So, I feel a bit like an idiot asking this question. But, when you use two weapon fighting to attack with both weapons it is a full attack action correct? You can't move, charge, etc and still attack with both weapons. At least that's how I understand it.

What game system?

D20

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.


it is not a full round attack

Actually, in order to make more than one attack, no matter how you get the extra attacks, you have to take a full round attack action. At least, that's how it works in DnD. See here: http://www.d20srd.org/srd/comb...ombat.htm#fullAttack



While I understand that is the DnD 3.5 SRD, the basic rules for combat don't change all that much between d20 games (at least, as far as I know).

If you do want to get an attack with each weapon as a standard action, you need to spend (yet another, considering the feat tree for Two Weapon Fighting already) feat to do it. DnD has the feat Dual Strike (Complete Adventurer page 108). It requires both Two Weapon Fighting and Improved Two Weapon Fighting to take, and limits precision damage to only one of the attacks.

  There are some other exceptions in 3.X, such as the "Tiger Claw" style from the Tome of Battle, which may allow movement and/or charging in combination with the maneuver.

  If you're dealing with other D20 variants then the rules may differ on this point, since the often have their own takes on dual-wielding.

In reply to Killer Rabbitt (msg # 1):

You are correct, though you CAN 5' step and still full attack.

In reply to Killer Rabbitt (msg # 1):

AD&D: Yes. D&D 4th edition: No. Palladium: Yes, but there is a penalty to strike incurred if moving while simultaneously shooting a ranged weapon. Iron Kingdoms: Yes. Storyteller: Yes, but you may split your dice pool to both move and strike if the movement is challenge and not a trivial movement. Those are a few answers off the top of my head. Like Otghand already asked, it really depends.

In d20/pathfinder it's a full attack but that doesn't mean that it's the only thing you could do. For instance, you can pounce and then make your full attack.

I have been doin this wrong for years! And none of my dms have corrected me :(

Actually, in this system you can't fight with two weapons at all unless you have a power that specifically uses two weapons. A lot of them are simply a standard action, meaning that most 4th-edition two-weapon fighters are just as mobile as everyone else.

In reply to elecgraystone (msg # 8):

A full attack however takes a full round action... but as others have mentioned, a full round action does not preclude you from being able to make certain types of other actions.

You can take a 5' step... and they even make it clear that you can choose to take your 5' movement either before, after or even once in between two of your attacks.  So if you have several attacks, and use two to down an opponent, and none remain adjacent to you, you can take a 5' step and strike a new opponent.  (as long as someone else is within 5'.)  http://paizo.com/prd/combat.html#full-attack-action

There are however also some other clarifications that you can't use a 5' step in between cleave attacks and I believe some other examples, but it is pointed out the extra attacks in those cases are not part of a 'full attack' action.  Also if movement difficulty exists due to terrain, you may not be eligible for a 5' step.

Another type of action other than the 5' step, is a swift, or any free actions can be done, even when doing a full round action.  Hope that helps you some.  (these are 3.x/pathfinder rules... so not relevant to 4e or others necessarily)

Pounce is an action granted by a specific feat, that I believe allows you to use TWF at the end of a charge.  As a charge involves movement, you wouldn't be able to do a 5' step in between strikes, since a charge is not a full attack action, it is a charge action (which is normally another full round action which involves making an attack).

In reply to LoreGuard (msg # 11):

Pounce allows 'a full attack' after a charge. It's not always a feat, sometimes it's a class feature. In pathfinder you can have it as soon as 1st level.

Is it a class feature or race feature? (catfolk?)

In reply to The_Blob (msg # 13):

Summoners can pick it up at 1st(synthesist).  barbarians can at 10th (Beast Totem, Greater (Su)).

10th is also when some racial feats allow pounce. (kitsune/catfolk)

In reply to elecgraystone (msg # 14):

I think the original question of whether or not the normal rules (unadjusted by abilities or powers) require a full attack action to gain multiple attacks has been answered, though.  You do need a full attack action, which is normally a full round action, in D&D3.5 and Pathfinder.

