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?
They are essentially the same thing. The question is what penalties should apply. My assertion is that since you can TWF with out an off hand weapon when flurrying, there is no "off hand attack" so the penalty remains -2.
Perfect Tommy's assumption is that the primary weapon attack transforms into an off hand attack when the second attack is made, even though there is no off hand weapon. If it is a 1 hand weapon that transforms into the off hand attack it is -4. If it is a 2 hand weapon it is undefined so we must make up a penalty. He has tossed out -4 and -10.
The problem is that having heavier than a light weapon making the extra attack does not impose a penalty on twf. It is having a light weapon for the extra attack that reduces the twf penalty.
If you do not have an "off hand" weapon, then nothing is reducing the penalty of twf, so you get -4,-4. So by your interpretation attacking with one weapon is always -4,-4 since there is no off hand weapon.
That would mean flurrying with 1 light weapon would be -4/-4.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So the specific question is-
I am a 6th level brawler, wielding a bayonet affixed to a light crossbow. Since a bayonet is in the close weapon group, I am entitled to flurry with it; it is also a two-handed weapon. If I want to make a full attack using my Brawler's Flurry, what is my attack progression? If I also use power attack, do I add 1x or 1.5x my strength to damage?
Do I attack at +4/+4/-1 because I have the two weapon fighting feat, and my "offhand weapon" is light (by virtue of being nonexistent). Do attack at +2/+2/-3 because my "offhand weapon" is the same bayonet which is not a light weapon?
...
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.
Brawlers Flurry allows an extra attack via two weapon fighting.
Great. We agree. The authority to make an extra attack comes ONLY under the rules for TWF.
There is no rules, for example tat the brawler gets to magically take an extra attack because he's a brawler. Its *ONLY* under the TWF RAW.
Great.
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.
Great. We agree again.
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.
NO.
That is an incorrect use of terminology. It is correctly phrased - "Despite not using two weapons, the brawler may gain a second attack."
There is no offhand weapon BEFORE gaining a second attack. EVER.
I've give the rules upthread. If you want to use language at variance with the rules, you have to have a rules source that allows it.
Please provide. (There is none).
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?
I do think Brawler's flurry is a special case of gaining an extra attack.
But (as I have said repeteadly) it does not modify the TWF feat - at all. In order to modify the TWF feat - it would need verbiage that does so. Please quote.
As I have quoted again and again - all TWF(feat) does is reduce penalties when certain conditions apply.
The conditions are:
If offhand attack is light (or less) - one penalty is abated.
If possess TWF(feat) - more penalty is penalty.
IF both these conditions are true - the penalty is -2/-2.
Since there is no verbiage in either TWF(feat) or the "gaining an extra attack with two weapons section of the rules regarding fighting with a 2h weapon in both hands, the PENALTIES LISTED IN RAW (gaining an extra attack with two weapons...) STAND.
So maybe Brawler's Flurry modifies that section of the rules - and indeed, it does.
Brawler's flurry says you can make an extra attack while wielding a 2h weapon.
It has no explicit verbiage regarding off hand or primary attacks -at all. So the rules about primary and off hand remain.
Here are what the rules say:
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."
As I showed before with the example of the man with both hands tied behind his back - the RAW do not care what weapon is wielded in what hand or hands.
His primary attack is his main and iterative attacks. His EXTRA ATTACK is ALWAYS his off hand attack.
This is true whether it is wielded in one hand, two hands, or no hands.
And this point has been backed up in FAQ numerous times.
You wield a double weapon in both hands - but there is still a primary attack and an off hand attack. Is on hand the primary and the other offhand? NO. Which ever one makes the extra attack is the offhand attack.
Your contention is two fold -both unsupported by the rules
A. That because you may have a weapon wielded in two hands the rules on what constitutes an off hand or a primary attack do not apply.
But you have no rules text that says that.
B. You also say that the weapon penalties should be -2/-2 even though there is no rules text to say that.
The "gaining an extra attack through two weapons section of the rules" specifies that the penalty for making an extra attack is -6/-10. And it specifies the conditions under which it might be ameliorated. Don't meet the conditions - you don't get the amelioration.
So what does brawler's flurry do?
It lets you violate the rules EXACTLY in the manner written in the text.
1. It lets you gain an extra attack even in the case when you choose to use only one weapon.
2. It allows you to choose a 2h monk's weapon to gain an attack with which is normally not allowed.
3. You may also choose to use a single 1h close weapon, or 1 handed monk's weapon. (although this is subsumed in 1 & 2 above, I list it here for thoroughness.)
