Post/Author/DateTime	Post
StruckingFuggle 03-16-08, 03:53 PM	I guess that's the best way to put it. Now, hypothetical. Bob has two swords, Lefty and Righty, one in each hand. Bob has a BAB of +6. Now, he can make two attacks at +6/+1 with Lefty. If he desires, he can also make an additional attack with Righty (more if he has feats), by incurring the Two Weapon Fighting penalties. Now, the question: can he make one attack with each weapon - +6 with Lefty, +1 with Righty - as a normal full round action, or does he incur the "two-weapon fighting" penalties even if he doesn't get an additional attack?
RobbyPants 03-16-08, 04:06 PM	Well, TWF states that you get an extra attack with your off-hand at your full BAB, but all attacks take the standard TWF penalties. In your second scenario, he isn't taking an extra attack at the full BAB, but rather, his nomral alloted -5 BAB itterative atatck. Granted, I don't have any sources beyond that to site on this, but I think it would work. As you already mentioned, attacking with a single weapon doesn't take into account which hand it's in. You can freely switch round to round. As long as you're not getting the extra attack, you can probably switch during the round.
Salla 03-16-08, 06:05 PM	Well, TWF states that you get an extra attack with your off-hand at your full BAB, but all attacks take the standard TWF penalties. In your second scenario, he isn't taking an extra attack at the full BAB, but rather, his nomral alloted -5 BAB itterative atatck. Granted, I don't have any sources beyond that to site on this, but I think it would work. As you already mentioned, attacking with a single weapon doesn't take into account which hand it's in. You can freely switch round to round. As long as you're not getting the extra attack, you can probably switch during the round. You are correct.
risner 03-16-08, 07:10 PM	Bob has two swords, Lefty and Righty, one in each hand. Bob has a BAB of +6. Bob has these abilities: 1) He can name a hand primary (either Lefty or Righty) and the other then becomes secondary. 2) He can attack with Primary or Secondary for his +6 and +1 attacks. So 2x Primary, 2x Secondary, or one of each. 3) He can then add TWF with Secondary by paying -2 to that attack (+6-2 = +4) and lowering his attacks from #2 to be +4 and -1 respectively.
dman11235 03-16-08, 09:56 PM	I am SO glad you asked this question! This sort of thinking has confused many people! RobbyPants is 100% correct. If you have two swords, you can attack with both of them, one at +6 and the other at +1.
Waterhammer 03-17-08, 11:34 PM	Only 1/2 (one-half) of the characters Str bonus is added to damage for attacks with an off-hand though. So it is far better to do both the +6, and the +1 attack with the weapon in the primary hand.
mplindustries 03-17-08, 11:42 PM	Only 1/2 (one-half) of the characters Str bonus is added to damage for attacks with an off-hand though. So it is far better to do both the +6, and the +1 attack with the weapon in the primary hand. Its hard to pin-point, but I get the impression you don't actually have an "off-hand" unless you are using the two-weapon fighting option. Thus, if you were to just use your normal iterative attacks, I think they'd all do full normal damage.
Cartigan 03-18-08, 12:09 AM	Its hard to pin-point, but I get the impression you don't actually have an "off-hand" unless you are using the two-weapon fighting option. Thus, if you were to just use your normal iterative attacks, I think they'd all do full normal damage. That makes sense because otherwise every sword and boarder would be at a -6 to their attacks. And I'm sure you could say you attack at the full BAB with your primary then make your second attack with your off-hand weapon at your next BAB since it doesn't really specify you can't. Though I would say that is making an attack with your offhand weapon.
runestar 03-18-08, 12:58 AM	It is interesting to note that off-hand is not defined in the PHB except under TWFing, so it can be construed that the concept of an off-hand exists only when TWFing, and that all PCs are automatically ambidexterous...:P
Vegepygmy 03-18-08, 01:05 AM	Its hard to pin-point, but I get the impression you don't actually have an "off-hand" unless you are using the two-weapon fighting option. Thus, if you were to just use your normal iterative attacks, I think they'd all do full normal damage.I agree.
dman11235 03-18-08, 05:11 PM	Its hard to pin-point, but I get the impression you don't actually have an "off-hand" unless you are using the two-weapon fighting option. Thus, if you were to just use your normal iterative attacks, I think they'd all do full normal damage. And again.
Waterhammer 03-19-08, 12:13 AM	Quite a formidable consensus. :P Are you a righty? Sign your name left-handed. Look at the results, then tell me again how your attack, would work the same in either hand. The same, works for lefties in reverse, I expect. What? You say that attacking with a sword is not the same as signing your name? Well. Ever try batting off-handed? Of course, there are those that can switch hit, but that would be the feat that is no more: Ambidextrous. I'm holding back. Are you going to make me bring the SRD into play? It will hurt.
Vegepygmy 03-19-08, 12:48 AM	Of course, there are those that can switch hit, but that would be the feat that is no more: Ambidextrous.And why is that feat no more? Could it be because everyone in D&D-land (3.5) is already Ambidextrous?
mplindustries 03-19-08, 03:53 AM	And why is that feat no more? Could it be because everyone in D&D-land (3.5) is already Ambidextrous? Nope, its because otherwise, keeping track of such information would be tedious. Quite a formidable consensus. :P Are you a righty? Sign your name left-handed. Look at the results, then tell me again how your attack, would work the same in either hand. The same, works for lefties in reverse, I expect. What? You say that attacking with a sword is not the same as signing your name? Well. Ever try batting off-handed? Of course, there are those that can switch hit, but that would be the feat that is no more: Ambidextrous. I'm holding back. Are you going to make me bring the SRD into play? It will hurt. Of course common sense dictates that your off-hand is less useful, but common sense and D&D RAW have very little in common. Here, picture it this way: You are using a Two-Bladed Sword. Its obviously two-handed, and you are not using two-weapon fighting, just your usual iterative attacks. If I make my first swing as a two-handed weapon with end X, and I make my second iterative swing with end Y, do you think I should take a penalty? Which one is my "off-hand?" Both are technically two-handed swings. Likewise, lets say I have a greatsword and armor spikes. This round, for my normal iterative attacks, I first take a big swing with my greatsword. For my second, I knee him in the guy with my spiked knee armor. Is my knee now penalized because I'm right handed? What if it was my right knee? What if I actually shoulder charged him with my spiked shoulder armor instead? Do I have a "primary shoulder"? In other words, "off-hand" has a very specific meaning. It is the "other" attack you make when using the two-weapon fighting option. It makes no difference what hand you actually use, or if you even use a hand at all (I previously played a Binder who TWFed with a Longbow and Wind blasts from Otiax, which took 0 hands). And I'm actually eagerly anticipating you quoting the SRD to back your claim up. Everything I saw in the SRD supported what I've said, so it means I'll either learn something new (because I somehow missed a line or something), or it will prove that I'm correct for me.
Waterhammer 03-20-08, 01:02 AM	As per request. From the SRD: One-Handed. A one-handed weapon can be used in either the primary hand or the off hand. Add the wielder’s Strength bonus to damage rolls for melee attacks with a one-handed weapon if it’s used in the primary hand, or ½ his or her Strength bonus if it’s used in the off hand. If a one-handed weapon is wielded with two hands during melee combat, add 1½ times the character’s Strength bonus to damage rolls. Note that TWF is not even mentioned in this paragraph. For those who prefer to use books, it is on page 113 of the PHB.
mplindustries 03-20-08, 01:14 AM	As per request. From the SRD: One-Handed. A one-handed weapon can be used in either the primary hand or the off hand. Add the wielder’s Strength bonus to damage rolls for melee attacks with a one-handed weapon if it’s used in the primary hand, or ½ his or her Strength bonus if it’s used in the off hand. If a one-handed weapon is wielded with two hands during melee combat, add 1½ times the character’s Strength bonus to damage rolls. Note that TWF is not even mentioned in this paragraph. For those who prefer to use books, it is on page 113 of the PHB. The problem I have with that quote is that it does not define "off hand." It simply states what we already knew: off-hand attacks deal 1/2 strength damage. It does not say what the "off-hand" actually is or when something counts as an "off-hand." It certainly tells you that you can use a one-handed weapon there, but nothing else. Our (or at least mine if others don't agree) argument is not that the off-hand doesn't exist, but rather that it only exists during the two weapon fighting option. That is the one and only place the "off-hand" is defined and applies. And I want to point you to my previous examples, in which my supposed "off-hand" weapon is either wielded in two hands, by no hands at all, or by some kind of mental force. Please elaborate how you'd rule in those cases and why.
unundindur 03-20-08, 06:54 AM	Ok, in case one thinks there is an off hand its not a problem either, since we are allowed to swap hands as much as we want. Bob attacks with his an axe in his primary hand, while holding a sword in the other (doing nothing). On his itterative attack, he simply change hand and use his primary hand to attack with his sword, and holding the axe in the latter. That way everyone gets their cake. I once asked Andy Collins about two-handed swords and the deflect arrows feat and it is clear that by RAW they work very well together, although he agreed it would be a very sound house-rule to say it could only be done once per round or whatnot. The paralelle is clear, in that you can change grip as a free action by RAW, although a mean GM could rule otherwise.
Nathreet 03-20-08, 07:06 AM	Well I'd say if you don't have TWF then your other hand is your off hand and you incure penalties, but not the additional -2. So your penalty is 2 lower than whatever it would normally be. IIRC they basically melded ambidexterity into TWF, so I'd say with TWF you can fight with one weapon at a time without any penalties. Or even split up your normal iterative attacks across each hand. I don't think the rules specifically cover it though.
Cartigan 03-20-08, 09:29 AM	The problem I have with that quote is that it does not define "off hand." Irrelevant. You pick a hand. All attacks with that hand are at full strength, all attacks with the other are half strength. You can't toss your weapon back and forth and declare whatever hand it is in your main hand. It does not say what the "off-hand" actually is or when something counts as an "off-hand." It certainly tells you that you can use a one-handed weapon there, but nothing else. You're being purposefully obtuse. Our (or at least mine if others don't agree) argument is not that the off-hand doesn't exist, but rather that it only exists during the two weapon fighting option. What he quoted proves you wrong...
Hallack 03-20-08, 10:26 AM	Interesting idea, great for two weapon wielding concepts that are not interested in the gains of the TWF feat tree. I'll have to dig into the rules some more but I suspect that this is one of those cases that there is not going to be a black and white clear cut answer. Then of course we get into RAI vs RAW. From what I have seen so far in the discussion I would have to side with mplindustries in regards to the RAW. He is correct when getting to the letter of what has been quoted so far. The opposite rulings certainly are not unreasonable or without merit. But I think the real bottom line for me in this is that allowing iterative attacks to come from secondary weapons opens up flavor for characters without breaking anything. A +6 BAB warrior taking his iterative attack with a secondary weapon does not trample, main, or ruin balance, nor does it really step on the toes of an actual TWF type. This warrior still only get +6/+1 while the same warrior with TWF would have +4/+4/+1. The only aspect of this that would really affect balance I think is weapon abilities and how they could be used in combination if iterative attacks are allowed from second weapon.
runestar 03-20-08, 10:43 AM	Irrelevant. You pick a hand. All attacks with that hand are at full strength, all attacks with the other are half strength. You can't toss your weapon back and forth and declare whatever hand it is in your main hand. Yes, you choose a main hand only when you expressly perform the 2-weapon fighting action. It appears that you are able to switch your main hand freely on the fly. Thus, say I am a 6th lv human fighter wielding a longsword in my right hand and a dagger in my left. I can first declare my right hand as my main-hand, attack with it at bab+6, then make my 2nd attack with the dagger in my left hand at bab+1, while simultaneously declaring it to be my main-hand for purposes of that 2nd attack so that I need not suffer any penalties. In the very least, nothing in the rules explicitly prevents me from doing this. Waterdeep even goes so far as to affirm that the concept of handedness is not defined in the game (there is a feat which makes you give up the use of your right hand, and states that you are now left-handed if you previously considered yourself right-handed). :)
Dheran 03-20-08, 02:39 PM	Actually, it makes a difference by the 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.
mplindustries 03-20-08, 03:24 PM	Actually, it makes a difference by the 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. I think you might have failed some research papers in high school ;P Could you cite your source? It looks suspiciously like a 3.0 quote, as the penalties for using your off-hand and using two weapons are no longer separate. Irrelevant. You pick a hand. All attacks with that hand are at full strength, all attacks with the other are half strength. You can't toss your weapon back and forth and declare whatever hand it is in your main hand.I believe this was already covered by Runestar two posts up. You're being purposefully obtuse. And you're using words you think make you sound smart so that your lack of an actual counter point looks better. If you are working in the fields of math, logic, law, or anything like that, its not obtuse to need definition. In fact, if a term is not defined, it might as well not exist. This is not just being difficult, this is holding D&D "law" to the same standard as government law. You can get acquitted very easily due to oversights like this. Now, to some degree, I understand where you are coming from. The game "works" a certain way for you. You have an idea of what is meant by the rules and you go with it. Of course it makes sense for an off-hand penalty. Unfortunately, if RAI and RAW do not match, then you technically need a houserule. Nothing is stopping anyone from making a houserule that an iterative attack with a different hand causes penalties (of course you'd have to wonder if/how they'd then be retroactively applied to previous swings...) What he quoted proves you wrong... No, and I explained why. Do you actually have an argument or proof, or do you just like being contentious with me/everyone?
Finarin Panjoro 03-20-08, 04:29 PM	I'm with the group that believes off-hand is relevant only when making extra attacks via TWF. I have a player that wields two one-handed weapons (a whip and a scimitar) and only uses them on her iterative attacks. She suffers no penalties with either weapon. She benefits in that the scimitar allows her to threaten adjacent spaces, but the whip doesn't and she can pick the best weapon for the target (each has magical properties). She would be more mechanically effective using one weapon and a shield, or a two-handed weapon. It's a sub-optimal choice, but a cool one if it leads to a character concept that is fun for the player. Penalizing the hell out of it (-4 to hit, 1/2 str to damage) is just a bad ruling.
Waterhammer 03-21-08, 01:45 AM	I supported my claims with the SRD. Those who contest the claims have not. That is the challenge. Show the rule that says that this: From the SRD: One-Handed. A one-handed weapon can be used in either the primary hand or the off hand. Add the wielder’s Strength bonus to damage rolls for melee attacks with a one-handed weapon if it’s used in the primary hand, or ½ his or her Strength bonus if it’s used in the off hand. If a one-handed weapon is wielded with two hands during melee combat, add 1½ times the character’s Strength bonus to damage rolls. Applies only to TWF. Do that and I will happily yield the point. To date I have seen people who wish it were otherwise, but cannot support the claim with RAW. Why is this part in the same paragraph, if it is about TWF only? If a one-handed weapon is wielded with two hands during melee combat, add 1½ times the character’s Strength bonus to damage rolls
runestar 03-21-08, 03:42 AM	Can I have a link to that quote? I cannot locate it in the SRD anywhere. There is nothing in your quote which suggests that it is all-encompassing either. The article just makes note of how a weapon in your off-hand gets only 1/2 str mod to damage. However, there is nothing in the entire SRD which defines just what an off-hand is or entails. No rule stipulates that I must or need have an off-hand designated (what is to stop me from declaring that I have 2 primary hands)? Can I have a source quote (and a link, preferably) to an entry which explains beyond reasonable doubt just what designating an off-hand entails?:) I would also like to refer you to Waterdeep, take a look at the hand of tyr feat, and tell me what else the designer could possibly have meant when he said "handedness is not defined in the game" that does not lend credence to my part of the argument.:confused: Why is this part in the same paragraph, if it is about TWF only? Because it is possible to TWF with a 2-handed weapon and armour spikes/unarmed strike? You would get 1.5 str bonus on your main hand and 0.5 str mod on your off-hand. So there is nothing about TWFing and 2HWFing that is mutually exclusive. Likewise, I don't think that means anything either. They just slotted in the rules for completeness. It does not necessarily have any significance, so I think you might simply be reading too much into it.:)
mplindustries 03-21-08, 04:30 AM	Well I was all ready to say pretty much what runestar said. The fact is, that you are the one claiming penalties apply to something. If you can't find proof that they apply, then they don't. Period. We don't need proof to tell you things are not normally penalized. And in another way, our lack of quotes is kind of our entire point. "Off hand" is not defined anywhere except under two-weapon fighting (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/specialAttacks.htm#twoWeaponFighting). 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. (emphasis mine) Wow, surprise for me! I was just going to say what I thought had been said already, but it looks like I found the motherlode by accident. Guess that concludes the penalties argument. Now, you may want to continue arguing the 1/2 strength point, I suppose. Your argument is that it clearly says "your off-hand deals 1/2 strength damage." Our argument is that it does not clearly say when something is an "off-hand." Now, its easy for you to say that you obviously have a primary hand and an off-hand. However, "off-hand" clearly extends beyond just hands. For example, once again (as neither you nor anyone on your side have addressed this), if I carry a sword and wear armor spikes, I could use either one as a primary weapon at any time. You can't really contend that on turn 1, I could make a full attack with the sword and deal full strength damage, and on turn 2 I could make a full attack with the spikes and deal full strength damage. Why then, on turn 3, if I make a full attack but my first swing is with my sword and my second iterative attack is with my armor spikes, should I deal only half strength damage on the spike's attack? That means: A) Nobody can ever deal full strength damage on an Armor Spikes attack because it is always in your "off-hand." or B) I can suddenly create an off-hand in the middle of a round by using something else first. Is it a free action to create an off-hand? If I use a full attack with my sword, but use the spikes for an AoO, can I make one as an immediate action? Does it prevent me from changing my stance next round? :p Here's an especially tricky one for you: what if I swing my sword with my right hand for my first iterative attack, and deliver an armor spike covered elbow with my right arm as my second? Both are using my dominant arm/hand. The fact is, the feat Ambidexterity does not exist anymore. Clearly, there are ambidextrous people in the real world, and so by extension, in the world of D&D. If there is no way in the rules to define it, what would stop people from just deciding they were ambidextrous? Where could you draw the line between someone who is doing it to avoid the penalties you are proposing and the people who are doing it because it is important to their concept? No, I'm sorry, but there is absolutely nothing to support anyone having an "off-hand" except when they are using the Two Weapon Fighting option.
