PDA

View Full Version : Can you switch weapons on iterative attacks?



MrNexx
2007-01-25, 10:23 AM
If you're using two weapons, or weapon and shield, can you switch weapons between iterative attacks without incurring two-weapon penalties?

For example, if I'm using sword and board, can I shield bash with my +6 BAB, then hit them with my sword with my +1 BAB attack, without incuring TWF penalties?

Fax Celestis
2007-01-25, 10:24 AM
Yes, you most certainly can.

Thomas
2007-01-25, 10:46 AM
I don't see why not. You're not gaining extra attacks.

Golthur
2007-01-25, 10:52 AM
Already been said, but, yes, absolutely.

AtomicKitKat
2007-01-25, 11:14 AM
You're basically just alternating whichever is considered "On-hand". DM might rule that you still need to take the TWF penalty, since you're technically using both weapons in the same round. :/

MrNexx
2007-01-25, 11:24 AM
Yes, but it's less worth it if you take the TWF penalty.

Orzel
2007-01-25, 11:55 AM
Actually performed this the other day.
Accursed flankers with different high DRs and Imp. Sunder.

Matthew
2007-01-25, 01:56 PM
Actually, you suffer the -4 Penalty for using your Off Hand as a Primary Attack, unless you have Two Weapon Fighting. The rule is not perfectly clear, but it is the case.

You have to look in the Glossary to find the rule since the ending of the Ambidexterity Feat, but the -4 Penalty apparently still applies to all tasks performed with the Off Hand.

Fax Celestis
2007-01-25, 02:22 PM
Actually, you suffer the -4 Penalty for using your Off Hand as a Primary Attack, unless you have Two Weapon Fighting. The rule is not perfectly clear, but it is the case.

You have to look in the Glossary to find the rule since the ending of the Ambidexterity Feat, but the -4 Penalty apparently still applies to all tasks performed with the Off Hand.

...except you get to designate what your "On Hand" is.

Telonius
2007-01-25, 02:26 PM
...except you get to designate what your "On Hand" is.
... so you could conceivably be carrying two swords, designate one of them as a primary attack, and the other as a secondary attack. As long as you don't get any more attacks than you normally would (i.e. a fighter with BAB +6/+1 would only get two attacks), you wouldn't take any extra penalties. Am I reading that correctly?

Matthew
2007-01-25, 02:27 PM
Not as I recall. It has to be 'a weaker hand'. I will have to check into it to be sure, though.

Off Hand (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/glossary&term=Glossary_dnd_offhand&alpha=)



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 damage dealt with a weapon held in the off hand.

Maybe it is different in the 3.5 PHB?

Gamebird
2007-01-25, 02:29 PM
Another version of this dilemma is:

You are using a two-handed sword and you strike down your adjacent foe. You have the feat Quick Draw. Can you now QD your bow (or dagger) and use it to attack an enemy 25' away?

clarkvalentine
2007-01-25, 02:31 PM
Can you now QD your bow (or dagger) and use it to attack an enemy 25' away?


I'd say yes, according to the RAW. But I'd glare at the player.

Fax Celestis
2007-01-25, 02:31 PM
f 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.
Fighting with two weapons but not fighting in this manner incurs no penalties.

Matthew
2007-01-25, 02:37 PM
Another version of this dilemma is:

You are using a two-handed sword and you strike down your adjacent foe. You have the feat Quick Draw. Can you now QD your bow (or dagger) and use it to attack an enemy 25' away?

Dungeons & Dragons FAQ (December, 2007), p. 26.




Can a character with Quick Draw and a base attack
bonus of +6 or better make a melee attack with one weapon
and a ranged attack with another weapon in the same
round? What if the melee weapon requires two hands to
wield?
Yes. 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.
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 (using his base
attack bonus –5). If the character had both hands free (for
instance, if he didn’t carry a light or heavy shield in his off
hand), he could even use Quick Draw to draw a bow (free
action), draw and nock an arrow (free action) and then shoot
the bow (using his base attack bonus –5).
This situation is actually improved if the melee weapon is a
two-handed weapon. A character can hold a two-handed
weapon in one hand; he just can’t attack with it while it’s held
like that. Thus, he wouldn’t even have to drop the weapon in
order to draw and throw the dagger. If Krusk the 6th-level
barbarian had Quick Draw, he could swing his greataxe (using
his full base attack bonus), then leave the axe in his off-hand
while drawing a javelin with his primary hand (free action), and
finally throw the javelin (using his base attack bonus –5). If
Krusk were drawing a ranged weapon that required two hands
to use (such as a bow), he’d have to drop his greataxe.



It is important to bear in mind that Free Actions are at the discretion of the Dungeon Master.

Orzel
2007-01-25, 02:37 PM
Another version of this dilemma is:

You are using a two-handed sword and you strike down your adjacent foe. You have the feat Quick Draw. Can you now QD your bow (or dagger) and use it to attack an enemy 25' away?


No, drawing a weapon is only a free action if you combine it with a regular move and have a BBA of +1 or higher. You can attack, sheath the sword, and draw the bow but you can't fire the bow.

But with Quick Draw you can. so Yes.

