trip, whip and twf

[Jeff Wilder]

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.

Well, let's compare it with other combat-modifier trade-offs. Can you fight defensively, taking the -4 penalty to attack before you're engaged in melee or ranged combat? Can you charge, taking the -2 penalty to AC, before deciding whether to attack? Can you Rapid Shot, taking the -2 penalty to hit on the first shot, and then decide not to take the benefit? And so on. Penalties are the payment for benefits. If you want the benefits at any time during your turn, you pay the penalty before the combat action is resolved.

See, Hypersmurf says that TWF penalties aren't tied to TWF benefits, unlike every other combat-mod trade-off in the game. He says that TWF penalties are instead tied to whether or not you're wielding an off-hand weapon.

By contrast, I say that whether or not you're wielding an off-hand weapon is a moot point; it's a redundancy, because if you weren't wielding an off-hand weapon -- or intending to wield one at some point in the round -- you're not even going to be in the section on TWF. It's a requirement, sure, at some point, but it's an obvious, meaningless requirement, like saying that you can't get Power Attack's double-damage to a two-handed weapon unless you're wielding a two-handed weapon. The meaningful determination of whether you can get the benefit of TWF is whether you're willing to pay the penalties.

"Fight like this" doesn't mean "wield two weapons," it means "accept the option of an additional off-hand attack." And if you choose to fight like that, you have to accept the penalties.

 

[moritheil]

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.

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

Please don't think I've never had players who have tried anything like this this. If someone has six shortswords on his belt, I'll allow the draw-drop if it's spatially possible. How's that encumberance looking? Don't forget that trying to quick-draw swords out of a bag of holding might tear the cloth. The need to continually drop their melee weapons prevents such a player from focusing on a single really good weapon. Try fighting something with DR and pulling that trick. Sure, you can often get around it with GMW or the like, but that eats up spell slots and/or requires a wand of GMW, which in turn eats up resources. It doesn't break balance at all unless you totally ignore your players when selecting which monsters to send at them. Personally, I happen to send a lot of incorporeals and elementals. Let's not forget the fact that while more attacks mean more critical hits, they also mean more critical failures. IMC a critical miss generally results in hitting a teammate, stabbing oneself in the foot, or the like.

As for the returning ranged non-penalty TWF attacks, I don't have a problem with that either, actually. This is because A) TWF is weak and needs help to stand up to 2h Power Attacking, B) returning should rightly be an awesome ability, and C) I find the idea of someone hurling a deadly hail of knives a la Danny Trejo strangely appealing. Oh, and D) I've always thought throwing knives with both hands and wielding two swords ought to be physically different, and that the game would do well to model it. (I know you won't entertain point D, because you're only concerned with the rules as they stand; I respect that and don't have a problem with it, but it personally reinforces my belief that nothing is broken here balance-wise.) Remind me, how much does a returning thrown weapon cost? What kind of damage does it do, assuming it hits? How does that compare with a melee weapon of equal cost? Is its threat easily negated by, say, Obscuring Mist, or better yet, the cheap alchemical smokesticks that even first-level adventurers tend to pack?

 

[Jeff Wilder]

He doesn't have one, as he can't attack with it.

Show me the rule that says 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.

That's exactly right. From on his first attack ... before he even drew the shortsword. That's exactly my contention.

But the way Hypersmurf says it is, TWF penalties are dependent upon "wielding two weapons," not upon "having the option to make an off-hand attack." Since the guy wasn't wielding two weapons, he takes no penalties. Once he is wielding two weapons, he takes penalties on the second shot.

Let me make sure I understand you: your contention is:

(1) Someone who wants to attack with a longsword, and then quick-draw a shortsword and attack, has to pay TWF penalties on both attacks in order to do so? (If that's the case, I agree with you.) Call this Premise A.

Or (2) Someone who wants to attack with a longsword, and then quick-draw a shortsword and attack, is simply out of luck? He cannot do it? (If that's the case, I'd like to see a rules citation that says somebody can't quick-draw and make an off-hand attack. There's at least one explicit example in the FAQ wherein that assertion is contradicted.)

Now understand: Hypersmurf has said that "fight this way" means "to wield two weapons." Look back and read his posts before you deny this again. Call this Premise B.

Premise A and Premise B cannot both be true. It is logically impossible. In Premise A, the guy who is not wielding two weapons is clearly fighting using TWF, which is a direct contradiction of Premise B, which says he's only using TWF if he wields two weapons.

Since Premise A and Premise B cannot both be true, and since I absolutely know that Premise A is true, Premise B must be false.

 

[Jeff Wilder]

Please don't think I've never had players who have tried anything like this this. If someone has six shortswords on his belt, I'll allow the draw-drop if it's spatially possible. How's that encumberance looking?

Okay. There's something to be said for consistency. Me, I think it's broken.

 

[glass]

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.

No they aren't. Power Attack could quite easily have been implemented on an attack by attack basis, with no need for retroactive anything. There might have been balance issues, and it would have been slightly more complicated that way, but there are no conceptual issues that I can see.


glass.

 

[Jeff Wilder]

No they aren't. Power Attack could quite easily have been implemented on an attack by attack basis, with no need for retroactive anything.

So could TWF. That says nothing about whether they're conceptually similar or why they're conceptually similar.

 

[moritheil]

Okay. There's something to be said for consistency. Me, I think it's broken.