RobbyPants 03-21-08, 09:16 AM	You can't toss your weapon back and forth and declare whatever hand it is in your main hand. This actually makes me wonder if you can simply switch the weapons in your hand. Would that fall under a free action? I haven't seen anything explicit one way or the other. It wouldn't count as drawing a weapon. You're not sheathing it. Could you simply hit with weapon A in your right hand at full BAB, swap hands, and then use weapon B in your right hand at BAB -5? If so, this would get rid of any "off hand" argument. Still, it'd probably look silly during the fight. :P
runestar 03-21-08, 09:24 AM	Swapping weapons is a move action, IIRC...:( The only reason I can think of someone wanting to do what the OP asked is simply to simulate the impression of TWFing, but without the penalties (say you don't have the TWFing feat, but still want to swing with 2 weapons just so you can claim that you are dual-wielding, and the drawbacks are simply too great to stomach). Swapping weapons (even if that was somehow possible) just would not convey the same flavour, IMO. In such a scenario, even if the rules stated otherwise, I honestly cannot find a good reason to deny him even that, considering how sub-optimal said move is (you could be wielding a single weapon 2-handed, or using a shield, for example, for even more benefit).
risner 03-21-08, 09:42 AM	This actually makes me wonder if you can simply switch the weapons in your hand. Would that fall under a free action? I haven't seen anything explicit one way or the other. It wouldn't count as drawing a weapon. You're not sheathing it. Could you simply hit with weapon A in your right hand at full BAB, swap hands, and then use weapon B in your right hand at BAB -5? If so, this would get rid of any "off hand" argument. Still, it'd probably look silly during the fight. :P Swapping hands is not a free action. It is a move action in Sage for sure, and iirc it is a move action in Rules Compendium. I also think it is in the FAQ as a move action. It just doesn't feel like a free action, since you have to coordinate two hands together to release from one hand and grab with another.
unundindur 03-21-08, 09:52 AM	Swapping hands is not a free action. It is a move action in Sage for sure, and iirc it is a move action in Rules Compendium. I also think it is in the FAQ as a move action. It just doesn't feel like a free action, since you have to coordinate two hands together to release from one hand and grab with another. Have Sage (Andy) said that? He positively stated the oposite at his personal forum a couple of years ago (still 3.5) when I asked him.
RobbyPants 03-21-08, 10:40 AM	Swapping weapons is a move action, IIRC...:( Swapping hands is not a free action. That's why I asked. Even still, as mentioned, I think the rules allow the OP to do what he wanted. I was just looking for some alternative to get rid of any off-hand definition arguments.
JamesMaissen 03-21-08, 10:46 AM	Why is this part in the same paragraph, if it is about TWF only? It's simply talking about all the different ways to be wielding a weapon. There was a change from 3.0 to 3.5 that removed ambidexterity and the like and removed people being left or right handed. If offhand refers to being in the left hand for a 'right handed person' then let's bring up armor spikes. I can use them as a primary attack, or I can use them as an offhand attack while TWF. I can even use TWF and use them as the primary weapon and use a longsword in my right hand as an offhand weapon. In no event am I using a hand to wield the armor spikes. The problem here is twofold: 1) It seems to smack against common sense. But put into context where a character can quickdraw a longspear and within a 5' corridor simultaneously threaten both in front and behind them with it, it's not all that bad. It's simply an abstraction. 2) It is not how the prior edition handled things. They changed this from 3.0 to 3.5 to make things simpler. -James
Bihlbo 03-21-08, 01:30 PM	Speaking of making things simpler, why is this even an argument? The only possible benefit you could ever gain from using a different weapon for your second iterative attack is if you dropped a creature with your first attack, and you know that the only other creature available for you to hit has DR versus that first attack's weapon, so you switch to something effective. Another possible situation in which this has to come up is if you are TWFing and someone readied to attack you as soon as you started to strike. You get disarmed. So, since you can't TWF that round, you make the rest of your attacks with the other weapon. But the off-hand argument here would be moot because that weapon by necessity, no matter the hand, is your main-hand weapon (and could be used two-handed for that matter, as long as it isn't light). Defining which is your main- or off-hand is pointless, since the penalty for making an off-hand attack isn't necessary in order to balance things. There's no benefit in nit-picking handedness in this situation. Besides, what's the spirit of the rules? Is the game better if you enforce a narrow interpretation of some vague-ish wording in order to force characters that want to fight optimally to make all attacks in a round with their longsword instead of "Sword strike! Shield bash!" for coolness and effect? You already lose out on damage potential by using the shield at all (or holding two weapons, or making a secondary attack with anything but the weapon you wield two-handed), so why nerf the guy with an off-hand penalty if he's not even TWFing?
SALDAR 03-21-08, 05:13 PM	I think you might have failed some research papers in high school ;P Could you cite your source? It looks suspiciously like a 3.0 quote, as the penalties for using your off-hand and using two weapons are no longer separate. Dheran's posted quote can be found on page 311 of the 3.5 PHB. And before the "it's a glossary and not a dictionary so it doesn't count" argument comes up check out the definition of glossary. Off hand is a defined term within the game and exists beyond the TWFing rules. As for the OP, you would be TWFing since you are wielding a second weapon in your off hand.
angryscrub 03-21-08, 06:01 PM	Swapping hands is not a free action. It is a move action in Sage for sure, and iirc it is a move action in Rules Compendium. I also think it is in the FAQ as a move action. It just doesn't feel like a free action, since you have to coordinate two hands together to release from one hand and grab with another. hmmmm. so is it a move action to switch from a one handed grip to a two handed on a long sword, and vice versa? do you have to to take two move actions to open a door while wielding a quarterstaff? or actually three, to reacquire your grip?
unundindur 03-21-08, 09:48 PM	Where is the source stating that hand-swapping is a move action? I still don't think it can be right. And on another topic that I have always wondered is wheather or not you take a penalty to hit with your main hand if you "hold" a weapon in the off-hand, but don't use it. Let say you hold a +4 defending dagger, or a +1 longsword og fire immunity and other nicenessess. As far as I can see this is not two-weapon-fighting, but rather similar to holding any other object with abilities in that hand (shield, orb, scroll, whatever).
dman11235 03-21-08, 10:53 PM	What do you know, we are all wrong. It even defines TWF with double weapons differently. It is however a needlessly complicated method and I prefer our way. It still doesn't address a 2-hand and armor spikes. And with fewer words and less confusion can just define an off-hand in TWF. And the we are wrong thing is conditional. It only defines that in the glossary, and throughout the rules fails to identify it anywhere besides TWF. The way the first sentance is worded howeverIf you wield a second weapon in your off-hand...leads me to believe that the glossary is right in RAW. I however will continue doing it this way as I feel it to be cleaner functioning.
Waterhammer 03-21-08, 11:38 PM	The fact is, that you are the one claiming penalties apply to something. If you can't find proof that they apply, then they don't. Period. We don't need proof to tell you things are not normally penalized. The Quotes I have provided show they do apply. They are the rules for the use of "One-handed weapons". As such they apply anytime you use a "One-handed weapon (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/equipment/weapons.htm#simpleMartialandExoticWeapon s)". And in another way, our lack of quotes is kind of our entire point. "Off hand" is not defined anywhere except under two-weapon fighting (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/specialAttacks.htm#twoWeaponFighting). Actually... I don't believe it's in the SRD, but a rule non-the-less. On page 110 of the PHB(3.5) it states that your character may be "left-handed, or right handed". The PHB is the rules in complete form. The SRD is not. Your lack of substantiation supports your arguement? Maybe so, if your point is, you have no point. Wow, surprise for me! I was just going to say what I thought had been said already, but it looks like I found the motherlode by accident. Guess that concludes the penalties argument. Now, you may want to continue arguing the 1/2 strength point, I suppose. Your argument is that it clearly says "your off-hand deals 1/2 strength damage." Our argument is that it does not clearly say when something is an "off-hand." Now, its easy for you to say that you obviously have a primary hand and an off-hand. However, "off-hand" clearly extends beyond just hands. For example, once again (as neither you nor anyone on your side have addressed this), if I carry a sword and wear armor spikes, I could use either one as a primary weapon at any time. You can't really contend that on turn 1, I could make a full attack with the sword and deal full strength damage, and on turn 2 I could make a full attack with the spikes and deal full strength damage. Why then, on turn 3, if I make a full attack but my first swing is with my sword and my second iterative attack is with my armor spikes, should I deal only half strength damage on the spike's attack? That means: A) Nobody can ever deal full strength damage on an Armor Spikes attack because it is always in your "off-hand." BINGO !!! Actually, you can make an attack with full strength bonus if it is your "Primary" attack. which would be basically your only attack. Unless of course you are that fighter with the +6/+1 BAB, then you could make two attacks with your primary hand. One at +6 BAB the other at +1. Both would do full Str bonus to damage. or B) I can suddenly create an off-hand in the middle of a round by using something else first. Is it a free action to create an off-hand? You always have a primary hand, and an off- hand. Just like in real life. Though D&D's rule are highly abstracted, they are meant to simulate real life. With magic, and other fantasy elements added of course. Note that magic comes with it's own rules. It's not just: Wee! I'm magic, I can do any-what. If I use a full attack with my sword, but use the spikes for an AoO, can I make one as an immediate action? Does it prevent me from changing my stance next round? :p Why would you even use the spikes in preference to the sword? The sword is most likely to have a greater damage out put. Here's an especially tricky one for you: what if I swing my sword with my right hand for my first iterative attack, and deliver an armor spike covered elbow with my right arm as my second? Both are using my dominant arm/hand. Again, I bring the SRD. From the SRD: Armor Spikes You can have spikes added to your armor, which allow you to deal extra piercing damage (see Table: Weapons) on a successful grapple attack. The spikes count as a martial weapon. If you are not proficient with them, you take a -4 penalty on grapple checks when you try to use them. You can also make a regular melee attack (or off-hand attack) with the spikes, and they count as a light weapon in this case. (You can’t also make an attack with armor spikes if you have already made an attack with another off-hand weapon, and vice versa.) The fact is, the feat Ambidexterity does not exist anymore. Clearly, there are ambidextrous people in the real world, and so by extension, in the world of D&D. If there is no way in the rules to define it, what would stop people from just deciding they were ambidextrous? Where could you draw the line between someone who is doing it to avoid the penalties you are proposing and the people who are doing it because it is important to their concept? > snip< Cut out the part I do disagree with. I don't actually disagree with this. Problem is, the RAW does. You say my interpitation of the RAW is incorrect. It is not. Happy house-ruling to you. Cheers! :)
dman11235 03-22-08, 12:26 AM	Waterhammer: that part of the PHB saying you can be left or right handed: it's in the looks, personality, and background section. No cruch at all in there. It has no bearing on the argument. That glossary segment has a small bearing on the argument, but since it's in the glossary and not in the actual rules sections of the book it can be safely ignored, and no harm will come to the game. Now, I'm not really sure how that SRD quote counters his argument of the armor spikes. It says you can use them as an off-hand attack. So...? And answer the question about the AoO. Just because the sword will do more damage, geeze. What if you're wielding a polearm and armor spikes? What then? I'd like to know where it says "...two attacks with your primary hand." I can't seem to find it anywhere.
risner 03-22-08, 12:32 AM	hmmmm. so is it a move action to switch from a one handed grip to a two handed on a long sword, and vice versa? do you have to to take two move actions to open a door while wielding a quarterstaff? or actually three, to reacquire your grip? No that is a free action still.
Waterhammer 03-22-08, 12:58 AM	From the SRD: Armor Spikes You can have spikes added to your armor, which allow you to deal extra piercing damage (see Table: Weapons) on a successful grapple attack. The spikes count as a martial weapon. If you are not proficient with them, you take a -4 penalty on grapple checks when you try to use them. You can also make a regular melee attack (or off-hand attack) with the spikes, and they count as a light weapon in this case. (You can’t also make an attack with armor spikes if you have already made an attack with another off-hand weapon, and vice versa.) I bolded the pertinent part for you. This brings us back to the original bit of the SRD, that I quoted. Obviously, armor spikes are not two-handed weapons. Unlike a longbow, they do not require two hands to wield. Therefore they must be either "one-handed", or "light weapons". The SRD states that they are light weapons. Now the rules for both light weapons, and one-handed weapons read much the same. The difference being, that light weapons gain no x1.5 str bonus for being used two-handed, and can be used in a grapple. The thing both weapon types share is that they both do only x0.5 of the str bonus, damage if used as an off-hand weapon. Again I will point out that the sections I have referenced you to are not about TWF. They are about basic weapons description. The "fluff" supports my contention, and not yours, so it must be discounted? Now, there's a convincing arguement... Not.
G_Mancer 03-22-08, 02:16 AM	Nope, its because otherwise, keeping track of such information would be tedious. Of course common sense dictates that your off-hand is less useful, but common sense and D&D RAW have very little in common. Here, picture it this way: You are using a Two-Bladed Sword. Its obviously two-handed, and you are not using two-weapon fighting, just your usual iterative attacks. If I make my first swing as a two-handed weapon with end X, and I make my second iterative swing with end Y, do you think I should take a penalty? Which one is my "off-hand?" Both are technically two-handed swings. Likewise, lets say I have a greatsword and armor spikes. This round, for my normal iterative attacks, I first take a big swing with my greatsword. For my second, I knee him in the guy with my spiked knee armor. Is my knee now penalized because I'm right handed? What if it was my right knee? What if I actually shoulder charged him with my spiked shoulder armor instead? Do I have a "primary shoulder"? In other words, "off-hand" has a very specific meaning. It is the "other" attack you make when using the two-weapon fighting option. It makes no difference what hand you actually use, or if you even use a hand at all (I previously played a Binder who TWFed with a Longbow and Wind blasts from Otiax, which took 0 hands). And I'm actually eagerly anticipating you quoting the SRD to back your claim up. Everything I saw in the SRD supported what I've said, so it means I'll either learn something new (because I somehow missed a line or something), or it will prove that I'm correct for me. Check and mate
mplindustries 03-22-08, 02:19 AM	From the SRD: Armor Spikes You can have spikes added to your armor, which allow you to deal extra piercing damage (see Table: Weapons) on a successful grapple attack. The spikes count as a martial weapon. If you are not proficient with them, you take a -4 penalty on grapple checks when you try to use them. You can also make a regular melee attack (or off-hand attack) with the spikes, and they count as a light weapon in this case. (You can’t also make an attack with armor spikes if you have already made an attack with another off-hand weapon, and vice versa.) I bolded the pertinent part for you. This brings us back to the original bit of the SRD, that I quoted. Obviously, armor spikes are not two-handed weapons. Unlike a longbow, they do not require two hands to wield. Therefore they must be either "one-handed", or "light weapons". The SRD states that they are light weapons. Now the rules for both light weapons, and one-handed weapons read much the same. The difference being, that light weapons gain no x1.5 str bonus for being used two-handed, and can be used in a grapple. The thing both weapon types share is that they both do only x0.5 of the str bonus, damage if used as an off-hand weapon. Again I will point out that the sections I have referenced you to are not about TWF. They are about basic weapons description. The "fluff" supports my contention, and not yours, so it must be discounted? Now, there's a convincing arguement... Not. Why, then, if I use both a sword and armor spikes as Iterative attack #1 and #2 respectively, must I treat the spikes as an off-hand attack? It simply says, I can use it as a primary attack or an off-hand attack. It never says when or why it has to be off-hand. The glossary certainly may have us on the left-hand takes a penalty thing (though it doesn't explain under what circumstance someone can be ambidextrous), but it still doesn't cover stuff that do not take up actual hands. And while armor spikes "count as" light weapons, they are not necessarily actually light weapons. A jotunbrud "counts as" large, but is still medium. Armor spikes could "count as" light weapons and still not take up a hand. Seriously, you can make an armor spikes attack with your hands full. There is no debate there. It says: "You can’t also make an attack with armor spikes if you have already made an attack with another off-hand weapon, and vice versa." That does not restict me from using the armor spikes and a sword both as primary weapons. I obviously can't take any extra attacks if they're both primary, but I don't see what stops me from using them both. A double weapon, also is not penalized by the glossary's definition. If I use a double weapon two-handed, and take iterative attacks with alternating heads of the weapon, both sides are two-handed weapons, and neither is "off-hand." Similarly, the real-play example I used still stands. As a binder in a recent game, I frequently alternated my iterative attacks between my Longbow and Otiax's Wind Blast. The Wind Blast does not take up any hands, nor is it a light weapon, a one-handed weapon, or two-handed weapon. As for the last part...fluff doesn't support anyone ever in rules discussions. Its not a question of supporting you or me, its a question of not supporting at all. And if you want to argue with that, the section says, "Your character can be right- or left-handed." It doesn't say "Your character can only be right- or left-handed." Nor does it say, "You must choose." Its under a paragraph talking about ways to describe your character and bring them to life. A couple paragraphs down, it says, "Make your lawful good dwarf (or whatever) different from every other lawful good dwarf." Does that mean then all characters must be totally distinct from all other characters? Or at least that all lawful good dwarfs must be different from other lawful good dwarves? Yeah, thats pretty much how silly it is to talk about that chapter during a rules discussion. By the way, I really don't hate you, nor am I angry in any way. I find discussion of rules like this fun and finding information to back my chosen side is like a game. Honestly, if you didn't write in blue, I wouldn't even notice who I'm discussing this with.
