Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Tal'eth 04-30-05, 07:47 PM	Can a non-monk character wielding a weapon and possesing the feat Unarmed Strike attack with both his weapon and his fists/feet in the same round? In other words, if the character has 3 attacks per round due to his base attack bonus, could he attack once with his 2h greatsword, let's say, and twice with one of his fists? Or conversely, could he attack twice with his longsword and once with his fist? Thanks for your help!! Take care:)
Nephlite 04-30-05, 07:54 PM	Can a non-monk character wielding a weapon and possesing the feat Unarmed Strike attack with both his weapon and his fists/feet in the same round? In other words, if the character has 3 attacks per round due to his base attack bonus, could he attack once with his 2h greatsword, let's say, and twice with one of his fists? Or conversely, could he attack twice with his longsword and once with his fist? Thanks for your help!! Take care:) Not even a monk can attack when hands are full with fists. An Unarmed strike could be made with a kick though. You could 2h sword, kick, kick, but no fist if hands full.
SALDAR 04-30-05, 10:59 PM	Yes, but. The 3 attacks granted by BAB (+11, +6, +1 for example) are all made with the same weapon. If you use a second weapon to attack, including an unarmed strike, you are fighting with two weapons. In this case you gain only 1 extra attack at your highest BAB (+11 from above) and must apply two weapon fighting penalties to all attacks from the start of your full attack action. You must start your turn two weapon fighting, you cannot decide to attack with a second weapon part way through your attacks because your first attack or attacks did not suffer the penalties for two weapon fighting. These penalties apply from the beginning of your turn until the beginning of your next turn.
Vaelan 05-01-05, 03:14 AM	The 3 attacks granted by BAB (+11, +6, +1 for example) are all made with the same weapon. I can't find anything in the rules that supports your view on this, SALDAR. If you can only attack with one weapon per round, then how do you throw more than one dagger per round? I don't really see the problem with allowing iterative attacks to be made with different weapons. Would you care to enlighten me as to why it would be a problem, SALDAR?
shift244 05-01-05, 01:02 PM	The rules that supports Saldar are in the Combat section in th PHB. By RAW, all the extra attack rolls gained from a high BAB is made using your primary weapon. You may take an off-hand attack using the TWF rules. In order to attack using your fists (or whatever part of the body you choose) as an additional attack, you will be effectively wielding your fists in your off-hand (Just imagine punching with your other hand.) and are effectively TWF-ing. Again to note that attack rolls are only highlighted possibilities to hit. The characters can be throwing multiple kicks and punches along with sword swipes. Edit: Now I get your question Vaelan. Off course, I do not recall rules stating that you MUST use your sword if you are wielding it. If you only make the number of attack rolls as your BAB allows (and not taking extra ones like what Saldar obviously assumes you are asking for, but you are actually not), I believe that it is agreeable to let you make an Unarmed attack with no penalties. I.e. BAB = 11. You can make 3 attack rolls. You choose to make 2 attacks at 11/6 with your sword, but your 3rd (at 1) with your fists.. since you perhaps desire non-leathal damage. Go for it. But if you want a 4th attack.. you'd have to go 9/9(fist)/4/-1. (Assuming no other bonus and having TWF feat.) This is off the top of my head, as I cannot recall rules against this. I stand corrected if someone can pull out pages stating otherwise. Sorry if I'm too lazy to search it up here and now. :P
SALDAR 05-01-05, 11:09 PM	I can't find anything in the rules that supports your view on this, SALDAR. Two - Weapon Fighting on pg. 160 of the PHB states: “If you wield a second weapon in your off hand, you can get one extra attack per round with that weapon. Fighting in this way is very hard, however, and 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.” The “regular attack or attacks” are, as stated, made with your primary hand. These are the attacks made based upon BAB, including iterative attacks from a high BAB. When not two weapon fighting, you can make all of these attacks with your off hand if you want, but off hand attacks are at a –4 penalty and gain only ˝ strength bonus on damage. At any point that you attack with a second weapon during your turn you are fighting with two weapons. Doing so gains an extra attack with the second weapon and the penalties stated above are applied to all attacks made during your turn. The two weapon fighting rules also state that you are making your iterative (i.e. regular) attacks with your primary hand and the extra attack granted by wielding a second weapon with your off hand.
Quirriff 05-02-05, 06:46 AM	with a greatsword, no frikin way.
Vahenir 05-02-05, 06:55 AM	For most characters that will be using a weapon, an unarmed attack would be a sub-optimal choice anyway, as it will do less damage (and at higher levels, have no special bonuses associated with it). I'd allow it. You wouldn't get an -extra- attack without suffering TWF penalties. But you WOULD be able to switch out your normal alottment of attacks between an unarmed strike and whatever weapon you're using. There's really no way it's unbalancing. Using a greatsword and you want to kick the guy? Fine. You just severely dropped the damage you can do, and probably gave up attack bonuses from feats like Weapon Focus. You nerfed your own attacks. Why should I, as the DM, get pissy and rules-lawyerish over it? Go for it.
Tal'eth 05-02-05, 12:53 PM	Thank you all for your responses!! I agree that it would seem less than optimal (damage wise) to use any of a character's attacks (per his BAB) to attack unarmed (if they are not a monk of course). However, for a character who had the Improved Unarmed Strike feat and the Stunning Fist feat it might be a good tactic. A character with a BAB of 11/6/1 could then stun with an unarmed strike as his first attack and then follow with two attacks with his greatsword. Would that be legitimate? Thanks again for all your help!!
jaelis 05-02-05, 01:02 PM	Also, if you allow Greatsword/Greatsword/Unarmed Strike with no penalty, then to be consistent you should also allow Glaive/Glaive/Armor Spikes with no penalty. I don't know whether that would be unbalancing or not, but it certainly would be advantageous for a reach fighter to do reasonably often. jaelis
Tal'eth 05-02-05, 01:19 PM	Good point, Jaelis I'm not always good at knowing how best to interpret the rules. Can someone offer some insight on this subject?
Nephlite 05-02-05, 01:42 PM	Also, if you allow Greatsword/Greatsword/Unarmed Strike with no penalty, then to be consistent you should also allow Glaive/Glaive/Armor Spikes with no penalty. I don't know whether that would be unbalancing or not, but it certainly would be advantageous for a reach fighter to do reasonably often. jaelis Wait, Glaives are reach weapons...armor spikes aren't... How can you do that? Unless there are enemies beside you and far away, you can't use both.
Vahenir 05-02-05, 01:42 PM	A character with a BAB of 11/6/1 could then stun with an unarmed strike as his first attack and then follow with two attacks with his greatsword. Would that be legitimate? Sure. But meeting the requirements wouldn't be easy for a Greatsword-guy. Wis 13, Dex 13 (two of the Tank's dump stats, usually) and having invested in IUS. If you want to go through all of that for a chance to make hitting a little easier - go for it. It's really not worth it, though. Also, if you allow Greatsword/Greatsword/Unarmed Strike with no penalty, then to be consistent you should also allow Glaive/Glaive/Armor Spikes with no penalty. I don't know whether that would be unbalancing or not, but it certainly would be advantageous for a reach fighter to do reasonably often. Not by much, provided you don't allow the character to threaten around him with his spikes AND at reach with his weapon. A smartly-played reach fighter will only rarely end up with someone "inside" his reach.. so being able to hit with armour spikes is not much of a bonus.
jaelis 05-02-05, 09:53 PM	Not by much, provided you don't allow the character to threaten around him with his spikes AND at reach with his weapon. A smartly-played reach fighter will only rarely end up with someone "inside" his reach.. so being able to hit with armour spikes is not much of a bonus. I don't see how you could disallow the reach fighter from threatening with both weapons. You threaten anyone you can attack, and in this interpretation, you are able to attack with either weapon. And I think even the cleverest reach fighter has trouble with adjacent opponents sometimes, especially when fighting several opponents. Not that it's necessarily broken... the Spiked Chain sets the precedent, and is generally better, I think, at the cost of a feat. But it would be foolish for a normal reach fighter to not have spiked armor (or spiked gauntlets, if you prefer) under this rule. I'd say that if you're in the "Spiked Chains are broke" camp, you probably wouldn't like this rule. If not, it should be OK. Unless there are enemies beside you and far away, you can't use both. Yes.
Vahenir 05-03-05, 02:04 PM	Not that it's necessarily broken... the Spiked Chain sets the precedent, and is generally better, I think, at the cost of a feat. But it would be foolish for a normal reach fighter to not have spiked armor (or spiked gauntlets, if you prefer) under this rule. I'd say that if you're in the "Spiked Chains are broke" camp, you probably wouldn't like this rule. If not, it should be OK. Let's take a Fighter: He needs to spend an EWP to use a spiked chain to threaten at 5 and 10, and for a decent threat range, and fairly low damage. The same Fighter has proficiency in all martial weapons. He spends nothing to be proficient with a reach weapon and armour spikes. Is it unbalanced for him to threaten in the same way a spiked chain wielder does? Yes. Make him spend a feat to threaten with both weapons at once.. and I'm good with the idea. But as a base ruling - you should not be allowed to threaten with both for free. Period.
