Amphibian has the logic exactly right.
Clarifying one point however. It is perfectly possible to TWF with a two-handed weapon, so long as the weapon has the "double" quality.
So all the people asking what happens if you TWF with a double weapon.
First: Brawler's flurry is used with close weapons (no two handed), Unarmed strikes. And Monk's weapons.
Almost all the pathfinder monk two handed weapons have the double quality.
This leaves the Sansetsukon, the Tiger fork, the Kyoketsu shoge, and the Seven-branched sword.
The first two mention a normal staff - which can be used as double.
The Kyoketsu specifically explains how to weild it TWF;
Which leaves the seven branched sword.Which I have no explanation for.
That being said, specific trumps general. Brawlers have a class feature that allows them to brawler's flurry with a two handed weapon.
That trumps the FAQ general proscription against twfing with a two handed weapon.Now, in reality, is it an issue? No. The penalties are -6/-10. The seven-branched sword is exotic. Brawler's aren't proficient.
This isn't complete. Most 1 hand weapons can be used two handed. That means:
Nine ring broadsword and Temple sword need to also be included.In addition, most double weapons can be used as 2handed weapons. Are you saying that Brawlers can't use double weapons as 2 handed weapons during a flurry, despite using weapons 2 handed specifically being called out in the Brawler's flurry description?
So?
The penalties for using a 1-h weapon (even if you choose to use 2 hands) is set by the type of weapon, not the number of hands you choose to use it with.
As for the rest of it,no, I am actually saying the opposite.
I am saying that there is no rules dispute for using a 2 handed weapon that is labeled as "double". That is legal, covered by TWF and/or the weapon and/or the "double" weapon classification.
However, as I said earlier, the brawler entry specifically says he can flurry with a two handed monk weapon. If you wish to take the -6/-10 penalty, AND the likely non-proficiency penalty, knock yourself out.
However, I suspect there are a lot of GMS that would rule that the intent is probably only to allow a 2h monk weapon to be used as a double weapon - since that is the large majority of cases, either explicity or by reading the text to the weapon.
Brawler Flurry allows you to have an extra attack similar to two weapon fighting and count as having that feat for all purposes as long as you are using appropriate weapons.Quote? Where?
It comes in part from your own argument. You have stated that your use of the term off hand attack refers to an attack made by an off hand weapon. Brawlers Flurry allows for the brawler to use TWF'ing without the need for an off hand weapon. No off hand weapon, then no off hand attack. NO off hand attack or weapon, then no penalty for making an off hand attack with a 1 hand weapon, a 2 hand weapon, or a 10 hand weapon.
It allows you to use a 2h weapon while TWFing.Quote? Where? It tells you what the damage would be, while also telling you what the damage would be for an attack with an offhand weapon. Taking that as proof of one while declaring the other, more typical one, impossible is incredibly odd.
There is a rule for using 2h weapons with flurry and in this game that is explicit permission to do so. There is no direct statement in the rogue class allow them to use a sword and shield at the same time, however there are rules for it, which means they explicitly can use both a sword and shield simultaneously. There are rules for light, 1hand, and 2hand weapon usage in the Brawler description (sadly none for 10 hand weapons). Once again rules of use equal explicit permission (sometimes the how does need clarification).
They call it "flurry" for a reason rather than simply two weapon fighting, as they do with rangers.It is called Brawler's Flurry for a reason, instead of of "At second level, a brawler gets Flurry of Blows, treating his brawler level as his monk level"
The fact that another class has a similar ability is not of any relevance.
Similar situations are what rule adjudication is built on. No rule will state every corner case so it is assumed that players will use historic rulings to gain clarity on how rules are applied. Isn't that what you are doing by mentioning how the twf feat behaves outside of a Brawler's flurry. You choose to say one portion of the ability, the twf feat, has merit, while wholly discounting the fact that is a flurry.
No off hand weapon means their can be no penalty for using a 1 hand weapon in the off hand.
No off hand weapon means there can be no extra attack gained with an off hand weapon as part of two weapon fighting.
You are correct that the general rule is that no off hand weapon means there can be no off hand attack when using TWF. However Brawler Flurry gives an exception to the TWF rule and allows for attacks with no off hand weapon as well as attacks made while wielding a weapon in 2 hands. Specific overrides general.
I'm not quite sure what position you are taking Blalelock.
A brawler can use a two handed monks weapon without taking any extra attacks ie, fighting normally.
He can also choose to take an extra attack. He gets a -10 to his attack roll, should he use a 2h weapon for that attack.
I'm not quite sure what position you are taking Blalelock.
A brawler can use a two handed monks weapon without taking any extra attacks ie, fighting normally.
He can also choose to take an extra attack. He gets a -10 to his attack roll, should he use a 2h weapon for that attack.
My position is that Brawler's Flurry is a specific kind of two weapon fighting that has specific differences from the general rules of two weapon fighting. Specific trumps general.
1. Brawler's Flurry does not require an off hand weapon to take advantage of TWF. If there is no off hand weapon required, none of the extra attacks available from two weapon fighting are off hand attacks. No off hand attacks means there is never a larger penalty for for having a weapon of greater size than Light in the off hand. Once again, Flurry doesn't require an off hand weapon so there is no additional off weapon penalty if using one weapon of any size. This means the flurry attacks only impose a -2 penalty whatever the weapon size. This is a specific rule to flurry that overrules the general rule of Two Weapon Fighting.
