TWF penalties

[Jdvn1]

I agree that "wielding" a weapon is different from "carrying" it.

How do you rule in the case of a character with BAB +6 (and hence two iterative attacks) making only one attack with his longsword, and only one attack (at a lower iterative bonus) with his shortsword, and thus not availing himself of the extra attack that wielding two weapons allows? Does he take TWF penalties, or not?

He wields both weapons, but not in the TWF-style. How would you rule it?

 

[SBMC]

Instead of debating word usage, I'd say look at equivalent rules. D&D is very big on mechanical balance after all.

Compare Two-Weapon Fighting to Flurry of Blows, or better yet Rapid Shot. All allow you to gain an extra attack at the cost of -2 to all attack that round. The other two allow you to make your normal number of attacks with your normal attack bonus. Thus, it follows that Two-Weapon Fighting works mechanically the same as Rapid Shot and you can decline to both the extra attack and the attack penalty.

Edit: So to answer Hypersmurf's question, by this reasoning yes you could devide your iterative attacks between weapons without penalty. It's a fair trade off for no shield.

We ran into this issue; the result in my group: If you attack with two weapons AT ALL you take the penalties; as the TWF rules are meant for exactly that.

On top of that and subsequent to the above - Also note that the rules state someplace that you can only use TWF when making a full attack anyways. Thus; with this being the case it is really impossible to not take the penalties. However if you make only the single attack with your primary hand you do not take the penalty (have to say so before hand). You cannot make a single attack with your offhand weapon without the offhand penalty.

That is what we do anyways...

 

[Hypersmurf]

He wields both weapons, but not in the TWF-style. How would you rule it?

What is "the TWF-style"? I'd say that the TWF-style is "fighting this way" as defined by the section "Two Weapon Fighting". Unfortunately, just what "fighting this way" means is exactly the point under debate.

You said earlier:
Hm. I'd say "wielding" a weapon is different from "carrying" it. If you choose to attack with just one weapon, you're only "carrying" the second weapon, therefore you don't take the penalties.

Now, in this case, you've agreed that the character is "wielding" both weapons. He's chosen to attack with both. He is, therefore, 'wielding a second weapon in his off-hand', which satisfies one of the possible definitions of 'fighting this way'. He is not making an extra attack with his off-hand, which means he fails to satisfy the other possible definition of 'fighting this way'.

Now, my opinion was weighted towards the first back in 3E by an answer in the Main FAQ, which stated that a character who wished to benefit from a Defending weapon held in his off hand must incur the TWF penalties, whether or not he attacks with that weapon. The benefit of a Defending weapon applies to 'the wielder', therefore one must wield the weapon to benefit, therefore in the example, to benefit, the character is 'wielding a second weapon in his off-hand', but he is not making an extra attack (or, indeed, any attack) with that off-hand. He satisfies the first definition; he fails to satisfy the second definition; according to the 3E Main FAQ, he incurs the penalty.

Hence, according to the 3E Main FAQ, the first definition must be correct.

A character wielding a second weapon in his off-hand is 'fighting this way', and incurs penalties. He also has the option of making an extra attack with that weapon.

-Hyp.

 

[Aaron L]

I'd say that if you take the benefit, you take the penalty.

If you take the extra attack, you take the penalty to hit.

If you dont take the penalty to hit, you cant take the extra attack.

And if you dont take the extra attack, you dont take the penalty to hit.

 

[Qvintus]

A shield is a weapon (you can attack with it and i dont count as improvised) so
if you get the penalty no matter what if you have a weapon in you're off-hand, then all sword and board fighters should get the penalty, so i would rule that you only get the penalty if you attack with both weapons
Or did i get somethinge wrong

 

[Aaron L]

A shield is a weapon (you can attack with it and i dont count as improvised) so
if you get the penalty no matter what if you have a weapon in you're off-hand, then all sword and board fighters should get the penalty, so i would rule that you only get the penalty if you attack with both weapons
Or did i get somethinge wrong

Good precedent there.

 

[Tellerve]

A shield is a weapon (you can attack with it and i dont count as improvised) so
if you get the penalty no matter what if you have a weapon in you're off-hand, then all sword and board fighters should get the penalty, so i would rule that you only get the penalty if you attack with both weapons
Or did i get somethinge wrong

But sword and board fighters as you call them aren't using the shield as a weapon. Only special fighters that have special training use their shields as weapons alongside their normal weapon. Hence why they take the TWF and get the penalties and while normal sword and boarders don't and just use the shield for AC.

Tellerve

 

[Jdvn1]

What is "the TWF-style"? I'd say that the TWF-style is "fighting this way" as defined by the section "Two Weapon Fighting". Unfortunately, just what "fighting this way" means is exactly the point under debate.

How would you rule a double weapon? When fighting when one end, are you still considered wielding in your off-hand?

This is how it breaks down for me. If you have a weapon in both hands, you can:
a) Choose to fight normally, incurring no penalties to hit.
---This is "wielding the (selected) weapon"
b) Choose to use the TWF feat, incurring penalties to hit.
---This is "wielding both weapons" (you may remember my ruling on handedness, but that's a different issue)

At least, that's the gist. And it's straightforward when you have no iterative attacks. If you have multiple attacks due to BAB, then it's:
a) You can choose to fight normally, alternating weapons, incurring no penalties to hit.
---This is "wielding both weapons"
b) You can choose to fight normally, not alternating weapons, incurring no penalties to hit.
---This is "wielding only one weapon"
c) You can choose to use your TWF feat, incurring penalties to hit.
---This is "wielding both weapons this way" where "this way" is "the TWF-style way".

Now, my opinion was weighted towards the first back in 3E by an answer in the Main FAQ

There was a time you listened the FAQ?

I don't agree with that ruling of the FAQ, which probably doesn't surprise you.

 

[billd91]

Normally, I'd say you only take the penalty when you actually attack with both weapons. But the appearance of two-weapon defensive feats in 3.5 have muddied things a little.
Now, I'd say that if you incur any of the advantages of two-weapon fighting, you incur the penalties.

Simply holding a weapon in your off hand shouldn't count.
In the case of using a defender weapon in the off hand but not attacking with it and incurring TWF penalties, well.... you are using that sword and gaining a benefit. Just like I said above. Use any of the advantages, even defensive, and you incur the penalty even if you aren't making use of the extra weapon offensively.

 

[Hypersmurf]

How would you rule a double weapon? When fighting when one end, are you still considered wielding in your off-hand?

If you're only using one end, it's only one weapon.

It's only if you're using it as a double weapon that it's treated as two, in which case you'd satisfy the first reading of 'fighting this way'.

-Hyp.