| Post/Author/DateTime | Post |
|---|---|
| #1AndyDayDec 09, 2014 10:24:50 | Greetings,
If a monk has the "extra attack" feature, and uses said extra attack to strike with a non-monk weapon (such as a battle axe), I think he can still use his Martial Arts attack (and/or flurry of blows), assuming he strikes with at least 1 monk weapon. Does that concure with your thinking? Or conquer with it?
**Edit: after further reading, it appears Flurry of Blows can be used even if I doin't use a monk weapon. So I could battleaxe twice, and flurry of blows twice, by spending a Ki at 5th level. Yes? |
| #2Plaguescarred4Dec 09, 2014 14:51:23 | Yes, as long as one of the attack is made with a monk weapon or unarmed strike, the monk should be able to make an unarmed strike as a bonus action using Martial Art. Jeremy Crawford recently confirmed that Extra Attacks could be made with seperate weapons http://thesageadvice.wordpress.com/2014/12/05/extra-attack/
Flurry of Blows can also be used when you take the Attack action, regardless of the weapon used.
Martial Arts: When you use the Attack action with an unarmed strike or a monk weapon on your turn, you can make one unarmed strike as a bonus action.
|
| #3cowleymenDec 09, 2014 14:45:22 | Im curious to hear more about the build Andy Day is going for with this line of thinking, |
| #4BloodscytheDec 09, 2014 14:58:45 | yeah, Flurry of Blows can be used regardless of the weapon you're using... A 5th lvl monk can attack twice with a greatsword and spend 1 Ki to get two unarmed strikes used as a bonus action.
The wording of martial arts is interesting... it actually supports an argument I've presented on another forum: Where in the rules does it say you can switch weapons mid-attack action. Once you take your attack action, you have to describe your action (I use my sword. I use my bow. etc.) No where in the rules does it say you can describe an attack using more than one weapon... and the only rules that even state you can attack with a weapon in your other hand is TWF, which is an attack using the bonus action. "When you use the attack action with an unarmed strike or a monk weapon..." It doesn't say when you attack with an unarmed strike or monk weapon, but rather when you use the "attack action"... this suggests to me that when you use your action, however many attacks you get from the action are made with the same weapon. Also note that the wording of "extra attack" doesn't indicate that your second attack can allow a weapon change... it simply says you attack twice, instead of once... so you attack once with your battleaxe when you take your attack action. Once you have extra attack, you attack [twice] with your battleaxe when you take your attack action.
So if you use the attack action with a battleaxe, you cannot make an unarmed strike as a bonus action since a battleaxe is not a monk weapon or unarmed strike, per RAW. |
| #5Macv12Dec 09, 2014 16:08:42 | Oh yay. This argument again :P
Restricting Extra Attack to one weapon is a house rule. The rules don't have to specifically protect a player's right to switch weapons because it's already perfectly allowed within the rules as they are.
Martial Arts is phrased that way so that it only works once and on your turn. It can't be triggered with a bonus action or a reaction attack. Nor multiple times by the multiple attacks in Extra Attack, since Extra Attack is a bundle of attacks within a single Attack Action. You can read whatever you want into that, but it's your personal house rule. |
| (Reply to #5)Bloodscythe |
|
| #7lawrencehoyDec 09, 2014 21:35:23 |
|
| #8jonathonhawkeDec 09, 2014 21:55:05 | Do the rules specifically limit you to only holding one weapon during combat except when procing the TWF bonus attack? |
| #9Macv12Dec 10, 2014 2:57:30 |
|
| (Reply to #7)Bloodscythe |
|
| (Reply to #8)Bloodscythe |
|
| (Reply to #9)Bloodscythe |
|
| #13jonathonhawkeDec 10, 2014 8:31:48 |
|
| (Reply to #13)Bloodscythe |
|
| (Reply to #14)jonathonhawke |
|
| (Reply to #15)Bloodscythe |
|
| #17Macv12Dec 10, 2014 16:17:41 |
|
| #18jonathonhawkeDec 10, 2014 17:03:46 |
|
| (Reply to #17)Bloodscythe |
|
| (Reply to #18)Bloodscythe |
|
| #21jonathonhawkeDec 10, 2014 18:13:14 |
|
| (Reply to #21)Bloodscythe |
|
| #23lawrencehoyDec 10, 2014 21:55:09 |
|
| #24lawrencehoyDec 10, 2014 22:02:24 |
|
| #25jonathonhawkeDec 11, 2014 0:12:49 |
|
| #26CariadocThorneDec 11, 2014 3:27:29 | The rules in this edition do not make any mention of dominant hand. That is a concept which no longer exists in the game. There is nothing to stop me going into a fight with, for example, a flaming sword in one hand to fight trolls and a chill sword in my other hand for fighting salamanders. Or a sword in one hand for mellee and a hand crossbow for ranged attacks, when I make an attack, I can use either weapon.
