Improved Unarmed Strike and 2H weapons

[Hypersmurf]

The description links up only implicity with the TWF table.

Right. One must assume that the -6/-10 TWF penalty includes the -4 off-hand penalty. But it's not a great leap to make.

-Hyp.

 

[Felix]

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?

Every attack you make in a round is has a -2 TWF penalty associated with it: you choose to fight with two weapons just before you make the first attack. So, if with your Longsword of Speed and dagger, you chose to "fight in this way*", then if you attack with your Longsword with your BAB attacks and your speed attack and then drop the orc, but don't get your extra attack with the dagger, yes, you incur the penalties.

You would incur the penalties if you had a +16 BAB, TWF, Improved TWF, Greater TWF, and a weapon of speed and you dropped the opponent in the first hit. Were other opponents in your threatened area, you would then be able to turn your attention to them.

*Assuming this definition: Wield two weapons and gain an extra attack with your off-hand weapon.

 

[Infiniti2000]

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.

Okay, I agree with you. Thanks for the clarification. It's been an assumption that all attacks are made.

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?

(adds "orc" to firefox 2.0's dictionary...) It depends on the full attack action you made. This is sloppy on my part, admittedly. You need to declare if you are using TWF or not prior to the full attack, otherwise you will not have the correct attack roll modifier.

 

[Hypersmurf]

It depends on the full attack action you made. This is sloppy on my part, admittedly. You need to declare if you are using TWF or not prior to the full attack, otherwise you will not have the correct attack roll modifier.

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.

 

[Felix]

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

Difference:

Longsword and Dagger in hand.
Threaten with Longsword.
Threaten with Dagger.
2 BAB attacks.
1 Potential Extra off-hand attack.

Option 1:
Decide to only attack with the longsword. No TWF penalties. No extra attack with the dagger. You still threaten, are still weilding, and still may take AoO's with either the longsword or the dagger.

Option 2:
Decide to gain an extra attack with the dagger and incur TWF penalties on all attacks that round. You gain an extra attack with the dagger. You still threaten, are still wielding, and still may take AoO's with either the longsword or the dagger.

---

Your interpretation means that if the character does not choose to "wield" his dagger, then he no longer threatens with it, nor may he take AoO's with it. This necessitates a distinction between "wielding" and "holding in such a manner that you could if you wanted to, but still arn't wielding".

And please excuse me if I have muddied your position with others'; arguments have gotten somewhat cris-crossed.

 

[glass]

Your interpretation means that if the character does not choose to "wield" his dagger, then he no longer threatens with it, nor may he take AoO's with it. This necessitates a distinction between "wielding" and "holding in such a manner that you could if you wanted to, but still arn't wielding".

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.


glass.

 

[Felix]

Why is such a distinction a problem?

I see no precident for it in the rules and it makes combat more complicated by adding a requirement for TWFighters to decide at several points durning the round to decide which weapon they're "wielding". Will a defending dagger add its enhancement bonus to AC if you're merely holding it?

And before someone mentions "Quarterstaff", the text for that weapon specifies that it requires two hands to wield; this is a special condition of the weapon and not a condition for weapons in general. Put two hands on the weapon and you're weilding it. Keep it simple.

Can you not visualise and way have holding a dagger (say) where it is not threatening?

There is a difference, I think, between being threatening with the weapon (as in, "Oh, my! Look at that scary threatening person with the dagger!") and wielding the weapon. Holding it nonchalantly will still allow you to take advantage of the fact that you have a weapon in hand and so have threatened areas.

 

[Neverwill]

I see no precident for it in the rules and it makes combat more complicated by adding a requirement for TWFighters to decide at several points durning the round to decide which weapon they're "wielding". Will a defending dagger add its enhancement bonus to AC if you're merely holding it?

For what it's worth, here's what the 3.0 FAQ had to say about it:

Do you have to actively wield a weapon of defending to
use its power? Or could you hold a longsword of defending
in your left hand, not use it to attack (so you are not
actually using the two weapons) and still wield a sword in
your right hand without penalties? Or is the defending
bonus considered part of the normal parrying that happens
in the background?

Using a weapon of defending works just like the Expertise
feat. (You have to use an attack or full attack action.) You can’t
use the weapon like a shield; if you hold the weapon in your off
hand and claim an Armor Class bonus for it, you take all the
penalties for fighting with two weapons, even if you don’t
actually attack with the weapon.

 

[billd91]

For what it's worth, here's what the 3.0 FAQ had to say about it:

Originally Posted by 3.0 FAQ
Do you have to actively wield a weapon of defending to
use its power? Or could you hold a longsword of defending
in your left hand, not use it to attack (so you are not
actually using the two weapons) and still wield a sword in
your right hand without penalties? Or is the defending
bonus considered part of the normal parrying that happens
in the background?

Using a weapon of defending works just like the Expertise
feat. (You have to use an attack or full attack action.) You can’t
use the weapon like a shield; if you hold the weapon in your off
hand and claim an Armor Class bonus for it, you take all the
penalties for fighting with two weapons, even if you don’t
actually attack with the weapon.

I think in this case, even though you're not actually taking the extra attack, it's clear that you're actively using the weapon in the round in which you are claiming the bonus. That's different from having it in your hand but fighting in the same style you would use if your off-hand were empty or holding a daisy or some other object useless as a weapon or shield.
You're using it to actively affect the fight in progress and that, I think, constitutes "fighting in this way".
It also provides me with even more desire to keep the TWF penalties until the beginning of the next round if you choose to make TWF attacks. Here's an example of a case in which using TWF can gain you an AC bonus that should last through the round and thus enforce an appropriate penalty through the round.

 

[glass]

I see no precident for it in the rules and it makes combat more complicated by adding a requirement for TWFighters to decide at several points durning the round to decide which weapon they're "wielding".

And before someone mentions "Quarterstaff", the text for that weapon specifies that it requires two hands to wield;

However you slice it, it is a precedent for holding a weapon but not wielding it. Restrictions on how you can carry a weapon without wielding it is adding rules (and complexity), not subtracting.

Put two hands on the weapon and you're weilding it. Keep it simple.

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


glass.