Wielding two weapons is the only condition that matters. There are no other conditions.
Here, again.
"If you wield a second weapon in your off hand, you can get one extra attack per round with that weapon.
You suffer a –6 penalty with your regular attack or attacks with your primary hand and a –10 penalty to the attack with your off hand when you fight this way."
I split this for clarity. The ENTIRE first sentence is referenced by the ENTIRE second sentence. If you are not fighting in the manner described in the first sentence (and not just the part before the comma), the penalties mentioned do not apply.
This is especially relevant because there are almost no conditions under which you are not wielding a weapon in your offhand. Wielding, not 'attacking with'. And intent to use something as a weapon is irrelevant, its still a weapon. By your definition, you ALWAYS suffer these penalties.
|
My main concern has been the attack penalties associated with two weapon fighting. Which I still say dont apply, as you aren't gaining the extra attack the penalties are associated with. But the 1/2 str to damage is referenced independantly in several other places.
How do you justify your inconsistencies? On the one hand you are saying that it is ok to call both weapons primary attacks, but yet you want to designate one of the attacks an off hand attack to apply the 1/2 strength to damage? Huh, so one of your "hands" is an Off Hand attack and you are fighting with two weapons, but you are not Two-Weapon Fighting. That certainly is an interesting house rule.
My main concern has been the attack penalties associated with two weapon fighting. Which I still say dont apply, as you aren't gaining the extra attack the penalties are associated with. But the 1/2 str to damage is referenced independantly in several other places.How do you justify your inconsistencies? On the one hand you are saying that it is ok to call both weapons primary attacks, but yet you want to designate one of the attacks an off hand attack to apply the 1/2 strength to damage? Huh, so one of your "hands" is an Off Hand attack and you are fighting with two weapons, but you are not Two-Weapon Fighting. That certainly is an interesting house rule.
No, what I'm saying is it possible you do have an off hand outside of the specific case of two weapon fighting. Off hands are referenced under the melee damage roll portion of the rules. What determines your off hand on the other hand, is never really made explicit. Its implicit, and its also fluid; thats much is clear.
Regardless of that however, the Two Weapon Fighting rules are pretty clearly referring to a specific situation; you are wielding two weapons, and choose to gain an extra attack from such. If you choose to gain that extra attack, there are additional penalties to your attack rolls.
Interesting note: the 1/2 strength to damage? Not referenced at all under two weapon fighting. Unrelated rules apparently.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This may have already been raised but I see it as the following:
You wield a weapon in your right hand and hold a weapon in your left. Any AoOs you take at that moment depend on your wielded weapon, which is the weapon in your right hand. The other is an object.
As a free action you can swap to using the left hand weapon, which is now your regular hand and you are just holding the weapon in your right as an object. Any AoOs triggered at this point have to use the left hand weapon.
Iterative attacks are in sequence so you can swap back and forwards between attacks without penalty, just as you can 5' step between them.
Two Weapon Fighting is using both weapons simultaneously to get an extra attack (or attacks). Doing that is hard and you suffer penalties to both attacks, with one weapon being the regular attack at 1x strength and the other being off-hand at 0.5x strength.
For AoOs outside of that character's go I would ask the character to tell me whether his armour spikes or reach weapon were being wielded, if he had both. If he attacked with spikes in his last go he could switch to threatening with the reach weapon at the end of his turn, he just needs to specify one or the other. A normal weapon in each hand isn't worth clarifying, so I'd just let the player choose when it mattered, but in theory I would ask him to specify one as the wielded weapon.
The rules are a little light on this, so that's just imho...
The ENTIRE first sentence is referenced by the ENTIRE second sentence.That's actually wrong.
This is especially relevant because there are almost no conditions under which you are not wielding a weapon in your offhand.Yes there are. When you're not using the off-hand weapon, you are not wielding it.
And intent to use something as a weapon is irrelevant, its still a weapon.Why?
Interesting note: the 1/2 strength to damage? Not referenced at all under two weapon fighting. Unrelated rules apparently.It's referenced under rules for damage. And they're related. TWFing deals with off-hand attacks and you gain only 1/2 bonus to damage when you attack with an off-hand weapon.
In sequence, we have two unsupported declarations (the second one is incorrect; you are wielding a shield if you are benefitting from it, and it is a weapon in addition to being armor... wielding is not equal to 'making attacks with').
As to your question, "Why?", Weapons are weapons because... they are weapons. I mean, seriously. If you want a rules reason though, its because there is a table labelled "X Weapons" and they are listed on it. Unless you can modify this convenient table (which includes weapons, shields, AND unarmed strikes), weapons are in fact weapons, regardless of how you're using them. Also, Improvised Weapons are weapons as its right there in the name.
