Reach Weapons, Monks, Whirlwind Attack

[Dreeble]

Similarly, if a Ranger is carrying a +3 shortsword and a +1 Dragonbane shortsword, and he uses his first attack to stab a dragon (killing it), and then uses his second attack to stab someone else with the other sword he doesn't suffer penalties. However, if the Ranger wanted to get his extra attacks and strike with both weapons at his highest BAB - he'd have to take the TWF penalties.

Heya:

It sounds like this is saying there's a Ranger who is, say, 6th lvl. He could attack with the +1 Dragonbane shortsword in one hand at +6 and then attack in the same round with the +3 shortsword at +1 and not suffer TWF penalties? Is that right? If so, cool, I didn't realize things worked that way.

Take care,
Dreeble

 

[The Souljourner]

Yes. And attacking with a reach weapon AND an unarmed attack isn't a single melee attack.

You get to "make one melee attack ... against each opponent"

I'm not saying you get to attack the same guy twice. I attack the orc who is ten feet away with a single melee attack from my guisarme. I attack the goblin who is 5 feet away with a single melee attack from my unarmed strike. Thus, I am making one melee attack against each opponent I can reach. Where's the problem with that?

-The Souljourner

 

[nimisgod]

You get to "make one melee attack ... against each opponent"

I'm not saying you get to attack the same guy twice. I attack the orc who is ten feet away with a single melee attack from my guisarme. I attack the goblin who is 5 feet away with a single melee attack from my unarmed strike. Thus, I am making one melee attack against each opponent I can reach. Where's the problem with that?

-The Souljourner

I would imagine that by the same reasoning, a fighter with 2 longswords would attack each person in a WWA twice. After all, they're both different weapons right?

Alternatively, a monk with a 2Hsword would attack everyone around him twice.

 

[nimisgod]

You get to "make one melee attack ... against each opponent"

I'm not saying you get to attack the same guy twice. I attack the orc who is ten feet away with a single melee attack from my guisarme. I attack the goblin who is 5 feet away with a single melee attack from my unarmed strike. Thus, I am making one melee attack against each opponent I can reach. Where's the problem with that?

-The Souljourner

I would imagine that by the same reasoning, a fighter with 2 longswords would attack each person in a WWA twice. After all, they're both different weapons right?

Alternatively, a monk with a 2Hsword would attack everyone around him twice.

 

[FrankTrollman]

Heya:

It sounds like this is saying there's a Ranger who is, say, 6th lvl. He could attack with the +1 Dragonbane shortsword in one hand at +6 and then attack in the same round with the +3 shortsword at +1 and not suffer TWF penalties? Is that right? If so, cool, I didn't realize things worked that way.

Take care,
Dreeble

Exactly. That's been on the table since 3rd edition.

I would imagine that by the same reasoning, a fighter with 2 longswords would attack each person in a WWA twice. After all, they're both different weapons right?

no. That's completely different reasoning. The Fighter with two longswords can WWA and hit any opponent with either longsword. Not with both weapons, however.

He gets one attack against each opponent he can reach. Any of those attacks could be an unarmed trip attack, a disarm, an attack with the Bane Weapon Longsword or an attack with the other Longsword.

It doesn't matter. Each attack is declared individually, and you don't suffer TWF penalties for declaring an attack with one weapon and subsequently the other than you do for declaring a trip attack (which is by default an unarmed attack) and then using improved trip to stab the target with your sword. Two weapons, yes, but since you aren't getting additional attacks from two weapon fighting - you don't suffer those penalties.

Note that 3rd edition WWA could be used with two weapons to attack each enemy twice (and suffer the appropriate penalties). 3.5 WWA denies you the ability to do that - and is crap.

-Frank

 

[Caliban]

Of course. Remember, the TWF penalties don't come from using two weapons in the same round, they come from attacking with both weapons simultaneously with the same attack.

So, for example, you don't take two weapon fighting penalties when you throw a javelin and then quickdraw another javelin and throw it - even though oyu are certainly using two weapons during the round.

Similarly, if a Ranger is carrying a +3 shortsword and a +1 Dragonbane shortsword, and he uses his first attack to stab a dragon (killing it), and then uses his second attack to stab someone else with the other sword he doesn't suffer penalties. However, if the Ranger wanted to get his extra attacks and strike with both weapons at his highest BAB - he'd have to take the TWF penalties.

Using different weapons sequentially is never a problem. Using weapons simultaneously is. Using more than one weapon in 3.5 can never get you extra attacks of opportunity or extra attacks while whirlwind attacking - so it can never get you the TWF penalties either.

-Frank

'
I'm not sure I agree with your reasoning, but I don't have time to go into it right now, except for one thing:

You do get penalties for using an off-hand weapon, even if you are using the sequentially. This doesn't apply to a monk striking unarmed, but would for the other situations mentioned.

 

[Caliban]

Note that 3rd edition WWA could be used with two weapons to attack each enemy twice (and suffer the appropriate penalties). 3.5 WWA denies you the ability to do that - and is crap.

-Frank

This is incorrect. In 3.0 you could WWA with one weapon, and use your off-hand weapon to make your extra TWF attacks. You did not get two attacks against each enemy (unless your number of enemies exactly equaled your offhand attacks and you chose to divide them up that way).

 

[Snipehunt]

Yeah, I think it's one of those things that just isn't defined clearly enough. Personally, I don't think there's anything unbalancing about letting someone use two weapons and threaten with both, but only actually attack with one. In general it's better to attack with both anyway.

-The Souljourner

I agree with you in general, but your reach weapon/unarmed strike combo depends on how the DM plays it. The reach weapon will take 2 hands - unless you use a lance on horseback, which doesn't seem to fit the idiom. If you DM thinks that the monk's unarmed strike requires at least one free hand, then you'd need to decide at the end of your initiative whether you have two hands on the reach weapon (which threatens), or one hand on the reach weapon (which then doesn't threaten). You can argue that a monk attacks with the whole body, and so it doesn't matter that both hands are on the longspear (or whatever), and maybe your DM will buy it. I would, mostly b/c the monk is pretty crappy anyway, although it sounds like your campaign is tailor-made for a monk w/ those awesome stats.

Thinking about it - just use a small longspear. Has reach, but as a medium creature you can use it one-handed, although at -2 to hit.

 

[youspoonybard]

Small longspear?

Reach weapon...1 handed for a medium character.

Hyp, where's that dagger throwing example?

 

[Darklone]

Which dagger throwin example? The level 11 dude attacking twice, dropping his enemy and throwing the dagger in his left hand at someone else?