[3.5] The TWF OffHandbook.

[danielxcutter]

About Duskblades: If you're a dwarf, you get martial proficiency with the dwarven urgrosh. Also, Armored Mage allows you to ignore light shields and eventually heavy shields with no chance of arcane spell failure, so Agile Shield Fighter might be possible for a sword-and-boarder.

[Darrin]

Thanks for the expansive guide. Still, this remains unsolved in a lot of Google searching.

Multi-headed template, gives you Superior Two-Weapon Fighting: -
1. No penalty on attack rolls for attacking with multiple weapons.
2. Number of attacks & damage for each weapon calculated as though weapon were held in a primary hand.

So, with a BAB of +16/+11/+6/+1;
Primary Weapon = 4 attacks, +16/+11/+6/+1
Off-Hand Weapon = 4 attacks, +16/+11/+6/+1

What happens if you also take the feats: Two-Weapon Fighting, Improved Two-Weapon Fighting, and Greater Two-Weapon Fighting?

Do you end up with 3 additional off-hand attacks, without the penalties?
Primary Weapon = 4 attacks, +16/+11/+6/+1
Off-Hand Weapon = 4 attacks, +16/+11/+6/+1, +16/+16/+16

After some pondering... here's my take on Multi-Headed and Superior TWF/MWF:

Since Multi-Headed treats your offhand appendage as if it were the primary, "Superior Two-Weapon Fighting" and/or "Superior Multi-Weapon Fighting" already grants you the benefits of TWF/MWF, Improved TWF/MWF, and Greater TWF/MWF.

TWF/MWF reduces the penalties for attacking with two (or multiple) weapons. Well, Superior TWF/MWF reduces these penalties to zero without taking the feat.

Improved and Greater TWF/MWF gives you a second and third offhand attack. However, you already have a second and third attack via Superior TWF/MWF, so these feats don't do anything either.

So if you take these feats and somehow wind up acquiring the Multi-Headed template later, then yeah, you'll want to look at retraining those feats. I can also imagine a DM might allow you to get additional attacks with those feats as a house rule, with the idea that taking those feats should result in *some* sort of positive benefit for the creature.

There is, however, an interesting implication to using Multi-Headed and getting Superior Multi-Weapon Fighting... the text says there's no penalty for attacking with multiple weapons, even if your number of appendages is greater than your number of heads. So if you have four or six arms but only two heads... no MWF penalties at all.

About Duskblades: If you're a dwarf, you get martial proficiency with the dwarven urgrosh. Also, Armored Mage allows you to ignore light shields and eventually heavy shields with no chance of arcane spell failure, so Agile Shield Fighter might be possible for a sword-and-boarder.

The problem for a sword-and-board Duskblade is not the ASF but somatic gestures in general: you need at least one hand free, and having both hands occupied with either a weapon or shield means you have to drop something or waste an action to put your weapon/shield away. A two-handed weapon (the urgrosh works admirably here) allows you to take one hand off as a free action, make your somatic gestures, and regrip as a free action. Any sword-and-board solution to this is probably going to cost you a feat: Somatic Weaponry (Complete Mage), Prehensile Tail (Savage Species), or Runesmith (Races of Stone, requires Scribe Scroll).

And while I'm here I might as well add another TWF build I came up with for daremetoidareyou's "Optimize this Feat #16: Bloodspiked Charger from PHB2" thread:

"Spikey McSpikeface"

Race: Spiker (Planar Handbook).
1) Feat Rogue 1. Feat: Travel Devotion (CChamp), Bonus: Power Attack, Flaw: TWF, Flaw: Improved Bull Rush.
2) Fighter 1. Bonus: WF Spiked Shield
3) Fighter 2. Feat: Improved Shield Bash. Bonus: WF Armor Spikes.
4) Fighter 3.
5) Fighter 4. Bonus: Shield Charge (CWar).
6) Fighter 5. Feat: Leap Attack (CAdv).
7) Fighter 6. Bonus: Blood-Spiked Charger (PHBII).
8) Feat Rogue 2. Bonus: Shock Trooper (CWar).
9) Fighter 7. Feat: Shield Slam (CWar).
10) Fighter 8. Bonus: Improved TWF.
11) Fighter 9.
12) Fighter 10. Feat: WS Spiked Shield, Bonus: MWM Piercing (PHBII).
13) Fighter 11.
14) Fighter 12. Bonus: WS Armor Spikes.
15) Fighter 13. Feat: Greater TWF.
16) Fighter 14. Bonus: GWF Spiked Shield.
17) Fighter 15.
18) Fighter 16. Feat: Power Lunge (Ghostwalk), Bonus: GWS Spiked Shield.
19) Fighter 17.
20) Fighter 18. Bonus: Weapon Supremacy Spiked Shield

