Odd but legal?

[James McMurray]

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.

do you think that it's possible that the developers assumed that when they entitled the section "two" weapon fighting, and then went on to specify that you needed a "second" weapon that it never crossed their minds that someone might be so ludicrous as to try to use the "two" weapon fighting rules to fight with "a singular" weapon?

Obviously with Deflect Arrows they specified what it works against. They had a cool name they wanted to use which didn't exactly model the paradigm they were aiming for, so they expanded the definition of the feat to include the entire paradigm. With TWF you can argue all you want about what the meaning of the word "is is, but at the end of the day, it's two weapon fighting and never says that it isn't.

 

[hong]

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

I see no off-hand definition.

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

Given that we are talking about imaginary people in an imaginary world doing imaginary things, hurting suspension of disbelief is the exact way in which rules fail.

But the rules still define how the game reality plays out.

And if that game reality plays out in a way contradictory to how the abstraction mandates, that indicates a failure of reality, ie a failure of the rules.

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.

Exactly. And hence the rules have failed.

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.

No, you are fighting with a whip and holding a scimitar. Because that is what the abstraction mandates.

 

[hong]

do you think that it's possible that the developers assumed that when they entitled the section "two" weapon fighting, and then went on to specify that you needed a "second" weapon that it never crossed their minds that someone might be so ludicrous as to try to use the "two" weapon fighting rules to fight with "a singular" weapon?

Obviously with Deflect Arrows they specified what it works against. They had a cool name they wanted to use which didn't exactly model the paradigm they were aiming for, so they expanded the definition of the feat to include the entire paradigm. With TWF you can argue all you want about what the meaning of the word "is is, but at the end of the day, it's two weapon fighting and never says that it isn't.

We're in HyperWorld now, the land of spherical cows.

 

[Moon-Lancer]

just to add to this cluster of a thread... what hand do you use when making an offhand attack with spiked armor? i think that really says it all.

 

[Hypersmurf]

I see no off-hand definition.

You're not looking hard enough.

And if that game reality plays out in a way contradictory to how the abstraction mandates, that indicates a failure of reality, ie a failure of the rules.

But still doesn't make them say something different.

No, you are fighting with a whip and holding a scimitar. Because that is what the abstraction mandates.

And yet, were an AoO provoked, it would be with the scimitar I took it. Because the abstraction mandates that since I'm threatening with it, it's dangerous to do silly things in reach of it.

... since I'm fighting with a scimitar, after all.

-Hyp.

 

[hong]

But still doesn't make them say something different.

Pick 1 of 2 possible punchlines.

1. But it does make them ignorable.

2. That depends on what you mean by different.

And yet, were an AoO provoked, it would be with the scimitar I took it. Because the abstraction mandates that since I'm threatening with it, it's dangerous to do silly things in reach of it.

... since I'm fighting with a scimitar, after all.

Possibly. Did you make an attack with that scimitar?

 

[Hypersmurf]

Possibly. Did you make an attack with that scimitar?

Are you talking about an attack roll, or the underlying abstraction?

-Hyp.

 

[hong]

Are you talking about an attack roll, or the underlying abstraction?

-Hyp.

I am talking about the attack roll that represents what you did in the underlying abstraction.

(Nothing stops you making an attack roll targeting the air, for instance. This is a legal fiction used to make the ruleset compatible with the requirements for TWF in the abstraction. Contrived, but convenient.)

 

[Hypersmurf]

I am talking about the attack roll that represents what you did in the underlying abstraction.

I'm not making an attack roll. I'm wielding the scimitar. I'm threatening with the scimitar. I'm fighting with the scimitar; I'm just not making an attack roll with the scimitar.

-Hyp.

 

[hong]

I'm not making an attack roll. I'm wielding the scimitar. I'm threatening with the scimitar. I'm fighting with the scimitar; I'm just not making an attack roll with the scimitar.

-Hyp.

If you are not making an attack roll with the scimitar (even if only to attack the air) then the legal fiction is not satisfied, hence the abstraction is not satisfied. Lazy smurf!