So if the rules do not differentiate between a characters two hands, how is this any different from using extra attack to throw 2 daggers? Those are separate weapons too. Mechanically, there is no difference between making 2 attacks as one action with the sword in your right hand, and making an attack with the sword in your right hand and an attack with the mace in your right hand. Also, while I wouldn't call it conclusive proof, it is worth noting that unlike extra attack, the ranger feature "Horde breaker" specifies that the free attack must be made with the same weapon. The absence of this wording in other places suggests that attacks do not need to be made with the same weapon. |
| (Reply to #25)Bloodscythe |
|
| (Reply to #26)Bloodscythe |
|
| (Reply to #26)Nachturnus | Color me surprised to see people replying to Bloodscythe's relentless pushing of his own agenda relating to attacking with sepparate weapons. |
| #30AndyDayDec 11, 2014 7:02:59 | Thread: derailed. The fact that this conversation is even happening means that you people don't understand the core thesis of 5E vs 3&4. 5E = laze faire. Take it easy. Don't be a f'ing rule's lawyer.
I watched a movie the other day "Way of the Warrior" that got me thinking about the concept: how to be the "ultimate swordsman." This is a thematic concept I'm exploring, not a mechanical one. But part of that has been to look at different classes and see what can be done. Which is when I came upon the monk and got to thinking about how he could use some weapons that are a tad more exciting than his monk weapons.
So I was wondering how the monk might use Great Weapon Master with a greatsword, and still get punchy punchy kicky kicky boons. Looks like it can be done in a variety of ways, so that's exciting. Thanks for the insight.
The Monk could also be a pretty good hit and run strategist using the Polearm Master. And if you were to make him a naginata "glaive" user, he could use both the great weapon fighter and the polearm mastery for some interesting tricks, and still be pretty "monky" in both theme and mechanic. In short: 5E has given me a bevvy of interesting options. Yay 5E!*
Cheers all!
*Oh wait, nevermind. The rules don't say I can re-name a Glaive into a Naginata. The rules don't say anything about me making a "sword master." The rules don't say that I can think outside the box. So I guess I cannot do it because the rules don't specifically say I can. What a pity! |
| (Reply to #28)CariadocThorne |
|
| (Reply to #30)Bloodscythe |
|
| (Reply to #31)Bloodscythe |
|
| (Reply to #29)Bloodscythe |
|
| #35NachturnusDec 11, 2014 10:11:50 |
|
| (Reply to #35)Bloodscythe |
|
| #37guachiDec 11, 2014 18:53:05 | I see Bloodscythe is totally ignoring the ruling regarding multiple weapon usage in one Extra Attack action by the one person on planet Earth who can make such rulings.
Can a L5 fighter attack with a longsword & a club he's holding using Attack action or Extra Attack must use same weapon?
The Extra Attack feature imposes no limitation on what weapon is used.
It's Twiitter, so it's not a dissertation. But it's clear to anyone who wishes to see what the meaning of the answer is in the context of the question.
|
| #38MischiefincdmDec 11, 2014 23:15:34 |
PHB p. 78 You gain the following benefits while you are unarmed or wielding only monk weapons and you aren't wearing armor or wielding a shield.
Unless the monk has a high STR and a high DEX, this really makes no sense. As soon as you are wielding the axe, you no longer can use DEX for your attack roll and no longer get the bonus action from martial arts. You lose the benifits as soon as you wield the axe.
If you strike with a monk weapon and then take your bonus action, then attack with an axe that you draw, you would attack using strength and unless you took a feat or had a feature that gave you proficiency, you would be non proficient to boot..
The order would have to be monk weapon bonus unarmed, draw axe, second attack or axe with STR , drop, second attack with monk weapon, bonus action.
