Regarding Melee and Ranged attacks

[Element Zero]

I don't know if this is addressed in the rulebooks, and I can't find an answer anywhere I look, so I thought I'd bring it to the Playground and see what I can find out.

Can a character attack with a thrown weapon -and- a melee weapon in the same round, provided they have the TWF feat?

[Jasdoif]

Can a character attack with a thrown weapon -and- a melee weapon in the same round, provided they have the TWF feat?When making a full attack? Certainly. You wouldn't even need TWF necessarily; if you have multiple attacks from a high BAB, you could make a melee attack with a weapon and then throw the weapon as a second attack, for example.

[Slipperychicken]

Can a character attack with a thrown weapon -and- a melee weapon in the same round, provided they have the TWF feat?

Absolutely. You can toss a dagger, then draw a longsword and smack someone with it, then drop the longsword, and throw another dagger at someone. Of course, to draw that many times, you'd need Quick Draw or something.

[HunterOfJello]

Yes you can. Slitting someone's throat with one dagger and then throwing another directly into the face of their partner is perfectly fine.

The PHB even refers to this in the Two Weapon Fighting section on page 160.


Thrown Weapons: The same rules apply when you throw a
weapon from each hand. Treat a dart or shuriken as a light weapon
when used in this manner, and treat a bolas, javelin, net, or sling as a
one-handed weapon.



Sidenote: You can also attack with different weapons in each hand without using Two Weapon Fighting if you have a high enough BAB. If you have at least +6/+1 BAB, you can attack with the weapon in one hand and then attack with the weapon in the other. You can also take a 5ft step during a Full Attack in between attack actions without penalty. This combination could work well to attack an enemy's face with a longsword, take a step back, and then shoot the same enemy in the same (or a different) face with a light crossbow.

[Gwendol]

Fighting with a weapon in each hand without the TWF feat will incur a lot of penalties though.

[HunterOfJello]

Fighting with a weapon in each hand without the TWF feat will incur a lot of penalties though.

