Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="argo" data-source="post: 1780864" data-attributes="member: 5752">Ok, lets try this again from a different angle.You cannot &quot;combine&quot; the damage from two weapons into a single attack (where &quot;attack&quot; refers to the game mechanic of rolling to hit, not the description of what that action might look like in the real world).&nbsp; If you deal damage from two sources (in this case a sword and armor spikes) you have used two weapons this round.&nbsp; It does not matter that you are not holding one of those weapons in your hand as the term &quot;off hand&quot; does not actually refer to you hand (there is no mechanic for characters having dominant hands in 3.5) but rather is a term used to differentiate between your primary weapon and your second weapon.&nbsp; A kick is a &quot;off hand&quot; attack, so is a shield bash and so is an attack with armor spikes (or if you wished you could designate any of those as your primary attack and make your sword attack as your &quot;off hand&quot; attack, you could even change your mind about which is which from round to round!).Intrestingly we are now straying close to another rules debate about wiether or not you have to take TWF penalties if you use a different weapon for your itterative attack than for your first attack but I don't want to start that discussion right now.&nbsp; The important thing here is that regardless of how you interpret the phrase &quot;fight this way&quot; if you use two weapons to deal damage then you need two attack rolls, one for each weapon.&nbsp; If you take that second attack roll at your highest BAB (thus gainning an extra attack) then you are using the TWF rules and the penalties apply.Just remember, this doesn't prevent you from doing what you are trying to do.&nbsp; Combat in DND is abstract, a single attack roll could represent many parries and reposte's or a single mighty swing.&nbsp; The combat round is only 6 seconds long and it is assumed that everything is supposed to happen simeltaneously even though characters actually take their actions in turn.&nbsp; You described the fighter &quot;droping his shoulder in at the same time thrusting the sword into him&quot; don't you think that there should be a chance that even if the sword hits the shoulder-check misses or vice versa?&nbsp; Wouldnt' that chance be best represented mechanics-wise by a second attack roll?&nbsp; And you also admited that there should be penalties involved, how does a -2 to all attack rolls made that round sound to you?&nbsp; Why look!&nbsp; -2 is the penalty for TWF with a light off-hand weapon!&nbsp; The scene can look exactly as you want it to but as far as the mechanics are concerned it is TWF.Makes sense now?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="argo, post: 1780864, member: 5752"] Ok, lets try this again from a different angle. You cannot "combine" the damage from two weapons into a single attack (where "attack" refers to the game mechanic of rolling to hit, not the description of what that action might look like in the real world). If you deal damage from two sources (in this case a sword and armor spikes) you have used two weapons this round. It does not matter that you are not holding one of those weapons in your hand as the term "off hand" does not actually refer to you hand (there is no mechanic for characters having dominant hands in 3.5) but rather is a term used to differentiate between your primary weapon and your second weapon. A kick is a "off hand" attack, so is a shield bash and so is an attack with armor spikes (or if you wished you could designate any of those as your primary attack and make your sword attack as your "off hand" attack, you could even change your mind about which is which from round to round!). Intrestingly we are now straying close to another rules debate about wiether or not you have to take TWF penalties if you use a different weapon for your itterative attack than for your first attack but I don't want to start that discussion right now. The important thing here is that regardless of how you interpret the phrase "fight this way" if you use two weapons to deal damage then you need [b]two attack rolls, one for each weapon[/b]. If you take that second attack roll at your highest BAB (thus gainning an extra attack) then you are using the TWF rules and the penalties apply. Just remember, this doesn't prevent you from doing what you are trying to do. Combat in DND is abstract, a single attack roll could represent many parries and reposte's or a single mighty swing. The combat round is only 6 seconds long and it is assumed that everything is supposed to happen simeltaneously even though characters actually take their actions in turn. You described the fighter "droping his shoulder in at the same time thrusting the sword into him" don't you think that there should be a chance that even if the sword hits the shoulder-check misses or vice versa? Wouldnt' that chance be best represented mechanics-wise by a second attack roll? And you also admited that there should be penalties involved, how does a -2 to all attack rolls made that round sound to you? Why look! -2 is the penalty for TWF with a light off-hand weapon! The scene can look exactly as you want it to but as far as the mechanics are concerned it is TWF. Makes sense now? [/QUOTE]

Verification