Matthew
2007-01-25, 02:40 PM
You are missing the Quick Draw Feat.


... so you could conceivably be carrying two swords, designate one of them as a primary attack, and the other as a secondary attack. As long as you don't get any more attacks than you normally would (i.e. a fighter with BAB +6/+1 would only get two attacks), you wouldn't take any extra penalties. Am I reading that correctly?


You do suffer a -4 Penalty for whichever hand is your Off Hand, unless you have Two Weapon Fighting.

Shhalahr Windrider
2007-01-25, 02:41 PM
...except you get to designate what your "On Hand" is.

On an attack per attack basis? You've been right-handed your entire life, but suddenly you can decide to be momentarily left-handed? Suddenly, because you say so, your left hand is no longer "weaker or less dexterous"? I don't think so.

Though, honestly, there is no rule anywhere specifying how one decides what a character's dominant hand is. (There should have been a paragraph in Chapter 4, really.) I think this was one of those places they left things up to common sense.

Matthew
2007-01-25, 02:43 PM
It is the removal of the Ambidexterity Feat that causes the confusion. The Glossary is the only source for the -4 Off Hand Rule in 3.5.

The FAQ complicates things further:

Dungeons & Dragons FAQ (December, 2006), p. 35.




Can a character make a shield bash attack using the
shield as a primary weapon or can it be used only as an offhand
weapon?
While the rules describe a shield bash as an off-hand
weapon, that’s simply an assumption (that your primary hand is
holding a weapon). There’s nothing stopping you from
declaring your shield bash as your primary weapon. Of course,
that means that any attack you make with your other hand becomes a secondary weapon.

Fax Celestis
2007-01-25, 02:45 PM
You do suffer a -4 Penalty for whichever hand is your Off Hand, unless you have Two Weapon Fighting.

No, you suffer the penalty if you take the extra attack.

I'll say it again: "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.

Matthew
2007-01-25, 02:47 PM
It's a rules conflict situation, Fax. The Glossary says one thing and the FAQ another.

Golthur
2007-01-25, 02:48 PM
I'd have to side with Matthew on this one - you're not getting the -6/-6 TWF penalties, but you are getting the -4 offhand penalty. The rules for TWF penalties don't make any sense since they removed Ambidexterity.

So, +6/+1 shield-bash-and-sword would be +6/-3, overall.

Fax Celestis
2007-01-25, 02:48 PM
That's not from the FAQ or the Glossary! That's from the Fighting With Two Weapons section of the Combat section of the SRD.

EDIT: I will concede the Off-Hand penalty, however, but it's only a +0/-4, not -2/-6. The extra -2 comes from making an extra attack.

Matthew
2007-01-25, 02:52 PM
Here's the most recent 'clarification'.

Rules of the Game - Two Handed Fighting 1 (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20060829a)
Rules of the Game - Two Handed Fighting 2 (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20060905a)
Rules of the Game - Two Handed Fighting 3 (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20060912a)




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 (http://javascript%3cb%3e%3c/b%3e:autoGlossaryWindow('Glossary_dnd_penalty')) on the attack roll (http://javascript%3cb%3e%3c/b%3e:autoGlossaryWindow('Glossary_dnd_attackroll') ) (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.


Here they allow you to change from Round to Round, but not Attack to Attack.

Fax Celestis
2007-01-25, 02:56 PM
The conclusion is, therefore: You can switch weapons mid-attack, but you cannot switch handedness. Attacks made with your designated off-hand are at a -4 penalty. If you take the extra attacks granted by the TWF tree, you receive a -2 to your on-hand and a -6 (total) to your off-hand.

The question I have then is: if I'm fighting with two light weapons and take no extra attacks but have the Two-Weapon Fighting feat, do I receive any penalties?

Draz74
2007-01-25, 02:58 PM
The issue seems to be this: how hard is it to switch the consideration of what is your "off hand"? I haven't seen that answered anywhere. There seem to be two opinions, both unsupported: that the "off hand" still represents what it did in 3.0 (or Real Life), and therefore it takes years (if it's possible at all) to switch it to your other hand. The other opinion is that all fighting characters have learned to be more or less ambidexterous, since there's no specific Ambidexterity feat; and therefore you can change your mind about which hand you are controlling better from round to round. You are always operating with your "good" hand unless you are working with both hands at once (e.g. TWF).

Edit: OK, now the thread contains some evidence (if you trust Rules of the Game articles) to support the second opinion (mostly).

Shhalahr Windrider
2007-01-25, 02:58 PM
I find the possibility of changing round-to-round to be just as silly as attack-to-attack.

*sudden thought*

Of course, changing off-hand designation on a round-to-round basis could model "Natural Ambidexterity" vs. the "Trained Ambidexterity" modeled by the Two Weapon Fighting feat. So in a character that's supposed to be naturally Ambidextrous maybe it's not so silly.

But for most characters, I'd have to choose one and stick with it just on principle. Not like it really comes up that often anyway. :smallsigh:

Matthew
2007-01-25, 02:59 PM
Fax:
I had to read that a couple of times to get your meaning. To put it another way, the penalties lessen by 2 and 6 respectively (which is what you are saying... I think).