BlackFiend 05-03-05, 02:13 PM	SRD 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. Note from above, you can attack with multiple weapons based purely on your BAB. Now...Though you are fighting with two weapons...this is not the same as two weapon fighting, which is getting an additional off hand attack from two weapon fighting. In this case you are making 3 different attacks (BAB 11). The first attack could be an stunning unarmed strike with a kick. (+11 to hit) The second attack could be swinging a great sword. (+6 to hit)The thrid and final attack could be a grapple attack (you free action drop your sword and have at them). (+1 to hit) This is NOT TWF, which is an additional OFF HAND ATTACK beyond your BAB iterative attacks. If he had been two weapon fighting it would be (BAB 11)(Assume TWF feat as well) First attack stunning unarmed strike (+9 to hit) First off hand attack Greatsword (+9 to hit) Second attack Greatsword (+3 to hit) Third attack Grapple (-2 to hit) See the difference?
jaelis 05-03-05, 03:13 PM	BlackFiend- I agree with your distinction between fighting with two weapons and Two-Weapon Fighting. Except that your last two attacks should be at +4 and -1, right? Nonetheless, when you are fighting with two weapons, I don't know of any rules stating that you either can or cannot alternate weapons as desired. (Except for the monk's flurry rules, which are special.) Your SRD quote "If you are using two weapons, you can strike with either weapon first" might be taken as evidence that you can, or it might be taken to apply specifically to Two-Weapon Fighting. Unless someone knows a clearer explanation, it is presumably up to the DM. Vahenir- Compare EWP Spiked Chain with EWP Bastard Sword. Compared to a long sword, a bastard sword gives you +1 average damage, and that's it. Now compare the spiked chain with the ranseur + armor spikes. (Its the ranseur that lets you trip, right? Or is the guisarme? Whatever.) The spiked chain gives you finessability and a disarm bonus. It also gives you much more damage at 5': the base damage is 1.5 points higher, and it is a two-handed weapon so it gets +1.5xStr, while the spikes are light off-handed, thus getting +0.5xStr. The difference is even bigger with power attack. The ranseur gives you a better crit range at 10', and the armor spikes give a grapple advantage. To me, the chain seems better. Not a lot better, but about as much better as a bastard sword over a long sword. By that measure, EWP Spiked Chain is an OK feat, just like most of the other EWPs. You might just be used to thinking of EWP Spiked Chain being much better than all the rest. jaelis
Vahenir 05-03-05, 03:51 PM	Compared to a long sword, a bastard sword gives you +1 average damage, and that's it. The spiked chain gives you finessability and a disarm bonus. It also gives you much more damage at 5': the base damage is 1.5 points higher, and it is a two-handed weapon so it gets +1.5xStr, while the spikes are light off-handed, thus getting +0.5xStr. The difference is even bigger with power attack. but about as much better as a bastard sword over a long sword. What? How does any of this make sense? The spiked chain is a -slightly- better option than TWO weapons put together... the bastard sword gives an average of one point more damage over a longsword. And you see that as making the chain a balanced weapon? Huh? That doesn't even begin to make sense to me. Simple fact is - you need to burn an EWP to get a spiked chain - which allows you to threaten at both 10 and 5 feet. That's a pretty good bonus. Allowing that same ability to a fighter without burning a feat isn't balanced. For no feats whatsoever, I can get a good reach weapon, and cheap armour spikes so that I have reach, threaten at 5' as well, and can attack just as easily if grappled. Don't think so. Not in my games.
SALDAR 05-03-05, 04:30 PM	Note from above, you can attack with multiple weapons based purely on your BAB. This is incorrect. Read it again. 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. All this says is that attacks are made from highest to lowest BAB. Your first attack at +11, second at +6, and third at +1. 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. This line does not allow you to attack with two weapons without penalty, as BlackFiend suggests. Any time you fight with two weapons you suffer the two weapon fighting penalties. The reason you can attack with either weapon first in this case is because the extra attack gained by fighting with two weapons is at your highest BAB, which is exactly the same as the BAB of your first iterative attack. You get to choose which weapon you attack with first.. It says nothing about choosing which weapon to attack with if you have multiple attacks from high BAB because there is no choice,you use your primary weapon. If your BAB is +11/+6/+1 the extra attack is at your highest BAB of +11. You will have two attacks at +11 (primary hand and off hand), one at +6 (primary hand), and one at +1 (primary hand). All iterative attacks are made with the primary hand and the extra attack with the off hand, as stated in the two weapon fighting section I quoted above. In the above example, the greatsword is the primary weapon since your primary hand is used to wield it and all iterative attacks are made with this weapon. An unarmed strike (a kick for example since your hands are full) made in addition to the greatsword attacks is an extra attack and you must apply two weapon fighting penalties. Any attack made with another weapon is an attack with a second weapon and since you are fighting with two weapons the two weapon fighting penalties apply. Though you are fighting with two weapons...this is not the same as two weapon fighting, which is getting an additional off hand attack from two weapon fighting. Fighting with two weapons is not two weapon fighting. Give me a break. If this were so then there would be no need for the fighting with two weapons section or the two weapon fighting feat tree.
Treetrip Danglefoot 05-03-05, 04:35 PM	So then could you wield two longswords, alternate between them at your separate BAB, but not take an extra attack at the end and fight with no penalties. Ex: +1 Flaming Longsword, +1 Icy Longsword Fighter level 12, BAB +12/+7/+2. First attack against flame vulnerable enemy, +1 Flaming Longsword, attack +12 Second attack against nearby ice vulnerable enemy, +1 Icy Longsword, attack +7 Third attack against almost dead flame vulnerable enemy, +1 Flaming Longsword, attack +1. Would that be legal? I'm really torn between the two options. Is Two-weapon fighting just and extra attack or is it more?
Preternatural 05-03-05, 05:25 PM	I don't think TWF with a greatsword and an unarmed attack is possible. It's better than regular TWF with a one handed weapon in each hand. A fighter uses a greatsword at 1.5x str modifier for his primary, and then unarmed attack with a kick? Does he get any str damage with the kick? Even at 0.5x, it's technically far more powerful than TWF with two short swords. Or even with a sword as primary and a fist as the off hand. Effectively it gives the character three arms. Level 12 fighter, +12/+7/+2 with TWF is another +12 (need to apply TWF penalties of course.). The off hand attack is unarmed and has stunning fist. And then the fighter gets the regular attacks with the great sword at 1.5 x str damage? Not bad for a feat and -2 (which can be reduced with proper feats and PrCs). Sort of blows TWF with a pair of swords out of the water. Not sure about the switching between weapons, it provides a lot more options without any penalties or feats. Does that one attack with a second weapon in your full attack round mean you're effectively TWF? Alternatively, can you take Quick draw, attack, free action drop the weapon, free action draw new weapon, attack, and repeat with third weapon if necessary?
Vahenir 05-03-05, 06:12 PM	SALDAR: Actually, all references to two-weapon fighting in the PH refer -specifically- to gaining an extra attack. If you choose not to gain an extra attack - by the description, you suffer no penalties - as the descriptions of two-weapon fighting clearly indicate that you gain an extra attack, and suffer TWF penalties. Saying you suffer them anyway is not clearly supported by the RAW. I don't think TWF with a greatsword and an unarmed attack is possible. According to the Sage (or was it the FAQ?) you can.
jaelis 05-03-05, 06:40 PM	Simple fact is - you need to burn an EWP to get a spiked chain - which allows you to threaten at both 10 and 5 feet. That's a pretty good bonus. Allowing that same ability to a fighter without burning a feat isn't balanced. For no feats whatsoever, I can get a good reach weapon, and cheap armour spikes so that I have reach, threaten at 5' as well, and can attack just as easily if grappled. Don't think so. Not in my games. Hmm... I'm not trying to argue that allowing characters to alternate weapons doesn't strengthen reach fighters. It certainly does, as I think I said originally. And if you don't like it for your game, don't do it. My point is to give some sense of how much an advantage it is. If you agree that armor spikes + ranseur is not as good as EWP Spiked Chain, then clearly this rule interpretation is more balanced than simply giving every fighter EWP Spiked Chain for free. Thus the advantage is something less than a feat, which doesn't seem so bad. Furthermore, the looser interpretation doesn't make the EWP Spike Chain obsolete; in fact, I think it shifts its effectiveness to be in line with all the other EWP feats. I like that, because it prevents the chain from being the uber-weapon some people complain about. jaelis
tiluvias99 05-03-05, 07:33 PM	I had always thought you could only attack with one weapon per BAB chain. however, if it is possible, there are definitely a couple problems: threatened squares: as others have already said, if you could attack with both armor spikes and a glaive without "two weapon fighting", then what would your reach be? would it be both? I would think that your reach during the rest of the round would be the reach of whatever weapon attacked last. FoB: One of the unique abilities of Flurry is that you can switch weapons between attacks, allowing things like throwing shurikens to use up unused attacks. If this wasn't unique, and everyone could do it, then why would the writer's bother to put it in? ranged weapons: if you can switch weapons using the same BAB chain, then what's stopping someone from switching between melee and ranged weapons? You could pull off the monk maneuver (kill something with full attack, draw bow and use up the rest of your attacks on other critters), or first shoot someone a couple times with a bow and then 5 foot step forward and attack with a sword. mounts: with ranged weapons, you can still full attack even if your mount moves. if you can switch weapons during a BAB chain, then you could make one attack with a bow (with perhaps an AoO, but you'd probably still be fine), then follow up with a melee full attack. moving+full attack is a very, very special ability that few classes get (such as the dervish), and this would give it to everyone.
