How do you explain that the penalties for TWFing do not persist until his next turn - contrary to all other examples, like power attacking, combat expertise, fighting defensively, etc. which do?
Because unlike Power Attack, Combat Expertise, etc, he's no longer benefiting from TWF outside his turn either.
That's a natural result. Since the only way you can attack with both hands is to invoke the TWF mechanics, the extra attack will naturally always be available (barring some form of interruption, etc.). I fail to see how this is of any import.This is completely true FYI.
You can also, however, make independant sequential attacks with a weapon in any hand capable of wielding it.
Including those granted by a normal Full Attack Action, unless you can find something that says otherwise? Something that says attacks from a Full-Attack action aren't normal and independant sequential attacks, like they appear to be?
If you aren't invoking the TWF rules, you are by definition NOT 'attacking with both hands'. You're attacking with one hand, twice in sequence (a different hand each time perhaps).
No, both attacks occur within the same action - the "full round action". Because they occur within the same action, TWF applies.
Do you honestly think that's a legitimate interpretation of the rules? A super-nuanced, hypertechnical definition of "sequential attacks"? If that is what level of interpretation is necessary to have your rule make sense, don't you think there's a problem? What seems more generally accessible? A rule that says, "If you attack with both hands in the same round, you're TWF", or a rule that says, "If you attack with both hands in a round, you're not TWF, you're just fighting with two weapons, unless you make an extra attack. And, even though elsewhere it says that using both hands means you're TWF, as long as each attack within a full round action is an 'independent and sequential' attack, the rules for TWF do not apply"?
This game is designed to be accessible. The clearest meaning is not the one you're providing. It unnecessarily complicates things, solely for the purpose of flavor.
"If you attack with both hands in the same round, you're TWF"
This rule does not exist.
That is where the divide is from; you want this rule to be fact, but it is not. No where is this indicated, and instead what we have is a set of rules that detail the penalties associated with using a second weapon to gain an extra attack.
My interpretation is in fact much simpler; barring rules which restrict you, when you have the ability to make a normal attack, you may make it with any available weapon you are in range with.
Thats the long and short of it. And its not contradicted anywhere in the rules.
Because unlike Power Attack, Combat Expertise, etc, he's no longer benefiting from TWF outside his turn either.
How do you explain that the penalties for TWFing do not persist until his next turn - contrary to all other examples, like power attacking, combat expertise, fighting defensively, etc. which do?So you're saying your interpretation of the rules makes more sense because it sets up yet another contradiction in the pathfinder rules.
Whereas my interpretation follows a standard interpretation that penalties last until my next round.
And, in fact your interpretation creates several OTHER rule problems.
So, initiative is rolled. The TWF fighter is flatfooted but has combat reflexes. An opponent walks by, drawing an AoO.
Your saying my penalties depend on whether or not I win initiative rather than the fact I am wielding two weapons?
I fail to see any signficance in your example. The fighter in question is clearly allowed to make an AOO with either of his weapons at no penalty (the same in fact, as any AOO he makes). I dont think anyone can argue that...
As well, Power Attack etc. all specify they last a full round. Its funny how all these effects which persist beyond your turn actually say so, and Two Weapon Fighting does not.
they must use the two-weapon fighting rules when making attacks with both hands.
And the only time you're actually doing this is when you're using the two weapon fighting rules.
Otherwise you are making a series of normal attacks, as per the Full Attack Action, or multiple Attack actions over multiple rounds.
Can you please show me how attacks from a full attack action are different from attacks from a normal attack action?
So there is a 5 handed demon, Str 100. It has the multi-weapon fighting feat, and is armed with 5 long swords.
So I guess you're ignoring the multi-fighting text that says "one hand is primary and all others are off-hand?".
So by your example, you're going to let this demon get NO attack penalties and full strength bonuses, hmm?
Despite the clear text that say "ALL OTHERS ARE OFF-HAND?"
I'm not sure how this is relevant.
If it takes the Multi Weapon Fighting action, it obviously gets it iterative attacks with its primary hand with TWF penalties, then its off hand attacks in addition.
If it takes a normal full attack, it only gets a number of attacks based on its BAB. This is because you never refer to the Two Weapon Fighting rules, because they are not relevant to making a series of normal attacks. Which can be with any combination of available weapons.
they must use the two-weapon fighting rules when making attacks with both hands.And the only time you're actually doing this is when you're using the two weapon fighting rules.Oh no.. you're not wiggling away that easy.