In reply to Godzfirefly (msg # 15):

He said:
I'd think pounce is a very important exception to that statement. I wouldn't want him crying fowl when his character gets pounced by a cat because he think it's JUST the basics (full attack + 5' move). Better to get the full picture IMO.

Ok, I never understood the value of two weapon fighting in dnd, why does it soak up so many feats to make it worth it? Magical weapons, I guess I can understand depending on the powers. But other then that, it seems like a waste of a lot of feats for a mere 1 extra attack per turn.

In reply to Merevel (msg # 17):

3 points...

1: It all depends what you are adding to the attacks. You wield a +5 flaming, frost, acidic, sparking, sonic shortsword and you're looking at 6d6 damage plus whatever static damage you have. Add in sneak attack and you could be picking up a handful of dice to roll.

2: that 'mere 1 extra attack' is at your full attack bonus unlike the extra attacks you get from BAB. It's more likely to hit that those.

3: If you have anything that triggers from a crit, any extra attacks are golden.

Ok, fair enough there. With big bad weapons, but what about a lower leveled campaign? Say, low magic even?

In reply to Merevel (msg # 19):

It's even better then. WAY before you get 2 attacks from BAB you can get 2 attacks using 2 weapons. When doesn't a person with sneak attack want to get 2 chances to get it?

It's simple. Why wouldn't you want 2 chances to hit? Granted you can do more damage with a single weapon IF you hit. Getting another chance to hit AND getting to double up on bonuses (like weapon specialization) is nice.

Now it's not for everyone, but on the right one it's pretty sweet.

I am starting to think I just never put enough thought into it. Btw, my understanding was that you could only sneak attack once per round? them again I never realised haste 3.0 allows multiple spells per turn...

The following is for pathfinder. I'm unsure after all these years if it was the same in 3.0.

Sneak attack affects all attacks as long as the conditions that allowed it continues. For example a druid/rogue that pounces on a target that's flanked by an ally while in tiger form gets it on his bite, claw, claw and rake...

Another thing to think about. Using a double weapon can give you the best of both worlds. One end is one handed and the other is light OR you can use it as a two handed weapon. This allows you to switch between a harder hit or more attacks with the same weapon.

In 3.0 at least I always interpreted the rules that sneak attack was a single precise strike.

in 3.0, 3.5 and pf you can get sneak attack damage on every hit.  say your opponent is flanked: every hit.

also in 3.5 and, i believe pf, 2 weapon fighting is just 1 feat. 1 feat for an extra attack, yea go for it.

In reply to st_nougat (msg # 24):

Yes, it's 1 feat for 1 extra attack. There IS a feat tree for more attack, shield bonuses and more neat stuff. All depends on how much you want to focus.

I just checked it. Holy cow I have a new found respect for a rogues damage output.

Well it's not as awesome as it looks at first blush. Sneak attack often needs setup to get the conditions right to use. This eats up actions and often ends up with lost attacks because of it.

For example, flanking often means moving into position and losing a full attack. And often you have the best initiative so you have to wait until someone attacks and can only flank next round (assuming it still lives).

In the right situation it's a heck of a lot of dice but most time it's just a consolation price for not being able to use it all the time. A simple +d6 from frost tends to deal more damage than sneak attack most times most encounters unless you've got a way to stay hidden/invisible.

I know, I am speaking relative to my old understanding of it though.

Delay your action.  For example:
20 You
17 Joe
13 Sally
8 Bob
3 Jane

GM: You want to go?
You: No, I'm going to delay.
GM: Joe?
Joe: Blah
GM: You want to go?
You: No, I'll tell you when I want to go.
GM: Ok. Sally?
Sally: Blah.
GM: Bob?
You: Wait!  I'm going to blah blah.
GM: Ok, Bob?  And the round continues

Or you can ready an action.  It's similar to delaying an action but lets you interrupt others actions, but only if the condition is met, and you might lose your action isn't met.  So you either want to go really general, "As soon as it's possible for me to move to a flanking position then attack" or super specific, "I told the mage to be quiet or I'd shiv him.  If he opens his mouth, I'm readying an attack to stab him before he can say anything."