Vahenir 05-03-05, 08:14 PM	My point is to give some sense of how much an advantage it is. If you agree that armor spikes + ranseur is not as good as EWP Spiked Chain, then clearly this rule interpretation is more balanced than simply giving every fighter EWP Spiked Chain for free. Thus the advantage is something less than a feat, which doesn't seem so bad But how much less than a feat, is really the question. If it's 'just under being as good as a feat' - then I'd still consider it too much. You're missing out on -maybe- a little damage, or a slightly lower threat range. Either that means this ability is overpowered, or the spiked chain is severely overpowered. Either way, you gotta pick one. Personally, I don't care either way. There are no spiked chains in my games (I don't do the ridiculous weapons thing, no Spiked Chains, no Dire Flails, etc). And I don't allow threatening at 5 and 10' without blowing a feat to do so. FoB: One of the unique abilities of Flurry is that you can switch weapons between attacks, allowing things like throwing shurikens to use up unused attacks. If this wasn't unique, and everyone could do it, then why would the writer's bother to put it in? One possible interpretation is that it's explicitly stated for Flurry so that a DM wouldn't rule otherwise. "Since Flurry is a special ability and doesn't say you can change out weapons with it - you can't" would probably be a common ruling if they hadn't specified. Like I mentioned above - Two weapon fighting rules seen to specify that it's gaining an extra attack that begins the whole "am I or am I not using TWF rules?" But that's just one interpretation on something the rules do not explicitly cover. ranged weapons: if you can switch weapons using the same BAB chain, then what's stopping someone from switching between melee and ranged weapons? You could pull off the monk maneuver (kill something with full attack, draw bow and use up the rest of your attacks on other critters), or first shoot someone a couple times with a bow and then 5 foot step forward and attack with a sword. mounts: with ranged weapons, you can still full attack even if your mount moves. if you can switch weapons during a BAB chain, then you could make one attack with a bow (with perhaps an AoO, but you'd probably still be fine), then follow up with a melee full attack. moving+full attack is a very, very special ability that few classes get (such as the dervish), and this would give it to everyone. I imagine this is fairly different from fighting with two different weapons at once -because it involves dropping (or releasing with one hand) one weapon and drawing another. That's a different concept from attacking with a secondary weapon that's already in hand.
shift244 05-03-05, 08:41 PM	I imagine this is fairly different from fighting with two different weapons at once -because it involves dropping (or releasing with one hand) one weapon and drawing another. That's a different concept from attacking with a secondary weapon that's already in hand.But it does raises a possibility for abuse of such a ruling tho, since you have Quick Draw, and the possiblity of perhaps getting a house-ruled Quick Sheath feat, or allow Quick Draw to do so, or find some-other means to enable such a combination, as mentioned. According to the Sage (or was it the FAQ?) you can.Is this specific to a Two-handed weapon + Unarmed? Or accross the board, inclusive of the possibility of using a second weapon as part of the BAB attacks and not gain an extra attack (and the penalty peackage deal)?
Vahenir 05-03-05, 10:22 PM	But it does raises a possibility for abuse of such a ruling tho, since you have Quick Draw, and the possiblity of perhaps getting a house-ruled Quick Sheath feat, or allow Quick Draw to do so, or find some-other means to enable such a combination, as mentioned. It's possible. But that would be the DMs call, and not necessarily an easy one to get him to make. What we're talking about (two weapons for iterative attacks) is simply two interpretations of the same rule. Quick Draw makes drawing a weapon a free action. Dropping a weapon is also a free action. Theoretically, you can drop your weapon and pull out a new one. But does your DM allow you to take physical actions (even free ones) in the middle of your iterative attacks? Also, a DM would be well within his rights to say that sheathing a weapon and then drawing a new one (even with Quick Draw) is worth more than a Free Action. In any event, BOTH interpretations of this rule are technically houserules - because the RAW is not clear. When the RAW is not clear - you have to make a judgement call... and that's a houserule. Of course, anyone in this thread is free to e-mail Wizards game support and ask the question being asked here. Is this specific to a Two-handed weapon + Unarmed? Or accross the board, inclusive of the possibility of using a second weapon as part of the BAB attacks and not gain an extra attack (and the penalty peackage deal)? It was quite specific about the greatsword/armour spikes combination (and of course, my response that you quoted was in response to someone else saying they don't think you can use a greatsword and armour spikes together). But I actually don't recall if TWF was mentioned.. it would be interesting to see if it was or not.
jaelis 05-04-05, 01:35 AM	But how much less than a feat, is really the question. If it's 'just under being as good as a feat' - then I'd still consider it too much. Right. Let's say EWP Spiked Chain has two components: the 5'/10' thing, and everything else. The question is, how much is the 5'/10' thing worth? That has been debated many times, but I would just comment that if you think the Spiked Chain is not horribly unbalanced, and that the "everything else" component is comparable to the value of EWP Bastard Sword, then the 5'/10' thing must by itself be considerably less valuable than a feat. In other words: if EWP Spiked Chain = EWP Bastard Sword + 5'/10' reach, and if you think EWP Spiked Chain and EWP Bastard Sword are balanced feats, then you must not think the 5'/10' is worth too much. I'm just trying to clarify things. You might feel that either (a) EWP Spiked Chain too good or (b) EWP Bastard Sword is too weak or (c) a little of both. I have no argument with that. I'm just saying that if you have no complaints about the chain or the bastard sword under the tighter rules, then you shouldn't have any qualms about the more liberal interpretation. Personally, I don't care either way. There are no spiked chains in my games (I don't do the ridiculous weapons thing, no Spiked Chains, no Dire Flails, etc). And I don't allow threatening at 5 and 10' without blowing a feat to do so. That's fine by me, although if you don't have Spiked Chains, what feat do you use to threaten at both 5' and 10'? The Kusuri-Gama? I thought that was even worse! jaelis
Vaelan 05-04-05, 02:30 AM	Quick Draw makes drawing a weapon a free action. Dropping a weapon is also a free action. Theoretically, you can drop your weapon and pull out a new one. But does your DM allow you to take physical actions (even free ones) in the middle of your iterative attacks? You are allowed to take a 5-foot step between before, after, or between your attacks, according to page 144 of the PHB. Also, you are allowed to draw ammunition between attacks while using a bow. In regards to the original question, requiring that all attacks be made with the same weapon causes some odd side-effects. If you try to disarm an opponent and are instead disarmed yourself, do you forfeit your iterative attacks for the round? If you throw a dagger or other thrown weapon, do you forfeit your iterative attacks? If an archer's bow is sundered after his first shot, can he draw an arrow (or use an arrow that is already in his hand) and attempt to stab his assailant with it?
Vahenir 05-04-05, 11:35 AM	I'm just trying to clarify things. You might feel that either (a) EWP Spiked Chain too good or (b) EWP Bastard Sword is too weak or (c) a little of both. I have no argument with that. I'm just saying that if you have no complaints about the chain or the bastard sword under the tighter rules, then you shouldn't have any qualms about the more liberal interpretation. It also depends on IF you allow someone to threaten, without a feat, at both 5 and 10'. If you do - then that ability of the spiked chain can be considered fairly void. But I still wouldn't want an exotic weapon that's literally better than two weapons combined. Something about the idea of a single EWP being better than two MWP's - one a reach weapon and one an anti-grapple non-reach weapon. I don't know... That's just me. That's fine by me, although if you don't have Spiked Chains, what feat do you use to threaten at both 5' and 10'? The Kusuri-Gama? I thought that was even worse! No no. I was running a Greek game once.. so I had to rewrite the rules a little to allow for phalanx fighting - so I had to create a feat that allowed you to wield a spear in one hand and still get reach. Then, one of my players had a really cool idea of dual-wielding a xiphos (hoplite sword) and a spear. So I allowed him to do that. Then I allowed him to take a feat that would let him threaten with both his reach weapon and his shortsword at the same time.
Nobuddy 05-04-05, 12:29 PM	For most characters that will be using a weapon, an unarmed attack would be a sub-optimal choice anyway, as it will do less damage (and at higher levels, have no special bonuses associated with it). I'd allow it. You wouldn't get an -extra- attack without suffering TWF penalties. But you WOULD be able to switch out your normal alottment of attacks between an unarmed strike and whatever weapon you're using. There's really no way it's unbalancing. Using a greatsword and you want to kick the guy? Fine. You just severely dropped the damage you can do, and probably gave up attack bonuses from feats like Weapon Focus. You nerfed your own attacks. Why should I, as the DM, get pissy and rules-lawyerish over it? Go for it. I'd have to agree with you on that well said! Yeah if the player is willing to do less damage to one of my monsters then I'd say your trying to hard and let him/her do whatever they're going to do... I mean come on it's a 1d4 plus whatever str bonus VS a 2d6 plus str and mutipling 1.5 to damage I personaly wouldn't trade that for anything... although a sythe would be good to.
SALDAR 05-04-05, 02:11 PM	In regards to the original question, requiring that all attacks be made with the same weapon causes some odd side-effects. If you try to disarm an opponent and are instead disarmed yourself, do you forfeit your iterative attacks for the round? Yes. If your first attack in a full attack action leaves you disarmed you have only taken a standard action and can now make a move equivalent action (i.e. draw a weapon). If your second or later iterative attacks leaves you disarmed you cannot draw another weapon because you have made more than one attack, which is a full round action. Quick Draw is the one feat that can change this as you can draw another weapon as a free action. In this case two weapon fighting penalties do not apply as you are not making attacks with a weapon in your off hand. You are making attacks with two different weapons but you are using your primary hand to make these attacks. I made this statement earlier. Fighting with two weapons is not two weapon fighting. Give me a break. My above Quick Draw example proves my statement incorrect. You can fight with two weapons without two weapon fighting. As long as you can attack with two different weapons with your primary hand (using your iterative attacks) you can fight with two weapons without two weapon fighting penalties. At any point you make attacks with two different hands (or appendages as in the greatsword/kick example) you are two weapon fighting and apply the two weapon fighting rules. If you throw a dagger or other thrown weapon, do you forfeit your iterative attacks? If you do not have the ability to draw a second dagger as a free action (Quick Draw) then you cannot throw a second one with iterative attacks. Drawing a weapon is a move action. Thrown weapons are not ammunition and cannot be drawn as a free action without the appropriate feat. I believe it was the FAQ that addressed this question directly. It stated that if you throw a weapon with each hand you suffer the penalties for two weapon fighting. This sets the precedent for two weapon fighting penalties being applied when attacking with a weapon in each hand. With this ruling the act of attacking with two different weapons in two different hands IS two weapon fighting and all penalties for such apply. If an archer's bow is sundered after his first shot, can he draw an arrow (or use an arrow that is already in his hand) and attempt to stab his assailant with it? He can draw an arrow, but not as a free action. The mechanics allow you to attack with a projectile weapon and the ammunition for the weapon can be drawn as a free action. If you draw an arrow to use it as a melee weapon it would no longer be ammunition for a ranged weapon, it would be a melee weapon and would follow the rules for attacking with melee weapons. I know this may seem harsh but drawing ammunition for a ranged attack and drawing a weapon for a melee attack follow different rules within the game.
jaelis 05-04-05, 02:26 PM	But I still wouldn't want an exotic weapon that's literally better than two weapons combined. The two-bladed sword is clearly better than, say, the longsword+short sword combination.