Yeah, no. A weapon is a weapon when you use it as a weapon. Otherwise it's just a lump of metal/wood/adamantine/whatever.
This is pattently untrue though. There is a list of weapons in the rules; it includes shields, unarmed strikes and improvised weapons. These things do not lose their status of being weapons because you need them to for your argument to work.
And again, Wielding is NOT equivalent to 'making an attack with'. If you are using an item for any purpose (in your hand, on your foot, or in your teeth, or are ready and able to do so) you are wielding it.
What rule are you using to base this assumption on? Your "camp" has yet to provide a rule that supports your claim. The only thing your "camp" has done has tried to argue why my "camp's" claim is wrong, rather than trying to provide evidence as to why your "camp" is right.
OMG WTF dude. o_O
I'm like one of the only guys who keeps citing an actual rule, and I even cited the language used in those rules, and everyone just keeps ignoring it. I don't give to farts in the wind about your "camp", and I don't have a camp. This is not Red Team vs Blue Team here, it's english and it's mechanics, and it's a travesty this has gone on as long as it has. Even my 13 year old brother thinks this argument is stupid after reading the danged rules.
Secondly, I provided a perfectly legal example as to why the TWF penalties would apply, and yet the extra attack allowed by wielding the second weapon is not made. How do you justify your position in that context? The penalty applied to the first attack cannot be retroactively removed. He declared that he intended to make the off hand attack, but then decided to not make his off hand attack.
Dude, I'm not even sure I know what you're talking about. If you don't plan to make the extra attack, then you're not taking the penalty. You're just attacking with your standard attacks. If you have 4 attacks per round due to BAB (+20/+15/+10/+5) you could slap somebody with a sword, kick them in the nuts, slam them with a shield, and spike them with an armor spike if you wanted to, without penalties. It's far from optimal since the likelihood of that being even equally as good as just hitting them 4 times with the sword in terms of accuracy and damage is probably nil, but just for sake of discussion let's go with it.
The Two-Weapon Fighting rules are clear. It references them only when you are gaining additional attacks. The mere act of using two weapons does not invoke penalties for two-weapon fighting.
If you get multiple attacks because your base attack bonus is high enough, you must make the attacks in order from highest bonus to lowest. If you are using two weapons, you can strike with either weapon first. If you are using a double weapon, you can strike with either part of the weapon first.
Here it mentions nothing about suffering penalties. If you are making attacks based on your high base attack bonus, you make the attacks from highest base attack to lowest, and may decide which weapon you use first. It mentions nothing about taking penalties for two-weapon fighting, merely noting that you may decide which you want to strike with as part of your BAB routine.
However, the part that I have pointed out again, and again, and again, is this.
If you wield a second weapon in your off hand, you can get one extra attack per round with that weapon...
This is a conditional statement. If you have a weapon in your off hand, you can not use the Two-Weapon Fighting Action to get one extra attack per round with that weapon. This is important because it notes the one extra attack, and you are given the option of taking it or not taking it.
You suffer a –6 penalty with your regular attack or attacks with your primary hand and a –10 penalty to the attack with your off hand when you fight this way.
The second line explains what occurs when you decide to take the extra attack. It says you suffer a -6 penalty with your regular attack or attacks and a -10 penalty to the attack with your off hand when fighting this way.
Ok, let's look at this sentence. It notes your regular attack or attacks, showing that these are attacks you will normally get that are not part of the "two weapon fighting" option. Next, it notes that there is a -10 penalty on "the attack" with your off hand weapon. This is very important.
Notice that it does not say with off-hand attacks, nor does it say with attacks taken with your off hand. It is noting this as being THE one extra attack you get with your off-hand weapon. It then notes that this only occurs when you are fighting in this way; that is to say, gaining extra attacks.
In all cases, even with multiweapon fighting, it references back to Two-Weapon Fighting in the case of having the option to gain additional attacks beyond your normal limit of attacks. Even the monk's flurry of blows references Two-Weapon Fighting in terms of gaining additional attacks. EDIT: By arguing that you suffer the penalties regardless of taking the extra attack or not would likewise mean the monk must suffer the Two Weapon Fighting penalties even if he did not declare to use Flurry of Blows, because it declares him as having the benefits of the Two Weapon Fighting feat. Thus he must be Two Weapon Fighting using his body as the different weapons.