4. It does some miscellaneous things I listed above, which are not germane to this particular point.
Those are the abilities in Brawler's Flurry. Those are the ways you are allowed to violate the rules. No other.
Your contention that because you can use a 2h weapon and thereby ignore the sections on offhand weapons is an assumption on your part; one that has no supporting rules text; and one that is contradicted by fighting with a double weapon; fighting with no weapons in hand etc
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?They are essentially the same thing. The question is what penalties should apply. My assertion is that since you can TWF with out an off hand weapon when flurrying, there is no "off hand attack" so the penalty remains -2.
Perfect Tommy's assumption is that the primary weapon attack transforms into an off hand attack when the second attack is made, even though there is no off hand weapon. If it is a 1 hand weapon that transforms into the off hand attack it is -4. If it is a 2 hand weapon it is undefined so we must make up a penalty. He has tossed out -4 and -10.
NO That is not Perfect Tommy's assertion - at all.
Perfect Tommy is making the assertion that you are using the terminology completely wrong.
WHATEVER ATTACK is the extra attack is the offhand attack.
Whatever attack is *not* the extra attack is the primary attack.
One section of the rules qualifies whether you can make an extra attack or not. Brawler's flurry changes the rules and allows you to make an extra attack with one weapon, and/or while wielding a 2h monk's weapon for example.
Once you are qualified to make that attack however, it makes NO changes to rules as written for how those attacks occur.
WHATEVER ATTACK is the extra attack is the offhand attack.
Whatever attack is *not* the extra attack is the primary attack.
The penalty to the attack is -6 to the primary, and -10 to the extra attack.
This is an exact paraphrase of the rules.
Perfect Tommy makes a second assertion. The TWF(FEAT) rules explicity cover how the penalties to these attacks can be ameliorated.
1. If the extra attack is light.
2. IF you have the TWF feat.
3. If both are true.
Perfect Tommy's assertion is that the RAW apply; that you do not get to invent whatever penalty you would like to apply
" My assertion is that since you can TWF with out an off hand weapon when flurrying, there is no "off hand attack" so the penalty remains -2."
The problem is that having heavier than a light weapon making the extra attack does not impose a penalty on twf. It is having a light weapon for the extra attack that reduces the twf penalty.
If you do not have an "off hand" weapon, then nothing is reducing the penalty of twf, so you get -4,-4. So by your interpretation attacking with one weapon is always -4,-4 since there is no off hand weapon.
''
Correct.
Wonky rules: It is likely better for everyone to just pretend that it works like monk's flurry of blows.
A. Unfortunately in PFS we don't have the luxury of ignoring the rules we wish. We have to play with RAW.
B. While the rules are abstruse, it isn't the rules here that is the biggest impediment to understanding. Its the idea that penalties are tied to *hands*.
It is generally useful to correct this misapprehension so that people can understand the general concept AND the specific concepts. How does TWF work. How does monk's flurry work. How does Brawler's flurry work.
Correct
1."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."Key points: no extra attack is given (unlike monk), so we must use twf rules to get one (unlike monk), but we only need one weapon (like monk).
Correct.Two-handed weapon being used with twf:
main hand is two handed
off hand is two handed (allowed to use same weapon)Note that by "If you wield a (second) weapon in your off hand, you can get one extra attack per round with that weapon." we need an off hand weapon to gain an attack with it.
Correct+2/+2/-3
(-4 penalty since base is -6/-10, and reduced by 2/6 from twf feat, no light offhand to further reduce the penalty)
Base damage is 1x str in every attack. (see brawlers flurry)
Power attack is still +50% for attacks 1 and 3 (two handed)
For attack 2, its +50% -50% (two handed + for being off hand attack from twf)
Correct with the following caveat:
Base damage is 1xStr Bonus. No longer strength MODIFIER. So weak brawlers got a bene. Which I think goes along with the intent of the class.
Power attack, as worded, stacks."
Note also:
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
Another nail in the idea that offhand attacks do not apply to brawler's flurry.
Tommy you are stuck assuming that Brawler Flurry is not a special case where there is no off hand weapon nor an off hand attack. This is very likely incorrect.
No off hand weapon is less than light in terms of how we determine the penalties for Two Weapon Fighting. Your assertion that it would be -4 or -10 not only does not fit with the fact that the Brawler Flurry is special case for Two Weapon Fighting and not basic two weapon fighting, but it would make those options virtually inoperable.
