trip, whip and twf

[Kahuna Burger]

Wow, this has gone somewhere totally other.....

It seems to be being argued that a) you cannot make a full attack with a weapon while holding (and not using) a weapon in your off hand to begin with and b) that you can't get the benefit of TWD without actually attacking with the off hand weapon.

May I just say unto that idea : Shields.

When you hold a shield in your off hand, you do not take any penalties to your primary hand attacks from "holding something in your other hand". In fact, there is nothing anywhere in the rules to indicate that having something in your other hand (and using it activly as the sheild bonus to AC requires) has the slightest effect on your attack bonus.

If you have the improved shield bash feat, you have something in your off hand that can (potentially) be used for attack and defense, and yet you still don't take penalties just for having it.

In terms of TWD, the AC bonus it grants is specificly a shield bonus, and specificly remains in play even if you don't attack at all (full defense). Essentially, it turns your off hand weapon into a pointy shield with the improved shiels bash feat. Whether you choose to use its offensive capabilities shouldn't have any affect on its defensive capabilities.

But anyway, thank you for the responses to my orriginal questions, obviously I'll have to take the issues to my DM if this character concept ever comes into play.

 

[Jeff Wilder]

It seems to be being argued that a) you cannot make a full attack with a weapon while holding (and not using) a weapon in your off hand to begin with

Actually, unless I missed something, nobody's arguing this.

and b) that you can't get the benefit of TWD without actually attacking with the off hand weapon.

Technically, "without taking TWF penalties for wielding the off-hand weapon." But yeah. (And I agree with you, it's not the case. TWD has nothing to do with TWF penalties.)

 

[Kahuna Burger]

It seems to be being argued that a) you cannot make a full attack with a weapon while holding (and not using) a weapon in your off hand to begin with

Actually, unless I missed something, nobody's arguing this.

I based it off of this

This requires more thought. Personally I've always played that if you have two weapons drawn then choose to attack with only one you have to sheath the other weapon or suffer the TWF penalties. As this takes a move action it's always been done and we never had any trouble.

In combat if your holding a weapon then your considered to be using it and therefore take the TWF penalties if you have two. The only exception to this fule that i can see is if you also have a buckler and decide to gain it's AC bonus in wich case you can't attack with the off-hand weapon and can't make AOO's anyway.

and this sort of thing from Hypersmurf

But I'm pointing to something described earlier in the passage as well: "If you wield a second weapon in your off hand".

In what way are you fighting? Wielding a second weapon in your off hand.

When you fight this way, you take TWF penalties. When you fight this way, you can get one extra attack per round with that weapon.

Wielding a second weapon gives you the option of making an extra attack. It doesn't give you the option of having the option of making an extra attack.

You take the TWF penalties for having the ability to make an extra attack? You get that ability automatically if you wield a second weapon in your off-hand. You don't have a choice about that. If you wield the weapon, you can make the extra attack... and therefore you are 'fighting this way'.

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.

though hypersmurf may be allowing for second weapon to be held as an object without penalty, really he wasn't making a lot of sense.

 

[glass]

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.

You know what, I can't find it in the SRD. But since the only person who has said you can have the extra attack without taking the penalties is Moritheil, what does that have to do with Hyp or me? Why are you asking me to prove something we agree on?

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"

I see nothing there (or in the rest of the list) that suggests Hyp thinks you could get the extra attack without taking the penalties, any more than I did when I read the actual posts.

What are you talking about?

I may of been a little hasty in accusing you of a bait and switch. I apologise.

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

I'd be surprised if Hyp actually thought the answer was B (EDIT: As I was interpretting B at the time, see below), and said so.

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?

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.

Premise B, as distinct from Premise (2) in the previous paragraph, seemed to have an implied ability to attack with two weapons despite not fighting with two weapons. If that was unintentional than I apologise for reading more into your post than was there.

Without that implication, I have no problem agreeing with Premise B (and as you have demonstrated, neither does Hyp). However, without that implication, our agreeing with Premise B no longer equates to our agreeing with your previous argumants.

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

No. Maybe it would help if I restated what my position actually is:

'Fight this way' refers to fighting with two weapons. At any time you are fighting with two weapons, you take the relevant penalties. If you are fighting with two weapons, you may claim and extra attack with your off hand, although you are not required to do so. However, you may never claim and extra attack for fighting with two weapons if you are not actually fighting with two weapons.

If you are fighting with two weapons, you have no choice: you take the penalties. If you are not, you may (probably ) take the penalties in advance to keep the option of fighting with two weapons open.

If you do not exercise this option (or if I am mistaken about it being an option), then you cannot fight with two weapons that round, and therefore cannot claim the extra attack.


glass.

 

[Jeff Wilder]

You know what, I can't find it in the SRD. But since the only person who has said you can have the extra attack without taking the penalties is Moritheil, what does that have to do with Hyp or me? Why are you asking me to prove something we agree on?

