Which is your main hand?
Is it the hand you are making the attack with, or is it a specific hand?
If I'm wielding a fire sword in one hand and an ice sword in the other. Do I only get +1 damage with the fire sword, or if I decide to strike with the ice sword instead do I still get the +1 damage?
If a ranger takes this feat does twin strike (I don't know if this acutally requires main-hand, off-hand attack, but imagine if it did :D), only get the +1 damage on one or does it get it on both?
Is this a bonus for wielding two weapons, or a bonus for wielding an off-hand weapon while attacking with your main-hand.
If you attack with both (requiring the use of Ranger Power to do so), you are designating which is main hand and which is offhand. Note that the Off-Hand has to have the offhand property unless you have the TWF Ranger class feature.
The feat only requires you to be holding two weapons, it says nothing about how they are wielded. So it can be used by any character class with any power that uses the weapon keyword.
For powers that don't designate main hand / off-hand can I switch which one I'm using for each attack, or do I need to use 1 weapon for the entire attack?
For powers that don't designate main hand / off-hand can I switch which one I'm using for each attack, or do I need to use 1 weapon for the entire attack?
Pretty sure one for the entire attack ... but that's unconfirmed and just my opinion right now.
Yeah just one. You can attack with either weapon is what the PHB says (looking at pg 215 right now), and alternating attacks within a power is attacking with both.
Edit: Actually reading what it says under Melee attacks on Page 270 about Targetting, and combined with the blurb underneath the block, maybe you can use one for each targetted attack you make, if you want. It says "Melee attacks target individuals. A melee attack against multiple enemies consists of seperate attacks, each with it's own attack roll and damage roll." And underneath it says "If you hold two melee weapons, you can use either one to make a melee attack."
Which indicates that if your power lets you make multiple non-offhand attacks, you can still switch between weapons used for each attack in the sequence. Let me see if I can find a power that would apply.
According to the Feat its +1 damage for your main hand.
Which is your main hand?
Whichever one you like - but yes, you have to pick one. If the rules had meant for you to receive a blanket +1 damage bonus for either/both weapons, then Two-Weapon Fighting would say "+1 damage bonus" instead of "+1 damage bonus with your main weapon."
HINT: If one of your weapons has the off-hand keyword, that's probably not your primary weapon. ;)
And no, you can't switch which one is your "main weapon" from turn to turn! That's the sort of question that will cause your DM to slap you upside the head.
- Alane -
And no, you can't switch which one is your "main weapon" from turn to turn! That's the sort of question that will cause your DM to slap you upside the head.
- Alane -
Pretty sure that's not right Alane, check my quote from the PHB above. Note this goes against Bodyknocks "simultaneous targeting" in regards to Combat Challenge (from another thread). Now to see if I can find a power that has two primary attacks that isn't a TWF power.
Rain of Blows Fighter Attack 3
You become a blur of motion, raining a series of blows upon your opponent.
Encounter Martial, Weapon
Standard Action Melee weapon
Primary Target: One creature
Attack: Strength vs. AC, two attacks
Hit: 1[W] + Strength modifier damage.
Weapon: If you're wielding a light blade, spear, or flail and Dexterity 15 or higher, make a second attack.
Secondary Target: The same or different target
Secondary Attack: Strength vs. AC
Hit: 1[W] + Strength modifier damage.
So from my reading on the section on melee attacks, this would allow you to make one attack with your main hand and one with your off hand for the two primary attacks if you so wanted. (Ignoring the 3rd secondary attack for specific weapon types).
Pretty sure that's not right Alane, check my quote from the PHB above.
Sorry if I was unclear! I agree that he can switch between weapons when making his attacks. My statement was that he can't change which one is considered his main weapon.
In other words: say that Rogue Roger has the Two-Weapon Fighting feat and is dual-wielding a rapier and a short sword. The Rapier is his "main weapon" for the purposes of the feat.
In any given round, he can attack with either weapon, exactly as you say. If he strikes with the rapier, he gets a +1 damage bonus from Two-Weapon Fighting. However if he strikes with the short sword, he doesn't get the TWF bonus - nor is he allowed to declare (for that attack) that the short sword is suddenly his "main weapon" for the purposes of the feat.
Is that more clear?
- Alane -
Is that more clear?
- Alane -
No. Why is he forced to always use the rapier as his main hand weapon? Any round in which he doesn't attack with both, and attacks with JUST the shortsword, he can declare that to be his main hand weapon.
Okay okay, in this case he has to do it that way because Rapier is a one handed weapon and can't be held in the offhand as a weapon. But if it was a shortsword/dagger combo (for a medium creature) would you still be making the same claim, or would you allow him to take the +1 damage with the Dagger if it was the only weapon he used?
So passing attacks with two-weapon fighting, I could make 1 attack with the first weapon (w/ +1 damage), then could make the next attack with my off-hand weapon (w/ no bonus to damage). If both are considered off-hand weapons I could make both attacks with a single weapon (w/ +1 damage to each). If only 1 is an off-hand weapon then I could make both attacks with the off-hand weapon (w/ no bonus to damage) or both attacks with the main hand (w/ +1 damage to each)
I think this covers everything?
Any round in which he doesn't attack with both, and attacks with JUST the shortsword, he can declare that to be his main hand weapon.
Hm. When Two-Weapon Fighting says "you gain a +1 damage bonus with your main weapon," it seems to me that the language is intentionally restricting the damage bonus to just one of the two weapons you're wielding.
As an example, look at the rule for the Ranger's Two-Blade Fighting Style: "Make sure to designate on your character sheet which weapon is main and which is off-hand."
It sure doesn't seem like the game designers expect the choice of "main weapon" to switch every round! Otherwise why would they want you to designate the choice on your character sheet?
- Alane -
So passing attacks with two-weapon fighting, I could make 1 attack with the first weapon (w/ +1 damage), then could make the next attack with my off-hand weapon (w/ no bonus to damage).
Assuming you have a power that allows you to make multiple attacks ... This one covers everything by itself.
You never have two off-hand weapons or two main hand weapons for purposes of this feat. If the weapons are say two daggers (off hand property), designate one as your main hand for purposes of this feat.
No. Why is he forced to always use the rapier as his main hand weapon? Any round in which he doesn't attack with both, and attacks with JUST the shortsword, he can declare that to be his main hand weapon.
Okay okay, in this case he has to do it that way because Rapier is a one handed weapon and can't be held in the offhand as a weapon. But if it was a shortsword/dagger combo (for a medium creature) would you still be making the same claim, or would you allow him to take the +1 damage with the Dagger if it was the only weapon he used?
As I read it you must declare one weapon to be your main hand. If you read Two-Blade fighting style under Ranger it reminds you to designate one weapon as off-hand on your char sheet. I would probably allow this to be decided at the start of an encounter, but I see it working out as you being slightly better with one of you hands, and attacks with the weapon in that hand get extra bonus' in these cases. So if he's right handed the weapon he holds in that hand gets the bonus. If he draws the sword as his main hand and the dagger off, IMO you'd be stuck with that configuration at least for the encounter.
As I read it you must declare one weapon to be your main hand. If you read Two-Blade fighting style under Ranger it reminds you to designate one weapon as off-hand on your char sheet. I would probably allow this to be decided at the start of an encounter, but I see it working out as you being slightly better with one of you hands, and attacks with the weapon in that hand get extra bonus' in these cases. So if he's right handed the weapon he holds in that hand gets the bonus. If he draws the sword as his main hand and the dagger off, IMO you'd be stuck with that configuration at least for the encounter.
Or possibly using a minor action to switch hands with your weapon. Two-Weapon Fighting feat, and ranger powers are the only places you see reference to main hand.
I'm just aiming to allow as much "Two-Weapon fighting" as I can, without making the ranger's powers seem weak. So I'd like them to swap which weapon is attacking mid power, but I want to make sure they aren't getting more powers then a ranger would using an actual two-weapon power.
As I read it you must declare one weapon to be your main hand. If you read Two-Blade fighting style under Ranger it reminds you to designate one weapon as off-hand on your char sheet.
So we're getting from a Ranger class ability dealing with two one handed weapons which is reminding you that one is your offhand weapon still, that a specific weapon is always your offhand weapon? When everthing else seems to indicate that you can attack with either hand without penalty as your main hand weapon?
I read that Ranger ability and thought "cool they are reminding you to designate one as your offhand weapon when you need to know which is which." Not that it was permently locking it in place in any way shape or form.
Edit: Just to be clear, nothing in the Ranger power indicated that you can't declare which weapon is your Main Hand and which is your Offhand weapon on a round by round basis.
nothing in the Ranger power indicated that you can't declare which weapon is your Main Hand and which is your Offhand weapon on a round by round basis.
So you figure that the game designers want you to write "main hand: right" on your character sheet, but in any given round you can decide it's really the left?
Um, okay. But we might have to disagree on that.
- Alane -
So we're getting from a Ranger class ability dealing with two one handed weapons which is reminding you that one is your offhand weapon still, that a specific weapon is always your offhand weapon? When everthing else seems to indicate that you can attack with either hand without penalty as your main hand weapon?
I read that Ranger ability and thought "cool they are reminding you to designate one as your offhand weapon when you need to know which is which." Not that it was permently locking it in place in any way shape or form.
Edit: Just to be clear, nothing in the Ranger power indicated that you can't declare which weapon is your Main Hand and which is your Offhand weapon on a round by round basis.
I don't think there is any permanence implied, just sort of a default setting that when it matters, if I don't say otherwise, this is how it is. I originally said that I though it should be an encounter based thing, I personally feel that simply changing weapons from hand to hand in the middle of combat difficult and not as easy as saying "now this is my main weapon." As I think about it I might rule that switching would provoke an OA with an acrobatics check to avoid, like a stunt but maybe make it a minor action, with a DC based on the weapons, juggling two daggers around would be fairly easy, but for a ranger with two longswords it would be a little tougher. This situation is very specific and there for open to interpretation as it's not really covered in the rules, there is definitely nothing stopping you from interpreting it as you wish, even if it was laid out. I'm just giving you my opinion on how I would handle it.
So you figure that the game designers want you to write "main hand: right" on your character sheet, but in any given round you can decide it's really the left?
I think the designer wanted you to remember you have to designate a main and offhand, and chose a poor way to phrase it ... since everything else indicates you can just choose which hand to attack with every round.
All I can say is ... that's an added penalty for TWF Rangers then, because if it's the RAW, it only applies to Rangers that pick the TWF path.
... since everything else indicates you can just choose which hand to attack with every round.
Sure, you can choose which hand to attack with every round. Nobody is disagreeing with that. But we don't agree on whether that hand automatically becomes your "main hand" for the purposes of Two-Weapon Fighting.
In your interpretation, Two-Weapon Fighting grants its damage bonus regardless which weapon you attack with. I think that's clearly not the intention, based on the plain wording of the feat ("...gain a +1 bonus to damage rolls with your main weapon.")
But as stated, we can agree to disagree! It's not a big issue.
- Alane -
Now while not explicit, that implies that a) you have a main hand, b) you have an off hand, and c) you cannot change which hand is your main hand and which is your off hand.
A and b are obvious, but c is kind of hidden. I think the key line is: 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. If you could switch your off hand to your main hand this problem would never arise because the attacking weapon would always be in your main hand.
Now as for switching weapons so that you would have a one handed weapon in your off hand and an off hand weapon in your main hand, I dont believe this works. The TWF feat states that you must hold a weapon in each hand, but I think the intent is that you must be able to attack with that weapon. Take a greatsword. You cannot effectively attack with it while holding it in one hand, although there is nothing to state that you cannot hold one in one hand. I think its pretty clear that holding a greatsword in one hand and having another weapon in your other hand wouldnt qualify you for the TWF requirements.
I would think that the same would be true for other weapons that you cannot attack with. You cannot hold a rapier in your off hand, hold another weapon (off hand or not) in your main hand, and effectively attack with the rapier as per the implied rule of off hand weapons. Therefor the rapier is effectively a greatsword. Its not applicable for attacks and therefor doesnt qualify you for the TWF feat while in your off hand.
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.
Now while not explicit, that implies that a) you have a main hand, b) you have an off hand, and c) you cannot change which hand is your main hand and which is your off hand.
A and b are obvious, but c is kind of hidden. I think the key line is: 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. If you could switch your off hand to your main hand this problem would never arise because the attacking weapon would always be in your main hand.
Now as for switching weapons so that you would have a one handed weapon in your off hand and an off hand weapon in your main hand, I dont believe this works. The TWF feat states that you must hold a weapon in each hand, but I think the intent is that you must be able to attack with that weapon. Take a greatsword. You cannot effectively attack with it while holding it in one hand, although there is nothing to state that you cannot hold one in one hand. I think its pretty clear that holding a greatsword in one hand and having another weapon in your other hand wouldnt qualify you for the TWF requirements.
I would think that the same would be true for other weapons that you cannot attack with. You cannot hold a rapier in your off hand, hold another weapon (off hand or not) in your main hand, and effectively attack with the rapier as per the implied rule of off hand weapons. Therefor the rapier is effectively a greatsword. Its not applicable for attacks and therefor doesnt qualify you for the TWF feat while in your off hand.
I agree with what you say but the issue does still exist if you character is wielding weapons legal for either hand, i.e. a rouge with a dagger and short sword or ranger with two one-handers. The question is really about the intent of the rules in these special cases.
Sure, you can choose which hand to attack with every round. Nobody is disagreeing with that. But we don't agree on whether that hand automatically becomes your "main hand" for the purposes of Two-Weapon Fighting.
Okay I get your point. And I can kind of see it in a way. Mainhand and offhand are really only used in a couple of places. The Ranger TWF ability & powers. The TWF feat. And offhand weapons. And one of those suggests you designate your offhand weapon in a permenent way.
But looking at the actual rules: The offhand weapons one is irrelevent because if you wield two of them, either can be offhand at will (obviously). The TWF Feat one is irrelevent, because it just says you get +1 to hit with your mainhand, and doesn't imply that it can't change (and I'm explicitly disagreeing with your interpretation of that feat here). And the TWF Ranger ability is the only one that actually implies you mark down in a more permenent manner.
No. Why is he forced to always use the rapier as his main hand weapon? Any round in which he doesn't attack with both, and attacks with JUST the shortsword, he can declare that to be his main hand weapon.
Okay okay, in this case he has to do it that way because Rapier is a one handed weapon and can't be held in the offhand as a weapon. But if it was a shortsword/dagger combo (for a medium creature) would you still be making the same claim, or would you allow him to take the +1 damage with the Dagger if it was the only weapon he used?
Assumedly because he's right-handed and wielding the rapier in his right hand.
Okay I get your point. And I can kind of see it in a way. Mainhand and offhand are really only used in a couple of places. The Ranger TWF ability & powers. The TWF feat. And offhand weapons. And one of those suggests you designate your offhand weapon in a permenent way.
But looking at the actual rules: The offhand weapons one is irrelevent because if you wield two of them, either can be offhand at will (obviously). The TWF Feat one is irrelevent, because it just says you get +1 to hit with your mainhand, and doesn't imply that it can't change (and I'm explicitly disagreeing with your interpretation of that feat here). And the TWF Ranger ability is the only one that actually implies you mark down in a more permenent manner.
No. The weapons are off hand weapons, but only one of them is wielded as an off hand weapon. The other is wielded as any other one handed weapon. I think the key is that you think that you can change your main hand and your off hand designation at will, and others think not. The reason they think not is because it would make the entire rule useless. The rule is there for a reason. A rule that will have no effect what so ever in any context might as well not be there, but since it is there it must fit. In order for it to fit your propesition that you can change your main hand off hand designation at will must be false.
Assumedly because he's right-handed and wielding the rapier in his right hand.
That is essentially how I read the rules. Ambidexterity is extremely rare, and even in cases of pure ambidexterity, the user typically chooses a hand to favor certain tasks, even if it changes from task to task. A sword fighter would have a hand they are, at very least, slightly more proficient in using. That would be the main hand. I find it difficult to assume they would leave the meaning of main hand so ambiguous if they didn't basically mean "right hand, unless you're left-handed or Link from Legend of Zelda". I also don't think the rangers would be advised to define their main hand if they had the freedom to pick it from moment to moment. Years of game inventory screens have ingrained that meaning of "main hand" into my mind. I doubt it was intended to be any more complicated than that paradigm.
So, as I see it, Two-Weapon Fighting grants the weapon-hand weapon a weapon bonus and Two-Weapon Defense grants the shield-hand weapon a shield bonus.
As I think about it I might rule that switching would provoke an OA with an acrobatics check to avoid, like a stunt but maybe make it a minor action, with a DC based on the weapons, juggling two daggers around would be fairly easy, but for a ranger with two longswords it would be a little tougher.
This is fairly harsh, considering that the only things that draw OA now are ranged and area attacks and movement. It would probably be a free action to switch hands if one was empty. So you could free action drop a weapon, free action swap, and minor action pick it up all without drawing an OA. Or if you had quick draw you could minor action sheath, free action swap, free action draw, no OA. So doing a quick swap of weapons without dropping any I would just put it at a Minor action no OA.
But I think I will have people declare main and off-hand at the beginning of the encounter, and unless you're a ranger your off-hand of course has to be an off-hand weapon. But switching which weapon is making an attack mid-power will be fine. :D
Thanks everyone for helping in sorting this out.
I think the key is that you think that you can change your main hand and your off hand designation at will, and others think not. The reason they think not is because it would make the entire rule useless.
I think you can change it from round to round, or even attack action to attack action (ie if you use an action point to take a second attack action).
And no, it absolutely does NOT make the rule useless. Changing the designation of which hand is your Mainhand and which is your offhand, providing it's possible within the rules as given, has no statistical advantage. It gives the player more flexibility, that's all.
And the rules as given are pretty simple:
Offhand has to have an offhand weapon unless you are a TWF Ranger.
TWF Rangers must mark on their character sheets which is the mainhand and which is the offhand, so they can't change from action to action.
All other non-TWF Ranger characters are free to designate for any action which is thier offhand (provided it is an offhand weapon). And they are free to make any attack in that attack action with either their mainhand or offhand weapon, provided it's not specified by the power (ie a Ranger Power).
I think you can change it from round to round, or even attack action to attack action (ie if you use an action point to take a second attack action).
And no, it absolutely does NOT make the rule useless. Changing the designation of which hand is your Mainhand and which is your offhand, providing it's possible within the rules as given, has no statistical advantage. It gives the player more flexibility, that's all.
And the rules as given are pretty simple:
Offhand has to have an offhand weapon unless you are a TWF Ranger.
TWF Rangers must mark on their character sheets which is the mainhand and which is the offhand, so they can't change from action to action.
All other non-TWF Ranger characters are free to designate for any action which is thier offhand (provided it is an offhand weapon). And they are free to make any attack in that attack action with either their mainhand or offhand weapon, provided it's not specified by the power (ie a Ranger Power).
