Two-Weapon Fighting

[Pax]

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.

Ever hear of reading the FAQ? Main FAQ [3.0] v 1/30/2003; I've highlit the critical portion in red:

Page 124 of the Player’s Handbook says you can decide whether to take the normal attack action or the full attack action depending on how the first attack turns out. Suppose I have the Rapid Shot feat, which allows me an extra ranged attack if I take -2 penalty on every attack I make during my turn. Suppose I’m holding a weapon in each
hand, so that I can get an extra attack with the second weapon provided I take some penalties to all my attacks. Can I use the attack action to make one attack at no penalty at all, and then decide to use Rapid Shot or an off-hand weapon and take penalties only to the attacks I make after I’ve decided to use full attack?
No. If you choose to use Rapid Shot or to fight with two weapons, you must choose the full attack action before you make any attack rolls.
You can indeed "wait to see how your first attack turns out," before deciding between the attack and full attack action, ut if you do, you can’t take any option that would affect that first, unmodified, attack roll.

This is a clear, albeit implicit, statement that one must use the Full Attack action to benefit form Two-Weapon fighting. And it took me all of three minutes to find it.

The rule is simple: to make more than one attack, you must use the full attack action. Period.

 

[jmucchiello]

This is a clear, albeit implicit, statement that one must use the Full Attack action to benefit form Two-Weapon fighting. And it took me all of three minutes to find it.

You didn't read my post carefully. The feat says otherwise. So without the feat, you must take a full attack and with you don't have to. Feats are known to bend the rules. The rule under Bull Rush says that Bull Rush provokes and AoO, but the feat IBR removes that AoO. Cleave allows you to attack multiple times with a Standard Action, why can't TWF?

And please take you sanctimonious tone somewhere else. I have no use for it. I don't care what the FAQ says, the FAQ doesn't address the text in the TWF feat. Text that is in the SRD. The quote in the FAQ is in the rulebook, verbatim, so it is no more helpfui that the book itself.

Additionally, had you read the whole thread, you would have found that the real answer was already discovered. Thanks for trying to help though.

 

[dagger]

My 16th level two weapon fighting fighter would love that rule. I can tell ya!

Except when we are fighting monsters and npcs! That would suck.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Additionally, had you read the whole thread, you would have found that the real answer was already discovered.

Yeah, Pax - text from the PHB and the FAQ specifically addressing the fact that using two weapons requires the Full Attack Action is far less relevant than the fact that the feat uses can instead of may.

Sort it out, man!

-Hyp.

 

[jmucchiello]

Granting that the intent of the rule is that you need to take the full attack action to get the extra attacks - is it really that unbalancing?

Take a human fighter weilding two shortswords. He's paying a feat to:
* lose AC (no way to use a shield)
* do less damage on average than he would with a greatsword
* at a -2 to hit to boot

This is exactly the counter-argument given by the other DMs and is why we're trying it the other way. It's also why I'm planning to abuse it. If I can't abuse enough that they want the rule revoked, perhaps it isn't so bad. Mostly this is based on expectation, I think. In 2e, everyone used two weapon style if they could. In 3e it's sub-par and not used.

 

[Arkhandus]

No where in the book does it say anything about feats overriding the rules. It only says they grant new capabilities or improve existing ones. The only things mentioned in the Benefits section of TWF is the reduction of penalties. The description of a feat's format, at the beginning of the chapter, shows that the text between the title and the first bold-type part only describes in layman's terms what the feat does in general, but it is not rules text. Only what's in the Benefits and the Normal section of a feat description tell what rules effect or difference the feat has.

To demonstrate, let's look at the flavor text under the title of various feats.
Blind-Fight
You know how to fight in melee without being able to see your foes.
*Using your player's twisted logic, this would imply that a character with the B-F feat can fight invisible foes just as easily as visible ones, without penalty, including sneak attacks and the like*
Maximize Spell
You can cast spells to maximum effect.
*Again, this could be implied to mean that all spells have their maximum effect, without any higher slots*
Quicken Spell
You can cast a spell with a moment's thought.
*This could be implied to mean that, again, you can cast all your spells instantly, without any actions, at any time, at no cost*
Still Spell
You can cast spells without gestures.
*Could imply that none of your spells require somatic components, at no cost*
Track
You can follow the trails of creatures and characters across most types of terrain.
*Could imply that no check is needed, that you automatically find and track creatures*
Weapon Finesse
You are especially skilled at using a certain weapon, one that can benefit as much from Dexterity as from Strength.
*Could imply that you add your Dexterity bonus to damage with the weapon, which of course makes no sense*

"Can" most certainly doesn't mean "may at any time and without difficulty"

 

[jmucchiello]

No where in the book does it say anything about feats overriding the rules. It only says they grant new capabilities or improve existing ones. The only things mentioned in the Benefits section of TWF is the reduction of penalties. The description of a feat's format, at the beginning of the chapter, shows that the text between the title and the first bold-type part only describes in layman's terms what the feat does in general, but it is not rules text. Only what's in the Benefits and the Normal section of a feat description tell what rules effect or difference the feat has.

We've gone through all that. I think the descriptive text is misleading at best. It should be changed. TWF is one of the few feats in the SRD where the flavor text is included. Why? (That's a rhetorical why btw.)

 

[Pax]

Yeah, Pax - text from the PHB and the FAQ specifically addressing the fact that using two weapons requires the Full Attack Action is far less relevant than the fact that the feat uses can instead of may.

Sort it out, man!

-Hyp.

Yep. And you know what, I came in here intending to apologise for being so short in my prior post. Feh. Screw that. Hey, "jmucchiello" ... RTFM, eh?

I repeat:

If you choose to use Rapid Shot or to fight with two weapons, you must choose the full attack action before you make any attack rolls.

What more do you need, FFS?

 

[The Souljourner]

Anything not under "benefit" or "special" is purely flavor text. It can not grant abilities.

The only benefit of the two weapon fighting feat is that it reduces penalties (a lot).

That's it. Oh yeah, and the fact that everywhere else it says you can only benefit from two weapon fighting when making a full attack.

It's plain as day, and although I could see how he could get confused if he's new to 3.x, if he's a long time 3.x player, this should be old news.

-The Souljourner

 

[Norfleet]

Of course, one of the upsides is that if you are only able to perform a regular attack while wielding two weapons, and therefore can attack only once with your primary weapon, you don't suffer the penalty for dual wielding since you are not employing two weapon fighting at this time: You're attacking with one weapon while holding the other weapon, which does not incur a penalty.