As already stated the flurry of blows only requires the attack action, but while the axe is in hand, you would do only 1 damage plus strength with your strikes as you lose martial arts and DEX bous as long as the axe is wielded. |
| (Reply to #37)Bloodscythe |
|
| #40Plaguescarred4Dec 12, 2014 6:20:01 |
|
| #41MischiefincdmDec 12, 2014 6:35:46 | The key point in all of this is that an unarmed strike does not have the finesse property. It is the martial arts feature that allows monks to use DEX for attacks and damage with unarmed strikes INCLUDING the additional ones they gain through martial arts or flurry of blows.
I think that all agree that taking the attack action DOES allow the trigger of flurry of blows regardless of weapon in hand. the issue is that while wielding a non monk weapon, these attacks will be anemic at best.
The tangental arguments concerning what you can do in terms of swapping weapons raises some interesting questions but I suggest these should be hashed out in a separate thread. |
| (Reply to #41)Macv12 |
|
| #43AndyDayDec 12, 2014 7:53:28 | ~~
|
| #44memerablenameDec 12, 2014 8:17:43 |
Page 189 has he rules on bonus actions
"You can only take one bonus action on your turn, so you must choose which bonus action when you have more than one available"
So so you can only use one or the other, either martial arts or flurry of blows |
| (Reply to #42)randl |
|
| #46guachiDec 12, 2014 11:47:58 |
|
| (Reply to #45)Bloodscythe |
|
| (Reply to #46)Bloodscythe |
|
| #49WizardVDec 15, 2014 16:27:09 | I see the case of the monk wielding a battleaxe to be more favorable than the current consensus. I'll get to the monk specifically after establishing RAW ground rules.
As someone else already mentioned I think there is a difference between holding and wielding that is important here. While it's not explicitly defined because the rules don't include a dictionary I think a reasonable starting place would be "you wield weapons as you attack with them". From a dictionary, here's the use that appears relevant.
"To use (a weapon, instrument, etc.) effectively; handle or employ actively". (edited formatting)
"Actively employing" a weapon seems like attacking with it to me, not just holding it, so I feel this viewpoint is strongly supported RAW. If you disagree we're past debating RAW and onto debating English (and I hate you).
As a base definition of holding, while weapons are drawn you hold them in your hands. How much can you hold in a hand? That's RAW agnostic. I think it's reasonable to hold a two handed weapon in one hand. Your DM may disagree and provide any number of rationals such as its too heavy, cumbersome, etc. However, by RAW wielding such a weapon requires two hands. Based on this, I think it's reasonable for a paladin to attack with a two handed weapon, and then bonus action cast some spell that requires a somatic component in the same round. While casting the spell he is holding the weapon, not wielding the weapon. I wouldn't even rule this an "object interaction" but I understand many people on this board do. If you go with the object interaction approach, he isn't free to attack with that weapon after casting his spell which I don't think has improved the table experience, and again RAW is agnostic here.
While it's been asserted that the attack action doesn't include selecting a weapon, this isn't a stance I agree with either from a RAI, or rules as tweeted standpoint. RAW could be arguably ambiguous because it's not listed in bold steps 1-3. However, if the selection happens as I describe my action, "I attack with my longsword" then that's fine, just say "I attack with my shortsword for my first attack, and I attack with my dagger for my second attack". In the case of TWF, bloodscythe has argued that you would need to grow a third hand now as 'other hand' is imprecise. I disagree, because you can qualify for multiple bonus actions. Each attack of extra attack triggers the condition for TWF bonus action, and you have to use the other hand for the TWF attack than the attack which triggered the condition. So you can't make all attacks (including TWF) with the same weapon, but if you attacked with both weapons with extra attack, then you have 2 possible bonus actions available to you which you must select from (1 triggered by each hand).
Using the above logic, it's RAW to attack with a battleaxe with extra attack (during which time you are wielding it), switch to holding the battleaxe in one hand (no longer be wielding it), and get your martial arts on for flurry of blows. It's been suggested that this would be stat intensive in terms of Strength and Dexterity. However, martials arts says you can not must use Dexterity instead of Strength. Attacking with the Battleaxe certainly fails to qualify for the bonus action granted by martial arts, however Flurry of Blows looks fine to me.
Depending on your DM it may take an object interaction to switch to holding from wielding. Your DM may say that holding the weapon is infeasible or incurs some penalty on your unarmed attacks while held. RAW is agnostic on both points.
