Can anyone tell me where I can find the rule that specifies which hand is "main"? I plan to play a twf rogue with a SS in one hand and a dagger in the other, and I'm wondering if I get the +1 to dmg from twf to whichever I'm attcking with.
You designate which is your main hand. The other is your off hand.
TBP
That is logical, but I was looking for a source.
I know it's in there, but I can't seem to find it right now. When I do, however, I'll post back.
TBP
Ranger Class Features
Fighting Style
Two-Blade Fighting Style: Make sure you designate on your character sheet which weapon is main and which is off-hand.
(Man I know this book inside and out!)
Page 104 Right side of page.
Ranger Class Features
Fighting Style
Two-Blade Fighting Style: Make sure you designate on your character sheet which weapon is main and which is off-hand.
(Man I know this book inside and out!)
I'd just go with whatever hand is your main hand IRL. that way it keeps a fairly normal distribution of righties and lefties.
:D
You designate which is your main hand. The other is your off hand.
TBP
Still, unless you are a ranger with the two-weapon fighting style, the only weapon you can use with the hand designated as off-hand is one with the off-hand property (PHB Page 217 - not exactly phrased so...)
Make sure to designate on your character sheet which weapon is main and which is offhand.
Also...
Two-Weapon Flurry (PHB 207)
Benefit: While holding a melee weapon in each hand, if you make a successful opportunity attack with your primary weapon, you can also make an opportunity attack with your off-hand weapon against the same target (but with a –5 penalty to the attack roll).
You designate the weapon, not the hand.
It's not important to the rules if you use the left hand or the right, or even alternate between rounds, the main hand is the one you resolve attacks from and the off hand grants you bonuses and whatnot, such as carrying a shield or a secondary weapon.
As for game mechanics everyone is pretty much ambidexterous (double handed) it might seem silly, but it simplifies things rule-wise.
It's not important to the rules if you use the left hand or the right, or even alternate between rounds, the main hand is the one you resolve attacks from and the off hand grants you bonuses and whatnot, such as carrying a shield or a secondary weapon.
That's what makes sense to me. That way I get the +1 to damage from TWF with wichever weapon is attacking, since it's the "main Hand" for the attack.
That's what makes sense to me. That way I get the +1 to damage from TWF with wichever weapon is attacking, since it's the "main Hand" for the attack.
Actually, no.
You may not freely designate a new main hand on a round by round basis.
see below
Actually, it does matter.
Check this out:
Question:
What about main-hand and off-hand designations? I know that the ranger dual-wield build asks you you designate a main-hand and an off-hand on your sheet. Do all characters need to designate a main-hand and a off-hand?
Quote:
Response (Support Agent) 08/29/2008 02:39 PM
Ad,
Hello. Yes, a player must designate one of their hands as offhand and one as mainhand. It doesn't really matter which one is which. The idea is you can't 'switch' which hand is your offhand in the middle of battle.
Please write us back if you require any further assistance.
We would appreciate your feedback on the service we are providing you. Please click here to fill out a short questionnaire.
To login to your account, or update your question please click here.
Evan T.
Customer Service Representative
Wizards of the Coast
1-800-324-6496 (US and Canada)
425-204-8069 (From all other countries)
Monday-Friday 9am-6pm PST / 12pm-9pm EST
That's what makes sense to me. That way I get the +1 to damage from TWF with wichever weapon is attacking, since it's the "main Hand" for the attack.
Well not ALWAYS, only Rangers can do that 100% of the time since they can skip the rule about "off-hand" weapons.
A fighter for instance may wield a longsword and a dagger.
He may resolve attacks with the dagger if he so chooses, but the longsword (wich is currently in his designated off-hand) does not give him the +1 bonus from TWF. Since it lacks the "off-hand" weapon property.
Actually, no.
You may not freely designate a new main hand on a round by round basis.
(If you could, you nerf the "off-hand" weapon property entirely)
Cutserv has confirmed that while doesn't matter which hand is your main hand, you can't switch it during combat.
I'll post the actual source shortly.
Uuumm please do, there is no nerf at all in what I said (see above)But if there is a special ruling then I'd like to see it...I may be wrong after all.
EDIT: Wow thats weird...And I have a sneaky suspicion also wrong somehow.
But I'll have snoop around the books and see where I got my interpretation from in the first place to make sure.
Off-Hand: An off-hand weapon is light enough
that you can hold it and attack effectively with it
while holding a weapon in your main hand. You can’t
attack with both weapons in the same turn, unless
you have a power that lets you do so, but you can
attack with either weapon.