The argument against this requires you to read the text but ignore several key words within the text. It requires you to read "the attack" as "an attack", so that it applies to any attack with your off hand. It also has to ignore the way the text is written, to be an explanation of the act of taking an additional attack. Notice, that the penalties are only mentioned in the case of taking the additional attack because it specifies the attack you are getting for two-weapon fighting, but in the previous sentence it notes this as being an option that you may take while you are already wielding two weapons.
The penalties specifically apply to your main attacks and THE ATTACK you are gaining for two-weapon fighting. Two-Weapon Fighting is a special attack action. It is not a constant state that is in effect as long as you are wielding two weapons, but is an action you may take to gain additional attacks during the round, and suffer the penalties for gaining those additional attacks during the round as appropriate. If you are not gaining those additional attacks, you are not getting penalized for doing so.
================================
EDIT: We must make sure to carefully read, because we want to respect the rurus!
Still repeating ourselves over and over in this thread? Cool. Since many of the posts here seem to be based around rules from archetypes and other areas that aren't the TWF rules and we keep arguing about the definition of wielding, I wonder how Beguiling Gift affects your TWF arguments about wielding.
You offer an object to an adjacent creature, and entice it into using or consuming the proffered item. If the target fails its Will save, it immediately takes the offered object, dropping an already held object if necessary. On its next turn, it consumes or dons the object, as appropriate for the item in question. For example, an apple would be eaten, a potion consumed, a ring put on a finger, and a sword wielded in a free hand.
Does wielding a sword in this case mean attacking with the sword or simply holding it and the player has the option of attacking with it?
Yes. The condition is to wield two weapons. When you do that you get a penalty, but also a benefit of an extra attack which you can use on your full attack.
No. It is a condition to take an option which gives you an attack that comes with penalties.
Therefore, if you are not choosing to use the game mechanic known as "Two Weapon Fighting" you cannot be subject to its penalties or its benefits. You are instead using Full Attack with two weapons using iterative attacks. And if you read the Full Attack Section you'll see that you can use two weapons (without penalty) and choose to start with either one.If you can find me the quote that states you can full attack with two weopons and no penalty it would be nice. The only reference has been the Normal penalty from the TWF feat, which usually detail the rules for not having the feat (standard rules for whatever). For example ...
"Improved Unarmed Strike (Combat)
You are skilled at fighting while unarmed.Benefit: You are considered to be armed even when unarmed—you do not provoke attacks of opportunity when you attack foes while unarmed. Your unarmed strikes can deal lethal or nonlethal damage, at your choice." PRD
"Normal: Without this feat, you are considered unarmed when attacking with an unarmed strike, and you can deal only nonlethal damage with such an attack." PRD
Given this then surely the standard penalties from fighting with two weapons primary/off hand would be detailed in the TWF feat.
"Normal penalties –6/–10" PRD
I quoted use of fighting with two weapons, with no mention of an extra attack more than once already, just saying.
PS:There was also no reference that told me to go to TWF like the grapple rules send you to the grapple condition for more information.
This is pattently untrue though. There is a list of weapons in the rules; it includes shields, unarmed strikes and improvised weapons. These things do not lose their status of being weapons because you need them to for your argument to work.As I said, flawed logic. The name of the tool doesn't matter. What matters is how you use it.
My logic is not flawed. I'm consulting the rules, specifically the list of weapons therein. Is the item in question on the list? Its a weapon. Period. Intentions for use need not apply.
And again, Wielding is NOT equivalent to 'making an attack with'."Wielding" means "using" in relevance to this rules. That's a fact. Read my and Hangars earlier posts for reference.
Erm, fair enough. You're using a shield when you're getting AC from it, and its a weapon. You're using a sword when it threatens, regardless of whether you attacked with it.
If you are using an item for any purpose (in your hand, on your foot, or in your teeth, or are ready and able to do so) you are wielding it.No, you are wearing/holding it.
In addition to wielding it, yes.
I'm like one of the only guys who keeps citing an actual rule, and I even cited the language used in those rules, and everyone just keeps ignoring it.Because it's wrong?
"You're wrong!" Oh wait, thats not a valid argument is it?
You're just attacking with your standard attacks. If you have 4 attacks per round due to BAB (+20/+15/+10/+5) you could slap somebody with a sword, kick them in the nuts, slam them with a shield, and spike them with an armor spike if you wanted to, without penalties.No. you're using secondary (off-hand) attacks, so you get penalties for TWFing.
Once again, a standard full attack doesn't provide for penalties on any of the normal attacks you're making due to things like handedness. Those are only relevant for attack bonuses when you choose to use the Two Weapon Fighting rules and make an extra attack.
