| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
This got ignored last night when I posted it, so I hope people pay attention to it now. What this boils down to is whether there is a distinction between "fighting with two weapons" and utilizing the "Two Weapon Fighting" full round combat option. Ultimately, if you can fight with two weapons without actually TWF, then you should be able to alternate during iterative attacks and the extra attack from TWF is a necessary condition of TWF penalties.
A primary complaint from the camp of people espousing the necessity of the extra attack is that the rules routinely refer to TWF, but not "fighting with two weapons", meaning it is possible there is a distinction between the two. I believe this to be in error.
Two-Weapon Fighting (Combat)
You can fight with a weapon wielded in each of your hands. You can make one extra attack each round with the secondary weapon.
Prerequisite: Dex 15.
Benefit: Your penalties on attack rolls for fighting with two weapons are reduced. The penalty for your primary hand lessens by 2 and the one for your off hand lessens by 6. See Two-Weapon Fighting in Combat.
Normal: If you wield a second weapon in your off hand, you can get one extra attack per round with that weapon. When fighting in this way 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. If your off-hand weapon is light, the penalties are reduced by 2 each. An unarmed strike is always considered light.
Note that it does not say, "Your penalties on attack rolls when using the Two Weapon Fighting action are reduced." It states, explicitly, that the penalties taken when fighting with two weapons are reduced. There is no distinction. The overwhelming implication from this language is that whenever you fight with two weapons, you suffer penalties for doing so. Which penalties? Those associated with TWF.
There is no distinction between fighting with two weapons and TWF. If you attack, or intend to do so, with two weapons, you are fighting with two weapons, and thus Two Weapon Fighting.
Furthermore, simply having access to another weapon is insufficient (which does away with the unarmed strike/shield argument). The intention of the developers on this matter is also clear. The section on Natural Weapons makes this intent obvious (the situation is completely analogous).
You can make attacks with natural weapons in combination with attacks made with a melee weapon and unarmed strikes, so long as a different limb is used for each attack. For example, you cannot make a claw attack and also use that hand to make attacks with a longsword. When you make additional attacks in this way, all of your natural attacks are treated as secondary natural attacks, using your base attack bonus minus 5 and adding only 1/2 of your Strength modifier on damage rolls. In addition, all of your attacks made with melee weapons and unarmed strikes are made as if you were two-weapon fighting. Your natural attacks are treated as light, off-hand weapons for determining the penalty to your other attacks. Feats such as Two-Weapon Fighting and Multiattack can reduce these penalties.
Notice it says "when" you make additional attacks. It does not state that, because you have natural attacks, every time you attack with any other weapon you must necessarily take penalties for TWF. You only take those penalties if you are using the alternate attacks.
The "extra attack" of TWF is not a necessary condition of TWF, but it is a sufficient one. Per the rules, as demonstrated above, you cannot attack with both hands in one round unless you are TWF (which is synonymous with fighting with two weapons). The only way you can attack with the second hand is if you are, in fact, TWF. Ergo, if you make the extra attack, you are necessarily TWF. If you make any attack with the second hand, you are TWF.
Again, I have no issues with wanting to houserule a different interpretation for flavor or personal preference. In fact, I quite understand it - it'd be a nice thing to add for those reasons. But this is a question about rules application, which necessitates analysis of RAW. I believe, rather definitively, that RAW is as I have just stated.
If the attack roll penalties as listed under the Two-Weapon Fighting core rules subsection applied when taking iterative attacks with multiple weapons, rather than only being applied when actually two-weapon fighting to gain an extra attack... you would have to apply two-weapon fighting attack penalties any time you make a trip combat maneuver plus a weapon attack with iterative attacks (unless using a trip weapon or fighting unarmed).
You would also form some sort of reality-tearing rules conflict if, for example, you attacked with a longsword and then made a trip with the second iterative, because the two-weapon fighting penalty would have to be applied to the first attack despite not needing to specify you're tripping with the second iterative until after the first attack.
The damage done by following this perverse rules interpretation would free Rovagug and end creation. For this reason alone, we should probably accept the argument that RAW you can use a separate attack form/weapon for iterative attacks without incurring two-weapon fighting penalties.
I disagree. The rules specifically allow for trips attacks (and other forms) to be used in place of regular attacks. It's a separate matter entirely.
FAQ'd. Please do the same.
But there is nothing in the rules that state that. Yours and other peoples entire defense of the...I am not saying that at all. , only if you attack with the dagger would you get the penalty in my bookSo if as you say "If the first attack let you choose any available weapon, so should the second." Then why shouldn't the bonus attacks granted by Two Weapon fighting??Oops, you're actually right here. But only because Improved Two Weapon Fighting specifically calls out the extra attack having to come from the same weapon.
Note: to clarify, ITWF calls out gaining a second attack with your off hand weapon. So you couldn't change that weapon.
so, two weapon fighting says
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.
And your argument is that the trigger for two weapon fighting is getting the extra attack, not wielding the weapon ion your off hand. By that argument aren't I wielding a weapon in my off hand regardless of whether I take the penalty or not? And if am, then aren't I changing which is my primary and off hand if I attack once with the right and once with the left without two weapon fighting?
Think about it. Why would you take this MASSIVE penality, just because you had a weapon in your off hand?
So you are saying, that if I have a Longsword in my primary hand and a Dagger in my off-hand, that even if I don't attack with the Dagger at all, that attacking with the Longsword is -6?
Mind you that same off-hand could be holding a Shield and you would have no penality to the attack. Or actually anything in that hand and per the rules, you would have no penality...but if you have a weapon the primary attacks are -6
Actually what I am saying is you can't have it both ways, either there is a primary and and off hand weapon and you have to stick with them for the whole round regardless of whether you use Two Weapon Fighting or not, or they are completely interchangeable regardless of whether you use Two weapon fighting or not. The idea that you only have to pay attention to a primary hand and off hand with regards to which is which only when you are Two weapon fighting not any other time, is inconstant and I don't find any definitive support for that in the rules.
I disagree. The rules specifically allow for trips attacks (and other forms) to be used in place of regular attacks. It's a separate matter entirely.
I'm just sayin... a trip maneuver is done with either a weapon with the trip ability or with an unarmed strike. It's why a trip done during a +5 flail full attack gains a +5 CMB bonus but one done with a +5 longsword doesn't.
