A question on attacking with two weapons [Archive] - Wizards Community

A question on attacking with two weapons [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
antsterr
02-25-06, 11:33 PM If say you're character is high enough level to get two or more attacks, can you make them with different weapons with no penalty?

My idea was for a Paladin I'm playing, at 9th level, I'd like to try fighting (mounted) with a lance in one hand and a longsword in the off hand. with +9/+4 for a base attack, can I attack with one weapon and then the other with out facing the two weapon fighting penalties?
NthDegree256
02-25-06, 11:41 PM Short answer: No.

Long answer: You'd still have to be carrying both weapons in a ready-to-attack manner, which is enough to weigh you down with the TWF penalties. If you REALLY wanted to, you could attack with the lance, drop it as a free action, Quick Draw (assuming you have the feat) your longsword as a free action, and make your second attack with that. Of course, then you'd have to go pick up your lance again...
jaelis
02-25-06, 11:44 PM It is not clear in the rules, you'll have to see how your DM wants to do it.

My personal recommendation: yes you can. But one of your weapons will be in your off hand, and you'll take a -4 to hit and only get half your Str bonus. If you have the TWF feat, I play that the penalty to hit goes away (even if you don't actually make an extra attack).
fatal error
02-26-06, 02:15 AM Personally, since you are not gaining extra attacks from using two weapons, I don't think you should suffer the full two weapon fighting penalties. However, you would still suffer a -4 and half str bonus from using it in your offhand.
Ryusage
02-26-06, 07:55 AM you take a penalty for TWF because you have to control a weapon in each hand... regardless of whether you fight with them both at the same time or not...
Romanus_Mortus
02-26-06, 09:48 AM This gets hashed over every week. Andy Collins in Sage Advice suggested that you could switch weapons between hands, or even attack with two different weapons in one round with no penalty, so long as you didn't take an extra attack. His example goes so far as to suggest a barbarian attacking with a greataxe, pulling a dagger, and throwing it at a foe (as a regular two-attack round without TWF) I believe this is in the FAQ as well.

The common argument in defense of this is that someone with two short swords (or whatever) can choose to take a regular full attack, or a two-weapon attack action, and should only be penalized for TWF if they choose to TWF. THis is because you declare whether or not you are TWFing at the beginning of a round.

I predict the phrase "fight in this way" will come up easily 20 times before long, should this thread survive.

For myself - I suggest that it is a little bit munchkinish to fight two-handed like that, but the RAW supports doing so without penalty, as long as you don't take extra attacks with an off-hand. Indeed, the full-attack definition in the SRD explicitly states that a character with multiple attacks in a full-attack action may make those attacks with different weapons, if he has two weapons.

If you get more than one attack per round because your base attack bonus is high enough, because you fight with two weapons or a double weapon or for some special reason you must use a full-round action to get your additional attacks. You do not need to specify the targets of your attacks ahead of time. You can see how the earlier attacks turn out before assigning the later ones.
The only movement you can take during a full attack is a 5-foot step. You may take the step before, after, or between your attacks.
If you get multiple attacks because your base attack bonus is high enough, you must make the attacks in order from highest bonus to lowest. If you are using two weapons, you can strike with either weapon first. If you are using a double weapon, you can strike with either part of the weapon first.

The debate is whether the bolded part only refers to TWF with all associated penalties. The FAQ/Sage Advice indicates that it does not. Those sources, however, are not technically part of the core rules , so the debate is still open.

If I have missed something, I am sure it will be pointed out.
tarkin
02-26-06, 10:42 AM You are incorrect about RAW.

RAW means Rules as Written. Anything written down by WoTC counts as RAW.

Core is probably what you meant. Core refers to DMG, PHB, the MM and any errat written on them.

There are a number of people that ignore the FAQ. WoTC games generally, but not all the time, use the FAQ.

I have never heard of anyone that refuses to consider the FAQ a valid source of information that does not play a Power Game. Power Gamers often hate to admit that they are play Power Games. They like to think they are doing everything "legally" without House Rules, and sometimes think they are better players cause they know about these 'secret' loopholes that are legal. So they sometimes get all upset when the FAQ clearly tells them that WOTC does not expect people to play that way, so they claim it is not 'official' or not 'RAW'. It is just as 'official' or RAW as any other thing published by WOTC. Who gives a crap? You can play however you want to?

