TWF - Off-handed weapons for AoOs?

[Someone]

I would say that:

a/ You don't get the shield bonus unless you are wielding two weapons, and
b/ When you wield a second weapon in your off-hand, you incur TWF penalties. You can also make an extra attack with your off-hand weapon (assuming you're taking the Full Attack action), but this is not required.

-Hyp.

I´m in the camp that thinks that you suffer penalties with fighting with two weapons when you benefit from fighting with two weapons getting an extra attack -and other cases like getting Defending bonuses, TWD shield bonus, etc-. But that´s not what I wanted to discuss. You have a personal definition of "wielding" that I don´t quite understand. Seems that it includes, but it´s not limited to, actually attacking with the weapon, but excludes "merely holding the weapon" (or else all sword-and-shield warriors would suffer TWF penalties, always). What´s exactly "wielding" for you?

 

[Bront]

C, attack with the longsword, no penalty.

 

[glass]

What´s exactly "wielding" for you?

Holding the weapon in such a way that it is usable and ready (ie, to attack/threaten with).

At least, that is my definition. I believe Hyp's is similar.


glass.

 

[Nac_Mac_Feegle]

When you attack, any type of attack, you use your main hand, and your highest base attack, which is factored of your main hand.

An AoO is taklen at your highest base attack, therefore, it is taken with the main hand, if you use your off hand, you incure penalties, TWF or not, your using it off handed. But your not suposed to take AoO with your off hand.

ASFAIK armour spikes dont threaten, they just allow you to cause real damage when you grapple.

When you attack in a round, you choose how to attack, either full attack or one attack, and this affects your penalties throughout the fight till your next initiative action.

So with a double weapon used as a 2 hander, its a 2 hander throughout the round. Alos tkaing into account that you take AoO at your highest BaB which is factored of your Main hand.

Ambidexterity no longer exists, so you cant swap and change, only TWF exists now, and with that, to threaten with the off hand weapon, you must be in a position to use it effectively, which means incuring TWF fighting penalties in the beggining of the round, or if your going to ignore that, then take penalties for using any weapon in your off hand without TWF bonus'/penalties

Essentially, you shouldnt be taking AoO's with your off hand anyway, but if you do take them, then you incure a penalty for using a weapon in the off hand, but without any reduced penalties for TWF, because you didnt take the penalties on your main hand in the first place.

Feegle Out

 

[Someone]

Holding the weapon in such a way that it is usable and ready (ie, to attack/threaten with).

At least, that is my definition.

Shields can be used to bash. If you ready a shield, by your definition, you´re "wielding" another weapon, and thus suffer TWF penalties.

 

[Nac_Mac_Feegle]

Shields can be used to bash. If you ready a shield, by your definition, you´re "wielding" another weapon, and thus suffer TWF penalties.

A Shield isnt a weapon UNLESS you state you are going to attack with it, in which case, it no longer classes as a shield with regard to AC, AND suffers form off hand penalties to attack OR two weapon fighting penalties to attack.

Unless otherwise stated, a readied shield is used in its main function, which is to defend as an AC bonus

Feegle Out

 

[Someone]

A Shield isnt a weapon UNLESS you state you are going to attack with it, in which case, it no longer classes as a shield with regard to AC, AND suffers form off hand penalties to attack OR two weapon fighting penalties to attack.

Unless otherwise stated, a readied shield is used in its main function, which is to defend as an AC bonus

Feegle Out

Sorry, but shields are weapons. They have their line in the weapons table, and appear in the weapons description. They also can be used as a defense, true.

But if the shield controversy is interfering with my point, forget shields and think on a torch. A torch can be used as a weapon (or, for the argument´s sake, suppose it can be used). Should every torch-bearers suffer TWF penalties?

 

[Hypersmurf]

But if the shield controversy is interfering with my point, forget shields and think on a torch. A torch can be used as a weapon (or, for the argument´s sake, suppose it can be used). Should every torch-bearers suffer TWF penalties?

Okay, I'll begin by using a greatsword as an example.

A greatsword is a two-handed weapon. If I hold a greatsword in one hand, I am holding it in such a way that I cannot attack with it. I do not threaten an area, even though I am holding a melee weapon. It is in my hand, but it is not wielded.

Now, the Two-Weapon Fighting text states:
If you wield a second weapon in your off hand, you can get one extra attack per round with that weapon. 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, the penalties apply when you 'fight this way'. By the wording, 'this way' could apply to two clauses in the previous sentence: 'wield a second weapon in your off hand', or 'get one extra attack'.

So, which? Well, the 3E Main FAQ had an answer about Defending weapons:
If you hold the weapon in your off hand and claim an Armor Class bonus for it, you take all the penalties for fighting with two weapons, even if you don’t actually attack with the weapon.

If we assume that this is correct, we can see that 'get one extra attack' cannot be the definition of 'fight this way', since penalties are incurred despite no extra attack being made. The penalties are thus incurred for wielding a second weapon in your off hand.

So, what happens if you hold a Defending weapon in your off hand but do not take the penalties? You can't claim an AC bonus, but why not? Well, the AC bonus of the Defending weapon applies to 'the wielder'. And it is 'wielding' the second weapon in your off hand that provokes the penalty.

So, much like I can hold a greatsword without wielding it, it seems that there is provision to hold a short sword - or a shield, or a torch - without wielding it.

What are the effects of this? Well, if I'm not wielding it, I can't attack with it. If I can't attack with it, I don't threaten with it.

Let's say I have a longsword and a light mace. I'm fighting a mixed force of skeletons (DR X/bludgeoning) and zombies (DR X/slashing). A zombie moves past me, provoking an AoO.

If I'm wielding my longsword, I can make an AoO with my longsword. If I'm instead wielding my mace, I can make an AoO with my mace. If I'm wielding both, I can make an AoO with either, since I threaten with both - I should choose the longsword to deal slashing damage - but, since I am wielding a second weapon in my off hand, I am 'fighting this way', and incur TWF penalties on my AoO.

Is this versatility in AoO options worth the penalties on the attack roll? That's for the individual to decide.

So, a character with a sword and a torch could choose to hold the torch - taking no penalties - or to wield the torch as a second weapon in his off hand, thus incurring TWF penalties, but gaining an extra attack with the torch in a full attack, and the ability to threaten with the torch.

-Hyp.

 

[Someone]

Seems reasonable, but I think you´re basing your interpretation in a sentence in the FAQ that could be read in another way: you infer, based on that sentence, that weapons can exist in a nebulous state, called wielding, that doesn´t neccesarily imply being used to attack, but have the potential to do so. I read that sentence as meaning that bonuses from a defending weapon break the general rule on TWF in the same way the hydras don´t follow the normal rules on attacks of opportunity, but nothing else, and prefer that interpretation as being more parsimonious.

Your reading is more restrictive as well. The fighter in your example would suffer TWF penalties whenever he wants the shield bonus for Two weapon defense (because he has to be "wielding two weapons") even if he moves that round and only makes one attack (though I don´t know if you consider he´d suffer the penalties if using a double weapon)

 

[Hypersmurf]

The fighter in your example would suffer TWF penalties whenever he wants the shield bonus for Two weapon defense (because he has to be "wielding two weapons") even if he moves that round and only makes one attack.

That's right.

That's how I run Two Weapon Defence as a DM.

-Hyp.