unundindur 03-22-08, 04:24 AM	Swapping hands is not a free action. It is a move action in Sage for sure, and iirc it is a move action in Rules Compendium. I also think it is in the FAQ as a move action. It just doesn't feel like a free action, since you have to coordinate two hands together to release from one hand and grab with another. If you have a source for this I would appreciate it, cause I definantely would rule otherwise regarding the "feel" of it. Swapping hands would take... 1/10 second or something, just as loosing a hand from a two-handed weapon. as I said i also find it weird the sage (Andy) would say that, since he said otehrwise in his forum a couple of years ago. A source on this would be most welcome.
risner 03-22-08, 09:23 AM	If you have a source for this I would appreciate it, cause I definantely would rule otherwise regarding the "feel" of it. Swapping hands would take... 1/10 second or something, just as loosing a hand from a two-handed weapon. as I said i also find it weird the sage (Andy) would say that, since he said otehrwise in his forum a couple of years ago. A source on this would be most welcome. Andy also said: In a previous column, the Sage ruled that switching weapons from one hand to the other should take a move action. My group and I thought that seemed pretty long, since it’s only a free action to drop something. Why can’t you just drop it into your other hand? It’s not really true that switching weapons from one hand to another is just like dropping a weapon. When you drop a weapon, you’re releasing it and letting it drop to the ground, with no real guidance (or attention) as to exactly where it lands. Switching a weapon from one hand to another is certainly more complex than simply dropping it. At the very least, switching hands would require you to use one hand to take the weapon from the other and at most it involves using both hands together in a coordinated action. Either way that sounds a lot like drawing a weapon, which is a move action. When you simply drop a weapon, you don’t really care where it lands, and it doesn’t require you to use the other hand to guide the action. I don't have the rules compendium handy (with me) or I would check it and quote page. Saga has it as a move also, and I also don't have it handy.
Fortain 03-22-08, 11:28 AM	According to the Rules Compendium (p.8), switching an item from one hand to the other is a move action that does not provoke an AoO.
unundindur 03-23-08, 07:06 AM	Ok, I yeald, although I find it absolutely rediculous (thus my grounp now have a new houserule).
angryscrub 03-23-08, 09:56 AM	No that is a free action still. heh. so free action to assume two handed grip on long sword. attack. free action to go back to one handed grip. but it's a move action to swap hands. that is amazing. if this is actually the official ruling, then in my book they've hit a new low for boneheaded rules interpretations.
curan69 03-23-08, 02:05 PM	So just say you are grabbing your sword two handed, move the attack to the end, then say you are letting go with one hand ( the opposite one) then attack. Exact same movements, different order. Now you've just changed hands without changing hands.....lol
Knightblde 03-24-08, 09:05 AM	The only reason I can think of someone wanting to do what the OP asked is simply to simulate the impression of TWFing, but without the penalties (say you don't have the TWFing feat, but still want to swing with 2 weapons just so you can claim that you are dual-wielding, and the drawbacks are simply too great to stomach). Swapping weapons (even if that was somehow possible) just would not convey the same flavour, IMO. I use 2 weapons without TWF all the time. I like using a tripping weapon seperate from an attacking weapon. I would also do the same with magic weapons of different properties. I might also throw a few daggers with one hand while attacking with the other. There are MANY reasons to fight in this mannor. As far as off hand - Off hand rule exists. You cannot ignore the glossary. It is a stupid arguement to state so. On the other hand, the problem is even though the rule exists it is never stated that it applies anywhere except the TWF rules. Common sense tells us in the real world what an off hand is. The problem is the game states that you can make either hand the primary hand at different times. It states that whichever is more adventageous to you is fine. I am not sure where this is stated, but if no one knows I will post the source later. While I never would have tried to get full strength out of fighting with two weapons while not TWFing, the OP has a point.
mplindustries 03-24-08, 07:55 PM	As far as off hand - Off hand rule exists. You cannot ignore the glossary. It is a stupid arguement to state so. This has been said so many times, its getting silly. Not a single person so far has ignored or denied the glossary. Its been pre-emptively decided several times that people would, but as of yet, nobody has, and I don't understand why anyone would. As soon as the quote from the glossary was given (and finally cited), all discussion of your literal "off-hand" stopped. It instead moved to the still unresolved area of weapons you can use with TWF that are not actually held in your literal "off-hand." Stuff like Spiked Armor, those hidden blades from Complete Scoundrel, or Otiax's Wind Blast.
JamesMaissen 03-25-08, 12:40 AM	This has been said so many times, its getting silly. Not a single person so far has ignored or denied the glossary. Its been pre-emptively decided several times that people would, but as of yet, nobody has, and I don't understand why anyone would. As soon as the quote from the glossary was given (and finally cited), all discussion of your literal "off-hand" stopped. It instead moved to the still unresolved area of weapons you can use with TWF that are not actually held in your literal "off-hand." Stuff like Spiked Armor, those hidden blades from Complete Scoundrel, or Otiax's Wind Blast. Just to make them feel better... I personally see the glossary as something that got forgotten from 3.0 to 3.5... much the same way that you see hieghtened rays of enfeeblement wands in the 3.5 DMG table that's simply the 3.0 DMG table back when ray of enfeeblement had a save... Likewise if you want to take the glossary as definitive proof of things you might want to be fully reading it. It's got a few fun things there... -James
Waterhammer 03-25-08, 01:26 AM	Check and mate If you ignore what the rules say... The rules are clear, it is your minds that are fuzzy. Insulting? Perhaps. Yet the challenge has not even been answered. Show, with quotes, the rules that allow you to trade your off-hand with your primary hand, at will. Better yet show some rules, that state a character may have two primary hands at the same time. That is what those who raised their consensus against my statement are really saying. That a person may have two primary hands at the same time. The rules do not support this in any way. The rules actually say that a character has a primary hand, and an off-hand. The exception would be when using two-handed weapons. They have their own rules. Bottom line is... Prove your point, With rules Quotes, or shut up, and go home. I have made my case. It's clear, and correct. The SRD supports it. I have brought quotes to support it. Those who think otherwise have not. They have only brought "wish-it-was". With no substance. I have no ill feelings toward anyone who posted on this thread either. I am a little surprised that so many people misinterpret the rules on this matter though. They are fairly plain.
MnemonicSV 03-25-08, 03:43 AM	(Let me first state: I'm in the "Off-hand penalties only apply for TWFing" camp.) So, you think that the -4 penalty should always apply to any weapon you weild in you supposed "off-hand" eh? OK... you do just that. Let me know how well you fight with 2-handed weapons. A 2-handed weapon is weilded in both hands, your "primary" hand and your "off-hand." Nowhere in the rules, nowhere, does it say that the -4 off-hand penalty is specifically waived for two-handed weapon use. You are using both hands to attack. Unnamed bonuses and penalties stack, and this one is no different. Want an example? Grip a pencil tightly in boths hands (to get the 1½ STR bonus of course!) and write out your signature. Doesn't look quite right does it? There's the -4. You can't have it both ways. If the -4 penalty applies to any weapon weilded in your off-hand, then by definition that includes 2-handed weapons as well. No you say? Check the glossary: Nowhere in that excerpt does it say the attack penalty applies to attacks made with weapons weilded in only the off-hand. Stacking rules apply. Or do I need to quote stacking rules? Oh, and that penalty would apply to touch attacks for grappling too. And for making and defending against disarm attempts (sidenote: I don't see any mention of an off-hand penalty when someone attempts to disarm your off-hand). Yeah, that's right, there are places where that penalty would apply that you yourself probably haven't even enforced (yet). Now, does all that sound ludicrous? Of course it does!!! That's the point. Odds are there are dozens more scenarios where applying an off-hand penalty outside of TWFing will add yet another complication to bog down the rules a little more. Is that really what you want? WOTC nixed Ambidexterous to streamline the rules more; Needlessly applying "off-hand" penalties to any scenario where you make attacks with your supposed "off-hand" undoes all of that, and we're back to square one again (ie: 3.0). Besides, whose to say that a part of every character's BAB progression isn't devoted to practicing weapon use in each hand? PCs are exceptional. PCs are, frankly, better than real people. "Real-life" or "common sense" have little bearing in D&D. And what about weapon-like spells? So, I guess now if you're a gish build your have to "switch hands" in order to get the most out of aiming both your sword and your rays? Or if you use the Double Wand Weilder feat, now your secondary wand is a -4 to hit on top of using an extra charge? Now Warlocks will only eldritch blast with one hand from birth? Outside of TWFing the penalty is a needless complication that only serves to slow everything down. Even if the off-hand penalty did apply outside of TWFing, why is it, that after all these many years of 3.5, WOTC has not released any kind of feat to "address" the issue? Don't you find it even a little odd that not a single feat/skill/class-ability has ever been officially released in any book that allows one to use weapons in different hands for iterative attacks without the "off-hand" penalty? WOTC is silent in that regard. The silence is deafening.
StruckingFuggle 03-25-08, 04:40 AM	I want to say I'm still reading this. And surprised at how (mildly but still) controversial and contentious this turned out to be. I dunno what much to add. I think I'm in the "penalties only apply for extra attacks", but with no compelling arguments. (... which then makes me wonder the arguments for penalties and attacks via twf, but with a singe two-handed weapon.) I just didn't want anyone to go "the OP's not said anything, it's a troll!" ... wasn't, so much as I had no solid idea and wanted to see what people thought.
mplindustries 03-25-08, 04:43 AM	Yet the challenge has not even been answered. Show, with quotes, the rules that allow you to trade your off-hand with your primary hand, at will. Better yet show some rules, that state a character may have two primary hands at the same time. That is what those who raised their consensus against my statement are really saying. That a person may have two primary hands at the same time. The rules do not support this in any way. The rules actually say that a character has a primary hand, and an off-hand. The exception would be when using two-handed weapons. They have their own rules.[/SIZE] I'm really not trying to argue that you can have two-primary hands at the same time, I am trying to argue that you can have two primary attacks at the same time. I think the glossary, though as mentioned is probably outdated and riddled with error, is not a source one could argue with. Its pretty clear. Again though, it actually defines "off-hand" as a literal hand. Look at the quote again: "Off-hand: A character's weaker or less dextrous 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 the damage dealt with a weapon held in the off hand." If you take that truly RAW, that means the penalties actually only apply to that (lets assume) left hand. But I digress, that is a silly path to travel down, and I don't want it to be correct anyway. My main point here is that the FAQ actually has a few rulings relevant to this, and while I am loathe to use the FAQ for rules debates, because its just one guy's opinion, it is at least a well respected opinion. Page 39 of the FAQ: "Q: Can a character with Quick Draw and a base attack bonus of +6 or better make a melee attack with one weapon and a ranged attack with another weapon in the same round? What if the melee weapon requires two hands to wield? A: Yes. There's nothing inherent in the full attack action that requires all the attacks to be made as the same kind of attack or with the same kind of weapon..." Page 50 of the FAQ: "Q: Can a character make a shield bash attack using the shield as a primary weapon or can it be used only as an off-hand weapon? A: 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."(Emphasis Mine) And, yes, he can be wrong, so this is not necessarily infallible proof, but it is pretty nice boost for what I've been saying. You can clearly make attacks with different weapons and such during a full-attack action. All of his situations also involve only using the BAB penalty, and I want to point out specially that all of them involve using multiple different primary weapons in the same round. The shield question is also important because it shows a source claiming you can willingly switch your primary and off-hand (in the example, if you wanted to use your shield as a primary attack for a round). Now, I never wanted to argue with the glossary, but it looks like the Sage is...go figure. Now, I am scouring the SRD for quotes that say what you're looking for, but it is very difficult, as I am basically looking for something that explicitly says, "You can do X." However, just as I am not finding that sentence, I am also not finding "You cannot do X." I don't know, I'm inclined to side with the "It doesn't say I can't" sort of argument. I don't think it ever would say that you could use two primary weapons in the same round explicitly because it takes special circumstances to have it come up at all (You need either a strange weapon like a Wind Blast or Quickdraw).
Knightblde 03-25-08, 08:43 AM	It has no bearing on the argument. That glossary segment has a small bearing on the argument, but since it's in the glossary and not in the actual rules sections of the book it can be safely ignored, and no harm will come to the game. Hense my statement that: You cannot ignore the glossary. As soon as the quote from the glossary was given (and finally cited), all discussion of your literal "off-hand" stopped. It instead moved to the still unresolved area of weapons you can use with TWF that are not actually held in your literal "off-hand." Stuff like Spiked Armor, those hidden blades from Complete Scoundrel, or Otiax's Wind Blast. I am sorry if I did not see this thread early enough to post after each point, I only posted as soon as I saw it. My point was that while there is a rule about the off hand, there is also a rule that states you may change your primary hand whenever it is most advantageous to you. TWF (not fighting with 2 weapons) overrides this. I was agreeing with the OP that I think you should get full strength as long as you do not gain extra attacks.
MnemonicSV 03-25-08, 05:40 PM	Hrmmm... now I'm not entirely sure which camp to side with anymore... :confused: I was just reading up on the feats Two-Weapon Pounce (TWP) and Two-Weapon Rend (TWR) from PHBII. Even though it doesn't directly state that you must use TWFing rules to use those feats, there is a strong implication that it is necessary to do so. Both TWP and TWR require TWFing as a prerequisite, and TWR goes so far as to specify an "off-hand" for the purpose of adjucating the extra damage's type. Using the core rules interpretation that the off-hand only exists for TWFing, there is no way to firmly adjucate the extra damage from TWR. Now admittedly, these two feats are worded very poorly for the purpose of rules adjucation. TWP for instance doesn't actually mandate the use of TWFing rules, it just states "when making a charge and weilding weapons in both hands, you can attack with both of your weapons." If it were worded to mandate TWFing, it would probably include a caveat like: "... but if you do, you incur all the normal attack penalties for fighting with two weapons (see Two-Weapon Fighting, page 160 of the PHB)," or something like that. Still... there's the whole unresolved issue of what exactly your "off-hand" would be outside of TWFing rules. Is it anything that isn't your primary hand, or is it just your "left hand" or whatever? The core rules are just too full of holes to come to the firm conclusion that an "off-hand" exists outside of TWFing. Since core rules override supplemental rules, I'm still a part the "Off-hand for TWFing only" camp, but I'm now not quite as firmly entrenched. I really don't think WOTC's left hand knows what it's right hand is doing anymore (no pun intended).
Knightblde 03-25-08, 10:31 PM	I really don't think WOTC's left hand knows what it's right hand is doing anymore (no pun intended). THAT IS SO FUNNY!
Waterhammer 03-28-08, 12:02 AM	"Q: Can a character with Quick Draw and a base attack bonus of +6 or better make a melee attack with one weapon and a ranged attack with another weapon in the same round? What if the melee weapon requires two hands to wield? A: Yes. There's nothing inherent in the full attack action that requires all the attacks to be made as the same kind of attack or with the same kind of weapon..." This still does not free you from having to pay the "half-strength penalty" for using an off hand. "Q: Can a character make a shield bash attack using the shield as a primary weapon or can it be used only as an off-hand weapon? A: 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 argument is much stronger. However, I'm going to use your own strategy against you. Like the so called, "fluff"; the Q & A are not rules. They are someone's interpretation of the rules. Wrongly, in this case. I read the rules on shield bashing. They do not support the Q & A assumption. If you want to shield bash as a primary attack it must be on your primary arm.