<rant> My OPINION is that such rulings strongly remind me of the DM's who nerf rogues because they don't like the hiding rules. Essentially, they don't like how something works RAW and they are looking for any arguable reading of the rules that supports their intuition. Their conclusion predates their reading of the rules and they will find a way to be validated, no matter how unreasonable their stance is. It's abduction, not deduction. They just aren't willing to houserule ban something because they don't like to social consequences and what it says about their character, and are cowardly hiding in the ambiguity of the rules to accomplish personal validation at the expense of another person. It's an immature abuse of authority, and worse, intellectually dishonest. </rant>
|
| (Reply to #49)Bloodscythe |
|
| #51Coredump00Dec 15, 2014 18:08:36 | Bloodscythe, I think the part you are missing, is that DnD (and all RPGs) are a restrictive ruleset.
Games like MagicTG and Warhammer 40K are a 'permissive' ruleset, meaning you are not allowed to do anything unless there is a specific rule that says you can.
DnD, OTOH, allows you to do just about anything, and the rules restrict those actions, or provide a means for 'how' they can happen. The default of the world is our normal Earth; that is why it is assumed that trees don't talk, that gravity works, ice is slippery, wood floats, etc etc.
Likewise, there is no rule saying that you can even hold a weapon in your hand; you can draw one, attack with one, sheathe one..... but nothing is stated about being able to just hold onto it...let alone carry it around. But the rules are based on the design principle that, unless stated otherwise, if it works in the real world, it should work in DnD. The game allows you to do just about anything, and then restricts them down from there.
So yes, you can use two different weapons..... a DM is free to add an additional restriction, but it would be an additional restriction *not* based on the written rules. And looking at the entire Ruleset, includes realizing that it is a Restrictive Ruleset, and anything not restricted works as it would in the real world.... so yeah, I would say it does violate RAW, because it violates the very design basis of the entire ruleset.
|
| (Reply to #51)Bloodscythe |
|
| #53guachiDec 15, 2014 19:14:53 |
|
| (Reply to #53)Bloodscythe |
|
| #55BloodscytheDec 15, 2014 19:48:25 | Anyway, I've presented my thoughts. I see no point in further response as it truly makes no difference. Each DM is free to play however they see fit at their table.
I would however like responses to the following questions:
1) Why do you want your character to be able to dual wield?
2) Why would a character sacrifice the use of a shield or the ability to drink potions or cast spells just so they can hold onto a second weapon that serves no purpose mechanically?
3) If you are DM, would you allow a fighter with 4 attacks to draw and throw 4 separate daggers?
My answers are as follows: 1) Unless the character is getting a bonus action from TWF, I'd have no reason to carry two weapons at the same time. I'd leave all but one sheathed and use my other hand to retrieve items, interact with objects, or carry a shield... maybe hold a torch if my character doesn't have darkvision.
2) For the "look" of it. I want my character to dual wield. Except in this case, I'd explicitly take the Dual Wielder feat, allowing the 2nd weapon to provide a bonus action, giving me a mechanical reason to do it since that's the theme of my character.
3) Yes. |
| #56Macv12Dec 15, 2014 22:01:15 |
|
| #57lawrencehoyDec 15, 2014 22:39:47 |
|
| #58lawrencehoyDec 15, 2014 22:56:13 |
|
| (Reply to #58)Bloodscythe |
|
| (Reply to #57)Bloodscythe |
|
| #61AndyDayDec 16, 2014 8:06:47 | Interesting stuff. Thanks all.
I prefer to stay away from combining a dictionary with an RPG rulebook. It's WAY too somantic and rules-lawyer-ish for my tastes.
Bloodscyth: stop thread-crapping. EVERYTHINGI post gets turned into an arguement because of you. |
| (Reply to #61)Bloodscythe |
|
| (Reply to #50)WizardV | First off thank you for keeping your disagreement respectful. I don't want to keep the thread going forever but this was a long written thoughtful response that I felt merited a reply.
|
| (Reply to #63)Bloodscythe |
|
| (Reply to #56)Bloodscythe |
|
| #66lawrencehoyDec 16, 2014 23:03:42 |
|
| #67lawrencehoyDec 16, 2014 23:10:43 |
|
| (Reply to #67)Bloodscythe |
|
| #69lawrencehoyDec 17, 2014 22:27:10 |
|
| #70JenksDec 17, 2014 22:59:50 | I love how this is a small, contained example of the macro argument of literalism vs liberalism. It's very interesting to watch. |
| #71CariadocThorneDec 18, 2014 2:42:17 | One further thing Bloodscythe, you've said that the designers comment is a non-answer, but clearly he felt that saying the rules don't limit that is all the answer he felt was needed.
