Double Slice is a feat available exclusively to fighters and rangers. If your off hand is an agile weapon, then essentially you can trade your secondary attack for another primary with your off hand agile weapon. If your off hand attack isn't an agile weapon, then it's still a primary attack at -2.
To be fair, it is the best weapon style in the game for melee, because of the interaction with crits, and is usually worth the two feat dip into fighter for it.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Without specific feat support (like fighters and rangers get), the value of two weapon fighting is if your offhand weapon is agile, a 4th level character with 18 strength would have an attack progression of:
+8 (1d8+4)/ +4 (1d6+4)/ +0(1d6+4)
Instead of attacking 3 times with the bigger weapon for:
+8 (1d8+4)/ +3 (1d8+4)/ -2 (1d8+4)
Double Slice is a feat available exclusively to fighters and rangers. If your off hand is an agile weapon, then essentially you can trade your secondary attack for another primary with your off hand agile weapon. If your off hand attack isn't an agile weapon, then it's still a primary attack at -2.
To be fair, it is the best weapon style in the game for melee, because of the interaction with crits, and is usually worth the two feat dip into fighter for it.
This does not clear up the confusion.I find nothing in the rules about primary or secondary attack. Just multiple attack penalties depending on which action the next attack comes on. Double slice is supposed to be an improved version of two weapon fighting and even the wording on that feat is confusing.
If I am reading double slice correct it counts as one strike with damage from each weapon, and the two attacks are considered as the second attack for multiple attack penalties. So for double slice the attacks are -5 for the first weapon, and -7 for the second weapon unless the other weapon is an agile weapon. Which is fine but how is regular 2 weapon fighting handled without the feat double slice?
Primary refers to attacks with no penalty, secondary for MAP -5, and tertiary for MAP -10, but given the large number of rules which change these values it's become easier (for me at least) to refer to them by the order in which they take place.
Double Slice trades your secondary attack [or MAP-5(4 with agile weapons) attack] for another primary (or no MAP) with an off hand weapon.
The off hand must be agile, or it becomes -2, and you only apply resistance once after combining both attacks.
Double Slice trades your secondary attack [or MAP-5(4 with agile weapons) attack] for another primary (or no MAP) with an off hand weapon.
The off hand must be agile, or it becomes -2, and you only apply resistance once after combining both attacks.
I guess I am getting hung up on double slice which apparently by every ones answers so far is a combination of the two weapon fighting and double slice feats rolled together and unless you have the double slice feat you can not really fight with two weapons. Which really sucks for rogues.
The wording on double slice where it says "This counts as two attacks when calculating your multiple attack penalty" is what is confusing me. It would imply that both attacks of the double slice are calculated at the -5 MAP.
It means that your attacks afterward skip the middle stage. This does nothing if Double Slice is done with your secondary attacks, and if both are agile you can go:
[A] Strike, [A\\] Double SliceAnd it'll resolve at -0/-4/-4. Rangers use hunt target to get -0/-3/-3, and fighters at 10th level can take agile grace to do the same.
There is no superior combat style to this.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Double Slice trades your secondary attack [or MAP-5(4 with agile weapons) attack] for another primary (or no MAP) with an off hand weapon.
The off hand must be agile, or it becomes -2, and you only apply resistance once after combining both attacks.
I guess I am getting hung up on double slice which apparently by every ones answers so far is a combination of the two weapon fighting and double slice feats rolled together and unless you have the double slice feat you can not really fight with two weapons. Which really sucks for rogues.
The wording on double slice where it says "This counts as two attacks when calculating your multiple attack penalty" is what is confusing me. It would imply that both attacks of the double slice are calculated at the -5 MAP.
No, because Double Slice states:
"Make one Strike (see page 308) with each of your two melee weapons, each at your current multiple attack penalty. The second Strike takes a –2 circumstance penalty if it’s made with a weapon that doesn’t have the agile trait (see page 182)."
So, if Double Slice is your first Strike in a round, your current multiple attack penalty is 0. If you use Double Slice after you do one Strike, your current multiple attack penalty would be -5 for a non-Agile weapon and -4 for an Agile weapon. The wording at the end of Double Slice just means any strike after a Double Slice, no matter when you did the double slice, suffers the Multiple Attack Penalty of a 3rd Strike (so -10, or -8 for Agile).
