Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="eamon" data-source="post: 4423329" data-attributes="member: 51942">That doesn't work - no feat allows replacing your off-hand attack as you specify.  I think you mean to say the following:<ol> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">You are granted an opportunity attack. Heavy Blade Opportunity means you can use twin strike to take it.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">Twin strike allows a hit with your off-hand which is resolved normally, but also allows...</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">A primary hand attack.  If(!) this attack hits, you've triggered two-weapon flurry by making a successful attack with your primary weapon (it could be argued that using twin strike isn't a successful opportunity attack with your primary hand, but for the sake of argument, let's suppose that you allow two-weapon flurry)</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">Two weapon flurry grants an opportunity attack with your off-hand weapon, which you propose replacing by using heavy blade opportunity with twin strike, so you'd go back to step two again.</li> </ol>However, although step 4 is an opportunity attack and heavy blade opportunity applies, you must take the opportunity attack with your off-hand weapon.  You cannot twin strike, or if you do, you cannot use your primary weapon to strike, and in any case will never trigger two-weapon flurry again (since this requires your primary weapon to hit).Two weapon flurry grants an extra opportunity attack, but it's limited: it grants an attack with your off-hand weapon.There are several other problems with this combo that an uncharitable DM might also disallow, such as the wording of heavy blade opportunity which might conflict with twin strike anyhow, and the fact that the two individual attacks which twin strike grants are not themselves opportunity attacks, so you could argue that by using twin strike you're no longer making an opportunity attack with your primary hand in the first place.  I'd say that's being pointlessly literal, however, and would only resort to such hairsplitting should the rule otherwise not make sense.</blockquote>

Verification