Strict Gamers generally admit they House Rule to be stricter than the game. They usually consider the FAQ just one set of many rules that are too powerfull for use.

Loose gamers generally consier the FAQ valid, but will House Rule against it if they disagree. They want to play a balanced game and have realized that WoTC has not done a perfect job of making the game balanced.

Anything Goes Gamers often consider the FAQ to be one source of weak rules, and readily admit they are House Ruling to make the game stronger.
Romanus_Mortus
02-26-06, 11:02 AM Woah, tarkin, chill bud.

Yes, I probably meant to say core at the end of my post there.

That being said, your tirade on power gamers seems a little off-base here.

My point was that the core books/SRD do not make a clear ruling regarding the issue, and that the Sage Advice column (and I believe the FAQ as well) actually seem to favor the more "powerful" option in this case, ie: allowing different weapons in one attack round, without penalty. In this case rejecting the FAQ would make an ability less powerful, not more so - so your rant about power gaming is sort of moot.

Certainly, there are also plenty of folks who do not consider Rules of the Game or Sage Advice to be RAW or core, simply because there are times when the rulings given are obviously (if not always admittedly) houserules that the author personally prefers.

The FAQ is intended to be RAW, only one step below errata in terms of validity, I agree. And as I said, I probably meant core at the end of my post.

I was not trying to comment on power-level one way or the other, only to point out that there is no cut-and-dry ruling regarding the sort of situation the OP presented. I am not sure what anyone here said that required flying off the handle.
antsterr
02-27-06, 09:18 AM you take a penalty for TWF because you have to control a weapon in each hand... regardless of whether you fight with them both at the same time or not...

Does this go for holding a torch in one hand and fighting with a weapon in the other?
A shield is a weapon but doesn't take such a penalty unless used as a weapon with TWF.

Here's another way of looking at it. If someone with +9/+4 did a swords slash for their first move and a shield bash for the second, would that be penalized as TWF?

I guess this will in the end be a question for my DM.
ClementWillowbreaker
02-27-06, 01:48 PM Antsterr, you don't take TWFing penalties for the torch and shield if you are using it for light/AC. The second you want to shove the fire into a troll's face or hit a goblin over the head with your shield, you're now using them as weapons (namely, an improvised weapon that is currently on fire and a flat club that gives you AC if you have the right feat).

As for attacking once with each weapon, you can't do that unless you have a Flurry of Blows feature. Even though you aren't making extra attacks per se, you are taking advantage of two different weapons, including their damage type, material, enchantments, etc. So you would have to go +7 sword/+7 shield/+2 sword as your full attack. An equivalent would also be +7 shield/+7 sword/+2 sword.
pres_man
02-27-06, 03:19 PM I predict the phrase "fight in this way" will come up easily 20 times before long, should this thread survive.
(count 1 :) )Yes, it all comes down to how your DM interprets the phrase "fight in this way". If they take it to mean that wielding two-weapons is what causes the penalties then switching between weapons would cause the penalties (i.e. TWF = fighting with two weapons). If your DM instead interprets this to mean that getting an additional attack causes the penalties, then switching probably would not invoke the TWF penalties (i.e. TWF =/= fighting with two weapons).

I guess from the previous posts, the FAQ takes the second interpretation, but in the end your DM has the final word on it.
mvincent
02-27-06, 08:36 PM If say you're character is high enough level to get two or more attacks, can you make them with different weapons with no penalty?From the 3.5 FAQ (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/er/20030221a) (pg. 15-16):
"If Krusk the 6th-level
barbarian had Quick Draw, he could swing his greataxe (using
his full base attack bonus), then leave the axe in his off-hand
while drawing a javelin with his primary hand (free action), and
finally throw the javelin (using his base attack bonus –5)."

No TWF penalties are used in this example.
ClementWillowbreaker
02-27-06, 09:30 PM This is going to get annoying, mvincent, if we have to keep on posting responses to one another's posts in two threads at once. But alas...