Vahenir 05-04-05, 03:42 PM	The two-bladed sword is clearly better than, say, the longsword+short sword combination. Point taken. But it's only better by an average of one point of damage.. and that's it. Same as a bastard sword over a longsword. I suppose I've mentally drawn a difference between coming two normal melee weapons with one anti-grapple melee weapon and one reach weapon. Who knows.. maybe I look at it all wrong.
shift244 05-04-05, 08:23 PM	My above Quick Draw example proves my statement incorrect. You can fight with two weapons without two weapon fighting. As long as you can attack with two different weapons with your primary hand (using your iterative attacks) you can fight with two weapons without two weapon fighting penalties. At any point you make attacks with two different hands (or appendages as in the greatsword/kick example) you are two weapon fighting and apply the two weapon fighting rules. If you do not have the ability to draw a second dagger as a free action (Quick Draw) then you cannot throw a second one with iterative attacks. Drawing a weapon is a move action. Thrown weapons are not ammunition and cannot be drawn as a free action without the appropriate feat. I believe it was the FAQ that addressed this question directly. It stated that if you throw a weapon with each hand you suffer the penalties for two weapon fighting. This sets the precedent for two weapon fighting penalties being applied when attacking with a weapon in each hand. With this ruling the act of attacking with two different weapons in two different hands IS two weapon fighting and all penalties for such apply.There is another point that those you are suggesting the alternate interpretation might be missing. It has just struck me too. What if you have a character that has say, BAB 11 with 3 attack rolls. Now he doesn't want 4 attack rolls, but has a Flaming weapon he uses on his 1st and 2nd attack, then claims a 3rd attack with a Defending weapon, which he places all enchantment into AC.... I think that it is pretty clear that you quite have to attack with the same weapon where possible, unless you take on the necesary penalties. There are a few cases: Ex. BAB 11/6/1, Flaming weapon in main, Defending in off-hand. Assume no ITWF: 3 attack rolls with Flaming weapon. No problem here. 3 attacks with Flaming weapon, 1 with Defending. No problem here either. 2 with Flaming weapon, followed by 1 with Defending. Here's the thread question... Do you, or do you not take TWF penalties? The latter meaning that you simply choose to forfiet you 3rd BAB attack by choice. 2 attack rolls with each weapon. An alternate, but similar case. Is this possible at all? Has anyone emailed custserv yet? I think I will put forth question if no one has already.
SALDAR 05-05-05, 10:25 AM	Any time you attack with a weapon in your primary hand AND a weapon in your off hand during your turn you are two weapon fighting and must apply the penalties. 3 attack rolls with Flaming weapon. No problem here. As you said, no problem here. 3 attacks with Flaming weapon, 1 with Defending. No problem here either. You are making an attack with your off hand so you are two weapon fighting and apply the penalties. 2 with Flaming weapon, followed by 1 with Defending. Here's the thread question... Do you, or do you not take TWF penalties? The latter meaning that you simply choose to forfiet you 3rd BAB attack by choice. You are making an attack with a weapon in your off hand and therefore you are two weapon fighting and apply the penalties for such. The attack with the defending weapon is an attack with a weapon in your off hand and is made at your highest BAB of +11. Whether or not you make all of your iterative attacks from BAB, making an attack with a weapon in your off hand is the extra attack granted by two weapon fighting and all TWF penalties apply. The extra attack granted by two weapon fighting being an attack outside your regular attacks (see below). 2 attack rolls with each weapon. An alternate, but similar case. Is this possible at all? This is not possible due to the two weapon fighting rules. Two - Weapon Fighting on pg. 160 of the PHB states: “If you wield a second weapon in your off hand, you can get one extra attack per round with that weapon. Fighting in this way is very hard, however, and 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.” The bolded statement refers to regular attack or attacks. These are the attack or attacks granted by BAB. Any attack with a weapon in an off hand is an extra attack beyond those granted by BAB, whether or not you use all attacks granted by high BAB.
jaelis 05-05-05, 11:03 AM	SALDAR- I, and at least some other people, do not agree that your interpretation is so clear cut. The rule you quoted says: Two - Weapon Fighting on pg. 160 of the PHB states: “If you wield a second weapon in your off hand, you can get one extra attack per round with that weapon. Fighting in this way is very hard, however, and 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.” The word "can" indicates that the extra attack is optional. There is no way to determine whether the second sentence refers to wielding a second weapon in general, or to weilding a second weapon in such a way as to get an extra attack. If you are aware of a statement in the FAQ or elsewhere that clarifies this, please do let us all know. Otherwise, I think it is more useful to accept that the rules are ambiguous and to debate the merits of the possible interpretations, rather that to keep insisting that there is only one way to read it. jaelis
Vahenir 05-05-05, 11:14 AM	I'm in agreement with Jaelis. It's not going to do any good to keep repeating the same quote. It seems more than a few people feel that very quote is ambiguous and unclear. So re-quoting it and insisting that there's only one interpretation, when there's clearly two separate interpretations that are equally valid, isn't going to do anything worthwhile.
Treetrip Danglefoot 05-05-05, 01:07 PM	I also agree with Jialis. I believe that its mechanically balanced if you're willing to give up an extra attack (TWF), extra damage (THF), or extra AC (S&B), then being able to switch between armed weapons at your regularily decreasing BAB is balanced. I also agree from a technical standpoint of the excerpt. The word "can" implies that it is optional, and that the rules following the option are dependant on you taking that option. And finally I also agree from a flavor view. John the Wallbreaker has a massive two handed mace (his namesake). He reaches his first opponent, a dodging weaving rogue. He lashes out with his hand and dazes the rogue with a fast blow to the nose. In the time that to rogue recovers from the strike John lets his mace fall heavily on the rogue's head. John has a friend, Lightning Lilly Blade. She's got a pair of shortswords and she knows how to make them work it. She tumbles up to a hulking ogre who finds his long arms suddenly over extended. Lilly strikes three times. The first blow makes the ogre recoil in the direction of her left hand, which sinks another blade deep into his skin. Following that he tries to dodge back but Lilly rotates her wrist and cuts the ogre as he steps away. Johns attacks, while planned, weren't coordinated. There was a clear separation between "Smack, then Thud." Lillys however were planned and cooridnated in such a way that the first strike lead fluidly to the second strike lead fluidly to the third. I think TWF indicates coordinated planned attempts to make attacks lead into each other. While fighting with two separate weapons means a willingness to switch to that weapon without attempting the difficult task of coordinating strikes. TWF is proactive, fighting with two weapons is reactive. More or less at least, obviously flavorwise it might not be described as reactive or proactive, but its the sense I get.
jaelis 05-05-05, 10:46 PM	Reading another thread, I realized a nice balancing point that I think makes everything work out rather nicely: attacks with your off hand are at a -4 penalty. I would interpret "off-hand" here as applying to anything but your primary hand. So you don't get something for nothing by wearing armor spikes or whatever. If you had BAB +11/+6/+1 and wanted to attack with Greatsword/Greatsword/Unarmed Strike, you could, but you'd be at +11/+6/-3. Similarly for Glaive/Glaive/Armor Spikes. Going further, the TWF feat was explicitly stated to subsume the 3.0 Ambidexterity feat. So you might rule that if you have TWF, you don't suffer the -4 penalty. I think that is fine: if you have the feat, you can certainly attack with both weapons, and I think being able to attack interchangable with no penalty is fair return for giving up the extra TWF attack. Finally, what if your off-hand weapon isn't light? You might want to apply a more severe penalty in this case. If you deconstruct the Two-Weapon Fighting table from page 160, you might conclude that you should get the following penalties: without TWF Feat: "PW" "OW" "PP" "OP" "TWP" any none 0 -- -- none any -- -4 -- any light 0 -4 -4/-8 any 1H -2 -6 -6/-10 with TWF Feat: any none 0 -- -- none any -- 0 -- any light 0 0 -2/-2 any 1H -2 -2 -4/-4 Where: "PW" = weapon in your primary hand "OW" = weapon in your off hand "PP" = penalty on attacks with your primary hand "OP" = penalty on attacks with your off hand "TWP" = penalty on attacks with both hands (ie, normal TWF'ing) So, if you have the TWF feat and want to attack Greatsword/Greatsword/Unarmed Strike, you're back to +11/+6/+1. But if you're holding two longswords and want to attack Flaming/Flaming/Frosty, you get +9/+4/-1. That takes out a bit of the munchkin appeal. It also appeases Vahenir, since although you can threaten at 5' and 10' without a feat, your attacks at 5' will be at a -4 penalty. I think this seems like a reasonably balanced way to play it. jaelis
Vahenir 05-06-05, 12:47 AM	I like it. Very well done. Bravo. I may actually swipe that idea, myself.
