Post/Author/DateTime	Post
bigcitygas 07-14-07, 06:26 PM	Here's my dilemma, about a combo I came up with, but due to possible overpower, might be prevented by the rules somewhere. Bob is a 20th lvl fighter. Among his many feats, he has the following ones ; Quick Draw, Two weapon fighting, Improved two weapon fighting, Greater two weapon fighting. That gives him, 4 main attacks 3 off hand attacks Bob has a greatsword, and a shortsword at his side too! Can Bob make the following chain of attacks in a single round? 4 main attacks, with greatsword. THEN Quick draw (on shortsword) THEN 3 off hand attacks with light weapon.
J_Vhad 07-14-07, 06:35 PM	I don't know of anything wrong with it, I'm not sure if switching a two-handed weapons grip to a one hand hold is a free action or one of the new types they've made up since core though. Another option would be to just use armor spikes and a greatsword. Then you wouldn't have to worry about the grip on the sword and could get rid of Quickdraw. Replace quickdraw with Improved Buckler Defense from complete warrior and you have the best mix of 2HF, 2WF, and shields.
NeueRegel 07-14-07, 06:36 PM	No, because amongst other things, multiple attacks must go in descending order of bab. Your bab there would go 18/18/13/13/8/8/3. Quickdraw is just that, "draw". You couldn't "sheathe" fast enough. Besides which, the whole premise didn't really deserve even this much attention. *wink* Nice try though. Neue
J_Vhad 07-14-07, 07:05 PM	Well if switching sword grips is a free action he could still technically do it by just carrying a couple dozen shorswords, but ya it is kind of a japanese anime style premise. Just add a couple rat people and a random tentacled thing and you'd have your own show.
sensestaker 07-14-07, 09:17 PM	If this were possible, which it's not, the obvious cheat would be to quickdraw the shortsword into your primary hand instead of your offhand, thus giving x1 instead of x.5 STR damage, which is one reason that it isn't legal. Another problem is that part of twf is the balancing penalty for holding a weapon in your offhand. With a twohanded weapon, that wouldn't be incorporated. A third main reason it isn't possible is because you're swinging both weapons at the same time (hence the highest-to-lowest BAB progression all the way down the line), otherwise why not just have a chain of feats that allows you to swing your greatsword 7 time a round. Actually, that's almost a logical progression of the above problems: swing one greatsword 4 times, no penalty from wielding an offhand weapon since both hands are holding the same weapon, then quick draw another greatsword and attack 3 more times, also no offhand penalty. You can see that this idea quickly opens itself to gratuitous abuse.
Twylyght 07-14-07, 11:23 PM	Yeah in this case, drop the quick draw and go with armor spikes. They are effective eough for tacking on some extra damage, cant be disarmed, and are there if you get grappled. All in all, armor spikes are a good deal.
stoicfaux 07-15-07, 12:27 PM	Swapping out weapons isn't two weapon fighting. It's just switching out weapons. You would never use TWF rules since you're not TWF'ing. Since you have Quick Draw and since dropping a weapon is a free action, you could make two attacks with the greatsword, drop it, draw a short sword and then get two more attacks.
guru7892 07-16-07, 12:05 AM	well if you had a bastard sword it would probably work better (since all you would do is draw and sheath the light weapon, and bastard swords can be used one handed). to be honest NO good DM would allow this to work.
runestar 07-16-07, 01:12 AM	As pointed out above, you will need armour spikes for this to work (you are allowed to 2WF with a greatsword as your main-hand and armour spikes as off-hand). In fact, I think this is the only scenario where you are allowed to TWF with a 2-handed weapon. Note that you will still get 1.5 str damage on your greatsword (and 0.5 str mod on your armour spikes, which are treated as off-hand).:)
J_Vhad 07-16-07, 08:26 AM	Not the only situation. You can always TWF as a monk with a longspear and unarmed strikes which give you reach and 5 ft. threat. On top of that unarmed strikes still get their full strength bonus because unarmed strikes are no made as off-hand attacks.
runestar 07-16-07, 08:56 AM	Not the only situation. You can always TWF as a monk with a longspear and unarmed strikes which give you reach and 5 ft. threat. You mean against different foes?:confused: On top of that unarmed strikes still get their full strength bonus because unarmed strikes are no made as off-hand attacks. If you designate them as off-hand attacks (as is typically the case in TWFing, they will still get only 0.5 str mod). Check out the FAQ, it delves into this scenario in detail.:)
J_Vhad 07-16-07, 10:08 AM	The FAQ cannot change RAW. Primary/Secondary source rule, only errata can change RAW. Could be against different foes, or the same foe with a five foot step.