It fits mechanically with what the rules already allow (making 2 attacks with an attack action, with the extra attack feature), and there is no rule saying you can't make one of those attacks with a weapon in your right hand, and the other with a weapon in your left hand. This seems to be the line of thought he is following too. |
| (Reply to #71)Bloodscythe |
|
| (Reply to #69)Bloodscythe |
|
| #74Plaguescarred4Dec 18, 2014 5:39:34 | No rules prevent you from holding a weapon in each hand, even a two handed one.
The rules prevent you from attacking with a weapon that would not be wielded appoprietly. A two-handed weapon require two hand to use. Likewise, weapons must be light to use when using Two Weapon Fighting rules. The Two-Weapon Fighting rules is a specific rule letting you make a bonus action attack after attacking if the weapons are light enought.
Since no rules prevent you from holding a weapon in each hand and that you can use an action to attack with any one handed weapon you hold, you can attack with two different one handed weapon when an action lets you make more than one attack i.e Extra Attacks, which has nothing to do with the specific rule for Two-Weapon Fighting. This is not only not disallowed by the rules, it is confirmed as doable by the lead developper Jeremy Crawford. |
| (Reply to #74)Bloodscythe |
|
| #76MischiefincdmDec 18, 2014 12:46:58 | After you attack with a battle axe, as a monk, you lose the benefits of martial arts. You could still use flurry of blows, but you would do 1 point of damage per attack and would use strength as the attack. You could not drop the axe in between or switch as flurry of blows is immediate per RAW. I am not attacking the ability to switch weapons between attacks in the attack action. This is acceptable. Merely holding an axe in hand is not prohibited per se, but once you attack with it, you forfeit martial arts. A better d8 choice would be the rapier which would still allow a DEX attack.
Regarding taking the attack action without declaring what weapon you are using, This is Ok. When you take the attack action you have a 3 point task. Choose target, determine modifiers, roll to hit. In step one and two, the choice of weapons is appropriate. If you held a reach weapon, it could modify your target choice, or if a ranged weapon, you may have different modifiers, range or cover to consider. Under step 2 determine modifiers, you must choose weather you are attacking with a finesse or DEX based weapon or a strength based weapon. One you declare these modifiers, the roll to hit, you have attacked. Bonus actions that trigger on take the attack action and attack are now available.
In discussing these ideas I have no agenda to attack creativity, merely I am pointing out my concerns. I applaud DMs that allow creativity and encourage brainstorming. That said there are some restrictions built into the rules to insure play balance regarding the monk. |
| (Reply to #76)Bloodscythe |
|
| #78MischiefincdmDec 18, 2014 16:14:18 | I understand what you are saying. Very interesting points about wielding and holding the axe, especially during a second attack of an attack action. A few points although.from your example should clean this up. The example you gave was attack action, attack with shorts word, qualify for bonus action, attack 2 with axe, disqualifies bonus action and axe now uses strength, qualifies for flurry but at 1 DMG per attack and using strength.
A better choice would be, attack with shortsword and then take bonus action, draw axe, make second attack with axe using STR. I understand that it appears that they are acting AS IF using Twf, but they are not as Twf gives a bonus action in addition to the two attacks.
A couple of other interesting ideas is about wielding vs carrying. I argue that a weapon carried and ready for use is wielded. Is the weapon in hand, can you use it to make an opportunity action if provided, then it is wielded. The test of whether you did attack with it is too high a test for wielding.
Consider the feat defensive duelist page 165 PHB. When you are wielding a finesse weapon with which you are proficient and another creature hits you with a melee attack, you can use your reaction to....
The very next feat, dual wielded has similar wording. You gain a +1 to AC when you are wielding ....
Neither of these feats require that you have attacked with the item in question to be wielding it, only that it is in hand an ready for use.