OrbitalB 05-06-05, 10:20 AM	I also agree from a technical standpoint of the excerpt. The word "can" implies that it is optional, and that the rules following the option are dependant on you taking that option. Well, actually... not to be nit-picky... er... yeah, i guess to be nit-picky: If the word had been "may" not "can" you'd have a point. The quote is clear because it says "can" (which means the extra attack is an effect of wielding a second weapon, not an option generated because of wielding a second weapon.) You always have the 'option' not to take any attacks you could have otherwise made... this has nothing to do with the number of weapons you're weilding. The quote could be broken down like this: If I ran down the street, I can get there quicker. Doing this is very hard, however, and... etc. It's not the 'getting there quicker' that's hard, it's the running... getting there quicker is just an effect of running.
jaelis 05-06-05, 12:53 PM	If you build a rocket, you can fly to the moon... or you could go to Mars instead. If you give me a lever, I can move the world... or I could just sleep in. If you wield two swords, you can make more attacks... or you could fight defensively and make no attacks at all. I agree that "can" doesn't always suggest an option. Your example's not a bad one. But I think more often, it does suggest an option. jaelis
Tsuul 05-06-05, 01:12 PM	The word "can" indicates that the extra attack is optional. There is no way to determine whether the second sentence refers to wielding a second weapon in general, or to weilding a second weapon in such a way as to get an extra attack.Weilding a weapon means to be using the weapon for an attack action. There is no "Wielding a second weapon in general" option. The text is clear. If you would like to make optional house rules, go for it. You don't need the cover of "vague rules" to do it. Be bold!
Vahenir 05-06-05, 02:14 PM	I've e-mailed WotC support about this very question. I'll post the reply when I get one.
Tony Vargas 05-06-05, 02:33 PM	Weilding a weapon means to be using the weapon for an attack action. Actually, 'wielding' is left undefined. 'Using a weapon to attack' might be a valid interpretation of 'wielding,' but so might 'threatening with a weapon' (which doesn't require an attack, only the ability to make one). Well, actually... not to be nit-picky... er... yeah, i guess to be nit-picky: If the word had been "may" not "can" you'd have a point. The quote is clear because it says "can" (which means the extra attack is an effect of wielding a second weapon, not an option generated because of wielding a second weapon.) 'may' would mean something along the lines of 'are permitted to,' (which might make some sense, since we're talking rules), while 'can' would means more like 'are able to.' Neither means that you /must/ take that extra attack... But it doesn't stop there. The 'fighting this way' bit can easily be taken to refer to gaining the option of making the extra attack, not merely having a weapon in each hand. The passage just isn't that clear-cut. Both interpretations are valid. Both also run into problems, though. If you go with the idea that it's fine to interchange different weapons as part of a regular full attack - an idea that's heavily supported by the rules, when it comes to actually switching weapons (via quickdraw, for instance) - then you run into a potential problem with Defending weapons, because of defending's uber-stacking. If you go with the idea that using a second weapon always means TWF penalties, and choosing not to take those penalties means being limitted to using only a primary weapon, you run into 'paralysis' effects. EX: You're fighting with a sword & a bashing shield. You choose not to take the TWF penalty, and swing the sword, the sword shatters against the weird monster you're fighting - you have attacks left, but can't use your bashing shield, because you didn't take the TWF penalty: your off hand was 'paralyzed' by your decision to attack with the sword. Also, imposing TWF penalties on mixed THW & unarmed/armorspike/whatever attacks also opens the doors to actual TWFing with a two-handed weapon, which is decidedly imbalanced compared to conventional TWF options. :shrug:
BlackFiend 05-06-05, 02:46 PM	Unbeleivable...some people can look at the sun and say it looks green with poke-a-dots, and the rest of the world waits for a third party to settle the matter. Its not only clear in the rules you can attack use your iterative attacks any way you see fit per the rules, its in the FAQ, the modules, etc. Helll...You wouldn't be able to attack with a sword and then grapple in the same round if you couldn't do so. Jeebus... In any case.. Jaelis, don't forget the off hand attack suffers from half strength damage. Also, double weapons can't be used this way if you "choked up" on it, so to speak. In the rules it states that you can use a double weapon one handed and choose to use one head exclusively. If you do so, you can't switch and use the other head, if you will. You have to use two weapon fighting to do so, making the other weapon head a light off handed weapon. I think your summary will be relatively complete with this mentioned within.
Vahenir 05-06-05, 03:00 PM	and the rest of the world waits for a third party to settle the matter. I think it's more along the lines of: "Wait for a third party to give a definitive answer becuase the nay-sayers won't believe anything else."
Tsuul 05-06-05, 04:04 PM	Actually, 'wielding' is left undefined. 'Using a weapon to attack' might be a valid interpretation of 'wielding,' but so might 'threatening with a weapon' (which doesn't require an attack, only the ability to make one).Wielding is undefined. I will say I was guilty of being too specific. Weilding simply means using. Which is different from holding. I don't see any difference in your two statements of weilding. Improved Two-weapon fighting counters the interpretation that you can alternate between weapons in you standard BAB of +16/+11/+6/+1/ You can not +16Sword/+11Sword/+6Dagger/+1Dagger because improved two-weapon fighting states that it's not normal. It isn't a bad houserule to let someone fight like with any weapon during their iterative attacks, but it isn't RAW.
Tony Vargas 05-06-05, 04:17 PM	Improved Two-weapon fighting counters the interpretation that you can alternate between weapons in you standard BAB of +16/+11/+6/+1/ You can not +16Sword/+11Sword/+6Dagger/+1Dagger because improved two-weapon fighting states that it's not normal. I don't see how it does. ITWF allows you to make an itterative attack with a secondary weapon with which you're already getting an extra attack - it's all /in addition/ to your regular itterative attacks, and has no bearing on how things might work when you're not taking any extra attack at all. It's well-established that you don't have to make all your itterative attacks with the same weapon - you can, for instance, attack with a weapon, drop it, and quickdraw another one, attacking with it. What seems to be unclear is whether you can mix weapons without the dropping part - if you attack with a sword in your right hand, the argument goes, you can drop it, quickdraw a mace, and attack with it, but you can't simply use a mace already in your left hand, because that invokes TWF. :rolleyes: Weilding simply means using. Which is different from holding. I don't see any difference in your two statements of weilding. There's a difference. If you assume that wielding must mean attacking, then any ability that functions for a 'wielder' only fucntions when he uses attack actions - for instance, it disapears if he uses total defense or takes a double-move (that isn't a charge). If you assume wielding is more analogous to threatening, then you're a 'wielder' any time you're holding a weapon, and not paralyzed, flat-footed or otherwise unable to act.
chocobochicken 05-06-05, 04:35 PM	The use of "wielding" in the core rules isn't as in-depth as people try to argue it. A response I received from WotC customer service awhile ago stated that "wielding two weapons" meant simply holding them in your hands. For the interested, here's the entire text: From: "Wizards Customer Service" <custserv@wizards.com> To: removed Subject: RE: Game rules question - Dungeons & Dragons/Forgotten Realms/Eberron Feedback Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2005 20:51:14 +0000 Hello there Jeremy, You just have to have two weapons in hand. You don't even need to be in combat to benefit from the +1 shield bonus. You do need to be fighting defensively or using the total defense acti to get the +2 bonus though. Good gaming! *Please quote this email in any reply* **************************************** ************************* Sammy Customer Service Department Wizards of the Coast 1-800-324-6496 **************************************** ************************* -----Original Message----- From: removed Sent: Wednesday, February 16, 2005 8:47 AM To: Wizards Customer Service Subject: Game rules question - Dungeons & Dragons/Forgotten Realms/Eberron Feedback Game rules question - Dungeons & Dragons/Forgotten Realms/Eberron Feedback From: removed What constitutes wielding two weapons for the purposes of the Two-Weapon Defense feat? Is it only applied in a round when you use the full-attack action to make attack rolls with both weapons? Or can you receive the bonus while holding a weapon in each hand but only attacking with the primary weapon in a standard action without receiving the -2 penalty?
Tsuul 05-06-05, 04:48 PM	You got me on ITWF, and the "extra attack" What seems to be unclear is whether you can mix weapons without the dropping part - if you attack with a sword in your right hand, the argument goes, you can drop it, quickdraw a mace, and attack with it, but you can't simply use a mace already in your left hand, because that invokes TWF. Conceptualy that seems fine. If you want to muddy the waters consider dropping a weapon you were using one handed and drawing a two handed weapon. If you assume that wielding must mean attacking, then any ability that functions for a 'wielder' only fucntions when he uses attack actions - for instance, it disapears if he uses total defense or takes a double-move (that isn't a charge).If you assume wielding is more analogous to threatening, then you're a 'wielder' any time you're holding a weapon, and not paralyzed, flat-footed or otherwise unable to act.Not just attacking, using (I amended that quickly :)). Which includes threatening because you need to wield a weapon to be threatening. It's both, not either.
