Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="clearstream" data-source="post: 9465275" data-attributes="member: 71699">Yes, that's why I used that word. To indicate that I felt these sorts of choices can come down to matters of taste.Yes, a group could decide the words mean something like "swift wield" and would then need to decide if "two weapon fighting" implies two weapons.It doesn't seem particularly plausible that WotC had that in mind. The example they give in the text goes against it, and the retained labels are at best horribly misleading if that were their intent. Do you know anywhere that they directly allude to it?If a player said that they would like to take dual wielding for their one-armed Ranger (say) to challenge assumptions about capability, I would still favour my interpretation, which is that the second attack must be made with a weapon that is equpped at the moment the first attack is made (in this case the same weapon), and for avoidance of doubt would rule strapping on a shield interferes with that. I wouldn't require them to do as my earlier Ranger did, and drop their first scimitar to draw another!</blockquote>