No, it doesn't. The only time you incur heavy penalties is if you choose to use the TWF mechanic to gain extra attacks. You can use 2 or more weapons to attack with in a row without any penalties if you choose not to gain extra attacks through the TWF route.

~~~

Here's an example:

A level 11 Human Fighter with the quick draw feat, but no TWF feats comes to the end of a fight against some enemies. She holds a +1 Elf Bane Longsword in her right hand, a +1 Abberation Bane Longsword in her left hand, and has several daggers at her side with different Bane enchantments. She is fighting a Drow and a Drider.

The Fighter's turn comes around and she chooses to take a full-attack action. Fighters at level 11 have BAB of +11/+6/+1. That's three attacks she has on this turn.

She attacks the Drow with her +1 Elf Bane Longsword in her right hand and slays the Drow. She then takes a 5ft step to the left (which is legal to do during a full attack action) and puts herself within attacking range of the drider. She attacks the drider with the Aberration Bane Longsword in her left hand, receives another good damage roll, and kills it too.

Since only 2 attacks out of 3 have been use so far, she does a fast Spot check [free action] and notices a second drow hiding in a corner pointing a crossbow at her. She drops her Aberration Bane Longsword and draws a random dagger from her belt as a free action, since she has quick draw. She then throws the dagger at the second drow and harms it.

~

The Fighter has just attacked with 3 different weapons on her turn, but would not receive any penalties for TWF because she did not choose to attempt to gain extra attacks for using two weapons at the same time. The two weapon fighting penalties for her would have been -10 to all attacks if she chose to gain an extra 4th attack while fighting, but since she didn't she was able to fight with 3 different weapons over a single turn and take no penalties at all.

By using smart tactics like this, and understanding all the possible actions you can take during a full-attack action, melee characters can become much more viable and useful in parties.

[Element Zero]

And this is why I come to the Playground with questions like this! :smallsmile: Thanks to all of you! I hadn't even considered any of that before asking this question.

[Hiro Protagonest]

No, it doesn't. The only time you incur heavy penalties is if you choose to use the TWF mechanic to gain extra attacks. You can use 2 or more weapons to attack with in a row without any penalties if you choose not to gain extra attacks through the TWF route.

This argument has come up before. The majority of the people in the thread (although that's still only about five), including me, said basically the same thing as this, but Gwendol and Anarchy Kanya (I haven't seen her in a while) disagreed. I think it should be like this, since it gives melee a rather minor but nice thing, but the only conclusion we drew is that the rules didn't make it clear, and we couldn't exactly go ask all the designers of the PHB.

[Gwendol]

HunterofJello, that example is contested.

The rules for TWF are almost as badly conceived as those for mounted combat. If you fight with a weapon in both hands you incur the the penalties for TWF, no matter if you take the extra attack or not. However, using the quickdraw feat, or lesser crystals of return, your fighter could attack, drop, draw, attack, drop, draw and attack again using the same hand without incuring the penalties.


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.

The key here is the DM interprets the "fight this way" as holding a weapon in each hand, or the more narrow definition suggested by HunterofJello as taking the extra attack with the off-hand weapon.

Since the section from which this quote is taken is titled "Two Weapon Fighting" I draw my own conclusions regarding the interpretation.

[Answerer]

{{scrubbed}}

[Sutremaine]

If you fight with a weapon in both hands you incur the the penalties for TWF, no matter if you take the extra attack or not.
Under which of the following circumstances would you apply TWF penalties regardless of the player's chosen number of attacks?
1. Weapon in one hand, weapon in the other.
2. Weapon in one hand, improvised weapon in the other.
3. Weapon in one hand, spiked shield in the other.
4. Weapon in one hand, unspiked heavy or light shield in the other.

[Gwendol]

Answerer: I'm ok with you offering a different perspective than mine, but please don't try and make it appear as if yours is somehow patently right by invoking grammar.

Sutremaine:

1. Depends if the player is using the two weapons or not. Standard action (one attack) player can attack with either weapon, incuring no penalties. Full attack: again depends if the player is using the "off-hand" weapon or not. Simply holding something in the other hand does not incur penalties to the attack.

2. See above.

3. Again, see above.

4. Again, see point 1.

[Ashtagon]

Personally, as long as the character is not gaining any extra attacks, I wouldn't impose any TWF penalty.

If he has used one hand to make an attack already that round, and wants to use the other hand to make an attack (presumably using one of his iterative attacks), I would certainly impose the off-hand penalty for that second attack.

[sonofzeal]

Personally, as long as the character is not gaining any extra attacks, I wouldn't impose any TWF penalty.