So...Yeah I know the ranger bit says the main hand needs to be designated, but nothing in the rules (that I know of) works off that special designation so there is no real purpouse to doing so.
And nothing (again, that I know of) in the rules say you cannot re-designate the main hand mid-combat.
There are no negative or positive effects for doing so
EDIT: It may matter in some rare cases where you ARE allowed to attack with both weapons, most ranger powers and the mentioned two-weapon flurry feat.
Youre not supposed to attack with the main hand weapon twice when the power says main and off hand attacks for example.
So no re-designating hands in mid-ATTACK, but between attacks and/or rounds I see nothing hindering it.
That's what makes sense to me. That way I get the +1 to damage from TWF with wichever weapon is attacking, since it's the "main Hand" for the attack.
No.
You're wielding two off-hand weapons, which is a good first step. However, there is nothing at all in the rules to support Sillen's contention that every character is ambidextrous. You have a main hand and an off hand, and are required to designate which weapon is in which hand.
You can switch, but you'd have to drop or sheathe both weapons and then ready them in the opposite hands.
...the main hand needs to be designated, but nothing in the rules (that I know of) works off that special designation so there is no real purpouse to doing so.
Look at the text of the Two-Weapon Fighting feat:
While holding a melee weapon in each hand, you gain a +1 bonus to damage rolls with your main weapon.
That quite clearly "works off that special designation" of which hand is your main.
And nothing (again, that I know of) in the rules say you cannot re-designate the main hand mid-combat.
"Pardon me, Mr. Gnoll; if you don't mind delaying your initiative for a few rounds, I'm just going to do a little light brain surgery on my friend, here. This is a well-established procedure, nothing says we can't do it mid-combat, so nothing to be alarmed about.
Okay, that's the top of his skull off, let me poke around in here a little... no, that's the language center... whoops, there goes his sense of smell... ha! Got it. Now he's left-handed. Let me stitch him up, glue that skull back on, and you can go back to whacking each other with sharp things."
:D
there is nothing at all in the rules to support Sillen's contention that every character is ambidextrous.
Right it doesnt say that "everyone is abidexterous" anywhere.
But I fail to find rules where being left or right handed matters at all, wich is basicly the same thing in my mind.
You have a main hand and an off hand, and are required to designate which weapon is in which hand.
No only rangers are, for no real reason to boot.
I suspect rules where in place in some early draft of the edition where this did matter, but faulty editing left that bit in when those rules where largely removed.
You can switch, but you'd have to drop or sheathe both weapons and then ready them in the opposite hands.
Why, and where does that say ?
What in the rules say I just cant smack the enemy with one of my weapons and then the other the next round if I so choose ?
Look at the text of the Two-Weapon Fighting feat:
While holding a melee weapon in each hand, you gain a +1 bonus to damage rolls with your main weapon.
That quite clearly "works off that special designation" of which hand is your main.
Nope, note that it says main WEAPON, not hand.
Basicly you could have a fighter using a warhammer and a battleaxe, and swiching them up however he chose...He cannot get the benefit of the feat though since neither of those are off-hand weapons :D
A ranger on the other hand can do just that.
"Pardon me, Mr. Gnoll; if you don't mind delaying your initiative for a few rounds, I'm just going to do a little light brain surgery on my friend, here. This is a well-established procedure, nothing says we can't do it mid-combat, so nothing to be alarmed about.
Okay, that's the top of his skull off, let me poke around in here a little... no, that's the language center... whoops, there goes his sense of smell... ha! Got it. Now he's left-handed. Let me stitch him up, glue that skull back on, and you can go back to whacking each other with sharp things."
:D
Funny that :D
I never said it made sense (infact my first post states just the opposite)
But they are game rules meant to feature heroic acts of swordplay...Not realism or anything silly like that :P
We're on the same page Sillen
I'm not entierly sure what an SS is, I'm guessing shortsword ?...But yeah if it has the "off-hand" flag then you do indeed get the bonus wichever you use to resolve the attack.
Shortsword indeed. We'll see what the DM says.
Think about it for a second . . .
If you could choose to redesignate on a round by round basis, that would render the off-hand weapon property completely meaningless.
If you could choose to redesignate on a round by round basis, that would render the off-hand weapon property completely meaningless.
Not at all. Unless a weapon has the off-hand weapon property, it can *never* serve as the off-hand weapon, and must always serve as the primary weapon.
Being able to switch which is designated as which is an advantage of having two off-hand weapons. This serves as a mitigating factor when considering that most off-hand weapons do less damage than weapons without this designation.
