Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Majick 08-02-07, 12:33 PM	Just a thought: Would anybody consider it increadibly unbalancing in a game if Perfect Two Weapon Fighting (previously an epic only feat) were simply allowed to be chosen by a non-epic character? Just wondering
Shadowfax7 08-02-07, 12:41 PM	In 3.0 it was an epic feat that could be chosen by non-epic characters. I believe the prereq was +16 BAB ??
Majick 08-02-07, 12:52 PM	yeah, 16+ BaB and (obviously) all the other previous TWF feats... Who thinks this is ok?
Spikes01k 08-02-07, 01:20 PM	The problem here then becomes, what if a rouge or other similar class got that ability. All those extra attacks, all with extra damage.... I personally have fixed this problem in my DnD 4e write up.
runestar 08-02-07, 01:45 PM	Rogues would get no benefit, since they never get that 4th attack. I see nothing wrong with it. And let rangers have it for free at lv16 as well.:)
Ecalsneerg 08-02-07, 01:47 PM	Prerequisites Dex 25, Greater Two-Weapon Fighting, Improved Two-Weapon Fighting, Two-Weapon Fighting. Benefit You can make as many attacks with your off-hand weapon as with your primary weapon, using the same base attack bonus. You still take the normal penalties for fighting with two weapons. Normal Without this feat, you can only get a single attack with an off-hand weapon (or two attacks with an off-hand weapon if you have Improved Two-Weapon Fighting, or three attacks with an off-hand weapon if you have Greater Two-Weapon Fighting). We'll assume we're only using standard races (races with +4 Dex likely have at least LA +1) We'll say you rolled 18 for dex, and got +2 for being an Elf. Then, you need 5 stat increases (i.e. level 20) to get it. It's not easy to achieve, so I'd say it's acceptable. Changing the feat around... well I dunno.
tarkin 08-02-07, 02:02 PM	Strict game: no. Loose Game: A better question is not "would anyone object" but instead be: "Why do you want to do this?" There are other ways to get an extra attack. Honestly, it is not such a big deal that you have to wait a bit more to get that extra attack. A major problem I have with downgrading Epic feats is that it becomes a 'where do you draw the line' thing. I.E. When the wizards hear how you did that, they want to pull Intensify spell out of Epic into normal. And then rangers want something, etc. etc. You should have a much better reason to downgrade the feat besides "I want to take it and don't think it is really epic". That is simply not enough of a reason. Power/Anything Goes game: Sure, go ahead.
GawainBS 08-02-07, 03:40 PM	I think it's fine, even downgrade the DEX requirement to 21, so that it is inline with the other TWF feats. You're only getting one extra attack at -15 to hit... Be sure to add BAB +16 as requirement. And Special: Rangers with the TWF style can take this feat even without the DEX score, as long as they're in light armour.
elondir 08-02-07, 03:45 PM	I agree with GawainBS. It should work fine. On the ropic of rogues with 8 sneak attacks, a rogue 15/fighter 5 should have +16 BAB and +8d6 sneak attack per attack. if I calculated correctly. That's still a lot of extra dice, even if it's not the full 10d6.
TorgSmackie 08-02-07, 04:35 PM	Rogues would get no benefit, since they never get that 4th attack. A rogue with 4 levels of fighter could get it. ...at 21st level.
FrotzMe 08-02-07, 04:48 PM	A rogue with 4 levels of fighter could get it. ...at 21st level. Or even a Rogue with the right 5 level PrC. A rogue 15 / invisible blade 5 would reach +16 BAB at 20th level, and would have 11d6 of Sneak Attack damage with a dagger, kukri, or punching dagger.
GawainBS 08-02-07, 05:02 PM	Even then, would it destroy game balance? :)
risner 08-02-07, 06:24 PM	The problem here then becomes, what if a rouge or other similar class got that ability. All those extra attacks, all with extra damage... All those extra attacks? This feat (PTWF) gives a maximum of one extra attack and only if your BAB is 16+.
runestar 08-02-07, 09:26 PM	We'll say you rolled 18 for dex, and got +2 for being an Elf. Then, you need 5 stat increases (i.e. level 20) to get it. It's not easy to achieve, so I'd say it's acceptable. Changing the feat around... well I dunno. You are allowed to use magic gear to meet the requirements. A human with 16 dex, +6 gloves of dex and adding 3 points from lv ups meets the prereqs just fine.:)
unundindur 08-02-07, 10:10 PM	Just a thought: Would anybody consider it increadibly unbalancing in a game if Perfect Two Weapon Fighting (previously an epic only feat) were simply allowed to be chosen by a non-epic character? Just wondering Well, there sure isn't a balancing reason not to do it. TWF would still be on the wrong end of the sword of justice...