I am an elf with a flail in one hand and a sword in the other making iterative attacks. (according to your very clear, repeated posts)
'splain to me lucy how the clear language.. "when making attacks with both hands" does not apply.
ie
Bestiary wrote:Some fey, humanoids, monstrous humanoids, and outsiders do not possess natural attacks. These creatures can make unarmed strikes, but treat them as weapons for the purpose of determining attack bonuses, and they must use the two-weapon fighting rules when making attacks with both hands.
Attack 1: I swing with my sword.
Attack 2: I swing with my flail.
I have made two seperate individual attacks.
If I use a full attack action, it happens in one round. If I use two attack actions, it happens in two. Both should be legal.
The assumed restriction that using both hands in one round constitutes making attacks with 'both hands' is arbitrary (because no time period is ever specified) and conjured from somewhere other than the written rules.
Yes, you've attacked with both hands. But at what point does it reset? When am I safe to use my left hand? The next round? A minute? An hour? The rules dont actually say; they do note that you take penalties if you use the specificly provided TWF rules though.
Bestiary wrote:Some fey, humanoids, monstrous humanoids, and outsiders do not possess natural attacks. These creatures can make unarmed strikes, but treat them as weapons for the purpose of determining attack bonuses, and they must use the two-weapon fighting rules when making attacks with both hands.
I don't think this can be repeated enough. Some humanoids... do not posses natural attacks.
they must use the two-weapon fighting rules when making attacks with both hands.
Let's see how many of those creatures have a high enough Base Attack bonus to gain an additional attack without advancing the creature:
Fey: Base Attack is 1/2 Hit Dice (we only need to look at Fey with 12 or more Hit Dice)
Humanoid: Base Attack is 3/4 Hit Dice (we only need to look at Humanoids with 9 or more Hit Dice)
Monstrous Humanoid: Base Attack is equal to Hit Dice (we only need to look at Monstrous Humanoids with 6 or more Hit Dice)
Outsider: Base Attack is equal to Hit Dice (we only need to look at Outsiders with 6 or more Hit Dice)
Aasimar: BAB +0, they need to use the Two-Weapon Fighting rules to gain an extra attack
Archon, Trumpet: BAB +14, they can make 3 attacks with their unarmed strike. If they want an extra attack, they would have to use the Two-Weapon Fighting Rules.
Azata, Ghaele, BAB +13, they can make 3 attacks with their unarmed strike. If they want an extra attack, they would have to use the Two-Weapon Fighting rules to gain an extra attack
Bugbear: BAB +2, they need to use the Two-Weapon Fighting rules to gain an extra attack
Cyclops: BAB +7, they can make 2 attacks with their unarmed strike. If they want an extra attack, they would have to they would have to use the Two-Weapon Fighting rules to gain an extra attack
Dark Creeper: BAB +2, they need to use the Two-Weapon Fighting rules to gain an extra attack
Dark Stalker: BAB +4, they need to use the Two-Weapon Fighting rules to gain an extra attack which they already have
Derro: BAB +2, they need to use the Two-Weapon Fighting rules to gain an extra attack
Devil, Erinyes, BAB +9, they can make 2 attacks with their unarmed strike. If they want an extra attack, they would have to use the Two-Weapon Fighting rules to gain an extra attack
Drow: BAB +1, they need to use the Two-Weapon Fighting rules to gain an extra attack
Dryad: BAB +3, they need to use the Two-Weapon Fighting rules to gain an extra attack
Duergar: BAB +1, they need to use the Two-Weapon Fighting rules to gain an extra attack
Ettin: BAB +7, they do not suffer any penalties for fighting with two-weapons which, by my interpretation of the rules, means that they can attack with 3 unarmed attacks. They have a unique ability which supersedes the general rules.