That example uses the drawing mechanics to switch weapons in the normal attack sequence, which is the main benefit of Quickdraw. This is the exception I forgot to mention when I talked about "getting the benefit of two weapons". The important point is that he's not able to use both the greataxe and javelin simulatenously. He's still only using his primary attacks, and would be wielding only one of them at a time. It's a better example if he uses a battleaxe, then you can point out that while the axe is in his off-hand, he's just holding it, and not able to fight with it.
mvincent
02-28-06, 02:07 AM The important point is that he's not able to use both the greataxe and javelin simulatenously. He's still only using his primary attacks, and would be wielding only one of them at a time. It's a better example if he uses a battleaxe, then you can point out that while the axe is in his off-hand, he's just holding it, and not able to fight with it.Would this quote from the 3.5 FAQ be more applicable?:
"A character wearing spiked armor threatens all squares
within his normal reach (5 feet away). If he also wields a
longspear, he would also threaten all squares 10 feet away."
antsterr
02-28-06, 02:33 AM What if say one was holding a Longsword and a short sword but only attacking with the long sword? would you face TWF penalties?
In the example of the barbarian does he have to drop the Axe to make the attack or does he still hold it with one hand?
If he still holds it, it would seem that he can attack with a second weapon while holding one with out getting a penalty.
If you're not getting the extra attacks per round, I don't see why fighting with a weapon in each hand would give you the penalties. In most cases It would would be better to use the strongest weapon for two hits, so it wouldn't be really giving you much of a power advantage.
ClementWillowbreaker
02-28-06, 10:18 AM Considering the 3.5 FAQ also has Bastard Swords flucuate their HP depending on how many hands you have on it at the moment, I take that quote as no more valid than anyone saying it. See my objections in the other thread why letting a character get the benefit of a weapon without wielding it is abusive.
mvincent
02-28-06, 12:07 PM Considering the 3.5 FAQ also has Bastard Swords flucuate their HP depending on how many hands you have on it at the moment, I take that quote as no more valid than anyone saying it.Fair enough: your interpretation on this too can also be taken into consideration by others to help them make their own decision.

The 3.5 FAQ says:
A "character using a Medium lance in one hand while mounted is using a one-handed weapon."

ClementWillowbreaker interprets this to include the weapon's HP.

(Note: discussion has been moved from this thread (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?p=8580803))
jaelis
02-28-06, 12:49 PM Considering the 3.5 FAQ also has Bastard Swords flucuate their HP depending on how many hands you have on it at the moment, I take that quote as no more valid than anyone saying it. See my objections in the other thread why letting a character get the benefit of a weapon without wielding it is abusive.

I'm not planning argue about the rules on this, though I'll note I send the question to the sage last time a big TWF discussion came up. Maybe it will be clarified at some point.

But I'll put in my 2c on the balance issues. Your comments were

Otherwise, you end up with people "holding" 2 +X Defending Boot-Blades, 2 +X Defending Spiked Gauntlets, and +X Defending Armor Spikes, for (X-1) times 5 free AC, without any penalty to his fighting ability. Or a character making each of those Bane vs. Whatever, and being able to optimally attack whatever walks next to him in a mixed battle, instead of having to draw weapons and live with his weapon choice for a couple of rounds.

The defending weapon problems is a problem with defending, not TWF. If you use the entirely reasonable and supportable interpretation that defending weapons don't stack with themselves, then it is a non-issue.

Carrying multiple bane weapons and being able to interchange attacks with them would only be valuable at all if you happen to be fighting those two types of monsters at the same time. That is unlikely to come up, so on the whole you are probably wasting money. Even when it works, I'd hardly say it is broken. You're getting the benefits of bane that you paid for, no more and no less.

For example, if you have a bane elf sword in one hand an a bane undead sword in the other, that is nice when you're fighting a mixed group of elves and zombies. But it is no nicer than the bane elf sword is all by itself when you're fighting just elves. Why is the ability to effectively fight a mixed crowd suddenly broken?
mvincent
02-28-06, 01:08 PM The defending weapon problems is a problem with defendingThe 3.0 FAQ says:
"Using a weapon of defending works just like the Expertise
feat. (You have to use an attack or full attack action.) You can’t
use the weapon like a shield; if you hold the weapon in your off
hand and claim an Armor Class bonus for it, you take all the
penalties for fighting with two weapons"
mvincent
02-28-06, 03:16 PM If you use the entirely reasonable and supportable interpretation that defending weapons don't stack with themselves, then it is a non-issue.Obligatory note regarding defending stacking with itself:

Defending has the following wording:
"a bonus that stacks with all others."
... this is sometimes interpretted as evidence that it stacks with itself.