EjoThims 08-03-07, 07:50 AM	Perfect TWF is VERY powerful. By the wording you aren't simply gaining an extra OH attack, you are gaining one OH for every MH attack you make. Wielding a speed weapon for example now gives you one attack with your main-hand by virtue of it being a speed weapon, and one more because you make on off-hand attack each time you make a mainhand attack. Essentially this feat changes any other feat, ability, spell, or enchantment that grants a main-hand attack into granting a main-hand and an off-hand attack.
unundindur 08-03-07, 07:54 AM	Perfect TWF is VERY powerful. By the wording you aren't simply gaining an extra OH attack, you are gaining one OH for every MH attack you make. Wielding a speed weapon for example now gives you one attack with your main-hand by virtue of it being a speed weapon, and one more because you make on off-hand attack each time you make a mainhand attack. Essentially this feat changes any other feat, ability, spell, or enchantment that grants a main-hand attack into granting a main-hand and an off-hand attack. I can only assume that is not how its intended even though it may be written that way. Doesn't make sense that your one speed weapon suddnely makes your other arm faster... Good catch though :)
EjoThims 08-03-07, 08:59 AM	I can only assume that is not how its intended even though it may be written that way. Doesn't make sense that your one speed weapon suddnely makes your other arm faster... Good catch though :) I've honestly always read it that way... Thought it was the only reason the feat was epic in quality... Because using a 4th feat to just gain a 4th OH attack if your BAB is high enough really is not epic worthy in any sense.
Llathos 08-03-07, 09:04 AM	I kind of agree with Ejo on this one. It's epic because it's somewhat unbounded. I think the wording would match the other TWF feats if it were simply adding another OH attack at -15.
Ecalsneerg 08-03-07, 09:40 AM	You are allowed to use magic gear to meet the requirements. A human with 16 dex, +6 gloves of dex and adding 3 points from lv ups meets the prereqs just fine.:) Damn your logical logic.
joshlordofillogic 08-03-07, 12:34 PM	and just think of what a warblade with the tiger claw dicipline and rabid mongoose boost could do with a speed weapon this would be the attack sequence: on hand attack 1, off hand attack one, bonus onh atk 1, bonus off hand attack 1, feat off hand attack 1, bonus on hand attack 2, bonus off hand attack 2, feat off hand atk 2, hastened on hand atk one,hastened off hand attack 1, on hand attack 2, off hand attack 2, on hand attack 3, off hand attack 3, on hand attack 4, feat off hand attack 3. summary on hand attacks 7 off hand attacks 9 weilding two keen 18-20 crit weapons, number of crits per round: 4 plus grillion windmill flesh rip and predators stance = everything around you dies time it takes for the warblade to roll this attack up: far too long!
risner 08-04-07, 12:18 AM	By the wording you aren't simply gaining an extra OH attack, you are gaining one OH for every MH attack you make. You have miss interpreted the text. You gain a maximum of one (1) attack. The wording is almost 100% identical to TWF, ITWF, and GTWF.
NoldorForce 08-04-07, 12:30 AM	You have miss interpreted the text. You gain a maximum of one (1) attack. The wording is almost 100% identical to TWF, ITWF, and GTWF.Bulls***. What in the text says that? It never states that you get a single attack. It instead literally gives an unbounded quantity:The character can make as many attacks with his or her off-hand weapon as with his or her primary weapon, using the same base attack bonus.EjoThims is precisely correct here, considering that his/her statement is merely a paraphrasal of the text. Keep in mind as well that this can be useful in the hands of a Maho-bujin, who can get as many as seven iterative attacks; Perfect TWF thus allows for fourteen attacks without any other boosts.
EjoThims 08-04-07, 09:26 AM	You have miss interpreted the text. You gain a maximum of one (1) attack. The wording is almost 100% identical to TWF, ITWF, and GTWF. Risner... Your motives are good, but it would be so much simpler for everyone (including yourself) if you stopped confusing what the rules said with what you think they should say. The feat says simply that you gain as many off-hand attacks as you make main-hand attacks. And the wording is, in fact, nothing like the other TWF feats, as TWF itself only references a los of penalties, ITWF very specifically states second attack at a -5 penalty, and GTWF very specifically states third attack at -10 penalty. Now, one thing that could be argued is if the 'can' is limiting or not... In other words, does this stack with or replace the rest of the TWF chain? I believe the 'can' to be limiting (describing capability, not options), meaning your number of off-hand attacks for each weapon with this feat could never surpass your number of main-hand attacks. If you think the can is only demonstrating an option as opposed to the limits, then a character COULD also make more attacks with any off-hand weapons, including the original three from the TWF chain.
