Improved Unarmed Strike and 2H weapons

[Hypersmurf]

Only holding the longsword: he threatens with the longsword, and may take AoO's with it.

I would say, rather: wielding the longsword, he threatens with the longsword, and may take AoOs with it.

He can hold the longsword without it being 'dangerous'. As a clear example, someone can hold a quarterstaff in one hand, but they cannot wield a quarterstaff in one hand. Holding a quarterstaff in one hand does not allow them to make an AoO.

Similarly, I would suggest that someone can hold a quarterstaff in two hands without it being held in an attacking fashion; that is to say, without it being wielded.

In the same way, someone can fight with a longsword while holding a dagger; the dagger, in this example, is much the same as if he were holding a mug, or a rope, or a lantern. It takes none of his concentration, and does not affect his use of the sword. But if he fights with the longsword while wielding the dagger, he is concentrating on using both weapons, and being aware of openings for either; his attention is split. Fighting this way is harder than the previous example, and penalties result. It has a couple of benefits, however; he can respond to openings with either weapon (AoOs), and he has the option of making an extra attack each round with the dagger.

Similar, again, is the person with IUS and the longspear. If he wishes to be able to capitalise on openings with either weapon (longspear and unarmed strike), he is splitting his attention between two weapons, and because fighting this way is difficult, penalties result.

If he elects not to incur penalties, he can do so... but only by wielding a single weapon rather than two, and thus he cannot threaten simultaneously with spear and kick.

-Hyp.

 

[Hypersmurf]

There is no handedness in 3.5, so a fighter may attack with either his right or left hand with equal effect as long as neither of them is considered his off-hand. Two-weapon fighting, however, makes it clear that holding two weapons makes it necessary for one of them to be the off-hand weapon.

[glossary]off-hand[/glossary]: A character's weaker or less dexterous hand (usually the left).

-Hyp.

 

[Felix]

[glossary]off-hand[/glossary]: A character's weaker or less dexterous hand (usually the left).

Is there reference to this in the character creation rules such that a character must have an off-hand?

 

[Felix]

In the same way, someone can fight with a longsword while holding a dagger; the dagger, in this example, is much the same as if he were holding a mug, or a rope, or a lantern. It takes none of his concentration, and does not affect his use of the sword. But if he fights with the longsword while wielding the dagger, he is concentrating on using both weapons, and being aware of openings for either; his attention is split. Fighting this way is harder than the previous example, and penalties result. It has a couple of benefits, however; he can respond to openings with either weapon (AoOs), and he has the option of making an extra attack each round with the dagger.

A: Wielding Two Weapons
B: Gaining An Extra Attack
C: TWF penalties

I have no problem with your interpretation that "Fighting In This Way" refers to "A or B", but you provide no evidence that it could also not be "A and B". If "Fighting in this Way" means "A and B", then merely having the quality of A will not necessitate "C", and you may wield two weapons while not incurring TWF penalties as long as you don't gain an extra attack.

I don't have a problem with your line of ruling, but as the rules are written, you should not have any rule-based problem with mine.

 

[Felix]

But if he fights with the longsword while wielding the dagger, he is concentrating on using both weapons, and being aware of openings for either; his attention is split. Fighting this way is harder than the previous example, and penalties result.

So what makes it difficult? The fact that he attacks in the same round with two weapons?

 

[Hypersmurf]

I don't have a problem with your line of ruling, but as the rules are written, you should not have any rule-based problem with mine.

I've said all along that it depends on how one reads 'fighting this way'.

To me, 'fighting this way' doesn't mean 'A or B'; it means A, and the consequences of A are B and C.

If you are wielding a second weapon in your off hand, then B/ you can make an extra attack, and C/ you take penalties.

But that conclusion is dependent on that reading of 'fighting this way'.

I personally don't feel that the reading of 'fighting this way' as 'make an extra attack' is as strong. Making an extra attack doesn't sound like a 'way' of fighting, whereas wielding a second weapon does.

But if someone reads 'fighting this way' in that fashion, then the conclusion is that TWF penalties result from the extra attack.

I have never disputed that TWF penalties result from the extra attack if 'fighting this way' is read in that fashion.

So what makes it difficult? The fact that he attacks in the same round with two weapons?

The fact that he's keeping both options open.

It takes less attention to control one weapon than two. Looking for openings that one weapon might exploit is a straightforward task; looking for openings that one weapon might exploit, and for openings that a second weapon might exploit, and for openings that either might exploit, is more complicated, and can lead to missing opportunities for one while thinking about the other. How is this modelled in D&D's abstract combat system? Extra attacks are available to you, but all attacks take a penalty.