So the guy most suited to Two Weapon fighting isn't as good at it?
I think as a DM I would rule that at character creation you choose whether you are right or left handed. From then on that is considered your main hand for all purposes pertaining to feats and combat rulings. Including whether or not you can wield a weapon that does not have the Off hand property.
There is no RAW to support my decision but it keeps the issue from becoming an argument later on especially the switching primary weapons issue.
So the guy most suited to Two Weapon fighting isn't as good at it?
Apparently. Yes that's stupid.
I think as a DM I would rule that at character creation you choose whether you are right or left handed. From then on that is considered your main hand for all purposes pertaining to feats and combat rulings. Including whether or not you can wield a weapon that does not have the Off hand property.
I don't think it's a bad idea to run it this way. I just don't think it's supported by the rules.
I wouldn't enforce it as having any effect on fighting with a single weapon though. It should only have any effect for the TWF feats and Ranger Powers.
Apparently. Yes that's stupid.
Which might be a hint that allowing a character to swap their "main weapon" each round is not the intention. ;)
- Alane -
Which might be a hint that allowing a character to swap their "main weapon" each round is not the intention. ;)
- Alane -
Okay, sure. Are we debating RAI or RAW right now?
It's just wierd to me that RAI would be you can't change which is your offhand, but you can change which hand you use as your primary for any other attacks.
It's just wierd to me that RAI would be you can't change which is your offhand, but you can change which hand you use as your primary for any other attacks.
The rules definitely say you change which hand you attack with (page 215) but there's absolutely no rule that says you can change which hand you use as your main (primary) hand. You keep saying there's a rule like that, but there simply isn't one.
If there were any such rule, we wouldn't still be having this argument!
- Alane -
main (primary) hand[/u].
Alane, to be clear what I meant:
Mainhand = Mainhand for use of Ranger Powers and TWF Feats.
Primary = hand you attacking with if it's the only hand you attack with this round.
Sorry, I was inventing a term inadvertently.
To rephrase:
It's just wierd to me that RAI would be you can't change which is your mainhand, but you can change which hand you use to make a single attack without issue.
Main Hand
At the dawn of time, there was the Main Hand. Monkeys had main hands, and used them to fling poo. In more evolved times, when people wanted to kill each other, rather than just fling poo at them, they put a weapon in this hand. The hungry would eat with this hand. The fancy literate buggers would write with this hand. The Main Hand is sometimes favored for rude gestures, unless it is already busy, which it often is, being a Main Hand.
Off Hand
The lazier of the twins, the Off Hand generally doesn't do much unless the Main Hand nags it enough. In battle, it often carries a shield. The Main Hand never carries a shield, unless the player's DM was somehow convinced that the bonuses of two spiked shields stack as both a pair of defense increases and weapons. This is, however, not the case, and the Main Hand should never be allowed to steal what little thunder the Off Hand has managed to muster in his shield-bearing career. Sometimes, people will carry weapons in the Off Hand. Logic dictates that two pointies are better than one, but because the Main Hand never asked the Off Hand to play at its weapon parties up until now, it typically just stands in the corner, awkwardly stirring its drink and being anti-social. At least it gets his own weapon this time. Last time all it did was support the weight so Main Hand could do more damage.
But I'll just point out again, you are perfectly free to attack without penalty or any other negative effect with you "offhand" under all the rules except that of a TWF Ranger. And possibly by Alane's PoV the TWF feats and Ranger Powers.
In other words, if I am a rogue with two shortswords, I can use either whenever I want for any of my attacks. I can even theoretically use each one after the other for a power that allows two attacks. No penalty, no problems at all.
At the dawn of time, there was the Main Hand...
Awesome!
- Alane -
Off Hand
The lazier of the twins, the Off Hand generally doesn't do much unless the Main Hand nags it enough. In battle, it often carries a shield. The Main Hand never carries a shield, unless the player's DM was somehow convinced that the bonuses of two spiked shields stack as both a pair of defense increases and weapons. This is, however, not the case, and the Main Hand should never be allowed to steal what little thunder the Off Hand has managed to muster in his shield-bearing career. Sometimes, people will carry weapons in the Off Hand. Logic dictates that two pointies are better than one, but because the Main Hand never asked the Off Hand to play at its weapon parties up until now, it typically just stands in the corner, awkwardly stirring its drink and being anti-social. At least it gets his own weapon this time. Last time all it did was support the weight so Main Hand could do more damage.
Since you mentioned that you use the main hand to eat with, it would be good to note that the off-hand was usually used to wipe yourself with. Thats why it was considered very rude or even disgusting to eat with your off-hand (usually left).
Since you mentioned that you use the main hand to eat with, it would be good to note that the off-hand was usually used to wipe yourself with. Thats why it was considered very rude or even disgusting to eat with your off-hand (usually left).
And from now on, whenever someone asks why they don't get a damage bonus to their off-hand weapon from TWF, I will simply say "because you use that hand to wipe. QED."
Main hand refers to your right hand unless you are left-handed, in which case it refers to your left hand.
Off hand refers to your left hand unless you are left-handed, in which case it refers to your right hand.
I dunno, maybe I play too many video games, but this seems really obvious to me.
It's just wierd to me that RAI would be you can't change which is your mainhand, but you can change which hand you use to make a single attack without issue.
The penalty for attacking with your off-hand is that it must be an off-hand weapon. See PHB 215, 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." That's page 217 in the PHB, description for Off-Hand weapons. It refers to a hand.
"Two-Blade Fighting Style: Because of your focus on two-weapon melee attacks, you can wield a one-handed weapon in your off hand as if it were an off-hand weapon. (Make sure to designate on your character sheet which weapon is main and which is offhand.) In addition, you gain Toughness as a bonus feat." That's page 104 in the PHB. It also refers to an off-hand.
The rules refer to hands, not to weapons. Whatever hand you want to be dominant is your main hand, the other is your off hand. It doesn't matter most of the time, because it's your option to "attack with either weapon" when you use an attack that doesn't specify. The problem is, even though you can hit them with either sword, that doesn't mean your offhand is preferable. Two weapon fighting feature lets you increase your damage by wielding whatever you want in your off-hand, but it doesn't give you ambidexterity. For maximum damage output, if you have Two-weapon fighting, you want to hit with your main hand. If for some tactical reason you decide to use your off-hand (magic ice weapon or something) you lose that bonus.
What's the work-around? Choose which weapon you wield in your main hand when you draw it out, and which one is in your off-hand. You can write it on your sheet because 90% of the time you'll be using the same weapon as your main-hand every time (the one with the higher bonus), but if you have to differentiate, do it before you draw. Switching two swords or two axes between two hands in the middle of a melee fight is the equivalent of putting them away and drawing them out again, so your DM might decide that you have to spend a minor action to do just that, but you can't change dominant hands on the fly.
As a side-note, I don't particularly understand why two weapon fighting feat doesn't just give you a generic +1 to damage, but so long as it is written the way it is, there's a differentiation to be made.
As a side-note, I don't particularly understand why two weapon fighting feat doesn't just give you a generic +1 to damage
Because the game designers didn't want the feat to give Rangers +2 damage. Those dirty twin-striking dogs do enough bonus damage already! :D
- Alane -
("Woof!")
Like I think I said, if you take TWF and TWD, it's like your main weapon is getting a damaging bonus (versatile-like bonus, yeah I like that), while your off-hand weapon is getting a shield bonus. In fact it has all of the bonuses of a light shield (except maybe powers that say "have a shield") without any of the drawbacks, and you can still stab with it.
People whine that a rogue should benefit from dual-weilding (because of the general WoW stereotype), but I honestly think they do. A rogue with TWF, TWD, and WF:light blade gets +2 damage with his main hand (TWF is an untyped bonus and stacks), the benefits of a light shield without having to take proficiency in them, and since he's already doing crazy damage, can afford to use 1d4 daggers, which he gets a +4 to attack with. Or he can go with a higher damage main hand, and use a dagger off-hand for when an attack needs that extra accuracy. I just scored with Riposte Strike. Are you feeling lucky, punk?
Remember. Not a chip-damage buzz saw.
The penalty for attacking with your off-hand is that it must be an off-hand weapon. See PHB 215, 217.
Not true at all, if you mean "you can't use a one handed non-offhand weapon in your permenent offhand". Admittedly I'm getting into a difference between rules "offhand" and what people think of as "offhand", but I want to be clear on this point so I'll use an example.
Lets say for the sake of argument you designate your left hand as your "offhand" as most people think of it in RL. I'm doing this just so that you can distinguish between offhand in the rules and what people think of as offhand.
Mechanically, when you wield a single weapon, you may wield a one handed weapon in your left or right hand and attack with it, as long as it is your only weapon held. No restriction applies.
Mechanically, when you wield two offhand weapons, you may designate either your left or right weapon as your offhand, and the rules don't specify when you make this designation. IMO {and yes it is an opinion} you can do it before any action, since that's the least granular timeframe. You can also attack with either hand without penalty for any melee attack you make that doesn't indicate if it is a mainhand or offhand (ie any Power that isn't a TWF Ranger Power).
Mechanially, when you wield a one hand and an offhand weapon, the hand with the one handed weapon is automatically your main hand and the other your offhand. You can also attack with either without penalty for any melee attack you make that doesn't indicate if it is a mainhand or offhand (ie any Power that isn't a TWF Ranger Power).
Mechanically, a TWF Ranger wielding two one handed weapons DOES have to designate which of his right and left hand weapons is mainhand and offhand though. You can also attack with either without penalty for any melee attack you make that doesn't indicate if it is a mainhand or offhand (ie any POwer that isn't a TWF Ranger Power).
Mechanically when you use the TWF feat, you get plus one damage on any mainhand attack. Again the rules don't specify when this designation occurs, except for a TWF Ranger. Again, IMO {and yes it is an opinion} you can do it before any action, since that's the least granular timeframe.
I even italicized the parts that I'm willing to admit are my opinion. Make a note, I don't admit that very often. :P
If this hasn't already been totally covered, here's another breakdown: Because your main hand is a hand, and not a weapon, you can't switch it out mid-round.
Not at all. Main hand is the hand that's designated your main hand. Off hand is the hand that's designated your off hand.
I just wish some of the other posters fully understood the various rules involved before throwing out inaccurate or irrelevant info. How these terms were defined in previous editions or other video games doesn't help clarify what they mean in this edition, especially since the mechanics of two-weapon fighting have evolved significantly.
In counterpoint, Alane and Tather made some really good arguments too.
For sure. I never let that stop my argument from bulling ahead, even if I can see the other person's point of view.
The rules say that if you wield a weapon in each hand, you can attack with either one when you use an attack power, but this has no effect on which weapon is considered to be in your "main hand" and what-not. The ranger powers that allow you attack with both weapons at once specify that you must attack with each, however, rather than attack with one or the other twice.
If they really wanted to make the "main hand / off hand" designation a more permanent thing, they should have made it a lot clearer.
I guess they just thought some things would be obvious. I mean, its called your "main hand" and "off hand". Based on the rules in the equipment section, I find it hard to see how one would come to the opposite conclusion. Seems pretty intuitive to me.
It's not really about interpreting mechanics and trying to get inside the developers' heads, it's just about establishing that the text says you have a main and of off hand. You can house rule it some other way, but the text is clear, sans any spin doctoring. The quotes are in the thread.
As I mentioned before, if you switch what weapons are in what hands, as you can decide generally when you draw them out, you can swap your main hand.
Wait, so you're saying you can change which hand is delineated as your "main" hand at the moment when you put a weapon into it? If so, how is that fundamentally different than what Fitz is saying?
I mean if you allow players to relabel their main and off hands each time they draw their weapons, why not allow them to do so when they swap their weapons? Hell, if both weapons have the off-hand type, they could sheathe both weapons, redraw them back into the same hands, but change the main/off hand designations at that instant. In other words, fundamentally, you're still letting them change those designations.
The way I see it, there are two possibilities for governing handedness (though neither one is explicitly supported by the RaW as far as I can tell):
1. Your main and off hands are permanent designations (i.e. you basically pick a dominant main hand when you create your character).
2. Your main and off hands are mutable designations. If this is true, then it's anyone's guess as to how frequently a player can change them.
If I were to examine these two possibilities alone without looking at the rest of the PHB, I'd say option #1 is by far the more common sense, realistic approach. However, when I examine this issue as it affects other areas of the game, I see certain facts which erode support for the notion that handedness is some meaningful, static attribute for characters.
• It's never mentioned anywhere in Chapter 2 (where character appearance, mannerisms, and other basic demographic information is discussed).
• Sword and board players face no penalties when swapping weapon and shield into opposite hands.
• Players using just a 1-handed weapon face no penalties whatsoever when swapping their weapon from hand to hand.
• Players without the TWF feat face no special attack/damage bonuses/penalties when attacking with two weapons (barring the standard Off-Hand weapon requirement).
So, if the rules aren't clear (and I'm still of the opinion that they aren't), then it's kinda left up to our discretion to guess the intent of the rules. Now, for the ranger powers and the feat TWF it makes sense why they'd even require a main and off hand designation to begin with. However, I see no game mechanic (or rule) requiring that designation to be permanent.
Would it unbalance the game if players could change which hand was which from round to round (or even action to action)? Hardly. They'd still have to obey the Off-Hand weapon limitation (though that's no problem for a TWF ranger or someone dual-wielding two off-hand weapons). A ranger would still have to attack with both weapons when using applicable dual-weapon powers. Someone with the TWF feat would still get to apply the +1 damage bonus to just one of their weapons and not the other.
So with no foreseeable game balance issues, and an increase in flexibility (and potentially fun) for the dual-wielding player, why not adjudicate in favor of option #2?
What you cannot do is arbitrarily decide which hand you consider to be your main hand. Once you've drawn a weapon, if you wanted to move it to your other hand for some reason, you'd have to spend some sort of action.
Sword and board players face no penalties when swapping weapon and shield into opposite hands.
The rules assume that the shield is on the off-hand arm and that the weapon is in the main hand. There would be no reason to switch these, and certainly nothing in the rules say you can do this in the middle of combat.
Players using just a 1-handed weapon face no penalties whatsoever when swapping their weapon from hand to hand.
Again, the rules assume the weapon will be in your main hand, because there is no advantage to having it in the other hand.
Would it unbalance the game if players could change which hand was which from round to round (or even action to action)?
Yes, it defeats the purpose of most of the TWF rules. For instance, as long as the player didn't want to use the TWF feat, he/she could completely circumvent the off-hand requirement. One cannot wield a weapon in the off-hand that doesn't have the off-hand property, but one can hold objects including weapons in the off-hand without problem. So, the player puts a long sword in each hand. Each round, he decides which he wants to attack with, and designates it as being in his/her main hand. He isn't attacking with the other weapon, so the off-hand requirement doesn't apply.
So with no foreseeable game balance issues, and an increase in flexibility (and potentially fun) for the dual-wielding player, why not adjudicate in favor of option #2?
Because that is clearly not what was intended.
[FONT="Franklin Gothic Medium"]Wait, so you're saying you can change which hand is delineated as your "main" hand at the moment when you put a weapon into it? If so, how is that fundamentally different than what Fitz is saying?[/Font]
Nimrand has it right, and I'll clarify as well. Pick either your right or left hand to make this easier, whichever one you choose is your main hand. When you draw your weapons, you can either grab your longsword in your right hand and your axe in your left, or your axe in your right hand and your longsword in your left. You aren't changing your hand, you're changing the weapon you're holding in your main hand. To switch the two weapons between your hands you'd have to sheath one, swap hands with the one you still have out, and draw the other weapon again.
If it was not intended that one hand be selected as your primary hand they wouldn't ask you to do it in the PHB. If they intended you to have two main hands as a TWF ranger they would have put that into the description of the two weapon fighter feature, but instead they clearly asked you to signify which weapon you wanted to draw into your main hand and which you wanted to draw into your off hand. There's no rule about switching which hand you draw into, but it is clearly intended that you have a main hand and an off hand. Physically swapping which actually hand on your body you want to be dominant and which hand you want to be your off hand in the middle of combat isn't feasible.
At the end of the day why is there such a hard fight over this? Is it really more fun to have two main hands and no off hand weapon? How often is it going to be necessary? I guess if you have a +2 ice axe in one hand and a +2 flaming sword in the other, and you were fighting ice and fire elementals at the same time, you'd want to switch back and forth. Still, this is a lot of rule lawyering to try and get a +1 to damage on whatever hand you want rather than your main hand. Just make a tactical decision when combat starts as to which weapon you intend to be your main hand weapon and draw that into your main hand, and don't worry about switching it up mid-combat... it's only one damage, and if you're fighting something vulnarable to your damage, which you must be for all of this to even be relevant to combat, you're still getting an extra 5+ damage on them with an off hand hit anyway.
Nimrand has it right, and I'll clarify as well. Pick either your right or left hand to make this easier, whichever one you choose is your main hand. When you draw your weapons, you can either grab your longsword in your right hand and your axe in your left, or your axe in your right hand and your longsword in your left. You aren't changing your hand, you're changing the weapon you're holding in your main hand. To switch the two weapons between your hands you'd have to sheath one, swap hands with the one you still have out, and draw the other weapon again.
For non-ranger, both weapons would have to be labeled off-hand in order to be interchangable.
What I'm sure the poster meant is that the player can designate which weapon he/she draws with each hand. If I want my short sword of fire in my off hand instead of my main hand in a given fight, I can draw it using my off hand.
Yeah, that seems more consistent with his other arguments. His post confirms it. Sorry for the misunderstanding.
What you cannot do is arbitrarily decide which hand you consider to be your main hand.
Yes you can. Whether that arbitrary decision is permanent is what we're currently debating.
Once you've drawn a weapon, if you wanted to move it to your other hand for some reason, you'd have to spend some sort of action.
Of course.
The rules assume that the shield is on the off-hand arm and that the weapon is in the main hand. There would be no reason to switch these, and certainly nothing in the rules say you can do this in the middle of combat.
No, you might assume this, but the rules can't assume anything (they aren't sentient after all). Perhaps you meant the designers assume the same thing, but then we're talking about the RaI instead of the RaW. Two different things. I see nowhere in the RaW that says you can't swap your shield and weapon or that you incur penalties for doing so.
Again, the rules assume the weapon will be in your main hand, because there is no advantage to having it in the other hand.
Again, that's you assuming, not the rules.
Yes, it defeats the purpose of most of the TWF rules. For instance, as long as the player didn't want to use the TWF feat, he/she could completely circumvent the off-hand requirement. One cannot wield a weapon in the off-hand that doesn't have the off-hand property, but one can hold objects including weapons in the off-hand without problem. So, the player puts a long sword in each hand. Each round, he decides which he wants to attack with, and designates it as being in his/her main hand. He isn't attacking with the other weapon, so the off-hand requirement doesn't apply.