The wording for unamed bonuses reads:
"A bonus that isn’t named stacks with any bonus."
... this is similar (or even more lenient) to the wording for defending weapons, yet we know that unamed bonuses don't stack with themselves.

Therefore it would be a reasonable interpretation to view the bonus from defending as an unamed bonus (and probably a more balanced way to handle potential stacking problems if you are not using the 3.0 ruling on defending weapons).
Romanus_Mortus
02-28-06, 04:50 PM What if say one was holding a Longsword and a short sword but only attacking with the long sword? would you face TWF penalties?
In the example of the barbarian does he have to drop the Axe to make the attack or does he still hold it with one hand?
If he still holds it, it would seem that he can attack with a second weapon while holding one with out getting a penalty.
If you're not getting the extra attacks per round, I don't see why fighting with a weapon in each hand would give you the penalties. In most cases It would would be better to use the strongest weapon for two hits, so it wouldn't be really giving you much of a power advantage.

The example with Krusk from the FAQ sheds light on this.

Krusk has, at the end of the sequence, a weapon in his off-hand, and throws with his primary hand. This is the best defense I can think of for the "yes you're penalized even though you didn't take extra attacks" position. He bothered to use his primary hand, when he could have thrown with his off-hand (maybe he just wanted his full str mod...)

In your case. IF you used the shortsword to attack, that second weapon is then being used in your off-hand, and thus you are now TWFing and some would argue that you gain the extra attack whether you want it or not.

The solution, if your DM rules that way, is to have both weapons out, and then swap hands (form most DM's this is a free action, even without Quickdraw). This, though, is actually a little *better* because you do not suffer the off-hand strength penalty with your second attack!

If your DM wants to give you TWF penalties even when you don't take an extra attack, remind them that you're already taking a hit to your damage for opting to use your off-hand, and that, hopefully, will cool their jets.

A DM who penalizes you just for having a second weapon "in your hand" when you are not using it at all...that's just mean, and not really in line with RAW at all, IMO. (note that krusk did not have to declare at the beginning of the round that he was TWFing, even though his last attack was made with a weapon in both hands)
pres_man
02-28-06, 09:44 PM Of course he is not "wielding" the greataxe in his off-hand, because it is a two-handed weapon and can only be wielded in two-hands. He is merely holding it (not prepared to use it further).

