Improved Unarmed Strike and 2H weapons

[billd91]

How is adding arbitrary limitations that do not accord with real life 'keeping it simple'?

glass.

How is it keeping it simple? Because you don't have to track how the character is holding the weapon. Got the requisite number of hands on it? You're good to go.

Keeping a game in accord with real life isn't simple at all. You're not going to find a more difficult job than accurately trying to model the complex system that is reality. Far simpler to not sweat the small detail of whether or not you can make an AoO depending on how the weapon is gripped.

 

[Infiniti2000]

I don't see how this is different from what I've been saying all along... except that I describe 'give oneself the option of making the extra attack' as 'wielding a second weapon in your off-hand', since it is wielding a second weapon in your off-hand that gives you the option of making an extra attack...

The difference is that by not giving yourself that option, you do not have to un-wield the second weapon. But, even though it's still wielded you cannot make the extra attack via TWF. I don't see how can read it such that it requires you to un-wield the second weapon.

 

[Infiniti2000]

Why is such a distinction a problem? Can you not visualise and way have holding a dagger (say) where it is not threatening? Or a way of fighting whereby the dagger does not come into play, even if it is being held in a conventional manner.

I can, easily, on both counts.

I can, too, but I see no requirement in the rules that you have to un-wield the dagger while making a full attack with the longsword in order not to get TWF penalties.

 

[glass]

How is it keeping it simple? Because you don't have to track how the character is holding the weapon. Got the requisite number of hands on it? You're good to go.

You still have to keep track of how you are holding it under your 'system', you are just arbitrarily adding rules to diasllow certain ways of holding it.

Keeping a game in accord with real life isn't simple at all.

Obviously, the game doesn't model real life particularly well, nor should it, so you can stop stawmanning that I think it should. However, when you are adding complexity in a way that limits player choice and is contrary to reality in a way that assault SoD... well, its just mind boggling.


glass.

 

[glass]

I can, too, but I see no requirement in the rules that you have to un-wield the dagger while making a full attack with the longsword in order not to get TWF penalties.

Well, that is the seat of our disagreement isn't it. Because I can see exactly that.


glass.

 

[billd91]

You still have to keep track of how you are holding it under your 'system', you are just arbitrarily adding rules to diasllow certain ways of holding it.

Obviously, the game doesn't model real life particularly well, nor should it, so you can stop stawmanning that I think it should. However, when you are adding complexity in a way that limits player choice and is contrary to reality in a way that assault SoD... well, its just mind boggling.


glass.

Ahem. You were the one bringing up keeping the game in line real life. So don't accuse me of bringing up the straw man.

The only complexity I'm looking at is someone holding a weapon in a way that is clearly unusable like holding a two-weapon hand in one hand or hanging on to a sword by the blade (for some undefined reason, perhaps you're admiring the sheen of a well-polished blade). I'm not the one making a distinction between holding a dagger by the hilt so you can attack with it (using TWF) and holding a dagger by the hilt so that you cannot and then have to spend a free action rearranging it.

As far as I'm concerned, there's no distinction between the latter two. That's less complexity. Not more.

 

[Artoomis]

...As far as I'm concerned, there's no distinction between the latter two. That's less complexity. Not more.

It's about the same, really. You only have to answer the question of which weapon(s) are you using. If more than one at time, TWF penalties apply.

That's pretty simple.

 

[Artoomis]

The difference is that by not giving yourself that option, you do not have to un-wield the second weapon. But, even though it's still wielded you cannot make the extra attack via TWF. I don't see how can read it such that it requires you to un-wield the second weapon.

There is no "un-wielding." This may seem like "spin," but it's just a case of either you a actively using it or you are not.

If you are, all penalties for using it apply, and you may take an AoO with it.

If you are not, no AoOs.

I can definately see viewing this either way, though, as can , I think, Hyp; it's all about how you read TWF. Hyp has said that his view is predicated upon a certain reading of the TWF langugae and has at least implied, if not stated directly, that his reading is not the only way reaonable possible interpretation of the laguage provided in TWF in the PHB.

I tend to both agree with Hyp about the language and think that our view is the most reasonable, but only by a small margin.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

So you're incurring the penalties not for making the extra attack, but for giving yourself the option of making the extra attack, right?

I don't see how this is different from what I've been saying all along...

It's the point at which the decision is made.

TWF, in our version, is analagous to Rapid Shot. You declare whether or not you'll use Rapid Shot at the beginning of your Full Attack action. Take a human Fighter 1 with a bow, PBS, and RS. He decides to use RS and fire at the lone orc his party is facing. He makes his first attack roll with a -2 penalty. If he hits, and kills the orc, he's still got that extra attack, even if there's nothing he can realistically do with it.

 

[pawsplay]

So you're incurring the penalties not for making the extra attack, but for giving yourself the option of making the extra attack, right?

I don't see how this is different from what I've been saying all along... except that I describe 'give oneself the option of making the extra attack' as 'wielding a second weapon in your off-hand', since it is wielding a second weapon in your off-hand that gives you the option of making an extra attack...

-Hyp.

However, in a surprise round, you do no have the option of making an extra attack.