You ever try to throw a shoe at a president with your left hand? It's hard. (Assuming you are right handed)
That was funny. I can't believe he thought any good would come of that.
Here is a few things I know.
1. Holding two weapons doesn't count as two weapon fighting.
Because virtually anything in your off hand could be used as a weapon.
2. A player has a primary hand and an off hand.
This is described in the Equipment section of the CRB on page 141 under the bold text Light, One-Handed, and Two-Handed Melee weapons.
The only difference to this from 3.5 is that you don't get the -4 off hand penalties.
3. The penalties for TWF only last for the action in which you are TWF.
Once you take a two-weapon fighting penalty, the penalty applies to all the attacks you make with that hand during your current action. It does not apply to attacks you make during some other character's turn. For example, say your torch-wielding swordfighter from the previous example has a base attack bonus of +10. With the full attack action, the character could make two attacks with the sword: one at +10 and the other at +5.
This is the 7th or 8th paragraph here.
I highly suggest you read the whole thing.This means that any attack that you make during another action is free from these penalties.
4. The Penalties from two-weapon fighting are only mentioned in the Two-weapon fighting feat(CRB 136) and the Two weapon fighting special attack (CRB 202.)
Both of these sections are worded very similarly. This was smugly pointed out to me proving that person didn't actually read what he was arguing against. they say:
If you wield a second weapon in your off hand, you can get one extra attack per round with that weapon.
the last* sentence is always followed by:
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.
Fighting in this way refers to the sentence above it.
Even if we assumed that wield(as it is used here) means "to use." That does not mean that the second part of the sentence can be ignored.
After all the second line says "you can" which means that you don't have to and if you don't then you never use your off-hand meaning that you aren't wielding the weapon. According to the definition chosen for wield.
If you have to be wielding it in order to get your extra attack that would mean that you would have had to attack with that weapon before you get your extra attack.
You see how this doesn't follow.
Of course that problem doesn't have anything to do with either of these sections in the rule book.
Edit: *changed following to last. Should have previewed. :D
I've never said "you're fighting and you have two weapons so you must be TWF". I've said, and still do say, that if you're holding two weapons and you attack with both of them you are TWF.
You do not need to make any extra attacks to be TWF. You simply must attack with both weapons, or intend to attack with both weapons, in order to be TWF. If the extra attack was a necessary condition to be TWF, the penalties would be dependent upon you actually making that extra attack. It is not. The penalty occurs whether an extra attack is made or not.
How can you attack with two different weapons without using an extra attack from 2WF, and (assuming you're going to say you switch weapons between iterative attacks) where does it indicate that you can do this?
Where do the rules say that attacking with both weapons causes penalties? If you are ignoring the extra attack clause, then the rules specifically state wielding, not attacking. Wielding is the act of holding and being able to use an object, not actually using it ("the robber wielded his gun menacingly").
The penalty occurs automatically when you decide whether you intend to make the extra attack at the start of your turn, just like Rapid Shot, Flurry of Blows, or any other similar thing. It's the only way any of them can work.
wield (wld)
tr.v. wield·ed, wield·ing, wields
1. To handle (a weapon or tool, for example) with skill and ease.
2. To exercise (authority or influence, for example) effectively. See Synonyms at handle.wield [wiːld]
vb (tr)
1. to handle or use (a weapon, tool, etc.)
2. to exert or maintain (power or authority)
3. (Government, Politics & Diplomacy) Obsolete to ruleWhich one does say "holding it is equal with wielding it"?
The one that says 'handle'.
han·dle (hndl)
v. han·dled, han·dling, han·dles
v.tr.
1. To touch, lift, or hold with the hands.
2. To operate with the hands; manipulate.
For some specific examples:
- The robber wielded a gun.
Which one does say "holding it is equal with wielding it"?
I see you left a few instances out of your definition..
wield verb \ˈwēld\
Definition of WIELD
transitive verb
1 : to deal successfully with : manage
2 : to handle (as a tool) especially effectively
3a : to exert one's authority by means of
3b : have at one's command or disposal
|
The points on both sides of this argument have been repeated quite a few times now. Does anybody think a consensus is going to be reached by repeating them a few more times? No offense intended to anybody; I just don't think we're getting anywhere.Agreed. It's pretty obvious. If two weapon fighting only required wielding, you'd always take the penalties thanks to unarmed strike. Unarmed strike is always wielded (and no, you don't have to attack with it to be wielding it).