StruckingFuggle 03-28-08, 12:10 AM	This still does not free you from having to pay the "half-strength penalty" for using an off hand. But there's the question of, in this case, if an "off hand" is being used.
mplindustries 03-28-08, 04:20 AM	This still does not free you from having to pay the "half-strength penalty" for using an off hand. Well, as I mentioned I'm not disputing the glossary definition of "off hand." I only question your assumption that anything other than your (lets just say) right hand is an "off-hand." I'd rather consider the fact that only your left hand in this case would be an "off-hand." The point was really that you could use multiple primary attacks in one turn through quickdraw, so it was not terribly far off base to assume you could do so with other weapons not actually wielded in the off-hand. This argument is much stronger. However, I'm going to use your own strategy against you. Like the so called, "fluff"; the Q & A are not rules. They are someone's interpretation of the rules. Wrongly, in this case. I read the rules on shield bashing. They do not support the Q & A assumption. If you want to shield bash as a primary attack it must be on your primary arm. Funny thing is, I found this argument to be weaker, actually, because I knew it was wrong by RAW. And I do believe I openly admitted the FAQ was not official, but the sage's opinion is highly respected (thought honestly not by me). As I said, as far as RAW goes, I'd side with you on the shield bashing. It explicitly calls it an off-hand weapon. However, the FAQ does offer a compelling RAI argument for why. It was (according to the Sage) simply assuming that you were using it as an off-hand weapon and that nothing would prevent you from using it as a primary weapon if you didn't use your other weapon. Funny thing is that the Sage making this ruling sort of calls the glossary into question to a degree. The major (read as "only") argument made against the glossary is that it was largely (if not wholly) identical to the 3.0 glossary, which would still have included Ambidexterity. By having a source close to the book's writers (again, admitting its not official in anyway) suggest that people could freely switch primary hands from round to round, it lends credence to the idea that maybe the glossary entry was meant to be taken out along with Ambidexterity. Then there was the point long ago that another book (Watersomething?) actually said outright that there were no rules for handedness and you could switch round to round. It just seems iffy. Anyway, this is just being devil's advocate. I still don't think you've addressed the notion that weapons not taking up literal hands are not subject to the "off-hand" penalty if you don't don't use Two-Weapon Fighting, as the off-hand in the glossary is literally a hand. Likewise, spiked armor specifies that you can use it as an off-hand attack (if you haven't made off-hand attacks already), but does not actually limit you and require you to use it as an off-hand attack iteratively. You asked for something that said I could have more than one primary attack in a round, and the FAQ I felt was pretty compelling (making the same argument I have been making insofar as the rules don't prevent it, its just hard to do).
MnemonicSV 03-28-08, 11:07 AM	The glossary definition of the "off-hand" is simply too vague for rules adjucation purposes. 1) What exactly is an "off-hand" according to the glossary? Just the "left hand" (for ease of reference, I will henceforth refer to the off-hand as the left hand)? But does that include the whole arm? Your left elbow (or forearm that your buckler is attached to) isn't your hand: Should it be included as off hand as well? Is it just that whole side of your body? Right-handed people are typically right-footed as well. If I kick someone with my left foot or knee, will that suffer the -4 penalty whereas the right foot or knee will not? What if I have more than two hands (I'm a thri-kreen or under the effects of girallon's blessing)? Is it my 2 left hands that are at -4? Just the one? All of them? Or is everything that isn't your right hand at a penalty? Your entire body, except your right hand (even your right elbow or forearm)? This just seems to limiting. 2) The glossary defintion of the "off hand" only states that "weapons held" in the off hand suffer a half-strength penalty. By a strict reading that means that anything that is not held in the off hand does not suffer the half-strength penalty (such as an unarmed strike a knee or elbow or shoulder, or any other attack considered "off hand"). 3) Like I mentioned earlier, an even stricter reading of the glossary definition states that any attack made with the off-hand suffers that -4 penalty. Which includes weapons weilded in both hands. Granted, that is obviously not the intention; Rules-lawyers can have a field-day with this though. It does however highlight one-more vagary of definition of the off-hand. Frankly, the glossary "definition" isn't really a definition at all. It defines nothing. It's reference is only in the vaguest of terms, and only serves to raise more questions. Can we really use the glossary as a definitive source? Hardly. It may serve as a reference (at best), but we simply cannot base any conclusive rulings on it whatsoever.
JamesMaissen 03-28-08, 11:42 AM	Can we really use the glossary as a definitive source? Hardly. It may serve as a reference (at best), but we simply cannot base any conclusive rulings on it whatsoever. Since you've enjoyed making some examples.. I suggest that you look through the glossary and you'll see one or two gems that you can use if you are using the glossary as a rules source rather than a quick reference that gives you a sense of things. -James
MnemonicSV 03-28-08, 11:43 PM	Since you've enjoyed making some examples.. I suggest that you look through the glossary and you'll see one or two gems that you can use if you are using the glossary as a rules source rather than a quick reference that gives you a sense of things. That's it exactly really. Despite how some may have misinterpreted it as such, the glossary is not a rules source at all. The glossary is a secondary source: Everything in the glossary is basically a shorthanded version of rules which are more clearly outlined in the actual rules text in the PHB, DMG, and MM. By WOTC's own errata policy, glossary descriptions have no relevance to rules adjucation. The glossary is deceptive in a way I suppose. If it were formated differently, perhaps in a table, it's secondary-source nature would be a little more obvious. Unfortunately, over years of playing and using the glossary as a convenient crutch (without ever questioning it), we've forgotten that it's only there for convenience and isn't really a rules source. I suspect that's the real reason why the glossary doesn't appear in the SRD: It would just be repetition. All this is why we're in a sticky situation for defining what exactly the "off-hand" is, which would have allowed us to come to a definite ruling in response to the OP's query. The only vague description of the off-hand we have appears in a secondary source (the glossary) and, seemingly, has no primary source at all to back it up. We can see a shadow, but nothing is casting that shadow. Does that mean that the "off-hand" description in the glossary now becomes the "primary source?" No. It would be unwise for us to make such a reckless assumption (for obvious reasons).
Waterhammer 03-29-08, 01:19 AM	I guess that's the best way to put it. Now, hypothetical. Bob has two swords, Lefty and Righty, one in each hand. Bob has a BAB of +6. Now, he can make two attacks at +6/+1 with Lefty. If he desires, he can also make an additional attack with Righty (more if he has feats), by incurring the Two Weapon Fighting penalties. Now, the question: can he make one attack with each weapon - +6 with Lefty, +1 with Righty - as a normal full round action, or does he incur the "two-weapon fighting" penalties even if he doesn't get an additional attack? Perhaps we should get back to what this thread is about. Bob is using two swords. One in his right hand, one in his left. He is Not using the TWF rules. However, these rules do apply: Quote: From the SRD: One-Handed. A one-handed weapon can be used in either the primary hand or the off hand. Add the wielder’s Strength bonus to damage rolls for melee attacks with a one-handed weapon if it’s used in the primary hand, or ½ his or her Strength bonus if it’s used in the off hand. If a one-handed weapon is wielded with two hands during melee combat, add 1½ times the character’s Strength bonus to damage rolls. These rules state that a character does, indeed have a primary, and an off-hand. The rules do not, ever state that these are interchangeable. Nor do the rules state that a character may have two primary hands at the same time. This was, is, and remains my (Ironclad) argument. There was a consensus against it. Well, they are all wrong. I am growing tired of this arguement, though. For one thing, I'm not going to use the -4 to hit penalty the Glossary suggests for off-hand weapon use. It is too much. On the other hand, I'm not going to allow my PCs to automaticaly be ambedextrious either. IRL most everyone, is "Handed". I like my games to be as realistic as possible, given the highly abstracted nature of the rules.
mplindustries 03-29-08, 03:39 AM	These rules state that a character does, indeed have a primary, and an off-hand. The rules do not, ever state that these are interchangeable. Nor do the rules state that a character may have two primary hands at the same time. This was, is, and remains my (Ironclad) argument. There was a consensus against it. Well, they are all wrong. It is getting tiresome all around, I assure you. The ironclad nature of your argument, though, as I have pointed out many many times, but you have never responded to once, is that it is entirely dependant on "hands." You are completely correct about the swords. Now, I wouldn't run it that way, but neither would you, and its nice to agree on that. My question comes in with non-handed weapons. You have stated several times that you can't have more than one primary hand. This is true, to a degree, but it also means you have only one off-hand. Indeed, you have exactly two hands: one primary and one off. I don't want to argue the ambidextrous point, I only mentioned it in the past to point out why people would argue it (as the writers of D&D don't seem to agree on whether handedness exists anyway). Anyway, for the purpose of this post, I'm assuming the character in question is right-handed. Thus, his right hand is his primary hand and his left hand is his "off-hand." He also has +11 BAB, earning himself 3 iterative attacks (And while the examples may not necessarily seem like good choices--who would punch for 1d3 when they could chop for 1d8--just pretend its actually a good idea). I think we are clear and agree that, by RAW (though not necessarily by our games), if he were to wield a long sword in each hand and took his second iterative attack with the left long sword, it would not be at +6, but rather at +2 and it would only deal half his strength bonus in damage. His left hand is clearly his "off-hand" as is laid out in the glossary (though it is a circumspect source, we're assuming its completely true and both RAW and RAI). #1 - Now, lets get to the tricky parts. Lets say instead of two long swords, this guy has a double-bladed sword. He is using it as a two-handed weapon. Can he make his second iterative attack with the opposite sword blade (keeping in mind it is a two-handed weapon)? Would he be penalized for using his "off-hand" even though its still a two-handed weapon? #2 - How about this one: Now he has a long sword and armor spikes. As a referesher, here is the entry for Armor spikes (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/equipment/armor.htm):You can also make a regular melee attack (or off-hand attack) with the spikes, and they count as a light weapon in this case. (You can’t also make an attack with armor spikes if you have already made an attack with another off-hand weapon, and vice versa.)So lets say this man made his first and third iterative attack with his right long sword, and his second was with armor spikes. Now, would this armor spikes attack be penalized? Lets clarify. Does it matter how the armor spikes' attack is described? If I use my right knee to hit them with a spike, am I penalized for an "off-hand" attack even though its my knee? If I backhand them with a spike using my right arm, does that count as off-hand even though its most decidedly my primary hand? It says I can make a "regular melee attack (or off-hand attack)..." Its stated as a choice, so why would I ever choose off-hand unless I wanted to get more attacks through TWF? You wouldn't argue that using armor spikes literally requires a hand, would you? As a funny side note: If I swung with my left-hand long sword instead of my right hand, I would technically be unable to make an armor spikes attack, even if the spikes counted as a primary attack. #3 - Ok, in a similar vein, though with far wider applications than armor spikes: unarmed strikes. Lets say this guy wants to punch/kick/knee/headbutt/whatever his opponent for his second iterative attack, even though he's using a longsword for his 1st and 3rd. Would the unarmed attack suffer off-hand penalties? Much like the armor spikes question, would it matter how it was described? Here's the big one: if it does count as an off-hand attack, then what does that mean for something like trip attempts, which are explicitly unarmed attacks? If I swing my sword, does that mean I would actually suffer a penalty on my trip's touch attack? Actually, since offhand and primary hand are absolute concepts, could I ever make a primary unarmed attack that wasn't with my literal right hand? (and I'm not talking about monks here, they explicitly ignore off-hands) #4 - I am a Binder with Otiax bound. It provides a special wind blast attack. It is a melee touch attack, but does not specify what type (light, one-handed, two-handed) it is, or if it even has a type. What would a weapon with no type add to all this? If it is my second iterative attack, would I suffer the off-hand penalties to this wind? If you are not familiar with the Tome of Magic, it is literally wind that surrounds me and attacks. I could have my hands full, I could be lying face down, its a supernatural ability so I could technically be bound and gagged (or whatever else could limit normal attacks but doesn't limit supernatural abilities). I know for a fact I've mentioned all these examples at least twice before, so this is my final attempt to get you to respond to them in anyway. There are even more examples possible, for example the hidden blades from Complete Scoundrel, but I just don't feel like asking anymore. So, yeah, final time: How do the literal hand dependent aspects of the off-hand penalties relate to weapons that do not take up literal hands?
