Odd but legal?

[Hypersmurf]

Why?

Because we're providing an admission that concerns about simultaneity are not sufficient to forbid a mechanic, by allowing a scenario in which those concerns do not result in forbiddance.

Therefore if we're forbidding the other scenario, it must be for a reason other than concerns about simultaneity.

(Or, alternatively, we're being arbitrary and capricious. But I'd rather assume that if someone allows A and forbids B, there's a concrete difference between A and B that explains it.)

-Hyp.

 

[James McMurray]

Why can't each scenario be judged on it's own merits rather than requiring that a single rule cover them both?

I wouldn't expect the "picking an item up off the ground" rules to cover drawing a sheathed weapon, no matter how similar they are. Likewise I wouldn't expect the "fighting with two weapons" rules to cover fighting with one weapon, with or without the change of hands.

 

[hong]

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.

No, your multiple swings with the longsword and handaxe are represented in the model as one attack roll with the longsword, and another attack roll with the handaxe. The model also allows you to switch out weapons under certain circumstances, with the new weapon taking over all attack rolls from that point. The two in combination represent a failure in the model.

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.

There is zero overlap solely because of an artifact in the rules.

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?

Both routines occur in different places and at different times because of an artifact of the rules. The underlying principle remains: if you want to use TWF, you must use two weapons, not one weapon in two hands. Artifacts of the rules do not override this principle.

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.

The reason is because the ruleset is imperfect.

 

[hong]

(Or, alternatively, we're being arbitrary and capricious.

You say this like it's a negative thing.

 

[The Blow Leprechaun]

Ammunition: Projectile weapons use ammunition: arrows (for bows), bolts (for crossbows), or sling bullets (for slings). When using a bow, a character can draw ammunition as a free action; crossbows and slings require an action for reloading.

I have a bow and the Rapid Shot feat.

I take a free action to draw ammunition, then I take the Full Attack action to take two shots.

During my Full Attack action - in between my first and second shot - I need to draw a second arrow as a free action.

Do you permit this?

-Hyp.

Fine, you can switch hands on your bow while taking shots. Happy now? This still says nothing about tossing your weapon into another hand to gain an extra attack from TWF, which only explicitly allows a 5' step (which is not equivalent to a free action).

 

[Hypersmurf]

The two in combination represent a failure in the model.

Then either disallow the two in combination (forbidding the switch to mace for the off-hand attack), or agree that this particular failure in the model is insufficient to warrant a change in the rules.

Both routines occur in different places and at different times because of an artifact of the rules. The underlying principle remains: if you want to use TWF, you must use two weapons, not one weapon in two hands. Artifacts of the rules do not override this principle.

If I want to use TWF, I must be wielding a second weapon in my off-hand.

If we allow the attack with the mace, the second weapon wielded in my off-hand when I make my off-hand attack is not required to be the same second weapon that was in my off-hand at the time I made my primary attack. Nor, by extension, is the weapon in my primary hand when I make my off-hand attack required to be the same weapon that was in my primary hand at the time I made my primary attack.

Since I'm wielding a second weapon in my off-hand, and since simultaneity is not an issue (again, since we've allowed the attack with the mace), how is the underlying principle being broken more egregiously than in the mace example, merely because the assorted manipulations resulted, instead of a mace in my off-hand, in my original primary weapon in my off-hand?

In both cases, we have a primary attack made while wielding a second weapon in the off-hand, which is resolved before a manipulation sequence, which is resolved before an off-hand attack made while wielding a second weapon in the off-hand.

-Hyp.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Fine, you can switch hands on your bow while taking shots. Happy now? This still says nothing about tossing your weapon into another hand to gain an extra attack from TWF, which only explicitly allows a 5' step (which is not equivalent to a free action).

I'm puzzled - are you saying that it's permissible to take a free action while taking another action normally (specifically, while taking the full attack action), or that it isn't?

If it's permissible to take a free action while taking the full attack action, I can draw an arrow between attacks, or drop an item between attacks, or fall prone between attacks, or cast a Quickened spell between attacks.

If it isn't permissible to take a free action while taking the full attack action, I can't draw an arrow between attacks, or drop an item between attacks, or fall prone between attacks, or cast a Quickened spell between attacks.

-Hyp.

 

[hong]

Then either disallow the two in combination (forbidding the switch to mace for the off-hand attack), or agree that this particular failure in the model is insufficient to warrant a change in the rules.

No, because the consequences of one exploit of the failure are more egregious than the consequences of the other. Hence one is disallowed, while the other isn't.

If I want to use TWF, I must be wielding a second weapon in my off-hand.

Yes, wielding, as in using to hit. As in getting an attack roll with it.

If we allow the attack with the mace, the second weapon wielded in my off-hand when I make my off-hand attack is not required to be the same second weapon that was in my off-hand at the time I made my primary attack. Nor, by extension, is the weapon in my primary hand when I make my off-hand attack required to be the same weapon that was in my primary hand at the time I made my primary attack.

Since I'm wielding a second weapon in my off-hand, and since simultaneity is not an issue (again, since we've allowed the attack with the mace),

Since we've allowed the attack with the mace in a particular circumstance, which is not to say in every circumstance.

how is the underlying principle being broken more egregiously than in the mace example, merely because the assorted manipulations resulted, instead of a mace in my off-hand, in my original primary weapon in my off-hand?

Because you are no longer using two weapons, but manipulating one weapon to use the other weapon twice.

In both cases, we have a primary attack made while wielding a second weapon in the off-hand, which is resolved before a manipulation sequence,

Said manipulation sequence being where the abstraction breaks down, and thus requiring manual intervention to restore to health.

which is resolved before an off-hand attack made while wielding a second weapon in the off-hand.

And said manual intervention says no, because you are not wielding two weapons, but rather one weapon twice.

 

[hong]

I'm puzzled - are you saying that it's permissible to take a free action while taking another action normally (specifically, while taking the full attack action), or that it isn't?

He's saying that it's permissible to take some free actions while taking another action, but not others. Specifically, not those that result in a violation of the underlying abstraction.

 

[Moon-Lancer]

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

as hyp can attest to

I don't find twf sacred. Its just an extra attack to me.

I think someone could wield a great sword, boot blades, unarmed strike (monk) , armor spikes, and use them all as apart of an iterative

I also think that someone could use a one handed weapon, take twf and get an extra attack.

Whats the deal? If its broken, sure fine lets sling it out and find out whats not broken and use that, but to argue over something as frivolous as is it legal to switch hands as a free action, and can I use use that weapon in conjunction with twf, well thats just funny.

I think the more important question is, Is this unbalanced? how can we make it work so it is *balanced*?

*edit