Two-handed, TWF, with armor spikes? (3.5) [Archive]

Seharvepernfan

2012-10-21, 09:30 AM

I went to the Q&A thread, and I got the answers I expected to get, but it still feels like I'm missing something, so I wanted to ask a larger audience.

Can one use a greatsword two-handed while simultaneously using armor spikes as an off-hand weapon while two weapon fighting?

So, a human ranger with 14 str at 3rd level (bab +3, str +2), with an attack bonus of +5, using a greatsword two handed (2d6+3) and armor spikes off-hand (1d6+1)...

What penalties does he take for fighting this way? The people in the Q&A thread said that as long as he has two weapon fighting, the attack penalties are only -2/-2 (for +3 and +3, respectively).

They said the same thing for using a longsword and shield, with armor spikes (not using the shield as a weapon).

So why isn't this much more common?

If you can get two-handed benefits (or a shield) while still two-weapon fighting, then why don't we see more of it? I know it's feat intensive, ability score intensive (for the most part), leaves you with an even higher penalty while Power Attacking, and you can just get an animated shield later on, but still.

Is there something I'm missing?

ArcanaGuy

2012-10-21, 09:50 AM

I personally would *not* allow armor spikes as an 'off-hand' weapon, because there's too many off-hand weapon feats that simply *would not work*. And, frankly ... they're not in your off-hand.

However, I would allow custom feats to be made to allow a similar sort of use, if you could justify it thematically. I personally can't picture *how* you'd do that.

Answerer

2012-10-21, 09:55 AM

It would be really feat intensive. You don't really get enough feats for both unless you go Fighter, but then you don't get any bonus damage to make TWF worth it.

I personally would *not* allow armor spikes as an 'off-hand' weapon, because there's too many off-hand weapon feats that simply *would not work*. And, frankly ... they're not in your off-hand.

However, I would allow custom feats to be made to allow a similar sort of use, if you could justify it thematically. I personally can't picture *how* you'd do that.
Not really relevant. He asked about the rules and optimizing, and the rules say he can.

sleepyphoenixx

2012-10-21, 10:06 AM

RAW, the only restriction to using armor spikes in your offhand is that you cant use another offhand weapon at the same time.

as to why it's not done often, you'd need both high STR to optimize your 2h damage and high DEX to qualify for TWF feats.
Even for a Ranger you won't get a lot out of it since you're lacking the damage boni that make TWF worthwhile (like sneak attack, shadow blade etc.)

ArcanaGuy

2012-10-21, 10:33 AM

Answerer

2012-10-21, 10:36 AM

RAW, the only restriction to using armor spikes in your offhand is that you cant use another offhand weapon at the same time.
That's not true. The rules don't really recognize a separate "offhand" to begin with. A person with ITWF could attack with a longsword then armor spikes, then the longsword and a dagger. Or whatever.

as to why it's not done often, you'd need both high STR to optimize your 2h damage and high DEX to qualify for TWF feats.
Even for a Ranger you won't get a lot out of it since you're lacking the damage boni that make TWF worthwhile (like sneak attack, shadow blade etc.)
This is a really good point, though.

sleepyphoenixx

2012-10-21, 10:44 AM

Answerer

2012-10-21, 10:55 AM

d20srd.org (www.d20srd.org/srd/equipment/armor.htm#armorSpikes) says:

so you can carry a shield/use a Weapon with both hands and still use armor spikes as an OH attack as long as you don't shield bash
(or at least that is how i interpret it)
I think that means you cannot use the same (singular) offhand attack with both an offhand weapon and the spikes. Still, RAW, you're probably right. Which is dumb but then I doubt anyone would ever want to switch it up the way I described anyway.

Rejakor

2012-10-21, 11:35 AM

It's a decent low level barbarian or fighter trick. You can re-train the TWF later.

It's not super optimized, but hey, some people roll stats. Maybe their rogue has 18 str. He gets an extra 2 damage from doing this, and loses one die size step. Sounds reasonable.

Another use would be if you had Wounding armour spikes, or poison reservoirs - still get your power attack goodness but with extra poisoning.

And if you're leap attacking battle jumping etc, extra attacks = extra damage, regardless of 2h or 1h - once you have like x5 PA, x4 PA extra attack is still pretty decent for free (Gloves of the Balanced Hand).

ZaSeroulIs

2012-10-21, 04:00 PM

I believe you can attack first with the two-handed weapon then as free action let go of your off-hand grip on it and punch it in the face with your armor spikes.

Is it a move action to use both hand on a weapon you where using as a one hand at the end of your round?

If not then in the end the only problem is if its possible to get ahold of it with two hand before round ends so you can use it for AOO.

Lyndworm

2012-10-21, 04:49 PM

I believe you can attack first with the two-handed weapon then as free action let go of your off-hand grip on it and punch it in the face with your armor spikes.
You kind of can, but you don't have to punch with the spikes (that's a spiked gauntlet's territory). Besides, it seems a little odd in terms of imagining someone actually try to do it. Since your spikes cover as much of your body as you reasonably want them to, I've always like the idea of elbowing, kneeing, and even shoulder-checking with them. It's a very dramatic scene to imagine.

Is it a move action to use both hand on a weapon you where using as a one hand at the end of your round?
There's no action ever stated in an official source, but I'm pretty sure somebody at WotC suggested it should be a Free action to remove a hand from or place a hand on a weapon (even two-handers). You'll have to forgive me for not remembering the source. :smallredface:

If not then in the end the only problem is if its possible to get ahold of it with two hand before round ends so you can use it for AOO.
You can take a 2H attack, remove a hand from the weapon, take a 1H attack, and place your hand back on the weapon before ending your turn, since you can take Free actions during a Full-Attack. I'm pretty sure you can, at least.

Seffbasilisk

2012-10-21, 04:51 PM

Additionally, the spikes are a martial weapon. Unless you have proficiency with all martial weapons, you'll likely have to spend another feat to remove that -4. It's a solid combination, for low-magic campaigns.

ArcanaGuy

2012-10-21, 05:46 PM

You kind of can, but you don't have to punch with the spikes (that's a spiked gauntlet's territory). Besides, it seems a little odd in terms of imagining someone actually try to do it. Since your spikes cover as much of your body as you reasonably want them to, I've always like the idea of elbowing, kneeing, and even shoulder-checking with them. It's a very dramatic scene to imagine.

Not with a two-handed weapon you don't. A two handed weapon is not a 'close in' sort of weapon.

Kelb_Panthera

2012-10-21, 05:54 PM

To answer the op's question of why you don't see this particular trick more often; in addition to being feat intensive and ability intensive, it's still got the typical gp cost problem that's normal for twf. Either you get your armor spikes enchanted and ultimately end up paying around double for your weapons, or your off-hand attack is dramatically unspectacular.

No one of these drawbacks is the reason in itself, but with all of them together, it's just not generally considered a trick worth pursuing.

Gavinfoxx

2012-10-21, 07:59 PM

Personally, I prefer to two handed a heavy spiked shield, to twf with armor spikes.

So you get the benefits of:

-Shield
-Two weapon fighting
-Two handing your main weapon

If you are going to go all out, go all out, ya know? ;) ;)

Answerer

2012-10-21, 08:14 PM

Isn't there a really weird feat for people with both armor and shield spikes? Doubt it's worth taking (those niche martial feats rarely are), but I think there's actually support for that style, oddly enough.

Keld Denar

2012-10-21, 10:27 PM

Not with a two-handed weapon you don't. A two handed weapon is not a 'close in' sort of weapon.

Depends. A person occupies a 5' square. That is a lot of territory to cover, easily 2-3 steps from one end to the other. An attack might consist of a stroke with a long blade followed by a step in while using your blade to lift your opponent's guard and deliver a raking backhand blow with your spiked vambrace to your foe's unprotected mid section before dancing back with your blade protectively in front of you.

A necessary part of the abstraction that is D&D combat. Sometimes its the furious close combat of the Dothraki, sometimes its greatsword battles of armored knights of Westeros, and it all gets approximated with the same combat system and the same mechanics. If it isn't a reach weapon, it is just as good at 4.5' away as it is at 6" away.

Isn't there a really weird feat for people with both armor and shield spikes? Doubt it's worth taking (those niche martial feats rarely are), but I think there's actually support for that style, oddly enough.

Bloodspiked Charger. Its a tactical feat in Complete Warrior. It is rather lackluster, however, unfortunately.

ArcanaGuy

2012-10-21, 10:45 PM

Depends. A person occupies a 5' square. That is a lot of territory to cover, easily 2-3 steps from one end to the other. An attack might consist of a stroke with a long blade followed by a step in while using your blade to lift your opponent's guard and deliver a raking backhand blow with your spiked vambrace to your foe's unprotected mid section before dancing back with your blade protectively in front of you

Except we're not dealing with a longblade - we're dealing with a two-handed blade. A greatblade. A rather larger item. The larger your sword gets, the less you do those nimble little tricks like you mention. What you're thinking of is the way you'd see someone fighting in a movie (and I support movie fighting in your game) with a longsword - which, while a one-handed weapon, still ends up occasionally getting grasped in both hands during the fight.

A two-handed weapon like a greatsword does not *move* that way. You don't thrust or lock with a greatsword ... it's just too big. And while maybe you could lock someone's sword briefly to the ground with your greatblade and then move in close and punch them with your armor spikes ... it's done rarely enough that I'd make it a specialty martial feat.

Like, say, 'monkey grip', which lets you wield your greatsword with one hand. This is what you're looking for.

Basically, RAW, it doesn't work. You are using your offhand to attack, already - with your greatsword. But that doesn't mean you can't make it work with an extra feat ... it just doesn't work by basic rules.

candycorn

2012-10-21, 10:46 PM

Ohhh. In that sense. IE: punching with gauntlet spikes.

