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: 2462421" data-attributes="member: 5122">You absolutely do, because the penalty comes before the swing.  You don't get to make one attack with your longsword at no penalty, and then decide to make a second attack with your spiked gauntlet at -2 to the attack.  You pay the penalty (-2 to attack), and that permits you to make a second attack with your spiked gauntlet.This is simply the way the game works.Things are getting twisted around, because I'm arguing both semantics and the way the game models combat-modifier trade-offs (or the actual way things are handled in the game, as above).By the wording, "fight this way" includes the entirety of the phrase "If you wield a second weapon in your off hand, you can get one extra attack per round with that weapon."  There are two clauses in that sentence, but for some reason you're choosing to ignore the second one.  "Fight this way" means "accepting the optionof an extra attack possible with a weapon wielded in your off-hand."  It doesn't mean simply "wielding a weapon in your off-hand."I.e., There are penalties applied when you take the extra attack (first condition) made possible by having a weapon in your off-hand (second condition).But in the game model, penalties must be accepted before the attack roll is made.  And in the game model, characters can forego the penalty by refusing the benefit.  That's the way combat-modifier trade-offs work.No, "fight this way" is when you you wield a second weapon in your off-hand and you choose to attack with it.  In order to do so, you must accept penalties.  As I keep demonstrating, it isn't wielding a second weapon that permits an extra attack, otherwise TWF penalties would not apply to many situations in which an off-hand attack, sans weapon, is possible.Right.  And when do you decide which it is?  Do I get to attack with my longsword at no penalty, and then "decide" to wield my shield as a weapon and make the attack with TWF penalties?  Of course not ... the decision as to which you're doing depends upon whether you accepts the penalties or not, before you roll your first attack roll.And when do you decide which it is?What if I have Quick-Draw?  By your reasoning, I can attack with no penalty with my longsword, other hand empty, then quick-draw my shortsword and attack with TWF penalties.And when do you decide this?Yeah, that would be why it's "missing."  It shouldn't be missing.No, and he can't declare he's TWF without accepting those penalties.  What's your point?  I keep saying "in order to gain the benefit, you must accept the penalties."  And you keep saying, "No, you take the penalties when you gain the benefit."But that is simply not the way the game works.If I want to attack with a shortsword in my off-hand, even if I haven't drawn it yet (and having it in-hand is what you claim imposes the penalties), do I suffer TWF with my longsword?Of course I do, because it's not simply wielding the weapon that imposes the penalties for "fighting this way" ... it's wielding the weapon (whenever that occurs) and choosing to have the option to use it.</blockquote>

Verification