Oh well. Let the dense ones bang their chests and call themselves awesome while ignoring core rules, basic logic and fairness.
That's adorable! You go right ahead and keep thinking that if it makes you feel better.
*pats on head*
I will restrain myself from insulting you for your condescension. But please, check a dictionary. Wield only requires that you be holding the object and capable of employing it if necessary, not that you be actively using it right that second. This is just English and agrees with the game terminology.
Therefor, since the game considers "Unarmed Strike" a weapon, and you do not need a free hand to use it, you are always wielding "Unarmed Strike". It then follows that if you were wielding another weapon, such as a sword, that you are wielding multiple weapons (a sword and "Unarmed Strike"). If one were to presume that wielding multiple weapons were enough for two-weapon fighting penalties, one would have to then come to the conclusion that you take those penalties at all times as you are always wielding more than one weapon (unless left with only Unarmed Strike).
Due to the above, the only natural conclusion is that it requires the *use* of two or more weapons to be two-weapon fighting. Any attempt to argue this point is fruitless as it is a long-established fact of the game that wielding only requires readiness, not actual use. If you wish to argue against over a decade of gaming, do so at your own expense.
The next step is to determine, based on game rules, whether it is necessary to gain extra attacks to count as two weapon fighting. Based on the way that the two-weapon fighting section is written and how that compares to the regular full attack, the conclusion I come to is that it is, in fact, necessary to gain extra attacks to incur penalties. This part you may disagree with, but I feel the wording is rather clear. The full-attack section allows for multiple weapons without any mention of penalties or that it counts as two-weapon fighting, while the two-weapon fighting section refers explicitly to gaining extra attacks.
So you, sir, can go on thinking whatever you wish. I only hope you avoid making any players suffer your logical inconsistencies. I would say I think less of you for it, but that would require consideration of your existence, which I'm sure will cease the moment I leave this thread.
Wielding is the act of holding and being able to use an object, not actually using it ("the robber wielded his gun menacingly").
That is not true. Once again I post:
Defending Weapon Property: Do I have to make attack rolls with the weapon to gain its AC bonus?
Yes. Merely holding a defending weapon is not sufficient. Unless otherwise specified, you have to use a magic item in the manner it is designed (use a weapon to make attacks, wear a shield on your arm so you can defend with it, and so on) to gain its benefits.
Therefore, if you don't make an attack roll with a defending weapon on your turn, you don't gain its defensive benefit.
Likewise, while you can give a shield the defending property (after you've given it a +1 enhancement bonus to attacks, of course), you wouldn't get the AC bonus from the defending property unless you used the shield to make a shield bash that round--unless you're using the shield as a weapon (to make a shield bash), the defending weapon property has no effect.
Defending: A defending weapon allows the wielder to transfer some or all of the weapon's enhancement bonus to his AC as a bonus that stacks with all others. As a free action, the wielder chooses how to allocate the weapon's enhancement bonus at the start of his turn before using the weapon, and the bonus to AC lasts until his next turn.
If you intend to use two weapons it doesn't matter if you actually used them both. You intended it, so you got penalties.You can't. And he said "attack or intend to attack".
That's what I said, but Fret disagrees. So maybe you shouldn't reply for him and put words in his mouth.
I see that you ignored my earlier post. I don't know what kind of dictionary you're using but it is lying to you. "Wield" means mainly "using". Not only that, but primarily that.
Actually I did reply, it was just delayed. Regardless, as per Wraithstrike there is a specific use for wield in the rules which implies actively using, so I take it back. You are still wrong about the definition in general English use though.
EDIT:
Funny how you quote the definition of "wield" and look only at the parts that suit you, but ignore the parts that don't.
Right back at you. Holding and being capable of using the weapon qualifies for some definitions of 'wield', meaning that you ARE wielding it by those definitions. Just not the definitions actually being used in the rules, as it turns out.
|
|
@ Moglun and Stynkk
Funny how you quote the definition of "wield" and look only at the parts that suit you, but ignore the parts that don't.
Because that's the definition of wield that all versions of D&D have used since the beginning of D&D: Holding and capable of attacking. Never has a single version that I know of (admittedly I've only played 2e+) actually required you to be actively attacking with the weapon to wield it.