You have a point here, but I don't see it "defeating the purpose" of TWF fighting. Like you say, there's nothing stopping a non-ranger from holding two longswords and still being able to attack with one. It's only the off-hand weapon that can't be used. Even if main/off hand designations are permanent (as you assume), all you'd have to do is quickly swap your weapons (something I'd arbiter as a minor action) and now you're using longsword #2 in your main hand.
The only thing this really nets you (99% of the time) is style. You really think the designers intentionally wanted to crap on players' stylistic choices when they have little to no effect on game balance?
Because that is clearly not what was intended.
One, it isn't clear, and two, you have no way of knowing what they intended.
Seriously, I think it's tempting to assume that the game terms "main hand" and "off hand" are completely synonymous with their real-life counterparts, but there are plenty of exceptions to this notion in D&D. A game "hit" isn't always a hit, a game "miss" isn't always a miss, "prone" isn't always literally prone, "bloodied" isn't always literally bloodied, and so on.
Assuming that the terms "main hand" and "off hand" are permanent designations when the rules make no such clarification is inappropriately applying real-life meaning to the words. For all we know, Wizards might have meant these terms to be flexible. They need to be designated, but what rule says they cannot be designated in the moment?
Again, if this led to imbalance or abuse or any other negative result, I'd agree with you in an instant. But since this has such a negligible effect on the actual game mechanics, I'm not sure how some of you can be so adamantly opposed to the idea.
It just seems weird that almost every other type of player is treated like they are ambidextrous (with no penalties for which hand they use for actions). It's ironic then that the ones who should be best at using both hands for attacking (rangers and those with TWF feat) are the ones most straitjacketed into picking a "dominant" hand.
Even if main/off hand designations are permanent (as you assume), all you'd have to do is quickly swap your weapons (something I'd arbiter as a minor action) and now you're using longsword #2 in your main hand.
Yes, I agree that you could do this (though it would be up to the DM as to what kind of action it would be, swapping weapons this way would be harder than drawing one, so it should probably be a move or standard action), but you DO have to physically swap which weapon is in each hand.
I see nowhere in the RaW that says you can't swap your shield and weapon or that you incur penalties for doing so.
Nothing says you CAN swap them either.
It just seems weird that almost every other type of player is treated like they are ambidextrous (with no penalties for which hand they use for actions). It's ironic then that the ones who should be best at using both hands for attacking (rangers and those with TWF feat) are the ones most straitjacketed into picking a "dominant" hand.
When you read the rules my way, they aren't treated as ambidexterous. The rules are written based on the assumption that if they only have one weapon, they're using it in their main hand, because there is no advantage to using it in your off-hand. The rules don't spell that out, because if you're only using one weapon, worrying about whether its in your main hand or off hand is just needless overhead. If you're holding two weapons, though, then then the main hand/off hand restrictions have a meaningful impact.
It's ironic then that the ones who should be best at using both hands for attacking (rangers and those with TWF feat) are the ones most straitjacketed into picking a "dominant" hand.
Because if you only have one weapon, it really doesn't matter whether it is in your main hand, because its a reasonable assumption you're going to put your weapon into your main hand, and so the offhand restrictions simply wont matter. If you want to hold two weapons, and be able to attack with both or use the TWF feats, then the offhand restrictions actually matter.
The only thing this really nets you (99% of the time) is style. You really think the designers intentionally wanted to crap on players' stylistic choices when they have little to no effect on game balance?
I'm not sure I understand this argument. Under the 4E rules, for non-rangers, the advantage of wielding two weapons is that each might have apply a different effect when it hits, and you can choose which effect will get applied by choosing which weapon you attack with. You also get to use the TWF feats. I agree, this advantage is relatively minor, but thats because the designers wanted the ranger to be the main TWF class. The ability of other classes to fight with two weapons is therefore severly limited.
Yes, I agree that you could do this (though it would be up to the DM as to what kind of action it would be, swapping weapons this way would be harder than drawing one, so it should probably be a move or standard action), but you DO have to physically swap which weapon is in each hand.
I think it's just as easy as drawing a weapon, because you simply move your hands together and swap what they're holding. You're telling me other minor actions like pulling a potion out of your backpack or loading a crossbow are easier and shorter than swapping what's in your hands? Seriously?? Regardless, that's another topic entirely. ;)
Nothing says you CAN swap them either.
I disagree. The game mechanics certainly allow you to hold items in your hand and subsequently reposition them. At the very least, you could just drop items and then pick them up into the opposite hand.
Also, the rules clearly make provisions for wielding a 1-handed weapon in one hand and a shield in the other. Since there is no specification as to which hand these items must be placed in, it naturally follows you can wield them in whatever hand you'd like.
When you read the rules my way, they aren't treated as ambidexterous.
I'm glad you added the clarification.
The rules are written based on the assumption that if they only have one weapon, they're using it in their main hand, because there is no advantage to using it in your off-hand.
That's your assumption, not mine, and not necessarily the game designers' either.
The rules don't spell that out, because if you're only using one weapon, worrying about whether its in your main hand or off hand is just needless overhead.
Exactly, unless of course characters aren't ambidextrous and it's important (from a mechanics standpoint) to know what hand a weapon is in. Since they didn't spell any of that out, however, it certainly lends credence to the idea that the designers didn't really care which hand is dominant. If anything, I think they're simply concerned with making sure the ranger TWF powers make attacks with two 1-h weapons (to limit damage output) instead of doubling up attacks with a single 2-h weapon.
Because if you only have one weapon, it really doesn't matter whether it is in your main hand, because its a reasonable assumption you're going to put your weapon into your main hand, and so the offhand restrictions simply wont matter.
Unless of course you don't actually have a dominant hand, or perhaps your usual weapon hand is incapacitated in some way. You guys keep assuming that creatures in D&D are just like us in real life, with dominant hands and such. This isn't necessarily the case, however. A lot of rules conflicts arise because people mistakenly assign realism when it isn't required or even specified.
I'm not sure I understand this argument. Under the 4E rules, for non-rangers, the advantage of wielding two weapons is that each might have apply a different effect when it hits, and you can choose which effect will get applied by choosing which weapon you attack with. You also get to use the TWF feats. I agree, this advantage is relatively minor, but thats because the designers wanted the ranger to be the main TWF class. The ability of other classes to fight with two weapons is therefore severly limited.
Which is precisely why this whole permanent main/off hand theory affects rangers more than any other class. The thing is, under your ruling, the moment you pick up the TWF feat, you then must always make your Opportunity Attacks (and any other single melee attacks) with your main hand if you want to maximize your damage. To optimize your effectiveness in combat, TWF pushes you into becoming effectively less ambidextrous than you were before taking the TWF feat.
Under Fitz' and my interpretation, a TWF ranger could still maximize his damage the same exact way, but he could swap which hand he attacks with for RP "stylish" reasons, kind of like a 3e Monk using whatever body part he wants to make his unarmed attacks. The hand or body part used didn't have a mechanical effect on the game, but it certainly made the game a bit more fun and varied for players.
He has TWF, TWD, Blade Opportunist and Weapon Focus: Axe as his feats worth noting. His main hand has a battle axe which he uses for attacking and powers. He gets +2 damage with it from WF and TWF on top of its 1d10 and strength. In his off-hand is a Katar, which gives him +1 AC and Reflex because of TWD (making up for his lack of a shield), a +3 proficiency bonus, and being a light blade, gains a +2 on OAs from BO. That's +3 over his axe's already decent accuracy (he's got a good strength and obviously took the one-handed weapon talent) for use with his Combat Superiority (which adds his wisdom on top of that). If he gets an OA, he's probably going to use that Katar, because even though it does less damage, he's all but guarenteed to score a hit and stop the enemy's move.
I honestly got lost somewhere around the "rangers are less effective" remarks. A dual-weilding ranger can put anything that fits in either hand, and the off-hand item gains the off-hand property automatically. If you were able to switch which this was, then the new off-hand weapon would gain the off-hand property. So, it would be like they were holding a short sword and a dagger, but with Weapons of Massive Death. Perhaps someone can explain to me in small words why this is a bad thing.
Bonuses are conditional and just that, bonuses. They aren't restrictions unless you make them so. Without TWF, you can use a weapon in each hand to equal effectiveness. That's because you suck equally with each. TWF gives you a +1 to your main hand's attacks. That's not a -1 to your off-hand, it's a +1 to your main. You're better at that hand's attacks when the other has a weapon to support it. The other hand still sucks as much as it did before at stabbing things. It didn't get worse. You take TWD, that hand is now good at parrying and defense as well as supporting the main hand's strikes. It's gained two new abilities, neither of which are stabbing by itself. But, it's still as good at that as everyone else, and if you have a frost dagger in that hand, and you're fighting a fire monster, you can still use it. You don't get +1 damage, but it's vulnerable and you get +5.
Or, if you're a rogue and holding a dagger there, you still get the class's +1 to hit, and sometimes you might take advantage of that at expense of the damage. The dagger is also a ranged weapon, if you need one. An Eladrin Ranger (with Eladrin Soldier) with a longsword in one hand and a Javalin in the other can still throw the javalin for good damage. It's still a melee weapon and still grants the TWF/TWD bonuses, but if you need a ranged weapon, it's already in your hand. In both cases, if the weapon is magical, you can even use it multi-attack powers. It may not be +1 damage, but a twin-strike ranged attack without swapping weapons isn't too shoddy.
And that's a long winded way of saying "off-hand weapons aren't worthless". Despite what I keep hearing, the dual-weilder has a really good deal going in 4e. As a DM, I'm really not inclined to let the shortsword/dagger rogue suddenly call his dagger his main hand for an attack, because he's trying to squeeze out an extra point of damage. If the situation calls for whatever made him decide his dagger was more important, then it must be more important than that +1 damage. I'm going to treat it the same as if a mage tried to convince me that acid was the same as fire, because they both burn, and his fire bonus should count. It's not a matter of style, but trying to work the mechanics in their favor. The concept of handedness is such a redone paradigm in both Pen & Paper and Computer RPGs, not just reality, that I have to assuming the lack of clarification is the standard, not an exception. The feat gives you a +1 untyped damage bonus to a hand. That's a sweet thing to have. If you want the sweetness that is a +1 untyped damage bonus, stab something with that hand. Two-weapon fighting feats aren't about versatility. They're about giving a versatile thing bonuses, and bonuses are never versatile, they're situational.
Only person who has to designate which weapon is off hand and which is not in anything resembling a permenent manner is the TWF ranger, and he can change it simply by rewriting it on his character sheet the other way around.
Any other character doesn't have to designate a mainhand and offhand unless he weilds a mainhand/offhand weapon combo, uses a TWF feat, or uses a Ranger TWF Power. And nothing prevents him from redesignating which is which.
The rules never say you have to designate which HAND is your mainhand or offhand.
The only qeustion is when. Or if you prefer, how frequently?
However, if you want to glean intent, then the numerous posters have presented quite a number of reasons why this interpretation makes the most sense. The rules just make no sense if you can circumvent them simply by switching the main hand and off hand designations of your weapons on a whim.
If I am carrying two one-handed weapons, neither with the off-hand property, I am not considered to be "wielding" the second one. It's just in my hand, much like a wizard can "wield" a staff as an implement one-handed, but it does not count as a weapon until he holds it with both hands. The second weapon is unusable.
Oh ho, but wait! I simply designate THAT as my main hand this attack, and now I can use that weapon, and the other weapon counts as not being wielded. Thus, by redesignating my main hand each time I want to use the other weapon, I can avoid having to have a weapon with the off-hand property at all. In fact, the off-hand property becomes completely worthless to almost ANYONE.
And guess what? You can do that on a whim by just reindicating which is which on your character sheet. Sure you might have to ask your DM when you can do that.
And if he's feeling like making a rule based on right hands being permently a mainhand even though the rules don't support that, he might say "when you redraw them or take an action to switch them." If he's not, he should probably say "next round".
So, if you want to argue based purely on what is plainly and literally written in the rules alone, you can't reach any conclusion because the rules say nothing of doing that.
The rules explicitly allow you to fight with either hand without penalty with a one handed weapon, as long as it's the only weapon you are fighting with that turn. That points to my conclusion being correct, and the conclusion that a physical hand is "Mainhand" or "Offhand" as incorrect.
Oh ho, but wait! I simply designate THAT as my main hand this attack, and now I can use that weapon, and the other weapon counts as not being wielded. Thus, by redesignating my main hand each time I want to use the other weapon, I can avoid having to have a weapon with the off-hand property at all.
Absolutely!
Offhand weapons only matter if you are attacking with both in the same turn. Or using the TWF feat.
The rules explicitly allow you to fight with either hand without penalty with a one handed weapon, as long as it's the only weapon you are holding. That points to my conclusion being correct, and the conclusion that a physical hand is "Mainhand" or "Offhand" as incorrect.
The rules also explicitly place restrictions on wielding a weapon in each hand, which, as we've demonstrated, can be almost completely circumvented by switching one's mainhand and offhand designations each turn, which indicates that the conclusion you can switch them on a whim is also incorrect.
Edit: I'll make one potential concession, if I ever said you can change the designation before each action, I was wrong. The designation has to stay for the whole round if you plan to wield both weapons in the same round. For example using an action point to use a second attack power.
Edit: I'll make one potential concession, if I ever said you can change the designation before each action, I was wrong. The designation has to stay for the whole round if you plan to wield both weapons in the same round. For example using an action point to use a second attack power.
So, why is it that if you can change the designations as you say, that the designations must remain static for the whole round?
Oh ho, but wait! I simply designate THAT as my main hand this attack, and now I can use that weapon, and the other weapon counts as not being wielded. Thus, by redesignating my main hand each time I want to use the other weapon, I can avoid having to have a weapon with the off-hand property at all. In fact, the off-hand property becomes completely worthless to almost ANYONE.
I agree 100%.
When I read the 'weapon properties' sub-section, it's pretty clear to me that if you want to weild/fight with two weapons, one of them is going to require the "off-hand" property (feats, class features notwithstanding).
I agree with Mac.
Why would the off-hand property exist in the first place if everyone could circumvent it?
Absolutely!
Offhand weapons only matter if you are attacking with both in the same turn. Or using the TWF feat.
I respectfully disagree.
It specifically states under the 'Weapon Properties' sub-section that "you cant 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."
I'd say it does matter.
Why would the off-hand property exist in the first place if everyone could circumvent it?
Twice in a few posts people have mentioned circumventing offhand, but I still haven't seen a way to actually circumvent it discribed yet.
I respectfully disagree.
It specifically states under the 'Weapon Properties' sub-section that "you cant 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."
I'd say it does matter.
You just agreed with me, you didn't disagree with me.
I said: Offhand weapons only matter if you are attacking with both in the same turn
You quoted: you cant attack with both weapons in the same turn, ..., but you can attack with either weapon.
Mac described a situation in which you attack with one weapon in one turn, and one on the next. In other words attacking with either weapon. That's fine. He didn't try to do both in the same turn. Or if he did, he just described an situation the rules don't allow you to do (and I missed that fact).
Offhand weapons only matter if you are attacking with both in the same turn
This is where we disagree. I see nothing in the rules that even remotely suggests that the off-hand limitation was only meant to apply when attacking with both weapons on the same turn, or that you were meant to be able to change the mainhand/offhand designation between turns. The idea that you can only switch the designations between turns, rather than per action, seems even more arbitrary.
Edit: For that matter, why would they bother asking the ranger player to write down the mainhand/offhand designations, if he/she can change them every turn? Are they worried the ranger will forget which designation he made over the course of a single turn?
The description of the "off-hand" weapon property states that you can hold/attack with an "off-hand weapon" while holding a weapon in your main hand. You can't attack with both in the same turn unless you have a power that lets you, but you can attack with either weapon.
From this I infer that you need to have a "main-hand."
You also need to have another hand, one that is not you "main hand". (call it what you will.)
Therefore, even non-rangers must designate a "main hand" and a "non-main hand."
I also infer from this that you could attack all day long with whatever weapon you have in your main hand, but if ever you wanted to make an attack with the weapon in the other hand, it must have the "off-hand" property, and there are only so many of those.
In other words, there is nothing to stop my (non-ranger) character from walking around brandishing dual longswords, but technically I could only attack with the one in my main hand, since the other does not meet the "off-hand" prerequisite.
If I could freely designate my main hand every round, you wouldn't need the "off-hand" prerequisite (the circumvention I mentioned). You could therefore effectively attack with either longsword on any given round, rendering the "off-hand" property meaningless.
In other words, there is nothing to stop my (non-ranger) character from walking around brandishing dual longswords, but technically I could only attack with the one in my main hand, since the other does not meet the "off-hand" prerequisite.
Actually, the two-weapon fighting style ranger can already ignore the off-hand requirement per the class feature.
However, you bring up a good point. The off-hand property description:
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.
Right in the description, it acknowledges that you usually can't attack with both weapons on the same turn, but furthermore says that you can attack with either weapon only if the weapon that is not in your main hand is an off-hand weapon. Why would the off-hand property have said this if it wasn't meant to apply in cases where you're only attacking with one of the two weapons on a given turn? The wording clearly implies that the only way you can have the option to attack with either weapon is if one of the two weapons is an off-hand weapon, and, as we've pointed out, being able to switch the designations between turns allows one to circumvent that requirement as long as you aren't taking advantage of a TWF feat or attacking with both weapons on the same turn.
For Rangers with the Two-Blade Fighting Style, the "off-hand" property of weapons is irrelevant because they can wield all one-handed weapons in their off hand as explained on page 104.
Non-Rangers can't attack with both weapons at the same time. But if they can switch their main-hand/off-hand designation every round as you propose, then the "off-hand" weapon property is irrelevant for them, too, because they can wield whatever weapons they like in each hand and just switch their designation as necessary so they're always striking with the "main" hand.
By this logic, the "off-hand" weapon property is irrelevant to everybody. So why is it in the rulebook?
- Alane -
Any other character other than a TWF Ranger must have one offhand weapon when using two weapons or you are not TWF-ing. You can hold two one handed weapon as a Fighter, but you only gain any bonuses as if you were using one weapon, which incidentally is everything if you do not have any TWF feats, but your cost of versatility is a sheild or greater damage/reach from two handed weapons. If you have TWF feats, you do not get its benefits unless you have at least one offhand weapon, which limits your choice of main/off hand designation. That's obvious enough.
If they are currently using two offhand weapons, they would then be, from the TWF mechanics point of view, equal to a TWF Ranger with two one handed weapon - Designate main/off hand. Unless the character is using a (Ranger) power that explicitly states main/offhand attacks, they can only attack with either ONE weapon throughout that attack power, even if it allows multiple attacks. So ice shortsword OR fire shortsword with that power; NOT BOTH.
