TWF penalties

[Nonlethal Force]

No, you're right. It doesn't make "nice and clean sense."

But they could draw the weapon during the move action the first round. They'd get the TWF penalties (and usually we're taling a -2 here ... those who make a habit of needing to fight TWF usually are using a light weapon and have the feat). But, while they would incur the -2 penalty on the standard attack, they'd also get the bonus to AC if they had TWD (which in my experience most of them also do have.)

It is just easier. I never once said it is the only way to interpret the rules. The other method is just as valid. All I said is that it is easier to think: 2 weapons out = TWF and 1 weapon out = no penalties. For me it is a matter of convience regarding a fairly ambiguous rule. That's all.

EDIT: I feel the need to add here that as I said before - if a DM chooses instead to not give them the TWF penalty and also does not give them any TWD bonus I think that is just as good of a solution. At this rate it is a matter of style and preferrance about a rule that could go either way.

 

[Hypersmurf]

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...

That's why I distinguish between holding and wielding.

If you're simply holding a weapon in your off-hand (or a shield, or a fist, or whatever), there's no TWF penalty... but you can't benefit from any abilities that apply to 'the wielder', and you don't threaten with that weapon, so no using it for AoOs.

If you have a longspear and spiked armor, and you make an attack with the longspear at no penalty, that's fine... but you don't threaten with the armor, so when someone goes to grapple you, you don't get to make an AoO.

If you attack with the longspear at -2, despite not making an extra attack with the spiked armor, you are 'fighting this way', and thus threaten with both weapons... so when someone tries to grapple you, you can knee them in the groin with your spikes.

-Hyp.

 

[Kahuna Burger]

This convesation becomes a little less acedemic (and imho is complicated a bit) by the tw weapon defense feat. It says

When wielding a double weapon or two weapons (not including natural weapons or unarmed strikes), you gain a +1 shield bonus to your AC. See the Two-Weapon Fighting special attack.

When you are fighting defensively or using the total defense action, this shield bonus increases to +2.

Now apparently you can be weilding two weapons without attacking or threatening with either of them (full defense), and you can have two potential weapons (of the natural variety) without gaining the benefits of twd. You get the benefit just for weilding a double weapon. Not attacking with both ends, not taking the penalties, just weilding a weapon which has the potential for striking with both ends. So why shouldn't the same be true for weilding two weapons, whether or not you are taking the extra attack and penalties?

I read the twf section with an emphasis on can. "If you wield a second weapon in your off hand, you can get one extra attack per round with that weapon." I read the penalties and "fighting this way" as applying if you take advantage of that "can" clause*. Weilding two weapons, just like weilding a double weapon gives you the option of a second attack, but doesn't obligate you to take it. The mere fact of weilding either two weapons or one double weapon gives you the advantages of twd whether you attack once, twice or not at all.

*they certainly had the option of saying "if you weild a second weapon in your off hand, you take the following penalties, and can make one extra attack per round" in which case there would be no argument at all.

I respect the tight of a DM to read it the other way and even enforce that in his campaign, but given the sheer number of times per combat a PC is going to want to move and attack without sheathing one weapon first, I think he should clarify that well in advance. :\

 

[Creeping Death]

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.

Oh my, sounds a little like hair-splitting to me. There are specific rules for everything here. Attacking with a fist, secondary attack, should tell the DM before so appropriate twf modifiers can apply..... Unarmed attack, presumably without the proper feats, AoO. Improvised weapons also have their own penalties along with twf in this case. The rules already very specifically cover sword and board and using said board for defense or for offense.

I like the imagry here though:

Knight in shining armor, "Come on Princess", as he grabs her hand and starts running down the hall. Suddenly a lonely orc jumps out in front of him.

Now we have a problem. Does the Princess, whose hand he is holding, count as a weapon. How much damage would she do? I mean, is he even strong enough to wield her? What if she is severely over weight?

Let's be logical or better yet be simple (easy).
Holding two weapons (used or not) = TWF <= this makes life simple.
Holding a weapon and something else that can't be used as a weapon not TWF.
Holding a weapon and something else that could be used as a weapon not TWF unless it is used as a weapon.
Holding a weapon and a shield, follow the RAW.
Holding a weapon and a shield using the shield to bash, follow the RAW.
Holding a weapon and nothing else, follow the RAW.
Holding a weapon and using your fist as an off hand (secondary) attack, follow the RAW.

 

[Kahuna Burger]

EDIT: I feel the need to add here that as I said before - if a DM chooses instead to not give them the TWF penalty and also does not give them any TWD bonus I think that is just as good of a solution. At this rate it is a matter of style and preferrance about a rule that could go either way.

should the dm also withhold twd bonuses from a double weapon weilder who only attacks once and desn't take the penalty?

 

[sjmiller]

You know, I read a great deal of the messages here and I have come to the conclusion that I am a vary lenient DM. Want to have a weapon in each hand? No problem. Want to use just one of them in combat? No problem, there's no penalty (except for offhand use). Want to attack with both of them? No problem, that's two weapon fighting and you apply the penalties from the book. Want to alternate you attacks between your weapons? No problem, your off hand weapon will suffer a penalty, as long as it's just one attack per round there's no two weapon penalty.

Where's the problem? It's just a game, people. You play it for fun, remember?

 

[Kahuna Burger]

Let's be logical or better yet be simple (easy).
Holding two weapons (used or not) = TWF <= this makes life simple.

I find it just as easy to say
holding two weapon = weilding two weapons.
attacking with two weapons = twf.

 

[Infiniti2000]

You know, I read a great deal of the messages here and I have come to the conclusion that I am a vary lenient DM. Want to have a weapon in each hand? No problem. Want to use just one of them in combat? No problem, there's no penalty (except for offhand use). Want to attack with both of them? No problem, that's two weapon fighting and you apply the penalties from the book. Want to alternate you attacks between your weapons? No problem, your off hand weapon will suffer a penalty, as long as it's just one attack per round there's no two weapon penalty.

Just so you know that this is not exactly lenient since you've described the way half* the people here see it as the rules.

Where's the problem? It's just a game, people. You play it for fun, remember?

We also debate rules for fun. Where's the problem in that?

* Assuming that the two sides are evenly split. The exact split is irrelevant.

 

[Peter Gibbons]

If you have a longspear and spiked armor, and you make an attack with the longspear at no penalty, that's fine... but you don't threaten with the armor, so when someone goes to grapple you, you don't get to make an AoO.

I don't know if you realize (or care) that the FAQ says just the opposite--or at least, makes no mention of having to take any penalties on the longspear attack. FWIW.

 

[Hypersmurf]

I don't know if you realize (or care) that the FAQ says just the opposite--or at least, makes no mention of having to take any penalties on the longspear attack. FWIW.

Note that the rest of that post fell under the blanket of 'That's why I distinguish...'

-Hyp.