wielding two weapons... but not TWF

[Dannyalcatraz]

No, I'm pretty sure the off-hand penalty does reflect handedness. If nothing else, it involves muscle memory.

If you've ever done something with your dominant hand that requires a great deal of precision- painting, shooting a jump-shot, playing the guitar*- and then tried it with your other hand, you simply won't do it as well. Your muscles haven't been trained to work that way. Furthermore, your brain isn't wired to do those tasks without extra concentration.

Hence, the penalty.


* for the record, I can paint with my off-hand, but cannot play guitar lefty. And as for jump shots, my lefty and righty are nearly identical...identically bad.

 

[Ashtagon]

In modern times, left-handedness is nothing weird at all. But most of us aren't playing campaigns set in 21st century USA or Europe.

In medieval times, it was widely considered a sign of evil witchcraft. Historically, many women were burned at the stake for this, almost as many men shunned for being left-handed ("sinister" not only means creepy, it means "left-handed"), and as recently as the 60s, schools routinely punished naturally left-handed children who tried to use it as their dominant hand.

So yes, in a traditional western society, being left-handed does creep out most people. Especially the "right-thinking" ones.

If you don't want a campaign set in a traditional medieval setting, don't use the trait. Simple as that.

 

[Theo R Cwithin]

Thanks for all the responses.

It looks like the the "no penalty" folks have it, which is what I was thinking, as well. As Stream noted, it's underpowered anyway, so no party will be consistently winning battles by using this tactic. Frankly, I was thinking of it as a "last resort" tactic: you're 1st level, surrounded by zombies and skeletons, a broken sword in one hand, a discarded femur in the other, and desperately in need of a break. Reminds of university, actually.


@Aluvial: I tend to think of the off-hand penalty as applying only when the fighter is absolutely restricted to using that hand. For example, a character chained to a wall or hanging onto a precipice by his primary hand would suffer the off-hand penalty. And of course, when TWFing, the off-hand is actively involved in trying to land a blow, as is the primary: there's no choice.

On the other hand (so to speak), in the case I was noting, the off-hand is just holding another weapon; the wielder is switching weapons from hand to hand as the rounds progress, but he's still just mainly fighting with his primary hand.

Meh, it's not terribly logical, but I can justify it in a hand-wavy way.

Or even an off-hand-wavy way.

 

[Theo R Cwithin]

-- whoops... I just noticed the double post. --

 

[Dandu]

In modern times, left-handedness is nothing weird at all. But most of us aren't playing campaigns set in 21st century USA or Europe.

In medieval times, it was widely considered a sign of evil witchcraft.

Know what else was traditionally considered a sign of evil witchcraft?

MAGIC

 

[Aluvial]

@Aluvial: I tend to think of the off-hand penalty as applying only when the fighter is absolutely restricted to using that hand. For example, a character chained to a wall or hanging onto a precipice by his primary hand would suffer the off-hand penalty. And of course, when TWFing, the off-hand is actively involved in trying to land a blow, as is the primary: there's no choice.

In your original post, you wanted to know if there was a penalty to using a weapon in your off hand. By the RAW, there is a -4 penalty for using a weapon in your off hand. You must account for handedness! If you choose to, but why would you ever choose to, you can attack with only your off hand (but again, there is a penalty). For AoO's, you can, again, choose which hand to use, your primary, or your off hand.

In four different places in the rules, it states that you use one half of your Strength modifier for additional damage if you are using your off hand. Specifically in the RAW, the off hand is defined as NOT your primary hand. The rules are clear on this point.

Again, off hand is defined as the hand that you don't customarily use and is usually your left hand (Most people are right-handed). There is no accounting for ambidexterity in any way, shape, or form in the 3.5 game in RAW/SRD. You can't just say that you are and make it happen!

So... if you have a weapon in your off hand (usually your left) and you attack with it, you do so at a -4 penalty, and you use one half of your Strength modifier for damage. And yes to the above poster, if you have a spiked shield in your off hand and you choose to attack with it as your standard action, you attack with it at a -4!

I suggest, that if you do allow Ambidexterity in the game, it must come as a talent/feat at 1st level only.

There should be no way you should be able to just "say" you are ambidextrous, that would be the same thing as just saying you are REALLY strong, or I just know I have Lightning Reflexes for free because I'm quick like a cat... You do get to pick your handedness however. You have a choice between two arms/hands to be your primary, the other, and be clear here, is your off hand. And don't forget you also get to arbritarily choose eye color!!!

...if you pick lavender eyes.... well you know what is going on if you pick lavender eyes....

Aluvial

 

[Deset Gled]

A character wields a club and a dagger. BAB +1, no TWF feat, no shield, etc.

He only makes a single attack with one of them each round; he's not "fighting with two weapons". But he wants to choose which one to use each round. Does he suffer any penalties for this?

If he can take an AoO at some point, can he choose which weapon to use, and what penalties, if any are incurred?

