Combat Reflexes and a double weapon

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

In fact, there are no actual counterarguments actually favoring the other view.

I disagree, of course.

"When fighting this way" clearly refers to using the full attack action to make additional attacks above and beyond those normally allowed by your BAB by wielding an off-hand weapon.

"When fighting this way" ends as soon as your full attack action does.

There are, basically, two possible reading of "when fighting this way":

1. Whenever you wield two weapons (generally by having them in-hand)
2. Whenever you make use of the TWF rules

To determine whether you believe in #1 or #2, ask yourself the following question:

If a swashbuckler-type fighter (with all appropriate feats) has a rapier in one hand and a dagger in the other, and he makes a standard action single attack, does he suffer a -2 penalty to that attack roll?

If you answer "Yes," then you believe in #1, and the penalty should absolutely apply for all AoOs.

If you answer "No," then you believe in #2, and the penalty should not apply - because at the time of the AoO, the character is not "fighting this way" (which is only possible during a full-attack action, and is therefore not possible outside of a character's turn).

 

[mikebr99]

I disagree, of course.

"When fighting this way" clearly refers to using the full attack action to make additional attacks above and beyond those normally allowed by your BAB by wielding an off-hand weapon.

"When fighting this way" ends as soon as your full attack action does.

There are, basically, two possible reading of "when fighting this way":

1. Whenever you wield two weapons (generally by having them in-hand)
2. Whenever you make use of the TWF rules

To determine whether you believe in #1 or #2, ask yourself the following question:

If a swashbuckler-type fighter (with all appropriate feats) has a rapier in one hand and a dagger in the other, and he makes a standard action single attack, does he suffer a -2 penalty to that attack roll?

If you answer "Yes," then you believe in #1, and the penalty should absolutely apply for all AoOs.

If you answer "No," then you believe in #2, and the penalty should not apply - because at the time of the AoO, the character is not "fighting this way" (which is only possible during a full-attack action, and is therefore not possible outside of a character's turn).

I'll pick #2... or we'd be having penalties for Sword & Board fighting also...


Mike

 

[Particle_Man]

To add fuel to the fire, technically a "sword and board" fighter COULD fight with two weapons, using the shield to shield-bash, but in any round in which the fighter only uses the sword, there would be no -2 TH penalty.

[Edit -- Beaten to the punch! But I have new comments below]

Personally, I would go that the double-weapon guy gets Aoos at no penalty, and as a two-handed weapon. I'd say "switching grips" is not an action (neither move, swift, immediate, full-round or free), but part of an attack, including part of an attack of opportunity. So, no -2 Th penalty, one head only, with a 1.5xstr bonus.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

I'll pick #2... or we'd be having penalties for Sword & Board fighting also...


Mike

The S&B is actually an interesting side case (which leads, eventually, to the dual-weapon case ).

It's possible to believe the rules mean #1 and not have a penalty apply to the average S&B fighter.

The way this works is by drawing a distinction between a weapon which is wielded (as in, meant to be employed as a weapon), and one which is merely held.

Most S&B fighters will never actually wield their shields - they'll just carry them. This means that any effects dependent on a weapon being wielded would not come into play, and the classic example of this is a defending weapon, which only grants a bonus to AC when it is being wielded. The upshot of this is that, on an AoO, a S&B wielder could not elect to make a shield bash, because he's not wielding his shield at the moment, and therefore doesn't actually threaten with it.

If he wanted to potentially make AoOs with his shield, he'd need to declare (during his own round, most likely), that he's wielding his shield as a weapon - in which case he would take all appropriate TWF penalties, even if he only makes a single attack with his sword.

For the record, this is the interpretation that Hypersmurf favors.

 

[Infiniti2000]

"When fighting this way" clearly refers to using the full attack action to make additional attacks above and beyond those normally allowed by your BAB by wielding an off-hand weapon.

Obviously.

"When fighting this way" ends as soon as your full attack action does.