If they have the TWF feat, this means +1 dmg to all hits with that action, or no +1 dmg to any hit with that action. This is actually in FAVOR of the TWF Ranger since s/he is the only one who can guarentee to take advantage of the +1 dmg from the use of one power (at least in one of the attacks). For reference, if the TWF Ranger uses a power that gives multiple attacks, but does not specify offhand, the TWF Ranger still must choose one weapon to attack with throughout all attacks granted by the power.
This would be the same throughout the encounter. You cannot attack with +1 dmg with your fire shortsword in one power round one, then redesignate the +1 dmg bonus to your ice shortsword in the next round. You could attack with fire in round one with +1 dmg from TWF feat, then choose ice for second attack power the next round (or by spending an action point) this is explicit in the rules... but the ice attack would then not gain the +1 dmg bonus from the TWF feat (as you have designated fire as main, ice ad off). Not without some cost, or as noted by many, the TWF Ranger and powers that specify off hand would end up weaker on most cases, when compared to powers that grant multiple attacks with one weapon.
I agree with a previous poster that the TWF Ranger entry is more as a reminder that "Even though you are not using a offhand weapon in your offhand, your one handed weapon in your offhand is still considered offhand for power & feat purposes." Main/off hand designation matters more than just when using powers with explicit offhand reference ot when using attacking with both on the same turn. It should carry a more significant, but not permanent, "repercussion" of the choice.
Any other character other than a TWF Ranger must have one offhand weapon when using two weapons or you are not TWF-ing. You can hold two one handed weapon as a Fighter, but you only gain any bonuses as if you were using one weapon, which incidentally is everything if you do not have any TWF feats, but your cost of versatility is a sheild or greater damage/reach from two handed weapons.
I'm not sure I understand quite what you meant here, but I just wanted to say that the fighter would only get to attack with whichever weapon he/she designates as being in his/her main hand. The off-hand property description clearly indicates that a requirement for having the option to attack with either weapon in each hand is that the weapon that is not in the main hand has the off-hand property. So, a fighter holding two non-offhand weapons really gains no versatility. Might as well just carry both weapons in a sheath and draw whichever one wants to use while leaving the other arm open for a shield.
However, the rules explicitly state how to deal with this, though it seems people are missing it. The DM of the game can choose how he controls things.
I myself choose to go with the ambidexterity setup. If you are a DM and disagree, then you set the explicit part in your campaign how you prefer.
I prefer the rules to have vague points that I can interpret how I choose. If a rule was explicit, and I still disagreed, I would simply change the rule in my campaign anyway. I am a DM, if you are in my game, you play by my preset rules, using published rules as a basis in my created realm.
It seems clear from the off-hand property description, as well as the text on page 215, that the requirement for having a weapon in each hand and having the choice to attack with either weapon is that the weapon in the off-hand must be a an off-hand weapon. Being able to swap designations at will bypasses this requirement, so that is clearly not the intent.
Nevertheless, the rules don't spell out when and how one can swap which weapon is the main hand weapon and which is the off hand weapon, so the DM has to make some decision on this, bearing in mind that allowing one to swap the weapons too easily or too often would allow players to effectively bypass the off-hand weapon requirement.
One elegant and natural way of dealing with this is treating the off-hand and main-hand as being physical hands, and thus one would require some sort of action to swap them, but one doesn't necessarily need to do this. From a pure-rules perspective, the main-hand and off-hand are equipment slots, just like armor slots and feet slots. Arguing that the you can swap weapons between these slots every turn just because the rules don't say you can't is like arguing I can swap my armor in the middle of combat just because the rules don't say I can't do that. If one wanted to rule it purely on the rules without any improvisation, you would treat swapping the off-hand and main-hand weapons just like you would the swapping of any other equipment.
..a fighter holding two non-offhand weapons really gains no versatility..
You are right. So there is no real question of by passing with two one handers since you would have to designate your active weapon and render the other inactive until you redesignate it somehow.
I still maintain the designation per weapon(s) draw as the best interpretation of the intent of the rules.
I still maintain the designation per weapon(s) draw as the best interpretation of the intent of the rules.
That makes sense to me too.
Summary: Fighter with longsword picks up opponent shortsword in combat and wants to use it. The thread agreement was to use an action point to gain a standard action so he has one for longsword and one for shortsword. Mechanically, the Fighter could've just used the shortsword alone with any power by as it's an offhand weapon (provided it is assumed, there no shield involved here).
If I've made no error so far: Now what if the weapons were reversed? Fighter has the shortsword (default main?) and then picked up the longsword. Does he get to redesignate main/offhand? Or has he not designated main/offhand in the first place?
I think this is closely related with the discussion at hand.
Right in the description, it acknowledges that you usually can't attack with both weapons on the same turn, but furthermore says that you can attack with either weapon only if the weapon that is not in your main hand is an off-hand weapon.
Not exactly. The mistake you've made in your interpretation here is something called "denying the antecedent."
Let's say our fighter is dual wielding, and his secondary weapon is indeed an off-hand weapon. The rules clearly state that in this case, he can then make attacks with either weapon. In logical terms, you could write this as "if P, then Q", P being the conditional premise and Q being the conclusion.
The error arises in the case where premise P is false. People mistakenly assume that if P is false, Q must therefore be false as well. For example, our fighter instead decides to pick up two longswords. You've erroneously concluded that he cannot attack with either sword, when in fact he can still attack with the primary one.
Now, the wording in the Off-Hand description is sufficiently clear to establish that the weapon in the off hand cannot be used for attacks unless it is an off-hand weapon. You're going beyond that conclusion and assuming you can't even attack with the main hand anymore either, when there are clear examples given to the contrary.
Consider the oft-cited example of a someone using a weapon, shield, and also holding a staff in the shield hand. It has been clarified that this is allowable, but you cannot use the staff as a weapon for attacks (because it is neither a one-handed nor an off-hand weapon, and also because the shield is in the same hand). Regardless, you can still get full benefit from your shield and you can still make attacks with your primary weapon.
I'm not sure I've explained this clearly (I'm mildly intoxicated after all), so I'll summarize. Regardless of what you're carrying in your off-hand (whether it's nothing, a shield, a massive 2-h weapon, or a dagger), you can still make all your standard attacks with any 1-h weapon in your main hand.
If I've made no error so far: Now what if the weapons were reversed? Fighter has the shortsword (default main?) and then picked up the longsword. Does he get to redesignate main/offhand? Or has he not designated main/offhand in the first place?
Very good question, and I've got to think about all of this stuff some more. Machmoth's and Jasper's posts about rendering the Off-Hand requirement ineffectual are indeed persuasive, but I'm still left with the following dilemma:
There is no requirement anywhere for 1-h weapon + shield users to designate handedness. If these players can swap items around during combat without any ill effect (other than spending a minor action or two), why can't dual-wielding players? In other words, why are non dual-wielders ostensibly ambidextrous while dual-wielders are not?
All this discussion makes me wonder just why they even introduced this whole Off-Hand limitation for players. It's easy enough to get around even if you assume handedness designations are permanent (i.e. simply swap your weapons, because you can always attack with your main hand). Most players can only attack with one weapon at a time anyway so it just seems like a pointless complication (or unnecessary overhead, as someone else phrased it).
Perhaps it was to make rangers feel special at their TWF prowess, because only they get to simultaneously wield two scimitars or whatever with no penalty. Inadvertently, however, it appears to force rangers (and other players that decide to specialize in TWF by taking the feat) to actually worry more about what item is in which hand, while other players rarely (if ever) have to.
The description of the "off-hand" weapon property states that you can hold/attack with an "off-hand weapon" while holding a weapon in your main hand. You can't attack with both in the same turn unless you have a power that lets you, but you can attack with either weapon.
From this I infer that you need to have a "main-hand."
You also need to have another hand, one that is not you "main hand". (call it what you will.)
Therefore, even non-rangers must designate a "main hand" and a "non-main hand."
Of course they must. I completely and utterly agree.
But there is no rule that says your main-hand can't be changed to the other hand. Where? Please, show me where it is. You guys seem to be stuck on some mental construct you have devised that doesn't actually exist. Even the offhand weapon description doesn't imply it.
Yes, you have to designate an mainhand and offhand, ranger or no, any time you use two weapons, one in each hand, in a turn. They have to follow the TWF rules. If you don't use them both, you can attack with either weapon, offhand property (per the offhand weapons rules) or not (per the one-handed weapons rules) But again, no rules explicitly or implicitly shows that you can't change that designation from turn to turn provided that it meets the rules.
The offhand weapon description backs me up completely. The one-handed weapon description does as well.
And looking back at Mac's description, he actually broke the rules I think. He changed designations during a turn.
If I've made no error so far: Now what if the weapons were reversed? Fighter has the shortsword (default main?) and then picked up the longsword. Does he get to redesignate main/offhand? Or has he not designated main/offhand in the first place?
Yes, he he gets to redesignate main/offhand,
Non-Rangers can't attack with both weapons at the same time. But if they can switch their main-hand/off-hand designation every round as you propose, then the "off-hand" weapon property is irrelevant for them, too, because they can wield whatever weapons they like in each hand and just switch their designation as necessary so they're always striking with the "main" hand.
Yes, they can. Unless they TWF (feat) or dual-wield (Ranger Power or any other power with more than one Melee attack).
By this logic, the "off-hand" weapon property is irrelevant to everybody. So why is it in the rulebook?
Where do you guys keep getting this? It's in the rulebook for when you dual-wield. When you don't dual-wield, of course the off-hand weapon property is irrelevant!
As far as picking up a longsword is concerned, I'd combine shifting the shortsword to your off hand and picking up the longsword with your main hand in one minor action. If you just picked it up in your off hand, then per the rule, you couldn't use it to attack. I'd personally house rule it to be an attack at a penalty for using a hand that isn't dominant swing a heavy weapon, but according to the RAW it isn't possible.
The easiest way to solve all of this is to DM rule it. So far as I'm concerned the rules very clearly indicate that one of your hands has to be a main hand and one has to be an off hand for a number of feats, powers, and equipment rulings to work, and I'm still not sure why anyone would fight so hard for a +1 to damage with his off hand, but people want their classes to be as effective as they can be at all times so I'll bite. Ask your DM if you can play an ambidexterous character, or perhaps add a feat that allows you ambidexterity. To spice it up maybe make a feat that gives you ambidexterity and a +1 feat bonus to acrobatics and thievery to represent your manual dexterity.
Where do you guys keep getting this? It's in the rulebook for when you dual-wield. When you don't dual-wield, of course the off-hand weapon property is irrelevent!
But Fitz - it's irrelevant when you dual-wield, too! That's the whole point of Two-Blade Fighting Style; your off-hand is no longer restricted to using weapons with the "off-hand" property.
If it's irrelevant for non-Rangers, and also irrelevant for Rangers, then why did the game designers even bother to put the "off-hand" property into the rulebook?
- Alane -
But Fitz - it's irrelevant when you dual-wield, too! That's the whole point of Two-Blade Fighting Style; you aren't restricted to off-hand weapons in your off-hand.
If it's irrelevant for everybody, then why's it in the rulebook?
- Alane -
Did you really just say it's irrelevant when you dual-wield?
That's completely wrong. The off-hand weapon applies when you dual-wield (use both weapons in the same turn). Unless you are a TWF (class-ability) Ranger.
Did you really just say it's irrelevant when you dual-wield?
That's completely wrong. The off-hand weapon applies when you dual-wield (use both weapons in the same turn). Unless you are a TWF (class-ability) Ranger.
Yes: "unless you are a TWF Ranger."
So it's irrelevant to Two-Blade Rangers (because they're not restricted to off-hand weapons) and under your theory, it's ALSO irrelevant to non-Rangers because they can redesignate their main hand/off hand each round, between making attacks.
So why is the off-hand property even listed in the rulebook? Who's it for?
- Alane -
Fitz, again, you assume everyone is automatically ambidexterous just because it isn't clearly stated in the rules that they are not.
Of course I do!
If the rules don't assign a penalty for attacking with either hand (with the other empty), and the rules only use the off-hand weapon rules when you attack with both weapons in the same turn (as opposed to either weapon), what else am I supposed to assume?
Edit: Like I said, you guys have constructed this mental construct that it's impossible for people to be ambidextrous, then are trying to make the rules fit it. Problem is, they don't fit it.
So why is the off-hand property even listed in the rulebook? Who's it for?
- Alane -
People who want to dual-wield Alane. People who want to make attacks with both weapons in the same turn. That's something that three classes of people can do: TWF Rangers, non-TWF Rangers, and Non-Rangers. The only ones it's not required for are TWF Rangers.
under your theory, it's ALSO irrelevant to non-Rangers because they can redesignate their main hand/off hand each round, between making attacks.
Maybe I need to reclarify for you.
Non-TWF Ranger Dual-wielding: They make an attack with each weapon in the same turn. They can do this by using any power with more than one attack, or using an action point to get another action to use another power to make a second attack. You must designate a weapon as offhand and it must follow the rules for such. Note you only have to specifically use the mainhand or offhand weapon for the attack in such powers, as opposed to choosing which one for each attack, if the power specifies (it's a Ranger power).
Anyone not Dual-wielding but holding two weapons: They make an attack with only one of their weapons on the same turn.
Anyone not Dual-wielding but holding one weapon: They make an attack with thier weapon.
Example use of Dual-wielding with Powers:
Archer Ranger uses Twin Strike: He must have an offhand weapon, and it has to have the offhand property. He has to make one attack with the mainhand and one with the offhand.
Fighter uses Rain of Blows with two weapons, using each one to make one of the two+ attacks the Power gives: He must have an offhand weapon, and it has to have the offhand property. He can make any of his two or three attacks with either weapon, his choice.
If both of these characters are using two offhand weapons, they can switch each round which is the mainhand and which is the offhand. It only matters for the Archer Ranger really, with these powers. But if the Fighter had the TWF feat, he could switch to choose which one got the +1 damage.
Edit: Like I said, you guys have constructed this mental construct that it's impossible for people to be ambidextrous, then are trying to make the rules fit it. Problem is, they don't fit it.
There's nothing in dungeons and dragons lore that would lead me to assume every character born is ambidexterous. Off hand weapons are also off hand only because they are light and easy to use in a weaker, less dexterous hand, which further leads me to believe they are off hand because they are for use in a non-primary arm, which would require a character to have a primary arm, which would make him not ambidexterous. If you want your character ambidexterous just check it out with your DM, but if every character was presumed to have the same strength and dexterity with both arms at all times as you are assuming is the case, there would be absolutely no purpose to allocating 'off-hand' to a group of weapons, because everyone could use everything just as effectively in both hands all the time. There'd also be no advantage to being a two weapon ranger because everybody could use a heavy weapon in both arms.
I understand you love your Ranger, but bending the entire game world around him is a little bit much. Just check it out with your Dm and make sure he's fine with it. It wouldn't fly in my games.
There's nothing in dungeons and dragons lore that would lead me to assume every character born is ambidexterous.
Dungeons and Dragon Lore changes with every edition of the game.
Off hand weapons are also off hand only because they are light and easy to use in a weaker, less dexterous hand, which further leads me to believe they are off hand because they are for use in a non-primary arm, which would require a character to have a primary arm, which would make him not ambidexterous.
^-- Preconcieved notion that matches your own internal mental construct. Not supported by the rules of this edition.
If you want your character ambidexterous just check it out with your DM,
I almost always am the DM.
but if every character was presumed to have the same strength and dexterity with both arms at all times as you are assuming is the case, there would be absolutely no purpose to allocating 'off-hand' to a group of weapons, because everyone could use everything just as effectively in both hands all the time.
There is a purpose, and I just described it in my last post.
There'd also be no advantage to being a two weapon ranger because everybody could use a heavy weapon in both arms.
No they can't. Not if they want to dual-wield.
I understand you love your Ranger, but bending the entire game world around him is a little bit much.
I don't play a ranger, and you are the one bending the entire ruleset around your preconcieved notions.
Just check it out with your Dm and make sure he's fine with it. It wouldn't fly in my games.
As I said, I'm usually the DM. And that's fine by me if you want to use a houserule in your games. That's what being a DM is about.
Otherwise there isn't any point in non-ambidexterity except when you dual-wield. Which unfairly penalizes dual-wielders over people attacking with a one-handed weapon.
You've erroneously concluded that he cannot attack with either sword, when in fact he can still attack with the primary one.
I think you've misunderstood my argument, and I apologize if I was unclear. The fighter can attack with whichever weapon is in the main hand. What I was saying was that the wording that "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" suggests that non-offhand weapons are "Not light enough to hold and attack effectively with while holding a weapon in your main hand." The second sentence makes it clear that they're not just talking about situations where you are attacking with both weapons, as Fitz has argued. However, if you can re-designate the main hand and off hand at will, then the rule effectively doesn't apply to situations where you only attack with one or the other weapon, unless you're using a TWF feat.
Edit: And furthermore, nothing in the text even remotely suggests that this rule only applies to the limited situation that one is using a TWF feat either. So, I'm forced to conclude that you can't switch the designations at will.
But there is no rule that says your main-hand can't be changed to the other hand. Where? Please, show me where it is. You guys seem to be stuck on some mental construct you have devised that doesn't actually exist. Even the offhand weapon description doesn't imply it.
There is no rule that says you can't change the colour of your character's eyes or his height or weight, either.
But I'd have a hard time swallowing that your 6.4', 250 Dragonborn suddenly changes the color of his scales, drops 40 pounds and loses few inches.
There is no rule that says you can't change the colour of your character's eyes or his height or weight, either.
But I'd have a hard time swallowing that your 6.4', 250 Dragonborn suddenly changes the color of his scales, drops 40 pounds and loses few inches.
But unlike changing these, being able to change your mainhand/offhand is implied in the rules.
Not being able to change them isn't particularly implied.
Otherwise there isn't any point in non-ambidexterity except when you dual-wield. Which unfairly penalizes dual-wielders over people attacking with a one-handed weapon.
This is where you are mistaken. There is nothing "unfair" about it. Non-dual wielders don't need penalization, because they're only using one weapon! Using two weapons provides you advantages, as well as limitations. No one says you have to wield two weapons. The designers wanted there to be heavy restrictions on wielding two weapons unless you were a ranger, because they wanted the ranger to be the premier TWF class. You don't have to like it, but for better or worse, that was the designer's design goal.
And if you wanted to get really rules-lawyerish, the wording in the PHB seems to suggest that you might be able to wield a non-offhand weapon in the off-hand as long as you aren't also holding a weapon in the main hand.
Ultimately, the rules don't take into consideration whether the weapon is in the left or right hand, so arguments about ambidexterity are really moot. What the rules define is two slots: main hand and off hand. The rules make no indication that you can swap things freely between these slots, and doing so circumvents the limitations that have been put into place for dual wielding. So, I can only conclude that this shouldn't be allowed, regardless of how one chooses to rationalize this limitation in terms of the imaginary D&D world.
