Odd but legal?

[Hypersmurf]

Right, you're expected to be able to extrapolate. To not be afraid to apply your brain rather then require an airtight rulebook in legalese.

I did that. That's how I got the longsword-switch-longsword scenario.

But whether or not it works with thrown weapons doesn't impact the scenario of changing hands with a single weapon, which quite explicitly doesn't work.

Quite explicitly where?

If you can use a second weapon that isn't the same second weapon with thrown weapons, that does impact whether you can use a second weapon that isn't the same second weapon with melee weapons.

-Hyp.

 

[James McMurray]

Quite explicitly where?

In the quote that at least three others have posted and I've mentioned several times but you continually fail to address. Here it is one last time.

If you wield a second weapon in your off hand, you can get one extra attack per round with that weapon.

TWF works with a sword and a dagger. When you attack with the sword, the dagger is a second weapon in your off hand. When you attack with a dagger, you are attacking with that weapon.

TWF works with a double weapon. When you attack with a staff in your right hand, it is not a second weapon in your off hand. However, at this point the double weapon rules step in and tell us it's ok.

TWF does not work with a single long sword and a dropped dagger. When you attack with the longsword, the dagger is a second weapon in your off hand. When you drop the dagger in an attempt to attack with the sword, you are no longer attacking with that weapon..

If you can use a second weapon that isn't the same second weapon with thrown weapons, that does impact whether you can use a second weapon that isn't the same second weapon with melee weapons.

Not at all. Because using ITWF with a thrown weapon is my interpretation. Not being able to use two weapon fighting rules with a single sword is the RAW.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Not at all. Because using ITWF with a thrown weapon is my interpretation. Not being able to use two weapon fighting rules with a single sword is the RAW.

If you feel that using ITWF with a thrown weapon is strictly illegal, but you choose to allow it anyway, I find no inconsistency in your position... and that position does, indeed, forbid longsword-switch-longsword.

If you feel that using ITWF with a thrown weapon is permitted by the RAW, but using multiple second weapons in melee is not, I take issue with it.

I've based the viability of longsword-switch-longsword from the beginning on the premise that the mace example is permitted. If the mace example is deemed illegal, then I agree that so is longsword-switch-longsword. I only hold out for longsword-switch-longsword if the mace example is permitted... but I feel that any reading that permits ITWF with thrown weapons (in the absence of an explicit house rule to allow it in isolation) also permits the mace example, which in turn enables longsword-switch-longsword.

-Hyp.

 

[Kmart Kommando]

Actually, the rules say that the benefits of two weapon fighting apply when you throw a weapon with each hand, so swing sword, throw, throw isn't even covered.

 

[James McMurray]

If you feel that using ITWF with a thrown weapon is strictly illegal, but you choose to allow it anyway, I find no inconsistency in your position... and that position does, indeed, forbid longsword-switch-longsword.

If you feel that using ITWF with a thrown weapon is permitted by the RAW, but using multiple second weapons in melee is not, I take issue with it.

I've based the viability of longsword-switch-longsword from the beginning on the premise that the mace example is permitted. If the mace example is deemed illegal, then I agree that so is longsword-switch-longsword. I only hold out for longsword-switch-longsword if the mace example is permitted... but I feel that any reading that permits ITWF with thrown weapons (in the absence of an explicit house rule to allow it in isolation) also permits the mace example, which in turn enables longsword-switch-longsword.

-Hyp.

I wish I'd realized you were arguing the validity of a house rule long ago. I could have stayed out of it and saved myself some confusion.

 

[Hypersmurf]

I wish I'd realized you were arguing the validity of a house rule long ago. I could have stayed out of it and saved myself some confusion.

It depends.

If someone considers throwing a second off-hand dagger to be legal (and if it's possible to get the longsword into the other hand in the middle of a full attack action, whether that involves the Quick Draw feat or not), then I think the same logic means the longsword-switch-longsword is legal.

If someone considers throwing a second off-hand dagger to be illegal, then so is longsword-switch-longsword.

-Hyp.

 

[hong]

It depends.

If someone considers throwing a second off-hand dagger to be legal (and if it's possible to get the longsword into the other hand in the middle of a full attack action, whether that involves the Quick Draw feat or not), then I think the same logic means the longsword-switch-longsword is legal.

If someone considers throwing a second off-hand dagger to be illegal, then so is longsword-switch-longsword.

-Hyp.

Why?

 

[Hypersmurf]

Why?

Because it dictates whether "second weapon" is a singular label that gets affixed to a hilt at the start of the round, or whether it just means that you've got two weapons at any given time.

If you can throw two daggers with your off-hand, then it can't be the sticky label... because it would still be stuck to the hilt of the first dagger, so the next throw would be illegal. And if it's not the sticky label, then the longsword can be the "second weapon" later in the round, even if it wasn't earlier in the round.

-Hyp.

 

[hong]

Because it dictates whether "second weapon" is a singular label that gets affixed to a hilt at the start of the round, or whether it just means that you've got two weapons at any given time.

No, it dicates whether "second weapon" is a singular label that gets affixed to a hilt at the start of the round, or whether it just means that you've got two weapons at any given time, in the context of melee combat.

 

[Hypersmurf]

No, it dicates whether "second weapon" is a singular label that gets affixed to a hilt at the start of the round, or whether it just means that you've got two weapons at any given time, in the context of melee combat.

But none of the relevant rules distinguish melee from ranged.

-Hyp.