Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Centauri 06-09-06, 09:32 AM	If I make an attack with just an off hand weapon, what penalties (other than getting only half my Strength bonus to damage) will I suffer? It doesn't seem like the two-weapon fighting penalties should apply.
Pindar 06-09-06, 10:21 AM	If I make an attack with just an off hand weapon, what penalties (other than getting only half my Strength bonus to damage) will I suffer? It doesn't seem like the two-weapon fighting penalties should apply. Well I don't think there are any rules for handedness, and all the penalties mentioned for off-hand attacks only apply to 2 weapon fighting. So I think you are correct, the only penalty is half the Strength bonus.
Nom 06-09-06, 10:51 AM	PH 3.5 RAW: You can attack with the off-hand weapon not as part of TWF, at which point you suffer a -4 to-hit and can only apply 1/2 Str bonus (if any) to damage. You could also declare a full round action and TWF and not actually use your primary hand attacks, at which point you'd get whatever off hand attacks TWF grants you. Many people rule that either there is no general -4 off hand penalty (it's only mentioned in the PH glossary) or that TWF negates it in all cases, but RAW the PH says neither of these.
ShinAkuma2 06-09-06, 01:10 PM	Many people rule that either there is no general -4 off hand penalty (it's only mentioned in the PH glossary) or that TWF negates it in all cases, but RAW the PH says neither of these. 1) How can say that the PHB says it, and that the PHB doesn't say it in the same sentence? It is clearly stated, therefore it is part of the core rules. An off-hand attack (by default, the left hand, unless you specify otherwise at time of character creation) has a -4 penalty attached to it. 2) Interesting fact: In 3.0, there was a feat called "Ambidexterity" that removed the off-hand attack penalty. In 3.5, that feat no longer exists. Know why? Lemme crack open the 3.0 -> 3.5 conversion guide... Ambidexterity - Folded into Two-Weapon Fighting - Notes: Two-Weapon Fighting includes all benefits Though it is not outrighted stated, the TWF feat does remove the off-hand penalty. Anyone with any math skills can deduce this anyway, just by looking at what penalties it removes.
mvincent 06-09-06, 06:25 PM	Handines has become pretty muddled in 3.5. Take this entry from the FAQ: "Whenever you use armor spikes as an off-hand weapon, you suffer all the penalties for attacking with two weapons (see Table 8–10 in the Player’s Handbook). When using armor spikes along with a two-handed weapon, it is usually best to use the two-handed weapon as your primary attack and the armor spikes as the off-hand weapon. You can use the armor spikes as the primary weapon and the two-handed weapon as the off-hand attack, but when you do so, you don’t get the benefit of using a light weapon in your off hand." Also: "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." These things seem to imply that you get to declare what is a primary and what is an off-hand attack. There are multiple other examples like this. Until it is sorted out, I'll worry about off-hand penalties only when the extra TWF attack is added.
shruggar 06-09-06, 07:04 PM	(nevermind.. missed a post...)
Nom 06-10-06, 01:59 AM	1) How can say that the PHB says it, and that the PHB doesn't say it in the same sentence?:confused: I list two house rules, and then restate that they are not RAW. Where's the contradiction? 2) Interesting fact: In 3.0, there was a feat called "Ambidexterity" that removed the off-hand attack penalty. In 3.5, that feat no longer exists. Know why? Lemme crack open the 3.0 -> 3.5 conversion guide... Ambidexterity - Folded into Two-Weapon Fighting - Notes: Two-Weapon Fighting includes all benefits Though it is not outrighted stated, the TWF feat does remove the off-hand penalty. Anyone with any math skills can deduce this anyway, just by looking at what penalties it removes.However, the 3.5 PH is quite clear that the listed reductions apply for TWF only. One can argue this until one is blue in the face. You need to decide whether advice in the 3.0 conversion guide overrides a clearly partitioned ruling in the PH.