Ok with the inclusion of saw tooth sabre, and double slice apparently there is intent to include two weapon fighting style in the new Rule System. But what is not made clear is the mechanics that Two Weapon Fighting entails.
Since I can find no exact mechanic spelled out I am left to speculate that each weapon uses an action and that mechanically two weapon fighting is no different then attacking twice with a single handed or 2 handed weapon twice.
Is this supposition correct or is there some rule I am clearly missing?
I think you had the basics spot on in your first post: holding one weapon in each hand and making one attack with each is the same as making two attacks with a single weapon: first attack at your bonus, second attack -5.
Everything beyond that is a special case, the Double Slice class feat being the biggest -- and I think a place where the name similarity to a PF1 feat is more confusing than helpful. Ignore PF1 two-weapon fighting entirely and it makes more sense.
Edit to add: One interesting implication -- since there's no "off-hand" penalty, you can hold two weapons, and make iterative attacks with weapon 1/weapon 1/weapon 1, weapon 2/weapon 2/weapon 2, or mix them up in whatever order you like. (I'm not sure how this does you much good, of course, unless you find yourself fighting zombies and skeletons simultaneously and want to mix up your damage types?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think what he is looking for is there are no special two weapon fighting rules. If you have two weapons you can attack with either weapon for each individual attack you do. So first attack with main weapon -0 and 2nd attack with off hand weapon at a -5 (I am going to ignore agile for now). Or two attacks with your main weapon at a -0 and a -5. Or even two attacks with your off hand weapon at a -0 and a -5.
The special rules for two weapon fighting come from the definition of agile weapons.
Much like how weapon finesse was handled with the rules for both agile and finesse weapons.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
There is no superior combat style to this.
It feels like it's hard to justify statements like this, like a Giant totem barbarian with AoO and a reach weapon, who grows Large when they rage for an enormous circle of death is at least sufficiently different that it's hard to compare.
I mean, from PF1 we learned that "theoretically best DPR builds" were dependent on things like "access to full attacks" and "cover/spacing".
The special rules for two weapon fighting come from the definition of agile weapons.
Much like how weapon finesse was handled with the rules for both agile and finesse weapons.
Yeah, but without stuff like Double Slice, or Twin Parry, etc. there's no difference between a guy using a single shortsword and a guy using two shortswords. Heck, the first guy may be better off, he has a free hand to do stuff with.
Having two weapons out is an advantage if: a) Your "main-hand" isn't Agile, so you have a bigger first strike followed by lower MAP from the off hand (say, Longsword/Shortsword) or b) Your weapons have different damage types and that actually matters.
If you're planning on using two of the same weapon you basically gain nothing and lose nothing. It's basically all in the Feats now. Without them you just behave like a PF1 guy with 3 attacks from BAB that switches what weapons they use for each (though you get an advantage from Agile weapons).
There is no superior combat style to this.It feels like it's hard to justify situations like this, like a Giant totem barbarian with AoO and a reach weapon, who grows Large when they rage for an enormous circle of death is at least sufficiently different that it's hard to compare.
How much does going up in size increase your attack bonus?
Barbarians are low martial status as they one ever get expert proficiency, and raging only improves damage. They're equal to rogues and monks as far as potential consistency to hit goes. Double Slice puts this in perspective, as my player who gave up on a paladin opted instead for a dwarf barbarian who multiclassed fighter specifically for double slice.
Two attacks at full is better than all these other tiny bonuses to a single hit for the action costs almost 100% of the time, especially on builds that get double slice naturally.
Based on this, I feel combat styles like power attack desperately need significant boosts to hit to make the action trades worth it by improving crit chance above what you can get with 3 attacks with double slice and agile weapons, because having the same chance to crit, but with less odds of that chance coming up from multiple attacks results in bad math.
Well, what's the value of being able to make an AoO basically every turn versus making an extra attack?
But the sense I'm getting is that Double Slice seems to be something which needs adjusting.
