Armor Spikes question

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Eh. In that case, I need to add another "House Rule" to my list o' things to do.

 

[Hypersmurf]

As the text reads, you only apply the penalties for TWF when "you get one extra attack per round".

No, as the text reads, you only apply the penalties for TWF when "you fight this way".

When "you get one extra attack per round" is one possible interpretation of "fight this way", but as noted, it's not the only one... and with the FAQ quote above, I go with the other one.

Which is: "Fight this way" is wielding a second weapon in your off hand, which has two effects:
1. you get one extra attack per round.
2. you incur TWF penalties.

-Hyp.

 

[Hypersmurf]

In that case, I need to add another "House Rule" to my list o' things to do.

Well, thing is, I don't know that I'd call the 'extra attack' reading a house rule.

I'm using a piece of a circumstantial peripheral ruling from an outdated FAQ to make my own decision between two potentially valid readings. That's... hardly 'beyond reasonable doubt'

-Hyp.

 

[Liquidsabre]

If you wish to benefit from it, the FAQ states that you take TWF penalties, whether or not you make that extra attack. Thus, TWF penalties are not related to whether the extra attack is made, but rather whether you are wielding two weapons or not.

That seems kinda weak there Hyper. That FAQ refers to needing to make an attack or full-attack action so they obviously are doing more than just "wielding" the weapon.

By such a ruling as you state, a wielder of a double-bladed sword would always suffer penalties for two-weapon fighting because they could make an extra attack if they wanted to even if they chose not to. If such a character then decides to attack with one end of the double-bladed sword they would still suffer penalties for TWF.

I don't think that's how the RAW or FAQ support rulings for TWF penalties. That FAQ quote looks to be taken somewhat out of context since the character in question is obviously receiving a benefit from an off-hand weapon but choosing not to make an extra attack with it in an attempt to side-step the TWF penalites, which the FAQ squashes by ruling that they still suffer TWF penalties.

I've got to hitch off to work right now so I'll take a look at more of the text for the support of a more thorough and complete argument, but at a glance I don't see this ruling standing up in legal rules-court aye.

 

[Hypersmurf]

By such a ruling as you state, a wielder of a double-bladed sword would always suffer penalties for two-weapon fighting because they could make an extra attack if they wanted to even if they chose not to. If such a character then decides to attack with one end of the double-bladed sword they would still suffer penalties for TWF.

Not necessarily. If someone were wielding a double sword as a two-handed weapon, only using one blade, I wouldn't allow them to make an AoO with the other blade, because they're not wielding the other blade as a second weapon. In that case, they wouldn't suffer TWF penalties.

I don't think that's how the RAW or FAQ support rulings for TWF penalties. That FAQ quote looks to be taken somewhat out of context since the character in question is obviously receiving a benefit from an off-hand weapon but choosing not to make an extra attack with it in an attempt to side-step the TWF penalites, which the FAQ squashes by ruling that they still suffer TWF penalties.

Let's say I have a longsword and a light mace, and I'm facing a mixed group of skeletons and zombies who are trying to get past me.

The longsword beats zombie DR. The mace beats skeleton DR.

Is the ability to make an AoO with the mace if a skeleton tries to rush past not "a benefit from an off-hand weapon"? Even if I didn't actually gain an extra attack with it, does the fact that I threaten with it not mean I'm gaining advantage from wielding it? Doesn't that mean that I'm "attempting to sidestep the TWF penalties" if I try to gain that benefit of using two weapons without taking the penalty for doing so?

-Hyp.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Well, thing is, I don't know that I'd call the 'extra attack' reading a house rule.

Well, in that case, I'll call it a "DM Ruling / Clarification" rather than a "House Rule."

The reason I don't like the "If you want to be considered as 'wielding,' you must take penalties" ruling is that it has implications beyond a reasonably simplistic TWF scenario.

To whit, you may only threaten an area when wielding a weapon (or have Improved Unarmed Strike, or, presumably, a Natural Weapon).

A Warforged has a natural weapon - a slam attack.

If that Warforged throws a dagger as his turn's action, does he still threaten the area around him with his slam?

