Odd but legal?

[The Blow Leprechaun]

Then I think we go back to my earlier point - you can't make multiple attacks with the same weapon without a higher BAB because you're not skilled enough with your weapon to bring it back in position to strike quickly enough.

I think the same holds true with attempting to switch hands. Just try and picture it in your head and you can see how impossible the idea is. The mechanics are completely different from the way one attempts to fight with two weapons.

If physics can be a house rule, then common sense definitely should be, too.

 

[Veril]

Lets say you have a 1st level character with Two-Weapon Fighting. This character currently only has one weapon, a dagger. Moving an item from one hand to the other is a free action, correct? So could this character attack with the dagger in their right hand, switch hands, and then attack with the dagger in their left hand? I suspect this hinges upon wether or not you can make a free action in the middle of a full attack.

The simple answer is no.

1) Two-Weapon fighting = full attack.
transfering a weapon from one hand to another hand where you intend to attack with it in the other hand counts as "Drawing a weapon so that you can use it in combat" - which is a move action. You cannot do a full action and a move action in the same round.
You could try stating that quickdraw helps because that makes drawingh a weapon a free action....so....

2) Two-Weapon fighting states
"You can fight with a weapon in each hand. You can make one extra attack each round with the second weapon."
using the same dagger in 2 different hands violates the condition of attacking with the second weapon.


I'd also offer the following:
By the rules there are only 2 ways of allowing a weapon to leave your hand volunterelly. Dropping the weapon, or sheathing the weapon. You clearly didn't drop the weapon (it's not on the floor), therefor you must have sheathed the weapon - you chose to use the other hand as the sheath for the weapon. Sheathing a weapon is a move action. And Quickdraw does not help you sheath the weapon.

 

[tomBitonti]

Missing text

So ...

Under two-weapon fighting, there seems to be an unstated restriction, that is, that you must take your attacks using the weapon that enabled the extra attack.

For a RAW ruling, one point of view accepts the text of the rules, and allows the imposition of no further restrictions. Another point of view posits that there are additional unstated restrictions, but that the rules text has stripped those out in order to keep the text reasonably short, as well as comprehensible to the casual reader.

Also ...

The sense of iterative attacks (as provided by a high enough BAB) is that the attacks occur sequentially. That is built into the definition of the attacks. Although unstated, there seems to be a similar built in sense to attacks taken via two-weapon fighting, that is, that the attacks are simultaneous. However, the rules don't account for this. Getting back to the scenario where attacks are split between opponents more than 5' apart, without getting into issues regarding switching weapons, the rules allow iterative attacks to be split between the opponents, and allow two-weapon attacks to be split between the opponents. I'm thinking that there *could have been* a restriction on the two-weapon attack, that is, that the attacks be required to be declared simultaneously, but that's too much complexity for the rules set.

 

[darthkilmor]

I think the same holds true with attempting to switch hands. Just try and picture it in your head and you can see how impossible the idea is. The mechanics are completely different from the way one attempts to fight with two weapons.

I can picture it in my head and its Very Possible. I have an enemy to my right, I stab him with my sword in my right hand and he falls, I then swap the weapon to my left hand and stab the enemy to my left, without having to turn my whole body around. Of course DnD doesnt have facing but, thats how I'd imagine it going.

I'm trying to picture in my head how one would chant mystical words and immolate someone and you can see how impossible the idea is. Not to be snarky but, just because you or I can't mentally invision how something would work doesnt mean RAW prohibits it.

 

[The Blow Leprechaun]

I can picture it in my head and its Very Possible. I have an enemy to my right, I stab him with my sword in my right hand and he falls, I then swap the weapon to my left hand and stab the enemy to my left, without having to turn my whole body around. Of course DnD doesnt have facing but, thats how I'd imagine it going.

I'm trying to picture in my head how one would chant mystical words and immolate someone and you can see how impossible the idea is. Not to be snarky but, just because you or I can't mentally invision how something would work doesnt mean RAW prohibits it.

I have no problems at all picturing in my head someone chanting mystical words and someone else bursting into flames. I've seen it in movies plenty of times.