Sorry if I'm a little late to the game, but I've had this argument with different people enough times to have a copy-and-paste answer for it. Here you go:

There is a long term debate surrounding what penalties are associated with making an AoO with an off hand weapon. Some people maintain that if you take an AoO with your off-hand weapon, you must take the TWF penalties (I will refer to this as Side 1). Others claim you only take the penalties if you use the full attack action to get extra attacks using the off hand weapon (I will refer to this as Side A).

Once you get down into the debate far enough (i.e. looking only at the core info), the arguements hinge on the following text:

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.)

If you take "in this way" to mean whenever "you wield a weapon in your off hand", then you are on Side 1. If you take "in this way" to mean whenever you "get one extra attack", then you are on Side A.

If you are trying to be consistent, these two different interpretations have a pretty wide number of side effects. For example, with Side A's POV, a character can wield daggers in both hands and interchange attacks between the daggers as desired, as long as they only get the normal number of attacks. With Side 1's POV, this would require taking penalties, regardless of whether or not the character makes any extra attacks. This makes Side A seem better from a balance/options standpoint. OTOH, Side A's side allows a character to sit around 24/7 with a reach weapon just to take AoOs and never take any penalties. Side 1's view stops this. This makes Side 1 seem better from a balance perspective.

Note that the ruling from the 3.0 FAQ answers a question about Defending weapons that supports Side 1. There is an RotG article that explicitly supports Side A. I personally am on Side 1.

 

[BENINHB]

Know what else was traditionally considered a sign of evil witchcraft?

MAGIC

Hahaha, I almost just spit iced tea all over and ruined my laptop

 

[Aluvial]

There is a long term debate surrounding what penalties are associated with making an AoO with an off hand weapon. Some people maintain that if you take an AoO with your off-hand weapon, you must take the TWF penalties (I will refer to this as Side 1). Others claim you only take the penalties if you use the full attack action to get extra attacks using the off hand weapon (I will refer to this as Side A).).

I don't see it this way at all. A weapon used for an AoO that is in your off hand, takes a -4 penalty to attack. That's it. Nothing else. It matters not if you have been, or even are planning to TWF. The AoO action is independent of other things you have done, or will do in the round because it happens out of your turn (Other penalties apply for Power Attack, Combat Experitse, etc).

If you take "in this way" to mean whenever "you wield a weapon in your off hand", then you are on Side 1. If you take "in this way" to mean whenever you "get one extra attack", then you are on Side A.

I believe that there should be no Side 1 at all. Side 1 is a different animal from Side A. Having a weapon in your off hand, or a wand, or a potion, or a shield, has no bearing on your primary hand's attack if you are only using the primary hand to attack with. Just having another item in your off-hand does not constitute a penalty.

Side A, as you call it, refers to making TWF attacks only. An extra attack for an AoO is always made at your best BAB bonus (minus Power Attack etc.). Again, if the character purposefully chose to attack with the off hand weapon for the AoO, they would take the NORMAL -4 penalty for doing so with the off hand.

If you are trying to be consistent, these two different interpretations have a pretty wide number of side effects. For example, with Side A's POV, a character can wield daggers in both hands and interchange attacks between the daggers as desired, as long as they only get the normal number of attacks.

This is not the case by the RAW. Clearly, you must take penalties if attacking with your off hand weapon as a full or standard action, or when making TWF attacks.

With Side 1's POV, this would require taking penalties, regardless of whether or not the character makes any extra attacks.

This is not the case by the RAW. Clearly, you only take penalties when attacking with an off hand weapon as a full or standard action, or if making TWF attacks. You do not take a penalty just for having two weapons in hand.

This makes Side A seem better from a balance/options standpoint. OTOH, Side A's side allows a character to sit around 24/7 with a reach weapon just to take AoOs and never take any penalties.

I wanted to comment on this... I'm not sure what having a reach weapon (assuming it is two handed I suppose) has to do with a discussion on off handedness. It seems to be a completely different animal.

Side 1's view stops this. This makes Side 1 seem better from a balance perspective.

Except that Side 1 is not an option considering the RAW.

I believe that the confusion comes from individuals who believe that there is no penalties for using an off hand weapon. Just go look in the glossary and the other three locations in the rules that mention off handedness just slip into place.

To be clear, off hand weapon attacks take a -4 (for full, standard, AoO, and extra attacks). TWF attacks have a seperate chart to follow because you are fighting with both hands. These are two different circumstances.

Therefore, you must, at the time of character creation, be specific about handedness.

Aluvial

 

[StreamOfTheSky]

OTOH, Side A's side allows a character to sit around 24/7 with a reach weapon just to take AoOs and never take any penalties. Side 1's view stops this. This makes Side 1 seem better from a balance perspective.

Umm...the Kusari-gama is the only weapon ever printed by WotC that I recall being a reach weapon AND one-handed. So unless the DM allows that weapon (and let's be fair, the player would probably spend a feat on it to avoid the -4 penalty, so it's not quite "no penalties"), this should not be an issue.

If you were thinking of reach weapon + unarmed strike or armor spikes...I'd call that a separate issue or not an issue at all. And Technically neither is using one hand or the other specifically, so Side 1's position still wouldn't negatively affect such a strategy.