Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Slider33 11-30-05, 01:37 PM	Quick question: If an individual is fighting with 2 weapons and an enemy provokes an attack of opportunity, does the dual-wielded individual get to make attacks with both weapons on the AoO?
sleepydeath 11-30-05, 01:44 PM	no, only 1, but there is a feat that allow you to do that...
Zherog 11-30-05, 01:47 PM	Only 1 is correct, and keep in mind the penalties for fighting with 2 weapons apply to the AoO.
Slider33 11-30-05, 01:50 PM	Thanks! I didn't know that, so I did it wrong last session. Wasn't too disastrous but I'll keep that in mind for next time.
Plothos 11-30-05, 02:14 PM	Only 1 is correct, and keep in mind the penalties for fighting with 2 weapons apply to the AoO.Although be careful when you apply this. Merely holding two weapons won't incur a penalty. You'll only have the penalty if when you attacked on your last turn you made use of both weapons.
dangerboy 11-30-05, 03:09 PM	Although be careful when you apply this. Merely holding two weapons won't incur a penalty. You'll only have the penalty if when you attacked on your last turn you made use of both weapons. I beg to disagree. Although I've not checked the rulebooks to support this (And of course feel free to correct my butt if I'm wrong) My instinct tells me the reason for the penalties when working with two weapons is because your balance is different when you've got a weapon in both hands. When you wield a weapon, your entire body is involved, not just the hand or arm that actually holds the weapon. I tend to think merely haivng the second weapon in hand affects how effectively you use the other. I'm off-topic, I know, but I just had to make that comment. Cheers! :cool:
Plothos 11-30-05, 03:14 PM	I can see why you might think that, although I don't feel the same way myself. Either way, it's not how the rules work, I believe. IIRC, the rationale given for the penalties for fighting with two weapons are that it's just difficult to fight effectively that way, which I take to be more a coordination issue than anything else. This coupled with the fact that holding just about anything else in your off hand (shield, wand, potion, gnome...) does not generate any penalty is pretty good evidence that the intent was as I indicated. Also, just strictly following the rules, you'll only see a penalty for TWF when you use a full attack, and only then is there specific mention that it will apply to your AoO's and such for the subsequent round until your next turn. If merely holding a weapon in the off hand did that, there would be no need to mention this or put things in this way.
jaelis 11-30-05, 03:20 PM	Only 1 is correct, and keep in mind the penalties for fighting with 2 weapons apply to the AoO. It is not obvious in the rules that the TWF penalty applies to AoOs (although it is equally unobvious that it doesn't.) You have to check with your DM. Edit: I take it back. I think the rules say that the penalty doesn't apply. It says: 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 don't think an AoO can be considered a "regular" attack, so you wouldn't apply the penalty to it. I suppose it is possible that "regular" was meant to mean primary, but that isn't what it says.
tarkin 11-30-05, 03:36 PM	Nope, Jaelis you are incorrect. Reread your own quote, but put the emphasis on the correct place: 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. Clearly, the penalty attack applies to either your regular attack OR any other attack you make with your primary hand. If you go with the off hand, you get a -10.
jaelis 11-30-05, 03:51 PM	Yes, that's right, I'd forgotten that reading. I remembered thinking it was ambiguous, because it could mean what you illustrated, or the "regular" could be read as applying to both "attack" and "attacks". So I will stand by my original statement that it is somewhat ambiguous and you should check with your DM.
Thorak 11-30-05, 03:56 PM	I beg to disagree. Although I've not checked the rulebooks to support this (And of course feel free to correct my butt if I'm wrong) My instinct tells me the reason for the penalties when working with two weapons is because your balance is different when you've got a weapon in both hands. When you wield a weapon, your entire body is involved, not just the hand or arm that actually holds the weapon. I tend to think merely haivng the second weapon in hand affects how effectively you use the other. I'm off-topic, I know, but I just had to make that comment. Cheers! :cool: There's three examples that show why you're incorrect. Unarmed strikes. Gauntlets. And shields. All three are weapons that, especially in the case of the latter two, could be seen to be "in-hand" with a character using/wearing them, even if they aren't attacking. And I don't see any suggestion that merely wearing a shield invokes TWF penalties, nor should wearing full plate or other gauntlet-including armor do likewise. While I agree the text is ambiguous enough that it can be read your way, I think the supporting evidence is clear that it's incorrect.