trip, whip and twf

[Hypersmurf]

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.

I emphatically disagree

The penalties apply when you fight this way. You don't fight this way when you accept the penalty.

And if 'fight this way' includes accepting the penalty, then the sentence effectively parses to 'You incur TWF penalties when you incur TWF penalties'.

The penalty applies when you fight this way, and fight this way is when you wield a second weapon in your off-hand, allowing you to make an extra attack.

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.

The penalty is imposed when you wield a second weapon in your off-hand, allowing you to make an extra attack. The penalty is a consequence, not a condition. "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" tells us that the penalty is incurred when fighting this way, not vice versa.

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?

Holding? No. Wielding? Yes.

Just like a shield. If you're using a shield as a shield - no penalties. If you're wielding a shield as a weapon - penalties. Whether or not you make an extra attack with it.

If you're holding a Rod of Lordly Might in your off-hand - no penalties. If you're wielding a Rod of Lordly Might as a second weapon in your off-hand - penalties.

Of course not ... 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).

Now, there I agree... but he makes that choice by deciding whether he is holding a barstool, or wielding a barstool. If he's wielding it, he takes penalties, but he threatens an area with the barstool. If he's holding it, he doesn't, and doesn't.

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?

The missing phrase isn't there. You're making it up.

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.

If you wield a second weapon, you've fulfilled the condition for being allowed to make an extra attack. This, in turn, yields penalties. If you don't want the penalties, don't wield the second weapon.

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.

That's not a condition, it's a consequence.

D&D does not force combat-modifier trade-offs on characters. They have to be accepted by the character.

[Maverick]Well, ma'am, it doesn't seem so in this case now, does it?[/Maverick]

When a character declares that he is charging, he accepts a -2 penalty to AC, but he is not forced to make an attack.

But he can't declare he's charging and not take the -2 penalty to AC. It's an unavoidable consequence of the action, whether or not he makes the attack. Likewise, a character cannot declare that he is wielding the barstool as a second weapon in his off-hand without taking the penalties to his attacks.

The first character can move up to his speed and attack with no penalty to AC, or he can charge twice his speed with a penalty. The second character can hold a barstool with no penalty to attacks, or he can wield it with a penalty.

-Hyp.

 

[Caliban]

But he can't declare he's charging and not take the -2 penalty to AC. It's an unavoidable consequence of the action, whether or not he makes the attack. Likewise, a character cannot declare that he is wielding the barstool as a second weapon in his off-hand without taking the penalties to his attacks.

The first character can move up to his speed and attack with no penalty to AC, or he can charge twice his speed with a penalty. The second character can hold a barstool with no penalty to attacks, or he can wield it with a penalty.

-Hyp.

Approaching from a different direction may (or may not) help clarify:

What about natural weapons as secondary attacks?

You have a character who has (for example) horns that allow him to make a gore attack. If he wields a polearm, which doesn't threaten the squares adjacent to him, does he still threaten the adjacent squares with his horns? Does he need to take a penalty of some kind to do so?

 

[Jeff Wilder]

The penalties apply when you fight this way. You don't fight this way when you accept the penalty.

You absolutely do, because the penalty comes before the swing. You don't get to make one attack with your longsword at no penalty, and then decide to make a second attack with your spiked gauntlet at -2 to the attack. You pay the penalty (-2 to attack), and that permits you to make a second attack with your spiked gauntlet.

This is simply the way the game works.

And if 'fight this way' includes accepting the penalty, then the sentence effectively parses to 'You incur TWF penalties when you incur TWF penalties'.

Things are getting twisted around, because I'm arguing both semantics and the way the game models combat-modifier trade-offs (or the actual way things are handled in the game, as above).

By the wording, "fight this way" includes the entirety of the phrase "If you wield a second weapon in your off hand, you can get one extra attack per round with that weapon." There are two clauses in that sentence, but for some reason you're choosing to ignore the second one. "Fight this way" means "accepting the optionof an extra attack possible with a weapon wielded in your off-hand." It doesn't mean simply "wielding a weapon in your off-hand."

I.e., There are penalties applied when you take the extra attack (first condition) made possible by having a weapon in your off-hand (second condition).

But in the game model, penalties must be accepted before the attack roll is made. And in the game model, characters can forego the penalty by refusing the benefit. That's the way combat-modifier trade-offs work.

The penalty applies when you fight this way, and fight this way is when you wield a second weapon in your off-hand, allowing you to make an extra attack.

No, "fight this way" is when you you wield a second weapon in your off-hand and you choose to attack with it. In order to do so, you must accept penalties.

The penalty is imposed when you wield a second weapon in your off-hand, allowing you to make an extra attack.

As I keep demonstrating, it isn't wielding a second weapon that permits an extra attack, otherwise TWF penalties would not apply to many situations in which an off-hand attack, sans weapon, is possible.