If he has used one hand to make an attack already that round, and wants to use the other hand to make an attack (presumably using one of his iterative attacks), I would certainly impose the off-hand penalty for that second attack.
Er, your two statements there directly contradict eachother. Which one do you mean?

[Ashtagon]

Er, your two statements there directly contradict eachother. Which one do you mean?

Level 6 fighter with a sword in one hand and an axe in the other...

He has two attacks (at +6 and +1) if he does not use the benefits of TWF. He could attack once with the sword and once with the axe --- two attacks in total, neither of which suffers the TWF penalty, but one taking the off-hand weapon penalty.

If he uses TWF, he gets his main attack, his iterative attack, and one attack with his off-hand weapon --- three attacks in total.

Suppose he also has the Improved TWF feat. He now has his two attacks from his level, plus two attacks with his off-hand weapon --- four attacks in total.

[Namfuak]

It seems to me that "fight this way" should effectively mean "use this ability," because if it meant any time you had a weapon in the offhand, people using a shield would be taking -6 to their attacks (even if they weren't attacking with the shield).

[Gwendol]

The rules makes a distinction between holding something in your off-hand, and using it to attack. Holding a shield, or any other weapon (improvised or other) does not invoke TWF rules.

[Gorfnod]

As a pro-"let melee have nice things" kind of guy I would say that unless you are actually getting any extra attacks then no TWF penalties. You are already losing out on either shield armor bonuses or increased STR bonuses from two-handed weapons.

[prufock]

According to the FAQ:

"There’s nothing inherent in the full attack action that requires all the attacks to be made as the same kind of attack or with the same kind of weapon."

It goes on to explain that there are no attack penalties for doing any of the following with iterative BAB (assuming Quick Draw):
- attack with one weapon, drop weapon, draw another weapon, attack with that weapon (including bows)
- attack with one weapon, hold weapon in off hand, draw another weapon, attack with that weapon

It only gives a few specific examples, but I don't see any reason it wouldn't be extrapolated to fighting with a 2 weapons if you aren't gaining the additional attack.

[Gwendol]

All of the examples you cite don't make use of both primary and off-hand weapon(s) in the same attack sequence. All attacks are made with the same (primary) hand. This is an important distinction.

[Duke of URL]

As with many other feats, TWF gives you the option of making a single offhand attack at your full BAB, with all attacks until the start of your next turn (including the one granted by the feat) at -2.

If you are holding two weapons, but choose not to activate the feat, you gain neither the bonus attack nor the -2 penalty.

Beyond that, it gets murky. The rules generally imply that attacking with your "off hand" is not as effective as your "main hand", but that's only in the context of TWF. There is enough ambiguity that it becomes a DM call, though I personally see no reason to penalize melee any further than you have to.

[Gwendol]

Quite right. I'm all in favor of houseruling TWF, because as I've said before the rules are not well concieved. In my view, if you have the feat you should be able to get an off-hand attack also during a standard action at the usual -2 penalty.

[Darth Stabber]

Answerer: I'm ok with you offering a different perspective than mine, but please don't try and make it appear as if yours is somehow patently right by invoking grammar.


You're are right she isn't correct because of grammer, but because of semantics. There is no indication whatsoever that TWF penalties apply without taking the extra granted attack, therefore the reasonable assumption is that you can do this without penalty, and the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate otherwise. Semantics is an ugly messy subject, but barring other forms of more direct clarification it is the manner left to us to derive the facts. Unless you have evidence of the contrary the RAW is sword+axe=no penalty. You're free to rule0 otherwise, but RAW is not with you.

[Gwendol]

I contest that point and invite you to read the old debate thread on the subject. :smallsmile:

I don't have any "burden of proof" what so ever. I have simply offered a different point of view, that as far as we can tell is as valid as the one you are proposing.

[Answerer]

Answerer: I'm ok with you offering a different perspective than mine, but please don't try and make it appear as if yours is somehow patently right by invoking grammar.
Wait, somehow the rules of English grammar are invalid because they conflict with how you would like to read the sentences?

I'm sorry, you are wrong. It's not perspective or opinion, this is how the rules of English grammar work. Yours is not a "different" interpretation, it is an incorrect interpretation.


You're are right she isn't correct because of grammer, but because of semantics. There is no indication whatsoever that TWF penalties apply without taking the extra granted attack, therefore the reasonable assumption is that you can do this without penalty, and the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate otherwise. Semantics is an ugly messy subject, but barring other forms of more direct clarification it is the manner left to us to derive the facts. Unless you have evidence of the contrary the RAW is sword+axe=no penalty. You're free to rule0 otherwise, but RAW is not with you.