Shhalahr:
True enough. It's really a Weapon and Shield issue, though. As it means D&D Romans have to fight left handed, if you see what I mean.

Golthur
2007-01-25, 03:01 PM
The conclusion is, therefore: You can switch weapons mid-attack, but you cannot switch handedness. Attacks made with your designated off-hand are at a -4 penalty. If you take the extra attacks granted by the TWF tree, you receive a -2 to your on-hand and a -6 (total) to your off-hand.

The question I have then is: if I'm fighting with two light weapons and take no extra attacks but have the Two-Weapon Fighting feat, do I receive any penalties?

Let's see... Light weapons only matter for the TWF penalties - it reduces them down to -4/-4 from -6/-6, so that won't change anything. TWF reduces the TWF penalties by 2 (which you don't suffer in this case), and negates the offhand penalty, so... I'd say, no penalties. +0/+0, so long as you take no extra attacks.

Fax Celestis
2007-01-25, 03:02 PM
Let's see... Light weapons only matter for the TWF penalties - it reduces them down to -4/-4 from -6/-6, so that won't change anything. TWF reduces the TWF penalties by 2 (which you don't suffer in this case), and negates the offhand penalty, so... I'd say, no penalties. +0/+0, so long as you take no extra attacks.

Huh.

My rogue now fights Florentine style.

Shhalahr Windrider
2007-01-25, 03:03 PM
The question I have then is: if I'm fighting with two light weapons and take no extra attacks but have the Two-Weapon Fighting feat, do I receive any penalties?
From a strictly RAW viewpoint...

Despite having Ambidexterity folded into it in the 3.5 revision, the Two Weapon Fighting feat makes no explicit mention of removing the -4 off hand penalty in general. It just reduces penalties while actually Two Weapon Fighting without any statement as to why the off hand penalty is reduced by 6 compared to the main hands reduction by 2.

However, I think it was intended to be a complete fold-over. You should take no penalty for switching hands like that.

Matthew
2007-01-25, 03:04 PM
You still have to designate for Damage puposes, though.

Fax Celestis
2007-01-25, 03:05 PM
You still have to designate for Damage puposes, though.

Certainly. But when combining this with a Rogue with a +0 Str mod and who uses Weapon Finesse, who cares?

Golthur
2007-01-25, 03:06 PM
Huh.

My rogue now fights Florentine style.
Technically, with the rule interpretation we have going here, you could even do this with two long swords (or bastard swords with EWP) and suffer no penalties, either.

Don't know if I like that, entirely.

Matthew
2007-01-25, 03:07 PM
Certainly. But when combining this with a Rogue with a +0 Str mod and who uses Weapon Finesse, who cares?

Nobody? Unless the Rogue gains some sort of magically induced Strength Bonus...

I think it is safe to say that D&D 3.5 Two Weapon Fighting is a horrible mechanic.

Fax Celestis
2007-01-25, 03:10 PM
Technically, with the rule interpretation we have going here, you could even do this with two long swords (or bastard swords with EWP) and suffer no penalties, either.

Don't know if I like that, entirely.

No, you'd get -2/-2 for having two one-handed weapons. Spending another feat on Oversize TWF, however...

Golthur
2007-01-25, 03:12 PM
No, you'd get -2/-2 for having two one-handed weapons. Spending another feat on Oversize TWF, however...
Then where does this leave our sword-n-boarder if he has a longsword and a heavy shield? Is a heavy shield a light weapon? I don't think so, off the top of my head...

Fax Celestis
2007-01-25, 03:14 PM
Heavy shields are considered one-handed weapons. Light shields are light weapons.

Matthew
2007-01-25, 03:16 PM
Golthur's point, I think, is that a character wouldn't be able to switch between iterative attacks with a Heavy Shield and One Handed Weapon if we use the interpretation you suggested, Fax.

Golthur
2007-01-25, 03:17 PM
Heavy shields are considered one-handed weapons. Light shields are light weapons.

So, let me get this straight...

Sword-n-light-board, shield primary, sword off: -2/-2 because offhand weapon is not light.
Sword-n-light-board, sword primary, shield off: +0/+0 because offhand weapon is light.

Buh? [Head asplode].

Matthew
2007-01-25, 03:18 PM
Two Weapon Fighting rules simply do not apply to switching weapons between iterative attacks.

Attempting to incorporate them makes no sense.

Just another question to ask Wizards regarding Two Weapon Fighting.

Fax Celestis
2007-01-25, 03:20 PM
So, let me get this straight...

Sword-n-light-board, shield primary, sword off: -2/-2 because offhand weapon is not light.
Sword-n-light-board, sword primary, shield off: +0/+0 because offhand weapon is light.

Buh? [Head asplode].

Pretty much. I'd personally rule that any attacks made with a shield are considered off-hand, though.

Golthur
2007-01-25, 03:33 PM
Golthur's point, I think, is that a character wouldn't be able to switch between iterative attacks with a Heavy Shield and One Handed Weapon if we use the interpretation you suggested, Fax.
I'm more worried about the case where he actually doesn't make the shield bash. He's technically wielding a one-handed weapon in each hand (same as the guy with two long swords), and so suffers a -2 penalty, whether he makes the shield bash or not. Don't know if I like this much, either.