My confusion lies in the fact that it couldn't mean that in the situation at hand, because ... you cannot use your gauntlet/armor spikes as an off-hand weapon if you have something in your off-hand. Which he does.

By RAW, no, you *can't* use a two-handed sword and armor spikes with TWF. His two-handed sword fills the off-hand slot.

There is no such thing as an "Off-hand slot".

Armor Spikes are a weapon that allows for an off-hand attack, explicitly, in their description. Therefore, they are eligible for use in Two Weapon Fighting, as either the first weapon or the off-hand weapon.

Since the rules on Two weapon fighting make no limitations on the first weapon used (stating only "if you wield a second weapon in your off-hand..."), then the Two weapon fighting section makes no limitations on the primary weapon, so long as you can wield a second weapon, and that the second weapon counts as an off-hand weapon.

As stated before, the entry for armor spikes explicitly allows for its use as an off-hand weapon (overriding the text in TWF stating that weapons must be wielded in your off-hand -- specific trumps general). This means it satisfies all restrictions in that text for use as an off-handed weapon.

Therefore, there is no text in either section prohibiting a two-handed weapon from being used, along with armor spikes, to two-weapon fight.

Armor spikes won't benefit from Power Attack, however (being a light weapon), although they still suffer the penalty. That will make this attack method somewhat sub-par.

Keld Denar

2012-10-21, 11:03 PM

it's done rarely enough that I'd make it a specialty martial feat.
You are taking a special martial feat. Its called TWFing. Without it, you are taking a -4 with your main hand and a -8 with your offhand (cause armor spikes are light).

Basically, RAW, it doesn't work. You are using your offhand to attack, already - with your greatsword. But that doesn't mean you can't make it work with an extra feat ... it just doesn't work by basic rules.

Tell me, which "hand" is your offhand if you are attacking with a pair of boot blades (Complete Scoundrel)? Its not like WoW, or other video game with a paperdoll character screen that shows a little hand icon on either side of the character. 3.5 got rid of handedness. All characters are now multidexterous, equally proficient at wielding a weapon with any part of their body that can equip that weapon. Just because a character is holding a weapon with both of their hands, doesn't preclude them from having an offhand. Heck, a character could wield an animated shield and a 2handed weapon and make shield bashes with a weapon that they AREN'T EVEN HOLDING.

Lyndworm

2012-10-21, 11:32 PM

Not with a two-handed weapon you don't. A two handed weapon is not a 'close in' sort of weapon.
I was going to respond to this, ArcanaGuy, I really was... Then I read Keld saying exactly what I was about to type (though likely more eloquently and precisely) and decided it wasn't worth it. The dude knows this game better than I do (and I might not be good at much, but I do know this game), so there's no point repeating him.

Except we're not dealing with a longblade - we're dealing with a two-handed blade. A greatblade. A rather larger item. The larger your sword gets, the less you do those nimble little tricks like you mention. What you're thinking of is the way you'd see someone fighting in a movie (and I support movie fighting in your game) with a longsword - which, while a one-handed weapon, still ends up occasionally getting grasped in both hands during the fight.
I'll grant you that (in my imagination) those maneuvers look a bit funkier than they should - with a greatsword. There are many other two-handed weapons that I can imagine would work well for those maneuvers. The falchion, heavy flail, and even spear (maybe especially spear; spear fencing is badass) all come to mind almost immediately. It's not even worth getting into a version of this discussion involving Exotic weapons, even if we remove the more ridiculous items from the table.

A two-handed weapon like a greatsword does not *move* that way. You don't thrust or lock with a greatsword ... it's just too big. And while maybe you could lock someone's sword briefly to the ground with your greatblade and then move in close and punch them with your armor spikes ... it's done rarely enough that I'd make it a specialty martial feat.
I never said greatsword, though. Granted, Keld did say greatsword (and you're probably talking to him, anyway); I have a feeling he has an idea how acrobatic actual two-handed fencing can be, though. Granted, again, that fencing and real combat (especially against largely non-humanoid opponents) don't always jive, but we are playing a game here. I, for one, am willing to sacrifice a touch of verisimilitude for a return of awesome in my game.

Like, say, 'monkey grip', which lets you wield your greatsword with one hand. This is what you're looking for.
This statement contributes in no way to the topic of this thread, and seems to be unrelated to every other post in this thread. :smallconfused:

Basically, RAW, it doesn't work. You are using your offhand to attack, already - with your greatsword. But that doesn't mean you can't make it work with an extra feat ... it just doesn't work by basic rules.
Everyone else in the thread seems to disagree with you (including myself). I see no need to rehash their statements.

Answerer

2012-10-21, 11:35 PM

I'm going to chime in to say that Keld is correct, the only time 3.5's rules refer to an "offhand" is when you are using the Two-Weapon Fighting option, and then your "offhand attack" is just the extra attack that you get. You take larger penalties if the offhand attack is made with anything but a Light weapon. But it has nothing to do with which hand, if any, you're holding the weapon in.

ArcanaGuy

2012-10-22, 05:39 AM

Ah. I see. I'm used to discussing RAW with folks on a 'concept' rather than exact wording level, but it seems we need exact wording here. To my eyes, the *concept* is that you need to pick between two-weapon fighting, a double-handed weapon, or sword-and-board style fighting, unless you have something specific (feat, prestige class, etc) that gives you another option. That your off-hand attack is based around your off-hand... and if your off-hand is busy with something, you don't have the *balance* to use an off-foot attack. Without a feat, prestige class, etc.

But you all want exact rules, which is also very valid.

Here's the full text of the armor spikes.

"You can also make a regular melee attack (or off-hand attack) with the spikes, and they count as a light weapon in this case. (You can’t also make an attack with armor spikes if you have already made an attack with another off-hand weapon, and vice versa.)"

From the Open-source SRD (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/specialAttacks.htm#twoWeaponFighting)

Additionally, the text for Two-Weapon Fighting:

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:

If your off-hand weapon is light, the penalties are reduced by 2 each. (An unarmed strike is always considered light.)
The Two-Weapon Fighting feat lessens the primary hand penalty by 2, and the off-hand penalty by 6.

From the Open Source SRD (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/specialAttacks.htm#twoWeaponFighting)

Now, here we see that the rules for two-weapon fighting, as a basic set of rules, are to be considered to be in place even when using a weapon that is not in your off-hand., such as an unarmed attack. I don't see why armor spikes should be treated in any way differently than an unarmed attack - which can *also* be delivered with a bare fist, an elbow, a knee, a foot ... and yet, that you can't use if your off-hand is busy with a weapon.

Darrin

2012-10-22, 07:16 AM

Ah. I see. I'm used to discussing RAW with folks on a 'concept' rather than exact wording level, but it seems we need exact wording here. To my eyes, the *concept* is that you need to pick between two-weapon fighting, a double-handed weapon, or sword-and-board style fighting, unless you have something specific (feat, prestige class, etc) that gives you another option. That your off-hand attack is based around your off-hand... and if your off-hand is busy with something, you don't have the *balance* to use an off-foot attack. Without a feat, prestige class, etc.

But you all want exact rules, which is also very valid.

"RAW" = "Rules As Written". The basis of a RAW argument is it is impossible to determine the designer's intent (or if it can be determined, it should be ignored because he was an idiot when he wrote the actual text). We must use the most literal interpretation of the text. This leads to some bizarre and asinine interpretations (e.g., monks are not proficient with unarmed strikes). Fortunately, while this RAW term is tossed around here a lot, particularly in discussions about character optimizations, very few people use RAW in actual play. It gets used more in "theoretical optimization" because it's about as close as we can get to a mutually-agreed-upon level playing field.

Anytime you bring in a "concept" of how the rules should work, or you're making assumptions based on common sense (or your particular opinion on common sense), that's a "RAI" = "Rules As Intended" argument. While this is what 99.9% of us use at an actual table, just keep in mind that it only works for your particular group. Every other group is going to have a different take on RAI.

You also mentioned keeping your balance while attacking... which sounds like bringing real-world physiology and physics into the discussion. Whenever that happens, there's an old chestnut that invariably gets brought up: "Whenever you bring real-world physics into a D&D discussion, God kills a catgirl." This tends to derail the thread into a very low signal-to-noise ratio.

[Edit: Just ignore this. I explained it badly.]

ArcanaGuy

2012-10-22, 07:42 AM

*blinks, blinks again, listening* OK. I think I've got you. I think that makes sense. Thank you. For who I'm used to discussing this with - Rules have no purpose without intent. Rules are only a means of *transmitting* intent, and have no meaning at all without intent. *coughcough*badthingssaidaboutlawyers*cough* So our concept of RAW is the same as your concept of RAI (which I have never heard before), and is used to describe the rules in the books as opposed to our decisions on house rules.

I will modify my use of RAW to match the community here. :) I don't have a problem with this concept, used as a theoretical abstract.

But my follow up using RAW does match that, does it not?

(And I didn't mean to use 'balance' as a real world physics - more movie physics. Insert droning old man going on about balance while his pupil swings a great sword at high targets, kicks at low targets, while balancing on the end of a pole. )

Answerer

2012-10-22, 08:03 AM

Anytime you bring in a "concept" of how the rules should work, or you're making assumptions based on common sense (or your particular opinion on common sense), that's a "RAI" = "Rules As Intended" argument. While this is what 99.9% of us use at an actual table, just keep in mind that it only works for your particular group. Every other group is going to have a different take on RAI.
This is incorrect.

