Offhand weapons, AoO, and shield-bashing

[pawsplay]

Which is why I assume that the -4 difference between the penalties you take with your primary hand (-6) and off-hand (-10) while fighting with two weapons is the same -4 difference between the penalties you take with your primary hand (0) and off-hand (-4) while fighting with one weapon.

-Hyp.

TWF allows you to fight with two light weapons at -2 and -2. So what happened to the -4?

 

[Zaruthustran]

[glossary]off-hand[/glossary]: A character's weaker or less dexterous hand (usually the left). An attack made with the off hand incurs a -4 penalty on the attack roll. In addition, only one-half of a character's Strength bonus may be added to damage dealt with a weapon held in the off hand.

-Hyp.

<shakes fist> Curse you and your glossary references! </shakes fist>

I do find it odd that the rules define off-hand in reference to TWFing, and the glossary comes up with its own definition (and does not mention TWFing).

Since the SRD does not include the glossary's definition, I consider that entry an overlooked artifact of editing.

-z

 

[Hypersmurf]

TWF allows you to fight with two light weapons at -2 and -2. So what happened to the -4?

The TWF feat reduces the penalty on your primary hand by 2, and the penalty on your off-hand by 6.

-Hyp.

 

[Bagpuss]

But only two weapon fighting penalties, not a general 'off-hand' penalty. So it's no help if you are making a single attack with your shield. That would still suffer the -4 thanks to the glossary reference.

 

[pawsplay]

The TWF feat reduces the penalty on your primary hand by 2, and the penalty on your off-hand by 6.

-Hyp.

Fair enough.

 

[Hypersmurf]

But only two weapon fighting penalties, not a general 'off-hand' penalty. So it's no help if you are making a single attack with your shield. That would still suffer the -4 thanks to the glossary reference.

Right.

-Hyp.

 

[Zaruthustran]

But only two weapon fighting penalties, not a general 'off-hand' penalty. So it's no help if you are making a single attack with your shield. That would still suffer the -4 thanks to the glossary reference.

That lone glossary reference--not found anywhere in the SRD--makes for some shaky rules territory.

Funny how the FAQ makes no mention of handedness. In both it and the actual rules chapters, the only reference to "off-hand" is in situations involving TWF.

Seems reasonable, then, that the -4 only applies to off-hand attacks--and since the rules only mention off-hand attacks when talking about TWF, the -4 only applies in cases of TWF.

The most common method of TWF is a weapon in either hand, with the primary weapon usually held in the right hand. Which means the "off-hand" weapon--the weapon used to make the extra attack--is most commonly held in the left hand. We know that extra attack takes a -4 penalty: the TWF penalty table shows that.

Here's a situation where a constant handedness modifier (a modifier outside of TWF) would surely have been mentioned, if it existed:

Q: Can a character make a shield bash attack using the
shield as a primary weapon or can it be used only as an offhand
weapon?

A: While the rules describe a shield bash as an off-hand
weapon, that’s simply an assumption (that your primary hand is
holding a weapon). There’s nothing stopping you from
declaring your shield bash as your primary weapon. Of course,
that means that any attack you make with your other hand
becomes a secondary weapon.

A search for "handedness" in the SRD, PHB Errata, and FAQ turns up zero entries. A search for "left" turns up just a few hits, all related to "left out", or "left the area", or "points left". Handedness just doesn't exist in D&D.

You're welcome to use the glossary as a basis for a major rule impact. But be aware that -4 to all attacks made with the left hand--always, even in cases of a single attack--is a big deal, and not mentioned anywhere else in the book.

The chapters on ability scores don't mention right- or left-handed characters, or impose penalties to, say, picking a lock with the left hand or lifting a weight with the left hand. The rules for Strength mention a lower Strength bonus to "Off-hand attacks", which--when one looks up "off-hand attacks"--references only the extra attack gained when TWFing.

Shaky territory to claim that left-hand attacks always get a penalty, even when making just a single attack.

Me, I need to see rules in the SRD or in the chapters of the rulebook. Not just an appendix.

-z

 

[pawsplay]

Although I don't have the book to prove it, I would guess the glossary entry is simply a holdover from 3.0.

 

[Legildur]

Me, I need to see rules in the SRD or in the chapters of the rulebook. Not just an appendix.

Well, the SRD has missing text that is quite useful for discussions. On more than one occasion it has been found wanting.

And the glossary is not the appendix, and is most definitely part of the rules. You'll note that there are a few entries in the glossary that are not in the chapters.

 

[Zaruthustran]

Well, the SRD has missing text that is quite useful for discussions. On more than one occasion it has been found wanting.

And the glossary is not the appendix, and is most definitely part of the rules. You'll note that there are a few entries in the glossary that are not in the chapters.

My point is that it's wrong to extrapolate new rules from the glossary entry. Instead, put the glossary entry into the context it's intended: the TWF rules.

The glossary entry points out that off-hand attacks (which the game defines as the extra attack when using TWF, usually made with a weapon held in the left hand) have a -4 penalty and 1/2 strength to damage. That's true, and supported by the TWF table, the entry for Strength, etc.

The glossary does not create a new rule that all attacks--even single, "standard action" attacks--made with the *left* hand suffer a -4 penalty and 1/2 str bonus to damage. That new rule doesn't make sense, since it's not mentioned anywhere in the rules. Not in the entry for Strength, not in the entry for Attacks or Actions in Combat, not in the entry for Equipment, not even in the FAQ or Errata.

Glossary entries are spot summaries of existing rules. They've got to be read in context, and shouldn't be viewed as creating new rules.

-z