Two-Weapon Fighting, but not really? [Archive] - Wizards Community

Two-Weapon Fighting, but not really? [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
Iry
04-01-08, 06:12 AM I'm rather into RAW and was curious about the use of Two-Weapon Fighting.

The Two-Weapon Fighting feats specify that you must make the attacks with your offhand weapon. I cannot find anywhere that says you must make your normal attacks with your primary hand weapon.

So, provided that you accept the -2 To Hit, 1/2 Strength to Damage, and invest in the correct feats is it possible to simply make every attack with your offhand and save yourself the expense of having to enchant two weapons?
wrecan
04-01-08, 09:20 AM What's the point? What feats give you benefits for offhand weapon fighting alone?
GoBackToRussia
04-01-08, 09:24 AM Not really - the SRD actually states this

If you wield a second weapon in your off hand, you can get one extra attack per round with that weapon. 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 when you fight this way

Having the two weapon fighting feat and/or a light weapon in the off-hnd merely lowers these penalties, and improved two weapon fighting gives extra attack with the off hand weapon.

Only way to get more attacks with one weapon is thru high BAB I believe (and cleaves)??
LSMFT
04-01-08, 11:19 AM The Two-Weapon Fighting feats specify that you must make the attacks with your offhand weapon. I cannot find anywhere that says you must make your normal attacks with your primary hand weapon.If you wield a second weapon in your off hand, you can get one extra attack per round with that weapon.GoBackToRussia gave it to you. That rule, describing two-weapon fighting in general, is found in the Combat section, not in the Feats chapter.
GoBackToRussia
04-01-08, 11:39 AM GoBackToRussia gave it to you. That rule, describing two-weapon fighting in general, is found in the Combat section, not in the Feats chapter.

I'm currently playing a fighter with lots of shield feats - one of which is Shield Charge (thought it would be quite fun) from PHB2. In effect, if you hit with a sheld bash at the end of a charge, you can make a free trip attack - if you win your oppenent is knocked prone.

I have assumed that I have to take a -2 (have got agile shield fighter as well) on this charge attack as the shield is off-hand - which counters the +2 from the charge. Is this correct??
Iry
04-01-08, 12:42 PM Not really - the SRD actually states this

If you wield a second weapon in your off hand, you can get one extra attack per round with that weapon. 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 when you fight this way

I appreciate you having looked that up, but it actually doesn't answer my question.

Let me try to give an example: You are a level 6 Ranger, with Improved Two Weapon Fighting. In your primary hand you wield a non-magical Sickle. In your off-hand you wield a Flaming, Shocking, +1 Sickle. You should receive 4 attacks (two normal, two offhand). You spend your four attacks using nothing but your offhand to make all four attacks, receiving the benefit of your highly enchanted weapon on all four of the attacks.

I'm looking for a rule that specifies that you must use your primary hand to make your normal attacks, as opposed to expending all your normal attacks and Two Weapon Fighting Feat attacks with the offhand.
LSMFT
04-01-08, 12:43 PM GoBackToRussia:
This is the most interesting question I've read in a while. (I have no life though.)

Some rules:

Off Hand
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.

If you wield a second weapon in your off hand, you can get one extra attack per round with that weapon. 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 when you fight this way. You can reduce these penalties in two ways:
• If your off-hand weapon is light, the penalties are reduced by 2 each. (An unarmed strike is always considered light.)
• The Two-Weapon Fighting feat lessens the primary hand penalty by 2, and the off-hand penalty by 6.

If a normal character (i.e. a character without the multiattack and/or multidexterity feats) wields a second weapon (fights two handed), that character can get one extra attack per round with that weapon. Fighting in this way is very hard, however, and the character suffers a -6 penalty for regular attacks with the first hand and a -10 penalty to the attack with a other hand. A character can reduce these stiff penalties in three ways:
* If a character's second weapon is light, the penalties are reduced by 2 each.
* The Ambidexterity feat reduces the penalty against the second weapon by 4.
* The Two-Weapon Fighting feat reduces both penalties by 2.

The definition of "off-hand" is part of the current edition. So, presumably, are its penalties, though, this is only found in the glossary. It is not in the actual Combat section of the PHB. (There, it mentions only the part about the 1/2 damage, and nothing about the to-hit penalty.)

Strictly speaking, the rule on off-hand to-hit is in the 3.5 PHB. No way to alleviate them exists.

My hunch though is that the penalties went away entirely, and that the glossary reference is a mistake. Just like the benefits of Ambidexterity were rolled into the Two-Weapon Fighting feat, the penalties were rolled into those for fighting with two weapons. Hunches aren't RAW though.