"Rules As Intended" are whatever rules the author was trying to write. No one knows what they are 99% of the time. And 99% of the time, when people refer to RAI, they're just trying to prop up their own opinions and preferences as "better than" others' because theirs are "obviously what the developer intended!" Nevermind that what's obvious for one person is never necessarily obvious to anyone else, nevermind that others may have different ideas about that, nevermind because I am clearly right and you are clearly wrong because the developer clearly agrees with me.

It's a blatant and insulting logical fallacy. Please don't use it.

*blinks, blinks again, listening* OK. I think I've got you. I think that makes sense. Thank you. For who I'm used to discussing this with - Rules have no purpose without intent. Rules are only a means of *transmitting* intent, and have no meaning at all without intent. *coughcough*badthingssaidaboutlawyers*cough* So our concept of RAW is the same as your concept of RAI (which I have never heard before), and is used to describe the rules in the books as opposed to our decisions on house rules.
He's wrong about RAI; RAI is a fake-thing used by people who don't want to back up their positions with actual evidence or reasoning (almost always, anyway; there are those few cases where the authors have left commentary on the rules, or someone attempts to build a case of evidence and reasoning justifying their position that a given thing is RAI; both are all too rare, however).

Anyway, yes, rules transmit intent. In the case of Dungeons & Dragons 3.5, they do so poorly. No one knows exactly what was intended, but most will stipulate that what we got wasn't it.

Unfortunately, because no one knows what was intended, we have to assume that they intended to write what they actually wrote. It's the only way to have a discussion: the only common resource we have is the actual rules text. If you want to talk about what should be the rule, then you're not talking about the official rules and RAW, but about houserules and balance/verisimilitude/whatever. That wasn't the discussion that the OP started.

In this case, he asked if this was rules-legal. It absolutely is. There are all sorts of reasons why it's a poor tactic, but the rules will let you do it. But the only thing that enters into the discussion is the rules that are actually written on the page. If it involves your assumption that things A. make sense, B. follow anything you know in your real life, or C. are balanced, then you're wrong: the rules are not necessarily any of those things.

To address your actual rules quotes and interpretation, you are missing something: the rules always refer to an "offhand attack." There's no such thing as your "off" hand, and no such thing as an "offhand" weapon. There is only the "extra attack made when using the Two-Weapon Fighting option," which is known as the "offhand attack." This attack may be made with any weapon one likes, excepting only the weapon that was used to make the "main" attack. If the offhand attack is made with a Light weapon, one takes these penalties, and if it is not, one takes those penalties. That's literally all the rules there are.

Also, for the record, I would argue that this is RAI, as much as that is mostly meaningless. The fact that the designers specifically changed these rules from 3.0 to 3.5, removing the Ambidexterity feat and the like, suggests that they intentionally wanted to remove the idea of handedness and relegate the term "offhand" to only referring to that bonus attack. As far as armor spikes are concerned, others have already quoted rules about how they are used; they're explicitly called out as usable with Two-Weapon Fighting. So it would be a really hard case to make that this was anything but intentional.

Gwendol

2012-10-22, 08:59 AM

To the OP:
Yes, this is absolutely allowed by the rules, and functions as you laid out in your post. The reason why it isn't used more is perhaps because it doesn't address the general weakness of TWF: low return of investment both wrt decreases attack bonus, and potential damage (essentially, you need to factor in not being able to PA for quite as much, which will hurt damage quite a lot), while the cost for upgrading weapons can be prohibitive. And you still can't use the off-hand attack on anything but full attacks.

dextercorvia

2012-10-22, 09:05 AM

Addendum to the RAI discussion. There is a third use of RAI, where you are calling out that the RAW leads to an imbalance that was probably not (or hopefully not) intended. For example, saying, "I don't think Clerics qualify for Versatile Spellcaster by RAI," is a shortcut for saying that it is unbalanced to allow a cleric to spontaneously cast off of the entire Cleric list for the cost of one feat, and we hope the designers didn't intend that interaction.

Diarmuid

2012-10-22, 09:16 AM

Buckler: This small metal shield is worn strapped to your forearm. You can use a bow or crossbow without penalty while carrying it. You can also use your shield arm to wield a weapon (whether you are using an off-hand weapon or using your off hand to help wield a two-handed weapon), but you take a –1 penalty on attack rolls while doing so. This penalty stacks with those that may apply for fighting with your off hand and for fighting with two weapons. In any case, if you use a weapon in your off hand, you don't get the buckler's AC bonus for the rest of the round.
You can't bash someone with a buckler.

Armor Spikes: You can have spikes added to your armor, which allow you to deal extra piercing damage (see Table: Weapons) on a successful grapple attack. The spikes count as a martial weapon. If you are not proficient with them, you take a –4 penalty on grapple checks when you try to use them. You can also make a regular melee attack (or off-hand attack) with the spikes, and they count as a light weapon in this case. (You can't also make an attack with armor spikes if you have already made an attack with another off-hand weapon, and vice versa.)

Bolding mine for reference.

I would be inclined to not allow someone using a 2HW to also use Shield Spikes based on the wording in the Buckler and the wording in Armor Spikes.

The Buckler text says to me that when using a 2HW, you are using your "offhand" to assist in making that attack. With that in mind, you've made an "offhand attack" and are now not eligible to use Armor Spikes.

Not saying that it's 100% RAW, but it's certainly one way to read how those two passages would interact.

ArcanaGuy

2012-10-22, 12:26 PM

Dropping RAW/RAI discussion as a major distraction from the OP. I will merely strive to discuss closer to direct rules quotations.

To address your actual rules quotes and interpretation, you are missing something: the rules always refer to an "offhand attack." There's no such thing as your "off" hand, and no such thing as an "offhand" weapon. There is only the "extra attack made when using the Two-Weapon Fighting option," which is known as the "offhand attack." This attack may be made with any weapon one likes, excepting only the weapon that was used to make the "main" attack.

Incorrect:

Off-Hand Weapon

When you deal damage with a weapon in your off hand, you add only ½ your Strength bonus.

Additionally, the text for armor spikes says that it is an off-hand weapon - right here:

(You can’t also make an attack with armor spikes if you have already made an attack with another off-hand weapon, and vice versa.)

You can't make an attack with 'another off-hand weapon' if armor spikes are not an off-hand weapon.

Also, you failed to reference what I said about unarmed attacks. An unarmed attack works basically in the same way as a armor spikes ... it can be a kick, or a knee, but you need to 'wield it in your off-hand' all the same to use it for two-weapon fighting.

Keld Denar

2012-10-22, 01:08 PM

Darrin

2012-10-22, 03:11 PM

It's a blatant and insulting logical fallacy. Please don't use it.

I apologize. I explained the whole RAW/RAI thing very badly. Reading back through it now, even I can't figure out what I'm trying to say.

Diarmuid

2012-10-22, 03:44 PM

KD - The character idea with the spikes, boot blades, and other nefairous pointy bits got me thinking and I havent been able to find anything definitive.

Can you make "off hand" attacks as granted by TWF with multiple weapons in a given round?

Assuming a character with TWF and ITWF and a BAB of 6, is something like this possible?

Iterative 1 - MH
Iterative 2 - MH
OH 1 - Boot Blade
OH 2 - Armor Spike

If so would you have to declare, when you began your full attack action, which weapons were going to be used for which attacks?

I only ask in an odd scenario where a character might have a bunch of "light" weapons on his person, but is holding a 1H weapon in each hand. If he wanted to make an OH attack with the 1H weapon, that would change the bonuses that would be applied to all of the attacks in a given round.

Taking the practicality of it aside (TWF with 1H weapon in OH is bad), it would seem that for the math to work out properly, you would have to declare what your virtual "offhand" is going to be in any given round.

ArcanaGuy

2012-10-22, 04:06 PM

Where do you keep getting this idea? D&D is not a crpg with a paper doll character screen that has slots for equipped items. It's not. No where in the rules does it suggest this. A character doesn't have main hand and offhand weapon slots like a character has bracer slots or boot slots.

A character could equip armor spikes, a weighted cloak, an animated shield, a braid blade, a pair of boot blades, a pair of knee blades, and a pair of elbow blades and still leave both hands open to hold items or other weapons. Now, a character can't attack with all of then at once, but he could pick and choose from among them which is main hand and which is offhand on any given round of attacks, even though none of these weapons occupy a hand. Offhand attacks can, but are not required to be made, with actual hands, and hands are not required to make offhand attacks. Stop thinking of the game in terms of a computer game.

I don't see where anything you said in the bolded area at all contradicts anything I said in my post, or justifies the illogical and unjustified parts (and frankly insulting) parts that I did not italicize.

If you don't understand what I'm saying, ask for clarification. Don't accuse me of stuff. I never said that you couldn't do anything of the above.

In fact, I *very specifically* stated that off-hand weapons don't need to be held in the hands... but also clarified that the rules clearly state, also, that in order to use an off-hand weapon that is not in the hands, you can't be attacking with that off-hand. You can be carrying something with it, holding a door shut with it, thumbing your nose with it, or rubbing your belly with it ... but you can't be *attacking* with it.

This isn't a cRPG thing, this is a rules thing and an English comprehension thing. If it *helps* you to think of it as a cRPG thing, then go ahead, by all means, think of it that way - but don't scold me about it. Sure, I used terminology similar, because *it's convenient terminology*. But I'm not talking about cRPGs, I'm talking about D&D.

KD - The character idea with the spikes, boot blades, and other nefairous pointy bits got me thinking and I havent been able to find anything definitive.

Can you make "off hand" attacks as granted by TWF with multiple weapons in a given round?

By the RAW, as long as it doesn't include Armor Spikes, you could. Armor Spikes specifically state that if you've attacked with another off-hand weapon that turn, you cannot use Armor Spikes to make an off-hand attack.

