trip, whip and twf

[glass]

Sigh. So much for simple.

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

But the character with the longsword doesn't necesarily know whether there is an attack readied or not. He still has a decision to make based on the possibility he might at some point wish to make an AoO.

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

Yes it is. You appear to be trying to construct a Socratean argument to to highlight an inconsistancy in Hyp's logic. Unfortunately, Hyp doesn't generally do inconsistant.

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?

That's a trickier one. Can you take the TWF penalties in advance in case you might want to 'fight this way' later in the round? I'd say yes but I'm not so sure on this on.


glass.

 

[moritheil]

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."

Let me try to sort something out.

Hyp's argument seems to be that through the act of holding two weapons, you have already chosen to fight with TWF, whereas your argument seems to be that by holding weapons, you gain choices and can alternate between taking and not taking the TWF penalties (and correspondingly taking or not taking an extra attack) while benefiting from TWD bonuses, irrespective of whether or not the penalties are applied. Isn't that a classic case of wanting to have your pie and eat it too?

I am astonished to see that someone would argue that a character was holding a weapon in his hand, benefiting from its defense, and threatening with it, but not wielding it and thus exempt from taking penalties from it. (If this is not your argument, then please say so, but it seems to be a succinct description of your position.)

Clearly, TWF is intended as a tradeoff. More attacks come at the penalty of decreased accuracy. This is a setup seen elsewhere - consider monk flurry, for example. Want to know what the ranger IMC does when he doesn't want TWF penalties? He only draws one weapon.

In case it isn't obvious, let me try to explain why Hyp asked his question. He needs to know if you are using IUS and considering it a weapon wielded simultaneously with the longsword. If not, great. It is indeed the simple situation you expected. Everything is perfectly normal. But neither are you considered to be armed with the IUS.

Since IUS isn't something you can physically be holding or not holding, it's not an issue that can be determined by asking if you are holding a weapon, and the "wielding" or "not wielding" distinction is clearly one of your choice. The same cannot be said for someone holding two weapons he is proficient in and claiming that he threatens with both and benefits from both. If he threatens with both, is he not clearly fighting with both? If he takes the benefits from both, should he not take the penalties from both? Is that not the underlying point of TWF?

Of course, your argument may have nothing whatsoever to do with the underlying purpose of TWF, and may be more of a "you can't explicitly prove that I need to take the TWF penalties when I benefit from a defending scimitar in my off hand, because the text is poorly written" argument. In that case, feel free to argue it here all you like; I'm not your DM, and I have no interest in proving it to you in a meticulous legal fashion. It may well be impossible due to poor wording, as you say.

However, your refusal to answer Hyp's question about your proposed situation appears to be indicative of your approach to this matter: considering each individual bonus and penalty piecemeal. As I explained above, the most plausible explanation for this is the desire to gain benefits from a situation without incurring associated penalties, when the two are intended to be concurrent.

This is why Hyp is so adamant and so careful in his responses here.

 

[Jeff Wilder]

Hyp's argument seems to be that through the act of holding two weapons, you have already chosen to fight with TWF

Yes, that seems to be his argument.

whereas your argument seems to be that by holding weapons, you gain choices and can alternate between taking and not taking the TWF penalties (and correspondingly taking or not taking an extra attack) while benefiting from TWD bonuses, irrespective of whether or not the penalties are applied.

TWD has nothing to do with TWF penalties. At all.

I am astonished to see that someone would argue that a character was holding a weapon in his hand, benefiting from its defense, and threatening with it, but not wielding it and thus exempt from taking penalties from it.

Well, your astonishment probably has to do with the fact that you've missed that Hypersmurf is the one saying there's a game distinction between "holding a weapon" and "wielding a weapon." It also has to do with the fact that my argument is that "wielding a weapon" is only one of two conditions necessary before TWF penalties apply.

(And, in fact, it's the least important one, since there are many different ways to "not be wielding" a second weapon during an attack, but then come up with the second weapon in order to gain a second attack under TWF. The TWF penalties don't care when in your round you end up wielding some sort of second weapon; they just say that if you want the option to attack with that second weapon, you have to accept the penalties for all your attacks. Including the one you took before you were even wielding the second weapon.)

Here, you try it:

1st-level warrior, Quick-Draw feat, no Strength bonus, no weapon bonus, currently wielding a longsword, with a shortsword at his belt. He swings at a goblin, which has no special combat modifiers in play (or anything tricky like a readied action, just to be clear). What is the warrior's attack modifier when he swings with the longsword?

Clearly, TWF is intended as a tradeoff. More attacks come at the penalty of decreased accuracy.

That's almost right. An extra attack is an option at the expense of decreased accuracy. You can take the decreased accuracy without taking the extra attack ... in fact, if you even want the option to take the extra attack, you must choose to accept the decreased accuracy. For example, if you're not sure that one attack will drop a foe, you may want to take TWF penalties. Then you attack at your penalty, but if you do drop the foe, you still have a move action left.

Before we go any further, just answer the hypothetical above, okay? Just give it a shot ... I promise, it's only an illustration of the way the game works, it's not a trick question.

 

[glass]

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

It goes on to specify what exactly it means by that -that you are considered armed when striking unarmed. The feat description specifies nothing about under what conditions you can strike unarmed.

Ironically though, you were right about being ables to make unarmed attacks with your hands full, even though the reason was wrong . The description of Unarmed Strike in the combat chapters says 'attacks with punches, kicks and headbuts...'.

Does make me wonder why they felt the need to specify that a monk could do this when it the general rule anyway.


glass.

 

[Jeff Wilder]

Yes it is. You appear to be trying to construct a Socratean argument to to highlight an inconsistancy in Hyp's logic. Unfortunately, Hyp doesn't generally do inconsistant.