BUT:
Can a character make a shield bash attack using the
shield as a primary weapon or can it be used only as an offhand
weapon?
While the rules describe a shield bash as an off-hand
weapon, that’s simply an assumption (that your primary hand is
holding a weapon). There’s nothing stopping you from
declaring your shield bash as your primary weapon. Of course,
that means that any attack you make with your other hand
becomes a secondary weapon.This seems to suggest that primary/off-hand is simply a matter of declaration.
LSMFT
04-01-08, 12:50 PM I appreciate you having looked that up, but it actually doesn't answer my question.Yes, it does: IF you wield a SECOND weapon, you gain an extra attack. You gain nothing by just incidentally holding a weapon in your other hand.
mvincent
04-01-08, 12:53 PM Yes, it does: IF you wield a SECOND weapon, you gain an extra attack. You gain nothing by just incidentally holding a weapon in your other hand.That is incorrect. You can wield (i.e. threaten with) a second weapon without attacking with it, and without taking TWF'ing penalties.
LSMFT
04-01-08, 01:10 PM That's true. You can threaten with it. But can you gain an extra attack?

The way the word wielded is used can create some ambiguity. In the section on AoOs, it has to mean “held” and able to use.

But, in the section on two-weapon fighting, you gain a second attack. Where did the first attack come from? It has to be from the primary weapon that you wielded, as in actually attacked with.

Really, how is holding something in my right hand supposed to make me faster, able to make more attacks, with my left?

The rules are for two-weapon fighting. If you aren't actually using two weapons to fight, you don't gain any benefits from those rules. (Or suffer any of the penalties.)
mvincent
04-01-08, 01:16 PM how is holding something in my right hand supposed to make me faster, able to make more attacks, with my left?Ah... I just reread the original question. Yes, you are correct, you cannot gain the extra TWF'ing attack(s) while attacking with only one weapon.
Tegemea
04-02-08, 10:28 AM Just another take on the question:

It seems that you are proposing that the four attacks given by the two-weapon fighting feats can be used interchangeably with either weapon, at the choice of the wielder. The existing RAW example I can think of this is a monk's flurry, that actually is written to work interchangeably. Since the flurry description distinctly outlines interchangeability as part of the special ability, and the two-weapon fighting feat or combat descriptions do not use this language (that I know of), I would rule that you cannot use one of the two weapons for all 4 attacks. One weapon would provide two attacks, and the other would provide the other two.

As to determining which weapon is the primary and which the secondary - I think as a DM, I would say that if you've spent the feat on two-weapon fighting, It seems fair to allow you to designate either hand as primary on a round-by round basis.
GoBackToRussia
04-02-08, 11:40 AM I think someone pointed out - why bother???

The answer to your original question and the one you clarified with the scimitar example is NO!! You cannot make all four attacks with your off hand in the same way you cannot make all four attacks with your main hand. Wielding two weapons simply gives you extra attack(s) because you are wielding two weapons.

The AoO example again - why bother?? You only get one (unless you've got combat reflexes), common sense would dictate you use your main hand - think about what the attack is - opportunity - you'd naturally react with your favoured hand. Just stick with the better weapon in your main hand like everyone else does and stop trying to complicate matters!!!
Toki_Wartooth
04-02-08, 12:13 PM stop trying to complicate matters!!!"Windle shook his head sadly. Five exclamation marks, the sure sign of an insane mind." -- Terry Pratchett, Reaper Man
GoBackToRussia
04-04-08, 08:27 AM :D :D :D

I like it!!!!!!
heffroncm
04-04-08, 11:11 AM As to determining which weapon is the primary and which the secondary - I think as a DM, I would say that if you've spent the feat on two-weapon fighting, It seems fair to allow you to designate either hand as primary on a round-by round basis.

Characters in D&D are automatically considered ambidextrous in any case. Any level 1 Commoner with Toughness can freely designate which hand is 'primary' on a round by round basis. See the 3.5 FAQ entry on Shield Bash earlier in the thread for confirmation.
Iry
04-07-08, 03:59 AM Just another take on the question:

It seems that you are proposing that the four attacks given by the two-weapon fighting feats can be used interchangeably with either weapon, at the choice of the wielder. The existing RAW example I can think of this is a monk's flurry, that actually is written to work interchangeably. Since the flurry description distinctly outlines interchangeability as part of the special ability, and the two-weapon fighting feat or combat descriptions do not use this language (that I know of), I would rule that you cannot use one of the two weapons for all 4 attacks. One weapon would provide two attacks, and the other would provide the other two.

The nature of the original question comes down to, "What is a normal attack?", and to a far lesser degree, "What does it mean to wield?"

For the first question, we have to ask whether or not a normal attack and its iterative attacks allow you to designate any usable weapon. For instance, you hold a Longsword in your main hand, a shield in your offhand, and wear armor spikes. Could you then chose to make all your normal attacks with just the spikes? Could you make them all be shield bashes? Could you safely mix and match without actually making any more attacks than you are normally allowed to make?

