Odd but legal?

[Veril]

I think consulting the rules here is relevant.

to make more than 1 attack in a round requires the full attack action. If you are using two weapon fighting to do this, you must state so, because you take a penalty on your attack roll with both primary and secondsry weapons (the penalty varies depending on feats and weapons used).

Your statement of intent must therefore involve the fact that you intend to use two weapon fighting. There is no way around this. (You could abort and use a move action later if needed)

Under the rules for two weapon fighting it states "If you wield a second weapon in your off hand, you can get one extra attack per round with that weapon."

It is clear that your extra attack comes with the second weapon, and that must be the weapon being wielded in your off hand.

It's clear that you must be wielding two weapons in order to perform two weapon fighting.

It is clear that the weapon in your primaty hand is the first weapon

It is clear that the weapon in your off hand is the secondary weapon.

It is clear that the first and second weapons are different weapon.

From those it should be blindingly obvious that you cannot swap one weapon from your primary to your off hand and then attack with it, as this is the first weapon, and the extra attack comes from the second weapon.

It is clear that at the time you begin to use two weapon fighting (doing a full attack) you must have two weapons in hand. Otherwise it would not be legal to perform two weapon fighting (because of the penalties).

I maintain that the weapon you make the offhand attack with must be the same as the one you began with. Because of the penalties.

Hypersmurf's complicated example of attack, step, drop, draw, attack fails, because the new weapon drawn may impose different penalties on the attack roll that you have already resolved and therefor a different result.

1st attack (longsword vs zombie AC10). Assume rolls 11, -2 (2 weapon fighting) +2 from BAB/Strength). that's a nett 11 vs AC 10, a hit. damage kills zombie.

5' step to skelly, drop handaxe, draw a heavy mace and attack skelly with that.

At this point looking backwards we see that the 1st attack should have taken a additional -2 (from non-light in offhand) which would have resulted in the 1st attack missing. This would result in a violation of the underlying space time continium and so cannot be allowed.

Therefor to keep the rules consistant and prevent this sort of thing happening, and from all my previously earlier conclusiongs I would state the following

To use two weapon fighting in a round you must begin your attack sequence with the two weapons you intent to use throughout the full sequence of your attacks.

 

[The Blow Leprechaun]

I think consulting the rules here is relevant.

Ridiculous!

Under the rules for two weapon fighting it states "If you wield a second weapon in your off hand, you can get one extra attack per round with that weapon."

That pretty much says it all, doesn't it? You get one extra attack per round with that weapon. If you drop your initial offhand weapon, it's pretty tough to attack someone with it.

Maybe if you drop it on their foot and it's big.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

"appear to be" completely independent?

Let's say there is a zombie adjacent to me, and a skeleton 2 squares away. I'm wielding a longsword and a handaxe; I have the Quick Draw feat, and a light mace available to draw.

I take the Full Attack action, and my first attack is with the longsword against the zombie.

I am permitted to observe the outcome of my first attack before deciding what to do with my other attacks (or even give them up in exchange for a move action).

If the first attack fails to drop the zombie, my intention is to make my off-hand attack with the handaxe against the zombie. If the first attack successfully drops the zombie, my intention is to drop the handaxe, quickdraw my light mace, 5 foot step towards the skeleton, and make my off-hand attack with the light mace against the skeleton.

Is there anything questionable about this sequence?

Rulewise, no. Nothing in this sequece contradicts the RAW.

The question is what "completely independent" means -- that is as much as philosophical question as a rules question.

When I fight with a greatsword, the rest of my round is truly independent of the resolution of first attack. I am not required to make any declarations at all. I can observe the results of my first attack at full BAB, then decide whether to take a 5' step + my BAB-5 attack, or I can take a Move/MEA instead.

TWF fighting is more restrictive. You are fighting with a weapon in the off hand while you make your first attack from my POV -- you must declare you are fighting in TWF mode from the getgo and you must wield a weapon in the off hand. That is how the basic mechanics work.