Just like a shield. If you're using a shield as a shield - no penalties. If you're wielding a shield as a weapon - penalties. Whether or not you make an extra attack with it.

Right. And when do you decide which it is? Do I get to attack with my longsword at no penalty, and then "decide" to wield my shield as a weapon and make the attack with TWF penalties? Of course not ... the decision as to which you're doing depends upon whether you accepts the penalties or not, before you roll your first attack roll.

If you're holding a Rod of Lordly Might in your off-hand - no penalties. If you're wielding a Rod of Lordly Might as a second weapon in your off-hand - penalties.

And when do you decide which it is?

What if I have Quick-Draw? By your reasoning, I can attack with no penalty with my longsword, other hand empty, then quick-draw my shortsword and attack with TWF penalties.

Now, there I agree... but he makes that choice by deciding whether he is holding a barstool, or wielding a barstool.

And when do you decide this?

The missing phrase isn't there.

Yeah, that would be why it's "missing." It shouldn't be missing.

But he can't declare he's charging and not take the -2 penalty to AC.

No, and he can't declare he's TWF without accepting those penalties. What's your point? I keep saying "in order to gain the benefit, you must accept the penalties." And you keep saying, "No, you take the penalties when you gain the benefit."

But that is simply not the way the game works.

If I want to attack with a shortsword in my off-hand, even if I haven't drawn it yet (and having it in-hand is what you claim imposes the penalties), do I suffer TWF with my longsword?

Of course I do, because it's not simply wielding the weapon that imposes the penalties for "fighting this way" ... it's wielding the weapon (whenever that occurs) and choosing to have the option to use it.

 

[Jeff Wilder]

Let's try something really simple, Hypersmurf, if that's cool with you?

I'm a 1st-level warrior with a longsword. No Strenght mod, no special weapon, no special feats, except that I do have Improved Unarmed Strike. There is a goblin standing in an adjacent square. He's got no combat modifiers working for or against him.

I swing at the goblin with my longsword. What are the current modifiers to my attack roll?

 

[Hypersmurf]

Let's try something really simple, Hypersmurf, if that's cool with you?

I'm a 1st-level warrior with a longsword. No Strenght mod, no special weapon, no special feats, except that I do have Improved Unarmed Strike. There is a goblin standing in an adjacent square. He's got no combat modifiers working for or against him.

I swing at the goblin with my longsword. What are the current modifiers to my attack roll?

If the goblin had a readied action that triggered at that point, and he attempted to grapple you, would you consider that you threaten (and thus can take an AoO) with a/ your longsword, or b/ your longsword and your unarmed strike?

If a, +1.
If b, -3.

If you wish to be considered threatening with both weapons, I would consider you to be 'fighting this way', assuming the unarmed strike is treated as a second weapon 'wielded in your off-hand'. If you're only threatening with one, then you're not 'wielding a second weapon', so the TWF penalties don't apply.

-Hyp.

 

[Jeff Wilder]

If the goblin had a readied action that triggered at that point, and he attempted to grapple you, would you consider that you threaten (and thus can take an AoO) with a/ your longsword, or b/ your longsword and your unarmed strike?

Sigh. So much for simple.

No, there's no readied action involved. What is the current modifier to my attack roll with the longsword?

It's not a trick question. If you prefer, answer this one:

Same goblin. Same warrior, except instead of IAS, he has Quick-Draw. He has a longsword wielded, and a shortsword in a scabbard. What's the modifier on his attack with the longsword?

 

[glass]

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

In that case, you're good to go.

If the character was a monk and had a reach weapon he could make an unarmed strike with his hands full. But that ability appears in the monks class description, but not in the feat description.

OTOH, it doesn't specifically say that a non-monk with IUS needs his hands free, so Aaron L was right first time: neither strictly with or against the rules.


glass.

 

[glass]

Yeah, that would be why it's "missing." It shouldn't be missing.

I would imagine Hyp is arguing what the rule is, not what it should be.


glass.

 

[Jeff Wilder]

I would imagine Hyp is arguing what the rule is, not what it should be.

So'm I. I'm saying the phrase shouldn't be missing in his (incorrect) paraphrase of the rules.

 

[Jeff Wilder]

If the character was a monk and had a reach weapon he could make an unarmed strike with his hands full. But that ability appears in the monks class description, but not in the feat description.

Sure it does. "You are considered to be armed even when unarmed." That's not alternative wording, it's cumulative wording.

"Even in cases when you're not carrying a weapon, you're still considered to be armed."

You can be carrying a poodle under one arm and a two-foot salami under the other, and you're still considered armed. Or you could be carrying a reach weapon, and you're still considered armed.

OTOH, that's just by the SRD. There are a lot of additions and clarifications to unarmed attacks in the various FAQs, and I haven't looked at those.