Multiple Attacks ?

I think I might have confused myself so I'm posting this question:

I have 4 attacks per round; armed with a sword; wearing spiked armour.

As a full-attack action, can I attack once with the sword, disarm with the sword, attack again with the sword, and then attack with my spiked armour?

What if I had a sword in one hand and an axe in the other. Could I attack twice with the sword and twice with the axe?

(In both examples, I'm not attacking simultaneously with two weapons)

Ogrork the Mighty said:

As a full-attack action, can I attack once with the sword, disarm with the sword, attack again with the sword, and then attack with my spiked armour?

Click to expand...

Spiked armor can only be used in grapple.

Ogrork the Mighty said:

What if I had a sword in one hand and an axe in the other. Could I attack twice with the sword and twice with the axe?

Click to expand...

You could do that, but you could also attack with the sword four times, and attack with the axe. In either case you cannot avoid the penalties for fighting with two weapons.

AGGEMAM said:

Spiked armor can only be used in grapple.

Click to expand...

"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 could do that, but you could also attack with the sword four times, and attack with the axe. In either case you cannot avoid the penalties for fighting with two weapons.

Click to expand...

While I agree, there is debate on the subject.

It hinges on your interpretation of the phrase "when you fight this way" in the description of using two weapons.

"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 read "fight this way" to mean "wield a second weapon in your off-hand" (which I do), then making two attacks with the sword and two attacks with the axe will incur TWF penalties.

If you read it to mean "get one extra attack per round" (which I don't), then making two attacks with the sword and two attacks with the axe will not incur TWF penalties, since you are not making an extra attack.

Of course, you then have to define 'wielding' versus simply 'holding' - I'd say that if the character makes no attack with the axe and does not threaten with it, he is not 'wielding' it, and no penalties are incurred. But even if he makes no attack with it, if he wishes it available to threaten (perhaps the axe is silvered, and he suspects the wererat over there will provoke an AoO this round), he is required to be 'wielding', not simply 'holding', and thus his sword attacks will suffer TWF penalties even though he hasn't actually swung the axe (and may not, if the wererat doesn't provoke).

But a lot of this is unclear in the rules

-Hyp.

Yeah, I'm not looking for extra attacks, just those within my normal allotment (but I want to divide up my attacks between different weapons).

Incurring the TWF penalties for fighting in this manner seems a bit much, doesn't it? I mean, part of the penalty from TWF is for making two attacks (or more) with two different weapons at the same time, while another part is for using your off-hand to make an attack. Shouldn't the penalty be lessened (maybe -2?) since you're not making simultaneous attacks, you're just using your good hand followed by your offhand.

Again, I'm not looking for extra attacks.

Ogrork the Mighty said:

Shouldn't the penalty be lessened (maybe -2?) since you're not making simultaneous attacks, you're just using your good hand followed by your offhand.

Click to expand...

The lessened penalty would definitely require a house rule

Either no penalty, or normal penalty, can be supported depending on your interpretation of 'fight this way', but half penalty can't.

-Hyp.

Ogrork the Mighty said:

Yeah, I'm not looking for extra attacks, just those within my normal allotment (but I want to divide up my attacks between different weapons).

Incurring the TWF penalties for fighting in this manner seems a bit much, doesn't it? I mean, part of the penalty from TWF is for making two attacks (or more) with two different weapons at the same time, while another part is for using your off-hand to make an attack. Shouldn't the penalty be lessened (maybe -2?) since you're not making simultaneous attacks, you're just using your good hand followed by your offhand.

Again, I'm not looking for extra attacks.

Click to expand...

That's why I don't like in 3.5 that they got rid of Ambidexterity. If you were playing 3.0, you normally got 4 attacks, and you wanted to divide them between two weapons, then with Ambidexterity I think that would be fine with no penalties. In 3.5, though, I'm not sure how to handle it, other than to just let you do it.

Dimwhit said:

That's why I don't like in 3.5 that they got rid of Ambidexterity. If you were playing 3.0, you normally got 4 attacks, and you wanted to divide them between two weapons, then with Ambidexterity I think that would be fine with no penalties. In 3.5, though, I'm not sure how to handle it, other than to just let you do it.

Click to expand...

Check the Glossary under "off-hand attack". An attack made with your left hand (in most cases) incurs a -4 penalty, even in 3.5.

Of course, even in 3E, there was still the "fight this way" ambiguity over whether you'd incur TWF penalties without utilising the extra attack.

One point to be considered is an answer in the 3E Main FAQ about a Defending weapon held in the off-hand.

A Defending weapon can apply an AC bonus to 'the wielder'.

The FAQ states that if you have a Defending weapon in your off-hand, you can only benefit from its AC bonus if you incur TWF penalties... whether or not you attack with it.

Which fits with what I said above - if you're not taking TWF penalties, you're not 'wielding' the weapon, you're just holding it... and so, since you're not 'the wielder', you cannot benefit.

If you wish to gain the AC bonus, you must 'wield' the weapon (even if you don't attack with it), at which point you are 'wielding a second weapon in your off-hand'. And since the FAQ says you incur TWF penalties at this point, it's support for the idea that 'fight this way' refers to the wielding, not to the extra attack.

But the FAQ's often a dubious source of rules support, so the other reading of 'fight this way' is hardly invalidated

-Hyp.

Hypersmurf said:

yada yada (not meaning to be snyde--just don't want to quote the whole thing!)

-Hyp.

Click to expand...

You make a good point, Hyp. Never thought of all that. Point conceded.

I think you should incur the TWF penalties as otherwise you have a weapon available that could prove advantageous (threatening with 2 weapons for AOOs or mitigating a disarm) otherwise at no penalty.

Mind you, on the flipside, you could attack twice with the longsword, use a free action to shift it to your off-hand (holding, not wielding) and then Quickdraw the axe and attack with that.

Legildur said:

Mind you, on the flipside, you could attack twice with the longsword, use a free action to shift it to your off-hand (holding, not wielding) and then Quickdraw the axe and attack with that.

Click to expand...

Now, would you allow him to take his full attack with his longsword (incurring TWF penalties), then Quickdraw his axe in his left hand and take the extra off-hand attack? (Remembering that TWF works with thrown weapons - you can certainly, with ITWF, make two off-hand attacks with thrown daggers, say, even though at least one of them was not in your hand at the start of the round...)

Then we have the question - if I have just the longsword and the TWF feat, can I make my normal full complement of iterative attacks (four in this case) with my right hand at -4, shift the sword to my left hand, and make an off-hand attack at -4?

-Hyp.