Matthew
2007-01-25, 03:34 PM
Definitely not. You never suffer Two Weapon Fighting Penalties unless you intend to make an Off Hand Attack. The Rules of the Game Articles make this clear.




Attack Penalties: When you use the full attack action to attack with two weapons, you can make your primary and off-hand attacks in any order -- though most people attack with the primary hand first.

You do not have to choose between the attack and full attack actions until after you have made your first attack on your turn (see page 143 in the Player's Handbook). However, if you intend to attack with two weapons during your action, you must take the correct penalty for each attack or give up your opportunity to use your second weapon (because the rules require you to take a penalty on attacks you make with both your primary and off hands). For example, suppose you hold a longsword in your primary hand and carry a lit torch in your off hand. It's reasonable to assume the torch is a light weapon, albeit an improvised weapon. You don't have the Two-Weapon Fighting feat, but being able to see in the torchlight is more important to you than a shield right now.

If something leaps out at you and you decide to hack at it with your sword, you could also try to whack it with your torch (perhaps the foe seems slightly flammable, or perhaps you suspect you're facing a regenerating monster). You can make your attack roll with your longsword and observe the result before deciding between an attack or a full attack, but you must take a -4 attack penalty on that primary hand attack to preserve your option to attack with the torch. In this situation it would be entirely reasonable for the DM to make you take the -4 attack penalty before you see your first attack's result (because it speeds play); however that's not strictly necessary. The DM might allow you to see the result before deciding to attack with the torch. If that is so and you decide to try an attack with the torch, your DM must recalculate the result of your sword attack, taking the primary weapon penalty into account. (I don't recommend this option, but it fits the letter of the rules.)
Even if you decide to take the penalty, you don't have to attack with the torch, or even use the full attack action. If you decide to attack with the torch, you make a single attack with the torch and you'll take a -8 penalty for the off-hand attack and an additional -4 penalty for the improvised weapon (see page 113 in the Player's Handbook), for a total penalty of -12.
Once you take a two-weapon fighting penalty, the penalty applies to all the attacks you make with that hand during your current action (javascript:autoGlossaryWindow('Glossary_dnd_actio n')). It does not apply to attacks you make during some other character's turn. For example, say your torch-wielding swordfighter from the previous example has a base attack bonus of +10. With the full attack action, the character could make two attacks with the sword: one at +10 and the other at +5.
If you opt to throw in an off-hand attack with the torch, the -4 penalty for your primary hand applies to both attacks, dropping your attack bonus to +6 (10-4 = 6) and +1 (5-4 = 1). When you attack with the torch, you make only a single attack (because the two-weapon fighting option allows you only one extra attack) at -2 (you use your full attack bonus for the single attack, so that's 10 -8 for an off-hand attack with a light weapon and an additional -4 for the improvised weapon).
Some attack penalties you voluntarily assume, such as the penalty for defensive fighting (see pages 140 and 143 in the Player's Handbook), apply until your next turn, but two weapon penalties are not one of them.
If, after you made two-weapon attacks with your sword and torch, a foe later provokes an attack of opportunity from you that same round, you can strike that foe with your longsword with no two-weapon penalty at all. (You also can use just the torch, also with no two-weapon penalty, though you still take the -4 penalty for an off-hand attack; you also still take the -4 penalty for an improvised weapon for a total penalty of -8.)

Golthur
2007-01-25, 03:36 PM
Definitely not. You never suffer Two Weapon Fighting Penalties unless you intend to make an Off Hand Attack. The Rules of the GAme Articles make this clear.
Right, which goes back to my original "two long swords/bastard swords with EWP get no penalty unless they take the extra attack".

Fax Celestis
2007-01-25, 03:36 PM
I'm more worried about the case where he actually doesn't make the shield bash. He's technically wielding a one-handed weapon in each hand (same as the guy with two long swords), and so suffers a -2 penalty, whether he makes the shield bash or not. Don't know if I like this much, either.

Nope, only get the -2 penalty when attacking with both hands.

Closet_Skeleton
2007-01-25, 03:37 PM
I know two-weapon fighting isn't worth two feats, but I ocaisonally miss the Ambidexterity feat... There were not combat uses for it even if they weren't stated in the book.

Matthew
2007-01-25, 03:39 PM
Right, which goes back to my original "two long swords/bastard swords with EWP get no penalty unless they take the extra attack".

Indeed. The problem comes in relating the Two Weapon Fighting Feat to the -4 Off Hand Penalty. The answer is obvious, but it is unsupported by the RAW or the FAQ.

Closet Skeleton:
The easiest thing to do is assume Ambidexterity and Two Weapon Fighting have been rolled into one Feat.

Fax Celestis
2007-01-25, 03:51 PM
Right, which goes back to my original "two long swords/bastard swords with EWP get no penalty unless they take the extra attack".

Well, no. He'd get the -2 if he took the extra attack, and he'd get a -4 if he swung with his off hand. If he took the TWF feat, he wouldn't get the -4, but he would get a penalty for fighting with two weapons that arent' light.