Well, what's the value of being able to make an AoO basically every turn versus making an extra attack?
But the sense I'm getting is that Double Slice seems to be something which needs adjusting.
I disagree completely, leave Double Slice alone because it's perfect and bring everything else up to par. I want DS to be the standard, if Paizo plans on retaining the action tax dynamic of feat design.
If Power Attack makes me forgo the ability to land a secondary attack, then my odds of landing a hit/crit with the primary attack need to go up (ideally by a mathematical amount which spreads the odds of damage around a little better by comparison to DS).
Make options better, not worse.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The special rules for two weapon fighting come from the definition of agile weapons.
Much like how weapon finesse was handled with the rules for both agile and finesse weapons.
Yeah, but without stuff like Double Slice, or Twin Parry, etc. there's no difference between a guy using a single shortsword and a guy using two shortswords. Heck, the first guy may be better off, he has a free hand to do stuff with.
Having two weapons out is an advantage if: a) Your "main-hand" isn't Agile, so you have a bigger first strike followed by lower MAP from the off hand (say, Longsword/Shortsword) or b) Your weapons have different damage types and that actually matters.
If you're planning on using two of the same weapon you basically gain nothing and lose nothing. It's basically all in the Feats now. Without them you just behave like a PF1 guy with 3 attacks from BAB that switches what weapons they use for each (though you get an advantage from Agile weapons).
When you put it like that, this actually seems like a VERY elegant solution to PF1e twf.
In many ways it encourages the heavier weapon and then a lighter weapon in the offhand which is more accurate to what twf was historically.
In that style, damage wise I don't see an advantage to using the same agile weapon for your main attack, it would always be more advantageous to use a heavier weapon that dealt more damage. You then use the lighter damage so that your penalty to hit on your second and third attacks are not as great.
As characters gain levels and magical weapons inscribed with runes, this becomes even more glaring. A weapon that does 6d8 is going to be far better to use with your primary attack at first than one that does 6d6 (27 avg. vs. 18 avg.).
Double Slice is a feat available exclusively to fighters and rangers.
You can get the Double Slice Feat on ANY class by level 4, through the Fighter Dedication feat line.
When you put it like that, this actually seems like a VERY elegant solution to PF1e twf.
In many ways it encourages the heavier weapon and then a lighter weapon in the offhand which is more accurate to what twf was historically.
In that style, damage wise I don't see an advantage to using the same agile weapon for your main attack, it would always be more advantageous to use a heavier weapon that dealt more damage. You then use the lighter damage so that your penalty to hit on your second and third attacks are not as great.
As characters gain levels and magical weapons inscribed with runes, this becomes even more glaring. A weapon that does 6d8 is going to be far better to use with your primary attack at first than one that does 6d6 (27 avg. vs. 18 avg.).
It's 27 vs. 21 actually.
I think I have to disagree about this damage advantage. If you're not Double Slicing, it seems a rather small bonus (1 point of damage per die) to completely sacrifice all the other options the off-hand can offer. A shield for example. In PF2 you can't really do what some heavy damage builds in PF1 do: neglect their AC because they're going to be hit anyway. In PF2 you want to squeeze out every point of AC you can so even though you'll be hit by heavy hitters, they won't crit you as often.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The special rules for two weapon fighting come from the definition of agile weapons.
Much like how weapon finesse was handled with the rules for both agile and finesse weapons.
Yeah, but without stuff like Double Slice, or Twin Parry, etc. there's no difference between a guy using a single shortsword and a guy using two shortswords. Heck, the first guy may be better off, he has a free hand to do stuff with.
Having two weapons out is an advantage if: a) Your "main-hand" isn't Agile, so you have a bigger first strike followed by lower MAP from the off hand (say, Longsword/Shortsword) or b) Your weapons have different damage types and that actually matters.
If you're planning on using two of the same weapon you basically gain nothing and lose nothing. It's basically all in the Feats now. Without them you just behave like a PF1 guy with 3 attacks from BAB that switches what weapons they use for each (though you get an advantage from Agile weapons).
When you put it like that, this actually seems like a VERY elegant solution to PF1e twf.
