Two Weapon Fighting Ranged/Melee

[Grim Hawk]

I had an idea for a rogue, where he would wield a rapier and a dagger so i could throw the dagger/make a melee attack in the same round. I have two questions:

1. What rules apply to this? and what feats affect if?

2. Is it a good idea?

 

[Sasahara]

What edition are you using? In 3.5, I'm not sure two-weapon allows one of the attacks to be thrown. I would certainly rule that all attacks are done with the negatives for two-weapon (so you can't throw as your first action, then wield the rapier without penalties...) If it is allowed, all feats to do with two-weapon fighting would seem to apply, plus any that affected thrown weapons. A great magic weapon to get would be a returning dagger...

 

[Grim Hawk]

3.0, and certainly when im higher level Ill just have to see whatmy dm will allow

 

[Rakusia]

make sure you get either a balanced or throwing dagger dude. trust me. lol

 

[StreamOfTheSky]

If you have a high BAB, you could do this with different iterative attacks (free action switching hands for the rapier if the DM thinks using weapons in each hand incurs penalties even when not getting an extra attack with TWF, which is a ruling I don't agree with, but anyway....). Otherwise, youwould be using the two weapon fighting rules and taking the apprpriate penalties for a one handed and light weapon.

 

[Rakusia]

one of the first home brew rules we established was duel wielding incurs no penalties.

used logic... i trained from young age to use swords and the like why wouldnt i have trained to use either hand? what if something happened to my main hand? wouldnt either i or whoever tought me have thought of this? im an elf ive lived for two hundred years surely i would have picked up this ability?

 

[Ashtagon]

one of the first home brew rules we established was duel wielding incurs no penalties.

used logic... i trained from young age to use swords and the like why wouldnt i have trained to use either hand? what if something happened to my main hand? wouldnt either i or whoever tought me have thought of this? im an elf ive lived for two hundred years surely i would have picked up this ability?

More used logic... RL knights did train from a young age to use a sword, and almost without exception they trained only to use the sword with their primary hand. Significantly more in the medieval ages fought left-handed, as the culture of forcing left-handers out of the habit had not yet been established.

Why didn't they train ambidexterously? Because they knew from experience that it tended to be a losing game. If you had lost your main hand, common sense dictated that you run or surrender, since that kind of injury mean you would shortly succumb anyway if you didn't stop to do first aid (or the medieval equivalent).

 

[Andion Isurand]

Telekinetic Boomerang (Races of the Wild) is a cool power worth looking at for any thrower.

------------------------------------------------------

There is also Manticore's Sting (Dragonmarked) is a thrower feat that works like Manyshot, allowing you to throw up to 4 weapons simultaneously as a standard action, although only one receives any critical or precision damage. Technically the feat is only for dwarves... but it shouldn't be too hard to adapt past that.

I'm just not sure if they mean for the feat to work with one hand, and if a person could throw up to 4 such daggers from each hand as a standard action, applying TWF penalties in addition to the penalty imposed by the feat.

 

[Eman Resu]

quick draw
two wep fight
wep finesse
imp wep finese
elf +18 dex + cats grace = 24 dex

dex to hit and damage +7 to hit and damage
have a belt of throwing 1d4 daggers
avoid toe to toe stay 20' away from all enemies and throw flank attacks as much as possible.

 

[Rakusia]

More used logic... RL knights did train from a young age to use a sword, and almost without exception they trained only to use the sword with their primary hand. Significantly more in the medieval ages fought left-handed, as the culture of forcing left-handers out of the habit had not yet been established.

Why didn't they train ambidexterously? Because they knew from experience that it tended to be a losing game. If you had lost your main hand, common sense dictated that you run or surrender, since that kind of injury mean you would shortly succumb anyway if you didn't stop to do first aid (or the medieval equivalent).

true. just something we figured made more sense