tarkin 07-16-07, 10:23 AM	You think FAQ can not change RAW? Where exactly does it say that? What makes you think it? There is no big red stamp that says official. When the FAQ contradicts what you think is RAW, that means that WOTC, the people that wrote the rules think you have no idea what RAW is. The FAQ is a Primary source. It is where WoTC explains what they meant when they said the RAW. Any other belief is just spoiled grapes, complaing. Besides, there is no rule that the twisted, literal, unplayable (Hey, no where in the core rules does it say that dead characters can't keep fighting), silly interepreatation that some people call RAW is how you are supposed to play the game. RAI is just as valid, and avoids all the pitfalls. Look, I dislike several rulings in the FAQ (Cleave, metamagic interacting) But that does NOT make it any thing less than what it is: WOTC telling us what they meant. As per RAW, the game works like this. 1. TWF bonus (Off hand) attacks ALWAYS get 0.5. It does not matter how many hands you actually use. 2. You MUST have the weapon available for the entire round. No "I take my attacks with both hands, then quickdraw out of it". This is because despite the sequential way we play it out, all 'groups' of attacks (group 1: Main hand iterative. Group 2: Off hand iterative. Group 3+: All secondary attacks count as their own group) take an entire FULL round to do. The weapon must be available for that entire round, or you do not have enough time to use it. You may HOUSE RULE otherwise, but the rules of the Game as WOTC (you remember them - they are the people that wrote the rules right?) are what WOTC tells us. If they say the rules are X and do not say "Variant", "Optional", or "Suggested" than that is what they meant originally. The FAQ is just as valid as the core rules (PHB, DMG, MM only). Me, I House Rule all the time. There is no moronic Cleave off a Mirror Image in any game I DM. There is no super combo of Maximize + Admixture being exaclty equal to applying the Epic feat Intensify Spell. (What moron would waste taking an Epic feat to get the exact same thing you get using the FAQ's version of Maximize + Admixture) But I acknowledge I am House Ruling when I do it.
J_Vhad 07-16-07, 10:41 AM	WotC isn't immune to their own rules. They must follow the source rules that they laid out or the source rules are pointless. The FAQ isn't to make new rulings, it is to explain ambiguous things. It doesn't have the right to override a primary source. 2. You MUST have the weapon available for the entire round. No "I take my attacks with both hands, then quickdraw out of it". I don't entirely agree with this. Throwers don't have their weapons available for the entire round, yet I don't see anything that prevents a thrower from two-weapon fighting. The FAQ actually supports this in at least one case (and it's not changing any rules either when it does).
Frugal 07-16-07, 10:56 AM	I don't entirely agree with this. Throwers don't have their weapons available for the entire round, yet I don't see anything that prevents a thrower from two-weapon fighting. The FAQ actually supports this in at least one case (and it's not changing any rules either when it does). True, but RAW you work out attacks in order from highest to lowest bonus. This means the order is supposed to be primary hand/off-hand/primary hand/off-hand since your 1st off-hand attack is based off your 1st iterative attack's bonus, it has to be resolved before your 2nd primary hand attack. This is important for more reasons than TWF cheese, suppose you have 1 weapon that's incredibly effective against a creature you're threatening but your off-hand weapon is useless against him, now suppose he's blocking you from reaching another opponent. Ideally, you'd want to use all your primary attacks on him with the effective weapon and then make a 5' step to threaten the other creature and attack him with the other weapon, but you can't do that.
ravenshrike 07-16-07, 11:06 AM	Swapping out weapons isn't two weapon fighting. It's just switching out weapons. You would never use TWF rules since you're not TWF'ing. Since you have Quick Draw and since dropping a weapon is a free action, you could make two attacks with the greatsword, drop it, draw a short sword and then get two more attacks. Actually, you can hold the greatsword in one hand perfectly well. You just can't attack with it. Since moving a second hand onto an object you already hold is considered a free action, there really isn't any problem from that perspective.
ravenshrike 07-16-07, 11:09 AM	You mean against different foes?:confused: Yes, or large or bigger foes(at least, I don't think there is a rule anywhere besides charge that dictates you must attack the nearest portion of enemy).
