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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Felix" data-source="post: 1336405" data-attributes="member: 3929">Re: AoO's and off-hand weapons and "wielding"This refers to comments made back on the first page."Fighting this way" can be interpreted as "when you wield an off-hand weapon". Let us assume that this is the definition. This allows you to gain the benefits from a defending weapon in your off-hand, even if you don't attack with it. So, whenever it is that you wield an off-hand weapon, you are penalized -2 to all attacks taken in that round.When using a shield, you may shield-bash with it; it becomes an attack with an off-hand weapon. Let us suppose a longsword-and-shield fighter with +6/+1 BAB attacks twice with his sword. OK, no problem. He retains his shield bonus and isn't penalized in any way on his attacks (barring the use of other combat options). His opponent provokes an AoO. He shield-bashes the enemy. Now, does he incur a -2 to attack? He certainly still threatens with the longsword, and could have attacked with that, so he wields a sword in his primary hand. He also wields a shield in his off-hand; he threatens with it, and may attack with it if he so chooses. He is wielding a primary and an off-hand weapon. He has attacked with both in the round. But he does not get a -2 penalty to the AoO.The point was to show that the definition of "fighting this way" should not be "when wielding two weapons" because of the shield-bash option. The penalties should apply when the TW-Fighter gains an extra attack with his off-hand weapon; the defending weapon case is an add-on, not a product of the rule for when the TWF penalties apply. Now, how that applies to AoO's is still up in the air. I would rule that in an AoO, the fighter gains no additional attack with his off hand, therefore he is not penalized. A fighter with a defending weapon in the off-hand who takes an AoO with his primary weapon would suffer the TWF penalties if he wished to retain the AC bonus, but only because that is explicit in the description of a defending weapon, not by virtue of the "fighting this way=wields two weapons" assumption.</blockquote>

Verification