Improved Unarmed Strike and 2H weapons

[Felix]

Good thinking to go to this article. But can someone please comment on the accuracy of Skip's article? His RotG articles have a history of innaccuracies, blending of 3.0 and 3.5 rules, and introduction of house rules.

I am in an awkward position; I don't happen to think highly of the veracity of the RotG articles, and yet this opinion of his seems to support my reading of the rules.

If he agrees with me I must be wrong! What's a cynic to do?

 

[Legildur]

If he agrees with me I must be wrong! What's a cynic to do?

LOL! No, no, no. If he agrees with you, you are possibly wrong. It's where the old WotC Customer Service agrees with you that you know your position really weak.

 

[billd91]

I am in an awkward position; I don't happen to think highly of the veracity of the RotG articles, and yet this opinion of his seems to support my reading of the rules.

If he agrees with me I must be wrong! What's a cynic to do?

You could, perhaps, stop being a cynic and accept that, as a designer of the game, Skip has a clue about what he's saying.

Seriously, why wouldn't you think that one of the game's designers would have an inside track on what the designers meant when they wrote the rules?

 

[Deset Gled]

You could, perhaps, stop being a cynic and accept that, as a designer of the game, Skip has a clue about what he's saying.

Seriously, why wouldn't you think that one of the game's designers would have an inside track on what the designers meant when they wrote the rules?

Well, it could be that Skip, as one designer of the game, has no idea what the other designers of the game meant.

Or, it could be that what Skip meant and what he wrote were two completely different things.

Or, it could be that Skip has a tendency to answer questions by what he "feels" the answer "should" be, rather than researching what the actually rules say.

Or, it could be that Skip, like many other human beings, is fallible and makes mistakes.

My money is on all of the above.

Personally, I'm just getting my kicks noting how many people are just discovering this now, when I mentioned it way back in post 11 of this thread (sans link).

 

[Infiniti2000]

(I am confused by the multiple examples in response to different people, so I'm restating them for clarification, for myself even if no one else cares or wants to comment.)

The following scenario was made in response to this comment by Artoomis: "In that case, your AoO can ONLY be with the weapon you are using. Obviously, if you did not take the off-hand penalties for TWF you do not get the benefits of TWF, and get only take an AoO with the same wepoan you used in your attack."

Scenario A: I have two weapons in hand (longsword and dagger) and make a full attack with the longsword (taking no TWF penalties).

Based on what Artoomis says, you cannot make an AoO with the dagger because the TWF penalties were not taken. He clarifies it with this, which IcyCool (post #26) and Legildur (post #27) agree: "As far as I am concerned, you either have one weapon you are using or you have two and are taking all associated penalties."

From my understanding, the following scenario is no different, which is the same one I presented to Hyp in post #52.

Scenario B: No IUS or natural weapons. Attack with longsword only (no penalties, full round action or standard action). Drop longsword (free action). Draw dagger (move action or free action with quickdraw). (To make this even closer to A, keep both weapons in hand and use an action, free or move, to 'wield' the dagger.)

IcyCool in post #71 says that I can make an AoO with the dagger and doesn't say anything about the longsword, though by his wording, I'm thinking he doesn't intend that the longsword is wielded. If it were, are there penalties?

Hyp, in post #54, says "Certainly [you can make an AoO with the dagger]. But you are now wielding a second weapon in your off-hand, so while making the AoO, you are 'fighting this way', and penalties apply."

I'm guessing IcyCool and Hyp are in agreement on Scenario B. Also, I think Legildur and Artoomis agree.

Let me restate your interpretation, though, which will (I hope) clarify my response in post #65. I'm not referring to one of the scenarios in this restatement, but please let me know if you agree.

You can be both "fighting this way" and NOT "fighting this way" in the same round. You can make a full attack without "fighting this way" (no extra attack) and then (for lack of a better phrase) 'change modes' to be "fighting this way" before your turn is over, and vice versa. No one has implied that you can change modes not on your turn (i.e. not during an AoO).

I don't agree. I think you are either "fighting this way" or not, for your whole turn that round, meaning that those penalties always apply. If you take the extra attack, then you are "fighting this way." If not, not. This is defined in the same two-sentence paragraph and I don't agree that you can logical separate the sentences to create a different definition of "fighting this way". There are not multiple valid ways to view this rule IMO.

 

[Artoomis]

I agree with - I think. To restate:


1. In each round, you are either fighting with one weapon or two.

2. If you switch weapond (as opposed to using you "off-hnad"), you are still fighting with only one weapon.

3. You therefore threaten only with a weapon(s) you used (or were prepared to use) during you own turn.

Thus, when making an AoO:

1. You make your regular attack with the weapon in your primary hand only, and do not take any penalties for TWF during your turn. No penalty. Any weapon in you off-hand cannot be used for the AoO.

2. You use TWF during your turn. Any AoOs may be taken with either weapon, with the appropriate TWF penalties.

3. You use your off-hand during your turn (but not TWF) and take the -4 off-hand penalty. You can use your off-hand for the AoO, but that's it.

4. You use you off-hand and your on-hand during you turn but take no extra attacks. Two possibilities here. Either you take the -4 off-hand penalty (only) or you take the TWF penalties (that's what I think should happen). Either way, the penalties apply for your AoO and you can use either weapon.