Optimator 08-04-07, 09:45 AM	Yeah, TWF is so weaksauce I think having Perfect TWF being non-epic would be more than fair. I think it would be fair to have the first TWF feat allow the iterative off-hand attacks; wrap up TWF, Improved TWF, and Greater TWF into one feat and have the feat grant the extra attack when the character gains an extra attack from BAB.
GawainBS 08-04-07, 09:52 AM	Yeah, TWF is so weaksauce I think having Perfect TWF being non-epic would be more than fair. I think it would be fair to have the first TWF feat allow the iterative off-hand attacks; wrap up TWF, Improved TWF, and Greater TWF into one feat and have the feat grant the extra attack when the character gains an extra attack from BAB. That's the way I do it in my campaign. ITWF gives the TW Defense bonus vs the Dodge Target and GTWF gives TW Defense bonus against all targets. We have a Tempest that fights this way and he's isn't even close to unbalancing.
Legdiwena 08-05-07, 01:35 AM	How does a Maho-bujin get 7 iterative attacks? BAB gives you a maximum of 4 iterative, no matter how high your BAB is.
NoldorForce 08-05-07, 10:10 AM	Maho-bujin has a class feature (Crimson Road) that changes the way you get iterative attacks. Instead of getting them at successive -5's, you get them at successive -3's (like a 3.0 monk). So your iterative attacks are then +20/+17/+14/+11/+8/+5/+2 rather than +20/+15/+10/+5.
runestar 08-05-07, 10:14 AM	TWFing needs to be combined with abilities triggered off hitting to be effective, such as a rogue's sneak attack, a ranger's FE damage bonus against the appropriate foe, or with weapons sporting tons of elemental damage enhancements. I wouldn't say that it is weak, just that a lot of effort needs to be invested to make it work. In the very least, I wouldn't allow a single feat to just double your attacks like that. Even power attack+2-handed weapon does not offer that sort of advantage.
GawainBS 08-05-07, 10:48 AM	Pit Dualwielders versus something with DR, and they're in trouble. Also, only giving one extra attack per feat (with penalties on the attack roll) and each extra feat having steeper requirements for less of a benefit doesn't sound very fair. I would at least lower the DEX requirement. BTW, my campaign sports "hard" requirements: no magic items to meet prerequisites.
KRATOS_BLADE_of_SPARTA 08-05-07, 11:22 AM	Greetings, I must warn you, making PTWF non-Epic would be EXTREMELY unbalancing in the hands of anyone that has any idea of how to optimize a TWFighter. My suggestion is to make a new feat called Superior Two Weapon Fighting. As such: Two-Weapon Fighting [General] Prerequisite Dex 21, Greater Two-Weapon Fighting, Improved Two-Weapon Fighting, Two-Weapon Fighting, BAB +16. Benefit You get a fourth attack with your off-hand weapon, albeit at a -15 penalty. See the Two-Weapon Fighting special attack. Special A fighter may select Superior Two-Weapon Fighting as one of his fighter bonus feats. A 16th-level ranger who has chosen the two-weapon combat style is treated as having Superior Two-Weapon Fighting, even if he does not have the prerequisites for it, but only when he is wearing light or no armor. I hope this helps. Farewell.
GawainBS 08-05-07, 11:23 AM	I think the OP simply meant a feat to add a fourth offhand attack, so you get as many as your BAB allows, which can never be more than four.
KRATOS_BLADE_of_SPARTA 08-05-07, 11:26 AM	I think the OP simply meant a feat to add a fourth offhand attack, so you get as many as your BAB allows, which can never be more than four. Indeed, but in order to spare any misinterpretations, the above feat is much more suited to his needs, and should in my opinion be added to every game. Farewell!
GawainBS 08-05-07, 11:28 AM	Indeed, but in order to spare any misinterpretations, the above feat is much more suited to his needs, and should in my opinion be added to every game. Farewell! True, nothing wrong with the feat you described, on the contrary.
risner 08-05-07, 11:32 AM	Risner... Your motives are good, but it would be so much simpler for everyone (including yourself) if you stopped confusing what the rules said with what you think they should say. It is ironic that you are doing exactly what you ask me not to do. You gain as many attacks with PTWF as you do for your main hand as a result of BAB. This is the same way the other TWF feats work. It is intentional mis interpretation of RAW to conclude you get extra attacks for other abilities or extra attacks for spells (including haste) or any of the other distortions suggested here.
kalstrand 08-05-07, 02:13 PM	I don't know how to quote the SRD and don't want to take the time so I will just quote the feat word for word from the Epic Level Handbook. You can make as many attacks with your offhand weapon as with your primary weapon, using the same base attack bonus. For example, a character with this feat and a base attack bonus of +18/+13/+8/+3 could make four attacks per round with his off-hand eweapon using this base attack bonus. You still take the normal penalties for fighting with two weapons. Emphasis mine As written it doesn't matter how you get attacks with your primary you can make an attack with your offhand at the same BAB. The example does not in any way limit you to 4 off-hand attacks if you can get more than 4 primary attacks.