Notes: Still not sure what feat to put at level 18... first inclination was Cleave because why not? I had Two-Weapon Rend in there for a bit, but I think Power Lunge will do a lot more damage in the long run. Another option would be to replace Feat Rogue 2 with Overwhelming Attack Monk 2, then use that feat slot for something like Snap Kick (which also gets Power Attack damage). If your group doesn't allow flaws, you can still sorta fit everything in by taking out Two-Weapon Rend and Weapon Specialization for Armor Spikes, although you'd have to rearrange a bunch of feats. My first stab at the build had Feat Rogue as the last two levels to pick up Weapon Supremacy twice, but I didn't notice that you can only take Weapon Supremacy once (which is kinda silly for something that requires 18 levels of Fighter). I split up the Feat Rogue levels because 1) starting 1st level with at least 32 skill points on a melee build is awesome and 2) there's a three feats that require BAB +6 on top of Leap Attack (which usually can't be taken before 6th level), and delaying Rogue 2 until 8th seemed like the quickest way to get all of them working by 9th level.

[danielxcutter]

If you absolutely have to TWF while mounted, Ranger-Knight of Furondy might be a relatively good choice, if Dragon Magazine is allowed that is. "Relatively" being the key word, but it might worth including for completeness' sake.

[Darrin]

So... I pointed this out in another thread, but I thought I'd mention it again here. Two things:

1) Agile Shield Fighter may be one of the better TWF feats, and may in fact make Sword-and-Board a more viable strategy. Here's the text in question:

Benefit: When making a shield bash and armed strike attack as part of a full attack action, you take a –2 penalty on each attack. These penalties replace the normal ones you incur for fighting with two weapons.

(emphasis added)

If we read this strictly by RAW... that -2 could be said to replace *all* TWF penalties, including the -5 and -10 for Improved TWF and Greater TWF. This means an Agile Shield Fighter going sword-and-board with BAB +16:

Primary #1: -2
Offhand #1: -2
Offhand #2: -2
Offhand #3: -2
Primary #2: -7
Primary #3: -12
Primary #4: -17

2) Second observation... the rules for TWF state that the penalty for your primary and offhand attack are both -2 (assuming you have the feat and your offhand is light). Improved TWF and Greater TWF adds a second and third offhand attack at -5 and -10 respectively. However... the text never actually states that the initial -2 and the -5/-10 from ITWF and GTWF must be stacked. So your three offhand attack penalties should be... -2/-5/-10 rather than -2/-7/-12. Assuming a TWF fighter with BAB +16 but without Agile Shield Fighter:

Primary #1: -2
Offhand #1: -2
Offhand #2: -5
Primary #2: -7
Offhand #3: -10
Primary #3: -12
Primary #4: -17

Thoughts?

[Deophaun]

If we read this strictly by RAW... that -2 could be said to replace *all* TWF penalties,

It says "normal" penalties. Penalties from feats are not "normal."

However... the text never actually states that the initial -2 and the -5/-10 from ITWF and GTWF must be stacked.

The text doesn't have to. The general rule is that penalties from different sources stack. You're getting -2 from TWF, and -5/-10 from ITWF and GTWF.

But, since you're in the mood for crazy interpretations, I have something not so crazy but definitely not RAI regarding weapon enhancements. I'm going to pull out two quotes here:

A flaming weapon deals an extra 1d6 points of fire damage on a successful hit.

When you wield such a weapon, you deal an extra 5 points of damage with each hit.

Notice the difference? One is applied to the weapon, and the other is applied to the wielder and not limited to attacks with the enhanced weapon. If you have +1 collision gauntlets and you're wielding a pair of daggers, the collision damage will apply to all attacks with those daggers. And collision isn't the only one this applies to. Martial discipline weapons are the same, as are illithidwrought, and likely several others.

[Darrin]

It says "normal" penalties. Penalties from feats are not "normal."

In the interests of pedantry, there is no definition of a "normal penalty" in the rules. So while you can comfortably say that penalties from feats are not "normal", I can comfortably say they are, and neither of us is wrong by the rules-as-written.

The text doesn't have to. The general rule is that penalties from different sources stack. You're getting -2 from TWF, and -5/-10 from ITWF and GTWF.

My narrow and biased interpretation of the rules is still valid if I squint at the text a lot. At least to me, at any rate.

Notice the difference? One is applied to the weapon, and the other is applied to the wielder and not limited to attacks with the enhanced weapon. If you have +1 collision gauntlets and you're wielding a pair of daggers, the collision damage will apply to all attacks with those daggers. And collision isn't the only one this applies to. Martial discipline weapons are the same, as are illithidwrought, and likely several others.