Waterhammer 03-29-08, 03:48 PM	You can also make a regular melee attack (or off-hand attack) with the spikes, and they count as a light weapon in this case. (You can’t also make an attack with armor spikes if you have already made an attack with another off-hand weapon, and vice versa.) I have bolded the key words, that apply. Because the attack is described as a regular melee attack, or an off-hand attack; the rules for these attacks must surely apply. Knowing that: #1 - Now, lets get to the tricky parts. Lets say instead of two long swords, this guy has a double-bladed sword. He is using it as a two-handed weapon. Can he make his second iterative attack with the opposite sword blade (keeping in mind it is a two-handed weapon)? Would he be penalized for using his "off-hand" even though its still a two-handed weapon? The rules say that Double weapons are used "as if fighting with a one-handed, and a light weapon". Double Weapons Dire flails, dwarven urgroshes, gnome hooked hammers, orc double axes, quarterstaffs, and two-bladed swords are double weapons. A character can fight with both ends of a double weapon as if fighting with two weapons, but he or she incurs all the normal attack penalties associated with two-weapon combat, just as though the character were wielding a one-handed weapon and a light weapon. The character can also choose to use a double weapon two handed, attacking with only one end of it. A creature wielding a double weapon in one hand can’t use it as a double weapon—only one end of the weapon can be used in any given round. So, yes, by the RAW, he would. Lets clarify. Does it matter how the armor spikes' attack is described? If I use my right knee to hit them with a spike, am I penalized for an "off-hand" attack even though its my knee? If I backhand them with a spike using my right arm, does that count as off-hand even though its most decidedly my primary hand? It says I can make a "regular melee attack (or off-hand attack)..." Its stated as a choice, so why would I ever choose off-hand unless I wanted to get more attacks through TWF? You wouldn't argue that using armor spikes literally requires a hand, would you? Description of an attack is regarded as "fluff". We are all aware of your opinion of "fluff". You would chose to use your spikes off-handed, because you wanted to use your sword as the primary attack. Armor spikes gives you the choice between primary attack, and off-handed attack. It most certainly does not give you the option of primary attack, and primary attack. You wouldn't argue that using armor spikes literally requires a hand, would you? No, but the rules state that it would be handled as such. Assuming that you made a primary attack with another weapon already, of course. As a funny side note: If I swung with my left-hand long sword instead of my right hand, I would technically be unable to make an armor spikes attack, even if the spikes counted as a primary attack. Full Attack 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. So technically, you can indeed attack with an off-hand weapon first. #3 - Ok, in a similar vein, though with far wider applications than armor spikes: unarmed strikes. Lets say this guy wants to punch/kick/knee/headbutt/whatever his opponent for his second iterative attack, even though he's using a longsword for his 1st and 3rd. Would the unarmed attack suffer off-hand penalties? Much like the armor spikes question, would it matter how it was described? Here's the big one: if it does count as an off-hand attack, then what does that mean for something like trip attempts, which are explicitly unarmed attacks? If I swing my sword, does that mean I would actually suffer a penalty on my trip's touch attack? Actually, since offhand and primary hand are absolute concepts, could I ever make a primary unarmed attack that wasn't with my literal right hand? (and I'm not talking about monks here, they explicitly ignore off-hands) The fact that Monks explicitly ignore off-handed penalties(for their unarmed strikes), strongly implies that the penalties do apply for other characters. Unarmed Strike A Medium character deals 1d3 points of nonlethal damage with an unarmed strike. A Small character deals 1d2 points of nonlethal damage. A monk or any character with the Improved Unarmed Strike feat can deal lethal or nonlethal damage with unarmed strikes, at her option. The damage from an unarmed strike is considered weapon damage for the purposes of effects that give you a bonus on weapon damage rolls. An unarmed strike is always considered a light weapon. Therefore, you can use the Weapon Finesse feat to apply your Dexterity modifier instead of your Strength modifier to attack rolls with an unarmed strike. Bolded the pertainent part. And here are the rules for light weapons. Light A light weapon is easier to use in one’s off hand than a one-handed weapon is, and it can be used while grappling. A light weapon is used in one hand. Add the wielder’s Strength bonus (if any) to damage rolls for melee attacks with a light weapon if it’s used in the primary hand, or one-half the wielder’s Strength bonus if it’s used in the off hand. Using two hands to wield a light weapon gives no advantage on damage; the Strength bonus applies as though the weapon were held in the wielder’s primary hand only. Nothing tricky about it. As for the trip question... Trip You can try to trip an opponent as an unarmed melee attack. You can only trip an opponent who is one size category larger than you, the same size, or smaller. Making a Trip Attack Make an unarmed melee touch attack against your target. This provokes an attack of opportunity from your target as normal for unarmed attacks. If your attack succeeds, make a Strength check opposed by the defender’s Dexterity or Strength check (whichever ability score has the higher modifier). A combatant gets a +4 bonus for every size category he is larger than Medium or a -4 penalty for every size category he is smaller than Medium. The defender gets a +4 bonus on his check if he has more than two legs or is otherwise more stable than a normal humanoid. If you win, you trip the defender. If you lose, the defender may immediately react and make a Strength check opposed by your Dexterity or Strength check to try to trip you. Avoiding Attacks of Opportunity If you have the Improved Trip feat, or if you are tripping with a weapon (see below), you don’t provoke an attack of opportunity for making a trip attack. Again, see the bolded part. We know what the rules for melee attacks are. We know what the rules for melee touch attacks are. Touch Spells in Combat Many spells have a range of touch. To use these spells, you cast the spell and then touch the subject, either in the same round or any time later. In the same round that you cast the spell, you may also touch (or attempt to touch) the target. You may take your move before casting the spell, after touching the target, or between casting the spell and touching the target. You can automatically touch one friend or use the spell on yourself, but to touch an opponent, you must succeed on an attack roll. Touch Attacks Touching an opponent with a touch spell is considered to be an armed attack and therefore does not provoke attacks of opportunity. However, the act of casting a spell does provoke an attack of opportunity. Touch attacks come in two types: melee touch attacks and ranged touch attacks. You can score critical hits with either type of attack. Your opponent’s AC against a touch attack does not include any armor bonus, shield bonus, or natural armor bonus. His size modifier, Dexterity modifier, and deflection bonus (if any) all apply normally. Nothing there to free you from off-hand penalties, assuming they normally apply. It should be noted that spell casting does not contain either the words: Primary attack, nor off-hand attack. So the rules for these do not apply to spellcasting. If you are using one-handed, or light weapons, or even two-handed weapons; the rules for these do apply, even to special attacks such as trip. Remember, the unarmed attack is treated as a light weapon at all times. Actually, since offhand and primary hand are absolute concepts, could I ever make a primary unarmed attack that wasn't with my literal right hand? When you make an attack that is only unarmed it would be the primary attack. The OP's character could make two primary attacks, unarmed, one at +6 BAB, and one at +1. That was my whole original point. It is better to make two attacks with the primary weapon, than it is to make one attack with the primary weapon, and one attack with the off-hand weapon. Even if we were to ignore the glossary, on this, the off-hand penalties would apply, because one weapon will be the primary, and one the off-hand. This because you simply cannot have two primary weapon hands. It's straight from the RAW. #4 - I am a Binder with Otiax bound. It provides a special wind blast attack. It is a melee touch attack, but does not specify what type (light, one-handed, two-handed) it is, or if it even has a type. What would a weapon with no type add to all this? If it is my second iterative attack, would I suffer the off-hand penalties to this wind? If you are not familiar with the Tome of Magic, it is literally wind that surrounds me and attacks. I could have my hands full, I could be lying face down, its a supernatural ability so I could technically be bound and gagged (or whatever else could limit normal attacks but doesn't limit supernatural abilities). Because the Binder's wind blast attack is not specified as one of the weapons types; the rules for them would clearly not apply. Unlike the trip attack which is specified as an unarmed melee attack. Unarmed melee attacks are always considered as light weapons (excepting monks) so the rules for light weapons do apply. So, yeah, final time: How do the literal hand dependent aspects of the off-hand penalties relate to weapons that do not take up literal hands? Because you cannot have more than one primary weapon at a time then logically, the other actions you may take are considered to be off-hand. You can make multiple attacks with the same weapon if your BAB is high enough, however. Between a punch with my right fist, and a head butt, I have to consider the punch to be the primary attack. here is the link to my reference. http://www.d20srd.org/srd/equipment/weapons.htm#doubleWeapons
MnemonicSV 03-30-08, 02:21 AM	Waterhammer, what your argument is utterly lacking in, is association. More specificly, why do you insist on making an association between handedness and primary/off-hand attacks? I can't find anything in any WOTC publication that states right- or left-handedness determines what a primary or off-hand attack is. Although the (intentionally simplistic) examples used in PHB and other supplements may use the left or right hand when refering to primary or off-hand attacks, an example is not a rules source. Far from it. The opinion that a "hand" must be chosen at character generation to determine where your "primary" attack comes from is only an (unbased) assumption. Don't get me wrong; If making that assumption is what works for your game, then sure, go ahead... happy gaming. But it is not RAW... because it simply isn't written anywhere. I know it may seem logically obvious to you personally, but the rules do not necessarily follow your specific opinion of logic. To make this clearer by example, what is to stop me from creating a right-handed character, who makes "primary" attacks with only his left hand? Nothing can stop me from doing that. There is no rules association whatsoever between handedness and "primary attack" sources in the entire game. I could choose anything I desire to be my "primary attack" and there is no RAW principal which can stop me from doing so. If you personally wish to assume that the hand you chose at character generation is the only one with which you can make a "primary" attack, then that is your perogative. But it is not RAW. Now, on to my point: Further to the above example, there is nothing in any core book or supplement that states I must designate any attack source to default as "primary" upon character generation. That means that the "primary" attack is not fixed to any specific source. Outside of TWFing rules or monster attack routines (where primary and off-hand attacks become fixed, and thus relevant), there is nothing in the rules to prevent me from designating any attack I choose to be "primary." I could indeed freely change my "primary" attack source between attacks, and as such alternate between any attack form I possess when using my iterative attack progression, without suffering an off-hand attack penalty. Even if you choose to use the glossary description of "off-hand" as a rules source (which it most certainly is not, see my earlier posts), even that description does not state that it applies outside of TWFing. To insist it always applies, even outside of TWFing rules, is simply non-sequitur. Find the rules association between handedness and primary/off-hand attacks (and quote your source please), and then maybe you will be able to make your argument "ironclad," because right now it is not ironclad at all. And remember, opinions and implications are not rules.
mplindustries 03-30-08, 11:54 PM	Find the rules association between handedness and primary/off-hand attacks (and quote your source please), and then maybe you will be able to make your argument "ironclad," because right now it is not ironclad at all. And remember, opinions and implications are not rules. I have no idea what you are talking about. All his points against me suggested he was actually dissasociating actual hands from the primary/off-hand dichotomy. Now, admittedly, disassociation also makes the glossary null and void for his arguments, as it completely relies on your non-dominant hand being labeled "off-hand," but I'd say it's be more constructive to simply ask how one could disassociate literal hands from primary/off-hand discussions, but still argue the glossary stands. The rules say that Double weapons are used "as if fighting with a one-handed, and a light weapon".Double Weapons Dire flails, dwarven urgroshes, gnome hooked hammers, orc double axes, quarterstaffs, and two-bladed swords are double weapons. A character can fight with both ends of a double weapon as if fighting with two weapons, but he or she incurs all the normal attack penalties associated with two-weapon combat, just as though the character were wielding a one-handed weapon and a light weapon. The character can also choose to use a double weapon two handed, attacking with only one end of it. A creature wielding a double weapon in one hand can’t use it as a double weapon—only one end of the weapon can be used in any given round. So, yes, by the RAW, he would. Let me requote that section and bold what I think actually applies. Double Weapons Dire flails, dwarven urgroshes, gnome hooked hammers, orc double axes, quarterstaffs, and two-bladed swords are double weapons. A character can fight with both ends of a double weapon as if fighting with two weapons, but he or she incurs all the normal attack penalties associated with two-weapon combat, just as though the character were wielding a one-handed weapon and a light weapon. The character can also choose to use a double weapon two handed, attacking with only one end of it. A creature wielding a double weapon in one hand can’t use it as a double weapon—only one end of the weapon can be used in any given round. In the example, he is not fighting "as if fighting with two weapons." He is actually using the second option, where he uses one end of the weapon two-handed. Now, nothing about this description suggests you can't use both ends as alternative iterative attacks, for example, to get both magical enhancements in play. In fact, it supports the fact that I can, by giving the specific example of when you can't use both ends in the same round--namely if you use it in one-hand (which is of course only doable if you're larger than normal or using a homebrew weapon). It even suggests the reason you can't is because you can't treat it as a double weapon. Since you are using it two handed, you are still using it as a double weapon, and thus should be able to switch heads freely. Now, I guess you could say, "It doesn't say you can do that." Whereas I'd say, "It doesn't say that you can't do that." I guess there's nothing that can be done about that difference, so thats that. You can also make a regular melee attack (or off-hand attack) with the spikes, and they count as a light weapon in this case. (You can’t also make an attack with armor spikes if you have already made an attack with another off-hand weapon, and vice versa.)I have bolded the key words, that apply. Because the attack is described as a regular melee attack, or an off-hand attack; the rules for these attacks must surely apply. You would chose to use your spikes off-handed, because you wanted to use your sword as the primary attack. Armor spikes gives you the choice between primary attack, and off-handed attack. It most certainly does not give you the option of primary attack, and primary attack. It doesn't have to give me the option of primary attack and primary attack. It lets me choose primary or off-hand. It is a choice. There are no limitations put on the choice. I don't have to choose "whatever is left." I only have to choose one of the two. The only time I would ever want to choose off-hand is if I wanted extra attacks from the two-weapon fighting option. Nothing anywhere says I can't have more than one primary attack at any given time. In fact, according to the glossary, I only have one single off-hand, so if I have a sword in each hand and armor spikes on, those armor spikes have to count as something. Show me where it says I can have more than one off-hand without literally having more than two hands. Show me that, and I'll agree. Otherwise, I think we're at the same place as with the double weapons. No, but the rules state that it would be handled as such. Assuming that you made a primary attack with another weapon already, of course. (Rules quote here) So technically, you can indeed attack with an off-hand weapon first. Actually, it literally said you cannot make an offhand attack and an armor spikes attack in the same round. I don't think you understood why I said that happened. Re-read the last line of the armor spikes quote: "(You can’t also make an attack with armor spikes if you have already made an attack with another off-hand weapon, and vice versa.)" Its RAW and its stupid. It had no bearing on our discussion, it was just a funny side note. The fact that Monks explicitly ignore off-handed penalties(for their unarmed strikes), strongly implies that the penalties do apply for other characters. Just something minor, it actually strongly implies that the penalties can apply for other characters, not that they do. Otherwise, everything you said about unarmed attacks didn't really have anything that wasn't already in the armor spikes section, so yeah, again, you say, "doesn't say you can," and I say, "doesn't say you can't." Because the Binder's wind blast attack is not specified as one of the weapons types; the rules for them would clearly not apply. Unlike the trip attack which is specified as an unarmed melee attack. Unarmed melee attacks are always considered as light weapons (excepting monks) so the rules for light weapons do apply. Because you cannot have more than one primary weapon at a time then logically, the other actions you may take are considered to be off-hand. You can make multiple attacks with the same weapon if your BAB is high enough, however. Between a punch with my right fist, and a head butt, I have to consider the punch to be the primary attack. I underlined the important sentence that defines your entire argument as far as I'm concerned. Please, show me the reference that says you can't have more than one primary weapon at a time, and I will publicly concede. I am dead serious here. I have never seen a reference in my own searches, or your quotes that says I can't. The glossary does say clearly that my left-hand (assuming I'm a righty), is my "off-hand," but since that is the only place that defines what an "off-hand" is, I'd say, by the rules, that if the weapon is not literally in that left hand, or currently "counting as an off-hand weapon" (via the armor spikes description for example), it is, by default, not subject to those penalties. Whereas you are saying one single weapon is your primary attack and all others are off-hand (and that honestly makes a lot of sense), the rules actually say you have one single off-hand, and give no particular limit to the number of primary attacks you make. As a pre-empt (and I have no idea if you'll even go here, but just in case), multiweapon fighting is not a valid argument here, as it still deals with literal hands. Now, just as you mentioned, the side you're advocating is not the side you'd actually use in your own games, and I want to say the same thing about myself. I actually find RAW to generally be a horrible way to play, but I know it well because of all the changes I've made for my own games.
MnemonicSV 03-31-08, 01:36 AM	I have no idea what you are talking about. All his points against me suggested he was actually dissasociating actual hands from the primary/off-hand dichotomy. Now, admittedly, disassociation also makes the glossary null and void for his arguments, as it completely relies on your non-dominant hand being labeled "off-hand," but I'd say it's be more constructive to simply ask how one could disassociate literal hands from primary/off-hand discussions, but still argue the glossary stands. From his (waterhammer's) earliest posts in this thread he has made direct implications to "hands" themselves being primary or off-hand, even going so far as to quote the PHB section on deciding whether your character is right- or left-handed, and using that excerpt as proof of the "off-hand" being something connected to handedness. I'll admit, he may have strayed from his original assertion somewhat. But ultimately, by furthest extension of my point, "hands" themselves become irrelevant as well, subsumed by the overall concept which I am trying to convey here. My overarching point (in a nutshell: Off-hand attacks are not valid since not defined except where noted otherwise), is not a reflection of your (mplindustries) point at all, and was never meant to tie into your points regarding the nittier-grittier aspects of rules interpretations. My point works around that entirely, based on a separately infallable premise. Outside of TWFing trees (and by extension, double-weapon arguments as well) and other areas where primary/off-hand attack sources are clearly defined as relevant, the glossary is the only reference to handedness applying to attacks, and it is an invalid reference at that. I suppose we cannot agree on the glossary's validity for the purpose of this specific rules adjucation debate (that topic could itself spawn a separate thread). Too many people here just take the glossary as holy writ instead of what it actually is. Perhaps that cannot be helped... old habits die hard and all. I simply don't feel it's possible to be "more constructive" by generating a cohesive theory involving an obscure glossary description that lacks a rules foundation itself. Any argument using the glossary to reinforce it, is inherently flawed. My assertion stands: Without tying primary/off-hand attacks to some (defaulted) quality derived at character generation, waterhammer's point that there is always a primary and off-hand attack (even where not called out) cannot possibly be valid. His entire argument (even when not using words like "hands") hinges on the opinion that there is some association by default that defines what a primary/offhand attack source is. That opinion may be buried under a metric ton of SRD references, but if you look closely it's still under there and as strong as ever. That flawed assumption is what I am attacking... I'm attacking the cause, not a symptom. I have no intention of derailing any of your points mplindustries (I agree with some of them), I'm just taking an entirely different track that, ultimately, shortcuts past even your argument and renders it irrelevant. Nothing personal. By all means keep going with your train of thought; I'd just like Waterhammer to answer my challenge separately.
Waterhammer 03-31-08, 10:56 PM	If you personally wish to assume that the hand you chose at character generation is the only one with which you can make a "primary" attack, then that is your perogative. But it is not RAW. Prove it!
mplindustries 03-31-08, 11:41 PM	If you personally wish to assume that the hand you chose at character generation is the only one with which you can make a "primary" attack, then that is your perogative. But it is not RAW. Prove it! /sigh Must we post the spiked armor quote again (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/equipment/armor.htm)? Armor Spikes You can have spikes added to your armor, which allow you to deal extra piercing damage (see Table: Weapons) on a successful grapple attack. The spikes count as a martial weapon. If you are not proficient with them, you take a -4 penalty on grapple checks when you try to use them. You can also make a regular melee attack (or off-hand attack) with the spikes, and they count as a light weapon in this case. (You can’t also make an attack with armor spikes if you have already made an attack with another off-hand weapon, and vice versa.) Armor Spikes can be added to any armor, even armor that does not include gauntlets. You can make an armor spikes attack as a primary attack even if your hands are full. Ok, there, done. Primary attack done with something other than your primary hand, because it can be done with knees, feet, elbows, shoulders, butt-whomps. It frankly doesn't matter. And it does not become a light weapon, it is counted as one, and thus does still not require a hand to use. For additional options, please consult Complete Scoundrel p. 109-110, which detail hidden blades. They are strapped to various locations including boots, knees, elbows, and sleeves. Though they impose a -2 penalty on their use, they are still usable as primary attacks, and none are held in your hands. In fact, the very point of them is so you don't need your hands. If you meant to ask him instead to prove that it is not the only hand with which you can make a primary attack, then you're basically back to a draw. He clearly denies the glossary (which I may or may not agree with I think the glossary is dumb, but I'll accept it as RAW for argument's sake here), and that is the only place that explicitly says you actually can't make primary attacks with your non-dominant hand by defining them as off-hand attacks. Now, he won't have anything to prove his point with either, but that doesn't make anyone right. It makes both of your points groundless (as far as the other is concerned). Now, that being settled, please address the issue that got lost a few posts up, just as I had feared: Please prove that you can't have more than one primary attack at any given time. You have 3 options: 1) Find a rules quote. I really doubt that could happen, but if anyone could find it, its you. 2) Accept the glossary still, which clearly defines that you have one single off-hand attack, and thus accept that anything not literally in that off-hand must not be off-hand unless it has a special stipulation allowing it to count as such. This means those things become either a primary attack, or something else entirely with no name or precedence whatsoever. 3) Deny the glossary, which admittedly would ruin my argument here in the later part of this discussion. Unfortunately, it would also invalidate your entire argument altogether, because there is nowhere else but the glossary that defines what an off-hand attack actually is. This means my earliest arguments come back into play and need new counters. Check (mate?). In all seriousness, I'm kind of rooting for you to find a rules quote I somehow missed. It certainly would be more dramatic.
risner 04-01-08, 01:03 AM	I'm not going to use the -4 to hit penalty the Glossary suggests for off-hand weapon use. It is too much. So you would allow someone without TWF to attack at -6/-6 instead of the normal -6/-10 for two weapons non light? Because that -4 from the glossary is referring to the additional -4 penalty making the -6 a -10 penalty. Prove it! Done, you will notice no rules in the PHB that requires a primary hand to be declared upon creation. So consider it proved.