(For my own game, I'd let that work, however.)

candycorn

2012-10-22, 04:32 PM

Bolding mine for reference.

I would be inclined to not allow someone using a 2HW to also use Shield Spikes based on the wording in the Buckler and the wording in Armor Spikes.

The Buckler text says to me that when using a 2HW, you are using your "offhand" to assist in making that attack. With that in mind, you've made an "offhand attack" and are now not eligible to use Armor Spikes.

Not saying that it's 100% RAW, but it's certainly one way to read how those two passages would interact.

Responding to bolded statement.

You are not. "Off-hand attack" is a reserved term. If your 2 handed weapon was considered an "Off-hand attack", then it would only have 1/2 strength to damage, rather than 1.5 Strength. It would suffer accuracy penalties, as outlined in Two Weapon Fighting.

It's not.

When you attack with a 2-handed weapon, and only a 2-handed weapon, you are not making an off-hand attack.

Just because you are using your "off-hand" to with the two-hander does not mean that the two-hander is an off hand weapon. It's a two hand weapon. There's a difference. Since the restriction you quote only cares if the two-hand weapon is an off hand weapon (it is not), it does not apply.

To give another example: If you have a weapon that gives bonus damage if the target is shaken, and the person was made panicked by a spell, it would not technically give bonus damage. Yes panicked is like shaken, except more severe, but it is not shaken.

Same here. A two-handed weapon may use the off-hand, but it is not an off-hand weapon. An off-hand weapon is a weapon, used under the two-weapon fighting rules, to make an off-hand attack. That's it. Doesn't matter what else a weapon is... If it is not that, exactly and specifically, then it is not an off-hand weapon.

From the PHB Glossary, definition, off-hand:
An attack made with the off hand incurs a -4 penalty to 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.
If your statement was true, then all two-handed weapons would receive a -4 penalty to hit, and would be limited to 1/2 Strength to damage. Since this is not true, then your statement cannot be true.

If A=1, then B=1
B=0
Therefore, A != 1

Therefore, while it is certainly "one way" to read it, so is saying that Fireballs actually deal untyped damage. I'm sure you could read it that way. That way, of course, being "a way which violates RAW".

Keld Denar

2012-10-22, 05:03 PM

In fact, I *very specifically* stated that off-hand weapons don't need to be held in the hands... but also clarified that the rules clearly state, also, that in order to use an off-hand weapon that is not in the hands, you can't be attacking with that off-hand. You can be carrying something with it, holding a door shut with it, thumbing your nose with it, or rubbing your belly with it ... but you can't be *attacking* with it.

So you are saying that I couldn't make a main hand attack with my greatsword and bash with my animated shield offhand, but I could attack with my longsword one handed and bash with my animated shield offhand? Bear in mind that an animated shield required 0 hands to wield. If that is so, I understand you perfectly and respectfully disagree. Offhand attacks made with non-handed weapons don't care what your other hands are doing. At all. No where in the rules does it cover it. Obviously, if you are holding a sword in both hands, you can't also hold another sword in your other hand, because that hand is full of the first sword. If you don't need a hand free to wield your offhand weapon, why can't you use that hand on your main hand weapon (assuming you are allowed to)?

Quick follow up, out of curiosity. If I have a longsword in my right hand and a flail in my left, and I have a BAB of +6, and I make two attacks (one at +6 with the longsword and one at +1 with the flail), would you say that I am TWFing?

Edit: Diarmiud, I seem to recall reading that offhand attacks have to be made with the same weapon. If I start making offhand attacks with my Weighted Cloak, I can't take the attack granted by ITWF with my Boot Blade. Don't remember though. I know main hand attacks bear no similar stipulations and can be made with any combination of weapons as long as those weapons aren't used to make offhand attacks as well.

ArcanaGuy

2012-10-22, 05:24 PM

So you are saying that I couldn't make a main hand attack with my greatsword and bash with my animated shield offhand, but I could attack with my longsword one handed and bash with my animated shield offhand?

No, I didn't say that. I didn't say anything of the sort. Excuse me, let me go look up the rules on animated shields, to make sure my memory holds correctly.

(insert elevator music now)

Ah, there we go. NOW I'm saying that you can't do that with a greatsword. Or with a longsword. or with any weapon. Animated shields can't shield-bash on their own. They protect, they don't attack. Now, if you have an animated shield that has its shield-spikes enchanted with the 'dancing' enhancement, THEN I'll allow that it can shield-bash. For four rounds. But that's not an off-hand attack.

Of course, if you're actually *holding* the animated shield in your hand, that's an entirely different story. Then you can shield-bash as an off-hand attack while wielding your longsword. But I'm assuming you're saying that the animated shield is actually utilizing the animated enhancement.

Offhand attacks made with non-handed weapons don't care what your other hands are doing. At all. No where in the rules does it cover it

Well, now you're just not paying attention. I already told you where the rules cover it.

Obviously, if you are holding a sword in both hands, you can't also hold another sword in your other hand, because that hand is full of the first sword. If you don't need a hand free to wield your offhand weapon, why can't you use that hand on your main hand weapon (assuming you are allowed to)?

Are you asking for why I'm saying you can't? Because the rules say so, as I already pointed out, regarding the rules specified between Two-Weapon Fighting and Unarmed Attacks.

Or are you asking why it makes sense OOC that you can't? Because it's a balance issue. You get, at most, 1.5 your strength bonus in bonus damage for your weapons. You can choose between heavy offense - with your two-handed weapon, or numerous offense, with your two-weapon fighting, or better defense, by being able to use a shield in the off-hand. To heighten, or diversify, from these requires the spending of feats.

Or are you asking why it makes sense IC that you can't? Because your focus is on striking with your two-handed weapon. Your greater focus on that weapon and your more intense attack with it grants you a higher damage bonus with that weapon - namely, an extra half of your strength bonus.

For you to use an 'off-hand' weapon, whether it's in your hand or not, you need to take your focus, balance, and power away from your main weapon and instead divide it with your off-hand weapon. Now that extra half of your strength bonus damage bonus is through your off-hand weapon instead of through your two-handed weapon.

In essence, the more awkward weapon and the fighting stance involved with properly using a two-handed weapon precludes the divided attention that an offhand weapon requires.

Quick follow up, out of curiosity. If I have a longsword in my right hand and a flail in my left, and I have a BAB of +6, and I make two attacks (one at +6 with the longsword and one at +1 with the flail), would you say that I am TWFing?

Not at all. I mean, in plain english, sure, you're using two weapons to fight - but in the system terms, no, you're just making a standard full attack action. But you *also* cannot then use your foot to make an unarmed off-hand attack.

*EDIT*

Also keep in mind - I've said all along I think it's a neat idea for a custom feat. But it's just not supported by RAW. The RAW specifically talks about what happens if you're making an off-hand attack with something that's not necessarily your off-hand.

Answerer

2012-10-22, 06:46 PM

Gavinfoxx

2012-10-22, 07:03 PM

An Animated Dancing Spiked shield is what you need!

dextercorvia

2012-10-22, 09:18 PM

Well, now you're just not paying attention. I already told you where the rules cover it.

Then that makes at least two of ust that aren't paying attention, because I can't see where you have done this either.

No, doing that is just wrong, and insulting to those who think differently. You shouldn't do that.

Saying that I hope something was an unintended interaction is wrong and insulting to people who disagree with me?

ArcanaGuy

2012-10-22, 09:39 PM

Then that makes at least two of ust that aren't paying attention, because I can't see where you have done this either.

No problem. :) Thank you for asking politely.

If you wield a second weapon in your off hand, you can get one extra attack per round with that weapon. *snip* If your off-hand weapon is light, the penalties are reduced by 2 each. (An unarmed strike is always considered light.)

Here, we have the SRD talking about wielding an unarmed strike in your off hand. But an unarmed strike is not necessarily a strike with your off hand - it can be a knee to the groin, a kick to the knee, or a headbutt to the face. Yet it's still 'wielding a second weapon in your off hand.'

dextercorvia

2012-10-22, 09:48 PM

No problem. :) Thank you for asking politely.

Here, we have the SRD talking about wielding an unarmed strike in your off hand. But an unarmed strike is not necessarily a strike with your off hand - it can be a knee to the groin, a kick to the knee, or a headbutt to the face. Yet it's still 'wielding a second weapon in your off hand.'

You have an error in your logic. Your quote says, 'if you wield a weapon in your off hand, you may make an additional attack with it'. It does not say 'if you make an off-hand attack (or an attack with an off-hand weapon), it is wielded with your off-hand'.

Keld Denar

2012-10-22, 09:49 PM

Lord_Gareth

2012-10-22, 10:10 PM

Hey, ah, Arcana? You keep saying you could see a 'custom feat' for this. Please tell me: what would such a feat add to the game that simply taking Two-Weapon Fighting wouldn't? No, in all seriousness, think about this. As an avid homebrewer this is the kind of question I have to ask myself with every design. To wit, forcing a custom feat for this would require you to think of prerequisites. You'd need to give it mechanics that differentiate it from two-weapon fighting. You'd probably want 'sequel' feats. It's a ton of work to get something that is thematically identical to two-weapon fighting.

Or...you can take TWF, and just call it good. It's not a balance issue - this style is so weak I'd call it more of a "your player is nerfing himself" issue - and it's not like the current rules aren't already set up for it. Why make a large argument about it or go through the time and effort of writing, balancing, testing, and re-writing custom feats when the system is ready to roll on it?

Answerer

2012-10-22, 10:43 PM

Saying that I hope something was an unintended interaction is wrong and insulting to people who disagree with me?
Sort of, though I admit I missed the qualifier "I think" in your statement. The fact that you included it might indicate you have a sense of what I mean.

