Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Hypersmurf" data-source="post: 3211254" data-attributes="member: 1656">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.</blockquote>

Verification