MnemonicSV 04-01-08, 02:18 AM	If you personally wish to assume that the hand you chose at character generation is the only one with which you can make a "primary" attack, then that is your perogative. But it is not RAW.Prove it! Er... would you like a moment to read that again? Are you aware that you are asking me to prove that something isn't written in the PHB? Are you serious? Well, okay: Pick up the PHB, then read it. Oh look, it isn't written in there. Proven. Even if you actually use the glossary off-hand definition (despite it's lack of credentials), it really has nothing to do with what I just proved anyway, since it says nothing of the primary attack source at all, just the off-hand. Still proven. The only way for you to disprove this fact is by finding a PHB reference that doesn't exist. Good luck with that.
Waterhammer 04-02-08, 02:02 AM	Er... would you like a moment to read that again? Are you aware that you are asking me to prove that something isn't written in the PHB? Are you serious? Well, okay: Pick up the PHB, then read it. Oh look, it isn't written in there. Proven. Even if you actually use the glossary off-hand definition (despite it's lack of credentials), it really has nothing to do with what I just proved anyway, since it says nothing of the primary attack source at all, just the off-hand. Still proven. The only way for you to disprove this fact is by finding a PHB reference that doesn't exist. Good luck with that. With what, your opinion? You keep saying I'm wrong. Prove it. Saying it, and saying it, and saying it; does not prove it. You bring some referrences, to PROVE your point. If you even have one...
mplindustries 04-02-08, 02:24 AM	With what, your opinion? You keep saying I'm wrong. Prove it. Saying it, and saying it, and saying it; does not prove it. You bring some referrences, to PROVE your point. If you even have one... Seriously, this is getting silly. You can't tell someone to prove that you're wrong if you can't prove that you're right. You are also saying, and saying, and saying that "you can only have one primary attack." You have never proven that. There is no reference to that statement whatsoever anywhere in any book, the SRD, the FAQ, or anywhere else even remotely official. Now, let me recount what happened here: MnemonicSV: You have no proof to back up the very basis of your argument. Waterhammer: PROVE IT! MnemoicSV(and others): What, really? Are you kidding? I can prove it only by the fact that there are no textual references that could possibly back up your point. Waterhammer: So you can't show me a reference in the PHB that says, "By the way, Waterhammer is wrong?" Looks like I win. If you can't prove that I can't prove it, then you obviously have no point. Also, I will ignore the other arguments in the thread in favor of the one I think I can fight the best.
MnemonicSV 04-02-08, 04:11 AM	I think mplindustries put it succinctly (and he's right, this is getting silly). Even so, I'll also try to convey the logical dilemma you're facing, Waterhammer: One cannot reference a part of the PHB in order to prove that the referenced part of the PHB doesn't exist. That simply does not make any sense whatsoever. The answer is implicit in the question. You could equally say: "Prove to me that a stop-sign isn't blue, by showing me where it's blue!" Then following that up with: "Oh, you can't point out where it's blue? Then that's the proof that the stop-sign is blue!" That kind of nonsense might work in a Dr. Seuss or Douglas Adams book, but outside of fanciful humour, that makes no logical sense at all. EDIT: Oh BTW, if you are going to continue to illogically dismiss the proof I have presented, in the very least would you please address mplindustries' evidence (regarding the lack of a text reference that states you can only have one primary attack at a time).
risner 04-03-08, 08:52 PM	You bring some referrences, to PROVE your point. If you even have one... Already proved, you however have not proved your side.
Waterhammer 04-04-08, 12:40 AM	Already proved, you however have not proved your side. The opposing side has only brought opinions. They have not brought a single quoted reference to the PHB that proves me to be wrong. Not a single one. My case shows that the rules imply that my interpretation is correct. The opposition has only attacked my case with opinions. They have not even attempted to make a case of their own. Makes me wonder why.
JamesMaissen 04-04-08, 02:26 AM	The opposing side has only brought opinions. They have not brought a single quoted reference to the PHB that proves me to be wrong. Not a single one. My case shows that the rules imply that my interpretation is correct. The opposition has only attacked my case with opinions. They have not even attempted to make a case of their own. Makes me wonder why. You know at this point all the 'I've proven it' comments only distract from this conversation.. Frankly I don't know what each of your positions even are anymore.. and the idea of reading through 'I've proven it' multiple times to recreate either doesn't draw my interest. Here's a scenario: Character A is wielding a longsword. He attacks with his +6 BAB attack. Then as a free action drops the longsword. He then quick draws a war hammer and attacks with his iterative (+1 BAB) attack. Is this a primary attack or a secondary? What does a secondary attack mean? If it's based on handedness is it always from the 'off' hand? Can it be on the 'primary' hand instead? What are the penalties for two weapon attacking without the TWF feat for a character with daggers in each hand wearing armor spikes? Is the 'offhand' dagger attack at more penalty than the armor spike attack? -James
mplindustries 04-04-08, 04:47 AM	You know at this point all the 'I've proven it' comments only distract from this conversation.. Frankly I don't know what each of your positions even are anymore.. and the idea of reading through 'I've proven it' multiple times to recreate either doesn't draw my interest. I agree, and I apologize for any contribution I may have made to this problem. Its pretty self-evident, were you to actually read through the previous page or two, who has proven what, and it does no good to feed this kind of stuff to someone who has already lost a dozen posts ago and just won't admit he's wrong. Here's a scenario: Character A is wielding a longsword. He attacks with his +6 BAB attack. Then as a free action drops the longsword. He then quick draws a war hammer and attacks with his iterative (+1 BAB) attack. Is this a primary attack or a secondary? This is a primary attack, by anyone's standards. It is absolutely impossible to argue it could be anything but. What does a secondary attack mean? The term "secondary attack" does not exist in any way other than to reference natural weapons. There is no such thing as a "secondary armed attack." As far as natural weapons go, a secondary attack refers to a natural weapon that you use in addition to other forms of combat be it armed or natural. You make an attack roll using your full BAB with a -5 penalty and you can only apply half your strength bonus to its damage. If it's based on handedness is it always from the 'off' hand? Can it be on the 'primary' hand instead? To clarify, there are two possible kinds of armed attacks: "primary" and "off-hand." If it is indeed based on handedness, then, yes. The glossary is the only source that supports the dichotomy being decided by handedness. If you believe the glossary to be a true source, then the only attacks that are "off-hand" are those originating from your non-dominant hand, and in turn, the only way an attack could be "off-hand" is if it originates from that non-dominant hand or the weapon/attack has a special clause stating that it can be treated as an off-hand attack (This is the case for armor spikes). Of course, this a big chunk of the discussion going on. The only source that claims your literal hands and your handedness somehow correlate to what counts as primary and off-hand is the glossary. Many dispute the validity of the glossary, and in truth, it does not even say what makes an attack primary, only what makes one off-hand. Oh, and it does not actually say it is impossible to change which hand is which, when you choose (if ever), or how ambidexterity is possible (which is ought to be). What are the penalties for two weapon attacking without the TWF feat for a character with daggers in each hand wearing armor spikes? Is the 'offhand' dagger attack at more penalty than the armor spike attack? -James You actually can't make any attacks using the armor spikes in the same round that you make an off-hand dagger attack due to a special clause in the armor spikes description (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/equipment/armor.htm): "(You can’t also make an attack with armor spikes if you have already made an attack with another off-hand weapon, and vice versa.)" Thus, I will substitute Unarmed Strike (from someone other than a monk) in for armor spikes and then answer the question. First, Two Weapon Fighting (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/specialAttacks.htm#twoWeaponFighting) is a special combat option. It does not require the feat and does something entirely different from someone who is just making normal iterative attacks with different weapons. Lets assume you have +6 BAB, Dagger A is in your dominant hand, and Dagger B is in your non-dominant hand (If you don't believe in the glossary as truth, as many of us don't, it is irrelevant which dagger is in which hand). If you were to use the Two Weapon Fighting option without the feat to make 3 attacks, they'd be at +2/-2/-3. That would be the same no matter how you arranged your attacks. You could make the first attack at +2 with Dagger A or with an Unarmed Strike. It would deal full normal damage. Your second attack would have to be an off-hand attack, so it could be with Dagger B or an Unarmed Strike (as long as it wasn't already your first attack). That one would use half your strength bonus for damage. Your third attack (second iterative) would be with any weapon that was not used for the off-hand attack, so Dagger A or the Unarmed Strike assuming it was not used as your off-hand attack already. If you were still holding both daggers and had an Unarmed Strike you wanted to use, you could choose not to use the Two Weapon Fighting option and instead just make iterative attacks. This is a point of contention, but most would argue you could freely attack with any weapon because there is nothing intrinsic to the location/origin of the attacks that causes it to be primary or "off-hand." Thus, you could just make attacks at +6/+1 and all would do full normal damage regardless of origin. If you believe the glossary to be exclusive, as in it does not just detail what an off-hand could be, but rather what is always an off-hand, then those coming from your non-dominant hand would suffer a -4 penalty to hit and deal only half your strength modifier in bonus damage. The origins of the argument come from the question of whether or not you actually even have an off-hand when you are not using some kind of option that explicitly utilizes the term "off-hand," such as Two-Weapon Fighting. Now, the reason all of this fell apart is because Waterhammer believes he has proven his point somehow, and I think he believes nobody has satisfied his challenge issued a while back: Show, with quotes, the rules that allow you to trade your off-hand with your primary hand, at will. Better yet show some rules, that state a character may have two primary hands at the same time. That is what those who raised their consensus against my statement are really saying. That a person may have two primary hands at the same time. The rules do not support this in any way. The rules actually say that a character has a primary hand, and an off-hand. Now, just as he wants textual proof that you can have more than one primary attack at the same time, others (myself especially) want proof from him that you can't have more than primary attack at the same time. In general, I tend to think that if a rule doesn't say that I can't do something, then I can do it (mechanically speaking at least). Additionally, the basis of this demand for proof lies in the aforementioned assumed correlation between some decision made earlier such as handedness, and what attacks are then counted as primary and off-hand. The rules actually never say anywhere that this is the case, nor do they say that you cannot freely change where your attacks are coming from. Anyway, others could do this argument more justice, but the point is this: Waterhammer is claiming nobody has used textual references to disprove him, and everyone else is frustrated and annoyed because he has not used textual references to prove key elements of his position, and thus there is no way to offer a reference that says, "The thing you're basing your claims on does not exist." For example, there is nowhere in the PHB that says, "There are no rules in this book written about laser guns." Thus, I suppose, one could claim that there are laser guns in D&D and nobody could disprove it...? Anyway, I'm sorry for the long winded response, but I hope it clears everything up for you.
Divisionbyzer0 04-04-08, 02:44 PM	Its hard to pin-point, but I get the impression you don't actually have an "off-hand" unless you are using the two-weapon fighting option. Thus, if you were to just use your normal iterative attacks, I think they'd all do full normal damage. Don't think it works that way. I'd say your "offhand" would be the one that you don't use to write your name with and the one that is generally less strong and less coordinated and that is used less often in the completion of tasks. That's where the concept comes from. So you pick either left or right hand; that is your "primary" hand. The remaining hand if your "offhand"-- if you choose to swing a sword with your other hand you take 1/2 your strength bonus whether invoking the "secondary" attacks as per "two-weapon fighting" or not. If they still had the ambidexterity feat I'd say you could get full strength bonus on both if you had the feat, but they don't.
mplindustries 04-04-08, 03:42 PM	Don't think it works that way. I'd say your "offhand" would be the one that you don't use to write your name with and the one that is generally less strong and less coordinated and that is used less often in the completion of tasks. That's where the concept comes from. So you pick either left or right hand; that is your "primary" hand. The remaining hand if your "offhand"-- if you choose to swing a sword with your other hand you take 1/2 your strength bonus whether invoking the "secondary" attacks as per "two-weapon fighting" or not. If they still had the ambidexterity feat I'd say you could get full strength bonus on both if you had the feat, but they don't. I'm sorry, for this is going to sound harsh. There are two possibilities: 1) You did not read the vast majority of this thread and are responding to something on (what, I think the first page?) that has been discussed extensively since. The position has been revised to a degree and is no longer just based on feeling. 2) You did read the vast majority of the thread and you still believe what you are saying. That is fine for a houserule, but it is not anywhere RAW. If you want to say thats just what you think it should be, thats fine. But if you actually insist this is the right way to interpret things, please provide any proof at all of your position. Again, I apologize for being so terse here, but if you even just read the post directly above yours, you'll get a glimpse of how crazy and heated this whole thing has gotten.
Divisionbyzer0 04-04-08, 06:51 PM	No I have not read the entire thread. I was responding to a comment on the first page. I will look for substantiation; yes, that would be my house rule because it makes sense to me. When I swing something with my left hands it's going to be much weaker than when I swing it with my right hand, or less coordinated which would also result in less damaging less effective strikes. Personally I'd say fighing in this manner should incur twf penalties anyhow. This is all an attempt to skirt around the rules and exploit them IMO. Fighting with your primary and secondary attacks with different weapons in different hands is functionally no different than primary and off hand as per TWF in terms of what is actually happening. I think this is one to ask customer service about :D Alright, I'll stop stating my opinion and look for some rulings in this area.
Waterhammer 04-04-08, 10:18 PM	What, really? Are you kidding? I can prove it only by the fact that there are no textual references that could possibly back up your point. No textual references? What will you call this, then? From the SRD (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/intro.htm): Full Attack This line shows all the physical attacks the creature makes when it uses a full-round action to make a full attack. It gives the number of attacks along with the weapon, attack bonus, and form of attack (melee or ranged). The first entry is for the creature’s primary weapon, with an attack bonus including modifications for size and Strength (for melee attacks) or Dexterity (for ranged attacks). A creature with the Weapon Finesse feat can use its Dexterity modifier on melee attacks. The remaining weapons are secondary, and attacks with them are made with a -5 penalty to the attack roll, no matter how many there are. Creatures with the Multiattack feat take only a -2 penalty on secondary attacks. The damage that each attack deals is noted parenthetically. Damage from an attack is always at least 1 point, even if a subtraction from a die roll reduces the result to 0 or lower. A creature’s primary attack damage includes its full Strength modifier (1½ times its Strength bonus if the attack is with the creature’s sole natural weapon) and is given first. Secondary attacks add only ½ the creature’s Strength bonus and are given second in the parentheses. If any attacks also have some special effect other than damage, that information is given here. Unless noted otherwise, creatures using natural weapons deal double damage on critical hits. Underlining, and bolding are added by myself, of course.
Divisionbyzer0 04-04-08, 10:44 PM	Thanks for doing my work for me. :D
MnemonicSV 04-04-08, 10:48 PM	No textual references? What will you call this, then? A) Your textual reference refers to monstrous attack routines (which in effect use their own rules that override the standard rules), which are not generally applicable to humanoid iterative attacks. B) This reference makes no association between handedness and Primary/Off-hand attacks (my point, still not disproven). Please use relevant references.
