TWF Works Without Full Attack

[MaN]

OK, probably opening a big can of worms here but why not?

In another thread it was brought up that TWF did not work unless the character used a full attack. This was a shock to me since I had been playing otherwise since GenCon 2000. I conceded the issue then because I didn't really feel it was that big a deal at the time. Now, however, I'm playing a Dwarf fighter/necromancer who dual-wields dwarven waraxes (I know, I know, but let's not derail the thread :smallwink:) and suddenly the TWF bit matters to me again.
I've looked into the TWF rules again and have to say that I still see the RAW as saying that a character does gain the benefits of TWF even when only using a standard action to attack. I'll give my argument here and prepare my fragile ego for your responses.
I don't see myself changing my mind unless I get some incredible refutation, but give it your best shot anyway.
By the way, I am using the SRD and the PHB errata file downloaded from the Wizards of the Coast website. I will not accept a third-party's published version of the SRD as being more authoritative.

The argument I've heard saying a character must use a full attack to gain the benefits of TWF:
Multiple Attacks: A character who can make more than one attack per round must use the full attack action (see Full-Round Actions, below) in order to get more than one attack.

Full Attack
If you get more than one attack per round because your base attack bonus is high enough, because you fight with two weapons or a double weapon or for some special reason you must use a full-round action to get your additional attacks. Yep, pretty straight forward.

Why I say a character gets additional attack(s) from TWF when only using a standard action to attack:
If you wield a second weapon in your off hand, you can get one extra attack per round with that weapon.
Use Feat
Certain feats let you take special actions in combat. . . The individual feat descriptions tell you what you need to know about them.
Some feats are general, meaning that no special rules govern them as a group.

TWO-WEAPON FIGHTING [GENERAL]
You can fight with a weapon in each hand. You can make one extra attack each round with the second weapon.
Prerequisite: Dex 15.
Benefit: Your penalties on attack rolls for fighting with two weapons are reduced. The penalty for your primary hand lessens by 2 and the one for your off hand lessens by 6.
Normal:If you wield a second weapon in your off hand, you can get one extra attack per round with that weapon. When fighting in this way 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. If your off-hand weapon is light the penalties are reduced by 2 each. (An unarmed strike is always considered light.)
Special: A 2nd-level ranger who has chosen the two-weapon combat style is treated as having Two-Weapon Fighting, even if he does not have the prerequisite for it, but only when he is wearing light or no armor.
A fighter may select Two-Weapon Fighting as one of his fighter bonus feats.

IMPROVED TWO-WEAPON FIGHTING [GENERAL]
Prerequisites: Dex 17, Two-Weapon Fighting, base attack bonus +6.
Benefit: In addition to the standard single extra attack you get with an off-hand weapon, you get a second attack with it, albeit at a –5 penalty.
Normal: Without this feat, you can only get a single extra attack with an off-hand weapon.
Special: A fighter may select Improved Two-Weapon Fighting as one of his fighter bonus feats.
A 6th-level ranger who has chosen the two-weapon combat style is treated as having Improved Two-Weapon Fighting, even if he does not have the prerequisites for it, but only when he is wearing light or no armor.

GREATER TWO-WEAPON FIGHTING [GENERAL]
Prerequisites: Dex 19, Improved Two-Weapon Fighting, Two-Weapon Fighting, base attack bonus +11.
Benefit: You get a third attack with your off-hand weapon, albeit at a –10 penalty.
Special: A fighter may select Greater Two-Weapon Fighting as one of his fighter bonus feats.
An 11th-level ranger who has chosen the two-weapon combat style is treated as having Greater Two-Weapon Fighting, even if he does not have the prerequisites for it, but only when he is wearing light or no armor.So there are two rules which directly contradict each other. One says that TWF grants extra attack(s) only when using a full-attack action, the other says TWF grants extra attack(s) every round in which an attack is made. Which one is correct?
Errata Rule: Primary Sources
When you find a disagreement between two D&D® rules
sources, unless an official errata file says otherwise, the
primary source is correct. One example of a
primary/secondary source is text taking precedence over
a table entry. An individual spell description takes
precedence when the short description in the beginning
of the spells chapter disagrees.I say that the primary source for rules governing TWF are the specific descriptions of Two-Weapon Fighting and the Two-Weapon Fighting feats. I say that these individual feat descriptions take precedence when the short Full-Round Action description in the combat chapter disagrees. I say this is doubly so when the chapter on Feats states that feats with the "General" label are not governed by any special rules. I say again that this is true when the Combat chapter says that a feat's description governs how the feat is used.

Give me some love here people.

[TheOOB]

WotC has made it very clear that you need a full-attack action to make the extra attacks from TWF, if you go to the website I'm sure you can find half a dozen references to that in a few minutes.

[Zincorium]

Give me some love here people.

Well, no. I mean, you're a nice person and all, but I have this allergy to exploiting gray areas in the rules.

The high base attack bonus rules use the same language, in that you get two or three attacks per round. But you don't get multiple attacks on a standard action, because it says in the description of a standard action, which is not the same as a round, that you cannot make multiple attacks as a standard action. This is important because there are only a few types of attacks other than straight up Attack (listed under the standard action section of the PHB combat rules, pg 141) and Full Attack.

So, yes, you can make multiple attacks in a round. But, by the definition of a standard action, you can only attack once. Period. That you have an extra attack, from haste, from fighting with two weapons, from high base attack bonus, is irrelevant as long as we're talking about a standard action.

TWF does not say anything about standard actions. The standard action description does. Thus, the standard action description is the primary rules source for anything going on as a standard action unless specifically overruled.

To put it simply:

You can make multiple attacks per round.

A standard action only allows you one attack.

You cannot make multiple attacks with TWF as a standard action, because it's not an exception to the rule.

Attacks of opportunity and charges have their own rules, which are also the primary rulings for those actions, TWF is not. So you still get no love there.

[PinkysBrain]

It says you can get an extra attack in a round. As such it can not directly conflict with the existing full attack rules anymore. "Can" is not an absolute statement, whereas the statement you need a full attack to make more than one attack is. Absolute wins, no contradiction there.

[serow]

Unfortunately, the only way to make more than 1 attack is to full attack. The TWF chain simply increases the number of attacks during a full attack.
If the TWF chain could give more attacks on a standard action, then the Tempest PrC class feature and Dual Strike feat from Complete Adventurer would be quite pointless.

[Roderick_BR]

TWO-WEAPON FIGHTING [GENERAL]
You can fight with a weapon in each hand. You can make one extra attack each round with the second weapon.
...

Full Attack
If you get more than one attack per round because your base attack bonus is high enough, because you fight with two weapons or a double weapon or for some special reason you must use a full-round action to get your additional attacks.
No, they dont contradict each other. TWF says that you can gain one additional attack, but doesn't says that it is a standard for both attacks.
Additionaly, there are feats designed specially to grant extra attacks, like Dual Strike and Two Weapon Charge or something.

[Krellen]

I won't use logic. I'll use WotC product quotes:


Multiweapon Fighting
A creature with three or more hands can fight with a weapon in each hand. The creature can make one extra attack each round with each extra weapon.
Great. Basically, Multiweapon Fighting is Two-Weapon Fighting for multi-armed races, correct? I'm sure you'll concede this point; the feats read virtually identically.

So now let's flip back in the MM a bit, to the Athach. The 3.5 Monster Manual has been nice enough to spell out explicitly what a creature can do on an "Attack" - the standard action one - and on a "Full Attack" - the full action one. Take a look at the Athach's Attack entry:

Attack: Morningstar +16 melee (3d6+8) or rock +9 ranged (2d6+8).
Wait a tick. The Athach clearly has Multiweapon Fighting as a feat. Why can't he make three attacks - one for each hand - on a stanard Attack?

Clearly, the answer is simple: because WotC never intended the feat to give extra attacks on a standard Attack, only a Full Attack. Why would Two-Weapon operate any differently?

You'll find similar evidence in the entry for the Balor, the Marilith, the Chain Devil (Kyton), the Drider, the sample Half-Dragon, the Zelekhut Inevitable, the Xill - many of whom utilise Two-Weapon, not Multi-Weapon, Fighting - and even the mighty Ettin, whose Perfect Two-Weapon Fighting says it gets to do so without penalty.

With so many examples, clearly the standard reading must be true: even with the Two-Weapon Fighting Feat, you only get one attack on a standard Attack action. If you want to use those extra ones, you need to Full Attack.

[Justin_Bacon]

So there are two rules which directly contradict each other.

Could you explain exactly what you think the contradiction is here?

TWF says that you get an extra attack. The combat rules say that, when you get an extra attack, you need to take the Full Attack action to use it.

Where's the contradiction? The rules were practically written to work hand-in-hand with each other.

Actually, let me take that back: The rules were written to work hand-in-hand with each other.

[Annarrkkii]

Kudos Krellen! That's a fairly outside-the-box way to problem solving. However, make it even simpler. You don't even need him to agree that Multiweapon Fighting is the equivalent of Two-weapon Fighting. The ettin is a dual-wielder who plainly only gets one attack per round with his standard action rule.

I am not a fan of this kind of logic, personally. I am usually quite pleased with the relative specificity of the Core books—splats intentional left out of this one—especially now that errata is in circulation. Writing out the entire entry on standard actions or extra attacks every time they are mentioned would just waste ink.

If we want to utilize this kind of reasoning more, we can get a posse together and I'm sure we could gather a whole bushel of these technicalities.

[Dark Tira]

It seems rather silly to try to bypass the rules when you can just grab a feat (Dual Strike, Cadv) to do exactly what you want by the rules.

Oh, and bounding assault from PHII can do it too.

[Helgraf]

Alternately the Tempest ability that lets you spring attack and hit once with each weapon instead of just hitting once with one weapon as part of the Spring Attack.

