trip, whip and twf

[Jeff Wilder]

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

Sure, "as far as [you're] concerned." The rules of the game, however, don't make this distinction. You have to create it to make your model (sorta) work.

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?

In my model, either one. He is not gaining an extra attack with his off-hand by TWF.

In your model, only the longsword, because even though he has "drawn" the mace, and is "holding" the mace, your model requires that he somehow not be "wielding" the mace.

What do the actual rules have to say? "Drawing a weapon so that you can use it in combat [...] requires a move action" and "[Quick Drawers] can draw a weapon as a free action instead of as a move action." Interesting ... he can draw the weapon, which enables him to use it in combat, but in your model he's not wielding the weapon, so he can't use it in combat.

Having to make all these bizarre distinctions really doesn't make your head hurt? If I were at your table and you went on about this stuff -- "oh, you've drawn it, and you're holding it, but you're not wielding it, or armed with it, so you can't use it, and you certainly can't attack with it" -- my jaw would hit the table. Then, just for fun on my way out the door, I'd ask, "Hey, 'Smurf, since I'm not armed with the shortsword, I can't be disarmed of it, right?"

He didn't take TWF penalties, so he is only able-to-make-an-attack with one weapon, yes?

Wow, you are so conceptually confused. TWF penalties allow an extra attack with a weapon, in addition to your normal attacks in a round. But what you've set up above is an attack of opportunity. He's not getting an extra attack from TWF ... he's getting an extra attack as an AoO.

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?

He threatens with both. He's drawn both, he's wielding both, and he's armed with both. He threatens with both.

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?

Under my model? Yes. Under the rules? Yes (not coincidentally the same answer).

Under your model? Who the hell knows? Under your model, can he wield the longspear and wield his IUS? Does he have to declare whether he's wielding his "punches," his "kicks," or his "head butts"? Can he wield all three? Under your model, I guess he can't wield his "punches," right, because he's wielding a two-handed weapon? So he's stuck wielding his "kicks" and "head butts"? Or does he have to choose only one of those?

One or the other? Does he get an option? When can he choose?

Smurfster, you're lost in a bizarre tesseractian maze of your own construction.

See "v.3.5 Main D&D FAQ", pages 19 and 20. Grab some rest, maybe a pina colada or two, figure out whether it's even worth trying to rehabilitate your model of how D&D combat works, and then come back when you're up to it, okay?

 

[Jeff Wilder]

Don't [Hypersmurf's players] ever look at you funny?

Preach on, bruthah. Testify.

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.

That's not the issue. The issue is that allowing it means that his model's wrong. And that's just not possible.

(I now have Meepo on my side. I CANNOT BE DEFEATED.)

 

[Hypersmurf]

Wow, you are so conceptually confused. TWF penalties allow an extra attack with a weapon, in addition to your normal attacks in a round. But what you've set up above is an attack of opportunity. He's not getting an extra attack from TWF ... he's getting an extra attack as an AoO.

You stated "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."

He can only make an attack of opportunity with a weapon if he threatens with it. He hasn't accepted TWF penalties. Are you saying he threatens with his mace because he can make an attack with his mace due to the attack of opportunity that he gets because he threatens with his mace?

-Hyp.

 

[Jeff Wilder]

You stated "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."

I was incorrect when I stated that. In point of fact, you don't actually threaten with specific weapons. You only threaten specific squares.

You threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack, even when it is not your action. Generally, that means everything in all squares adjacent to your space (including diagonally).

You simply threaten squares into which you can make an attack. There's no such thing as threatening one square with two different weapons. If your melee weapon can reach the square, you threaten that square.

As an aside: Out of that entire post, this is what you choose to quote?

 

[glass]

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?

It shouldn't, and it isn't, under either model. Both Jeff and the rest of us agree that simply holding a weapon in your off-hand does not trigger TWF penalties. The contention is whether wielding a weapon is distinct from simply holding it.

Why would 'simply holding' a weapon give you a bonus to your AC with TWD?


glass.

 

[glass]

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?

I certainly would if it ever came up (it never has). I'd say something like 'I assume your just holding that shortsword, right? You don't want to take TWF penalties!'.

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.

Abusive? It probably isn't, but allowing it would be a houserule.


glass.

 

[Jeff Wilder]

Abusive? It probably isn't, but allowing it would be a houserule.

Oops!

Not allowing it would be a house-rule. See v.3.5 FAQ, pages 19 and 20.

 

[Hypersmurf]

You simply threaten squares into which you can make an attack. There's no such thing as threatening one square with two different weapons. If your melee weapon can reach the square, you threaten that square.

So if have a dagger in one hand and a whip in the other, can I use the whip on an AoO?

-Hyp.

 

[Jeff Wilder]

So if have a dagger in one hand and a whip in the other, can I use the whip on an AoO?

You tell me. (This should be fun.) For extra points, answer it with either "yes" or "no." (C'mon, you can do it.)

 

[glass]

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"?

I'd agree with that. 'Wield' has connotations of combat readyness that 'hold' does not.

In your example, in the absence of any further information, I would read those phrases pretty much the same: 'hold' doesn't have the connotation of using the gun in an agressive manner that 'wield' does, but 'bankrobber' does!

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

Cute.

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.

For the rules to work you are also 'forced' to have a distinction between 'is' and 'is not'. Is that bizarre?

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."

Yes, but not what it means to be armed with a specific weapon (as opposed to armed in general).

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.

It says you can quickdraw and attack with an off hand weapon, as long as you have taken TWF penalties on your earlier attack, which is the one thing with both agree on. It says nothing about what 'wield' or 'this way' mean, or whether you can use TWD withour taking TWF penalties, which are the points of contention.

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.

Now you making a distinction between wield and use. You distinctionless model is looking less distinctionless with every post!

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

Right back attya.

(BTW, what's with the smilies?

I like smileys. (Actually, they usually indicate where I'm trying to be funny. Otherwise, how would anyone know?)


glass.