My tongue-in-cheek example was a logical progression from the semantics argued in this sprawling thread by those who think making one iterative attack with weapon A then another iterative with weapon B constitutes two-weapon fighting for attack penalty purposes.
Fretgod, I notice you quoted the out of date and incorrect natural attack rules. Please note, those were quoted last page as well and it was pointed out they no longer apply. You may want to consider that.
I disagree. The rules specifically allow for trips attacks (and other forms) to be used in place of regular attacks. It's a separate matter entirely.I'm just sayin... a trip maneuver is done with either a weapon with the trip ability or with an unarmed strike. It's why a trip done during a +5 flail full attack gains a +5 CMB bonus but one done with a +5 longsword doesn't.
My tongue-in-cheek example was a logical progression from the semantics argued in this sprawling thread by those who think making one iterative attack with weapon A then another iterative with weapon B constitutes two-weapon fighting for attack penalty purposes.
Right. But my point is that since the specific rules for Trip allow it to be used in place of a regular melee attack, there is an exception (even if it would ordinarily function like you are claiming it does). Wielding a longsword, then deciding to trip wouldn't result in TWF.
However, if you're wielding both the longsword and the flail and decide to attack with the longsword, then trip with the flail to gain the bonus, you would be TWF. Similarly, if you trip with the flail, then attack with the longsword (because you can choose which weapon goes first), you would also be TWF.
Fretgod, I notice you quoted the out of date and incorrect natural attack rules. Please note, those were quoted last page as well and it was pointed out they no longer apply. You may want to consider that.
That's my bad. Regardless, the point still stands.
More importantly,
Some fey, humanoids, monstrous humanoids, and outsiders do not possess natural attacks. These creatures can make unarmed strikes, but treat them as weapons for the purpose of determining attack bonuses, and they must use the two-weapon fighting rules when making attacks with both hands.
This section of the "Natural Attacks" entry further supports my primary point.
This got ignored last night when I posted it, so I hope people pay attention to it now. What this boils down to is whether there is a distinction between "fighting with two weapons" and utilizing the "Two Weapon Fighting" full round combat option. Ultimately, if you can fight with two weapons without actually TWF, then you should be able to alternate during iterative attacks and the extra attack from TWF is a necessary condition of TWF penalties.
A primary complaint from the camp of people espousing the necessity of the extra attack is that the rules routinely refer to TWF, but not "fighting with two weapons", meaning it is possible there is a distinction between the two. I believe this to be in error.
Two-Weapon Fighting (Combat)
You can fight with a weapon wielded in each of your hands. You can make one extra attack each round with the secondary weapon.
Prerequisite: Dex 15.
Benefit: Your penalties on attack rolls for fighting with two weapons are reduced. The penalty for your primary hand lessens by 2 and the one for your off hand lessens by 6. See Two-Weapon Fighting in Combat.
Normal: If you wield a second weapon in your off hand, you can get one extra attack per round with that weapon. When fighting in this way 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. If your off-hand weapon is light, the penalties are reduced by 2 each. An unarmed strike is always considered light.Note that it does not say, "Your penalties on attack rolls when using the Two Weapon Fighting action are reduced." It states, explicitly, that the penalties taken when fighting with two weapons are reduced. There is no distinction. The overwhelming implication from this language is that whenever you fight with two weapons, you suffer penalties for doing so. Which penalties? Those associated with TWF.
There is no distinction between fighting with two weapons and TWF. If you attack, or intend to do so, with two weapons, you are fighting with two weapons, and thus Two Weapon Fighting.
You conveniently skipped the part I bolded. The Normal Rules are that you can get an extra attack with your second weapon and when you do you incur penalties.
Furthermore, simply having access to another weapon is insufficient (which does away with the unarmed strike/shield argument). The intention of the developers on this matter is also clear. The section on Natural Weapons makes this intent obvious (the situation is completely analogous).
Natural Weapons in Combat wrote:
You can make attacks with natural weapons in combination with attacks made with a melee weapon and unarmed strikes, so long as a different limb is used for each attack. For example, you cannot make a claw attack and also use that hand to make attacks with a longsword. When you make additional attacks in this way, all of your natural attacks are treated as secondary natural attacks, using your base attack bonus minus 5 and adding only 1/2 of your Strength modifier on damage rolls. In addition, all of your attacks made with melee weapons and unarmed strikes are made as if you were two-weapon fighting. Your natural attacks are treated as light, off-hand weapons for determining the penalty to your other attacks. Feats such as Two-Weapon Fighting and Multiattack can reduce these penalties.Notice it says "when" you make additional attacks. It does not state that, because you have natural attacks, every time you attack with any other weapon you must necessarily take penalties for TWF. You only take those penalties if you are using the alternate attacks.
The "extra attack" of TWF is not a necessary condition of TWF, but it is a sufficient one. Per the rules, as demonstrated above, you cannot attack with both hands in one round unless you are TWF (which is synonymous with fighting with two weapons). The only way you can attack with the second hand is if you are, in fact, TWF. Ergo, if you make the extra attack, you are necessarily TWF. If you make any attack with the second hand, you are TWF.
The only thing this supports is the Unarmed Strike argument that many have made. Since it deals only with natural attacks combined with melee weapons, it has zero bearing on other weapon attacks such as improvised weapons or shields. The entire section is titled "Natural Weapons in Combat." It is obviously only talking about natural weapons in conjunction with melee weapons. Also, this rule means that you can't attack with your longsword, have it get rusted away, and then punch the rust monster with your now empty hand but you could attack a black pudding with your longsword, have it dissolve in the acid and then quick draw that obsidian longsword you found to continue your attacks. Seems weird to me.
Again, I have no issues with wanting to houserule a different interpretation for flavor or personal preference. In fact, I quite understand it - it'd be a nice thing to add for those reasons. But this is a question about rules application, which necessitates analysis of RAW. I believe, rather definitively, that RAW is as I have just stated.
There is actually no RAW on this no matter how much you want to make the claim. There is only RAI or RNETA (Rules as Never Even Thought About). I think that this most likely falls under RNETA.
