TWF without extra attacks

[Alzrius]

So, what's the main argument to support the "you get penalties even if you don't get an extra attack"?

This is tangential, but also note that you need to note which of the character's hands is his off-hand, because he always only uses half his Strength bonus to damage when using that hand.

Off-Hand Weapon

When you deal damage with a weapon in your off hand, you add only ½ your Strength bonus.

So even if you don't get the extra attack, when you use that off-hand to attack with a weapon, it'll do slightly less damage.

 

[Egres]

This is tangential, but also note that you need to note which of the character's hands is his off-hand, because he always only uses half his Strength bonus to damage when using that hand.

But the issue now is: can you say that there's always an off hand, even if I don't TWF?

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

But the issue now is: can you say that there's always an off hand, even if I don't TWF?

The glossary says yes.

 

[Egres]

The glossary says yes.

The glossary has been proved many times to be a not-so-good source for rules debates.

Just think about unarmed strikes.

Not to mention that the glossary definition doesn't state that ther'es always an off hand.

The glossary can define a term that comes into play only when you TWF.

For those who believe you should apply the off hand penalties even if you don't get extra attacks, I have a question: would you apply iany penalty if Bob attacks with a longsword, drops it and then attacks with a fist using the same arm?

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

The glossary has been proved many times to be a not-so-good source for rules debates.

Heck, I think the glossary is an absolutely abysmal place to introduce new rules.

 

[mvincent]

Heck, I think the glossary is an absolutely abysmal place to introduce new rules.

New rules? (i.e. what are you refering to here?)

 

[Deset Gled]

Of importance is that the 3.0 FAQ was written by Skip Williams (the Sage at the time). He was also the writer of the conflicting RotG passage above. It seems he either changed his mind, didn't think it through, intended it only for defending weapons, or re-wrote his stance on TWF'ing to coincide with 3.5. Either way, it seems safer to go with his more recent ruling.

I think that the main point here is balance. It isn't unbalancing to allow a character to trade off attacks between two daggers in each hand. It is unbalancing to allow a character to hold a defending weapon and gain the benefits from it without taking the penalties. It is also unbalancing to allow a character to always hang on to a reach weapon for the sole purpose of taking AoOs without any penalties*. The problem is that depending on how you read the rules, you can do all of these things or none of these things, but there is no (consistent) reading of the rules that allows some without the others. When Skip was the Sage, he had a habit of answering a lot of questions based off the "feel" of the answer rather than the rules text, which could lead to inconsistencies like this.

*IIRC, you stated in a previous thread that you have banned all reach weapons because of this problem. IMO, it is better to ban the constant wielding of an extra weapon without penalties. YMMV.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

New rules? (i.e. what are you refering to here?)

The glossary, in its definition of "off-hand," states several rules regarding making single attacks with your off-hand.

For instance, if I'm a right-handed character, and I decide to pull the "Ahah - I am not left-handed!" trick with one rapier, the only place that addresses the penalties I take is the glossary.

Nothing else indicates that, even when not TWFing, the off-hand has a particular set of penalties.

 

[Moon-Lancer]

so, lets say this, if it is all about what hand uses the weapon that makes the off hand, then does this mean a twf can use one weapon and interchange what hand the use that weapon, drop is a free action, and catching things also tends to be a free action, so dropping your weapon, catching it and switching what hand uses this weapon is valid for twf, as long as the primary hand attacks, then the secondary hand attacks as long as its the same weapon, then is this ok?

Also does this mean that if offhand attacks are again, just based off what hand uses the attack, then a glaive and armor spikes threaten 10 in all direction and can be interchanged, because armor spikes recuse your not using a offhand?

In all honesty i think twf is silly. It lets you get a extra attack with another weapon, nothing more or less. I think this also is the main debate for monks and using twf. twf, and offhand are just written poorly.

 

[IcyCool]

and catching things also tends to be a free action

Do you have a rules reference for this?