GawainBS 08-05-07, 02:15 PM	I don't know how to quote the SRD and don't want to take the time so I will just quote the feat word for word from the Epic Level Handbook. You can make as many attacks with your offhand weapon as with your primary weapon, using the same base attack bonus. For example, a character with this feat and a base attack bonus of +18/+13/+8/+3 could make four attacks per round with his off-hand eweapon using this base attack bonus. You still take the normal penalties for fighting with two weapons. Emphasis mine As written it doesn't matter how you get attacks with your primary you can make an attack with your offhand at the same BAB. The example does not in any way limit you to 4 off-hand attacks if you can get more than 4 primary attacks. For sake of being the Devil's Advocate, I have to point out it says "BAB", not AB. But such debate is silly. The OP wanted to know if allowing a fourth offhand attack for a feat is unbalancing, and I think we agree that it isn't.
kalstrand 08-05-07, 02:17 PM	All your attacks are figured off BAB. If you get an extra attack from haste it is figured off your highest BAB which when applying PTWF would give you an additional off-hand attack figured from your highest BAB.
GawainBS 08-05-07, 02:20 PM	No, it's figured off from Haste.
risner 08-05-07, 05:09 PM	As written it doesn't matter how you get attacks with your primary you can make an attack with your offhand at the same BAB. The example does not in any way limit you to 4 off-hand attacks if you can get more than 4 primary attacks. As written, you absolutely only get a total of 4 attacks for TWF. One for each TWF feat including PTWF and only if your BAB is 16 or more.
NoldorForce 08-05-07, 10:52 PM	You gain as many attacks with PTWF as you do for your main hand as a result of BAB. This is the same way the other TWF feats work. It is intentional mis interpretation of RAW to conclude you get extra attacks for other abilities or extra attacks for spells (including haste) or any of the other distortions suggested here.You're adding stipulations where none exist. The text does state that you use the offhand attacks at the same base attack bonus, but that just means that for every primary hand attack you make at a given base attack bonus (which may be multiple attacks), you get an offhand attack. Limiting things otherwise ignores the original unbounded stipulation. And it's not really unbalanced to allow this, anyway. There are many ways to get extra attacks, as with backlash feats (Karmic Strike, etc.), multipouncing, flurry, natural attacks, and so forth. I have played characters who can consistently get over ten attacks (most at full attack bonus rather than lower iteratives) at or before epic; is this something to begrudge the TWFer?
EjoThims 08-06-07, 10:18 AM	It is intentional mis interpretation of RAW to conclude you get extra attacks for other abilities or extra attacks for spells (including haste) or any of the other distortions suggested here. Not at all. Any interpretation deviates from RAW. RAW is taking the text strictly and exactly as it is written. The feat is written "You can make as many attacks with your offhand weapon as with your primary weapon, using the same base attack bonus." One could interpret 'base attack bonus' as limiting it to the standard 4, but it makes no such restrictions; simply stating that the off hand attacks use the same base attack bonus as the main hand. Limiting it to 4 attacks is a houserule, and would defeat the purpose of this feat being epic. It would even be incrediably weak as a normal feat due to the -15 penalty. Risner, when I speak of rules outside of a specific GM's game, I speak of how they read directly from the book with no balance or concerns, simply the wording of the rule itself. You speak from what you think would be balanced in a game, yet you turn around and say that it is indeed what the text itself states. When you confuse the two you confuse everyone else who has a question about it. As side notes, PTWF stacks with flurry (since they are considered main hand attacks), Rapid Shot, and Karmic Strike. It also stacks with Roundabout Kick and Lightning Mace when they trigger off your main-hand attacks. Anything that grants more attacks with the weapon you are using as the main-hand weapon, even if the feat or ability does not specifically state the attack granted is a main-hand attack. This is because it's attacks with the main-hand weapon, not main-hand BAB attacks that PTWF references. It does not stack with Snap Kick though (even if using Unarmed Strikes) because that specifies 1/2 Str bonus, making it an off-hand attack. For exmple: at level 21 a monk/shou disciple/master thrower with rapid shot using PTWF could throw 32 daggers in a round if hasted (4 BAB+2 Flurry with daggers from Shou+1 rapid shot+1 haste=8*2 from PTWF=16*2 from palm throw=32) and before any other feats or abilities. An ECL 24 thri-kreen monk/shou disciple(5 level full BAB monk class that stacks for unarmed attack size and flurry attacks, anyone who doesn't take it as a high level monk should have a really good reason for wanting to speak all languages and not age) with snap kick using PMWF could make 29 unarmed strikes (7 MH, 7 with each OH, and 1 bonus OH from snap kick) in one round if hasted (4 BAB+2 Flurry+1 haste=7*4 from PMWF=28+1 from Snap kick=29) and before any other feats or abilities. Sadly Natural Attackers still have to stack different attack methods and progress up the Rapid Strike chain. Feral is still one of the best templates for this, as the rend and rake abilities state they use the same damage as your claw attack(which can be increased) instead of specifying the amount of damage done. Anyway... This has gotten off track... I think that a 4th OH ieterative pre-epic feat would actually be underpowered compared to others, but simply dropping Epic from PTWF would be over powered in my mind, because of it's scaling nature.