For example, the book notes that you must wield a weapon to threaten. Combat reflexes lets you make attacks of opportunities while flat-footed. Now tell me, if you haven't used the weapon yet, how are you wielding it (by your definition) to utilize that fact? (Yes, wielding your weapon before combat is very common, and is ubiquitous in the classic dungeon romp.)
@wraithstrike
You're still wielding the Defending Weapon weapon (and considered the Wielder), you just dont gain the benefits of Defending unless you attack with it. It is necessary to attack with a Defending weapon to for the wielder to activate it.
You're not capable of attacking if you don't intend to attack.
This is not true.. an attack of opportunity can be gained if even if you have no intention of attacking because you're wielding a weapon that threatens a certain area.
@wraithstrike
You're still wielding the Defending Weapon weapon (and considered the Wielder), you just dont gain the benefits of Defending unless you attack with it. It is necessary to attack with a Defending weapon to for the wielder to activate it.
You're not capable of attacking if you don't intend to attack.This is not true.. an attack of opportunity can be gained if even if you have no intention of attacking.
The point of the FAQ was that to wield the weapon means to use(attack with) it. If you are not attacking with it you are not wielding it. I am not saying I agree, since I don't agree with every thing a dev(rules guys) says, but what they say is the official rule whether I like it or not.
|
|
The point of the FAQ was that to wield the weapon means to use(attack with) it. If you are not attacking with it you are not wielding it. I am not saying I agree, since I don't agree with every thing a dev(rules guys) says, but what they say is the official rule whether I like it or not.@wraithstrike
You're still wielding the Defending Weapon weapon (and considered the Wielder), you just dont gain the benefits of Defending unless you attack with it. It is necessary to attack with a Defending weapon to for the wielder to activate it.
You're not capable of attacking if you don't intend to attack.This is not true.. an attack of opportunity can be gained if even if you have no intention of attacking.
No, the point was to clarify the phrase "before using the weapon". If they don't attack, they aren't using the weapon. They *are* wielding it, just not using it. Basically, it's to clarify that you MUST use the weapon, rather than just activate it before choosing whether to do so.
As a free action, the wielder chooses how to allocate the weapon's enhancement bonus at the start of his turn before using the weapon, and the bonus to AC lasts until his next turn.
If you intend to use it then you wield it. If you don't intend to use it then you don't wield it. That's simple logic.
If you intend to use two weapons it doesn't matter if you actually used them both. You intended it, so you got penalties.
I can't find your definition anywhere.
Taking into consideration your definition I couldn't ever use Two-Weapon Defense during a Total Defense.
and I would still have to take two weapon fighting penalties even if i was never intending to use my extra attacks if I wanted to get my +1 shield bonus to AC.
This would happen a lot during standard actions.
In this instance wielding means intending to attack or defend.
Meaning that anyone wielding a shield would also suffer two weapon fighting penalties.
Say I want to light a torch that is on the wall with the torch that is in my hand. I intend to use my torch as a move action later in my turn. I am wielding my torch according to your definition. That means the standard action when I attack with my primary weapon gets TWF penalties.
The point of the FAQ was that to wield the weapon means to use(attack with) it. If you are not attacking with it you are not wielding it. I am not saying I agree, since I don't agree with every thing a dev(rules guys) says, but what they say is the official rule whether I like it or not.
I'm not getting that at all, all I'm seeing is that for use activated magic item powers you have to use the item.
|
|
How can you attack with two different weapons without using an extra attack from 2WF, and (assuming you're going to say you switch weapons between iterative attacks) where does it indicate that you can do this?
Where do the rules say that attacking with both weapons causes penalties? If you are ignoring the extra attack clause, then the rules specifically state wielding, not attacking. Wielding is the act of holding and being able to use an object, not actually using it ("the robber wielded his gun menacingly").The penalty occurs automatically when you decide whether you intend to make the extra attack at the start of your turn, just like Rapid Shot, Flurry of Blows, or any other similar thing. It's the only way any of them can work.
The problem relates to the OP wanting to fight with both weapons in a round but not pay any penalties for attacking with two weapons. (I think I'm repeating myself...again). The OP cannot begin his attacks with an axe and the finish his remaining attacks with a scimitar. If he wanted to use both weapons in a turn, he would have to use his axe as his primary hand weapon (because that is what he said he was attacking with first) and use the axe for all of the BAB iteration attacks. He would have one extra attack available as an off hand attack.