Related, yet useful.

[Matthew]

Indeed, there is no contradiction. The Full Round Attack Action simply clarifies the rules for making more than one attack in a round. A character cannot do so unless by way of a Full Round Action, unless a Feat or Ability specifically allows it. It is pretty much cut and dried.

[MaN]

if you go to the website I'm sure you can find half a dozen references to that in a few minutes.The only portion of the Wizards website which has official rules concerning this is the SRD and the Errata. I've quoted all the relevant portions above.


The high base attack bonus rules use the same language, in that you get two or three attacks per round.Yes they do, however, there isn't anything else in the SRD contradicting this.


TWF does not say anything about standard actions. The standard action description does. Thus, the standard action description is the primary rules source for anything going on as a standard action unless specifically overruled.TWF does not say anything about full-round actions either. TWF says "each" round and "per" round. ("Per" is defined by my dictionary as meaning "each and every".)


It says you can get an extra attack in a round. As such it can not directly conflict with the existing full attack rules anymore. "Can" is not an absolute statement, whereas the statement you need a full attack to make more than one attack is.It says "can", my character has the ability to do so. TWF says my character "can" get an extra attack each round, period. It does not say my character can get an extra attack when making a full attack.


If the TWF chain could give more attacks on a standard action, then the Tempest PrC class feature and Dual Strike feat from Complete Adventurer would be quite pointless.I don't own Complete Adventurer so I am not familiar with it. However, as I understand Dual Strike it is one attack roll for both weapons like a melee version of Manyshot. That is different from TWF.


Basically, Multiweapon Fighting is Two-Weapon Fighting for multi-armed races, correct? I'm sure you'll concede this point; the feats read virtually identically.If you'll read the following quote from the PHB Errata file you'll notice that the PHB overrules the MM when concerning how the game is played, player characters, their feats, and their abilities.
Another example of primary vs. secondary sources involves book and topic precedence. The Player's Handbook, for example, gives all the rules for playing the game, for playing PC races, and for using base class descriptions. If you find something on one of those topics from the DUNGEON MASTER's Guide or the Monster Manual that disagrees with the Player's Handbook, you should assume the Player's Handbook is the primary source.


Could you explain exactly what you think the contradiction is here?

TWF says that you get an extra attack. The combat rules say that, when you get an extra attack, you need to take the Full Attack action to use it.Contradiction: Combat rules say the extra attack from TWF is only granted as part of a full-round attack. Combat rules also say the extra attack is granted each round and that an individual feat's description governs how a feat is used (TWF feat description says the extra attack is granted every round).



Everyone please notice the difference between what the TWF feats I quoted above say and what the description of the Haste spell says.
When making a full attack action, a hasted creature may make one extra attack with any weapon he is holding.Adding the phrase "when making a full attack action" to the TWF feat descriptions would make me change my mind. If it were put that way in the Errata I would definitely mend my evil ways.

[Renegade Paladin]

Okay, so you're just going to be bullheaded. So be it.

You're wrong. Two weapon fighting only works on a full attack and it was never written nor intended to be otherwise. I suppose next you're going to argue that Improved and Greater TWF let you get second and third attacks with the off hand while not taking a full attack too; after all, they don't explicitly mention full attacks either because they assume that the reader actually knows something about the base ruleset. There is no effect in the core rules that lets you get more than one attack without taking a full attack. Period. The end. Not even powerful magic does it. Only feats and class abilities that specifically in their wording say so can allow a character to do this, and TWF is not one of them.

[Yuki Akuma]

I think the fact that there's a feat that specifically allows you to attack with two weapons as part of a standard action (with the "Normal" text saying you can't without the feat) pretty much ruins your 'interpretation'.

Complete Adventurer. Dual Strike.

Seriously, stop being bullheaded and listen to all the people who disagree with your "interpretation". It's not a difficult concept to grasp, you know.

And if you still don't believe us, go here to read an official article that states that you only gain the extra attacks when you use a full attack (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20060829a). It's in the second part of the "Two Handed Fighting Basics" section.


When fighting with two weapons, you gain one extra attack with your off-hand weapon when you use the full attack action. If you have a high base attack bonus, you gain iterative attacks only with your primary weapon.

(By the way, that article took me all of five seconds to find. I think you didn't look hard enough last time. Perhaps you were worried that the rules don't work the way that gives you an obscene benefit and didn't want to really find out that you were wrong?)

[Matthew]

Sorry MaN, but regardless of how you split this hair, Wizards are quite clear about how Two Weapon Fighting works and is intended to work.

[Shhalahr Windrider]

TWF does not say anything about full-round actions either. TWF says "each" round and "per" round. ("Per" is defined by my dictionary as meaning "each and every".)
And the full attack entry says it applies when you get an extra attack "per round," too. Identical, noncontradictory language there.

[Annarrkkii]

I am sorry, but I have difficulty tracking your logic on rejecting the Monster Manual. Your reference to the conflicting sources text is an alibi, not an argument. I refuse to believe that 5+ authors, their coworkers, their editors, and the errataists all misinterpreted their rules...

EDIT: Yuki beat me to the linky. I refuse to believe that Skip Williams also misinterpreted his own rules, and then had his misinterpretation published:



When fighting with two weapons, you gain one extra attack with your off-hand weapon when you use the full attack action.


Seems straightforward to me.

[serow]

If the OP is still absolutely not convinced, I'm sure you can hop on over to the WotC boards (http://boards1.wizards.com) too and ask them for their opinions.

[Closet_Skeleton]

TWF does not say anything about full-round actions either. TWF says "each" round and "per" round. ("Per" is defined by my dictionary as meaning "each and every".)

It says "can", my character has the ability to do so. TWF says my character "can" get an extra attack each round, period. It does not say my character can get an extra attack when making a full attack.

If you'll read the following quote from the PHB Errata file you'll notice that the PHB overrules the MM when concerning how the game is played, player characters, their feats, and their abilities.

Contradiction: Combat rules say the extra attack from TWF is only granted as part of a full-round attack. Combat rules also say the extra attack is granted each round and that an individual feat's description governs how a feat is used (TWF feat description says the extra attack is granted every round).

If that was true then you'd be able to make an attack with your off hand even if you made a run action. I think even you'll agree that isn't what it means at all.

[The Prince of Cats]

Just to add to the long list of sensible people here; you need full-attack to benefit from TWF and that is just how it is. One rule is clear and unambiguous; it states that you must use Full Attack to gain any extra attacks and specifically lists TWF as an example. A second entry is kind of ambiguous and could, if you pushed, just about suggest that you might get away with using TWF without a full-attack.

So, in this case, the outright statement trumps the oversight that you are trying to exploit.

Personally, I am not sure of many situations where it is a problem. Yeah, you might only get one attack as you run into combat, but someone with a weapon in each hand is only really going to deviate from full-attack quite rarely.

[Dausuul]

The only portion of the Wizards website which has official rules concerning this is the SRD and the Errata. I've quoted all the relevant portions above.

Yes they do, however, there isn't anything else in the SRD contradicting this.

TWF does not say anything about full-round actions either. TWF says "each" round and "per" round. ("Per" is defined by my dictionary as meaning "each and every".)

It says "can", my character has the ability to do so. TWF says my character "can" get an extra attack each round, period. It does not say my character can get an extra attack when making a full attack.

Does this mean you get an attack when you're asleep? Paralyzed? Dead? You get an extra attack per round, so you can make one every single round no matter what?

Sorry, you're wrong. TWF says you can get an extra attack per round. The rules on standard actions and full attacks spell out what you have to do to actually get that extra attack. There is no contradiction.

It's like saying you can get a TV set when you go to Best Buy. That doesn't mean they hand you one the moment you walk in the door, it means that if you go to Best Buy and follow a certain procedure (pick a TV, take it to the cashier, fork over the cash), you end up with a TV.

[prufock]

Just adding my support to the popular opinion. The TWF rules don't explicitly say standard action, while the full attack rules do explicitly say TWF. I can understand the confusion, but I gotta go with "full attack only."

[Tobrian]

It seems rather silly to try to bypass the rules when you can just grab a feat (Dual Strike, Cadv) to do exactly what you want by the rules.

Oh, and bounding assault from PHII can do it too.

The problem for me is that I play in groups where the DMs only allow the core rule books. So all these feats that WotC invented much later are off-limits. And basically this thread just told me that giving my two-weapon fighting ranger the feat spring attack is a completely useless combination. :smalleek:

See, I am one of those "stupid" people who naively thought that if you have this TWF feat that grants you an off-hand weapon strike, you can use both weapons in a standard attack because attacking with both weapons happens as part of the same "action" or strike, they're not seperate attacks even though you roll twice, they're more like using multishot to fire two arrows simultaneously... what's the point of multishot if I have to use full attack just as if it was seperate instances of shooting? Same with Haste... you do a move, attack, and then get a bonus attack from the Haste. Whereas extra attacks you get from class levels of course need the full attack action.

Well, damn.

What about a ninja who throws several shuriken as part of the same "action" but having to roll for each one to see if they all hit. He might have two attacks per round if using full attack, but on each attack he can throw three shuriken per throw?

I mean, I can follow your logic, but what about spells like magic missile and other spells that create several missiles/darts/flaming meteors/whatever simultaneously for each attack? Yes, you could object that under 3.5 rules there's no way a wizard can ever cast more than one spell per round anyway *sigh* ever since Haste was downgraded and made useless for spellcasters.

I'm just wondering. Multishot is clearly different from Rapid Shot. You don't just shoot another arrow, you shoot two (or more) arrows simultaneously. Same in my opinion with TWF... you slash or stab with both simultaneously.

