Throwing Weapons in Your Off-Hand

[DracoSuave]

no.

but from wield modus to just hold in hand modus. Having a javelin in the off hand all the time while not wielding them, just to change when you throw it an then wield your sword again seems cheesy. It would make throwing axes and hammers look quite bad compared to javelins...

Why? Spartans did it.

 

[Mort_Q]

... make throwing axes and hammers look quite bad compared to javelins...

Why? You can do same thing with them.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

they are military with lower range...

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Why? Spartans did it.

i thought thay used javelin and big shield, but i could be wrong...

I have no problem having one of them in your hand... but ready to throw all the time? When they are no offhand weapon... no thanks. It has taken a while until i recognized why exactly javelins are simple weapons.

you know we are just arguing over a single minor action...

 

[Mort_Q]

you know we are just arguing over a single minor action...

I'm not sure what we're arguing about anymore.

The off-hand keyword only comes into play in attacks that let you use more than one weapon.

If you're only attacking with one weapon, there is no off-hand weapon, regardless of what is in your other hand.

That's my only argument.

 

[DracoSuave]

i thought thay used javelin and big shield, but i could be wrong...

The phalanx was not their only option.

And I was refering more to the superheroic 300 spartans, not the historic spartans. (That being more a more appropriate yardstick to what a superheroic badass can do than 'What SCA taught me')

 

[Turtlejay]

Wait, you were in SCA? I never would have guessed!




And in the *movie*, spartans used javelins and swords, both. And a big shield. That is a lot of minor action switching.

Jay

 

[UngeheuerLich]

If someone realy believes it is a good idea to use his off hand just to hold a spear why not... you win

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I'm not sure what we're arguing about anymore.

The off-hand keyword only comes into play in attacks that let you use more than one weapon.

If you're only attacking with one weapon, there is no off-hand weapon, regardless of what is in your other hand.

That's my only argument.

I have to agree with you Mort and here's the reason why. A weapon is an 'object'. I can hold any other non-weapon object in one hand and use ANY sort of one-handed weapon in the other. Now, simply because that object in my other hand happens to be 'sword shaped' my javelin holding arm suddenly becomes crippled and can't throw? It makes no sense at all.

From a rules perspective if I decide to make an attack with a javelin and I happen to be holding a sword in my other hand the sword simply cannot be treated as an 'equipped' item because I'm exceeding a rule for what can be equipped at the same time, thus it cannot contribute properties, powers, etc to my character during the time in which it isn't legal to use it. This can be a significant factor.

So it really doesn't make that much sense to say that javelins can't be used while holding another weapon and there are downsides to doing it. More than that throwing axes are axes etc and there are plenty of reasons for wanting to wield them that are more important than a bit of extra range. This is even more true now with the new MP2 ranger and warlord stuff.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

I never argued that you can´t use it, but that you can´t have a sword and a javelin both ready to use as a weapon... but I already decided not to worry about it