Odd but legal?

[Hypersmurf]

You're wielding an unarmed strike in your off-hand, couldn't that work ?

Hmm. Assuming the DM allows two-weapon fighting with the unarmed strike as the second weapon wielded in the off-hand, and assuming he allows changing hands as a free action, that might work.

Let's assume ITF and Quick Draw. In theory, I could quickdraw a dagger in each hand and throw them; I could then Quick Draw a second dagger with each hand, and throw them as well... despite the fact that neither weapon used in the third and fourth attack were the same 'main weapon' and 'second weapon wielded in the off-hand' as at the start of the round.

So now, we have a character with a shortsword in his right hand, ready to punch with his left; he is wielding a second weapon in his off-hand in a manner of speaking, and so his attack with the shortsword incurs a penalty. He then changes hands, and is now ready to punch with his right, and has the shortsword in his left; he is still wielding a second weapon in his off-hand, and thus he may make an extra attack with that weapon.

He's made a primary attack with the shortsword in his right hand, and then an extra off-hand attack with the shortsword in his left hand. Given the two assumptions made at the top of the post, it looks okay.

-Hyp.

 

[James McMurray]

What Ridley's Cohort said. The rules are a model of (some version of) reality. The model is not perfect, because no models are perfect.

Except perhaps Paulina Porizkova

I was going to to say Tawny Kitaen until my googling turned up her mugshot.

 

[Hypersmurf]

This is just an artifact of simulataneous actions being resolved sequentially. Arguably, you are not actually "two weapon fighting" unless you are wielding two weapons. But the rules allow you to resolve one attack, (5' step if want to), then resolve the second attack. Thusly the mechanics make the two attacks appear to be completely independent.

"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?

-Hyp.

 

[hong]

"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?

No. Your point being...?

 

[javcs]

No. Your point being...?

That they are independent.

 

[hong]

That they are independent.

No, they are independent within the context of the RAW. But the RAW, being an imperfect representation of in-game reality, is occasionally of lesser relevance.

 

[Hypersmurf]

No, they are independent within the context of the RAW. But the RAW, being an imperfect representation of in-game reality, is occasionally of lesser relevance.

Would you as a DM, deeming the rules of lesser relevance to your representation of in-game reality, permit the sequence as described?

-Hyp.

 

[hong]

Would you as a DM, deeming the rules of lesser relevance to your representation of in-game reality, permit the sequence as described?

The one you posted, or the OP? If you mean the one you posted, yes. Just because the rules are of lesser relevance sometimes, doesn't mean they are of lesser relevance all the time.

 

[moritheil]

No, they are independent within the context of the RAW. But the RAW, being an imperfect representation of in-game reality, is occasionally of lesser relevance.

. . . In your opinion. Which may or may not be of importance if a poster desires to know what the RAW says before making that judgment call for himself or herself.

 

[hong]

. . . In your opinion.

No, a fact. Or as factual as it's possible to get when talking about ways to pretend to be elves.

Which may or may not be of importance if a poster desires to know what the RAW says before making that judgment call for himself or herself.

Exactly. Judgement call.