The rules seem to point out that having a readied weapon in hand is wielding. I think unless the axe were carried in some way as to make it unqualified for use, ie by the blade, it would be wielded and hence disqualify martial arts at all times when it was available for opportunity actions.
|
| #79MischiefincdmDec 18, 2014 16:14:19 | I understand what you are saying. Very interesting points about wielding and holding the axe, especially during a second attack of an attack action. A few points although.from your example should clean this up. The example you gave was attack action, attack with shorts word, qualify for bonus action, attack 2 with axe, disqualifies bonus action and axe now uses strength, qualifies for flurry but at 1 DMG per attack and using strength.
A better choice would be, attack with shortsword and then take bonus action, draw axe, make second attack with axe using STR. I understand that it appears that they are acting AS IF using Twf, but they are not as Twf gives a bonus action in addition to the two attacks.
A couple of other interesting ideas is about wielding vs carrying. I argue that a weapon carried and ready for use is wielded. Is the weapon in hand, can you use it to make an opportunity action if provided, then it is wielded. The test of whether you did attack with it is too high a test for wielding.
Consider the feat defensive duelist page 165 PHB. When you are wielding a finesse weapon with which you are proficient and another creature hits you with a melee attack, you can use your reaction to....
The very next feat, dual wielded has similar wording. You gain a +1 to AC when you are wielding ....
Neither of these feats require that you have attacked with the item in question to be wielding it, only that it is in hand an ready for use.
The rules seem to point out that having a readied weapon in hand is wielding. I think unless the axe were carried in some way as to make it unqualified for use, ie by the blade, it would be wielded and hence disqualify martial arts at all times when it was available for opportunity actions.
|
| #80MischiefincdmDec 18, 2014 16:14:21 | I understand what you are saying. Very interesting points about wielding and holding the axe, especially during a second attack of an attack action. A few points although.from your example should clean this up. The example you gave was attack action, attack with shorts word, qualify for bonus action, attack 2 with axe, disqualifies bonus action and axe now uses strength, qualifies for flurry but at 1 DMG per attack and using strength.
A better choice would be, attack with shortsword and then take bonus action, draw axe, make second attack with axe using STR. I understand that it appears that they are acting AS IF using Twf, but they are not as Twf gives a bonus action in addition to the two attacks.
A couple of other interesting ideas is about wielding vs carrying. I argue that a weapon carried and ready for use is wielded. Is the weapon in hand, can you use it to make an opportunity action if provided, then it is wielded. The test of whether you did attack with it is too high a test for wielding.
Consider the feat defensive duelist page 165 PHB. When you are wielding a finesse weapon with which you are proficient and another creature hits you with a melee attack, you can use your reaction to....
The very next feat, dual wielded has similar wording. You gain a +1 to AC when you are wielding ....
Neither of these feats require that you have attacked with the item in question to be wielding it, only that it is in hand an ready for use.
The rules seem to point out that having a readied weapon in hand is wielding. I think unless the axe were carried in some way as to make it unqualified for use, ie by the blade, it would be wielded and hence disqualify martial arts at all times when it was available for opportunity actions.
|
| (Reply to #80)Bloodscythe |
|
| #82lawrencehoyDec 18, 2014 23:44:41 |
|
| (Reply to #72)CariadocThorne |
|
| #84lawrencehoyDec 19, 2014 3:48:43 |
|
| (Reply to #84)Bloodscythe |
|
| #86CariadocThorneDec 20, 2014 12:52:42 | The most likely situation, IMO, would be a character with a hand crossbow in one hand and a sword in the other, not for use at the same time, but for the option of using either depending on the situation. Or because they just like the pirate theme.
Maybe just because their character concept includes fighting with a sword in one hand for fighting fleshy opponents, and a mace in the other for smashing skeletons. It may be suboptimal and mechanically pointless, but they want to be able to switch between the two weapons A lot of players design at least part of their character around something they just like, even if it is mechanically subpar and leaves them slightly weaker than they could be. |
| (Reply to #86)Bloodscythe |
|
| (Reply to #87)CariadocThorne |
|
| (Reply to #88)Bloodscythe |
|
| #90lawrencehoyDec 22, 2014 22:59:16 | Bloodscythe, My apologies for not responding sooner. My account authentication was messed up for a while from the latest update.
|
| (Reply to #90)Bloodscythe |
|
| #92EinlanzerDec 24, 2014 7:46:33 | Bloodscythe, I don't necessarily disagree with your interpretation of the rules as I haven't yet been forced to give it a lot of thought (your earlier point about it being a bit of a silly scenario has been my experience as well), but you seem very hung up on the authority of the DM. I know the DM is defined in part as a rules arbiter, but, just like with "being in charge" in the real world, collaboration and being open to player input makes for a much better game experience for everyone than being a unilateral rules dictator does.
