trip, whip and twf

[Hypersmurf]

I was referring to the defending ability. In other words, "if you want the defending bonus, you have to accept TWF penalties, even if you don't use the associated benefits."

But the only thing in the description of the Defending ability that suggests this would be the case is the phrase 'the wielder chooses', in conjunction with the line from Two-Weapon Fighting, 'if you wield a second weapon in your off-hand'.

If someone who is not taking TWF penalties cannot choose to transfer the enhancement bonus of the Defending weapon in their off-hand to AC, it can only be because they are not 'the wielder', which means that 'fight this way' refers to 'wield a second weapon'.

(Either that, or the FAQ entry is just wrong.)

This isn't unusual ... if you want the benefit of the second weapon's ability to make extra, off-hand attacks, you have to accept TWF penalties, even if you don't use the benefit you've thus paid for.

Yup. But the TWF penalties aren't for 'making an extra off-hand attack', they're for 'fighting this way'... which carries the extra consequence that you are allowed to make an extra off-hand attack.

-Hyp.

 

[Jeff Wilder]

But the only thing in the description of the Defending ability

Hypersmurf, look back to my original post. Note the paragraph that says, "That's not what they said, no."

(Either that, or the FAQ entry is just wrong.)

I don't think it's so much "wrong" as they just got confused and didn't say what they meant. (Okay, the entry is wrong, but I think the intent is correct.)

I think they simply meant that you can't get the benefit of the defending property unless you're actively using the weapon, which means taking TWF penalties. (In that case.)

Again, for clarity: I understand that isn't what they said.

Yup. But the TWF penalties aren't for 'making an extra off-hand attack', they're for 'fighting this way'... which carries the extra consequence that you are allowed to make an extra off-hand attack.

The word "this" is a pointer. It's referring to something just described earlier in the passage. This is earlier in the passage: "If you wield a second weapon in your off hand, you can get one extra attack per round with that weapon." That's what "fighting this way" means.

And, no, TWF penalties aren't for "making an extra off-hand attack" ... they're for the ability to make an extra off-hand attack. I.e. "[Y]ou can get one extra attack." (Emphasis mine.) That's not an "extra consequence;" it's exactly what "fighting this way" means.

 

[Hypersmurf]

The word "this" is a pointer. It's referring to something just described earlier in the passage. This is earlier in the passage: "If you wield a second weapon in your off hand, you can get one extra attack per round with that weapon." That's what "fighting this way" means.

But I'm pointing to something described earlier in the passage as well: "If you wield a second weapon in your off hand".

In what way are you fighting? Wielding a second weapon in your off hand.

When you fight this way, you take TWF penalties. When you fight this way, you can get one extra attack per round with that weapon.

Wielding a second weapon gives you the option of making an extra attack. It doesn't give you the option of having the option of making an extra attack.

You take the TWF penalties for having the ability to make an extra attack? You get that ability automatically if you wield a second weapon in your off-hand. You don't have a choice about that. If you wield the weapon, you can make the extra attack... and therefore you are 'fighting this way'.

The only way to avoid 'fighting this way' is to be not-wielding the weapon in your off-hand. If you're not wielding it, you can't take an AoO with it... but neither do you incur penalties for it.

-Hyp.

 

[Jeff Wilder]

But I'm pointing to something described earlier in the passage as well: "If you wield a second weapon in your off hand".

In what way are you fighting? Wielding a second weapon in your off hand.

You're dividing that statement into two separate clauses for no reason. It could as easily read, "You can get one extra attack per round with a weapon you wield in your off-hand." You're ignoring that this is a unified statement, to which "fight this way" applies.

When you fight this way, you take TWF penalties.

Yes, when you fight [with a weapon in the offhand, accepting the option of making an extra attack], you take TWF penalties.

Wielding a second weapon gives you the option of making an extra attack.

No. Wielding a weapon in the off-hand and accepting the penalties as described gives you the option of making an extra attack. If either of those isn't true, you cannot make the extra attack. If both are true, you can. "Fight this way" refers to both conditions.

You take the TWF penalties for having the ability to make an extra attack? You get that ability automatically if you wield a second weapon in your off-hand. You don't have a choice about that. If you wield the weapon, you can make the extra attack... and therefore you are 'fighting this way'.

You have things backward. One is not forced to exercise a feat that imposes combat modifier tradeoffs. With Power Attack, you can accept a penalty to attacks for a bonus to damage. With Combat Expertise, you can accept a penalty to attacks for a bonus to AC. With TWF, you can accept a penalty to attacks for the option to make an extra attack if you have an off-hand weapon. You are not forced to do so.

 

[Hypersmurf]

With TWF, you can accept a penalty to attacks for the option to make an extra attack if you have an off-hand weapon. You are not forced to do so.

If you are wielding a second weapon, you can make an extra attack. You're not required to make the attack, but the option to make that attack is a consequence of wielding a second weapon.

If the penalty is incurred for having the option to make an attack (rather than for making the attack), you are 'fighting this way' any time you wield a second weapon in your off-hand, because that grants the option.

If you have the Power Attack feat, you can choose to take a penalty in order to deal extra damage.

If you have the Combat Expertise feat, you can choose to take a penalty in order to gain extra AC.