Well, I'm asking you because you seem to be playing Devil's Advocate. And, BTW, Hypersmurf does apparently believe you can get an extra attack without taking the penalties on the first attack.

(1) He says that TWF penalties only apply if you are "fighting this way."
(2) He says that "fighting this way" means "wielding a second weapon in your off-hand."
(3) So, combining those, he says that TWF penalties only apply if you are wielding a weapon in your off-hand.

(Again, see his statement from Post #23: ""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." Look at it again: "but neither do you incur penalties from it.")

(4) As far as I know, Hypersmurf agrees that it is possible to attack with a longsword, then quick-draw a shortsword and attack with it. (Maybe he doesn't agree with that? I suppose it's possible. Bizarre, but possible. Is it okay if we assume, for this purpose, that he does agree with that?)
(5) So, since the character attacking with the longsword is, by Hypersmurf's definition, not "fighting this way" (i.e., wielding a second weapon), he does not, by Hypersmurf's definition, "incur penalties for it" when he attacks with it.

With me so far?

(6) Then (again, assuming Hypersmurf agrees -- as you and I do, right? -- that a character can make one attack, then quick-draw and make an off-hand attack), when the character quick-draws the shortsword, he is only then "fighting this way" (again, by Hypersmurf's definition) and only then does he "incur penalties for it" (again, by Hypersmurf's definition).

Now, I just can't make this more a more straightforward premises-to-conclusion model. If you disagree at any step along the way, please explain why. (Understand that I'm not saying "if you disagree with the the rules as Hypersmurf has asserted them to be." I'm saying "if you disagree that Hypersmurf has asserted the rules to be this way.")

So what is the conclusion, if we follow Hypersmurf's model, and presuming that he would agree that attack-then-quick-draw-and-second-attack is not prohibited by the rules? One longsword attack at no penalties, followed by one shortsword attack with penalties.

If you disagree with that conclusion, as I do (and I think you do), then at some point above Hypersmurf's assertions about how the rules work must be wrong. (Or I'm wrong that Hypersmurf agrees that, by the rules, a character can makes an attack, then quick-draw and make an off-hand attack. Which would be far more strange and wrong than him being wrong about this.)

I see nothing there (or in the rest of the list) that suggests Hyp thinks you could get the extra attack without taking the penalties, any more than I did when I read the actual posts.

You're not understanding. It's not the extra attack you can get without the penalties in the Hypersmurf Model. It's the first attack, as shown above.

I may of been a little hasty in accusing you of a bait and switch. I apologise.

I appreciate it.

Premise B, as distinct from Premise (2) in the previous paragraph, seemed to have an implied ability to attack with two weapons despite not fighting with two weapons.

Under the Hypersmurf Model, that is entirely possible, as demonstrated above. Under the Hypersmurf Model, going by what he himself wrote, if you're not wielding the two weapons together, you're not fighting two-handed.

No. Maybe it would help if I restated what my position actually is:

I understand your position, and I agree with it, except that I don't think there's any question that you can take TWF penalties in order to "preserve the option" to fight two-handed later in the round. Not only can you do that, you must do that. If you don't accept the penalties for all attacks, even those you make before you're wielding two weapons, you can't take an extra attack with a weapon you might somehow produce.

 

[Arnwyn]

By the second reading, unless you take the extra attack with your off hand, you don't take TWF penalties... so you threaten quite happily with the sickle, and can make your iterative attacks alternately between whip and sickle at no penalty.

... except, of course, for the normal -4 for making an off-hand attack, unless you have the TWF feat (see the definition of 'off hand' in the PHB Glossary).

FWIW, this is how we rule it (in our game, we in fact have a character with a whip in one hand, and a hand axe in the other so he can threaten with it since the whip doesn't).

 

[Kahuna Burger]

FWIW, this is how we rule it (in our game, we in fact have a character with a whip in one hand, and a hand axe in the other so he can threaten with it since the whip doesn't).

cool, do you have any thoughts on the other questions? ie, if he managed to trip someone, and had improved trip, would you let him take the followup attack with the handaxe?

 

[Arnwyn]

cool, do you have any thoughts on the other questions? ie, if he managed to trip someone, and had improved trip, would you let him take the followup attack with the handaxe?

Not a lot of deep thoughts p) on the matter, as my player has no interest in that level of complexity, but I can speculate how I might rule it...

I just read the Improved Trip feat, and I see no problem with allowing him to make that Improved Trip follow-up attack with the handaxe (it would be at the -4 'off-hand' penalty, though).

(Aside: As to your original Question 3, for my game I would not be keen on allowing my player to alternate his multiple/iterative attacks with the different weapons, and would likely rule that he can't. I have nothing in the RAW to back up this ruling though... but for my game, I wouldn't care!)