The mere act of using two weapons does not invoke penalties for two-weapon fighting.no matter how many times you will repeat this falsehood and quote the TWF/Full attack rules, it won't change a thing. You're still wrong.
Why?
This is a conditional statement.Yes. The condition is to wield two weapons. When you do that you get a penalty, but also a benefit of an extra attack which you can use on your full attack.
If we assume you are correct and the condition is in fact wielding two weapons, then you always fulfil this condition. This is an issue.
After reading through all the combat rules, there is no justification for penalizing someone for using two different weapons unless they are taking the extra attack.
The basic combat section discusses how to get multiple attacks. One way is simply by virtue of having a high enough base attack bonus. Another is using two weapons. In this case, the additional weapons are not being used to gain an additional attack so it becomes irrelevant. Just like the line about other special reasons (Haste, Flurry, etc). The only relevant part is the additional attacks by virtue of Base Attack Bonus. At this point, there isn't really any need to look at the Two-Weapon Fighting Rules since those are listed as a Special Attack. You aren't doing anything special.
If we wanted to look at the Two-Weapon Fighting rules, the opening sentence says you can use your second weapon for an additional attack. If you aren't using it for an additional attack (and in this instance an additional attack would be beyond what you get from Base Attack), then there is no reason to continue reading the section since it clearly states "When you fight this way..." (The next sentence opens with that so there is no ambiguity to what it refers to.) We have to ask ourselves, what does it mean when it says "When you fight this way...?" Simple. It means that if you use your second weapon to gain an additional attack, then you are subject to the rest of the two-weapon fighting rules. Since this particular case does not use the second weapon for an additional attack beyond what the character would normally be allowed, then there is no need to apply additional penalties.
I know this has been said many times in the past, but I wanted to throw my own take on it.
As for how I would rule, I would say that the first weapon you attack with in the round is your primary weapon (unless you state otherwise). Any other weapon would be your off-hand and would only deal 1/2 Strength damage. Other than that, you are free to switch back and forth so long as you don't take more attacks than are allowed without having to use the additional attack from the Two-Weapon Fighting Rules under Special Attacks.
I don't even know how to respond to your post. By your line of thought, in conjunction with my example, once the player decides to no longer make any more attacks after his first attack, he must retroactively remove the penalties he had applied to his first attack due to the fact that he did not make the "extra attack". How the hell is this legal?
I never said that. In fact I said if you decide to use TWF you must keep the penalties even if you stop attacking.
The issue between myself and you is that you believe the intent of TWF is to use two weapons. I believe it is to get the extra attack.
I even broke down the ability to use two weapons and get an extra attack into two fake feats.
I asked would people rather take the feat giving a -2 for an extra attack or take a feat that lets them use two weapons, but not extra attack and still take a -2. Nobody choose the idea of using two weapons without an extra attack which fell in line with my reasoning that the main point of TWF was the extra attack.
It does not take a spreadsheet to figure out which idea makes is the most advantageous barring corner cases, and the devs are pretty smart so with that information which one do you think they would place the penalty on?
After reading through all the combat rules, there is no justification for penalizing someone for using two different weapons unless they are taking the extra attack.
The basic combat section discusses how to get multiple attacks. One way is simply by virtue of having a high enough base attack bonus. Another is using two weapons. In this case, the additional weapons are not being used to gain an additional attack so it becomes irrelevant. Just like the line about other special reasons (Haste, Flurry, etc). The only relevant part is the additional attacks by virtue of Base Attack Bonus. At this point, there isn't really any need to look at the Two-Weapon Fighting Rules since those are listed as a Special Attack. You aren't doing anything special.
If we wanted to look at the Two-Weapon Fighting rules, the opening sentence says you can use your second weapon for an additional attack. If you aren't using it for an additional attack (and in this instance an additional attack would be beyond what you get from Base Attack), then there is no reason to continue reading the section since it clearly states "When you fight this way..." (The next sentence opens with that so there is no ambiguity to what it refers to.) We have to ask ourselves, what does it mean when it says "When you fight this way...?" Simple. It means that if you use your second weapon to gain an additional attack, then you are subject to the rest of the two-weapon fighting rules. Since this particular case does not use the second weapon for an additional attack beyond what the character would normally be allowed, then there is no need to apply additional penalties.
I know this has been said many times in the past, but I wanted to throw my own take on it.
