Weird dual-wielding with a whip gimmick

[RangerWickett]

I wanted a character who used a rapier with a whip as a back-up weapon to do things like trip opponents or swing from tree branches. Unfortunately, both are one-handed weapons, so the penalty to attacks is a pain.

However, I realized that a small whip is a light weapon for a medium creature, and that by the rules the reach provided is the same. I take a -2 penalty to my whip attack (total -4 when dual-wielding), but I only get a -2 penalty when dual-wielding the rapier, instead of -4. In effect, the only real drawback is that the whip will deal d2 damage instead of d3, and I was never intending to attack with it anyway.

(And, I suppose, it's slightly easier to sunder a light whip, and it's not quite as good at disarming, but if I only want it for tripping, this is ideal. Oh, and I can no longer Power Attack with the whip. *snert*)

 

[Three_Haligonians]

I don't have me books open in front of me (they are open 5ft away from me.. too far! ), but what about Over-sized Two-weapon fighting from CAdv? I'm pretty sure that'll help you out.

J from Three Haligonians

 

[Nail]

This is a good (and cool!) idea, RW. Yoink!

 

[Herobizkit]

As long as you don't swing with both weapons in a given combat and you have the Two-Weapon Fighting feat, you wouldn't normally suffer any penalties at all... or at least, that's how I'd DM it. I can't remember if Ambidexterity was vetoed in 3.5, but it would seem a likely feat to resurrect for this purpose so you never suffer an off-hand penalty.

 

[Ditch]

I want you as my DM Ambidexterity, alas, died with 3.0. Two-weapon Fighting leaves you at -2/-2 in a best-case-scenario.

 

[ceratitis]

a cool idea indeed. i intend to do something similar with a char on a coming up game only i'm gonna use a sap and not the rappier cos i'll be playing a char who hates blood, it just stains your cloaths and it stinks...
Z

 

[Kormydigar]

I want you as my DM Ambidexterity, alas, died with 3.0. Two-weapon Fighting leaves you at -2/-2 in a best-case-scenario.

If I remember correctly, back in 3.0 you would have to have Ambidexterity AND Two Weapon Fighting to have the same -2/-2 as you have in 3.5 with Two Weapon Fighting alone. Getting rid of Ambidexterity was actually helpful.

 

[Hypersmurf]

If I remember correctly, back in 3.0 you would have to have Ambidexterity AND Two Weapon Fighting to have the same -2/-2 as you have in 3.5 with Two Weapon Fighting alone. Getting rid of Ambidexterity was actually helpful.

The problem is that TWF only applies to the penalties for Two-Weapon Fighting.

What happens if you make a single attack with a single weapon held in your off-hand? There's a -4 penalty, and since it's not a penalty for Two-Weapon Fighting, the feat doesn't mitigate it. Ambidexterity did, but while the penalty remains in 3.5, the feat does not...

-Hyp.

 

[MarkB]

The problem is that TWF only applies to the penalties for Two-Weapon Fighting.

What happens if you make a single attack with a single weapon held in your off-hand? There's a -4 penalty, and since it's not a penalty for Two-Weapon Fighting, the feat doesn't mitigate it. Ambidexterity did, but while the penalty remains in 3.5, the feat does not...

-Hyp.

Where is "off-hand" defined, aside from in the context of TWF? Does a character choose an off hand at character creation? Or can either hand be your 'on' hand if you're only attacking with one?

 

[3d6]

In the PHB glossary.

A character's weaker or less dexterous hand (usually the left). An attack made with the off hand incurs a -4 penalty on the attack roll. In addition, only one-half of a character's Strength bonus may be added to damage dealt with a weapon held in the off hand.