House rule what you want, play however you want, ultimately your DM will decide whether or not you are correct. I'm checking out of the argument.
But unlike changing these, being able to change your mainhand/offhand is implied in the rules.
No it isn't. Just because they reminded to ranger to designate which weapon was which doesn't mean that others can freely swap them.
In fact the rules clearly imply the contrary. The first sentence in the off-hand description clearly indicates that one of your weapons must be off-hand in order to attack with the off-hand weapon. The second sentence makes clear that they aren't just talking about in cases where both weapons are used on the same turn. Since this limitation is almost completely circumvented by being able to swap the weapons each turn, the only logical conclusion is that this swapping isn't allowed.
And if you wanted to get really rules-lawyerish, the wording in the PHB seems to suggest that you might be able to wield a non-offhand weapon in the off-hand as long as you aren't also holding a weapon in the main hand.
It doesn't suggest this. This is definitely allowed.
Yes, you have to designate an mainhand and offhand, ranger or no, any time you use two weapons, one in each hand, in a turn. They have to follow the TWF rules. If you don't use them both, you can attack with either weapon, offhand property (per the offhand weapons rules) or not (per the one-handed weapons rules) But again, no rules explicitly or implicitly shows that you can't change that designation from turn to turn provided that it meets the rules.
QUOTE]
So essentially, unless I am mistaken, here is the crux of your argument:
If you are a non-ranger holding a non "off-hand" weapon in your main hand and a "off-hand" weapon in the other, you couldn't redisignate your main hand because the weapon combination itself prevents it.
If you are a non-ranger holding two "off-hand" weapons, one in each hand, you can freely redesignate your main hand each turn or round, since the weapon combination itself allows it.
A dual-weilding Ranger could hold any weapon in any hand and freely designate which hand is his main hand every round, since the class feature allows for any weapon combination.
Essentially, your arguement places the burden of designating a main-hand on the choice of weapons, rather than the will of the player.
I'm not sure I'm comfortable with that.
You have nothing to base your arguments on except your own personal desires to see a permenant hand indicated as main hand. I've refuted all your arguments, shown clear intention and implications in the rules that this is NOT the case, and explained how the rules work based on the actual printed rules, which were obviously intentionally designed that way.
If you can't get past your own blind insistence that 4e doesn't have an built in limited ambidexterity, not my problem anymore. However, I'll have to correct your misapprehensions if I see you trying to spread them around other threads. Because you choose to blind yourself doesn't give you the right to mislead others.
If you can't get past your own blind insistence that 4e doesn't have an built in limited ambidexterity, not my problem anymore. However, I'll have to correct your misapprehensions if I see you trying to spread them around other threads. Because you choose to blind yourself doesn't give you the right to mislead others.
But it does.
The "off-hand weapon" property clearly indicates that you have two hands, one of which is a "main hand". There is nothing in the description that indicates it was written for the sole and express purpose of dual-wielding Rangers. I believe it was meant to cover everyone.
Look at the language itself.
If you argument is correct they could have simply replaced the word "main" with the word "one." That way there would be no designation, and no reason to assume that one hand is "better" than the other.
It would read:
"An off-hand weapon is light enough that you can hold it and attack effectively with it while holding a weapon in the other hand."
However, it does not. It says "main hand".
You have a main hand and an another hand.
Not two hands which you can designate to be main whenever the situation needs it.
The text that says you have to make sure to mark which weapon is the main weapon and which is off-hand on your character sheet is put in paranthesis and sounds more like a reminder ("Hey, remember, usually there is no problem telling the difference between main weapon (a cool one) and an off-hand weapon (a not-so-cool one) and usually it makes no difference, but you will probably wield two cool weapons and have a lot of powers that need to differ between them, so make sure to mark which one is which.")
Certainly, other characters than dual-wielding rangers can access the dual-wield ranger powers and some of these characters may actually wield two weapons that both have the off-hand designation, but I simply think that the designers over-looked that potential problem. To me, it is clear that a rogue wielding two daggers must be able to tell the difference between his main-hand dagger and his off-hand dagger should he have the Two-Weapon Fighting feat and/or gain ranger powers that refers to main and/or off-hand weapons. There is no reason why a twin-dagger wielding rogue would be able to use either weapon in either capacity when a twin-dagger wielding ranger won't - it would mean that any OTHER class than the dual-wielding ranger has a better level of ambidexterity.
I also find it perfectly clear that it is not the actual weapons that have the main or off-hand qualities, if they are otherwise similar. A TWF-wielding ranger with two longswords could use either as his main weapon depending on which he chooses to wield in his main hand. It makes no sense whatsoever that one of the longswords should be a main weapon, independent on which hand it is wielded in (the weapons are more or less identical).
So, if you're not a TWF-ranger but still dual-wields, you will probably have a non-off-hand weapon in one hand (which clearly will mark it as your main hand and main weapon) and a off-hand weapon in your other hand (which will be the off-hand and the off-hand weapon) and so the issue of main hand and off-hand is never a problem. Only when both or neither weapon have the off-hand designation will there be an issue and as a reminder the designers told the TWF-ranger to keep track on which one is which but forgot to think about other characters that had the TWF feat and/or got access to the ranger dual-wield powers while wielding two off-hand weapons.
Since wielding is "being able to attack with", if he is not able to attack with his second weapon, the rules clearly do not support him attacking with that weapon, and would not support an assumed and unstated mechanic that would allow him to ignore the rules and do so. Whether you have a two-weapon attack power or two-weapon feat doesn't even play into it. By the absolute core mechanics, if you're not a two-weapon ranger, your off-hand weapon MUST have the off-hand property in order for it to make any attacks (be they two-weapon attack powers, a regular attack, or even a thrown weapon) or to provide benefits from the two-weapon feats.
They would not state this multiple times in the book, if the off-hand only applied to a single TWF feat +1 damage bonus and ranger attack powers. If you want to attack with two weapons (again, not within the same round, but having the ability through out the whole fight), you have to meet the equiping requirements.
I think there's also misunderstanding of what "dual-wielding" is. Dual-wielding is not "attacking with both weapons on the same turn". Dual-wielding is wielding two weapons (literally, wielding two). Wielding is holding a weapon AND being able (not necessarily doing so) to make attacks with it in combat. Someone who is holding a one-handed weapon in their main hand and an off-hand weapon in his off-hand is considered to be dual-wielding. By the rules, he can choose to attack with either weapon. A person who is not a ranger and holding two non-off-hand weapons is not dual-wielding. He is holding two weapons, but is only wielding the one in his main hand, because he can not legally attack with the other.
Since wielding is "being able to attack with", if he is not able to attack with his second weapon, the rules clearly do not support him attacking with that weapon, and would not support an assumed and unstated mechanic that would allow him to ignore the rules and do so. Whether you have a two-weapon attack power or two-weapon feat doesn't even play into it. By the absolute core mechanics, if you're not a two-weapon ranger, your off-hand weapon MUST have the off-hand property in order for it to make any attacks (be they two-weapon attack powers, a regular attack, or even a thrown weapon) or to provide benefits from the two-weapon feats.
They would not state this multiple times in the book, if the off-hand only applied to a single TWF feat +1 damage bonus and ranger attack powers. If you want to attack with two weapons (again, not within the same round, but having the ability through out the whole fight), you have to meet the equiping requirements.
I think I can agree with this post, but that leads me to some conclusions that seem strange:
Case 1: Main/off hand designations are permanent. If this is true, these designations only affect players who want to dual-wield. In contrast, players with a weapon and shield or just a single one-handed weapon are able to swap things around from hand to hand with no penalties whatsoever. Even if you're permanently right-handed, you can still put your longsword in your left hand and wield it with just as much skill as you could in your right-hand. Only dual-wielding players have to worry about what's in each hand.
Case 2: Main/off hand designations are not permanent. If this is true, then the off-hand weapon requirement is relatively easily circumvented (as others have argued). Thus, why put the rule in at all?
Neither possibility is without its flaws, and again, I have to wonder why they couldn't have made this whole issue clearer. If they really wanted all players (including shield users) to have to worry about what item was in each hand, why not specifically say so? If they wanted main/off hand designations to be permanent, why not make that requirement explicit?
If all they wanted was to make sure that non-TWF rangers couldn't dual-wield two longswords, then the Off-Hand description could have been worded differently. For example, the rule might read "If you wish to wield two weapons at once (one in each hand), at least one of them must possess the Off-Hand property". That way you're still free to put each weapon in either hand, but you get essentially the same resulting game mechanic.
In fact, I might just house rule the Off-Hand property to work just like that. I'm also leaning towards the house rule of making my players designate permanent main/off hands, but this designation would only affect the TWF feat and the ranger powers.
[FONT="Franklin Gothic Medium"]
Case 1: Main/off hand designations are permanent. If this is true, these designations only affect players who want to dual-wield. In contrast, players with a weapon and shield or just a single one-handed weapon are able to swap things around from hand to hand with no penalties whatsoever. Even if you're permanently right-handed, you can still put your longsword in your left hand and wield it with just as much skill as you could in your right-hand. Only dual-wielding players have to worry about what's in each hand.
FONT]
Yes, I suppose you could.
And while you are correct in that you woud recieve no penalties for doing so, you also would recieve no benefits either.
In certain cases, the abiltiy to designate a new main hand while dual-weilding could in fact give you benefits based on powers used in conjuction with the associated attack actions.
And while you are correct in that you woud recieve no penalties for doing so, you also would recieve no benefits either.
If you are "mono-wielding", sure, there might not be any game benefit for swapping your weapon from one hand to other. However, it might be more fun for players to be able to do so strictly for RP reasons. Isn't that a benefit?
In certain cases, the abiltiy to designate a new main hand while dual-weilding could in fact give you benefits based on powers used in conjuction with the associated attack actions.
Could you give an example to illustrate your point? Obviously Twin-Weapon Fighting confers a small benefit to your main-hand weapon damage, but perhaps you had something else more significant in mind?
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.
Attack: ...two attacks
Attack: main weapon and off-hand weapon
It would appear that if you can designate main/offhand per round or shorter period, then the designation penalizes only Ranger powers as other powers does not appear to me, by RAW to even allow you to use your main/offhand within itself. Even if you use and action point for an additional attack, say two Rain of Blows, you should not be able to use your other weapon, until the next turn.
Sorry, but I'd appreciate a clarification if my interpretation is incorrect or I'm missing something. I might see main/offhand designation in a new light.
...by RAW to even allow you to use your main/offhand within itself.
It took me reading this several times before I figured out what I think you meant by this.
What I think you are saying is that, by RAW, if you are dual wielding and make two attacks on the same turn (probably because you spent an action point), you must use the same weapon to attack each time.
I don't read the off-hand property description as saying that. I read it as saying that you can't make two attacks per turn just because you are dual wielding. It's saying you need a power like Twin Strike to get multiple attacks from dual wielding. However, if you use a single-weapon attack power and are dual wielding, you can choose either weapon to attack with.
I may be the only one missing out on this...
Ranger powers are the only powers that care whether you attack with your main weapon or your off-hand weapon and so the designers, probably, thought it was relevant to remind TWF-rangers only to make sure that they could tell their main hand and off-hand apart, as no other class would have these powers, and everyone else but a TWF-ranger probably would be able to tell their weapons apart anyway (one bigger weapons without the off-hand property plus one smaller weapon with the off-hand property). Unfortunately, you can't tell the hands apart if you wield two weapons with the off-hand property and to tell the difference is important if a character gains access to the dual-wielding ranger powers (by multiclassing or just because he/she is an archer ranger who prefers to wield twin daggers as secondary weapons rather than longsword plus shortsword) or for anyone having the TWF feat.
You can either presume that only TWF-rangers must be able to tell their hands apart and everyone else can switch hands as they see fit, or you can presume that the designers didn't think of situations where a anyone else both would be unable to tell the difference AND it would be relevant. Personally, I think it is a given that ANYONE must be able to tell which one is their main hand and which is their off-hand, but mosts of the times it will simply not matter.
In conclusion: EVERYONE has a main hand and an off-hand.
If you wield a sword and shield, the sword will be wielded in your main hand and your shield will be wielded in your off-hand. If you're right-handed that means you will always wield your sword in your right hand. Which one, left or right, that actually is your main hand never matters as there is no way, currently, to prevent you from using a specific hand.
If you wield only a single one-handed weapon you will wield it in your main hand. If the weapon has the off-hand property you could wield it in your off-hand instead, although this gives you no benefits whatsoever. The text for the off-hand property is simply to clarify how to dual-wield. I see no reason to interpret that you would be unable to wield a dagger in your off-hand while having nothing in your main hand OR to think you would be able to wield a longsword in your off-hand while having nothing in your main hand.
If you dual-wield a non-off-hand weapon and a off-hand weapon, the non-off-hand weapon will be wielded in your main hand and the off-hand weapon will be wielded in your off-hand.
If you dual-wield two off-hand weapons, one of them will be wielded in your main hand and the other will be wielded in your off-hand. Which is which must be designated as you draw the weapons. This will matter only for the TWF feat or when using ranger dual-wield powers.
If you dual-wield two non-off-hand weapons (which only TWF-rangers can do), one of them will be wielded in your main hand and the other will be wielded in your off-hand. Which is which must be designated as you draw the weapons.
Now, my conclusions might be questioned on grounds on the actual wordings in the PHB, but I think it is important to have some common sense and context when interpreting the rules.
Relevant rules text (and I hope this is considered fair use of copyrighted material, tell me if it isn't).
PHB 215
Finally, weapons are classified as either one-handed or two-handed. A one-handed weapon is light enough or balanced enough to be used in one hand. A two-handed weapon is too heavy or unbalanced to use without two hands. Bows and some other weapons require two hands because of their construction.
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. Doing this doesn’t let you make multiple attacks in a round (unless you have powers that let you do so), but you can attack with either weapon. Other one-handed weapons are large enough that you can keep a good grip on them with two hands and deal extra damage by using them as two-handed weapons.
My interpretation
The text for one-handed weapons doesn't say they can be wielded in your main hand, but in one hand. The reason is to highlight the difference to two-handed weapons and should not interpreted as to mean any one-handed weapon could be wield in any one of your hands.
The paragraph refering to off-hand weapons is quite similar to the text for the off-hand property, see below.
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.
My interpretation
This text is to clarify dual-wielding and I don't think anyone should make any conclusions on how to single-wield from it. It would be odd if you could wield a dagger in your off-hand only when also wielding a weapon in your main hand but not if your main hand is empty (although you could consider your main hand wielding an unarmed attack, I guess). I also see no reason to interpret this text as to say you would be able to wield any one-handed weapon in your off-hand if wielding nothing in your main hand.
PHB 104
Two-Blade Fighting Style: Because of your focus on two-weapon melee attacks, you can wield a one-handed weapon in your off hand as if it were an off-hand weapon. (Make sure to designate on your character sheet which weapon is main and which is off-hand.) In addition, you gain Toughness as a bonus feat.
My interpretation
The text on designating weapons as main hand or off-hand is in paranthesis and reads more as a reminder than actual rules text. The designers realize that it is important to tell the difference between the main hand weapon and the off-hand weapon for a lot of the ranger's powers but this feature allows the ranger to wield similar weapons in both hands so they remind him/her to make sure which one is which. I don't think we should read this as to mean ONLY TWF-rangers should be able to tell their main hand weapon apart from their off-hand weapon. Why would a TWF-ranger has a less level of ambidexterity than anyone else?
Also, the reference to one weapon being main and one being off-hand could be interpreted that it's a permanent designation of the weapons themselves, but I think it is quite obvious that the designers thought the character would simply wield them in the same way everytime. I see no reason why the ranger wouldn't be able to simply switch which weapon is used in which hand if he one day prefers to lead with the fire longsword instead of the frost longsword.
PHB 201
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.
My interpretation
The designers should have added a text to make sure that characters could tell the difference between their main hand weapon and their off-hand weapon, but I don't think they thought it would be a problem as they probably saw this feat used by TWF-rangers (who already can tell the difference) or people going longsword plus shortsword or any other non-off-hand weapon plus off-hand weapon combination (in which case the difference would be obvious, as well).
Basically, I could choose to either interpret "main hand" and "off-hand" to mean something oddly switchable, although not very well defined, and also believe that the designers thought that TWF-rangers are worse than other classes when it comes to certain parts of dual-wielding.
OR I could choose to interpret "main hand" and "off-hand" to mean what you normally mean with it, e.g. a reference to the fact that most people has a prefered hand (left or right), and that TWF-rangers are stronger with their non-prefered hand compared other classes.
When it comes to powers that lets you make more than one attack but don't require you to wield two weapons, I side with nimrand. You could make all attacks with either weapon or make some with one weapon and others with the other weapon.
Just because the RAW doesn't tell you directly that each character picks a main and off hand doesn't mean that the rules don't assume that you will do so.
If there was no point to the off-hand designation they never would have put it in.
You have a main- and an off- hand. This doesn't change. Your off hand cannot hold a "normal" weapon.
The problem is that the PhB, and in fact all of 4e, was very ambiguously written. You canot have two non-off-hand weapons in your hands unless you are a Ranger. The rules for Two-Blade Fighting Style reinforce this. It's assumed that anyone with the ability to play the game can make simple logical deductions.
And apparently for some that isn't the case. The number one rule of design is that you should idiot-proof everything. But the problem is that they keep making better idiots. It really is fascinating.
What needs to happen is that they need to release the "idiot-proofing" errata so that these topics no longer appear.
Please excuse my irritabilty, I've got a short fuse after the "Pact Blade" topic.
My interpretation
The text for one-handed weapons doesn't say they can be wielded in your main hand, but in one hand. The reason is to highlight the difference to two-handed weapons and should not interpreted as to mean any one-handed weapon could be wield in any one of your hands.
Once again, I'm glad you added the caveat (which I underlined for you).
I can't help but disagree. The rules as written specifically say a one-handed weapon can be wielded in one hand. Because they don't mention a single thing about main or off hands here (or anywhere else wielding a single one-handed weapon is discussed), the strictest interpretation of the rules would be that you could use one in either of your hands. Ruling otherwise is placing an unnecessary (and unfounded) limitation on your players, at least as far as the RaW is concerned.
Whether the designers intended such a limitation is another matter entirely (because we can only speculate), but again I have to disagree. I honestly don't think they intended for players to worry about the whole main/off-hand thing unless they were dual-wielding.
What advantage does it confer to add such a rule anyway? It's certainly more realistic, but other than that, what tangible benefit does it provide? It complicates record keeping and combat for both players and DMs. Even more convincing (to me), the restriction would have a negligible affect on game balance. If you tell your players "no, you can't switch that long sword back and forth in your hands as you fight", are you effectively restricting anything other than potential fun and flexibility? In my opinion, no.