In many ways it encourages the heavier weapon and then a lighter weapon in the offhand which is more accurate to what twf was historically.
In that style, damage wise I don't see an advantage to using the same agile weapon for your main attack, it would always be more advantageous to use a heavier weapon that dealt more damage. You then use the lighter damage so that your penalty to hit on your second and third attacks are not as great.
As characters gain levels and magical weapons inscribed with runes, this becomes even more glaring. A weapon that does 6d8 is going to be far better to use with your primary attack at first than one that does 6d6 (27 avg. vs. 18 avg.).
Does that mean we're going to make everything but heavy blunt/crushing weapons completely ineffective against plate armor? That's also historically accurate.
Or how about giving bows a reload higher than 0? Also historically accurate.
Besides, there's a very prominent martial arts from the Phillipines (Eskrima) that uses dual sticks/dual daggers. Not to mention the most iconic dual wielder in all of DnD is probably Drizzt, and he uses twin scimitars. Then again he's a Ranger, so he'd actually get feat support in 2E. You know who else uses two of the same weapon? Harsk. Same deal as Drizzt though.
My point is that this claim of "Two Weapon Fighting totally exists" rings hollow. Yeah, it does exist. Unless you don't want to use two different weapons. Then it doesn't.
Does that mean we're going to make everything but heavy blunt/crushing weapons completely ineffective against plate armor? That's also historically accurate.
Or how about giving bows a reload higher than 0? Also historically accurate.
Besides, there's a very prominent martial arts from the Phillipines (Eskrima) that uses dual sticks/dual daggers. Not to mention the most iconic dual wielder in all of DnD is probably Drizzt, and he uses twin scimitars. Then again he's a Ranger, so he'd actually get feat support in 2E. You know who else uses two of the same weapon? Harsk. Same deal as Drizzt though.
My point is that this claim of "Two Weapon Fighting totally exists" rings hollow. Yeah, it does exist. Unless you don't want to use two different weapons. Then it doesn't
I wrote this in another thread, and perhaps this will give you a better idea of some of my expanded thoughts. I think the solution that PF2e has is actually an excellent choice for 2 weapon fighting.
I do think SOME of it could be expanded...as per what I said in another topic
Unfortunately, this benefit of Twin is currently only found on the Sawtooth Saber which is an uncommon exotic melee weapon.In my opinion this makes it far too small.
They should increase the power of some weapons and add the twin trait to them.
I feel they should apply this to Fists, Light Mace's, Shortswords, Scimitars, and Longsword (and then they can make Bastard Swords slicing again with no fear of it trading on the Longsword's heels). Maybe also Starknife, Light hammer and light picks.
I think they should allow the twin effect on more weaspons than they do, but overall, I LIKE the idea that they have with the two weapon fighting limitations and how it can be used
I think they should allow the twin effect on more weaspons than they do, but overall, I LIKE the idea that they have with the two weapon fighting limitations and how it can be used
I feel like it's inevitable that the actual final release CRB is going to have a lot of weapons that aren't in the playtest, it's just that for the playtest there's value in having each weapon occupy distinct mechanical spaces.
But "twin" is probably only ever going to appear on uncommon weapons.
Guys, can i use double slice and TWO-WEAPON FLURRY to make four strikes with three actions?
Ex:
- Fist attack is normal
- Second is normal or -2 without agile weapon
- And plus others two attacks from two weapon flurry
Guys, can i use double slice and TWO-WEAPON FLURRY to make four strikes with three actions?
Ex:
- Fist attack is normal
- Second is normal or -2 without agile weapon
- And plus others two attacks from two weapon flurry
You could, but generally speaking it's a better tactic to use a strike first then double slice second for more hit potential.
Other reasons you might want two weapons...
As already mentioned, two or three damage types available
Having one with the parry trait
Having weapons with different maneuver traits
Having a weapon with the thrown trait ready
Whether those remain valid reasons through all 20 levels (or at all really) depends on what your character build is hoping to do.
The fact that fishing for 20s twice on your bottom attack is worse than giving your tertiary attack +7 to hit is pretty indicative of a failing system that encourages building around critical hits.