Then define for me what you think "...when you attack this way." in the second sentence of TWFYou are not penalised for having it (the short sword) in your off hand hand if you only attack with the long sword.I still can't get anyone from the side of "You have to be penalized".
If you have a Longsword in one hand and a Shortword in your other hand, are you penalized for only attacking with the Longsword?
I.E. -6 to hit with all attacks with the Longsword
Since "making an extra attack" is not a way, method, manner, or plan of attacking, it naturally must be referring to wielding two weapons. That is the most obvious meaning based upon the structure of the sentence and meanings of the words used.
Oh now we are going to have a semantics arguement over the differences to weilding and just holding? Seriously?But is totally contrary to the arguement that the second line of TWF refers to having a weapon in your other hand.Two weapon fighting is wielding two weapons, not holding two weapons. Weilding = to hold and use.
Why not? We're having a semantic argument over what "in this way" means.
|
Honest question -Honest answer: I dont think any of this was realistically considered relevant, and as such was not really considered.If you are using two weapons, you can strike with either weapon first.If you are allowed to alternate iterative attacks, why doesn't that say, "You can strike with your weapons in any order"? That it says you may strike with either weapon first, I think pretty strongly implies you can't just strike with them willy-nilly, especially since it's following the restriction that attacks must be in BAB order.
Seriuously, I am still having a hard time finding out why someone would do this on a regular basis.
In 99.99% of all cases, the person is just going to use the primary weapon for all the attacks or they are going to get the extra attack and actually use TWF as it is stated.
|
|
The fact that you think that 1 attack in three rounds is to a full attack of three iterations in one round is ludicrous and doesn't take into account other activity occurring in the round. And by other activity, I am referring to other players, creatures, monsters, etc.Other activity in a round is irrelevant here; it does not influence if you are two weapon fighting or not. You're trying to muddy the waters and confuse the issue.
Um, yeah, that's what I said. Do you have troubles with reading comprehension? *asked as a legitimate question, with concern not snarkiness*
Then define for me what you think "...when you attack this way." in the second sentence of TWFYou are not penalised for having it (the short sword) in your off hand hand if you only attack with the long sword.I still can't get anyone from the side of "You have to be penalized".
If you have a Longsword in one hand and a Shortword in your other hand, are you penalized for only attacking with the Longsword?
I.E. -6 to hit with all attacks with the Longsword
"If you wield a second weapon in your off hand" is the condition for "this way"
again wield means to hold and use.
If the sword is in your hand but not used for an attack it is being held but not used, therefore you are not wielding it.
If you are not holding the sword you might be using it to prop open a tent flap however you are not wielding it.
If you are both holding the sword and using it to attack you are wielding it. Therefore you are fighting in that way.
On the bright side, despite being 900+ posts in, at least it appears we haven't reached the point of validating Godwin's Law yet.
|
|
Since "making an extra attack" is not a way, method, manner, or plan of attacking, it naturally must be referring to wielding two weapons. That is the most obvious meaning based upon the structure of the sentence and meanings of the words used.Then define for me what you think "...when you attack this way." in the second sentence of TWFYou are not penalised for having it (the short sword) in your off hand hand if you only attack with the long sword.I still can't get anyone from the side of "You have to be penalized".
If you have a Longsword in one hand and a Shortword in your other hand, are you penalized for only attacking with the Longsword?
I.E. -6 to hit with all attacks with the Longsword
No it is not the most obvious answer because I still have to go back to the penalties themselves.
Longsword in primary, shortsword in seconary, lvl 6 fighter [+6/+1].
If you penalize them, then the Longsword goes off at +2 [+6 - 4], and the Shortsword goes off at -7 [+1 - 8] or,
They can get an extra attack and the first Longsword attack is +2 [+6 - 4], the second Longsword attack is -3 [+1 - 4], and the Shortsword attack is -2 [+6 - 8]
So you are penalizing someone worse for not optimizing their attacks in a round. That doesn't make any logical sense.
Ingenwulf seems to be ignoring a logical conclusion I made earlier because it used Ingenwulf's logic. He states, as we all know, that if you use a 2nd weapon, at a lower base attack bonus attack, it counts as two weapon fighting. So what happens if the character uses a 3rd weapon if they have a base attack over 11. First full bab attack with Short sword, 2nd -5 bab with a light shield, and 3rd -10 bab with a armor spike. This would mean by Ingenwulf's logic, this would be not two weapon fighting but 3 weapon fighting.
