Multiple Attacks ?

[Darklone]

Huhm. Just noticed something about your quotes up there, Hyp. Armour spikes & TWF: Two weapon fighting description states as quoted above "If you wield a second weapon in your off hand, you can get one extra attack per round with that weapon. ..."
E.g. TWF and armour spikes is easily possible, you simple don't get extra attacks

 

[Hypersmurf]

Huhm. Just noticed something about your quotes up there, Hyp. Armour spikes & TWF: Two weapon fighting description states as quoted above "If you wield a second weapon in your off hand, you can get one extra attack per round with that weapon. ..."
E.g. TWF and armour spikes is easily possible, you simple don't get extra attacks

The same argument's been brought up in response to Armor Spikes and Greatsword.

With AS and Longsword, it's argued, you're using the spikes on your off-hand to strike; with AS and Greatsword, your off-hand is occupied, so Greatsword plus shoulder-spikes TWF is impossible.

I've never really seen those questions successfully resolved, though

-Hyp.

 

[Darklone]

AS + Greatsword: that's what I meant.

I never read that yet... kewl.

 

[D+1]

Now, would you allow him to take his full attack with his longsword (incurring TWF penalties), then Quickdraw his axe in his left hand and take the extra off-hand attack?

I can tell you that I would. [edit: I at first said I wouldn't, but further review of the matter shows it's a bit of a non-starter.] It requires a Full Attack action to fight with two weapons. That means no movement other than 5' step. In order to make this technique effective you have to sheath the secondary weapon every round - which is a Move action and can't be done in the same round as TWF. Therefore if you've moved you CAN'T quickdraw and attack because that constitutes TWF - which is a Full Round action and is thus forbidden because you've moved. If you HAVEN'T moved you can do it, but then the next round you're faced with the same dilemma - sheathing it is a move action, TWF is a full action, quickdraw to MAKE the TWF action is thus not possible because you can't sheath the sword and perform a Full Round action. It's a net loss of effective attacks.

It seems a little after-the-fact but it's sensible, legal, and keeps someone from trying that kind of abuse. Solving that kind of abuse would certainly lend credence to the interpretation that simply holding a second weapon in your off-hand (regardless of whether you use it or not) invokes TWF penalties. Personally I'd still disagree. I say you CAN hold anything in your off-hand - including a weapon and the TWF penalties aren't invoked unless you USE it. Using it would include getting Defending bonuses from it. Although you might not attack with it you're still using it as a weapon. It gets a little dodgy but common sense is easily applicable to maintain order.

It does still leave open the matter of allowing iterative attacks at no penalty followed by the quickdraw/TWF attack. I'm a little undecided. It does take an additional feat to pull it off and you can't do it consistently from round to round without the net loss of effective attacks.

Then we have the question - if I have just the longsword and the TWF feat, can I make my normal full complement of iterative attacks (four in this case) with my right hand at -4, shift the sword to my left hand, and make an off-hand attack at -4?

Kind of a trick question there, but no. If you have only ONE physical weapon in use during the round then it's irrelevant which hand you make your iterative attacks in. Switch back and forth as much as you like - it's still just ONE sword. This is particularly true in 3.5 which does away entirely with handedness/ambidexterity EXCEPT when fighting with two weapons. In 3.0 you'd only get a penalty for any attack made with your one weapon in your off-hand and your normal number of iterative attacks.

BTW, why all the questions related to armor spikes lately? It's like a meme that's suddenly made itself a nuisance.

 

[Hypersmurf]

I can tell you that I wouldn't because then quickdraw more than effectively substitutes for TWF. You're restricted in not being able to move in order to sheath the secondary weapon every round, but otherwise you'd constantly get all your normal attacks at no penalty...

Oh, no, absolutely not - notice that I specifically said "incurring TWF penalties" with the longsword.

If you want to get the extra attack with the off-hand, you need to take the TWF penalties on your primary attacks, even if you don't happen to be holding the off-hand weapon at the time.

So it would be longsword at -4, longsword at -9, longsword at -14, longsword at -19, quickdraw axe, axe at -4.

After all, I can throw weapons with both hands, taking TWF penalties, which requires drawing them between attacks. Where's the difference?

I say you CAN hold anything in your off-hand - including a weapon and the TWF penalties aren't invoked unless you USE it. Using it would include getting Defending bonuses from it. Although you might not attack with it you're still using it as a weapon.

Right - that's pretty much how I do it. And 'using' it, to me, includes threatening an area.

So if you want to threaten an area with your off-hand weapon for the rest of the initiative cycle, you take TWF penalties with your main weapon... even if you don't actually swing the off-hand weapon.

This is particularly true in 3.5 which does away entirely with handedness/ambidexterity EXCEPT when fighting with two weapons. In 3.0 you'd only get a penalty for any attack made with your one weapon in your off-hand and your normal number of iterative attacks.

This is still true in 3.5. See the PHB Glossary under 'off-hand attack' - any attack made with your weaker hand (normally the left) incurs a -4 penalty. Not just when you're attacking with two weapons.

-Hyp.

 

[Legildur]

Now, would you allow him to take his full attack with his longsword (incurring TWF penalties), then Quickdraw his axe in his left hand and take the extra off-hand attack?
-Hyp.

