How many attacks/round does a level 8 ranger get?

[irdeggman]

I would read that as a -5 to the attack bonus of the 1st off hand attack, or +6 - 5 for +1. The it in the sentance refers back to the first part of the sentance, not to your BAB, at least to me anyway.

I believe the "it" in the sentence refers back to the weapon, as in "you can make a second attack with the off-hand weapon". You can then break the sentence by dropping the "albeit" which actually doesn't seem to make any sense (the word in that context) based on dictionary meanings, for which the common meaning is "even though". As I said if they added the text to state with an additional instead it translates well.

albeit

Which per my Britannica dictionary means:

: conceding the fact that : even though


On-line dictionary:

although; even if: a peaceful, albeit brief retirement.

Even though; although; notwithstanding: clear albeit cold weather.


But I agree the meaning (at least per common sense) is that it is with an additional -5 penalty.

 

[Hypersmurf]

I believe the "it" in the sentence refers back to the weapon, as in "you can make a second attack with the off-hand weapon".

So let's say I'm using two longswords; my penalty on my primary hand attacks is -4; my penalty on the first off-hand attack is -4. Do you contend that the penalty for the second off-hand attack, as written, is -5 instead of -4?

If so, then wouldn't the benefit of using a light weapon apply to all attacks - including the second off-hand attack - if I were using two shortswords, say, so that my -4/-4 and -4/-5 penalties would become -2/-2 and -2/-3?

-Hyp.

 

[irdeggman]

So let's say I'm using two longswords; my penalty on my primary hand attacks is -4; my penalty on the first off-hand attack is -4. Do you contend that the penalty for the second off-hand attack, as written, is -5 instead of -4?

What does the actual text say? Use that and not an insertion of what the logic would be. I was only pointing out the actual text and not how it should work.

If so, then wouldn't the benefit of using a light weapon apply to all attacks - including the second off-hand attack - if I were using two shortswords, say, so that my -4/-4 and -4/-5 penalties would become -2/-2 and -2/-3?

-Hyp.

Again, what does the actual text state?

Debating logic and how it should work and applying "common sense" has nothing to do with what the text actually states.

Oh and there hasn't been any steath errata on this one - I checked my collector's edition just to be sure.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

There's no need for stealth errata.

 

[Xanterith]

Let me be a little more specific:

I see the it referring to "the standard single extra attack you get with an off-hand weapon" so that the sentance would read (now I know this sounds clunky):

In addition to the standard single extra attack you get with an off-hand weapon, you get a second attack with "the standard single extra attack you get with an off-hand weapon", albeit at a –5 penalty.

Make sense?

 

[irdeggman]

Let me be a little more specific:

I see the it referring to "the standard single extra attack you get with an off-hand weapon" so that the sentance would read (now I know this sounds clunky):

In addition to the standard single extra attack you get with an off-hand weapon, you get a second attack with "the standard single extra attack you get with an off-hand weapon", albeit at a –5 penalty.

Make sense?

Nope.

"It" clearly refers to the weapon, as I stated.

Now if the penalties for off hand being light and not being light are interpreted as being "conditional", that is apply whenever those conditions exist - it makes sense. {I never said I disagreed with the logic, only the wording in the rules}

Be careful with that use of "it" though.

How would you apply it to the greater two weapon fighting?

Is the -10 "in addition to" the -5 with the first attack {which is how the logic path goes with your interpretation of "it"} or is it a -10 from the BAB?

And then the -2/-4 (based on weapon type being used) being a conditional modifier, based on weapons being used regardless of the way they are being used.