"But then I don't get a benefit from my super high Initiative."  Meh, it only matters if you're going to break the action economy or facing do-or-die stuff, like if you're going to cast a quickened spell and a regular spell and your contingencied spell is going to go off, or if the other person will kill you with one attack/spell.  In this case, you have to go first and initiative is super, super, important.  Otherwise, it's just going to be back and forth and one round of actions usually won't break you too much.  It's why there are so many bonuses to initiative -- it's something that can be super buffed and it won't make that much of a difference.

You've made a mistake. you can't use more than one action. "move to a flanking position then attack" is two actions, one more than you can use in a ready. You have the awesome option to make yourself a target without getting to attack... At least it has two targets although the less armored guy will most likely take it. (sorry rogue)

"You can ready a standard action, a move action, a swift action, or a free action."

You're right.  You'll have to only ready single specific actions then.  Delaying still works. :)

In reply to Genghis the Hutt (msg # 31):

True, but then what's the point of having a high initiative and if the melee person is low man you'll find that it's dead by that time.

Small point of order gentlemen: under the right conditions a readied attack action CAN be combine with the right move action: Namely the ever so important five foot step. I also would argue, though this is a gray area in the rules, that a charge attack/pounce could be prepared as a readied action.

Charge attack/pounce are normally full round actions so they are unable to be used. Now 3.5 had a partial charge but pathfinder doesn't.

5' step isn't a move action. It's a misc action and taking it prevents you from any other movement. Most times 5' isn't going to be of much help unless the monster came to you and even then it's most likely not enough to get into flank.

Horizon Walker.  5' step through your own dimension door.  Can't be done until level 11, though, and by level 11, well, if you're not playing in a Core-only game you have much better options.

"After using this spell, you can't take any other actions until your next turn." So using the dimension door to move doesn't get you anything.

Also remember that you are flat-footed until you take your first action in combat (uncanny dodge notwithstanding), so rogues don't generally want to delay their action since they get a 'free' sneak attack if they go first.

EDIT:  Oh, and in 4th edition DnD, Sneak Attack was limited to once per round.
This message was last edited by the user at 03:19, Tue 20 May 2014.

Taking that flat-footed attack as a melee attack can be quite bad for a lightly armored person. If the enemies go between you and the rest of the group, the rogue has a really bad day. Better to toss a weapon at range then pull your real weapon for the next round.

Yet another reason for me to hate 4th edition, like there were not enough of them already.

Actually it cut out on a lot of cheese.  A high-level rogue in 3.0/3.5/PF with multiple two-weapon attacks who is sneak-attacking can dish out more damage than a meteor swarm (with no saving throw allowed).  In 4th edition they can still deal a LOT of damage with that one sneak attack.  In any event, multiple attacks are fairly rare in 4e, except for area-effect powers.  Rogues do receive some compensation in that their sneak attacks can affect undead, constructs, elementals, etc., with the rational that you're not just attacking vital organs, you're attacking weak points on enemies without vitals (joints, chinks in armor, etc.).

Depending on the situation, that's true for any class, lightly-armored or not.  Besides, rogues can get their AC up there with the best of them, especially at higher levels.  With a high Dex, they can make up for wearing light armor (and mithril chainmail or a mithril breastplate both count as light armor).  Throw in a ring of protection and an amulet of natural armor and possibly a cloak of displacement (or spells/potions for similar bonuses - I know those require preparation, but rogues also make great scouts often allowing them to be prepared), along with uncanny dodge (eliminating flanking bonuses), and, in many cases, they can handle being surrounded better than some fighters.

A rogue has to GET that high to access all those goodies. SO at start, bad idea. By the time they get high enough for what you said to be true, they could have a ring of invisibility or some other way to get sneak attack without charging into the middle of combat. Also remember that a high AC doesn't mean a high CMD. Grab, trip, disarm ect can really make the rogues day bad and he can't keep up with the fighters full BAB that gets added the CMD.