Where are the multitudinous exceptions?
If you fight with two weapons.
one in each hand.
And make an attack with each.
Although you don't have too actually.
during your turn.
but not really because this doesn't include AOO.
Unless those AOO happen to be on your turn.
or if your using the Shield Fighter (Ex).
or your not fighting with two weapons in each hand your really fighting with one weapon that has two ends.
Here's a challenge try to come up with as many exceptions for mine as I came up with for yours. try to leave out ones that overlap both of ours.
For clarification:
If you declare your using the TWF special attack you can get the benefit of an extra attack and you take penalties as noted in TWF section.
Um, yeah, that's what I said. Do you have troubles with reading comprehension? *asked as a legitimate question, with concern not snarkiness*The fact that you think that 1 attack in three rounds is to a full attack of three iterations in one round is ludicrous and doesn't take into account other activity occurring in the round. And by other activity, I am referring to other players, creatures, monsters, etc.Other activity in a round is irrelevant here; it does not influence if you are two weapon fighting or not. You're trying to muddy the waters and confuse the issue.
The rules do not distinguish any more between three attacks over three rounds than they do three normal attacks in one round; that is my point. If its legal over three sequential attacks, it shouldn't matter if it's one round or three.
Is that more clear?
|
|
I also still can't get anyone to explain the 'logic' of this:
If you attack +6/+1, then after your first attack you can:
1. Stop your attack completely
2. Attack the same person again.
3. Attack anyone else within reach
4. Make a 5' step and either attack the same person, another person, or stop
But, heaven forbid that you use the other weapon in your hand to make an attack without incuring massive penalties.
again wield means to hold and use.
If the sword is in your hand but not used for an attack it is being held but not used, therefore you are not wielding it.
So I don't gain the AC bonus from my scizore unless I attack with it, but when I attack with it, I don't gain the AC bonus. Thus, a scizore never grants its AC bonus. It's a quantum bonus!
|
|
The rules do not distinguish any more between three attacks over three rounds than they do three normal attacks in one round; that is my point. If its legal over three sequential attacks, it shouldn't matter if it's one round or three.Is that more clear?
The clearness of your statement is irrelevant, because comparing attacks over three rounds is irrelevant. We are dealing with the rules as they apply to one round. To not look at the rules in one round is to completely disregard a fundamental concept of the game.
If you take a Full Attack that allows 3 attacks due to high BAB, you are making one full attack in one round. If you have three separate attacks in different rounds, you are making three Standard attacks. They are not comparable, especially with regards to this thread.
EDIT: Dammit, ninja'd by ImperatorK
So, is wield the same wield throughout the book.
because you can wield a lot of things according to the CRB.
|
|
again wield means to hold and use.
If the sword is in your hand but not used for an attack it is being held but not used, therefore you are not wielding it.
So I don't gain the AC bonus from my scizore unless I attack with it, but when I attack with it, I don't gain the AC bonus. Thus, a scizore never grants its AC bonus. It's a quantum bonus!
What is a scizore?
I also still can't get anyone to explain the 'logic' of this:
If you attack +6/+1, then after your first attack you can:
1. Stop your attack completely
2. Attack the same person again.
3. Attack anyone else within reach
4. Make a 5' step and either attack the same person, another person, or stopBut, heaven forbid that you use the other weapon in your hand to make an attack without incuring massive penalties.
Yep. It's more about arguing for the sake of arguing at this point. The discussion progression to stubborn clinging ratio is about 1:800 at this point. Both sides of the argument have their merits. Could just leave it at that, since no one's going to budge.
Where are the multitudinous exceptions?If you fight with two weapons.
one in each hand.
And make an attack with each.
Although you don't have too actually.
during your turn.
but not really because this doesn't include AOO.
Unless those AOO happen to be on your turn.
or if your using the Shield Fighter (Ex).
or your not fighting with two weapons in each hand your really fighting with one weapon that has two ends.
Here's a challenge try to come up with as many exceptions for mine as I came up with for yours. try to leave out ones that overlap both of ours.
For clarification:
If you declare your using the TWF special attack you can get the benefit of an extra attack and you take penalties as noted in TWF section.
