ToB:Bo9S - Shield Counter is TWF?

[glass]

nope. just like tagging someone with a shieldbash instead of your longsword when they provoke an AoO isn't TWF either.

I'd have to check the wording of the manouver, but if it is 'just like tagging someone with a shieldbash instead of your longsword when they provoke an AoO', then the answer is 'yes'. You are wielding two weapons, so you do take TWF penalties.


glass.

 

[glass]

Does that mean I can wield a warhammer in one hand and a battleaxe in the other, and have no penalties as long as I don't take extra attacks?

No, if you are wielding two weapons then you are wielding two weapons. You can hold (but not wield) a warhammer in you off-hand without penalty though.


glass.

 

[Quartz]

I don't agree that weapons can be switched within a round. Holding two different weapons gives considerable versatility. Consider a fighter fighting two different foes with different vulnerabilities. If you allow the character to switch weapons, he can use weapon A against one foe and weapon B against the second. My view is that if you want to use more than one weapon, you use TWF rules. Now, I do agree that a character simply holding a weapon in one hand is a different matter.

 

[Kmart Kommando]

If you're not getting any extra attacks out of having a second weapon in your other hand, then you're not taking the penalties that come along with it. 'It' being fighting with 2 weapons to gain extra attack(s).

Using a maneuver to smack someone is no different than someone casting a spell that gives you a free attack. It's not an extra attack from TWF, it's an extra attack from some different ability 'x'.

 

[Hypersmurf]

If you're not getting any extra attacks out of having a second weapon in your other hand, then you're not taking the penalties that come along with it. 'It' being fighting with 2 weapons to gain extra attack(s).

But I read 'it' as 'wielding a second weapon in your off hand', so for me, whether or not you're using the extra attack(s) you're entitled to doesn't affect that you incur the penalty.

-Hyp.

 

[Plane Sailing]

My own take falls more along the "no taxation without representation" side of things: no penalty without concurrent benefit. The benefit is you gain an extra attack (or more with later feats), the penalty is the reduction in attack accuracy.

The way I see it, yep. If you want to give up the benefit of a free hand - casting somatic spells, using a shield, holding an object, using a weapon in both hands, etc - in exchange for some versatility or style, then by all means.

Heck, I'd even let a character intersperse what weapon is used in the course of a full attack without penalty as long as they don't exceed their normal number of swings. Designate which hand is your lead and which is your off for purposes of strength modifier and go nuts. The only spot where it gets zany is with defending weapons, but it's pretty easy to keep that on the level by applying the same thinking - no bonus without penalty (which means actually attacking with that defending weapon, not just holding it in your off hand).

QFT. This is exactly my position on the issue too.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

QFT. This is exactly my position on the issue too.

Mine, too.

Although I allow "off-hand defending weapons as pointy shield" without any TWF penalty.