Nice find! I'm not sure the second sentence really supports what was in the first sentence... but at least if you're using gauntlets, you could argue that the change in mass is at least contributing to the force of the swing. Collision armor spikes, though... it's more difficult to argue that they have anything to do with how you're stabbing with the daggers.

If you're wearing two +1 collision gauntlets, then does the damage stack? Looks like an untyped modifier, so... yes?

[Deophaun]

Nice find! I'm not sure the second sentence really supports what was in the first sentence... but at least if you're using gauntlets, you could argue that the change in mass is at least contributing to the force of the swing.

Technically, those are two separate effects: the mass at the end of the weapon changes and you get a +5 bonus to damage. There's nothing formally linking the two.

As I said, obviously not RAI.

Something like the fierce enhancement, though, probably is meant to be on all your attacks.

If you're wearing two +1 collision gauntlets, then does the damage stack? Looks like an untyped modifier, so... yes?

Same source (collision in both cases) so they shouldn't. Of course, if you're playing in a game where you're allowed to stack bonuses from defending weapons, go nuts.

[Darrin]

Same source (collision in both cases) so they shouldn't. Of course, if you're playing in a game where you're allowed to stack bonuses from defending weapons, go nuts.

"Source" is not all that well defined by the rules. I could argue that my right-hand gauntlet is a distinctly different source than my left-hand gauntlet. Likewise, if I were wielding a +1 collision dagger in a +1 collision gauntlet, that's two different sources: 1) a dagger source and 2) a gauntlet source.

[Deophaun]

"Source" is not all that well defined by the rules.

Yes, you could. The same logic applies to defending weapons, which is why I used that as the conditional.

[Snowbluff]

I haven't really had an urge to dig into Pathfinder yet. My current group is sticking with 3.5 partly because of familiarity but mostly due to inertia. However, there does seem to be a lot more PF posts on these forums compared to 3.5. An update for PF would definitely be useful to a growing number of people.

Maybe I can hoodwink someone else to post a PF update... Any volunteers?

I mean, I could try to help, but there isn't much to say. PF's TWF rules are basically copy pasted from 3.5. What you're looking for is just a few feats that are in PF and not in 3.5, etc. Most of the general advice still applies.

[Darrin]

I mean, I could try to help, but there isn't much to say. PF's TWF rules are basically copy pasted from 3.5. What you're looking for is just a few feats that are in PF and not in 3.5, etc. Most of the general advice still applies.

I actually own quite a few Pathfinder books now, but every time I try to dig into it, I stumble into an FAQ reference somewhere that exceeds the universal maximum of stupidity (usually with something that has to do with unarmed strikes).

What's confusing for me is trying to understand which portions of Pathfinder are in print, which portions are online but not necessarily in print, and which portions people are actually playing with. Pathfinder ACFs, for example, use different terminology. I think they're called Archetypes? Or do some people still call them ACFs? But that's different from an "Unchained" version, I think. But presumably, if I'm looking at an archetype online, how do I tell what book it's in? Or if it's online only, because they're still playtesting it?

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by Darrin
An update for PF would definitely be useful to a growing number of people.

It would certainly help me, because I have two different TWF-based characters in the game I’m running, and I’ve discovered just how painfully sloppy the wording is for this feat. You have to chase down references and inferences from all over the rules just to deal with one combat round.

Originally Posted by Darrin
What's confusing for me is trying to understand which portions of Pathfinder are in print, which portions are online but not necessarily in print, and which portions people are actually playing with.

Welcome to the joys of the PFSRD, which is a site I try to avoid. I find its organization incredibly poor and confusing, especially the way it mushes Paizo and third-party content together. I usually work with a whole stack of hardbacks (some personal, some from the library) when I really need to dig into something.

Originally Posted by Darrin
Pathfinder ACFs, for example, use different terminology. I think they're called Archetypes? Or do some people still call them ACFs? But that's different from an "Unchained" version, I think.

An archetype is a collection of ACFs that have some thematic connection (theoretically), and which you follow as an alternate track to the standard character progression. Usually an archetype just swaps out a handful of features at different levels. Some of them are great, some of them are meh, but they do add a lot of extra options. Archetypes in Pathfinder have more or less edged out PrCs, although there are still a few of the latter here and there.

As for Unchained, this is a specific book that gives updates to the barbarian, monk, rogue and summoner. The unchained rogue is glorious—free Weapon Finesse at first level and dex-to-damage at third level. I have an unchained rogue in my current game and she’s probably the strongest damage-dealer in the group.

Originally Posted by Darrin
But presumably, if I'm looking at an archetype online, how do I tell what book it's in? Or if it's online only, because they're still playtesting it?

Yeah, this is where PFSRD gets to be a hassle. Everything online should be out of playtesting, but there’s a lot of third-party material that can be confusing to wade through.