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
antsterr 02-25-06, 11:33 PM	If say you're character is high enough level to get two or more attacks, can you make them with different weapons with no penalty? My idea was for a Paladin I'm playing, at 9th level, I'd like to try fighting (mounted) with a lance in one hand and a longsword in the off hand. with +9/+4 for a base attack, can I attack with one weapon and then the other with out facing the two weapon fighting penalties?
NthDegree256 02-25-06, 11:41 PM	Short answer: No. Long answer: You'd still have to be carrying both weapons in a ready-to-attack manner, which is enough to weigh you down with the TWF penalties. If you REALLY wanted to, you could attack with the lance, drop it as a free action, Quick Draw (assuming you have the feat) your longsword as a free action, and make your second attack with that. Of course, then you'd have to go pick up your lance again...
jaelis 02-25-06, 11:44 PM	It is not clear in the rules, you'll have to see how your DM wants to do it. My personal recommendation: yes you can. But one of your weapons will be in your off hand, and you'll take a -4 to hit and only get half your Str bonus. If you have the TWF feat, I play that the penalty to hit goes away (even if you don't actually make an extra attack).
fatal error 02-26-06, 02:15 AM	Personally, since you are not gaining extra attacks from using two weapons, I don't think you should suffer the full two weapon fighting penalties. However, you would still suffer a -4 and half str bonus from using it in your offhand.
Ryusage 02-26-06, 07:55 AM	you take a penalty for TWF because you have to control a weapon in each hand... regardless of whether you fight with them both at the same time or not...
Romanus_Mortus 02-26-06, 09:48 AM	This gets hashed over every week. Andy Collins in Sage Advice suggested that you could switch weapons between hands, or even attack with two different weapons in one round with no penalty, so long as you didn't take an extra attack. His example goes so far as to suggest a barbarian attacking with a greataxe, pulling a dagger, and throwing it at a foe (as a regular two-attack round without TWF) I believe this is in the FAQ as well. The common argument in defense of this is that someone with two short swords (or whatever) can choose to take a regular full attack, or a two-weapon attack action, and should only be penalized for TWF if they choose to TWF. THis is because you declare whether or not you are TWFing at the beginning of a round. I predict the phrase "fight in this way" will come up easily 20 times before long, should this thread survive. For myself - I suggest that it is a little bit munchkinish to fight two-handed like that, but the RAW supports doing so without penalty, as long as you don't take extra attacks with an off-hand. Indeed, the full-attack definition in the SRD explicitly states that a character with multiple attacks in a full-attack action may make those attacks with different weapons, if he has two weapons. If you get more than one attack per round because your base attack bonus is high enough, because you fight with two weapons or a double weapon or for some special reason you must use a full-round action to get your additional attacks. You do not need to specify the targets of your attacks ahead of time. You can see how the earlier attacks turn out before assigning the later ones. The only movement you can take during a full attack is a 5-foot step. You may take the step before, after, or between your attacks. If you get multiple attacks because your base attack bonus is high enough, you must make the attacks in order from highest bonus to lowest. If you are using two weapons, you can strike with either weapon first. If you are using a double weapon, you can strike with either part of the weapon first. The debate is whether the bolded part only refers to TWF with all associated penalties. The FAQ/Sage Advice indicates that it does not. Those sources, however, are not technically part of the core rules , so the debate is still open. If I have missed something, I am sure it will be pointed out.
tarkin 02-26-06, 10:42 AM	You are incorrect about RAW. RAW means Rules as Written. Anything written down by WoTC counts as RAW. Core is probably what you meant. Core refers to DMG, PHB, the MM and any errat written on them. There are a number of people that ignore the FAQ. WoTC games generally, but not all the time, use the FAQ. I have never heard of anyone that refuses to consider the FAQ a valid source of information that does not play a Power Game. Power Gamers often hate to admit that they are play Power Games. They like to think they are doing everything "legally" without House Rules, and sometimes think they are better players cause they know about these 'secret' loopholes that are legal. So they sometimes get all upset when the FAQ clearly tells them that WOTC does not expect people to play that way, so they claim it is not 'official' or not 'RAW'. It is just as 'official' or RAW as any other thing published by WOTC. Who gives a crap? You can play however you want to? Strict Gamers generally admit they House Rule to be stricter than the game. They usually consider the FAQ just one set of many rules that are too powerfull for use. Loose gamers generally consier the FAQ valid, but will House Rule against it if they disagree. They want to play a balanced game and have realized that WoTC has not done a perfect job of making the game balanced. Anything Goes Gamers often consider the FAQ to be one source of weak rules, and readily admit they are House Ruling to make the game stronger.
