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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Hypersmurf" data-source="post: 2465178" data-attributes="member: 1656">It needs to be made, or anyone with a shield suffers TWF penalties.But it's not impossible.  The fighter can be 'wielding a second weapon with his off-hand' by considering his unarmed strike an off-hand weapon.  He thus takes the penalty on his longsword attack, and then (since he's 'fighting this way' and is allowed an extra attack with an off-hand weapon) can quickdraw his shortsword and attack.Right.  So we need to allow that 'wielding a weapon that may be used for off-hand attacks'  - whether it be bladed boots, or spiked armor, or an unarmed strike, or whatever - fulfils the requirement of 'wielding a weapon in your off-hand', even if the off-hand weapon is not actually in one's physical off-hand.I don't really have an issue with that, as long as one accepts that wielding two weapons automatically preserves the opportunity to make an off-hand attack, and if you don't wish that opportunity preserved, you have to not-wield-two-weapons.It's a very black-and-white statement - when you wield a second weapon in your off-hand, you can make an extra off-hand attack.  If you don't want to be able to make an extra off-hand attack, wielding a second weapon in your off-hand must be avoided.Why, certainly he can... as long as he isn't wielding both of them.  I have no problem with his wielding a longsword and holding a shortsword, or vice versa.  But wielding both would incur TWF penalties.If it's impossible under my 'model', being my interpretation of the D&D rules, it isn't 'clearly permitted' by those rules, surely?Why can't you wield it?  You can't threaten squares with it, any more than you can with a whip... but you can wield a whip.If it's available to attack with, it is wielded.-Hyp.</blockquote>

Verification