TWF without extra attacks

[Terath Ninir]

I think it would be safe to assume here that WotC made an ERROR in not spelling out off-hand attacks. In all previous versions, you choose handedness and suffer penalties if you use a weapon with your off hand.

I imagine that the error creeped in when they made the (in this case intentional) error of removing the Ambidexterity feat from the game. Attacking with two weapons at once (or with even just one in your weak hand) is ridiculously difficult. Granted, D&D is not a realistic game, but it has become a little lamer by making it so frickin' easy to do two-weapon combat.

That aside aside, WotC messed up. Off-hand weapon attacks should have a -4 penalty and 1/2 Str bonus. If you have a character with, say, a +6 BAB, allowing two attacks, you can make a longsword attack at +6 (before other modifiers) and then a dagger attack at -3 (before other modifiers), if that's what you really want to do.

The rules may not spell it out, but that's because they were put together by imperfect human beings.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

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?

Per Hyp's rulings:

Situation:

A thief attempts to disarm a wandering knight (wielding a sword) on the wrong side of town, and then make off with his sword..

Rules:

• Surprise round: Thief moves up to the knight.
• Round 1: Thief attempts a [Non-Improved] disarm, provoking an AoO. The knight, who has Combat Reflexes and 12+ Dex, attacks with his longsword, but misses. The thief wins the disarm roll-off, and the knight's sword is on the ground. The knight, bereft of his main weapon, switches to wielding his [Improved] unarmed strike. The thief then attempts to pick up the dropped sword, provoking another AoO, which the knight takes, hitting the thief for a small amount of damage; the thief retrieves the sword. The knight full attacks the thief, doing some more damage.
• Round 2: The thief moves away, provoking another AoO, which hits, but is not enough to drop him. Combat ends when the knight, after moving, can no longer see the thief.

At no point is the knight wielding more than one weapon at a time. Therefore, he doesn't ever take TWF penalties.

Now, I could also see an argument that the knight can only switch his "wielding options" on his own turn. In that case, he would be unable to take the second AoO in Round 1.

 

[Egres]

Now, I could also see an argument that the knight can only switch his "wielding options" on his own turn. In that case, he would be unable to take the second AoO in Round 1.

Not to mention that by Hyp's ruling I can't "drop" my unarmed strikes, and thus attack with them as my primary weapon would always be a poor choice.

 

[Hypersmurf]

That aside aside, WotC messed up. Off-hand weapon attacks should have a -4 penalty and 1/2 Str bonus.

The rules may not spell it out, but that's because they were put together by imperfect human beings.

The rules do spell it out.

PHB p113. Add half Str bonus to damage rolls with a light or one-handed weapon held in the off-hand.

PHB p134. Add half Str bonus to damage with a weapon held in the off-hand.

PHB p135. Add half your Str modifier to damage with a weapon held in the off-hand (if it's a bonus).

PHB p311. Attacks made with a weapon held in the off-hand incur a -4 penalty and add haf Str bonus to damage.

-Hyp.

 

[Li Shenron]

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

Now, while that makes sense in the real world and even sense visually - there is nothing in the actual rules that state this. It could just as easily be the same hand doing all of the throwing.

Yeah and it would still be "more than one weapon"