The model makes complete sense to me, while the 'Penalties only if you use the extra attack' reading doesn't; hence, I favour the 'wielding a second weapon' reading.

Is there reference to this in the character creation rules such that a character must have an off-hand?

There's no reference in the character creation rules that state the character must have an eye colour, but one assumes he or she does. I can only assume it is a decision that comes under the 'and so on' in the penultimate paragraph of PHB p6.

There is a mechanical effect of handedness (since one's weaker or less dexterous hand (usually the left) incurs penalties), so it's necessary to know what it is for a given character.

-Hyp.

 

[Felix]

Making an extra attack doesn't sound like a 'way' of fighting, whereas wielding a second weapon does.

I don't have a problem with someone attacking with a weapon, dropping it, drawing another, and then using that one to make an attack. So I have less of a problem when someone wants to do the same thing with a weapon already in hand.

If they want to get more out of having two weapons in hand, then that's when the penalties come into play.

It takes less attention to control one weapon than two.

I'll buy that. But because we don't penalize for the attack/drop/draw/attack routine, I don't think we should penalize for something simpler.

Two weapons give you more damage vectors, and thus open more opportunities to strike. If you choose to take those opportunities, then it becomes harder to coordinate your strikes, and TWF penalties apply. But if you choose to take advantage of only the opportunities that easily arise, there's no problem.

The combat system models this by allowing you to switch off BAB attacks with your primary or off-hand at no penalty. When you want another attack, things become harder, and your attacks are all penalized.

There is a mechanical effect of handedness (since one's weaker or less dexterous hand (usually the left) incurs penalties), so it's necessary to know what it is for a given character.

Except that it is not really handedness because it applies to foreheads and other attacks that don't come from the weaker hand. The term is a vestige of Ambidexterity, and is used to signify the secondary attack, which doesn't necessairly mean the non-dominant hand; handedness is not necessary and nobody must have a dominant hand to attack with.

 

[Hypersmurf]

I'll buy that. But because we don't penalize for the attack/drop/draw/attack routine, I don't think we should penalize for something simpler.

To me, attack-drop-draw is the equivalent of ceasing to wield the longsword in your primary hand, and choosing to wield the dagger in your off-hand. You are still only wielding a single weapon, despite having one in each hand; you are no longer in a position to make an AoO with the longsword. So no penalty.

The combat system models this by allowing you to switch off BAB attacks with your primary or off-hand at no penalty.

Except, of course, for the penalty for attacking with a weapon held in the off-hand. (That is, the weaker or less dexterous hand - usually the left.)

Except that it is not really handedness because it applies to foreheads and other attacks that don't come from the weaker hand.

Those are treated as off-hand attacks. They receive the same penalties as an attack made with the weaker or less dexterous hand (usually the left).

-Hyp.

 

[Felix]

You are still only wielding a single weapon, despite having one in each hand; you are no longer in a position to make an AoO with the longsword. So no penalty.

I am unclear if this is an opinion or a citation.

If the first, then we will continue to disagree. If the second, I am unfamiliar with the rule distinction between wielding a weapon and simply holding it.

Except, of course, for the penalty for attacking with a weapon held in the off-hand.

Except, of course, that the TWF penalties are engaged only when this condition is present: "If you wield a second weapon in your off hand" (usually the left). Meaning that wielding only one weapon, albeit in the off-hand, does not necessarily render penalties.

As such, it does not matter to the fighter if he picks up his longsword in his right or left hand because he effectively has no dominant hand; none with any in-game effects at least until he wields a second weapon. 3.0 did not have this problem because it included the feat Ambidexterity which implicitly ruled that all characters were handed. This rule no longer exists in 3.5.

The existance of the second necessary condition, "one extra attack made with the off-hand weapon", is contentious and may be ruled either way.

 

[pawsplay]

It takes less attention to control one weapon than two. Looking for openings that one weapon might exploit is a straightforward task; looking for openings that one weapon might exploit, and for openings that a second weapon might exploit, and for openings that either might exploit, is more complicated, and can lead to missing opportunities for one while thinking about the other. How is this modelled in D&D's abstract combat system? Extra attacks are available to you, but all attacks take a penalty.

Since we're "going there." In my experience, wielding two weapons constitutes a net advantage. Even if you only attack with one, the other is still available. It is more complicated, but that only means that it is not twice as effective as wielding one weapon.

The idea that the TWF fighter actually would take penalties for AoOs is completely unrealistic. You could essentially devote your entire attention to one weapon, and still have the other one provide a periphery benefit. In fact, assuming you are wielding the two weapons together effectively, a two weapon fielder has great advantages in taking shots of opportunity.