Two-Weapon Fighting

[jmucchiello]

I had a player floor me with his interpretation of the two-weapon fighting feat. He reads the text above the feat "You can make one extra attack each round with the second weapon." to mean that you can move, and attack with both your primary and secondary weapon.

I said, "No, that's not right. You need a full action to make more than one attack." I went to the combat section and quoted

Full Attack
If you get more than one attack per round because your base attack bonus is high enough, because you fight with two weapons or a double weapon or for some special reason you must use a full-round action to get your additional attacks.

He replied "the italicized text is overriden by the feat. After all, that's what feats do, right? Feats override the normal rules."

Now, I'm guessing that the feat should say "you can make one extra attack each round with a second weapon when you use the full attack option". But it doesn't. The only defense I had against him at that point was "it says that in the description section, not the benefits section of the feat so that text is just flavor." But his question at that point was "why does it make a difference where in the feat it says this?"

Has anyone else run into this?

 

[AeroDm]

You are quite right in that it does take a full-attack action in order to use two weapons. I don't have my book atm, but I recall it being rather straight forward in this regard.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Has he taken this to its logical extreme - with the Greater Two-Weapon Fighting feat, he can move 30 feet, attack once only with his primary weapon (since he's not taking the Full Attack Action), and attack three times with his off-hand weapon (since ITWF and GTWF both add an extra off-hand attack in addition to the normal one, and since his special TWF feat lets him make that normal one even if he's not making a Full Attack Action)?

Or move 30 feet, cast a spell, Quickdraw his second weapon, and make an extra attack with it (since the feat doesn't say he can only make the extra attack in a round that he's attacked with his primary weapon)? (Or attack three times, obviously, with GTWF.)

You're correct - the only benefit the TWF feat provides is a reduction in the penalties for attacking with two weapons.

-Hyp.

 

[jmucchiello]

Has he taken this to its logical extreme - with the Greater Two-Weapon Fighting feat, he can move 30 feet, attack once only with his primary weapon (since he's not taking the Full Attack Action), and attack three times with his off-hand weapon (since ITWF and GTWF both add an extra off-hand attack in addition to the normal one, and since his special TWF feat lets him make that normal one even if he's not making a Full Attack Action)?

ITWF and GTWF do not say any thing about EVERY ROUND you get an attack. Read the quotes I posted above and explain exactly why the feat doesn't overrule the general atk/full atk rule.

Or move 30 feet, cast a spell, Quickdraw his second weapon, and make an extra attack with it (since the feat doesn't say he can only make the extra attack in a round that he's attacked with his primary weapon)?

Interesting. But still doesn't counter the initial argument, just makes the feat sound "better".

You're correct - the only benefit the TWF feat provides is a reduction in the penalties for attacking with two weapons.

I know I'm correct, I've been writing rules since the game came out. I'm just trying to find the in-book rule that says I'm right. As written, the feat can be read to overrule the normal "must full attack to attack more than once per round" rule.

 

[Celtavian]

re

Sounds like you're just going to have to put your foot down on this one. What else can a DM do when a player tries to create a loophole by arguing an invalid interpretation of the rules.

 

[jmucchiello]

Sounds like you're just going to have to put your foot down on this one. What else can a DM do when a player tries to create a loophole by arguing an invalid interpretation of the rules.

What makes it invalid? Feats break the rules. I'm not looking for a Rule 0 solution. How do you know his isn't the correct interpretation?

 

[Pax]

Because it wasn't the correct interpretation in 3.0, and if they'd intended to change it, they'dve said as much?

 

[Wormwood]

From the SRD:

FEAT NAME [TYPE OF FEAT]

Prerequisite: <snip>
Benefit: What the feat enables the character (“you” in the feat description) to do. <snip>
Normal: What a character who does not have this feat is limited to or restricted from doing. If not having the feat causes no particular drawback, this entry is absent.



​

1, From the above description, we can assume the following about the PHB Feat writeups:

The only rules a Feat breaks are the ones mentioned in the 'Normal:" section of the feat's description.

2. A look at the TWF feat writeup reveals the following:

a. The "Normal:" part of the TWF feat description only references the attack roll penalties of using two weapons.

b. The "Normal:" section makes no reference to the fact that one must normally use a Full Attack action to strike multiple times in a round.

c. Since the Full Attack requirement is NOT mentioned in the "Normal:" text, that rule must NOT be altered by the TWF feat.

 

[jmucchiello]

Because it wasn't the correct interpretation in 3.0, and if they'd intended to change it, they'dve said as much?

The feat reads the exact same way in 3.0. All the quotes above are found in the 3.0 text as well as the 3.5 text. This is not a 3.0 vs 3.5 question. And this isn't a change. How do you know based on reading the rules, that this is not the way it's supposed to be? Just because you've never seen it done that way doesn't mean this isn't the correct way to do it.

 

[Darklone]

Is this player going to roleplay? Tell him his interpretation is ridiculous and smack him hard with all three corerule books over the head. That's what people told me last time when I asked how to argue with such a player.

Honestly, tell him, there's nothing in the rules text that says you get your additional attack while doing a standard action.

Edit:

TWO-WEAPON FIGHTING [GENERAL]
You can fight with a weapon in each hand. You can make one extra attack each round with the second weapon.
Prerequisite: Dex 15.
Benefit: Your penalties on attack rolls for fighting with two weapons are reduced. The penalty for your primary hand lessens by 2 and the one for your off hand lessens by 6.
Normal: If you wield a second weapon in your off hand, you can get one extra attack per round with that weapon. When fighting in this way you suffer a –6 penalty with your regular attack or attacks with your primary hand and a –10 penalty to the attack with your off hand. If your off-hand weapon is light the penalties are reduced by 2 each. (An unarmed strike is always considered light.)

Ok... the rules state clearly that you cannot attack twice during a standard action .... and the player admitted that. The RULES for the feat say under benefits ONLY that the feat reduces the penalty.

Hyps argument is also valid. By the players interpretation and the feats description, you could do all the silly stuff Hyp listed such as casting a spell and doing 3 offhand attacks during a standard action.