Off-hand Coup De Grace question

[Mathemagician7]

My friend and I were having a debate, if you use an off hand weapon to deliver a coup de grace, do you apply your full strength or half? (does it matter if you have the feat to perform coup de graces as a standard rather than a full-round?)

Furthermore, he is also contending that in a non-coup de grace situation, if you make a single attack with one of the two weapons you weild, you add your full strength damage bonus regardless of which weapon you use in the attack.

My contention is that you have a main hand and an off hand, and the get str bonuses accordingly, period.

Does anyone know if there is an explicit ruling on this somewhere, or is it all left up to 'common sense' interpretation and DM discretion?

P.S. the inspiration for this discussion was my friends interest in the Tempest prestige class from Complete Adventurer (pg 81), which incidentally, grants the player ambidexterity - which does not explicitly say anything about extra strength (above 1/2) being applied to offhand attacks. (If I were his DM, I would give it to him, but I'm not, and either way, we want an official WOtC ruling if one exists)

Any help would be much appreciated, thanks guys - you're the best!

[Silva Stormrage]

For the coup de grace I believe you would add your full strength modifier.

I believe your friend is right. You designate what weapon becomes your main or offhand during the attack. In DnD everyone is ambidextrous so it doesn't matter which weapon was your "mainhand" last round.

[Flickerdart]

You do not have an offhand weapon until you use the Two-Weapon Fighting combat maneuver. You could hold a flail in one hand and a scimitar in the other, and then make your iterative attacks like this (with a +16 BAB): Flail/scimitar/flail/scimitar. No TWF here, so you get full STR.

Same thing happens when you CdG - you're making one attack, so you get full STR.

[KillianHawkeye]

You don't have an "off-hand", you simply decide when wielding more than one weapon which one will be primary and which will be off-hand. If you wield two light weapons, you could even change which one is your main hand and which one is your off-hand from round to round if you wanted, or attack with either one singly as if it was the only weapon in the world.

[Mathemagician7]

Thanks for the replies, guys. I was very surprised to see the answers you posted, but can anyone cite a page or a rule or an errata or even a precedent from an older version?

I know the rules don't say a lot about this question, which is why my friend and I were wondering in the first place.

Flickerdart:
You do not have an offhand weapon until you use the Two-Weapon Fighting combat maneuver. You could hold a flail in one hand and a scimitar in the other, and then make your iterative attacks like this (with a +16 BAB): Flail/scimitar/flail/scimitar. No TWF here, so you get full STR.

Same thing happens when you CdG - you're making one attack, so you get full STR.

where are you getting this from? I mean I can't think of any hard-and-fast rule that contradicts you, but the monk flurry rules come to mind, which explicitly allow you to interchange various weapon attacks and add full STR to damage . . . and since it is spelled out there that you CAN do this, it seems IMPLICIT to me that you CANNOT do this under normal circumstances, else, why would would they mention it?

Anyone?

[KillianHawkeye]

the monk flurry rules come to mind, which explicitly allow you to interchange various weapon attacks and add full STR to damage . . . and since it is spelled out there that you CAN do this, it seems IMPLICIT to me that you CANNOT do this under normal circumstances, else, why would would they mention it?

Anyone?

The rule you are referencing is talking about using multiple weapons during the Monk's flurry of blows, which specifically allows full Strength bonus to damage regardless of how many qualifying weapons you are using. It is a seperate ability from Two-Weapon Fighting, which is what you normally need to get extra attacks using two weapons in the same round if you are not a Monk. Flurry of blows does not make use of off-hand attacks like TWFing does and is not subject to the same attack roll penalties.

EDIT: I believe I was wrong before about being able to freely designate your primary hand and your off hand, as the section on character description does indeed say that your character can be either left-handed or right-handed.

[Flickerdart]

Flickerdart:

where are you getting this from? I mean I can't think of any hard-and-fast rule that contradicts you, but the monk flurry rules come to mind, which explicitly allow you to interchange various weapon attacks and add full STR to damage . . . and since it is spelled out there that you CAN do this, it seems IMPLICIT to me that you CANNOT do this under normal circumstances, else, why would would they mention it?
The only general rule mentions of the word off-hand in the SRD include:
-Things that say off-hand attacks do 1/2 STR damage;
-The rules for Two-Weapon Fighting.
The TWF rules state (emphasis mine):

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.
This suggests that the TWF rules are optional (that is, you don't have to employ them when wielding two weapons) and since there's no other definition for off-hand anywhere, there's no reason it should now apply.

I also can't find anything on the right- or left-handedness requirement. One of the parts that was taken out of the SRD, maybe?

[Darrin]

EDIT: I believe I was wrong before about being able to freely designate your primary hand and your off hand, as the section on character description does indeed say that your character can be either left-handed or right-handed.