Your interpretation of Flurry simply makes no sense for the class because your ideas cause there to be:
- undefined two handed weapon penalties for two weapon fighting
- aspects of flurry that become virtually inoperable
- multiple twists of logic making a 1 weapon to be both primary and off hand in the middle of attacks
All these make your argument for Brawler Flurry functioning in line with standard TWF, rather than a specific set of twf rules that trumps the general twf rules, highly unlikely. Play the way you like, but I doubt many will agree with you.
Another nail in the idea that offhand attacks do not apply to brawler's flurry.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
As I stated before. The only way your assertion of things could possibly work is if the Brawler actually had 2 1h weapons and wanted to flurry with each of them rather than just 1 of them.
That is the only way you might get your -4/-4 from a Brawler Flurry.
Tommy you are stuck assuming that Brawler Flurry is not a special case where there is no off hand weapon nor an off hand attack. This is very likely incorrect.
No off hand weapon is less than light in terms of how we determine the penalties for Two Weapon Fighting. Your assertion that it would be -4 or -10 not only does not fit with the fact that the Brawler Flurry is special case for Two Weapon Fighting and not basic two weapon fighting, but it would make those options virtually inoperable.
Your interpretation of Flurry simply makes no sense for the class because your ideas cause there to be:
- undefined two handed weapon penalties for two weapon fighting
- aspects of flurry that become virtually inoperable
- multiple twists of logic making a 1 weapon to be both primary and off hand in the middle of attacksAll these make your argument for Brawler Flurry functioning in line with standard TWF, rather than a specific set of twf rules that trumps the general twf rules, highly unlikely. Play the way you like, but I doubt many will agree with you.
1. The very feature says there are off hand attacks. (Str damage apply whether off hand or 2h.....)
2. You have no rules to say that raw does not apply.
3. No. I apply no undefined weapon penalties. I apply exactly the penalties specified in the rules.
4. There are no aspects of flurry that become inoperable. They just don't work the way you think they do.
Is a -10 penalty to tying up 'inoperable'
No. It's just the rule.
5. Nor are there any twists of logic.
Just like when twin with a double weapon, the same weapon counts as primary and offhand.
Exactly as the rules specify.
6. As for people agreeing with me, most of the people that have worked through the logic have agreed with me. Oneyou. Toasted amphibian. Cabbage.
I am completely confident that the rules are as I've outlined, without one shread of doubt.
I'm sorry that my presentation seems to destroy your vision of a brawler.
Your vision favors large weapons power attacking.
My vision favors an in your face fighter, using the hallmark tools of a brawler.
Tommy you are stuck assuming that Brawler Flurry is not a special case where there is no off hand weapon nor an off hand attack. This is very likely incorrect.
No off hand weapon is less than light in terms of how we determine the penalties for Two Weapon Fighting. Your assertion that it would be -4 or -10 not only does not fit with the fact that the Brawler Flurry is special case for Two Weapon Fighting and not basic two weapon fighting, but it would make those options virtually inoperable.
Your interpretation of Flurry simply makes no sense for the class because your ideas cause there to be:
- undefined two handed weapon penalties for two weapon fighting
- aspects of flurry that become virtually inoperable
- multiple twists of logic making a 1 weapon to be both primary and off hand in the middle of attacksAll these make your argument for Brawler Flurry functioning in line with standard TWF, rather than a specific set of twf rules that trumps the general twf rules, highly unlikely. Play the way you like, but I doubt many will agree with you.
1. The very feature says there are off hand attacks. (Str damage apply whether off hand or 2h.....)
2. You have no rules to say that raw does not apply.
3. No. I apply no undefined weapon penalties. I apply exactly the penalties specified in the rules.
4. There are no aspects of flurry that become inoperable. They just don't work the way you think they do.
Is a -10 penalty to tying up 'inoperable'
No. It's just the rule.
5. Nor are there any twists of logic.
Just like when twf with a double weapon, the same weapon counts as primary and offhand.
Exactly as the rules specify.
6. As for people agreeing with me, most of the people that have worked through the logic have agreed with me. Oneyou. Toasted amphibian. Cabbage.
I am completely confident that the rules are as I've outlined, without one shread of doubt.
I'm sorry that my presentation seems to destroy your vision of a brawler.
Your vision favors large weapons power attacking.
My vision favors an in your face fighter, using the hallmark tools of a brawler.
But wrong on this:Base damage is 1xStr Bonus. It's modifier.
1. The very feature says there are off hand attacks. (Str damage apply whether off hand or 2h.....)2. You have no rules to say that raw does not apply.
3. No. I apply no undefined weapon penalties. I apply exactly the penalties specified in the rules.
4. There are no aspects of flurry that become inoperable. They just don't work the way you think they do.
Is a -10 penalty to tying up 'inoperable'
No. It's just the rule.5. Nor are there any twists of logic.