But I bow to your superior knowledge of the rules. (no sarcasm) I'll have to ask my DMs how they have handled it so far.

Saying "this or that non-core supplement now has new feats that do exactly what you used to think TWF did" sounds to me like a core feat was downgraded just so that WotC can sell new supplements. And the melee ranger is still stuck with a feat tree built on TWF. If he wants to be a fast run-by-attack type wielding two blades... he better ditch ranger class altogether and switch to Fighter or Swashbuckler class. :smallfrown:

Wait... does that mean the Duelist PrC is now a useless build, too, because you can no longer move around in combat but have to stop in front of a larger better armored enemy to be able to use your special swashbuckling blade techniques? *confused*

Basically any lightly-armored class with uses both hands to attack and relies on movement during combat now can either move or use their special attack but not both? A monk's Flurry of Blows needs a full attack action, the PHB specifically states that... hm... so that means giving any of these classes a feat like i.e. spring attack is utterly counterproductive.

[Renegade Paladin]

The problem for me is that I play in groups where the DMs only allow the core rule books. So all these feats that WotC invented much later are off-limits. And basically this thread just told me that giving my two-weapon fighting ranger the feat spring attack is a completely useless combination. :smalleek:
Yeah, pretty much.

See, I am one of those "stupid" people who naively thought that if you have this TWF feat that grants you an off-hand weapon strike, you can use both weapons in a standard attack because attacking with both weapons happens as part of the same "action" or strike, they're not seperate attacks even though you roll twice, they're more like using multishot to fire two arrows simultaneously... what's the point of multishot if I have to use full attack just as if it was seperate instances of shooting?
You don't. Manyshot uses one attack roll to fire two arrows and is a standard action.

Same with Haste... you do a move, attack, and then get a bonus attack from the Haste. Whereas extra attacks you get from class levels of course need the full attack action.
No, you move, attack, and are done until the next round when you full attack on the target's face. Not to mention all the other stuff you get from haste. It's a fairly nice all-around spell anyway.

Well, damn.

What about a ninja who throws several shuriken as part of the same "action" but having to roll for each one to see if they all hit. He might have two attacks per round if using full attack, but on each attack he can throw three shuriken per throw?
You don't do three shuriken per throw; haven't since 3.0.

I mean, I can follow your logic, but what about spells like magic missile and other spells that create several missiles/darts/flaming meteors/whatever simultaneously for each attack?
They're single spells even if they create multiple effects. It really isn't that complicated.
Yes, you could object that under 3.5 rules there's no way a wizard can ever cast more than one spell per round anyway *sigh* ever since Haste was downgraded and made useless for spellcasters.
See, there's this wonderful little feat we like to call Quicken Spell. It's not as though spellcasters really need the boost of haste letting them cast twice per round, three if they really feel like it, anyway.

I'm just wondering. Multishot is clearly different from Rapid Shot. You don't just shoot another arrow, you shoot two (or more) arrows simultaneously. Same in my opinion with TWF... you slash or stab with both simultaneously.
Well you are wrong about how two weapon fighting works. Sorry.

But I bow to your superior knowledge of the rules. (no sarcasm) I'll have to ask my DMs how they have handled it so far.
Probably a good idea on the second part; not going to comment on the first.

Saying "this or that non-core supplement now has new feats that do exactly what you used to think TWF did" sounds to me like a core feat was downgraded just so that WotC can sell new supplements.
Except it really isn't TWF was never "downgraded." It has always worked that way. Now, the feats in the supplements were created to sell supplements, but they didn't screw with core to do it; they just added new abilities that you can't get in the core rules.

And the melee ranger is still stuck with a feat tree built on TWF. If he wants to be a fast run-by-attack type wielding two blades... he better ditch ranger class altogether and switch to Fighter or Swashbuckler class. :smallfrown:
Indeedy do.

Wait... does that mean the Duelist PrC is now a useless build, too, because you can no longer move around in combat but have to stop in front of a larger better armored enemy to be able to use your special swashbuckling blade techniques? *confused*
...

What swashbuckling blade techniques? Nothing in the duelist class gives any extra attacks or anything else that would require a full attack action to use. And TWF is right out for them, since several of their primary abilities require that they use no shield and wield no off-hand weapon.

Basically any lightly-armored class with uses both hands to attack and relies on movement during combat now can either move or use their special attack but not both? A monk's Flurry of Blows needs a full attack action, the PHB specifically states that... hm... so that means giving any of these classes a feat like i.e. spring attack is utterly counterproductive.
What do you mean "now" can? It has been that way since the very beginning of the system. And yes, that is exactly what that means.

[serow]

I'll have to ask my DMs how they have handled it so far.
Good idea.
1 thing I like to do is allow my players (when restricted to core) the ability to do non-core stuff, like 2 attacks on a standard action at a penalty, after a skill check. Something like maybe, DC15 Sleight of Hand to get a "double attack" at -6 penalty, with scaling DCs for lesser penalties.

Just an idea.

[Krellen]

TWF allowing two attacks - one for each hand - on a standard Attack is a common House Rule. However, it's still a House Rule; the RAW don't allow for it.

[Zincorium]

The problem for me is that I play in groups where the DMs only allow the core rule books. So all these feats that WotC invented much later are off-limits. And basically this thread just told me that giving my two-weapon fighting ranger the feat spring attack is a completely useless combination. :smalleek:


Yes, but that's easy to ascertain from the PHB if you read the combat section. You really should do that regardless of what style of game you're playing. And yes, it would be a bit of a waste. Spring attack really isn't that good of a feat anyway, especially not when you have very few to spend.



See, I am one of those "stupid" people who naively thought that if you have this TWF feat that grants you an off-hand weapon strike, you can use both weapons in a standard attack because attacking with both weapons happens as part of the same "action" or strike, they're not seperate attacks even though you roll twice, they're more like using multishot to fire two arrows simultaneously... what's the point of multishot if I have to use full attack just as if it was seperate instances of shooting? Same with Haste... you do a move, attack, and then get a bonus attack from the Haste. Whereas extra attacks you get from class levels of course need the full attack action.
Well, as we've put out already, the standard action description is pretty clear, and if you're taking a standard action, you should be reading that description to make sure what you're doing will work. As far as visualizing, I've always thought of it that while you are using two weapons or arrows at the same time, aiming them with any accuracy requires a bit more time than just the one, thus the use of a full action. You can take that idea or leave it, but it does make the whole business make just a little more sense.



Well, damn.

What about a ninja who throws several shuriken as part of the same "action" but having to roll for each one to see if they all hit. He might have two attacks per round if using full attack, but on each attack he can throw three shuriken per throw?
You're talking 3.0, right? You can't do that any more in 3.5 unless you've got a house rule in effect (which makes sense, shuriken are almost worthless without the multiple throw business).



I mean, I can follow your logic, but what about spells like magic missile and other spells that create several missiles/darts/flaming meteors/whatever simultaneously for each attack? Yes, you could object that under 3.5 rules there's no way a wizard can ever cast more than one spell per round anyway *sigh* ever since Haste was downgraded and made useless for spellcasters.
Um. 'Quicken spell'. Again, PHB. Good stuff, but better as a rod than a feat, or you're spending all your high level spell slots. And you don't aim magic missile, and the rest are touch attacks. You don't worry about a gap in your opponents armor, you just have to aim at their center of mass. Much less 'targeting' time.



I'm just wondering. Multishot is clearly different from Rapid Shot. You don't just shoot another arrow, you shoot two (or more) arrows simultaneously. Same in my opinion with TWF... you slash or stab with both simultaneously.

But I bow to your superior knowledge of the rules. (no sarcasm) I'll have to ask my DMs how they have handled it so far.

Saying "this or that non-core supplement now has new feats that do exactly what you used to think TWF did" sounds to me like a core feat was downgraded just so that WotC can sell new supplements. And the melee ranger is still stuck with a feat tree built on TWF. If he wants to be a fast run-by-attack type wielding two blades... he better ditch ranger class altogether and switch to Fighter or Swashbuckler class. :smallfrown:
Sucks that you're playing core, because the Tempest or Dervish Prcs are very, very good at doing exactly what you're describing.



Wait... does that mean the Duelist PrC is now a useless build, too, because you can no longer move around in combat but have to stop in front of a larger better armored enemy to be able to use your special swashbuckling blade techniques? *confused*
Well...no. None of their abilities requires you to use a full attack, so you can leap back and forth as you wish. Duelist isn't a very good class for TWF anyway, since you can only use precise strike when not attacking with an off hand weapon (you did realize that, I hope), and it takes several prerequisite feats to get in in the first place that significantly slow your entry.



Basically any lightly-armored class with uses both hands to attack and relies on movement during combat now can either move or use their special attack but not both? A monk's Flurry of Blows needs a full attack action, the PHB specifically states that... hm... so that means giving any of these classes a feat like i.e. spring attack is utterly counterproductive.Can move or make multiple attacks. Not all special abilities give multiple attacks, and only those abilities which do or those specifically saying that they take a full action require you to give up movement. Keep your terminology straight and read thoroughly before using and you should be okay.

Edit: Wow, super ninja'd. But I think I was a bit more polite.

[Quietus]

I'd definately speak to your DM - being that you're going core only, they may be willing to houserule that you can make a dual strike with your two weapons on a standard. Or perhaps you could mention the feat in Complete Adventurer, and ask if you can take that specifically. It can't hurt to ask, just don't annoy the DM by asking a million times.

[Renegade Paladin]

Oh, and frankly I thank my DMs when they use spring attacking morons to fight me, because then I get to charge them every round. :smallbiggrin:

[iceman]

Woo-hoo it looks like i get to join the ranks of the few, in taking a verbal beating by the lovely posters of this thread.