If you wield a second weapon, you can choose to make an extra attack. But you've already said it's the ability to make the extra attack - not making the extra attack - that incurs the penalty. And that ability is a direct consequence of wielding two weapons. You can wield two weapons and not make an extra attack, but you can't wield two weapons and not have the potential to make an extra attack.

"Fight this way" refers to both conditions.

The penalties are a consequence of 'fighting this way', not a condition. You take the penalties, when you fight this way... rather than you are fighting this way, when you take the penalties.

-Hyp.

 

[Aaron L]

I would say it would be allowable, because I dont believe AoOs are restricted to any "main" weapon being wielded rule. Would you not allow a character armed with a bow or a reach weapon to make a kick as an AoO ? We certainly do. It may not be strictly according to the rules, but it isnt against the rules certainly, it follows common sense, and it is a good tactic.

As for question 2 I would say no, following the example of no 5 foot steps between Cleaves.

Question 3 I would say yes, as nowhere have I ever read full attacks being restricted to one weapon, also following the example of a Monks Flurry of Blows which allows interchangable attacks with weapons wielded in either hand, and that TWF seems to specifically be meant to grant extra attacks, and you are gaining none.

I do concede I usually view rules in light of thier percieved intention rather than thier strict wording.

 

[Jeff Wilder]

If you are wielding a second weapon, you can make an extra attack. You're not required to make the attack, but the option to make that attack is a consequence of wielding a second weapon.

That just makes no sense. It doesn't fit the language, and it doesn't fit the way other combat modifier trade-offs work.

If the penalty is incurred for having the option to make an attack (rather than for making the attack)

Again, you've got it backward: the penalty isn't incurred for having the option to attack, the option to attack is gained by accepting the penalty. Just like the additional damage with Power Attack is gained by accepting the penalty. Just like the additional AC with Combat Expertise is gained by accepting the penalty to attacks. Just like the additional AC for fighting defensively is gained for accepting the -4 to attacks.

you are 'fighting this way' any time you wield a second weapon in your off-hand, because that grants the option.

You keep saying this, but it's only partially true. "Wielding a second weapon in the off-hand" is one condition, of two, of being able to make a second attack with that weapon; the other condition is "being willing to accept the combat modifier trade-off" (namely, the TWF penalties) exactly like other combat modifier trade-offs. If you're not willing to accept the penalties, you don't get the benefit. The penalty isn't imposed on you just because you happen to be holding a weapon in your other hand.

Do TWF penalties automatically apply if the TWFer is holding a rod of lordly might in his off-hand? How about if he's holding a bar-stool in his off-hand? How about if he's got a magic ring that automatically shocking grasps someone hit with a touch attack? How about if he's got Improved Unarmed Strike?

Of course TWF penalties don't apply ... unless the TWFer wants them to, so that he has the option of attacking with the rod or attack with the improvised weapon (bar stool).

If you have the Power Attack feat, you can choose to take a penalty in order to deal extra damage.

If you have the Combat Expertise feat, you can choose to take a penalty in order to gain extra AC.

If you wield a second weapon, you can choose to make an extra attack.

You wrote this, and you don't see the contradiction? You don't see the missing phrase that makes these all follow a similar model?

If you wield a second weapon (one condition, making it possible at all) and if you choose to take a penalty (a second condition, also making it possible at all), you can make an extra attack. In every case, you choose to take a penalty. That's how combat-modifier trade-offs work in D&D. I honestly don't get why you think TWF is the exception, just because they worded a sentence with a comma, rather than without one.

But you've already said it's the ability to make the extra attack - not making the extra attack - that incurs the penalty.

No, that's not what I said ... I said that it's the acceptance of the penalty (combined with the wielding of the additional weapon) that makes the extra attack an option.

you can't wield two weapons and not have the potential to make an extra attack.

Of course you can. (Even aside from the obvious "I can't make a full attack at all" scenarios.) You can turn down the possible benefit of holding two weapons simply by not fulfilling the other condition required to gain the benefit: accepting penalties to your attacks.

D&D does not force combat-modifier trade-offs on characters. They have to be accepted by the character. When a character declares that he is charging, he accepts a -2 penalty to AC, but he is not forced to make an attack. You pay the penalty for the possible benefit, you don't have the penalty imposed upon you. You choose to take the penalty in exchange for the possible benefit, you don't have the penalty imposed on you.

For some reason, you seem to think the phrase "f you wield a weapon in your off-hand" has a special meaning because it's set off by a comma from the remainder of the phrase: "you can get one extra attack per round with that weapon." It doesn't have a special meaning. It's simply another way of saying "You can get one extra attack per round with a weapon you wield in your off-hand."

And if you "fight this way" (i.e., if you have a weapon in your off-hand and you want to make an extra attack with it), you have to accept the associated penalties.

 

[Jeff Wilder]

Would you not allow a character armed with a bow or a reach weapon to make a kick as an AoO ? We certainly do. It may not be strictly according to the rules, but it isnt against the rules certainly

Actually, it is against the rules. A standard character doesn't threaten with unarmed attacks, and you don't provoke AoOs if the opponents don't threaten. Similarly, a standard reach weapon doesn't threaten adjacent squares, and you don't provoke an AoO if the opponents don't threaten.

 

[Aaron L]

Sorry, I forgot to say a character with Improved Unarmed Strike.

 

[Jeff Wilder]

Sorry, I forgot to say a character with Improved Unarmed Strike.

In that case, you're good to go.