Just like when twf with a double weapon, the same weapon counts as primary and offhand.Exactly as the rules specify.
6. As for people agreeing with me, most of the people that have worked through the logic have agreed with me. Oneyou. Toasted amphibian. Cabbage.
I am completely confident that the rules are as I've outlined, without one shread of doubt.
I'm sorry that my presentation seems to destroy your vision of a brawler.
Your vision favors large weapons power attacking.
My vision favors an in your face fighter, using the hallmark tools of a brawler.
You have stated your problem. You have a "vision" for Brawler. Your "vision" requires a rules contortion to make it work. You cannot two weapon fight with a 2 hand weapon. There can be no off hand attack with a light or one hand weapon after making an attack with a weapon used 2 handed.
See FAQ on 2 handed weapons and off hand attacks.
Your "vision" makes two weapon fighting with Brawler undefined. So yes, to make your "vision" work, you need to twist logic. Your insistence on stating flurry is no different than two fighting is also flawed because the rules say there is no need to use and off hand weapon with Brawler's Flurry. No off hand is lighter than light.
You then justify your insistence that the rules speak to using an off hand attack. It does no such thing. Flurry mentions the OPTION of using an off hand weapon, nothing about the necessity for an off hand attack. Once again your vision conflicts with using one weapon to twf because without a special case you need two weapons for an off hand attack. It also conflicts with 2 handing a weapon as that also can't be done while two weapon fighting. Your vision of Brawler can only possibly work if the Brawler insists on using two different weapons rather than one weapon during a flurry.
Your assertion that a -10 to hit would simply be a rule and not an inoperable feature further displays your intent here. No pathfinder game designer would would make a class ability that specifically called out a -10 to hit on class ability, that didn't cause near instant death, and call it an operable class feature. Only you do here, in order to push your "vision" of Brawlers that simply doesn't fit with an avalanche of contradictory evidence.
6. As for people agreeing with me, most of the people that have worked through the logic have agreed with me. Oneyou. Toasted amphibian. Cabbage.
I think you should let Oneyou and Cabbage speak for themselves. I am pretty sure the question is at least still in doubt as they both mentioned that your "vision" has issues and flurry (or flurry similar) may fit better.
3. No. I apply no undefined weapon penalties. I apply exactly the penalties specified in the rules.
Well I have asked several times for the rule that governs holding a weapon 2 handed while two weapon fighting. You still haven't produced that rule. Your argument falls apart without it.
Can you please show me the rule for fighting with a weapon in a 2 handed grip while two weapon fighting?
I think you should let Oneyou and Cabbage speak for themselves. I am pretty sure the question is at least still in doubt as they both mentioned that your "vision" has issues and flurry (or flurry similar) may fit better.
6. As for people agreeing with me, most of the people that have worked through the logic have agreed with me. Oneyou. Toasted amphibian. Cabbage.
They already have. Their posts are up thread. Posted and one went through a complete exegesis of the rules and they both are identical to mine. Which is not surprising since that's what the rules say.
I think you should let Oneyou and Cabbage speak for themselves. I am pretty sure the question is at least still in doubt as they both mentioned that your "vision" has issues and flurry (or flurry similar) may fit better.
6. As for people agreeing with me, most of the people that have worked through the logic have agreed with me. Oneyou. Toasted amphibian. Cabbage.
They already have. Their posts are up thread. Toasted and one went through a complete exegesis of the rules and they both are identical to mine. Which is not surprising since that's what the rules say.
I guess the easiest way to interpret this is to say that the one weapon that the Brawler is flurrying with counts as both the main-hand and the off-hand weapon at the same time, and calculate the two-weapon fighting penalties based off of that fact.
So, if you're flurrying with a weapon in two hands, the two-weapon fighting penalties would be -4/-4. This is because the Two-Weapon Fighting penalty table mentions that you only reduce the penalty to -2/-2 if your off-hand weapon is a light weapon. And since your off-hand weapon in this case is a 1-handed weapon held in two hands or a 2-handed weapon (the Two-Weapon penalty table only mentions whether your off-hand weapon is a light weapon or not), it is not a light weapon, that final reduction to -2/-2 doesn't occur, leaving the penalties at -4/-4.
At least, that's how I'd interpret it.
They need to speak for themselves but last post from oneyou wasThey already have. Their posts are up thread. Toasted and one went through a complete exegesis of the rules and they both are identical to mine. Which is not surprising since that's what the rules say.I think you should let Oneyou and Cabbage speak for themselves. I am pretty sure the question is at least still in doubt as they both mentioned that your "vision" has issues and flurry (or flurry similar) may fit better.