GawainBS 08-06-07, 11:57 AM	Snap Kick only adds 1/2 STR, this doesn't make it an offhand attack in anyway. Like I said before: the feat says "BAB", so anything from Haste to Flurry to Karmic Strike to the little theapot dance isn't derived from BAB, but from itself.
EjoThims 08-06-07, 12:53 PM	Snap Kick only adds 1/2 STR, this doesn't make it an offhand attack in anyway. Like I said before: the feat says "BAB", so anything from Haste to Flurry to Karmic Strike to the little theapot dance isn't derived from BAB, but from itself. Main-hand attacks give full strength, not half strength. So if it gives half strength and doesn't state it's an exception to this rule, it's not a main-hand attack. This doens't make it an off-hand explicitly, but it does make it not a main-hand attack. It says the off-hand attacks are made at the same BAB as the main-hand attack, not that it only works on attacks derived from BAB. Look at the text on rapid shot: "The attack is made at your highest base attack bonus..." Later uses of "attack bonus" in place of "base attack bonus" are to clarify that other bonuses also apply. But regardless, your BAB is part of your total attack bonus, and is included in the attack bonus of every attack you make. Again... PTWF grants on off-hand attack for each main-hand attack you make, no matter the source of the main-hand attack.
GawainBS 08-06-07, 02:06 PM	Main-hand attacks give full strength, not half strength. So if it gives half strength and doesn't state it's an exception to this rule, it's not a main-hand attack. This doens't make it an off-hand explicitly, but it does make it not a main-hand attack. It says the off-hand attacks are made at the same BAB as the main-hand attack, not that it only works on attacks derived from BAB. Look at the text on rapid shot: "The attack is made at your highest base attack bonus..." Later uses of "attack bonus" in place of "base attack bonus" are to clarify that other bonuses also apply. But regardless, your BAB is part of your total attack bonus, and is included in the attack bonus of every attack you make. Again... PTWF grants on off-hand attack for each main-hand attack you make, no matter the source of the main-hand attack. I never said Snap Kick is a main hand attack. Nor is it an offhand attack by a league. Every instance you quoted derived extra attacks from it own, with roots in BAB, which is not the same as deriving it from BAB. You have to take the feat, ablity, spell,...
EjoThims 08-06-07, 02:22 PM	Every instance you quoted derived extra attacks from it own, with roots in BAB, which is not the same as deriving it from BAB. You have to take the feat, ablity, spell,... And the feat PTWF never says that the main-hand attack has to be derived from BAB.
GawainBS 08-06-07, 02:28 PM	http://www.systemreferencedocuments.org/35/sovelior_sage/epicFeats.html#perfect-two-weapon-fighting "... using the same base attack bonus..."
EjoThims 08-06-07, 02:33 PM	http://www.systemreferencedocuments.org/35/sovelior_sage/epicFeats.html#perfect-two-weapon-fighting "... using the same base attack bonus..." All attacks use a base attack bonus. Not all attacks are derived from base attack bonus. That statement says nothing to specify that it must be an attack derived from the base attack bonus. You sir, fail.
Pechvarry 08-06-07, 02:53 PM	I'm quite sure there was an updated version of the feat (Complete Warrior, mayhaps) with the added bit: "during a Full attack action." I know I saw this somewhere because I remember us hating it and continuing to play as printed. We agree that an Epic Feat isn't worth an extra attack @-15 penalty, so yeah. Though we don't let it stack with strikes. Yes, we have dual wielders in our Epic swinging 10 times/round. It's not bad. Why do I always hear this stuff about TWF builds needing linear added damage like Sneak Attack..? What's wrong with a good ol' crit build? Btw, Hello Wizards boards. ^-- my first post.
