Multiple Attacks ?

[Hypersmurf]

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.

Again, check the 3.5 PHB Glossary, under "off-hand attack".

Attacks made with your weaker hand (generally the left) incur a -4 penalty.

-Hyp.

 

[Legildur]

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'.

<snip>

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.

I thought that would be your response. I could see where you were heading (particularly after I reread the various bits in the SRD more closely), but couldn't express it as clearly.

I think it is a little clumsy, and not necessarily the intention, but I agree with your interpretation of the RAW.

 

[ARandomGod]

Again, check the 3.5 PHB Glossary, under "off-hand attack".

Attacks made with your weaker hand (generally the left) incur a -4 penalty.

-Hyp.

Yes...
BUT, there is still no handedness.
That's simply the definition of what an off hand attack is.
And off hand attacks are only in TWF.

For actual handedness, I'd have to see where it states penalties for attacking just with this "weaker" hand.

As it stands, as far as I can read. A character can pick up a sword with the right hand one day, fight with no penalty, then switch to the left hand the next day, and fight with no penalty.

And so it follows that you can switch with each encounter...
or even each hit.

And where are the rules for what happens if you get you're non- off hand chopped off?

At the moment, as far as I can tell, there is no off hand with the exception of someone making an attack using two weapon fighting... whether with the feat or not. But, off hand does exist in that circumstance, hence the defintion.

However, if you're not making an extra attack, I see no rule that makes one hand or the other an "off hand".

Does this make sense, really? No. I fully admit that it's a result of poor wording. On the off hand, if you want to start citing things that do not make sense, you'll soon find that there are a LOT of them in this rules set.

Now, aside from the fact that THIS rule states that if you want to make an extra, off hand attack you take these penalties, there are indeed other ways to make extra attacks in different ways (rapid attack, flurry, etc) which also have used the -2 precedent... BUT, I didn't find any other rules to support a precedent of an "off hand" existing anywhere other than during the TWF action.

If you find where this is stated, or even a precedent to suggest such a thing, do please post. ^_^

 

[Hypersmurf]

For actual handedness, I'd have to see where it states penalties for attacking just with this "weaker" hand.

off hand: A character's weaker or less dextrous hand (usually the left). An attack made with the off hand incurs a -4 penalty on the attack roll. In addition, only one-half of a character's Strength bonus may be added to damage dealt with a weapon held in the left hand.

However, if you're not making an extra attack, I see no rule that makes one hand or the other an "off hand".

Your weaker or less dextrous one. Usually the left.

-Hyp.

 

[ARandomGod]

off hand: A character's weaker or less dextrous hand (usually the left). An attack made with the off hand incurs a -4 penalty on the attack roll. In addition, only one-half of a character's Strength bonus may be added to damage dealt with a weapon held in the left hand.



Your weaker or less dextrous one. Usually the left.

-Hyp.

Oh, I see that definition.
I just postulate that it's meant only for when making an off hand attack with TWF... or to say, that the only time that there is an off hand is when you do this thing.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Oh, I see that definition.
I just postulate that it's meant only for when making an off hand attack with TWF... or to say, that the only time that there is an off hand is when you do this thing.

So your weaker or less dextrous hand isn't weaker or less dextrous unless you're swinging a longsword in your other hand?

-Hyp.

 

[Caliban]

Oh, I see that definition.
I just postulate that it's meant only for when making an off hand attack with TWF... or to say, that the only time that there is an off hand is when you do this thing.

That definition makes no reference to TWF. Also, your "hypothosis" does not resemble the way it works in the real world.

So, why would you assume this?

 

[ARandomGod]

That definition makes no reference to TWF. Also, your "hypothosis" does not resemble the way it works in the real world.

So, why would you assume this?

I agree. It doesn't seem very real worldy...
well, with the exception that in the real world there really are people who are ambidexterous. And in the real world people can't really move 30'
Nor can they hold their breath that long.
Indeed, there are a lot of things in this setting that don't accurately reflect life.

I made the assumption based on four things
1) I cannot find any reference other than in TWF where it referrs to an off hand. I assume, however, if it's in there someone can.
2) They no longer have ambidexiterity... and yet they still have the end result be the same
3) I don't see any reference to where you pick what handed you are. Once again I assume that, if it's there, someone knows or can find it. I have no illusions of knowing the whole book.
4) They did the same thing in at least one other instance, the Monk's Leap of the Clouds ability. They "took it away", but really gave it to everyone.

So your weaker or less dextrous hand isn't weaker or less dextrous unless you're swinging a longsword in your other hand?

-Hyp.

Yup. I don't claim it makes sense, I merely state that this is my understanding of the current rules the way they are written.

 

[D+1]

Again, check the 3.5 PHB Glossary, under "off-hand attack".

Attacks made with your weaker hand (generally the left) incur a -4 penalty.

That definition is IN the glossary because of the use of "off-hand" in TWF. It is not, however, generally applicable. There is no "off-hand" without TWF.

 

[dcollins]

Yes...
BUT, there is still no handedness.
That's simply the definition of what an off hand attack is.

Click! <Mentally changing channels on that cue>