Now, after he makes his first primary attack (with the penalty for TWF, because he INTENDS to make his off hand attack), he may decide he doesn't want to use his off hand to attack. He, instead, decides that he wants to make a move action (as is allowed by the rules, and I don't think is being debated). So, that player is using the Two-Weapon Fighting rules, but did not make the Off Hand attack that everyone is crying is a mandatory requirement to apply the Two-Weapon Fighting penalties.
Now, can we please stop saying that the extra attack is a requirement for the penalties to apply?
The point of the FAQ was that to wield the weapon means to use(attack with) it. If you are not attacking with it you are not wielding it. I am not saying I agree, since I don't agree with every thing a dev(rules guys) says, but what they say is the official rule whether I like it or not.@wraithstrike
You're still wielding the Defending Weapon weapon (and considered the Wielder), you just dont gain the benefits of Defending unless you attack with it. It is necessary to attack with a Defending weapon to for the wielder to activate it.
You're not capable of attacking if you don't intend to attack.This is not true.. an attack of opportunity can be gained if even if you have no intention of attacking.No, the point was to clarify the phrase "before using the weapon". If they don't attack, they aren't using the weapon. They *are* wielding it, just not using it. Basically, it's to clarify that you MUST use the weapon, rather than just activate it before choosing whether to do so.
As a free action, the wielder chooses how to allocate the weapon's enhancement bonus at the start of his turn before using the weapon, and the bonus to AC lasts until his next turn.
also-->(use a weapon to make attacks)
Changing from just holding a weapon to wielding a weapon isn't something very hard, so I'd call it a non-action. It all depends on what your intentions are.
regardless of what house rules you'd like to add, that is not how the PF combat system works. But thank you for your suggestions. There is no "intention-ometer".
You either wield a weapon (in a manner to threaten) or merely hold it (do not threaten). Switching between the two is a Free Action.
You either Declare a Full Attack with Two Weapon Fighting or you declare a Full Attack.
If you don't declare TWF in your full attack you don't take any penalties, nor do you gain the benefit of an extra attack. But you can still use two weapons if you want :P.
The problem relates to the OP wanting to fight with both weapons in a round...
the Off Hand attack that everyone is crying is a mandatory requirement to apply the Two-Weapon Fighting penalties.
Yes, we already agreed on this. I was asking Fret to explain his position, you don't have to restate yours in response.
Now, can we please stop saying that the extra attack is a requirement for the penalties to apply?
It is still a requirement. The fact that you can sometimes end up not taking the extra attack is irrelevant to the fact that you need to declare that extra attack and that you take the penalties as a result. See Rapid Shot and Flurry of Blows for parallel examples.
How can you attack with two different weapons without using an extra attack from 2WF, and (assuming you're going to say you switch weapons between iterative attacks) where does it indicate that you can do this?
Where do the rules say that attacking with both weapons causes penalties? If you are ignoring the extra attack clause, then the rules specifically state wielding, not attacking. Wielding is the act of holding and being able to use an object, not actually using it ("the robber wielded his gun menacingly").The penalty occurs automatically when you decide whether you intend to make the extra attack at the start of your turn, just like Rapid Shot, Flurry of Blows, or any other similar thing. It's the only way any of them can work.
The problem relates to the OP wanting to fight with both weapons in a round but not pay any penalties for attacking with two weapons. (I think I'm repeating myself...again). The OP cannot begin his attacks with an axe and the finish his remaining attacks with a scimitar. If he wanted to use both weapons in a turn, he would have to use his axe as his primary hand weapon (because that is what he said he was attacking with first) and use the axe for all of the BAB iteration attacks. He would have one extra attack available as an off hand attack.
Now, after he makes his first primary attack (with the penalty for TWF, because he INTENDS to make his off hand attack), he may decide he doesn't want to use his off hand to attack. He, instead, decides that he wants to make a move action (as is allowed by the rules, and I don't think is being debated). So, that player is using the Two-Weapon Fighting rules, but did not make the Off Hand attack that everyone is crying is a mandatory requirement to apply the Two-Weapon Fighting penalties.
Now, can we please stop saying that the extra attack is a requirement for the penalties to apply?
Nope because there are those that think both statements in the TWF section have to taken together. Since in this way comes after both statements it is a valid argument.
Now if it read:
If you wield a second weapon in your off hand, 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 get one extra attack per round with that weapon when doing so.
