Malus? And as far as I know, you only take the two-weapon fighting penalty if you attack with both in a round.
You should not take the penalty for two weapon fighting if you only make 1 attack during your turn.
If you are holding two weapons but you attack only once with one of them, there is no penalty.
If you are holding two weapons and you attack twice with one of them, there is no penalty, provided you have a base attack bonus of +6.
In other words, you do not suffer the penalty just because you are HOLDING two weapons. it's when you are USING two weapons to attack in the same round.
Malus: the return of performance-related compensation upon the discovery of deficient performance.
You are not being "compensated" for being good with either dagger or bomb, so should probably not expect anybody to insist on getting their money back should you suck at one of them.
Would also add that it doesn't matter which weapon the attack is made with, as long as only one is used.
Thio, no, it's no action at all to go from firing to simply holding a bow with one hand (same for attacking with a two handed melee weapon, by the way). Sheathing it would be putting it on your back or the like.
So if you are only HOLDING a weapon in your offhand, and therefore not two weapon fighting, do you still get the shield bonus from the Two Weapon Defense feat? Since a common view around here is you must be actively attacking with a weapon to count as 'wielding' it.
This is where the difference between 'holding' and 'wielding' applies.
Any situation where you are 'wielding' your offhand lets you apply the AC, but also means you are taking the dual wield penalty. Any time you avoid taking that penalty, you are merely holding the offhand, and it is an object, not a weapon.
An odd example - a dual wielding duelist. Uses the parry feature (with offhand), so is giving up his attack with offhand to parry an attack that may or may not come. Primary hand would still take the -2 on attacks because the offhand attack gets used (even if it is a ready action to parry, vs an actual strike). In this case the AC bonus from 2 weapon defense would apply because the weapon is wielded as a weapon.
Example 2 - you are holding a dagger, and striking with your longsword in main hand. You do not take a -2 to attack for 2 weapons, and do not make use of your offhand in any way during the next round. In this case you are not wielding the offhand.
Try it in real life.. dual wielding isn't about hitting, it's about keeping track of, actively controling and integrating your offhand into the combat. If you merely want to hold an object and get a defensive bonus, go get a shield.
Wow, this is fast :)
Another one:
If you have the fast bombs discovery and want to make a full attack (say you have 2 attacks), would you be able to throw a bomb, then fire the bow, or vice versa or does the "regrip" prevent it?Would it be possible to mix in throwing a dagger which i already have in hand?
Yes to the first, and yes to the second. Unless you make more attacks than you have iterative attacks, you might not even take two-weapon fighting penalties (different people have different interpretations on the matter).
If you have more than one attack, you can do them all with different weapons without penalty. The TWF penalty comes from using two weapons "at the same time" (even if the attacks are resolved one after the other).
Examples with an Alchemist with "Fast Bombs" and a BAB of +6/+1:
- throw a bomb at +6, then fire one arrow (or dagger) at +1
- throw a bomb at +4, then fire two daggers at +4 and -1 (provided he has the TWF feat, otherwise the sequence becomes +0/-4/-5; and provided he also has Quick Draw to draw those daggers)
- throw a bomb at +4, then fire two arrows at +4 and -1 (an off-hand bow isn't a Light weapon, but a Bomb is [or should be, it isn't actually said], and the TWF attacks can be resolved in any order you choose)
EDIT: added Quick Draw, and
+ any arrow or dagger can be replaced by a bomb
+ I wonder how an alchemist can "draw the components of, create, and throw a bomb" with only one hand - in fact, the "bomb" isn't very detailed as weapons go...
Let's add some oil to the fire: If I have iterative attacks and attack once with each weapon (let's stay with longsword and dagger), do I then get the two-weapon defense since I'm definetly wielding both weapons (but not taking the penalty for two-weapon fighting)?
Let's add some oil to the fire: If I have iterative attacks and attack once with each weapon (let's stay with longsword and dagger), do I then get the two-weapon defense since I'm definetly wielding both weapons (but not taking the penalty for two-weapon fighting)?
No. No pain, no gain.
But that isn't raw, is it?
When wielding a double weapon or two weapons (not including natural weapons or unarmed strikes), you gain a +1 shield bonus to your AC.
When you are fighting defensively or using the total defense action, this shield bonus increases to +2.
It says "wielding". So as per the definition in my scenario I AM wielding two weapons.
Also I have no possibility to attack with any weapon if I'm using total defense, so basically I'm not wielding any weapon that round (and thus not taking a penalty from dual wielding)... but still I gain an even higher bonus?
And if I attack with only one side of a double weapon (thus not getting the penalty)... I'm still wielding a double weapon and thus get the bonus, don't I?
Completely irrelevant to the topic of this thread, but OPs odd usage of the word 'malus' made me look it up. It's apparently Latin for penalty or negative. It's also a genus of tree. You learn something new every day.
@SunsetPsychosis: I guess the OP is German. Malus is the word they used in the German books.
Completely irrelevant to the topic of this thread, but OPs odd usage of the word 'malus' made me look it up. It's apparently Latin for penalty or negative. It's also a genus of tree. You learn something new every day.
Continuing the offtopicness: That's where we get the prefix and words beginning with mal- from, as in maladroit, malevolent, and malice. I have no idea why apple trees are also Malus - that's a new one on me.
Precisely why I brought the subject up.
I always assumed "wielding" was equivalent to "threatening squares". I haven't yet seen a compelling argument otherwise? And plenty of supporting evidence. But I guess that brings up the question of "Does a character in Total Defense threaten (at the very least for flanking?)" which is another can of worms that doesn't seem to have a bottom anywhere on the boards.
But that isn't raw, is it?
RAW is unclear, which is why we're having the discussion. Since the RAW is unclear, all we are left with is RAI. My interpretation of the RAI is that, much like Defending weapons, if you don't suffer a penalty, you don't get the bonus.
Again, no pain, no gain.
But that isn't raw, is it?
RAW is unclear, which is why we're having the discussion. Since the RAW is unclear, all we are left with is RAI. My interpretation of the RAI is that, much like Defending weapons, if you don't suffer a penalty, you don't get the bonus.
Again, no pain, no gain.
Except that the pain is actually taking the feat? I think it's kind of comparable to dodge... it's just a plain and simple +1 to AC for the cost of 1 feat. The difference is that the +1 shield bonus doesn't stack with a similar bonus and that you need to wield (which I think is = holding... at least in this case) a second weapon for this. To compensate for this little burden you get +2 bonus when in total defense or fighting defensivly. Sounds easy enough, doesn't it?
There is no comparable restriction for the dodge feat, is there? So why should they add a restriction (which is complicated to track and hasn't been defined anywhere) to just another +1 AC feat?
Just my 2c