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Iry 04-01-08, 06:12 AM	I'm rather into RAW and was curious about the use of Two-Weapon Fighting. The Two-Weapon Fighting feats specify that you must make the attacks with your offhand weapon. I cannot find anywhere that says you must make your normal attacks with your primary hand weapon. So, provided that you accept the -2 To Hit, 1/2 Strength to Damage, and invest in the correct feats is it possible to simply make every attack with your offhand and save yourself the expense of having to enchant two weapons?
wrecan 04-01-08, 09:20 AM	What's the point? What feats give you benefits for offhand weapon fighting alone?
GoBackToRussia 04-01-08, 09:24 AM	Not really - the SRD actually states this If you wield a second weapon in your off hand, you can get one extra attack per round with that weapon. 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 when you fight this way Having the two weapon fighting feat and/or a light weapon in the off-hnd merely lowers these penalties, and improved two weapon fighting gives extra attack with the off hand weapon. Only way to get more attacks with one weapon is thru high BAB I believe (and cleaves)??
LSMFT 04-01-08, 11:19 AM	The Two-Weapon Fighting feats specify that you must make the attacks with your offhand weapon. I cannot find anywhere that says you must make your normal attacks with your primary hand weapon.If you wield a second weapon in your off hand, you can get one extra attack per round with that weapon.GoBackToRussia gave it to you. That rule, describing two-weapon fighting in general, is found in the Combat section, not in the Feats chapter.
GoBackToRussia 04-01-08, 11:39 AM	GoBackToRussia gave it to you. That rule, describing two-weapon fighting in general, is found in the Combat section, not in the Feats chapter. I'm currently playing a fighter with lots of shield feats - one of which is Shield Charge (thought it would be quite fun) from PHB2. In effect, if you hit with a sheld bash at the end of a charge, you can make a free trip attack - if you win your oppenent is knocked prone. I have assumed that I have to take a -2 (have got agile shield fighter as well) on this charge attack as the shield is off-hand - which counters the +2 from the charge. Is this correct??
Iry 04-01-08, 12:42 PM	Not really - the SRD actually states this If you wield a second weapon in your off hand, you can get one extra attack per round with that weapon. 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 when you fight this way I appreciate you having looked that up, but it actually doesn't answer my question. Let me try to give an example: You are a level 6 Ranger, with Improved Two Weapon Fighting. In your primary hand you wield a non-magical Sickle. In your off-hand you wield a Flaming, Shocking, +1 Sickle. You should receive 4 attacks (two normal, two offhand). You spend your four attacks using nothing but your offhand to make all four attacks, receiving the benefit of your highly enchanted weapon on all four of the attacks. I'm looking for a rule that specifies that you must use your primary hand to make your normal attacks, as opposed to expending all your normal attacks and Two Weapon Fighting Feat attacks with the offhand.
LSMFT 04-01-08, 12:43 PM	GoBackToRussia: This is the most interesting question I've read in a while. (I have no life though.) Some rules: Off Hand 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. If you wield a second weapon in your off hand, you can get one extra attack per round with that weapon. 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 when you fight this way. You can reduce these penalties in two ways: • If your off-hand weapon is light, the penalties are reduced by 2 each. (An unarmed strike is always considered light.) • The Two-Weapon Fighting feat lessens the primary hand penalty by 2, and the off-hand penalty by 6. If a normal character (i.e. a character without the multiattack and/or multidexterity feats) wields a second weapon (fights two handed), that character can get one extra attack per round with that weapon. Fighting in this way is very hard, however, and the character suffers a -6 penalty for regular attacks with the first hand and a -10 penalty to the attack with a other hand. A character can reduce these stiff penalties in three ways: * If a character's second weapon is light, the penalties are reduced by 2 each. * The Ambidexterity feat reduces the penalty against the second weapon by 4. * The Two-Weapon Fighting feat reduces both penalties by 2. The definition of "off-hand" is part of the current edition. So, presumably, are its penalties, though, this is only found in the glossary. It is not in the actual Combat section of the PHB. (There, it mentions only the part about the 1/2 damage, and nothing about the to-hit penalty.) Strictly speaking, the rule on off-hand to-hit is in the 3.5 PHB. No way to alleviate them exists. My hunch though is that the penalties went away entirely, and that the glossary reference is a mistake. Just like the benefits of Ambidexterity were rolled into the Two-Weapon Fighting feat, the penalties were rolled into those for fighting with two weapons. Hunches aren't RAW though. BUT: Can a character make a shield bash attack using the shield as a primary weapon or can it be used only as an offhand weapon? While the rules describe a shield bash as an off-hand weapon, that’s simply an assumption (that your primary hand is holding a weapon). There’s nothing stopping you from declaring your shield bash as your primary weapon. Of course, that means that any attack you make with your other hand becomes a secondary weapon.This seems to suggest that primary/off-hand is simply a matter of declaration.
