Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Jeff Wilder" data-source="post: 2462327" data-attributes="member: 5122">That just makes no sense.  It doesn't fit the language, and it doesn't fit the way other combat modifier trade-offs work.Again, you've got it backward: the penalty isn't incurred for having the option to attack, the option to attack is gained by accepting the penalty.  Just like the additional damage with Power Attack is gained by accepting the penalty.  Just like the additional AC with Combat Expertise is gained by accepting the penalty to attacks.  Just like the additional AC for fighting defensively is gained for accepting the -4 to attacks. You keep saying this, but it's only partially true.  "Wielding a second weapon in the off-hand" is one condition, of two, of being able to make a second attack with that weapon; the other condition is "being willing to accept the combat modifier trade-off" (namely, the TWF penalties) exactly like other combat modifier trade-offs.  If you're not willing to accept the penalties, you don't get the benefit.  The penalty isn't imposed on you just because you happen to be holding a weapon in your other hand.Do TWF penalties automatically apply if the TWFer is holding a rod of lordly might in his off-hand?  How about if he's holding a bar-stool in his off-hand?  How about if he's got a magic ring that automatically shocking grasps someone hit with a touch attack?  How about if he's got Improved Unarmed Strike?Of course TWF penalties don't apply ... unless the TWFer wants them to, so that he has the option of attacking with the rod or attack with the improvised weapon (bar stool).You wrote this, and you don't see the contradiction?  You don't see the missing phrase that makes these all follow a similar model?If you wield a second weapon (one condition, making it possible at all) and if you choose to take a penalty (a second condition, also making it possible at all), you can make an extra attack.  In every case, you choose to take a penalty.  That's how combat-modifier trade-offs work in D&D.  I honestly don't get why you think TWF is the exception, just because they worded a sentence with a comma, rather than without one.No, that's not what I said ... I said that it's the acceptance of the penalty (combined with the wielding of the additional weapon) that makes the extra attack an option.Of course you can.  (Even aside from the obvious "I can't make a full attack at all" scenarios.)  You can turn down the possible benefit of holding two weapons simply by not fulfilling the other condition required to gain the benefit: accepting penalties to your attacks.D&D does not force combat-modifier trade-offs on characters.  They have to be accepted by the character.  When a character declares that he is charging, he accepts a -2 penalty to AC, but he is not forced to make an attack.  You pay the penalty for the possible benefit, you don't have the penalty imposed upon you.  You choose to take the penalty in exchange for the possible benefit, you don't have the penalty imposed on you.For some reason, you seem to think the phrase "f you wield a weapon in your off-hand" has a special meaning because it's set off by a comma from the remainder of the phrase: "you can get one extra attack per round with that weapon."  It doesn't have a special meaning.  It's simply another way of saying "You can get one extra attack per round with a weapon you wield in your off-hand."And if you "fight this way" (i.e., if you have a weapon in your off-hand and you want to make an extra attack with it), you have to accept the associated penalties.</blockquote>

Verification