Ladies and Gentlemen,
We appear to have backed HangarFlying into a corner of their own interpretations, please read below:
Let me ask this question: If a 13th level fighter has Quickdraw, a longsword, a flail, and a battle axe, can they attack with all 3 weapons in the same round without incurring the Two-Weapon Fighting rules? If so, other than Quickdraw, how is it any different than what we are saying?No. He cannot assign a different weapon to each attack iteration. At best, he can declare that he is attacking with two of the three and has the TWF attack iteration of: 1st primary/off hand/2nd primary/3rd primary. At best, he could drop one weapon as a free action and quick draw the third weapon with that hand.
So, if he has the longsword as a primary attack, and the flail as the off hand attack. He can choose to make the 1st primary attack with the longsword, drop it, quick draw the battleaxe, make the off hand attack with the flail, and then make the remaining primary attacks with the battleaxe. And this is assuming the GM allows the player to use both free actions in the same turn.
TWF penalties would apply to each attack appropriately.
Now read his response when asked the same question earlier:
Assuming you have the quick draw feat, then no, TWF wouldn't apply, as you are not using your off hand to make the next attack. Your attitude seems to show that you feel TWF should apply, why should it apply?wrote:
So what about this case:A character with two attacks uses a Scimitar to Attack, drops the scimitar, draws another Scimitar and uses the same hand to attack?
Would this constitute TWF? I'm guessing that it would not in your opinion.
So I ask you Hangar Flying, which is it?
@fretgod99
Yes, there is a disinction becausw TWF is something that needs to be activated by the player. It is not a passive mode that takes effect when two weapons are equipped or wielded.
You conveniently skipped the part I bolded. The Normal Rules are that you can get an extra attack with your second weapon and when you do you incur penaltiesTwo-Weapon Fighting (Combat)
You can fight with a weapon wielded in each of your hands. You can make one extra attack each round with the secondary weapon.
Prerequisite: Dex 15.
Benefit: Your penalties on attack rolls for fighting with two weapons are reduced. The penalty for your primary hand lessens by 2 and the one for your off hand lessens by 6. See Two-Weapon Fighting in Combat.
Normal: If you wield a second weapon in your off hand, you can get one extra attack per round with that weapon. When fighting in this way 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. If your off-hand weapon is light, the penalties are reduced by 2 each. An unarmed strike is always considered light.Note that it does not say, "Your penalties on attack rolls when using the Two Weapon Fighting action are reduced." It states, explicitly, that the penalties taken when fighting with two weapons are reduced. There is no distinction. The overwhelming implication from this language is that whenever you fight with two weapons, you suffer penalties for doing so. Which penalties? Those associated with TWF.
So, your interpretation is that, without the feat, you may freely attack with two weapons and not be TWF, but as soon as you take the feat, if you attack with two weapons, you must take the penalties (albeit reduced) in any situation you attack with two weapons? Because the Benefit section is clear: If you attack with two weapons, regardless of context, you are two weapon fighting.
Additionally, see my post regarding the Bestiary rules for natural attacks - If you attack with both hands, you must apply the TWF rules. Two clear statements from core rulebooks, but amounting to the same thing - if you attack with two weapons, you are Two Weapon Fighting. There is no distinction between the two.
The only thing this supports is the Unarmed Strike argument that many have made. Since it deals only with natural attacks combined with melee weapons, it has zero bearing on other weapon attacks such as improvised weapons or shields. The entire section is titled "Natural Weapons in Combat." It is obviously only talking about natural weapons in conjunction with melee weapons. Also, this rule means that you can't attack with your longsword, have it get rusted away, and then punch the rust monster with your now empty hand but you could attack a black pudding with your longsword, have it dissolve in the acid and then quick draw that obsidian longsword you found to continue your attacks. Seems weird to me.
It is referencing Natural Weapons in Combat. I was drawing an analogy. If, under the old rules, a monster wasn't penalized for having a natural weapon but not attacking with it, why should we assume the developers meant anything different to happen when a fighter has a sword in one hand and a shield in the other? It's an analogy, not a citation directly on point. Regardless, under the Bestiary rules, if you attack with both hands, you are TWF. This is explicitly stated.
Yes, there is a disinction becaust TWF is something that needs to be activated by the player. It is not a passive mode that takes effect when two weapons are equipped.
Right. You have to attack with both hands. But any time you attack with both hands, you're TWF.
Of course, it's really semantics at this point. The only way you can attack with both hands is if you are TWF (since TWF and "fighting with two weapons" are the same thing). Therefore, if you attack with the second hand, you are by definition, TWF (which is what allows you to make the "extra attack" with your second hand). The only attack you can get with your second hand is this "extra attack" (and any others because of the TWF feat chain).
So, your interpretation is that, without the feat, you may freely attack with two weapons and not be TWF, but as soon as you take the feat, if you attack with two weapons, you must take the penalties (albeit reduced) in any situation you attack with two weapons? Because the Benefit section is clear: If you attack with two weapons, regardless of context, you are two weapon fighting.
My interpretation is, and has always been, that you do not have those penalties unless you are fighting with two weapons and gaining the extra attack from doing so. The feat specifically refers to the Two-Weapon Fighting rules which specifically open with gaining an extra attack from fighting with two weapons. The feat chain is all about gaining the extra attacks and, with the first feat, reducing the penalties for doing so.
It is referencing Natural Weapons in Combat. I was drawing an analogy. If, under the old rules, a monster wasn't penalized for having a natural weapon but not attacking with it, why should we assume the developers meant anything different to happen when a fighter has a sword in one hand and a shield in the other? It's an analogy, not a citation directly on point. Regardless, under the Bestiary rules, if you attack with both hands, you are TWF. This is explicitly stated.
So you are admitting that this isn't RAW for using two weapons, but instead your interpretation. You are arguing that it is RAI (which is something I can't debate because I don't know the intent of the writers). Now that we have established this, can we dispense with the RAW argument? There is no RAW on this, that's why there is such a long discussion by several people who are very familiar with the rules.
My interpretation is, and has always been, that you do not have those penalties unless you are fighting with two weapons and gaining the extra attack from doing so. The feat specifically refers to the Two-Weapon Fighting rules which specifically open with gaining an extra attack from fighting with two weapons. The feat chain is all about gaining the extra attacks and, with the first feat, reducing the penalties for doing so.
Bob, Fretgod is getting bogged down in semantics here. I think that your position is that if you're intending to get the extra attack, you would activate TWF (and gaining the penalties and benefits).