While I completely agree with everyones response about the official rules I tend to look at things a different way. If you were an ambidexterous (mis-spell?) fighter type, carrying two weapons and moving in for an attack would you
a) use only one of your weapons b) use both weapons to their full advantage or c) not attack at all and instead convince everyone to sit down around a campfire and sing (kumbya?, no clue on spelling)

Now, as for me, even though I'm pretty sure I don't qualify for any TWF feats I'm prettry sure if put into a situation where I do have twoweapons in hand and I would be forced to attack, or defend myself, I would lead with BOTH weapons, rather than attack with just one.

Rationaly, I see how MaN's "general" point makes sense, even if the rules say otherwise. The main point however is, all that matters is what you and your gaming group finally decide on as to what you should and shouldn't include in your game. Just because the wotc rules say so, doesn't mean they are correct in their ruling (which has been pointed out so many times on this forum that if I had a nickel for every time someone pointed that out ... well you know the drill).

P.S. TOBRIAN your statement about haste being useless for spellcasters IS completely WRONG!

P.S.S. Anyone who answered "c" in the above question is awesome:)

[Zincorium]

It's not than MaN is wrong by the rules, it's that MaN is trying to use the rules to prove that he's right and anyone who says otherwise has been misreading those rules. There's a strong general consensus that says houseruling it is fine, and occasionally a much better option than the RAW.

And as for the attack mode, I'd lead in with one weapon, probably a long blade, while I readied the other, a sai or swordbreaker, to parry. That, historically, is how two weapon fighting was used, and in sparring with fake weapons I've personally found that it's a lot more effective than trying to find openings with both, something that almost takes focusing on two places at once to pull off. The secondary weapon as a blocking mechanism is lighter and handier than a shield, and you can also switch from using one to attack, then the other, as the situation warrants.

Oddly, this is the one option really not supported at all in the D&D rules.

[Quietus]

Not supported by the D&D rules? What about the Two-Weapon Defense feat?

[Nerd-o-rama]

Not supported by D&D rules in a useful manner, he means.

[Tobrian]

Originally Posted by Tobrian
Same with Haste... you do a move, attack, and then get a bonus attack from the Haste. Whereas extra attacks you get from class levels of course need the full attack action.No, you move, attack, and are done until the next round when you full attack on the target's face. Not to mention all the other stuff you get from haste. It's a fairly nice all-around spell anyway.

So I cast Haste, then basically waste one round to get into position, exposing myself to the enemy's full attack before I get to full attack on my own with the extra attack? Smart.

Compared to 3.0, Haste is so downgraded that now most players playing wizards don't bother with it anymore. It's only really useful for fighters. If a wizard wanted to run faster he could cast expeditious retreat.



Originally Posted by Tobrian
Yes, you could object that under 3.5 rules there's no way a wizard can ever cast more than one spell per round anyway *sigh* ever since Haste was downgraded and made useless for spellcasters.See, there's this wonderful little feat we like to call Quicken Spell.

A Quickened spell uses up a spell slot FOUR levels higher than the unmodified spell. Great. Now I have a spell that I can no longer cast. Maybe I should Maximize the spell, too, then it eats up a spell slot 7 levels higher! Mwahahaha! Reminds me of why when I play wizards I never take metamagic feats unless I can play a 20th level wizard to begin with, which is never.


It's not as though spellcasters really need the boost of haste letting them cast twice per round, three if they really feel like it, anyway.

What? I was under the impression that the rewrite of Haste in 3.5 rules was done specifically to get rid of spellcasters using Haste to cast two spells per round. Under 3.0 rules the spell granted an extra move-equivalent action that you could use to either make an additional move, or cast an additional spell, make an additional attack, or activate a magic item.
I distinctly remember that a Sage Advice column in DRAGON magazine back then specifically confirmed that you could use the 3.0 Haste to reactivate a ring of invisibility in the same round: after you started the round invisible, done your attack (and thus become visible) your then reactivated the ring.

Now in 3.5 the spell only grants you an extra ATTACK with any WEAPON you are holding, and only when making a full attack action.

PHB page 239: "When making a full attack action, a hasted creature may make one extra attack with any weapon he is holding. The attack is made using the creature's full base attack bonus, please any modifiers appropriate to the situation. (THis effect is not cumulative with similar effects, such as that provided by a weapon of speed, nor does it actually grant an extra action, so you can't use it to cast a second spell or otherwise take an extra action in the round.)"

For a wizard the only interesting part is the +1 dodge bonus to AC and Reflex (it used to be +4 AC) and +1 attack bonus, and the increased movemenet rate, but that last part is identical with the Expeditious Retreat spell anyway. So why waste a spell slot on a Haste spell?

How exactly would a wizard manage to cast three time in one round?


What swashbuckling blade techniques? Nothing in the duelist class gives any extra attacks or anything else that would require a full attack action to use. And TWF is right out for them, since several of their primary abilities require that they use no shield and wield no off-hand weapon.

Wha...? *scratches head* I was thinking the Duelist from Sword & Fist had a sort of whirlwind of blades attack, but if it isn't so I obviously mistook it for another class. Sorry my mistake.

[LotharBot]

TWF says my character "can" get an extra attack each round

Yes, you "can" get an extra attack each round. You "can" cast a spell each round. You "can" move at up to twice your speed each round, or 3-4 times if running. Each of these things is possible in any given round, PROVIDED you take the right action to allow it (and, of course, provided you're not otherwise limited -- by a slow spell, rough terrain, etc.)

In order to get an extra attack with TWF, you must take the full attack action. In order to cast a spell, you must use your standard action for spellcasting (rather than, for example, swinging a weapon.) And in order to move twice your distance, you must take a double-move action.

It's not a hard concept. TWF gives you extra attacks when you full-attack.

As for the discussion about what you would do if you were a fighter with two weapons: I've seen a fair bit of fighting by trained individuals, including kendo hachidan (the best of the best), and never seen any of them try to "lead" with both blades. One is for defense, one is for offense. Sometimes you'll switch them, which seems to be what TWF is meant to mimic.

I've never seen anyone with actual skill try to strike a skilled opponent with two weapons at once. It just doesn't work.

[Renegade Paladin]

So I cast Haste, then basically waste one round to get into position, exposing myself to the enemy's full attack before I get to full attack on my own with the extra attack? Smart.

Compared to 3.0, Haste is so downgraded that now most players playing wizards don't bother with it anymore. It's only really useful for fighters. If a wizard wanted to run faster he could cast expeditious retreat.
That's not a waste. Everyone with multiple attacks has to do that.



A Quickened spell uses up a spell slot FOUR levels higher than the unmodified spell. Great. Now I have a spell that I can no longer cast. Maybe I should Maximize the spell, too, then it eats up a spell slot 7 levels higher! Mwahahaha! Reminds me of why when I play wizards I never take metamagic feats unless I can play a 20th level wizard to begin with, which is never.
*Shrug* If you're unwilling to pay the cost for the ability, don't complain that you can't have it. You can; you're just unwilling to.

What? I was under the impression that the rewrite of Haste in 3.5 rules was done specifically to get rid of spellcasters using Haste to cast two spells per round.
Your impression is quite correct.

Under 3.0 rules the spell granted an extra move-equivalent action that you could use to either make an additional move, or cast an additional spell, make an additional attack, or activate a magic item.
Yes, we know how broken it was.

I distinctly remember that a Sage Advice column in DRAGON magazine back then specifically confirmed that you could use the 3.0 Haste to reactivate a ring of invisibility in the same round: after you started the round invisible, done your attack (and thus become visible) your then reactivated the ring.
Guess what? There's been a revision, it doesn't do that anymore, and if you want it to, I suppose you could play 3.0 or talk your DM into houseruling.

Now in 3.5 the spell only grants you an extra ATTACK with any WEAPON you are holding, and only when making a full attack action.

PHB page 239: "When making a full attack action, a hasted creature may make one extra attack with any weapon he is holding. The attack is made using the creature's full base attack bonus, please any modifiers appropriate to the situation. (THis effect is not cumulative with similar effects, such as that provided by a weapon of speed, nor does it actually grant an extra action, so you can't use it to cast a second spell or otherwise take an extra action in the round.)"
Yep.

For a wizard the only interesting part is the +1 dodge bonus to AC and Reflex (it used to be +4 AC) and +1 attack bonus, and the increased movemenet rate, but that last part is identical with the Expeditious Retreat spell anyway. So why waste a spell slot on a Haste spell?
So you can buff your party. What, you thought the game was all about you, all the time? No, a wizard working by himself has no use for haste, but if he's working by himself he won't last long. All the other members of a typical party do have plenty of use for haste.

How exactly would a wizard manage to cast three time in one round?
3.0 haste and Quicken Spell.

Wha...? *scratches head* I was thinking the Duelist from Sword & Fist had a sort of whirlwind of blades attack, but if it isn't so I obviously mistook it for another class. Sorry my mistake.
Probably the Tempest.

[Douglas]

Haste's effects were, indeed, nerfed quite a bit in 3.5. It was also buffed in one major way, however - a single casting can now affect multiple targets. Sure, the bonuses aren't all that great for the caster any more, but you can buff the entire party with it all at once for just one 3rd level spell slot.

[Yuki Akuma]

Why would anyone ever strike with two weapons simultaenously? Has anyone here ever actually swung two weapons at once? I can tell you, it's very difficult to swing both at once and recover in time to do it again before you get skewered. If you swing one at a time you get a lot more momentum going and you have even less recovery time than the guy with the sword and shield (although your defense isn't as good unless you use the off-hand weapon as a shield).

And how do you propose that works with double weapons, anyway?