2. Brawler's Flurry clearly calls out rules for wielding weapons in two hands while using flurry. The fact that rules are put in place for using a weapon in 2 hands, explicitly gives permission for 2 handed use while flurrying. This is a specific rule to flurry that overrules the general rule of Two Weapon Fighting.
3. If the character chooses to use an off hand weapon rather than one weapon, the character still receives full damage from strength rather than 1/2 from using an off hand weapon. This is a specific rule to flurry that overrules the general rule of Two Weapon Fighting.
4. If the character chooses to use a weapon in a 2 hand grip the character only receives a 1x multiplier to damage rather than 1.5x multiplier to damage. This is a specific rule to flurry that overrules the general rule of wielding a weapon in 2 hands.
Yeah, that's clearly wrong.
I'll quote brawlers flurry in full again
Starting at 2nd level, a brawler can make a brawler’s flurry as a full-attack action. When doing so, a brawler has the Two-Weapon Fighting feat when attacking with any combination of unarmed strikes, weapons from the close fighter weapon group, or weapons with the “monk” special feature. She does not need to use two different weapons to use this ability.
A brawler applies her full Strength modifier to her damage rolls for all attacks made with brawler’s flurry, whether the attacks are made with an off-hand weapon or a weapon wielded in both hands. A brawler can substitute disarm, sunder, and trip combat maneuvers for unarmed attacks as part of brawler’s flurry. A brawler with natural weapons can’t use such weapons as part of brawler’s flurry, nor can she make natural weapon attacks in addition to her brawler’s flurry attacks.
1. Brawlers flurry nowhere adds extra attacks.
2. Nowhere does brawlers flurry state the penalty is -2.
3. Brawlers flurry does six things.
A. It allows you the benefit of twf while
Flurrying.
B. It allows you to use monk weapons, close weapons, and unarmed strikes, in any combination.
C. As a subset of that, you can use non double 2h weapons as part of the flurry, an ability usually you can not do.
D. It allows you to substitute combat maneuvers.
E. It allows you to b. Flurry with one weapon.
F. It specifies how to apply str modifiers.
Twf does nothing, unless you wish to make an extra attack. In which case, you are entitled to make one extra attack with you r off hand.
That's all twf does. Read it.
And, if you choose to make such an attack, twf states what the penalties are. IF fighting with a 1h weapon and a light weapon, the feat lowers the penalty to -2/-2.
The fact that brawlers flurry allows you to flurry with a 2h weapon does not mean you get to treat it as a light weapon, as that text is nowhere in the feature.
I'm curious where in brawlers flurry you think there's a justification for treating all weapons as light? Specific text please.
I suppose you could argue it dies 7 things. It specifically excludes natural attacks....
" She does not need to use two different weapons to use this ability. "
No second weapon means no off hand weapon. No off hand weapon means no penalty for not having a light weapon in the off hand. Yet even with no off hand weapon, two weapon fighting still works because flurry has a specific rule that allows it.
Please don't ask how the primary weapon becomes light again. It doesn't become light. It doesn't need to become light.
Bladelock,
LOL.. Uh, no.
A regular fighter can TWF with a quarter staff, for example.
Its one weapon. By your logic - any person using double weapons doesn't have an off hand.
" She does not need to use two different weapons to use this ability. "
This line is in brawler's fury so it is clear you can TWF with one weapon. Usually it requires two.
It allows you to make main hand and off hand attacks with any weapon.
Let me try to explain it again:
TWF says:
Benefit: Your penalties on attack rolls for fighting with two weapons are reduced. The penalty for your primary hand lessens by 2 and the one for your off hand lessens by 6. See Two-Weapon Fighting.
Normal: If you wield a second weapon in your off hand, you can get one extra attack per round with that weapon. When fighting in this way 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. If your off-hand weapon is light, the penalties are reduced by 2 each. An unarmed strike is always considered light.
Table: Two-Weapon Fighting Penalties
Circumstances Primary Hand Off Hand
Normal penalties –6 –10
Off-hand weapon is light –4 –8
Two-Weapon Fighting feat –4 –4
Off-hand weapon is light and Two-Weapon Fighting feat –2 –2
If you use a weapon with the "double" tag - you are using one weapon.
There is never a primary or off hand - until you try to get an extra attack. This is always true ANY time you fight with TWF.You can TWF with NO weapons wielded, for example, with both hands tied behind your back. (For example, with armor spikes, unarmed strikes, etc.)
TWF entitles you to get an extra attack with your off hand.
Brawler's Fury says - you can use any close weapon, any unarmed strike, and any monk weapon for *any* of the attacks you make with TWF.
You can use it for the primary, you can use it for the offhand.
But it says nothing about lessening the penalties.
So. If you had a Tiger Fork, it would be perfectly legal for an brawler to:
a. Use an unarmed strike as his primary, and do a trip as his off.
b. Use a shield spike for his primarty and Tiger fork as his secondary.
c. Use a Tiger for his primary and his secondary.
d. Do nothing but combat maneuvers.
The advantages of Brawlers fury are:
1. You can use an iterative attack to launch a combat maneuvers. On some occassions CMD is easier to overcome than AC, allowing your iteratives/offhands to have greater effect.
2. You can use one weapon's enhancement on all your attack rather than needing two.
3. Your offhand attacks get full strength modifier rather than 1/2.
Bladelock,
LOL.. Uh, no.
A regular fighter can TWF with a quarter staff, for example.
