We are losing ambidexterity?

[kreynolds]

Sheathing is an MEA, actually.

I didn't say it wasn't. I stated that you would need to sheath it as a free action for one very simple reason: If you sheath your weapon, you can't take a full attack action.

Past that, I disagree with you.

How did you make those attacks using only one hand?

 

[Hypersmurf]

RS merely lets you throw one more dagger, using only one hand during the round, at a slightly stiffer penalty (-7) than the normal (-5) for each successive attack.

That's an incredibly misleading way of putting it...

-7 for each successive attack makes it sound like +15/+15(RS)/+8/+1 instead of +13/+13(RS)/+8/+3.

It's still -5 for each successive attack, with a -2 penalty applied to every attack in the round.

-Hyp.

 

[kreynolds]

That's an incredibly misleading way of putting it...

Gah! It really is. I like you're wording better.

 

[drnuncheon]

How did you make those attacks using only one hand?

Er...did you read what I posted? Because I said very clearly that the point of my disagreement was in the interpretation of the phrase "attacking in this way" when referring to two-weapon fighting.

You are interpreting it as "attacking with a weapon in either hand"

I am interpreting it as "attacking with a weapon in either hand in such a way as to get an extra attack".

Armed with this clarification, I hope that my previous post will make more sense.

J

 

[kreynolds]

Er...did you read what I posted? Because I said very clearly that the point of my disagreement was in the interpretation of the phrase "attacking in this way" when referring to two-weapon fighting.

Yes. I read what you posted. I simply disagree with your very clearly stated opinion.

You are interpreting it as "attacking with a weapon in either hand"

Not exactly. I intepret it as "attacking with two hands using separate weapons", ala two weapon fighting.

I am interpreting it as "attacking with a weapon in either hand in such a way as to get an extra attack".

I know. I just disagree with your limited interpretation. You are ignoring the fact that you are still attacking with two different weapons using two different hands.

Armed with this clarification, I hope that my previous post will make more sense.

Nope.

 

[drnuncheon]

I know. I just disagree with your limited interpretation. You are ignoring the fact that you are still attacking with two different weapons using two different hands.

Would you also apply the two-weapon fighting penalties to someone who did the following:

Attacked with sword in right hand.
Dropped sword.
Quick-draw Sword 2.
Attacked with sword in left hand.

If so, why? He is never attacking with two weapons at the same time.

If not, why not? He is attacking with two weapons, in two different hands.

Would you apply the two-weapon penalty to a fighter who switched his sword from hand to hand?

If your answer was different than your answer from the previous situation, why?

Does the person who does what I suggest (splitting his BAB attacks between two weapons) gain an unfair advantage over the person who uses one weapon at a time?

If not, then why should he be penalized?

If so, what is the unfair advantage? And why should the penalty be equal to that assessed to a person who gets the even greater benefit of an extra attack?

J

 

[kreynolds]

Would you...

Tell you what....you answer my question, the one you keep dodging, and I'll answer yours. Fair?

Ah, nevermind. I'll go ahead and answer...

Would you also apply the two-weapon fighting penalties to someone who did the following:

Attacked with sword in right hand.
Dropped sword.
Quick-draw Sword 2.
Attacked with sword in left hand.

Yes.

If so, why? He is never attacking with two weapons at the same time.

He is attacking with two different weapons using two different hands within a single action. Thus, he is two-weapon fighting.

Would you apply the two-weapon penalty to a fighter who switched his sword from hand to hand?

No, as long as he was only fighting with one weapon, ala, no two-weapon fighting.

If your answer was different than your answer from the previous situation, why?

In the first example, he is clearly fighting with two weapons. In the second example, he is fighting with one weapon.

Does the person who does what I suggest (splitting his BAB attacks between two weapons) gain an unfair advantage over the person who uses one weapon at a time?

Yes. It gives more options without the usual penalties associated with using two different hands and two different (or multiple) weapons.

If so, what is the unfair advantage? And why should the penalty be equal to that assessed to a person who gets the even greater benefit of an extra attack?

Getting the benefit of an extra attack is simply a benefit of fighting with two different hands using two different (or multiple) weapons. You're trying to get less of a benefit (but still a benefit) without penalty, and that's not how the rules work.

 

[drnuncheon]

Tell you what....you answer my question, the one you keep dodging, and I'll answer yours. Fair?

Which, the one about "how did I make those attacks with one hand"?

I didn't make them with one hand. I never claimed I did.

I also said that I don't believe you need to do so to avoid the two-weapon fighting penalties.

Was that clear enough?

He is attacking with two different weapons using two different hands within a single action. Thus, he is two-weapon fighting.

Are you sure that is the definition of 'two-weapon fighting' as it applies to the game? That seems to be the core of our disagreement.

What evidence can you offer for your interpretation? In every instance that I can find in the rulebooks where 'two-weapon fighting' is mentioned, it refers to the extra attack with the off-hand weapon. Thus, if you don't take the extra attack (or whatever other benefit you get, like the AC bonus from Off-hand Parry), you don't take the penalty.

Yes. It gives more options without the usual penalties associated with using two different hands and two different (or multiple) weapons.

So does quick-draw.

What if, in my quickdraw example, the fighter had attacked with a sword in the right hand, dropped it, drawn another, and attacked with that sword in his right hand? He's got the same "more options" as the guy who quickdraws with his left hand - the hand doesn't make a difference.

In fact, the guy who only uses his right hand is better off, because he gets full strength bonus for both attacks.

You're trying to get less of a benefit (but still a benefit) without penalty, and that's not how the rules work.

I would say that the 'penalty' for doing what I describe is the fact that you can only use half your strength modifier on the off-hand attack.

I would also say that you are trying to apply a penalty without the character gaining the benefit, and that's also not how the rules work.

J

 

[kreynolds]

I didn't make them with one hand. I never claimed I did.

I didn't say you did claim such a thing. I assumed you were making them with two hands (and included reasons why I assumed such), thus you were using both hands within a single action.

I also said that I don't believe you need to do so to avoid the two-weapon fighting penalties.

I know you did. That's where you and I disagree.

Was that clear enough?

It was clear before. I still don't agree.

Are you sure that is the definition of 'two-weapon fighting' as it applies to the game?

Yes. Are you? If so, then we simply disagree.

 

[Mal Malenkirk]

A Swashbuckler with a +15 BAB, a rapier in his right hand and a dagger in his left hand could very well do what has been mentionned earlier;

Attack with the rapier : +15
Throw the dagger : +10
Attack with the rapier : +5

Or more commonly, attack withe the rapier at +15 and +10, kill the bad guy and then launch the dagger at an opponent more than 5' away which he can't otherwise reach since he's making a full attack.

He's not getting an extra attack so there is no need to apply the TWF penalties.

But he is using his off-hand so the thrown dagger would receive a -4 unless he has ambidexterity.

So there is a penalty for attack with a weapon in each hand even if you're not getting an extra attack. A lesser penalty for a lesser benefit that can be offset at a lesser cost.

This kind of maneuver is probably why designer of the Duelist PRC put Ambidexterity but not TWF in the requirement.

In the same line of thought, a fighter battling skeleton warriors (require blunt weapons) and fire vulnerable creature could conceivably fight with a mace in one hand and a flaming sword in the other, alternating his attacks as required.