. Doesn't work. The action economy is fine, but the rules of two-weapon fighting don't support it. Without an actual second weapon (other sword, second starknife in your situation, unarmed strike, etc), supposed to use the amount of attacks you get from BAB.

Except for stuff like flurry of blows or brawler's flurry which have an exception to the rules and can flurry/twf with a single weapon.

[Quantum Steve]

You're not drawing 4 different weapons, you're drawing the same weapon 4 times. You can't TWF with only one weapon, not if you're using a blinkback belt, not if you're switching the same weapon between hands as a free action.

PRD wrote:

If you wield a second weapon in your off hand...

The rest of the rule doesn't matter because it only applies if you wield a second weapon, i.e. a weapon other than the first.

edit: dammit

[Saethori]

aroke453 wrote:

could you not make all of your mainhand attacks using the belt, and then all your offhand attacks in the same way?

This isn't the first time I've heard this argument, and it still amazes me that it comes up.

It doesn't really make any sense. The whole point of two weapon fighting is that you're using both weapons at the same time, trying to get them all in within the six seconds a round ostensibly is made of.

Attacking with the same weapon more than once is using iterative attacks. There are already rules about iterative attacks. Two Weapon Fighting doesn't give you additional iterative attacks (other than the ones explicitly given by Improved and Greater), it lets you use a second weapon at the same time you're using your primary one.

Pathfinder is at least supposed to simulate realism. It might not succeed very well in some categories, but that's no reason to throw the suspension of disbelief out the window and treat the world as one everyone takes turns on dismembering each other in.

[Burnscar]

What you could do, is use that one vigilante talent and TWF with different starknives that all have the same effects.

[Claxon]

While it might be hard to understand mechanically why you can't do what you want OP, lets try thinking about it this way...

What is stopping you from wielding a weapon in 1 hand making all your normally allotted attacks via BAB with it, then putting it in your other hand (as a free action) and making off-hand attacks with from TWF/ITWF/GTWF?

The same thing that stops your idea from working. It's blatantly against the intent of the rules.