Its one weapon. By your logic - any person using double weapons doesn't have an off hand.
" She does not need to use two different weapons to use this ability. "
This line is in brawler's fury so it is clear you can TWF with one weapon. Usually it requires two.
It allows you to make main hand and off hand attacks with any weapon.
Let me try to explain it again:
TWF says:
Benefit: Your penalties on attack rolls for fighting with two weapons are reduced. The penalty for your primary hand lessens by 2 and the one for your off hand lessens by 6. See Two-Weapon Fighting.
Normal: If you wield a second weapon in your off hand, you can get one extra attack per round with that weapon. When fighting in this way 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. If your off-hand weapon is light, the penalties are reduced by 2 each. An unarmed strike is always considered light.
Table: Two-Weapon Fighting Penalties
Circumstances Primary Hand Off Hand
Normal penalties –6 –10
Off-hand weapon is light –4 –8
Two-Weapon Fighting feat –4 –4
Off-hand weapon is light and Two-Weapon Fighting feat –2 –2If you use a weapon with the "double" tag - you are using one weapon.
There is never a primary or off hand - until you try to get an extra attack. This is always true ANY time you fight with TWF.You can TWF with NO weapons wielded, for example, with both hands tied behind your back. (For example, with armor spikes, unarmed strikes, etc.)
TWF entitles you to get an extra attack with your off hand.
Brawler's Fury says - you can use any close weapon, any unarmed strike, and any monk weapon for *any* of the attacks you make with TWF.
You can use it for the primary, you can use it for the offhand.
But it says nothing about lessening the penalties.
So. If you...
A regular fighter can TWF with a DOUBLE WEAPON in two hands. A regular fighter CANNOT TWF with a two handed weapon. They are different things.
Basic TWF'ing allow you to two weapon fight with a double weapon. A double weapon counts as 2 weapons when used as a double weapon. You even need to enchant each head separately.
Flurry allows you to two weapon fight with 1 weapon. That is what it says. There is zero need for any other weapon. No need for unarmed. No need for a double weapon. One temple sword can be used to two weapon fight with no off hand weapon required. That is what the rules say.
No off hand weapon = no off hand attack, and it still works because the rules clearly state: " She does not need to use two different weapons to use this ability. "
Bladelock,
LOL.. Uh, no.
A regular fighter can TWF with a quarter staff, for example.
Its one weapon. By your logic - any person using double weapons doesn't have an off hand.
Also, not only is this poor logic but the "LOL.. Uh, no" is pretty douchey. No need for that in a simple rules discussion.
"She does not need to use two different weapons" not "she does not need to use her off hand". It negates the part of two weapon fighting that requires them to be separate weapons.
The only thing that makes a weapon an off-hand weapon is using it for the extra attack in two weapon fighting. That is like, literally, the definition of an off-hand weapon. Are you using a weapon to make an extra attack from two weapon fighting? Then that is your off-hand weapon.
Paizo included using up your "off-hand" when you attack with a Two-Handed weapon because you gain x 1.5 Str Modifier to damage. So, when you use a Two-Handed weapon with a x 1 Str Modifier to damage, do you use up your "off hand" or is it still free to make another attack?
None of you can answer definitively. That is key to the conversation. There are valid rules points to support each side. Paizo is the only one that can decide because they come down on both sides of many rules so it is impossible to tell what will happen. Until then, take people's positions in mind, go back to your table, and decide what is best for you guys and gals.
Of course, keep debating if you have something to add, but please understand it could never be proven until Paizo speaks.
Paizo is the only one that can decide because they come down on both sides of many rules so it is impossible to tell what will happen.
That's the real thing to take away. Will it be a technical reason or a conversational one? Or will it just be a 'it's tuesday' type of answer? We never know what the next Paizo answer will be. I know how I'd rule this ability, but I don't see a way to divine how it'd be ruled if the Dev's ever get to it.
Exactly! It removes the requirement that you wield a SECOND weapon with your off hand, not the requirement to wield a weapon with your off hand. Your one weapon is being wielded with both your main hand effort and your off hand effort. It is still whatever handedness it is, and you still gain a penalty reduction if it is light, if it is not light, you don't.
The advantages of Brawlers fury are:
4. TWF while also using a shield for AC. (I recommend the Tekko-Kagi. a buckler that gives you a bonus to disarm and sunder attempts, and lets you disarm without provoking)
Speculative.
A GM would be within his rights to deny you buckler benefits while you were twfing, not that many would be that conversant with the rules.
Brawlers fury gives you the ability to use 2h weapons in twf. It doesn't convey the ability to get a 3rd hand worth of effort for shield use.
Although that would be a very long rules debate, I am sure.
Also, not only is this poor logic but the "LOL.. Uh, no" is pretty douchey. No need for that in a simple rules discussion.Bladelock,
LOL.. Uh, no.
A regular fighter can TWF with a quarter staff, for example.
Its one weapon. By your logic - any person using double weapons doesn't have an off hand.
Ok. I apologize for the LOL.
But I'm spot on about the logic. You made the argument that Brawler's Fury allowed you to TWF with a single 2h weapon and there was no such thing as an off hand weapon.
This is pretty much emphatically disproven, because you can already TWF with a single 2h weapon and it emphatically DOES require a primary and offhand weapon.
Basic TWF'ing allow you to two weapon fight with a double weapon. A double weapon counts as 2 weapons when used as a double weapon. You even need to enchant each head separately.