I'm not arguing that you *can* switch at will. Just pointing out that the objection you raise is not a reason for ruling that you can't. I would argue that the customer service answer is the only currently published reason to argue that you can't. The rest is preference.
Can anyone tell me where I can find the rule that specifies which hand is "main"? I plan to play a twf rogue with a SS in one hand and a dagger in the other, and I'm wondering if I get the +1 to dmg from twf to whichever I'm attcking with.
AFAICT, there is no main or off hand. There are main or primary weapons and off-hand or secondary weapons, but that's a function of the "off-hand" weapon property and how you choose to use them. The PH comes right out and says that you can attack with either weapon when holding two, and gives no special penalty for attacking with an off hand weapon. There's no mechanical difference between your character's hands.
Cutserv and the "off-hand" weapon property has convinced me that by no means can you freely redesignate your main hand or main weapon at any time.
That is fine, it's not my place to tell you how to play
Generally I'd heed CS aswell, but in this case I think they made a mistake.
If you could choose to redesignate on a round by round basis, that would render the off-hand weapon property completely meaningless.
No it wouldnt. The weapon in your off-hand must have the off-hand property to give any sort of off-hand bonus.
Or am I missing something obvious here ?
Please explain if so.
I do belive a fighter that weilds a dagger and a longsword may opt to resolve an attack with the dagger, just like it says on p217.
He may NOT gain +1 damage from TWF on that attack, because the weapon in his off-hand for that attack (the longsword) does not have the off-hand property.
He doesnt even NEED the TWF feat to use a dagger and a longsword like this. The feat just adds +1 damage under the conditions that he has weapons in both hands and his off-hand weapon has the off-hand property.
WHY would the fighter opt to use his dagger and negate any bonuses from TWF and use a lower damage die ?
Heck I dunno...Maybe he's silly that way, or multiclassed into rogue or something and wants to use a power that needs a light blade.
But where are the rules that say he cannot attack with the dagger, or that he must somehow juggle the blades to get the dagger in his "main-hand" ?
As far as I know, there are none. Infact the rules say the exact opposite on p217.
Being able to switch which is designated as which is an advantage of having two off-hand weapons. This serves as a mitigating factor when considering that most off-hand weapons do less damage than weapons without this designation.
I'm not arguing that you *can* switch at will. Just pointing out that the objection you raise is not a reason for ruling that you can't. I would argue that the customer service answer is the only currently published reason to argue that you can't. The rest is preference.
You're right; there's no significant mechanical benefit to wielding two off-hand weapons, particularly if (like the OP) you're a rogue and have an extra attack bonus with the dagger. If a player argued as well as you have, I'd be inclined to let it go.
However, I would like to take issue with the CS response being the only published reason. From the PHB:
p215: "Some one-handed weapons are light enough for you to use in your off hand while holding another one-handed weapon in your other hand."
p217: "Off-Hand: An off-hand weapon is light enough that you can hold it and attack effectively with it while holding a weapon in your main hand."
To me, these clearly imply that characters have a main hand and an off hand. Absent rules to the contrary, it seems reasonable to assume that handedness in D&D works like handedness for real people--that is to say, you can't be right-handed for several seconds, and then suddenly decide to be left-handed.
Being able to switch which is designated as which is an advantage of having two off-hand weapons. This serves as a mitigating factor when considering that most off-hand weapons do less damage than weapons without this designation.
Pretty much yes.
Even if using two versatile weapons rather than two off-hand weapons there is still some minor advantage depending on feats and power choices.
A fighter could use a battleaxe and a warhammer so he could take advantage of axe mastery or hammer rythm depending on wich is his "main" weapon at the time. But never both for the same attack.
Likewise TWF would not apply since he is not a ranger, nor could he use a shield at the time either, since that WOULD demand he started juggling the weapons.
All in all, dual wielding IS an option for rogues and (standard PHB) fighters.
But it is a somewhat poor options considering the fighters alternatives and really...Rangers do it best.
I'm not arguing that you *can* switch at will. Just pointing out that the objection you raise is not a reason for ruling that you can't. I would argue that the customer service answer is the only currently published reason to argue that you can't. The rest is preference.
Indeed, do I think its silly that everyone is basicly ambidexterous..Heck yes.
Does it allow for lots of options while minimizing the need for lots of rules..I think it does so wonderfully.
And since I cannot find anything in the books that supports the CS ruling, I choose to belive they have made a mistake, and will continue to do it "my way" until they can come out with a more clear ruling or an errata.
