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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Nonlethal Force" data-source="post: 2742535" data-attributes="member: 35788">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: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" differently2)  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.</blockquote>

Verification