trip, whip and twf

[glass]

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

Er, you didn't answer.

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.

He didn't say anything about needing the feat. He said you seemed to be suggesting that you could use TWD without taking the TWF penalties to your attack rolls (an inference I also made), here for example:

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

Were you suggesting that? Can you use TWD without taking TWF penalties.


glass.

 

[Jeff Wilder]

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?

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

Sigh. I guess this is the best I'm going to get.

First we'll take the +1. So the warrior swings with his longsword at +1 (no TWF penalties apply, since he's not "wielding two weapons," which is what Hypersmurf (and presumably you?) claim is what triggers TWF penalties. He hits, but the goblin doesn't drop.

He uses his Quick-Draw feat to draw his shortsword. He's now wielding two weapons. What's his modifier to hit with the shortsword?

You see where this is going?

You see that under Hypersmurf's version of TWF, he gets a free, non-penalty attack with the longsword, and still gets the benefit of TWF?

It gets better. How about if, before he draws the shortsword, he drops the longsword (a free action). What's his modifier to hit with the shortsword now? (Remember, he's not wielding two weapons, so under the Hypersmurf version, he has no TWF penalties.)

As I said before, this isn't the only way to abuse the incorrect way that Hypersmurf reads these rules.

Imagine a guy with a longsword and a ring that shocking grasps with a touch attack.

Or a guy with a longsword and IUS.

Or, and this is what I'd try to get, if Hypersmurf were my DM, a guy with a bouncing longsword, that returned to his hand at the end of the round. (Yes, I just made that up, but it would be fun, and there are returning weapons that can give the same "no penalties for my ranged TWF, ever!" effect.)

Does this help you see that it isn't the "wielding two weapons" part that is important to whether you're "fighting this way"? If that's the important part, all of the above tricks -- and I could keep going! -- are perfectly legal.

No, "fighting this way" means "accepting the option of attacking with two weapons, and paying the penalties, even if I don't end up using the benefit."

 

[Jeff Wilder]

Were you suggesting that? Can you use TWD without taking TWF penalties.

Your right, I misread the other guy's post. (My bad, Other Guy. Part of the hazards of being outnumbered.)

Yes, you can absolutely use TWD without taking TWF penalties. Hopefully, with my post above, you understand why.

 

[Jeff Wilder]

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 did miss it, and I apologize. In fact, I am still missing it, and definitely would appreciate it if you could show me the post. A post number would be just fine. (To be clear, I don't doubt you. I'm just curious as to why I can't seem to find it.)

Sir, are you still asking for Nixon to resign?

Nixon? No. Not Nixon.

 

[moritheil]

Sigh. I guess this is the best I'm going to get.

First we'll take the +1. So the warrior swings with his longsword at +1 (no TWF penalties apply, since he's not "wielding two weapons," which is what Hypersmurf (and presumably you?) claim is what triggers TWF penalties. He hits, but the goblin doesn't drop.

He uses his Quick-Draw feat to draw his shortsword. He's now wielding two weapons. What's his modifier to hit with the shortsword?

You see where this is going?

You see that under Hypersmurf's version of TWF, he gets a free, non-penalty attack with the longsword, and still gets the benefit of TWF?

It gets better. How about if, before he draws the shortsword, he drops the longsword (a free action). What's his modifier to hit with the shortsword now? (Remember, he's not wielding two weapons, so under the Hypersmurf version, he has no TWF penalties.)

As I said before, this isn't the only way to abuse the incorrect way that Hypersmurf reads these rules.

My intent here was not originally to argue against you, just to see if you had a neat rationalization for explaining what physically (or metaphysically) happens when you claim TWD without taking the TWF penalties - a fact you seem to have entirely missed. However, I'll respond to your last post, even though you casually ignored the fact that I did answer your question a while back. (See proof above.)

I saw where this was going a while back, and I have no problem with it. So he gets one free round of non-penalized TWF - so what? That's his reward for burning a feat and taking Quick Draw. Thereafter he either takes the TWF penalties or ceases to wield one of the swords. As you said, there are no bouncing weapons, and I wouldn't allow someone to create the property IMC.

IUS: I covered this in great detail, suggesting that IUS is handled as it is because you don't physically remove your limbs from your body in the way that you can set a sword down.