What I intended to say (and due to my own misreading, not quite what I actually said) is that using "X is RAI" as shorthand for "X would be imbalancing and shouldn't be the rule" is an incorrect statement. We cannot really assume that the designers never intended any imbalanced thing. They probably did not really intend to cause imbalance, but they may have misjudged an ability's balance such that what they did honestly intend, is nevertheless imbalanced.

And it's insulting, basically, because it's an attempt to pull an end-run on others' opinions. The claim is basically that someone disagreeing with you is disagreeing with the developers (with the implication that the developers automatically know best, which could be an Appeal to Authority fallacy even if you could back up the claim of what was intended).

Basically, shorthand is not a good idea in these cases. Say what you mean. This is a discussion forum; if you're not interested in discussing something, why are you here? It does not take much to say what you actually mean, rather than rely on an ambiguous abbreviation that may carry unfortunate implications.

ArcanaGuy

2012-10-22, 10:55 PM

So, you aren't wielding a weapon in your off hand, but your offhand is wielding the weapon? I understand where you are getting at. The fact of the matter is that most of the rules are written for the standard longsword/shortsword duel wield combo, or equivalent. That is the language they use for parsing the rules. They do NOT, however, state the exact language you are looking for anywhere in the rules.

Exactly. But the way I see it, that *is* how the rules end up stating it, if you look at it just how it is. It also works thematically, and system-balance wise. It's the same reason you have two hands and two feet and yet you can't take 'multiattack' to get four attacks at first level.

EDIT: *snip* By your interpretation, my longsword is one "hand". My flail is another "hand", and my spikes are a third "hand".

Nnnnno. Your spikes aren't in a third "hand". Your spikes are ... um ...

Ever play Munchkin? Your spikes are out on the table, but they're in your belt. They have text on the card that says, "If you are attacked by a monster with grapple, you get a +1. You can also get the +1 bonus by using this as a weapon - but if so, then it takes up 1 hand."

So I can attack with 2 weapons without TWFing, but if I try to attack with 3 weapons with TWFing, the rules implode?

You can attack with *four* weapons without TWFing. Say you have a +16 BAB. You attack with your longsword with your +16, your mace with your +11, your boot-knife with your +6, and an unarmed headbutt with your +1. There might be various penalties in there, but yeah, essentially you can do all this.

But the only difference here is in variety of attack. You are getting neither extra damage nor extra attacks.

TWFing, by the system, is a way of using your 'off hand' to get get *extra attacks*. Two handed weapons are a way of using your 'off hand' to get *extra damage*. You don't get to use the 'off hand' for both.

Hey, ah, Arcana? You keep saying you could see a 'custom feat' for this. Please tell me: what would such a feat add to the game that simply taking Two-Weapon Fighting wouldn't? No, in all seriousness, think about this. As an avid homebrewer this is the kind of question I have to ask myself with every design. To wit, forcing a custom feat for this would require you to think of prerequisites. You'd need to give it mechanics that differentiate it from two-weapon fighting. You'd probably want 'sequel' feats. It's a ton of work to get something that is thematically identical to two-weapon fighting.

It is not thematically identical. You are using a weapon larger than the main weapon for TWF is supposed to be used for.

As I said above - the 'off hand' can be used with TWF to get bonus attacks, or with a two-handed weapon to get bonus damage. You're not supposed to get both.

The Greatsword / armor spikes combo is someone trying to game the system to get extra damage *and* extra attacks without paying for it.

Or...you can take TWF, and just call it good. It's not a balance issue - this style is so weak I'd call it more of a "your player is nerfing himself" issue - and it's not like the current rules aren't already set up for it. Why make a large argument about it or go through the time and effort of writing, balancing, testing, and re-writing custom feats when the system is ready to roll on it?

And you really don't need a custom feat, even as such. I already stated, too, that there really is a feat already in existence which lets you do this: Monkey Grip. It lets you wield a two-handed weapon with one hand. boom. Done. Admittedly, then you only get a +str bonus to damage instead of +1.5 strength bonus ... but it's applicable in more situations.

*EDIT*

I don't see why everyone seems to think TWF is so weak. I've had characters that used TWF to amazing advantage ... So much so that DMs thought that TWF was broken. If I could also have used a massive weapon with a higher damage value *and* gotten +1.5 my strength bonus at the same time ... hey, it would have been all the more powerful. Multiplied by attacks per turn ... at low levels you're looking at an extra 3 damage a turn or so ... at higher levels, you're looking at an extra 20 or 40 damage a turn, depending on how you're speced out. And that's only if you're just dealing damage - that's to say nothing of the extra trip attacks you can deal, or disarm attempts ... look at how this affects using disarm or sunder during a TWF sequence. You get your full attack action on the disarm or sunder, using a large weapon that has major bonuses to the effort ... *and* you get extra attacks besides. The special attack actions were always the most powerful aspect of TWF, and they're even more powerful if you let them use a two-handed weapon while TWF.

Keld Denar

2012-10-22, 11:14 PM

Monkey Grip doesn't do that. It lets you use a large 2handed weapon in two hands, or a large 1 handed weapon in one hand. It does not let you use a 2handed weapon in 1 hand.

And your interpretation causes gaps where things stop working. As you yourself stated, you can attack with 4 weapons with a BAB of +16, but you can't attack with 5. You can attack with 3 weapons with a BAB of +11, but you can't attack with 4. Are you somehow gaining extra hands with every point of BAB? It doesn't make much sense, and most of all, it isn't internally consistent. My interpretation doesn't result in any areas where the rules aren't defined. The set of main hand attacks does whatever the set of main hand attacks normally does (in this case, gets 1.5x +str for both hands) while the offhand set does what the offhand set normally does (gets .5x +str per normal).

And if you are really worried about balance, stop trying to nerf what is arguably one of the most over feat taxed and under powered combat styles printed. TWF already has a minimum 3 feat tax just to get 3/4 of the return on Str that 2hand fighting does, not to mention the much lower return on Power Attack. Just let the kids have some fun, they already paid out the nose for it.

ArcanaGuy

2012-10-22, 11:17 PM

(This includes using two-handed weapons as single-handed weapons, as two-handed weapons are considered a size category larger.)

From the text of Monkey Grip in 3.5

I answer your question of 'why?' in the post above, which I edited when I realized I wanted to say a little more. Sorry bout that. Didn't want to double-post. But essentially - special attacks like disarm and sunder were always the most powerful aspect of two-weapon fighting ... and those just get more powerful if you let them use a two-handed weapon while two-weapon fighting, without paying for it.

*edit*

Waaaaiiiiit. I grabbed the wrong 'Monkey Grip' text. that was from someone re-writing it. *facepalms* Just a sec...

*second edit*

OK. Here we are. Yes, it does. From the book directly.

You can use one melee weapon that is one size larger than you in one hand. for example, a halfling with the Monkey Grip feat can use a longsword in one hand.

A longsword is a medium weapon. Usually a halfling using a longsword has to use it as a two-handed weapon. But now he can use it as a one-handed weapon.

In the same way, a human using a greatsword has to use it as a two-handed weapon because it's a large weapon. But now he can use it as a one-handed weapon because he can use it as a medium weapon.

Darrin

2012-10-22, 11:19 PM

Ever play Munchkin? Your spikes are out on the table, but they're in your belt. They have text on the card that says, "If you are attacked by a monster with grapple, you get a +1. You can also get the +1 bonus by using this as a weapon - but if so, then it takes up 1 hand."

The "handedness" rules in SJGames Munchkin are completely irrelevant to D&D. I fail to see how this improved your argument at all.

TWFing, by the system, is a way of using your 'off hand' to get get *extra attacks*. Two handed weapons are a way of using your 'off hand' to get *extra damage*. You don't get to use the 'off hand' for both.

This isn't supported by the rules as written. This may be your interpretation of how the designers intended TWF to work, but the actual text does not explicitly forbid a character using both hands to do something else from using armor spikes as an off-hand attack.

It is not thematically identical. You are using a weapon larger than the main weapon for TWF is supposed to be used for.

You've completely lost me here: "using a weapon larger than the main weapon for TWF is supposed to be used for." The rules for TWF don't tell me anything about what weapon they were "supposed" to be used for. In fact, the rules are quite clear that you can use any weapon you want for TWF, and you will be penalized appropriately. You get a much lower penalty if your off-hand is light and you have the appropriate feat.

As I said above - the 'off hand' can be used with TWF to get bonus attacks, or with a two-handed weapon to get bonus damage. You're not supposed to get both.

Again, your opinion. The actual text makes no such absolute either/or distinction.

The Greatsword / armor spikes combo is someone trying to game the system to get extra damage *and* extra attacks without paying for it.

Actually, they are paying for it. They are getting, at the least, a -2 on their primary and off-hand attacks, and they are getting 1/2 Str bonus on the off-hand. If they don't have the TWF feat, then the penalties are even worse.

And you really don't need a custom feat, even as such. I already stated, too, that there really is a feat already in existence which lets you do this: Monkey Grip. It lets you wield a two-handed weapon with one hand. boom. Done.

Monkey Grip doesn't work that way. It does *not* allow you to grip a two-handed weapon with one hand. It lets you grip a larger-sized weapon without increasing the number of hands required, along with the -2 size penalty.

I don't see why everyone seems to think TWF is so weak.

Very, very briefly (because it's been argued to death elsewhere, and proven mathematically with various tables), the investment of 3 feats to the damage output isn't worth it compared to Power Attack, or spending 1 feat for x2/x3/x4 damage output. And since the TWF line requires keeping your Dex high, your damage output stagnates while the Power Attacker can keep increasing his Str, which improves both his to-hit and damage output. And TWFers need an *additional* feat to use Dex instead of Str for their attacks.