Gnoll: BAB +1, they need to use the Two-Weapon Fighting rules to gain an extra attack
Goblin: BAB +1, they need to use the Two-Weapon Fighting rules to gain an extra attack
Hobgoblin: BAB +1, they need to use the Two-Weapon Fighting rules to gain an extra attack
Kobold: BAB +1, they need to use the Two-Weapon Fighting rules to gain an extra attack
Kyton: BAB +8, it is highly unlikely that they would be without chains, but if so, they can make 2 unarmed strikes but if they want to make an additional, then need to use the Two-Weapon Fighting rules to gain an extra attack
Janni: BAB +6, they can make 2 attacks with their unarmed strike but if they want an third attack then they need to use the Two-Weapon Fighting rules to gain an extra attack
Merfolk: BAB +1, they need to use the Two-Weapon Fighting rules to gain an extra attack
Mite: BAB +0, they need to use the Two-Weapon Fighting rules to gain an extra attack
Nymph: BAB +4, they need to use the Two-Weapon Fighting rules to gain an extra attack
Ogre: BAB +3, they need to use the Two-Weapon Fighting rules to gain an extra attack
Oni: BAB +8, they can make 2 unarmed attacks but if they want a third they need to use the Two-Weapon Fighting rules to gain an extra attack
Orc: BAB +1, they need to use the Two-Weapon Fighting rules to gain an extra attack
Pixie: BAB +2, they need to use the Two-Weapon Fighting rules to gain an extra attack
Svirfneblin: BAB +1, they need to use the Two-Weapon Fighting rules to gain an extra attack
Tiefling: BAB +0, they need to use the Two-Weapon Fighting rules to gain an extra attack
So as we can see, most of the creatures would have to use the Two-Weapon Fighting rules to get an extra attack no matter what. Only 6 of the creatures in the Bestiary would qualify for multiple attacks by virtue of their Base Attack Bonus and also must resort to unarmed attacks if they don't have weapons. If they would like to make additional attacks beyond that, then they need to use the Two-Weapon Fighting Rules. Note that the rule for natural attacks states: "If a creature has only one type of attack, but has multiple attacks per round, that attack is treated as a primary attack, regardless of its type." So an unarmed attack is only one type of attack and is always primary. There is no secondary (or off-hand).
Penalties for fighting with multiple weapons are reduced by –2 with the primary hand and by –6 with off hands.
Nothing about when gaining multiple attacks. The only requisite is ATTACKING WITH MULTIPLE WEAPONS.
Note 1: The feat does not apply unless Two Weapon Fighting occurs, as there at no penalties for multiple weapons to reduce on a standard Full Attack. This isn't contradictory.
Note 2: Please note to me where the threshhold exists for when you've attacked with multiple weapons. The only place we know if exists is if you use a Full Round Action to attack with the Two Weapon Fighting rules. Otherwise, you're making up houserules on the issue; the actual rules are silent.
That's a natural result. Since the only way you can attack with both hands is to invoke the TWF mechanics, the extra attack will naturally always be available (barring some form of interruption, etc.). I fail to see how this is of any import.If read in a vacuum, sure. But not if read in conjunction with the other rules cited.And yet in every single instance, every single rule you mention, discusses attacks beyond what is allowed by virtue of your Base Attack Bonus. So if we don't read the rules in a vacuum, we also see that the Two-Weapon Fighting rules only apply when taking an extra attack. Find an instance where the rules do not reference taking an extra attack. It should be noted that the rule in the Bestiary applies to a base creature. Once we start advancing the creature the rules change a bit. I hope we can all agree on this point. What is the difference between a 6th level elf punching someone with his right hand once then with his left hand once and punching someone with his right hand twice (which is actually kind of odd since most people alternate attacks with their punches, including professionals).
You're assuming that is a natural result. Yet the general rule of Full Attack is written one way and then the more specific rules (which trump the Full Attack) are always written to include an additional attack. Makes me think that two-weapon fighting must include the additional attack to incur the penalties.
Fighter 5 is twfing with a +1 longsword (primary) and a +1 silver dagger, against a golem.
A Dr/10 silver lycanthrope walks past, and provokes an AoO.
What happens?
If you play by RAW, the fighter may choose either hand to make an AoO with. He attacks with the offhand dagger with a -2 to the attack.
This is how the game is intended to be played.
Now, if you play by the TWF-penalties-only-apply-when-you-gain-extra-attacks-silliness then
How do you explain that the penalties for TWFing do not persist until his next turn - contrary to all other examples, like power attacking, combat expertise, fighting defensively, etc. which do?
The fighter would not have a -2 to hit with the attack of opportunity. The additional attacks, on his turn, suffer penalties. Every attack routine needs to be looked at separately. You can't compare Two-Weapon Fighting with Power Attack.
Attack 1: I swing with my sword.
Attack 2: I swing with my flail.
I have made two seperate individual attacks.
If I use a full attack action, it happens in one round. If I use two attack actions, it happens in two. Both should be legal.
The assumed restriction that using both hands in one round constitutes making attacks with 'both hands' is arbitrary (because no time period is ever specified) and conjured from somewhere other than the written rules.
Yes, you've attacked with both hands. But at what point does it reset? When am I safe to use my left hand? The next round? A minute? An hour? The rules dont actually say; they do note that you take penalties if you use the specificly provided TWF rules though.
The assumed restriction..... {snicker}
So - by your assumption you can choose any arbitrary time period you want.
So, if you want TWF penalties to apply the time period can be 41.7 years. If you don't want it to apply it can be 4.2 seconds.
We all get to choose!