To me, these clearly imply that characters have a main hand and an off hand. Absent rules to the contrary, it seems reasonable to assume that handedness in D&D works like handedness for real people--that is to say, you can't be right-handed for several seconds, and then suddenly decide to be left-handed.
That's how I see it, at any rate.
That's how I see it, at any rate.
That's all fine and dandy, I'd still let you or anyone on the opposing side here be my DM and I wouldnt hold up the game with arguments about it
I see it as a matter of training, especially if someone is going down the road of dual wielding, not suddenly shifting your brain functions around "OMG I'm a southpaw now !"
I naturally favor the right hand, but I could still put a pretty nice dent in someones head with a big hammer using my left hand. And I'm not even trained in any sort of close combat.
I imagine trained warriors would do lots better, especially fantasy heroes.
Less rules to clutter the system and less character resources to avoid piddly minuses to accuracy just because you favor a certain style over another.
It's all good and more fun for all IMHO.
I believe a similar analogy can be made for 4e as well. Offhandedness applies when using the TWFing action, and only for the purpose of determining what damage you deal. You have the liberty of determining on the fly which hand you want as your main/off hand and vice versa. I feel it is not so much of a logic issue, but more of "Who the hell cares? It has no mechanical impact on actual gameplay anyways".
There's an important distinction being missed in the ranger entry: It doesn't say that you designate which *hand* is your main hand, it says that you designate which *weapon* is your main hand weapon. So you don't write down "my right hand is my main hand", but rather "my longsword is my main hand weapon".
Just like there is an important distinction being missed in the "off-hand wepon property" entry. It doesn't say you must designate which "weapon" is your main weapon.
It says that an off-hand weapon is light enough to use effectively while holding a weapon in your main hand.
We simply can't ignore this.
Clearly this indicates that one has a mian hand and one has a hand that is not a "main-hand", which can wield "off-hand" weapons.
It doesn't say "Hey, as long as you are weilding at least one weapon with the off-hand property you can go nuts and interchange as neeeded."
Futhermore the description goes on to say that you can't attack with both weapons in the same round (unless you have a power that allows you to) but you can attack with either weapon on any given round.
That is important in that you really don't have to be wielding two-weapons in conjunction with the two-weapon fighting feat.
Any one can wield two weapons, as long as the one that is not in thier "main hand" has the "off-hand" property.
It says that an off-hand weapon is light enough to use effectively while holding a weapon in your main hand.
We simply can't ignore this.
Except that we can.
And we can choose not to ignore it.
If, in your game, right-handed vs left-handed is important, then match "primary weapon" with "primary hand". If in your game, handedness is unimportant, then just identify off-hand weapon and primary weapon.
Except that we can.
And we can choose not to ignore it.
If, in your game, right-handed vs left-handed is important, then match "primary weapon" with "primary hand". If in your game, handedness is unimportant, then just identify off-hand weapon and primary weapon.
Sure, as long as you cant switch that primary weapon from round to round.
Right now we have a response from CutServ that says the same thing . . . and in fact says that a player must designate a main-hand.
Now people who don't agree with this position will be quick to point out that CutServ is not an ***offiicial*** authority.
True enough. But that doesn't mean they can't be right.
Pretty much yes.
Even if using two versatile weapons rather than two off-hand weapons there is still some minor advantage depending on feats and power choices.
A fighter could use a battleaxe and a warhammer so he could take advantage of axe mastery or hammer rythm depending on wich is his "main" weapon at the time. But never both for the same attack.
Isnt this expressly forbidden by the RAW (except for rangers)?
The 'off-hand' weapon property entry does state that the only way to wield 2 weapons effectively is that one must be off-hand. (paraphrased by me, exception: rangers)
The entry, to me, reads that if you have a weapon in each hand and at least one is not designated by the off-hand property, you cant attack with the off-hand weapon (again, exception rangers).
Correct me if im wrong, i tend to argue RAI over RAW for some reason...
Sure, as long as you cant switch that primary weapon from round to round.
Even that is immaterial to handedness, which is your claim in the post to which I objected.
We have a written ruling that leaves some room for interpretation on whether a weapon can be switched from primary status to off-hand status during an encounter. We have a customer service answer that removes this vagueness for the encounter.
But if a PC wants to make his short sword the primary weapon in encounter one, and make his dagger his primary weapon in encounter two, neither the core rules nor the customer service answer prohibits that. And none of this requires that the PC determine handedness.
