One Weapon, TWF

[2xMachina]

So... anyone thought of this before? Is it viable?

Use 1 weapon, attack with 1 hand, leaving the other free.
Free action, put your other hand on, take off the 1st hand.
Attack with the 2nd hand.

So, you can TWF without having to spend double on weapons.

[Dogmantra]

Doesn't work I'm afraid. The TWF feat only reduces the penalty for fighting with two weapons, and the rule says you get an extra attack if you wield a second weapon.


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.)

There's always double weapons if you like the idea of two-weapon fighting with only one weapon, but that's not going to save you dosh, and it won't leave a hand free either.

[Halae]

Hmm... the DM in me says that that would be a move action to switch hands. it may be possible with something like quickdraw, but convincing your dm that you're "drawing" it from your other hand may be a bit tough

EDIT: and ninja'ed by an even better reason why it wouldn't work. sorry.

[Xiander]

Rules as intended: It´s called TWO weapon fighting, not hand changing style.

[Crossblade]

Characters aren't designated as having an 'off-hand', so it doesn't matter which hand the weapon starts in, any attacks beyond the first roll count as a second attack; regardless of which hand the weapon ends up in at the end of your turn.
Therefore, as the rules state, you only get a 2nd attack with 1 weapon if your BAB is +6/+1.

[Baidas Kebante]

With Unarmed Strike (feat or monk), you can TWF with a one-handed weapon while leaving the other one free. In theory, if you can find a weapon that attaches to a bracer you might be able to use that method too.

[Greenish]

Hmm... the DM in me says that that would be a move action to switch hands.Sage has suggested that taking a hand off a two-hander and grabbing a two-hander you hold in your other hand with your free hand are free actions, for what "Sage" is worth.

Though it still wouldn't work, since TWF gives you an extra attack with a second weapon, as pointed out.

[Edit]:
With Unarmed Strike (feat or monk), you can TWF with a one-handed weapon while leaving the other one free.You don't need the feat to use unarmed strikes, if you don't mind provoking an AoO every time you attack. :smallamused:

Besides, enchanting your unarmed strike is more expensive than enchanting weapons, unless you can wing an amulet of natural weapons.

[Murdim]

Use 1 weapon, attack with 1 hand, leaving the other free.
Free action, put your other hand on, take off the 1st hand.
Attack with the 2nd hand.
Putting or removing one of your hands from a hold item is considered a free action ; this is how you can cast spells while wielding a two-handed weapon. So you could do this, I guess, but it wouldn't grant you any additional attack.

By RAW, switching your weapon from one hand to another doesn't yield any drawback either, since D&D doesn't actually handle handedness outside of two-weapon fighting.

[Dogmantra]

Amusingly, by a particular interpretation of of the phrase "second weapon in your off hand" it's implied you actually need three weapons to use TWF... :smallamused:

[Attilargh]

Can you even take free actions in the middle of a full attack action?

[AnswersQuestion]

Can you even take free actions in the middle of a full attack action?

Yes. Swift actions/immediate actions too. The 5' step is an example of a free action that can be done in the middle of a full attack.

[gbprime]

If you're interested in using 1 weapon and flipping it to the other hand for a bonus, check out the Einhander feat in PHB2.

[Claudius Maximus]

Yes. Swift actions/immediate actions too. The 5' step is an example of a free action that can be done in the middle of a full attack.

A 5-foot step isn't a free action, it's not an action at all.

Otherwise though you're correct. There are items that activate as swift actions when you hit people, so it stands to reason that you can throw swift actions in the middle of attacks and full attacks.

Also it's pretty clear you can quickdraw between attacks, if you're throwing daggers at people for example. The fact that Rapid Reload lets you full attack with light crossbows is also significant.

[Incanur]

There's always the old greatsword plus armor spikes/unarmed strike option, assuming it works. Doesn't get you extra attacks with the one expensive weapon, though.

[Attilargh]

Also it's pretty clear you can quickdraw between attacks, if you're throwing daggers at people for example. The fact that Rapid Reload lets you full attack with light crossbows is also significant.
Ah, of course. Didn't think of those. Live and learn, I guess.

[dgnslyr]

What if you have two Gnomish Quickrazors? You have your "main," enchanted one in your right hand, and a mundane one in your left. Attack with your main hand, sheathe both and redraw them so the "main" Quickrazor is in your off-hand, and attack away.

[Greenish]

What if you have two Gnomish Quickrazors? You have your "main," enchanted one in your right hand, and a mundane one in your left. Attack with your main hand, sheathe both and redraw them so the "main" Quickrazor is in your off-hand, and attack away.I'm not sure you get to sheathe the quickrazor as a free action to any other sheath but the one you've strapped to the arm you use it with.

Besides, you still aren't attacking with a second weapon.

[ShiningStarling]

I think the thing to do here is to homebrew a feat that says you can TWF with one weapon, but maybe require a sleight of hand skill check to pull off the second hand, and put sleight of hand as a requiremant for the feat, along with at least improved TWF.