Flurry allows you to two weapon fight with 1 weapon. That is what it says. There is zero need for any other weapon. No need for unarmed. No need for a double weapon. One temple sword can be used to two weapon fight with no off hand weapon required. That is what the rules say.
No off hand weapon = no off hand attack, and it still works because the rules clearly state: " She does not need to use two different weapons to use this ability. "
You're getting closer to understanding it, but you're still wrong.
Flurry allows you to TWF with one weapon. Correct.
There is no need for any other weapon. Correct.
One temple sword can be used to TWF. Correct.
And right there is when you go off the tracks.
Do you understand that you can fight with any number of weapons from zero to damn near infinity - and not get a TWF penalty?
If you are using a bastard sword two handed, and a spiked buckler and armor spikes, if you are +16 you can go +16 bastard, +11 shield, +6 armor spikes, +1 bastard sword.
Do you understand that you can try to make an extra attack without TWF?
You can make an extra attack while wielding two temple swords.
The only thing that TWF does is lessen the penalty that accrues.
Read the feat. If you fight with both hands tied, and have improved unarmed strike - you can kick with both feet.
You can make 4 attacks - and get no penalties. +16/+11/6/1.
But as soon as you attempt to make 5, one of your kicks is designated as "Offhand". And your penalties are calculated there from.
Using two kicks your attacks are 14/14/9/4/-1
Using a temple sword and a kick your attacks are 14/14/9/4/-1. Since temple sword is a 1h weapon and a kick is light.
Using two temple swords - your attacks will be 12/10/7/2/-3.
I understand that you are arguing that there is no second weapon, ergo no offhand.
But that is wrong.
Suppose you are TWFing with a Sword and Dagger. You are BAB 6.
You are entitled to make one attack with a sword and one attack with a dagger. or two attacks with a sword. Or two attacks with a dagger.
OR You can choose to make an extra attack. At which point you can choose which weapon you wish to make the EXTRA attack with.
You can make two sword attacks and a dagger. In which case, your dagger is your off hand, and your attacks will be 4/4/-1.
Or you can make two dagger attacks and an extra attack with your sword. In which case your attacks will be 2/2/-3
Off hand attacks ever since the Sage ruling in D&D 3.5 have nothing to do with which hand the weapon is in. Off hand is ALWAYS and SOLELY defined by what weapon you make the extra attack with.
Once that is determined, the penalties to all attacks are determined.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You know, you might help him out more if you link him the FAQ regarding using multiple weapons without TWF rules, which is much more concise and explanatory of your position.
And to clarify, Brawler's Flurry (and Chained Monk's Flurry of Blows) really only lets you ignore the "designate two separate weapons as main-hand/off-hand" clause, and overrides the typical strength modifier rules in regards to TWF. It's otherwise calculated exactly the same as TWF.
You know, you might help him out more if you link him the FAQ regarding using multiple weapons without TWF rules, which is much more concise and explanatory of your position.
And to clarify, Brawler's Flurry (and Chained Monk's Flurry of Blows) really only lets you ignore the "designate two separate weapons as main-hand/off-hand" clause, and overrides the typical strength modifier rules in regards to TWF. It's otherwise calculated exactly the same as TWF.
Neither monk's flurry follows the rules for TWF penalties either as neither checked handedness but gives a static modifier for extra attacks. So a flurry does a lot that's not like 'normal' TWF. Really, the only thing it does like normal TWF is granting extra attacks.
It follows them to a point; it's more of an addendum to the "handedness" clause, since it's just a flat -2 across the board, not caring about light/one-handed designations, and even using a single weapon two-handed doesn't override the standard strength modifier clause. It still references you possessing the relevant TWF feats at the levels you acquire the feature.
I understand the rules for iterative attacks with 2 weapons. I understand the rules for two weapon fighting. I understand the rules for the feat two weapon fighting as well.
At no point do I "go off the tracks."
What we seem to be disagreeing on is how these things play into a brawler flurry.
Your assumption is that taking the extra attack from two weapon fighting, which can normally only be done with a second weapon, means the brawler is tossing his one handed weapon into to his off hand and designating that extra attack as an off hand attack.
My contention is that the weapon stays in the primary hand and flurry, as a specific rule that trumps the general rule of two weapon fighting, allows the additional attack to take place without the use of a second (i.e. off hand) weapon or magically converting the primary weapon into an off hand weapon. That is what the rules say. Adding this magical conversion to an off hand weapon is reading something in the rules that is not there.
Using a 2 hand weapon while gripped in 2 hands further supports my version of how flurry works. Your interpretation creates additional uncertainties and rules confusion that implies your analysis is incorrect. Using a 2 hand weapon, while gripped "2 handedly", is undefined by two weapon fighting, but it is defined with a flurry.
To be clear, since you misunderstood me before, without flurry you cannot two weapon fight with a two handed weapon while gripping it two handed. Flurry is not the same as two weapon fighting. Brawler's flurry simply allows it to work in conjunction with 2 weapon fighting feats.
First: Brawler's flurry is used with close weapons (no two handed), Unarmed strikes. And Monk's weapons.
Almost all the pathfinder monk two handed weapons have the double quality.
It's worth noting, however, that with options from Adventurer's Armory 2 (notably Versatile Design) it is possible to move any melee weapon to the close weapons group, thus allowing a Brawler to (in theory) flurry with it.