[Talus_of_Flambeu]

I can think of a feat and an ability that lets you attack with two weapons as a standard action (Dual Strike and Pounching Strike [Bloodclaw master 3]).
So as far as I can see, even if the rules weren't clear on the matter (and they are), needing an ability/feat to do X means the X cannot be done without them. Period.
You don't need a feat to attack, because it's a legit action (at least in RPGs), that's why you won't ever see a feat that lets you attack (general, normal attack).
But since there is a feat (and a class feature) that gives you the ability to attack once with each weapon as a standard action, it's obvious that it's not an action that can be done normaly.
End of discussion.

[paddyfool]

Completely agree with the consensus on this.

Incidentally, my understanding on TWF was that the two attacks are not simultaneous, but one closely follows the other, just as two attacks with the same weapon (gained via BAB or haste) do, precisely because it's hard to focus on two targets at once. Eg, high overhand swing with a longsword, followed by a kneecapping strike with a light mace when your opponent blocks high. Or striking for the body with a rapier, then using an off-hand dagger to slash the arm that holds the weapon used to block your first strike. For the reason that multiple attacks are harder to block against, as well as harder to pull off, I sometimes feel that the penalties after taking feats are still a tiny bit steep, but that's a whole other discussion.

[Imrix.]

Yuki_Akuma (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/member.php?u=13269): Unproffesionally, I practice just that quite a lot, and it's not that hard.

Of course, it helps to have worked out a relatively safe way of spinning on the spot, but that's not to say I can't manage without.

[Yuki Akuma]

Yuki_Akuma (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/member.php?u=13269): Unproffesionally, I practice just that quite a lot, and it's not that hard.

Of course, it helps to have worked out a relatively safe way of spinning on the spot, but that's not to say I can't manage without.

Now go out and get in a real fight and try that.

I hope the bruises heal. :smallwink:

[Saph]

So I cast Haste, then basically waste one round to get into position, exposing myself to the enemy's full attack before I get to full attack on my own with the extra attack? Smart.

Compared to 3.0, Haste is so downgraded that now most players playing wizards don't bother with it anymore. It's only really useful for fighters.

Are you kidding? Haste is probably the best spell in the game for a 5th-level wizard in a 5th-level party. You cast it and suddenly everyone gets +1 to hit, +1 to AC and Reflex, an extra move if they're moving, and an extra attack if they're full attacking. If everyone full attacks, you've just more than doubled the party's hitting power, and it lasts for five whole rounds. Awesome spell.

- Saph

[MaN]

Wow, too much to respond to. Talked it over again with my group last night. This is the group I've been gaming with since 3.0 and we've all shared the DM chair and all still interpret this the same way.


It's not than MaN is wrong by the rules, it's that MaN is trying to use the rules to prove that he's right and anyone who says otherwise has been misreading those rules.And this response applies to those who referred to me as being bullheaded: when two people disagree and both refuse to change their opinion, both are being 'bullheaded'. Of course I'm saying those who disagree with me are misreading the rules. Everyone who is saying I am wrong is doing the exact same thing. Being stubborn is fine, it's called having conviction. I have no problem with that.

The third edition rules are written poorly. Even the WOTC staff doesn't get it right. Check out the D&D FAQ and tremble in the face of the absolute ignorance displayed there, and these are the people who wrote the rules. Check out the official errata files and cower in the shadow of the mountain of mistakes WOTC published in their books.

Seeing (in the same book) half a dozen references to TWF not needing a full-attack to use in my mind still overrides one single reference to it needing a full-attack.

Seeing rules that say the action type required for the use of feats is not governed by any special rules and to use the individual feat description instead of the rules in the Combat chapter is pretty clear to me. This is backed up by the errata rule saying that an individual spell's description overrides the chapter which describes how spells are used. Imagine a spell description stating, "The caster can whisper the verbal component of the spell." Would anyone here DMing a game where a player tried having his character cast this spell while whispering object? "But the book says verbal components must be spoken out loud!"

I don't spend much time on the Wizards website, however I did read the article that was linked to. The author is very clear on the subject in the article. As I've said before, if he makes it the official rule by putting it in the errata my group will abide by it, probably. Wouldn't take more than five minutes to do.


You don't need a feat to attack, because it's a legit action (at least in RPGs), that's why you won't ever see a feat that lets you attack (general, normal attack).You don't need a feat to wear armor, the feats simply reduce the penalties for doing so. You don't need a feat to use TWF, the feats simply reduce the penalties for doing so.

[Saph]

Wow, too much to respond to. Talked it over again with my group last night. This is the group I've been gaming with since 3.0 and we've all shared the DM chair and all still interpret this the same way.

And this response applies to those who referred to me as being bullheaded: when two people disagree and both refuse to change their opinion, both are being 'bullheaded'. Of course I'm saying those who disagree with me are misreading the rules. Everyone who is saying I am wrong is doing the exact same thing. Being stubborn is fine, it's called having conviction. I have no problem with that.

Just let it go. You asked for references; you got them. TWF requires a full attack. This is the rules of D&D. Everyone has explained this. Continuing to maintain that the rules say otherwise isn't having 'conviction', it's just being wrong.


Seeing (in the same book) half a dozen references to TWF not needing a full-attack to use in my mind still overrides one single reference to it needing a full-attack.

I don't really know what to say to this except to repeat: you're wrong. TWF requires a full attack.

You can play it differently if you like, but that is a houserule, not RAW.

- Saph

[Matthew]

It's possible that some of that confusion is left over from 2.x where you didn't need to use a 'Full Action' exactly. However, Combat and Tactics pretty much put an end to that and even in the Player's Handbook there was a nod towards the difference between Move and Attack and Attack [i.e. Bows could be shot twice if a Character did not move, but only once if the Character moved, or something like that].

The 3.x rules are not written particularly poorly. There are problems, but this simply is not one of them.

[Closet_Skeleton]

The books never say you don't have to make a full attack. The book says two weapon fighing gives you extra attacks and it says that to take advantage of extra attacks you make a full attack action. There are no references to two-weapon fighting not needing a full attack in the books or the SRD. You're looking for discrepencies that aren't there.

I have just said nothing that hasn't been said before. This thread is pretty much over.

[Krellen]

And how do you propose that works with double weapons, anyway?
I don't. My house rule in regards to TWF is that you can attack with both as a standard action, provided both are light weapons. This encourages knife fighters getting in a lot of quick strikes while not making the dwarf with two axes too terrible in battle.

[Catch]

Fine, this guy is irritating enough for even me to poke my head in.

Three-step logic, buddy.

1. TWF gives you extra attacks.
2. In order to use all of your attacks in a single round, you must use a full attack action.
3. Therefore, attacks granted by TWF are only usable during a full attack action.

You're wrong. Please feel free to smash your head against the logic-wall if you so choose, though.

[Shhalahr Windrider]

Seeing (in the same book) half a dozen references to TWF not needing a full-attack to use in my mind still overrides one single reference to it needing a full-attack.
Can you cite these references, please?

As others have said, the references you mentioned ("can" take an extra attack per round) don't say it doesn't require a full attack. Proper conditions must be met and specific game actions are required.

You "can" drink a potion each round... if you have a potion each round and are not interrupted by any Attacks of Opportunity. Requires the "Drink a potion" action.

A sorcerer "can" deal 6d6 fire damage to everyone in a 20-ft. radius spread each round... if he has the slots available to cast fireball, can gesture freely with one hand, has the material component in hand, can speak in a clear voice, and doesn't have his concentration interrupted. Requires the "Cast a Spell" action.

Likewise, you can take an extra attack each round... if you have a second weapon in hand each round. Requires the full attack action.

How do we know it takes a full attack action?

"A character who can make more than one attack per round must use the full attack action (see Full-Round Actions, below) in order to get more than one attack. (http://www.systemreferencedocuments.org/35/sovelior_sage/actionsInCombat.html#multiple-attacks)"
(emphasis mine)

"can"

"per round"

Same language.

No contradiction.

[Matthew]

Here's a game stopper for you


Attack
Making an attack is a standard action.


Since you only get one Standard Action in a round, guess what? You can only make one attack without the Full Attack Action, period.

[clarkvalentine]

Of course, you could reasonably argue that if would be great if TWF did grant an extra attack without a full attack, thus making TWF a more flexible option for a melee character (which is pretty much dominated by Greatsword Joe in the present rules).

But that's a different thread.

[Talus_of_Flambeu]

You don't need a feat to wear armor, the feats simply reduce the penalties for doing so. You don't need a feat to use TWF, the feats simply reduce the penalties for doing so.

True, but having those feats improves your ability, while Dual Strike (and so are many other feats) are giving you an ability.

[Caduceus]

Let's replace the word "round" with the term "full round" for a bit. I know, it sounds crazy, but go with it.

Now, TWF states that you get an extra attack as part of your attack in a (here's where we use that special term) "full round."

A standard action is not (again) a "full round." A standard action is, let's say, about three and a half of those six seconds. Can you swing two swords accurately in opposing hands in three and a half seconds? Didn't think so.

In short: A standard action is not a round. A round is a FULL round. It takes a FULL round to swing all your weapons. It takes a standard action to swing one of them.

I will grant you one reprieve, however. TWF grants, basicly, the old Ambidexterity feat from 3.0 for free. That means you can use either one of those axes on its own without penalty in that standard action. Give your weapons different enchantments, man. Then you'll get something out of it. Two-Weapon Fighting isn't meant for the use of perfectly identical weapons. A flaming sword and a frost sword would do great together. You'd be able to fight a red or white dragon more easily than if you just had one of them.

Ad hoc rules are the DM's domain. It doesn't sound like in this particular case that you are the DM. If you were just going to deny anything that we said, why post a thread to do it? Just do things your own way, however wrong it is, and leave us out of it.

[Yakk]

The feat-itus of D&D is a problem with the game. Once a feat to do X is introduced, people take the position that you need the feat X to do it.