People keep asking "What's the purpose of the off-hand description for weapons?" Well, I don't think it was to force players into having a static main/off hand, but rather to solidify rangers as the dual-wielding masters, stylistically speaking. After all, the whole off-hand limitation has a very minimal effect on game balance (off-hand weapons usually average 1 less damage per hit than their heavier counterparts).
So now that this argument has branched out, we have two new theories battling for supremacy:
1. The designers actually intended for all players to keep track of their main/off hands. They only mentioned main and off hands in the context of dual-wielding, but they expected us to assume that its important for everyone else as well. Players can only wield non-offhand one-handed weapons (and implements) in their main hand, though this is never stated or even alluded to anywhere. The designers also wanted main/off hand designations to be permanent (or at least semi-permanent), though once again they forgot to add this desire as an explicit rule. These restrictions don't really affect game balance at all, but it's important that we abide by them if only because they are realistic.
2. The designers only intended for dual-wielders to keep track of main/off hands, because it is an unnecessary complication and limitation for other players with little to no effect on game balance. The Off-Hand property for weapons was added to make two-blade rangers the undisputed masters of dual-wielding, not to make players pick permanent main/off hands. The Two Weapon Fighting feat limits the damage bonus to the "main weapon" to keep the feat bonus in line with other feats, not to make players pick permanent main/off hands. The Ranger class and power descriptions talk about main and off hands because they are designed and balanced around making two attacks with two separate one-handed weapons, not because the designers really care if a ranger switches his primary hand/weapon around.
Granted, the truth might lie somewhere between theories 1 and 2, but I'm inclined to believe it's a lot closer to the latter. But remember, we're all just speculating here, because the rules (and the intentions behind the rules) are hardly clear. [shrug]
The Off-Hand property states "... you can hold it and attack effectively while holding a weapon in your main hand." Thus, the Off-Hand property is not necessary if no weapon is in your main hand. If you then pulled out or picked up another weapon with that free hand, and the off-hand weapon did not have the off-hand property, you would then only be legally wielding the one in your main hand. The other would only be held.
Edit: Designating your main hand and off hand really isn't anything to keep track of. It's just assumed that someone right handed will draw their only sword with their right hand. You can specify otherwise. They did in the Princess Bride. "I am not left handed!" It was funny. You know you laughed. And if you're a rogue with a rapier and nothing else, you can do it too, and I'm sure everyone at your table will laugh too. But there's no penalty for doing so until you decide it might be handy to have a throwing dagger out in your left hand, just in case.
It took me reading this several times before I figured out what I think you meant by this.
Sorry if that was confusing...
I don't read the off-hand property as saying that you can't make two attacks per turn just because you are dual wielding. It's saying you need a power like Twin Strike to get multiple attacks from dual wielding. However, if you use a single-weapon attack power and are dual wielding, you can choose either weapon to attack with.
Which is why I'm raising the difference, by RaW, of the wording of the power in relation to that if the off-hand. If I could Rain of Blows with both weapons, there appears to be little difference when compared to say, Two-Fanged Strike. So the difference between a perceived TWF Ranger with two longswords and a Fighter with a long/shortsword is 1[W] offhand damage..
The biggest difference, I think, is that Rain of Blows is an encounter power, whereas Rangers can make double attacks at will.
It also seems to me that when you use a single-weapon attack power and are dual-wielding, you have to choose one weapon for the entire power. In the RAW, "making an attack" usually means using an attack power. If the power involves multiple attack rolls, you would have to use the same weapon for each roll.
So, by this interpretation, in the case of rain of blows, the fighter would not be able to use the main hand in the first strike and the offhand on the second strike.
That said, this interpretation doesn't seem 100% clear with the RAW, and probably needs some official form of clarification.
Edit: Also, with this interpretation, the weapon requirement would apply to the weapon used to make the attack. If you allowed one to switch weapons between the primary and secondary attacks, one would have to read the weapon requirement as applying to either the main or off-hand weapon, in which case the requirement is a pretty weak one.
So, does that answer your question?
I can't help but disagree. The rules as written specifically say a one-handed weapon can be wielded in one hand. Because they don't mention a single thing about main or off hands here (or anywhere else wielding a single one-handed weapon is discussed), the strictest interpretation of the rules would be that you could use one in either of your hands. Ruling otherwise is placing an unnecessary (and unfounded) limitation on your players, at least as far as the RaW is concerned.
Though initially I did not, I now agree with you on this point. After re-reading the off-hand property description, the off-hand limitation only comes into play when one is carrying a weapon in the main hand. If one is only carrying a weapon in one's off-hand and is not carrying a weapon in one's main hand, then there is no off-hand property limitation on wielding the weapon. So, for mono-wielders, the main hand and off-hand designations are usually irrelevant and one probably wont bother tracking them, though technically the designations are still relatively static.
But, if you are carrying a weapon in each hand, the designations are relevant and you CANNOT swap these designations will, because 1) there is no mechanic described in the rules that allows one to do that and 2) being able to switch the designations at will makes the off-hand limitation almost completely irrelevant.
If one is carrying a weapon in each hand, and the off-hand weapon does not have the off-hand property, then one cannot attack with the off-hand weapon (except for TWFS rangers).
Though initially I did not, I now agree with you on this point. After re-reading the off-hand property description, the off-hand limitation only comes into play when one is carrying a weapon in the main hand. If one is only carrying a weapon in one's off-hand and is not carrying a weapon in one's main hand, then there is no off-hand property limitation on wielding the weapon. So, for mono-wielders, the main hand and off-hand designations are usually irrelevant and one probably wont bother tracking them, though technically the designations are still relatively static.
But, if you are carrying a weapon in each hand, the designations are relevant and you CANNOT swap these designations will, because 1) there is no mechanic described in the rules that allows one to do that and 2) being able to switch the designations at will makes the off-hand limitation almost completely irrelevant.
If one is carrying a weapon in each hand, and the off-hand weapon does not have the off-hand property, then one cannot attack with the off-hand weapon (except for TWFS rangers).
If someone begins abusing this then just have them captured. Ask the player "Which hand is your off hand?"
When he answers break the other one.
Now he can run around using only off hand weapons. That's what you get for being a munchkin.
But, if you are carrying a weapon in each hand, the designations are relevant and you CANNOT swap these designations will, because 1) there is no mechanic described in the rules that allows one to do that and 2) being able to switch the designations at will makes the off-hand limitation almost completely irrelevant.
You're operating under the assumption that none of the RaW conflict or override each other, but I think that's a flawed assumption. After all, the core rulebooks were written (and edited) by various people, all of whom are fallible. My point is that if you're trying to strictly abide by the RaW, you can't throw out rule A just because it allows players to override rule B.
For the sake of argument, let's assume once more that main/off hand designations are flexible. We'll also assume (as a house rule) that these designations can be changed at will as a free action. Now, let's imagine a fighter holding two non-off-hand weapons: a longsword and a warhammer. Because neither weapon is an off-hand weapon, he is not considered to be dual-wielding (per Machmoth's explanation). However, he can use whichever weapon is in his (current) main hand to make attacks. Also, since he can freely redesignate his main hand, he could attack with the longsword one action then attack with his warhammer the next.
However, what he still cannot do is use both weapons as part of the same attack power (e.g. Rain of Blows). If our fighter subject were instead an Archer Ranger, he couldn't perform dual-wield powers (e.g. Twin Strike) either. If he had the Two-Weapon Fighting and Two-Weapon Defense feats, he wouldn't be able to benefit from either one while simultaneously wielding the longsword and warhammer.
In conclusion, our lenient interpretation of main/off hands doesn't completely circumvent the Off-Hand limitation at all. It's also important to remember that even if you strictly enforce permanent handedness as a house rule, the Off-Hand limitation has very little impact on actual game mechanics and balance.
If he had the Two-Weapon Fighting and Two-Weapon Defense feats, he wouldn't be able to benefit from either one while simultaneously wielding the longsword and warhammer.
Actually after rereading the description text for these feats, I'm going to have to reverse my previous assertion. I'll quote this text for reference:
Two-Weapon Fighting
Benefit: While holding a melee weapon in each hand, you gain a +1 bonus to damage rolls with your main weapon.
Two-Weapon Defense
Benefit: While holding a melee weapon in each hand, you gain a +1 shield bonus to AC and Reflex.
Here we run into more wording problems. This has already been discussed elsewhere, but there is a clear semantic difference between holding and wielding/using a weapon as far as game mechanics go. In other words, you can hold an item or weapon without actually being able to make attacks with it.
Even though it seems completely counterintuitive, by a strict reading of these feats, a character could simply hold two greatswords and get a +1 shield bonus, even though he couldn't attack with either one. Similarly, the example fighter described in my last post holding a longsword and warhammer would get a +1 bonus to damage rolls with his main weapon.
So yeah, strictly as worded, these two feats completely circumvent the Off-Hand weapon limitation, regardless of whether handedness is a permanent designation.
Even more troubling, the TWF feat talks specifies "main weapon" and not "main hand". It certainly seems like common sense to equate the two, but such an assumption doesn't follow strictly from the RaW. As far as I'm aware, the term "main weapon" hasn't been defined anywhere in the rules, so we're left to guess (and make house rules) in order to adjudicate this feat. >_<
You're operating under the assumption that none of the RaW conflict or override each other, but I think that's a flawed assumption. After all, the core rulebooks were written (and edited) by various people, all of whom are fallible. My point is that if you're trying to strictly abide by the RaW, you can't throw out rule A just because it allows players to override rule B.
But the RAW never even suggests that there is a rule A.
For the sake of argument, let's assume once more that main/off hand designations are flexible. We'll also assume (as a house rule) that these designations can be changed at will as a free action. Now, let's imagine a fighter holding two non-off-hand weapons: a longsword and a warhammer. Because neither weapon is an off-hand weapon, he is not considered to be dual-wielding (per Machmoth's explanation).
Yes, you are ASSUMING such an unstated mechanic exists. The fact that such a mechanic would let one bypass the off-hand requirement just as you describe provides strong evidence that such an assumption is wrong. You keep arguing that the limitation only applies to using a TWF feat or attacking with both weapons at the same time. But, if that were the case, then the off-hand property description or some other part of the RAW should have mentioned this. In fact, the off-hand description implies just the opposite when it says "You can't attack with both weapons on the same turn...but you can attack with either weapon." That statement makes a clear indication that the off-hand requirement is meant to apply when one has the option to attack with either weapon, not just when one is attacking with both weapons at the same time. Otherwise, why would it mention the case of attacking with one or the other weapon and not at least clarify that the off-hand limitation doesn't even normally apply in this case?
As the other poster said, dual wielding means having the option to attack with either weapon, which would be meaningless if one could gain the same flexibility by switching the main hand/off-hand designations freely. You seem to think that just having the option to attack with one or the other doesn't isn't very useful except for 'style', but flexibility is often an underestimated advantage. Rain of Blows is one example of how one can use dual wielding to one's advantage. One normally has to wield a light blade to use this power, which deals less damage than some of the other weapons available to fighters. But, if the fighter dual-wields, the fighter can wield a better weapon in the main hand, while using a light blade in the off-hand to use Rain of Blows. If you want the flexibility of choosing between two weapons to attack with each attack, you have to dual-wield and you have to meet the requirements of doing so.
It is true that there is nothing in the RAW directly on point that contradicts your assumption that a switching hands mechanic exists, but nor is there anything in the RAW that supports it. Its pure speculation that is based on what the RAW doesn't say. The simplest explanation of why it doesn't desribe such a mechanic is because it doesn't exist, just as it doesn't mention that you can't switch one's armor in the middle of combat or change one's race in the middle of the campaign. Furthermore, if one was meant to be able to swap the main hand and off-hand designations, then the existence and description of the off-hand weapon property is quite peculiar given:
1) The description acknowledges the case of having the option to attack with either weapon, but never clarifies that the off-hand limitation never really applies in this case unless one is using a TWF feat.
2) The off-hand limitation is rarely relevant because it only applies to the very limited and specific situations where one is using a TWF feat or a ranger that doesn't have the TWFS is using a power that allows him/her to make an attack with each weapon. It seems questionable why the designers would even bother having it at all.
Yes, you are ASSUMING such an unstated mechanic exists. The fact that such a mechanic would let one bypass the off-hand requirement just as you describe provides strong evidence that such an assumption is wrong.
No, you are ASSUMING such an unstated mechanic does NOT exist. I'm simply providing a possible house interpretation/rule to fill in the blanks left by the ambiguous rules in question.
I've heard you make this argument repeatedly, but repetition doesn't make your arguments any truer. You're making the assumption that something that isn't covered by the RaW is therefore prohibited, but this stance is completely unjustified. For example, there are no rules in the core books about characters being able to have sex, get drunk, go to the bathroom, vomit, spit, or a million other inanities. Does that mean such actions are prohibited under a strict reading of the RaW? Absolutely not. It simply means such scenarios don't have specific rules covering them.
Likewise, there is no rule anywhere about whether main/off hand designations are permanent or not. Therefore, your idea that they can't change is just as much a house rule as my interpretation that they can change.
Note: I haven't actually made up my mind, though it appears you have. In fact, it seems you made your decision long before you even entered the thread.
You keep arguing that the limitation only applies to using a TWF feat or attacking with both weapons at the same time. But, if that were the case, then the off-hand property description or some other part of the RAW should have mentioned this. In fact, the off-hand description implies just the opposite when it says "You can't attack with both weapons on the same turn...but you can attack with either weapon." That statement makes a clear indication that the off-hand requirement is meant to apply when one has the option to attack with either weapon, not just when one is attacking with both weapons at the same time.
No, the statement makes a clear indication that you can't normally attack with two different weapons in the same turn, unless you have a power that allows you to do otherwise. Why make this clarification? Well, presumably, it's because in previous editions of D&D, wielding two weapons automatically let you make an extra attack each turn. This is no longer the case.
Think about it a moment. If we ignore the dual-wield feats and ranger powers, how often is it even possible to make two different weapon attacks in the same turn? The standard turn allotment of 1 standard, 1 move, and 1 minor action almost always prohibits this anyway. Opportunity and interrupt attacks occur during someone else's turn, so they mostly ignore this specific limitation. Thus, other than TWF feats/powers and a handful of martial attack powers (a la Rain of Blows), this statement has absolutely no effect.
It's interesting that you bring this to my attention (because it had escaped my notice earlier), but it seems clear that even if you're legally dual-wielding, you can still use just one weapon for Rain of Blows and similar attack powers. If that's true, the Off-Hand limitation becomes even less significant.
As the other poster said, dual wielding means having the option to attack with either weapon, which would be meaningless if one could gain the same flexibility by switching the main hand/off-hand designations freely.
Dual-wielding is already kinda pointless unless you're a ranger. Even assuming main hand designations are permanent and you're wielding two large 1-handers, all you have to do is swap your weapons around to approximate the same flexibility as a legal dual-wielders.
You seem to think that just having the option to attack with one or the other doesn't isn't very useful except for 'style', but flexibility is often an underestimated advantage.
Which is precisely why I'm arguing against taking flexibility away from my players when the rules we are discussing don't make such a limitation explicit (or even implicit, in my opinion).
Rain of Blows is one example of how one can use dual wielding to one's advantage. One normally has to wield a light blade to use this power, which deals less damage than some of the other weapons available to fighters. But, if the fighter dual-wields, the fighter can wield a better weapon in the main hand, while using a light blade in the off-hand to use Rain of Blows. If you want the flexibility of choosing between two weapons to attack with each attack, you have to dual-wield and you have to meet the requirements of doing so.
Actually, you have to wield a light blade, spear, or flail and have a Dex of 15, but that's incidental. Regardless, dual-wielding isn't some free benefit. The fighter in question is giving up having a shield in his off-hand. Sure, he could use two feats to get Two-Weapon Defense, but that's only if he meets the prereqs and wants to spend two feats. Instead, the fighter could get Quick Draw, wield a big mean weapon and shield, then quickly sheathe his weapon and pull out his light blade for Rain of Blows. Obviously that requires extra minor actions for swapping back and forth, but those are usually easy to come by for fighters.
The simplest explanation of why it doesn't desribe such a mechanic is because it doesn't exist, just as it doesn't mention that you can't switch one's armor in the middle of combat or change one's race in the middle of the campaign.
Again, I have to challenge this notion you have that "unless action X is specifically allowed in the rules, it is implicitly prohibited". Thus, I think it's incorrect to say the rules prohibit changing armor during combat. Changing race is a different matter, because at least the PHB instructs players to pick a race. Do you really think we'd have this thread if the character creation chapter had a statement like "Pick one hand to be your main hand and the other as your off hand"? I don't.
Furthermore, if one was meant to be able to swap the main hand and off-hand designations, then the existence and description of the off-hand weapon property is quite peculiar given:
1) The description acknowledges the case of having the option to attack with either weapon, but never clarifies that the off-hand limitation never really applies in this case unless one is using a TWF feat.
2) The off-hand limitation is rarely relevant because it only applies to the very limited and specific situations where one is using a TWF feat or a ranger that doesn't have the TWFS is using a power that allows him/her to make an attack with each weapon. It seems questionable why the designers would even bother having it at all.
I totally agree, and I asked that very question earlier in this thread. I've surmised that the primary intention of the off-hand limitation is to distinguish Two-Blade Rangers as dual-wield masters, though this is just my own speculation.
I have to wonder if you've even read or understood all my posts in this thread. I myself have conceded that the off-hand limitation becomes even less significant if main/off hand designations are mutable, and I've already considered making them permanent in my campaigns as a result. I've simply highlighted the fact that such a decision is still a house rule, and it is problematic for its own reasons.
I've heard you make this argument repeatedly, but repetition doesn't make your arguments any truer. You're making the assumption that something that isn't covered by the RaW is therefore prohibited, but this stance is completely unjustified. For example, there are no rules in the core books about characters being able to have sex, get drunk, go to the bathroom, vomit, spit, or a million other inanities. Does that mean such actions are prohibited under a strict reading of the RaW?
Likewise, there is no rule anywhere about whether main/off hand designations are permanent or not. Therefore, your idea that they can't change is just as much a house rule as my interpretation that they can change.
That's right, the rules don't say you can't do it either. But, if we assume the designers intended you one to switch weapons this way, then that leads you to the conclusion that they spent time making rules for limitations on off-hands that have virtually no relevancy, and made no clarifying statements about the very narrow and non-obvious range of situations where the limitations were relevant, which to me is an absurd conclusion. So, by reductio ad absurdum, I take the opposite conclusion.
It's interesting that you bring this to my attention (because it had escaped my notice earlier), but it seems clear that even if you're legally dual-wielding, you can still use just one weapon for Rain of Blows and similar attack powers. If that's true, the Off-Hand limitation becomes even less significant.
I would agree with that, but I don't see how that makes the limitation less significant.