In that case I would say there is no argument to be had. By that wording the penalties are from using the extra weapon alone, and the extra attack is just an after thought.
You either wield a weapon (in a manner to threaten) or merely hold it (do not threaten). Switching between the two is a Free Action.Can a free action be used not on your turn?
Some can and some can't. Speaking is called out as one that can. This came up about 2 weeks ago, but I can't remember what the topic of the thread was.
you're wielding it, yes, just not for attacking. TWF penalty comes into play when you intend to use the weapon offensively.
Meaning that anyone wielding a shield would also suffer two weapon fighting penalties.
I guess you couldn't disarm someone who was using both hands to carry a chest. Because there not intending to use the chest. And disarm also uses the word wield.
And you couldn't sunder any weapon because you wouldn't know if they had any intent to use it.
No, you have to declare that you're using your other weapon (to attack), not that you want extra attacks. Remember that you can make more then one attack without using extra attacks.
The act of attacking with your other weapon is what gives you extra attacks. It's the same thing.
I feel that those who haven't should really hit the FAQ button on the first post of this thread.
I'll except any decision as long as it's official. I admit only to being a fan of RPG's not a game designer and I have a track record of playing by the rules. With that in mind I am not comfortable with this situation however seldom it might occur in my games.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My official position which I stated before is that I don't think this was thought of by the devs, but since the tactic is so inefficient I see no need to impose more penalties for flavor. I would just allow it.
|
The problem relates to the OP wanting to fight with both weapons in a round but not pay any penalties for attacking with two weapons. (I think I'm repeating myself...again).
But this is what puzzles me ... I am to pay the penalties for what benefit exactly? What are the benefits here that warrant the imposition of these penalties?
If the player is forsaking 1) use of a shield, 2) the utility of a free hand, and 3) the advantages of wielding a weapon with two-hands for the privilege of holding/wielding two different weapons, why should he receive a penalty except in cases where he uses those two weapons together to gain some particular benefit? In the case of iterative attacks from BAB, switching which weapon you strike with is suboptimal (but flavorful) in the vast majority of circumstances. The optimal strategy would be to take the extra attack or take all iterative attacks with the superior of the two weapons. Only in strange cases (and in the pursuit of flavor) would it be ideal to switch off weapons in your iterative attacks. The vast majority of the time there are no benefits to fighting with two different weapons, so what is the penalty for?
Why, then, cling to the equally tenuous but more complicated position that attacking with two different weapons always constitutes TWF and thus accrues penalties to attack and damage? Rather than "taking the extra attack" constituting TWF? Devotion to a particular variant of the English language, perhaps? Because I cannot see that trading off between a hand-axe and a scimitar provides much benefit in and of itself.
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.
Firstly, you have the option of gaining an additional attack. Why would you not? Well to avoid the penalties of making extra attacks. Secondly, it does not say you suffer penalties for your off hand, but penalties to the attack. Note the singularity of this statement, as it is referring to the attack you are gaining for fighting this way.
Furthermore....
Double Weapons: You can use a double weapon to make an extra attack with the off-hand end of the weapon as if you were fighting with two weapons. The penalties apply as if the off-hand end of the weapon was a light weapon.
Notice that it even notes the additional attack in the double-weapons entry, and then points you back to the basic two-weapon fighting rules, which again note the extra attack as the way you are fighting.
To try to ignore the fact it is calling out the additional attack as being the way you are fighting, you create strange inconsistencies and weirdness. For example, if you are not using "the" extra attack, then you would only receive the penalties to your primary hand, but not your off hand attacks unless they were extra attacks. Sound stupid? That's because it is.
Base Attack does not care what weapon you are using for it. The only time you suffer penalties to your attacks is when you are making bonus attacks with your off-hand weapon, which you declare when you are making bonus attacks because you are wielding two-weapons.
EDIT: Again, note that prior to "the attack", it notes your regular attack (singular) or attacks (plural). The penalties only occur when you are getting an additional attack.
I'm afraid James Jacobs trumps your understanding of the English language.It wouldn't be the first time.
But anyway, four posts later in that same thread, after someone asked him if that very post could be considered an official clarification on TWF and multiple weapons, someone else said that only Jason makes things official, and thus James chose to go do real work instead.