So I guess the question is "what happens when someone tries to flurry with a Greatsword modified by Versatile Design to be a close weapon?"
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
First: Brawler's flurry is used with close weapons (no two handed), Unarmed strikes. And Monk's weapons.
Almost all the pathfinder monk two handed weapons have the double quality.
It's worth noting, however, that with options from Adventurer's Armory 2 (notably Versatile Design) it is possible to move any melee weapon to the close weapons group, thus allowing a Brawler to (in theory) flurry with it.
So I guess the question is "what happens when someone tries to flurry with a Greatsword modified by Versatile Design to be a close weapon?"
You don’t even need to use poison that supplement. The bayonet is a weapon in the Advanced Player’s Guide, and is both 2-handed and in the close fighter weapon group, which makes it a valid weapon to use with Brawler’s Flurry with no shenanigans.
I understand the rules for iterative attacks with 2 weapons. I understand the rules for two weapon fighting. I understand the rules for the feat two weapon fighting as well.
At no point do I "go off the tracks."
What we seem to be disagreeing on is how these things play into a brawler flurry.
Your assumption is that taking the extra attack from two weapon fighting, which can normally only be done with a second weapon, means the brawler is tossing his one handed weapon into to his off hand and designating that extra attack as an off hand attack.
My contention is that the weapon stays in the primary hand and flurry, as a specific rule that trumps the general rule of two weapon fighting, allows the additional attack to take place without the use of a second (i.e. off hand) weapon or magically converting the primary weapon into an off hand weapon. That is what the rules say. Adding this magical conversion to an off hand weapon is reading something in the rules that is not there.
Using a 2 hand weapon while gripped in 2 hands further supports my version of how flurry works. Your interpretation creates additional uncertainties and rules confusion that implies your analysis is incorrect. Using a 2 hand weapon, while gripped "2 handedly", is undefined by two weapon fighting, but it is defined with a flurry.
To be clear, since you misunderstood me before, without flurry you cannot two weapon fight with a two handed weapon while gripping it two handed. Flurry is not the same as two weapon fighting. Brawler's flurry simply allows it to work in conjunction with 2 weapon fighting feats.
It says that you don't have to use a second weapon. It never says you don't have to use your "off-hand" effort, or off-hand action economy.
It says that you don't have to use a second weapon. It never says you don't have to use your "off-hand" effort, or off-hand action economy.
but it kind of does when it allows you use a two handed weapon. Two handed weapons already take both hands so how can it use an offhand for TWF? ""off-hand" effort, or off-hand action economy" is completely thrown out the door by 2 handed weapon use.
It says that you don't have to use a second weapon. It never says you don't have to use your "off-hand" effort, or off-hand action economy.
The extra effort of making the extra attack is represented by the -2 penalty given to all attacks. In terms of action economy a flurry requires a full attack action so "all hand effort" is exhausted when used. It is just that none of them would be considered "off hand" because no off hand is required when flurrying.
Any other interpretation creates a rules nightmare, with many different opinions, or a lot of clarifications from Paizo.
I wrote a long and detailed post to take you step by step through this Bladelock. Paizo ate it.
So this will be much shorter.
I quote from the RULES:
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."
It doesn't matter what weapon is in what hand.
Whatever weapon you made the extra attack with is your offhand weapon.If you are a 6th level Brawler, and you are brawler's flurrying with a tiger fork, and you take an extra attack with the fork (a 2h weapon):
Usually your attacks would be +6/+1.
The rules says your primary weapon (the fork) gets your main attack and your iterative. Your offhand weapon (the fork) gets the extra attack and you apply two weapon fighting penalties.
What are those penalties? -6/-10 are the default penalties. Your primary weapon is not 1h or light; you do have twf while you full attack. This reduces the penalties by 2/2. So your penalties are -4/-8.
This means your attack is 2/-2/-3.
Do you understand it now?
I wrote a long and detailed post to take you step by step through this Bladelock. Paizo ate it.
So this will be much shorter.
I quote from the RULES:
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."
It doesn't matter what weapon is in what hand.
Whatever weapon you made the extra attack with is your offhand weapon.If you are a 6th level Brawler, and you are brawler's flurrying with a tiger fork, and you take an extra attack with the fork (a 2h weapon):
Usually your attacks would be +6/+1.
The rules says your primary weapon (the fork) gets your main attack and your iterative. Your offhand weapon (the fork) gets the extra attack and you apply two weapon fighting penalties.
What are those penalties? -6/-10 are the default penalties. Your primary weapon is not 1h or light; you do have twf while you full attack. This reduces the penalties by 2/2. So your penalties are -4/-8.
This means your attack is 2/-2/-3.
Do you understand it now?
Tommy it is you who don't understand. I told you above that I understood the rules for twf before you posted and my understanding has not changed. What you don't understand is that with a flurry you don't take one weapon and magically change it from a primary weapon to an off hand weapon, so those twf rules are applied differently. The extra attack doesn't require an off hand weapon so it is not an off hand attack.
Once you stop assuming there is something I don't understand about the rules, you can try to figure out why your position causes so many problems with the rules. Why would Paizo create rules problems when there are no problems with flurry? Because they didn't... Brawler's flurry is a special case for twf'ing because it is a flurry.
Please pay attention to what I am saying here:
Brawlers flurry is a flurry. It doesn't require an off hand attack to make the extra attack. That is my opinion. If you want to argue that flurry is not a special case, you can argue that. However arguing what twf is or is not makes no sense because Brawler's flurry is a special case.
