TWF without extra attacks

[Sejs]

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!!"

The problem with assigning the TWF penalties for just having more than one weapon available, regardless of wheither or not it's used to gain attacks or not, is that a character pretty much always has secondary weapons that they can potentially use. Sword and shield? You could shield bash if you so desired; your shield is a weapon that you are holding. Unarmed strikes? Same thing. Your armor come with gauntlets? Look out.

 

[Kmart Kommando]

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.

So, you're saying that we know from earlier text that we can fight with a weapon in each hand. We can also gain extra attacks at a varying penalty. How is that different than "you can get extra attacks if you fight in this way (i.e. fighting with two weapons and gaining extra attacks while doing so)?

My example's format followed the same pattern: If you (a)_____, you can get (b)____ in return at (c)____ penalty.

a. take the bus
b. to school
c. no

a. go with mom
b. to school
c. they make fun of you

a. fight with a weapon in each hand
b. gain no extra attacks
c. a -0

a. fight with a weapon in each hand, intending to gain extra attacks
b. gain 1 extra attack (or more, based on feats)
c. a -6 and -10 (lessened by circumstances and/or feat choices)

Do kids get an extra attack from the back seat?

 

[Sejs]

Do kids get an extra attack from the back seat?

Only if they have reach.

Thank you, I'll be here all week. Tip your waitress.

 

[Hypersmurf]

So, you're saying that we know from earlier text that we can fight with a weapon in each hand. We can also gain extra attacks at a varying penalty.

I'm saying that we know from earlier text that you get n attacks in a round.

If you wield a second weapon in your off-hand, we can make that n+1.

And that if the condition in the first sentence is fulfilled - that is, if we are fighting 'in this way' - a penalty applies.

What is that condition? It's either 'you wield a second weapon in your off-hand', or 'you make an extra attack'.

By my reading, making an extra attack does not describe a 'way' of fighting. It's a benefit of a way of fighting. The way of fighting is using two weapons. So to me, the answer to 'What condition does "in this way" describe?" is 'You wield a second weapon in your off-hand'. Fighting in this way has a benefit - you can, if you so wish, make an extra attack.

It also has a drawback - you take a penalty on your attack rolls.

My example's format followed the same pattern: If you (a)_____, you can get (b)____ in return at (c)____ penalty.

I don't think that (c) is necessarily 'in return for' (b).

The pattern is, rather: If you (a)______, you can (but need not) get (b)______. If the condition in the first sentence is met, the penalty (c)______ applies.

(c) is not definitively linked to (b); to me, by the PHB wording, it's more intuitively linked to (a), though that is not explicitly defined either.

-Hyp.

 

[Moon-Lancer]

oh man mvincent, enough with the smack down...

 

[mvincent]

oh man mvincent, enough with the smack down...

Pardon?

Edit: Ah. My previous disclaimers might've seemed snarky (which wasn't actually how they were intended). I've edited them to sound less so.

 

[Kmart Kommando]

I'm saying that we know from earlier text that you get n attacks in a round.

If you wield a second weapon in your off-hand, we can make that n+1.

And that if the condition in the first sentence is fulfilled - that is, if we are fighting 'in this way' - a penalty applies.

What is that condition? It's either 'you wield a second weapon in your off-hand', or 'you make an extra attack'.

By my reading, making an extra attack does not describe a 'way' of fighting. It's a benefit of a way of fighting. The way of fighting is using two weapons. So to me, the answer to 'What condition does "in this way" describe?" is 'You wield a second weapon in your off-hand'. Fighting in this way has a benefit - you can, if you so wish, make an extra attack.

It also has a drawback - you take a penalty on your attack rolls.



I don't think that (c) is necessarily 'in return for' (b).

The pattern is, rather: If you (a)______, you can (but need not) get (b)______. If the condition in the first sentence is met, the penalty (c)______ applies.

(c) is not definitively linked to (b); to me, by the PHB wording, it's more intuitively linked to (a), though that is not explicitly defined either.

-Hyp.

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. 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?

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? They can even use different kinds of arrows with each shot.

Extra Attack(s) = TWF, Normal Number of Attacks = not TWF

 

[Space Coyote]

If the character is not getting any special benefit (for example, getting another attack beyond their normal number of attacks), then I would allow it with no problem or penalty, provided that they can do so within the rules for number of actions. And I think in this case that qualifies.

For example, lets say Bob is a level 6 fighter and, as a full attack action is entitled to 2 attacks. He could wield a longsword and attack twice at +6 and +1. If he uses a weapon in each hand, he could attack twice, first with one weapon at +6, then the other at +1. Or he could attack with a one-handed weapon (e.g. longsword) at +6, then draw a dagger as a free action (with quickdraw) and attack again at +1.

In all those cases the character is still getting only the number of attacks that their normal BAB would allow, so I dont see an issue with it. In fact, that may be a good tactic in some cases. For example, if you have 2 weapons with different material types and you want to determine if one will beat an enemy's DR: Attack with one. Nope DR applies. Attack with other one. Keeping in mind that this character would be foregoing a shield or two-handed weaponry.

 

[Li Shenron]

Can you use more than one weapon without getting extra attacks?

If you couldn't, then characters using thrown weapons wouldn't normally be able to use all their attacks from high BAB...

 

[irdeggman]

If you couldn't, then characters using thrown weapons wouldn't normally be able to use all their attacks from high BAB...

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.