Two-Handers and Two-Handed guns with a four armed Alchemist.


Rules Questions

51 to 89 of 89 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community & Digital Content Director

Removed a derailing series of posts. If you'd like to discuss the content of an FAQ, please do so in a separate thread.


Chris Lambertz wrote:
Removed a derailing series of posts. If you'd like to discuss the content of an FAQ, please do so in a separate thread.

confused dog headtilt

The Underlying theory behind saying "no" to attacking at +6/+1 is that using two weapons must use the two weapon fighting mechanic, with associated penalties and handidness. the FAQ shows that this is not the case, and that two weapon fighting is only a mechanic used when you gain an extra attack. It's dead on topic.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
Chris Lambertz wrote:
Removed a derailing series of posts. If you'd like to discuss the content of an FAQ, please do so in a separate thread.

confused dog headtilt

The Underlying theory behind saying "no" to attacking at +6/+1 is that using two weapons must use the two weapon fighting mechanic, with associated penalties and handidness. the FAQ shows that this is not the case, and that two weapon fighting is only a mechanic used when you gain an extra attack. It's dead on topic.

Yeah, I'm not sure I see the issue here. The FAQ discussion directly related to the OP's question about the legality of a particular style of play.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

I may have been a little biased on my stance in those posts, but I don't think it was off topic.

Though I do think TWF may be a difference in the situation than using the full attack with the normal iteratives.

The inclusion of two (2) Two Handed weapons is the main question in the OP.

51 to 89 of 89 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Two-Handers and Two-Handed guns with a four armed Alchemist. All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.