trip, whip and twf

[Neverwill]

(And what happens if, before he quick-draws and attacks with the shortsword, the warrior uses a free action to drop the longsword with which he just attacked? Note that at no time is he wielding two weapons, and thus under the Hypersmurf Model, he is not TWF, and doesn't take TWF penalties.)

Although, he's probably not wielding the shortsword in his off hand, so he isn't TWF under your model, either.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Wow - I've just spent two pages arguing without making a single post!

Okay.

"If you get more than one attack per round because your base attack bonus is high enough, because you fight with two weapons or a double weapon or for some special reason you must use a full-round action to get your additional attacks."

If you're not 'fighting this way' - wielding a second weapon in your off-hand - when you take your full attack action, you don't qualify for the extra attack with the off-hand weapon.

So this is what I understand Jeff Wilder to be calling premise 2.

1st level warrior attacks with a longsword and quick-draws a shortsword. He attacked without penalty, so he is prohibited from wielding a second weapon in his off-hand. He can only wield one weapon, since no penalty was applied. Per the Gruntharg example in the 3E Main FAQ, he can take a free action to stop wielding his longsword, and a free action to wield the shortsword he is holding, if he likes... he just can't wield both at once.

6th level warrior attacks with a longsword (at +6) and quick-draws a shortsword. He took no penalty, so he is prohibited from wielding two weapons; by Gruntharg's Law, he can cease wielding the longsword and wield the shortsword as two free actions, making his second attack with the shortsword at +1 (with a -4 penalty for an attack with his off hand, per the PHB Glossary).

In neither case does the warrior qualify for an extra attack with his off-hand, as he is not 'fighting this way'.

Regarding Fighting Defensively - "Can you fight defensively, taking the -4 penalty to attack before you're engaged in melee or ranged combat?"

You can Fight Defensively when you take the attack action or the full attack action. You can't Fight Defensively, move 30 feet, and then attack; you would have to move 30 feet, and then attack while Fighting Defensively.

Combat Expertise is even more restrictive; you can only use it when you take the attack action or full attack action in melee. (Two characters are engaged in melee when they are enemies of each other and either threatens the other; accordingly, you can use Combat Expertise when you shoot the orc with your longbow, but only if you're within five feet of his greataxe...)

-Hyp.

 

[Jeff Wilder]

If you're not 'fighting this way' - wielding a second weapon in your off-hand - when you take your full attack action, you don't qualify for the extra attack with the off-hand weapon.

Can you cite this rule please?

In D&D, one does not have to "pre-declare" a full attack option. D&D specifically allows characters to take one attack and judge the results before taking (or declining) additional attacks. Whether or not the character has used a full attack option is thus determined after he uses or declines any additional attacks.

1st level warrior attacks with a longsword and quick-draws a shortsword. He attacked without penalty, so he is prohibited from wielding a second weapon in his off-hand. He can only wield one weapon, since no penalty was applied.

Can you cite this rule, please?

You now seem to be saying that a TWF cannot draw his off-hand weapon between attacks. Is this what you're saying?

(Because: If the off-hand weapon isn't out in the first place, he's not "fighting this way," and TWF penalties don't apply. But once he quick-draws the shortsword ... it's somehow "too late" for him to be "fighting this way"? Is this an accurate summation of what you're saying?)

D&D likewise specifically allows characters to quick-draw weapons between attacks, despite this strange assertion of yours.

So I'd kinda like to see the rule that says a TWF has to pre-declare that he's taking a full-attack action and the rule that says a TWF has to quick-draw his off-hand weapon before making his first attack.

 

[Jeff Wilder]

Here's the question I submitted to WCS:

Customer (Jeff Wilder) 08/03/2005 06:28 AM
This is a two-weapon fighting question.

Assume a 1st-level warrior, Quick-Draw feat, no Strength bonus, no
weapon bonus, currently wielding a longsword, with a shortsword at his
belt. No special or hidden combat modifiers. (In other words, this
isn't a trick question.) He swings at a goblin, which also has no
special combat modifiers in play.

