[3.5] Dual-Wielding "Speed" Weapons

[Crow]

This is taken from the Q&A by RAW thread, Regarding dual-wielding with weapons that have the Speed property.

Q 652: [3.5] Does a character dual-wielding two weapons with the Speed property gain an extra attack with both weapons, or with just one (and he can choose which)?

A. 652

Historically there has been some disagreement over this issue.

However in my opinion the wording is not unclear. Speed is a haste effect that is similar to Speed, thus it does not "stack" and you would not get two extra attacks from wielding two such weapons.

You may make your extra attack with either weapon though.

A 652 disagreement

Stacking doesn't happen, though (and no, you can't choose either weapon, at least as I read it).

"It" refers to the speed weapon, of course, meaning you make one extra attack with that particular weapon. So, attacking with one speed weapon would allow you to make an extra attack with it, and attacking with a second speed weapon would allow you to make an extra attack with it. There is no stacking, because speed explicitly applies to one specific weapon, and a second speed would apply to a different specific weapon.

A. 652 Continued

The reason the "it" reference does not help in this instance can actually also be seen from Monty's wording.
The extra attack is not granted to the weapon, it is granted to the wielder of said weapon, since the wielder is the one making the attack. The wielder cannot benefit from more than one haste (or similar) effect and thus cannot make more than one extra attack regardless of the number of speed weapons wielded.

There are other points of discussion that can be examined further by searching for teh interested reader. I have partaken in quite a few of these, so taht can be an entry point to the discussion.

A 652 a little more

Rather than continue the argument here, you might just be better off asking the DM what he thinks. If you're the DM, just go with whatever makes sense to you. In either case, this is probably better served in its own thread at this point.

I am the DM in this particular case. I would be inclined to say that the property does allow you to make an extra attack with each weapon, due to the "it" wording. You do not gain an extra attack to do with as you please, but you gain an extra attack provided you make it with that weapon. As each Speed property would apply to a separate weapon, the effects are not really stacking. Seeing as the player would have to make a big investment to get two weapons with this property, it would seem fitting to use this ruling.

You would not be able to use haste to gain additional attacks though.

I could also see a situation where you are given a single extra attack, but may choose which weapon you would like to use for it, though.

So I want to know how everyone else feels.

[Draken]

Personally I think each speed weapon should receive its extra attack individually.

And maybe give one extra attack with each weapon to a hasted character (maybe), but only with a weapon that has not been subject to an extra attack due to haste on that round. Or somesuch.

It's not like this would suddenly make two/multi weapon fighting unbelievably powerful anyway.

[Myou]

In my opinion, it doesn't stack. That's how I always rule.

Like effects shouldn't stack, it even says it doesn't stack with haste, and is like haste.

This seems to me to simply be poor wording, so the RAW may be unclear but the RAI seems clear to me.

Also, if you think about the result, the speed enhancement shouldn't be better than a haste spell - haste takes an action and a spellcaster+spell slot, speed is effectively free to use.


But as I say, this is just opinion. It's easy to argue either way when the wording is so unclear.

[CasESenSITItiVE]

i personally have two feelings on this.

first, i don't think the use of "it" to refer to the user to be right, as the sentance ended "with it", thus i would think there is no stacking, that each weapon is benefiting from each effect individually

but i think the more relevant question shoud be: is it game-breaking? i'm not an expert on game balance, so i wouldn't know, but would allowing a second extra attack for an extra +3 bonus fair? because given that there seem to be 2 possible interpretations, i think you as the dm should make the decision based on game balance, rather than wording

[monty]

Also, if you think about the result, the speed enhancement shouldn't be better than a haste spell - haste takes an action and a spellcaster+spell slot, speed is effectively free to use.

But speed is a +3 enhancement - even paying for that once is a lot of money. By the time you can afford two of them, a third-level spell is nothing. Besides, haste has several other benefits that speed doesn't provide, so it still has its uses.