Fretgod seems to be saying anytime you're attacking with two weapons you're now unwittingly activating TWF - even if the player did not want to (which I believe is incorrect). It would be similar to (but not the same as) declaring every time a player uses two move actions to spend a full round moving, the character is now unwittingly making a Withdraw Action.
I don't see why using two weapons to attack in a round is the catalyst for triggering TWF. The catalyst should be the declaration of your intention to use TWF when you declare your Full Attack action.
This necessarily has to be the case because you cannot retroactively instill penalties for TWF. Nor can you gain TWF mid-attack.
Example below:
Player A has a longsword and a shortsword. Player A has two attacks because of their base attack bonus. They declare a full attack (without TWF) on Monster 1 (which is a rust monster).
Player A attacks with the longsword with their first attack and hit, the sword is destroyed.
Player A still has another attack available and should be able to use the equipped shortsword to fill it.
However, fretgod's interpretation would not allow them to because either A) they did not declare TWF at the beginning of their attack - which would have been unnecessary as they were not looking to gain an extra attack or B) there must be TWF penalties that are now to be retroactively applied, which you cannot apply since the first roll is over and done with. And finally, if you retroactively apply the penalties to force the player into TWF mode, you must now give them a Third attack.
My interpretation is, and has always been, that you do not have those penalties unless you are fighting with two weapons and gaining the extra attack from doing so. The feat specifically refers to the Two-Weapon Fighting rules which specifically open with gaining an extra attack from fighting with two weapons. The feat chain is all about gaining the extra attacks and, with the first feat, reducing the penalties for doing so.Bob, Fretgod is getting bogged down in semantics here. I think that your position is that if you're intending to get the extra attack, you would activate TWF (and gaining the penalties and benefits).
Fretgod seems to be saying anytime you're attacking with two weapons you're now unwittingly activating TWF - even if the player did not want to(which I believe is incorrect). It would be similar to (but not the same as) declaring every time a player uses two move actions to spend a full round moving, the character is now unwittingly making a Withdraw Action.
I don't see why using two weapons to attack in a round is the catalyst for triggering TWF. The catalyst should be the declaration of your intention to use TWF when you declare your Full Attack action.
That pretty much sums it up and I'm in agreement with you.
That pretty much sums it up and I'm in agreement with you.
See my example I added to the post above yours to see if it is inclusive enough. Also 667 posts! That's a lot.
My interpretation is, and has always been, that you do not have those penalties unless you are fighting with two weapons and gaining the extra attack from doing so. The feat specifically refers to the Two-Weapon Fighting rules which specifically open with gaining an extra attack from fighting with two weapons. The feat chain is all about gaining the extra attacks and, with the first feat, reducing the penalties for doing so.Bob, Fretgod is getting bogged down in semantics here. I think that your position is that if you're intending to get the extra attack, you would activate TWF (and gaining the penalties and benefits).
Fretgod seems to be saying anytime you're attacking with two weapons you're now unwittingly activating TWF - even if the player did not want to(which I believe is incorrect). It would be similar to (but not the same as) declaring every time a player uses two move actions to spend a full round moving, the character is now unwittingly making a Withdraw Action.
I don't see why using two weapons to attack in a round is the catalyst for triggering TWF. The catalyst should be the declaration of your intention to use TWF when you declare your Full Attack action.
This necessarily has to be the case because you cannot retroactively instill penalties for TWF.
Example:
Player A has a longsword and a shortsword. Player A has two attacks because of the base attack bonus. They declare a full attack (without TWF) on Monster 1 (which is a rust monster).They attack with the longsword with their first attack and hit, the sword is destroyed.
They have another attack available and should be able to use the shortsword to fill it. However, fretgods interpretation would not allow them to because either A) they did not declare TWF at the beginning of their attack - which would have been unnecessary or B) there must be TWF penalties that are now to be retroactively applied.
Because the rules, in more than one place, state explicitly that if you are attacking with more than one weapon (or both hands re: unarmed strikes), you must abide by the TWF rules. I'm not saying you "unwittingly" activated the TWF mechanic. I'm saying the only way to attack with both weapons is to utilize the TWF mechanic, e.g., you cannot alternate hands with iterative attacks. If you start attacking with your right hand, the only way you can attack with your left hand is if you invoke the "extra attack" of TWF, meaning you are obviously TWF. I'm not addressing the quick draw/hand switch issue other people have brought up because, ultimately, it's irrelevant to a determination of this core issue.
The only relevant question is whether you can attack with two weapons in a round (i.e., both hands) without TWF. I have provided two explicit examples where the rules say that if you fight with two weapons (or both hands) you must abide by the TWF rules.
Provide explicit statements in the rules that are to the contrary to this, otherwise I fail to see how your position is legitimate.
That pretty much sums it up and I'm in agreement with you.See my example I added to the post above yours to see if it is inclusive enough. Also 667 posts! That's a lot.
I think you covered it fairly well. Also, the last two times I was in a long discussion like this Ashiel got number 666 both times. This time I beat her.
It is referencing Natural Weapons in Combat. I was drawing an analogy. If, under the old rules, a monster wasn't penalized for having a natural weapon but not attacking with it, why should we assume the developers meant anything different to happen when a fighter has a sword in one hand and a shield in the other? It's an analogy, not a citation directly on point. Regardless, under the Bestiary rules, if you attack with both hands, you are TWF. This is explicitly stated.
And in every example you post, it discusses the additional attack from two-weapon fighting. Interesting how it does that.
So you are admitting that this isn't RAW for using two weapons, but instead your interpretation. You are arguing that it is RAI (which is something I can't debate because I don't know the intent of the writers). Now that we have established this, can we dispense with the RAW argument? There is no RAW on this, that's why there is such a long discussion by several people who are very familiar with the rules.
No, I'm using it to show why the RAW should be interpreted as I am. The writing is clear. I'm using analogies from other parts of the rulebook to demonstrate why other interpretations being applied to the rules are illogical when the rules are viewed as a whole.
Provide explicit statements in the rules that are to the contrary to this, otherwise I fail to see how your position is legitimate.
The player has no intention of gaining a third attack (the benefit of TWF), so why inact the penalties of the TWF style on them? I think that's the question you should answer.
PS:
Natural Attacks don't have iterative attacks so a lot of the rules your citing are not relevant to this discussion.