What is the warrior's attack modifier when he swings with the
longsword? How is it calculated?

He then Quick-Draws the shortsword at his belt and attacks the goblin with it.

What is the warrior's attack modifier when he stabs with the
shortsword? How is it calculated?

--
Jeff Wilder, San Francisco

And here is the WCS response:

Response (Chris L.) 08/03/2005 09:10 AM
Thank you for contacting us.
With no Strength bonus and no weapon bonus, the warrior gets +1 to hit (from his base attack bonus).
You cannot attack with the longsword and then switch fighting styles mid round. If you plan to fight with two weapons for the round, you must declare this before making any attacks. If you only attack with the longsword then the attack bonus is +1 (given the current circumstances). Drawing the short sword and attacking with it, will reduce the attack bonus of both attacks by 2, thus reducing the total attack bonus for his longsword and shortsword to -1 (+1 base attack bonus minus 2 for two-weapon fighting). This assumes that the warrior also has the Two-Weapon Fighting feat as well.

I hope this information is useful.
Good Gaming!
We would appreciate your feedback on the service we are providing you. Please click here to fill out a short questionnaire.

To login to your account, or update your question please click here.

Chris L.

Customer Service Representative
Wizards of the Coast
1-800-324-6496 (US and Canada)
425-204-8069 (From all other countries)
Monday-Friday 7am-6pm PST / 10am-9pm EST

Note that the response is precisely in line with how I've been arguing that TWF works. Note specifically the fourth sentence in the response: "If you plan to fight with two weapons for the round, you must declare this before making any attacks."

Of course I expect the usual "WCS doesn't know what they're talking about," and I can't even really grouse about that. (Because I often agree with the sentiment.) But for anybody wanting an "official" answer, there it is.

 

[Hypersmurf]

In D&D, one does not have to "pre-declare" a full attack option.

Yes, you do.

The "Deciding between an Attack or a Full Attack" rule appears in the text of the Full Attack action, and applies after you take the first attack.

You can't take an attack action, make an attack, and then decide to trade your move action for the remaining attacks of a full attack action.

You can take the full attack action, make an attack, and then decide to trade the remaining attacks for a move action.

D&D specifically allows characters to take one attack and judge the results before taking (or declining) additional attacks. Whether or not the character has used a full attack option is thus determined after he uses or declines any additional attacks.

To have the option, he must have taken the full attack action originally, which allows him the chance to substitute attacks for a move action.

You now seem to be saying that a TWF cannot draw his off-hand weapon between attacks. Is this what you're saying?

Not at all. I'd allow him to draw a second weapon, as long as he doesn't wield two at the same time if he's already made an attack without taking TWF penalties. If he simply draws the weapon in such a fashion as to not be wielding it (doesn't threaten, can't benefit from anything that applies to 'the wielder', etc), I have no problem.

(Because: If the off-hand weapon isn't out in the first place, he's not "fighting this way," and TWF penalties don't apply. But once he quick-draws the shortsword ... it's somehow "too late" for him to be "fighting this way"? Is this an accurate summation of what you're saying?)

Right... just like if someone stabs someone at no penalty, drops their sword, and quickdraws a dagger, it's "too late" to use Rapid Shot.

D&D likewise specifically allows characters to quick-draw weapons between attacks, despite this strange assertion of yours.

I have no problem with Quick-Drawing between attacks. I have a problem with fighting this way if you haven't taken the penalties for it.

-Hyp.

 

[Jeff Wilder]

You can take the full attack action, make an attack, and then decide to trade the remaining attacks for a move action.

Can you take the full attack action, make an attack, then quick-draw a shortsword with the off-hand and make an attack?

If not, why not? Show me the rule.