Do you understand now? The debate is whether flurry is a special case or not. If it is not a special case, please explain why you think it is not.
I understand that you say that you understand TWF rules - but I see no evidence of that being the case when you make statements at odds with how twf fighting works.
For example:
you cannot two weapon fight with a two handed weapon while gripping it two handed.
Wrong.
Your assumption is that taking the extra attack from two weapon fighting, which can normally only be done with a second weapon, means the brawler is tossing his one handed weapon into to his off hand and designating that extra attack as an off hand attack.
Wrong.
Brawler Flurry allows you to have an extra attack similar to two weapon fighting
Wrong. (Although to explain, twf does not allow you to have an extra attack. IT ONLY REDUCES PENALTIES).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What are those penalties?
the FAQ on 'hands of effort' remove possibility of 2 handed use in TWF so it's impossible to calculate it's penalties. We can only say what light and one handed are based solely on the TWF section of the combat rules. This makes this way of looking at flurries untenable. You have to ASSUME what the penalties SHOULD be without any confirmation.
The other way at least has a similar ability to look to for how it works: monks flurry. Some kind of precedent IMO, looks like a better option than pure assumption.
Tommy it is you who don't understand. I told you above that I understood the rules for twf before you posted and my understanding has not changed. What you don't understand is that with a flurry you don't take one weapon and magically change it from a primary weapon to an off hand weapon,
No one is saying you do. So clearly you don't understand how TWF works.
so those twf rules are applied differently.
Since thats not how TWF works.. the concept of applied differently is meaningless.
The extra attack doesn't require an off hand weapon so it is not an off hand attack.
Sorry - support this with a rules quote please.
Because nothing in Brawler's flurry says that.What it says is you can flurry with one weapon.
Nothing in the rules says "Brawler's don't make an off hand attack."
What the rules say is AN EXTRA ATTACK IS AN OFFHAND ATTACK.
And until you can find something that contradicts that - you have to live with the rules as written. I quoted the rule above.
I gave you the example - if a 6th level fighter has both hands tied behind his back one of those kicks is an OFF HAND ATTACK. Regardless if both hands are empty.
These are the rules. And if you understood them you wouldn't keep talking about weapons in hands.
Pathfinder doesn't give a rats ass what weapons are in what hands for the discussion of Primary and off hand attacks.
I'll say it again. PATHFINDER DOES NOT CARE WHAT WEAPON IS IN WHAT HAND, OR ANY HAND. THE ONLY TIME PRIMARY AND OFFHAND ATTACKS are defined is when an extra attack is made.
Once you stop assuming there is something I don't understand about the rules, you can try to figure out why your position causes so many problems with the rules. Why would Paizo create rules problems when there are no problems with flurry? Because they...
LOL. You having a problem understanding the rules does not mean Paizo created a rule problem.
I understand that you say that you understand TWF rules - but I see no evidence of that being the case when you make statements at odds with how twf fighting works.
For example:
you cannot two weapon fight with a two handed weapon while gripping it two handed.Wrong.
Your assumption is that taking the extra attack from two weapon fighting, which can normally only be done with a second weapon, means the brawler is tossing his one handed weapon into to his off hand and designating that extra attack as an off hand attack.
Wrong.
Brawler Flurry allows you to have an extra attack similar to two weapon fightingWrong. (Although to explain, twf does not allow you to have an extra attack. IT ONLY REDUCES PENALTIES).
I see no evidence that know what you are talking about. Please show me the rule where you can twf with a 2 hand weapon while gripping it in 2hands with a 2 hander grip.
You can two weapon fight without the feat, so once again I say, two weapon fighting allows you to take an extra attack. It is you who once again are wrong.
Lets take this simply.
If a 6th level fighter has both hands tied behind his back, and he makes three kicks - tell me what his primary weapon is, and his off hand weapon.
This is a legitimate, straight up, trivial twf question.
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
So can we consider the main ambiguities with Brawler's Flurry to be the following two questions:
- Does the "She does not need to use two different weapons to use this ability" clause in Brawler's Flurry overrule the "If you wield a second weapon in your off hand, you can get one extra attack per round with that weapon" clause in the Two-Weapon Fighting combat option so that you can make an extra attack by declaring you are using the Two-Weapon Fighting option with a single weapon? If so, what penalties does one invoke from two-weapon fighting with a single weapon: -2 if the weapon is light and -4 if the weapon is not?
- In the clause "A brawler applies her full Strength modifier to her damage rolls for all attacks made with brawler’s flurry, whether the attacks are made with an off-hand weapon or a weapon wielded in both hands" does "full strength modifier" mean "the strength modifier is not reduced by anything so it can be 1.5x Str if you are wielding a weapon in two hands" or simply "1x Str" no matter what?
cabbage
its not the "if you wield a second weapon in your off hand, you can gt one extra accack per round with that weapon" that I am arguing.
This:
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."
is the relevant text.
You're using brawler's flurry. Nothing in it gives you an extra attack.
you decide to get an extra attack
The only way to do that is with the rules in TWF
As it says above - that decision locks you in. The extra attack is your offhand attack.
So can we consider the main ambiguities with Brawler's Flurry to be the following two questions:
- Does the "She does not need to use two different weapons to use this ability" clause in Brawler's Flurry overrule the "If you wield a second weapon in your off hand, you can get one extra attack per round with that weapon" clause in the Two-Weapon Fighting combat option so that you can make an extra attack by declaring you are using the Two-Weapon Fighting option with a single weapon? If so, what penalties does one invoke from two-weapon fighting with a single weapon: -2 if the weapon is light and -4 if the weapon is not?