Romanus_Mortus 02-26-06, 11:02 AM	Woah, tarkin, chill bud. Yes, I probably meant to say core at the end of my post there. That being said, your tirade on power gamers seems a little off-base here. My point was that the core books/SRD do not make a clear ruling regarding the issue, and that the Sage Advice column (and I believe the FAQ as well) actually seem to favor the more "powerful" option in this case, ie: allowing different weapons in one attack round, without penalty. In this case rejecting the FAQ would make an ability less powerful, not more so - so your rant about power gaming is sort of moot. Certainly, there are also plenty of folks who do not consider Rules of the Game or Sage Advice to be RAW or core, simply because there are times when the rulings given are obviously (if not always admittedly) houserules that the author personally prefers. The FAQ is intended to be RAW, only one step below errata in terms of validity, I agree. And as I said, I probably meant core at the end of my post. I was not trying to comment on power-level one way or the other, only to point out that there is no cut-and-dry ruling regarding the sort of situation the OP presented. I am not sure what anyone here said that required flying off the handle.
antsterr 02-27-06, 09:18 AM	you take a penalty for TWF because you have to control a weapon in each hand... regardless of whether you fight with them both at the same time or not... Does this go for holding a torch in one hand and fighting with a weapon in the other? A shield is a weapon but doesn't take such a penalty unless used as a weapon with TWF. Here's another way of looking at it. If someone with +9/+4 did a swords slash for their first move and a shield bash for the second, would that be penalized as TWF? I guess this will in the end be a question for my DM.
ClementWillowbreaker 02-27-06, 01:48 PM	Antsterr, you don't take TWFing penalties for the torch and shield if you are using it for light/AC. The second you want to shove the fire into a troll's face or hit a goblin over the head with your shield, you're now using them as weapons (namely, an improvised weapon that is currently on fire and a flat club that gives you AC if you have the right feat). As for attacking once with each weapon, you can't do that unless you have a Flurry of Blows feature. Even though you aren't making extra attacks per se, you are taking advantage of two different weapons, including their damage type, material, enchantments, etc. So you would have to go +7 sword/+7 shield/+2 sword as your full attack. An equivalent would also be +7 shield/+7 sword/+2 sword.
pres_man 02-27-06, 03:19 PM	I predict the phrase "fight in this way" will come up easily 20 times before long, should this thread survive. (count 1 :) )Yes, it all comes down to how your DM interprets the phrase "fight in this way". If they take it to mean that wielding two-weapons is what causes the penalties then switching between weapons would cause the penalties (i.e. TWF = fighting with two weapons). If your DM instead interprets this to mean that getting an additional attack causes the penalties, then switching probably would not invoke the TWF penalties (i.e. TWF =/= fighting with two weapons). I guess from the previous posts, the FAQ takes the second interpretation, but in the end your DM has the final word on it.
mvincent 02-27-06, 08:36 PM	If say you're character is high enough level to get two or more attacks, can you make them with different weapons with no penalty?From the 3.5 FAQ (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/er/20030221a) (pg. 15-16): "If Krusk the 6th-level barbarian had Quick Draw, he could swing his greataxe (using his full base attack bonus), then leave the axe in his off-hand while drawing a javelin with his primary hand (free action), and finally throw the javelin (using his base attack bonus –5)." No TWF penalties are used in this example.
ClementWillowbreaker 02-27-06, 09:30 PM	This is going to get annoying, mvincent, if we have to keep on posting responses to one another's posts in two threads at once. But alas... That example uses the drawing mechanics to switch weapons in the normal attack sequence, which is the main benefit of Quickdraw. This is the exception I forgot to mention when I talked about "getting the benefit of two weapons". The important point is that he's not able to use both the greataxe and javelin simulatenously. He's still only using his primary attacks, and would be wielding only one of them at a time. It's a better example if he uses a battleaxe, then you can point out that while the axe is in his off-hand, he's just holding it, and not able to fight with it.
mvincent 02-28-06, 02:07 AM	The important point is that he's not able to use both the greataxe and javelin simulatenously. He's still only using his primary attacks, and would be wielding only one of them at a time. It's a better example if he uses a battleaxe, then you can point out that while the axe is in his off-hand, he's just holding it, and not able to fight with it.Would this quote from the 3.5 FAQ be more applicable?: "A character wearing spiked armor threatens all squares within his normal reach (5 feet away). If he also wields a longspear, he would also threaten all squares 10 feet away."
antsterr 02-28-06, 02:33 AM	What if say one was holding a Longsword and a short sword but only attacking with the long sword? would you face TWF penalties? In the example of the barbarian does he have to drop the Axe to make the attack or does he still hold it with one hand? If he still holds it, it would seem that he can attack with a second weapon while holding one with out getting a penalty. If you're not getting the extra attacks per round, I don't see why fighting with a weapon in each hand would give you the penalties. In most cases It would would be better to use the strongest weapon for two hits, so it wouldn't be really giving you much of a power advantage.
ClementWillowbreaker 02-28-06, 10:18 AM	Considering the 3.5 FAQ also has Bastard Swords flucuate their HP depending on how many hands you have on it at the moment, I take that quote as no more valid than anyone saying it. See my objections in the other thread why letting a character get the benefit of a weapon without wielding it is abusive.