EjoThims 08-06-07, 02:59 PM	I'm quite sure there was an updated version of the feat (Complete Warrior, mayhaps) with the added bit: "during a Full attack action." I know I saw this somewhere because I remember us hating it and continuing to play as printed. Yea, in Complete Warrior it's updated to say full attack, but it does not change the true power of the feat, making as many off hand attacks as main hand attacks no matter what. And the linear progression for TWF is considered good because once you have a certain number of attacks, adding a bonus to each of those will do more damage than adding another attack.
risner 08-06-07, 06:37 PM	RAW is taking the text strictly and exactly as it is written. When you confuse the two you confuse everyone else who has a question about it. Your interpretation is absolutely not RAW and you shouldn't confuse readers by posting a distorted interpretation. Stick to the RAW. I am not the one posting useless information that is a twisted "this is how I'd like to twist this rule to my will" interpretation.
kalstrand 08-06-07, 06:59 PM	I posted the exact rules as written up a few posts. Nowhere in the RAW does it limit you to 4 off-hand attacks. In fact it specifically say word for word: You can make as many attacks with your offhand weapon as with your primary weapon, using the same base attack bonus.
archerpwr 08-06-07, 07:08 PM	Your interpretation is absolutely not RAW and you shouldn't confuse readers by posting a distorted interpretation. Stick to the RAW. I am not the one posting useless information that is a twisted "this is how I'd like to twist this rule to my will" interpretation. Warning: RAW monkey from the CO board incoming Risner, you have it absolutely wrong. ITWF and GTWF each specify that you get an extra attack. PTWF explicitly sets off hand attacks equal to main hand attacks.
ArcTan 08-06-07, 07:21 PM	I've honestly always read it that way... Thought it was the only reason the feat was epic in quality... Because using a 4th feat to just gain a 4th OH attack if your BAB is high enough really is not epic worthy in any sense. Yeah. The version of this people are discussiong, which is just Greater Greater Two-Weapon Fighting (or Improved Greater Two-Weapon Fighting, or whatever) is fine as a pre-Epic feat, and weak as an Epic feat. The actual Perfect Two-Weapon Fighting is in no way balanced pre-Epic, but fits in fine as an Epic feat.
EjoThims 08-06-07, 07:54 PM	Your interpretation is absolutely not RAW and you shouldn't confuse readers by posting a distorted interpretation. Stick to the RAW. I am not the one posting useless information that is a twisted "this is how I'd like to twist this rule to my will" interpretation. Show me where it says the the feat only grants you a fourth attack. And don't repeat that "at the same BAB crap" because I and otehrs have already pointed out that it's meaningless. I won't be holding my breath though.
EjoThims 08-06-07, 07:59 PM	Yeah. The version of this people are discussiong, which is just Greater Greater Two-Weapon Fighting (or Improved Greater Two-Weapon Fighting, or whatever) is fine as a pre-Epic feat, and weak as an Epic feat. I sitll think it's weak even as a non-epic feat.
Tequila_Sunrise 08-06-07, 09:06 PM	I'm interested to see how Majick has decided to rule for his own game.
risner 08-07-07, 11:24 AM	Show me where it says the the feat only grants you a fourth attack. Primary hand attacks come from BAB. Haste provides haste attacks. Snap Kick provides snap kick attacks. This feat only provides additional attacks based on your BAB, because all other attacks you are making are not coming from your primary hands, they are coming from other sources made with your highest BAB. In short, other than willful misinterpretation, there is no way via RAW to assert that PTWF provides anything more than one additional attack and only if your BAB is 16 or greater. If they wanted to write an ability like what you suggest, they would have written it exactly as they did the Dervish Thousand Cuts ability (with several paragraphs including specific clarifications like "haste attacks are also doubled" etc.) They didn't, so you can't ethically say that RAW agrees with you.
EjoThims 08-07-07, 01:33 PM	Primary hand attacks come from BAB. Haste provides haste attacks. Snap Kick provides snap kick attacks. And they are all made "with his or her primary weapon" and therefor grant an attack "with his or her off-hand weapon" since In short, other than willful misinterpretation and stubborn arrogance, there is no way via RAW to assert that PTWF only provides you with a 4th attack with your off-hand weapon. They didn't, so you can't ethically say that RAW agrees with you. Yes I can, because: "The character can make as many attacks with his or her off-hand weapon as with his or her primary weapon, using the same base attack bonus. The character still takes the normal penalties for fighting with two weapons." This means that for each attack "with his or her primary weapon" (and attacks from haste or flurry or made in this way) "[t]he character can make as many attacks with his or her off-hand weapon...using the same base attack bonus." The phrase "using the same attack bonus" in no way limits this to four OH attacks a round, since all attacks use a base attack bonus, regardless of if you can make them because of your base attack bonus or not. Again... look at rapidshot, under your interpretation (and that's exactly what it is) it is worthless.