As for how I would rule, I would say that the first weapon you attack with in the round is your primary weapon (unless you state otherwise). Any other weapon would be your off-hand and would only deal 1/2 Strength damage. Other than that, you are free to switch back and forth so long as you...
I could kiss you right now, Bob. :P
Consider this scenario:
You're a 1st level Fighter with two weapons. You fight with a goblin. You decide that you want to use both your weapons. You add TWFing penalties. You strike with your first weapon. you crit and kill the goblin. You didn't make your extra attack, yet you did have TWFing penalties. See? Extra attack ISN'T a condition. It's just a benefit.
Actually, you still have an extra attack available. The fact you dont have a valid target and its wasted is irrelevant. You would not have had this attack available had you not chosen before hand to fight in the way described under two weapon fighting, however.
I could also requote the dictionary definition of 'wield' if you like. Short version: if you are actively employing something, you are wielding it. That includes boots or gloves or shields which are relevant to what you are currently doing.
After reading through all the combat rules, there is no justification for penalizing someone for using two different weapons unless they are taking the extra attack.
The basic combat section discusses how to get multiple attacks. One way is simply by virtue of having a high enough base attack bonus. Another is using two weapons. In this case, the additional weapons are not being used to gain an additional attack so it becomes irrelevant. Just like the line about other special reasons (Haste, Flurry, etc). The only relevant part is the additional attacks by virtue of Base Attack Bonus. At this point, there isn't really any need to look at the Two-Weapon Fighting Rules since those are listed as a Special Attack. You aren't doing anything special.
If we wanted to look at the Two-Weapon Fighting rules, the opening sentence says you can use your second weapon for an additional attack. If you aren't using it for an additional attack (and in this instance an additional attack would be beyond what you get from Base Attack), then there is no reason to continue reading the section since it clearly states "When you fight this way..." (The next sentence opens with that so there is no ambiguity to what it refers to.) We have to ask ourselves, what does it mean when it says "When you fight this way...?" Simple. It means that if you use your second weapon to gain an additional attack, then you are subject to the rest of the two-weapon fighting rules. Since this particular case does not use the second weapon for an additional attack beyond what the character would normally be allowed, then there is no need to apply additional penalties.
I know this has been said many times in the past, but I wanted to throw my own take on it.
As for how I would rule, I would say that the first weapon you attack with in the round is your primary weapon (unless you state otherwise). Any other weapon would be your off-hand and would only deal 1/2 Strength damage. Other than that, you are free to switch back and forth so long as you...
Bob I posted that twice already, even breaking down both paragraphs. It must have been invisible. I suspect yours will be invisible also. ;)
edit:Ashiel saw it, but she has see invisibility as a permanent spell.
Under your interpretation you will always have TWFing penalties, no matter what you do. Is that what you're going after?
Also, you're contradicting yourself. How sweet.
What?
In your example, your fighter was wielding two weapons. He had the option of attacking normally at no penalty with either weapon, on his normal attack or during an AOO or whatever.
He only took penalties because he chose to fight with both weapons at once. This. Was. A. Choice. It is not inherent to wielding two weapons, its related to the fact that he chose to make an extra attack per the two weapon fighting rules... whether or not he had a valid target for that attack when the time came to actually roll it.
As far as I can see, you are the one contradicting yourself; you implied the choice to fight with both weapons in your example.
Bob I posted that twice already, even breaking down both paragraphs. It must have been invisible. I suspect yours will be invisible also. ;)
edit:Ashiel saw it, but she has see invisibility as a permanent spell.
I am surprisingly flattered and honored by this statement. Thanks Wraithstrike. ^-^
I am surprisingly flattered and honored by this statement. Thanks Wraithstrike. ^-^Bob I posted that twice already, even breaking down both paragraphs. It must have been invisible. I suspect yours will be invisible also. ;)
edit:Ashiel saw it, but she has see invisibility as a permanent spell.
It's great that someone else agrees with you, however that doesn't make you right.
Here is another arguement that you found invisible
consider..
If you wield a second weapon in your off hand, you can get one extra attack per round with that weapon. You suffer a -6 penalty with your regular attack or attacks with your primary hand and a -10 penalty to the attack with your off hand when you fight this way.
consider..
If you hold a burning coal in both hands, you can use it to light your camp fire. You suffer burns on both hands if you choose to wield it this way.
you may of may not get to light the fire, you still get burned.
Yes. And you have to choose that you want to use your both weapons. Whether you actually will use that extra attack or not, you incur TWFing penalties, because you choose to use two weapons.