J_Vhad 07-16-07, 11:32 AM	True, but RAW you work out attacks in order from highest to lowest bonus. This means the order is supposed to be primary hand/off-hand/primary hand/off-hand since your 1st off-hand attack is based off your 1st iterative attack's bonus, it has to be resolved before your 2nd primary hand attack. This is important for more reasons than TWF cheese, suppose you have 1 weapon that's incredibly effective against a creature you're threatening but your off-hand weapon is useless against him, now suppose he's blocking you from reaching another opponent. Ideally, you'd want to use all your primary attacks on him with the effective weapon and then make a 5' step to threaten the other creature and attack him with the other weapon, but you can't do that. You can do that without having the weapons available for the whole round. Take halfling skip rocker A. He uses two weapon fighting and quickdraw. His has a +11 BA bonus and the three TWF feats that let him make the off-hand attacks for each one. He draws a rock in each hand, throws, repeats, repeats. He's going +11/+11/+6/+6/+1/+1, but the weapons arn't available the ENTIRE round. Nothing in RAW says anything to contradict or disallow this. You can add Rapid shot to this to get another attack at your highest. (Given this is all without penalties or bonuses added in). I never said they didn't have to be taken in order, just that the weapons don't have to be available the whole round, because in the case of some characters they are 20 ft. away in their enemies after the first attack.
Frugal 07-16-07, 11:42 AM	You can do that without having the weapons available for the whole round. Take halfling skip rocker A. He uses two weapon fighting and quickdraw. His has a +11 BA bonus and the three TWF feats that let him make the off-hand attacks for each one. He draws a rock in each hand, throws, repeats, repeats. He's going +11/+11/+6/+6/+1/+1, but the weapons arn't available the ENTIRE round. Nothing in RAW says anything to contradict or disallow this. You can add Rapid shot to this to get another attack at your highest. (Given this is all without penalties or bonuses added in). I never said they didn't have to be taken in order, just that the weapons don't have to be available the whole round, because in the case of some characters they are 20 ft. away in their enemies after the first attack. Yep, no argument there. I just meant that it's important to follow the order so you don't get people trying to make the most use out of each weapon (as I mentioned). It also prevents cheese like fighting 2-handed with 1 weapon then dropping it and quick drawing another weapon and claiming you can use TWF with it.
MethaneGranola 07-16-07, 12:42 PM	there are alot of things happening here that say everything here is impossible, first take a look at the rules as they are intended, a 2 handed weapon gets 1.5 times the str mod because you can only wield one weapon, and 2 weapons at once get a x1 and a x.5 in the off hand, which add up to 1.5, so the 2 systems are pretty much equal. now add in that you are taking the 1.5 from the 2 handed weapon and seem to be randomly choosing to add .5 to the short sword ( when "supposedly" you could wield it with both hands or your main hand). most of it just doesnt seem to make sence with the rules. after waht sencestalker said, which pretty nicely wraps this up, there isnt much you can do. BTW i am pretty sure that not even a monk can TWF with a 2 handed weapon and fists, he can switch them out, but he cant take the feat and gain extra attacks and stack them all up like that. the obvious soloutions to your proble are take monkey grip, and wield that great sword in 1 hand, or make bob a thri-keen
J_Vhad 07-16-07, 12:47 PM	Yes, a monk can two weapon fight with a two-handed weapon and unarmed strikes. Try reading the relevant sections of the PHB. Not only can he fight with a two handed weapon and unarmed strikes, but he can also flurry at the same time.
Frugal 07-16-07, 01:04 PM	the obvious soloutions to your proble are take monkey grip, and wield that great sword in 1 hand, or make bob a thri-keen 3.5 Monkey Grip doesn't allow you to wield a 2-handed weapon in 1 hand, it allows you to wield a weapon 1 size category larger than you are with no change in effort. Now yes, that means you could wield a large longsword in 1 hand and get your 2d6 damage but it's not the same thing as allowing you to wield a medium greatsword in 1 hand. Also, I suspect the OP is trying to maximise his STR bonus to damage and that's why he wanted the 2-handed weapon since 2x STR bonus can easily outsrip the extra damage you'd get from monkey gripping a larger weapon in 1 hand.