Ring: A ring is not a weapon. It is not being held or wielded. I do not see the point of this argument - using a ring with shocking grasp would be resolved as if you had cast shocking grasp.

 

[moritheil]

I did miss it, and I apologize. In fact, I am still missing it, and definitely would appreciate it if you could show me the post. A post number would be just fine. (To be clear, I don't doubt you. I'm just curious as to why I can't seem to find it.)

Nixon? No. Not Nixon.

Number 50. While it's true I didn't spell it out explicitly, it's also true that it was blatantly obvious what answer you expected, and I acknowledged that I agreed with it. I later quoted this acknowledgement.

 

[glass]

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.

Correct.

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.

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.

Again yes. But that is not what is in question.

You have to decide before you make any attacks if you are going to use any options which will affect the attack bonuses of those attacks. And that includes TWF. That is a given.

What is in question is, can you choose to take those penalties at a time when you are not currently actually fighting with two weapons. You apparently believe the answer is yes, Moritheil apparently believes it is no. I am unsure, but leaning towards yes.

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.

No, the reason you can't choose to apply power attack to an AoO is that you can't choose to apply it to any individual attack. It applies for the round, just like the TWF penalties.


glass.

PS Still waiting on those examples.

 

[Jeff Wilder]

However, I'll respond to your last post, even though you casually ignored the fact that I did answer your question a while back. (See proof above.)

Yeah, and I haven't apologized or nuthin'. I can understand why you're so peeved.

So he gets one free round of non-penalized TWF - so what?

You still don't get it. It's not one free round ... the guy can have six shortswords on his belt, in addition to the other tricks I showed you.

As you said, there are no bouncing weapons, and I wouldn't allow someone to create the property IMC.

And as I said, there are returning weapons that allow unlimited non-penalty TWF under the version with which you "have no problem."

IUS: I covered this in great detail, suggesting that IUS is handled as it is because you don't physically remove your limbs from your body in the way that you can set a sword down.

And I don't get your point. You can attack with the longsword, with no penalties (since you're not wileding two weapons), then attack with your offhand unarmed strike. And you can do this over and over, every time not taking penalties with the longsword.

Ring: A ring is not a weapon.

A ring that delivers a shocking grasp certainly is a weapon. No, it's not being wielded ... thus, by the version of TWF you like, you can attack with the longsword at no penalty, then decide to make an off-hand attack with the ring. And, again, you can do this over and over.

I don't think you quite understand what forms an off-hand attack can take.

Hell, you can even attack with the longsword at no penalty, then attack with a non-improved unarmed strike as a second attack. Sure, you'll provoke an attack of opportunity, but if the target has already uses his AoO(s) for the round, hey, why not? Free damage!

And on, and on, and on.

Whether or not a "weapon is wielded in the off-hand" is not what determines whether someone is using TWF.

 

[Jeff Wilder]

No, the reason you can't choose to apply power attack to an AoO is that you can't choose to apply it to any individual attack. It applies for the round, just like the TWF penalties.

And thus they are both conceptually similar ... the reason for both is that the penalties have to apply for the whole round, and there's no way to retroactively apply the penalties.

 

[glass]

Sigh. I guess this is the best I'm going to get.

First we'll take the +1. So the warrior swings with his longsword at +1 (no TWF penalties apply, since he's not "wielding two weapons," which is what Hypersmurf (and presumably you?) claim is what triggers TWF penalties. He hits, but the goblin doesn't drop.

He uses his Quick-Draw feat to draw his shortsword. He's now wielding two weapons. What's his modifier to hit with the shortsword?

He doesn't have one, as he can't attack with it. If he wanted to wield two weapons he would have had to take the penalty from on his first attack.

You see where this is going?

Where I thought it was probably going, but you were reticent about spelling it out, and I couldn't respond to it in advance without putting words in your mouth.

You see that under Hypersmurf's version of TWF, he gets a free, non-penalty attack with the longsword, and still gets the benefit of TWF?

No, he doesn't.

It gets better. How about if, before he draws the shortsword, he drops the longsword (a free action). What's his modifier to hit with the shortsword now? (Remember, he's not wielding two weapons, so under the Hypersmurf version, he has no TWF penalties.)

He has no TWF penalties, but he also has no attacks left.

As I said before, this isn't the only way to abuse the incorrect way that Hypersmurf reads these rules.

But then, it isn't a way to abuse them.


glass.