- In the clause "A brawler applies her full Strength modifier to her damage rolls for all attacks made with brawler’s flurry, whether the attacks are made with an off-hand weapon or a weapon wielded in both hands" does "full strength modifier" mean "the strength modifier is not reduced by anything so it can be 1.5x Str if you are wielding a weapon in two hands" or simply "1x Str" no matter what?
That's pretty much it PossibleCabbage.
Perfect Tommy: Nothing in TWF allows you to use a two handed weapon and in fact it's disallowed by the FAq, so pointing to TWF as the answer is missing the point.
cabbage
its not the "if you wield a second weapon in your off hand, you can gt one extra accack per round with that weapon" that I am arguing.
This:
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."is the relevant text.
You're using brawler's flurry. Nothing in it gives you an extra attack.
you decide to get an extra attack
The only way to do that is with the rules in TWF
As it says above - that decision locks you in. The extra attack is your offhand attack.
You are making a mistake thinking your assumption is more correct than others when your assumptions create new undefined problems. There is no line that that says anything about an off hand attack in Brawler's flurry. Why? Because flurry is a special case for two weapon fighting. Flurry is littered with special cases. Why is this one special case so hard for you to accept?
Where is there any rule, any rule at all, that discusses using a 2 hand weapon while gripping it in 2 hands, and using it 2 handed, while 2 weapon fighting? If you can point to any rule that defines those penalties, I will concede to your superior knowledge of the rules. As you said, please use actual text. Otherwise, you telling me I'm wrong is you showing that you're not only wrong but illustrating why your theory is not sound.
Since you so definitively said I was wrong, please answer my questions above and don't dodge them like you just did. I will repeat:
What is the rule that allows a 2 hand weapon, when held and wielded two handed, to be used in TWF? Also what is the penalty for doing so?
Can you please tell me why Brawler's flurry is not a special TWF case?
Lets take this simply.
If a 6th level fighter has both hands tied behind his back, and he makes three kicks - tell me what his primary weapon is, and his off hand weapon.
This is a legitimate, straight up, trivial twf question.
Lets make this simpler. If a 6th level fighter has both hands tied behind his back, and one leg chained to the ground, can he make an off hand attack with the foot he used for his primary attack?
Lets make this simpler. If a 6th level fighter has both hands tied behind his back, and one leg chained to the ground, can he make an off hand attack with the foot he used for his primary attack?Lets take this simply.
If a 6th level fighter has both hands tied behind his back, and he makes three kicks - tell me what his primary weapon is, and his off hand weapon.
This is a legitimate, straight up, trivial twf question.
I don't think so. But he could use another part of his anatomy for an unarmed strike (potentially eating a -4 penalty and an AoO for nonproficiency).
Lets make this simpler. If a 6th level fighter has both hands tied behind his back, and one leg chained to the ground, can he make an off hand attack with the foot he used for his primary attack?Lets take this simply.
If a 6th level fighter has both hands tied behind his back, and he makes three kicks - tell me what his primary weapon is, and his off hand weapon.
This is a legitimate, straight up, trivial twf question.
How about you extend the courtesy of answering the question?
But since you won't - the answer is clear. Primary attack and offhand attack has NOTHING TO DO WITH HANDS.
Now, to answer your question. TWFing requires that two weapons. But it doesn't require any *hands*.
Brawler's fury lets you escape the requirement for two weapons. As I enumerated above.
Lets make this simpler. If a 6th level fighter has both hands tied behind his back, and one leg chained to the ground, can he make an off hand attack with the foot he used for his primary attack?Lets take this simply.
If a 6th level fighter has both hands tied behind his back, and he makes three kicks - tell me what his primary weapon is, and his off hand weapon.
This is a legitimate, straight up, trivial twf question.
How about you extend the courtesy of answering the question?
But since you won't - the answer is clear. Primary attack and offhand attack has NOTHING TO DO WITH HANDS.
Now, to answer your question. TWFing requires that two weapons. But it doesn't require any *hands*.
Brawler's fury lets you escape the requirement for two weapons. As I enumerated above.
Hand is just a term. We all know that with flurry you can use many options to attack.
Also thank you for answering my question. It actually answers your issue with Brawler flurry as well. That 6th lvl fighter can make those 3 attacks because as you said "Brawler's fury lets you escape the requirement for two weapons." It does that because it is a special case. The specific use of flurry allows the brawlers to do things with it that can't be done with regular TWF.
Now that you have agreed with me that Brawlers Flurry is a special case, can you tell me why you think it is a special case here but for some reason the developers decided to not make it a special case when using a 1 hand weapon. Further more, why they would leave 2 hand use wholly undefined? Keep in mind they are both defined in flurry. Coincidentally Brawler's two weapon fighting is called a flurry.
Now that you have agreed with me that Brawlers Flurry is a special case, can you tell me why you think it is a special case here but for some reason the developers decided to not make it a special case when using a 1 hand weapon. Further more, why they would leave 2 hand use wholly undefined? Keep in mind they are both defined in flurry. Coincidentally Brawler's two weapon fighting is called a flurry.
Clearly you don't understand what I've said.
Regardless I believe its *your* turn to actually answer a question.
