TWF without extra attacks

[mvincent]

This seems to based on an assumption that the character is using alternating hands with which to throw.

I didn't get the the impression that Li Shenron was assuming this. A character (with quick-draw) throwing weapons at full BAB would be using different weapons with each attack without using alternating hands.

 

[Hypersmurf]

So, in your games, anyone with a sword and shield gets the TWF penalty as well? Because they have the option to hit with sword and shield, and gain an extra attack.

Only if he is wielding the shield as a second weapon in his off-hand.

I don't have a problem with someone holding an object without it being wielded; thus, he does not threaten an area with it and cannot use it to attack, but neither does he incur TWF penalties.

Someone wielding a longsword and holding a dagger cannot make an extra attack (or any attack) with the dagger, does not threaten with the dagger, and incurs no TWF penalties.

Someone wielding a longsword and wielding a dagger is wielding a second weapon in his off-hand, and is 'fighting this way'; he can make an extra attack with the dagger, can respond to provoked AoOs with his dagger, can make use of special abilities that apply to 'the wielder' (such as if the dagger is a Defending weapon), etc, but he incurs TWF penalties.

What about the guy with a sword, and spiked armor? Or the dwarf with 2 spiked gauntlets, and a waraxe? The fighter with Improved Unarmed Strike and both hands free? The Warblade doing his Adamantine Hurricane maneuver?
Where is the boundary between your regular fighting and potentially-two-weapon-fighting?

All likewise. If someone with a glaive and spiked armor wishes to threaten both 5 feet and 10 feet, the spiked armor is effectively a 'second weapon wielded in his off-hand', and TWF penalties apply. If he's content to only threaten 10 feet, and treat the armor spikes as Dungeonpunk Decoration, I won't impose penalties, because he's only wielding one weapon.

Do your archers have to take the Rapid Shot penalty whenever they shoot, even if it's a single shot? They can potentially get an extra shot with Rapid Shot?

If they want to keep the option of making a second shot open, they must take the penalty on the first shot... even if the second shot never in fact eventuates.

-Hyp.

 

[irdeggman]

I didn't get the the impression that Li Shenron was assuming this. A character (with quick-draw) throwing weapons at full BAB would be using different weapons with each attack without using alternating hands.

Possibly my bad, I assumed since it was a qoute of the original post that it refered to using TWF since that was the context in which it was asked.

 

[Egres]

Only if he is wielding the shield as a second weapon in his off-hand.

I don't have a problem with someone holding an object without it being wielded; thus, he does not threaten an area with it and cannot use it to attack, but neither does he incur TWF penalties.

Let's assume one of your PCs has Combat Reflexes, Improved Unarmed Strike, and is wielding only a longsword.

A rogue appears from a corner, wins the initiative and disarms your PC with is first attack.

Let's also assume that the rogue makes something that provokes an AoO from your PC with his second attack.

Would you negate any AoO, since your PC doesn't "wield" his unarmed strikes?

That would be a clear violation of the rules, since the Pc threatens the area around him with his unarmed strikes.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Would you negate any AoO, since your PC doesn't "wield" his unarmed strikes?

Once he's disarmed of his longsword, the unarmed strike wouldn't be a second weapon wielded in his off-hand, so there still wouldn't be any TWF penalties.

If he wanted to threaten with longsword and unarmed strike at the same time (perhaps he's facing a mixed group of zombies and skeletons, and wants the option of slashing or bludgeoning damage on his AoOs), that's when I'd impose the penalties.

-Hyp.

 

[Sejs]

Only if he is wielding the shield as a second weapon in his off-hand.

I don't have a problem with someone holding an object without it being wielded; thus, he does not threaten an area with it and cannot use it to attack, but neither does he incur TWF penalties.

I have Improved Unarmed Strike. My unarmed strikes threaten as normal for being armed. Unarmed strikes do not specify what part of the body they use.

Do I always incur TWF penalties if I am using a weapon, given that I always have the option of using an unarmed strike as a secondary?

 

[Hypersmurf]

Do I always incur TWF penalties if I am using a weapon, given that I always have the option of using an unarmed strike as a secondary?

I would rule, rather, that if you elect to keep that option open, you incur TWF penalties.

Just as electing to keep the possibility of using Rapid Shot open means you'll take a -2 penalty even if you don't end up using Rapid Shot, I'd impose TWF penalties if you elect to keep the possibility of using your unarmed strike as an off-hand weapon open.

If you voluntarily choose not to have your unarmed strike 'wielded' - available for use as a weapon, including threatening an area - I would not impose TWF penalties.

-Hyp.

 

[Kmart Kommando]

Well, since this is D&D Rules, and not House Rules, the correct answer is no extra attacks, no penalties, no matter what you use for those normal number of attacks.

 

[Egres]

Once he's disarmed of his longsword, the unarmed strike wouldn't be a second weapon wielded in his off-hand, so there still wouldn't be any TWF penalties.

But would he have the 4 off-hand penalty?

And, what about if he got 2 AoO, the first with the longsowrd, and then the last with his unarmed strike?

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Well, since this is D&D Rules, and not House Rules, the correct answer is no extra attacks, no penalties, no matter what you use for those normal number of attacks.

Not quite. I support that view of the rules, but I can also agree that Hype's methodology is both sound and consistent with the rules.

It's hardly house rules - and, BTW, using that term disparagingly or as an attempt to discredit your opponent's reasoning is frowned on.