In my example the Fighter wanted to do the extra attack, but couldn't. In your case the Fighter doesn't want to use the extra attack, but he can, because he's wielding two weapons, which means that you get TWFing penalties.
Dude.
The part of the TWF rules you claim is conditional does not care about using weapons; it cares about wielding them. Whether or not the fighter in the example makes an attack with either of his weapons, they are being wielded (he is actively threatening with them, for example; that implies control and use of the weapons).
However, he doesn't take penalties to attacks simply for wielding these weapons (IF HE DID, THIS PENALTY WOULD BE INESCAPABLE); he has to fight in the manner described by TWF, gaining an extra attack during a full attack, for that to happen. Actually using this extra attack is irrelevant.
The fighter clearly has the option of wielding both weapons (plus any number of improvised weapons or unarmed strikes) without TWF penalties; those only come into play if he makes a full attack and chooses to get an extra attack from his off hand, which comes with the penalties listed for doing so. Before this point, and after the full attack is resolved, there are no penaties for using either weapon.
See Ashiel's or Bobs awesome post for why.
If we assume you are correct and the condition is in fact wielding two weapons, then you always fulfil this condition. This is an issue.*sigh* No you don't. You don't have to wield everything. Just holding a weapon doesn't equal wielding it. Just wearing a boot doesn't equal wielding it. Just having a hand doesn't equal wielding it. You wield it when you use it for something. In case of a weapon, for attacking. And when you wield/use it for attacking, you get TWF penalties.
Consider this scenario:
You're a 1st level Fighter with two weapons. You fight with a goblin. You decide that you want to use both your weapons. You add TWFing penalties. You strike with your first weapon. you crit and kill the goblin. You didn't make your extra attack, yet you did have TWFing penalties. See? Extra attack ISN'T a condition. It's just a benefit.
I don't see the problem. The character chose to gain an additional attack that didn't come from a source other than fighting with two weapons. Just because he didn't get to benefit from it because he was able to accomplish the task with only one weapon doesn't change the fact that he wanted the extra attack. Had there been two goblins or had he missed on his first attack, then he would have gained full benefit.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I am surprisingly flattered and honored by this statement. Thanks Wraithstrike. ^-^Bob I posted that twice already, even breaking down both paragraphs. It must have been invisible. I suspect yours will be invisible also. ;)
edit:Ashiel saw it, but she has see invisibility as a permanent spell.
It's great that someone else agrees with you, however that doesn't make you right.
Here is another arguement that you found invisible
consider..
If you wield a second weapon in your off hand, you can get one extra attack per round with that weapon. You suffer a -6 penalty with your regular attack or attacks with your primary hand and a -10 penalty to the attack with your off hand when you fight this way.
consider..
If you hold a burning coal in both hands, you can use it to light your camp fire. You suffer burns on both hands if you choose to wield it this way.
you may of may not get to light the fire, you still get burned.
Are you saying that holding two weapons is the same as using them?
If sword and board fighters are screwed. :)| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So, to those advocating being able to switch which hand is primary and which is off in the middle of a full attack action, can I do the same during a Two weapon fighting action? If so, it would follow I could change which hand is off as well right? Then I could have only one really nice weapon and use it for all my attacks including the extra ones gained by two weapon fighting and just hold a crappy dagger in my off hand that I never actually attack with, or better yet a shield I never attack with. I will just hold a shield declare a two weapon fighting attack and substitute in more sword attacks instead of the shield for my off hand weapon attacks. So who says you have to invest in two nice weapons?
Bob I posted that twice already, even breaking down both paragraphs. It must have been invisible. I suspect yours will be invisible also. ;)
edit:Ashiel saw it, but she has see invisibility as a permanent spell.
I saw your posts earlier. I figured that since my last two posts were completely ignored because of a pissing match over who is an attention whore, and a bunch of "logic" and "English grammar" being thrown around, I should just reiterate what others had said but in my own words.
In other words, I wanted some attention too. At least I got some good attention from Ashiel :)
Are you saying that holding two weapons is the same as using them?
If sword and board fighters are screwed. :)
No that is neither the sense nor meaning of my post, which well you know. I take it then you have no real answer other than sarcasm?
So, to those advocating being able to switch which hand is primary and which is off in the middle of a full attack action, can I do the same during a Two weapon fighting action? If so, it would follow I could change which hand is off as well right? Then I could have only one really nice weapon and use it for all my attacks including the extra ones gained by two weapon fighting and just hold a crappy dagger in my off hand that I never actually attack with, or better yet a shield I never attack with. I will just hold a shield declare a two weapon fighting attack and substitute in more sword attacks instead of the shield for my off hand weapon attacks. So who says you have to invest in two nice weapons?
