# Odd but legal?



## awayfarer (May 30, 2007)

Something stupid I thought of while visiting the little boys room.

Lets say you have a 1st level character with Two-Weapon Fighting. This character currently only has one weapon, a dagger. Moving an item from one hand to the other is a free action, correct? So could this character attack with the dagger in their right hand, switch hands, and then attack with the dagger in their left hand? I suspect this hinges upon wether or not you can make a free action in the middle of a full attack.

As a wise man once said "Thoughts like this are what kept me out of the really good schools."


----------



## James McMurray (May 30, 2007)

Where does it say that moving something from one hand to the other is a free action? It seems to me that if you're moving it with the intention of attacking that's probably closer to a "ready a weapon" action.


----------



## Piratecat (May 30, 2007)

The fact that you thought of this while urinating fills me with great dread.


----------



## Moon-Lancer (May 30, 2007)

its quasi legal but not if your using the faq. I was going to play a dervish with a scimitar that was going to do the switching technique.

Gorge Carlen is the best isn't he? now where.... is my... COOKIE! RAHAHHH!!!! lol sorry. man this is going to be funny if i am wrong.


----------



## Wik (May 30, 2007)

Yeah, I mostly think of things like Power Attack and Powerful Build whilst urinating. 

"Light Weapons" got nothing to do with that, yo.


----------



## Henry (May 30, 2007)

If you had quick draw, I could almost see an argument for this working...

...however, by the book, I don't see it. There's a good bit of abuse in buying some excellent magiced-up bastard sword, and using it from one hand to the other to make a bevy of attacks for half the price of two magiced-up bastard swords.


----------



## Moon-Lancer (May 30, 2007)

Wik said:
			
		

> Yeah, I mostly think of things like Power Attack and Powerful Build whilst urinating.
> 
> "Light Weapons" got nothing to do with that, yo.



 

monkey grip? full blade? Glaive?


----------



## Wik (May 30, 2007)

Longspear, baby.  In my adventuring days, they used to call me "Ten Foot Pole".


----------



## Sunfist (May 30, 2007)

I'd say there is no way this is legal. The whole method of two weapon fighting is using both of your weapons to great effect. (For example, you couldn't switch the weapon back and forth real quickly to generate the defense bonus from two weapon defense.)


----------



## Corsair (May 30, 2007)

Piratecat said:
			
		

> The fact that you thought of this while urinating fills me with great dread.





"1st level commoner moving his dagger from hand to hand", IYKWIMAITYD.


----------



## The Souljourner (May 30, 2007)

I think it's one of those things that is technically legal by the rules but no DM in his right mind would ever allow it.


----------



## Wilphe (May 30, 2007)

>>Longspear, baby. In my adventuring days, they used to call me "Ten Foot Pole".

Because they used you to touch stuff, or because you used it to touch stuff?


----------



## Moon-Lancer (May 30, 2007)

Would it be reasonable to let a twf work with one weapon (light) instead of two,  if the attacks are at -3 instead of -2? kind of like a flurry?


----------



## Ridley's Cohort (May 30, 2007)

Not by my definition of reasonable.

This is just an artifact of simulataneous actions being resolved sequentially.  Arguably, you are not actually "two weapon fighting" unless you are wielding two weapons.  But the rules allow you to resolve one attack, (5' step if want to), then resolve the second attack.  Thusly the mechanics make the two attacks appear to be completely independent.


----------



## hong (May 30, 2007)

What Ridley's Cohort said. The rules are a model of (some version of) reality. The model is not perfect, because no models are perfect.


----------



## blargney the second (May 30, 2007)

Funniest Rules Forum thread ever! *lol*
-blarg

(I actually have tears coming from my eyes!)


----------



## awayfarer (May 30, 2007)

Piratecat said:
			
		

> The fact that you thought of this while urinating fills me with great dread.




In that case, I won't tell you what I was REALLY doing, the three common household pets involved, the name of the shop where I got the equipment or the non-profit organization where it occurred.


----------



## Hypersmurf (May 31, 2007)

Note that Two Weapon Fighting applies "If you are wielding a second weapon in your off-hand".

You aren't; you're wielding the first weapon in your off-hand.

-Hyp.


----------



## starwed (May 31, 2007)

Note that you've also got a weapon in your off-hand when wielding a bastard sword in two hands.  I'm pretty sure no one would even _think_ of asking a DM to allow TWF with that setup.


