trip, whip and twf

[Jeff Wilder]

Feats such as Two-weapon Defence then only come into play while the character is actually fighting with two weapons

But TWD doesn't require that a character be actually fighting with two weapons. If it did require that, it could easily say that. TWD only requires that the character be wielding two weapons (or a double-weapon).

If there is no intent to fight with two weapons, then the player isn't allowed to do so mid-turn. So no quickdrawing a shortsword and using it in the off hand, unless it's to take place in a regular iterative attack.

Buit if the character does intend to fight with TWF, he can do that, right?

 

[glass]

My argument actually boils down to the fact that since these terms are not game-defined, interpreting a rule in such a way that requires you to have game-definitions for these terms is absurd.

But because they are not game defined terms, we can only go by their English meanings. Would you say there is no difference between wielding a weapon and holding a weapon in English?

On the face of the language, this is a reasonable way to read the rule. The problem is, as Hypersmurf himself has admitted, it requires rules distinctions between terms like "wield," "use" and "hold." The problem is that these are terms that the game rules constantly use interchangeably and very confusingly. It leads to things like a fighter having drawn a shortsword under the rules, and being armed with the shortsword under the rules, but somehow not wielding that shortsword, but only holding the shortsword.

Surely I can't be the only person reading this who finds it bizarre?

I don't see why having a distinction between different terms should be a bizarre. They are different after all. If anything, I'd say its bizarre to insist that two different terms mean the same thing.

BTW, under the 'hold and wield are different' model, you are not armed with a weapon if you are holding it but not wielding it.

Jeff's Model -- The first sentence can just as easily -- and just as reasonably -- be read to mean, "You can get one extra attack per round with a weapon in your off-hand." With that meaning in mind, the entire first sentence becomes the antecedent for "fight this way." You're "fighting this way" whenever you want to be able to get an extra attack with a second weapon.

This model does not require a TWF to make bizarre distinctions between "wielding," "holding," "using," "armed," and so on. All the TWF has to do is "fight this way" -- he pays the penalties, and at any point in the round he can take an extra attack with a second weapon.

Your model does require distinctions. It makes a distinction with 'wielding' and 'armed', rather than 'wielding' and 'holding'.

As a reminder, this is exactly as Wizards Customer Service said to handle things, for whatever that's worth, and I purposefully structured the question to make it difficult to arrive at that conclusion without understanding the rules.

There is nothing in the CustServ reply which goes to the root of the issue: the definitions of 'wield' and 'this way'. Their ruling is perfectly consistant with either of our models (and for once, correct ).

There is nothing in the description of TWD that says anything about suffering TWF penalties. All that is required is that you be wielding two weapons (or a double weapon) ... you do not have to be fighting with both.

Under our model, the fact that it requires you to wield two weapons requires you to take TWF penalties. To say that you took the penalties would be redundant.

Note that even under Hypersmurf's definition it's possible to wield a double-weapon and not be TWF, since a double-weapon can be used perfectly well to make a single attack. And all that is required to gain TWD is that you be wielding the double-weapon.

You can wield a double weapon as one weapon or two. You can't do both in the same round. If you wield it as two weapons you take TWF penalties (and gain TWD bonuses), if you wield it as one you don't (and you don't).

Again, why the insistence upon a reading that has so many bizarre consequences, when an equally reasonable parsing of the language comes up with something that suffers none of those bizarre consequences? What am I missing?

Because the bizarre consequences are all in your head? Because to my way of thinking, your way of reading it has more 'bizare consequences' than ours?


glass.

 

[Vurt]

But TWD doesn't require that a character be actually fighting with two weapons. If it did require that, it could easily say that. TWD only requires that the character be wielding two weapons (or a double-weapon).

"Wielding" seems to me to be a simpler and more succinct way of writing "fighting with". At least, that is how I choose to interpret it. The feat's flavor text seems to agree with me:

TWO-WEAPON DEFENSE. Your two-weapon fighting style bolsters your defense as well as your offense.

But if the character does intend to fight with TWF, he can do that, right?

So long as he declares his intent at the start of his turn.

Cheers,
Vurt

 

[MeepoTheMighty]

I don't really wan to get into 5 pages of arguments, but I'll just add that I've always played by the way Jeff seems to interpret things. Ignoring the abiguously worded rules, just think about it realistically. Why should simply holding a weapon in your off-hand give you a penalty if you're not using it? Holding a shield, a torch, or a lantern in your off-hand doesn't give you a penalty, unless you decide to hit someone with it. Why should holding a dagger be different?

 

[Hypersmurf]

Why should simply holding a weapon in your off-hand give you a penalty if you're not using it?

As far as I'm concerned, it doesn't. If all you're doing is holding it, you aren't 'wielding a second weapon in your off hand'.

You cannot. In order to threaten, you have to be able to make an attack. If you haven't accepted the TWF penalties, you cannot make an attack with the off-hand weapon. But you are still wielding that weapon.

So let's say our hero attacks with his longsword (no penalty), then quick-draws a mace with his off-hand.

He's protecting the damsel in distress from the brain-sucking zombies (DR X/Slashing) and the flesh-rending skeletons (DR X/Bludgeoning).

When the first enemy rushes past him and he takes his AoO, which weapons can he use?

He didn't take TWF penalties, so he is only able-to-make-an-attack with one weapon, yes? Can he choose at the time that he draws the mace whether it's the longsword or the mace that he threatens with? Can he choose at the time that he takes the AoO whether it's the longsword or the mace that he threatens with?

