Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Nest
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
trip, whip and twf
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="glass" data-source="post: 2463220" data-attributes="member: 12251"><p>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?</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p> </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I may of been a little hasty in accusing you of a bait and switch. I apologise.</p><p></p><p>I'd be surprised if Hyp <em>actually</em> thought the answer was B (<em>EDIT: As I was interpretting B at the time, see below</em>), and said so.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Agreed.</p><p></p><p>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. <img src="http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/nervous.png" class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":heh:" title="Nervous Laugh :heh:" data-shortname=":heh:" /> </p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>No. Maybe it would help if I restated what my position actually is:</p><p></p><p>'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.</p><p></p><p>If you are fighting with two weapons, you have no choice: you take the penalties. If you are not, you may (probably <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile :)" data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />) take the penalties in advance to keep the option of fighting with two weapons open.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p></p><p>glass.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="glass, post: 2463220, member: 12251"] 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? 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. I may of been a little hasty in accusing you of a bait and switch. I apologise. I'd be surprised if Hyp [i]actually[/i] thought the answer was B ([i]EDIT: As I was interpretting B at the time, see below[/i]), and said so. Agreed. 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. :heh: 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. 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. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
trip, whip and twf
Top