Yes your interpretation is awesome! Why do you even bother to roll dice, you might as well just assume you hit!
And you have vorpal weapons!
And you can cast 23 spells in a round.
Why, I don't know why we need rules at all when I can make words mean whatever I want them to!
It all depends on what the meaning of *is* is!
I did not have sex with that girl!
What.
My position is that it is not arbitrary. Its as the rules specify; the penalties apply to the extra attack and normal attacks you makes as part of the full-attack action. Otherwise, you aren't 'attacking with both weapons', you're attacking with two different weapons as different, unrelated attacks.
The opposing viewpoint has conjured the arbitrary 'making attacks with two weapons in a round is attacking with both weapons' out of nowhere. And you're right; thats not any less reasonable than a million years. Both are ridiculous in the context that neither is actually in the rules.
It doesn't say the hands are off-hands when TWFing. It doesn't say the hands are off-hands when gaining extra attacks.
It merely says that the hands are OFF-hands. Period.
No it doesn't. I don't agree with the timing portion of his position, but there is nothing that says the other weapon is off-hand unless you are using the Two-Weapon Fighting rules which come into play when you want an attack beyond what you are allowed by virtue of your Base Attack. That is the only instance when off-hand comes into play.
Penalties for fighting with multiple weapons are reduced by –2 with the primary hand and by –6 with off hands.
Nothing about when gaining multiple attacks. The only requisite is ATTACKING WITH MULTIPLE WEAPONS.
You skipped the first sentence under Two-Weapon fighting and then the next sentence that states "when you fight this way..." This was covered a while ago and you may have missed it. There is a clause in there about gaining additional attacks and it is the opening portion of the Special Attack.
Let's see how many of those creatures have a high enough Base Attack bonus ....[more blather]
Bestiary wrote:Some fey, humanoids, monstrous humanoids, and outsiders do not possess natural attacks. These creatures can make unarmed strikes, but treat them as weapons for the purpose of determining attack bonuses, and they must use the two-weapon fighting rules when making attacks with both hands.
I don't think this can be repeated enough. Some humanoids... do not posses natural attacks.
they must use the two-weapon fighting rules when making attacks with both hands.
Completely choosing to ignore the point.
Advance any of these creatures so they have BAB 11. Or ignore them and use pfs legit character races.
So BAB 11. You swing with weapon one and weapon two.
Lets quote from the bestiary again.
and they must use the two-weapon fighting rules when making attacks with both hands.
Again, your bestiary quote does not specify the time period in which you are considered two weapon fighting. Going by just that, if I made an attack with a dagger last week in my left hand and a sword this week in my right, thats two weapon fighting. THIS IS INCREDIBLY RIDICULOUS AND CLEARLY UNINTENDED.
Rather than making up a time period (whether its one round or one week), perhaps you should refer to the two weapon fighting rules to see how it works. These rules tell you exactly how long and when the penalties apply.
And just so we're all on the same page...
"If you wield a second weapon in your off hand, you can get one extra attack per round with that weapon. 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 when you fight this way. "
Note the bolded part; these are the only attacks effected by two weapon fighting penalties. It is explicit. Also note the word 'and' in the middle there; there is no penalty to your regular attacks without the penalty to your off hand attack.
This really isn't unclear at all.
CP - There are no penalties to attack rolls for fighting with multiple weapons outside of the specific case noted for Two Weapon Fighting, and the specific cases of the related feats and abilities.
Let's see how many of those creatures have a high enough Base Attack bonus ....[more blather]
Bestiary wrote:Some fey, humanoids, monstrous humanoids, and outsiders do not possess natural attacks. These creatures can make unarmed strikes, but treat them as weapons for the purpose of determining attack bonuses, and they must use the two-weapon fighting rules when making attacks with both hands.
I don't think this can be repeated enough. Some humanoids... do not posses natural attacks.
they must use the two-weapon fighting rules when making attacks with both hands.
Completely choosing to ignore the point.
Advance any of these creatures so they have BAB 11. Or ignore them and use pfs legit character races.
So BAB 11. You swing with weapon one and weapon two.
Lets quote from the bestiary again.
and they must use the two-weapon fighting rules when making attacks with both hands.Again, your bestiary quote does not specify the time period in which you are considered two weapon fighting. Going by just that, if I made an attack with a dagger last week in my left hand and a sword this week in my right, thats two weapon fighting. THIS IS INCREDIBLY RIDICULOUS AND CLEARLY UNINTENDED.
Rather than making up a time period (whether its one round or one week), perhaps you should refer to the two weapon fighting rules to see how it works. These rules tell you exactly how long and when the penalties apply.
