SRD: Two-Wapon Fighting said:
Does "in this way" mean whenever "you wield a weapon in your off hand", or does it mean whenever you "get one extra attack"? IMNSHO, both options are viable interpretations with fairly different results.
(Not) Fighting with Two Weapons
- Thread starter InVinoVeritas
- Start date
Does "in this way" mean whenever "you wield a weapon in your off hand", or does it mean whenever you "get one extra attack"? IMNSHO, both options are viable interpretations with fairly different results.
Persiflage
First Post
Well, here's my interpretation... If you're just "holding" a weapon in your off-hand, it might just as well be a lantern, an ornamental clock or a banana for all the game effect it has. The penalties associated with two-weapon fighting (whether or not you actually suffer any) are because wielding two weapons is hard. It requires extra timing and concentration, and it's all about the intent to involve the contents of your off-hand in your attack and defence patterns. "Holding" something is not "using" it unless explicitly stated or implied by the nature of the item, so you don't get use-activated effects but you don't suffer any penalties either.
By the very definition you quoted, if you're "wielding" a weapon in your off-hand, you have the opportunity to take extra attacks. That's what wielding a weapon in your off-hand means. Even if you don't *take* the extra attacks, you are still wielding the weapon, still get the use-activated effects, can still make AoO's with your off-hand and suffer the penalties for wielding an off-hand weapon.
If you're just "holding" the weapon, you can't do any of the above, in my opinion at least. You're avoiding the penalty by not trying to take into account the movements of your other hand, so in my book you don't threaten with your off-hand either. It's the difference between fencing with a rapier only, or fencing with a rapier and a main-gauche. If you're fencing with your off-hand behind your back, it doesn't matter if you've got a dagger in it, you're still only fencing with a rapier because you're not concentrating on using your other hand.
I'm sure other people's mileage will vary significantly, but I've always liked to make the distinction clear. If a player is wielding an off-hand weapon, they're wielding it until the start of their next turn, with all that implies. If they're "holding" an off-hand weapon, then it's not ready to be brought to bear, doesn't grant use-activated effects (unless otherwise stated), can't be used for AoO's and doesn't impose a penalty. I'm aware that this is a significant simplification versus real-world examples, but so is the entire fighting system and I'm cool with that
Theo R Cwithin
I cast "Baconstorm!"
There was a related a few months ago that has some discussion along these lines: "wielding two weapons... but not TWF"
Also, here's the Rules of the Game article, "Two-handed Fighting (Part 1)", which might be helpful. FInally, the 3.5e FAQ contains some material on finghting with two weapons, as well.
Also, here's the Rules of the Game article, "Two-handed Fighting (Part 1)", which might be helpful. FInally, the 3.5e FAQ contains some material on finghting with two weapons, as well.
Last edited:
Well, parsing it you get:
"If a, then b. When a"
So, to my mind, it's when you are fighting in a two-weapon manner.
I was going to refer to p. 137 of the PH, but it brings up more potential problems, specifically the use of the phrase "at your normal attack bonus." While I rarely get an AoO, we've always played that your AoO is as if it were a standard melee attack. Which could be argued as not your normal attack bonus. For example, when dual wielding, my normal attack is at +15 to hit. So do I get an AoO at +15, or +17 (a standard melee attack).
The way we have always presumed it to be is that each AoO is equivalent to a standard melee attack. In fact, with Combat Expertise, it specifically says you get your "full normal attack bonus." I imagine that's the RAI.
