Odd but legal?

[Hypersmurf]

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.

Interrupts? Virtually simultaneous?

I've accepted the penalties, but I'm permitted to observe the results of the attack made with those penalties - and make a 5' step - before continuing with the draw-and-throw of the dagger. How is the first throw interrupting the second throw, and how is it considered virtually simultaneous?

-Hyp.

 

[hong]

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?

Because the D&D combat model is an imperfect treatment of multiple attacks, in some places treating them as distinct rolls and in other places lumping them into the one roll. As has been the case since 1974. You want a system that splits out every attack with perfect granularity, that's called GURPS.

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.

Sure. There is, however, a violation of the underlying abstraction, which is the function that maps the space-time continuum into a die roll mechanic.

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

And that only applies if you have two weapons.

 

[Hypersmurf]

And that only applies if you have two weapons.

In the case of the zombie and skeleton (longsword and handaxe), I previously proposed attack with sword (right hand), drop axe (left hand), draw mace (left hand), 5' step, attack with mace (left hand), which doesn't bother you, right?

Assuming one can transfer an item from hand to hand as a free action, would you be okay with:
Attack with sword (right hand), drop sword (right hand), draw mace (right hand), drop axe (left hand), transfer mace (left hand), 5' step, attack with mace (left hand)?

-Hyp.

 

[hong]

In the case of the zombie and skeleton (longsword and handaxe), I previously proposed attack with sword (right hand), drop axe (left hand), draw mace (left hand), 5' step, attack with mace (left hand), which doesn't bother you, right?

No problem, because you have 2 weapons at the moment you start making your attacks, and hence the abstraction is satisfied. Your point being...?

Assuming one can transfer an item from hand to hand as a free action,

Insofar as it doesn't violate the underlying abstraction, yes.

would you be okay with:
Attack with sword (right hand), drop sword (right hand), draw mace (right hand), drop axe (left hand), transfer mace (left hand), 5' step, attack with mace (left hand)?

No problem, because you have 2 weapons at the moment you start making your attacks, and hence the abstraction is satisfied. Your point being...?

 

[Nyaricus]

That is badass.

'nuff said

 

[Darklone]

I don't want to interrupt this hong-hyp-hong-hyp-hong-ping-pong, but Hyp: Could you please tell me where's the problem is about using TWF with an unarmed strike? Because you're not wielding a weapon since you're only "considered to be armed"?

 

[The Blow Leprechaun]

Yeah, I mostly think of things like Power Attack and Powerful Build whilst urinating.

Aye, I get wistful, too, when I urinate, although mostly I think about vacationing.

I think you'd need Quick Draw to even consider this a possibility, but I think the conceptual point of departure is that you need the second weapon because your first one is either hitting someone or missing. When you fight with two weapons, again conceptually, you alternate swings because the initial weapon is out of position for another swing.

This might change when your BAB proceeds into the +6+ range, as you're then sophisticated enough in the ways of battle to make repeated swings with the same weapon, but if you're talking about a +1 BAB, I don't think you could switch weapons because your initial weapon is out of position to change hands and attack again.

 

[darthkilmor]

No problem, because you have 2 weapons at the moment you start making your attacks, and hence the abstraction is satisfied. Your point being...?

An unarmed strike, or say, spiked gauntlet would qualify as two weapons. You seem to be willing to accept that you can start an attack with a weapon in your offhand, and not use that weapon.

So whats the difference between dropping the offhand weapon and quickdrawing one, and dropping the offhand weapon and putting the weapon in your primary hand in your offhand ?

If you want to just say "I dont like it, it shouldnt work, I wouldnt allow it, even if its ok(but silly) by RAW." then say so. You don't have to justify your position.

 

[The Blow Leprechaun]

Personally, I would rule this falls under the purview of a limited number of free actions a turn. You have to remember that combat is supposed to be kinda sorta realtime (it just happens in turns because some people are faster than others). At some point, you're taking too long to finish your attack because you're tooling around with your weapons belt.

It's like speaking is a free action, but you can't deliver the Gettysburg Address on your turn as a free action.

 

[darthkilmor]

Personally, I would rule this falls under the purview of a limited number of free actions a turn. You have to remember that combat is supposed to be kinda sorta realtime (it just happens in turns because some people are faster than others). At some point, you're taking too long to finish your attack because you're tooling around with your weapons belt.

It's like speaking is a free action, but you can't deliver the Gettysburg Address on your turn as a free action.

True enough, but thats a bit ancillary to the core Q of: Can I use the same weapon with TWF for both attacks(primary hand and off hand)?

Switching the sword from one hand to the other would be one free action.