The relevant time period is a full round, since TWF is a full round action. That's not being made up; it's from the rules.
Let's see how many of those creatures have a high enough Base Attack bonus ....[more blather]
Bestiary wrote:Some fey, humanoids, monstrous humanoids, and outsiders do not possess natural attacks. These creatures can make unarmed strikes, but treat them as weapons for the purpose of determining attack bonuses, and they must use the two-weapon fighting rules when making attacks with both hands.
I don't think this can be repeated enough. Some humanoids... do not posses natural attacks.
they must use the two-weapon fighting rules when making attacks with both hands.
Completely choosing to ignore the point.
Advance any of these creatures so they have BAB 11. Or ignore them and use pfs legit character races.
So BAB 11. You swing with weapon one and weapon two.
Lets quote from the bestiary again.
and they must use the two-weapon fighting rules when making attacks with both hands.
Couple things, if you want me to take you seriously and have a reasonable discussions, skip insulting terms like "blather." I have shown you the courtesy and respect deserving of another person, you need to do the same.
Next, the Bestiary also says that those attacks are all primary so there would be no off-hand attack unless they are gaining an additional attack. You can skip that sentence if you want, but it's in there and can't be ignored.
PFS has no bearing on this discussion because it does not necessarily follow all the rules in the Core Book (20 point buy, no item creation feats, etc). PFS is not the default. The Core Book is the default. I don't play in PFS games and the question was not directed at PFS interpretations.
So we have two scenarios (let's put this at a high enough BAB to warrant additional attacks):
+6 Base Attack: Right hand +6, left hand +1
OR
+6 Base Attack: Right hand +2, left hand -2
Which one makes more sense?
By my reading of the rules, you should be at +6/+1 if you only take 2 attacks. If you want a third, then you should be at +2/+2/-2 without taking any feats to offset this. That makes sense.
The relevant time period is a full round, since TWF is a full round action. That's not being made up; it's from the rules.
Erm, no. The action for gaining multiple attacks is a full round action. You can use this full round action to get an extra attack from two weapon fighting.
None of this defines the period of time 'fighting with two weapons' has to take place within; you're making inferences about that. Opinions, judgement calls.
Because rather than admitting that the rules say you can not attack with both hands in the same round without taking TWF penalties .
The rules do not say this anywhere! Please point out where they do, if I've missed it.
None of your quotes have included this, though they have mentioned attacking with two weapons; you've just added that 'in the same round' part to it from nowhere, however. Thats the part that doesn't exist.
Nooooo you are just suffering an inability to read.
I mentioned already once that you need to be respectful. If you can't handle that, then perhaps you need to find another poster to discuss things with.
People in your camp are saying that TWF penalties apply only when an extra attack is made.
READ.The parenthetical expression says the creature has one primary hand and all other hands are off hands.
Nothing about extra attacks.
Read the benefit - penalties for fighting with MULTIPLE weapons are reduced.
You did it again, you skipped a portion of the feat which says: "Special: This feat replaces the Two-Weapon Fighting feat for creatures with more than two arms."
Two-Weapon Fighting Feat reduces penalties when fighting with two weapons and gaining an extra attack.
There is no president for saying that you get TWF penalties without using the Two-Weapon Fighting Special Attack.
In other words there isn't an example in the book of someone receiving such penalties except when using the Two-Weapon Fighting Special Attack.
A single example of someone receiving the penalties without using the Two-Weapon Fighting Special Attack is all that I would need to change my mind.
There is no president for saying that you get TWF penalties without using the Two-Weapon Fighting Special Attack.
In other words there isn't an example in the book of someone receiving such penalties except when using the Two-Weapon Fighting Special Attack.
A single example of someone receiving the penalties without using the Two-Weapon Fighting Special Attack is all that I would need to change my mind.
Nor is there an example in the book of anybody using two weapons to fight without invoking the TWF rules.
Nor is there an example in the book of anybody using two weapons to fight without invoking the TWF rules.
You mean there is no examples of someone using two weapons to make two or more attacks in the same action.
But there ARE many example of when you get TWF penalties.
All of them involve taking extra attacks.
Nor is there an example in the book of anybody using two weapons to fight without invoking the TWF rules.You mean there is no examples of someone using two weapons to make two or more attacks in the same action.
But there ARE many example of when you get TWF penalties.
All of them involve taking extra attacks.
Right. That's precisely what I said. The only examples in the book that exist of fighting with two weapons are those instances in which the TWF rules apply. Because that's the only time you can fight with two weapons - when TWF rules apply.
