Natural Weapons and Reach Weapons

[hong]

There's debate. I'd say sure, no problem.

Skip Williams, in the 3E Main FAQ, called it a free action. Then Andy Collins, in the 3.5 Main FAQ, called it a move action. The Skip Williams, in a Rules of the Game article, called it a free action again.

-Hyp.

I'd split the difference and call it a swift action.

ME == GOOD

 

[Kahuna Burger]

I disagree. I would allow someone to take iterative attacks with different weapons (say, an attack with a reach weapon against one foe, and an attack with a kick against another foe) without further penalties as long as they were on different iterative attacks. By the same token, both those weapons could be used for attacks of opportunity without penalty. I would only apply TWF penalties when the character gained an extra attack from the two weapons (say a 11th level Monk with a Longspear attacking twice with the longspear and kicking someone adjacent - this would have to be declared at the start of the full attack and two weapon penalties would apply with the unarmed strike as the "off-hand" attack.

Agrred. twf would not come into play unless it was being used to gain an additional attack. Having two weapons availble and choosing a different one for any given normal attack or aoo that you get should not incur twf penalties, imo.

 

[silentspace]

Agrred. twf would not come into play unless it was being used to gain an additional attack. Having two weapons availble and choosing a different one for any given normal attack or aoo that you get should not incur twf penalties, imo.

Seconded.

 

[Hypersmurf]

It's all dependent on one's reading of 'fight this way'.

If you wield a second weapon in your off hand, you can get one extra attack per round with that weapon. You suffer a –6 penalty with your regular attack or attacks with your primary hand and a –10 penalty to the attack with your off hand when you fight this way.

To me, 'this way' is wielding a second weapon in your off hand, and the consequences are a/ you can get one extra attack, and b/ you suffer penalties.

'can get' doesn't sound like a 'way' of fighting to me, while wielding a second weapon does.

-Hyp.

 

[Elethiomel]

It's all dependent on one's reading of 'fight this way'.

If you wield a second weapon in your off hand, you can get one extra attack per round with that weapon. You suffer a –6 penalty with your regular attack or attacks with your primary hand and a –10 penalty to the attack with your off hand when you fight this way.

To me, 'this way' is wielding a second weapon in your off hand, and the consequences are a/ you can get one extra attack, and b/ you suffer penalties.

'can get' doesn't sound like a 'way' of fighting to me, while wielding a second weapon does.

-Hyp.

Yeah, I agree that it comes down to the reading of 'fight this way'. I read it as "when you are using that weapon to get one extra attack per round". Note: This is just providing my interpretation. I think I'm right, but I know you think you're right too. No disrespect intended.

 

[glass]

I'd split the difference and call it a swift action.

Good call. I think I'll do the same.


glass.

 

[glass]

Agrred. twf would not come into play unless it was being used to gain an additional attack. Having two weapons availble and choosing a different one for any given normal attack or aoo that you get should not incur twf penalties, imo.

Disagreed. I read 'this way' as meaning 'with two weapons', regardless of how many attacks you make.

Just so Hyp doesn't feel like a lone voice in the wilderness.


glass.

 

[Kahuna Burger]

Disagreed. I read 'this way' as meaning 'with two weapons', regardless of how many attacks you make.

Just so Hyp doesn't feel like a lone voice in the wilderness.


glass.

The problem is that you can also make an extra attack with a double weapon, or by using your shield as an off hand weapon. But you do not take two weapon fighting penalties unless you choose to take that extra attack, not merely for being equipped to do so.

More importantly, since the phrasing is admittedly ambiguous, what is the value of choosing to interpret it in a way that makes a mechanically suboptimal fighting style worse for no significant benifit? You already give up the possibility of going for higher damage per hit with a two handed weapon or the ac benefit of a shield, or having hand free for casting with only a one handed weapon. If you aren't actually getting another attack out of it, why add penalties greater than what you are giving up for the possible advantages of some flexibility in choosing which weapon to take each attack with, when it is possible to interpret the rules otherwise?

I will say that the off hand penalty should apply to one weapon if you have not taken the two weapon fighting feat (as ambidexterity no longer exists as a seperate feat.)

 

[Deset Gled]

The problem is that you can also make an extra attack with a double weapon, or by using your shield as an off hand weapon. But you do not take two weapon fighting penalties unless you choose to take that extra attack, not merely for being equipped to do so.

Err, using a double weapon or a shield bash is the same as using two weapons.

More importantly, since the phrasing is admittedly ambiguous, what is the value of choosing to interpret it in a way that makes a mechanically suboptimal fighting style worse for no significant benifit?

Because there can be a significant benefit. If you are allowed to take attacks with a second weapon with no penalty, then you are allowed to threated with that weapon without taking penalty, and you can gain a lot from just carrying extra weapons. Any monk can carry around a reach weapon and make AoOs with reach all day long and never take any penalties for it. A fighter with a reach weapon can just add on armor spikes and never have to worry about not threatening adjacent squares. Requiring TWF penalties for these options nerfs these tactics, which have a lot of potential for abuse.

 

[The Grackle]

A fighter with a reach weapon can just add on armor spikes and never have to worry about not threatening adjacent squares. Requiring TWF penalties for these options nerfs these tactics, which have a lot of potential for abuse.

You must see a lot of spiked chains in your games.