Your model contradicts the D&D general rule that one can attack, judge the effect, and then take a second attack if available. I'm trying to figure out what rule you've found that states that contradiction.

You said, "I'd allow him to draw a second weapon, as long as he doesn't wield two at the same time if he's already made an attack without taking TWF penalties."

So, to be clear, you'd allow someone who takes the full attack action to attack with the longsword (currently only wielding one weapon), drop the longsword as a free action (currently wielding no weapons), quick-draw the shortsword with the off-hand (currently wielding one weapon), and attack with the shortsword? And, since at no time is he "wield[ing] two [weapons] at the same time," he doesn't take TWF penalties. Right?

If this isn't what you said, how is it not permitted by what you've said?

Another question: How about the guy wielding the two-bladed sword? In your model, he can't attack once, then decide to take an off-hand attack, right?

So, to sum up:

In your model, the general rule that one can attack, judge the effect of the attack, and choose to attack again doesn't fully apply to two-weapon fighter, because ...

In your model, the general rule that one can attack with a weapon, then quick-draw a second weapon and attack with it doesn't apply to two-weapon fighters.

So to make your model work (sorta, I guess), you have to change two general rules of D&D combat. Right?

Whereas the alternative, my model, and Customer Service's model, says that as long as you accept the penalties for TWF on all attacks, you're eligible to take an extra attack with your off-hand.

 

[Hypersmurf]

So, to be clear, you'd allow someone who takes the full attack action to attack with the longsword (currently only wielding one weapon), drop the longsword as a free action (currently wielding no weapons), quick-draw the shortsword with the off-hand (currently wielding one weapon), and attack with the shortsword? And, since at no time is he "wield[ing] two [weapons] at the same time," he doesn't take TWF penalties. Right?

Assuming he has at least two iterative attacks, sure.

If his BAB is less than +6, he can't attack with the shortsword, because he' got no attacks available.

Another question: How about the guy wielding the two-bladed sword? In your model, he can't attack once, then decide to take an off-hand attack, right?

A two-bladed sword is either used as a two-handed weapon, or a weapon-plus-off-hand-weapon combination.

If he's using it at the first, he's not 'fighting this way'. If he's using it as the second, he is.

In your model, the general rule that one can attack, judge the effect of the attack, and choose to attack again doesn't fully apply to two-weapon fighter, because ...

In your model, the general rule that one can attack with a weapon, then quick-draw a second weapon and attack with it doesn't apply to two-weapon fighters.

How does it not apply?

He can attack, judge, and attack again, certainly. But as Custserv noted to you, you can't switch fighting style mid-round. Either you're fighting this way, or you aren't.

-Hyp.

 

[Jeff Wilder]

A two-bladed sword is either used as a two-handed weapon, or a weapon-plus-off-hand-weapon combination.

Yes. But where in the rules does it say he must declare which way he's using it? And when?

Where in the rules (other than the defending ability) is the distinction between "holding a weapon" and "wielding a weapon" made?

He can attack, judge, and attack again, certainly. But as Custserv noted to you, you can't switch fighting style mid-round. Either you're fighting this way, or you aren't.

Yes, and as Custserv also noted, you declare your intention to make a second attack, and accept the penalties, before you make the first attack ... even if you're not currently wielding a second weapon.

In your model, it is impossible for a 1st-level fighter to attack, judge the effects, then quick-draw his shortsword and attack. In your model, it is impossible to do something permitted by the general rules of D&D combat.

You continue to claim that "fight this way" means "wield two weapons." But it doesn't mean that. A hand is not a weapon, yet it can be used for off-hand attacks (even without IUS). A ring that delivers shocking grasp with a touch attack is not a weapon, but it can be used to deliver off-hand attacks.

"Fight this way" doesn't mean "wield two weapons." It means "preserve the opportunity to make an off-hand attack." And for doing that, you pay the TWF penalties.