5. You switch weapons during your turn. Fine - makes no differnce, assuming it's allowed. The weapon you end up with is the one you use for your AoOs at no additional penalty.

I think that covers it.

 

[Infiniti2000]

3. You therefore threaten only with a weapon(s) you used (or were prepared to use) during you own turn.

I'm not sure I understand. Are you saying that if I have a longsword and dagger in my hands, that if I want to be able to attack with the dagger on an AoO, I have to have both wielded while I attack and thus take TWF penalties while I attack even if I don't/can't make the extra attack? If that's what you're saying, I don't agree. I think it's the actual fact of taking that extra attack that causes you to incur the TWF penalties.

1. You make your regular attack with the weapon in your primary hand only, and do not take any penalties for TWF during your turn. No penalty. Any weapon in you off-hand cannot be used for the AoO.

I don't agree, nor do I think anyone else agrees. The others will at least allow you to wield the off-hand weapon expo facto of the attack action (causing TWF penalties on any AoO).

2. You use TWF during your turn. Any AoOs may be taken with either weapon, with the appropriate TWF penalties.

This is the default case. Everyone agrees.

3. You use your off-hand during your turn (but not TWF) and take the -4 off-hand penalty. You can use your off-hand for the AoO, but that's it.

Can't you use your primary weapon for the AoO? This is very similar to the next one...

4. You use you off-hand and your on-hand during you turn but take no extra attacks. Two possibilities here. Either you take the -4 off-hand penalty (only) or you take the TWF penalties (that's what I think should happen). Either way, the penalties apply for your AoO and you can use either weapon.

I don't agree that TWF should apply. The primary hand will have no penalties while the off-hand gets off-hand penalties. There is no extra attack and you are not using TWF, thus no TWF penalties.

5. You switch weapons during your turn. Fine - makes no differnce, assuming it's allowed. The weapon you end up with is the one you use for your AoOs at no additional penalty.

Sure. But, this one is the same as the previous, if you 'switched' weapons into your off-hand.

 

[billd91]

I'm not sure I understand. Are you saying that if I have a longsword and dagger in my hands, that if I want to be able to attack with the dagger on an AoO, I have to have both wielded while I attack and thus take TWF penalties while I attack even if I don't/can't make the extra attack? If that's what you're saying, I don't agree. I think it's the actual fact of taking that extra attack that causes you to incur the TWF penalties.

I don't think there's anything to this wielding/holding thing. If you've got the required number of hands on it, you're wielding it. End of story.
But I disagree about the invocation of the penalties. I think you have to declare at the beginning of your attacks that you're planning on TWF so that the penalty can be applied to your first attack (like Rapid Shot) even if you're off-hand attack never materializes. That said, it's the declaration of planning to use it this round that invokes the penalties, and not having weapons in each hand.

I don't agree that TWF should apply. The primary hand will have no penalties while the off-hand gets off-hand penalties. There is no extra attack and you are not using TWF, thus no TWF penalties.

I'm a bit torn on this one. I'd prefer the penalty from the previous round (if TWF was used) to stay just to be consistent with the handling of Power Attack, Combat Expertise, and Flurry of Blows, all of which impose a penalty that carries through to the beginning of the next round. I think that's a rule that should remain consistently applied for similar cases.

 

[Hypersmurf]

I think it's the actual fact of taking that extra attack that causes you to incur the TWF penalties.

Let's say you are wielding your Longsword of Speed and a dagger, and take a full attack action on the orc in front of you. You attack with your longsword, then take your Speed attack with your longsword, and the orc drops. You never take an off-hand attack.

Did your attacks with the longsword incur TWF penalties?

This is the default case. Everyone agrees.

Everyone? Don't a lot of people say that TWF penalties never apply to AoOs?

Skip Williams, for example: "If, after you made two-weapon attacks with your sword and torch, a foe later provokes an attack of opportunity from you that same round, you can strike that foe with your longsword with no two-weapon penalty at all."

(For whatever it's worth, Skip doesn't seem to tie the penalties to the extra attack, either:
"You do not have to choose between the attack and full attack actions until after you have made your first attack on your turn (see page 143 in the Player's Handbook). However, if you intend to attack with two weapons during your action, you must take the correct penalty for each attack or give up your opportunity to use your second weapon (because the rules require you to take a penalty on attacks you make with both your primary and off hands).

Even if you decide to take the penalty, you don't have to attack with the torch, or even use the full attack action.")

-Hyp.

 

[pawsplay]

3.5 PHB P311: An attack made with the off hand incurs a -4 penalty on the attack roll. In addition, only one half of a character's Strength bonus to damage may be added to damage dealt with a weapon held in the off hand.

What's the off hand? From the same paragraph: A character's weaker or less dexterous hand (usually the left).

If the character is wielding the torch in his weaker or less dexterous hand, I agree with Skip that he takes a -4 penalty on his attack roll. (Obviously, I don't agree with Skip that he doesn't incur TWF penalties if he is wielding two weapons )

-Hyp.

Strange. I didn't think there was in explicit "off hand penalty" with the removal of Ambidexterity, but rather that the penalties were rolled up into the TWF rules. But it is still in the glossary... An incomplete rewrite I would say. The description links up only implicity with the TWF table.