As it stands, two-weapon fighting sucks in D&D. It is a feat-heavy chain that only really pays off decently for sneak-attack rogues (and equivilent builds). As others have noted, it was heavily nerfed ever since AD&D when it was the be-all and end-all combat stance.

To argue on MaN's side:
If the full-attack rules didn't mention anything about extra attacks, the two-weapon fighting rules would clearly imply that you got an extra attack on every round you attacked. (Ie: you get to move an extra 5' means that if you can move, you can move 5' more)

So, in a way, the full-attack rules contradict the two-weapon fighting rules.

Now, which is more specific? The full-attack rules specifically state what must be done to get extra attacks, and specifically mention the two-weapon fighting feat chain. So on that standard, the full-attack rules are more specific to the situation.

...

On the other hand, you can simply house rule your way around things.

Here goes an attempt:
Characters can reserve a weapon to parry. You must do this on a per-weapon basis.

When you parry with a weapon, you contest the attacker's to-hit roll with a parry roll of your own. A parry role uses the same modifiers as a to-hit roll. If the attacker hits your AC but your parry roll beats his attack, you can roll your weapon damage and subtract it from the opponent's damage roll.

Shields are special -- they add 3 times their shield bonus to the parry amount, and add their shield bonus to your parry roll. Enhancements to the shield bonus are treated the same as the shield bonus. This does not work with animated shields.

Everyone proficient with their shield can block with a shield by taking a -2 to hit with their primary weapon: shields are designed to be blocked with. At +6 +11 and +16 BaB, you gain iterative shield blocks at lower bonuses just like you gain iterative attacks.

If you have two-weapon fighting, and you take the -2 to all attacks this round, you can attack once with each weapon on a charge, as an attack of opportunity, or as a standard action. Outside of a full attack, however, only one of these two attacks deal precision-based damage (like sneak attack damage).

Power attack damage never applies to your offhand weapon.

Anyone with a +1 or greater BaB can take a -1 to hit to gain a +1 to damage on a two-handed weapon (up to BaB). The power attack feat boosts this to -1 to hit for +2 to damage.

There. Now your two-weapon fighter can dance around the battlefield just like a two-handed fighter. Shields and/or saving your offhand to parry is worthwhile, but a two-handed fighter's high damage total tends to blast through parries.

[Bears With Lasers]

Seeing (in the same book) half a dozen references to TWF not needing a full-attack to use in my mind still overrides one single reference to it needing a full-attack.

None of the references say it doesn't need a full attack.
They say you can take extra attacks.
To take extra attacks, you have to take a full attack action. There is no contradiction here, no "overriding". There is one rule that governs taking multiple attacks, and another that governs TWF, one of a number of things that gives you multiple attacks.

When everyone, including the most rules-savvy people on the board, tells you you're wrong, it might be time to acknowledge that.
I mean, come on. By your mangling of the rules, a character with ITWF and GTWF would get one main hand attack and three off hand attacks on a standard action... but be unable to get his iterative main hand attacks.

Edit: seriously.

If you get more than one attack per round ...because you fight with two weapons... you must use a full-round action to get your additional attacks.
How could that be clearer?!
Edit: and yes, that IS in the PHB.

[Matthew]

Actually, he'd be contradicting himself if he thought that, since making one attack is a Standard Action, regardless of how many you can make per round. Unless you have more Standard Actions, you can't do squat after the first attack with those remaining attacks.

[Variable Arcana]

Dang. Beaten to the punch.

Was going to point out this rule: "Making an attack is a standard action."

Was also going to challenge the statement: "Seeing (in the same book) half a dozen references to TWF not needing a full-attack to use in my mind still overrides one single reference to it needing a full-attack."

Both of those points having been made, I'll still add: the absence of an explicit reference is not the same as an explicit reference to an absence.


Finally... "Haste" is a phenomenally useful spell. I can't tell you how often a party I'm in has found itself on the far side of the battlefield from either a battle that we'd like to take part in or some other event that we'd like to stop, violently if necessary. "Haste" (often cast on the horses as well) both gets us to the battle on time and increases our capabilities once we get there. I still think haste ought to give a small bonus to initiative rolls... but perhaps it would be overpowered then.

[Annarrkkii]

When everyone, including the most rules-savvy people on the board, tells you you're wrong, it might be time to acknowledge that.
Why do I have a nagging suspicion that Bears was intending to refer primarily to himself with "the most rules-savvy people on the board?" :smalltongue:

But seriously. Even if the best rules' junkies on the board don't convince you, between Skip Williams and the revised SRD, I don't think you can hold on to your argument. The same instances of official sources using extra attacks only on a full attack exist in the Monster Manuals, the Dungeon Master's Guide 2, and a scattering of other splatbook monsters and NPCs.

Your argument hinged mainly on the idea that their was a conflict between the two rules, and I don't feel I need to add anything to what has already been said—that there is no conflict. Here's the Socratic method for two-weapon fighting:

1. Two-weapon Fighting grants extra attacks per round, as per the TWF rules. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/feats.htm#twoWeaponFighting)
2. To take extra attacks per round, you must use a full attack action, as per the full attack rules. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/actionsInCombat.htm#fullAttack)
3. Two-weapon Fighting takes a full action to utilize.

The first two steps are anything but contradictory—the first sets the law for all other references to multiple attacks, and, unless the Two-Weapon Fighting chain specifically notes that it does not obey that law, then it is going to take a full-round action.



By the way, I am using the SRD and the PHB errata file downloaded from the Wizards of the Coast website. I will not accept a third-party's published version of the SRD as being more authoritative.


That nicely preempts Bears' SRD references. However, my Player's Handbook has the same paragraph as his SRD—word for word—as the first paragraph under Full Attack. If you want to argue that your SRD is superior to the Player's Handbook as well, then I direct you to search for the words "If you get more than one attack per round" in the section titled "Combat I" of the Wizards' downloadable SRD. The precise same paragraph is to be found there, as well.

[Shhalahr Windrider]

Actually, he'd be contradicting himself if he thought that, since making one attack is a Standard Action, regardless of how many you can make per round.
Making one attack is a Standard Action when taking the "Attack" action.

Making one attack is part of a Full Round action when taking the "Full Attack" action.

Making one attack is not an action of any type when taking an Attack of Opportunity.

[Turcano]

And this response applies to those who referred to me as being bullheaded: when two people disagree and both refuse to change their opinion, both are being 'bullheaded'. Of course I'm saying those who disagree with me are misreading the rules. Everyone who is saying I am wrong is doing the exact same thing. Being stubborn is fine, it's called having conviction. I have no problem with that.

Under most circumstances where there are two interpretations to something, it is not usually the case where both sides are being "bullheaded;" it's far more likely that one side is being "bullheaded" while the other side is being "right" (or mostly right, at any rate).

[Zherog]

Sorry MaN, you're wrong. What you have, though, is a fairly common house rule, and I don't see anything particularly wrong with playing that way.

You probably don't consider the FAQ a "reliable" source, but here goes.



Just how and when can you use armor spikes? If you’re using two weapons already, can you use armor spikes to make a second off-hand attack? What if you’re using a weapon and a shield? Can you use the armor spikes for an off-hand attack and still get a shield bonus to Armor Class from the shield? What if you use a two-handed weapon? Can you wield the weapon in two hands and still make an off-hand attack with the spikes? What are your options for using armor spikes in a grapple? Can you use them when pinned? If you have another light weapon, can you use that and your armor spikes when grappling?

When you fight with more than one weapon, you gain an extra attack. (Improved Two-Weapon Fighting and greater Two-Weapon Fighting give you more attacks with the extra weapon.) Armor spikes are a light weapon that can be used as the extra weapon.

If you attack only with your armor spikes during your turn (or use the armor spikes to make an attack of opportunity), you use them just like a regular weapon. If you use the full attack action, you can use armor spikes as either a primary light weapon or as an off-hand light weapon, even if you’re using a shield or using a two-handed weapon. In these latter two cases,
you’re assumed to be kicking or kneeing your foe with your armor spikes.

Whenever you use armor spikes as an off-hand weapon, you suffer all the penalties for attacking with two weapons (see Table 8–10 in the Player’s Handbook). When using armor spikes along with a two-handed weapon, it is usually best to use the two-handed weapon as your primary attack and the armor spikes as the off-hand weapon. You can use the armor spikes as the primary weapon and the two-handed weapon as the off-hand attack, but when you do so, you don’t get the benefit of using a light weapon in your off hand.

You cannot, however, use your armor spikes to make a second off-hand attack when you’re already fighting with two weapons. If you have a weapon in both hands and armor spikes, you can attack with the weapons in your hands (and not with the armor spikes) or with one of the weapons in your hands and the armor spikes (see the description of spiked armor in
Chapter 7 of the Player’s Handbook).

When grappling, you can damage your foe with your spikes by making a regular grapple check (opposed by your foe’s check). If you succeed, you deal piercing damage to your foe (see Table 7–5 in the Player’s Handbook) rather than the unarmed strike damage you’d normally deal when damaging your foe with a grapple check. Since you can use armor spikes as a light weapon, you can simply use them to attack your foe. You suffer a –4 penalty on your attack roll when attacking with a light weapon in a grapple (see page 156 in the Player’s Handbook), but if your foe is bigger or stronger than you, this might prove a better tactic than trying to deal damage through a grapple check because there is no opposed roll to make—you just have to hit your opponent’s Armor Class. You can’t attack with two weapons when grappling, even when one of those weapons is armor spikes (see the section on grappling in Chapter 8 of the Player’s Handbook).