Two weapon fighting is clearly an exception to the normal rules for full attacking.
That is the whole point here; if you aren't using that exception, use the normal rules for a full attack. Which dont restrict which weapons you may use for your attacks during your attack progression.
And that exception clearly only applies penalties when wielding two weapons, and choosing to take the extra attack which can be gained by doing so.
|
Someone summarized better than I did. Asuna's recap pretty much still covers it. A reasonable point to add in his analysis to the 'No Penalty' argument would be the mention of the Quick Draw, or merely swapping weapons and keeping the 'off hand' more or less idle.
So, to those advocating being able to switch which hand is primary and which is off in the middle of a full attack action, can I do the same during a Two weapon fighting action? If so, it would follow I could change which hand is off as well right? Then I could have only one really nice weapon and use it for all my attacks including the extra ones gained by two weapon fighting and just hold a crappy dagger in my off hand that I never actually attack with, or better yet a shield I never attack with. I will just hold a shield declare a two weapon fighting attack and substitute in more sword attacks instead of the shield for my off hand weapon attacks. So who says you have to invest in two nice weapons?
That's not what anyone is advocating. If you are using the Two-Weapon Fighting Special Attack, then you will have one weapon as your primary weapon and the other as your off-hand. That is clearly part of the description of the Two-Weapon Special Attack.
What is being said is that if you have a heavy steel shield in one hand and a sword in the other, as a level 13 fighter, you can attack with your sword at +13, your shield at +8, and your sword again at +3. Several people have pointed out that this is normally going to be a sub-optimal way to fight.
What is also being said is that you could choose to attack with your sword three times and your shield once, gaining you an additional attack, but you now have +7/+2/-3 with your sword and +3 with your heavy steel shield. Or you could have +7/+2/-3 with your heavy steel shield and +3 with your sword. If you want to change those penalties and get even more attacks, then you would have to also take the appropriate feats.
|
|
I still have to go back to the intent in the rule. The penalites are there because you are getting an extra attack. Not because you have a second weapon in your hand. Also, there is nothing in the book that says you have to make all attacks with the same weapon.
So why should a penalty that is in reference only to an additional attack be used when you aren't making an additional attack?
Think about it people. You are saying that during a Full Attack you can make an attack, then depending on the outcome either:
1. Attack that person again
2. Attack someone else that is within 5'
3. If you haven't already done it, move 5'and than attack anyone within 5'
4. Call off the Full Attack and convert the rest of the action into a Move Action.
But you aren't allowing someone to attack with a different weapon in their off hand unless they take a penalty? Sorry, that just doesn't make any sense.
A few posters (you know who you are) are recycling repeatedly reiterated redundancies. Or worse. Please stop quoting already visited statements to use language hammers against each other, the different interpretations of the same 5 lines of rules are getting nowhere. Look at the last few posts above. There's a whole lot of 'my understanding of the words are not the same as your understanding!' There should be no reason to quote them again. If I promised those whom know who you are to buy something on the wishlist to cease reiterating, would it have results?
I'd change my position completely if you want to buy me something off my wishlist :)
|
|
Secondly, I provided a perfectly legal example as to why the TWF penalties would apply, and yet the extra attack allowed by wielding the second weapon is not made. How do you justify your position in that context? The penalty applied to the first attack cannot be retroactively removed. He declared that he intended to make the off hand attack, but then decided to not make his off hand attack.Dude, I'm not even sure I know what you're talking about. If you don't plan to make the extra attack, then you're not taking the penalty. You're just attacking with your standard attacks.
In my example, I stated that the player, who is holding an axe in one hand, and a scimitar in the other, and having 3 attacks per round due to BAB, and declares that he is going to attack with BOTH weapons in that round with the intent of using that extra attack for the second weapon, would have the TWF penalty applied to the first attack. After making said first attack, the player then decides he does not want to make his remaining attacks but instead wishes to make a move action. The fact that he did not make the off hand attack does not change the fact that he applied the TWF penalties to the first attack. The act of rolling the d20 for the off hand attack does not determine whether or not he needs to apply the TWF penalty to the first attack. If you have the intent to use the extra attack, you have to apply the penalty regardless if you actually make the extra attack or not.
If you have 4 attacks per round due to BAB (+20/+15/+10/+5) you could slap somebody with a sword, kick them in the nuts, slam them with a shield, and spike them with an armor spike if you wanted to, without penalties.
No, you can't.