[Greenish]

I think the thing to do here is to homebrew a feat that says you can TWF with one weapon, but maybe require a sleight of hand skill check to pull off the second hand, and put sleight of hand as a requiremant for the feat, along with at least improved TWF.Well, depends on how silly you want the the setting to be. "Hey, look, I get extra attacks by juggling my sword!"

Another idea might be to just reduce the cost of one-handed weapons.

[mootoall]

Yes. Swift actions/immediate actions too. The 5' step is an example of a free action that can be done in the middle of a full attack. Wait, swift actions in the middle of a full attack? So with Travel Devotion, could you move your full base land speed in the middle of a full attack routine? Me like!

[Cirrhosis]

You could use a spiked gauntlet on your off-hand. It would be enchantable as a weapon, counts as an armed strike when making an attack, and still leaves your hand "free" for the purpose of needing a free hand. It does still mean you'd be buying two weapons though.

On the other hand, medium and heavy armor come with gauntlets standard which deal lethal damage but still count as unarmed strikes for the purpose of attacks of opportunity, so you'd need to take improved unarmed attack, but you can still enchant gauntlets as weapons.

[Curmudgeon]

Wait, swift actions in the middle of a full attack? So with Travel Devotion, could you move your full base land speed in the middle of a full attack routine? Me like!
That's a perfectly reasonable action, as is a swift action teleport spell like Knight's Move, or a 10' adjustment for a Monk who trained with a Sparring Dummy of the Master.
swift action

A swift action consumes a very small amount of time, but represents a larger expenditure of effort and energy than a free action. You can perform one swift action per turn without affecting your ability to perform other actions. In that regard, a swift action is like a free action. However, you can perform only a single swift action per turn, regardless of what other actions you take. You can take a swift action any time you would normally be allowed to take a free action.
free action

Free actions consume a negligible amount of time, and one or more such actions can be performed in conjunction with actions of other types.

[Claudius Maximus]

You could always just brew a feat that gives you an extra attack with your weapon at -2 or -4. Just call it Rapid Assault or something, and have it work just like TWF but with one light or one-handed weapon.

Compare to Snap Kick and Rapid Shot.

[ffone]

So... anyone thought of this before? Is it viable?

Use 1 weapon, attack with 1 hand, leaving the other free.
Free action, put your other hand on, take off the 1st hand.
Attack with the 2nd hand.

So, you can TWF without having to spend double on weapons.


It's two weapon fighting, not two hand fighting.

[Psyren]

A soulknife can (technically) TWF with the same weapon :smalltongue:

[Curmudgeon]

A soulknife can (technically) TWF with the same weapon :smalltongue:
Nope.
Alternatively, a soulknife can split his mind blade into two identical short swords, suitable for fighting with a weapon in each hand. ... However, both mind blades have an enhancement bonus 1 lower than the soulknife would otherwise create with a single mind blade. It used to be one weapon, but it's two after the split.

[CarpeGuitarrem]

Well, depends on how silly you want the the setting to be. "Hey, look, I get extra attacks by juggling my sword!"

Technically not. You're pulling momentum into one attack, fluidly transferring the sword to your other hand (your other hand should be coming up next to it for the transfer, like in a baton pass for relays), and then snapping your body and the weapon in the opposite direction for the second attack. It basically is you making two downstrokes (one in each hand) as opposed to a downstroke followed by a backstroke (two attacks with the same hand).

Is it silly? Not necessarily. It just stretches credibility a tad. But to me, it sounds like a flippin' awesome move for the arsenal. Like, this would be well-suited as a TOB maneuver.

[ShiningStarling]

Technically not. You're pulling momentum into one attack, fluidly transferring the sword to your other hand (your other hand should be coming up next to it for the transfer, like in a baton pass for relays), and then snapping your body and the weapon in the opposite direction for the second attack. It basically is you making two downstrokes (one in each hand) as opposed to a downstroke followed by a backstroke (two attacks with the same hand).
Almost exactly what I was thinking, thanks for that.

Also, just wondering, could you actually enchant your whole body at the same time, essentially one enchanted weapon that attacks with different.

You could also make it a weapon special ability, something along the lines of a sword that blinks between your two hands.

[Keld Denar]

There was an FAQ entry about transfering a weapon from one hand to the other. It was about a cleric with a mace and a light shield transfering the mace to his shield hand so he could cast a spell with a free hand. It was dictated there to be a move action to switch hands.

Do note however, that you don't need both "hands" to TWF. You could TWF with armor spikes AND your UAS, and still have both hands free to do other things, like claw people if you have natural attacks.

[Draz74]

I don't actually think you can, by RAW, use swift actions in the middle of a full attack. I think e.g. Knight's Move would be out. Of course ruling that it works isn't going to break the game, and of course free actions (e.g. 5-foot step) in the middle of a full attack are kosher.

