Odd but legal?

[Moon-Lancer]

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....

see my first post. its quasi legal but not if your using the faq.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Tell me how often you have a dagger and a shortsword both with bane enchantments.

I'm not understanding your references to "meaning never-happened-in-actual-play" and "how often you have".

What relevance does that have to a hypothetical scenario? In the hypothetical scenario, I do have multiple Bane weapons.

-Hyp.

 

[hong]

I'm not understanding your references to "meaning never-happened-in-actual-play" and "how often you have".

What relevance does that have to a hypothetical scenario? In the hypothetical scenario, I do have multiple Bane weapons.

"All models are wrong, but some are useful" -- George Box

A model may fail to adequately represent reality (or, in this case, fictional reality) in all situations. As long as these failures are restricted to those situations that are unlikely to occur in practice, the model is still usable.

 

[Hypersmurf]

A model may fail to adequately represent reality (or, in this case, fictional reality) in all situations. As long as these failures are restricted to those situations that are unlikely to occur in practice, the model is still usable.

I'm not seeing the failure, though.

If we accept that primary attack, draw, step, off-hand attack is both legal and adequately represents reality, then how is it different to primary attack, switch, step, off-hand attack?

If we accept that primary attack, draw, step, off-hand attack is legal but fails to adequately represents reality and we don't care and allow it anyway, then how is it different to primary attack, switch, step, off-hand attack?

-Hyp.

 

[hong]

I'm not seeing the failure, though.

If we accept that primary attack, draw, step, off-hand attack is both legal and adequately represents reality, then how is it different to primary attack, switch, step, off-hand attack?

Because the model is supposed to be representing attacking with two weapons, not one weapon bouncing between two hands.

If we accept that primary attack, draw, step, off-hand attack is legal but fails to adequately represents reality and we don't care and allow it anyway, then how is it different to primary attack, switch, step, off-hand attack?

Presumably, in primary attack/draw/off-hand attack, you were attacking with two different weapons at the start, but for the purposes of the ruleset we simplify it to one attack roll. You then continue to attack with two different weapons throughout the round. In primary attack/switch/off-hand attack, you are not. Hence violation of abstraction.

 

[Hairfoot]

Even if it's legal, any GM who allows it should be gaoled have their licence revoked.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Presumably, in primary attack/draw/off-hand attack, you were attacking with two different weapons at the start, but for the purposes of the ruleset we simplify it to one attack roll.

If my handaxe was poisoned, it is still poisoned. If if were a spell-storing weapon, it still stores a spell. If it had a "the next time this weapon is used to attack, regardless of whether the attack hits" effect on it, the effect is still there. The handaxe was never used to attack... in the rules, or in the reality represented by those rules.

-Hyp.

 

[hong]

If my handaxe was poisoned, it is still poisoned.

Because of the abstraction used by the rules to represent reality, yes. The fact that individual attack rolls only apply a single weapon enhancement is a long-standing wart in D&D. Similarly, if I'm using a frost weapon and a fire weapon, and I make a standard attack instead of a full attack, I only get one of the two damage bonuses. This is despite the rules explicitly stating that an attack roll represents multiple swings, and the (real life) fact that you can very easily swing two weapons at an enemy in 3 seconds (half a round).

If if were a spell-storing weapon, it still stores a spell. If it had a "the next time this weapon is used to attack, regardless of whether the attack hits" effect on it, the effect is still there. The handaxe was never used to attack... in the rules, or in the reality represented by those rules.

No, the handaxe was never used to attack _in the rules_. In the reality represented by those rules, it may or may not have been used thus. The rules ignore that possibility for the sake of keeping things simple.

 

[Hypersmurf]

No, the handaxe was never used to attack _in the rules_. In the reality represented by those rules, it may or may not have been used thus. The rules ignore that possibility for the sake of keeping things simple.

So my attack roll with the longsword may appear in the represented reality as multiple swings with both the longsword and the handaxe, and my off-hand attack may appear in the represented reality as multiple swings with both the light mace and the longsword. Fair enough.

That doesn't alter that there is zero overlap between the group of multiple swings with longsword and handaxe, and the group of multiple swings with mace and longsword, because they occur in different places, and mace and handaxe are temporally mutually exclusive.

So how is this different to multiple swings with shortsword and dagger A, and multiple swings with shortsword and dagger B (represented in the game mechanics as a single attack roll with the shortsword for the primary attack, and a single attack roll with the shortsword for the off-hand attack), since both routines occur in different places and at different times?

If the mechanics aren't acceptable to model a represented reality in one case for reasons of simultaneity, then they must be unacceptable in the other for the same reason.

If they're acceptable to model a represented reality in one case despite concerns about simultaneity, then they must be acceptable in the other for the same reason.

-Hyp.

 

[James McMurray]

If they're acceptable to model a represented reality in one case despite concerns about simultaneity, then they must be acceptable in the other for the same reason.

Why?