runestar 07-16-07, 10:46 PM	BTW i am pretty sure that not even a monk can TWF with a 2 handed weapon and fists, he can switch them out, but he cant take the feat and gain extra attacks and stack them all up like that. Actually, I believe he can. The trick is that you can designate your unarmed strikes to be made with any part of your body. So the monk initiates the TWFing option with a 2-handed weapon and unarmed strikes as his off hand, then declares that his off-hand unarmed strikes are made with his legs, or head, or some other part of his body which does not involve hands. In a sense, "off-hand" is a misnomer here as it does not necessarily have to be made with your hand.:)
DinwathSereglin 07-16-07, 11:04 PM	True, but RAW you work out attacks in order from highest to lowest bonus. I've always thought that the iterative attacks should be resolved in ascending order rather than descending. You can logically reason that it is easier to block or dodge one attack than dodging or blocking a second or even third attack in quick order. Think about the way fight scenes in movies or books are resolved. The opposing fighters always seem to have a much harder time defending each additional attack after the first, not the other way around.
Frugal 07-17-07, 07:59 AM	I've always thought that the iterative attacks should be resolved in ascending order rather than descending. You can logically reason that it is easier to block or dodge one attack than dodging or blocking a second or even third attack in quick order. Think about the way fight scenes in movies or books are resolved. The opposing fighters always seem to have a much harder time defending each additional attack after the first, not the other way around. It's an interesting interpretation, But I think it messes up a few things too much. The big issue I see is that it rather effectively negates your ability to make 1 attack and then decide if you'll full attack (since that attack would be at your lowest bonus, rather than a single attack at your highest). It also significantly changes a lot of strategies. Take the situation of a big bodyguard (with a high AC) blocking you from reaching the fragile guy behind him (who has a low AC). With the current system you can full attack and drop the bodyguard with your high attack bonus attacks, then 5' step and use your remaining attacks on the lower AC guy and have a chance of hitting. If you do ascending order you might waste those lower bonus attacks on the big guy trying to hit him (higher AC) and then only drop him with your best attacks, but now you're out of attacks. Actually, that last example also illustrates why the interpretation of an opponent falling to a succession of blows doesn't work, why should the 2nd guy be more vulnerable to attacks (you have a higher bonus to hit him) because you threw a number of blows against the 1st guy?
bigcitygas 07-17-07, 03:01 PM	No, because amongst other things, multiple attacks must go in descending order of bab. Your bab there would go 18/18/13/13/8/8/3. What is the source of the rule that can confirm that? If this were possible, which it's not, the obvious cheat would be to quickdraw the shortsword into your primary hand instead of your offhand, thus giving x1 instead of x.5 STR damage, which is one reason that it isn't legal. No. It's not an intended cheat. I should've noted that the shortsword lands in Bob's off hand, and thus suffer all incuring penalties for Fighting with Two-Weapons. So far, I can see there are people saying "Yes", "No", "Maybe". Let's hope WoTC looks into this! :P
Frugal 07-17-07, 03:04 PM	What is the source of the rule that can confirm that? It's described under the full attack action: If you get multiple attacks because your base attack bonus is high enough, you must make the attacks in order from highest bonus to lowest. If you are using two weapons, you can strike with either weapon first. If you are using a double weapon, you can strike with either part of the weapon first.
DinwathSereglin 07-17-07, 08:16 PM	It's an interesting interpretation, But I think it messes up a few things too much. The big issue I see is that it rather effectively negates your ability to make 1 attack and then decide if you'll full attack (since that attack would be at your lowest bonus, rather than a single attack at your highest). It also significantly changes a lot of strategies. Take the situation of a big bodyguard (with a high AC) blocking you from reaching the fragile guy behind him (who has a low AC). With the current system you can full attack and drop the bodyguard with your high attack bonus attacks, then 5' step and use your remaining attacks on the lower AC guy and have a chance of hitting. If you do ascending order you might waste those lower bonus attacks on the big guy trying to hit him (higher AC) and then only drop him with your best attacks, but now you're out of attacks. Actually, that last example also illustrates why the interpretation of an opponent falling to a succession of blows doesn't work, why should the 2nd guy be more vulnerable to attacks (you have a higher bonus to hit him) because you threw a number of blows against the 1st guy? That is one of the other logical deductions for order of resolution. The only problem with logic is that it rarely applies to the mechanics of this game.