Natural Weapons and Reach Weapons

[Kahuna Burger]

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

No, using a double weapon in both hands but not taking an extra attack with the other end is not treated as using two weapon fighting. And having and using a shield for its AC bonus is not using twf, even though you could choose on any round to attack with it.

 

[Hypersmurf]

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.)

It does - see PHB p311.

My position on the two weapon thing is fairly simple. We know that it's possible to hold a greatsword without it being usable as a weapon - holding it in one hand will certainly achieve this.

We know that it's possible to hold an urgrosh without the spiked end being usable as a weapon - swinging the axe end to add 1.5x Str bonus to damage will certainly achieve this.

We know that it's possible to hold a shield without it being usable as a weapon - benefitting from the shield bonus to AC will do it.

My position is simply that this can be generalised - one can hold a weapon without wielding it. I can hold a dagger in my off-hand, just as I can hold a torch or a lantern, and not wield it - I thus am not wielding a second weapon in my off-hand, and take no penalties, but neither can I attack or threaten with it.

-Hyp.

 

[Kahuna Burger]

It does - see PHB p311.

My position on the two weapon thing is fairly simple. We know that it's possible to hold a greatsword without it being usable as a weapon - holding it in one hand will certainly achieve this.

We know that it's possible to hold an urgrosh without the spiked end being usable as a weapon - swinging the axe end to add 1.5x Str bonus to damage will certainly achieve this.

We know that it's possible to hold a shield without it being usable as a weapon - benefitting from the shield bonus to AC will do it.

My position is simply that this can be generalised - one can hold a weapon without wielding it. I can hold a dagger in my off-hand, just as I can hold a torch or a lantern, and not wield it - I thus am not wielding a second weapon in my off-hand, and take no penalties, but neither can I attack or threaten with it.

-Hyp.

The problem I have with this stance is that in every example you gave, there is a benefit to the way that the weapon or shield is being held. Even if the case of the greatsword, you only hold it that way without weilding it to gain the benefits of a free hand. The assumption that you can hold two weapons and have one be completely useless unless you take a -2 penalty on all attacks with the other hand, does not follow directly from any of your examples because the other holding-without-wielding examples are to a purpose - casting a somatic component spell, gaining double power attack on the end of the urgosh you are using, gaining a shield bonus to XP. But on twf alone you want folks to either be holding a weapon to no use at all* or take a penalty. This is where I don't see the consistency.

*IIRC you have argued in the past that a character with TWD must take the -2 penaly on a single standard attack to even gain the feat bought benefit of treating the off hand weapon as a particulaly pointy shield. (If this was not you, I appologize.)

 

[Hypersmurf]

... gaining a shield bonus to XP.

I want a shield bonus to XP!

But on twf alone you want folks to either be holding a weapon to no use at all* or take a penalty. This is where I don't see the consistency.

Wielding two weapons gives the benefits of versatility and a potential extra attack. If you don't want those benefits (and the penalties that come along with them), don't wield two weapons. This can be achieved by leaving your dagger sheathed, or by holding it in a non-threatening fashion.

*IIRC you have argued in the past that a character with TWD must take the -2 penaly on a single standard attack to even gain the feat bought benefit of treating the off hand weapon as a particulaly pointy shield. (If this was not you, I appologize.)

No, that's probably me - TWD specifically requires that you wield two weapons, which is as I read it 'fighting this way'.

If you're not fighting this way, you're not wielding two weapons, and thus can't benefit from TWD.

Would you say that TWF penalties can apply even if you don't take an extra off-hand attack?

-Hyp.

 

[Moon-Lancer]

for weapons that don't use hands, how can they be offhand attacks if they are not wilded with hands? Isn't the definition of offhand the weaker hand?

Its my opinion that the rules are not complete when it comes to this topic. In these cases, i tend to favor balance or coolness.

 

[Pickaxe]

Just out of curiosity, how does this SRD quote from the monk's unarmed strike section fit into the alternative interpretations?

A monk’s attacks may be with either fist interchangeably or even from elbows, knees, and feet. This means that a monk may even make unarmed strikes with her hands full.

--Axe

 

[mvincent]

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

Correct. For those that desire it, the Rules of the Game says:
"If, after you made two-weapon attacks with your sword and torch, a foe later provokes an attack of opportunity from you that same round, you can strike that foe with your longsword with no two-weapon penalty at all."

 

[mvincent]

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

Ditto.

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.

Good information, however the FAQ was apparently addressing switching hands rather than simply taking a hand off a weapon:
"When you drop a
weapon, you’re releasing it and letting it drop to the ground,
with no real guidance (or attention) as to exactly where it lands.
Switching a weapon from one hand to another is certainly more
complex than simply dropping it. At the very least, switching
hands would require you to use one hand to take the weapon
from the other and at most it involves using both hands together
in a coordinated action. Either way that sounds a lot like
drawing a weapon, which is a move action. When you simply
drop a weapon, you don’t really care where it lands, and it
doesn’t require you to use the other hand to guide the action."

Even using this ruling, I would still likely allow simply removing a single hand from a weapon to be a free action.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Even using this ruling, I would still likely allow simply removing a single hand from a weapon to be a free action.

True - normally it comes up in the context of removing a hand in order to cast a spell, followed by replacing the hand.

-Hyp.

 

[Legildur]

...My position is simply that this can be generalised - one can hold a weapon without wielding it. I can hold a dagger in my off-hand, just as I can hold a torch or a lantern, and not wield it - I thus am not wielding a second weapon in my off-hand, and take no penalties, but neither can I attack or threaten with it.

I agree. I often have my longsword-wielding buckler-wearing fighter draw a dagger in his left hand, but not wield it, when faced by a serious grappling threat (where a longsword would be useless once grappled).