6. As for people agreeing with me, most of the people that have worked through the logic have agreed with me. Oneyou. Toasted amphibian. Cabbage.
Again, the flurry of blows rules make more sense, and are easier to use.
The ability is called a flurry rather than Brawler's Two Weapon Fighting because there are several flurry exceptions to two weapon fighting.
That being said, you can houserule however you want. Your vision for Brawler can be imposed at your table how you see fit. If I was at your table I would also joyfully accept your position. However it is a houserule that needs a force fit to work with the Pathfinder system. The -4 to temple sword flurries and -10 to Seven Branched Sword flurries are unlikely to be seen anywhere else beyond your table.
3. No. I apply no undefined weapon penalties. I apply exactly the penalties specified in the rules.Well I have asked several times for the rule that governs holding a weapon 2 handed while two weapon fighting. You still haven't produced that rule. Your argument falls apart without it.
Can you please show me the rule for fighting with a weapon in a 2 handed grip while two weapon fighting?
Still waiting for this answer.
Can you please show me the rule for fighting with a weapon in a 2 handed grip while two weapon fighting?
So the specific question is-
I am a 6th level brawler, wielding a bayonet affixed to a light crossbow. Since a bayonet is in the close weapon group, I am entitled to flurry with it; it is also a two-handed weapon. If I want to make a full attack using my Brawler's Flurry, what is my attack progression? If I also use power attack, do I add 1x or 1.5x my strength to damage?
Do I attack at +4/+4/-1 because I have the two weapon fighting feat, and my "offhand weapon" is light (by virtue of being nonexistent). Do attack at +2/+2/-3 because my "offhand weapon" is the same bayonet which is not a light weapon?
It is a two handed weapon. You are entitled to flurry with it since it is in the close weapon group.
Your usual attacks would be +6/+1.
The prescribed penalties are -6/-10.
Your weapon is not light. (close <> light), your penalty is -4/-4.
Therefore, yes, your attacks are +2/+2/-3.
Your damage is +1x str mod on all attacks.
Power attack is a bonus to damage, and nothing in Brawler's flurry changes how it functions.
That would mean flurrying with 1 light weapon would be -4/-4.The problem is that having heavier than a light weapon making the extra attack does not impose a penalty on twf. It is having a light weapon for the extra attack that reduces the twf penalty.
If you do not have an "off hand" weapon, then nothing is reducing the penalty of twf, so you get -4,-4. So by your interpretation attacking with one weapon is always -4,-4 since there is no off hand weapon.
Correct.
I guess the easiest way to interpret this is to say that the one weapon that the Brawler is flurrying with counts as both the main-hand and the off-hand weapon at the same time, and calculate the two-weapon fighting penalties based off of that fact.
So, if you're flurrying with a weapon in two hands, the two-weapon fighting penalties would be -4/-4. This is because the Two-Weapon Fighting penalty table mentions that you only reduce the penalty to -2/-2 if your off-hand weapon is a light weapon. And since your off-hand weapon in this case is a 1-handed weapon held in two hands or a 2-handed weapon (the Two-Weapon penalty table only mentions whether your off-hand weapon is a light weapon or not), it is not a light weapon, that final reduction to -2/-2 doesn't occur, leaving the penalties at -4/-4.
At least, that's how I'd interpret it.
Easiest, and correct.
But I want to clarify a point. Pathfinder doesn't care about what hand a weapon is wielded in any more.
The extra attack is *always* offhand. The other attack(s) and iteratives are always *primary*.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
At least, that's how I'd interpret it.
I go with the monks flurry way "as if using the Two-Weapon Fighting feat". Other than gaining a feat instead of "as if using", I struggle to see the major differences between how the flurries work. Why would "as if using the Two-Weapon Fighting feat" give you a -2 and 'using the feat' give you -4?
The other side requires assuming 2 handed weapons are counted as 1 handed in the TWF combat/feat sections even though we're told those don't apply to 2 handed weapons [FAQ]. The chart effectively lists light and one handed as the FAQ removes 2 handed weapons, so they in fact aren't mentioned. You have to add them which brawlers doesn't do: it doesn't describe how they break the rules, just that they do. So I don't see any guidance on assigning a penalty from any sections of the rules because of two handedness.
So I'd have to disagree on "easiest". For me, following our only precedent on how to TWF with one weapon, monk's flurry, seems easiest. I'd rather argue based on "as if using" than a non-existent 2 handed weapon penalty.