Tsuul 05-06-05, 04:50 PM	"wielding two weapons" meant simply holding them in your hands.That's .... restrictive. :mad:
Tony Vargas 05-06-05, 06:48 PM	Which includes threatening because you need to wield a weapon to be threatening. It's both, not either. Again, since 'wielding' is undefined, you don't have to be 'weilding' a weapon to threaten. IIRC, to threaten, you have to be 'able to make a melee attack' into the square in question: You threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack, even when it is not your action. ...If you’re unarmed, you don’t normally threaten any squares ... So, how you define 'weilding' is still up the air, and it'll affect how the game plays out, and how broken certain things are (the tighter and more restrictive the definition of 'wielding,' the less broken Defending weapons become, for instance - though, IMHO, it'd be much simpler just to fix the egregious uber-stacking, instead). If you want to muddy the waters consider dropping a weapon you were using one handed and drawing a two handed weapon. I certainly don't see a problem with that. Heck, simply changing changing from a one-handed to a two-handed grip is a free action.
Jack Daniel 05-06-05, 07:10 PM	Let's clarify a few points. To illustrate, I'll use a 6th level fighter with Str 15, Two-Weapon Fighting, Improved Two-Weapon Fighitng, and Improved Unarmed Strike. 1. Yes, it's legal to use a greatsword as your primary attack and then unarmed strikes or armor spikes as your off-hand attack. This is just normal two-weapon fighting. The sample fighter above could attack this way at +6/+1 with the greatsword (2d6+3 damage) and +6/+1 unarmed strike (1d3+1 damage). It's also legal to have things the other way around, but then the off-hand weapon isn't light, so it's usually a bad idea: +4/-1 unarmed strike (1d3+2 damage), +4/-1 greatsword (2d6+2 damage). (The greatsword's off-hand damage bonus is +2 because wielding a weapon in two-hands increases the damage bonus by half, but using it for an off-hand attack decreases it by half... remember, in D&D, when you multiply twice, you treat it as addition.) 2. Attacks must be made in descending order, and you can choose either weapon to go first (your primary attacks don't neccessarily have to go first). If our fighter again attacks with greatsword (primary) and unarmed strikes (off-hand), you choose which one goes first, and make all of that weapon's attacks before attacking with the other weapon. You attack at +6/+1 and then again at +6/+1, not at +6/+6/+1/+1 or any other random order you want. 3. Barring use of the Quick Draw feat, you cannot freely change weapons in the middle of your attack routine. Why? Because that's a special perk granted only to monks using a flurry of blows. A monk with a nunchak in one hand and a kama in the other can flurry and use any combination of the nunchak, the kama, and unarmed strikes over the course of his attack routine. A fighter carrying a nunchak and a kama can't normally do that. Now, things change if you don't mind dropping the weapon in your primary hand. If you do that, you can make an unarmed strike or even Quick Draw a new weapon into that hand and attack with it, but you can't just make a primary attack with a weapon in your off-hand... normally. Again, things change if you have the Two-Weapon Fighting feat. A character with this feat is ambidextrous, and doesn't really have an "off-hand" unless he is actually using two-weapon fighting to get the extra off-hand attack. A character with the Two-Weapon Fighting feat and a longsword in one hand and a short sword in the other *is* allowed to freely change between the two weapons during a primary routine, because the character has no set off-hand... but the character could not change between longsword, short sword, and unarmed strikes as primary attacks, because the only unarmed strikes available to this character are kicks and head-butts (because his hands are full), and these are always off-hand unless the character is a monk. And one more... if you do take a monk level, then you *can* make primary unarmed strikes with odd parts of your body, and so if you have both a monk level and the Two-Weapon Fighting feat, then you've effectively mirrored the weapon-changing perk that a flurry of blows grants, but for any weapon that you happen to be carrying (or Quick Drawing). I hope that all made sense.
Tony Vargas 05-06-05, 07:30 PM	1. Yes, it's legal to use a greatsword as your primary attack and then unarmed strikes or armor spikes as your off-hand attack. This is just normal two-weapon fighting. This is true according to the FAQ, but it's an extraordinarily bad idea, balance-wise. 2. Attacks must be made in descending order, and you can choose either weapon to go first , you choose which one goes first, and make all of that weapon's attacks before attacking with the other weapon. You attack at +6/+1 and then again at +6/+1, not at +6/+6/+1/+1 or any other random order you want.That doesn't sound right. I though it specifically had to go the other way - that you could start with either one, but you had to use all your +6 attacks before you tapped any +1 attacks. There's a certain potential for abuse, for instance, in using a +1 attack to Trip (touch attack), then following up with a +6 attack... 3. Barring use of the Quick Draw feat, you cannot freely change weapons in the middle of your attack routine. But, with quickdraw, you can. And, if you can with quickdraw, why wouldn't you be able to with weapons you already have drawn? It's a pointless restriction. Why? Because that's a special perk granted only to monks using a flurry of blows. A monk with a nunchak in one hand and a kama in the other can flurry and use any combination of the nunchak, the kama, and unarmed strikes over the course of his attack routine. A fighter carrying a nunchak and a kama can't normally do that. Well, he can't /flurry/, but there's no reason he couldn't strike with one weapon, then another, if he had two attacks available. It's only if your using TWF to get an extra attack that which weapon you're using makes a difference. Now, things change if you don't mind dropping the weapon in your primary hand. If you do that, you can make an unarmed strike or even Quick Draw a new weapon into that hand and attack with it, but you can't just make a primary attack with a weapon in your off-hand... normally.This is the 'paralysis' problem I mentioned before. Under this sort of interpretation, your off-hand becomes useless the moment you make an attack w/o the TWF penalty. It's nonsensical (though, of course, nonsensical things happen as a consequence of many rules). Again, things change if you have the Two-Weapon Fighting feat. A character with this feat is ambidextrous, and doesn't really have an "off-hand" unless he is actually using two-weapon fighting to get the extra off-hand attack. A reasonable interpretation, but you have to apeal to things like comments made about the 3.0 to 3.5 conversion to support it. A character with the Two-Weapon Fighting feat and a longsword in one hand and a short sword in the other *is* allowed to freely change between the two weapons during a primary routine, because the character has no set off-hand... Again, I think that's a good idea, but the rules say so little about off-hands, that it's hard to back up. but the character could not change between longsword, short sword, and unarmed strikes as primary attacks, because the only unarmed strikes available to this character are kicks and head-butts (because his hands are full), and these are always off-hand unless the character is a monk. I've never seen anything to suggest that. Yeah, there's something about a Monk not having an off-hand (with regard to flurry and unarmed attack), yet he magically grows an off-hand if you uses TWF. The whole off-hand concept is so intimately tied to TWF /to gain an extra attack/, that there's not much point in worrying about it with regards to anything else - and, really, there's no balance reason to do so, the 'weakness' of the off-hand is just there to prevent 1&2E style overpowered TWFing (and, if your remember post-UA and 2E TWF, you'll shudder at the suggestion of it's return). I hope that all made sense. Some of it made so much sense I wished it were official... ;)
Jack Daniel 05-06-05, 09:15 PM	Well I'm only calling the RAW as I see them. Unofficially, I mostly ignore the whole "you still have an off-hand when one-weapon-fighting" thing too (since, with no Ambidexterity feat anymore, it doesn't really mean much to the game). Likewise, if a character has Improved Unarmed Strike, I give them the same "multi-dexterity"/"whole body is a weapon" quality that monk unarmed strikes have. But neither of these is actually part of the rules. The standard rules say that if a right-handed fighter who does not have (3.5) Two-Weapon Fighting (or 3.0 Ambidexterity) attacks someone with a sword in his left hand, no matter that that's the only weapon he's using that round, it's an off-hand attack. Easily ignored, but still part of the game anyway.
jaelis 05-06-05, 11:13 PM	So I'm not totally sure I caught the upshot of your discussion, at least in regard to the orginal poster's question. If you don't have the TWF feat, can you combine primary and off-hand attacks in a standard full attack sequence? For instance, the 6th level fighter striking once with a greatsword and once with an unarmed strike? My opinion was yes, but the unarmed strike would be at -4 to hit and would get only 1/2 the Str bonus. But really, I'm more interested in thinking about the consequences of this interpretation. I see that it strengthens reach fighters, and that it makes defending weapons more powerful. It also makes the TWF feat more desirable in general. Anything else worth considering? jaelis
Jack Daniel 05-07-05, 01:10 AM	So I'm not totally sure I caught the upshot of your discussion, at least in regard to the orginal poster's question. If you don't have the TWF feat, can you combine primary and off-hand attacks in a standard full attack sequence? For instance, the 6th level fighter striking once with a greatsword and once with an unarmed strike? My opinion was yes, but the unarmed strike would be at -4 to hit and would get only 1/2 the Str bonus. jaelis That pretty much the gist of it. When you make an off-hand attack as part of your primary attack routine, you don't take the -2/-2 two-weapon fighting penalty because you aren't getting an extra attack, but without the Two-Weapon Fighting feat, the off-hand attack still takes a -4 penalty to hit and gets only half the Str bonus to damage. So the above fighter could attack at +8/+3 using an unarmed strike for the second attack, but if he didn't have the Two-Weapon Fighitng feat, the off-hand penalty would make it +8/-1.
Vahenir 05-08-05, 12:22 PM	Attention: I got a response from the WotC game support. Unfortunately, I was wrong. You -cannot- use an off-hand weapon in your normal iterative attacks. "Your iterative attacks can only be made with your primary hand. If you use a second weapon in your off-hand as part of a full attack action, the only rules allowed are that you get an extra attack with that weapon, and you incur 2 weapon fighting penalties when you do so." Oh well.
OrbitalB 05-08-05, 03:29 PM	Queue the "But... that's not what was clearly printed in the PHB to begin with" comments. And, don't forget the "CustServ guys are stupid and don't know anything because they don't think the same way I do" rhetoric.