 

[glass]

-long progression 1-6 snipped-
Now, I just can't make this more a more straightforward premises-to-conclusion model. If you disagree at any step along the way, please explain why. (Understand that I'm not saying "if you disagree with the the rules as Hypersmurf has asserted them to be." I'm saying "if you disagree that Hypersmurf has asserted the rules to be this way.")

I agree Hyp has asserted 1-3. I don't know about 4, so I'll assume he'd agree with that (as requested). I'd imagine Hyp would agree that he could do 5, but not necesarily that he could do 4 and 5 in the same round. 6 only follows from 4 and 5 if you can do both.

So what is the conclusion, if we follow Hypersmurf's model, and presuming that he would agree that attack-then-quick-draw-and-second-attack is not prohibited by the rules? One longsword attack at no penalties, followed by one shortsword attack with penalties.

I am happy to presume that Hyp would allow a character to quickdraw an attack with his shortsword, but I wouldn't necessarily presume he would allow a character who had already attacked with his longsword to do so.

You're not understanding. It's not the extra attack you can get without the penalties in the Hypersmurf Model. It's the first attack, as shown above.

I get that, I just don't agree that it follows from the 'penalties as a consequence of fighting with two weapons'.

We agree, I think, that to fight in 'this way' at any point in the round, you must apply the TWF penalties to all attacks in the round, even if we disagree about what exactly this way means. Would you not agree that if quickdraw a shortsword and attack with it having already attacked with a longsword you are fighting 'this way' by either definition.

If the penalties are a consequence of fighting 'this way', then you cannot fight 'this way' if you cannot bear the consequences (such as, if you have already attacked without penalty).

As an analogy, say you have Rapid Shot and have just taken your normal attack(s) without applying the Rapid Shot penalty, what happens if you then want your extra attack? IMO, nothing -you don't get the attack because you can't take the consequences.


glass.

 

[Jeff Wilder]

We agree, I think, that to fight in 'this way' at any point in the round, you must apply the TWF penalties to all attacks in the round

Yes.

Would you not agree that if quickdraw a shortsword and attack with it having already attacked with a longsword you are fighting 'this way' by either definition.

By either of our definitions? Maybe. (That's not ambivalence ... it's laziness. I don't want to go check back to see what your definition is.) By Hypersmurf's stated definition? No. Not when you attacked with the longsword.

If the penalties are a consequence of fighting 'this way', then you cannot fight 'this way' if you cannot bear the consequences (such as, if you have already attacked without penalty).

Okay, so we have an either/or.

EITHER the penalties are not a consequence of wielding two weapons, but are, instead, payment for the benefit of a second attack,

OR one cannot attack with a longsword and then quick-draw a shortsword with the off-hand and attack with it, because one has attacked with one weapon, with no consequence.

Right? But we agree, don't we, that nothing in the rules prohibits you from doing that quick-draw trick? If so, we agree that the penalties are not a consequence, correct?

As an analogy, say you have Rapid Shot and have just taken your normal attack(s) without applying the Rapid Shot penalty, what happens if you then want your extra attack? IMO, nothing -you don't get the attack because you can't take the consequences.

Not exactly. You don't get the attack because you haven't paid the penalties to allow it. (In practice, this usually amounts to the same thing -- i.e., if you want the extra attack, you better pay the penalty in advance.)

To carry the analogy further, you don't take -2 to your first shot because you're definitely firing two arrows and the -2 is a consequence of firing two arrows, you take -2 to the first shot to preserve the possibility of firing another arrow. In TWF terms, you don't take TWF penalties because you're definitely attacking with a second weapon and the penalties are a consequence of attacking with a second weapon, you take TWF penalties to preserve the possibility of attacking with a second weapon.

This is important because of the way Hypersmurf reads TWF penalties as a consequence of wielding two weapons. In the Hypersmurf Model, if you're not wielding two weapons, you don't suffer the consequence, i.e., you don't suffer TWF penalties. Note that he has specifically said the penalties are not there to allow for (or even as a consequence of) making a second attack with an off-hand weapon ... they're there solely as a consequence of wielding two weapons.

So, again, if you start off wielding one weapon, you're not wielding two weapons, so you don't suffer the consequence of TWF penalties even if you later wield a second weapon. You'll take the penalties when you produce the second weapon, because you're wielding two weapons and penalties are the consequence of wielding two weapons, but you don't take the penalties on that first attack.

(And what happens if, before he quick-draws and attacks with the shortsword, the warrior uses a free action to drop the longsword with which he just attacked? Note that at no time is he wielding two weapons, and thus under the Hypersmurf Model, he is not TWF, and doesn't take TWF penalties.)

By contrast, my model says that TWF penalties aren't a consequence of anything. They're not the consequence of wielding two weapons, for reasons already discussed. They're not the consequence of actually attacking with two weapons, since you won't always do that. They are, instead, the payment for preserving the possibility of wielding two weapons and attacking with both.

Which fits perfectly with the way combat-mod trade-offs are handled throughout the rest of the game.