Bottom line, a rogue that forgets that he isn't a fighter and run into the middle of combat is going to have a bad time. He's not built for defense and a lot can happen before the rest of the group can go...

A 1st-level rogue in studded leather with a +4 or +5 Dex bonus has almost as good an AC as a fighter in a breastplate or splint mail (and maybe better).  Constitution modifiers notwithstanding, he only has 2 fewer hit points than the fighter.  So, really, he's in no worse shape than the fighter is.  Getting surrounded at 1st level is a bad idea for anyone.  On the other hand, if he takes out one of the enemies because of the extra d6 from sneak attack, that's one less person to surround him.  As I said, it's situational, depending on how many enemies you are facing, the terrain and environment, and your allies (including their initiative rolls).  Yes, sometimes it's better just to throw a dagger for that first attack... but sometimes, just sometimes, mind you, it's better to charge in.

From my experience, those times are few and far between. That d6 works on whatever weapon you use so why charge in? It easy to snag a weapon proficiency with a trait so why not shot a longbow instead of charging with a longsword? And all that dex you have for that great AC goes right into hit for ranged without an extra feat.

So, I stick with what I said in general. Are there some corner cases where it might be ok? Sure, but that doesn't change the fact it's most times a bad idea.

The reason that sometimes it is a good idea is to get into position for flanking a round earlier.  Having multiple rounds with an extra d6 (or multiple d6's) is superior to a single round with an extra d6.

Again, though, I agree that it's a bad idea for any character to get surrounded at 1st level.  Regardless of class, you can go down from one or two good hits (or a single crit).

So really, we're not talking about 1st-level characters facing large numbers of enemies since, as we've established, that's suicide for any class.  My point stands in reference to higher level rogues.  Yes, their BAB and CMB/CMD are lower, but if they are getting their sneak attacks in regularly, they don't need as many solid hits as a fighter and, if they've focused on their AC, then they probably are harder to hit than the fighter.  Getting into an early flanking position and opening up a hole in the enemy's front line can allow other characters to get to the ranged opponents and casters in the rear that are the real threat.

As someone who plays rogues frequently, I can say from experience that this is true for me and that, yes, it is, in fact, a good idea sometimes.  The trick is knowing when... and, in my experience, that's more frequent than you seem to think.
This message was last edited by the user at 02:25, Thu 22 May 2014.

"The reason that sometimes it is a good idea is to get into position for flanking a round earlier.  Having multiple rounds with an extra d6 (or multiple d6's) is superior to a single round with an extra d6."

I agree with this but do not come to the same conclusion. With 2 weapon fighting and/or rapid shot you get multiple extra d6's without the need to throw yourself into the middle of combat.

"So really, we're not talking about 1st-level characters facing large numbers of enemies since, as we've established, that's suicide for any class.  My point stands in reference to higher level rogues.  Yes, their BAB and CMB/CMD are lower, but if they are getting their sneak attacks in regularly, they don't need as many solid hits as a fighter and, if they've focused on their AC, then they probably are harder to hit than the fighter.  Getting into an early flanking position and opening up a hole in the enemy's front line can allow other characters to get to the ranged opponents and casters in the rear that are the real threat."

I disagree based on the fact that the rogue is much more mobile than the fighter. It's MUCH easier for the rogue to flank with the fighter than the other way around. Getting that awesome flanking position and having the enemy move to prevent the fighter from getting to it sucks pretty bad. Much easier for the dexterous thief to tumble into flank after tossing a bunch of daggers to take advantage of the first round flatfooting.

I also disagree based on the fact that a high level rogue should have some kind of magic to make their own sneak attacks without needing flank.

And I disagree based on the fact that being that first flanked opens yourself up to combat maneuvers that the rogue is ill equipped to defend against. A simple bulrush, trip or disarm makes that flank meaningless and if you're the only foe next to them...

And one more disagreement. Why not attack that real threat (ranged attackers and casters) with that first round attack instead of making an opening so someone else might be able to attack them later?