NoldorForce 08-07-07, 01:59 PM	Primary hand attacks come from BAB. Haste provides haste attacks. Snap Kick provides snap kick attacks.Which may still be made with your primary hand.This feat only provides additional attacks based on your BAB, because all other attacks you are making are not coming from your primary hands, they are coming from other sources made with your highest BAB.This is completely bogus. You're making additional attacks with your primary hand...but they're not considered to be made by your primary hand for certain purposes? WTF? This isn't implied by existing rules.In short, other than willful misinterpretation, there is no way via RAW to assert that PTWF provides anything more than one additional attack and only if your BAB is 16 or greater.More crap. Your way isn't the only way to interpret things; see the above-mentioned text on "You can make as many attacks with your offhand weapon as with your primary weapon..."If they wanted to write an ability like what you suggest, they would have written it exactly as they did the Dervish Thousand Cuts ability (with several paragraphs including specific clarifications like "haste attacks are also doubled" etc.)Actually, most of the feat was written before Thousand Cuts; the only thing Complete Warrior added was a clarification that you need to make a full attack. Over time, WotC has taken more care to cover the corner cases; Perfect TWF was written when they weren't considering such.They didn't, so you can't ethically say that RAW agrees with you.False. At best, you (risner) can't say that the RAW disagrees with you. But just because you can't show something to be false, doesn't mean it's true; this concept is stressed very often in statistics, for instance.
Optimator 08-07-07, 05:23 PM	This is completely bogus. You're making additional attacks with your primary hand...but they're not considered to be made by your primary hand for certain purposes? WTF? This isn't implied by existing rules. :looloo:
GawainBS 08-07-07, 05:33 PM	The fact that PTWF drags the term "base" attack bonus in it descriptions, makes it perfectly clear that they don't mean "as many attacks as your main hand PERIOD" If it said "attack bonus", I'd agree, but now it's pretty clear what's written. Besides, RAW is a piece of crap, it's RAI that matters to sane people while playing. (Which excludes the CO regulars. ;))
kalstrand 08-07-07, 06:28 PM	The fact that PTWF drags the term "base" attack bonus in it descriptions, makes it perfectly clear that they don't mean "as many attacks as your main hand PERIOD" If it said "attack bonus", I'd agree, but now it's pretty clear what's written. Besides, RAW is a piece of crap, it's RAI that matters to sane people while playing. (Which excludes the CO regulars. ;)) The reason it uses the term base attack bonus is because every attack is figured using your base attack bonus. It is simply there to let you know how to figure the attack given by the feat. If they meant it to only give a 4th off-hand attack they would have simply worded it like the other TWF feats.
DM-Scott 08-07-07, 06:51 PM	I also think it uses the "same base attack bonus" to clarify that the attacks are different from the other TWF feats (highest BAB - X). Thus if your BAB grants attacks like this... (off hand noted with * and haste with ^) Attacks: 20/15/10/5 PTWF: 20/20*/15/15*/10/10*/5/5* Instead of: 20/20*/20*/20*/20*/15/10/5 With Haste & TWF / ITWF / GTWF Attacks: 18/18^/18*/15*/13/10*/8/3 Combined with PTWF: 18/18^/18*/18*/15*/13/13*/10*/8/8*/3/3* A total of: 12 attacks with a full attack. Pretty epic indeed. :P That's my take on it. I believe the feat does grant 1 extra attack at the same attack bonus as the primary attack did, just like most everyone else.
EjoThims 08-07-07, 07:10 PM	The fact that PTWF drags the term "base" attack bonus in it descriptions, makes it perfectly clear that they don't mean "as many attacks as your main hand PERIOD" If it said "attack bonus", I'd agree, but now it's pretty clear what's written. The one problem with this logic is that the rapid shot feat also uses the phrasing "same base attack bonus" instead of "same attack bonus," and the entry in rapid shot has been clarified (through FAQ) to mean the same as if it said "same attack bonus." This is our only precedent in deciding how the term "at the same attack bonus" affects extra attacks. Our only precedent leaves it as unlimited as if it instead said "same attack bonus." So again... The whole "base attack bonus" argument is completely barking up the wrong tree. ;)
ArcTan 08-08-07, 03:08 AM	The fact that PTWF drags the term "base" attack bonus in it descriptions, makes it perfectly clear that they don't mean "as many attacks as your main hand PERIOD" If it said "attack bonus", I'd agree, but now it's pretty clear what's written. Besides, RAW is a piece of crap, it's RAI that matters to sane people while playing. (Which excludes the CO regulars. ;)) Er, no. It's really obvious why they used "base attack bonus", actually -- suppose one weapon is a +6 weapon and the other one is only +4. Suppose one weapon is finessable and the other isn't. Suppose I cast true strike just before my attack -- we know it would only apply to the first weapon and not the second. The *attack* bonus for both weapons would always be different. It's the *base* attack bonus that stays the same. Referencing the base attack bonus has nothing to do with referencing the full attack action.