Nope. From the Full Attack desciption in the SRD (my emphasis):

If you get multiple attacks because your base attack bonus is high enough, you must make the attacks in order from highest bonus to lowest. If you are using two weapons, you can strike with either weapon first. If you are using a double weapon, you can strike with either part of the weapon first.

So, to me, that means for a long sword/dagger two-weapon fighter with a +6 BAB, your attack sequence (without relevant bonuses or penalties) would be either:

- sword(+6)/dagger(+6)/sword(+1); or
- dagger(+6)/sword(+6)/sword(+1).

So no, you can't have your iterative attacks and then take an off-hand attack (even though that is how most players do it for convenience).

Then we have the question - if I have just the longsword and the TWF feat, can I make my normal full complement of iterative attacks (four in this case) with my right hand at -4, shift the sword to my left hand, and make an off-hand attack at -4?
-Hyp.

And no again, for the same reason I outlined above.

But a more interesting question would be would I allow either first attack with primary hand, switch to off-hand and get TWF bonus attack, switch back to primary hand and continue iterative BAB attacks? Or start with bonus TWF attack with off-hand, then switch to primary hand and make all iterative BAB attacks. Personally, that smells bad to me.

 

[Hypersmurf]

If you get multiple attacks because your base attack bonus is high enough, you must make the attacks in order from highest bonus to lowest.

But only the attacks with the sword are "multiple attacks because your base attack bonus is high enough".

The attack with the dagger is an "attack because you are wielding a second weapon in your off-hand". As such, it falls outside the condition on the order of attacks.

Your longsword attacks must be in the order +6 followed by +1. There's nothing to state that your dagger attack must be anywhere in particular in that sequence.

-Hyp.

 

[Legildur]

But only the attacks with the sword are "multiple attacks because your base attack bonus is high enough".

The attack with the dagger is an "attack because you are wielding a second weapon in your off-hand". As such, it falls outside the condition on the order of attacks.

Your longsword attacks must be in the order +6 followed by +1. There's nothing to state that your dagger attack must be anywhere in particular in that sequence.

-Hyp.

Perhaps I'm reading too much into it, but that off-hand attack is at your highest BAB is it not?

Say in the above example that the Improved Two Weapon Fighting feat was in effect. What would the attack sequence then look like?

My guess would be:

S6/D6/S1/D1 or
S6/D6/D1/S1 or
D6/S6/D1/S1 or
D6/S6/S1/D1

That is, still have to follow iterative attacks from BAB from highest to lowest, but can choose which hand (primary or off-hand) attacks first at each BAB.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Perhaps I'm reading too much into it, but that off-hand attack is at your highest BAB is it not?

Yes, it is... but BAB is not why you get the attack.

The order is for multiple attacks "because your BAB is high enough". The off-hand attack uses your BAB... but it doesn't depend on that BAB being 'high enough'.

That is, still have to follow iterative attacks from BAB from highest to lowest, but can choose which hand (primary or off-hand) attacks first at each BAB.

Ah, but then we run into another problem.

Let's say I have a BAB of +11/+6/+1, and the GTWF feat.

With my primary hand, I make three attacks (because my BAB is high enough). Each attack has a BAB component, and other modifiers.

The BAB component of these three attacks is +11, +6, and +1 respectively.

With my off-hand, I make three attacks (because I have a second weapon in my off-hand, because I have the ITWF feat, and because I have the GTWF feat, respectively). Each attack has a BAB component, and other modifiers.

The BAB component of all three off-hand attacks is +11. Not +11, +6, and +1. The ITWF feat imposes a -5 penalty on the attack roll for the second attack, and the GTWF feat imposes a -10 penalty on the attack roll for the third attack.

So if we assume that the order rule applies to all attacks (not just those "because your BAB is high enough", but those derived from feats, Haste spells, etc as well), and if we assume that "in order of highest bonus to lowest" refers to the BAB component of the attack, then we see that every single off-hand attack must occur before the second primary attack, since they all have the same BAB component as the first primary attack (+11), and must therefore come earlier in the 'highest to lowest' order than the second and third primary attacks (using BAB of +6 and +1 respectively).

-Hyp.

 

[ARandomGod]

That's why I don't like in 3.5 that they got rid of Ambidexterity. If you were playing 3.0, you normally got 4 attacks, and you wanted to divide them between two weapons, then with Ambidexterity I think that would be fine with no penalties. In 3.5, though, I'm not sure how to handle it, other than to just let you do it.

Actually, if you look at the rules, you'll notice that they didn't get rid of ambidexterity, they simply gave it by default to everybody. Kind of like the Monk's Leap of the Clouds ability. It's no longer there... but everyone now gets the same benifit (3.0 to 3.5)

And therefore...
If you're not taking TWF's extra attacks, you are not wielding the weapon in your other hand, you're simply holding it... and then you're simply switching hands and now holding it in your primary hand and "holding" the other in your off hand while attacking with the hand you were previously just holding it in.

And so, Yes. You can indeed, if you have four attacks, attack with two different weapons, switching at will, up to four times.

Now, this next point is not stated explicitly, mind you... But you can also only attack three times.
Seriously.
But I digress.
The book no longer makes you define the "handedness" of your character. You can hold a weapon in the left and in the right, then attack with either as a full attack without having either be an off hand. Therefore I don't see why you can't switch at will without having either be an off hand.
On the other hand, if you're using the TWF feat, you cannot switch at will, one hand becomes an off hand and one the main hand. But you can switch which is which from round to round.