I'm working on a build for a Fighter who fights with a bastard sword in one hand and a crossbow in his other. I want to make sure I understand how some of the different Two Weapon Fighting feats work with ranged weapons.
Double Slice
Prerequisite: Dex 15, Two-Weapon Fighting.
Benefit: Add your Strength bonus to damage rolls made with your off-hand weapon.
Normal: You normally add only half of your Strength modifier to damage rolls made with a weapon wielded in your off-hand.
Two Weapon Rend
Prerequisites: Dex 17, Double Slice, Improved Two-Weapon Fighting, Two-Weapon Fighting, base attack bonus +11.
Benefit: If you hit an opponent with both your primary hand and your off-hand weapon, you deal an additional 1d10 points of damage plus 1-1/2 times your Strength modifier. You can only deal this additional damage once each round.
Two Weapon Defense
Prerequisites: Dex 15, Two-Weapon Fighting.
Benefit: When wielding a double weapon or two weapons (not including natural weapons or unarmed strikes), you gain a +1 shield bonus to your AC.
When you are fighting defensively or using the total defense action, this shield bonus increases to +2.
Double Slice doesn't specify melee weapons, so a rules lawyer might be able to say that it adds Str damage to a ranged weapon. I'm pretty sure that's against the spirit, but I would like to know for sure just in case there's another weird case that acts in a similar way. Two Weapon Rend seems like it should work, but still feels a little off. I suppose it could be flavored that the ranged attack works as a distraction to get an extra hit off with the melee weapon. Two Weapon Defense also seems like it should work.
I realize that the crux of the issue is that all of these feats were written before the Sword and Pistol feat so they didn't have to clarify whether they only worked with melee weapons or not. Is there any general rule of thumb for situations like this beyond ask the DM? DM in question is fairly new.
Crossbows don't get strength anyway so an offhand crossbow (that you can't reload without a free hand anyway, so this concept likely wont work, save for 5 shots with a repeating crossbow) wouldn't benefit from Double Slice. Any ruleslawyer would know if the normal doesn't apply, you don't get the benefit.
Rend is a melee only ability, so also wouldn't work here, or at least technically shouldn't. But the dev team also went the stupid rout and rules that Two Weapon Rend isn't a normal rend that follows the rend rules...
Two Weapon Defense you would benefit from as it doesn't even require you use both weapons, just that be holding two.
The middle one is the only place I would expect any real contention, but at the same time you run into the issue of you're firing (and therefore reloading) a crossbow right next to someone and provoking needlessly (beyond you still can't do that with a sword in your other hand) until you also pick up crossbow mastery (which also requires and makes redundant rapid reload).
- RAW all three work just fine at range. I think this is one of the cases where the RAI are so blatantly obvious and differing form the RAW that no one should play them as written, though (similar to Shield Master and Simple Weapon Proficiency ignoring unrelated penalties).
Double Slice should only change an existing 0.5xStr to 1xStr, with no effect on attacks without a strength bonus to damage rolls.
TWRend should either only work in melee, or only when you add strength to damage with both weapons.
I think TWDefense is meant to have your weapons block attacks, which doesn't make sense with projectile weapons, but I don't see a harm in allowing it. People could just take Dodge, anyway.
I realize that the crux of the issue is that all of these feats were written before the Sword and Pistol feat so they didn't have to clarify whether they only worked with melee weapons or not.
Nah, you could TWF with crossbows in the CRB. The writer and editors just screwed up.
Any ruleslawyer would know if the normal doesn't apply, you don't get the benefit.
Any ruleslawyer would know that the normal section doesn't have any effect.
But the dev team also went the stupid rout and rules that Two Weapon Rend isn't a normal rend that follows the rend rules...
Considering that there are no rend rules in the CRB, that's the smart route, not the stupid route. The stupid part was not restricting it to melee (or to strength-based attacks).
