Precise Strike, and Two-Handing

[Neal Litherland]

So, I'm reading through the Precise Strike swashbuckler deed, and the wording is tripping me up. It says that, to use the deed, the swashbuckler can have no shield bigger than a buckler, and "cannot attack with a weapon in her other hand". To me, that says, "cannot use two-weapon fighting."

Is that a correct understanding? Or does it ALSO mean the swashbuckler cannot two-hand a 1-handed weapon for extra damage on that single strike (such as using a spear or short sword two-handed to get 1.5 times Strength damage)?

If there is an errata, or a ruling that's been handed down, I'd really appreciate a link.

[derpdidruid]

You cannot be using your off hand to hold a weapon. Two handing means your holding a weapon in both hands. Ergo you cannot two hand and use Precise strike.

[Neal Litherland]

derpdidruid wrote:

You cannot be using your off hand to hold a weapon. Two handing means your holding a weapon in both hands. Ergo you cannot two hand and use Precise strike.

See, that's where I disagree. It does not say you cannot hold a weapon in your other hand. It says you cannot attack with a weapon in your other hand. Which says, to me, that you cannot fight with two weapons.

From where I sit, the purpose of that language is to make sure you don't have two-weapon swashbucklers adding their level in bonus damage several times in a round. What I'm trying to find is whether there's an official word on whether attacking with a weapon in your other hand applies to both a two handed grip, as well as two-weapon fighting.

I can see either the way I'm looking at it, or the way you're looking at it, being valid. What I'm trying to find is if there is an official ruling anywhere that officially says you cannot two-hand a morningstar and still apply your precise strike damage, the same way it has been officially stated that you cannot cast a spell, and then deliver the touch for that spell through a greatsword with the magus.

[derpdidruid]

I suppose I misspoke in my first sentence there. Imagine it this way instead.

You cant attack with a weapon in your other hand. when you two hand a weapon, what are you doing with your off hand? Attacking with a weapon. Ergo you cannot two hand and precise strike.

[Azoriel]

If you are using both hands to make an attack, you would be, by definition, using your off-hand to make an attack with a weapon. The main hand's involvement is irrelevant to the wording of the Precise Strike - if you've got your off-hand on the weapon and are making an attack with it, then you run afoul of the ability's restrictions. (The off-hand is still making an attack, even if the main hand is also involved.) There's nothing specifically disallowing two-handing a one-handed weapon in the verbage, but there really isn't any need to since two-handing anything, one-handed or otherwise, is already prevented. (It would be like asking for an official ruling stating that rogue evasion doesn't work with full plate when it already says light or no armor.)

And, as an aside, you can't get 1.5x your strength bonus if you use a short sword in two hands; it's a light weapon, which doesn't allow for that. (A spear or morning star would be kosher, since they're not light weapons.)

[Neal Litherland]

See, it's specifically the phrase in your off-hand that's bugging me.

If you attack with a weapon in your off-hand, that is distinctly different from a two-handed attack. Attacking with a weapon in your off-hand, for instance, applies half your strength modifier without a feat. It's got it's own listing in combat charts as a distinct action. None of those apply to using a one-handed weapon in two hands, assuming it's a weapon that allows you to do so.

That's what's tripping me up. I'm not logically asking, "can you only do this if you're swinging one-handed?" Because that's more rules as intended. What I'm trying to determine is whether or not the specific phrase being used is referring to attacks with an off hand weapon (which the rules state as being used for two-weapon fighting), or if it means something else.

What I was hoping was that, somewhere, there had been a ruling from on high saying, "no, we're including two-handing a weapon into this rule, even though the specific term of 'attacking with a weapon in your off-hand' usually refers to something else."

EDIT: Upon re-checking the text, it does not mention the phrase "off-hand". It says, "cannot attack with a weapon in her other hand..." This doesn't solve my conundrum, though, because that doesn't answer the question of whether that means a second weapon, or one weapon in both hands. In her other hand implies a secondary attack, and I wish there was just a line of text that said, "cannot attack with a weapon in her other hand, or with a single weapon held in both hands..." to solve the issue for me.

[Chess Pwn]

both hands are wielding a weapon and are being used to attack. what other hand does this swashbuckler have that's not attacking with a weapon?
not attacking with your other hand doesn't imply a secondary attack. It implies that the hand is doing nothing combat related.

[Derklord]

Neal Litherland wrote:

In her other hand implies a secondary attack, and I wish there was just a line of text that said, "cannot attack with a weapon in her other hand, or with a single weapon held in both hands..." to solve the issue for me.

Let me quote the CRB definition for Strength: "(...) two-handed attacks receive 1–1/2 times the Strength bonus." - are you trying to tell us that "two-handed attack" means "one hand is attacking, and the other hand is there for moral support"?

The combat section calls it "a weapon that you are wielding two-handed" - you are wielding the weapon with both hands, and you are attacking with it. Therefore, both hands are involved in the action of attacking with a weapon.

Azoriel wrote:

If you are using both hands to make an attack, you would be, by definition, using your off-hand to make an attack with a weapon.

Wrong. Off-hand is a game term meaning not an actual hand, but the secondary attack(s) used in two-weapon fighting.

[Azoriel]

Quote:

Wrong. Off-hand is a game term meaning not an actual hand, but the secondary attack(s) used in two-weapon fighting.

I will accept this correction. In this particular context, I had meant to use "off-hand" in a colloquial sense, but it is better not to mixup terminology, particularly when "off-hand attack" is a specific thing.

Per what Neal said, let's look at the rule in question.

Quote:

Precise Strike (Ex): At 3rd level, while she has at least 1 panache point, a swashbuckler gains the ability to strike precisely with a light or one-handed piercing melee weapon (though not natural weapon attacks), adding her swashbuckler level to the damage dealt. To use this deed, a swashbuckler cannot attack with a weapon in her other hand or use a shield other than a buckler. She can even use this ability with thrown light or one-handed piercing melee weapons, so long as the target is within 30 feet of her. Any creature that is immune to sneak attacks is immune to the additional damage granted by precise strike, and any item or ability that protects a creature from critical hits also protects a creature from the additional damage of a precise strike. This additional damage is precision damage, and isn’t multiplied on a critical hit. As a swift action, a swashbuckler can spend 1 panache point to double her precise strike’s damage bonus on the next attack. This benefit must be used before the end of her turn, or it is lost. This deed’s cost cannot be reduced by any ability or effect that reduces the amount of panache points a deed costs (such as the Signature Deed feat).

(Bolding mine to emphasize the portion of interest.) The text seems pretty clear to me - if there is a weapon in your other hand, you can't attack with it while benefitting from the Precise Strike deed. By the letter of what was written, this would include a weapon held by both hands, since the weapon would still be in your "other hand", even while it's in your main hand. (Bear in mind I am using the term "main hand" here for lack of a better term, referring to your "other other hand" on a individual with two hands and not a form of attack.)

Quote:

In her other hand implies a secondary attack, and I wish there was just a line of text that said, "cannot attack with a weapon in her other hand, or with a single weapon held in both hands..." to solve the issue for me.

There's no need to, though, since the existing wording already includes both of those instances. Consider - if they simply wanted to deny off-hand attacks (and only off-hand attacks), they could have just said "To use this deed, a swashbuckler cannot make any off-hand attacks or use a shield other than a buckler." If the idea was only to deny off-hand attacks, this would've been a far more intuitive way to go. instead, they went with a broader statement, which demonstrates intent towards a broader restriction.