Full round attack with different weapons?

[Dhoule]

Is there any rule against making a full round attack with different weapons? Let's say I have a PC with a BAB of 11/6/1. Would I be able to:

1- Attack with my Greatsword. Drop it after the first attack.
2- Take my Composite Longbow as a swift action and attack two more targets.

Along the same lines, would a Girallon Blessed creature be able to carry a Greatsword with its main arms, and a Composite Longbow with the secondary arms, and attack with them (the same way I said before, not with both of them at the same time) without dropping any of them?

[Thurbane]

In regards to the first query, there shouldn't be any issue with this - but you will need Quick Draw or something similar to draw the next weapon as anything less than a move action.

[Zaq]

Barring a specific ability with specifications to the contrary, each of your iterative attacks can be made with whatever weapon you like, as long as said weapon is either in your hands or you have a way of getting it in your hands. (Or if it doesn't use hands, but you know what I mean.)

Drawing a bow usually takes more than a swift action, though. You should be able to drop your sword (very hard in 3.5 to quick-sheathe, unfortunately) as a free action, but then you'd need Quick Draw or something similar to not need to spend a move action drawing your bow. A Least Crystal of Return (MIC pg. 65) is a good option in a case like this.

[Saintheart]

Along the same lines, would a Girallon Blessed creature be able to carry a Greatsword with its main arms, and a Composite Longbow with the secondary arms, and attack with them (the same way I said before, not with both of them at the same time) without dropping any of them?

Short answer is yes, but in that scenario they'd take the same normal, hideous penalties that a two-weapon fighter takes without Two-Weapon Fighting. The cure for this is the Multiweapon Fighting feat, which replaces and basically duplicates Two-Weapon Fighting for creatures with more than two arms.

[Zaq]

Short answer is yes, but in that scenario they'd take the same normal, hideous penalties that a two-weapon fighter takes without Two-Weapon Fighting. The cure for this is the Multiweapon Fighting feat, which replaces and basically duplicates Two-Weapon Fighting for creatures with more than two arms.

I disagree. The TWF rules only apply when you're trying to get extra attacks above and beyond those granted by your BAB (etc.). Attacking with a weapon in one hand then using your next iterative on an attack with a weapon in a different hand does not incur the TWF penalties.

[Necroticplague]

Short answer is yes, but in that scenario they'd take the same normal, hideous penalties that a two-weapon fighter takes without Two-Weapon Fighting. The cure for this is the Multiweapon Fighting feat, which replaces and basically duplicates Two-Weapon Fighting for creatures with more than two arms.


I disagree. The TWF rules only apply when you're trying to get extra attacks above and beyond those granted by your BAB (etc.). Attacking with a weapon in one hand then using your next iterative on an attack with a weapon in a different hand does not incur the TWF penalties.

The SRD is fairly clear on this one:

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.
If you're not getting extra attacks, you aren't fighting 'this way', so the penalty doesn't apply.

[Saintheart]

Also from the SRD on Multiweapon Fighting:


Multiweapon Fighting [General]
Prerequisites
Dex 13, three or more hands.

Benefit
Penalties for fighting with multiple weapons are reduced by 2 with the primary hand and reduced by 6 with off hands.

Normal
A creature without this feat takes a -6 penalty on attacks made with its primary hand and a -10 penalty on attacks made with its off hands. (It has one primary hand, and all the others are off hands.) See Two-Weapon Fighting.

Special
This feat replaces the Two-Weapon Fighting feat for creatures with more than two arms.

[ericgrau]

In 3.5 they got rid of specifying handedness, but the intent is still that you have a primary hand and an off hand.

Also "If X then Y" does NOT imply "If not X then not Y". There might be more than one situation that triggers the TWF rules, or any rule.

[daremetoidareyo]

The thing is that you're dropping a two handed weapon and switching to a two handed weapon. I don't think twf applies

[Necroticplague]

Also "If X then Y" does NOT imply "If not X then not Y". There might be more than one situation that triggers the TWF rules, or any rule.
So you can get AC from armor you aren't wearing?

[Ramza00]

Everything is so much simpler from a rules perspective if you just use javelins from a gloves of endless javelins instead of a bow.

[ericgrau]

So you can get AC from armor you aren't wearing?

It means if the rules don't specify something it is undefined, not whatever you want it to be. Just like when the TWF rules talk about "when you are TWFing", it doesn't mean there is or isn't another situation where a weapon might be off-hand. Quoted post is still trying to define the undefined.

"If X then Y" does not mean "If not X then not Y". It also does not mean "If not X then Y". Undefined is undefined. You don't know. That's it. Why would you take exactly what I said not to do and try to use it to say what I said was wrong? In any case, you still won't show that fundamental if-then logic axioms are wrong. It only means that your reasoning is flawed. Like those "proofs" that show 1+1=3, all it tells you is that there's a bad step in the "proof". Likewise for if-then logic axioms.

Then if the undefined rule is defined elsewhere you have an easy answer. Otherwise it's more difficult to find out what it means, but you might find clues.

In general you can't say "The rule doesn't stop me from X, therefore I can." That gets way overdone in forums. That doesn't follow and violates basic logic. Part of the time you can, and part of the time you can't. Often you probably can based on the context, and often you probably can't based on the context, but it's not 100% certain.

[Saintheart]

So you can get AC from armor you aren't wearing?

You can certainly get Shield bonuses from a shield you aren't holding.

[Necroticplague]

In general you can't say "The rule doesn't stop me from X, therefore I can." That gets way overdone in forums. That doesn't follow and violates basic logic. I entirely agree. And when someone brings this up, I usually bring such hyperbole as 'it doesn't say humans can't shoot instant-death rays out their eyes, either'.

As I can see it:

Generally, rules don't apply unless they say they do. Nothing that isn't written down exists. The rules for TWF penalties, therefore, don't apply unless they say they do. The specific rule I quoted didn't apply in this situation, as one isn't fighting 'in that way'. Therefore, they don't apply in this situation, to the best of my knowledge.

It's entirely possible I overlooked some instance of rules that say they would apply, and can thus be swayed, but I'm not seeing anything convincing (the quoted Multiweapon Fighting refers back to my quoted section of the SRD, which wouldn't apply for reasons stated previously).

Now, since we appear to agree on basic foundation of 'the rules don't say I can't=I can" to be incorrect, could you clarify where my chain above you find me to be in error?

[Crake]

I'm like, 90% sure there's an explicit rule somewhere stating that if you're just using your normal iterative attacks, you can use whichever weapon you wish for each attack at no penalty, the two weapon fighting penalties only come into play if you're looking to get the extra attack.

I'm trying to find it, but maybe it was a pathfinder thing?

[Jeraa]

I'm like, 90% sure there's an explicit rule somewhere stating that if you're just using your normal iterative attacks, you can use whichever weapon you wish for each attack at no penalty, the two weapon fighting penalties only come into play if you're looking to get the extra attack.

I'm trying to find it, but maybe it was a pathfinder thing?

Unless it has finally made it into the book, it is a Pathfinder FAQ thing.