Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Jeff Wilder" data-source="post: 2468358" data-attributes="member: 5122">Sure, &quot;as far as [you're] concerned.&quot;&nbsp; The rules of the game, however, don't make this distinction.&nbsp; You have to create it to make your model (sorta) work.In my model, either one.&nbsp; He is not gaining an extra attack with his off-hand by TWF.In your model, only the longsword, because even though he has &quot;drawn&quot; the mace, and is &quot;holding&quot; the mace, your model requires that he somehow not be &quot;wielding&quot; the mace.What do the actual rules have to say?&nbsp; &quot;Drawing a weapon so that you can use it in combat [...] requires a move action&quot; and &quot;[Quick Drawers] can draw a weapon as a free action instead of as a move action.&quot;&nbsp; Interesting ... he can draw the weapon, which enables him to use it in combat, but in your model he's not wielding the weapon, so he can't use it in combat.Having to make all these bizarre distinctions really doesn't make your head hurt?&nbsp; If I were at your table and you went on about this stuff -- &quot;oh, you've drawn it, and you're holding it, but you're not wielding it, or armed with it, so you can't use it, and you certainly can't attack with it&quot; -- my jaw would hit the table.&nbsp; Then, just for fun on my way out the door, I'd ask, &quot;Hey, 'Smurf, since I'm not armed with the shortsword, I can't be disarmed of it, right?&quot;Wow, you are so conceptually confused.&nbsp; TWF penalties allow an extra attack with a weapon, in addition to your normal attacks in a round.&nbsp; But what you've set up above is an attack of opportunity.&nbsp; He's not getting an extra attack from TWF ... he's getting an extra attack as an AoO.He threatens with both.&nbsp; He's drawn both, he's wielding both, and he's armed with both.&nbsp; He threatens with both.Under my model?&nbsp; Yes.&nbsp; Under the rules?&nbsp; Yes (not coincidentally the same answer).Under your model?&nbsp; Who the hell knows?&nbsp; Under your model, can he wield the longspear and wield his IUS?&nbsp; Does he have to declare whether he's wielding his &quot;punches,&quot; his &quot;kicks,&quot; or his &quot;head butts&quot;?&nbsp; Can he wield all three?&nbsp; Under your model, I guess he can't wield his &quot;punches,&quot; right, because he's wielding a two-handed weapon?&nbsp; So he's stuck wielding his &quot;kicks&quot; and &quot;head butts&quot;?&nbsp; Or does he have to choose only one of those?Smurfster, you're lost in a bizarre tesseractian maze of your own construction.See &quot;v.3.5 Main D&amp;D FAQ&quot;, pages 19 and 20.&nbsp; Grab some rest, maybe a pina colada or two, figure out whether it's even worth trying to rehabilitate your model of how D&amp;D combat works, and then come back when you're up to it, okay?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Jeff Wilder, post: 2468358, member: 5122"] Sure, "as far as [you're] concerned." The [i]rules of the game[/i], however, don't make this distinction. You have to create it to make your model (sorta) work. In my model, either one. He is not gaining an extra attack with his off-hand by TWF. In your model, only the longsword, because even though he has "drawn" the mace, and is "holding" the mace, your model requires that he somehow not be "wielding" the mace. What do the actual rules have to say? "Drawing a weapon so that you can use it in combat [...] requires a move action" and "[Quick Drawers] can draw a weapon as a free action instead of as a move action." Interesting ... he can draw the weapon, which enables him to use it in combat, but in your model he's not [i]wielding[/i] the weapon, so he can't use it in combat. Having to make all these bizarre distinctions really doesn't make your head hurt? If I were at your table and you went on about this stuff -- "oh, you've drawn it, and you're holding it, but you're not wielding it, or armed with it, so you can't use it, and you certainly can't attack with it" -- my jaw would hit the table. Then, just for fun on my way out the door, I'd ask, "Hey, 'Smurf, since I'm not armed with the shortsword, I can't be [i]disarmed[/i] of it, right?" Wow, you are [i]so[/i] conceptually confused. TWF penalties allow an [i]extra attack[/i] with a weapon, in addition to your normal attacks in a round. But what you've set up above is an [i]attack of opportunity[/i]. He's not getting an extra attack from TWF ... he's getting an extra attack [i]as an AoO[/i]. He threatens with both. He's drawn both, he's wielding both, and he's armed with both. He threatens with both. Under my model? Yes. Under the rules? Yes (not coincidentally the same answer). Under your model? Who the hell knows? Under your model, can he wield the longspear [i]and[/i] wield his IUS? Does he have to declare whether he's wielding his "punches," his "kicks," or his "head butts"? Can he wield all three? Under your model, I guess he can't wield his "punches," right, because he's wielding a two-handed weapon? So he's stuck wielding his "kicks" and "head butts"? Or does he have to choose only one of those? Smurfster, you're lost in a bizarre tesseractian maze of your own construction. See "v.3.5 Main D&D FAQ", pages 19 and 20. Grab some rest, maybe a pina colada or two, figure out whether it's [i]even worth trying[/i] to rehabilitate your model of how D&D combat works, and then come back when you're up to it, okay? [/QUOTE]

Verification