Now the resolution mechanics make this sequential. Then the Quickdraw Feat bends these mechanics further. (No problem there. It is the nature of feats to bend reality.)

For all I care, you hit the skeleton with both your handaxe and your light mace. But due to the benefits of the reality bending effects of the Quickdraw Feat, we allow you to resolve the attack as a bludgeoning attack.

 

[Hypersmurf]

To use two weapon fighting in a round you must begin your attack sequence with the two weapons you intent to use throughout the full sequence of your attacks.

So the ITWF dagger-thrower is out of luck? He's got a theoretical five attacks (+6/+1 BAB, Rapid Shot, and two off-hand attacks from ITWF), but as soon as he's thrown his first two daggers and Quick-Drawn two more, he no longer has the two weapons he began with.

-Hyp.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

So the ITWF dagger-thrower is out of luck? He's got a theoretical five attacks (+6/+1 BAB, Rapid Shot, and two off-hand attacks from ITWF), but as soon as he's thrown his first two daggers and Quick-Drawn two more, he no longer has the two weapons he began with.

That would be one reasonable interpretation wouldn't it?

I do doubt many DMs would be so stingy.

The "problem" is not one created by the basic mechanics of TWF, but by how to interpret the Quickdraw Feat.

 

[hong]

That would be one reasonable interpretation wouldn't it?

I do doubt many DMs would be so stingy.

The "problem" is not one created by the basic mechanics of TWF, but by how to interpret the Quickdraw Feat.

And the fact that ranged attacks operate under a different paradigm to melee attacks. Silly D&D!

 

[The Blow Leprechaun]

So the ITWF dagger-thrower is out of luck? He's got a theoretical five attacks (+6/+1 BAB, Rapid Shot, and two off-hand attacks from ITWF), but as soon as he's thrown his first two daggers and Quick-Drawn two more, he no longer has the two weapons he began with.

-Hyp.

This is a much trickier scenario. The two-weapon fighting rules explicitly mention being able to use it with thrown weapons, and the quick draw feat explicitly mentions being able to use it with thrown weapons, so how do you combine them?

The way I see it, there are two reasonable options:
A) You set your penalties per set of thrown weapons (i.e. you have two darts out and you throw them, light weapons light penalty, but if you quickdraw bolas to follow them up with, heavy penalty on the next set of two).
B) You require that all weapons thrown during that attack be the same type for each corresponding hand.

B) sucks, I think. A)'s a little flakey. Not sure how to resolve it, since it's pretty explicit that you can do this.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Not sure how to resolve it, since it's pretty explicit that you can do this.

And if you resolve it, aren't you accepting that it's possible to use TWF even if the off-hand weapon changes during the full attack action?

And the fact that ranged attacks operate under a different paradigm to melee attacks.

They do, but that's got nothing to do with it, since the "Observe before continuing" concept is applicable to both ranged and melee attacks, and thus simultaneity is inapplicable to either.

-Hyp.

 

[hong]

And if you resolve it, aren't you accepting that it's possible to use TWF even if the off-hand weapon changes during the full attack action?

If it was with a ranged attack, yes? And why are we? Talking with rising inflections?

They do, but that's got nothing to do with it,

Of course it does.

since the "Observe before continuing" concept is applicable to both ranged and melee attacks, and thus simultaneity is inapplicable to either.

However, ranged attacks with thrown weapons explicitly involve one actual throw per attack roll, unlike the paradigm with melee attacks, regardless of simultaneity. As was mentioned before.

I still see no alcohol here.

 

[Hypersmurf]

However, ranged attacks with thrown weapons explicitly involve one actual throw per attack roll, unlike the paradigm with melee attacks, regardless of simultaneity. As was mentioned before.

Right. The ranged attack routine is one 'strike' per attack roll, where the melee weapon attack routine might be several.

But as long as simultaneity is deprecated in both cases, what difference does that make? If one routine is temporally divorced from those preceding, how is it relevant whether the routine comprises a single 'strike' or several?

-Hyp.