Same question for a monk with a longspear, who makes his attack during the round with his longspear and takes no TWF penalties. Does he threaten with both longspear and unarmed strike? One or the other? Does he get an option? When can he choose?

-Hyp.

 

[MeepoTheMighty]

As far as I'm concerned, it doesn't. If all you're doing is holding it, you aren't 'wielding a second weapon in your off hand'.

I guess I just don't see the difference between holding and wielding. In actual play, do you force your players to worry about the difference? Say the PC has a longsword in his main hand, and a short sword in his off hand. Do you make him tell you that he's "holding" the short sword when he moves up and takes a single attack, and then "wielding" it the next round when he can take a full attack? Don't they ever look at you funny?

He didn't take TWF penalties, so he is only able-to-make-an-attack with one weapon, yes? Can he choose at the time that he draws the mace whether it's the longsword or the mace that he threatens with? Can he choose at the time that he takes the AoO whether it's the longsword or the mace that he threatens with?

Same question for a monk with a longspear, who makes his attack during the round with his longspear and takes no TWF penalties. Does he threaten with both longspear and unarmed strike? One or the other? Does he get an option? When can he choose?

I would have no problem allowing either of those. The number of AoOs is going to be limited anyways, and I can't really see how it's abusive.

 

[Artoomis]

I don't really wan to get into 5 pages of arguments, but I'll just add that I've always played by the way Jeff seems to interpret things. Ignoring the abiguously worded rules, just think about it realistically. Why should simply holding a weapon in your off-hand give you a penalty if you're not using it? Holding a shield, a torch, or a lantern in your off-hand doesn't give you a penalty, unless you decide to hit someone with it. Why should holding a dagger be different?

Right, exactly. Continuing this though of "realistic" thinking, if you ARE just holding it, then you are NOT threatening with it and cannot use it for an AoO because you are not ready to use it. Makes sense, no? No two weapon defense available either, I think, for the same reason - you simply are not prepared to use the weapon if you are merely holding on to it.

 

[Legildur]

I didn't respond to it because I had already addressed the point, using the same quotes. And your latter quote, about size-changing, just doesn't apply. There's no size-changing going on.

I agree that 'there's no size-changing going on'. Which means that there is no 'wielding a double-weapon in one hand', either (the point I was trying to make).

 

[Jeff Wilder]

But because they are not game defined terms, we can only go by their English meanings. Would you say there is no difference between wielding a weapon and holding a weapon in English?

There is a difference, but it is almost entirely connotative. When you read, in a newspaper of a piece of fiction, "The bankrobber was holding a gun," do you consider that to be denotatively different from, "The bankrobber was wielding a gun"?

(Oh, wait, I forgot you're in England! A "gun" is a weapon that throws projectiles at deadly velocity.)

I don't see why having a distinction between different terms should be a bizarre.

Having the distinction wouldn't necessarily be bizarre. Being forced to create the distinction, in order to make one's rule interpretation work ... that's bizarre.

Your model does require distinctions. It makes a distinction with 'wielding' and 'armed', rather than 'wielding' and 'holding'.

Even if that's true, it's fine ... because the distinction actually exists in the rules. The rules tell us what it means to be "armed."

There is nothing in the CustServ reply which goes to the root of the issue: the definitions of 'wield' and 'this way'. Their ruling is perfectly consistant with either of our models (and for once, correct.

Yes, the ruling is correct, but no, it is not consistent with your model. The CustServ answer clearly demonstrates that it's possible to attack with a longsword, with nothing in the other hand, then quick-draw and attack with a shortsword ... as long as you declare that you're two-weapon fighting before you attack with the longsword. The answer explicitly states that.

That's my model, it's not Hypersmurf's (which you've apparently adopted).

But at least you're right that CustServ's answer is correct. They've markedly improved over the last months.

You can wield a double weapon as one weapon or two. You can't do both in the same round.

Prove it. Show me the rule that says so.

By the rules, you don't wield a double-weapon as one weapon or two. You simply wield a double-weapon. How you intend to use it -- i.e., to gain an extra attack or not -- is what determines whether you take TWF penalties.

Because the bizarre consequences are all in your head? Because to my way of thinking, your way of reading it has more 'bizare consequences' than ours?

I don't believe you've thought things through very clearly.

(BTW, what's with the smilies? They're not necessary for my sake, just so you know. Unless you're overtly snotty to me, I'm going to assume you're simply presenting your argument. You're not risking hurting my feelings by doing so.)

 

[Jeff Wilder]

But if the character does intend to fight with TWF, he can do that [i.e., attack with a longsword in one hand and nothing in the other, then quick-draw a shortsword and attack with it], right?

So long as he declares his intent at the start of his turn.

I completely agree. That's my model. Not Hypersmurf's.

Actually, Hypersmurf has said that his model allows it also, like this: the character declares before he attacks with his longsword that he is "wielding his fist" as an off-hand weapon, thus gaining an extra attack. After he attacks with his longsword, he declares that he is no longer "wielding his fist," and he quick-draws the shortsword (and presumably declares that he's wielding it). The extra attack that he gained by "wielding his fist" and incurring TWF penaties, then transfers from his fist to the shortsword, and he can then roll his attack.

It's a thing of beauty, ain't it?

On the other hand, under my model you simply declare your intent to use TWF. You immediately incur the TWF penalties, and then you can take your extra attack in whatever way you want ... with IUS, if you have it, or a rod of lordly might's touch attack, or a quick-drawn shortsword, or even a non-IUS unarmed attack, or whatever.