You can’t attack and damage your foe if he has you pinned. If you break the pin and avoid being pinned again, you can go back to attacking your foe. If your attack bonus is high enough to allow multiple attacks, you might break the pin and then use your remaining attack to damage your foe. To accomplish this, you must first use an attack to break the pin. You can break a pin using the Escape Artist skill, but trying to do so is a standard action for you; once you use the standard action to attempt escape, you can’t make any more attacks during your turn.

I quoted the whole piece, even though the underlined part is really all that applied.

Let me ask you a question, MaN. You do really believe every reference to creatures fighting with two weapons (all 6 monster books (Monster Manual 1, 2, 3 & 4; Fiend Folio; Monsters of Faerun), every issue of Dungeon, every issue of Dragon, all the sample characters in all the splat books, etc) is wrong, and you're right? Or do you think it's possible that perhaps all those referential sources are correct, and you're wrong? I mean, I could see if one of those sources disagreed with you. But doesn't the fact that all of them disagree sort of say something about the way the rules function?

[Matthew]

Making one attack is a Standard Action when taking the "Attack" action.

Making one attack is part of a Full Round action when taking the "Full Attack" action.

Making one attack is not an action of any type when taking an Attack of Opportunity.

Heh, a good point, I suppose I could have chosen my phraseology better and taken Attacks of Opportunity into account. The original point still stands, though, if you aren't using the Full Attack Action, you are using the Attack Action, which is a Standard Action that allows for only one Attack. So, can you use the Attack Action to gain more than one attack via Two Weapon Fighting? No, because the Attack Action is a Standard Action that allows you to make an (singular) Attack.

How's that?

[Shhalahr Windrider]

It's perfect.

[Lord Lorac Silvanos]

How's that?


It's perfect.

Indeed!

(By posting in this thread that cannot die I might become immortal. OR this post is now above the character limit and will post)

[Matthew]

Horray! Well, we'll have to see whether MaN is convinced...

[Yuki Akuma]

I like how he claims the authors don't know their own rules when they contradict his fallacies.

[Helgraf]

Are you kidding? Haste is probably the best spell in the game for a 5th-level wizard in a 5th-level party. You cast it and suddenly everyone gets +1 to hit, +1 to AC and Reflex, an extra move if they're moving, and an extra attack if they're full attacking. If everyone full attacks, you've just more than doubled the party's hitting power, and it lasts for five whole rounds. Awesome spell.

- Saph

Heck, the increase in base speed means you're double moving at ridiculous speeds to get into or away from combat; Lord forbid you have the room to run - you cover nightmarish amounts of distance.

Haste does exactly what it was always meant to do - it makes you (and now your level in friends near you) go faster; and if you're _already_ in close quarter combat swinging weapons it gives you a number of extra swings of the blade in your six second interval (though it's mechanically represented by getting one more "opening" eg one more roll of the d20).

Haste in 3.0 was a crackmunchkin's dream come true. It was never meant to be the road to 3+ spells a round (Quickened, Single Action and Second Single Action), as was evidently clear by how they rewrote it for 3.5.

Building a wiz/sorc as part of a party without haste is stripping your entire adventuring team of an extremely useful tactic. Oh, and ensuring you can't keep up with the enemy when the enemy wiz/sorc uses it on his team.

[MaN]

Sorry I abandoned the thread for a few days, my wife was hospitalized and I , of course, didn't take the time to check back in.

Yuki, of course the authors don't know their own rules perfectly. Read the D&D FAQ and see for yourself. That's a whole 'nother thread tho.

The three-step logic my group uses goes like this:
1: TWF feats grant you extra attacks.
2: Under the list of actions "using a feat" tells you to use the feat's description to determine what kind of action is required.
3: The TWF feat description says you can make an extra attack each round when wielding a weapon in your off-hand.
The only requirement for the extra attack(s) as stated in the feat description is that you be wielding a weapon in your off-hand, period. It does not say when wielding a weapon in your off-hand and making a full-attack. Since I can wield a weapon in my off-hand while making a full attack, and I can wield a weapon in my off-hand while making a standard attack . . .

Whatever the authors' intentions, my group and I don't game with them, we don't talk to them on the telephone, we don't communicate with them via email, we don't live next door to them. We only read their books.

Now I understand why so many people here think two-weapon fighters suck so bad.:smallamused: In my game they hold up very nicely.

I certainly didn't expect to win any converts when I started this thread, I was hoping someone could point me to something my group and I may have missed. Unless someone has something new I'll consider the topic dead.

[Saph]

I certainly didn't expect to win any converts when I started this thread, I was hoping someone could point me to something my group and I may have missed.

For heaven's sake. Haven't you been reading any of the replies you've gotten? About ten different people have pointed you to things you've missed.

I can't make it any clearer than they already have, so I'll just point you back to the SRD passage Shhalahr quoted:

A character who can make more than one attack per round must use the full attack action (see Full-Round Actions, below) in order to get more than one attack. (http://www.systemreferencedocuments.org/35/sovelior_sage/actionsInCombat.html#multiple-attacks)

I'm honestly having trouble figuring out why you did start this thread. You asked for an explanation of why TWF requires a full attack. You got one, and now you're ignoring all the replies and repeating the same thing you said before.


Whatever the authors' intentions, my group and I don't game with them, we don't talk to them on the telephone, we don't communicate with them via email, we don't live next door to them. We only read their books.

Perhaps you should read them a little more carefully.

D&D has some gray areas that are hard to adjudicate with the rules. TWF is not one of those gray areas. It requires a full attack. You are not playing by RAW. If you want further proof, look at the truckload of references and examples you've already been given.

- Saph

[Flawless]

The TWF feat entry is simply not clear on the subject. It does not state what kind of action is requiered to get that extra attack.
But on page 143 it clearly states: "If you get more than one attack per round because [...] you fight with two weapons [...] you must use a full round action to get your additional attacks."

It is rather dumb to say that the wording the feat entry overrules this rule, as it is simply not clear on it whereas p. 143 is.

[Aximili]

Whatever the authors' intentions, my group and I don't game with them, we don't talk to them on the telephone, we don't communicate with them via email, we don't live next door to them. We only read their books.
You certainly don't need any of this to realise what their intentions are. And gaming on the wrong (but possible) interpretation of poorly written rules when you know what the right interpretation is, seems kind of silly.
(Don't get me wrong:smallwink:. I'm not trying to say what's right or wrong here. And I'm not acusing you of doing this. )

Unless you intentionally do this to increase TWF power. Than it's ok.

[Bears With Lasers]

I certainly didn't expect to win any converts when I started this thread, I was hoping someone could point me to something my group and I may have missed. Unless someone has something new I'll consider the topic dead.


*boggles* How do you not get it? There is a rule that specifically says that you have to use a full attack action to get extra attacks. It uses TWF as an example. It says, if you have extra attacks from TWF, you have to use a full attack action to get them. How could it POSSIBLY be any clearer?

[Annarrkkii]

Bears, I think he's made it clear that he's not going to change his opinion. While I agree completely with your incredulity, I think it's best to let this one lie.

I think his argument is more in a conflict between rulings. He's steadfast in that, and I'm willing to respect his decision. So let's let this thread sink away, shall we?

[Bears With Lasers]

But... there IS no conflict. TWF does not say you get the extra attacks on a standard action attack.

[Renegade Paladin]

And this response applies to those who referred to me as being bullheaded: when two people disagree and both refuse to change their opinion, both are being 'bullheaded'.
No, that only applies if you're wrong. Which in this case applies to you.
Of course I'm saying those who disagree with me are misreading the rules. Everyone who is saying I am wrong is doing the exact same thing. Being stubborn is fine, it's called having conviction. I have no problem with that.
Stubbornness and conviction are not the same thing.

The third edition rules are written poorly. Even the WOTC staff doesn't get it right. Check out the D&D FAQ and tremble in the face of the absolute ignorance displayed there, and these are the people who wrote the rules. Check out the official errata files and cower in the shadow of the mountain of mistakes WOTC published in their books.
Yes, we know WotC Customer Disservice doesn't adequately know the intricacies of the rules. But if you're going to dismiss everything that disagrees with you as WotC not knowing what they're talking about, even after full errata to the books (I have an errataed leatherbound edition PHB at my disposal; got it for my DM for Christmas, and it still says that you need a full attack to use TWF), then you are throwing out all basis for any agreement on the rules. If we can always say "no, it might not be like that because it could be wrong," then we can never have a stable rulebase. In this case, the rules disagreed with you before, went through errata, and still disagree with you afterward. That is more than good enough for me.

Seeing (in the same book) half a dozen references to TWF not needing a full-attack to use in my mind still overrides one single reference to it needing a full-attack.
There is no specific reference to TWF not needing a full attack. You're drawing your conclusion from what the rules don't say, and examples have been provided wherein the rules do say that you require a full attack. Positive affirmation beats negative omission in pretty much every context I can think of.

Seeing rules that say the action type required for the use of feats is not governed by any special rules and to use the individual feat description instead of the rules in the Combat chapter is pretty clear to me. This is backed up by the errata rule saying that an individual spell's description overrides the chapter which describes how spells are used. Imagine a spell description stating, "The caster can whisper the verbal component of the spell." Would anyone here DMing a game where a player tried having his character cast this spell while whispering object? "But the book says verbal components must be spoken out loud!"
Yes, well we're not talking about a case like that. The TWF rules do not say that you may do this as an attack action or standard action. They are silent on the matter, hence we default to the Combat chapter, which... hey, look at that. Which specifically says that a character who can make multiple attacks must use a full attack to get them. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/actionsInCombat.htm#multipleAttacks) Twice. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/actionsInCombat.htm#fullAttack) And in one of those times, specifically cites TWF as an example. I'm sorry, the rules clearly disagree with you in every particular.

[kamikasei]

But... there IS no conflict. TWF does not say you get the extra attacks on a standard action attack.