It is referencing Natural Weapons in Combat. I was drawing an analogy. If, under the old rules, a monster wasn't penalized for having a natural weapon but not attacking with it, why should we assume the developers meant anything different to happen when a fighter has a sword in one hand and a shield in the other? It's an analogy, not a citation directly on point. Regardless, under the Bestiary rules, if you attack with both hands, you are TWF. This is explicitly stated.And in every example you post, it discusses the additional attack from two-weapon fighting. Interesting how it does that.
No they don't. They refer to TWF, but not the "extra attack". You know why that is? Because there is no other way to fight with two weapons. It must necessarily refer to the TWF mechanic because that's the only way it can be done.
Some fey, humanoids, monstrous humanoids, and outsiders do not possess natural attacks. These creatures can make unarmed strikes, but treat them as weapons for the purpose of determining attack bonuses, and they must use the two-weapon fighting rules when making attacks with both hands.
There is only one way you can interpret this section: If you attack with both hands, you must use the TWF rules. There is no other way to read this. You cannot impute ambiguity here like you're trying to with the base TWF rules. If both hands are used (note, not "if an extra attack is made"), you must use the TWF rules. This is clear. This is explicit.
Provide conclusive, explicit proof to the contrary, otherwise this discussion is over.
So you are admitting that this isn't RAW for using two weapons, but instead your interpretation. You are arguing that it is RAI (which is something I can't debate because I don't know the intent of the writers). Now that we have established this, can we dispense with the RAW argument? There is no RAW on this, that's why there is such a long discussion by several people who are very familiar with the rules.No, I'm using it to show why the RAW should be interpreted as I am. The writing is clear. I'm using analogies from other parts of the rulebook to demonstrate why other interpretations being applied to the rules are illogical when the rules are viewed as a whole.
And others have done the same to show why the rules are illogical in your interpretation. Also, if you are interpreting RAW, it is no longer RAW, it is RAI. So you are admitting that you don't have any RAW on this, just like the rest of us.
The player has no intention of gaining a third attack (the benefit of TWF), so why inact the penalties of the TWF style on them? I think that's the question you should answerProvide explicit statements in the rules that are to the contrary to this, otherwise I fail to see how your position is legitimate.
If they're not trying to gain the benefit of the third attack, then they simply make both attacks with one weapon.
Again, your point goes to what people would like the rule to be, how they would like to see it work. It is a perfectly fine way to play the game. I have never once argued against its utility.
However, as written, you cannot attack with both hands unless you do so according to the TWF mechanics.
No they don't. They refer to TWF, but not the "extra attack". You know why that is? Because there is no other way to fight with two weapons. It must necessarily refer to the TWF mechanic because that's the only way it can be done.
Again, the rules you're citing aren't accounting for iterative attacks. So you're using the wrong rules support for your examples. The relevant Full Attack rules have been posted again and again.
And others have done the same to show why the rules are illogical in your interpretation. Also, if you are interpreting RAW, it is no longer RAW, it is RAI. So you are admitting that you don't have any RAW on this, just like the rest of us.So you are admitting that this isn't RAW for using two weapons, but instead your interpretation. You are arguing that it is RAI (which is something I can't debate because I don't know the intent of the writers). Now that we have established this, can we dispense with the RAW argument? There is no RAW on this, that's why there is such a long discussion by several people who are very familiar with the rules.No, I'm using it to show why the RAW should be interpreted as I am. The writing is clear. I'm using analogies from other parts of the rulebook to demonstrate why other interpretations being applied to the rules are illogical when the rules are viewed as a whole.
"They must use the two-weapon fighting rules when making attacks with both hands." That is RAW. That is explicit.
No they don't. They refer to TWF, but not the "extra attack". You know why that is? Because there is no other way to fight with two weapons. It must necessarily refer to the TWF mechanic because that's the only way it can be done.Again, the rules you're citing aren't accounting for iterative attacks. So you're using the wrong rules support for your examples.
You're presuming that they don't account for iterative attacks. Show me, in the rules, where it explicitly states you can alternate hands with iterative attacks. Not how you would like the rules to work. Not if you think it'd be silly if the rules didn't work that way. Show where it states you can do so in the rules. I have shown where it explicitly states in the rules that use of both hands necessitates TWF; you show me where the actual rules contradict that.
It is referencing Natural Weapons in Combat. I was drawing an analogy. If, under the old rules, a monster wasn't penalized for having a natural weapon but not attacking with it, why should we assume the developers meant anything different to happen when a fighter has a sword in one hand and a shield in the other? It's an analogy, not a citation directly on point. Regardless, under the Bestiary rules, if you attack with both hands, you are TWF. This is explicitly stated.And in every example you post, it discusses the additional attack from two-weapon fighting. Interesting how it does that.No they don't. They refer to TWF, but not the "extra attack". You know why that is? Because there is no other way to fight with two weapons. It must necessarily refer to the TWF mechanic because that's the only way it can be done.
Some fey, humanoids, monstrous humanoids, and outsiders do not possess natural attacks. These creatures can make unarmed strikes, but treat them as weapons for the purpose of determining attack bonuses, and they must use the two-weapon fighting rules when making attacks with both hands.There is only one way you can interpret this section: If you attack with both hands, you must use the TWF rules. There is no other way to read this. You cannot impute ambiguity here like you're trying to with the base TWF rules. If both hands are used (note, not "if an extra attack is made"), you must use the TWF rules. This is clear. This is explicit.
Provide conclusive, explicit proof to the contrary, otherwise this discussion is over.
Fret, you're still ignoring one critical thing.
If I have a high BAB of 6+, and am wielding a sword and a shield...
I take an (???) attack action.
I make a normal attack with my sword.
I make a normal attack with my shield.
I have not made attacks with both hands, I've made two individual sequential attacks with a different hand each time.
What you're saying is that if I take a full attack action, I take penalties.
If I take two attack actions in a row in two rounds, I do not.
Except that there is no difference in the rules between these two options, other than the time between them. The rules do not define a period in which you can't use two weapons or you've commited the sin of two weapon fighting either; if I'm wrong, quote it to us.
You are only two weapon fighting if you take a full attack and apply the two weapon fighting rules. Otherwise you are making up arbitrary and unsupported rules about some sort of minimum time between normal attacks, which are not in the rules of the game.
