TWF - Off-handed weapons for AoOs?

[kjenks]

Hypersmurf and I have argued about this in the past. Then that FAQ entry came out, pretty much siding with my view that you only take the TWF penalties if you attack with two weapons, not just wield two weapons.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Hypersmurf and I have argued about this in the past. Then that FAQ entry came out, pretty much siding with my view that you only take the TWF penalties if you attack with two weapons, not just wield two weapons.

The FAQ answer you quote doesn't mention TWF penalties at all...?

It says "Any time a character wielding more than one weapon is allowed an attack of opportunity, he may use any weapon that threatens the opponent who has provoked the attack."

Which I agree with. Assuming you're wielding more than one weapon, you can use either for your AoO. But fighting this way is very hard, and incurs penalties...

(As long as we're looking at FAQ quotes, I'll point to the 3E Main FAQ answer on Defending weapons, which specifically references incurring a TWF penalty even if you make no attack with the off-hand weapon...)

-Hyp.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

And if you are wielding a second weapon in your off-hand, you are fighting this way, and subject to TWF penalties.

No, if you benefit from the TWF rules to gain extra attacks in a Full Attack action, then you're "Fighting This Way."

So, RW, my answer mirrors the FAQ - and includes the fact, even on an AoO, you do not suffer from TWF penalties, regardless of whether or not you "Fought This Way" on your last action.

 

[ThirdWizard]

A few questions:

If you are weilding a double weapon, can you wield "one side" and not the other?

If you have a natural bite attack but you attack with only a claw, are you considered wielding the bite?

If you have a longsword and a short sword and a BAB of +6, can you make an iterative attack with a different weapon than your initial attack without incurring penalties? (Wield the longsword and attack, Free Action to wield the short sword, Free Action to not wield the longsword, attack with the short sword?)

 

[Ranger REG]

A few questions:

If you are weilding a double weapon, can you wield "one side" and not the other?

A double weapon is by default a two-handed weapon. It just happen to offer another attack option. I don't know why some gamers feel that a double weapon would force you to fight two-weapon style only.

AFAIC, unless the text specifically mention that the two-weapon fighting penalties last from the turn you use them until the beginning of your next turn (in the next combat round; as in the case of Combat Expertise), don't penalize the player.

 

[glass]

A few questions: If you are weilding a double weapon, can you wield "one side" and not the other?

I'm not sure about 'one side', but you can wield the weapon as a whole (as a 2H weapon). You don't have to go with the TWF option.

If you have a natural bite attack but you attack with only a claw, are you considered wielding the bite?

Natural weapons do no affect and are not affected by the TWF rules. IMO, you don't weild them.

If you have a longsword and a short sword and a BAB of +6, can you make an iterative attack with a different weapon than your initial attack without incurring penalties? (Wield the longsword and attack, Free Action to wield the short sword, Free Action to not wield the longsword, attack with the short sword?)

That depends on whether you agree with Patryn's view or Hyp's on what constitutes 'fighting this way', and if Hyp's, also on what kind of action it takes to switch from wielding to holding and vice versa.

If you can wield two weapons without 'fighting this way', then yes. If you can't, but you can switch from wielding one to the other as a free action (or two), then also yes. If you can't and need a longer action to switch, then no.


glass.

 

[ThirdWizard]

I'm trying to form an oppinion on this, but I find myself lacking the proper motivation.

A double weapon is by default a two-handed weapon. It just happen to offer another attack option. I don't know why some gamers feel that a double weapon would force you to fight two-weapon style only.

I'm not sure about 'one side', but you can wield the weapon as a whole (as a 2H weapon). You don't have to go with the TWF option.

The question was meant to be more along the lines of, if I use it as a 2H weapon, am I now stuck using that side and only that side? Say, I have a double axe +1 frost / +1 flaming and I use the flaming side in a charge in a 2H style. Must all AoO be with the flaming side until my next turn? I'm guessing this is a "yes."

Natural weapons do no affect and are not affected by the TWF rules. IMO, you don't weild them.

I hadn't even considered that you don't wield natural weapons. The reason I ask is that I play a Spiker (Planar Handbook) in a current game. I use a ranseur often to try to disarm, but often enough I get counter disarmed and have to drop the weapon. I've always considered this okay since I have natrual armor spikes that I can use if I don't have a weapon in my hands.

 

[Ranger REG]

The question was meant to be more along the lines of, if I use it as a 2H weapon, am I now stuck using that side and only that side? Say, I have a double axe +1 frost / +1 flaming and I use the flaming side in a charge in a 2H style. Must all AoO be with the flaming side until my next turn? I'm guessing this is a "yes."

No. AoO only tells you to make a single melee attack. How you choose to make that single melee attack is up to you. If you have Combat Reflex, and two idiot opponents each provoke AoO, you can attack one opponent with the frost side of the double axe (2-handed, no penalty) and the other opponent with the flaming side of the double axe (again 2-handed, no penalty).

Of course, I'm a lenient DM.

 

[Starglim]

edit: Option C: You can take your AoO (like most other melee attacks) with any melee attack that you are ready to make and that can reach the target.

The only time that you take a two-weapon fighting penalty is when you claim an extra attack in a full attack action, beyond your normal number of attacks. If you didn't take a TWF penalty earlier, you can't claim an extra attack but you're not otherwise prevented from attacking with any weapon that you wield.

To me, without the Two-Weapon Fighting feat you would have a -4 off hand penalty with the longsword, but I'm not sure if that is spelled out anywhere.

 

[Hypersmurf]

To me, without the Two-Weapon Fighting feat you would have a -4 off hand penalty with the longsword, but I'm not sure if that is spelled out anywhere.

PHB Glossary. Attacks with the off hand incur a -4 penalty.

When you're taking TWF penalties, the -4 off-hand penalty is included in those penalties, and mitigated by the TWF feat. However, it doesn't appear that the TWF feat affects the off-hand penalty when you aren't two-weapon fighting. A single attack with an off-hand longsword, if you aren't fighting with two weapons, will incur the -4 whether or not you have the TWF feat.

(In 3E, the Ambidexterity feat would have removed the -4 in either case. In 3.5, with the removal of the Ambidexterity feat, the TWF feat takes over this function... but only when you are two-weapon fighting.)

-Hyp.