TWF *can* be effective with a source of bonus damage, such as Sneak Attack, Skirmish, Insightful Strike, etc., but none of those scale up as quickly as Power Attack. It can be done, but it requires a huge amount of feats, equipment, dipping, etc., while the Power Attacker picks up one feat and everything after that is pretty much just frosting on the cake.

ArcanaGuy

2012-10-22, 11:24 PM

The "handedness" rules in SJGames Munchkin are completely irrelevant to D&D. I fail to see how this improved your argument at all.

... ... ... *pinches bridge of nose*

It wasn't improving an argument at all. it was trying to express something through an analogy, in answer to a specific question about spontaneously gaining a third hand. You'll notice I didn't respond to the question by saying "How can you grow a third hand? You can't grow a third hand in the rules!"

That's because I understand the concept of an analogy.

As for the rest of it ... what do you call it when the rules specify that you're wielding a weapon in your off-hand ... when it's not being wielded in a hand at all?

Monkey Grip doesn't work that way. It does *not* allow you to grip a two-handed weapon with one hand. It lets you grip a larger-sized weapon without increasing the number of hands required, along with the -2 size penalty.

*sigh* From the text of Monkey Grip:

(This includes using two-handed weapons as single-handed weapons, as two-handed weapons are considered a size category larger.)

*edit*

Waaaaiiiiit. I grabbed the wrong 'Monkey Grip' text. that was from someone re-writing it. *facepalms* Just a sec...

*second edit*

OK. Here we are. Yes, it does. From the book directly.

You can use one melee weapon that is one size larger than you in one hand. for example, a halfling with the Monkey Grip feat can use a longsword in one hand.

A longsword is a medium weapon. Usually a halfling using a longsword has to use it as a two-handed weapon. But now he can use it as a one-handed weapon.

In the same way, a human using a greatsword has to use it as a two-handed weapon because it's a large weapon. But now he can use it as a one-handed weapon because he can use it as a medium weapon.

Keld Denar

2012-10-22, 11:31 PM

Check your sources. Online sources are reliable at best, wrong at worst. My guess is you copy/pasta'd that from DanDwiki, which means it is somebody's homebrew cleverly disguised as actual rules text.

Benefit: You can use melee weapons one size category larger than you are with a -2 penalty on the attack roll, but the amount of effort it takes you to use the weapon does not change.

For instance, a Large Longsword (a one-handed weapon for a Large creature) is considered a two-handed weapon for a Medium creature that does not have this feat. For a Medium creature that has this feat, it is still considered a one-handed weapon. You can wield a larger light weapon as a light weapon, or a larger two-handed weapon in two hands. You cannot wield a larger weapon in your offhand, and you cannot use this feat with a double weapon.

You could use a Large Longsword in one hand, but you could not use a Medium Greatsword in one hand. Not much in the way of difference, but still a difference.

EDIT: and you are charging another feat, to take another penalty, to gain negligible or even negative gains. You aren't balancing TWFing, you are crippling it. Kicking the metaphorical dog while it is down, if you will.

Darrin

2012-10-22, 11:34 PM

Waaaaiiiiit. I grabbed the wrong 'Monkey Grip' text. that was from someone re-writing it. *facepalms* Just a sec...

That's how most people *think* it works, and that's how it most often gets used in play. In fact, I'd much rather prefer it if it did work that way.

(Monkey Grip has been reworded twice, once in Complete Warrior and later in Weapons of Legacy. In both cases, the designers completely failed to fix it so it works how most people think it should work.)

But yeah, not RAW.

TexAvery

2012-10-22, 11:34 PM

Not saying that it's 100% RAW, but it's certainly one way to read how those two passages would interact.

And this is why I hate reading that RAI is "an insulting fallacy". RAW, contrary to the claims of its backers, is not obvious, nor easy to agree on. It's always passing through interpretation, and English as used here is inherently ambiguous. The assertions about the obvious correctness of RAW... well, I'll stop ranting.

No, doing that is just wrong, and insulting to those who think differently. You shouldn't do that.

Did you ever realize that your statements on this are... the exact same thing?

ArcanaGuy

2012-10-22, 11:34 PM

Yeah, already discovered that.

Edited to match the feat from my book, Sword and Fist.

tonberrian

2012-10-22, 11:36 PM

Yeah, already discovered that.

Edited to match the feat from my book, Sword and Fist.

Except Sword and Fist is 3.0. There has been an update to Monkey Grip in 3.5 in Complete Warrior (and Weapons of Legacy, apparently). It doesn't work like that anymore.

Thank god. Weapon sizes were a pain back then.

ArcanaGuy

2012-10-22, 11:42 PM

Ah, this is specifically a 3.5 thread, isn't it? Mmf... well, concede, that point, then. But the rest, I feel, still holds.

Still... I've already spent too much time on this.

The voice in the back of my head is screaming at me, "Someone's wrong on the internet! I have to fix it!" To convince me to stop now. So I'mma stop now. *tips hat* Gentlemen. It certainly isn't the end of the world to do it your way. I think you're wrong, but it's just a game. If it works for you, it works for you. So long as you have fun! :)

Darrin

2012-10-22, 11:46 PM

That's because I understand the concept of an analogy.

Here's another analogy: I treat Curmudgeon's opinion with respect, even when I think he's flat-out wrong (happens very rarely), and we can at least tolerate each other without resorting to petty sniping. I'll extend the same courtesy to you.

As for the rest of it ... what do you call it when the rules specify that you're wielding a weapon in your off-hand ... when it's not being wielded in a hand at all?

"Off-hand" is just a confusing term the designers used to refer to a secondary manufactured weapon attack. When they updated the rules from 3.0 to 3.5, they got rid of "handedness", but there are still some residual rules quirks that the editors didn't completely smooth over (for example, the mounted combat rules are a mess).

The rules say I can make an unarmed strike without using my hands, or a shield bash attack, or an armor spikes attack. The rules call that attack an "off-hand" attack even though hands aren't directly involved. You calculate the penalties according to the size of the weapon and whether the attacker has the proper feat, not according to which hand is holding what.

A longsword is a medium weapon. Usually a halfling using a longsword has to use it as a two-handed weapon. But now he can use it as a one-handed weapon.

In the same way, a human using a greatsword has to use it as a two-handed weapon because it's a large weapon. But now he can use it as a one-handed weapon because he can use it as a medium weapon.

Explicit weapon sizes were eliminated from the 3.5 rules (another 3.0->3.5 update quirk). A halfing wielding a longsword created for a medium-sized humanoid has to use two hands because of the size increase, not because it's a "large" weapon (it's actually a "small-sized object" if you want to get really technical). If you're going to insist on using 3.0 rules... well, that may explain why we keep misunderstanding each other.

Seharvepernfan

2012-10-23, 02:53 AM

Still... I've already spent too much time on this.

The voice in the back of my head is screaming at me, "Someone's wrong on the internet! I have to fix it!" To convince me to stop now. So I'mma stop now. *tips hat* Gentlemen. It certainly isn't the end of the world to do it your way. I think you're wrong, but it's just a game. If it works for you, it works for you. So long as you have fun! :)

For the record, I agree that, RAI, you're not allowed to do this. However, I also agree with the others that it's still a suboptimal fighting style, so not only would I allow it as a DM, I actually make it easier to qualify for.

Anyway, I think the argument has gone as far as it can go. The writers weren't clear enough about "off-hand" usage, so one can't be quite sure what they meant. I, personally, am also turning in. I thank everyone for their time and effort. I believe my question has been answered as much as it can.

Diarmuid

2012-10-23, 08:39 AM

So I've got a related question, and this group seems pretty darn savvy on the TWF rules so I'm just gonna stick it here.

Assuming BAB of 6. If attacking with a Longsword MH and a Flail OH at +6/+1 BAB respectively, there is no penalty to your attacks. Does the Flail benefit from full Strength bonus, or .5 Strength bonus? My gut is telling me full, but it's not 100% sure.

Darrin

2012-10-23, 08:42 AM

Diarmuid

2012-10-23, 08:47 AM

RFLS

2012-10-23, 08:56 AM

Full strength. Your second iterative attack is not an off-hand attack, so the Strength penalty does not apply.

Uhm. No, pretty sure it goes iterative-longsword/offhand-flail/iterative-longsword/offhand-flail. The flail should still take the offhand penalty, and all attacks are still at a -2.

Answerer

2012-10-23, 08:56 AM

If you're not using the Two-Weapon Fighting option to get more attacks, you don't have anything called "offhand" anything, and each attack is treated as normal for an attack with that weapon wielded with that many hands. Full strength bonus on both attacks.

The Two-Weapon Fighting rules do specify that the offhand attack is made with a different weapon than your main attack. That is the only requirement on the bonus attack.

candycorn

2012-10-23, 06:43 PM

Basic Argument, as I see it, for persons thinking that a Two hander and armor spikes are not legal:

Buckler: This small metal shield is worn strapped to your forearm. You can use a bow or crossbow without penalty while carrying it. You can also use your shield arm to wield a weapon (whether you are using an off-hand weapon or using your off hand to help wield a two-handed weapon), but you take a –1 penalty on attack rolls while doing so. This penalty stacks with those that may apply for fighting with your off hand and for fighting with two weapons. In any case, if you use a weapon in your off hand, you don't get the buckler's AC bonus for the rest of the round.
You can't bash someone with a buckler.

Armor Spikes: You can have spikes added to your armor, which allow you to deal extra piercing damage (see Table: Weapons) on a successful grapple attack. The spikes count as a martial weapon. If you are not proficient with them, you take a –4 penalty on grapple checks when you try to use them. You can also make a regular melee attack (or off-hand attack) with the spikes, and they count as a light weapon in this case. (You can't also make an attack with armor spikes if you have already made an attack with another off-hand weapon, and vice versa.)

