Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="billd91" data-source="post: 3214951" data-attributes="member: 3400">I don't think there's anything to this wielding/holding thing.&nbsp; If you've got the required number of hands on it, you're wielding it. End of story. 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.&nbsp;I'm a bit torn on this one. I'd prefer the penalty from the previous round (if TWF was used) to stay just to be consistent with the handling of Power Attack, Combat Expertise, and Flurry of Blows, all of which impose a penalty that carries through to the beginning of the next round. I think that's a rule that should remain consistently applied for similar cases.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="billd91, post: 3214951, member: 3400"] I don't think there's anything to this wielding/holding thing. If you've got the required number of hands on it, you're wielding it. End of story. 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. I'm a bit torn on this one. I'd prefer the penalty from the previous round (if TWF was used) to stay just to be consistent with the handling of Power Attack, Combat Expertise, and Flurry of Blows, all of which impose a penalty that carries through to the beginning of the next round. I think that's a rule that should remain consistently applied for similar cases. [/QUOTE]

Verification