RAW all three work just fine at range. I think this is one of the cases where the RAI are so blatantly obvious and differing form the RAW that no one should play them as written, though (similar to Shield Master and Simple Weapon Proficiency ignoring unrelated penalties).
Double Slice should only change an existing 0.5xStr to 1xStr, with no effect on attacks without a strength bonus to damage rolls.
TWRend should either only work in melee, or only when you add strength to damage with both weapons.
I think TWDefense is meant to have your weapons block attacks, which doesn't make sense with projectile weapons, but I don't see a harm in allowing it. People could just take Dodge, anyway.I realize that the crux of the issue is that all of these feats were written before the Sword and Pistol feat so they didn't have to clarify whether they only worked with melee weapons or not.Nah, you could TWF with crossbows in the CRB. The writer and editors just screwed up.
Any ruleslawyer would know if the normal doesn't apply, you don't get the benefit.Any ruleslawyer would know that the normal section doesn't have any effect.
But the dev team also went the stupid rout and rules that Two Weapon Rend isn't a normal rend that follows the rend rules...Considering that there are no rend rules in the CRB, that's the smart route, not the stupid route. The stupid part was not restricting it to melee (or to strength-based attacks).
I forgot about Dual Wielding Crossbows. I didn't even think that Two-Weapon Rend would allow the extra damage on a ranged attack.
It looks like my initial reaction was right in that these technically work, but really probably shouldn't. I'll direct my DM to this thread. He might allow Two-Weapon Rend if I can sell him on the flavor of the rend damage just being an extra hit with the melee weapon, but it's probably not even worth the two feats it takes to get unless he also rules that Double Slice somehow lets me punch with crossbow bolts.
Just to cover all my bases, there's no feat or item that lets crossbows use strength is there? Like how a composite bow can add up to a certain amount of strength to damage?
Any ruleslawyer would know if the normal doesn't apply, you don't get the benefit.Any ruleslawyer would know that the normal section doesn't have any effect.
It doesn't. I didn't say it did, I said that a rule that modifies a specific normal rule doesn't affect another rule, that isn't that specific normal rule.
But the dev team also went the stupid rout and rules that Two Weapon Rend isn't a normal rend that follows the rend rules and rules that Two Weapon Rend isn't a normal rend that follows the rend rules.Considering that there are no rend rules in the CRB, that's the smart route, not the stupid route. The stupid part was not restricting it to melee (or to strength-based attacks).
Trolls are creatures referenced in the core rule book (which only has NPC stats) but is in the first bestiary which did have rend that have the rend ability. Rend has been in the game since the beginning and thus before the core book's first official printing. It was a dumb call to not have it function like the official monster ability which would have locked it into melee (as it normally only works on natural attacks, which are inherently melee only).
@Matt, note that you have to hit your Rend target with both weapons in order to rend, not just one weapon twice.
I still personally don't think there's any issue with interposing with your crossbow instead of a dagger for a shield bonus however.
I didn't say it did, I said that a rule that modifies a specific normal rule doesn't affect another rule, that isn't that specific normal rule.
If that was truly what you were trying to say, you were talking about something that has nothing to do with the topic, because Double Slice doesn't modify anything, it purely adds something.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Are you having trouble with reading comprehension? Double slice has a normal line pointing out the .5 strength on off hand, that then gets bumped to full strength on just the off hand. If an attack isn't off hand or doesn't normally add strength at all, it doesn't fall under the purview of the normal rule, and thus doesn't matter to the benefit line of the feat that changes this normal rule. Ergo you don't suddenly add full or even half strength to ranged crossbow damage. That was my entire original point.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yes… the normal line doesn’t “do anything” except for tell you how the action the feat alters works without the feat. In the case of double slice, the normal functionality is that you can only add 1/2 strength on offhand attacks. With the feat THAT rule is modified. It doesn’t call out that normally you can’t add strength to offhand ranged attacks because it doesn’t alter that rules function. As per the books how to read feats segment:
Normal: What a character who does not have this feat is limited to or restricted from doing. If not having the feat causes no particular drawback, this entry is absent.