Correct.That would mean flurrying with 1 light weapon would be -4/-4.The problem is that having heavier than a light weapon making the extra attack does not impose a penalty on twf. It is having a light weapon for the extra attack that reduces the twf penalty.
If you do not have an "off hand" weapon, then nothing is reducing the penalty of twf, so you get -4,-4. So by your interpretation attacking with one weapon is always -4,-4 since there is no off hand weapon.
...and you don't see how this may point to a flaw in your reasoning?
If I use one 1 punching dagger, a light close weapon, to Brawler's Flurry, your vision of the rules states that the attack is -4/-4.
Your interpretation of things simply throws everything from flurrying with one weapon that is light to flurrying with weapons gripped 2 handed into disarray. No idea how you are sticking with your guns here.
They named it a flurry for a reason. There is no off hand penalty. Brawler's Flurry allows for light weapons to work as well as weapons gripped in 2 hands, both with reasonable penalties to hit of -2.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Easiest, and correct.
I still have yet to see any explicit RULE on two handed weapon penalties in TWF. As such, I'd hold back on those's "correct"s. Right now, each side is making a judgement call on the available info. Your guess isn't any more 'correct' than mine.
Correct.That would mean flurrying with 1 light weapon would be -4/-4.The problem is that having heavier than a light weapon making the extra attack does not impose a penalty on twf. It is having a light weapon for the extra attack that reduces the twf penalty.
If you do not have an "off hand" weapon, then nothing is reducing the penalty of twf, so you get -4,-4. So by your interpretation attacking with one weapon is always -4,-4 since there is no off hand weapon.
Incorrect.
Flurrying with one light weapon means that your main-hand and off-hand weapon are both light (since the 1 light weapon is both the main-hand and off-hand weapon), so you get the full reduction to a -2/-2 full attack.
Incorrect.
Flurrying with one light weapon means that your main-hand and off-hand weapon are both light (since the 1 light weapon is both the main-hand and off-hand weapon), so you get the full reduction to a -2/-2 full attack.
He's talking about having no off hand, so you can't claim a light off hand weapon meaning all one weapon TWF takes a -4. I understand the logic but it's just going further down the rabbit hole and IMO leading him farther off the correct path.
3. No. I apply no undefined weapon penalties. I apply exactly the penalties specified in the rules.Well I have asked several times for the rule that governs holding a weapon 2 handed while two weapon fighting. You still haven't produced that rule. Your argument falls apart without it.
Can you please show me the rule for fighting with a weapon in a 2 handed grip while two weapon fighting?
Still waiting for this answer.
Can you please show me the rule for fighting with a weapon in a 2 handed grip while two weapon fighting?
Sorry, I did reply I just didn't notice that the post got eaten.
but sure, I'll do it again.1. The rules govern how many attacks you can make. Streamlining, with weapons its based on iteratives. At 6th level you can make 2 attacks one at +6 the other at +1, regardless of how many weapons you wield.
2. Any time you wish to make MORE attacks than that, you must have a feat or class feature (etc) that allows the exception.
3. The general case for this, and hence the rules as written, is colloquailly called two weapon fighting.
4. Brawlers Flurry does not give you an extra attack, as Monk's Flurry does. In fact it has no text at all giving you extra attacks. ZERO.
This means you are governed by the rules already written.
5. BF makes the following modifications to the RAW.
1. You may make a full attack with any combination of close, unarmed strikes, monk's, and certain combat maneuvers.
2. You may use ONE weapon instead of two.
This means you can TWF with one kukri.
It means you can TWF with one temple sword.
It means you can TWF with two temple swords.
It means you can TWF with a quarter staff (monk weapon) wielded as a double weapon.
It means you can TWF with a quarter staff wielded as a 2h weapon.
It means you can TWF with a combination of kicks, punches, and armor spikes while you wield a Tetsubo. (presuming armor spikes are close weapons: I haven't checked.)
Brawler's flurry says regardless of how you grip your weapon, so long as you are using a combination of permitted weapons - you may use the TWF rules.
3. It changes how damage is applied.
4. It gives you the benefit of TWF Feat while full-attacking.
I posted the full list of changes up thread, but these are the relevant ones to your question. These are the ONLY CHANGES to RAW. No other changes allowed, and RAW must be followed.
So since you have NO other authorization to gather an extra attack you must use the twf rules to gain an extra attack.
The TWF rules state - whatever attack is the extra attack, gains the offhand penalties. The other attack (plus iteratives) gains the primary penalties.
