[D&D4th] Two weapon figthing

[Arakune]

So, my friend stats that the rules about figthing with two weapons is a bit ambiguous in regard of actual need for 'off-hand' property in order to use one weapon in each hand. This isn't about using a power to attack with both weapons at the same time, but to have an extra weapon to choose witch one to attack at any given time.,

Thanks for the reply.

[Mauril Everleaf]

That is, in effect, like stating that you don't need two hands to wield a two handed weapon. It is called the off-hand property for a reason. Also, the special ability of TWF rangers is the ability to wield one-handed weapons in their off-hand. If there was no rule forbidding other characters from doing this, why would the TWF ranger need a special exception?

In order for a weapon to be wielded, WotC has ruled that it must be capable of being used. In order for a weapon to be capable of being used in the off-hand, it must have the off-hand property (with the exception of the TWF ranger). I don't have my books in front of me at the moment, but the only potential for ambiguity would be because WotC may not explicitly spell it out in one paragraph.

I would quote the relevant texts from the ranger ability (to show the exception) and the off-hand property text (to show you the rule) but I am away from my books and the Compendium seems to hate me right now and won't let me see the full version.

People are free to disagree with me (since I don't have the relevant text quoted) or support it by supplying the text I can't seem to access right now.

[Master_Rahl22]

I'm 99% sure that Mauril is right. I don't have the text either, but that sounds like what I've seen before.

[Arakune]

I'm 99% sure that Mauril is right. I don't have the text either, but that sounds like what I've seen before.

I may be a jerk, but I'm also 99% sure that's how it is too. But I wanted opinions about the rulling.

Is it really ambiguous? Is there any section that contradicts itself about this particular rule? I couldn't find one, but that guy keep insisting about it. I know this is the 'int4rnetz' but there must be a point where difirent opinions become outrigth delusion.

[Meek]

So, my friend stats that the rules about figthing with two weapons is a bit ambiguous in regard of actual need for 'off-hand' property in order to use one weapon in each hand. This isn't about using a power to attack with both weapons at the same time, but to have an extra weapon to choose witch one to attack at any given time.,

Thanks for the reply.

Only off-hand weapons can be wielded in your off-hand.

The Ranger has a class feature (TWF style) which allows them to wield any one-handed weapon like it had the off-hand property. This is an exception.

I don't have the text with me, but I didn't really find it ambiguous at all.

The only confusion is if you played 3.5 and expect that 4e will work the same (anyone can attack with two weapons by taking gross penalties). But as for what weapons you can actually hold, I found that pretty clear.

[Indon]

This question doesn't seem to actually be about the two-weapon fighting rules.

I think I can clarify, though I don't know what the answer would be.

-Say you have a character who has both weapon and implement powers (and no way to use a weapon as an implement and vice-versa). They wield a one-handed weapon in one hand and a one-handed implement in the other. Is a character able to do this in order to access both their weapon and implement powers without penalty?

[Meek]

This question doesn't seem to actually be about the two-weapon fighting rules.

I think I can clarify, though I don't know what the answer would be.

-Say you have a character who has both weapon and implement powers (and no way to use a weapon as an implement and vice-versa). They wield a one-handed weapon in one hand and a one-handed implement in the other. Is a character able to do this in order to access both their weapon and implement powers?

Yes. Implements don't really follow the holding rules in this way – look at all the illustrations of an Artificer with a wand in one hand and a crossbow in another. The only confusion would be in the Staff.

[Mauril Everleaf]

Yay! I got the Compendium to work!

Relevant texts away!

An off-hand weapon is light enough that you can hold it and attack effectively with it while holding a weapon in your main hand. You can’t attack with both weapons in the same turn, unless you have a power that lets you do so, but you can attack with either weapon.


Two-Blade Fighting Style
Because of your focus on two-weapon melee attacks, you can wield a one-handed weapon in your off hand as if it were an off-hand weapon. (Make sure to designate on your character sheet which weapon is main and which is off-hand.) In addition, you gain Toughness as a bonus feat.
(Especially relevant part bolded)

With those two rules, outlining normal procedure and the exception, and a healthy dose of common sense, I would be hard pressed to be convinced by a player to rule the they didn't need the off-hand property to wield something in their off hand.

Even if there was some ambiguity, that's where I would smack the player in the back of the head with the DMG and remind them that ambiguity is not a free license to obviously subvert the intent of the rules.

Edit: Ninjas!

Also, pretty much every implement with the exception of the staff has the off-hand property attached. A holy symbol doesn't even need to be held. It can just hang from your neck. It even gets its own slot in the Character Builder.

Illustrations are not something to base rules disputes on anyway. They are usually drawn by people who have no idea what the real rules are but have some training in fantasy art.

[Indon]

Yes. Implements don't really follow the holding rules in this way – look at all the illustrations of an Artificer with a wand in one hand and a crossbow in another. The only confusion would be in the Staff.

Well, the same question can be extended to a weapon scenario.

Say you're a fighter with powers with both sword and axe effects. You wield a one-handed sword and a one-handed axe. You will never make a dual-wield attack - you will only ever attack with either your sword or your axe.