The customer service answer has nothing to do with "handedness". We don't *have to* worry about it. You are insisting on a "must" where one does not exist.
There's an important distinction being missed in the ranger entry: It doesn't say that you designate which *hand* is your main hand, it says that you designate which *weapon* is your main hand weapon. So you don't write down "my right hand is my main hand", but rather "my longsword is my main hand weapon".
Particularly when placed in context with the sentence beforehand, it could just as easily mean you write down "my longsword is the weapon in my main hand."
I freely admit that there's little strong evidence one way or the other. :D
Originally Posted by Sillen
Pretty much yes.
Even if using two versatile weapons rather than two off-hand weapons there is still some minor advantage depending on feats and power choices.
A fighter could use a battleaxe and a warhammer so he could take advantage of axe mastery or hammer rythm depending on wich is his "main" weapon at the time. But never both for the same attack.
Isnt this expressly forbidden by the RAW (except for rangers)?
The 'off-hand' weapon property entry does state that the only way to wield 2 weapons effectively is that one must be off-hand. (paraphrased by me, exception: rangers)
The entry, to me, reads that if you have a weapon in each hand and at least one is not designated by the off-hand property, you cant attack with either (again, exception rangers).
Correct me if im wrong, i tend to argue RAI over RAW for some reason...
I included my own quote for completness.
No the RAW doesnt forbid it, but also the RAW gives the fighter NO mechanical benefit for doing so, whereas the ranger gets lots of goodies, and is even requiered to do it to use his powers, of wich most acctually USE both weapons in the same attack.
All the fighter can do with that is stand around thinking "Hmmm do I want to bash people with my hammer, or chop with my axe this round ?"
And this also, atleast to me, chimes true with the off hand property.
Wielding two weapons is not impossible, but it is both unpractical and inefficent.
While the fighter chops with his axe, the hammer is bleeping worthless.
Even if he has the TWF feat it doesnt apply any bonus to him since his other weapon doesnt have the off-hand property.
I would ask this fighter why he didnt roll a ranger instead, because he is making some really stupid choices here, when other options, even a smaller hammer, would provide him with acctual bonuses.
But nevertheless the choices are there for him to make.
It may seem as if RAI is against it, but I think that is relying too heavily upon it. To me it seems as RAI and RAW is in complete unison in saying "Everyone can dual wield, but rangers are the go-to guys for two-weapon goodness, and everyone else mostly ends up looking silly"
The customer service answer has nothing to do with "handedness". We don't *have to* worry about it. You are insisting on a "must" where one does not exist.
Sure it does.
Read the response again.
Quote:
Response (Support Agent) 08/29/2008 02:39 PM
Ad,
Hello. Yes, a player must designate one of their hands as offhand and one as mainhand. It doesn't really matter which one is which. The idea is you can't 'switch' which hand is your offhand in the middle of battle.
I don't see where the rep says you can redesignate between encounters.
I DO see where the rep says you must designate an off-hand and a main-hand.
Clearly this indicates that one has a mian hand and one has a hand that is not a "main-hand", which can wield "off-hand" weapons.
Yes this means that people generally have two hands :D
Like I said, this isnt really about suddenly becoming left handed, its about training your non-favored hand to be somewhat useful.
It doesn't say "Hey, as long as you are weilding at least one weapon with the off-hand property you can go nuts and interchange as neeeded."
But thats IS what it says (except for the part in red wich I object against)...And you even quoted it yourself
Futhermore the description goes on to say that you can't attack with both weapons in the same round (unless you have a power that allows you to) but you can attack with either weapon on any given round.
Underlined the bit in question.
Now it seems to be a bit of a stretch to put a non-off hand weapon in the off-hand, but I dont think the rules want to make it impossible, just point out that its silly and you get nothing for it.
That is important in that you really don't have to be wielding two-weapons in conjunction with the two-weapon fighting feat.
What
Of course you have to wield two weapons to have any use for the TWF feat.
And if youre anything but a ranger one of the weapons must have the off-hand property or the bonus goes out the window.
Any one can wield two weapons, as long as the one that is not in thier "main hand" has the "off-hand" property.
Yes !
And I assume "wield" means acctually doing something besides holding on to it here.
The +1 damage from TWF I assume is because the second weapon is (in fluff only) considered to be used to attack, threathen or atleast feign attacks with, thus the mechanical benefit.
Anyone (assuming they have the feat) can do that with a dagger.
Noone can do that with warhammers, except for rangers.
I don't see where the rep says you can redesignate between encounters.