Sense has nothing to do with it man. Read the damn rule:
It's unfortunate that we aren't going to be able to have a reasonable discussion. Have a good night.
Right. That's precisely what I said. The only examples in the book that exist of fighting with two weapons are those instances in which the TWF rules apply. Because that's the only time you can fight with two weapons - when TWF rules apply.Nor is there an example in the book of anybody using two weapons to fight without invoking the TWF rules.You mean there is no examples of someone using two weapons to make two or more attacks in the same action.
But there ARE many example of when you get TWF penalties.
All of them involve taking extra attacks.
However, every single example of two-weapon fighting uses the extra attack(s) and applies the penalties. That means that if you take the extra attack(s), you must also take the penalties. There is nothing that says that you can't alternate between hands without taking the extra attack and not take the penalties. That is the crux of the issue.
(1)However, every single example of two-weapon fighting uses the extra attack(s) and applies the penalties. That means that if you take the extra attack(s), you must also take the penalties. (2)There is nothing that says that you can't alternate between hands without taking the extra attack and not take the penalties. That is the crux of the issue.Right. That's precisely what I said. The only examples in the book that exist of fighting with two weapons are those instances in which the TWF rules apply. Because that's the only time you can fight with two weapons - when TWF rules apply.Nor is there an example in the book of anybody using two weapons to fight without invoking the TWF rules.You mean there is no examples of someone using two weapons to make two or more attacks in the same action.
But there ARE many example of when you get TWF penalties.
All of them involve taking extra attacks.
(1) Yes. But this does not mean that one must take the extra attack to constitute TWF or that fighting with two weapons is in any way distinct from TWF.
(2) I disagree. I believe the TWF rules, the TWF feat, and the Bestiary NA rules all strongly imply differently. However, aside from that issue, there is nothing in the rules that says explicitly that you can do what you're suggesting, even if you disagree with my interpretation of the aforementioned rules.
(1) Yes. But this does not mean that one must take the extra attack to constitute TWF or that fighting with two weapons is in any way distinct from TWF.
(2) I disagree. I believe the TWF rules, the TWF feat, and the Bestiary NA rules all strongly imply differently. However, aside from that issue, there is nothing in the rules that says explicitly that you can do what you're suggesting, even if you disagree with my interpretation of the aforementioned rules.
1) I agree that you don't have to use your extra attack, but it is the first benefit listed under two-weapon fighting and you'd be foolish or effective to not use it. However, you would have to declare that you are using the full two-weapon fighting rules to get the extra attack and the penalties associated with it.
2) There is nothing in the rules that explicitly states that you can't alternate between two different weapons using only your Base Attack Bonus. It's not even covered anywhere. I think this falls under the RNETA (Rules as Never Even Thought About).
(1) Yes. But this does not mean that one must take the extra attack to constitute TWF or that fighting with two weapons is in any way distinct from TWF.
(2) I disagree. I believe the TWF rules, the TWF feat, and the Bestiary NA rules all strongly imply differently. However, aside from that issue, there is nothing in the rules that says explicitly that you can do what you're suggesting, even if you disagree with my interpretation of the aforementioned rules.1) I agree that you don't have to use your extra attack, but it is the first benefit listed under two-weapon fighting and you'd be foolish or effective to not use it. However, you would have to declare that you are using the full two-weapon fighting rules to get the extra attack and the penalties associated with it.
2) There is nothing in the rules that explicitly states that you can't alternate between two different weapons using only your Base Attack Bonus. It's not even covered anywhere. I think this falls under the RANETO (Rules As Not Ever Thought Of).
(1) Disagree. All you need to do to "declare" that you are TWF is to attack with two weapons. That's where the fundamental disagreement lies.
(2) The situation is not specifically covered, no. But I believe the implication from other rules is quite strong - you can't.
(1) Yes. But this does not mean that one must take the extra attack to constitute TWF or that fighting with two weapons is in any way distinct from TWF.
(2) I disagree. I believe the TWF rules, the TWF feat, and the Bestiary NA rules all strongly imply differently. However, aside from that issue, there is nothing in the rules that says explicitly that you can do what you're suggesting, even if you disagree with my interpretation of the aforementioned rules.1) I agree that you don't have to use your extra attack, but it is the first benefit listed under two-weapon fighting and you'd be foolish or effective to not use it. However, you would have to declare that you are using the full two-weapon fighting rules to get the extra attack and the penalties associated with it.
2) There is nothing in the rules that explicitly states that you can't alternate between two different weapons using only your Base Attack Bonus. It's not even covered anywhere. I think this falls under the RANETO (Rules As Not Ever Thought Of).