Vahenir 05-08-05, 03:54 PM	I'm giving the posters more credit than that. The question was answered clearly by Customer Service. They are right down the hall from the DESIGNERS of the game - so it's not like you have to worry (too much) about them just making up a half-hearted answer because they don't know. The question has been answered.. you can attack with an off-hand weapon as part of your normal iterative attacks - but you'd be using a houserule. Sorry. I'm upset about it, because I was wrong. I dislike that. But nothing can be done about it - them's the brakes.
SALDAR 05-08-05, 08:36 PM	Thank you, Vahenir. I would have contacted CustServ myself but my home PC is dead at the moment and my work PC is blocked from Wizards main sight (but not the message boards, go figure).
jaelis 05-08-05, 09:59 PM	Oh well. :( Not that I won't house rule it anyway, but it's always nice to imagine the designers think the way you do. I'm not so sure they're right down the hall, though. I thought they farmed Cust Serv out to contractors. jaelis
Vahenir 05-09-05, 12:57 AM	According to the Wizards main site (somewhere on there) it says that if you ever have a problem, contact the Customer Service reps... and they'll answer your question - and it's hard to stump them since they're right down the hall from the designers. That's what I read.. I was just reiterating.. if I come by that quote again - I'll post it up and where it can be found.
Tony Vargas 05-09-05, 02:19 PM	But really, I'm more interested in thinking about the consequences of this interpretation. I see that it strengthens reach fighters, and that it makes defending weapons more powerful. It also makes the TWF feat more desirable in general. Anything else worth considering? There are relatively few balance considerations. The interpretation does let you use a 'no hands' weapon like armor spikes or IUS to threaten while using a conventional reach weapon. This doesn't make 'reach fighters' stronger, but it does narrow the gap between the Spiked Chain and the various martial reach weapons - which, would make the Spiked Chain less overpowered, in a sense. :shrug: Defending weapons are already problematic, and the interpretation would highlight that fact - if you went with it, you'd want to fix Defending. Possibly the most significant consequence, though, is that it could be stretched to allow a charcter using a ranged weapon like a bow to threaten - that's still not /that/ significant, but it would alter the dynamics of combat a little more than letting pole-arm types threaten close-in (since that's already achievable via the spiked chain). It's also worth noting that both interpretations open up the possibility of using TWF with a two-handed weapon as the primary, which /is/ a balance consideration, since it blows away legitimate forms of TWF, including exotic double-weapons whose sole reason for being is to TWF. Since one interpretation invokes TWF penalties, it's a little harder to fix this potential problem with it, than with the other...
jaelis 05-09-05, 04:47 PM	As far as TWF'ing with armor spikes and a two-handed weapon, I don't much like it either. Even though its in the FAQ. Actually, I really don't like being able to attack with armor spikes at all (outside of a grapple). A spiked gauntlet would let you do all the things we've been talking about in this thread, but would not permit TWF'ing with a greatsword. But I think I do like allowing alternate attacks... I agree completely that it doesn't give reach fighters anything that the spiked chain doesn't already have better. The thing with bows... couldn't an archer with a spiked gauntlet basically threaten already? He could just state at the end of his turn that he's letting go of his bow with one hand as a free action. I'd be pressed not to let him grab on again next round as a free action, and certainly he could if he had Quickdraw. In between, he's armed with a melee weapon, and thus threatens. Preventing that kind of thing seems a little tricky. What an archer could do with this interpretation is hold his bow in his left hand, quickdraw his sword with his right hand, attack an adjacent foe and drop him, and then switch back to his bow and use his remaining attacks. I think Tiluvias mentioned this already. I guess that could be pretty strong. But would it be unbalancing? Archers can be amazing on paper, but I've never seen them work so well in practice. (Not that I've seen so much.) And the Defending thing is just a simple problem. It's one of those things that makes for big RAW arguments but easy house-fixes. jaelis
Tony Vargas 05-09-05, 06:07 PM	As far as TWF'ing with armor spikes and a two-handed weapon, I don't much like it either. Even though its in the FAQ. Actually, I really don't like being able to attack with armor spikes at all. Yeah. I think armor spikes might have been better, or at least less problematic, if they only aplied in grappling. The thing with bows... couldn't an archer with a spiked gauntlet basically threaten already? He could just state at the end of his turn that he's letting go of his bow with one hand as a free action. It's perplexing. Obviously, when you're not actually knocking and firing arrows, your primary hand is free, and the bow is in your off, hand - you never really 'hold' a bow in two hands except when you're actually drawing it, once you've loosed your last arrow, your primary hand isn't actually touching the bow at all. But, while D&D lets you complete a round of action before the next initiative comes up, you really are supposed to be spending the whole round doing what you're doing. If you spend several rounds making full ranged attacks with a bow, you're supposed to be fully occupied in doing so. What an archer could do with this interpretation is hold his bow in his left hand, quickdraw his sword with his right hand, attack an adjacent foe and drop him, and then switch back to his bow and use his remaining attacks. AFAICT, interpretation or no, this is perfectly legal. You're never making an off-hand attack, and you're never using both weapons at once. You're just changing weapons. While you're holding the bow in one hand it's not useable as a weapon. Until you draw the sword, and once you've dropped it, you're no longer using the bow. And the Defending thing is just a simple problem. It's one of those things that makes for big RAW arguments but easy house-fixes. Yep. Just naming the bonus, or stating that (like most unnamed bonuses) it doesn't stack with others from the same source (in this case, spelling out that the defending enchantment is the same source, even when on another weapon), or having it work like Expertise and aplying a penalty to all attacks instead of reducing the weapon's enhancement bonus... any of those fixes would be pretty workable.
Vahenir 05-09-05, 06:24 PM	I still think the ruling on using two weapons is really... well to be honest (and no offense to anyone), stupid. If I'm holding a longsword in my primary hand and a shortsword in my offhand... I cannot use the shortsword in the course of my normal attacks, no matter how many normal attacks I have. However, I can make an EXTRA attack with the shortsword, if I want to. So the only way I can use my shortsword is if I choose to make more attacks than I already have. But, by the same token, I can have a bow, a longsword, and a shortsword - both swords sheathed and a bow in hand. I can attack once with my bow, quick draw my longsword and attack with it, drop it and quick draw a shortsword and attack with that. Uh... what?
Tsuul 05-09-05, 07:53 PM	However, I can make an EXTRA attack with the shortsword, if I want to. So the only way I can use my shortsword is if I choose to make more attacks than I already have.you can choose less. Attack with your shortsword first, then choose not to attack with your longsword. Take the penalties, and be considered to be weilding both. But, by the same token, I can have a bow, a longsword, and a shortsword - both swords sheathed and a bow in hand. I can attack once with my bow, quick draw my longsword and attack with it, drop it and quick draw a shortsword and attack with that. Uh... what?Your not considered to be weilding three weapons when your turn ends, just what's left in your hand; the shortsword. The fist line of TWF says it all: "If you wield a second weapon in your offhand..." That is, if you are weilding 2 weapons at the same time. It all funnels back to your interpretation of wield.
Vahenir 05-09-05, 08:07 PM	you can choose less. Attack with your shortsword first, then choose not to attack with your longsword. Take the penalties, and be considered to be weilding both. Let me repharse..: The only way to attack with the shortsword after attacking, or in conjunction with attacking, with the longsword. Your not considered to be weilding three weapons when your turn ends, just what's left in your hand; the shortsword. That's not what I meant. I wasn't talking about what you are considered to be wielding. The concept was that if I'm holding two weapons, I can't use my iterative attacks to attack with them both. But I -CAN- use my iterative attacks to use three completely different weapons that I wasn't holding to begin with.
chocobochicken 05-09-05, 08:27 PM	But, by the same token, I can have a bow, a longsword, and a shortsword - both swords sheathed and a bow in hand. I can attack once with my bow, quick draw my longsword and attack with it, drop it and quick draw a shortsword and attack with that. Uh... what? Well, that's not perfectly acceptable by RAW. The PHB actually states that it's entirely the DM's call on how many free actions you may take in one round. So if the DM thinks it's silly that you'd be trading between three different weapons (and why wouldn't he?), he could call a halt to your free actions after quick drawing the longsword. So I'm not sure that's a reasonable comparison.
jaelis 05-09-05, 09:04 PM	But, while D&D lets you complete a round of action before the next initiative comes up, you really are supposed to be spending the whole round doing what you're doing. If you spend several rounds making full ranged attacks with a bow, you're supposed to be fully occupied in doing so. I thought about that too, but I didn't see an easy way to make an actual rule out of it. I guess the easiest is: if you take a full attack with a weapon, any AoO's you make until your next turn must be with that weapon. But then what if you actually dropped your weapon at the end of your turn? You give up your AoO's? Also, what if you're a monk and you've been flurrying with different weapons? Not that its a big deal. The whole area is so gray that there just has to be a lot of DM calls. Because it would have been so hard to actually write rules about it in the first place. Sigh. Vahenir- I agree that the DM is within his/her rights to limit free actions like quickdraw. I doubt I would object if the sequence made some kind of sense... I'd probably be OK even with going sword/spear/bow if the situation were appropriate (and the player gave a captivating description of the action), but something like sword/hammer/sickle/bow/whip is just being silly. jaelis
Tony Vargas 05-09-05, 09:07 PM	Well, that's not perfectly acceptable by RAW. The PHB actually states that it's entirely the DM's call on how many free actions you may take in one round. True, but you're allowed to use quickdraw to make full attacks with thrown weapons - so it's pretty clear that you can use it more than once per round... I meant. I wasn't talking about what you are considered to be wielding. The concept was that if I'm holding two weapons, I can't use my iterative attacks to attack with them both. But I -CAN- use my iterative attacks to use three completely different weapons that I wasn't holding to begin with. It does come back to 'weilding' (a pesky, undifined term that's none-the-less critical with things like Defending weapons, that give a benefit to 'the wielder'). :rolleyes: When 'wielding' provides a benefit, allowing a character to attack with two (or potentially more) weapons, and thus 'wield' all of them raises a red flag. I think the problem is the non-definition of 'wield' and the attributes, like Defending, that seem to be balanced with the idea of using one (or at most, two) weapons at a time, when the game provides no clear rules for 'wielding,' and contains weapons, like armor spikes, that are hands-free. That is, the red flag is going up, but on the wrong thing. It's not having a few weapons useable at once that's the problem, because the could all be Defending. It's Defending that's the problem, because you could have it on multiple weapons. :rolleyes:
Vahenir 05-09-05, 09:10 PM	My point wasn't that a DM could disallow it, or that it wasn't silly. Both apply. But remember the golden rule. If the rules don't say you can't do it - you can do it, unless the DM rules otherwise. So technically, according to the raw, you can drop and quick draw as many weapons as you have immediate access to. That's the RAW. Anything else is DM abjudication.