As I understand it, people believe that since you are holding a 2-handed weapon with both your main and off hand, that it qualifies as an "attack made with an off-hand weapon", barring the use of another off hand attack.

However, if that were the case, then, as such an attack, the 2 hander attack would be subject to the following:

An attack made with the off hand incurs a -4 penalty to 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.

So, if you are arguing this line of reasoning, you are stating that you believe that ALL two handed weapon attacks should be made with a -4 penalty to them, and that they should all only add 1/2 the wielder's strength bonus to damage.

Does anyone here actually believe that? Or can we all agree that this is a flawed line of reasoning?

If so, then I invite any rules-based objection to the legality of this.

Gwendol

2012-10-24, 07:09 AM

Ya, that's where the RAI and the RAW get muddy for me. I like to stick to RAW as much as possible with my group as it avoids concerns of nepitism, favoritism, unfair balance, etc.

2 Handing, gets you bonus str because you're able to bring both of your "hands" to bear on a single weapon. This is further supported with things like "Graft Arms" (SpC I think) where you can put more and more "arms" on a single weapon and get more and more Str bonus damage on the attack.

Using TWF with a Longsword/Dagger the Dagger gets .5 Str. If you enough BAB for an iterative, you can attack with Longsword/Dagger/Dagger and be getting different dmg bonuses on the Dagger attacks.

Heck, with all of this "off-hand attacks dont have to come from your off-hand" what's to stop somone from attacking with a Dagger, and then using their TWF attack to attack with that same Dagger again, but now with less Str behind it?

Right. I'm of the (lonely) opinion that you always have a main "hand" attack designated, and all other attacks are off-"hand". It would be easier to discuss this if the rules said primary attack and secondary attack(s) but they don't.

This has been debated here ad nauseam, and basically comes down to if you take Skip Williams' word for how to interpret the rules for fighting with two (or more) weapons or not. See: http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20060829a

Off Hand, Off-Hand Weapon: When attacking with two weapons, the character must designate one of his hands as his off hand; the weapon held in that hand is treated as his off-hand weapon. The game rules don’t really care about whether you’re right-handed or left-handed, and it’s even OK to change your off hand designation from one round to the next.

Attacks with the off hand take a -4 penalty on the attack roll (see page 311 in the Player's Handbook) and only half the character’s Strength bonus (rounded down) applies to damage from the attack. Fighting with a weapon in each hand brings even bigger penalties.

When a character fights with a weapon in each hand, the weapon held in the off hand is called the off-hand weapon.

Primary Hand, Primary Weapon: If a character is only attacking with a single weapon, it’s fine to treat that as a primary weapon, regardless of what hand it’s held in. When a character fights with two weapons, he can designate either one as his primary weapon.

Attacks with the primary hand gain the character's full Strength bonus on damage rolls. Attacks with a primary weapon in a two-weapon attack take a penalty on the attack roll because attacking with two weapons at once proves very tricky.

That said, the TWF rules are not good, and really should have been given a more complete overhaul when going from 3.0 to 3.5 than just folding Ambidexterity into TWF (but without really changing any rules associated with the two feats).

Axier

2012-10-24, 08:04 AM

I've played with TWF and Armor Spikes, with a Spiked Chain, on a Stalwart Battle Sorcerer. You want to know how optimal that was?

It wasn't...

Still it was fun, and I had it in my head kinda like this; I would cut something, step in, and backhand them. Or, I would come in wide, spin inward quickly, and use the spikes on my back to inflict some more pain. If someone was out of reach, I would use one of my reserve feats, and then close on in. It felt pretty cool.

I also have a concept of an Artificer with a bunch of weapons straped everywhere. Armor spikes, two wrist blades, two sleeve blades, two knee blades, two wierd boot blade things from RoTW, and a whole bunch of random gear. Each weapon would have a different enchantment too, using rusting on an obsidian sleeve blade to get through metal, every type of elemental damage, and an enchanted repeating crossbow with different arrows of bane. Id be switching between knee and elbow strikes as much as I would be switching between my blades on my hands, and it would look pretty frickin cool.

Answerer

2012-10-24, 09:34 AM

Right. I'm of the (lonely) opinion that you always have a main "hand" attack designated, and all other attacks are off-"hand". It would be easier to discuss this if the rules said primary attack and secondary attack(s) but they don't.
A concept that appears nowhere in the rules.

This has been debated here ad nauseam, and basically comes down to if you take Skip Williams' word for how to interpret the rules for fighting with two (or more) weapons or not. See: http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20060829a
In which Skip Williams once again makes up rules on the fly when he doesn't know or doesn't like the correct answer to the question asked.

Gwendol

2012-10-24, 09:52 AM

That's your opinion, fine.

Lord_Gareth

2012-10-24, 09:58 AM

That's your opinion, fine.

Well, not quite, no. If you read Skip Williams' articles and writing you'll find that he consistently fails to understand the rules, hands out bad advice, and calls things 'optimization' or 'power-gaming' that aren't anywhere even close. In fact, the advice he's given out over the course of his career is so bad that if he told me the sun rose in the East I'd fund a research team to test the hypothesis.

In a more general sense, have you heard of the concept of the Death of the Author? The idea behind it is that the writer's interpretations of a work are not any more valid than anyone else's - and the 3.5 community can argue more than a decade of solid research behind ours.

Keld Denar

2012-10-24, 10:03 AM

Skip's interpretation doesn't take into account non-handed weapons such as armor spikes or unarmed strikes. It only deals with hands, just like 90% of all TWF rules despite there being at least 2 non-handed weapons in core.

Darrin

2012-10-24, 10:05 AM

A concept that appears nowhere in the rules.

If I recall Gwendol's argument correctly, there's enough ambiguity in the rules to support his interpretation. I think his point was this:

I am holding a sword in one hand, and a dagger in the other.
BAB +6, so I can make two iterative attacks.
I can attack with either one first, so I make two attacks: sword, then dagger.
Since I am *attacking with two weapons*, even though I am *not* making an extra off-hand attack, then the TWF penalties should still apply. I think his point was that your primary weapon is always designated as your main hand attack, and whatever you're holding in your other hand is an off-hand weapon simply by definition, before you decide how many attacks or which weapons you decide to use that round.

Or am I misremembering?

Anyway, if that's his position... the rules don't explicitly say he's wrong. You can interpret them that way. I happen to think it's wrong and the likelihood that the rules were intended to work that way is exceedingly remote, but that's just my opinion. I can't say anything about whether that concept is embodied in the rules or not, but I can say the rules don't explicitly contradict him.

Gwendol

2012-10-24, 10:10 AM

Instead of firing blindly because it's... well, Skip, please outline what in the quote above is against RAW?

Darrin: You are quite right, couldn't have said it better myself.

Also, let me restate that the TWF rules are about as badly written and conceived as those for Mounted Combat. I.e. some houseruling is strongly encouraged.

Gwendol

2012-10-24, 10:16 AM

Lyndworm

2012-10-24, 12:44 PM

Also, let me restate that the TWF rules are about as badly written and conceived as those for Mounted Combat. I.e. some houseruling is strongly encouraged.
I thought you said horseruling at first. I... I'm not sure if I like that better or not.

Keld Denar

2012-10-24, 01:09 PM

Yes, as I said; TWF is not particularly well described in the rules.

And I like to err on the side that is internally consistent. My interpretation is, I believe, because it easily handles normal cases and corner cases. It requires the least amount of footnoting, especially when wielding more than two weapons at once, which is possible even in core. It is only when people attempt to inject realism into a mechanical system that things get weird.

Gwendol

2012-10-24, 03:57 PM

And yet, as Diarmuid points out; that interpretation isn't without some strange results. My general rule is that if you use two weapons you adhere to TWF rules (and benefits). It's simple enough.

This really comes down to: either you argue that you can fight with two weapons freely and only take a penalty when trying to get an extra attack in, or you can always get an attack in when using two weapons since that's how the TWF rules work.

What I would like to have seen from the rules overhaul was that TWF allowed for an off-hand attack using a standard action also.

Answerer

2012-10-24, 04:43 PM

This really comes down to: either you argue that you can fight with two weapons freely and only take a penalty when trying to get an extra attack in, or you can always get an attack in when using two weapons since that's how the TWF rules work.
And the presence of "can" and "when you fight this way" in the rules about Two-Weapon Fighting are ignored... because you don't like them?

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.(emphasis mine)

And to head off a silly argument, "this" is English's proximal reflexive adjective. What this means is that it refers back to something mentioned earlier that is "proximal" or "near to" where the word "this" appears. It is incorrect to read "this way" as referring to anything but the nearest "way" previous to the usage, which is the way where you "get one extra attack per round with that weapon." It is wrong to read it as the way where "you fight with a second weapon in your off hand."

Basically, what it comes down to is this:

that interpretation isn't without some strange results.
That they are "strange" is your opinion. I don't agree. I think the results of yours (where you're nerfing a sub-optimal fighting style and eliminating some of the few options that melee characters naturally have) are far less desirable than the "problem" of referring to an attack as "offhand" when it's not in any hand at all (that's just terminology), or where you're getting a different damage bonus based on your fighting style (that just makes sense, IMO, in all honesty).

And because you think the results are strange, you are twisting the words and ignoring the rules.

I am sorry. But you are wrong. Houserule it any way you like, but admit then that it is a houserule, and please, for your players' sake, tell them about it up front.

Keld Denar

2012-10-24, 05:07 PM

Just curious, but what strange results happen from my interpretation?

