Changing weapons in combat

[Hypersmurf]

This seems obvious...

A lot of people disagree, and say you only incur penalties if you avail yourself of an extra attack with your off-hand weapon.

With +11 BAB, they say, longsword/shortsword/longsword is just your normal iterative sequence, and no penalties apply. Long/short/long/short is using the extra attack, which means you "fight this way", and thus penalties apply.

I haven't figured out if they allow Long/short/short/short or even Short/short/short/short - three primary attacks that happen to be made with your off-hand weapon, followed by an extra attack with the off-hand weapon because you're "attacking with two weapons"... even though in this case you're only attacking with one...

... but what if you don't use a short sword in your off-hand, but try to land an unarmed attack (headbutt, kick etc.)?

Is this situation covered at all in the rules?

It still hinges on interpretation of "fight this way".

-Hyp.

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

I don't think that "fight this way" is as ambiguous as Hypersmurf makes it out to be. The stingy interpretation he puts forward seems to be that if you hold a weapon in your off-hand, that counts as "fights this way" and all penalties apply--even if you don't attack with it. When applied to unarmed strike or armor spikes, however, this becomes just plain silly. Every character is almost always wielding an unarmed strike. It doesn't seem reasonable to say that just wearing spiked armor or having Improved Unarmed Strike (for those DMs who want to insist that only those who have the feat are always wielding one) means that you always incurr the TWF penalties no matter what you do. In this case, they would cease to become TWF penalties but, since they would always apply to everyone, they would become simply Weapon Fighting penalties.

Now, that is a reductio ad absurdium argument and I'm sure it's not what Hypersmurf or others intend. However, if the "fights this way" applies whether or not an attack is made, I fail to see the bright line dividing that position from the absurd one I outlined above. An alternate interpretation of "fights this way" which I think manages to present a very clear bright line is choosing to gain the extra attack. Now, since a character need not make every attack he is entitled to (for instance, a fighter with BAB +11 next to two orcs and an ally can cleave through one orc into the other with the first blow, kill the second orc with the second blow and then forgoe his third attack in liu of throwing his sword or attacking his ally). So, the FAQ answer still makes sense under this interpretation. The character chooses to gain the extra attack but does not take it. (Perhaps he's facing a Remorhaz and thinks that 5 extra points of AC are worth the attack penalties but doesn't want to risk the head destroying his weapon).

 

[Hypersmurf]

I don't think that "fight this way" is as ambiguous as Hypersmurf makes it out to be. The stingy interpretation he puts forward seems to be that if you hold a weapon in your off-hand, that counts as "fights this way" and all penalties apply--even if you don't attack with it.

Not quite - if you wield a weapon in your off-hand, even if you don't attack with it.

You can hold it without wielding it, but if you do so, it does not threaten an area and cannot be used to attack that round.

If you want it to be available for attacks or AoOs, you need to be wielding it... which counts as fighting "in this way".

-Hyp.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

So, wielding a second weapon in your off hand incurs TWF penalties... even if you don't take the extra attack that this allows.

Thus, with a BAB of +11, if I attack twice with the longsword in my right hand, and once with the shortsword in my left hand, I am "wielding a second weapon in my off hand", and therefore I "fight this way"... so I take TWF penalties, even though I'm not taking the extra attack.

I respectfully disagree. It seems to me that the point of invoking the TWF penalties is to handle "clever" individuals who want to claim they are wielding a weapon that they never actually attack with, e.g. the infamous +5 Defender armor spikes. There is a sound game reason to require a tactical cost be paid to gain the benefits associated with wielding a weapon -- either actually attack with the weapon or accept a penalty. I can see no rational case to be made for penalizing those who choose to switch weapons.

Keep in mind there is already a substantial penalty for offhand attacks: -4 to hit and halved Str bonus to damage.