"I agree with this but do not come to the same conclusion. With 2 weapon fighting and/or rapid shot you get multiple extra d6's without the need to throw yourself into the middle of combat."

Neither 2-weapon fighting nor rapid shot grant any extra d6's of Sneak Attack unless your opponent is flat-footed or you have flanking.

"I disagree based on the fact that the rogue is much more mobile than the fighter. It's MUCH easier for the rogue to flank with the fighter than the other way around. Getting that awesome flanking position and having the enemy move to prevent the fighter from getting to it sucks pretty bad. Much easier for the dexterous thief to tumble into flank after tossing a bunch of daggers to take advantage of the first round flatfooting."

You're assuming the fighter goes after the enemies' initiative.  As I said, it depends on your allies (including their mobility and their initiative).  It also depends on the terrain.  A big open room is much different from a corridor or bridge.

"I also disagree based on the fact that a high level rogue should have some kind of magic to make their own sneak attacks without needing flank."

Maybe... but unless he has improved invisibility, then he's not likely to get sneak attack every round unless he's flanking.

"And I disagree based on the fact that being that first flanked opens yourself up to combat maneuvers that the rogue is ill equipped to defend against. A simple bulrush, trip or disarm makes that flank meaningless and if you're the only foe next to them..."

Again, this is entirely situational.  Most enemies do not have improved combat maneuvers, meaning they take an attack of opportunity for attempting them and the damage from that (those) attack(s) give a penalty to the combat maneuver.  A rogue with decent Strength and high Dexterity will have a decent CMD anyway.  If you are facing opponents that you know have improved combat maneuvers, then you adjust your tactics.

"And one more disagreement. Why not attack that real threat (ranged attackers and casters) with that first round attack instead of making an opening so someone else might be able to attack them later?"

Because front ranks of enemies grant cover (a -4 to hit) and having melee opponents next to ranged attackers or spellcasters forces them to move, take attacks of opportunity, or cast defensively.

As I said, your mileage may vary, but I have had a great deal of success in over a decade of playing 3.0/3.5/PF.

---

EDIT:  Tell you what, I'll make this easy.  Since I have said that it is sometimes a good idea and you have asserted that it never is, you must show that in every conceivable situation it is a bad idea, while I only have to show a single situation in which it is a good idea.  So, here goes:

Two 5th-level rogues (Str 12, Dex 18, both dual-wielding masterwork shortswords, both have weapon finesse, weapon focus, and two-weapon fighting... that's BAB +3, Dex bonus of +4, +1 for weapon focus, +1 for masterwork, -2 for dual-wield = +7 attack, +9 with flanking) vs. 2 ogres.  The rogues get a surprise round by sneaking up on the ogres and both rogues beat the ogres' initiative.

Surprise round, both rogues move into flanking on one of the ogres (the ogres are flat-footed and so do not get attacks of opportunity)

Regular round 1, both rogues attack twice with their shortswords ... ogres have AC 17 (regular and flat-footed... they are still flat-footed since they haven't acted yet), so at +9, the rogues hit on a die roll of 8 or higher (65% chance to hit) so we'll say 3 of the 4 attacks hit.

That's 4d6+1 on main-hand attacks and 4d6 on off-hand attacks.  We'll say the miss was a main-hand attack, so they do 12d6+1... an average of 43 damage.  Much more than the ogre's average hit points of 30.

They have just eliminated their opponent's ability to flank and cut the damage potential in half.  Sounds like a good idea to me.

If they had an ally with any sort of fire or acid damage with them, they could potentially pull this off against a pair of trolls as well, since the trolls' flat-footed AC is just 14, it is highly likely that all 4 attacks would hit (only missing on a roll of 1 to 4, ergo an 80% chance for each attack to hit) doing an average of 58 points of damage, meaning their companion would only have to do 5 points of fire or acid damage in order to finish off the first troll.

Can doing it this way potentially get you in trouble?  Sure.  But where's the fun in playing it safe all the time?
This message was last edited by the user at 07:58, Thu 22 May 2014.

Closing this, as the original question has been answered, and the thread is goiung way off-topic.