(1) Disagree. All you need to do to "declare" that you are TWF is to attack with two weapons. That's where the fundamental disagreement lies.
(2) The situation is not specifically covered, no. But I believe the implication from other rules is quite strong - you can't.
1) Why? Why can't I make my first attack, as the Full Attack states I can. Then make a 5-foot step, and use my other weapon to attack using my second attack (assuming that I have a +6 BAB). In order to get the extra attack, I must declare that I am using the Special Attack Two Weapon Fighting. If I don't want that extra attack, then why declare anything at all?
2) I figured you were going to say that even though Valeros gets less out of it because he isn't using his abilities to their fullest. You are penalizing him even though he isn't doing anything that warrants a penalty.
That's weird, one of my posts is missing my entire example from Valeros. I have maxed out my awake time. The sleep meds are taking effect. I will have to post it again sometime tomorrow.
2) There is nothing in the rules that explicitly states that you can't alternate between two different weapons using only your Base Attack Bonus. It's not even covered anywhere. I think this falls under the RNETA (Rules as Never Even Thought About).
I agree. It's a corner case. Which is a good reason it wouldn't be mentioned in the rules.
Because It does not hurt the game to allow it and it can easily be justified within the context of the rules there is no harm in allowing it to happen.
Although showing me an example of how allowing this could be abused by a player would also convince me that it shouldn't be allowed.
I could see fighting things with two distinct DR such as a Fey(Dr/cold iron) and werewolf(DR/Silver). (would have to have a cold iron and alchemical silver weapon on hand and would have to fight Fey and Werewolf at the same time.)
Or allowing a fighter with quickdraw to throw daggers with his off hand using his remaining attacks after dropping the nearest Orc.
(would have to have quickdraw, and remaing attacks.)
(1) Yes. But this does not mean that one must take the extra attack to constitute TWF or that fighting with two weapons is in any way distinct from TWF.
(2) I disagree. I believe the TWF rules, the TWF feat, and the Bestiary NA rules all strongly imply differently. However, aside from that issue, there is nothing in the rules that says explicitly that you can do what you're suggesting, even if you disagree with my interpretation of the aforementioned rules.1) I agree that you don't have to use your extra attack, but it is the first benefit listed under two-weapon fighting and you'd be foolish or effective to not use it. However, you would have to declare that you are using the full two-weapon fighting rules to get the extra attack and the penalties associated with it.
2) There is nothing in the rules that explicitly states that you can't alternate between two different weapons using only your Base Attack Bonus. It's not even covered anywhere. I think this falls under the RANETO (Rules As Not Ever Thought Of).
(1) Disagree. All you need to do to "declare" that you are TWF is to attack with two weapons. That's where the fundamental disagreement lies.
(2) The situation is not specifically covered, no. But I believe the implication from other rules is quite strong - you can't.
1) Why? Why can't I make my first attack, as the Full Attack states I can. Then make a 5-foot step, and use my other weapon to attack using my second attack (assuming that I have a +6 BAB). In order to get the extra attack, I must declare that I am using the Special Attack Two Weapon Fighting. If I don't want that extra attack, then why declare anything at all?
2) I figured you were going to say that even though Valeros gets less out of it because he isn't using his abilities to their fullest. You are penalizing him even though he isn't doing anything that warrants a penalty.
That's weird, one of my posts is missing my entire example from...
Simply put, you can't because the rules state that if you attack with two weapons, you're TWF. You disagree with that. It's fine, I just happen to think you're incorrect.
The rules don't apply perfectly in all situations. The purpose of them is to approximate real world scenarios with easily-applied rules that don't require intensive study and parsing of language. We're all familiar with the billion different supplemental books that complicate things beyond all necessity by adding layer upon layer. However, the game is designed to be accessible and playable using just the core books. Plain meaning and easy interpretation should be paramount when writing the rules, and I think there were in the case of 3.5 & PF as best as could be expected. The more specific the situation gets, the more technical and precise the rule for that situation gets. Two Weapon Fighting is a general rule in the grand scheme of things.
To me, it makes much more sense to have a rule for TWF that is consistent throughout all applications of the maneuver. It is real-world conceivable that a person can make an attack with each hand, despite not making any more attacks in a specific time frame than he or she might otherwise be able to do while utilizing two weapons. Of course, at the same time it is likely expected that by wielding two weapons (no matter the attack rate), the fighter is likely sacrificing accuracy and striking power to some degree. Regardless, the rules aren't supposed to mirror the real world; they're supposed to approximate it as best as they can while remaining relatively simple and easily applicable.