A. I am male.

B. Yes, it is a matter of grammar. "This" is a demonstrative adjective, modifying "way". It is also proximal, that is, referring to the nearest "way" at hand. If the rules were a legal document, I assure you that they would be treated with no ambiguity on this point (though a good legislator wouldn't have written it this way just to be sure, they could have and it would not be ambiguous to someone who knows the technical rules of English grammar). And while the designers themselves may not have known the technical rules of English grammar, they certainly wrote it this way and we cannot assume that this instance is one in which they made a mistake.

The only 100% valid reading of the rule is that "this way" refers to the way in which you get the bonus attack. Anything else assumes that the authors did not mean exactly what they wrote, which I don't think is a fair assumption in any argument about what the rules as written say.

[prufock]

All of the examples you cite don't make use of both primary and off-hand weapon(s) in the same attack sequence. All attacks are made with the same (primary) hand. This is an important distinction.

To be more specific, the first example doesn't indicate handedness at all:

"A character with a base attack bonus of +6 or better holding a longsword, for example, could make a melee attack with the longsword (using his full base attack bonus), drop the longsword (a free action), use Quick Draw to draw a dagger (another free action), then throw the dagger."

It doesn't indicate that either attack MUST be made with the primary or secondary hand. From this text it could be primary/primary, off-hand/off-hand, primary/off-hand, off-hand/primary, 2-handed/primary, or 2-handed/off-hand. There is NO specification for handedness, and no penalties apply (apart from the -5 iterative BAB).

In this example, the weapon is dropped, so you could say that it isn't only sequence that matters, but holding the off-hand weapon and primary weapon at the same time. Honestly, I think that's splitting hairs. Especially given the second example that you can attack 2-handed, hold the 2-handed weapon in 1 hand, draw a 1-handed or light weapon, and attack with the 1-handed or light weapon with no penalty.

Of course, this depends on how much stock you put in the FAQ (some people say "none"). And you are welcome to your interpretation, I'm just not sure why you'd want to give melee characters more penalties.

A different interpretation is that you can't attack with your off-hand weapon AT ALL unless you're using the 2-weapon fighting special ability for the extra attack. This also seems contraindicated by the FAQ text above.

EDIT: And of course, because WotC likes to muddle things even further, this (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20060829a) series of articles seems to indicate that my final interpretation is actually the correct one.

"Off-hand" is only a term that applies when you are using 2-weapon fighting for the additional attack. If you aren't using 2-weapon fighting for the additional attack, iterative attacks can only be used for your primary hand.

[Darth Stabber]

Wait, somehow the rules of English grammar are invalid because they conflict with how you would like to read the sentences?

I'm sorry, you are wrong. It's not perspective or opinion, this is how the rules of English grammar work. Yours is not a "different" interpretation, it is an incorrect interpretation.


A. I am male.

B. Yes, it is a matter of grammar. "This" is a demonstrative adjective, modifying "way". It is also proximal, that is, referring to the nearest "way" at hand. If the rules were a legal document, I assure you that they would be treated with no ambiguity on this point (though a good legislator wouldn't have written it this way just to be sure, they could have and it would not be ambiguous to someone who knows the technical rules of English grammar). And while the designers themselves may not have known the technical rules of English grammar, they certainly wrote it this way and we cannot assume that this instance is one in which they made a mistake.

The only 100% valid reading of the rule is that "this way" refers to the way in which you get the bonus attack. Anything else assumes that the authors did not mean exactly what they wrote, which I don't think is a fair assumption in any argument about what the rules as written say.

1)My appologies on the pronoun problem.
2)The problem is semantics not grammar. Grammar is proper formatting, semantics is specific, precise meaning. Your point is semantic not grammatical.

[Answerer]

Syntax is generally a subset of grammar. Sometimes "grammar" is used to refer to specifically how words are formed, but generally grammar is just the rules for how communication is achieved in a language.

It doesn't matter; the point still remains that it's a matter of the rules of the English language, and not particularly ambiguous.

[Gwendol]

EDIT: And of course, because WotC likes to muddle things even further, this (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20060829a) series of articles seems to indicate that my final interpretation is actually the correct one.

"Off-hand" is only a term that applies when you are using 2-weapon fighting for the additional attack. If you aren't using 2-weapon fighting for the additional attack, iterative attacks can only be used for your primary hand.

Actually, in the first part of the series you find this text:


Using a weapon in each hand.