What you've described is much more akin to how I would picture someone simply making multiple attack with the same weapon (as though from a higher BAB...). You wouldn't even need to swap hands to do it, you'd just turn slightly. Swapping hands in your picture is simply flavor, not an actual mechanic.

 

[Hypersmurf]

I'm thinking that there *could have been* a restriction on the two-weapon attack, that is, that the attacks be required to be declared simultaneously, but that's too much complexity for the rules set.

No, because the definition of a Full Attack says we may observe the outcome of the first attack before making decisions about the second.

That's why in the Zombie/Skeleton example, I've got the opportunity to decide between making my off-hand attack with my axe, or dropping it, and making my second attack with a quick-drawn mace.

The attacks don't need to be made or declared simultaneously; they can be wholly sequential.

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

I have two weapons in the longsword-switch-longsword scenario as well - one longsword, and one unarmed strike. When I make the primary attack, I have a longsword in my right hand, and an unarmed strike 'in' my off-hand. When I make the off-hand attack, I have an unarmed strike 'in' my right hand, and a longsword in my off-hand.

We've established that you're unconcerned with the structure of weapons and hands being different between primary and off-hand attacks (longsword and axe for the first, nothing and mace for the second), and I have two weapons at the moment I start making my attacks... hence the abstraction is satsified, no?

-Hyp.

 

[tomBitonti]

No, because the definition of a Full Attack says we may observe the outcome of the first attack before making decisions about the second.
...
I have two weapons in the longsword-switch-longsword scenario as well - one longsword, and one unarmed strike. When I make the primary attack, I have a longsword in my right hand, and an unarmed strike 'in' my off-hand. When I make the off-hand attack, I have an unarmed strike 'in' my right hand, and a longsword in my off-hand.

We've established that you're unconcerned with the structure of weapons and hands being different between primary and off-hand attacks (longsword and axe for the first, nothing and mace for the second), and I have two weapons at the moment I start making my attacks... hence the abstraction is satsified, no?
- Hyp

On the first point, I think we are agreeing, but I don't think that I've communicated my point: What I'm saying is that *in drawing up the initial rules*, that there could have been more restrictions added (to require both attacks to be declared at the same time), and that the restrictions would have been in the spirit of the description of two-weapon fighting, but the rules team decided on a simple universal rule.

As for the second point ... the text at http://www.d20srd.org/srd/feats.htm#twoWeaponFighting

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

Seems to imply that the extra attack must be made with the weapon that enabled the second attack ... "an extra attack per round with that weapon".

I'm interested now in what other text to describe two-weapon fighting.

 

[hong]

I have two weapons in the longsword-switch-longsword scenario as well - one longsword, and one unarmed strike.

No, because attacks without manufactured weapons (including unarmed strikes) use a different underlying paradigm to attacks with weapons. Unarmed strikes do not threaten an area unless you have a feat; you take an AoO if you make an unarmed strike (again unless you have a feat); creatures with natural attacks do not get iterative attacks the way they would if they used weapons. And hence treating unarmed strikes as if they were equivalent to weapons is invalid.

When I make the primary attack, I have a longsword in my right hand, and an unarmed strike 'in' my off-hand. When I make the off-hand attack, I have an unarmed strike 'in' my right hand, and a longsword in my off-hand.

Which is not the same as a manufactured weapon in both hands.

We've established that you're unconcerned with the structure of weapons and hands being different between primary and off-hand attacks (longsword and axe for the first, nothing and mace for the second), and I have two weapons at the moment I start making my attacks... hence the abstraction is satsified, no?

No. Different abstractions apply for attacking with manufactured weapons and natural weapons, with unarmed strikes occupying a grey area between the two.

 

[hong]

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 ?

Because an unarmed strike is not a weapon. Or maybe it is. It depends on where you look; D&D handles different sorts of attacks in different ways, even if they all boil down to an attack roll and damage roll.

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.

Oh, but it's such fun!

 

[Markn]

Maybe I'm dreaming but wasn't there a FAQ or a Sage Advice answer that stated that moving things from 1 hand to the others was a move action. If its true then that pretty much ends the debate....