We can determine several the Inca about Double Slice by its normal. Several feats with Normal sections are actually far easier to understand how they function when you actually read the normal as part of the entire feat, as intended.
1) normally offhand melee attacks only get 1/2 strength and o damage - the feat lists this in its normal.2) normally ranged attacks get no strength to damage - is not listed in the feats normal.
3) if there is no penalty or drawback associated to the action(s) affected by the feat then it is not listed.
To conclude: the lack of strength to damage on ranged attacks is not considered a penalty or drawback for not having this particular feat. So there is no penalty or drawback to override. Feats that have a normal section override and change the functionality of the normal rule they outline.
FYI: there are a few instances of feats with Normals that create rules where there previously were none. These created rules are continually held up as being RAW and RAI despite the rule never existing outside the feat’s normal. So it’s rather disingenuous to claim the normal section does nothing.
Just in case anyone needed more proof that AwesomenessDog will say literally anything just to not admit having been wrong:
Double slice has a normal line pointing out the .5 strength on off hand, that then gets bumped to full strength on just the off hand. If an attack isn't off hand or doesn't normally add strength at all, it doesn't fall under the purview of the normal rule, and thus doesn't matter to the benefit line of the feat that changes this normal rule.
So according to him, Double Slice doesn't affect e.g. crossbows because of the normal section of the feat. Whereas two post earlier, he said
Any ruleslawyer would know that the normal section doesn't have any effect.It doesn't. I didn't say it did
So according to AwesomenessDog, the normal line has no effect, and he never said otherwise, but it still dictates what a feat('s benefit section) applies to - which is indubiously an effect.
Yes… the normal line doesn’t “do anything” except for tell you how the action the feat alters works without the feat.
But that's my point - the normal section doesn't make rule, it just repeats existing rules. It literally only applies to those who don't have the feat, and thus it cannot possibly change anything for those who do have the feat. And while a feat's normal section certainly can help understand the RAI, it does literally nothing for the RAW, which is all a "ruleslawyer" cares about.
I already said in my first post that "Double Slice should only change an existing 0.5xStr to 1xStr, with no effect on attacks without a strength bonus to damage rolls."
Also, you shouldn't need a section that only applies for those who don't have the feat to understand what happens when you do have the feat. The normal section is more like a dev commentary explaining why a feat exists.
FYI: there are a few instances of feats with Normals that create rules where there previously were none. These created rules are continually held up as being RAW
Do you have examples of normal sections making rules that are actually recognized as rules?
Also, you shouldn't need a section that only applies for those who don't have the feat to understand what happens when you do have the feat. The normal section is more like a dev commentary explaining why a feat exists.Except that there is. In case you haven’t noticed, the normal section only exists on feats that specifically alter a rule (or create a rule where there was none prior). The section is more than just a reminder of what the rule is, it tells you what rule is being altered by the feat. Nothing more, nothing less. It is effectively another way of having a feat say “instead of this”. And I guarantee you if every normal section was inserted into the benefits section in an “instead of this” format, we wouldn’t even be having this debate, we’d all agree that it only affects what it says.
Just in case anyone needed more proof that AwesomenessDog will say literally anything just to not admit having been wrong:
Double slice has a normal line pointing out the .5 strength on off hand, that then gets bumped to full strength on just the off hand. If an attack isn't off hand or doesn't normally add strength at all, it doesn't fall under the purview of the normal rule, and thus doesn't matter to the benefit line of the feat that changes this normal rule.So according to him, Double Slice doesn't affect e.g. crossbows because of the normal section of the feat. Whereas two post earlier, he said
So according to AwesomenessDog, the normal line has no effect, and he never said otherwise, but it still dictates what a feat('s benefit section) applies to - which is indubiously an effect.Any ruleslawyer would know that the normal section doesn't have any effect.It doesn't. I didn't say it did
Or again, you can't read and I said the same thing in both places. My stance is that when you are given something that clarifies exactly what the feat's benefit is applying to, and something isn't in that example, that is a very good example of "the feat doesn't apply to this case".
