TWF without extra attacks

[Egres]

Check the quote above from the glossary.

It is pretty clear on what an off-hand is. "A character's weaker or less dexterous hand (usually the left)."

A character has a primary and an off-hand.

A monk has no off-hand when making unarmed attacks (per the monk description).

That's illogical.

By your reasoning I could'nt make a secondary attack with my knees, or with an headbutt.

 

[irdeggman]

That's illogical.

By your reasoning I could'nt make a secondary attack with my knees, or with an headbutt.

Remember that D&D combat is a very abstract concept to begin with attempting to apply too much logic will only make things worse overall, IMO.


I just gave you what the RAW states.

The monk class ability description specifically states that he can make his unarmed attacks with either fist interchangeably or even from elbows, knees and feet. And there is no such thing as an off-hand for a monk striking unarmed.



And the definition of strike, unarmed in the equipment section of the PHB lists a punch, kick, head but, or other type of attack.


And unless you have the improved unarmed strike feat you can only deal nonlethal damage and generate AoO when so attacking (because you are considered unarmed).



I read the improved unarmed strike feat as providing the ability to work like the monk's class ablity description - so there is no "off hand" when performing an unarmed strike if you have the improved unarmed strike feat. Now this can be considered a house-rule since it isn't specifically stated it functions this way for anyone but a monk.

 

[mvincent]

what action do you think catching something is?

From the 3.5 FAQ:
"catching an object thrown to you requires a standard action. Since you’re likely doing this on another character’s turn, you’ll probably have to ready an action to do so."

obligatory disclaimer: this (and similar) posts are intended for those that use the FAQ.

if these are free actions, passing a weapon from one hand to another is 2 free actions.

I would generally agree, but note that the 3.5 FAQ does say:
"The rules don’t state what type of action is required to switch hands on a weapon, but it seems reasonable to assume that it’s the equivalent of drawing a weapon (a move action that doesn’t provoke attacks of opportunity)."

I generally ignore this unless the hand switching gets out of hand (no pun intended).

What benefit does using two weapons have, aside from flavor, if your not getting an extra attack?

There can be other benefits, like if you have two-spell storing or poisoned weapons, or you wish to see what element an opponent is most vulnerable to, etc.

anyone else see the irony?

This issue is full of oddities and it is hard to tell what rules are still being applied and what is cruft from the previous edition. Hopefully 4.0 will clarify this one day. Until then, the recent RotG articles on the subject stand as the latest clarifications.

 

[mvincent]

My own rulings on off-hand and TWF'ing:
1) TWF'ing penalties apply only when the additional attack is used (this corresponds to the RotG clarification and several core instances).
2) Per the RotG, the -4 off-hand penalty still applies even when not making the extra attack. However, there are enough exceptions to this (elbows, feet, switching hands, etc.) that I generally don't worry about it (especially given point #3 below)
3) Since ambidexterity has been removed, it is reasonable to rule that anyone with the TWF'ing feat is ambidextrous and need never take the off-hand -4 penalty. Since most people that use a weapon in their off hand have the TWF'ing feat, the penalty is should seldom be an issue anyway.
4) Per the RotG, the 1/2 str. damage still applies even when not making the extra attack. I'm not sure this is correct (as I view the massive str reduction as being due to spending more of your effort on the primary hand, rather than your off-hand as being actually weaker), but luckily it hasn't really been an issue in my games.

 

[Egres]

And the definition of strike, unarmed in the equipment section of the PHB lists a punch, kick, head but, or other type of attack.

This means that I can make a headbutt as an "off-hand" attack.

Thus, the glossary definition is incorrect.

 

[irdeggman]

This means that I can make a headbutt as an "off-hand" attack.

Thus, the glossary definition is incorrect.

Why?


Unless you have the improved unarmed attack feat (or gain it as a class ability - like the monk) you are already generating AoO and can only deal non-lethal damage with your unarmed strike and are not considered "armed".

So what conditions are you referring to here?

 

[Sejs]

This means that I can make a headbutt as an "off-hand" attack.

Thus, the glossary definition is incorrect.

The best way to look at it, would be along the lines of the difference between primary natural attacks and secondary natural attacks.

If a creature has 2 claws and a bite, and the bite is their primary natural attack, even if they chose to make a single attack in a round and decides to use a claw, it's still secondary (i.e. only gets 1/2 str mod to damage).

Then, extending the metaphor to people, any attacks using your dominant hand is primary, and anything else is secondary. For the purpose of this example, considder secondary to be synonymous with 'off-hand'. The exception is unarmed strikes, as they don't reference any particular part of your body (you could headbutt, knee, elbow, etc, like you mentioned). If you're using them on their own, they're primary. If you're using them as a suppliment to an attack using your dominant hand, they're secondary.

 

[Egres]

Why?


Unless you have the improved unarmed attack feat (or gain it as a class ability - like the monk) you are already generating AoO and can only deal non-lethal damage with your unarmed strike and are not considered "armed".

So what conditions are you referring to here?

The fact that they could provoke an AoO and deal non-lethal damage unless I take a -4 penalty is irrelevant for the off-hand issue.

If I can strike with a headbutt and with my knees, the Glossary definition doesn't apply, and is incorrect.

 

[Kmart Kommando]

The whole bit about "..if you fight in this way." is clearly referring to fighting in such a way as to gain an extra attack, or attacks. It is basic English, which is taught in school. It has a single theme for that paragraph, and ties it together at the end.

Here's an example:
Bob and Kevin take the bus to school. Sometimes Bob gets a ride to school from his mom. The other kids make fun of him when he gets to school in this way.

When do they make fun of him? Who is the 'him' referring to? "..in this way." Is it referring to getting a ride with his mom, or taking the bus?

It is clearly not talking about both kids, or about taking the bus, but is talking about riding with his mom. However, when you look at two weapon fighting, you ignore the context and pull the phrase that best suits your argument.
Then we end up with people saying "Look, he has something in both hands! OMG, it's too hard to hit someone with both hands full, nerf TWF!!!1!!"

 

[Hypersmurf]

The whole bit about "..if you fight in this way." is clearly referring to fighting in such a way as to gain an extra attack, or attacks. It is basic English, which is taught in school. It has a single theme for that paragraph, and ties it together at the end.

Here's an example:
Bob and Kevin take the bus to school. Sometimes Bob gets a ride to school from his mom. The other kids make fun of him when he gets to school in this way.

When do they make fun of him? Who is the 'him' referring to? "..in this way." Is it referring to getting a ride with his mom, or taking the bus?

I don't agree that this is an equivalent example.

(We know from earlier text that kids normally sit in the back seat of a car.)

If Bob gets a ride to school from his mom, he can sit up the front. The other kids make fun of him when he gets to school in this way.

The option to sit up the front is a consequence of getting a ride to school from his mom.

The other kids making fun of him is a consequence of getting to school 'in this way'.

If he gets a ride to school from his mom but elects not to exercise his option, and instead rides in the back, do the kids make fun of him?

It can be read either way: 'in this way' could be referring to a/ getting a ride to school from his mom; or b/ sitting up the front as a result of getting a ride to school from his mom.

If I had to define a theme for the paragraph, I'd say "Results of Bob getting a ride to school from his mom".

-Hyp.