Under your model, a 1st-level fighter can't attack with his longsword, then draw -- not quick-draw and attack, just draw, as a move action -- his shortsword. Under your model, it is impossible for the fighter to do that. It is impossible to do something clearly permitted by the D&D rules. And you don't see anything wrong with that?

Under your model, a 1st-level fighter can't attack with his longsword, judge the effects, and then make a normal unarmed attack with his off-hand fist. It is impossible for him to do this -- you can't wield a non-IUS fist, after all, or threaten squares with it -- despite the fact that it is clearly allowed under the D&D rules.

Your model breaks the D&D rules, Hypersmurf. Under your model, general rule after general rule of D&D combat falls.

 

[Jack Simth]

Just in a (probably vain) attempt to clear up what appears (to me, at least) to be a miscommunication ....

Fighter 6, Quickdraw, Two-Weapon Fighting

Situation 1:
Declares full attack.
Attacks with longsword (no penalty)
Drops Longsword (free)
Quickdraws Shortsword
Attacks with shortsword (once)

Leagle?

Situation 2:
Declares full attack
Attacks with longsword (no penalty)
quickdraws shortsword (into off-hand)
makes iterative attack with longsword (twf penalty)
makes extra attack with shortsword (twf penalty)

leagle?

Situation 3:
Declares full attack
Attacks with Longsword (twf penalty)
quickdraws shortsword (into off hand)
makes iterative attack with longsword (twf penalty)
makes twf attack with shortsword

leagle?

 

[Hypersmurf]

Where in the rules (other than the defending ability) is the distinction between "holding a weapon" and "wielding a weapon" made?

It needs to be made, or anyone with a shield suffers TWF penalties.

In your model, it is impossible for a 1st-level fighter to attack, judge the effects, then quick-draw his shortsword and attack. In your model, it is impossible to do something permitted by the general rules of D&D combat.

But it's not impossible. The fighter can be 'wielding a second weapon with his off-hand' by considering his unarmed strike an off-hand weapon. He thus takes the penalty on his longsword attack, and then (since he's 'fighting this way' and is allowed an extra attack with an off-hand weapon) can quickdraw his shortsword and attack.

You continue to claim that "fight this way" means "wield two weapons." But it doesn't mean that. A hand is not a weapon, yet it can be used for off-hand attacks (even without IUS). A ring that delivers shocking grasp with a touch attack is not a weapon, but it can be used to deliver off-hand attacks.

Right. So we need to allow that 'wielding a weapon that may be used for off-hand attacks' - whether it be bladed boots, or spiked armor, or an unarmed strike, or whatever - fulfils the requirement of 'wielding a weapon in your off-hand', even if the off-hand weapon is not actually in one's physical off-hand.

"Fight this way" doesn't mean "wield two weapons." It means "preserve the opportunity to make an off-hand attack." And for doing that, you pay the TWF penalties.

I don't really have an issue with that, as long as one accepts that wielding two weapons automatically preserves the opportunity to make an off-hand attack, and if you don't wish that opportunity preserved, you have to not-wield-two-weapons.

It's a very black-and-white statement - when you wield a second weapon in your off-hand, you can make an extra off-hand attack. If you don't want to be able to make an extra off-hand attack, wielding a second weapon in your off-hand must be avoided.

Under your model, a 1st-level fighter can't attack with his longsword, then draw -- not quick-draw and attack, just draw, as a move action -- his shortsword.

Why, certainly he can... as long as he isn't wielding both of them. I have no problem with his wielding a longsword and holding a shortsword, or vice versa. But wielding both would incur TWF penalties.

It is impossible to do something clearly permitted by the D&D rules.

If it's impossible under my 'model', being my interpretation of the D&D rules, it isn't 'clearly permitted' by those rules, surely?

You can't wield a non-IUS fist, after all, or threaten squares with it...

Why can't you wield it? You can't threaten squares with it, any more than you can with a whip... but you can wield a whip.

If it's available to attack with, it is wielded.

-Hyp.