Maybe it's not a reading issue and just basic logic issue you're having? Normally unripe apples are green. A ripe apple is red. This does not mean a ripe orange is red.
Ranged Feint, before Ultimate Intrigue was published you could use ranged weapons to feint enemies or feint with melee weapons from a distance. If you ignore the existence of the feat, you can still do so.FYI: there are a few instances of feats with Normals that create rules where there previously were none. These created rules are continually held up as being RAWDo you have examples of normal sections making rules that are actually recognized as rules?
That's incorrect. The CRB specifically calls out feints being intended for melee weapons.
Feint
".....If successful, the next melee attack you make against the target does not allow him to use his Dexterity bonus to AC (if any). This attack must be made on or before your next turn.
It specifically says what type of attack is needed.
The Improved and Greater Feint, don't mention "melee" because that rule is already in the book, and in order for them to allow an exception they'd need something that says "This feat also allows you to make feints with ranged weapons".
I'm not saying it has to be worded exactly like that, but it would have to be clear that it's allowing you to break a normal rule just like it's clear they're reducing the time for a normal feint, with "Improved Feint".
Benefit: You can make a Bluff check to feint in combat as a move action.Normal: Feinting in combat is a standard action.
Therefore there was no rule allowing for ranged feints, and the "normal" section of the "Ranged Feint" feat didn't create a new rule.
As you can see it brings up the normal rule, and then the benefit of it taking a lesser action.
The same thing(showing which rule you get to ignore) happens for Greater Feint
Benefit: Whenever you use feint to cause an opponent to lose his Dexterity bonus, he loses that bonus until the beginning of your next turn, in addition to losing his Dexterity bonus against your next attack.Normal: A creature you feint loses its Dexterity bonus against your next attack.
Greater Feint's purpose is to allow you to extend how you benefit from the feint. It shows this by contrasting how long you normally benefit from a feint, and then showing how long you benefit from a feat with this feat.
Therefore there was no rule allowing for ranged feints, and the "normal" section of the "Ranged Feint" feat didn't create a new rule.
|
Therefore there was no rule allowing for ranged feints, and the "normal" section of the "Ranged Feint" feat didn't create a new rule.
Except it did. (Or at least made explicit a rule that the designers assumed everyone was following.)
Normal: You can feint only with a melee weapon, and only against a creature you threaten with that weapon.
There was nothing in the CRB saying you had to feint with a melee weapon, only that the benefit was only on a melee attack. Similarly there was nothing saying that you had to be threatening your target to feint them. So if you couldn't (or didn't want to) get in melee range, you could feint from 30' away (or whatever) to set up your target for the attack you are planning to make next round.
I'm not saying that makes sense or that it was intended to work that way. It's entirely possible a Designer happened to play, GM, or observe a game where a player built some silly Greater Feinting wizard who stood way in the back making threatening gestures with a crossbow in order to allow the rogue to sneak attack. "Wait, you can't do that!" "Ummm, why?" (brief conversation ends with designer flipping through CRB) ". . . Huh. 'Everybody knows' that you have to threaten someone to feint them, feinting literally means making a deadly-looking pretend attack that they have to react to, opening them up to the real attack. But it turns out its not actually defined in the CRB. Guess we need to fix it."
I'm not saying that makes sense or that it was intended to work that way.
See when discussing the rules there are two basic camps.
The "most literal interpretation camp", and the "we can't read the rules like a robot and ignore context" camp.
I'm in the latter.
Some who are in the former type likes to say, "Well you can't read minds or know developer intent".