That's purely fluff. The combat rules don't care which hand you use. Any weapon you can attack with can become a primary attack, and you can even switch your primary weapon between iterative attacks. For example, an 11th level fighter can attack with a:

greatsword (+11, first iterative)
armor spikes (+6, second iterative)
improved unarmed strike (+1, third iterative)

Likewise, the same fighter with a longsword in one hand and a dagger in the other can attack with either weapon on any of his iterative attacks without incurring any off-hand penalties: longsword/dagger/longsword, dagger/longsword/dagger, etc. This isn't explicitly spelled out in the combat rules, but it's implied from the text of "Full Attack" option:

"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."
(emphasis added)

Off-hand penalties only apply when you choose to use the Two-Weapon Fighting rules to gain an extra attack beyond your normal iterative attacks. Contrary to what the term might lead you to imply, "off-hand" does not refer to your character's handedness, nor does it have to apply to any hand at all: armor spikes, unarmed strikes, double-weapons, shield bashes, etc. can be used as "off-hand" weapons. It's not something defined by handedness, it's something you designate when you make a full attack. The 11th level fighter above with a greatsword + armor spikes using the TWF rules could designate his armor spikes as "primary" and greatsword as his "off-hand" attack if he wanted to.

[Keld Denar]

Yea, Darrin stepped through the issue quite well. The 3.0 PHB even had an explicit example of Tordek making various attacks with his high BAB, but that example was removed from the 3.5 PHB, which was kinda a bummer because it really made sense.

[ThiefInTheNight]

Didn't 3.0 actually have handedness rules and an Ambidexterity feat (tax), though?

Anyway, I concur with most everyone here: various TWF penalties, including the very notion of an "offhand weapon", apply only if you are using TWF (that is, gaining an extra attack). The rules state clearly that you may use any weapon you have available to make any attack you are entitled to, and the TWF penalties and requirements on which weapons you use apply only if you are using the TWF option to gain an extra attack (or multiple extra attacks if you have ITWF and/or GTWF).

A coup de grace with a secondary natural weapon (one that specifies half strength as many do) probably would still use half strength, though. That's an inherent property of the weapon rather than a result of the way you're wielding it. I'm not sure on the rules there.

[John Cribati]

Any character with two limbs or more is allowed to make 2 Unarmed Strike attacks every turn at first level. The problem is that doing so means that you're using a Two-Weapon Fighting style and will thus incur the penalties thereof, which makes it a less than viable option, even if you have Improved Unarmed Strike.

[Person_Man]

Darrin's correct.

Shorter version: You can use any weapon you are wielding for any attack, including iterative attacks and attacks of opportunity. If you add additional attacks from other sources, such as those from Feats or natural weapons, follow any exceptions to the rules given in their descriptions.

Bigger picture: WotC games in general are "exception" based. There are some basic rules. But most of the time you follow the specific rules laid out on the card/feat/spell/etc, and follow what it says, even if it otherwise contradicts a general rule. If the conflict is such that it's basically unplayable (for example, Overrun) then make up a house rule in it's place.

[KillianHawkeye]

That's purely fluff. The combat rules don't care which hand you use. Any weapon you can attack with can become a primary attack, and you can even switch your primary weapon between iterative attacks. For example, an 11th level fighter can attack with a:

greatsword (+11, first iterative)
armor spikes (+6, second iterative)
improved unarmed strike (+1, third iterative)

Likewise, the same fighter with a longsword in one hand and a dagger in the other can attack with either weapon on any of his iterative attacks without incurring any off-hand penalties: longsword/dagger/longsword, dagger/longsword/dagger, etc. This isn't explicitly spelled out in the combat rules, but it's implied from the text of "Full Attack" option:

"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."
(emphasis added)

Off-hand penalties only apply when you choose to use the Two-Weapon Fighting rules to gain an extra attack beyond your normal iterative attacks. Contrary to what the term might lead you to imply, "off-hand" does not refer to your character's handedness, nor does it have to apply to any hand at all: armor spikes, unarmed strikes, double-weapons, shield bashes, etc. can be used as "off-hand" weapons. It's not something defined by handedness, it's something you designate when you make a full attack. The 11th level fighter above with a greatsword + armor spikes using the TWF rules could designate his armor spikes as "primary" and greatsword as his "off-hand" attack if he wanted to.

Maybe I don't like things being implied when they should be stated outright. :smallannoyed:

The line you bolded could be nothing more than a reference to the TWFing rules. "If you are using two weapons" could just as easily mean "If you are using Two-Weapon Fighting."

I'm just saying it's not as clear-cut as you are making it out to be.

[Flickerdart]

Maybe I don't like things being implied when they should be stated outright. :smallannoyed:
The default rule is "you add your full Strength bonus to melee attacks." That is stated outright. You add only half when using the Two-Weapon Fighting option. That is also stated outright. Stating that you don't add half when not using the Two-Weapon Fighting option would be redundant, because there's already a rule for what happens then.

[ThiefInTheNight]

Maybe I don't like things being implied when they should be stated outright. :smallannoyed:
Things are only stated outright when they are an exception to a more general rule, or if there is no more general rule. Darrin's quoted the general rules for attacking, not the Two-Weapon Fighting combat maneuver.