Since Tome of Battle got a mention -- yeah, I actually think the sword-juggling stunt would be a great way to re-fluff the Steel Wind maneuver.

Oh, and there is a perfectly simple way to TWF with (technically) just one weapon, by RAW: use a double weapon. In practice, this probably isn't what is wanted, since enchanting both ends of it still counts double (:smallannoyed:). But I do have a great fondness for Warblades or Swordsages who focus on the quarterstaff.

[Psyren]

I don't actually think you can, by RAW, use swift actions in the middle of a full attack. I think e.g. Knight's Move would be out. Of course ruling that it works isn't going to break the game, and of course free actions (e.g. 5-foot step) in the middle of a full attack are kosher.

If you rule one then you're ruling the other - swift actions are the same "speed" as free actions by RAW.


You can take a swift action any time you would normally be allowed to take a free action.

The big difference is that you only get one swift, but you can take multiple free actions.

[Draz74]

Huh. Well played. I guess now there are only two possibilities, neither of which are what I was saying before:


Swift actions can be used in the middle of a full attack.
Free actions cannot be used in the middle of a full attack. 5-foot steps are an explicit exception.


I now suspect option (1) is correct, but I'm curious if anything in the rules makes the debate crystal-clear.

[Sindri]

Technically, the number of hands you use is irrelevant; you get a second attack if you use a second weapon. So you can fight using one weapon with either or both hands, and you can fight with two weapons in the same hand as long as the other is empty.

[Curmudgeon]

I now suspect option (1) is correct, but I'm curious if anything in the rules makes the debate crystal-clear.
I gave the relevant rules quote, stating "such [free or swift] actions can be performed in conjunction with actions of other types". A quick check of the dictionary reveals that conjoined actions happen together.

[Greenish]

Free actions cannot be used in the middle of a full attack. 5-foot steps are an explicit exception.5' step isn't a free action.

[ShiningStarling]

5' step isn't a free action.
ummmmm, yes, yes it is, i know it is because you can take one after taking a full round action

[Greenish]

ummmmm, yes, yes it is, i know it is because you can take one after taking a full round actionYour non sequitur has been noted, then discarded. Crack open your PHB at page 144 and educate yourself before trying to correct others. :smallwink:

[Typewriter]

In the Pathfinder beta there was a feat that allowed you to dual wield a single weapon. It got taken out of the main game, but I really liked the flavor/concept of it.

If you'd like, when I get home, I'll take a look and see if I can't find the beta in pile o' books, and will let you know what the rules were. Think it caused a -2 penalty to all attacks for the round, which of course makes up for the fact that you're dual wielding with only weapon.

[AstralFire]

ummmmm, yes, yes it is, i know it is because you can take one after taking a full round action

(I'm guessing that) 5-foot actions are technically not stated to be part of any broader class of 'actions,' even though they clearly behave identically to free actions in any real sense.

[Greenish]

(I'm guessing that) 5-foot actions are technically not stated to be part of any broader class of 'actions,' even though they clearly behave identically to free actions in any real sense.Well, there's the 1/round and no other movement limitations. PHB has it filed under miscellaneous actions, while Rules Compendium refers to it as "not an action at all", or no action.

[wormwood]

(I'm guessing that) 5-foot actions are technically not stated to be part of any broader class of 'actions,' even though they clearly behave identically to free actions in any real sense.

They are more similar to swift actions than free actions, since you can only take one in a round.

[Typewriter]

Found the feat I was thinking of. It's from the PF beta. I know you weren't looking for PF (especially beta) but figured it was still worth mentioning.

Weapon Swap (Combat)
With an acrobatic twist, you can swap your weapons from
one hand to another.
Prerequisites: Dex 17, Improved Two-Weapon Fighting,
Two-Weapon Fighting, base attack bonus +6.
Benefit: After making all of your attacks with your primary
hand, you can swap your primary weapon to your
off hand and make attacks using that weapon in your off
hand. You take an additional –2 penalty on all attack rolls
made with your off hand this round.


Apparently it's a bit better than I remembered. Instead of getting the -2 penalty to all attacks in a round (as you do when dual wielding) you instead only get the -2 to attacks made with the off-hand. Nifty.

[Greenish]

Instead of getting the -2 penalty to all attacks in a round (as you do when dual wielding) you instead only get the -2 to attacks made with the off-hand. Nifty.I read that as getting additional -2 for offhand on top of normal TWF penalties.

[Roderick_BR]

Can you even take free actions in the middle of a full attack action?

Quick draw also allows you to full attack with throwing weapons, since it lets you draw a weapon as a free action.

[Typewriter]

I read that as getting additional -2 for offhand on top of normal TWF penalties.

I would probably rule it that way, but since the rules for two weapon fighting begins with, "If you wield a second weapon in your off hand", I think the RAW is that it never activates the two-weapon fighting penalties.

Not that it matters since we're talking about a feat that didn't make it into the final version of the game.