Can you do so with no penalty?

Really, it's not 'two-weapon' fighting so much as it is 'either weapon' fighting.

[Arakune]

Well, the same question can be extended to a weapon scenario.

Say you're a fighter with powers with both sword and axe effects. You wield a one-handed sword and a one-handed axe. You will never make a dual-wield attack - you will only ever attack with either your sword or your axe.

Can you do so with no penalty?

Really, it's not 'two-weapon' fighting so much as it is 'either weapon' fighting.

Well, that's pretty much the question.

Edit: Technicaly, nothing in the game will give you a real 'penalty'. You could lose access to bonus or powers, but you don't get any actual -X on anything if you can take a feat or are from any race or can use any weapon. Note the can part of the text.

Why in Brazil people keep confuding RAW with RAI and RAI with WTF?! level house rules? Either that or I'm hanging around the wrong forum :smallannoyed:

[Mauril Everleaf]

Indon is right, more or less. With the exception of the Tempest Fighter and Two-Weapon Ranger, it's not really "two weapon fighting" as it is "either weapon fighting".

As such, the weapon in your off-hand (which your character is supposed to designate even as a Tempest Fighter and TWF Ranger) needs to have the off-hand property. The weapon in your main hand can have the off-hand property too, if you want. Tempest Fighters actually are better off, in some respects, wielding two off-hand weapons due to their class feature.

[Hal]

The only real ambiguity I might find is whether you just can't hold the weapon or just don't get the proficiency bonus. If a player is so crazy that he wants to be a wizard dual-wielding battleaxes, then I guess let him be crazy.

[Arakune]

The only real ambiguity I might find is whether you just can't hold the weapon or just don't get the proficiency bonus. If a player is so crazy that he wants to be a wizard dual-wielding battleaxes, then I guess let him be crazy.

Holding, fair game for me by RAW if it's a real weapon: take a longsword in your off-hand and pick TWF feat to get the +1 bonus, it's dumb but aparently legal by literal interpretation. That's where room for discussion can go, but otherwise I don't see any ambiguidy.

The crazy wizard can dual-hold battleaxes but only the one in his main hand can be used to attack. Why he should ignore the rules because it's a suboptimal, yet awesome, choice?

[Sipex]

I thought 'either weapon fighting' was pretty lame (especially for rogues who don't get double attack powers) so I houseruled in my game that if you attacked with the mainhand weapon using a standard action you could use up a minor action at the same time, take a -2 penalty to the second attack and attack with your offhand weapon as well. No powers can be attached to the offhand attack though and the weapon wielded still needs to be legal.

So far it seems to work well, might need to be adjusted if you have a two weapon fighter or ranger in the group so things remain balanced.

[Mando Knight]

Holding, fair game for me by RAW if it's a real weapon: take a longsword in your off-hand and pick TWF feat to get the +1 bonus, it's dumb but aparently legal by literal interpretation. That's where room for discussion can go, but otherwise I don't see any ambiguity.

Nope. You need to wield two weapons in order to benefit from Two-Weapon Fighting, and so if you aren't a Two-Weapon style Ranger (by initial choice or with the Martial Power Ranger Multiclass feat), you can't benefit from holding (which is a different term from wielding) a non-off-hand weapon in your off-hand.

The idea of the TWF feat is that by threatening the opponent with two weapons simultaneously, you're able to get a better hit with your attack than if he were defending against just the one weapon.

For extra attacks with off-hand weapons without multiclassing into either Fighter or Ranger, WotC did supply a set of feats (mostly in Paragon tier, IIRC) in PHB II that would let you make additional attacks with the off-hand weapon given certain criteria.

[Shadow_Elf]

There has been a lot of confusion between wielding, holding, hands on a weapon at any given time and the actions required to switch between them.

For example: Bob the Swordmage has built himself to be an impenetrable tank, so, naturally, he needs to keep on hand free to benefit from his Warding feature fully.

However! Bob wields a Bastard Sword, a versatile weapon. On his turn he can make two-handed weapon attacks with the bastard sword, and then let go with one hand to return his warding to its usual state. The only disadvantage to this increase in damage would be opportunity/immediate actions. However, by RAW, he can do this as much as he wants.

On the other hand, we have Moe the Rogue. He wields a crossbow in two hands, but, when an enemy gets close, he simply holds the crossbow in one hand and draws his dagger/shortsword/rapier/whatever with his Quick Draw feat to stave off the enemy. As a free action he can drop his light blade, another free action puts two hands on the crossbow and then he keeps firing as usual.

Finally, we have a Fighter name Joe who, rather than take up a shield decided he wanted power versatility. Joe has Flail attacks and Hammer attacks. He wields a one-handed Hammer in his main hand, and holds a one-handed flail in his off-hand. Since he is never "Dual-Wielding", he cannot benefit from Two-Weapon _______, but he can, as a free action, change his grip on each weapon and use the other one. He can never use both as part of the same attack, even if he picks up powers from the Tempest Fighter technique.

As far as I can tell, Bob, Moe and Joe's techniques are all legal, by RAW, though rather unorthodox and in some cases inadvisable.

