Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Jeff Wilder" data-source="post: 2463024" data-attributes="member: 5122">Oh, for God's sake.&nbsp; The entire point was to go through the exercise using Hypersmurf's version of TWF.&nbsp; Of course I disagree with it.&nbsp; But, given Hypersmurf's version of TWF, show me why he can't attack with the shortsword.Okay, let's see.Post #2 -- Hypersmurf: &quot;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&quot;Post #21 -- Hypersmurf: &quot;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.&quot;Post #23 -- Hypersmurf: &quot;In what way are you fighting? Wielding a second weapon in your off hand.&nbsp; When you fight this way, you take TWF penalties.&quot;Post #23 -- Hypersmurf: &quot;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.&quot;Post #31 -- Hypersmurf: &quot;The penalty applies when you fight this way, and fight this way is when you wield a second weapon in your off-hand&quot;And so on, and so on.&nbsp; Note the second quote from Post #23, especially. I won't hold my breath waiting for you to recant, of course.What are you talking about?Go ahead and climb off the floor and dust yourself off.Well, one of them must be true.&nbsp; Observe:The language is &quot;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.&quot;Clearly &quot;fight this way&quot; is referring to something earlier in the language.&nbsp; Agreed?There are only two things it could be referring to: &quot;If you wield a second weapon in your off-hand&quot; or &quot;you can get one extra attack per round.&quot;&nbsp; Agreed?&nbsp; (Technically it can also be a combination of the two clauses -- &quot;you can get an extra attack when you wield a weapon in your off-hand&quot; -- which is what I believe, but that actually doesn't matter.)As I've shown, and you inexplicably keep denying, Hypersmurf says that &quot;fight this way&quot; is referring to the &quot;wield two weapons&quot; language.&nbsp; He says that the rest of it -- &quot;can get an extra attack&quot; -- is just a by-product of wielding two weapons.&nbsp; This is Premise B.Do you see that this is the position you agreed is &quot;clearly false&quot;?So if it's is &quot;clearly false&quot; that the &quot;fight this way&quot; is referring to &quot;wielding two weapons,&quot; the only possibilities left are that &quot;fight this way&quot; is referring to the remainder of the language -- &quot;can get an extra attack&quot; -- or a combination of the two -- &quot;can get an extra attack with a second weapon wielded.&quot;&nbsp; This is Premise A.Only one of these two can possibly be correct.&nbsp; You've ruled out Premise B.&nbsp; If you can't accept Premise A, I'd really really appreciate it if you'd try to explain why not.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Jeff Wilder, post: 2463024, member: 5122"] Oh, for God's sake. The entire point was to go through the exercise using Hypersmurf's version of TWF. Of [i]course[/i] I disagree with it. But, [i]given Hypersmurf's version of TWF[/i], show me why he can't attack with the shortsword. 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. What are you talking about? Go ahead and climb off the floor and dust yourself off. Well, one of them [i]must be[/i] 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 [i]only possibilities left[/i] 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 [i]really[/i] appreciate it if you'd try to explain why not. [/QUOTE]

Verification