It says the normal penalties are -6/-10, and these can be reduced if your extra attack is made with a light weapon, or if you have the TWF feat, or both.
BF has no other verbiage to change these rules.
So, as I said several times now:
Grip is immaterial. If you are qualified via BF to use the weapon, you may use whatever grip you want. It doesn't change the penalties, and it doesn't change the damage.
Handedness is immaterial. Pathfinder doesn't care what weapon is in what hand.
Not using hands - immaterial.
Extra Attack: Offhand Penalties
Other attacks + iteratives: Primary penalties.
Correct.That would mean flurrying with 1 light weapon would be -4/-4.The problem is that having heavier than a light weapon making the extra attack does not impose a penalty on twf. It is having a light weapon for the extra attack that reduces the twf penalty.
If you do not have an "off hand" weapon, then nothing is reducing the penalty of twf, so you get -4,-4. So by your interpretation attacking with one weapon is always -4,-4 since there is no off hand weapon.Incorrect.
Flurrying with one light weapon means that your main-hand and off-hand weapon are both light (since the 1 light weapon is both the main-hand and off-hand weapon), so you get the full reduction to a -2/-2 full attack.
My apologies. For some reason I saw the "1" and not the light. The answer I gave was for flurrying with one 1h weapon.
You are correct. Im sure I've muddied the waters with my fail at reading comprehension =P
Correct.That would mean flurrying with 1 light weapon would be -4/-4.The problem is that having heavier than a light weapon making the extra attack does not impose a penalty on twf. It is having a light weapon for the extra attack that reduces the twf penalty.
If you do not have an "off hand" weapon, then nothing is reducing the penalty of twf, so you get -4,-4. So by your interpretation attacking with one weapon is always -4,-4 since there is no off hand weapon....and you don't see how this may point to a flaw in your reasoning?
If I use one 1 punching dagger, a light close weapon, to Brawler's Flurry, your vision of the rules states that the attack is -4/-4.
Your interpretation of things simply throws everything from flurrying with one weapon that is light to flurrying with weapons gripped 2 handed into disarray. No idea how you are sticking with your guns here.
They named it a flurry for a reason. There is no off hand penalty. Brawler's Flurry allows for light weapons to work as well as weapons gripped in 2 hands, both with reasonable penalties to hit of -2.
No, I flubbed reading comprehension earlier. I was addressing flurrying with 1 1h weapons.
Using 1 kukri (or close weapon) - as I stated many times above, the penalty is -2/2
Titles of class features as well as descriptive text are fluff (there is actually an FAQ ruling on this) They could have called it "Killing your enemies in one shot"; the name is immaterial it is the changes to the rules that are relevant.
Here is your fundamental problem: Quote me your basis for saying there is no off hand penalty.
QUOTE IT.
Failing that, QUOTE what rule gives you an Extra Attack.
Thats all you really need to do to understand this.
3. No. I apply no undefined weapon penalties. I apply exactly the penalties specified in the rules.Well I have asked several times for the rule that governs holding a weapon 2 handed while two weapon fighting. You still haven't produced that rule. Your argument falls apart without it.
Can you please show me the rule for fighting with a weapon in a 2 handed grip while two weapon fighting?
Still waiting for this answer.
Can you please show me the rule for fighting with a weapon in a 2 handed grip while two weapon fighting?
Sorry, I did reply I just didn't notice that the post got eaten.
but sure, I'll do it again.
...
This is your interpretation of a number of different rules that you have patched together. I believe your interpretation of 2 weapon fighting with a 2h weapon held 2 handed is likely incorrect, but you have stated that my interpretation is definitely "wrong."
Since you have forcefully stated that I am wrong I ask you to quote the text, the actual text, that states two weapon fighting rules while wielding a weapon 2 handed. Can you do that?
So you can do helpful things like using dual-balanced weapons (possibly on your weapon and on a armor spike or something), use hand's autonomy (twf penalty reduction), use a blocking weapon(+1 shield bonus while twf), and get the benefits for your brawlers flurry.
Can you? For instance, a dual-balanced weapon requires 2: if using brawlers flurry with one weapon does it work? if it's counted like a second weapon for penalties why wouldn't it work as a second weapon for dual-balanced?
Blocking is for fighting defensively, so I'm unsure what it does for TWF.
hand's autonomy states "You reduce the penalties for fighting with two weapons" and NOT when you engage in two weapon fighting. This requires 2 weapons as much as dual-balanced does. Does it matter if that hand isn't used in the TWF?
"multiple twists of logic making a 1 weapon to be both primary and off hand in the middle of attacks"
True, this is the least intuitive part of twf with one weapon.
