TWF and iterative attacks

[Matt Black]

While we're on two-weapon fighting, something I'm trying to clarify in my own head...

TWF as a combat action allows you to make an extra attack with your off-hand weapon. It doesn't explicitly state that your other attack/s have to be with your primary hand. Quoting the SRD:

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.

So, you can make one off-hand attack and one regular attack OR an attack with primary hand. "Regular attack" covers everything you could normally do with an attack - attack with primary hand, grapple, trip, shield bash... And TWF aside, you could presumably use a regular attack to perform a single attack with your off-hand, with all the associated penalties. Taken literally, this suggests that, using the TWF combat action you can attack twice with your off-hand - once as your off-hand attack and once as your "regular attack".

That's obviously lame, and I think the spirit of the rule is that you can attack once with your off-hand and once EITHER with your primary hand OR with any other attack option (grapple, trip, etc.) that doesn't include your off-hand. Does that sound right?

But then what about iterative attacks? In lieu of the Improved TWF feat, 2nd/3rd/etc attacks should be able to be with either hand. Am I missing something?


The reason I ask is that I want my 6th level fighter (with TWF and quickdraw) able to use his main melee weapon with his primary hand, and use his off-hand to use throwing weapons, both on the off-hand attack and the iterative attack.

 

[Hypersmurf]

So, you can make one off-hand attack and one regular attack OR an attack with primary hand.

You're putting your brackets in the wrong place.

You're reading it as:
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.

But you should be reading it as:
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.

As in, if you receive one or more than one attack with your primary hand, it takes a -6.

-Hyp.

 

[Matt Black]

You're putting your brackets in the wrong place.

You're reading it as:
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.

But you should be reading it as:
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.

As in, if you receive one or more than one attack with your primary hand, it takes a -6.

-Hyp.

OK, you're right. So does that mean when fighting with two weapons you can't use your 'primary hand attack' to perform an attack-equivalent manoeuver?

 

[Hypersmurf]

OK, you're right. So does that mean when fighting with two weapons you can't use your 'primary hand attack' to perform an attack-equivalent manoeuver?

Well, that's not what it says.

a/ You gain an extra attack with your off-hand.
b/ Attacks made with your primary hand take a -6 penalty.

It doesn't say you can't use a melee attack that doesn't use your primary hand weapon, just that if you make an attack with your primary hand, it takes a penalty.

-Hyp.

 

[Matt Black]

Well, that's not what it says.

a/ You gain an extra attack with your off-hand.
b/ Attacks made with your primary hand take a -6 penalty.

It doesn't say you can't use a melee attack that doesn't use your primary hand weapon, just that if you make an attack with your primary hand, it takes a penalty.

-Hyp.

Sure. That's the clear literal interpretation. By that interpretation, you suffer the -6 penalty if you attack with your primary hand, but you suffer no penalty if you don't attack with your primary hand and instead go for a trip or a grapple or whatever. I wonder if that's the intent. We've always imposed the penalty whatever the attack type.

 

[ValhallaGH]

Sure. That's the clear literal interpretation. By that interpretation, you suffer the -6 penalty if you attack with your primary hand, but you suffer no penalty if you don't attack with your primary hand and instead go for a trip or a grapple or whatever. I wonder if that's the intent. We've always imposed the penalty whatever the attack type.

Trip, Grapple and Disarm all involve attack rolls. Thus, the -6 applies to them as well. By the literal interpretation of the rules.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Trip, Grapple and Disarm all involve attack rolls. Thus, the -6 applies to them as well. By the literal interpretation of the rules.

Disarm, certainly.

Grapple, there's that whole 'Do you need a free hand?' quandary.

Trip - let's say I have a longsword and a shortsword. I want to Trip, and neither of my weapons are trip-capable, so I trip as an unarmed melee touch attack.

I'm not tripping with my primary hand (which is holding a longsword); nor am I tripping with my off-hand (which is holding a shortsword).

Attacks with my primary hand take a -6. Attacks with my off-hand take a -10. What do attacks with neither take?

Now, personally, I agree that - just as armor spikes can be an off-hand attack despite not being 'wielded in the off-hand' - the unarmed trip qualifies as a 'primary hand attack' if it's using one of my normal iteratives. But that requires some non-literal extrapolation.

-Hyp.