Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Hypersmurf" data-source="post: 3450920" data-attributes="member: 1656">If you want to threaten or retain the option of attacking with it, you must be wielding it.  If you want to benefit from abilities that apply to 'the wielder', you must be wielding it.  If you don't need to wield it, I'm fine with you just holding it and not suffering TWF penalties.But since, under that reading of 'fight this way', TWF penalties are dependent on whether or not you are wielding two weapons, not on whether you are making a full attack, it's not necessary to determine prior to making your first attack whether you will certainly be continuing with a full attack action, or wish to retain the option of taking a move action in place of your remaining attacks.  It's only necessary to decide if you are wielding or holding the second weapon in your off-hand.  Thus, if you elect to wield the second weapon, the penalty will apply on your first attack whether it turns out that that attack was part of an attack action or full attack action, and so the existence of the penalty does not determine that for you.Which is why I disagree that TWF is analogous to the anonymous foil's proposition that a ranged attack made as part of a full attack provokes no AoO.-Hyp.</blockquote>