trip, whip and twf

[moritheil]

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

glass.

Thank you.

 

[Jeff Wilder]

Because the monk description specifically removes those restrictions.

Actually, it doesn't remove anything. The relevant sentences -- "A monk’s attacks may be with either fist interchangeably or even from elbows, knees, and feet. This means that a monk may even make unarmed strikes with her hands full." -- are simply expository and exemplary. While there's an arguable tone of exception (and I agree there is), there's not actually any rule being changed by the language.

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!

That's because there's no need to say what you can perform an unarmed strike with. You perform it unarmed. I still don't understand how you think they're inconsistent. The description elsewhere in the rules simply gives more flavor about what an unarmed strike can be ... flavor I didn't need to make the correct call, because the two passages are consistent.

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

Neither would I. But "you're considered armed at all times" is evidence that you can make attacks with your hands full ... a conclusion that your additional passage confirmed. I simply followed the logic and got there without the additional passage.

Again, not ironic at all. It's basically what I spent 120 grand to learn how to do. Where should I send the bill?

 

[Jeff Wilder]

Where does it say that TWD has nothing to do with TWF?

I didn't say that TWD has nothing to do with TWF. I said TWD has nothing to do with TWF penalties.

The TWD feat also doesn't say it has nothing to do with Power Attack. But I don't presume that to mean that it has something to do with Power Attack.

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.

I assert the same thing. And ... ?

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.

You're incorrect, which I'll demonstrate as soon as someone actually has the courage to give me a 3-character answer to my hypothetical. Could be a while.

 

[moritheil]

But "you're considered armed at all times" is evidence that you can make attacks with your hands full ... a contention that your additional passage proved correct. I simply followed the logic and got there without the additional passage.

When would you have your hands full? When
A) You are wielding weapons already, in which case you are armed (duh), or
B) You aren't holding any weapons, but are holding items. In this case, the point is that it doesn't impede your attacks (aside from encumberance, etc.)

This is the reason that you are always armed.

 

[moritheil]

I didn't say that TWD has nothing to do with TWF. I said TWD has nothing to do with TWF penalties.

The TWD feat also doesn't say it has nothing to do with Power Attack. But I don't presume that to mean that it has something to do with Power Attack.

I assert the same thing. And ... ?

You're incorrect, which I'll demonstrate as soon as someone actually has the courage to give me a 3-character answer to my hypothetical. Could be a while.

I gave you an answer. Sorry for not meeting an unstated character requirement.

Answer me this. Do you have to be actually two-weapon fighting in order to benefit from TWD? You seem to be saying "no," so let me ask "why not?"

PS: And before you answer that, let me reiterate that I'm not interested in the legalistic answer, because I don't doubt it if you assert that the wording is poor and as such it doesn't force you to have the penalties. I'm interested in your conceptual answer of how it can be rationalized.

 

[Jeff Wilder]

Answer me this.

Sure. I'll answer yours. I'm still waiting for an answer to mine.

Do you have to be actually two-weapon fighting in order to benefit from TWD? You seem to be saying "no," so let me ask "why not?"

I'd like you to point out anywhere where I said you don't have to have the TWF feat to benefit from TWD. Anywhere. Once you look and can't find it, c'mon back and maybe have a crack at answering my question. I'll repeat it again, for convenience:

1st-level warrior, Quick-Draw feat, no Strength bonus, no weapon bonus, currently wielding a longsword, with a shortsword at his belt. No other combat modifiers in play (including readied actions or anything of the sort). 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?

 

[glass]

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

Then he couldn't very well have claimed what you claim he claimed, could he?

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.

That you can't fight with two weapons without taking the penalties is a given. I don't think anyone would argue against that.

As my presidential example above illustrates: Just because you must do A is you want to do B, it doesn't necesarily follow that you can do A.

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?

Either +1, or -3 if he chooses to take the TWF penalties and is allowed to do so.

You said 'sure', but didn't actually provide any examples, you just restated that there were lots of them.


glass.

 

[Jeff Wilder]

I'm interested in your conceptual answer of how it can be rationalized.

Now that is a good question. The answer is, "It can't, really."

D&D is, in many respects, a results-oriented system. For example, in D&D the results of 10 points of damage determine the severity of the wound ... 10 points to a 1st-level commoner is near-fatal; 10 points to an uninjured Conan is a scratch; and 10 points to a Conan barely hanging on to consciousness is also near-fatal. In many aspects of D&D, you looks at the results and you work backward to how the results occurred.

TWF penalties are the same way. You can't retroactively apply TWF penalties, but the game-model is clear: they're supposed to apply to all attacks. So, since you can't apply the penalties retroactively, you have to apply them proactively ... meaning that if you want to be able to attack with two-weapons, you have to agree to abide by the penalties before you even make your first attack.

Note that D&D specifically allows you to see the results of a first attack before deciding if you want to take a second. What if you hit on the first attack, rolling exactly what you needed, then decide to use TWF to make a second attack? You can't retroactively apply the TWF penalty to the first attack, but the TWF penalty has to apply to all attacks ... so the only logical possibility is that, before you roll the first attack, you have to declare that you're accepting TWF penalties, just in case you decide to take that second attack.

I know it's funky, but there are weirdnesses like that sprinkled all over D&D. This is the same conceptual reason that you can't choose to Power Attack on an attack of opportunity ... there's no way to retroactively apply the penalties.

Hope that helps.

 

[moritheil]

Sure. I'll answer yours. I'm still waiting for an answer to mine.

I'd like you to point out anywhere where I said you don't have to have the TWF feat to benefit from TWD. Anywhere. Once you look and can't find it, c'mon back and maybe have a crack at answering my question. I'll repeat it again, for convenience:

1st-level warrior, Quick-Draw feat, no Strength bonus, no weapon bonus, currently wielding a longsword, with a shortsword at his belt. No other combat modifiers in play (including readied actions or anything of the sort). 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?

I did not say that. I said that you seemed to be arguing that you do not need to BE two weapon fighting, i.e. making use of the feat for an additional attack, in order to apply TWD. Not that you do not have to have the feat (which is silly.)

And I answered that quite a while ago - I would rule that he fights as if he has one weapon, the answer that you were obviously fishing for. Shall I point out your libel by quoting myself?

I understand your example and do not disagree with the way you would obviously handle it.

Followed by:

as soon as someone actually has the courage to give me a 3-character answer to my hypothetical. Could be a while.

I'm still waiting for an answer to mine.

c'mon back and maybe have a crack at answering my question.

Sir, are you still asking for Nixon to resign?

 

[moritheil]

Now that is a good question. The answer is, "It can't, really."

That was all I was interested in. Thanks.