Nor does it say you can't. It says in the initial statement:
Response (Support Agent) 08/29/2008 02:39 PM
Ad,
Hello. Yes, a player must designate one of their hands as offhand and one as mainhand. It doesn't really matter which one is which. The idea is you can't 'switch' which hand is your offhand in the middle of battle.
Please write us back if you require any further assistance.
That they explicitly limit the "you can't switch" to "in the middle of battle" is sufficient implication that outside the middle of battle, you can. And if it not only doesn't matter which is which, but also can't be switched in the middle of battle, it does not appear to be a matter of handedness.
But if handedness is really important for your game, make the character pick what hand they write with. And don't be surprised when they claim to be ambidextrous (or better, bidextrous).
I'm inclined to ask CutServ if that was their intent.
I'll post their response as soon as I get it.
What
Of course you have to wield two weapons to have any use for the TWF feat.
And if youre anything but a ranger one of the weapons must have the off-hand property or the bonus goes out the window.
.
I'm sorry if you have misunderstood me or if I have failed to make myself clear.
What I mean to say is that i dont have to have the TWF feat to wield two weapons.
I could carry a longsword in my main hand and a short sword in my off-hand with out being a ranger or without possessing the TWF feat.
The kicker is I can only attack with one weapon in a given round.
Sorry if I failed to illistrate that initially.
There seems to be no rules indicating that I cannot swich mid-battle, infact the whole bit about the off-hand property indicates the complete opposite.
And again I confess that placing a normal weapon in the off-hand is a bit of a stretch, there is still no point for a DM to rule against it since a non-ranger PC could claim no mechanical advantage of doing so.
It only gives up the options of more damage or better defences to be able to choose...Hmm to bash or slash.
I'm sorry if you have misunderstood me or if I have failed to make myself clear.
What I mean to say is that i dont have to have the TWF feat to wield two weapons.
I could carry a longsword in my main hand and a short sword in my off-hand with out being a ranger or without possessing the TWF feat.
The kicker is I can only attack with one weapon in a given round.
Sorry if I failed to illistrate that initially.
Yes then we agree.
I even go further by saying you could carry two longswords, even as a non-ranger, but doing so is just...Silly.
Yes then we agree.
I even go further by saying you could carry two longswords, even as a non-ranger, but doing so is just...Silly.
You could, but you could only attack with the one in your main hand since the longsword in the other doesn't have the "off-hand" weapon property! :-) Just like you said . . . SILLY!
Anyhoo, heres what I just sent off to CutServ. We'll see what they have to say.
Do players need to designate a main hand and an off-hand for the characters?
Can this designation be changed in combat?
Can this designation be changed outside of combat?
Is this designation generally supposed to be permament (barring the loss of a limb or some other catastrophic event)?
Thanks.
You could, but you could only attack with the one in your main hand since the longsword in the other doesn't have the "off-hand" weapon property! :-) Just like you said . . . SILLY!
Well.
I claim I can still attack with either, but since the other sword is not off-hand in either case, the TWF (if I have it) fails to apply...In either case.
Thus making it silly because a shortsword+TWF or a shield would present better options.
Will be interesting to see what the CS say on the matter.
Seems odd to me that they would place importance of handedness and present no rules about it.
Based on their answer, it seems as though yes, you must designate a main-hand and an off-hand at character creation.
However, their answer also seemed to suggest that you might be able to switch weapons. In other words, you might be able to weild an off-hand weapon in your main hand and a 1-handed weapon in your off-hand and still fight effectively . . .
The important point was that you had to declare which hand was holding which weapon. I did not get the impression, however, that you could switch hand-designations.
In other words, my main hand is always my main hand, and if I ever wanted to weild two weapons, at least one of them would have to have the off-hand weapon property, regardless of what weapon was in which hand.
PLEASE NOTE: I may have misinterprited this portion of the response entirely, so I have sent a follow up for further clarification and will post both the soon as I get a response.
Cheers.
In response to:
Do players need to designate a main hand and an off-hand for the characters?
Can this designation be changed in combat?
Can this designation be changed outside of combat?
Is this designation generally supposed to be permament (barring the loss of a limb or some other catastrophic event)?
Ad,
Thank you for writing. The main hand and off hand designation is determined by you upon character creation. During combat you simply declare which hand you are using which weapon in. Keep in mind that certain weapons cannot be used as off hand weapons so be careful when selecting your choice of equipment.
And for my follow questions:
Hi Ad,
1. You designate your character's main and off-hand upon creation, correct?
-- Correct
2. Can you elect to change your main hand once this initial designation has been made?
-- No You cannot.
