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: 2463405" data-attributes="member: 5122">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.)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 appreciate it.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.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.</blockquote>

Verification