Odd but legal?

[Hypersmurf]

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.

But if the "It's really supposed to represents simultaneous action" assertion is ignored in the swap-axe-for-mace scenario, when you have no problem with the primary attack and the off-hand attack happening in very clear and distinct non-simultaneous sequence, doesn't that mean that your objection to longsword-and-swap-hands-and-longsword scenario is for a reason other than the "It's really supposed to represents simultaneous action" assertion?

Either things that break the simultaneous action paradigm are forbidden, or they're not, right?

I've no problem with a DM disallowing longsword-swap-longsword, but it's inconsistent to deny it for breaking simultaneity, while allowing something else which also breaks simultaneity... and suggests that isn't the real reason.

-Hyp.

 

[hong]

But if the "It's really supposed to represents simultaneous action" assertion is ignored in the swap-axe-for-mace scenario, when you have no problem with the primary attack and the off-hand attack happening in very clear and distinct non-simultaneous sequence, doesn't that mean that your objection to longsword-and-swap-hands-and-longsword scenario is for a reason other than the "It's really supposed to represents simultaneous action" assertion?

No, it's because the "simultaneous action" assertion holds in one case, but not in the other. Attack rolls in the D&D ruleset are an abstraction of lots of individual swings, thrusts, and whatnot; sometimes it's more convenient to treat the attack rolls as representing consecutive ingame-reality attacks, other times as simultaneous (or separated by a time span small enough to be ignorable for practical purposes). Looking too hard into the mincer is not recommended.

Either things that break the simultaneous action paradigm are forbidden, or they're not, right?

Things that break the simultaneous action paradigm are sometimes allowed, and sometimes not.

 

[Hypersmurf]

No, it's because the "simultaneous action" assertion holds in one case, but not in the other.

I can hit the zombie, change weapons, step, and hit the skeleton in one case, but I can't hit the zombie, change hands, step, and hit the skeleton in the second case, and the reason is that the simultaneous action assertion fails?

Bollocks.

Things that break the simultaneous action paradigm are sometimes allowed, and sometimes not.

Then the reason they're sometimes not allowed has nothing to do with whether or not they break simultaneity. It's some other factor that determines that, and simultaneity is a red herring masking the real reason.

-Hyp.

 

[hong]

I can hit the zombie, change weapons, step, and hit the skeleton in one case, but I can't hit the zombie, change hands, step, and hit the skeleton in the second case, and the reason is that the simultaneous action assertion fails?

Bollocks.

Ooh.

And the answer is that, yes, you can change hands, step and hit the skeleton in the second case. You'll just see no mechanical benefit/consequence for it. You make your second iterative attack on the zombie with your off-hand, instead of getting an extra TWF attack (or if you have no iterative attacks, it's all rolled into your one attack). I suppose I could impose a -4 penalty for attacking with the off-hand, but that seems rather vindictive.

Then the reason they're sometimes not allowed has nothing to do with whether or not they break simultaneity. It's some other factor that determines that, and simultaneity is a red herring masking the real reason.

Simultaneity is a convenient, shorthand way to represent what is violated in this particular scenario. Determining the hidden variables behind the observables is getting rather metaphysical.

 

[pawsplay]

Hyp's example shows that the nearly simultaneous actions can be divided discretely. That doesn't mean they are independent, only discrete.

Fighting with two weapons with one weapon is just nonsense.

Fighting with a weapon and an unarmed strike might be permissible, more likely if it involves a monk. I don't think there's one answer, by the RAW. However, a weapon cannot be wielded (nearly simultanesously) in two different hands; for each discrete action if must be wielded in one hand, and each action supposes that it is already wielded in the other. It is not the same as throwing a succession of daggers; rather, it is more like attempting to throw the same dagger more than once, ignoring the fact that a discrete action has already occured.

 

[hong]

Fighting with two weapons with one weapon is just nonsense.

Which, in the end, is what all the business of "simultaneity" boils down to.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Ooh.

And the answer is that, yes, you can change hands, step and hit the skeleton in the second case. You'll just see no mechanical benefit/consequence for it. You make your second iterative attack on the zombie with your off-hand, instead of getting an extra TWF attack (or if you have no iterative attacks, it's all rolled into your one attack).

Hmm?

In one round, with a +1 BAB, I hit the zombie, change hands, 5' step, and hit the skeleton with my extra off-hand attack.

It is not the same as throwing a succession of daggers; rather, it is more like attempting to throw the same dagger more than once, ignoring the fact that a discrete action has already occured.

Consider, as a more closely-related analogy, +1 BAB and Quick Draw; I'm holding a throwing axe and have a sheathed dagger. I cannot throw the axe with my right hand, draw the dagger with my right hand, and throw it; I can't make multiple attacks with one hand. Can I throw the axe with my right hand, Quick Draw the dagger with my left, and throw it as an extra off-hand attack? (Taking TWF penalties on both attacks, obviously.)

-Hyp.

 

[hong]

Hmm?

In one round, with a +1 BAB, I hit the zombie, change hands, 5' step, and hit the skeleton with my extra off-hand attack.

If you had an extra weapon with which to do that off-hand attack, yes. If you don't, it's all treated as the one attack roll and so not doable without +6 BAB.

Consider, as a more closely-related analogy, +1 BAB and Quick Draw; I'm holding a throwing axe and have a sheathed dagger. I cannot throw the axe with my right hand, draw the dagger with my right hand, and throw it; I can't make multiple attacks with one hand. Can I throw the axe with my right hand, Quick Draw the dagger with my left, and throw it as an extra off-hand attack? (Taking TWF penalties on both attacks, obviously.)

Of course you can. However, ranged attacks are an explicit exception to the D&D abstraction whereby multiple swings are lumped into a single attack roll, and hence the example is irrelevant.

 

[pawsplay]

Hmm?

In one round, with a +1 BAB, I hit the zombie, change hands, 5' step, and hit the skeleton with my extra off-hand attack.



Consider, as a more closely-related analogy, +1 BAB and Quick Draw; I'm holding a throwing axe and have a sheathed dagger. I cannot throw the axe with my right hand, draw the dagger with my right hand, and throw it; I can't make multiple attacks with one hand. Can I throw the axe with my right hand, Quick Draw the dagger with my left, and throw it as an extra off-hand attack? (Taking TWF penalties on both attacks, obviously.)

-Hyp.

Each successive action interrupts the action it directly precedes. As long as the final result is logically possible, you're good. In this case, you have to have accepted the TWF modifiers before throwing the axe. Once you've thrown the axe, you've made an irrevocable choice. While the actions might seem virtually simultaneous, in game order, each one is discrete.

So, yes. But the thrown axe is resolved with TWF penalties.

 

[Hypersmurf]

If you had an extra weapon with which to do that off-hand attack, yes. If you don't, it's all treated as the one attack roll and so not doable without +6 BAB.

But why is hit-manipulate-move-hit two attack rolls if the two (distinct, displaced in time and space) hits are with different physical objects, and one if the two (distinct, displaced in time and space) hits are with the same physical object?

Since the hits occur at a different time and in a different place, there's no violation of the space-time continuum going on if I'm using the same object.

Especially when I've observed the result of the first hit - completely resolving that attack roll - before proceeding to the second.

-Hyp.