TWF penalties

[Nonlethal Force]

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

Well, see ... that's where everyone should admit it is an interpretation question. The word can is indeed important. From you earlier post you quote:

"If you wield a second weapon in your off hand, you can get one extra attack per round with that weapon."

Now ... it is possible to read that can two different ways:

1) You have the option to fight with one or two weapons during any round, but if you don't take the option you aren't really fighting with two weapons, you are just carrying one and weilding the other. In which case, the TWF penalty and TWD bonus is constantly in flux. And that's an okay reading if you don't mind round-by-round changes in the player's attack rolls.

- OR - we can read the "can" differently

2) You have the option of using a benefit already assumed to be granted whether you use it or not.

Someone might ask why this reading is valid - or maybe even why this isn't jsut a stupid reading. For example, say a BBEG is almost dying and the TWF wants to knock the buy down but not outright kill him. He might want to fight two handed in case the first one misses, but if the first attack hits and the guys falls down he can opt out of continuing the attack with his off-hand. Thus, the off-hand attack is assumed to be granted and the player can get the extra attack if they so desire it.

Actually, I think I prefer to read it the second way. The player with a weapon in each hand is almost always assumed to receive all the attacks they are eligible for. They can take them all, or they can take part of them.

Now, as to a person weilding a double weapon who could take both attacks but only takes one ... it depends on the situation. If the person doesn't take the TWF penalty I would think that yes they should then lose their TWD bonus to AC. Otherwise, it is like double dipping. However, if the double weapon fighter takes the TWF penalty but only attacks with one end of the weapon (and therefore just forfeits the off-hand attack) then no, they should receive their TWD bonus. In my mind TWF and TWD should be connected. Assuming you have both feats, reaching into the pot to get the bonus to AC also means reaching in to get the penalty to attack. And reaching in for the penalty to attack with both weapons would grant you the bonus to AC. Again, assuming you have all the eligible feats.

 

[Infiniti2000]

In which case, the TWF penalty and TWD bonus is constantly in flux. And that's an okay reading if you don't mind round-by-round changes in the player's attack rolls.

That's a misleading way to represent that interpretation. The round-by-round changes in the attack rolls are not caused by the reading, but by the player's choice to change his tactics round-by-round. Don't try to make the interpretation out to be the bad guy if you don't like recalculating attack roll modifiers.

2) You have the option of using a benefit already assumed to be granted whether you use it or not.

This is also misleading, much more so than the other one. This interpretation is so vague that it could apply to either side. I have no idea what you're trying to imply by it, really.

 

[billd91]

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?

And let's not forget, that second weapon doesn't even have to be held in the hand. That knight could do the sensible thing and kick the orc in the junk as his "off-hand" attack without even stopping to figure out if using the princess is a simple, martial, or exotic weapon.

 

[Kahuna Burger]

In my mind TWF and TWD should be connected. Assuming you have both feats, reaching into the pot to get the bonus to AC also means reaching in to get the penalty to attack. And reaching in for the penalty to attack with both weapons would grant you the bonus to AC. Again, assuming you have all the eligible feats.

so you are saying that in order to gain a +1 bonus to defense, you should take a -2 penalty, gaining half the benifit of combat expertise for twice the feats? does this interpretation serve any purpose except to screw the two weapon fighter?

The two feats are connected in that one is a prereq for the second and they both effect a two weapon fighter. For the price of two feats, giving up either a sheild or the extra +1/2 str bonus to a two handed weapon, you get a +1 bonus to AC once you've got both your weapons out. And you are seriously claiming it would be unfair to get this bonus without taking -2 to the single attack you make that round?

 

[Nonlethal Force]

Sigh. It's a game, people. Different ways of seeing things. I've already stated that I see both sides.

Anyway, I'm done here. I'm tired of peole telling me that I'm intentionally misleading them and I'm being unfair.

Please repeat after me: it's a game. People have reasons why they do things. It's an ambiguous rule that could go eitehr way.

That's all I was trying to say.

 

[RigaMortus2]

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

So how is "holding" a shield in their off hand any different from "holding" a sword in their off hand (or even a torch, holy symbol, or anything else)?

 

[Tellerve]

I'm also one of those guys that sees it from the fence. I find the Two Weapon Defense feat to be a bit telling, but to answer your question how you'd like it to be answered RigaMortus2, I don't really see a big difference in holding a shield vs a weapon in the game.

I'll just have to read the banter here and debate it a bit more for myself

Tellerve

 

[Creeping Death]

And let's not forget, that second weapon doesn't even have to be held in the hand. That knight could do the sensible thing and kick the orc in the junk as his "off-hand" attack without even stopping to figure out if using the princess is a simple, martial, or exotic weapon.

Now, now. This debate is already complex enough with hold vs wield, can, does vs does not. Don't be bringing in feet, knees, elbows, and head.

What if I carried (wielded) two shield, one in each hand and just ran around kicking things with my spiked boot? What if I used two spiked boots?

 

[Li Shenron]

I think sjmiller and Nonlethal Force have it right. I will just play this however I like and I will not worry too much. If I am ever going to find some problem, I'll switch to another way to play it. I don't even think that most of this discussion is based on our real experience with problems when running TWF, but rather on mere speculations on the written text.

 

[The Edge]

Sigh. It's a game, people. Different ways of seeing things. I've already stated that I see both sides.

Anyway, I'm done here. I'm tired of peole telling me that I'm intentionally misleading them and I'm being unfair.

Please repeat after me: it's a game. People have reasons why they do things. It's an ambiguous rule that could go eitehr way.

That's all I was trying to say.

I would like to second that sigh.

Its all been said, and I can't see whats still to argue. Its all been said and now repeated.

As I said before, it doesn't matter what your holding (presumeing reasonable weight and shape, etc) if you don't use/attack with it then it wont impede you other arm. So it doesn't. With the slight exception of TWD, which is only a little more complex due to effecting the whole round; TWF can be figured out in an instant on the spot. It's either...

"I attack with both my weapons" done, roll it.
or
"I attack with just my sword" done, roll it.


I'm sorry for any stressful tone, I think I'll leave this topic. I'm going now. Point out how im wrong or right to each other.