This option requires you to use two weapons, both of which you can wield in one hand (but read on). It's usually best to use a light weapon in your off hand, but not necessary. You can use an unarmed strike as either your primary or secondary weapon.

When fighting with two weapons, you gain one extra attack with your off-hand weapon when you use the full attack action. If you have a high base attack bonus, you gain iterative attacks only with your primary weapon.

When using a weapon in each hand, you usually can't use a shield, which hurts your Armor Class. In addition, you take an attack penalty on attacks you make with your primary hand and (generally) a bigger attack penalty for your off hand. The exact penalties depend on what feats you have and which two weapons you're using; see page 160 in the Player's Handbook. Parts Two and Three also examine two-weapon fighting in detail.

Which actually supports the interpretation I have put forth. See underlined text. Furthermore, see what the author says in the paragraph above: when fighting with two weapons you gain an extra attach with the off-hand weapon (when full attacking) and iterative attacks are only gained with the primary weapon(!).

[INoKnowNames]

In addition, you take an attack penalty on attacks you make with your primary hand and (generally) a bigger attack penalty for your off hand. The exact penalties depend on what feats you have and which two weapons you're using.

This line sounds a bit like what happens when you're using the Two Weapon Fighting Line to gain Bonus Attacks, and as such take penalties for fighting as such.

There's actually something else in the article, which tells you to go to page 311 in the player's handbook, which does point out something that notes a penalty to using your offhand:


off hand: A character’s weaker or less dexterous hand (usually
the left). An attack made with the off hand incurs a –4 penalty on
the attack roll. In addition, only one-half of a character’s Strength
bonus may be added to the damage dealt with a weapon held in the
off hand.

I'm not very smart, but I suppose that unless you had a feat or some ability to avoid it, that fighting with two weapons without using two weapon fighting still makes any attacks by the other weapon (still made with your regular bab) take that -4 penalty for being your off hand. You could at least gain an additional attack and possibly take lesser penalties if you did actual two weaon fighting, with being a -2 instead of -4, but to both hands...

[Gwendol]

This line sounds a bit like what happens when you're using the Two Weapon Fighting Line to gain Bonus Attacks, and as such take penalties for fighting as such.


It could, but as I said, in a preceding paragraph it says:
When fighting with two weapons, you gain one extra attack with your off-hand weapon when you use the full attack action.

Observe that here the condition is fighting with two weapons, not
getting an extra attack which is a result of the condition (fighting with two weapons), as are the penalties mentioned in the following paragraph.

The -4 attack roll penalty and the half STR bonus to damage are always there when making an off hand attack regardless of wielding a weapon in your primary hand or not.

The rules for TWF aren't very good, and they could have been stated a lot clearer...

[INoKnowNames]

I feel like I'm not getting the first half of your response. Give me an hour or so, and it'll probably dawn on me. If not, I'll try to ask what you mean.

Also, how do you have an offhand if you don't have anything in your primary hand? Plus, aren't you allowed to designate which is your primary hand and such?

Random question: Does a Monk -have- to use Flurry of Blows when using a Full Attack, even if they have the ability to do so?

[ericgrau]

Flurry of blows is optional.

Regardless of the source of your extra attacks in one single full attack you could stab someone with a longsword, toss a javelin, trip a foe, drop your weapons, quick draw a bow, fire the bow, take a 5 foot step and then start to grapple someone. As long as you had 5 attacks in this case. You can mix up your attacks however you want and even perform free actions in between the attacks.

I'm not sure if the rules are too clear about off hand but IMO it should be your left hand (if right handed). People try to use the lack of clarification to do more, but I haven't seen the rule allowing this so I prefer to revert to common sense rather than whatever favors the player the most. Or maybe there is a rule somewhere out there and someone will post it.

[INoKnowNames]

Flurry of blows is optional.

If Flurry of Blows is optional, then the Monk wouldn't always have the penalty associated with its use (at least at lower levels before the penalty goes away), would they?


Regardless of the source of your extra attacks in one single full attack you could stab someone with a longsword, toss a javelin, trip a foe, drop your weapons, quick draw a bow, fire the bow, take a 5 foot step and then start to grapple someone. As long as you had 5 attacks in this case. You can mix up your attacks however you want and even perform free actions in between the attacks.

That's one hell of a round... What are all of the penalties to such attacks, though?


I'm not sure if the rules are too clear about off hand but IMO it should be your left hand (if right handed). People try to use the lack of clarification to do more, but I haven't seen the rule allowing this so I prefer to revert to common sense rather than whatever favors the player the most. Or maybe there is a rule somewhere out there and someone will post it.