Uh, you didn't really list any exceptions, except the Shield Fighter thing, which explicitly makes it an exception to the rule, which I accounted for. AoO is a separate matter - I believe the penalties continue through your turn since a full round lasts for the entire round (per the definition in Combat section). An AoO made with a melee weapon is done so by making a normal or regular standard attack. Since the TWF penalty applies to all "regular attacks" with your primary hand, I believe it should apply. But that's beside the point.
Double Weapon fighting clearly states that you treat it the same way as if fighting with two weapons.
So, in actuality, you've come up with one exception, and it was a specific instance which I allowed for (where the rules explicitly state there is an exception to the ordinary TWF application).
It's actually a rather easy application in almost all scenarios.
I also still can't get anyone to explain the 'logic' of this:
If you attack +6/+1, then after your first attack you can:
1. Stop your attack completely
2. Attack the same person again.
3. Attack anyone else within reach
4. Make a 5' step and either attack the same person, another person, or stopBut, heaven forbid that you use the other weapon in your hand to make an attack without incuring massive penalties.
You are looking for the rules to say what you think they should, not what they actually say. Looking for logic, try sudoku not a sword and sorcery role-playing game.
What is a scizore?
Sorry, it was linked on page 11.
Table: Gladiator Weapons
One-Handed Melee Weapons
Scizore 20 gp 1d8 1d10 ×2 — 3 lbs. P performance
The scizore is a hardened tube that fits your forearm, ending in a semicircular blade used for devastating bladed punch attacks. The scizore grants a +1 shield bonus to AC, but if you attack with the blade, you lose the AC bonus that round and take a –1 penalty on attack rolls with the scizore. While wearing a scizore, you cannot use that hand for anything else. A scizore provides a +10 bonus to your CMD against being disarmed of your scizore. Donning a scizore is a full-round action.
|
|
I also still can't get anyone to explain the 'logic' of this:
If you attack +6/+1, then after your first attack you can:
1. Stop your attack completely
2. Attack the same person again.
3. Attack anyone else within reach
4. Make a 5' step and either attack the same person, another person, or stopBut, heaven forbid that you use the other weapon in your hand to make an attack without incuring massive penalties.
Because by attacking with one weapon, you are attacking with one weapon for your full attack. If, instead, you had declared at the beginning of your turn you wanted to use both weapons to attack, you would be granted attack bonuses of +6/+6 off hand/+1 (apply the TWF penalties accordingly) with the options 1-4 available after making your first attack.
What is a scizore?Sorry, it was linked on page 11.
Table: Gladiator Weapons
One-Handed Melee Weapons
Scizore 20 gp 1d8 1d10 ×2 — 3 lbs. P performanceThe scizore is a hardened tube that fits your forearm, ending in a semicircular blade used for devastating bladed punch attacks. The scizore grants a +1 shield bonus to AC, but if you attack with the blade, you lose the AC bonus that round and take a –1 penalty on attack rolls with the scizore. While wearing a scizore, you cannot use that hand for anything else. A scizore provides a +10 bonus to your CMD against being disarmed of your scizore. Donning a scizore is a full-round action.
So basically it's just like a shield.
I also still can't get anyone to explain the 'logic' of this:
If you attack +6/+1, then after your first attack you can:
1. Stop your attack completely
2. Attack the same person again.
3. Attack anyone else within reach
4. Make a 5' step and either attack the same person, another person, or stopBut, heaven forbid that you use the other weapon in your hand to make an attack without incuring massive penalties.
You are correct. This seems like argument for the sake. Having the minuses to TWF apply like this make no sense, as they could just use the TWF tactic on the first base attack bonus and take less minuses with an extra attack. It is insanity that the game was intended to be played like Ingenwulf suggests. So it is safe to assume that Ingenwulf is just stating this to egg us on. In any case it is a non-subject. No sane person would really run it this way. If they really believe this then we should leave them in their blissful ignorance and just bitty those who have to play under these rules.
So lets just leave this to Ingenwulf and those who agree with Ingenwulf's statement.
/thread
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm going to go ahead and lock this thread down: After 19 pages of debate, an answer has either been reached and shouldn't be buried, or won't be reached and continuing to argue isn't going to resolve it.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
(Thanks to Ross for temporarily unlocking the thread so I can post this.)
It's only two-weapon fighting if you are trying to get the extra attack from it.