Maybe not "generally," but y'all give him way too much credit.

Seriously, no offense intended, but back away from the "Hypersmurf is always right" attitude and think about how the game actually works in practice.

That's a trickier one. Can you take the TWF penalties in advance in case you might want to 'fight this way' later in the round? I'd say yes but I'm not so sure on this on.

Not only "can" you, but if you want to fight with the second weapon, you must accept TWF penalties, because it's the option to attack with a second weapon that is most of what's meant by "fight this way."

If this isn't the case, and Hypersmurf claims it's not, I can construct a good number of abuses in which someone gets TWF benefits (i.e., an extra attack) without suffering TWF penalties (i.e., decreased accuracy on all attacks).

 

[Jeff Wilder]

The feat description specifies nothing about under what conditions you can strike unarmed.

That's right, it doesn't. So why are you assuming limitations?

Ironically though, you were right about being ables to make unarmed attacks with your hands full, even though the reason was wrong

It's not ironic at all. I was right because the two rules are perfectly consistent. It's not surprising that when I parsed one I came up with the option explicitly mentioned in the other.

Does make me wonder why they felt the need to specify that a monk could do this when it the general rule anyway.

I think they did it to emphasize the monk "feel." You know what I mean? The vast majority of characters with IUS are going to be monks, I imagine, and those that aren't are probably envisioned more as brawlers than whirlwinds-of-death. So they put it in the monk description, to make it more kung-fu.

 

[glass]

Maybe not "generally," but y'all give him way too much credit.

Seriously, no offense intended, but back away from the "Hypersmurf is always right" attitude and think about how the game actually works in practice.

I don't have a 'Hypersmurf is always right' attitude; I have disagreed with him in the past, once or twice.

Not only "can" you,

I believe you can too, by analogy with rapid shot, but I don't have a lot of ecidence to support that position which is why I am hesitant about it.

but if you want to fight with the second weapon, you must accept TWF penalties, because it's the option to fight with a second weapon that is most of what's meant by "fight this way."

It's obviously true that you can't fight with two weapons without taking the relevant penalties. I doesn't necesarily follow that you can choose to take the penalties when you are not fighting with two weapons.

As an analogy, (IIRC) I cannot become president of the USA because I was not born in the USA. Does it follow that I can choose to have been born in the USA? :\

If this isn't the case, and Hypersmurf claims it's not, I can construct a good number of abuses in which someone gets TWF benefits (i.e., an extra attack) without suffering TWF penalties (i.e., decreased accuracy on all attacks).

I don't think Hyp's commented on the quickdraw issue one way or the other.

I can't think of any way to abuse TWF+Quickdraw with it ruled either way. You apparently have so lets hear them.


glass.

 

[Jeff Wilder]

I don't think Hyp's commented on the quickdraw issue one way or the other.

No, he hasn't. He disappeared from the thread after I posted it. (We all have to work, I suppose.)

It's obviously true that you can't fight with two weapons without taking the relevant penalties. I doesn't necesarily follow that you can choose to take the penalties when you are not fighting with two weapons.

It's isn't exactly that you're choosing to take the penalties when you aren't fighting with two weapons ... you must choose to take the penalties if you want the option to fight with two weapons. If you have no intention or desire to fight with two weapons in the round, of course you won't take the penalties. If you intend to fight with two weapons in the round, or if you want the option to fight with two weapons in the round, you must accept the penalties.

I can't think of any way to abuse TWF+Quickdraw with it ruled either way. You apparently have so lets hear them.

Sure. Just answer the hypothetical. (It doesn't have to do with some broken Quick-Draw combination, BTW. There are many ways to illustrate it. This is just the one most easily visualized.)

What's the soldier's attack bonus against the goblin?

 

[glass]

That's right, it doesn't. So why are you assuming limitations?

Because the monk description specifically removes those restrictions. Restrictions which are not in fact there.

It's not ironic at all. I was right because the two rules are perfectly consistent. It's not surprising that when I parsed one I came up with the option explicitly mentioned in the other.

They are consistant in the sense that the feat doesn't contradict the combat chapter about what you can perform an unarmed strike with. Of course that is because it says nothing about what you can perform an unarmed strike with!

'Trees are green' is perfectly consistant with 'the sky is blue', but I wouldn't use one as evidence of the other.

I think they did it to emphasize the monk "feel." You know what I mean? The vast majority of characters with IUS are going to be monks, I imagine, and those that aren't are probably envisioned more as brawlers than whirlwinds-of-death. So they put it in the monk description, to make it more kung-fu.

That's probably the reason, but it doesn't make it any less confusing.


glass.

 

[moritheil]

Yes, that seems to be his argument.

TWD has nothing to do with TWF penalties. At all.

1st-level warrior, Quick-Draw feat, no Strength bonus, no weapon bonus, currently wielding a longsword, with a shortsword at his belt. He swings at a goblin, which has no special combat modifiers in play (or anything tricky like a readied action, just to be clear). What is the warrior's attack modifier when he swings with the longsword?

Before we go any further, just answer the hypothetical above, okay? Just give it a shot ... I promise, it's only an illustration of the way the game works, it's not a trick question.

Where does it say that TWD has nothing to do with TWF? I'd like to see your reasoning behind how exactly TWD works.

I understand your example and do not disagree with the way you would obviously handle it. However, I assert that TWF is not the same as quick draw. With quick draw, you are not holding two weapons; you are holding one. There is no confusion. The entire issue here is whether or not you can hold a weapon and benefit from it but not be wielding it. Employing an example where you do not even hold a second weapon has little relevance.