No. I've provided rules text that refutes this and this is the entire point of my argument. I'm furthermore stating that you have zero text to back you up on this. You can disagree, but you are not even providing any rules to back you up and refute my point.

 

[catsclaw227]

Wow....

I sorta thought my question would have a concrete answer. Apparently it doesn't. I am a long-running DM since 1979, but not a huge rules academician, so you guys are very helpful.

Catsclaw

 

[Ryngard]

My character has Combat Reflexes, so I get +2 Attacks of Opportunity. He is also using a double weapon. So, I can see three options for those AOO:

* Single Two-Handed Attack at full bonus and x1.5 Strength Bonus for damage
* Single Two-Weapon Fighting attack (i.e., -2 to base attack due to the modifiers for using two weapons)
* Two attacks with the double weapon with modifiers due to two weapon fighting.

Can someone clarify this or point me to the answer in either the PHB or DMG.

Thanks.

Okay, this is how I see it (at work, no books handy):

If you hold two weapons and haven't attacked that round (lets say its the beginning of combat and ignore flat-footed rules) and your opponent provokes an attack of opportunity, you make an attack role with your primary weapon as normal (i.e. no TWF penalties).

Your turn comes up and you move then get a single attack (no TWF possible due to movement). You make an attack at full bonus. Then after your attack your opponent provokes an AoO which you take at full bonus as normal.

Your next round you take a Full Attack Action and get your normal attack and one for TWF with your secondary weapon. Both attacks suffer the TWF penalties as normal. Your opponent (man what an idiot you're fighting) provokes yet another AoO. Since in your action you used TWF, you can take your AoO with your primary (or secondary) with the appropriate penalty attached. This seems fair to me.

Finally the following round, since your enemy ran a bit and provoked that AoO, you take a move action to engage again and attack. You get one attack at full attack bonus and are now not fighting TWF style anymore. If he provokes yet ANOTHER AoO, you get it with full standard bonuses, no TWF penalties.

This is the same for double-weapons as it is for paired weapons. Also, in most cases you are using the weapon's primary end (and single attack) you should get 1.5 Str dmg iirc.

Also some one brought up switching grip to 2-handed as a free action. I wouldn't have a problem with that. It is a fluid part of combat and if you can DRAW a weapon as part of movement and can drop a held item as a free action, I can't see how gripping the hilt would be more than a free action.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

No. I've provided rules text that refutes this and this is the entire point of my argument. I'm furthermore stating that you have zero text to back you up on this. You can disagree, but you are not even providing any rules to back you up and refute my point.

Well, that's pretty easily refuted, then.

There is a difference between a full-round action and an action which takes 1 full round to complete.

One resolves and is over before my turn in initiative is over, and the other does not resolve and continues until just before my next turn in initiative.

Take, for instance, a Summon Monster I spell (casting time: 1 round) and a sorceror applying the Empower metamagic feat to a Magic Missile spell (casting time: 1 full-round action).

The Full Attack action is a full-round action. Ergo, it is not the same, as far as the rules are concerned, as an action with an action typr of 1 round. Otherwise, you would not be able to finish resolving my attacks until just before my intiative in the next round - which is obviously not the case.

Besides, "usually" is certainly not definitive.

 

[Infiniti2000]

Well, that's pretty easily refuted, then.

I disagree because you sure didn't do it.

There is a difference between a full-round action and an action which takes 1 full round to complete.

A nonsequitur. I am not even talking about casting a spell that takes 1 full round. There is no action that takes 1 full round to complete except casting a full round (or longer) spell. Although, it is interesting to note that casting such spells consumes full-round actions -- the same type of action required for TWF. Anyway, stick to the subject at hand: full round actions.

Besides, "usually" is certainly not definitive.

I totally agree and I prefaced my argument accordingly. I am merely stating my stance from what I believe is a non-refutable preponderance of the evidence. If the TWF section had the same text as Power Attack, we would not be having this conversation.