A conflict between rulings, not between rules. MaN has a ruling that TWF acts a certain way... pretty much everyone else rules otherwise. Of course, calling it "a ruling" in the majority case is misleading, as the rules themselves are quite clear and don't require the DM to make a ruling.

People have already said that the way MaN handles things is reasonable as a house rule to strengthen TWF. It's the fact that he claims its clearly the actual, only true interpretation of the RAW that most here seem to object to. Of course, the point that it's probably pointless to voice that objection remains true...

[LotharBot]

I was hoping someone could point me to something my group and I may have missed.

It sounds like you and your group missed page 143 of the PHB, which states:

"If you get more than one attack per round ... because you fight with two weapons ... you must use a full-round action to get your additional attacks."

You can read it on this page (http://www.systemreferencedocuments.org/35/sovelior_sage/actionsInCombat.html) under "full round actions".

The same section also explicitly states that Cleave and Great Cleave provide an exception to the normal limit on attacks when not using a full attack action. It does NOT say TWF is an exception. And every single monster in the monster manual that uses TWF or MWF gets ONE attack on a standard action.

The rules are perfectly clear. There's no way around it, no matter how much you want there to be. You can make a house rule that does otherwise, but you're being stubborn by not recognizing that what you're doing is in fact a house rule rather than RAW.

[Vik]

The only requirement for the extra attack(s) as stated in the feat description is that you be wielding a weapon in your off-hand, period. It does not say when wielding a weapon in your off-hand and making a full-attack. Since I can wield a weapon in my off-hand while making a full attack, and I can wield a weapon in my off-hand while making a standard attack . . . I'll just repeat the best reason that was given to you on this one : why don't you go a step farther and say "since I can wield a weapon in my off-hand while not taking any action at all " ?
When something is not told in the feats section, guess what ? You go check the other rules of the book.
Hey, even better : by your logic, take a Feat that grants a +2 bonus to 2 skills (or a +3 to one skill). It's not even stated in the Feats section what action it takes to make a skill check, so it must be free, or at worse one standard action - nice for Craft checks !

[Zherog]

Let me ask you a question, MaN. You do really believe every reference to creatures fighting with two weapons (all 6 monster books (Monster Manual 1, 2, 3 & 4; Fiend Folio; Monsters of Faerun), every issue of Dungeon, every issue of Dragon, all the sample characters in all the splat books, etc) is wrong, and you're right? Or do you think it's possible that perhaps all those referential sources are correct, and you're wrong? I mean, I could see if one of those sources disagreed with you. But doesn't the fact that all of them disagree sort of say something about the way the rules function?

I guess my question, as well as any comments about the FAQ entry, is going to go unanswered huh?

[Yuki Akuma]

Yuki, of course the authors don't know their own rules perfectly. Read the D&D FAQ and see for yourself. That's a whole 'nother thread tho.

The authors do not write the FAQs. They do, however, write other, much more authoratative articles on the website, which you seem to think don't matter because they're not in the books.

The fact that they were written by the people who wrote the books and made up the rules in the first place obviously means they don't know what they're talking about. Of course!

Skip Williams can't possibly understand his own rules enough to write an article about two-handed weapon that specifically states that you need to take a full-round action to get more than one attack when using two weapons.

[mystikphish]

Wow.... only one response for MaN's thread of, "Ha! You can't prove me wrooooOOoooOOOong! nyah! nyah! nana nyah!"

*plonk*

[LotharBot]

I just realized something:

this whole time, MaN has been maintaining that the TWF feat "grants you extra attacks".

That's bull. The TWF feat only reduces penalties. It doesn't grant attacks. The attacks come from the TWF dynamic, which is described in chapter 8 as a full-round action.

ITWF and GTWF grant extra attacks when using TWF. In other words, they grant extra attacks only when you already satisfy the criteria for normal TWF, which is described in chapter 8 as a full-round action.

MaN, does that make sense?

[RMS Oceanic]

I know it does to me. :)

I know it's been mentioned before, but Complete Adventurer has a feat, Dual Strike. It allows you to attack once with each weapon you wield as a standard action, but with the same rules as Manyshot (single attack roll for both, -4 penalty). Would that be of any help to you?

[Zherog]

I know it does to me. :)

I know it's been mentioned before, but Complete Adventurer has a feat, Dual Strike. It allows you to attack once with each weapon you wield as a standard action, but with the same rules as Manyshot (single attack roll for both, -4 penalty). Would that be of any help to you?

Nope, that's not good enough (as many of us have pointed out plenty of referential source material, including that). Obviously, the designers, developers, and editors of all those sources don't know the rules.

[Lord Lorac Silvanos]

Skip Williams can't possibly understand his own rules enough to write an article about two-handed weapon that specifically states that you need to take a full-round action to get more than one attack when using two weapons.


Obviously, the designers, developers, and editors of all those sources don't know the rules.

:smalleek:

Ohh no, what is happening!

MaN has swayed both Yuki and Zherog :smalleek:

[Morgan_Scott82]

I just realized something:

this whole time, MaN has been maintaining that the TWF feat "grants you extra attacks".

That's bull. The TWF feat only reduces penalties. It doesn't grant attacks. The attacks come from the TWF dynamic, which is described in chapter 8 as a full-round action.

ITWF and GTWF grant extra attacks when using TWF. In other words, they grant extra attacks only when you already satisfy the criteria for normal TWF, which is described in chapter 8 as a full-round action.

MaN, does that make sense?


This is a phenominal point that should have been brought up while MaN was still attending to this thread.

[Matthew]

Well, it would be if it wasn't for the normal text in the Feat description:



Two-Weapon Fighting [General]

You can fight with a weapon in each hand. You can make one extra attack each round with the second weapon.
Prerequisite: Dex 15.
Benefit: Your penalties on attack rolls (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/combatStatistics.htm#attackRoll) for fighting with two weapons are reduced. The penalty for your primary hand lessens by 2 and the one for your off hand lessens by 6. See the Two-Weapon Fighting (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/specialAttacks.htm#twoWeaponFighting) special attack.
Normal: If you wield a second weapon in your off hand, you can get one extra attack per round with that weapon. When fighting in this way 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. If your off-hand weapon is light the penalties are reduced by 2 each. (An unarmed strike (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/equipment/weapons.htm#unarmedStrike) is always considered light.)
Special: A 2nd-level ranger (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/classes/ranger.htm) who has chosen the two-weapon combat style is treated as having Two-Weapon Fighting, even if he does not have the prerequisite for it, but only when he is wearing light or no armor.
A fighter (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/classes/fighter.htm) may select Two-Weapon Fighting as one of his fighter bonus feats.


However, the fact that a Standard Attack Action only allows for one attack pretty much says it all.

[Necromas]

[Scrubbed]

[LotharBot]

[Scrubbed]

[Zherog]

:smalleek:

Ohh no, what is happening!

MaN has swayed both Yuki and Zherog :smalleek:

Should I've used sarcasm tags? ;)

[Shhalahr Windrider]

Should I've used sarcasm tags? ;)

Or maybe perma-attach them to yourself, the way Yuki has. :smalltongue:

[Roland St. Jude]

Sheriff of Moddingham: Please refrain from insulting, attacking, or belittling other posters. This includes calling them trolls and the like. If you feel someone is violating the Rules of Posting, please use the "Report Post" button located on the offending post. Thank you.

[Beleriphon]

If the OP is still absolutely not convinced, I'm sure you can hop on over to the WotC boards (http://boards1.wizards.com) too and ask them for their opinions.

Do that and they'll tell you where to go and how to get there.

[Yuki Akuma]

Or maybe perma-attach them to yourself, the way Yuki has. :smalltongue:

Sarcastic? Moi?

[Lord Lorac Silvanos]

Should I've used sarcasm tags? ;)

Ahhh, it was sarcasm!

Gender-specicific-term-for-young-person do I feel intellectually challenged now.


Sarcastic? Moi?

See at least Yuki was not being sarcastic....

[Tola]

Hrm.

I'm looking at what he's asking.

Let me see if an example helps me understand it.

Bob the Fighter is Level 6. He gets two attacks. He's got the appropriate weapons and feats to get his penalties to -2/-2. He's even picked up Improved Two-Weapon Fighting.

So. Old rules. He can only strike once if he moves and attacks. A little strange, but there you go. If he goes all out, he can get 4 attacks-the standard 2, plus the swipe of Two-Weapon Fighting, plus the swipe of Improved Two Weapon Fighting.

New rules. On a move and attack, he may strike 4 times, as in the all-out example above. On a full attack, going all out...he may strike 4 times. Am I understanding this correctly?

Now, the real question is-if you change it so, what's to stop someone suggesting that they may take Two-Weapon Fighting on each attack they make, at least on a full attack, given as you're skilled enough to do it on a normal move+attack? Suddenly, the number of strikes has gone up from 4, to a potential 8. I can't shake the idea of this, even looking at the first post alone and looking at the feat as described in SRD. The idea is nice-human Blender-but it leads to too much madness, especially as it'll affect Multi-weapon Fighting as well...I think.

Have I got it utterly wrong?

[Matthew]

No, what MaN was suggesting, was that a Character with Two Weapon Fighting and Improved Two Weapon Fighting could make three attacks without using a Full Attack Action [i.e. 1 Primary and 2 Off Hand] because the Feats state 'one extra attack per round'.

It was obviously nonesense and a tenuous technicality to boot. Since a Standard Attack Action allows for only one Attack and the only other Attack Action is a Full Attack Action the point was rendered moot.

Many Dungeon Masters (including me) advocate allowing, as a House Rule, one Off Hand Attack and one Primary Attack during a Standard Attack Action. I even went so far as to create a Feat, which you can find here: Mobile Two Weapon Fighting (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1798151#post1798151)