3
\$\begingroup\$

Just like the title says. The warlock invocation eldritch glaive lets the warlock attack with the glaive effect "as if wielding a reach weapon." Is this sufficient to let a warlock use two-weapon fighting in conjunction with the eldritch glaive? (I know that if it's allowed, then the warlock'd probably have to use in his off-"hand" unarmed strikes or armor spikes.)

\$\endgroup\$
  • \$\begingroup\$ This question mentions both Eldritch Glaive and Eldritch Blade. Is this the same thing or is it a mistake? \$\endgroup\$ – Sdjz May 10 at 11:21
  • \$\begingroup\$ @Sdjz So far as I'm aware, there isn't a warlock invocation named eldritch blade. (And, unlike spells, third-party folks couldn't write warlock invocations.) I've gone ahead and changed the question's mention of eldritch blade to the well-known and -documented eldritch glaive. \$\endgroup\$ – Hey I Can Chan May 10 at 11:49
4
\$\begingroup\$

Typically no…

A warlock must take a unique full-round action to make attacks with an eldritch glaive (Dragon Magic 82). The invocation's description, in part, says, "As a full-round action, you can make a single melee touch attack as if wielding a reach weapon."

While the Player's Handbook on Two-weapon Fighting, in part, says, "If you wield a second weapon in your off hand, you can get one extra attack per round with that weapon" (160), earlier on Full Attack, in part, says, "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" (143). (Bear in mind that the section is titled Full Attack; it's not like the run action—also a full-round action action—entitles a creature to make extra attacks because the creature's wielding two weapons; it's the full attack action specifically that allows a creature to make extra attacks because the creature's wielding two weapons.)

Thus the full-round action that eldritch glaive requires isn't just, like, code for a full attack during which the warlock can, for example, employ two-weapon fighting, but, instead, the full-round action that eldritch glave requires is its own special full-round action and, because of that, it's sometimes sadly incompatible with other combat options… like two-weapons fighting.

…But ask the DM

It's probably unlikely to create problems if a DM allows anyway eldritch glaive and two-weapon fighting. Two-weapon fighting is always resource intensive if it's to matter, so devoting feats, gp, ability score increases, and other resources to improving two-weapon-fighting-while-eldritch-glaiving likely won't raise any balance concerns: adding to his ability to two-weapon fight means subtracting from his ability to do cool warlock stuff… and, ultimately, that other cool warlock stuff probably would've been more optimal than two-weapon fighting.

The only potential wrinkle I can imagine to ruling that eldritch glaive can be used with two-weapon fighting is that folks might argue to extend that ruling throughout the game so that two-weapon fighting extra attacks can be made during any full-round action that involves an attack—like a full-round action Tome of Battle-style martial strike or maybe even a mundane charge!

That… really doesn't sound terrible, to be honest, but such a change may be a concern for the DM if the DM is worried about radically altering the game.

\$\endgroup\$
  • \$\begingroup\$ The only concern I have with applying the two-weapon fighting combat option to the charge combat option is that if you have the Improved Two-Weapon Fighting feat, you get two attacks with your offhand weapon (while during a charge you only get one with your main weapon), which just seems narratively “off.” So Improved Two-Weapon Fighting and Greater Two-Weapon Fighting might, in this hypothetical, need some minor tweaks to wording to say they only apply in situations where you actually get that many main weapon attacks. \$\endgroup\$ – KRyan May 10 at 13:47
  • \$\begingroup\$ @KRyan O, yeah, in any campaign wherein the DM allows two-weapon fighting to work in conjunction with any full-round action that includes one or more attacks, there will be weirdness! However, the situation that comment describes is so far from the question that I hesitate to address it in the answer. Seriously, do you think mentioning further issues that may arise with a hypothetical house rule is necessary, or are we just speculating? \$\endgroup\$ – Hey I Can Chan May 10 at 13:58
  • \$\begingroup\$ No, probably not necessary, it’s just something that has caused me some troubles in the past—you can actually cause this situation in official Pathfinder, by taking Improved Two-Weapon Fighting with the warpriest’s 6th-level bonus feat: they get to select that as if they had full BAB, but they don’t, so their full-attack at that point become main hand, off-hand, off-hand, which is weird. It’s come up for me a few times with my third-party work, too. \$\endgroup\$ – KRyan May 10 at 14:13

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.