Odd but legal?

[Hypersmurf]

Yes, wielding, as in using to hit. As in getting an attack roll with it.

Wielding a weapon doesn't require making an attack roll!

In order to benefit from a Defending weapon, you must be the wielder. That doesn't require you to attack anyone.

In order to threaten with my longsword, I must be wielding it. But I'm not required to make an attack roll with it for you to gain a flanking bonus because I threaten.

-Hyp.

 

[hong]

Wielding a weapon doesn't require making an attack roll!

Yes it does, because otherwise you do not qualify for the TWF abstraction. Otherwise, you're just making an attack with one weapon, with something else held in your hand for show.

In order to benefit from a Defending weapon, you must be the wielder. That doesn't require you to attack anyone.

And that too is an artifact of the rules. Just because it leads to no major violations of the abstraction there, doesn't mean it can be applied elsewhere willy-nilly.

In order to threaten with my longsword, I must be wielding it. But I'm not required to make an attack roll with it for you to gain a flanking bonus because I threaten.

Ditto.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Yes it does, because otherwise you do not qualify for the TWF abstraction. Otherwise, you're just making an attack with one weapon, with something else held in your hand for show.

If I am wielding a second weapon in my off-hand, I can make an extra attack with that weapon.

Can, not must. I can wield a second weapon in my off-hand without making an extra attack with that weapon.

That's not an artifact of the rules; that's just rules. Wielding and attacking are not synonymous.

-Hyp.

 

[hong]

If I am wielding a second weapon in my off-hand, I can make an extra attack with that weapon.

Can, not must. I can wield a second weapon in my off-hand without making an extra attack with that weapon.

That's not an artifact of the rules; that's just rules. Wielding and attacking are not synonymous.

That's right. But the point was what's required to be considered to be using TWF. If you _do_ make an extra attack, it has to be with a second weapon if you are to be considered to be using TWF. Because in the end, that's what TWF is about, rules manipulations to the contrary notwithstanding.

 

[Hypersmurf]

That's right. But the point was what's required to be considered to be using TWF. If you _do_ make an extra attack, it has to be with a second weapon if you are to be considered to be using TWF. Because in the end, that's what TWF is about, rules manipulations to the contrary notwithstanding.

And it is with a second weapon. One that, earlier in the round, was a first weapon.

Just like we can make an attack with a second weapon which, earlier in the round, was neither a first nor a second weapon.

-Hyp.

 

[hong]

And it is with a second weapon. One that, earlier in the round, was a first weapon.

No, no, that won't work. The model foundation, unlike the rules framework, cannot be given the runaround.

At least not without large quantities of alcohol.

 

[James McMurray]

If I give you a dollar, take it back, then give it to you again, have I given you a second dollar?

 

[Hypersmurf]

If I give you a dollar, take it back, then give it to you again, have I given you a second dollar?

If you give me a dollar, take it back, and then give me a different dollar, have you given me a second dollar?

What's the key criterion? a/ I'm in possession of two of your dollars? b/ I've received two dollars which are not the same physical object? c/ I've received a dollar from you on two separate occasions?

If a/ is the key, both questions are No. If c/ is the key, both questions are Yes. The only criterion which distinguishes the two questions is b/... and is there any reason I should be concerned whether the dollar I receive on the second occasion is or is not the same dollar I received on the first occasion?

-Hyp.

 

[hong]

I see no alcohol here.

 

[Moon-Lancer]

If I give you a dollar, take it back, then give it to you again, have I given you a second dollar?

do you know if i have taken the first dollar?