Golthur
2007-01-25, 04:09 PM
Well, no. He'd get the -2 if he took the extra attack, and he'd get a -4 if he swung with his off hand. If he took the TWF feat, he wouldn't get the -4, but he would get a penalty for fighting with two weapons that arent' light.

So, your view of the rules situation is this (if I'm reading this right):

Off-hand penalty: -4, applies to off-hand attack when attacking with off-hand. Negated by TWF.
One-handed weapon penalty: -2, applies to all attacks whenever you have a one-handed weapon (or shield) in your off hand and use both hands to attack, whether or not you take extra attacks. Negated by Oversized TWF.
Two-weapon fighting penalty: -4/-4, applies only when getting the extra attack with two-weapons. Reduced (to -2/-2) by TWF.

In all cases, you'd suffer the x0.5 damage bonus penalty for your off hand, whichever one that was.

Fax Celestis
2007-01-25, 04:13 PM
Yes, exactly.

Orzel
2007-01-25, 04:41 PM
So, your view of the rules situation is this (if I'm reading this right):

Off-hand penalty: -4, applies to off-hand attack when attacking with off-hand. Negated by TWF.
One-handed weapon penalty: -2, applies to all attacks whenever you have a one-handed weapon (or shield) in your off hand and use both hands to attack, whether or not you take extra attacks. Negated by Oversized TWF.
Two-weapon fighting penalty: -4/-4, applies only when getting the extra attack with two-weapons. Reduced (to -2/-2) by TWF.

In all cases, you'd suffer the x0.5 damage bonus penalty for your off hand, whichever one that was.

That's how my fighter4/ranger2 did it last session.
+4 with the cold iron axe to the fey.
-1 with the silver light shield spikes to the wererabbit rogue.

But I rolled two nat 20s and 18+ on the confirms so I didnt bother adding (I rolled a 1 on a will save minutes later).

Matthew
2007-01-25, 06:57 PM
I wouldn't be inclined to go along with that interpretation. Two Weapon Fighting Penalties should only apply when making Off Hand Attacks in combination with Primary Attacks.

I see no reason to impose penalties on a Character with Two Weapon Fighting who alternates his iterative attacks, aside from by way of Damage Multiplier and nothing in addition other than -4 AB to iterative Primary Attacks made with the Off Hand for characters without it.

Gamebird
2007-01-26, 11:57 AM
So, your view of the rules situation is this (if I'm reading this right):

Off-hand penalty: -4, applies to off-hand attack when attacking with off-hand. Negated by TWF.
One-handed weapon penalty: -2, applies to all attacks whenever you have a one-handed weapon (or shield) in your off hand and use both hands to attack, whether or not you take extra attacks. Negated by Oversized TWF.
Two-weapon fighting penalty: -4/-4, applies only when getting the extra attack with two-weapons. Reduced (to -2/-2) by TWF.

In all cases, you'd suffer the x0.5 damage bonus penalty for your off hand, whichever one that was.

Let's see if I'm understanding correctly:

Breena the barbarian is 6th level, STR 16, getting two attacks per round. She has two weapon fighting feat. Today's she's got a light mace in her right hand and a dagger in her left.

Here are her options:
Attack twice with mace: +9/+4. Damage: d6+3 per attack.
Attack once with mace, once with dagger: +7/+2* Damage: d6+3 for mace, d4+1 for dagger.
Attack twice with mace, once with dagger: mace +7/+4, dagger +7 Damage d6+3 for mace, d4+1 for dagger.

* or is it +9 mace, +5 dagger.

Is that right?

Golthur
2007-01-26, 12:03 PM
Let's see if I'm understanding correctly:

Breena the barbarian is 6th level, STR 16, getting two attacks per round. She has two weapon fighting feat. Today's she's got a light mace in her right hand and a dagger in her left.

Here are her options:
Attack twice with mace: +9/+4. Damage: d6+3 per attack.
Attack once with mace, once with dagger: +7/+2 Damage: d6+3 for mace, d4+1 for dagger.
Attack twice with mace, once with dagger: mace +7/+4, dagger +7 Damage d6+3 for mace, d4+1 for dagger.

Is that right?

I don't think so - both weapons are light, and she has TWF, so:

Attack twice with mace: +9/+4, d6+3 damage
Attack once with mace, once with dagger: +9/+4, damage d6+3 for mace, d4+1 for dagger
Attack twice with mace, once with dagger: mace +7/+2, dagger +7, damage d6+3 for mace, d4+1 for dagger

I think.

My brain hurts. Make the pain stop.

Matthew
2007-01-26, 12:13 PM
Yes, it's the case where the Character does not have Two Weapon Fighting or the Weapons are One Handed that creates the problem.

For my money it would be, if Breena has a Long Sword and Battle Axe with Two Weapon Fighting it would be (always assuming the Battle Axe has been nominated as held in the 'Off Hand'):

Long Sword / Long Sword: +9 / +4 (1D8+3 / 1D8+3)
Long Sword / Battle Axe: +9 / +4 (1D8+3 / 1D8+1)
Battle Axe / Battle Axe: +9 / +4 (1D8+1 / 1D8+1)

or with an Off Hand Attack

Long Sword / Battle Axe / Long Sword: +7 / +7 / +2 (1D8+3 / 1D8+1 / 1D8+3)

whilst without it would be:

Long Sword / Battle Axe: +9 / +0 (1D8+3 / 1D8+1)
Battle Axe / Long Sword: +5 / +4 (1D8+1 / 1D8+3)
Battle Axe / Battle Axe: +5 / +0 (1D8+1 / 1D8+1)

Gamebird
2007-01-26, 12:20 PM
So when, if ever, does a -4 for attacking with your offhand come into play?