Basically, the take-home message from this thread is that "fighting with two weapons" is not the same as "Two-Weapon Fighting".

[Darrin]

I'm just saying it's not as clear-cut as you are making it out to be.

I never said it was clear-cut. In fact, I think I was trying to say the exact opposite: everything we know about unarmed strikes/natural attacks is murky, confusing, and contradictory.

The section I quoted seemed to be most relevant to iterative attacks or full attacks in general. It was the best I could come up with. TWF is more adequately covered in the "Special Attacks" portion of the Combat section.

[KillianHawkeye]

The default rule is "you add your full Strength bonus to melee attacks." That is stated outright. You add only half when using the Two-Weapon Fighting option. That is also stated outright. Stating that you don't add half when not using the Two-Weapon Fighting option would be redundant, because there's already a rule for what happens then.

Actually, the thing that is stated outright is "When you deal damage with a weapon in your off hand, you add only ½ your Strength bonus." And, as I pointed out before, there is another line which says that a character can either be left-handed or right-handed. So there is one hand which is defined as primary and the other is your off hand. Show me where in the rules this is contradicted. Show me where in the rules it says you can make iterative attacks with two weapons without using Two-Weapon Fighting.

[Darrin]

Show me where in the rules it says you can make iterative attacks with two weapons without using Two-Weapon Fighting.

I just did. Player's Handbook p. 143. More specifically, the third paragraph, which identifies the context of general rules for iterative attacks in the very first sentence, "If you get multiple attacks because your base attack bonus is high enough".

You said, "The line you bolded could be nothing more than a reference to the TWFing rules." But it's not, because that reference was made two paragraphs earlier, in the very first sentence on full attacks:

"If you get more than one attack per round because your base attack bonus is high enough, because you fight with two weapons or a double weapon (see Two-Weapon Fighting under Special Attacks, page 160)"
(emphasis added)

The general rules for full attacks are on page 143. The exception for TWF is on page 160. Yes, I will concede that the wording is vague enough that any mention of "two weapons" on page 143 could in fact be referring to the TWF rules on page 160, but I consider that unlikely. The context on page 143 seems to be consistent with the general rules for full attacks, which state if you're holding two weapons and can make multiple attacks because of your base attack bonus, then you can strike with either weapon first. The rules don't state which weapon you can use on subsequent strikes, but I'm assuming if your two available weapons are interchangeable on the first strike, then they can be switched around on subsequent strikes.

[Flickerdart]

And, as I pointed out before, there is another line which says that a character can either be left-handed or right-handed.
Where? Not in the SRD, that's for sure. Then there's that Tordek example, which nothing in 3.5 contradicts.

Also yes, you deal 1/2 with your offhand, but what does offhand mean by the rules? Other than the TWF definition (the secondary weapon that gets the extra attack and take the worse penalty) offhand is not defined anywhere.

[KillianHawkeye]

The rules don't state which weapon you can use on subsequent strikes, but I'm assuming if your two available weapons are interchangeable on the first strike, then they can be switched around on subsequent strikes.

See, this is the part where I'm having a problem.


Where? Not in the SRD, that's for sure.

PHB, page 110.

[Flickerdart]

Uhm...look at the header of that section, if you will. It is labelled "Looks", under "Looks, Personality and Background" in the "Description" chapter. It's more removed from the rules than a Sage ruling.

Also: let us say I have a character who is left-handed. I give him a Mouthpick weapon and armor spikes. Handedness is now not a problem. Do you still insist that he should take penalties for one of these weapons? If so, which one? What if we add a braid blade? An unarmed strike?

[Darrin]

See, this is the part where I'm having a problem.


For some inexplicable reason, I don't share your concern. =)

Seriously, if your game works better the way you interpret things, then your awesomesauce is just fine as far as I'm concerned.

[KillianHawkeye]

Uhm...look at the header of that section, if you will. It is labelled "Looks", under "Looks, Personality and Background" in the "Description" chapter. It's more removed from the rules than a Sage ruling.

Also: let us say I have a character who is left-handed. I give him a Mouthpick weapon and armor spikes. Handedness is now not a problem. Do you still insist that he should take penalties for one of these weapons? If so, which one? What if we add a braid blade? An unarmed strike?

I know which chapter it's from. But I'll take something that's actually in the book over what people assume a lack of rules means.

And I'm positively sure they didn't have things like mouthpicks and braid blades in mind when they designed the TWFing rules.

[ThiefInTheNight]

There are rules for attacks. They state you can make the attack with any available weapons.

There are rules for iteratives. They say you get more attacks, with no restrictions or special rules placed upon them aside from the penalties to your attack bonus. You therefore follow the normal rules for those attacks.

You do not arbitrarily apply the rules from a completely separate attack maneuver (Two-Weapon Fighting); there is absolutely no indication whatsoever that this should happen.

There is no other rule that is necessary to describe what happens. This is not a matter of "they didn't say you couldn't", this is what the rules say. In terms of "implied rules", what you are suggesting if far more "implied" than the alternative.