Odd but legal?

[James McMurray]

Yes, I'm coming from the porisition where I feel that if the rules don't allow the second offhand attack they should. And that second offhand attack being allowed does not require that someone be able to juggle one-handed weapons into two-handed attacks. Consistency is a fine thing, but it's worthless without sanity.

I can see both interpretations for allowing full rate of thrown attacks (including ITWF). I personally don't care whether mine is a house rule ot not. If it isn't one, I still wouldn't allow the juggling, because there's wiggle room in the ITWF thrown rules, but none in the TWF needs two weapons area.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Consistency is a fine thing, but it's worthless without sanity.

The problem being that one person's sanity is another's madness, so it's important to have self-awareness of when you're imposing sanity over consistency... just so you can ensure your players are on the same page.

-Hyp.

 

[James McMurray]

Right, and two weapon fighting with a single weapon is blatant insanity. There should be no reason to have to point out ahead of time that it won't work, no matter what your thrown weapon ideology is.

You can say that it's just your version of sanity, but in all my years of forums and game groups since back when this place was a twinkle in Eric's eye and 3.0 was the same in WotC's, I have never encountered anyone but you who would think it a reasonable thing to argue for 3+ pages that two-weapon fighting should be one-weapon fightable.

That might not mean anything. Perhaps it's just a statistical anomaly. But I doubt it.

 

[Kmart Kommando]

lol @ statistical anomaly

 

[Jacen]

Right, and two weapon fighting with a single weapon is blatant insanity. There should be no reason to have to point out ahead of time that it won't work, no matter what your thrown weapon ideology is.

You can say that it's just your version of sanity, but in all my years of forums and game groups since back when this place was a twinkle in Eric's eye and 3.0 was the same in WotC's, I have never encountered anyone but you who would think it a reasonable thing to argue for 3+ pages that two-weapon fighting should be one-weapon fightable..

It wasn't one weapon fighting. There were always two weapons at hands.

I have to say that I do understand that switch weapon point of view. And I would allow that in game. There are second weapon at hand. If specified that TWF is used and minuses taken, the rules allow changing the weapon.

 

[James McMurray]

Not according to the RAW, which specifies your off-hand attacks must be with the weapon you held in your off hand while making primary attacks. It's a find enough house rule, I suppose, but it ain't supported in the RAW.

 

[hong]

The problem being that one person's sanity is another's madness, so it's important to have self-awareness of when you're imposing sanity over consistency... just so you can ensure your players are on the same page.

Indeed. That is why we need clear, unambiguous rules to tell us that fighting with two weapons means fighting with two weapons.