So, while it might be conceivable that there are 5 or 10 or 50 wholly different scenarios in which a person could fight with two weapons, each of which could warrant its own nuanced application of different rules, it makes far more game sense to have a rule that easily applies to all those situations the same way, regardless of context. That is how I see TWF.
Would it be nice to have a rule which takes into account each contingency? Yes. But that's complicated. Make the rule as simple as possible to cover as many situations as possible. If a playing group doesn't like how the rule applies in a situation, they're free to do whatever the hell they want with it.
But ultimately, TWF is designed to answer the question of just what happens when a PC stands there with a weapon in each hand. The simplest, cleanest, and I still contend most obvious reading of the rule is that if you attack with both weapons, you are TWF. That's the most basic situation. Of course it gets murky when you started adding conditions and specific scenarios - because you're drawing into play more and more rules.
Unarmed strike is a special case, so because you're not technically required to use a "hand" to make an unarmed strike shouldn't alter how the rule applies; it's just easy to explain that way. Yes, a shield can be used as a weapon. But do you want what's supposed to be a basic, general rule to have to be worded so specifically that it accounts for each and every possible item that could appear in a PC's second hand? What happens with AoO? What happens with Haste? What happens with ...? Each layer gets more and more complicated because now you're trying to make rules fit for isolated cases when the rule was designed for as many cases as possible. The point remains that TWF is a blanket rule. It's worded to be as generally applicable as possible. The more general the rule, the simpler it is. With that in mind, it makes far more sense to interpret it as simply and basically as possible - two weapons that attack? Two weapon fighting. Playing groups are free to add complexity if they want to do so. But we shouldn't shred the easy applicability of a rule just because we can concoct a scenario that might lead to an unusual or undesirable result.
Fighting with two weapons = TWF is clean, apparent, and easily applied. It works seamlessly with every other core rule. The only time it seems to lead to confusion is the iterative attack scenario that started this whole thread. But again, if you stick with a simple and obvious interpretation of the rule, that situation ought not be confusing, even if we think the result might not be entirely reflective of the real world/desired result. You really don't have to remember special cases. You don't have to remember a lot of caveats. You generally need to know one thing - is more than one weapon being used.
Ultimately, that's my disagreement with the other camp. You have to read too much into the rule, you have to complicate it, for it to make sense within this one context, which in turn causes it to arguably make less sense across the board from a consistency standpoint. You're largely jeopardizing the efficiency of the rule in many situations because some think it doesn't fit quite as nicely as they'd like it to with this one situation. The most obvious meaning of the Two Weapon Fighting rule is that if you're fighting with two weapons, it applies. It makes the most sense generally from an in-game perspective. It makes the most sense from a statutory construction perspective. It makes the most sense from a game development perspective.
|
Ladies and Gentlemen,
We appear to have backed HangarFlying into a corner of their own interpretations, please read below:
.............
Now read his response when asked the same question earlier:
...............
So I ask you Hangar Flying, which is it?
My answers are consistent with the rules considering the examples provided are describing different situations. What is it you feel I am being inconsistent about?
EDIT: edited my first sentence for clarity.
So, while it might be conceivable that there are 5 or 10 or 50 wholly different scenarios in which a person could fight with two weapons, each of which could warrant its own nuanced application of different rules, it makes far more game sense to have a rule that easily applies to all those situations the same way, regardless of context.
Withing the context of the discussion there are only two ways that are of any relevance.
1. Taking a full attack action and using two weapons(one in each hand) for each additional attack that you receive due to a high BAB.
2. Using the Two-Weapon Fighting Special Attack.
As for the first one there isn't anything saying that it is possible/impossible. Only rules that insinuate that it might be possible.
As for second one the rules are clear when you get the penalties and how to reduce them.
I believe that the whole point of the two weapon fighting rules is the benefit of the extra attack as that is the only overt benefit to fighting with two weapons. In other words the reason they even have a penalty for fighting with two weapons is because you get the benefit of the extra attack.
This is a common theme through out the book. You gain a benefit you wouldn't normally have you get a penalty you wouldn't normally get.
The simplest, cleanest, and I still contend most obvious reading of the rule is that if you get the benefit of an extra attack with your off hand weapon you get the penalty on all of your attack for that action.
|
Guess the thread actually deserves to have Mass Invisibility cast on it. Before it gets to 16 pages.
Tell you what. Unless this gets addressed by FAQ, if a Society GM dings someone with -10 to hit using the trip combat maneuver (with an alternate weapon while holding two weapons as part of the full attack iterative, due to not having a light weapon or two weapon fighting feat), that'd be a small point in favor of leaving the table. That's one way this thread can be interpreted. It begs me to look for a loophole...