You're presuming that they don't account for iterative attacks. Show me, in the rules, where it explicitly states you can alternate hands with iterative attacks. Not how you would like the rules to work. Not if you think it'd be silly if the rules didn't work that way. Show where it states you can do so in the rules. I have shown where it explicitly states in the rules that use of both hands necessitates TWF; you show me where the actual rules contradict that.
Roll eyes.. let's do this dance again.
A full-round action requires an entire round to complete. Thus, it can't be coupled with a standard or a move action, though if it does not involve moving any distance, you can take a 5-foot step.Full Attack
If you get more than one attack per round because your base attack bonus is high enough (see Base Attack Bonus in Classes), because you fight with two weapons or a double weapon, or for some special reason, you must use a full-round action to get your additional attacks. You do not need to specify the targets of your attacks ahead of time. You can see how the earlier attacks turn out before assigning the later ones.The only movement you can take during a full attack is a 5-foot step. You may take the step before, after, or between your attacks.
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.
There, i've shown you a direct link to iterative attacks that makes no mention of the Two Weapon fighting rules or section. It also states you are able to use two weapons and start your attack sequence with either weapon.
Please do the same with yours rules citatons. Specifically, I'd like to see a section talking about base attack bonus and extra attacks.
No they don't. They refer to TWF, but not the "extra attack". You know why that is? Because there is no other way to fight with two weapons. It must necessarily refer to the TWF mechanic because that's the only way it can be done.It is referencing Natural Weapons in Combat. I was drawing an analogy. If, under the old rules, a monster wasn't penalized for having a natural weapon but not attacking with it, why should we assume the developers meant anything different to happen when a fighter has a sword in one hand and a shield in the other? It's an analogy, not a citation directly on point. Regardless, under the Bestiary rules, if you attack with both hands, you are TWF. This is explicitly stated.And in every example you post, it discusses the additional attack from two-weapon fighting. Interesting how it does that.
Two-Weapon Fighting: "If you wield a second weapon in your off hand, you can get one extra attack per round with that weapon."
Two-Weapon Fighting Feat: "You can fight with a weapon wielded in each of your hands. You can make one extra attack each round with the secondary weapon."
Natural Attacks: "You do not receive additional natural attacks for a high base attack bonus. Instead, you receive additional attack rolls for multiple limb and body parts capable of making the attack (as noted by the race or ability that grants the attacks)."
Improved Two-Weapon Fighting: "In addition to the standard single extra attack you get with an off-hand weapon, you get a second attack with it, albeit at a –5 penalty."
Greater Two-Weapon Fighting: "You get a third attack with your off-hand weapon, albeit at a –10 penalty."
Every single one of them explicitly discusses extra attacks beyond what you get from your Base Attack Bonus. Natural Attacks specifically calls this out.
Some fey, humanoids, monstrous humanoids, and outsiders do not possess natural attacks. These creatures can make unarmed strikes, but treat them as weapons for the purpose of determining attack bonuses, and they must use the two-weapon fighting rules when making attacks with both hands.There is only one way you can interpret this section: If you attack with both hands, you must use the TWF rules. There is no other way to read this. You cannot impute ambiguity here like you're trying to with the base TWF rules. If both hands are used (note, not "if an extra attack is made"), you must use the TWF rules. This is clear. This is explicit.
The only way to interpret this is that if you are only using natural weapons, then you use the two-weapon fighting rules, which grants them an extra attack, which most of them have. Hmmmm...There may be more than one way to interpret that section. You will also notice that there is a difference in wording between the two-weapon fighting rules and the natural attack rules. The two-weapon fighting rules refer to "off-hand" and the natural attack rules refer to "secondary attack(s)." In addition, the section you quoted specifically discusses creatures that do not have natural attacks so it is actually out of context.
Provide conclusive, explicit proof to the contrary, otherwise this discussion is over.
The discussion was over a long time ago to be honest. No one is going to give on their position.
Fret, you're still ignoring one critical thing.
If I have a high BAB of 6+, and am wielding a sword and a shield...I take an (???) attack action.
I make a normal attack with my sword.
I make a normal attack with my shield.
I have not made attacks with both hands, I've made two individual sequential attacks with a different hand each time.
What you're saying is that if I take a full attack action, I take penalties.
If I take two attack actions in a row in two rounds, I do not.
Except that there is no difference in the rules between these two options, other than the time between them. The rules do not define a period in which you can't use two weapons or you've commited the sin of two weapon fighting either; if I'm wrong, quote it to us.
You are only two weapon fighting if you take a full attack and apply the two weapon fighting rules. Otherwise you are making up arbitrary and unsupported rules about some sort of minimum time between normal attacks, which are not in the rules of the game.
Since TWF refers to a full round action, and the penalty lasts for all attacks you make in that round, the natural reading would be TWF restrictions apply for that round. If you may reassign which weapon attacks first in each round, you may reevaluate which weapons attack at all in each round. If you attack with both hands in a round, you are TWF. You cannot make two standard attacks in a round under normal circumstances. If you make more than one attack, then generally speaking you are using a full attack action. I fail to see where the confusion is. What other attack actions are you referring to?
You're presuming that they don't account for iterative attacks. Show me, in the rules, where it explicitly states you can alternate hands with iterative attacks. Not how you would like the rules to work. Not if you think it'd be silly if the rules didn't work that way. Show where it states you can do so in the rules. I have shown where it explicitly states in the rules that use of both hands necessitates TWF; you show me where the actual rules contradict that.No they don't. They refer to TWF, but not the "extra attack". You know why that is? Because there is no other way to fight with two weapons. It must necessarily refer to the TWF mechanic because that's the only way it can be done.Again, the rules you're citing aren't accounting for iterative attacks. So you're using the wrong rules support for your examples.
There are a lot of things that are not explicitly stated in the rules. Just because the rules don't explicitly call something out doesn't mean that it can or cannot be done.
Since TWF refers to a full round action, and the penalty lasts for all attacks you make in that round, the natural reading would be TWF restrictions apply for that round. If you may reassign which weapon attacks first in each round, you may reevaluate which weapons attack at all in each round. If you attack with both hands in a round, you are TWF. You cannot make two standard attacks in a round under normal circumstances. If you make more than one attack, then generally speaking you are using a full attack action. I fail to see where the confusion is. What other attack actions are you referring to?