(assuming you're not trying to get the extra attack for TWF, with or without feat)

Fax Celestis
2007-01-26, 12:22 PM
If you attack with your other hand without having TWF.

Gamebird
2007-01-26, 12:34 PM
Okay, I'm seeing that now. Caused by us all running back and editing our posts.

Golthur
2007-01-26, 12:45 PM
Yes, it's the case where the Character does not have Two Weapon Fighting or the Weapons are One Handed that creates the problem.

For my money it would be, if Breena has a Long Sword and Battle Axe with Two Weapon Fighting it would be (always assuming the Battle Axe has been nominated as held in the 'Off Hand'):

Long Sword / Long Sword: +9 / +4 (1D8+3 / 1D8+3)
Long Sword / Battle Axe: +9 / +4 (1D8+3 / 1D8+1)
Battle Axe / Battle Axe: +9 / +4 (1D8+1 / 1D8+1)

By Fax's interpretation, this one would be:

Long Sword/Long Sword: +9 / +4 (1D8+3 / 1D8+3)
Long Sword/Battle Axe: +7 / +2 (1D8+3 / 1D8+1)
Battle Axe/Battle Axe: +9 / +4 (1D8+1/ 1D8+1)

Because he advocates a -2 penalty for a one-handed weapon in the off hand, if you attack with both, even if you don't take the extra attack.


or with an Off Hand Attack

Long Sword / Battle Axe / Long Sword: +7 / +7 / +2 (1D8+3 / 1D8+1 / 1D8+3)

And this would have the extra -2 for a non-light off-hand weapon, unless you had oversized TWF, so:

Long Sword / Battle Axe / Long Sword: +5 / +5 / +0 (1D8+3 / 1D8+1 / 1D8+3)

All of this is assuming Fax's "-2 to all attacks when using both with a one-handed weapon in the off hand, regardless of extra attacks" interpretation is right.

Yeah, I'm about ready to give up on this one.

Matthew
2007-01-26, 12:48 PM
Yeah, I was advocating the other interpretation.

Good catch on the Oversized Two Weapon Fighting; I forgot about that.

silvermesh
2007-01-26, 12:51 PM
nothing about the rules implies "handedness", If you ask the sage, he will tell you that off-hand attacks don't even have to be with hands, you can make a primary hand attack with your greatsword and kick as your off-hand attack. This abstract combat style is what makes the hit points system work.
Regardless off what the "glossary" or the "FAQ" says, I would always allow a character to switch primary hand designation at will, for one simple reason.
it would almost always be more beneficial to use the same weapon 3 times than to switch back and forth. seeing how a character with quick-draw can already attack with as many different weapons as he wants to with ONE hand, I don't see any reason to restrict a character from using weapons he is holding in both hands as primary, so long as he isn't gaining any extra attacks.

Golthur
2007-01-26, 12:55 PM
By Fax's interpretation, this one would be:

Long Sword/Long Sword: +9 / +4 (1D8+3 / 1D8+3)
Long Sword/Battle Axe: +7 / +2 (1D8+3 / 1D8+1)
Battle Axe/Battle Axe: +9 / +4 (1D8+1/ 1D8+1)

Because he advocates a -2 penalty for a one-handed weapon in the off hand, if you attack with both, even if you don't take the extra attack.


Yeah, I was advocating the other interpretation.

Yes, by your interpretation, these cases would be +9 / +4 all around, but same damage.

I'm not sure which one I'd go for. Both have their own little things that bother me.


nothing about the rules implies "handedness", If you ask the sage, he will tell you that off-hand attacks don't even have to be with hands, you can make a primary hand attack with your greatsword and kick as your off-hand attack. This abstract combat style is what makes the hit points system work.
Regardless off what the "glossary" or the "FAQ" says, I would always allow a character to switch primary hand designation at will, for one simple reason.
it would almost always be more beneficial to use the same weapon 3 times than to switch back and forth. seeing how a character with quick-draw can already attack with as many different weapons as he wants to with ONE hand, I don't see any reason to restrict a character from using weapons he is holding in both hands as primary, so long as he isn't gaining any extra attacks.

The honest truth is that I, personally, ditch the offhand damage penalty, and do it by weapon type. Light = x0.5, one-handed = x1.0, two-handed = x1.5. No special penalty for your off hand, damage-wise.

Matthew
2007-01-26, 01:00 PM
nothing about the rules implies "handedness", If you ask the sage, he will tell you that off-hand attacks don't even have to be with hands, you can make a primary hand attack with your greatsword and kick as your off-hand attack. This abstract combat style is what makes the hit points system work.
Regardless off what the "glossary" or the "FAQ" says, I would always allow a character to switch primary hand designation at will, for one simple reason.
it would almost always be more beneficial to use the same weapon 3 times than to switch back and forth. seeing how a character with quick-draw can already attack with as many different weapons as he wants to with ONE hand, I don't see any reason to restrict a character from using weapons he is holding in both hands as primary, so long as he isn't gaining any extra attacks.