3. Could you wield a off-hand weapon in your main hand and a 1-handed weapon in your off-hand?
-- You can wield an off hand weapon in your main hand, but you cannot wield a 1-handed weapon in your off hand.
4. Could you ever be weilding two 1-handed weapons (assuming you are not a Ranger) and attack with either weapon on any given round? -- No, this is not possible if you are not a ranger
Hope this helps.
This also means the OP does not gain the +1 associated with TWF as asked also, since TWF only affects the main hand...My bad then
Exept my DM says CS is silly and unsupported. I'm going to run with it anyway, not like it breaks the game!
You're absolutely right . . . but like I said before . . . just because CS is not the most official authority doesn't mean they can't be right!
I agree that redesignating main hand/off-hand probabaly does't break the game . . .
But I like things simple. So CS's explanations/clarifications work for me.
Absent rules to the contrary, it seems reasonable to assume that handedness in D&D works like handedness for real people--that is to say, you can't be right-handed for several seconds, and then suddenly decide to be left-handed.
Yes, but the question is not about handedness, but combat.
e.g. A boxer may be right handed (dominant hand for most things), yet still have a "killer left". From what I can tell, most martial arts, etc try to train up both hands/feet. Similarly in football (soccer) I might be a better 'natural' kicker with my right foot, yet train to be good at handling the ball with both feet.
Concentrating on the handedness, and not worrying about multiple weapons, clearly a dagger can be switched from hand-to-hand with no difference, and I don't really see any game issue with a fighter holding a longsword in their right hand for some of the time, then switching to their left. (Designating the weapon as 'primary' the entire time, with the hand currently holding it being the 'primary hand').
It might seem a bit more natural to favor one particular hand, but I don't see anything in the rules that prevents a fighter from switching which hand they are holding a longsword in.
Neither the 'off hand' property, two weapon fighting, or Ranger powers are relevant -- just which hand (R or L) is the fighter holding a single longsword in during a battle.
Concentrating on the handedness, and not worrying about multiple weapons, clearly a dagger can be switched from hand-to-hand with no difference, and I don't really see any game issue with a fighter holding a longsword in their right hand for some of the time, then switching to their left. (Designating the weapon as 'primary' the entire time, with the hand currently holding it being the 'primary hand').
And so far as CS has pointed out, there is no game issue with a fighter switching the longsword from his "main" hand to his "off" hand . . . and no mechanical penalties/bonuses either . . .
In other words, if only wielding one weapon, it don't matter jack which hand you are weilding it with, main or otherwise.
PHB 217:
Off-Hand: An off-hand weapon is light enough
that you can hold it and attack effectively with it
while holding a weapon in your main hand. You can’t
attack with both weapons in the same turn, unless
you have a power that lets you do so, but you can
attack with either weapon.
To me, and correct me if im wrong but please use rules, the above rule for off-hand stipulates that if your off-hand weapon does not have the off-hand property you cannot attack with it effectively when also holding a weapon in the other hand. Ever. Unless you do not hold a weapon in the other hand, in which case you are only holding 1 weapon anyway. Rangers excluded.
To me, and correct me if im wrong but please use rules, the above rule for off-hand stipulates that if your off-hand weapon does not have the off-hand property you cannot attack with it effectively when also holding a weapon in the other hand. Ever. Unless you do not hold a weapon in the other hand, in which case you are only holding 1 weapon anyway. Rangers excluded.
I do belive by RAW and CS ruling you are indeed correct and I was wrong about my assumption considering the battleaxe and warhammer scenario.
1. A fighter can wield any one-handed weapon in any hand, aslong as it is just one weapon. There are no bonuses or negatives (except for the fighter feeling naughty, but thats an optional houserule) tied to doing this.
Even if he uses the "wrong" hand by a largely uneccesary handedness rule wich is obscurly noted in the ranger class section, and must be written on the character sheet at creation even though there is no obvius and designated area to do so, despite information such as age and gender is clearly important enough to warrant such an area.
2. A fighter may similarly wield a one-handed weapon and a off-handed weapon.
He may attack with either weapon, but ONLY as long as he's doing it right !
Woe befalls the fighter who dares wield his off-hand weapon in his main hand, because NOW he cannot attack with his one-handed weapon in the off-hand as per point 1.
the TWF feat still applies as normal though..
3. A fighter may NOT wield two one-handed weapons ever. But may (mindboggling as it is) still take full advantage of the TWF feat by simply holding a one-handed weapon in his off hand.