The Two-Weapon Fighting rules are clear. It references them only when you are gaining additional attacks. The mere act of using two weapons does not invoke penalties for two-weapon fighting.
Here it mentions nothing about suffering penalties. If you are making attacks based on your high base attack bonus, you make the attacks from highest base attack to lowest, and may decide which weapon you use first. It mentions nothing about taking penalties for two-weapon fighting...
If you get multiple attacks because your base attack bonus is high enough, you must make the attacks in order from highest bonus to lowest. If you are using two weapons, you can strike with either weapon first. ...
The rule says you may strike with either weapon first. The rule does not say that you may strike with either weapon for the second attack. Nor does the rule say you may strike with either weapon for the "N"th attack.
To take this rule and use it as justification to alternate weapons on multiple attacks for high BAB is the complete fabrication of a rule that doesn't exist and then stating it as RAW. It is NOT RAW, it is a house rule (which, for the record, I have no problem with you using as a house rule. I do have a problem if you are claiming it is RAW). RAW does not allow you to choose which weapon to use on iterative attacks. It only allows you to choose which weapon to use on the FIRST attack.
You are all high and mighty about "reading the rules" and making sure the sentence structure is correctly interpreted, and yet you make up a rule out of thin air and use it to justify your argument.
The rest of your post is NULL.
I'm like one of the only guys...
Wait, you're not a girl?
What is being said is that if you have a heavy steel shield in one hand and a sword in the other, as a level 13 fighter, you can attack with your sword at +13, your shield at +8, and your sword again at +3. Several people have pointed out that this is normally going to be a sub-optimal way to fight.And also not RAW.
You keep saying this like it's a fact. It isn't a fact. It is your interpretation of the rules. It may or may not be RAI, but RAW isn't so clear. If it was, then several people who are very well versed in the rules wouldn't be on opposing sides of the discussion.
No that is neither the sense nor meaning of my post, which well you know. I take it then you have no real answer other than sarcasm?Are you saying that holding two weapons is the same as using them?
If sword and board fighters are screwed. :)
That was how I took it. You hold two weapons/coals then you get burned(take penalties).
If that is not what you meant then clarify.
So why should a penalty that is in reference only to an additional attack be used when you aren't making an additional attack?Because it's not in reference only to additional attack. It's in reference to fighting with two weapons.
That is simply not a true statement. That is your interpretation, but it isn't a necessarily a factual statement.
Look at the rule again. Look at the very first sentence. Now look at the second sentence in relation to it. If you don't take the extra attack from using two weapons, then the rest of the paragraph doesn't apply. The opening sentence is only about an extra attack while two-weapon fighting.
Read the rules. Carefully this time. and don't forget to think while you're doing it.
Lets say I'm wielding a Longspear. At the beginning of my turn, I choose not to use Two-Weapon Fighting. I let go of the Longspear with one hand, and use that hand to punch an orc or cast a touch spell, whatever. At the end of my turn, I put my hand back on the Longspear. An orc that is 10' away provokes. Can I make an AoO with my Longspear? Remember, I did not take TWF penalties during my turn.
I'm wearing a scizore, and I make a single attack with the short sword in my other hand. Do I take TWF penalties? If not, do I still gain the +1 shield bonus to AC from the scizore?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Imperator and Hanger:
You keep mentioning that the fact that you retain the penalties for 2WF even if you don't take the extra attack proves that the extra attack is unrelated to the penalties. This is not correct. Choosing to take the extra attack causes the penalties, if you don't end up taking that attack they do not retroactively disappear.
Look at Rapid Shot (which is worded almost identically to 2WF). When you make a full attack, you can take one extra attack. All your attacks take -2. Now, if you kill the enemy with your first shot obviously you wouldn't be taking the extra one... but you still take the penalties. Likewise for 2WF. It is the 'activation' of the ability which triggers the penalties (declaring "I'm using Rapid Shot/2WF"), whether the attack actually goes off or not is irrelevant. You declare that you are using 2WF to gain an extra attack and thus the penalties are applied.
No that is neither the sense nor meaning of my post, which well you know. I take it then you have no real answer other than sarcasm?Are you saying that holding two weapons is the same as using them?
If sword and board fighters are screwed. :)That was how I took it. You hold two weapons/coals then you get burned(take penalties).
If that is not what you meant then clarify.
As you asked nicely I will clarify. In my sample sentences, getting burned is a condition of holding the coal in both hands, not in lighting the fire.
Just as the penalties to each hand is a condition of wielding two weapons, not on the extra attack.
They use the same grammar, and hope to aid your understanding.