Tony Vargas 05-09-05, 09:24 PM	I thought about that too, but I didn't see an easy way to make an actual rule out of it. I guess the easiest is: if you take a full attack with a weapon, any AoO's you make until your next turn must be with that weapon. But then what if you actually dropped your weapon at the end of your turn? You give up your AoO's? Also, what if you're a monk and you've been flurrying with different weapons? Yeah, it's a conceptual problem. Conceptually, everything's happening at once, but, for playability, everyone competes a round of action on thier turn. If you have an example like someone moving towards an archer, who drops thier bow and quickdraws a shortsword, then, if the charging character reaches the archer in one round, he gets there before the fellow's switched to melee, but, if he doesn't, then the archer can let loose a full attack of arrows as he aproaches, and be ready for him with sword (and buckler even). However the concept goes, mechanically, if you do something on your action, you've completed it before anyone else gets to finish whatever they were doing, if that's firing 5 arrows and quickdrawing a sword, then all five of those arrows are gone, and the sword is in hand. The spiked gauntlet seems to mess with that, because you're not really switching weapons, you're able to 'pretend' to switch weapons at the end of each round so you can threaten, and then take your full attack on your action, thus gaining the benefits of using a melee weapon, and of attacking with a ranged weapon. It /seems/ like it can't quite be 'right.' But, really, it makes a certain amount of sense. Characters /are/ supposed to be able to respond between rounds - when a new opponent melees you, you're assumed to turn to face him, for instance, and even trade blows (PH flavor text). It's not unreasonable for an archer with a spiked gauntlet to respond to someone getting that close by using the gauntlet as a melee weapon. If he's not menaced like that, then, he's doing between-actions archery stuff (looking down range for targets, pulling out the next arrow, etc). He's not really firing arrows instantly, then spending most of the combat swinging the gauntlet around lest anyone provoke an AoO from him. He's spending most of the round shooting, but, if he finds himself in melee, he has a weapon ready.
chocobochicken 05-10-05, 08:27 AM	But remember the golden rule. If the rules don't say you can't do it - you can do it, unless the DM rules otherwise. So technically, according to the raw, you can drop and quick draw as many weapons as you have immediate access to. That's the RAW. Anything else is DM abjudication. That's the silliest thing I've ever heard. The rules don't say I can't give my character a +20 circumstance bonus to attack rolls for having blue dice. Is that RAW now? I'm not referring to normal DM abjudication. The reference to a DM's calling on free actions is deliberate. The mechanic for free actions is that there is no mechanic, because the sheer number and variety of possibilities were too difficult to constrain without making the system needlessly complicated. So instead of trying to define everything, they left it open-ended and deliberately handed that responsibility to the DM. The SRD says: Free Action: Free actions consume a very small amount of time and effort. You can perform one or more free actions while taking another action normally. However, there are reasonable limits on what you can really do for free. . . . Free actions don’t take any time at all, though there may be limits to the number of free actions you can perform in a turn. But the PHB elaborates much more, explaining that this is entirely the DM's call. So the RAW doesn't let you perform as many quick draws and drops as you want; the RAW specifically says it's up to the DM.
Tony Vargas 05-10-05, 02:42 PM	But the PHB elaborates much more, explaining that this is entirely the DM's call. So the RAW doesn't let you perform as many quick draws and drops as you want; the RAW specifically says it's up to the DM. The RAW also specifically says that you can use Quickdraw to make full attacks with thrown weapons - that means you can quickdraw as many times in a round as you can attack. More than that would be obviously be up to the DM, of course, but, really, to illustrate the issue at hand, you only need to quickdraw once in a given round...
chocobochicken 05-10-05, 03:40 PM	The RAW also specifically says that you can use Quickdraw to make full attacks with thrown weapons - that means you can quickdraw as many times in a round as you can attack. When throwing weapons, that's what it means, sure. But that doesn't mean you can quickdraw as many times in between melee attacks. The thrown weapon attacks are an exception, not an example. And Vahenir's example requires two quickdraw actions and one drop action. I just don't see how this is a comparison to the issue of switching iterative attacks, or why that issue was even problematic in the first place. The rules make perfect sense to me.
Tony Vargas 05-10-05, 03:55 PM	When throwing weapons, that's what it means, sure. But that doesn't mean you can quickdraw as many times in between melee attacks. You can make the same number of melee attacks as ranged attacks, you can make that number of ranged attacks, and the same number of quickdraws, explicitly. Why should melee attacks be different? A DM /can/ rule that they are. Technically, a DM could never let your use quickdraw more than once per round, unless you were throwing weapons. It wouldn't make much sense, but he could do it... And Vahenir's example requires two quickdraw actions and one drop action.Maybe it does, there have been a lot of examples thrown out. Even one quickdraw (which I don't think any DM would rule against), serves to illustrate the issue, though: Say you have a 6+ BAB and are holding a weapon in each hand. You attempt a disarm with one of those weapons, without taking TWF penalties. You fail, and your opponent's counter-disarm succeeds. You still have a +1 attack left, but, under one interpretation, you can't take it with the other weapon you're still holding, but /could/ take it by quickdrawing a third weapon (and, depending on how the DM rules, could also do so by switching the weapon to your other hand). Under a different interpretation, your off-hand isn't paralyzed, and you can simply attack with the second weapon. I just don't see how this is a comparison to the issue of switching iterative attacks, or why that issue was even problematic in the first place. The rules make perfect sense to me. You can make sense out of the rules under either interpretation - and, one of them is backed by the FAQ. But, the FAQ ruling does eliminate a variety of perfectly reasonable options that aren't at all unbalancing (switching itterative attacks), fails to eliminate one option that clearly is imbalancing (TWF w/ a THW & a 'no hand weapon'), and masks a problem with a weapon enchantment (Defending). The alternate ruling allows the acceptable options, also fails to eliminate the imbalancing one, and makes it clear that Defending is in need of a fix. Neither is that great, really. :rolleyes:
Vahenir 05-10-05, 04:25 PM	That's the silliest thing I've ever heard. The rules don't say I can't give my character a +20 circumstance bonus to attack rolls for having blue dice. Is that RAW now? Funny thing - it was actually written into one of the articles on WotC's main site. But now I can't find which one it was (because I don't feel like reading all of this and last months' articles again). In any event, you're using a really ridiculous point to counter the idea that if the rules don't say no - the answer is yes. If the rules don't say you CAN'T.. then you CAN. The rules don't say anything at -all- about bonuses from coloured dice. I think what the expression means is that if its covered by the rules, and it doesn't object to your ability to do it - then you can do it. So a more APPROPRIATE example is something like: "Can I run while drinking water?" Are there rules for running? Yes. Carrying things while running? Sort of. Any rule against running while drinking water? Nope. Yes- you can. But that's just how I understand what that phrase means. Personally, if anyone ever came to my games and said "the rules didn't say I couldn't tie a rope around a halfling and use him as a weapon.. so that's what I'm doing" - I'd smack him in the face. I don't run my games that way. But apparently, WotC doesn't see things the way you and I do. Now if only I could remember what article it was in..
jaelis 05-10-05, 04:33 PM	But that's just how I understand what that phrase means. Personally, if anyone ever came to my games and said "the rules didn't say I couldn't tie a rope around a halfling and use him as a weapon.. so that's what I'm doing" - I'd smack him in the face. I don't run my games that way. You mean like this (http://www.giantitp.com/cgi-bin/GiantITP/ootscript?SK=166)?
Vahenir 05-10-05, 04:45 PM	Hahahaha.. Yes.. something like that.
mercurial67 05-10-05, 05:57 PM	Personally, I dislike that they removed handedness from 3.5. In 3.0, if you were right handed, you attacked normally with your right hand and took a -4 from all attacks/skill checks/etc made with your other hand. The ambidexterity feat got rid of this and you could attack with either hand without a penalty. When attacked with both at the same time (TWF) you took a -6 penalty (improved by two with TWF feat & by two with light weapon in off-hand) to gain an extra attack. In 3.5, there is no handedness. Your primary hand is the hand you make your primary attack with. It could be your right hand one round and your left hand the next round. Because of the the way they originally did handedness in 3.0, I have always allowed my players to attack with as many weapons as they want based on their BAB and it has never created any problems. The most it has been used for is someone wielding a small trip weapon and then taking the free attack (IT) with a weapon in thier other hand. When it comes to someone using a reach weapon while wearing spiked armor or having IUS, the rules state you threaten an area if you can make an attack into the square. You could make an attack into an adjacent square while wearing spiked armor, so you do threaten there even if you are using a reach weapon. The same holds true if you are using a bow under the same circumstances.