Timeline for How does two-weapon fighting work?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
6 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dec 27, 2015 at 17:17 | comment | added | Bobson |
@KRyan - I was abbreviating a bit more than I probably should have. See any monster with two separate weapons, like the Balor: +1 vorpal longsword +31/+26/+21/+16 melee (2d6+13/19-20) and +1 flaming whip +30/+25 melee (1d4+6 plus 1d6 fire plus entangle) could be abbreviated (in this BAB/attack-bonus specific context) as +31/+26/+21/+16 & +30/+2
|
|
| Dec 27, 2015 at 16:34 | comment | added | KRyan | @Bobson [Citation Needed] I have never seen that latter format. | |
| Dec 27, 2015 at 16:30 | comment | added | Bobson |
@fectin - I've seen both, unofficially, but official books either list +4/+4/-1 or +4/-1 & +4, depending on how the damage is broken out.
|
|
| Dec 21, 2015 at 17:50 | comment | added | KRyan | @fectin I have never seen it presented in any order but descending order. For iteratives (not necessarily bonus attacks), the rules in fact require descending order. | |
| Dec 21, 2015 at 17:44 | comment | added | fectin | I find it easier to parse when the attack sequence is presented as one hand, then the other ("+4/-1/+4"). Is there a consensus that one presentation is cleaner than the other? | |
| Dec 21, 2015 at 2:11 | history | answered | KRyan | CC BY-SA 3.0 |