Gwendol

2012-10-25, 02:03 AM

Using TWF with a Longsword/Dagger the Dagger gets .5 Str. If you enough BAB for an iterative, you can attack with Longsword/Dagger/Dagger and be getting different dmg bonuses on the Dagger attacks.

Heck, with all of this "off-hand attacks dont have to come from your off-hand" what's to stop somone from attacking with a Dagger, and then using their TWF attack to attack with that same Dagger again, but now with less Str behind it?

This. But I guess the "strangeness" is in the eye of the beholder.

Answerer: because the rules are about two weapon fighting, not "getting an extra attack when full attacking and wielding more than one weapon".

I'm not pretending to try and sway anyone's opinion here, just presenting my point of view.

Keld Denar

2012-10-25, 02:26 AM

You can't use the same weapon. TWFing explicitly states that you are required to use a second weapon, which is different from the first. If it simply referred to hands, you could switch the dagger from right to left and keep stabbing with it.

Gwendol

2012-10-25, 02:43 AM

Answerer

2012-10-25, 09:01 AM

This. But I guess the "strangeness" is in the eye of the beholder.
You realize that weapons dealing different damage depending on how they are used happens all over the place in the rules, right?

Yes, you get half strength when you use TWF and full strength otherwise. It's hard to swing two weapons at once; there's a lot of coordination needed, and one of the weapons has to take a sub-optimal swing/thrust path because the other weapon is blocking it, so you can only apply half your damage.

Just like when you use a natural weapon as a secondary, that otherwise would have been a primary. You can only have one (or one pair of) primary natural weapon(s); if you have other natural weapons and you want to use them on a full-attack, you must treat them as secondary (taking a -5 penalty to attack and only adding half your strength to its damage). But you can use a different one as primary in each full attack.

The "strange" result you see doesn't seem strange at all, to me, considering the concept that's being used and the existence of other, similar rules that have similar results. Moreover, the rules unambiguously state that these "strange" results are the correct ones, and there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that they are anything but what the designers intended.

Gwendol

2012-10-25, 09:13 AM

The point Diarmuid was making is that the same dagger attack gets a different strength damage bonus in the same round unless you make the iteratives with the primary "hand" and the extra attack with the off "hand".

Keld Denar

2012-10-25, 09:36 AM

You CAN'T make attacks with the same weapon in a single round as both main hand and off hand. If you had your longsword/dagger combo, along with armor spikes, you could go sword/dagger, sword/spikes, dagger/spikes, or spikes/dagger (or dagger/sword, spikes/sword, but that would result in extra penalties). You COULDN'T go dagger/dagger or spikes/spikes (or sword/sword) because the rules tell you you can't, unless you had extra daggers or something. You can't use any weapon as part of your offhand set of attacks that was used for your main hand attacks and vise versa. The same dagger might have it's damage vary from round to round because maybe you aren't leading with the sword first and following up with the dagger, or maybe the other way around. Which WEAPONS you designate as offhand can change round to round, and the hands that wield them have little to nothing to do with it.

Answerer

2012-10-25, 09:36 AM

OK, I misread it, but so? I assume you mean something like ITWF for four attacks, where they're dagger A/dagger B, then dagger B/dagger A? There's nothing special about the dagger here, just how it's being swung. In the first case dagger A is getting the better line of attack, in the second it's dagger B. Nothing all that weird here.

Or are you talking about re-using the same dagger for both main attack and offhand attack? Because that's explicitly not allowed, and not really relevant.

Gwendol

2012-10-26, 04:01 AM

Keld and Answerer: Then we seem to agree on a lot more than I thought.

1: Any weapon ("hand") used for iterative attacks can't also be used for the off hand attack.

This was actually a point of contention in previous debates on this topic, which is why I pressed the point.

From my point of view then (for the sake of simplicitly we'll stick with WoTC definition of dual wielding (Longsword + shortsword, or similar)), when you full attack holding two weapons you can either:
-Use one of them, taking no penalties to hit
-Use both, taking reductions to your BAB according to the two-weapon fighting rules, making iterative attacks with your primary, and the extra attack(s) with the off-hand

Where did I go wrong?

Darrin

2012-10-26, 06:25 AM

-Use one of them, taking no penalties to hit
-Use both, taking reductions to your BAB according to the two-weapon fighting rules, making iterative attacks with your primary, and the extra attack(s) with the off-hand

Where did I go wrong?

As I recall, the argument was about whether you could switch your primary weapon between your iterative attacks. You said no, most of the rest of us said that was fine. Example: BAB +11, longsword in right hand, dagger in left. RAW says you can attack with either weapon first. So long as you only use your iterative attacks, and do not get any extra attacks via the TWF rules, we were arguing that you can alternate between longsword and dagger however you like:

longsword +11, dagger +6, longsword +1
dagger +11, longsword +5, dagger +1
etc.

Essentially, our argument was that so long as you're not using the TWF rules, you can change your primary weapon on each attack. But we were unable to find any direct support for this in the text, other than it says you can attack with either weapon on your first attack before deciding what to do with the rest of your attacks.

I believe your argument was that no, you can't change your primary weapon during the middle of an attack routine. Your first attack becomes your primary, and your *other* hand, whatever that may be, is offhand regardless of whether you get extra attacks with it. While I understand that this point of view may be semantically consistent, I don't agree that this was intended by the rules. I believe the two positions boils down to this:

Gwendol: "You cannot switch primary weapons between iterative attacks. If you do so, then one of them must be an offhand attack by definition."

Keld: "You can switch your primary weapon between iterative attacks. You do not have an offhand attack unless you gain an extra attack via the TWF rules."

While I personally see Keld's position as stronger by RAW, RAW can't really help us at this point. I was going to expound upon this with a couple long elaborate descriptions of myself attacking a garden gnome with a Dukes of Hazzard lunchbox in one hand and a red Swingline stapler in the other, and then describe it from both Gwendol's and Keld's viewpoint, but I'm not sure it would really help settle anything at this point.

Perhaps we should agree to disagree... or is that a wussy cop-out?

Gwendol

2012-10-26, 06:38 AM

Answerer

2012-10-26, 09:26 AM

I have some trouble reconciling the idea that it's ok for switching weapons during iteratives in one case (no off-hand attack), but not in the other (when making an off-hand attack).

I'm perfectly fine to agree to disagree!
It's OK to switch weapon order with TWF, too, but if you have a not-Light weapon as your offhand, you take larger penalties.

High BAB is multiple attacks in sequence (so attack with Longsword, then attack with Dagger).

Two-Weapon Fighting is two attacks at the same time (so attack with Longsword and Dagger at once, then if you have iteratives and ITWF attack with both again).

Which weapon goes "first" and which is "offhand" is really just a rules artifact.

Axier

2012-10-26, 09:31 AM

Somewhat off topic, but now I want to make a homebrew feat that says you can TWF with one light or one handed weapon. Like you are switching back and forth in stances with one weapon. I think it would be cool...

I think I need to start a new thread...

Gwendol

2012-10-26, 10:54 AM

That isn't supported by the rules. You can certainly switch between weapons during iteratives but not while wielding two weapons, IIRC.

Darrin

2012-10-26, 11:23 AM

That isn't supported by the rules. You can certainly switch between weapons during iteratives but not while wielding two weapons, IIRC.

I'm not following you. How do you switch between weapons during iteratives if you only have one weapon (unless we're counting "non-hand offhand weapons"), and why exactly does wielding two weapons no longer allow this?

In the first case, I can imagine drop (free action) + quickdraw (free action) is still possible, but in the second case...?

Gwendol

2012-10-27, 04:18 AM

Answerer

2012-10-27, 09:47 AM

Rushed posting, sorry for being unclear.

What I mean is that the rules support throwing a javelin as first attack, then drawing a sword (if free action) and continue to attack with iteratives at your usual BAB. The rules don't support wielding a sword in one hand and light mace in the other and switching between the two during iteratives without one being done with an off "hand".
[Citation Needed]

Or to save time, they absolutely do, and you are wrong. There are no special rules for it because there don't need to be, you can make a melee attack with any weapon you have available (unless you're using the Two-Weapon Fighting option, in which case you can't use the main hand weapon). There's no such thing as "offhand" when you aren't using Two-Weapon Fighting.

Gwendol

2012-10-29, 04:27 AM

...and we're back full circle!

If you are attacking with two weapons (wielding two weapons, not simply switching between e.g. ranged and melee attack(s)) during your iteratives, I argue that based on the rules you are effectively two-weapon fighting and thus have to deal with those rules.
As soon as you are wielding more than one weapon, one will have to be your primary, and the other(s) off-hand, regardless.

Keld Denar

2012-10-29, 09:22 AM

Lets just progress this logically. If I attack with one weapon for my iteratives, it is fine, because 1 weapon = 1 weapon fighting. If I attack with two weapons for my iteratives, even if I'm not gaining extra attacks for TWFing (attacking at successively lower iteratives), then I AM TWFing and do use the TWFing rules. If I have a BAB of 11+ and attack with three different weapons (+11/+6/+1), am I now Multiweapon Fighting? Even if I don't have three+ arms to qualify?

What about throwing daggers? If I throw one dagger, Quickdraw another and throw it, then Quickdraw a 3rd and throw it, assuming a BAB of +11 or higher, is that TWF? There are 3 weapons involved. What if I didn't have Quickdraw, and simply held the 2nd dagger in my other hand, transferring it to the first? Or simply tossing it with the other hand? If I'm making multiple ranged attacks, does that mean I'm using Rapid Shot and should take a -2 penalty on all my attacks? No. No extra attack, no extra penalties.

Your interpretation just causes too many loop holes, too many internal inconsistencies that require additional clarification.