Attacking ONLY with your off-hand weapon?

[Particle_Man]

Would the -4 Off-Hand penalty be reduced to -2 if it were a Light weapon in the off hand?

- Kemrain the Off-Handed.

I think not. That reduction applies to fighting with two weapons, not fighting with a weapon in the off-hand. So if you are a right-handed warrior who loses his right hand, you might as well use a long sword in the left hand.

 

[0-hr]

I think not. That reduction applies to fighting with two weapons, not fighting with a weapon in the off-hand.

So if I have a longsword in my primary hand and a shortsword in my off hand, and I have Two-Weapon fighting, then my I can either

A) Attack with the longsword at -2 and the short sword at -2
or
B) Attack with just the shortsword at -4.

Are you saying it's easier to hit with the shortsword if I swing the longsword first?

 

[mmu1]

Of course, if you wanted to be logical about this, you'd give someone a penalty for using a shield with their primary hand, since the "off-hand" is actually what they're trained to use their shield with.

 

[reiella]

So if I have a longsword in my primary hand and a shortsword in my off hand, and I have Two-Weapon fighting, then my I can either

A) Attack with the longsword at -2 and the short sword at -2
or
B) Attack with just the shortsword at -4.

Are you saying it's easier to hit with the shortsword if I swing the longsword first?

Actually, with Two-Weapon fighting, attack with just the shortsword would be 0. You're not invoking any two-weapon fighting penalties (the -6 to both). Hmm... Actually that's interesting. The 3.5 SRD Two Weapon Fighting feat only applies it benefit when using two weapons. I think you're right, it's odd but it's harder to attack with your off-hand weapon if you're not fighting with two-weapons.

Now in 3.0, if you had the Ambidexterity feat, the situation would be, you don't have any 'Two-Weapon Fighting penalties', and your off-hand penalty would have been removed by Ambidexterity, and you'd fight with the shortsword at no penalty.

[ Add ]
I can visualize both rather easily. With the 3.5 situation being more so that you're able to 'follow through' with your off-hand using the momentum/whatever of your primary attack, instead of making an autonomous attack with your off-hand (ie, you're not Ambidexterious, you just can 'follow through' with your weak hand).

 

[Plane Sailing]

Not so. Check the glossary under off-hand. It states (in the 3.5 PHB) the penalties for fighting with a weapon in the off-hand (-4 to hit, 1/2 strength bonus to damage).
Note that this is distinct from the information under two-weapon fighting actions in the combat section of the PHB (where the penalty for fighting with the off-hand in tandem with the primary hand is a further -6 penalty for the net of -10). In a nutshell, when you fight with two-weapons, both hands are penalized -6, but the off-hand was already penalized a further -4 for being the off-hand in the first place.

Good catch.

HOWEVER, it looks rather like that is a leftover from 3e that someone forgot to edit out alongside the removal of the ambidexterity feat. I'll certainly never use it (honestly, you'd think if they wanted to make an important rule like that they'd put it in the main text, wouldn't you! Sigh.

Cheers

 

[Carpe DM]

This effect has consistently beggared anyone who wanted to do something interesting with a shield.

I'll make one addition, though. Under the shield descriptor, the rules state you can make an attack with a shield as an offhand attack. So even the pretty obvious tactic of switching the shield to the "primary" hand wouldn't work.

This is a silly rule, and one that has really lowered the options of fighters and paladins to use interesting feats like the new shield charge.

best,

Carpe

 

[Darklone]

Everything that screws silly shield fighters is good IMHO. YMMV of course.