Divisionbyzer0 04-04-08, 11:04 PM	Again like with the leap attacking shocktrooping 1500 point of damage in one turn thread... explain in terms of actual reasoning why a character shouldn't have an off hand? Anyhow the monster manual has plenty of monsters which are humanoid creatures. It applies to those as well. Some of those are playable. Read the text from TWF. It says that attacks made with the primary hand are -4, and -10 in the offhand. It says you "can get" and extra attack not "must". But the penalties apply whether you call the attack "offhanded" or "secondary". It doesn't care whether they are secondary attacks from your BAB or offhand attacks from TWF. It does not specify. If it wanted you to be able to do this it would say "if you wish to make a secondary attack with your offhand, and not have it be called "an offhand attack" in an attempt to semantically warp the rules to your favor, then you do not incur the TWF penalties."
mplindustries 04-05-08, 01:53 AM	No textual references? What will you call this, then?A) Your textual reference refers to monstrous attack routines (which in effect use their own rules that override the standard rules), which are not generally applicable to humanoid iterative attacks. B) This reference makes no association between handedness and Primary/Off-hand attacks (my point, still not disproven). Please use relevant references. /agree completely Secondary is not off-hand, secondary refers only to natural weapons, which can never be off-hand. Additionally, there are in fact monsters with multiple primary attacks: Lets go alphabetically, the Aboleth has four primary tentacle attacks, the Achaierai has two primary claw attacks, the Avoral has two different options for what pair of primary attacks it makes...I don't know, need I go on? The monster entry, if anything, hurts your case. I really don't think it is relevant at all, however, and am totally willing to be charitable and pretend you never posted it. Again like with the leap attacking shocktrooping 1500 point of damage in one turn thread... explain in terms of actual reasoning why a character shouldn't have an off hand? Please explain in terms of actual reasoning why someone who is 6' tall still takes up a 5' cube. There are loads of places in which the rules make sacrifices in realism in exchange for playability. Additionally, I see no reason why someone would be unable to be ambidextrous, yet through your reasoning, they would either A) be forced to choose an off-hand and thus not even have the option of being ambidextrous or B) be able to simply choose to be ambidextrous with no restriction, so every character in every D&D game would be ambidextrous anyway. And of course, any rule made on that topic would be a houserule, as there is nothing in any official source that says you must choose handedness at character creation or even at any other time. Now, I am not saying you can't make houserules, just that they are in fact, houserules. This discussion is about the actual RAW involved as far as what constitutes an "off-hand." Anyhow the monster manual has plenty of monsters which are humanoid creatures. It applies to those as well. Some of those are playable. I believe I already handled this above. There are also monsters with multiple primary attacks. And secondary is not even a term applicable to the two-weapon fighting discussion, as it only refers to natural weapons. Read the text from TWF. It says that attacks made with the primary hand are -4, and -10 in the offhand. It says you "can get" and extra attack not "must". But the penalties apply whether you call the attack "offhanded" or "secondary". It doesn't care whether they are secondary attacks from your BAB or offhand attacks from TWF. It does not specify. If it wanted you to be able to do this it would say "if you wish to make a secondary attack with your offhand, and not have it be called "an offhand attack" in an attempt to semantically warp the rules to your favor, then you do not incur the TWF penalties." Actually, I will now quote the section you are referencing. Two-Weapon Fighting (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/specialAttacks.htm#twoWeaponFighting): "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" (Emphasis mine). So what it actually says is that the penalties apply "when you fight this way." If you don't use the two-weapon fighting option to get extra attacks, you are not fighting "in this way," and there is no reference anywhere else to any penalties when you are not fighting "in this way." Again, I don't know what you think "secondary" means, but its not the term used for later iterative attacks granted by a high BAB. It is a term used only for natural weapons. As far as armed attacks are concerned, there are primary attacks, and off-hand attacks. Thats it. Now is the time I challenge you with some issues you likely missed earlier: if your off-hand is a literal hand, what happens when you deal with weapons that do not take actual hands to use? If my off-hand is my left hand, is an armor spike attack made with my right knee an off-hand attack? What if I have a +6 BAB and I make my first attack at +6 with a hand axe and my second attack at +1 with armor spikes? Does it matter if I kick, knee, elbow, punch, shoulder, headbutt or anything else? Why? If you look back in the thread, there are numerous situations like this for you to answer. Trust me when I say, this has been discussed extensively.
MnemonicSV 04-05-08, 02:14 AM	Again like with the leap attacking shocktrooping 1500 point of damage in one turn thread... explain in terms of actual reasoning why a character shouldn't have an off hand? Anyhow the monster manual has plenty of monsters which are humanoid creatures. It applies to those as well. Some of those are playable. Read the text from TWF. It says that attacks made with the primary hand are -4, and -10 in the offhand. It says you "can get" and extra attack not "must". But the penalties apply whether you call the attack "offhanded" or "secondary". It doesn't care whether they are secondary attacks from your BAB or offhand attacks from TWF. It does not specify. If it wanted you to be able to do this it would say "if you wish to make a secondary attack with your offhand, and not have it be called "an offhand attack" in an attempt to semantically warp the rules to your favor, then you do not incur the TWF penalties." As mentioned (repeatedly) in earlier posts, nobody in this thread denies that an off-hand attack exists for TWFing. The contention exists as for whether or not it exists outside TWFing, in relation to the OPs query. Monstrous attack routines fall outside the "normal" attack routines of a typical humanoid creature. In fact, the paragraph immediately following Waterhammer's MM/SRD quote (which he conveniently omitted ) notes that creatures using manufactured weapons (ie: typical humanoid creatures) use the same rules as characters do. Note also that the omitted paragraph mentions off-hand weapons, but does NOT mention that an off-hand weapon attack is applicable outside of TWF. There is no need to "semantically warp" anything in that excerpt: It does nothing for the argument at all. Referencing that MM/SRD excerpt is irrelevant, since it falls back to our previous TWF arguments, and directs us all right back to the PHB again anyway. In the very least, it is irrelevant for the purpose of adjucating the OPs query: of TWF vs. iterative attacks with either hand. "Terms of actual reasoning" have absolutely nothing to do with how the rules work. That fact has been concluded in more threads than I dare count.
risner 04-05-08, 03:16 PM	The opposing side has only brought opinions. They have not brought a single quoted reference to the PHB that proves me to be wrong. Not a single one. My case shows that the rules imply that my interpretation is correct. There is no text that says "Waterhammer is wrong" for us to find for you. Your interpretation isn't grounded in the rules, at least what I read. Can you quote the rules (book/page) supporting your position and what your position is again, since you seem to think you have proved your point and pretty much every else disagrees. So I got to thinking, maybe I don't understand your point. So help me out. Here is your chance to prove your point.
JamesMaissen 04-06-08, 09:10 PM	Anyway, I'm sorry for the long winded response, but I hope it clears everything up for you. Well I guess one question I still have (beyond what exactly some people are claiming).. which I might have missed in your response is as follows: If one takes the glossary as correct (as opposed to a mistaken holdover from 3.0 for example) shouldn't wielding a weapon in one's 'left' hand (assuming right handedness) incur an additional -4 penalty on top of any other penalties? And if they were to hit with it deal half strength mod regardless of the mod that they would normally apply? So if the person that's right handed wearing armor spikes and having a dagger in each hand could attack as follows: (left attack at -6 for TWF without the feat as the primary attack, -4 for using the offhand, for a total of -10) (right attack at -10 for TWF without the feat) and iterative attack with the armor spikes (at -6 for TWF without the feat, -5 for iterative, for a total of -11)? Each of the daggers would deal half strength mod as bonus damage while the armor spikes would, if they hit, deal full strength mod as bonus damage, right? If you don't like the armor spikes being used, then replace it with dropping the dagger in the right hand (or both daggers) and quickdrawing a weapon to make the iterative attack (in either the 'main' hand, or in both hands). Personally I see the glossary entry as a holdover. Many of the other entries are also by no means precise.. and definitely not a place for introducing rules items! -James
mplindustries 04-06-08, 11:16 PM	Well I guess one question I still have (beyond what exactly some people are claiming).. which I might have missed in your response is as follows: If one takes the glossary as correct (as opposed to a mistaken holdover from 3.0 for example) shouldn't wielding a weapon in one's 'left' hand (assuming right handedness) incur an additional -4 penalty on top of any other penalties? And if they were to hit with it deal half strength mod regardless of the mod that they would normally apply? So if the person that's right handed wearing armor spikes and having a dagger in each hand could attack as follows: (left attack at -6 for TWF without the feat as the primary attack, -4 for using the offhand, for a total of -10) (right attack at -10 for TWF without the feat) and iterative attack with the armor spikes (at -6 for TWF without the feat, -5 for iterative, for a total of -11)? Each of the daggers would deal half strength mod as bonus damage while the armor spikes would, if they hit, deal full strength mod as bonus damage, right? If you don't like the armor spikes being used, then replace it with dropping the dagger in the right hand (or both daggers) and quickdrawing a weapon to make the iterative attack (in either the 'main' hand, or in both hands). Personally I see the glossary entry as a holdover. Many of the other entries are also by no means precise.. and definitely not a place for introducing rules items! -James I completely agree with you on the glossary, but some here think its a good source, so I gave both interpretations. As far as it stacking, I believe the main argument is that those who follow the glossary think you actually can't make a primary attack with your left-hand (assuming right handedness). And I think they feel the -4 is included, which is why its normally -6/-10 without any feats. Of course, it never says that its included, so you would be right, that it would actually be -6/-14. I think its silly anyway to take the glossary as truth, but its persisted in the discussion for so long because its pretty much the only source anywhere that actually gives any hint as to what an "off-hand" actually is outside of the Two-weapon fighting rules.
Waterhammer 04-07-08, 01:11 AM	A) Your textual reference refers to monstrous attack routines (which in effect use their own rules that override the standard rules), which are not generally applicable to humanoid iterative attacks. B) This reference makes no association between handedness and Primary/Off-hand attacks (my point, still not disproven). Please use relevant references. Ah, yes. Once again, your amazing power to arbitrarily dismiss rules that you don't agree with. Rules that you dismiss as a whim. A passing fancy, as it were. This is the basis for your complete argument. The arbitrary dismissal of actual rules. When you arbitrarily say a rule does not apply, you need to somehow, PROVE IT.
MnemonicSV 04-07-08, 03:38 AM	When you arbitrarily say a rule does not apply, you need to somehow, PROVE IT. I did prove the truth of my statement. I proved it in my post that followed the one you quoted. Mplindustries even proved it as well (on somewhat different grounds). There is no arbitration at all, except in the case of you selectively ignoring people's relevant posts, and also omitting relevant information in your own MM/SRD quotes, in order to make the appearance of a cohesive argument. ---------- Waterhammer, Your theory (that there is always an "off-hand," and thus relevant penalties) is basically being disproven by two separate points in this thread: A) My point: Nowhere in any WOTC product (core rules, SRD, or wherever) does it state that a character's "handedness" (presumably chosen at character generation) is associated with what constitutes as an "off-hand" or "primary" attack. Even the TWF rules and the glossary off-hand description does not make this association at all. As such, every iterative attack you possess is "primary" unless specifically noted otherwise (such as in TWF). B) mplindustries point: Nowhere in any WOTC product (core rules, SRD, or wherever) does it state that a character can only ever have one "primary" attack. As such, every iterative attack you possess is "primary" unless specifically noted otherwise (such as in TWF). Apologies to mplindustries if I have not adequately summarized his position. You have asked both myself and mplindustries to "prove it!" by making rules quotes. In effect, we ARE making rules quotes by saying a rule does not exist in the the rules: We are quoting the entire SRD when making such statements. I must assume it is not necessary to reprint the entire SRD in this thread (and bold/underline the whole thing) to get that point across to you. Waterhammer, the burden of proof is upon you now. You must be the one to quote a rule that runs contrary to our statements. You are the one who must bring relevant information that supports your contention. You are the one that must not make arbitrary statements. The onus is upon you. We have repeatedly presented our proof (the entire SRD); Now you must present your proof. Note also that the two points presented above (A and B) are exclusive of each other. That means that either one of these points is sufficient enough to disprove your theory by itself. In turn, that means that in order to prove your theory, you must successfully disprove both of the above points, not just one of them. No more shifting the burden of proof upon others. No more delaying. no more side-stepping the issues. No more verbal sleight-of-hand. No more selectively ignoring posts you don't want to answer. Now is the time to act, Waterhammer. The challenge is before you. You must either answer that challenge, or concede defeat. You must disprove both of the above points using references, or forfeit. If you choose to ignore this post, fail to address both points, or otherwise answer in an "I don't need any proof at all, you do" manner, that post will be regarded in my eyes (and perhaps others) as a forfeiture on your part. BTW, I never wanted to make any of this so personal, but it seems unavoidable now. I apologize to any forum members who are forced to tolerate this (or any other) such personally addressed posts.
risner 04-07-08, 09:07 PM	When you arbitrarily say a rule does not apply, you need to somehow, PROVE IT. You haven't shown anything that I have seen that proves your point. There isn't any place where the rules say you can't have more than one primary weapon. There are places where it mentions having more than one primary weapon (pretty much any creature with 2 claws; both claws are considered primary and the bite is secondary.) You haven't proved your point and we have have all proved the counter point.
StruckingFuggle 04-07-08, 11:07 PM	There are places where it mentions having more than one primary weapon (pretty much any creature with 2 claws; both claws are considered primary and the bite is secondary.) BAM!
Divisionbyzer0 04-07-08, 11:34 PM	double post
Divisionbyzer0 04-07-08, 11:50 PM	A) My point: Nowhere in any WOTC product (core rules, SRD, or wherever) does it state that a character's "handedness" (presumably chosen at character generation) is associated with what constitutes as an "off-hand" or "primary" attack. Even the TWF rules and the glossary off-hand description does not make this association at all. As such, every iterative attack you possess is "primary" unless specifically noted otherwise (such as in TWF) Defining primary is unnecessary is offhand is defined. I think they do make the explicit association. It says specifically that the offhand is the less dexterous arm in the glossary -- the TWF penalties include this in the -6/-10. The -10 includes the offhanded -4 penalty, and that is the total penalty for the offhand attack -- though there is no ambidexterity presumably an ambidextrous character would be able to TWF with -6/-6 if she doesn't have the TWF feat.
Divisionbyzer0 04-07-08, 11:54 PM	BAM! Hasn't it been agreed that monster's attacks are irrelevant to the matter of PC characters fighting with a weapon in each hand? You guys can do whatever you want but my reading of TWF will continue to be "when you fight in this manner" = "whenever you attack an opponent with two separate weapons that you are holding in separate hands". The "additional attack" is optional but I don't know why you would want to forgo it. My belief is that the intention is that fighting with a weapon in each hand you should incur the penalties listed in that section. Is there any textual reference that says the next person who doesn't believe as I do shouldn't receive a turkey slap at full BAB no penalties? :D :D :D
JamesMaissen 04-08-08, 02:17 AM	Defining primary is unnecessary is offhand is defined. I think they do make the explicit association. It says specifically that the offhand is the less dexterous arm in the glossary -- the TWF penalties include this in the -6/-10. The -10 includes the offhanded -4 penalty, and that is the total penalty for the offhand attack -- though there is no ambidexterity presumably an ambidextrous character would be able to TWF with -6/-6 if she doesn't have the TWF feat. Assuming for sake of clarity the character in question is right handed.. If the character without the TWF feat wields a kukri in his right hand and a dagger in his left and is wearing armor spikes.. Case 1: He attacks with his kukri and makes the dagger attack as his offhand attack via TWF. Case 2: He attacks with his dagger and makes the kukri attack as his offhand attack via TWF. Case 3: He attacks with his kukri and makes the armor spikes attack as his offhand attack via TWF. Case 4: He just attacks with his dagger as a normal attack. What do you believe that the penalties (and STR mod to damage) are in each case? To Waterhammer.. what exactly do you think that you've proven? Summarize your point.. posting a dozen times that you've proven things without reiterating anything is kinda pointless. -James
StruckingFuggle 04-08-08, 03:28 AM	I think they do make the explicit association. It says specifically that the offhand is the less dexterous arm in the glossary -- the TWF penalties include this in the -6/-10. Right, but you only take those penalties when you're making additional attacks with your off-hand. The off-hand and associated rule penalties seem to only exist when you're Two-Weapon Fighting, which means not "fighting with two weapons", but rather gaining additional attacks through the TWF mechanic.
ryguysolis 04-08-08, 01:00 PM	I feel for you MnemonicSV, I'm a fourth year philosophy major and nothing pains me more than TA-ing for 101 classes in which the most ardent arguers cannot understand where the burden of proof lies. You are correct in your interpretation despite the fact that it is the more difficult side of the argument to uphold. You have presented Waterhammer with the entire works of WoTC as evidence supporting your side of the argument. This means that he need only find one relevant passage supporting his argument to prove you wrong. That is a much stronger position to be in, argumentatively, but still he has not produced that passage. Kudos for understanding how to argue logically, for giving your opponent the benefit of position, and for successfully proving your point. *As an aside: Rules are prohibitive by nature. They dictate what is unacceptable. If you follow the rules to the letter, then anything not specifically prohibited is implicitly allowed.
mplindustries 04-08-08, 01:59 PM	Defining primary is unnecessary is offhand is defined. False. You are assuming a dichotomy. You are assuming that primary means "not off-hand." If it does mean "not off-hand," then I really don't see how you could disagree. Of course, you are also assuming off-hand is defined in some way that is not explicitly tied to Two Weapon Fighting. I think they do make the explicit association. It says specifically that the offhand is the less dexterous arm in the glossary -- the TWF penalties include this in the -6/-10. The -10 includes the offhanded -4 penalty, and that is the total penalty for the offhand attack -- though there is no ambidexterity presumably an ambidextrous character would be able to TWF with -6/-6 if she doesn't have the TWF feat. If you are using the glossary in the argument, are you saying that someone playing Dungeons and Dragons has an off-hand outside of Two Weapon Fighting, but someone playing an OGL d20 game using the SRD does not? Seems kind of funny. Regardless, nowhere does it say that the -4 from the glossary is included in the -10 for two-weapon fighting, so you would, assuming the glossary is true and you are playing RAW, suffer a -14 to hit. Additionally, while the glossary never actually claims you have to make any permanent choice about what hand is what, it does specify the off-hand is a literal hand. What about armor spikes or unarmed strikes? Do I have an off-elbow? How about an off-knee? Hasn't it been agreed that monster's attacks are irrelevant to the matter of PC characters fighting with a weapon in each hand? You guys can do whatever you want but my reading of TWF will continue to be "when you fight in this manner" = "whenever you attack an opponent with two separate weapons that you are holding in separate hands". The "additional attack" is optional but I don't know why you would want to forgo it. My belief is that the intention is that fighting with a weapon in each hand you should incur the penalties listed in that section. Is there any textual reference that says the next person who doesn't believe as I do shouldn't receive a turkey slap at full BAB no penalties? :D :D :D Your reading of TWF will continue to be totally acceptable in your game, and yet have no place in a rules discussion. It is not how the rules are written and you can't bring in what you feel like into this. Besides, even now you specifically mention holding stuff in two separate hands. Again, what about armor spikes? What if your two weapons were armor spikes and a Bow? I'm sorry, but there are a lot more options out there than just two daggers or what have you. You interpretation sounds reasonable as long as you are using two traditional weapons, but it completely falls apart, as Waterhammer's did, when you bring in weirder stuff. The rules need to have one unifying mechanic, they can't change themselves because you're doing something strange.
