trip, whip and twf

[Hypersmurf]

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

I think both Jeff and I would say that 1 and 3 are legal, but 2 is not.

We'd describe the mechanics of 3 differently, but with the same outcome.

Three more situations to consider:

1. Longsword wielded in two hands, attacks with TWF penalty; releases longsword with off-hand, quickdraws shortsword, makes off-hand attack with TWF penalty. Legal?

2. Shortsword wielded in primary hand, attacks with TWF penalty, switches shortsword to off-hand, makes off-hand attack with TWF penalty. Legal?

3. Improved Two-Weapon Fighting. Attacks twice with longsword in primary hand with TWF penalty (modified for light off-hand weapon), quickdraws shortsword, makes first off-hand attack with TWF penalty (modifed for light off-hand weapon). Discovers opponent is immune to piercing damage; drops shortsword, quickdraws mace. Can he make an off-hand attack with the mace?

-Hyp.

 

[Jeff Wilder]

I said, "Where in the rules 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.

This is not true, except under your model. The distinction (which doesn't actually exist) is only necessary because of the way you read TWF. (In other words, under your model, you have to create a new rule.)

Under my model, if the guy with the shield doesn't want the option of attacking with it, he simply doesn't. If he does want the option of attacking with it, he takes the TWF penalties from the beginning of his full attack action.

I said, "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.

So now, under your model, a guy has to "wield" his own hand, if he wants to use that hand to later draw a shortsword. Yet another rule you've been forced to create because you insist on reading the TWF rules incorrectly, right?

Rght. 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.

Yet another rule you've been forced to create.

Seriously, wouldn't it be simpler to consider the possibility that your reading of TWF is incorrect?

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.

Holy cow.

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.

Well, yeah, it's a very black-and-white argument until you start getting into all the rules you have to break or create to make it work properly.

I'm simply flabbergasted that your position is that if a character wields an off-hand weapon (or his own fist, or a two-bladed sword), he must take TWF penalties, even if he has absolutely no intention of fighting two-handed.

I said, "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.

So I'll ask again. Where is this distinction between "holding a weapon" and "wielding a weapon" in the rules? You're simply creating it, right? Because in order for your TWF model to make sense, the rule has to exist, right?

I said, "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?

It is clearly permitted by every other aspect of the rules except those you're interpreting. Then suddenly, under your interpretation, it no longer works.

I said, "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.

Actually, it doesn't even matter if you can wield it, although the definition of "wield" suggests you can't. It doesn't matter because even if you can wield it, it's not a weapon. And under your model, it's "wielding a weapon" that permits the off-hand attack. Right?

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

Show me this rule in D&D. Is this another rule you're creating to make your model work?

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

An unarmed strike is a weapon - and is considered a manufactured weapon, at that.

Check the Weapons table in the equipment section, JW.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Originally Posted by Hypersmurf
Rght. 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.

Yet another rule you've been forced to create.

Um?

Can your warrior-1 with a longsword attack with his longsword, and make an unarmed strike as an off-hand attack, if he takes TWF penalties on both attacks?

If the answer is yes, then what rule allows him to?

This 'rule I've been forced to create' is not unique to 'my model'.

-Hyp.

 

[Jeff Wilder]

I'm gonna make one more stab at this, and then I'm giving up. (No, really.) These are "yes or no" questions. None of them will be trick questions. Wanna indulge me, Hypersmurf?

Here's the TWF language again: "If you wield a second weapon in your off hand, you can get one extra attack per round with that weapon. You suffer a -6 penalty with your regular attack or attacks with your primary hand and a -10 penalty to the attack with your off hand when you fight this way."

Here's the first couple of questions:

(1) Your reading of the TWF rules requires a distinction between "holding" a weapon and "wielding" a weapon, correct?

(2) There is no actual distinction in the D&D combat rules between "holding" and "wielding" a weapon, correct?

 

[Hypersmurf]

(1) Your reading of the TWF rules requires a distinction between "holding" a weapon and "wielding" a weapon, correct?

Yup.

(2) There is no actual distinction in the D&D combat rules between "holding" and "wielding" a weapon, correct?

If a wizard has a quarterstaff in his right hand and casts a spell with his left:

1. Is he wielding a quarterstaff?
2. Is he holding a quarterstaff?
3. Is the answer to 1. and 2. different?
4. Can the wizard store the quarterstaff in his Glove of Storing?

-Hyp.

 

[Legildur]

Note that a cleric could transfer his light mace to his off-hand (as a free action), which may be holding a readied light shield, and then cast a spell with a somatic component.

In no way is he 'wielding' that weapon as the light shield description clearly states that you can't.

Therefore you can be holding a weapon in a hand without wielding it.

I play an elven fighter who often transfers a weapon to the off-hand (with a readied buckler) and then fights with another weapon in the primary hand as I hate dropping things on the battlefield unless absolutely necessary.

 

[Jeff Wilder]

I said, "(1) Your reading of the TWF rules requires a distinction between "holding" a weapon and "wielding" a weapon, correct?"

Yup.

Okay.

Then I said, "(2) There is no actual distinction in the D&D combat rules between "holding" and "wielding" a weapon, correct?"

Hypersmurf declined to answer.

=If a wizard has a quarterstaff in his right hand and casts a spell with his left:

1. Is he wielding a quarterstaff?

Yes. From the SRD, under Double Weapons: "A creature wielding a double weapon in one hand can’t use it as a double weapon." A creature can clearly wield a double-weapon (e.g., a quarterstaff) with one hand.

2. Is he holding a quarterstaff?

Of course.

3. Is the answer to 1. and 2. different?

No.

So, let's try again:

(2) There is no actual distinction in the D&D combat rules between "holding" and "wielding" a weapon, correct?

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Yes. From the SRD, under Double Weapons: "A creature wielding a double weapon in one hand can’t use it as a double weapon." A creature can clearly wield a double-weapon (e.g., a quarterstaff) with one hand.

You've got to be kidding me.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Yes. From the SRD, under Double Weapons: "A creature wielding a double weapon in one hand can’t use it as a double weapon." A creature can clearly wield a double-weapon (e.g., a quarterstaff) with one hand.

Only if the creature is a size category larger than the weapon.

If you look at the 3E PHB, they specifically use an example of an Ogre using a (human-sized, like most weapons in the 3E PHB) two-bladed sword in one hand. The example isn't used in the 3.5 PHB, but the same circumstances apply.

As a Medium two-handed weapon, it can be wielded in one hand by a Large creature, but that creature can't use both ends if he's only using one hand.

As a two-handed weapon, the Medium quarterstaff cannot be wielded in one hand by a Medium creature at all, thus that line is inapplicable.

-Hyp.