For an example, I really like the Ecclesitheurge, which is an archetype from the Advanced Class Guide. If you look at this entry, below the main text is a grey box that gives the source. It would be helpful if they put this at the top of the page rather than down at the bottom, but at least it’s there.

For a much cleaner and simpler site, as well as officialer, I much prefer the PRD, which is the Pathfinder Reference Document. It’s a leaner, more user-friendly site which is limited to official Paizo content only, and just hardbacks at that. This leaves out all the various paperback product lines—the Player’s Companions, the Campaign Setting sourcebooks, etc.—but it does give you all the main hardbacks in a clean format that’s much easier to navigate.

Anything on the PRD is from an official hardback that’s already been printed, so there’s no guessing about whether it’s third-party. I recommend starting here if you want to look over the classes. For instance, here's the unchained rogue in all her finessey glory.

[Lilapop]

here's the unchained rogue in all her finessey glory.

Uuuuuh... where's the drawback? Like, everything is the same or better (Danger Sense is essentially trap sense plus another benefit for instance), with not even fluff requirements listed on that page. Even on the list of "unchained" classes it pretty much just says Rogues are getting buffed, have fun.

[Deophaun]

Uuuuuh... where's the drawback?

You're not playing a wizard.

The point is to buff an underperforming class, not replace the underperforming class with something equally underperforming.

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by Lilapop
Uuuuuh... where's the drawback?

I never claimed there was a drawback, because I’m not seeing any. The unchained rogue is a flat-out better option than the basic Pathfinder rogue, which in turn was an improvement to the 3.5 rogue.

Originally Posted by Lilapop
Even on the list of "unchained" classes it pretty much just says Rogues are getting buffed, have fun.

Which is the entire point of the book. And my comments about the book.

[Lilapop]

Huh. Just used to ACFs etc trading away class features for potentially (but not necessarily) better ones, so I thought I was missing something.

[Endarire]

I didn't notice any Desert Wind boosts mentioned in the guide, but Burning Blade, Searing Blade (which should be a swift action to activate), and Inferno Blade are handy ways to deal extra fire damage occasionally. The Fiery Assault stance gives +d6 fire damage per melee hit, but is probably inferior to Island of Blades or Assassin's Stance.

[Darrin]

I didn't notice any Desert Wind boosts mentioned in the guide, but Burning Blade, Searing Blade (which should be a swift action to activate), and Inferno Blade are handy ways to deal extra fire damage occasionally. The Fiery Assault stance gives +d6 fire damage per melee hit, but is probably inferior to Island of Blades or Assassin's Stance.

Huh. Did I not do a deep-dive on how to use Tome of Battle with TWF? ...

[checks]

Apparently I did not. I will consider adding something about ToB. At the very least, I could probably add a Crusader 20, Warblade 20, and Swordsage 20 to the sample builds. But yeah, I could discuss some Desert Wind maneuvers in the Swordsage 20 build.

[danielxcutter]

Also, while you've mentioned that "Ranger spells are better than bonus feats from Champion of the Wild" or something like that, I don't think you specified which? Core Ranger is pretty meh, to be honest. Throw in things like Blade Storm or Ferocity of Sanguine Rage, though...

[SirNibbles]

Minor note: Invisible Fist is once every 3 rounds.

'You must wait 3 rounds...'
Use on your turn round 1.
Round 2. 1 round has passed.
Round 3. 2 rounds have passed.
Round 4. 3 rounds have passed and you can now use it this round.

It's a great ability for monks.

[danielxcutter]

This probably wasn't the intended usage, as both Complete Adventurer and Secrets of Sarlona were printed quite after Complete Warrior, but I think you can get around the normal two-handed wielding restrictions for quickblade rapiers or spinning swords with the Uncanny Blow option of Exotic Weapon Master? That sounds like it could work... were there any 3.0e weapons with similar restrictions?

Edit: Oh yeah, remembered a couple of interesting facts (and one minor nitpick).

First, the sidebar on page 116 of Complete Adventurer lets you treat several exotic weapons from Complete Warrior as other similar weapons for the Weapon Focus feat tree. This might be helpful for, say, a double pick wielder who starts with two heavy picks and then takes EWP (dire pick).

Second, and this is honestly a very niche example, but Balors' whips explicitly deal bludgeoning and slashing damage (though no mention of dealing lethal damage or otherwise good benefits, so you might be better off on giving them whip daggers anyways).

And third, Monkey Grip alone honestly sucks a lot on its own for TWF, if utilized in the way you've suggested, but a TWF build that already has Oversized TWF might consider taking it. This feat ups the damage from 1d8 to 2d6 - about 2.5 points more damage on average in exchange for a -2 penalty and a feat. That actually might be better than Power Attack on such builds, especially once you start stacking things like Strongarm Bracers on top of that.