The way I read the thread was that James Jacobs answered the question clearly. Then someone tried to be a smartass and complicate the question further with spurious points. At that point Mr Jacobs politely told them he was working, rather than get involved with yet another debate where people do not listen.
| 2 people marked this as FAQ candidate. 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
@ Kegluneq: The benefit is getting to use any bonuses from special materials, enchantments, or damage types from multiple weapons. Ultimately, it's more costly to maintain those multiple weapons, but there's the benefit.
Reverting to the topic: I've seen a couple of convincing arguments from both sides. I've also seen a number of specious arguments on both sides. I'm going to attempt to sum what I see as the major supporting arguments of both sides up in an objective fashion below, but a close reading of the thread will reveal all points to a reader.
"Ok so here's the situation.
Say I have a scimitar in my left hand, and an axe in my right. I have a BAB of 13, so I have 3 iterative attacks at +13, 8 and +3 respectively (not counting other bonuses).
Question: can I, without the Two Weapon Fighting feat, deliver the first attack with my axe, and the next two attacks with my scimitar (i.e. axe attack with +13, and then two scimitar attacks at +8 and +3 respectively)?
Edit: also, would the attacks with the scimitar only gain half my str bonus to damage, or the full bonus?"
From this question, the thread then added the question, "Does doing what he did invoke TWF penalties?"
Major points:
"If you are using two weapons, you can strike with either weapon first."
Depending on the reading, this implies that when you are using two weapons, you can use either one for the first attack, then change to the other for the next attack of a full-attack action. If only using the BAB iteratives, it could be interpreted as being allowed to change weapons between iterations.
Counter: The counter-argument is that attacking with either weapon first is referring only to extra attacks gained from TWF, which would be of the same iteration. Example: You have BAB +11, TWF, and ITWF. You could do primary +11/off +11 or off +11/primary +11, then do primary +6/off +6 or off +6/primary +6, then do primary +1 or off +1, with each iterative being independent of the others. So far, this is one of the stronger points I'm seeing on the part of being able to switch weapons in a normal iterative.
Counter: If it were decidedly clear for one reading or another, then there wouldn't be a disagreement over how to interpret it. This argument supports nobody's side conclusively.
Counter: Not all definitions of "wield" cause a character to always satisfy TWF conditions (see above conditional statement). Also, with some of the examples cited (shields, thrown weapons, double-weapons), subjectivity is being ignored. Barring an official definition of "wield," and conditions under which "wield" has a different defintion OR a consensus on a definition for "wield," this argument also does not support either side conclusively.
Major points:
Counter: James Jacobs has reversed his position before with further thought. According to some, James has claimed to not be a "rules guy" (citation needed), and an opinion from Jason would carry more weight. This may not have the most weight, but it is the only applicable Developer input that has been cited in the thread.
Counter: Archetypes have re-iterated rules before. Cited repeatedly was the Polearm fighter and the Trip issue. Also mentioned is that Archetypes, while canon, are not as canon as the Core (rephrasing for clarity).
Counter: The wording of Two-Weapon fighting in the Combat chapter is ambiguous (see grammatical below). The repetition in the feat under the Normal section is equally ambiguous, although very slightly different. Also, depending on definition of "wielding" (see below), penalties apply constantly.
Counter: If it were decidedly clear for one reading or another, then there wouldn't be a disagreement over how to interpret it. This argument supports nobody's side conclusively.
Counter: Not all definitions of "wield" cause a character to always satisfy TWF conditions (see above conditional statement). Also, with some of the examples cited (shields, thrown weapons, double-weapons), subjectivity is being emphasized over objectivity. Barring an official definition of "wield," and conditions under which "wield" has a different defintion OR a consensus on a definition for "wield," this argument also does not support either side conclusively.
So far, neither of the two questions posed by this thread has been conclusively answered. Those two questions are as follows:
As far as when penalties apply for Two-Weapon fighting, I look at the first half of the Two-Weapon Fighting feat and see my answer. The penalties apply when fighting with two weapons. The extra attack is a kindness for those with the ability to take it.
Here's hoping for an intervention of some sort, whether that be a consensus brought by the divine, or a Developer answering one of the major contention points and changing the debate field. I'm not going to post anymore. It's been fun, and extremely frustrating, following this thread.
It is clear to me that as a game mechanic you gain a minuses to hit to balance the extra attack/s gained from TWF. You do not get these minuses for just having another weapon wielded at the same time. If this were true, if you happened to have improved unarmed strike, a spiked gauntlet, armor spikes, and/or a light/heavy shield in addition to the weapon you are using in your hand the penalty for TWF would apply. So it just seems all too simple that like power attack where you take a minus to hit to get a bonus on damage, you are with TWF taking a minus to hit to get an extra attack.