Did I miss anything
I still think my way was easier and more logical...But oh well.
Im still a little hung up on the example of a non-ranger character holding 2 weapons and neither has the off-hand property. The specific example I believe was a fighter with a hammer and a blade, one in each hand and neither having the off-hand property.
To me, and correct me if im wrong but please use rules, the above rule for off-hand stipulates that if your off-hand weapon does not have the off-hand property you cannot attack with it effectively when also holding a weapon in the other hand. Ever. Unless you do not hold a weapon in the other hand, in which case you are only holding 1 weapon anyway. Rangers excluded.
Based on what CS has said, you are correct.
I suppose one could hold a 1-handed weapon in each hand, but you are right, they could never attack with the 1-handed weapon held in their off-hand since it doesn't have the off-hand weapon property.
To me, and correct me if im wrong but please use rules, the above rule for off-hand stipulates that if your off-hand weapon does not have the off-hand property you cannot attack with it effectively when also holding a weapon in the other hand. Ever. Unless you do not hold a weapon in the other hand, in which case you are only holding 1 weapon anyway. Rangers excluded.
I hadn't jumped on Sillen for that because I didn't want to distract from the other point, but your understanding is entirely correct. If you are not a ranger with the two-blade class feature, then you cannot wield two one-handed weapons.
The situation is precisely analogous to going into combat holding your trusty warhammer and your friend's greataxe. The greataxe is simply too large to make an effective attack; likewise, so is a battleaxe.
This follows directly from the definition of off-hand weapons, which has already been quoted multiple times upthread.
3. A fighter may NOT wield two one-handed weapons ever. But may (mindboggling as it is) still take full advantage of the TWF feat by simply holding a one-handed weapon in his off hand.
Not sure about this . . .
Pretty sure you have be actually weilding the second weapon . . .
FAQ defines weilding as using, not simply holding . . .
Even if he uses the "wrong" hand by a largely uneccesary handedness rule wich is obscurly noted in the ranger class section, and must be written on the character sheet at creation even though there is no obvius and designated area to do so, despite information such as age and gender is clearly important enough to warrant such an area.
.
Tell me about it . . .
You'd think that after 3 editions, they might want to put that on an official sheet somewhere, don't ya . . .
Not sure about this . . .
Pretty sure you have be actually weilding the second weapon . . .
FAQ defines weilding as using, not simply holding . . .
Yep I know...But
Two-Weapon Fighting
Prerequisite: Dex 13
Benefit: While holding a melee weapon in each
hand, you gain a +1 bonus to damage rolls with your
main weapon.
Did I miss anything
I still think my way was easier and more logical...But oh well.
Your way was largely correct, except in a couple of particulars. It is perfectly possible to play D&D and never have the issue of handedness. The only real rule is that you can't effectively wield two one-handed weapons without special training (the ranger's two-blade class feature).
In fact, the situation is so simple that generally, only rangers need designate which weapon is in their main hand and which is in their off-hand. No one else will see a difference in play...
...except for players with the Two-Weapon Fighting feat, wielding two off-hand weapons. It's a fairly large corner case, but in most games (because of the clear mechanical superiority of weapons without the off-hand property) players won't choose it as an option.
In a home game, I'd be inclined to grant the damage bonus anyway, because it nearly balances the smaller damage die of off-hand weapons. In other words, the OP would actually be slightly ahead if he had spent his feat on Weapon Proficiency (rapier) instead. But as far as I'm concerned the rules are fairly clear (if distributed throughout the PHB), and if I can't rules-lawyer in Rules Q&A, when can I?
The only real rule is that you can't effectively wield two one-handed weapons without special training (the ranger's two-blade class feature).
I'm fine with that, but they could have said so easily in the books at numerous places, and especially if they wanted this importance of handedness they could have stuck it in somewhere logical, like page 14 or such.
Indeed the issue doesnt seem to come into play often at all, even with the Tempest that specializes in double off-hand weapon use.
But with the popularity of dual-wielding I'm sure its being houseruled or incorrectly done in plenty of games without the DM or players even knowing it.
As it is, it has (for me) gone from splendidly clear and easy rules, to a mish-mash of illogical mind leaps to get it right.
Personally...I'm a twohander guy myself so I'm not bothered either way.
Never fancied the dual-wielding much, in any game.
you do know its a +1 to damage with TWF, not to-hit right ?
Well the kukri is a nice weapon from the AV, and counts as a dagger for that +1 to hit aswell, why not double up on those ?