I've never had a problem with it, but as I said above, I tend to send elementals, undead, incorporeal enemies, etc. at the group. When I do send goblins or the like, all the goblins adjacent to a player melee fighter tend to get hit easily and die swiftly regardless of whether or not I would allow something like that, so it hasn't been an issue then either.

In summary, all that it really seems to enable is the swifter disposal of mooks . . . and I'm actually not opposed to that at all. Our sessions last ungodly long as it is.

 

[glass]

Show me the rule that says he can't attack with it.

Will one of your own posts do?

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.

But the way Hypersmurf says it is, TWF penalties are dependent upon "wielding two weapons," not upon "having the option to make an off-hand attack." Since the guy wasn't wielding two weapons, he takes no penalties. Once he is wielding two weapons, he takes penalties on the second shot.

Hyp's apparently not here to defend himself. How about you quit banging on about a position only you think he has taken.

Let me make sure I understand you: your contention is:

(1) Someone who wants to attack with a longsword, and then quick-draw a shortsword and attack, has to pay TWF penalties on both attacks in order to do so? (If that's the case, I agree with you.) Call this Premise A.

Or (2) Someone who wants to attack with a longsword, and then quick-draw a shortsword and attack, is simply out of luck? He cannot do it? (If that's the case, I'd like to see a rules citation that says somebody can't quick-draw and make an off-hand attack. There's at least one explicit example in the FAQ wherein that assertion is contradicted.)

Now understand: Hypersmurf has said that "fight this way" means "to wield two weapons." Look back and read his posts before you deny this again. Call this Premise B.

Ooh, nice bait and switch there, using the numbers and the letters.


I am unsure whether (1)/A or (2) are correct, although as I have said I am leaning towards the former. B is categorically incorrect.

I don't know whether Hyp would agree with (1)/A or (2), but I'd be fall-of-my-chair surprised if he agreed with premise B.

Premise A and Premise B cannot both be true. It is logically impossible. In Premise A, the guy who is not wielding two weapons is clearly fighting using TWF, which is a direct contradiction of Premise B, which says he's only using TWF if he wields two weapons.

Since Premise A and Premise B cannot both be true, and since I absolutely know that Premise A is true, Premise B must be false.

Premise B is false. However that does not necesarily mean that premise A is correct. I believe that is called a false dichotmy.


glass.

 

[glass]

So could TWF. That says nothing about whether they're conceptually similar or why they're conceptually similar.

No really. There is no way that applying penalties to just the relevant attacks in TWF would be an overall penalty. Even if they only hit on a 20, it's still strictly better to have them than not to if they have no effect outside themselves.

That's not true in the case of power attack. With Power Attack, even if it was applied on an attack by attack basis, it would still be a real penalty.


glass.

 

[Jeff Wilder]

Will one of your own posts do?

Oh, for God's sake. The entire point was to go through the exercise using Hypersmurf's version of TWF. Of course I disagree with it. But, given Hypersmurf's version of TWF, show me why he can't attack with the shortsword.

Hyp's apparently not here to defend himself. How about you quit banging on about a position only you think he has taken.

Okay, let's see.

Post #2 -- Hypersmurf: "There are two ways of reading 'fight this way':

1. 'wield a second weapon in your off hand'.
2. 'get one extra attack per round with that weapon'.

I read it as the first - if you are wielding a second weapon in your off hand, you take TWF penalties"

Post #21 -- Hypersmurf: "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."

Post #23 -- Hypersmurf: "In what way are you fighting? Wielding a second weapon in your off hand. When you fight this way, you take TWF penalties."

Post #23 -- Hypersmurf: "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."

Post #31 -- Hypersmurf: "The penalty applies when you fight this way, and fight this way is when you wield a second weapon in your off-hand"

And so on, and so on. Note the second quote from Post #23, especially. I won't hold my breath waiting for you to recant, of course.

Ooh, nice bait and switch there, using the numbers and the letters.

What are you talking about?

I don't know whether Hyp would agree with (1)/A or (2), but I'd be fall-of-my-chair surprised if he agreed with premise B.

Go ahead and climb off the floor and dust yourself off.

Premise B is false. However that does not necesarily mean that premise A is correct. I believe that is called a false dichotmy.

Well, one of them must be true. Observe:

The language is "If you wield a second weapon in your off hand, you can get one extra attack per round with that weapon. 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."

Clearly "fight this way" is referring to something earlier in the language. Agreed?

There are only two things it could be referring to: "If you wield a second weapon in your off-hand" or "you can get one extra attack per round." Agreed? (Technically it can also be a combination of the two clauses -- "you can get an extra attack when you wield a weapon in your off-hand" -- which is what I believe, but that actually doesn't matter.)

As I've shown, and you inexplicably keep denying, Hypersmurf says that "fight this way" is referring to the "wield two weapons" language. He says that the rest of it -- "can get an extra attack" -- is just a by-product of wielding two weapons. This is Premise B.

Do you see that this is the position you agreed is "clearly false"?

So if it's is "clearly false" that the "fight this way" is referring to "wielding two weapons," the only possibilities left are that "fight this way" is referring to the remainder of the language -- "can get an extra attack" -- or a combination of the two -- "can get an extra attack with a second weapon wielded." This is Premise A.

Only one of these two can possibly be correct. You've ruled out Premise B. If you can't accept Premise A, I'd really really appreciate it if you'd try to explain why not.