mvincent 02-28-06, 12:07 PM	Considering the 3.5 FAQ also has Bastard Swords flucuate their HP depending on how many hands you have on it at the moment, I take that quote as no more valid than anyone saying it.Fair enough: your interpretation on this too can also be taken into consideration by others to help them make their own decision. The 3.5 FAQ says: A "character using a Medium lance in one hand while mounted is using a one-handed weapon." ClementWillowbreaker interprets this to include the weapon's HP. (Note: discussion has been moved from this thread (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?p=8580803))
jaelis 02-28-06, 12:49 PM	Considering the 3.5 FAQ also has Bastard Swords flucuate their HP depending on how many hands you have on it at the moment, I take that quote as no more valid than anyone saying it. See my objections in the other thread why letting a character get the benefit of a weapon without wielding it is abusive. I'm not planning argue about the rules on this, though I'll note I send the question to the sage last time a big TWF discussion came up. Maybe it will be clarified at some point. But I'll put in my 2c on the balance issues. Your comments were Otherwise, you end up with people "holding" 2 +X Defending Boot-Blades, 2 +X Defending Spiked Gauntlets, and +X Defending Armor Spikes, for (X-1) times 5 free AC, without any penalty to his fighting ability. Or a character making each of those Bane vs. Whatever, and being able to optimally attack whatever walks next to him in a mixed battle, instead of having to draw weapons and live with his weapon choice for a couple of rounds. The defending weapon problems is a problem with defending, not TWF. If you use the entirely reasonable and supportable interpretation that defending weapons don't stack with themselves, then it is a non-issue. Carrying multiple bane weapons and being able to interchange attacks with them would only be valuable at all if you happen to be fighting those two types of monsters at the same time. That is unlikely to come up, so on the whole you are probably wasting money. Even when it works, I'd hardly say it is broken. You're getting the benefits of bane that you paid for, no more and no less. For example, if you have a bane elf sword in one hand an a bane undead sword in the other, that is nice when you're fighting a mixed group of elves and zombies. But it is no nicer than the bane elf sword is all by itself when you're fighting just elves. Why is the ability to effectively fight a mixed crowd suddenly broken?
mvincent 02-28-06, 01:08 PM	The defending weapon problems is a problem with defendingThe 3.0 FAQ says: "Using a weapon of defending works just like the Expertise feat. (You have to use an attack or full attack action.) You can’t use the weapon like a shield; if you hold the weapon in your off hand and claim an Armor Class bonus for it, you take all the penalties for fighting with two weapons"
mvincent 02-28-06, 03:16 PM	If you use the entirely reasonable and supportable interpretation that defending weapons don't stack with themselves, then it is a non-issue.Obligatory note regarding defending stacking with itself: Defending has the following wording: "a bonus that stacks with all others." ... this is sometimes interpretted as evidence that it stacks with itself. The wording for unamed bonuses reads: "A bonus that isn’t named stacks with any bonus." ... this is similar (or even more lenient) to the wording for defending weapons, yet we know that unamed bonuses don't stack with themselves. Therefore it would be a reasonable interpretation to view the bonus from defending as an unamed bonus (and probably a more balanced way to handle potential stacking problems if you are not using the 3.0 ruling on defending weapons).
Romanus_Mortus 02-28-06, 04:50 PM	What if say one was holding a Longsword and a short sword but only attacking with the long sword? would you face TWF penalties? In the example of the barbarian does he have to drop the Axe to make the attack or does he still hold it with one hand? If he still holds it, it would seem that he can attack with a second weapon while holding one with out getting a penalty. If you're not getting the extra attacks per round, I don't see why fighting with a weapon in each hand would give you the penalties. In most cases It would would be better to use the strongest weapon for two hits, so it wouldn't be really giving you much of a power advantage. The example with Krusk from the FAQ sheds light on this. Krusk has, at the end of the sequence, a weapon in his off-hand, and throws with his primary hand. This is the best defense I can think of for the "yes you're penalized even though you didn't take extra attacks" position. He bothered to use his primary hand, when he could have thrown with his off-hand (maybe he just wanted his full str mod...) In your case. IF you used the shortsword to attack, that second weapon is then being used in your off-hand, and thus you are now TWFing and some would argue that you gain the extra attack whether you want it or not. The solution, if your DM rules that way, is to have both weapons out, and then swap hands (form most DM's this is a free action, even without Quickdraw). This, though, is actually a little better because you do not suffer the off-hand strength penalty with your second attack! If your DM wants to give you TWF penalties even when you don't take an extra attack, remind them that you're already taking a hit to your damage for opting to use your off-hand, and that, hopefully, will cool their jets. A DM who penalizes you just for having a second weapon "in your hand" when you are not using it at all...that's just mean, and not really in line with RAW at all, IMO. (note that krusk did not have to declare at the beginning of the round that he was TWFing, even though his last attack was made with a weapon in both hands)
pres_man 02-28-06, 09:44 PM	Of course he is not "wielding" the greataxe in his off-hand, because it is a two-handed weapon and can only be wielded in two-hands. He is merely holding it (not prepared to use it further).