Divisionbyzer0 04-08-08, 02:23 PM	False. You are assuming a dichotomy. You are assuming that primary means "not off-hand." If it does mean "not off-hand," then I really don't see how you could disagree. Of course, you are also assuming off-hand is defined in some way that is not explicitly tied to Two Weapon Fighting. If you are using the glossary in the argument, are you saying that someone playing Dungeons and Dragons has an off-hand outside of Two Weapon Fighting, but someone playing an OGL d20 game using the SRD does not? Seems kind of funny. I don't play other d20 games and I don't default to the SRD nor have I read all of its sections, so I don't know whether it's funny or not. Regardless, nowhere does it say that the -4 from the glossary is included in the -10 for two-weapon fighting, so you would, assuming the glossary is true and you are playing RAW, suffer a -14 to hit. It's strongly suggested. The primary attack gets -6, the secondary gets -6-4=-10. It's not explicitly state but that's probably why the offhand is -10. Additionally, while the glossary never actually claims you have to make any permanent choice about what hand is what, it does specify the off-hand is a literal hand. What about armor spikes or unarmed strikes? Do I have an off-elbow? How about an off-knee? Unclear but I know I have trouble kicking a soccer ball with my left leg, and I am right handed so the case could probably be made that you have off feet and off elbows and so forth.
mplindustries 04-08-08, 02:57 PM	I don't play other d20 games and I don't default to the SRD nor have I read all of its sections, so I don't know whether it's funny or not. It's strongly suggested. The primary attack gets -6, the secondary gets -6-4=-10. It's not explicitly state but that's probably why the offhand is -10. Unclear but I know I have trouble kicking a soccer ball with my left leg, and I am right handed so the case could probably be made that you have off feet and off elbows and so forth. I think you're missing the point of this here. Are you stating just what you think it should be, or what you think it actually is? If its just what you think, then thats fine as long as you know you are deviating from RAW. If you think what you are saying is actually RAW, I really don't know what you're basing your statements on. I mean, just because you have a lousy left foot doesn't mean everyone does. Likewise, real world logic doesn't really fit into D&D anyway. I mean, I am 5'11''. However, were I a character in D&D, I'd take up a 5' cube, not a 5'11'' cube. Rules are abstractions and don't always fit into reality. Hell, the glossary says most Colossal enemies are 64' tall or something like that, but yet they'd only be a 30' cube. So, if you are using the glossary as proof, and it explicitly says "hands," you can't extrapolate that. You've avoided the tough questions, and thats ok, but I just wanted to let you know that you can't win like that, and I'm afraid Waterhammer has very likely abandoned the thread because he really can't win either. Lets just let this whole thing go.
Divisionbyzer0 04-08-08, 03:45 PM	The section on monsters wielding manufactured weapons strongly suggests that the rules intend for TWF penalties to apply whenever someone is fighting with a weapon in their primary and offhand (even though we don't know what those are :P). pg 311, near the end of the second paragraph under manufactured weapons: These secondary attacks do not interfere with the primary attack as attacking with an off-hand does... (note: it doesnt say anything about making extra attacks with the offhand affecting the primary attack) I'm not really comfortable for going to the MM to support things about PCs but I think that suggests the way I interpret TWF is right on. I've only been playing the game for about 4 months or so, and I haven't even read all the rules, so yeah I'm avoiding the hard questions. I've never even looked at the description for armor spikes, nor have I thought about it. When I do read the relevant sections maybe I'll come back to it. But yeah, I'm fine with dropping it for now. If waterhammer hasn't been successful in making an air tight case for anything I don't think I'll be either.
Holy_Beholder 04-08-08, 11:08 PM	Are you a righty? Sign your name left-handed. Look at the results, then tell me again how your attack, would work the same in either hand. The same, works for lefties in reverse, I expect. What? You say that attacking with a sword is not the same as signing your name? Well. Ever try batting off-handed? [/SIZE][/COLOR] I actually have battled off-handed. Its not a huge impediment, but I'm not quite as good. So the half strength is probably reasonable. Although i know a lot of ambidexterous people. As for the name signing, it always looks horrible. Every time.
SupaTalka 04-08-08, 11:53 PM	Like you said, "when you fight this way" is the key. Not to be demeaning to anyone because this is not targeted at anyone in particular, would everyone please stop looking at the SRD and open your PHBs to page 160 and read it. Read it again. Please, 1 more time. Under the section called "Two-Weapon Fighting". It has nothing to do with the TWF FEAT except for noting your penalties are decreased by it. Page 160 PHB answers every single question and issue and counter-point brought up in this entire thread. "If you wield a second weapon in your off-hand..." pg 160 PHB Well then, I guess we know what a mainhand is and what an offhand is. You choose it if you wield a second weapon. Guess what? That's your offhand. For the slower people, we might as well interchangeably use the words "off-hand" with "your second weapon" because they mean exactly the same thing. It could be a shield, spikes, whatever. You could have 20 weapons available but only 1 will be your FIRST weapon and only one will be your SECOND weapon. What determines ordinal weapons? You do by your choice to wield them in this way. The next line "Fighting in this way..." pg. 160 PHB. So that means Mainhands and Offhands only exist during attack actions when you fight in this way. There's nothing that prevents you from changing your MH/OH after or before attacks, but you cannot do it in the middle because you define MH/OH to "get one extra attack per round with that weapon". Your MH/OH are fixed for the round. But next round, looks like you can swap your MH/OH all you want RAW and I believe, RAI. This has nothing to do with the three distinct words ***Two. Weapon. Fighting.*** and the Two-Weapon Fighting Feat except in terms of penalty to hit. To summarize, re-read page 160 PHB. It clearly defines what and when a mainhand/offhand is, and how to fight with two weapons whether using a feat or not. Hope this helped, because it looks clear as crystal to me.
StruckingFuggle 04-09-08, 01:06 AM	....Hm. On the other hand if we quote more of the PHB than you are, 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. It seems to imply to me that you take the penalties only when you get the extra attack, because that is when you're fighting in that way.
SupaTalka 04-09-08, 01:11 AM	Yeah, I said that. So that means Mainhands and Offhands only exist during attack actions when you fight in this way. There's nothing that prevents you from changing your MH/OH after or before attacks, but you cannot do it in the middle because you define MH/OH to "get one extra attack per round with that weapon". Your MH/OH are fixed for the round. But next round, looks like you can swap your MH/OH all you want RAW and I believe, RAI.
mplindustries 04-09-08, 02:03 AM	Sorry, SupaTalka, I'm having a hard time figuring out what exactly you are saying this page 160 proves. First, let me say, that the text on page 160 and the text in the SRD (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/specialAttacks.htm#twoWeaponFighting) are absolutely identical, except that the PHB includes one fluff clause: "Fighting in this way is very hard, however, and..." before the second sentence, whereas the SRD put the phrase "when you fight this way" at the end of it. It is otherwise absolutely identical. Second, I think you are agreeing with the correct side here, but its hard to tell. You are agreeing that normal iterative attacks can never be off-hand, right? That unless you are using the Two Weapon Fighting option, all your attacks are primary no matter the source? If so, then, good. I mean, you worded it strangely, but, still good. If not, then I really don't understand at all and you need to clarify so I can prove you wrong ;P
SupaTalka 04-09-08, 02:26 AM	Second, I think you are agreeing with the correct side here, but its hard to tell. You are agreeing that normal iterative attacks can never be off-hand, right? That unless you are using the Two Weapon Fighting option, all your attacks are primary no matter the source? Most assuredly. Mainhand and Offhand only exist during Two Weapon Fighting as talked about on page 160 of PHB, otherwise you just have your primary, RAW.
StruckingFuggle 04-09-08, 02:45 AM	So then, if you have Sword A in one hand, and Sword B in your other hand, and +6 BAB, then if the +6 attack is made with A, and the +1 attack with B, they're both primary attacks with no penalty, yes?
MnemonicSV 04-09-08, 03:45 AM	So then, if you have Sword A in one hand, and Sword B in your other hand, and +6 BAB, then if the +6 attack is made with A, and the +1 attack with B, they're both primary attacks with no penalty, yes? Yes. Since you are actually using your normal iterative attacks (and not the TWF combat option that grants you an additional attack in exchange for penalties), then you may use either sword A or B for each of your attacks at +6/+1 on a full-attack action. You could, as a full-attack action: Use sword A at +6, then use sword B at +1. Use sword B at +6, then use sword A at +1. Use sword A at +6, then use sword A again at +1. Use sword B at +6, then use sword B again at +1. Or, in short: Use any available/drawn weapon* at +6, then use any other (or the same) available/drawn weapon* at +1. You gain your full Strength bonus to damage on these attacks. If, on the other hand, you wish to take advantage of the opportunity to make an extra attack by virtue of the fact that you have more than one weapon available*, you may use the Two-Weapon Fighting rules (in which case, you must designate one weapon as primary, and the other as off-hand). * Note: An unarmed strike (knee, elbow, head-butt, etc...) is typically always available, though you may suffer attacks of opportunity if you lack the Improved Unarmed Strike feat.
StruckingFuggle 04-09-08, 11:38 AM	I'm aware. :) Perhaps I should have quoted SupaTalka to show more I was asking him for clarification of his point.
SupaTalka 04-09-08, 11:56 AM	I'm aware. :) Perhaps I should have quoted SupaTalka to show more I was asking him for clarification of his point. MnemonicSV summed up your options nicely. Simply having more than one weapon available to make attacks with changes nothing about "handedness" and the bonuses/penalties involved until you use the Two-Weapon Fighting rules to take an extra attack. So then, if you have Sword A in one hand, and Sword B in your other hand, and +6 BAB, then if the +6 attack is made with A, and the +1 attack with B, they're both primary attacks with no penalty, yes? Yes 100%. As was stated earlier on in the thread, if you wielded a shield and sword, you would suddenly be taking -6 penalty to your attacks merely for holding two weapons if we were reading the rules silly like some people did. The TWF rules only apply when you're using them to make an additional attack. Since the TWF Feat line lessons the penalty for taking that extra attack, basically everyone that uses two weapons and the TWF Feat line *always* takes that additional attack. That's why they got the TWF/ITWF/GTWF etc. line of feats because ALL they do is reduce the penalty when you take that extra attack. I think that's why people were getting confused.
Divisionbyzer0 04-09-08, 03:38 PM	My final post in this thread: 2. "The rules don't say I can't!" is not practical optimization. The second commandment is like unto the first. There are many things that the rules don't explicitly say you can't do. The rules don't explicitly say you can't do the "I'm a Little Teapot" dance and instantly heal back to full starting hit points as a result. The rules don't explicitly say your first level character can't have a titanium-reinforced skeleton and cybernetic weaponry. This is because the rules are structured in such a way as to tell you what you can do--not what you can't. An underlying assumption is that, apart from common-sense actions which anyone can perform, the system will tell you if a given character has a given ability. 3. RAW is a myth. This is one of the dirty little secrets of the board. The Most Holy RAW is invoked continuously by those who want to give their arguments the veneer of officiality. The problem is, RAW is generally applied not as "The Rules as Written," but rather as "The Rules As I Interpret Them And You Can't Prove I'm Wrong, Nyeah." The RAITAYCPIWN. Not quite as catchy an acronym, granted, but that's what it boils down to. This game cannot be played without interpretation and the judicious application of common sense. Try to play the game strictly and exclusively by the rules as written, and you have an unplayable game. Using "RAW" as a defense is similarly meaningless--particularly when your defense rests on interpretation. If you're going to claim that your build is RAW, you'd better be able to make sure that the rules specifically uphold your claim...not simply that they're sort of vague and COULD be interpreted in such a way as to not FORBID your claim. This becomes particularly important when your claim is especially controversial. Yes, builds should adhere to the rules as written. Yes, any exceptions to that should be noted. But the RAW as some sort of entity unto itself, capable of rendering a build immune to criticism, is not a useful construction, and causes more problems than it solves. 4. Common sense is not a bad thing. The rules were designed to be read with common sense. Yes, common sense will vary from person to person, but there has to be some basic level at which we agree on core assumptions, or the game is meaningless. If we have one interpretation of the rules where two levels of a prestige class give you infinite caster level, and another interpretation where two levels of that same prestige class give you two caster levels, then common sense tells us that the latter interpretation is the correct one. If a character reaches negative ten hit points and dies, common sense tells us that he doesn't spring back to his feet and continue fighting unimpeded. 5. Intent matters. I know, I know..."Blasphemy! No man may know the intent of the Most Holy Designers!" Except that, in some cases, we can. In some cases, the intent is glaringly, painfully obvious. In other cases, the intent has been clarified by various WotC sources, such as CustServ. It makes sense to take these sources at their word, people. They work with the folks who design the game, they have access to them. If a conflict comes up, then it can be resolved, but I can't help but notice that for all the talk about how CustServ never gives the same answer twice, they've been remarkably consistent of late. It's one thing to say "This rule is vaguely worded, and we don't know the intent." It's another thing to say, "The rule is vaguely worded, and therefore I can ignore the intent." The first is sensible caution; the second is rules lawyering. When an ambiguity has been clarified, that should be the end of it. :P
ryguysolis 04-09-08, 04:28 PM	Divisionbyzer0: Your final post in this thread would be relevant if this thread were a discussion about the best way to handle the disputed situation in game. However, that has not been the case since page 1, when it was agreed that neither allowing or disallowing what the OP proposed would be gamebreaking and so each should be acceptable. All discussion since then has been about what the rules literally say in regards to the OPs proposition. The passage you quoted is useful in resolving matters for a specific game, but is irrelevant when discussing the literal interpretation of the rules. I'm glad it was you're last post, as you've added nothing to the discussion.
ibayboy 04-09-08, 05:14 PM	This is from the 3.0-3.5 conversion bookletnew feat/old feat table. I don't know how 'official' people think this is or, even how helpful. But i think it does display RAI. old feat name----------folded into-----------notes -------------------------------------------------------------------- Ambidexterity----Two-Weapon Fighting----TWF includes all benefits
mplindustries 04-09-08, 07:24 PM	Divisionbyzer0: Your final post in this thread would be relevant if this thread were a discussion about the best way to handle the disputed situation in game. However, that has not been the case since page 1, when it was agreed that neither allowing or disallowing what the OP proposed would be gamebreaking and so each should be acceptable. All discussion since then has been about what the rules literally say in regards to the OPs proposition. The passage you quoted is useful in resolving matters for a specific game, but is irrelevant when discussing the literal interpretation of the rules. I'm glad it was you're last post, as you've added nothing to the discussion. I'm going to have to agree here, though I do think it was awfully brave to come in and fight at the end, especially with no proof ;P The big "secret" is, that I, and likely others here, don't play by RAW. I think RAW is ridiculous more often than not. I hate it and I change a lot of rules. However, in discussions on the boards, I am not going to reference my house rules and say, "Oh, yeah, thats ok because I think it should work like this instead." No, I'm going to say, "Nope, the rules say this." I may, if I feel like it, offer my house rule suggestion, but I will make it perfectly clear that it is a house rule. It was pretty much a game to me by the end. Figuring out RAW is fun. Its like a puzzle. Nobody anywhere on the thread said, "You can't do it this way because RAW says X." You can do anything you want in your game, you just can't come here, and tell me "That doesn't make sense. The rules intended this." You can't argue intent. Nobody, except the actual author, can tell you what they intended, and even that might be irrelevent if they forgot/ignored/didn't know about some other rule that interacts strangely with their rule (be it in an over-powered or crippling way). You can, however, tell what RAW is, and thats why its fun and relevant to discuss it. So, just to (un)officially close this thread: The concept of an "off-hand" does not exist in the rules outside of the Two-Weapon Fighting (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/specialAttacks.htm#twoWeaponFighting) option. All normal, iterative attacks are primary, regardless of source. Problem solved.