Odd but legal?

[Veril]

If you'd permit me to select which I wish to use to go from prone to standing, why would you forbid me to select which I wish to use to go from right hand to left hand?
-Hyp.

Under the context of houserules introduced to allow things it's clearly allowed.

Since the rule for placing/removing a hand does not currently exist (as with the rule for kneeling), it's impossible to avoid house rules.
-Hyp.

"Dropping an item in your space or into an adjacent square is a free action." Perform a drop action with one hand while not doing anything with the other. This allows you to remove one hand from a weapon.


equipping a weapon - by which I mean taking it from a state where you cannot make an attack action with the weapon to a state where you can make an attack action is a very specific action in the rules. It's called drawing a weapon. And it is a move action.
The SRD says "Drawing a weapon so that you can use it in combat, or putting it away so that you have a free hand, requires a move action."

 

[James McMurray]

To draw a weapon. Nothing about 'readying' one already drawn.

-Hyp.

"Drawing a weapon so that you can use it in combat, or putting it away so that you have a free hand, requires a move action."

Where does it state that drawing it from one hand into another doesn't count?

Or better yet, what page number says that changing hands, in any number of steps, is a free action?

We have the rules that say that preparing a weapon for attacking requires a move action. The FAQ says it requires a move action to switch hands. RotG says it's a free action to switch hands.

So we have a rule that can be construed to mean it takes a move action. We have two non-book sources in disagreement.

So, like I said, the rule says something and you disagree. Whether you technically disagree with the rule or with my interpretation is immaterial. The fact of the matter is that you need a house rule.

Unless you've got a page number?

 

[Hypersmurf]

"Drawing a weapon so that you can use it in combat, or putting it away so that you have a free hand, requires a move action."

Where does it state that drawing it from one hand into another doesn't count?

What definition of 'drawing' includes shifting an item from one hand to another?

We have the rules that say that preparing a weapon for attacking requires a move action.

If I'm carrying a longsword and a torch, and I drop the torch as a free action, can I make a full attack with the longsword wielded in two hands (for 1.5x Str bonus to damage and 2-for-1 Power Attack)? Or do I need to spend a move action to change from wielding with one hand to wielding with two hands first?

Note that my sword is already 'drawn', and I can already 'use it in combat'; I just want to use both hands instead of one.

-Hyp.

 

[James McMurray]

What definition of 'drawing' includes shifting an item from one hand to another?

Several of them.

If I'm carrying a longsword and a torch, and I drop the torch as a free action, can I make a full attack with the longsword wielded in two hands (for 1.5x Str bonus to damage and 2-for-1 Power Attack)? Or do I need to spend a move action to change from wielding with one hand to wielding with two hands first?

I personally would allow you to immediately attack. So what? It has nothing to do with trying to two weapon fight with one weapon, which is what you're trying to do.

 

[Hypersmurf]

I personally would allow you to immediately attack. So what?

So if I can put an extra hand on a weapon without it costing a move action, and I can take a hand off a weapon without it costing a move action, I can switch a weapon from one hand to the other without it costing a move action by doing both in succession.

It has nothing to do with trying to two weapon fight with one weapon, which is what you're trying to do.

It's a necessary prelude to trying to make primary and off-hand attacks with the same weapon. If it's not possible to change a weapon from one hand to the other in the middle of a full attack action, then whether or not one can make primary and off-hand attacks with the same weapon is a meaningless question, since the weapon can't be in alternate hands in the same full attack anyway. So the question can only have meaning if changing hands is possible.

-----

There is, of course, another avenue of argument for making primary and off-hand attacks with the same weapon. Let's say I have the TWF but not the ITWF feat, and a BAB of +6. I have a scimitar in my right hand, and a whip in my left. Can I take a full attack action to make two iterative attacks with the whip?

-Hyp.

 

[James McMurray]

You're fighting with two weapons, and haven't broken the paradigm.

You did notice that the title of the section we're discussing is "Two Weapon Fighting," didn't you?

 

[hong]

It's a necessary prelude to trying to make primary and off-hand attacks with the same weapon.

Which is something ruled out by the underlying abstraction, and hence a question of no interest.

If it's not possible to change a weapon from one hand to the other in the middle of a full attack action, then whether or not one can make primary and off-hand attacks with the same weapon is a meaningless question, since the weapon can't be in alternate hands in the same full attack anyway. So the question can only have meaning if changing hands is possible.

No, the question can only have meaning if not already prohibited by the underlying abstraction.

There is, of course, another avenue of argument for making primary and off-hand attacks with the same weapon. Let's say I have the TWF but not the ITWF feat, and a BAB of +6. I have a scimitar in my right hand, and a whip in my left. Can I take a full attack action to make two iterative attacks with the whip?

Yes. You can even do it if you had a whip in your left hand, and nothing in your right hand!

 

[Hypersmurf]

Yes. You can even do it if you had a whip in your left hand, and nothing in your right hand!

And my off-hand is my weaker or less-dextrous hand (usually my left). I'm wielding a second weapon in my off-hand, so I can elect to make an extra off-hand attack with that weapon (incurring penalties on attacks with my primary hand, of which I'm making none, and attacks with my off-hand, of which I'm making three).

Which is something ruled out by the underlying abstraction, and hence a question of no interest.

The underlying abstraction isn't rules, and doesn't rule. The rules are what rule.

The underlying abstraction is shaped by the rules.

You did notice that the title of the section we're discussing is "Two Weapon Fighting," didn't you?

And the Deflect Arrows feat lets me deflect arrows, and also javelins. The name of the section doesn't alter that the rules of the feat allow me to deflect javelins; the name of the Two-Weapon Fighting section doesn't alter that the rules allow me to make an extra off-hand attack with a second weapon wielded in my off-hand.

-Hyp.

 

[hong]

And my off-hand is my weaker or less-dextrous hand (usually my left).

Prove it.

I'm wielding a second weapon in my off-hand, so I can elect to make an extra off-hand attack with that weapon (incurring penalties on attacks with my primary hand, of which I'm making none, and attacks with my off-hand, of which I'm making three).

No, because I count a whip, and a whip.

The underlying abstraction isn't rules, and doesn't rule. The rules are what rule.

The underlying abstraction is what gives rise to the rules. That's what "underlying" means. If the rules contradict the abstraction, the rules have failed.

The underlying abstraction is shaped by the rules.

No, the rules are shaped by the abstraction.

I still see no alcohol here.

And the Deflect Arrows feat lets me deflect arrows, and also javelins. The name of the section doesn't alter that the rules of the feat allow me to deflect javelins; the name of the Two-Weapon Fighting section doesn't alter that the rules allow me to make an extra off-hand attack with a second weapon wielded in my off-hand.

When you are fighting with two weapons, which is the nature of the underlying abstraction. The fact that the feat name better reflects this in one case but not the other does nothing to change that.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Prove it.

It's the definition of 'off-hand' in the PHB?

The underlying abstraction is what gives rise to the rules. That's what "underlying" means. If the rules contradict the abstraction, the rules have failed.

That doesn't make them invalid; it means your suspension of disbelief takes some damage.

But the rules still define how the game reality plays out. If the rules and your 'underlying abstraction' aren't in synch, it means that the game reality plays out differently to what you'd expect your 'underlying abstraction' to do.

When you are fighting with two weapons...

I am fighting with two weapons. I'm fighting with a scimitar and a whip, and in the course of doing so, I'm making three attack rolls with the whip, and no attack rolls with the scimitar.

-Hyp.