Two-handed weapons and spellcasting

[Thanee]

Because of stuff like this, I'd do it in the following way (sounds more complicated than it is):

With each of your turns, you have to decide what weapons you are wielding during the round. You can wield either a single weapon, or multiple weapons at a time.

When you are attacking during your turn, you can only do so with a weapon you are wielding. You can freely designate any weapons available for attacking to wield as a free action before each attack. If you attack with multiple weapons at the same time, appropriate penalties for two-weapon attacks or multi-weapon attacks apply for the whole round. If you attack with only one weapon, you can still decide freely to wield any other weapons you are able to attack with in addition to the one you actually use, but then you also suffer the appropriate penalties. You can spend a move action to wield different weapons after attacking.

When you are not attacking, you can designate one of your weapons (a monk's unarmed attacks count as one weapon for this purpose) as the one you are wielding. You must be able to attack with a weapon in order to wield it. Weapons cannot be wielded in this way, if you used at least one arm necessary to hold the weapon otherwise during your turn (i.e. when freeing one hand from a two-handed weapon (free action) in order to cast a spell or drink a potion), unless you spend a move action to wield it afterwards (and put the hand back). In case of the buckler, if you also hold a weapon with the same arm, you cannot use the buckler for defense (unless you have the Improved Buckler Defense feat), if you designate that weapon as the one to wield during the round. You can also designate two or more weapons to wield this way, but then you suffer appropriate penalties for two-weapon attacks or multi-weapon attacks for all attacks made with these weapons during the round.

You can only make attacks of opportunity with a weapon you are wielding.

Bye
Thanee

 

[kenobi65]

Strange, the other racial exotics (Dwarven Urgosh and Waraxe, Gnome hooked Hammer) specify that members of that race treat it as a martial weapon, but the that text doesn't appear in the entry for the Orc double axe (at least not in the version of the SRD I use). I think I would give it to him anyway, as long as he spent the feat to use a martial weapon.

'Twas actually the topic of some debate in another thread here recently. By the RAW, no, half-orcs don't get Weapon Familiarity with orcish racial weapons, the way dwarves and gnomes do (though it sounds like a fair number of people are willing to house-rule it). Might be because they're only half-orcs, and the double axe is an orc weapon. In any case, some folks cite it as another example of how half-orcs got jobbed.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Interesting reading, Thanee.

I rule a little differently, the philosophy behind which is based on the way in which a monk's flurry of blows works (i.e., when you make a full attack and flurry, you can intersperse an attack with any special monk weapon you are wielding in place of an unarmed attack). For instance, a monk wielding a quarterstaff and full-attacking can freely choose to use Head 1, Head 2, or Unarmed Strike for any given attack roll.

I believe that rule should be more generally applied to all combatants, rather than exist as a separate case.

Under my ruling, "fighting this way" from the TWF line of feats refers to "using more than one weapon to gain more attacks in a round than you normally could have."

There are no other rules on handedness.

So, if you have a Fighter 11 who has, in hand, a dagger and a rapier, and who has taken the Improved Unarmed Strike Feats, he's got three attacks per round. He is wielding three weapons: a dagger, a rapier, and an unarmed strike.

His normal full-round attack is +11 / +6 / +1. When he attacks, he may elect to strike Rapier, Dagger, Unarmed Strike; or Rapier, Rapier, Rapier; or Dagger, Dagger, Unarmed Strike, etc. Each gets 1x Strength bonus (as normal for a single-hand attack).

Alternatively, he can use the TWF rules to attack at +9 / +9 / +4 / +4 / -1. Out of any given pairing (+9 / +9, +4 / +4), the second must be made with a different weapon than the first. So, one could attack Rapier / Dagger, Rapier / Unarmed Strike, Rapier, but one couldn't attack Rapier / Rapier, Rapier / Rapier, Unarmed Strike. The second attack in each pairing receives .5 Strength damage.

I believe this point of view avoids some unnecessary complications - like, say, a defending weapon only working "when wielded," which means that an off-hand dagger of defending spends most of its time being useless; you can make an AoO with any weapon available to you - even though it introduces some others.

I find this makes more fun - a Fighter with multiple attacks and quickdraw can draw and throw a number of daggers and still menace the wizard with his sword.

 

[dcollins]

Halberd wielding fighter. Gets hurt, decides to drink a potion...
- Move Action to 'Retrieve a Stored Item' (Potion)
- Standard Action to drink it ('glug')
Moment later, baddy runs through his threatened area. Would anybody rule that he's unable to take the AOO with his Halberd?

It sure seems like he just spent the whole round unarmed, with a potion in his hand. The ruling should reflect that fact.

 

[JackhammerJohn]

Halberds only have 5' reach (just replace with Glaive).

Bye
Thanee

Hehehe, you should this Order of the Stick cartoon: http://www.giantitp.com/cgi-bin/GiantITP/ootscript?SK=136

 

[Vigwyn the Unruly]

I say let him. It doesn't seem to go against the RAW in any way, so not letting him do it is an added restriction. Combat is an abstraction, not a simulation of reality. As long as it's exciting and fun, what's the harm?

 

[Hypersmurf]

I believe this point of view avoids some unnecessary complications - like, say, a defending weapon only working "when wielded"...

Of course, a defending weapon only working "when wielded" was made explicit in the 3E Main FAQ

-Hyp.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Of course, a defending weapon only working "when wielded" was made explicit in the 3E Main FAQ

Which means, of course, that it's useless at least half the time.

Can't make a full-round attack this round? You lose the AC bonus.
Drink a potion this round (as per Dcollins' post above, though he can't read mine)? Lose the AC bonus.
Cast a spell this round? Lose the AC bonus.

Etc. It's a dumb ruling, and the FAQ should be ashamed of itself.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Which means, of course, that it's useless at least half the time.

Can't make a full-round attack this round? You lose the AC bonus.

I don't agree.

You can wield a second weapon in your off-hand even if you aren't making a full attack.

There's no prohibition on 'Two-Weapon Fighting' just because you're not taking a full attack action. The prohibition is on gaining more than one attack.

So if you're taking the attack action, you can take the attack penalties, gain the AC bonus from the Defending weapon, and have both weapons available for AoOs... you just get to actually swing only one of them as part of your normal action for the round.

-Hyp.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

I think that is an even worse way of ruling, Hyp.

I can carry a torch in my off-hand, and not take any penalties. I can carry my compatriot in my off-hand (and presumably across my shoulders), and not take any penalties. I can carry and use a shield of bashing in my off-hand, and not take any penalties. I can carry a light shield of basing and a torch in my off-hand, and not take any penalties.

If I carry a magic dagger, however, I take penalties.