[Baron Corm]

I agree that the weapon's wording is directing it at the weapon, not the character. If it was directing it at the character, it would have had wording like that of haste. There would be no reason to word it differently if all it was doing was applying a continuous haste effect. Haste is a character-targeting spell which also grants other small bonuses; speed is a weapon-targeting weapon property which doesn't. They're different.

Arguably, you could even have a speed weapon in one hand, and have your haste attack applied to the weapon in the other hand. Though you definitely couldn't apply haste to yourself twice, or use it with a weapon that had speed.

[Zeful]

i personally have two feelings on this.

first, i don't think the use of "it" to refer to the user to be right, as the sentance ended "with it", thus i would think there is no stacking, that each weapon is benefiting from each effect individually

but i think the more relevant question shoud be: is it game-breaking? i'm not an expert on game balance, so i wouldn't know, but would allowing a second extra attack for an extra +3 bonus fair? because given that there seem to be 2 possible interpretations, i think you as the dm should make the decision based on game balance, rather than wording

Is it game breaking? If they use it effectively, yes it is. But the same can be said for everything about D&D.

[Myou]

But speed is a +3 enhancement - even paying for that once is a lot of money. By the time you can afford two of them, a third-level spell is nothing. Besides, haste has several other benefits that speed doesn't provide, so it still has its uses.

I was focusing more on the action economy - as if your primary caster wants to open every battle by casting haste (or alternatively, spending a high-level slot to quicken it, and still losing his swift action) - and the fact that it works even if there's no-one available to cast it. And the extra attacks are the main advantage - I at least would value two extra attacks more than 1 and a few +1 bonuses.

It's fine to allow them to stack if you want to though - it's not like TWF is overpowered and you're certainly not 'wrong', it's just not what I would consider to be the ruling WotC intended.

[Faleldir]

If they could stack, you could craft a ton of them and use Quick Draw. That's why.

[monty]

If they could stack, you could craft a ton of them and use Quick Draw. That's why.

Besides the fact that it says "one extra attack" (same reason you can't get Sneak Attack on a nondamaging attack), that's a minimum of 32,000 gp each. With that kind of money, I'm sure there's cheesier things you could do.

[Olo Demonsbane]

If they could stack, you could craft a ton of them and use Quick Draw. That's why.

Use the...Gnome Quickblade is it? Lets you sheathe it as a free Action...combine with Iajitsu Focus for Lots Of Fun (TM).

[Reaper_Monkey]

I'd say its more than fair to allow an extra attack with each, however I'd make the second one use the standard iterative attack reduction (-5 to hit) to balance it up as your effectively attacking with both at the same time as I see it.

If they could stack, you could craft a ton of them and use Quick Draw. That's why.

Due to this I'd also say its limited to one weapon per arm (so multi-armed creatures can go made dicing their opponents still) when it comes to using this ability. You may still choose to hit once with normal attack, use the free extra attack granted by speed, and then drop/swap that weapon with another one to use that for the remainder of your attacks however, as I don't foresee much useful cheese being able to be squeezed from that.

That's my 2cp anyway.

[Talic]

The emphasis for each speed weapon is as follows:

you gain an additional attack with that weapon.

Each weapon grants you an attack which does not stack with other extra attacks.

Each qualifies the manner in which that attack may be made (restricting it to a specific weapon).

Now, by not stacking, it means that when you use a speed weapon, you may not gain additional attacks from similar sources.

I'd say "another speed weapon" qualifies as a similar source, at a bare minimum. An identical source, if you ask me.

EDIT: Too many people are under the impression that each weapon gets its own seperate attacks.

Unless it's dancing, weapons cannot make attacks. Only animate things can make attacks. Thus, it must be the wielder that is affected.
Which means that the user cannot benefit from identical effects.

[RMS Oceanic]

I rule in favour of the Speeds stacking because of anecdotal evidence from Epic Level Handbook/SRD: A quarter staff, with both ends enchanted with Speed. You are explicitly told that you gain an extra attack with each, and nothing in its description says this is part of it being epic.