Unless there's a power I missed, only rangers are really able to to advantage of dual wielding to attack with both weapons instead of one. But, TWFS rangers can already ignore the off-hand limitation, so, if the off-hand limitation doesn't apply when making an attack with only one weapon, then the limitation is irrelevant unless you're an AFS ranger who is, for some strange reason, dual wielding melee weapons.
Again, I have to challenge this notion you have that "unless action X is specifically allowed in the rules, it is implicitly prohibited". Thus, I think it's incorrect to say the rules prohibit changing armor during combat.
So, you would allow a player to change their armor every turn if they figured out some way that give them some advantage?
I totally agree, and I asked that very question earlier in this thread. I've surmised that the primary intention of the off-hand limitation is to distinguish Two-Blade Rangers as dual-wield masters, though this is just my own speculation.
But if the off-hand limitation is irrelevant in the vast majority of cases, it doesn't really distinguish the ranger at all. There really isn't much point to the off-hand limitation even being there.
Dual-wielding is already kinda pointless unless you're a ranger. Even assuming main hand designations are permanent and you're wielding two large 1-handers, all you have to do is swap your weapons around to approximate the same flexibility as a legal dual-wielders.
And perhaps that's one of the assumptions that bring rise to this disagreement. Earlier you argued that it would be trivial to switch weapons. While it would be trivial if one hand is empty, it would not be trivial if both hands are holding a weapon. You have to bring your hands together, and then fumble around with each hand trying to get a grip on the other weapon without dropping the one its already holding. Can you imagine doing this in the middle of combat when you right in an enemy's face? This would have to be either a standard action or provoke a OA or something.
I have to wonder if you've even read or understood all my posts in this thread. I myself have conceded that the off-hand limitation becomes even less significant if main/off hand designations are mutable, and I've already considered making them permanent in my campaigns as a result. I've simply highlighted the fact that such a decision is still a house rule, and it is problematic for its own reasons.
I disagree. A DM can house rule and makes the rules whatever he/she wants. I have NO problem with that. But, if one wants to play by the official rules, it seems clear to me that the intent is that you can't redesignate main and off hand weapons at will. That's my whole point. If you haven't been convinced by anything I've said. Then, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.
That's right, the rules don't say you can't do it either. But, if we assume the designers intended you one to switch weapons this way, then that leads you to the conclusion that they spent time making rules for limitations on off-hands that have virtually no relevancy, and made no clarifying statements about the very narrow and non-obvious range of situations where the limitations were relevant, which to me is an absurd conclusion. So, by reductio ad absurdum, I take the opposite conclusion.
What makes you think there are just two possibilities?
My opinion is that the designers really didn't think about main/off hands that much at all, let alone carefully come up with clear definitions about how they should be designated and applied. It's like you're arguing that the whole purpose of the Off Hand weapon description was to establish their intentions regarding main/off hands, but I think the ambiguous wording contradicts such a notion.
Once again, I have concluded that the whole Off Hand weapon property was added to make rangers feel special, not to express the designers' intentions concerning handedness. Basically, using the wording "main hand" was just a convenient (but problematic) way to stipulate that at least one of the dual-wielder's weapons had to be light. In other words, handedness is a means to an end, not the end itself.
I think the above theory (though still a guess) is a more accurate reflection of the designers' intentions given the fact that handedness is discussed almost nowhere else in the rulebooks, even in places where it would be quite relevant and important to know.
I would agree with that, but I don't see how that makes the limitation less significant.
Basically, the less useful dual-wielding is, the less significant restrictions on dual-wielding become. Rain of Blows initially appeared to be usable with dual-wielding, but since this isn't the case, it's just one less situation where the Off-Hand limitation becomes meaningful.
Unless there's a power I missed, only rangers are really able to to advantage of dual wielding to attack with both weapons instead of one. But, TWFS rangers can already ignore the off-hand limitation, so, if the off-hand limitation doesn't apply when making an attack with only one weapon, then the limitation is irrelevant unless you're an AFS ranger who is, for some strange reason, dual wielding melee weapons.
Actually, Archer Rangers can still utilize dual-wield powers just fine, they just have to abide by the Off-Hand limitation. Because those powers dish out quite a bit of damage, it would still be very worthwhile to dual-wield as an Archer Ranger when appropriate.
What's funny here is you're just illustrating the same glaring oddity that has already resurfaced time and time again in this thread. Like you say, rangers benefit the most from dual-wielding. The Off-Hand limitation is a minor limitation at best, and it only affects players who dual-wield (usually rangers). This whole debate about handedness stems from a single sentence in the Off-Hand property text, thus we can assume that handedness is only meaningful for dual-wielders. This, however, is illogical from a common sense standpoint because dual-wielders should presumably be far more ambidextrous than their other melee counterparts.
I think this was an unintended result of clumsy wording for the Off-Hand property description. I don't think the game designers really wanted players to have to worry about whether their characters were right or left-handed, but rather they just wanted to reinforce the ranger's status as the dual-wielding expert. Inadvertently, however, they've caused the masters of ambidexterity to worry more about handedness than any other class.
So, you would allow a player to change their armor every turn if they figured out some way that give them some advantage?
I might, I might not. Either way, I would be making a house rule, because the official rules make no such allowance or prohibition.
But if the off-hand limitation is irrelevant in the vast majority of cases, it doesn't really distinguish the ranger at all. There really isn't much point to the off-hand limitation even being there.
I agree. I think the ranger powers themselves (rather than the ability to dual-wield longswords) are what distinguish the rangers as expert dual-wielders. The off-hand limitation just seems like a carryover from previous editions of D&D. It has little effect on actual game balance. The way it's worded now, it simply adds ambiguity to what otherwise is a relatively straightforward, simple, and streamlined combat system.
And perhaps that's one of the assumptions that bring rise to this disagreement. Earlier you argued that it would be trivial to switch weapons. While it would be trivial if one hand is empty, it would not be trivial if both hands are holding a weapon. You have to bring your hands together, and then fumble around with each hand trying to get a grip on the other weapon without dropping the one its already holding. Can you imagine doing this in the middle of combat when you right in an enemy's face? This would have to be either a standard action or provoke a OA or something.
I totally disagree, but here we're once again in the realm of house rules because the core rulebooks don't cover this particular situation. Still, if you look at the list of action types and what you can do with each, it's perfectly reasonable to conclude that swapping whatever is in your hands would be a minor action. After all, if you can fumble around your pack and pull out a potion, or if you can grab a bolt from the quiver behind your head and load it into your crossbow as a minor action, you could certainly swap the weapons in your hand.
Don't believe me? Grab two sticks. Tell me it's not easier (and faster) to swap them then to take one of them and "sheathe" it (i.e. stick it into your back pocket or through your belt loop).
As far as provoking opportunity attacks, I think you're still thinking in 3e terms. The only actions that provoke opportunity attacks these days are ranged attacks, area attacks, and leaving a square adjacent to an enemy.
I have NO problem with that. But, if one wants to play by the official rules, it seems clear to me that the intent is that you can't redesignate main and off hand weapons at will.
The official rules don't say anything about the matter, which means the designers' intention is far from clear.
Again, I think you're filling in the blanks in the rules with the way you'd like things to be, or rather the way that makes sense to you. From an "official rules" standpoint, however, there is nothing illegal whatsoever about changing your player's handedness, simply because it is a situation not covered in the rules.
agreed, I think the simplist answer is always the best, pick a hand that you get the +1 damage too, and then its more a function of your capability in that hand and who cares what weapon is in it.
The simplest answer is the best? Really? Well, it would be far simpler to simply disallow dual-wielding completely. In fact, it would be simpler to get rid of all the various weapons and give everyone generic swords. For that matter, it would be even simpler to get rid of classes entirely. Actually, combat should basically involve just one single roll of the dice. The highest roll wins, everyone else dies.
¬_¬
Seriously, platitudes don't make convincing arguments. Besides, it's just as simple to say that you can change your main hand every round as it is to say it's fixed. In fact, the latter method is actually more complex because it requires you to remember what weapon is in which hand.
I am personally less interested in the ambidexterity capabilities of dual/mono-wielding combatants as the case does not appear to even matter (at least, not mechanically). The rules for main/offhandedness applies only to dual-wielding as mentioned. A mono-wielder can freely swap the weapon if the player wants the fluff to be so, just as a dual-wielder can; as long as the designated main/offhand changes only as often as allowed mechanically. Unless it has been ruled that main/offhand is right/left hand defined/designated, I think I would freely allow long/shortswords juggled in between as long as where concerned, like the TWF feat, only the longsword applies the +1. But you get the idea, I was trying to leave main/offhand as right/left hand simply because it makes arguments easier to understand to me.
Edit: Suggestion to introduce (Acrobatics?) skill check for "weapon juggling" as a free action; as an option to the minor action.
A sword+boarder can do this too if they so choose, but they fall under a different case, since they cannot use the shield and the weapon in one hand, and swapping the shield is even less an option than swapping a weapon, since a shield is categorized under armor and requires no less than 5 minutes to put on (un/re-strapping from one to the other arm). If this is incorrect, you are much appreciated for pointing out so, and I would retract this paragraph and take your point as is without further pursuing the point (not here).
I'd like summarize a few points (likely, from one side of the argument, ie mine):
#1. It matters little if you designate main/offhand hands or main/offhand weapons as long as when making an attack, there is a clear designation of one weapon that is main, and one that is off when TWF. I would prefer hands, being easier to reason out; but see also #3.
#2. RaW is important, but RaI more so; you should not have TWF options/benefits if you do not satisfy the TWF requirements. This bring us to...
#3. It does matter, how often the designations can be changed; if it were a once per day/encounter/round/action. More frequent designations means less appeal/reason to TWF. From #1, either designation are open to any of these options, and I believe that this point is more important.
#4. It should also matter if powers that give multiple attacks, but does not explicitly specify main/offhand should benefit from TWF. Reading one way reduces the appeal/reason of TWF powers, but reading the other way might cripple TWF for those without TWF powers.
As it is, as has been noted by QueidoPona, while TWF has little penalties vs what it was before, there also appear to be little reason to TWF as well. If TWF was about flexibility, then a more limited interpretation to #2 to #4 would provide some reason to TWF. Otherwise, it might be better to benefit from the Shield or go with heftier weapons since then 2[W] would mean a lot more than 1[W]main+1[W]off. If the only reason/clear advantage to TWF is Twin Strike an at-will power, then there appears to be no reason for anyone but the Ranger to even consider this option, other than having a "TWF coolness factor". But if it comes to this, any at-will that allows 2[W] or any potential for multiple attacks with one or less weapon already trumped, or at least rivals, it.
I totally disagree, but here we're once again in the realm of house rules because the core rulebooks don't cover this particular situation. Still, if you look at the list of action types and what you can do with each, it's perfectly reasonable to conclude that swapping whatever is in your hands would be a minor action. After all, if you can fumble around your pack and pull out a potion, or if you can grab a bolt from the quiver behind your head and load it into your crossbow as a minor action, you could certainly swap the weapons in your hand.
Don't believe me? Grab two sticks. Tell me it's not easier (and faster) to swap them then to take one of them and "sheathe" it (i.e. stick it into your back pocket or through your belt loop).
As far as provoking opportunity attacks, I think you're still thinking in 3e terms. The only actions that provoke opportunity attacks these days are ranged attacks, area attacks, and leaving a square adjacent to an enemy.
Yes, this part falls clearly into the realm of house rules. However, I have to disagree with your reasoning here. If a player pulls out a potion or some other object in combat, I assume that they were carrying it in their belt or somewhere that it would be readily accessible in combat, just like combatants today carry knives and explosives in pockets that allow them to grab them quickly.
Also, weapons are much heavier than sticks and their handles generally have a larger radius, so that doesn't really give one an accurate impression of how difficult this would be.
As far as 3E is concerned, I've never played it except in the form of Neverwinter Nights, so I couldn't even tell you what actions provoked an OA in 3E. However, if one was trying to swap weapons between hands quickly, one would almost certainly have to let down one's guard (because you're also using those weapons to defend yourself). Thus, it seems reasonable that it would provoke an OA, particularly because the player is trying to do something that isn't covered in the rules and gives that player an advantage that the player wouldn't otherwise have.
That said, it is true that just because the rules don't say you can do something, doesn't always mean that the action prohibited. However, having sex and drinking beer are not mechanically relevant actions (unless they wanted to model STDs and the effects of inebriation) and doesn't give the players any advantage mechanically. However, if an action is mechanically relevant, particularly if it provides players with an advantage, and nothing in the RaW says the action is legal, then I assume that it is implicitly prohibited unless I see a compelling reason to believe otherwise. I see no such compelling reason in this case.
The other points have already been beaten to death, and we don't agree, so I'll leave it at that.
Yes, this part falls clearly into the realm of house rules. However, I have to disagree with your reasoning here. If a player pulls out a potion or some other object in combat, I assume that they were carrying it in their belt or somewhere that it would be readily accessible in combat, just like combatants today carry knives and explosives in pockets that allow them to grab them quickly.
That's a reasonable assumption, but it's not one required by the rules as written. You can grab something from an adjacent square or stow/retrieve an item in/from the deepest recesses of your backpack or pockets as a minor action. Similarly, you can load a crossbow as a minor action. If you're telling me that swapping two weapons is more complicated and time-consuming than any of these other actions, then we'll just have to disagree and leave it at that. [shrug]
Also, weapons are much heavier than sticks and their handles generally have a larger radius, so that doesn't really give one an accurate impression of how difficult this would be.
Grab some bigger sticks then. Hell, get two baseball bats, some large garden tools, or a couple of ten-pound dumbbells, and you'll see that it's still relatively easy to swap them in your hands.
However, if one was trying to swap weapons between hands quickly, one would almost certainly have to let down one's guard (because you're also using those weapons to defend yourself). Thus, it seems reasonable that it would provoke an OA, particularly because the player is trying to do something that isn't covered in the rules and gives that player an advantage that the player wouldn't otherwise have.
Reasonable, maybe, but it certainly doesn't jive with the rest of the PHB. After all, you can sheathe your weapons without provoking any OAs or getting any sort of penalty to your defenses. I'm not sure why you think wielding weapons gives you some sort of defense (unless you have that Two-Weapon Defense feat), because under normal circumstances they don't. Following that precedent, it seems perfectly reasonable and consistent (to me) to make "Swap Items in Hands" a minor action that doesn't provoke OAs.
Obviously, you can disagree and make your own stricter house rules. I just have a hard time understanding why you're so insistent on penalizing your players for exercising a little creativity in their tactical decisions.
That said, it is true that just because the rules don't say you can do something, doesn't always mean that the action prohibited. However, having sex and drinking beer are not mechanically relevant actions (unless they wanted to model STDs and the effects of inebriation) and doesn't give the players any advantage mechanically. However, if an action is mechanically relevant, particularly if it provides players with an advantage, and nothing in the RaW says the action is legal, then I assume that it is implicitly prohibited unless I see a compelling reason to believe otherwise.
Finally, a good, solid argument I can get behind. Although I could argue that having sex or drinking beer might actually give your players certain situational advantages in terms of game mechanics (e.g. skill challenges), this isn't the thread for that.
Instead, allow me to make an observation. Consider the "Actions the Rules Don't Cover" section found on p.42 of the DMG. This text should make it patently clear that the RaW do not implicitly prohibit players from taking actions that give them an advantage mechanically.
Because of this section, I think the designers' intentions are relatively clear when it comes to situations that aren't covered by the rules. That is, give your players the freedom to act as they'd like (even if you have to make up house rules as you go) as long as you aren't letting them disrupt the game's balance or other players' fun.
Is letting players change their main/off hand designations expressly prohibited in the RaW? No. Does giving players this capability unbalance or detract from the game? I'd say the answer is "it depends". I think you can allow players to do this without actually "breaking" anything else.
To illustrate, let's assume that we allow our players to swap their current main and off hand designations at will. We make a house rule establishing this ability as a minor action that can only be taken once per turn. With this rule in place, can our players circumvent the Off-Hand description anymore? Are the Two-Weapon feats broken as a result? No. In fact, swapping your main hand now has exactly the same effect as swapping your weapons. The only difference is one of flavor or style. I don't know about you, but I'm more than willing to let my players do cool things when (1) they have no harmful impact on the game, and (2) they aren't expressly prohibited in the rules.
I see no such compelling reason in this case.
I can't help but think the stance you have of "I'm not going to let my players improvise unless there is a compelling reason to do so" is entirely the wrong one. If anything, the attitude consistently taken by the DMG is "Let your players improvise unless there is a compelling reason not to".
Addendum: shift244, I didn't want you to think I was ignoring your posts. I was a little confused by your last one, but I think I get what you're saying and I tend to agree. I hope what I'm saying makes sense to you as well.
However, I do not believe this is swapping hand designations falls under that category. For one thing, it is not at all situational nor is it creative. The other, more important, reason is that this action has a fundamental impact on how the dual wielding mechanics work, particularly the off-hand limitation. In order to design and playtest the dual wielding rules, the developers would have had to at least assume either that these designations were relatively static or that they were freely changed between turns or actions. For example, the designers must have intended that non-rangers would be able to hold two non-offhand weapons and be able to attack with either one when making a single-weapon attack, or they intended to require that one of the weapons be an off-hand weapon in order for the player to have that option. Therefore, I have to believe that this action was intended to fall within the CORE Rules. That being the case, because the RAW does not explicitly mention or allow the action and I see no compelling reason to believe the action was intended to be allowed, I conclude that the most likely answer is that the action is implicitly prohibited and that the developers intended for the main hand/off-hand designations to be relatively static. There is room for doubt, I suppose, but it seems to me that it is the conclusion most supported by the information we have.
I suppose the main point of the strict interpretation and introduction of house rules to restrict is to make dual-wielding appealing in it's own way.
But how exactly does putting tighter restrictions on dual-wielding (i.e. forcing your dual-wielding players to remember their permanently designated main and off hands when no other players need to) make dual-wielding more appealing?
No one else that's arguing for permanent main/off hands has said they're doing so to increase the allure or viability of dual-wielding. The arguments against allowing players to dynamically change their handedness break down as follows:
A1. It isn't explicitly permitted in the rules, thus it's implicitly prohibited.
A2. It's not realistic. People in real life have a dominant hand.
A3. It allows players to circumvent the Off-Hand weapon property.
I've addressed all three arguments and their flaws already, but I'll quickly summarize my rebuttals for anyone who might not want to read the entire thread.
R1. The core rulebooks allow (even encourage) actions in (and out of) combat that aren't covered by the basic rules. Whether you want to allow your players to redesignate their main hand is entirely your call, but either way, you're making a house rule to adjudicate a scenario that was either ignored or overlooked in the RaW.
R2. D&D is inherently an unrealistic game. It certainly approximates reality, but it often sacrifices realism for simplicity and ultimately for fun. Even if handedness were strictly enforced (whether for dual-wielders or all players), it would have very little impact on combat results or overall game balance.