Personally, I would almost want to house rule hand dominance and have that play a factor. I would probably rule that, like with the bonus action granted by TWF, you can attack with either weapon on each attack, but you don't add your damage mod (unless negative) to attacks made from your OH weapon. Two weapon fighting would remove that penalty. |
| (Reply to #92)Bloodscythe |
|
| #94CariadocThorneDec 25, 2014 0:57:59 | A DM still shouldn't be stopping players from doing things without any reason though. If the DM says the reason he is stopping the player from doing this (splitting their normal attacks between the weapons in each hand) is RAW, they are flat out wrong, because the rules do not say anything about this.
If RAW is not the reason, why is the DM stopping a player from doing something which doesn't give them any mechanical benefit, but which is more realistic than the closest alternative (instantaneously switching weapon in one hand, which specifically goes against RAW since you are only supposed to have one free object interaction per round, even though the designers have apparently stated this should be allowed)? The DMs job is not to stop the players doing fun stuff which isn't against the existing rules. If he stops the players doing stuff for no other reason than "the rules don't specifically allow it", then that is not a good DM. Role-playing is half about doing things which the rules don't explicitly cover, and that's part of the reason we have a DM at all, rather than a series of random dungeon generation tables. |
| #95Macv12Dec 25, 2014 1:09:57 |
|
| (Reply to #3)Hibiki54 |
|
| (Reply to #95)Bloodscythe |
|
| (Reply to #97)CariadocThorne |
|
| (Reply to #98)Bloodscythe |
|
| (Reply to #9)DungeonKrusher |
|
| #101TheNovaLordDec 31, 2014 3:17:28 |
|
| (Reply to #99)CariadocThorne |
|
| (Reply to #101)Bloodscythe |
|
| (Reply to #102)Bloodscythe |
|
| #105lawrencehoyJan 01, 2015 14:18:21 | I haven't been keeping up the last few days; but, I did read Bloodscythes post about dominant and off-hand disparity.
I think I'll use house-rules governing dominant and off-hand attacks. Something along the lines of:
Additionally, training in the use of a specific weapon in the off-hand (opting to use the weapon in the off-hand for the majority of attacks; i.e. TWF) over the course of an entire level will eliminate the Disadvantage, for that particular weapon in the off-hand, upon advancement. This training can also be gained as a Downtime option, with the appropriate time and expense. |
| #106CariadocThorneJan 04, 2015 7:37:04 |
|
| (Reply to #106)Bloodscythe |
|
| (Reply to #100)Macv12 |
|
| #109CariadocThorneJan 06, 2015 14:52:45 |
|
| (Reply to #109)Bloodscythe |
|
| (Reply to #108)Bloodscythe |
|
| (Reply to #110)CariadocThorne |
|
| #113Greenstone.WalkerJan 07, 2015 18:33:36 |
|
| (Reply to #113)Bloodscythe |
|
| #115lawrencehoyJan 07, 2015 20:57:58 |
|
| (Reply to #112)Bloodscythe |
|
| (Reply to #115)CariadocThorne |
|
| #118CariadocThorneJan 08, 2015 3:33:14 |
|
| #119lawrencehoyJan 08, 2015 4:04:21 |
|
| (Reply to #118)Bloodscythe |
|
| (Reply to #119)Bloodscythe |
|
| (Reply to #121)Greenstone.Walker |
|
| #123lawrencehoyJan 08, 2015 22:06:43 |
|
| #124jonathonhawkeJan 11, 2015 0:04:02 | If something that makes a character less than optimal should be disallowed, then why do we no longer have minimum stat requirements for classes? In 5e, it is perfectly legal to play a fighter with 8's in his physical stats, even though it is not optimal. |
| (Reply to #123)Bloodscythe |
|
| (Reply to #122)Bloodscythe |
|
| #127lawrencehoyJan 13, 2015 12:11:19 |
|
| (Reply to #127)Bloodscythe |
|
| #129lawrencehoyJan 14, 2015 22:24:40 |
|