EDIT: The weapon in question:

Quarterstaff of Alacrity
Both ends of this +5 quarterstaff of speed have equal enhancement and special powers, meaning that it allows an additional attack with each end every round. While the quarterstaff of alacrity is held, it grants its wielder a +5 resistance bonus on Reflex saves. It also deflects ranged weapons as if the wielder had the Deflect Arrows and Infinite Deflection feats.

Caster Level: 21st; Prerequisites: Craft Magic Arms and Armor, Craft Epic Magic Arms and Armor, protection from arrows, shield; Market Price: 462,600 gp; Cost to Create: 231,600 gp + 14,620 XP.

[InaVegt]

I'm afraid I have to agree with RMS oceanic here, while it might not solve the RAW issue, depending on your PoV, it does make it clear that RAI has it that they stack.

[Matthew]

I remember this debate, RMS_Oceanic's point was what brought me down finally on the side of an extra attack with each weapon. It does not really make sense, but there it is.

As far as what I would rule as the game master, I would probably allow all speed effects to multiply attack routines in D20/3e. So, a character with +6/+6/+1/+1 would get +6/+6/+6/+6/+1/+1, etcetera. Of course, this makes a Marilith a potential whirlwind of destruction... but better that then continued support for the "two handed weapons are the best" bias.

[Andras]

As a DM I would rule that you get an extra attack with each. Considering how much speed as an enhancement costs (especially for two weapons), I don't think it's unbalancing.

Also, RMS Oceanic's example.

[hamishspence]

also- Mask as statted in Faiths and Pantheons- twin speed weapons, statblock has him benefit from each- extra main hand weapon attack + extra off-hand weapon attack.

[Limos]

If Speed is a property of the weapon then each one should get it's own attack.

If Speed is an enchantment then they would only get one.

The distinction is that as a property of the weapon type you are saying that the weapon is physically easier to attack with and you can make two attacks in the same time it normally takes to do one. Since you are duel wielding those same weapons you should get two attacks with each.

If it is an enchantment you are saying that the weapon alters the speed of the user and he makes an additional strike. This would only allow one attack since it's not any physical trait of the weapon that is allowing the extra attack.

[Olo Demonsbane]

If Speed is a property of the weapon then each one should get it's own attack.

If Speed is an enchantment then they would only get one.

The distinction is that as a property of the weapon type you are saying that the weapon is physically easier to attack with and you can make two attacks in the same time it normally takes to do one. Since you are duel wielding those same weapons you should get two attacks with each.

If it is an enchantment you are saying that the weapon alters the speed of the user and he makes an additional strike. This would only allow one attack since it's not any physical trait of the weapon that is allowing the extra attack.

Wait, what?

[Zeful]

Wait, what?

In short, does Speed make the weapon physically easier to attack quickly with or does it make the wielder fast enough to swing more often. If the former, than it stacks with itself (and technically haste). If it's the latter it doesn't.

[Draz74]

I rule in favour of the Speeds stacking because of anecdotal evidence from Epic Level Handbook/SRD: A quarter staff, with both ends enchanted with Speed. You are explicitly told that you gain an extra attack with each, and nothing in its description says this is part of it being epic.

And before anyone says, "That's 3.0! It's outdated!", allow me to point out the Quarterstaff of Battle from the MIC. One of its major effects is to gain Speed to both ends for 5 rounds 1/day. Not Epic rules, either.

[Lord Lorac Silvanos]

I remember this debate, RMS_Oceanic's point was what brought me down finally on the side of an extra attack with each weapon. It does not really make sense, but there it is.

Allowing a single weapon from a poorly updated 3.0 book to alter the fairly clear 3.5 RAW, when the 3.0 FAQ deals explicitly with this issue and arrives at the same conclusion even without the added text from the 3.5 description of Speed, does not make any sense as you say.

In fact, the 3.0 FAQ question is probably the very reason the text was added in 3.5 to stress that the enhancement would not stack with itself.

But I know you have heard me say this before Matthew.