As you can see from the above discussion, Off Hands are designated from round to round, according to the most recent Wizards rules clarification.

A Character cannot attack with as many weapons as he likes via Quick Draw. It is up to the Dungeon Master how many Free Actions a Character may take in any given Round (or was last time I looked into it).

Personally, I'm inclined to dump the 0.5 Strength Modifier to Off Handed Attacks.

Golthur
2007-01-26, 02:57 PM
I've worked through this a bit over my lunch walk. The thing I don't like with Fax's interpretation is that it imposes penalties based on your "off" hand (where I think, after taking TWF-rolled-with-old-Ambidexterity, you shouldn't have an off hand, really). The thing I don't like about Matthew's interpretation is that you suffer no penalties for whacking with two longswords or bastard swords, if you take no extra attacks.

No offense to either of you, of course, just personal preference :smile:.

So, here's a thoroughly-house-ruled proposal:

Offhand Penalties:
-4 for attacking with a weapon in your off hand. Negated by TWF because it gives you "ambidexterity". No special damage penalty for your off hand.

Weapon Size Bonuses/Penalties:
Your Strength bonus for damage is multiplied by 0.5 for using a light weapon, 1.0 for using a one-handed weapon, and 1.5 for using a two-handed weapon, regardless of the hand it's in, how many attacks you take, or anything else.

Attacking with Two Weapons:
You can attack with two weapons if you have more than one attack without trying to get an extra attack. If you do this, you suffer penalties based on the sizes of the weapons. It doesn't matter which weapon is in which hand, and you only suffer the penalty if you try to attack with both weapons during the same round:

{table="head"]Weapon Combination|Penalty
Light and light|+0
Light and one-handed|-1
One-handed and one-handed|-2
[/table]

Oversized TWF negates this penalty.

Getting the Extra Attack
If you wield two weapons, you can try to get an extra attack. This imposes a -4 penalty on all attacks you make during the round in addition to the penalties for attacking with two weapons, above. TWF reduces this penalty by 2.

The only thing that's odd/different here is that you get a -3 TWF penalty for light/one-handed, instead of the -2 you'd get normally - but, overall, this setup feels more consistent to me.

Thoughts?

Fax Celestis
2007-01-26, 03:00 PM
Sounds mechanically sound and fits the model that I have in my head.

Matthew
2007-01-26, 03:24 PM
Interesting. It definitely is more consistant.

I do kind of feel sorry for the D&D Roman Legionary, though. He likely loses his Strength Bonus to Damage (probably 13) with his Short Sword and has an additional penalty for using Short Sword and Heavy Shield combination (though he probably wouldn't have the Dexterity to qualify for Two Weapon Fighting anyway!).

One thing I would mention is that ordinarily, in a One Handed and Light Weapon combination, the Light Weapon must be held in the Off Hand to fully benefit. I take it this stipulation is entirely ended and characters no longer have to designate their Off Hand for this purpose? (I can't really imagine a situation where it would matter, but on the off chance that there is one...)

Golthur
2007-01-26, 03:38 PM
Interesting. It definitely is more consistant.

I do kind of feel sorry for the D&D Roman Legionary, though. He likely loses his Strength Bonus to Damage (probably 13) with his Short Sword and has an additional penalty for using Short Sword and Heavy Shield combination (though he probably wouldn't have the Dexterity to qualify for Two Weapon Fighting anyway!).
He only gets the penalty if he does a shield bash at the same time, but he does lose half his Strength bonus, yes.



One thing I would mention is that ordinarily, in a One Handed and Light Weapon combination, the Light Weapon must be held in the Off Hand to fully benefit. I take it this stipulation is entirely ended and characters no longer have to designate their Off Hand for this purpose? (I can't really imagine a situation where it would matter, but on the off chance that there is one...)

Correct. You no longer have to designate your off-hand once you no longer have one by taking TWF-with-Ambidexterity-mixed-in. If you don't have TWF, you still need to designate an off hand, because that one gets the -4 on its attacks.

Matthew
2007-01-26, 03:52 PM
Yes, a Shield Bash followed by a Short Sword Attack was what I had in mind.

Golthur
2007-01-26, 04:00 PM
Yes, a Shield Bash followed by a Short Sword Attack was what I had in mind.
Yes, in that case, he'd get a -1 on all his attacks for attacking with both a one-handed and light weapon in the same round.

Lial Swiftlight
2007-01-26, 05:13 PM
Interesting discussion. There's a lot to think about here.

Back to the subject of switching weapons in general, according to the RAW there's nothing stopping a character with the rapid shot feat using it with a melee weapon, as long as he makes the extra attack with a ranged weapon. For example, a two-handed sword fighter could rapid shot, taking all his normal attacks with his greatsword then dropping it and quick-drawing a bow for the rapid shot attack. No matter how much I think about it, I can't really seem to decide if this seems unrealistic and/or broken or not. Any thoughts/opinions on this?