R3. It actually doesn't, provided "Redesignate Main-Hand" isn't a free action or something equally broken. In terms of game mechanics, swapping the items in your hands has essentially the same effect as swapping handedness. As long as the latter costs just as much time and effort as the former, game balance is maintained.
However, I do not believe this is swapping hand designations falls under that category. For one thing, it is not at all situational nor is it creative. The other, more important, reason is that this action has a fundamental impact on how the dual wielding mechanics work, particularly the off-hand limitation. In order to design and playtest the dual wielding rules, the developers would have had to at least assume either that these designations were relatively static or that they were freely changed between turns or actions.
There's a large middle ground between "static" and "freely changed". I think you've incorrectly assumed that I'm arguing in favor of redesignating handedness freely. I am not. It should have a cost, but nothing too prohibitive because it is situationally useful and more creative and stylish than anything else.
For example, the designers must have intended that non-rangers would be able to hold two non-offhand weapons and be able to attack with either one when making a single-weapon attack, or they intended to require that one of the weapons be an off-hand weapon in order for the player to have that option. Therefore, I have to believe that this action was intended to fall within the CORE Rules.
The designers wanted static handedness to be one of the core, basic rules that players followed, yet they somehow forgot to devote even a single paragraph to the concept? Excuse me if I continue to disagree.
Handedness isn't even a necessary mechanic to govern dual-wielding or enforce the Off-Hand weapon limitation. It's simply a convenient way to word things. Thus, I think the brief appearance of the phrase "main hand" in the PHB was merely a quick means to an end. I feel it was added without real thought about how it meshes with combat, attack powers, equipment, etc. Such an oversight (both during writing and playtesting) would be easy to make, however, considering how little handedness actually affects the game. After all, who really cares if you're right-handed or left as long as one of those weapons you're dual-wielding has the Off-Hand property?
Handedness isn't even a necessary mechanic to govern dual-wielding or enforce the Off-Hand weapon limitation. It's simply a convenient way to word things. Thus, I think the brief appearance of the phrase "main hand" in the PHB was merely a quick means to an end. I feel it was added without real thought about how it meshes with combat, attack powers, equipment, etc. Such an oversight (both during writing and playtesting) would be easy to make, however, considering how little handedness actually affects the game. After all, who really cares if you're right-handed or left as long as one of those weapons you're dual-wielding has the Off-Hand property?
Yes, but the issue isn't about left hands or right hands, its about the level of permanency of the main hand and off hand designations. Thinking the designations as belonging to specific hands is just an untiutively flavorful way of thinking about it. From a purely mechanical point of view, they can be thought of as weapon slots. Either way, they're not freely interchangeable.
The designers wanted static handedness to be one of the core, basic rules that players followed, yet they somehow forgot to devote even a single paragraph to the concept? Excuse me if I continue to disagree.
The rules don't mention that you can't freely swap things in other item slots either. The only reason there is any question on the matter in this case is because the main hand and the off hand represent the same physical body part and can equip the same theings. And, yes, it is an oversight that they didn't go into more explicit detail in the matter, but I don't see that as evidence of the position that the two are in any way interchangeable or impermanent. Also, I would point out that they didn't do a very good job of explaining the legal combinations of shields and bracers either. They simply listed them together under the same heading and expected readers to figure out that you couldn't equip both bracers and a shield at the same time.
My point in my previous post is that I believe that the designers either intended for the off-hand limitation to apply to non-rangers even if they are not using a TWF feat or attacking with both weapons with the same power, or they intended it not to apply in that case. Because I believe the designers either intended one or the other, for the reasons that I explained, I have to take the text's silence on the issue as an implicit prohibition on freely swapping the off-hand and main hand designations.
That also agrees with what seems to me to be the most straightforward eay of reading the off-hand property description. Read this way, the first sentence explains that if you have a weapon in your main hand, then the weapon in your other hand must be an off-hand weapon in order for you to be able to attack with it. The second sentence elaborates that being able to attack with the off-hand weapon generally means that you can attack with either weapon, rather than both.
Edit: Furthermore, I would point out that the concept of main hand and off-hand are nothing new. Many RPGs have this concept, and in all the ones I've played the designations of which weapon is in which slot are relatively static (i.e., you have to use some sort of action to re-equipt, which is thought of as corresponding to some physical action, rather than just freely re-designating which slot corresponds to which hand). Just because it works that way in other games doesn't mean it does in 4E, but with a lack of any evidence that it doesn't work that way, the more likely conclusion is it works the same as in other games. The use of the words "off-hand" and "main hand" appeals to one's natural intuition of what these words generally mean in RPGs, and its easy to see in this case how the developers could have overlooked defining these terms explicitly. If, however, the use of these terms as intended by the developers differed greatly from that of other games, then its more likely they would have spelled out those differences to avoid any confusion.
A3. It allows players to circumvent the Off-Hand weapon property.
R3. It actually doesn't, provided "Redesignate Main-Hand" isn't a free action or something equally broken. In terms of game mechanics, swapping the items in your hands has essentially the same effect as swapping handedness. As long as the latter costs just as much time and effort as the former, game balance is maintained.
...
There's a large middle ground between "static" and "freely changed". I think you've incorrectly assumed that I'm arguing in favor of redesignating handedness freely. I am not.
I think that we may be in agreement here. My primary concern is that under RAI, the off-hand/main hand designations should be permanent enough to prevent players from effectively dual-wielding two non-offhand weapons (and by dual wielding I mean having the option to attack with either weapon). I agree that as long as swapping the designations (or swapping the weapons between hands) has a sufficient cost, then it doesn't break the off-hand limitation. The only way to swap weapons using just the CORE Rules is to sheath both weapons and redraw them, which I think we both agree is a klunky way of handling it. I believe that allowing them to be swapped as a minor action is too cheap, however, because PCs often have minor actions left over in a round, and so swapping would be effectively "free" for most rounds. It seems to me the best answer is to allow it as a minor action, but to have it provoke an OA. This way, players can freely swap the weapons while not immediately engaged in melee combat, but will have a difficult time doing so while adjacent to an enemy, which gives the designations a sufficient degree of permanency. It also makes logical sense.
It should have a cost, but nothing too prohibitive because it is situationally useful and more creative and stylish than anything else.
Could you ellaborate on how you think being too prohibitive would adversely effect the player's stylistic options? I have a hard time envisioning how any limitation on swapping the designations in combat would be limiting from a roleplaying perspective.
main hand - which ever handed your character is (righty or lefty?)
the TWF says that you get a +1 bonus as long as you're wielding 2 melee weapons doesn't it? so yeah you can drop a short sword from your main hand put your dagger in that hand and then pick up the short sword with your now empty off hand. then all attacks with the dagger get the bonus. My Question:
WHY THE HELL IS IT THAT IMPORTANT!? LEARN TO ROLL HIGH.
Edit: This is further supported by TWF rangers having less conditions to meet. So no rules are left unneeded by this view.
Seems to me they aren't saying MH or OH are literally hands. Since there is no penalty stated for picking up a weapon with a literal OH and attacking with it you can assume that for the purposes of that attack it is now your MH. Why? Not because you are somehow better coordinated with that hand, but because you are now attacking with it. This doesn't have to mean that everyone is ambidexterous either, it just means there are no literal main or off hands, but rather during any attack using both hands one of them becomes the main hand in the attack. I think this way of looking at it also validates the offhand property for weapons since it's saying that you can have 2 weapons and attack with both as long as X conditions are met.
Edit: This is further supported by TWF rangers having less conditions to meet. So no rules are left unneeded by this view.
Maybe I'm misunderstanding you, but doesn't this interpretation mean that if one is holding two weapons, one can redesignate the OH/MH at any time, and thus circumvent the off-hand limitation as we've been discussing?
The bottom-line is this: the only positive argument that has been made that the off-hand and main-hand designations (and by designations I'm referring to the designattions of the weapons, not necessarily the physical hands) are impermanent is that the rules don't penalize mono-wielders for attacking with their off-hand, but if the designations are static, then dual-wielders are effectively penalized for attacking with their off-hand. So, as the argument goes, the developers must not have intended this.
This does argument doesn't convince me at all. The design philosophy of 4E was to strip out unecessary rules that bog down gameplay in the name of "realism" while not really contributing to the fun of the game. If a rule was created to penalize mono-wielders for attacking with their off-hand, then the player would always attack with their main hand, so such a penalty would simply add baggage without effecting the strategy of gameplay. However, the intent of the off-hand property seems to have been to limit on the combinations of weapons that non-ranger dual-wielders could use (note that, for non-rangers, dual-wielding usually means having the option to attack with one or the other weapon). The presumed flavor for this penalty is that one hand is dominant and is more coordinated than the other (though there could easily be other explanations, pick whatever one you want). So, dual-wielders are effectively penalized using a weapon in their off-hand whereas mono-wielders are not. That's less realistic, sure, but adding rules to also penalize mono-wielders for attacking with the off-hand wouldn't have a meaningful impact on gameplay or contribute to the fun of the game. Furthermore, players have found many things in 4E to be unrealistic, but such is the design philosophy of 4E.
A similar argument arised not long ago about the Heal skill. Many people argued that because it wasn't realistic that it was easier to revive a dying character that had his/her second wind than it was to stabilize a dying character that still had his/her second wind, then the "use second wind" ability must not have meant to apply to dying characters. Others argued that it didn't matter that the DC for the "Use Second Wind" ability was lower than that for the "Stabilize the Dying" ability, because player's were meant to choose the former option when the character had his/her second wind left. Ultimately, the designers could have corrected this incongruity by making the DC for stabilizing the character dependent on whether the character had a second wind left, but that would have added rules baggage without effecting gameplay because players would still be expected to choose the option to "use second wind" anyway. Still, people persisted that this "didn't make sense" from a realism standpoint so that it couldn't be what the designers intended. Then, just the other day, Peter chimed in and explained that using the "Use Second Wind" ability of the Heal skill on dying characters was exactly what was intended.
Maybe I'm misunderstanding you, but doesn't this interpretation mean that if one is holding two weapons, one can redesignate the OH/MH at any time, and thus circumvent the off-hand limitation as we've been discussing?
I wasn't convinced that this would allow the limitation to be ignored until I read the TWF feat again and noticed that a fighter with 2 longswords, although not able to dual-wield them, would still get the bonus from the feat due to the usage of "holding" where "wielding" would have supported the idea.
Sorry if this was covered already, there's a lot of info in this thread and I had to read it all over several work breaks.
+2 to sidebusting for using symbolic logic in a forum posting.
I actually get both sides of this, I entered here for something far more simplistic, but is also a problem related to this entire discussion.
I have a ranger who is a TBF who has the TWF feat.
I'm going to kind of skirt around the edges here so I don't get embroiled in the current dissection/discussion of intentions and go with hard facts.
For this scenario, I'm going to say that I have had the player define fire sword as main, ice sword as offhand.
Careful Attack:
Requirement: You must be wielding two melee weapons or a ranged weapon.
(character is wielding two longswords, 1 fire (main), 1 ice (offhand))
Hit: 1[W]
Here's my question. Is the weapon damage player's choice? You have to be wielding two weapons, and my interpretation of the power was that you feinted with one to cause the opening in the armor, then stabbed true.
So is it the player's choice which one he stabs with, and he'll only get the TWF bonus if it's the Fire sword?
I'm still new to DMing 4e, so go easy on me! (And thanks for the help in advance).
For my .02 on the main thread:
I haven't made up my mind yet, but although I applaud the effort on both sides of the camp, *my interpretation* of TBF's assignments are that they are done at character creation, and are sloppily worded, rules lawyering or not. It does indeed assign the main/offhand attributes to the weapons and not your hands. TWF does the same. If a player really came to me and said, "I have proficiency in military melee weapons and I have a longsword in my left hand designated offhand and a short sword in my right designated main and want to spend a minor action to switch them." Well, in my mind I really don't see how I could say no. It's not like there is a magnet in their left hand that anytime they pick up a scimitar, it automagically flies into their left hand becoming their offhand weapon. They could designate which *weapon* they want to be their main and their offhand. They are trained in both (assuming TBF Ranger).
Again, I am not fanning flames, I just do feel that it is poorly worded, and I'm pretty happy with most of the book. It wasn't until a player had a question about it that I started to examine it further, and ended up here.
Honestly, the whole thing falls apart past the vaguest of interpretations. Because, eventually, you're going to have a ranger with two weapons. He's going to take TWF. He's going to be going along, happily stabbing with his fire sword, when he meets a fire beast, and is going to say "I want to use my ice sword". The DM will say "alright, it's your off-hand, so you don't get the +1 bonus". And the player will say "no, these are all fire creatures, I want to put my ice sword up front and use it to its best. What do I have to do?" And with those dreaded words, you have to have an answer. Read into it however we want, there isn't one. Put them away and draw them again? There isn't even clear rules on drawing two weapons. So, that's four minor actions. You can't even do that in a normal turn. In the rules or not, I'm sure as hell not going to make them do that, because if I did, they'd say "this sucks, why did we stop playing 3rd edition?" (Edit: Ooh, drop them and pick them up. Silly, but only 2 actions, and still no OA on you. Ooooh. I'm all tricky like that.) I don't even want to try and guess what happens when someone throws a dual-weilded dagger.
I still stand pretty firmly behind my general reading on the issue, but in the days I spent just watching this topic, I've pretty much accepted that it's not any more right than anything else here. Not because I think the other ways are better, but simply because, like everyone else, I can't offer anything besides probable intent from self-contradicting text. The whole thing is kind of on its side.
So, until the clarification queue gets to us, I'm going to say to just keep it on the level. Every dual-weilder should probably have some generalization of what his main and off is. If they're not a ranger, that's easy. The big one is the main, and gets the TWF bonus. If they're a rogue with a pair of daggers, they're probably going to have one that's better and one that's just kind of hanging out to give bonuses. Most of the time, there's just no reason to care. If a non-ranger tries to get away with swapping between two longswords by holding them both, it's pretty obviously against the intent, and you should just smack them.
And, on that odd time when your ranger or twin-tiny wielding rogue wants to call using his other weapon, think of something that's fair, and be consistent on it. If you think he's ambidexterous and should be able to switch freely, so long as when he does double-attack powers, only one gets +1 to damage, that's your game and roll with it. If you think it's an action to switch hands, that's fair and you do that. If you want to make it 4 minor actions, he'll probably mug you in your sleep, but good on you for your dedication to mechanics. I've lost the will to go more than 5 pages on something that can't possibly be answered by someone who didn't make the game. Five is the magic number of apathy. This is Q&A, and we're fresh out of A.
So is it the player's choice which one he stabs with, and he'll only get the TWF bonus if it's the Fire sword?
Yes, they'd have that option, and yes, they'd only get the TWF bonus if it was with the main hand.
And, I agree that, in any case, the book explained this issue poorly. Not as badly as stealth, at least.
I think that we may be in agreement here. My primary concern is that under RAI, the off-hand/main hand designations should be permanent enough to prevent players from effectively dual-wielding two non-offhand weapons (and by dual wielding I mean having the option to attack with either weapon). I agree that as long as swapping the designations (or swapping the weapons between hands) has a sufficient cost, then it doesn't break the off-hand limitation. The only way to swap weapons using just the CORE Rules is to sheath both weapons and redraw them, which I think we both agree is a klunky way of handling it.
Yep, I think we actually agree far more than we both initially assumed. Your portrayal of main/off hand designations as being more like "slots" rather than physical hands helped clarify your position. Functionally it works almost the same way as what I have in mind.
Could you ellaborate on how you think being too prohibitive would adversely effect the player's stylistic options? I have a hard time envisioning how any limitation on swapping the designations in combat would be limiting from a roleplaying perspective.
Well, I made those earlier statements still under the assumption that you were literally mapping main/off-hand designations to the player's physical hands. Like my earlier example of the 3e monk, it can be fun (from an RP perspective) just switching things up in combat. If I were a ranger with two big longswords or something, I could change up which one I was using mostly for parrying and feinting (i.e. the off hand) and which one I was making most of my harder strikes with (i.e. the main hand). However, if the cost to switch things up were too high, that would compel me to avoid doing so. It just follows from the basic concept that as an option's cost increases, its average viability effectively decreases.
Well, I just read *all* of this, and for QueidoPona, let me say that if L is the symbol for 'Long Thread'; a reasonable tautology would be Long Thread is Long, or L=L.
+2 to sidebusting for using symbolic logic in a forum posting.
Granted, a lot of my posts here have been pretty long. I'm not always able to make my arguments as concisely as I'd like, which is exactly why I sometimes turn to symbolic representations. I guess that may seem pretentious or unnecessary to some, but I am merely trying to convey my ideas in a way that makes sense to me and hopefully to others. [shrug]
Here's my question. Is the weapon damage player's choice? You have to be wielding two weapons, and my interpretation of the power was that you feinted with one to cause the opening in the armor, then stabbed true.
So is it the player's choice which one he stabs with, and he'll only get the TWF bonus if it's the Fire sword?
Yes, and yes (assuming the fire sword is his main hand/weapon).
Again, I am not fanning flames, I just do feel that it is poorly worded, and I'm pretty happy with most of the book. It wasn't until a player had a question about it that I started to examine it further, and ended up here.
Ditto. Although I have asserted that the text is ambiguous and even contradictory at times, I don't really mean that as a harsh condemnation. It's unreasonable to expect every nook and cranny of the rules to be perfectly clear, polished, and harmonious with the others at this point in time.
I still stand pretty firmly behind my general reading on the issue, but in the days I spent just watching this topic, I've pretty much accepted that it's not any more right than anything else here. Not because I think the other ways are better, but simply because, like everyone else, I can't offer anything besides probable intent from self-contradicting text. The whole thing is kind of on its side.
So, until the clarification queue gets to us, I'm going to say to just keep it on the level. Every dual-weilder should probably have some generalization of what his main and off is. If they're not a ranger, that's easy. The big one is the main, and gets the TWF bonus. If they're a rogue with a pair of daggers, they're probably going to have one that's better and one that's just kind of hanging out to give bonuses. Most of the time, there's just no reason to care. If a non-ranger tries to get away with swapping between two longswords by holding them both, it's pretty obviously against the intent, and you should just smack them.
And, on that odd time when your ranger or twin-tiny wielding rogue wants to call using his other weapon, think of something that's fair, and be consistent on it. If you think he's ambidexterous and should be able to switch freely, so long as when he does double-attack powers, only one gets +1 to damage, that's your game and roll with it. If you think it's an action to switch hands, that's fair and you do that. If you want to make it 4 minor actions, he'll probably mug you in your sleep, but good on you for your dedication to mechanics. I've lost the will to go more than 5 pages on something that can't possibly be answered by someone who didn't make the game. Five is the magic number of apathy. This is Q&A, and we're fresh out of A.
Your posts in this thread have been persuasive and on point, and this one is no exception.