If you wield a second weapon in your off hand (condition), you can (option) 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. (penalty)
Condition....option....penalty of condition. Simple.
Double weapons are phrased differently because wielding them can be two handed rather than dual handed if you choose not to take an additional attack. The basic rules structure however is plain.
Double Weapons: You can (option) use a double weapon to make an extra attack with the off-hand end of the weapon as if you were fighting with two weapons (condition). The penalties apply as if the off-hand end of the weapon was a light weapon (penalty).
Yes you would have to state before your first attack roll, just like you would if you were making a full round movement (which precludes your standard attack) or just a move action (or five foot step etc.)
I think what is going on here is that people might be assuming that the feat is the rules, while the feat is supposed to be a note to a modification of the rules.
Two-Weapon FightingIf 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.
These bold sections imply it is a choice to get an extra attack and then get the minus to hit.
I look at this as an if/then statement.
Two-Weapon FightingIf you wield a second weapon in your off hand, you can get one extra attack per round with that weapon.
If you meet these conditions and choose to use this options, then this applies:
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.
Except you are ignoring the fact the penalties only apply when you are making the conditional attack. Notice that the penalties to the off hand are defined as the extra attack. The attack. If you are not making an extra attack, you are not fighting in this way, and you are not taking penalties.
No matter how many rules you guys try to add, it doesn't change it.
Except you are ignoring the fact the penalties only apply when you are making the conditional attack. Notice that the penalties to the off hand are defined as the extra attack. The attack. If you are not making an extra attack, you are not fighting in this way, and you are not taking penalties.
No matter how many rules you guys try to add, it doesn't change it.
The rules right there state that if you have a second weapon you can get an extra attack. Then it goes into say what the effect of taking that 2nd attack would mean assuming you want to get the extra attack. The entire section past the fist sentence is worded in a way amusing the first sentence is true. Thus why it is in the Two Weapon Fighting Section and the first sentence states what it says, and is stated first.
P.S. Assuming you are correct, what would this mean for shields, armor spikes, and unarmed strikes while using the improved unarmed strikes?
If you are an unarmed fighter, and you have the improved unarmed strike, you always have a 2nd hand, foot, chin, elbow, etc able to be used as a weapon, so you will always take these minuses from TWF if the rules worked the way you say they do.
It is clear to me that as a game mechanic you gain a minuses to hit to balance the extra attack/s gained from TWF. You do not get these minuses for just having another weapon wielded at the same time. If this were true, if you happened to have improved unarmed strike, a spiked gauntlet, armor spikes, and/or a light/heavy shield in addition to the weapon you are using in your hand the penalty for TWF would apply. So it just seems all too simple that like power attack where you take a minus to hit to get a bonus on damage, you are with TWF taking a minus to hit to get an extra attack.
Unarmed ability, spiked gauntlet or even codpiece of doom (armour spikes) are not an issue so long as you are not wielding them in the combat round. You declare your actions and apply penalties to them when you attack. Either putting yourself in the TWF 'condition' which gives you the 'option' of both an extra attack and using a different weapon (cod piece, fist, kick off hand scimitar, other end of the staff, blunt damage weapon, slashing, whatever), or you go all vanilla and just hit em upside the head with your primary attack(s)-thus you closed down your options but took no TWF penalty.
It is a trade off, options for penalties. It may be sub optimal. People may not like it. It's in the rules.
The game mechanics are far more than just -1 to hit equals +1 damage.
As I've said before, house rules are great... but don't pretend that the rules say something different just because you don't like them or it seems unfair.
I think what is going on here is that people might be assuming that the feat is the rules, while the feat is supposed to be a note to a modification of the rules.
Two-Weapon FightingIf 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.
These bold sections imply it is a choice to get an extra attack and then get the minus to hit.
I look at this as an if/then statement.
Two-Weapon FightingIf you wield a second weapon in your off hand, you can get one extra attack per round with that weapon.
If you meet these conditions and choose to use this options, then this applies:
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.
Maybe more people should learn computer languages like C++. Those languages are essentially writing in pure logic. They include statements such as if, else, and algorithms which explain how stuff works. If written out in code, it might appear like this.