When I was active here more often I not only predicted FAQ's, but the devs often used the same wording I used, so my results and other people's blow that excuse out of the water.
The rules aren't written like a technical manual, and if we used the logic of "Well it doesn't exactly say.....", there are a lot things that we could argue that 99% of us know were not intended.
The other point to consider in the rules forum is that when the poster ask a question are they asking for the "well if you're pedantic enough you can..." interpretation, OR they're looking for intent.
95% of the time people want intent.
There was a topic here that I think was deleted.
It went into ridiculous interpretations of the rules that had some merit if we were overly literal, and ignored context.
Of course it was was all in good fun, and I understand having those discussions if we're just messing around, however in the context of a real game when people are looking for real answers it's a disservice to fellow posters to do that.
This line of thinking is just like how shield master was intended to allow you to ignore twf penalties when using a shield while TWF'ing, but the way it was originally written, twf was never called out so one could argue(pedantically) that it reduced all penalties.
It specifically says what type of attack is needed.Sure, you still had to make a melee attack in order to take advantage of the feint, never said otherwise, but you didn't need to use a melee weapon to feint.
This meant that stuff like swift action feinting before charging as a rogue in order to get sneak attack off was viable.
Therefore there was no rule allowing for ranged feints, and the "normal" section of the "Ranged Feint" feat didn't create a new rule.Uh, no? You failed to provide any rules (aside from the normal line on ranged feint) that disallowed using ranged weapons for feinting. I'm perfectly aware that ranged feint is pretty much the only thing that allows you to benefit from feinting with ranged weapons, but that's a different thing than I brought up.
You brought it up so I know you're aware of it. I'm saying the normal section of that feat wasn't used to make a new rule.
Rules that aren't written in legalese, and later have their intent clarified don't count as new rules. That's not how it works.
By that logic a lot of FAQ's are rules changes even though we know they are only giving a better explanation on text that should have been written better initially.
|
|
I don't disagree with you, wraithstrike, when it comes to RAI/RAW. I dislike hyperliteralism with a passion myself. But you're sorta indulging in pedantry yourself by arguing that Ranged Feint didn't establish a new rule, but rather clarified an existing rule. Either way you slice it: It used to be (one) valid reading of the CRB that you could feint from a distance but after that feat was released you definitely couldn't. The outcome is the same no matter what you call it: a new restriction.
In this particular case there wasn't enough information to discern developer intent to a sufficient degree of certainty. Here's a hypothetical thought process of a player who thought it was possible to feint with a ranged weapon and to feint at range.
Hmmm... I would have to double move to get to him. But that will let him full attack me. I know, I will move towards him, drawing this dart as I go. Then as my standard I will pretend like I'm going to throw it in his eye (feint). He's going to be so focused on that he's not going to expect me to knife him in the spleen next round.
That's not at all an unreasonable idea (to me at least) if you've read the whole Core Rulebook.
One phrase would have made intent clear: You must feint with a weapon that threatens your target. But that phrase doesn't exist in the CRB.
By that logic a lot of FAQ's are rules changes even though we know they are only giving a better explanation on text that should have been written better initially.A lot of FAQs are rules changes, that's why they say they'll be reflected in the next errata (and then never put in). That's why there's been multiple back-and-forth FAQs on how half-elfs/orcs work, along with multiple different times FAQs changed what SLAs qualify for. Heck, there's even an FAQ that grants brand new class features to a class. Or are you going to argue that all of those are just clarifications of intent?
Nothing in the rules expressed their intent for it to only work with melee weapons, especially when things like pretending you're going to shoot someone with your bow, only to drop it and punch them in the face instead are things that are thematic to feinting.
I didn't say none of them were rules changes. I'm saying more of them would be rules changes by more definition.
However I was also assuming the culture of the boards is what it used to be. I made a post speaking to this. Trying to convince people to view things like I do is silly. It's much easier to have us do things in a similar manner so if you get time feel free to comment on my post.