I thought there was a feat for that. Ambidexterity or something. For some reason, I also thought it eliminated the penalty to Two Weapon Fighting (at least that -2 to all attacks).

[Gwendol]

The designation of primary and off-hand are arbitrary in that the player simply chooses which is which and may switch from one round to the next (but not within the round). It feels mostly like a left-over from 3.0 and earlier editions.

Naturally, it makes no sense to make an off-hand attack without making a primary hand attack, but hey, it's WoTC.

Not sure what the question is regarding FoB penalties? FoB is a separate ability from TWF, and is covered by separate rules (though with some similarities).

[prufock]

Which actually supports the interpretation I have put forth. See underlined text. Furthermore, see what the author says in the paragraph above: when fighting with two weapons you gain an extra attach with the off-hand weapon (when full attacking) and iterative attacks are only gained with the primary weapon(!).

This contradicts what you said earlier about the difference between "holding" a weapon and "fighting with" a weapon. According to the link, there are only 2 possibilities.
1) You have a weapon in each hand. You attack only with your primary weapon using your standard BAB with iterative attacks, not gaining the extra attack. There is no attack penalty.
2) You have a weapon in each hand. You attack with both, gaining attacks with your primary weapon for your BAB and iterative attacks, and a bonus attack with your off-hand weapon (or more than one bonus attack if you have the "improved" and "greater" feats). You incur the 2-weapon fighting penalties.

These are the only 2 options supported by the article and the FAQ.

[ericgrau]

If Flurry of Blows is optional, then the Monk wouldn't always have the penalty associated with its use (at least at lower levels before the penalty goes away), would they?

That's one hell of a round... What are all of the penalties to such attacks, though?

I thought there was a feat for that. Ambidexterity or something. For some reason, I also thought it eliminated the penalty to Two Weapon Fighting (at least that -2 to all attacks).
If a monk doesn't flurry he doesn't get the penalty from flurry either. He uses the BABs from the "BAB" column instead of the "flurry of blows BAB" column.

The penalties to the 5 attacks would depend on how he's getting the 5 attacks. If he's a level 16 fighter with haste his BABs would be 16/16/11/6/1 and he'd get an additional +1 bonus from haste. If he's a level 11 fighter with two weapon fighting and haste his BAB would be 11/11/11/6/1 with a -2 penalty from TWF and a +1 bonus from haste for a total of -1 (besides other bonuses/penalties he has). Or a 1-4=-3 if the javelin is a one handed weapon in his off hand. I think it is. So 10/10/10/5/0 or 8/8/8/3/-2 before other bonuses/penalties.

Ambidexterity was 3.0 and removed in 3.5. Maybe there isn't an off hand for single weapons in 3.0, I don't remember, I'd have to see the rule. Again if there is no rule I'd revert to common sense.

[Darth Stabber]

I miss the free feat smorgasboard that was 3.0 ranger1. That dip did everything but your laundry. Ranger2+ was crap, but hey that's what multiclassing is for.

[Sutremaine]

If you fight with a weapon in both hands you incur the the penalties for TWF, no matter if you take the extra attack or not.


Depends if the player is using the two weapons or not. [....] Simply holding something in the other hand does not incur penalties to the attack.
I'm having some trouble reconciling these two statements. You say in the first statement that "fight[ing] with" a weapon in both hands incurs TWF penalties whether or not the extra attack is being taken, and you say in the second statement that whether or not the player is "using" both the weapons in their hands determines whether TWF penalties apply. In context I would read "fighting with" two weapons and "using" two weapons as mechanically the same thing.

[eclipsic]

Just to throw more fun and excitement into this thread, the Rapid Shot feat says you get an extra ranged attack, but nothing about your normal attacks having to be ranged attacks, so you can attack in melee then throw a weapon, also without using TWF.

[Gwendol]

I'm having some trouble reconciling these two statements. You say in the first statement that "fight[ing] with" a weapon in both hands incurs TWF penalties whether or not the extra attack is being taken, and you say in the second statement that whether or not the player is "using" both the weapons in their hands determines whether TWF penalties apply. In context I would read "fighting with" two weapons and "using" two weapons as mechanically the same thing.

Sutremaine and Prufock, I seem to have been unclear in my statements. So let me restate how I read the rules for two weapon fighting.

The penalties for two weapon fighting apply when attacking with both primary and off-hand. They do not apply if simply having both hand occupied (by a torch, shield, weapon or whatever). If your BAB allows you to make iterative attacks, the Rules of the Game article explains that iterative attacks are made with the primary hand, and the extra attack(s) with the off hand. Thus, TWF penalties apply whenever the player attacks with primary and off-hand in the same round. These penalties are lessened to -2 for each hand with the TWF feat and when the off-hand weapon is light.