LSMFT 04-01-08, 12:50 PM	I appreciate you having looked that up, but it actually doesn't answer my question.Yes, it does: IF you wield a SECOND weapon, you gain an extra attack. You gain nothing by just incidentally holding a weapon in your other hand.
mvincent 04-01-08, 12:53 PM	Yes, it does: IF you wield a SECOND weapon, you gain an extra attack. You gain nothing by just incidentally holding a weapon in your other hand.That is incorrect. You can wield (i.e. threaten with) a second weapon without attacking with it, and without taking TWF'ing penalties.
LSMFT 04-01-08, 01:10 PM	That's true. You can threaten with it. But can you gain an extra attack? The way the word wielded is used can create some ambiguity. In the section on AoOs, it has to mean “held” and able to use. But, in the section on two-weapon fighting, you gain a second attack. Where did the first attack come from? It has to be from the primary weapon that you wielded, as in actually attacked with. Really, how is holding something in my right hand supposed to make me faster, able to make more attacks, with my left? The rules are for two-weapon fighting. If you aren't actually using two weapons to fight, you don't gain any benefits from those rules. (Or suffer any of the penalties.)
mvincent 04-01-08, 01:16 PM	how is holding something in my right hand supposed to make me faster, able to make more attacks, with my left?Ah... I just reread the original question. Yes, you are correct, you cannot gain the extra TWF'ing attack(s) while attacking with only one weapon.
Tegemea 04-02-08, 10:28 AM	Just another take on the question: It seems that you are proposing that the four attacks given by the two-weapon fighting feats can be used interchangeably with either weapon, at the choice of the wielder. The existing RAW example I can think of this is a monk's flurry, that actually is written to work interchangeably. Since the flurry description distinctly outlines interchangeability as part of the special ability, and the two-weapon fighting feat or combat descriptions do not use this language (that I know of), I would rule that you cannot use one of the two weapons for all 4 attacks. One weapon would provide two attacks, and the other would provide the other two. As to determining which weapon is the primary and which the secondary - I think as a DM, I would say that if you've spent the feat on two-weapon fighting, It seems fair to allow you to designate either hand as primary on a round-by round basis.
GoBackToRussia 04-02-08, 11:40 AM	I think someone pointed out - why bother??? The answer to your original question and the one you clarified with the scimitar example is NO!! You cannot make all four attacks with your off hand in the same way you cannot make all four attacks with your main hand. Wielding two weapons simply gives you extra attack(s) because you are wielding two weapons. The AoO example again - why bother?? You only get one (unless you've got combat reflexes), common sense would dictate you use your main hand - think about what the attack is - opportunity - you'd naturally react with your favoured hand. Just stick with the better weapon in your main hand like everyone else does and stop trying to complicate matters!!!
Toki_Wartooth 04-02-08, 12:13 PM	stop trying to complicate matters!!!"Windle shook his head sadly. Five exclamation marks, the sure sign of an insane mind." -- Terry Pratchett, Reaper Man
GoBackToRussia 04-04-08, 08:27 AM	:D :D :D I like it!!!!!!
heffroncm 04-04-08, 11:11 AM	As to determining which weapon is the primary and which the secondary - I think as a DM, I would say that if you've spent the feat on two-weapon fighting, It seems fair to allow you to designate either hand as primary on a round-by round basis. Characters in D&D are automatically considered ambidextrous in any case. Any level 1 Commoner with Toughness can freely designate which hand is 'primary' on a round by round basis. See the 3.5 FAQ entry on Shield Bash earlier in the thread for confirmation.
Iry 04-07-08, 03:59 AM	Just another take on the question: It seems that you are proposing that the four attacks given by the two-weapon fighting feats can be used interchangeably with either weapon, at the choice of the wielder. The existing RAW example I can think of this is a monk's flurry, that actually is written to work interchangeably. Since the flurry description distinctly outlines interchangeability as part of the special ability, and the two-weapon fighting feat or combat descriptions do not use this language (that I know of), I would rule that you cannot use one of the two weapons for all 4 attacks. One weapon would provide two attacks, and the other would provide the other two. The nature of the original question comes down to, "What is a normal attack?", and to a far lesser degree, "What does it mean to wield?" For the first question, we have to ask whether or not a normal attack and its iterative attacks allow you to designate any usable weapon. For instance, you hold a Longsword in your main hand, a shield in your offhand, and wear armor spikes. Could you then chose to make all your normal attacks with just the spikes? Could you make them all be shield bashes? Could you safely mix and match without actually making any more attacks than you are normally allowed to make?