Fax Celestis
2007-01-26, 05:20 PM
Interesting discussion. There's a lot to think about here.

Back to the subject of switching weapons in general, according to the RAW there's nothing stopping a character with the rapid shot feat using it with a melee weapon, as long as he makes the extra attack with a ranged weapon. For example, a two-handed sword fighter could rapid shot, taking all his normal attacks with his greatsword then dropping it and quick-drawing a bow for the rapid shot attack. No matter how much I think about it, I can't really seem to decide if this seems unrealistic and/or broken or not. Any thoughts/opinions on this?

Hell, fight with a dagger. Swing, swing, fling.

Golthur
2007-01-26, 05:26 PM
Hell, fight with a dagger. Swing, swing, fling.
For some reason, that one seems less bad to me than the two-swords-and-a-bow thing. The latter seems like a loophole, whereas the first one less so. Just a gut feeling, though, not really based on any form of rationality. :smile:

Fax Celestis
2007-01-26, 05:38 PM
Trust me, I understand completely.

Matthew
2007-01-26, 05:43 PM
Interesting discussion. There's a lot to think about here.

Back to the subject of switching weapons in general, according to the RAW there's nothing stopping a character with the rapid shot feat using it with a melee weapon, as long as he makes the extra attack with a ranged weapon. For example, a two-handed sword fighter could rapid shot, taking all his normal attacks with his greatsword then dropping it and quick-drawing a bow for the rapid shot attack. No matter how much I think about it, I can't really seem to decide if this seems unrealistic and/or broken or not. Any thoughts/opinions on this?

Do remember that the Dungeon Master can limit the number of Free Actions you can perform in a single round. Making a Full Attack, dropping your Weapon [Free Action], Drawing your Bow [Free Action], Drawing Ammunition [Free Action] and trying to claim Rapid Shot as a reason to get an extra Attack could easily be viewed as one or more Free Actions too many in that context...

Also, the FAQ suggests that you must make one Ranged Attack to use Rapid Shot at all.

Dungeons & Dragons FAQ (December, 2006), p.13.




Can a monk fight with two weapons? Can she combine
a two-weapon attack with a flurry of blows? What are her
penalties on attack rolls?
A monk can fight with two weapons just like any other
character, but she must accept the normal penalties on her
attack rolls to do so. She can use an unarmed strike as an offhand
weapon. She can even combine two-weapon fighting with
a flurry of blows to gain an extra attack with her off hand (but
remember that she can use only unarmed strikes or special
monk weapons as part of the flurry). The penalties for twoweapon
fighting stack with the penalties for flurry of blows.
For example, at 6th level, the monk Ember can normally
make one attack per round at a +4 bonus. When using flurry of
blows, she can make two attacks (using unarmed strikes or any
special monk weapons she holds), each at a +3 bonus. If she
wants to make an extra attack with her off hand, she has to
accept a –4 penalty on her primary hand attacks and a –8
penalty on her off-hand attacks (assuming she wields a light
weapon in her off hand).
If Ember has Two-Weapon Fighting, she has to accept only
a –2 penalty on all attacks to make an extra attack with her off
hand. Thus, when wielding a light weapon in her off hand
during a flurry of blows, she can make a total of three attacks,
each at a total bonus of +1. At least one of these attacks has to
be with her off-hand weapon.
A 20th-level monk with Greater Two-Weapon Fighting can
make eight attacks per round during a flurry of blows.
Assuming she wields a light weapon in her off hand, her three
off-hand weapon attacks are at +13/+8/+3, and she has five
attacks (at +13/+13/+13/+8/+3) with unarmed strikes or any
weapons she carries in her primary hand. If the same monk also
has Rapid Shot and throws at least one shuriken as part of her
flurry of blows (since Rapid Shot can be used only with ranged
attacks), she can throw one additional shuriken with her
primary hand, but all of her attacks (even melee attacks) suffer
a –2 penalty. Thus, her full attack array looks like this:
+11/+11/+11/+11/+6/+1 primary hand (two must be with shuriken) and +11/+6/+1 off hand.

Arbitrarity
2007-01-26, 10:47 PM
Hmmm... If I have a large, spiked, +1 bashing steel shield, does it deal 2d6?

If so, I think I've found an interesting TWF style...

Matthew
2007-01-27, 09:18 AM
If you have a Large Heavy Shield it takes two hands to use. If you have a Large Light Shield it is a One Handed Weapon.

A Large Heavy Spiked Shield of Bashing would do 3D6 Damage

I think you mean a Medium Heavy Shield.

A Heavy Spiked Shield of Bashing would do 2D6 Damage

Arbitrarity
2007-01-27, 03:58 PM
Point... I keep mixing up large and heavy :/.

On the other hand, that would be a 2HF weapon, and with improved shield bash, you get the AC bonus, and the THF bonus, and an extra 1d6, for less than an animated shield :/.

Matthew
2007-01-27, 04:12 PM
Yep. It is true that Two Handed Fighting a Shield is the most efficient Shield Combat Style. If you are willing to trade -2 Attack Bonus for +1D6 Damage, then by all means use a Large Heavy Shield.