If yes, is it because natural weapons are always considered "wielded"? If he gets an opportunity to make an AoO, does it suffer the -5 secondary natural weapon penalty?

OK - replace the warforged with a manticore who fired spikes this round.

The part, however, where I think this trips up the most is that you are allowed to make 5' steps and quickdraws in the midst of a full-attack action.

Consider a spherical warrior ... with 3 attacks per round (BAB +11).

At the beginning of his round, he's got a dagger of defending in hand, and has shifted its entire bonus into AC. A longspear-wielding opponent's readied action goes off, and he attacks the warrior. He misses. The warrior then throws his dagger, provoking an AoO that misses (probably due to the dagger's AC boost). The dagger arches across the room, and neatly finds the eye of a goblin. His AC bonus from the dagger goes away.

The warrior quickdraws another dagger and tosses it at another goblin (provoking a 2nd AoO, which hits). He then quickdraws his sword, takes a 5' step foreward, and attacks the longspearman.

Now, does he suffer the TWF penalties on his longsword attack?

If he does, then why didn't he suffer TWF penalties on his second dagger toss?

 

[Marimmar@Home]

I'm with Patryn on this. After all someone with a reach weapon and armor spikes doesn't attack in a way as to get extra attacks from the armor spikes. Seems to me that some people want to incur a penalty for fighting with a reach weapon based on the notion that you cannot make attacks with a reach weapon inside your normal reach. I can't see why someone shouldn't be allowed to make AoO against someone next to him with a weapon not used yet. It's not even on the turn of the one with spikes and IIRC there's no rule that you have to fight with two weapons for the rest of the round, unlike Power Attack that specifically states that you have to incur the attack penalty for the rest of the round.

~Marimmar

 

[Hypersmurf]

Now, does he suffer the TWF penalties on his longsword attack?

I shouldn't think so - he was never wielding a second weapon in his off-hand. He simply made three primary hand attacks with different weapons.

That's not the same as someone who - at the end of their turn - chooses to threaten with both a longspear and armor spikes. The only way they can threaten with both is if they are wielding both... in which case they are wielding a second weapon, and thus when they take an AoO (with either), they are 'fighting this way'.

If at the end of their turn they elect to only threaten with one of the two, they are not wielding a second weapon, and thus if an AoO is provoked, they are not 'fighting this way', and do not incur penalties on that attack.

-Hyp.

 

[Tatsukun]

This actually came up in my game, one of the PCs was using a Long sword and buckler, and he usually had a torch in the left (buckler) hand.

Once in a while, he wanted to attack with the torch (for Trolls and the like). So we decided he could choose to be…

1) "carrying" the torch, and "wielding" the sword
2) "carrying" the sword, and "wielding" the torch as an improvised weapon
3) "wielding" the sword, and also "wielding" the torch as an improvised weapon

The first option is what he did the vast majority of the time. He attacked normally with the sword and got the benefits from the buckler.

Cinematically he said he was keeping the torch out to his side so it didn't get in the way of his sword and buckler fighting.

The second option was used when he really wanted to do some fire damage. He didn't benefit form the buckler, and couldn't attack with the sword He attacked normally with the torch, though took a penalty because the torch was an improvised weapon.

Cinematically he said he was reversing the sword and holding the blade along his arm like a Tonfa, he couldn’t attack like this, but the blade didn't get in his way.

The third was used rarely, mostly when he wanted to be on guard but still be able to get some fire damage. He took the TWF penalties, didn't get the benefits from the buckler, and took the penalties from the improvised weapon on his torch attacks. But, he could choose which weapon to use when he took an attack of opportunity, and he could get an extra attack per round.

Cinematically he said he was using both weapons at once, weaving the long sword's blade and the torch in interweaving circles. It was good for attacking a lot, but the two weapons got in each other's way.

This way really worked well, and makes sense. If you rule that being able to attack with two weapons is the same as wielding two weapons, everyone with a light or heavy shield, or armor spikes, should be taking the two weapon penalties at all times.

If you rule that you don't take the penalties unless you actually take the extra attack, you make a reach weapon and armor spikes just as good as reach.

Anyway, that's what we do, and it works well.

-Tatsu

P.S> I'm honored to see that Hypersmurf agrees with me !