GawainBS 08-08-07, 04:15 AM	That's why they use BASE attack bonus as the term in question, to note that only the attacks gained from that are to be used. Remember, it was written in a time when the number of attacks wasn't capped at 4. Sure, the Epic Level Handbook says that you can't have more, but the Solar/Planetar/some CR 22 Celestial in 3.0 MM has 5 attacks from BAB, because he has 20+ HD. Either way, if I was a DM, I would rule that it only gave you 4 off hand attacks. Otherwise, it should have read something like "for every attack" and leave BASE attack out of the question.
EjoThims 08-08-07, 08:02 AM	That's why they use BASE attack bonus as the term in question, to note that only the attacks gained from that are to be used. So does Rapid Strike. Either way, if I was a DM, I would rule that it only gave you 4 off hand attacks. And that's perfectly fine for you or any other DM. But it makes the feat very weak. Otherwise, it should have read something like "for every attack" It did. ;) and leave BASE attack out of the question. Then how would you know which total attack bonus to use? Remember, this was written when they referenced the base attack bonus of an attack in feats that affected it, not the total attack bonus. I really suggest both you and Risner read the FAQ article on Rapid Shot and how it talks about the use of the words "base attack bonus" in relation to bonus attacks.
GawainBS 08-08-07, 08:15 AM	Frankly, I don't give a damn about the FAQ on Rapid Shot for this matter. If you're all about RAW, let's stick to it then, which says Base Attack Bonus. Using PTWF to get offhand attacks for every mainhand attack sounds like munchkinism.
EjoThims 08-08-07, 08:20 AM	Frankly, I don't give a damn about the FAQ on Rapid Shot for this matter. If you're all about RAW, let's stick to it then, which says Base Attack Bonus. Using PTWF to get offhand attacks for every mainhand attack sounds like munchkinism. Sounds like the rule to me... And it still leaves TWF behind 2HF unless you use a lot more 'munchkin tricks.' The FAQ entry is just a suggestion to help you understand the difference between when an attack uses the base attack bonus and when it's granted by it. The feat makes no mention of the number of extra attacks with your off-hand weapon being limited by anything other than the number of attacks with your main-hand weapon.
GawainBS 08-08-07, 08:24 AM	Sounds like the rule to me... And it still leaves TWF behind 2HF unless you use a lot more 'munchkin tricks.' The FAQ entry is just a suggestion to help you understand the difference between when an attack uses the base attack bonus and when it's granted by it. The feat makes no mention of the number of extra attacks with your off-hand weapon being limited by anything other than the number of attacks with your main-hand weapon. But misinterpreting the feat like you do won't really put TWF on the same level as 2HF, right? As far as I know, it has mainly to do with Power Attack & DR. I appreciate your suggestion concerning the FAQ, but it changes nothing about the difference between the two.
EjoThims 08-08-07, 09:08 AM	I appreciate your suggestion concerning the FAQ, but it changes nothing about the difference between the two. True... But my point with that bit was that even with allowing the strict reading of the feat doubling all your attacks it's not really that powerful, despite the 'munchkin' alarms that get set off by seeing that many attacks. Though I am now curious... Does anyone know if there's ever been printed a weapon that can deal slashing damage and counts as light mace for feats? Or perhaps a spell that turns weapons into slashing weapons for the duration?
GawainBS 08-08-07, 10:14 AM	Hhmmm... On top of my head, I can't think of such a spell... I seem to remember something like Flanged Mace that was slashing & bludgeoning. Not sure, though.
Majick 08-20-07, 11:37 AM	I'm interested to see how Majick has decided to rule for his own game. Hey guys. Just thought i'd let you know, that in my game (or at least the game i am planning on running soon, before the 4th edition jitters kick in at least) i have decided to make it so the PTWF feat can be achieved at lvl 16 and still functions as written: Providing equal number of attacks with your off-hand/s as with your main hand/s Keep in mind of course that when my group use a two-handed weapon we read the rules for 1.5Xstrength to mean to hit and to damage e.g. 18 strength = +4 (with two-handed weapon = +6 to hit and damage) Where as two-weapon-fighters only get 1/2 strength to hit and damage with off-hands e.g. 18 strength = +4 (with two-weapon-fighting the off-hands would get +2 and the main hand would get +4 to hit and damage) If that's what everyone decided on, good show, i other people read it other ways, then that's not an issue for me or my group ^_^ ... anyway, that's just what i decided on
GawainBS 08-20-07, 01:13 PM	You do know that the STR bonus increase/decrease should only apply to damage, right?
EjoThims 08-20-07, 04:51 PM	Hey guys. Just thought i'd let you know, that in my game (or at least the game i am planning on running soon, before the 4th edition jitters kick in at least) i have decided to make it so the PTWF feat can be achieved at lvl 16 and still functions as written: Providing equal number of attacks with your off-hand/s as with your main hand/s Want to play a Thri-Keen in your companion... :D