But how else can you define it?
If you want the extra attack from twf, you must have an offhand attack, which is carried out with some weapon. Since you do not need a second weapon for this, we can make an offhand attack with the same weapon as the regular attack. This makes the same weapon both the main hand and offhand weapon for the purposes of this discussion.
Good points Graystone. Oneyou, thanks for your post above. I think it clearly defines many of the differences of opinion, and that is fair. The quote above is one of the larger deviations.
On one hand you either need to accept that for flurry to work as TWF, 1 weapon needs to count as both a primary and off hand weapon. This of course then creates confusion with 2 hand weapons, certain items and an occasional feat. However people in support of it feel it is the only way to focus on TWF in the Brawler's Flurry.
On the other hand you can take the line "She does not need to use two different weapons to use this ability" to mean there is no need for an off hand weapon to use TWF'ing, and no off hand weapon means that the extra attack from TWF'ing never receives a penalty for an off hand attack. With this perspective light weapons, 1h weapons and 2 hand weapons all work smoothly and receive a -2 penalty.
Until there is an FAQ we can agree to disagree whether the former or the latter is correct. That is also fair. I am curious how they rule it in PFS.
Bladelock - You do realize that Oneyou ruled exactly the same as I did?
But regardless please answer my questions posted earlier.
Quote the actual text that entitles you to make an extra attack.
Quote the actual text that is the basis for your presumption of -2/-2.
I've asked several times now. I've given the exact texts that support my positions. You've given... nothing.
Bladelock - You do realize that Oneyou ruled exactly the same as I did?
But regardless please answer my questions posted earlier.
Quote the actual text that entitles you to make an extra attack.
Quote the actual text that is the basis for your presumption of -2/-2.I've asked several times now. I've given the exact texts that support my positions. You've given... nothing.
Actually you have only given me your interpretation of the rules. I have yet to see any text that gives the Two Weapon Fighting rule for wielding a weapon two handed. Wielding a weapon in a 2 hand grip is not any part of TWF. It is only a part of Flurry.
I have given you relevant text quoted from the books on my stance. The difference between us is that I know my stance is an interpretation. However you think your interpretation, despite all of its flaws and inconsistencies, is fact. I will repeat mine
"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."
TWF without the need for a second weapon means there is no need to designate an off hand weapon. No off hand weapon is less size than light so the lowest penalty of -2 applies.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Bladelock: Clearly Tommy can only see his own side of things and is just rehashing the same old replies for anything said. I think we're at the point where we should just not respond to him until/unless he actually comes up with something to counter the lack of two handed rules for TWF. We know we're all guessing here except him, so I've lost the energy to debate an unwinnable/answerable question.
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.
Shield use does not require a hand of effort. You can twf with a dagger and armor spikes with no problem while retaining the AC bonus of a heavy shield. Brawler just makes this easier, it is already legal. (Easier in that you don't have to enchant seperate weapons or worry about what feats go with which weapon, etc)
I'm not speaking of using a 2handed weapon with a buckler.
Yep, shields only require a hand of effort is you attack with it. For instance, a vestigial arm [alchemist] can use a shield while his normal hands wield a two handed weapon even though the vestigial arm doesn't add a hand of effort.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Basically, shields use up an arm, while weapons use up hands of effort. You only have trouble when your shield arm was also used as a hand of effort.
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?They are essentially the same thing. The question is what penalties should apply. My assertion is that since you can TWF with out an off hand weapon when flurrying, there is no "off hand attack" so the penalty remains -2.
Perfect Tommy's assumption is that the primary weapon attack transforms into an off hand attack when the second attack is made, even though there is no off hand weapon. If it is a 1 hand weapon that transforms into the off hand attack it is -4. If it is a 2 hand weapon it is undefined so we must make up a penalty. He has tossed out -4 and -10.
Mostly right. But the penalty is -6/-10, reduced by any appropriate reductions you qualify for. TWF Feat, Hand's Autonomy, Light off hand weapon, etc.
Make your extra TWF attack with a 1 hand weapon? You don't reduce your penalties by 2 for making your off hand attack with a light weapon. You know, because you didn't do so.
You are almost have it. Except a flurry allows you to use two weapon fighting without needing an off hand weapon, making the additional attack still a primary attack. With no additional penalties for a heavier than light off hand attack, we must apply the lowest penalty (-2) to attacks.
The stance is that with flurry no off hand weapon is needed to use TWF so no attack is an off hand attack. All two weapon attacks are primary. Simple easy. Most likely RAI and best supported by RAW IMO.