Improved Unarmed Strike and 2H weapons

[pawsplay]

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.

The benefits and penalties for TWF are... what? I only see penalties and benefits for attacking.

Applying TWF penalties to an AoO to me is about the same as giving reach to a monk's forehead if he also attacks with his longspear, since he "has reach."

Other consequences of a character only "wielding" two weapons if he attacks with both with penalties:

- Two weapon defense is only helpful if you make a full attack
- A character who makes an attack instead of a full round attack will have to use a move action to "wield" his other weapon again. Further, since taking a move action precludes a full round attack, he cannot simply "wield" his weapon the next turn if he attacks again; without TWF, any character who attacks with two weapons must attack, THEN wield again in order to be wielding two weapons again.
- For a partial action, the TWF character is either penalized arbitrarily, or else does not suffer the penalties (even though it has been suggested a character who simply attacked with only one weapon would).

 

[Infiniti2000]

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, then for your reading of 'fighting this way' you need to define what kind of action is required to 'wield' a weapon when you're merely 'holding' it. Say I have a longsword and dagger in hand and I make a (full) attack with just the longsword, choosing (using your reading) to only 'wield' the longsword. At the end of my attack, if wielding the dagger is a free action, I can choose to do that and make an AoO with either weapon. If wielding the dagger is a move action, then I can only choose to do that after making a standard action with the longsword.

And then you also have to rule the ambiguous case where no attack is made. Say I withdraw and an opponent runs past me, provoking. I had both weapons in hand, but which one is wielded?

 

[Infiniti2000]

So, if I don't have IUS/natural weapons and on my turn I attack with a longsword (SA), drop it (FE), then draw a dagger (MA), I can't make any attacks of opportunity?

Did you make an off-hand attack with the dagger?

No. I made no attack with the dagger in that example. I merely drew it--which I personally assume is the same as wielding it, but others such as Legildur apparently do not, and I don't know what kind of action they require to go from drawing it to wielding it.

 

[Hypersmurf]

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

It's how things fit together once the "fighting this way = wielding a second weapon" reading is undertaken.

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.

I'm not talking about a TWF penalty; I'm talking about the penalty for using a weapon - second or otherwise - in your off-hand. PHB p311.

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...

Which I would consider to be represented in-game by ceasing to wield the second weapon, thus removing the penalty, but also disallowing AoOs with that weapon.

At the end of my attack, if wielding the dagger is a free action, I can choose to do that and make an AoO with either weapon.

Certainly. 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.

And then you also have to rule the ambiguous case where no attack is made. Say I withdraw and an opponent runs past me, provoking. I had both weapons in hand, but which one is wielded?

Whichever weapon or weapons you were wielding at the end of your last turn.

-Hyp.

 

[Felix]

It's how things fit together once the "fighting this way = wielding a second weapon" reading is undertaken.

So the distinction between wielding a weapon and holding a weapon in your hand is implicit, and othewise not mentioned in the text, only if "fighting in this way = wielding a second weapon"?

This implies a game mechanic has been created to reconcile the TWF issue. Is that correct?

 

[Hypersmurf]

So the distinction between wielding a weapon and holding a weapon in your hand is implicit, and othewise not mentioned in the text, only if "fighting in this way = wielding a second weapon"?

This implies a game mechanic has been created to reconcile the TWF issue. Is that correct?

We already know that it's possible to hold a weapon without wielding it - consider, again, a quarterstaff held in one hand.

-Hyp.

 

[glass]

How about if there are no penalties and yet you chose not to take them (despite being zero) or could not choose to take them? I think there's a feat that reduces the penalties to zero, or consider if I have to move up to my enemy and make a single attack but have two weapons in hand--can I not make an AoO with a different weapon?

If the penalties are 0, then you would always choose to take them. If for some perverse reason you didn't, then you would limit yourself, but why would you?

BTW, how to you get TWF penalties to 0?


glass.

 

[Egres]

Interestingly, the combat action description for drawing a weapon says, "Drawing a weapon so that you can use it in combat..." There's no option for a drawing a weapon that you will not use in combat.

Why not?

Let's suppose that a wiz casts Programmed Image that is programmed to project something "shiny, harmless but good to see" when one of his friend, a powerless commoner, draws his weapon, just to appear as someone who has great powers.

"By the power of grayskull"....

 

[Klaus]

If the penalties are 0, then you would always choose to take them. If for some perverse reason you didn't, then you would limit yourself, but why would you?

BTW, how to you get TWF penalties to 0?


glass.

The Tempest PrClass (5 levels, Complete Adventurer) has the Ambidexterity ability, which reduces the TWF penalties to -1 and then to -0 if you fight with a light weapon (if you fight with a onehanded weapon, the penalties are reduced to -3 and then -2 -- these could be further reduced with Oversized TWF).

 

[Felix]

Edited. Back later.