TWF penalties

[brendan candries]

you wield shields for the record ...

improved buckler defence: normal: without this feat, a character wielding a buckler ...

you get TWF penalties (starting at -6/-10) if you want to get an extra attack with your off-hand.

glossary off-hand: A character's weaker or less dexterous hand (usually the left). An attack made with the off hand incurs a -4 penalty on the attack roll. In addition, only one-half of a character's Strength bonus may be added may be added to damage dealt with a weapon held in the off hand.

does the TWF -6/-10 already include the off-hand -4? it seems so.

a character who carries a 100lbs bag in his off-hand and wields a battleaxe in the right. he hits +10 with the battleaxe.
he now wields a heavy shield on his left arm and wields the same axe. he still hits +10.
he now carries a 1lbs knife in his off-hand and he wields the same axe. he only attacks with the axe. what's his axe to hit bonus?

 

[Tellerve]

?? Are you suggesting that sword & board fighters with the TWF feat should suffer TWF penalties when attacking only with their primary weapon, but fighters without that feat should not? Or am I misunderstanding you?

Ahh, no, I was addressing Qvintus' logic about "swoard and board" fighters. I'm not sure if he was just confused or what.

Fighters don't get a TWF penalty unless they are using the shield as a weapon. Acting as a ac shield they don't. Perhaps I shouldn't have tried to clarify his post

Tellerve

 

[The Edge]

you wield shields for the record ...
glossary off-hand: A character's weaker or less dexterous hand (usually the left). An attack made with the off hand incurs a -4 penalty on the attack roll. In addition, only one-half of a character's Strength bonus may be added may be added to damage dealt with a weapon held in the off hand.

does the TWF -6/-10 already include the off-hand -4? it seems so.

So, as long as your feats get rid of that -4 off hand, I would say that you can use your 'left' hand as well as the other.

a character who carries a 100lbs bag in his off-hand and wields a battleaxe in the right. he hits +10 with the battleaxe.
he now wields a heavy shield on his left arm and wields the same axe. he still hits +10.
he now carries a 1lbs knife in his off-hand and he wields the same axe. he only attacks with the axe. what's his axe to hit bonus?

Thats just what I was thinking. Personaly, in the case of the 100lb bag I would rule that it would cause penaltys to most weapons/attacks. But not the others of course.

 

[Nonlethal Force]

a character who carries a 100lbs bag in his off-hand and wields a battleaxe in the right. he hits +10 with the battleaxe.

Uh ... not in my campaigns. I think carrying 100lbs. bag in your OFF-hand would give them a circumstantial penalty to their attack roll. And in truth, 100lbs. in thier off-hand would most likely deserve far more of a penalty than TWF penalties! But, that's why the rules include fun things like cirmustanctial bonuses and penalties. It is called the ability to balance the games when rules lawyers only want to go by the letter of the law!

he now wields a heavy shield on his left arm and wields the same axe. he still hits +10.

This one is very true. As per the rules, no argument here so long as the shield is not being used as an offensive weapon in a shield bash attempt.

he now carries a 1lbs knife in his off-hand and he wields the same axe. he only attacks with the axe. what's his axe to hit bonus?

The more I think about it, I'd probably give the player the TWF penalty just for being a jerk and forcing this question on me the DM. If you aren't ever going to use the knife ... then by holding it all you are doing is testing the DM. Testing the DM is never appreciated in the games I play in. Technically, by my understanding of the rules I would not give the guy the TWF penalties. But if they were being a jerk and trying to prove a point, I'd slap him with the penalties anyway!

EDIT: Besides ... just use a spiked gauntlet. Its almost the same as a knife and it avoids the hassle. Players that avoid causing me hassles are vastly rewarded than players who try and put the DM in quandry-type dilemmas.

 

[Christian]

I don't think a player doing this is necessarily being a jerk. If he only gets a standard action for his attack (eg. because he's slowed, or took a move-equivalent action during the round), he can only attack with his primary weapon, and shouldn't suffer the TWF penalty on that attack. This isn't at all unusual-TWF characters are often lightly-armored rogues or rangers who aren't at all inclined to stand around in melee range trading full attacks ...

 

[werk]

Now, I'd say that if you incur any of the advantages of two-weapon fighting, you incur the penalties.

I'm in this camp as well, but a little more stringently. If you are holding two weapons, you are TWF...for simplicity more than anything else. No discussion about weilding or fighting this way or that way, etc...if it's in your hand, you're weilding it, eazy cheezy.

 

[billd91]

I'm in this camp as well, but a little more stringently. If you are holding two weapons, you are TWF...for simplicity more than anything else. No discussion about weilding or fighting this way or that way, etc...if it's in your hand, you're weilding it, eazy cheezy.

But since just about anything you're holding in the off hand could be used as an improvised weapon, wouldn't TWF apply if you're holding anything at all? Or even a fist. There's nothing saying you can't do TWF with a sword in one hand and a fist in the other.

 

[Nonlethal Force]

I don't think a player doing this is necessarily being a jerk. If he only gets a standard action for his attack (eg. because he's slowed, or took a move-equivalent action during the round), he can only attack with his primary weapon, and shouldn't suffer the TWF penalty on that attack. This isn't at all unusual-TWF characters are often lightly-armored rogues or rangers who aren't at all inclined to stand around in melee range trading full attacks ...

You missed my point, hence why at the end of my paragraph I used the phrase "if they were being a jerk."

My whole issue is that it really shouldn't come up often that much - if ever. If a person already did a move action and therefore they can only do a standard attack, just wait until the next round when you can draw it as part of that move action or full attack or whatever. Draw the weapon when you need it and this won't come up all that often.

Either way, just for simplicity sake I am in the camp of "if you've got two weapons out, you are TWF." It just makes my life easier as a DM. It can go either way ... but that's where I stand.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

My whole issue is that it really shouldn't come up often that much - if ever. If a person already did a move action and therefore they can only do a standard attack, just wait until the next round when you can draw it as part of that move action or full attack or whatever. Draw the weapon when you need it and this won't come up all that often.

That doesn't make sense.

Without the Quickdraw feat, it is not possible to both draw a weapon and make a full attack in the same round.

So, the person who decides to move, and then make a single attack with one weapon in hand, should wait until the next round to draw his weapon in order to avoid taking TWF penalties.

But, next round, he needs to spend a move action to draw his off-hand sword, meaning that he can only make a single attack with one weapon ... and when doing so takes the TWF penalties, anyway.

 

[pbd]

I'm in this camp as well, but a little more stringently. If you are holding two weapons, you are TWF...for simplicity more than anything else. No discussion about weilding or fighting this way or that way, etc...if it's in your hand, you're weilding it, eazy cheezy.

By that logic, any fighter carrying a shield, which CAN be used as a weapon, gets the TWF penalties.

Also, any one carrying a torch in their off-hand , whcih CAN be used as a weapon gets the penalties.

Not to mention if the TWF is moving and CAN'T use their off-hand weapon...