You keep saying 'in a round' or referring to 'in a round'. Please indicate where the rules imply this arbitrary limitation exists.
I dont think they do. I think a round just 'sounds right' to you, which is why you're clinging to it.
You've also made up another fact about how long TWF penalties last: TWF penalties do not apply to all attacks made in a round. They only apply to the attacks made within the action that granted you 'the attack' aka The Extra Attack from two weapon fighting. Unless I've missed it, and it mentions this ellusive increment of time elsewhere than the Two-Weapon Fighting rules?
Here they are again for reference.
"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. You can reduce these penalties in two ways. First, if your off-hand weapon is light, the penalties are reduced by 2 each. An unarmed strike is always considered light. Second, the Two-Weapon Fighting feat lessens the primary hand penalty by 2, and the off-hand penalty by 6."
You may note that it doesn't imply these penalty's last beyond the extra attack and your normal attacks, by the by. The only reference to a 'round' is that you can gain an extra attack during that round. Nothing about lasting penalties.
You're presuming that they don't account for iterative attacks. Show me, in the rules, where it explicitly states you can alternate hands with iterative attacks. Not how you would like the rules to work. Not if you think it'd be silly if the rules didn't work that way. Show where it states you can do so in the rules. I have shown where it explicitly states in the rules that use of both hands necessitates TWF; you show me where the actual rules contradict that.Roll eyes.. let's do this dance again.
A full-round action requires an entire round to complete. Thus, it can't be coupled with a standard or a move action, though if it does not involve moving any distance, you can take a 5-foot step.Full Attack
If you get more than one attack per round because your base attack bonus is high enough (see Base Attack Bonus in Classes), because you fight with two weapons or a double weapon, or for some special reason, you must use a full-round action to get your additional attacks. You do not need to specify the targets of your attacks ahead of time. You can see how the earlier attacks turn out before assigning the later ones.The only movement you can take during a full attack is a 5-foot step. You may take the step before, after, or between your attacks.
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.
There, i've shown you a direct link to iterative attacks that makes no mention of the Two Weapon fighting rules or section. It also states you are able to use two weapons and start your attack sequence with either weapon.
Please do the same with yours rules citatons. Specifically, I'd like to see a section talking about base attack bonus and extra attacks.
Your citation doesn't say what you think it says. The only reference it makes is to determining which weapon strikes first when fighting with two weapons. When read in conjunction with the TWF rules, the TWF feat, and the relevant section from the Bestiary (since, apparently, the TWF feat isn't conclusive enough I guess), that means you can choose to attack either RLRL (assuming ITWF) or LRLR. That's the natural reading of all those rules together. Highest to lowest, choosing which weapon goes first. Why should you freely be able to choose the order of your strikes between hands on normal iterative attacks, but are forced into a specific order when using TWF?
Your citation doesn't say what you think it says. The only reference it makes is to determining which weapon strikes first when fighting with two weapons. When read in conjunction with the TWF rules, the TWF feat, and the relevant section from the Bestiary (since, apparently, the TWF feat isn't conclusive enough I guess), that means you can choose to attack either RLRL (assuming ITWF) or LRLR. That's the natural reading of all those rules together. Highest to lowest, choosing which weapon goes first. Why should you freely be able to choose the order of your strikes between hands on normal iterative attacks, but are forced into a specific order when using TWF?
However the section on Full Attack does not say that you must use the Special Attack known as Two-Weapon Fighting. Again, everything you reference does call out extra attacks beyond your normal ones for your Base Attack which could just as easily mean that you do not suffer the penalties unless you are gaining an extra attack.
The only way to interpret this is that if you are only using natural weapons, then you use the two-weapon fighting rules, which grants them an extra attack, which most of them have. Hmmmm...There may be more than one way to interpret that section. You will also notice that there is a difference in wording between the two-weapon fighting rules and the natural attack rules. The two-weapon fighting rules refer to "off-hand" and the natural attack rules refer to "secondary attack(s)." In addition, the section you quoted specifically discusses creatures that do not have natural attacks so it is actually out of context.
I quoted that section because it explicitly relates to PC races - in general, they do not have natural attacks. Why would PC races have different rules for TWF when they are NPC than for when they are PC? An unarmed human/orc/elf/whatever humanoid NPC, when attacking with both hands, must abide by TWF, but a PC needn't? That's wholly illogical.
Your citation doesn't say what you think it says. The only reference it makes is to determining which weapon strikes first when fighting with two weapons. When read in conjunction with the TWF rules, the TWF feat, and the relevant section from the Bestiary (since, apparently, the TWF feat isn't conclusive enough I guess), that means you can choose to attack either RLRL (assuming ITWF) or LRLR. That's the natural reading of all those rules together. Highest to lowest, choosing which weapon goes first. Why should you freely be able to choose the order of your strikes between hands on normal iterative attacks, but are forced into a specific order when using TWF?However the section on Full Attack does not say that you must use the Special Attack known as Two-Weapon Fighting. Again, everything you reference does call out extra attacks beyond your normal ones for your Base Attack which could just as easily mean that you do not suffer the penalties unless you are gaining an extra attack.
If read in a vacuum, sure. But not if read in conjunction with the other rules cited.
You keep saying 'in a round' or referring to 'in a round'. Please indicate where the rules imply this arbitrary limitation exists.
I dont think they do. I think a round just 'sounds right' to you, which is why you're clinging to it.You've also made up another fact about how long TWF penalties last: TWF penalties do not apply to all attacks made in a round. They only apply to the attacks made within the action that granted you 'the attack' aka The Extra Attack from two weapon fighting. Unless I've missed it, and it mentions this ellusive increment of time elsewhere than the Two-Weapon Fighting rules?
Here they are again for reference.
"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. You can reduce these penalties in two ways. First, if your off-hand weapon is light, the penalties are reduced by 2 each. An unarmed strike is always considered light. Second, the Two-Weapon Fighting feat lessens the primary hand penalty by 2, and the off-hand penalty by 6."
You may note that it doesn't imply these penalty's last beyond the extra attack and your normal attacks, by the by. The only reference to a 'round' is that you can gain an extra attack during that round. Nothing about lasting penalties.
A full-round action requires an entire round to complete. TWF is a full round action. Ergo, penalties apply for the entire round. It also references all regular attacks with your primary hand. AoO aside, any attacks made during your turn suffer the TWF penalties if you attack with both hands.