Here's the text from Brawlers Flurry:
Starting at 2nd level, a brawler can make a brawler’s flurry as a full-attack action. When doing so, a brawler has the Two-Weapon Fighting feat when attacking with any combination of unarmed strikes, weapons from the close fighter weapon group, or weapons with the “monk” special feature. She does not need to use two different weapons to use this ability.
A brawler applies her full Strength modifier to her damage rolls for all attacks made with brawler’s flurry, whether the attacks are made with an off-hand weapon or a weapon wielded in both hands. A brawler can substitute disarm, sunder, and trip combat maneuvers for unarmed attacks as part of brawler’s flurry. A brawler with natural weapons can’t use such weapons as part of brawler’s flurry, nor can she make natural weapon attacks in addition to her brawler’s flurry attacks.
Notice that while Monk's Flurry explicitly states you may make one additional attack, Brawler's Flurry does not.
So here's my question:
Where in Brawlers Flurry (and your comment was rather snarky - weren't we trying to keep the conversation civil? I have previously repetitively used the correct term. It just so happens my phone insists on auto correcting it).
So - where in Brawler's Flurry, and under what justification - do you impugn the ability to make an extra attack?
Nothing in the feature itself conveys extra attacks. It makes no mention of them.
Since we play an exception based game, if you wish to do something outside the rules, you must have a written rule that explicitly allows you to violate the RAW.
So again from where and under what rules do you impute the ability to make an extra attack.
Aren't "you may make an extra attack" and "you may use the two-weapon fighting option without a second weapon" essentially the same thing except for the to-hit penalties that TWF carries?
Thats exactly the point cabbage.
I am attempting to make Bladelock understand:
EVERY character has the authority to make an extra attack. Brawler's Fury does not convey any authority to make an extra attack in ANY fashion.
The only authority to make an extra attack comes under the making an extra attack rules - colloquially referred to as two weapon fighting.
Under those rules anyone can make an extra attack. If they do so the penalties are -6/-10.
The FAQ is very clear on this - the -6 applies to the main attack and all iteratives; the -10 applies to the extra attack.
If, when the extra attack is made, the extra attack is made with a light weapon, the attack penalties are reduced by -2/-2, to -4/-8.
Brawler's flurry gives the brawler the TWF feat for the duration of the full attack. That reduces the penalty by -2/-6.
So, if the extra attack is made not made with a light weapon - the brawler attacks at -4/-4.
If the extra attack is made with a light weapon and the twf feat, the penalty is -2/-2
THE ONLY THING TWF DOES IS REDUCE THE NORMAL PENALTIES FOR TAKING AN EXTRA ATTACK.
Now that you have agreed with me that Brawlers Flurry is a special case, can you tell me why you think it is a special case here but for some reason the developers decided to not make it a special case when using a 1 hand weapon. Further more, why they would leave 2 hand use wholly undefined? Keep in mind they are both defined in flurry. Coincidentally Brawler's two weapon fighting is called a flurry.
Clearly you don't understand what I've said.
Regardless I believe its *your* turn to actually answer a question.
Here's the text from Brawlers Flurry:
Starting at 2nd level, a brawler can make a brawler’s flurry as a full-attack action. When doing so, a brawler has the Two-Weapon Fighting feat when attacking with any combination of unarmed strikes, weapons from the close fighter weapon group, or weapons with the “monk” special feature. She does not need to use two different weapons to use this ability.
A brawler applies her full Strength modifier to her damage rolls for all attacks made with brawler’s flurry, whether the attacks are made with an off-hand weapon or a weapon wielded in both hands. A brawler can substitute disarm, sunder, and trip combat maneuvers for unarmed attacks as part of brawler’s flurry. A brawler with natural weapons can’t use such weapons as part of brawler’s flurry, nor can she make natural weapon attacks in addition to her brawler’s flurry attacks.
Notice that while Monk's Flurry explicitly states you may make one additional attack, Brawler's Flurry does not.
So here's my question:
Where in Brawlers Flurry (and your comment was rather snarky - weren't we trying to keep the conversation civil? I have previously repetitively used the correct term. It just so happens my phone insists on auto correcting it).
So - where in Brawler's Flurry, and under what justification - do you impugn the ability to make an extra attack?
Nothing in the feature itself conveys extra attacks. It makes no mention of them....
I am keeping it civil. I was simply copy and pasting what you wrote and ignored the typo(actually didn't notice it because I knew what you were saying). However your insistence that I don't understand something does grate the nerves. I understand your point and the rules. I simply think your opinion is likely incorrect.
Brawlers Flurry allows an extra attack via two weapon fighting. The Brawler's Flurry is a special case that allows a number of the TWF'ing rules to be broken. This is what feats and abilities often do. They allow a character to do something that goes beyond or modifies a standard rule.
In this case Brawler Flurry says you can Two Weapon Fight with 1 weapon. That weapon can be gripped in 2 hands and used as a 2 handed weapon rather than a double weapon. Despite not using an off hand weapon (or foot or elbow or forehead or off hand monk weapon or off hand close weapon) the brawler may gain an extra attack.
So once again, why do you think Brawler's Flurry is not a special Two Weapon Fighting case when it clearly modifies so much of two weapon fighting? Please don't quote the two weapon fighting rules. Tell me why Brawlers Flurry is not a specific case that trumps the general rule.
edit: Ahhh... the coincidental line was referring to flurry was because it solves all the issues not your use of "fury."