TWO_WEAPON_FIGHTING {
if main_hand_equipped = 1;
if off_hand_equipped = 1;
call function = TWF_Extra_Attack;
/* TWF_Extra_Attack function adds additional attack with off-hand weapon at a penalty to attacks (-6/-10). If the character possesses the feat Two Weapon Fighting or wields a weapon with the light quality in off-hand slot, the penalties are reduced by those functions. */
else end;}
It is a trade off, options for penalties. It may be sub optimal. People may not like it. It's in the rules.
No, it's not. It's not because you refuse to acknowledge the fact there is a condition to suffering the penalties. The condition is taking the extra attack. As it has been noted before, it specifies the attack that you are making with your off-hand. If you are not making the attack you are not taking these penalties. It even clears it up further by noting it only occurs when fighting this way.
It is a trade off, options for penalties. It may be sub optimal. People may not like it. It's in the rules.
Is it in the rules? I've seen many posts and no truly conclusive evidence.
Two-Weapon FightingIf you wield a second weapon in your off hand, you can get one extra attack per round with that weapon.
If you meet these conditions and choose to use this options, then this applies:
If you meet these conditions you get the option to, "you can", make the extra attack. You do not have to use it, you can. There is no "and" proviso within the rules.
Maybe more people should learn computer languages like C++. Those languages are essentially writing in pure logic. They include statements such as if, else, and algorithms which explain how stuff works. If written out in code, it might appear like this.TWO_WEAPON_FIGHTING {
if main_hand_equipped = 1;
if off_hand_equipped = 1;
if extra_attack = 1;
call function = TWF_Extra_Attack;
/* TWF_Extra_Attack function adds additional attack with off-hand weapon at a penalty to attacks (-6/-10). If the character possesses the feat Two Weapon Fighting or wields a weapon with the light quality in off-hand slot, the penalties are reduced by those functions. */else end;}
First this is English not computer.
Here I think this fixed it, as the entire first sentence is an if statement.
It is a trade off, options for penalties. It may be sub optimal. People may not like it. It's in the rules.Is it in the rules? I've seen many posts and no truly conclusive evidence.
Yes you have, you have chosen not to believe it.
It is a trade off, options for penalties. It may be sub optimal. People may not like it. It's in the rules.No, it's not. It's not because you refuse to acknowledge the fact there is a condition to suffering the penalties. The condition is taking the extra attack. As it has been noted before, it specifies the attack that you are making with your off-hand. If you are not making the attack you are not taking these penalties. It even clears it up further by noting it only occurs when fighting this way.
"When you are fighting in this way" refers to the first part of the sentence, the condition, "If you wield a weapon in your off hand".
Just because you choose to make the attack bold does not make it the condition.
This might have been missed.
Assuming you are correct, what would this mean for shields, armor spikes, and unarmed strikes while using the improved unarmed strikes?
If you are an unarmed fighter, and you have the improved unarmed strike, you always have a 2nd hand, foot, chin, elbow, etc able to be used as a weapon, so you will always take these minuses from TWF if the rules worked the way you say they do.
Maybe more people should learn computer languages like C++. Those languages are essentially writing in pure logic. They include statements such as if, else, and algorithms which explain how stuff works. If written out in code, it might appear like this.TWO_WEAPON_FIGHTING {
if main_hand_equipped = 1;
if off_hand_equipped = 1;
if extra_attack = 1;
call function = TWF_Extra_Attack;
/* TWF_Extra_Attack function adds additional attack with off-hand weapon at a penalty to attacks (-6/-10). If the character possesses the feat Two Weapon Fighting or wields a weapon with the light quality in off-hand slot, the penalties are reduced by those functions. */else end;}
First this is English not computer.
Here I think this fixed it, as the entire first sentence is an if statement.
So, that's your house rule, good. It's not the actual rules, or a representation of such.
Ok, I'll try to dig a layer deeper here to move this debate from its current deadlock. Let's look to the Feat called Two Weapon Fighting. This is actually different than the mechanic Two Weapon Fighting.
This feat expands on the combat capabilities of a character that employs the game mechanic known as "Two Weapon Fighting" by reducing the penalties for fighting in this way.
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.
We see here in the NORMAL section that declaring your desire to "Two Weapon Fight" necessitates that you are intending to gain an extra attack. The feat is entirely focused on the extra attack and even references the TWF section in the combat chapter (which is different than and separate from the Full Attack section in the combat chapter).
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.