The only way to interpret this is that if you are only using natural weapons, then you use the two-weapon fighting rules, which grants them an extra attack, which most of them have. Hmmmm...There may be more than one way to interpret that section. You will also notice that there is a difference in wording between the two-weapon fighting rules and the natural attack rules. The two-weapon fighting rules refer to "off-hand" and the natural attack rules refer to "secondary attack(s)." In addition, the section you quoted specifically discusses creatures that do not have natural attacks so it is actually out of context.I quoted that section because it explicitly relates to PC races - in general, they do not have natural attacks. Why would PC races have different rules for TWF when they are NPC for PC? An unarmed human/orc/elf/whatever humanoid NPC, when attacking with both hands, must abide by TWF, but a PC needn't? That's wholly illogical.
So if an elf decides to attack with a punch and then kick someone, he doesn't need to abide by the two-weapon fighting rules because he isn't using both hands but if he uses both hands, then he suffers penalties? Or are we going to infer that "hands" does not need to mean "the things at the end of your arms?" (There is nothing that says he can kick explicitly stated in that section.) Even if we do, is it hard to imagine that the elf could make an additional attack (hmmm...there's that phrase again) so he needs to abide by the two-weapon fighting rules?
A full-round action requires an entire round to complete. TWF is a full round action. Ergo, penalties apply for the entire round. It also references all regular attacks with your primary hand. AoO aside, any attacks made during your turn suffer the TWF penalties if you attack with both hands.
Full Round Action != to a Full Round fyi. It takes your standard and move action, but you can still take free and swift actions before or after it, and unless its a spell, you aren't affected by it outside your turn..
"Consumes all of your effort during a round" is meaningless fluff.
Bestiary wrote:Some fey, humanoids, monstrous humanoids, and outsiders do not possess natural attacks. These creatures can make unarmed strikes, but treat them as weapons for the purpose of determining attack bonuses, and they must use the two-weapon fighting rules when making attacks with both hands.
I don't think this can be repeated enough. Some humanoids... do not posses natural attacks.
they must use the two-weapon fighting rules when making attacks with both hands.
It really is a pretty simple if/then statement.
IF: Both hands are used when attacking
THEN: TWF rules apply
If read in a vacuum, sure. But not if read in conjunction with the other rules cited.
And yet in every single instance, every single rule you mention, discusses attacks beyond what is allowed by virtue of your Base Attack Bonus. So if we don't read the rules in a vacuum, we also see that the Two-Weapon Fighting rules only apply when taking an extra attack. Find an instance where the rules do not reference taking an extra attack. It should be noted that the rule in the Bestiary applies to a base creature. Once we start advancing the creature the rules change a bit. I hope we can all agree on this point. What is the difference between a 6th level elf punching someone with his right hand once then with his left hand once and punching someone with his right hand twice (which is actually kind of odd since most people alternate attacks with their punches, including professionals).
Also, cool note.
"Fighting Defensively as a Full-Round Action
You can choose to fight defensively when taking a full-attack action. If you do so, you take a –4 penalty on all attacks in a round to gain a +2 dodge bonus to AC for the same round."
THAT is what it looks like when a penalty applies to all attacks in a round, and what it looks like when something lasts for a full round.
So if an elf decides to attack with a punch and then kick someone, he doesn't need to abide by the two-weapon fighting rules because he isn't using both hands but if he uses both hands, then he suffers penalties? Or are we going to infer that "hands" does not need to mean "the things at the end of your arms?" (There is nothing that says he can kick explicitly stated in that section.) Even if we do, is it hard to imagine that the elf could make an additional attack (hmmm...there's that phrase again) so he needs to abide by the two-weapon fighting rules?The only way to interpret this is that if you are only using natural weapons, then you use the two-weapon fighting rules, which grants them an extra attack, which most of them have. Hmmmm...There may be more than one way to interpret that section. You will also notice that there is a difference in wording between the two-weapon fighting rules and the natural attack rules. The two-weapon fighting rules refer to "off-hand" and the natural attack rules refer to "secondary attack(s)." In addition, the section you quoted specifically discusses creatures that do not have natural attacks so it is actually out of context.I quoted that section because it explicitly relates to PC races - in general, they do not have natural attacks. Why would PC races have different rules for TWF when they are NPC for PC? An unarmed human/orc/elf/whatever humanoid NPC, when attacking with both hands, must abide by TWF, but a PC needn't? That's wholly illogical.
Incorrect. It states that they can make unarmed strikes, which include hand strikes as well as any other types of attacks made by other body parts.
Unarmed Attacks: Striking for damage with punches, kicks, and head butts is much like attacking with a melee weapon
for the sake of fun.
"Hands" are used because it's the most common understanding of fighting (since in most cases weapons are being used). You're going after strawmen at this point. The writing and intent is clear.
If read in a vacuum, sure. But not if read in conjunction with the other rules cited.And yet in every single instance, every single rule you mention, discusses attacks beyond what is allowed by virtue of your Base Attack Bonus. So if we don't read the rules in a vacuum, we also see that the Two-Weapon Fighting rules only apply when taking an extra attack. Find an instance where the rules do not reference taking an extra attack. It should be noted that the rule in the Bestiary applies to a base creature. Once we start advancing the creature the rules change a bit. I hope we can all agree on this point. What is the difference between a 6th level elf punching someone with his right hand once then with his left hand once and punching someone with his right hand twice (which is actually kind of odd since most people alternate attacks with their punches, including professionals).
That's a natural result. Since the only way you can attack with both hands is to invoke the TWF mechanics, the extra attack will naturally always be available (barring some form of interruption, etc.). I fail to see how this is of any import.
That's a natural result. Since the only way you can attack with both hands is to invoke the TWF mechanics, the extra attack will naturally always be available (barring some form of interruption, etc.). I fail to see how this is of any import.
This is completely true FYI.
You can also, however, make independant sequential attacks with a weapon in any hand capable of wielding it.
Including those granted by a normal Full Attack Action, unless you can find something that says otherwise? Something that says attacks from a Full-Attack action aren't normal and independant sequential attacks, like they appear to be?
If you aren't invoking the TWF rules, you are by definition NOT 'attacking with both hands'. You're attacking with one hand, twice in sequence (a different hand each time perhaps).