[Arakune]

Nope. You need to wield two weapons in order to benefit from Two-Weapon Fighting, and so if you aren't a Two-Weapon style Ranger (by initial choice or with the Martial Power Ranger Multiclass feat), you can't benefit from holding (which is a different term from wielding) a non-off-hand weapon in your off-hand.

The idea of the TWF feat is that by threatening the opponent with two weapons simultaneously, you're able to get a better hit with your attack than if he were defending against just the one weapon.

For extra attacks with off-hand weapons without multiclassing into either Fighter or Ranger, WotC did supply a set of feats (mostly in Paragon tier, IIRC) in PHB II that would let you make additional attacks with the off-hand weapon given certain criteria.

Considering the text for TWF feat says 'holding' instead of 'wielding' a weapon, thinking it's a bug in the rules is reasonable and that's why I said room for discussion. Some people can convince their DMs to let that one slip, but it's quite bad considering you are trading +1~+3 and special effects worth of AC to get only +1 to hit.

Using said weapon for attack, on the other hand...

Edit: Shadow elf, that's the proposed strategy I think was supposed to be for 'either weapon fighting' style.

[Artanis]

There has been a lot of confusion between wielding, holding, hands on a weapon at any given time and the actions required to switch between them.

For example: Bob the Swordmage has built himself to be an impenetrable tank, so, naturally, he needs to keep on hand free to benefit from his Warding feature fully.

However! Bob wields a Bastard Sword, a versatile weapon. On his turn he can make two-handed weapon attacks with the bastard sword, and then let go with one hand to return his warding to its usual state. The only disadvantage to this increase in damage would be opportunity/immediate actions. However, by RAW, he can do this as much as he wants.

On the other hand, we have Moe the Rogue. He wields a crossbow in two hands, but, when an enemy gets close, he simply holds the crossbow in one hand and draws his dagger/shortsword/rapier/whatever with his Quick Draw feat to stave off the enemy. As a free action he can drop his light blade, another free action puts two hands on the crossbow and then he keeps firing as usual.

Finally, we have a Fighter name Joe who, rather than take up a shield decided he wanted power versatility. Joe has Flail attacks and Hammer attacks. He wields a one-handed Hammer in his main hand, and holds a one-handed flail in his off-hand. Since he is never "Dual-Wielding", he cannot benefit from Two-Weapon _______, but he can, as a free action, change his grip on each weapon and use the other one. He can never use both as part of the same attack, even if he picks up powers from the Tempest Fighter technique.

As far as I can tell, Bob, Moe and Joe's techniques are all legal, by RAW, though rather unorthodox and in some cases inadvisable.
I don't see much of a problem with any of them. The RAW is perfectly reasonable for the Fighter and the Rogue, and it works out just fine for all three:

Swordmage: Switching to two hands with a versatile weapon is a whole one point of damage. Uh...yay? Yeah, the fundamental flaw could have wound up a lot worse, but one point of damage isn't exactly massive. Further, given how much of the Swordmage's capability relies on out-of-turn actions, it doesn't do too much good. Plus, for whatever it's worth, it does make the SM more vulnerable to enemy OAs and whatnot.

Rogue: You have to either pick the weapon back up or else have multiples of it to do this more than once per fight. Have fun trying to keep two or three weapons up-to-date just so you can do something that you, as a ranged character, don't want to be doing anyways.

Fighter: Like ryuan said, not being able to "wield" both at once doesn't matter for things like Two-Weapon Whatever feats. And only being able to use one per attack isn't a problem because doing so is the entire point of a TWF Ranger. If you want to use both weapons at once on a regular basis, use or MC into Ranger.

[TheEmerged]

RE: Weapon + Implement. There are actually several art pieces that point to this. The female gnome in the PHB2 racial description is one I remember off-hand (pun intended).

[Sophismata]

The rules are ambiguous on this aspect. I remember going over this before (both in a group and online, IIRC).

The problem is, there is no requirement that an 'off-hand' weapon have the off-hand property. The off-hand property lists itself as an exception to a rule that doesn't exist. Because of this, no penalties or advice is given regarding two one-handed weapons or something similar.

What I would rule, mechanically, is that in order to make a two-weapon attack you must wield two weapons. Unless otherwise noted, you may only wield a weapon with the off-hand property in your off-hand. However, you are free to hold two one-handed weapons and use either in an attack normally. There is some slight mechanical advantage to doing this, but you're forgoing a shield and possible other benefits. You are not wielding two weapons and do not gain feat bonuses as if you were (ignore references to holding in this circumstance).



I thought 'either weapon fighting' was pretty lame (especially for rogues who don't get double attack powers) so I houseruled in my game that if you attacked with the mainhand weapon using a standard action you could use up a minor action at the same time, take a -2 penalty to the second attack and attack with your offhand weapon as well.

Haha, I always found either-weapon fighting to be rather cool and DnD's two-weapon fighting the lame one. I never understood the notion of TWF granting extra attacks. This is not a shot at you, of course, I just find our difference of opinion amusing :).