----------



## darthkilmor (May 31, 2007)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> Note that Two Weapon Fighting applies "If you are wielding a second weapon in your off-hand".
> 
> You aren't; you're wielding the first weapon in your off-hand.
> 
> -Hyp.




You're wielding an unarmed strike in your off-hand, couldn't that work ?


----------



## Hypersmurf (May 31, 2007)

darthkilmor said:
			
		

> You're wielding an unarmed strike in your off-hand, couldn't that work ?




Hmm.  Assuming the DM allows two-weapon fighting with the unarmed strike as the second weapon wielded in the off-hand, and assuming he allows changing hands as a free action, that might work.

Let's assume ITF and Quick Draw.  In theory, I could quickdraw a dagger in each hand and throw them; I could then Quick Draw a second dagger with each hand, and throw them as well... despite the fact that neither weapon used in the third and fourth attack were the same 'main weapon' and 'second weapon wielded in the off-hand' as at the start of the round.

So now, we have a character with a shortsword in his right hand, ready to punch with his left; he is wielding a second weapon in his off-hand in a manner of speaking, and so his attack with the shortsword incurs a penalty.  He then changes hands, and is now ready to punch with his right, and has the shortsword in his left; he is still wielding a second weapon in his off-hand, and thus he may make an extra attack with that weapon.

He's made a primary attack with the shortsword in his right hand, and then an extra off-hand attack with the shortsword in his left hand.  Given the two assumptions made at the top of the post, it looks okay.

-Hyp.


----------



## James McMurray (May 31, 2007)

hong said:
			
		

> What Ridley's Cohort said. The rules are a model of (some version of) reality. The model is not perfect, because no models are perfect.




Except perhaps Paulina Porizkova 

I was going to to say Tawny Kitaen until my googling turned up her mugshot.


----------



## Hypersmurf (May 31, 2007)

Ridley's Cohort said:
			
		

> This is just an artifact of simulataneous actions being resolved sequentially.  Arguably, you are not actually "two weapon fighting" unless you are wielding two weapons.  But the rules allow you to resolve one attack, (5' step if want to), then resolve the second attack.  Thusly the mechanics make the two attacks appear to be completely independent.




"appear to be" completely independent?

Let's say there is a zombie adjacent to me, and a skeleton 2 squares away.  I'm wielding a longsword and a handaxe; I have the Quick Draw feat, and a light mace available to draw.

I take the Full Attack action, and my first attack is with the longsword against the zombie.

I am permitted to observe the outcome of my first attack before deciding what to do with my other attacks (or even give them up in exchange for a move action).  

If the first attack fails to drop the zombie, my intention is to make my off-hand attack with the handaxe against the zombie.  If the first attack successfully drops the zombie, my intention is to drop the handaxe, quickdraw my light mace, 5 foot step towards the skeleton, and make my off-hand attack with the light mace against the skeleton.

Is there anything questionable about this sequence?

-Hyp.


----------



## hong (May 31, 2007)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> "appear to be" completely independent?
> 
> Let's say there is a zombie adjacent to me, and a skeleton 2 squares away.  I'm wielding a longsword and a handaxe; I have the Quick Draw feat, and a light mace available to draw.
> 
> ...




No. Your point being...?


----------



## javcs (May 31, 2007)

hong said:
			
		

> No. Your point being...?



That they _are_ independent.


----------



## hong (May 31, 2007)

javcs said:
			
		

> That they _are_ independent.



 No, they are independent within the context of the RAW. But the RAW, being an imperfect representation of in-game reality, is occasionally of lesser relevance.


----------



## Hypersmurf (May 31, 2007)

hong said:
			
		

> No, they are independent within the context of the RAW. But the RAW, being an imperfect representation of in-game reality, is occasionally of lesser relevance.




Would you as a DM, deeming the rules of lesser relevance to your representation of in-game reality, permit the sequence as described?

-Hyp.


----------



## hong (May 31, 2007)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> Would you as a DM, deeming the rules of lesser relevance to your representation of in-game reality, permit the sequence as described?




The one you posted, or the OP? If you mean the one you posted, yes. Just because the rules are of lesser relevance sometimes, doesn't mean they are of lesser relevance all the time.


----------



## moritheil (May 31, 2007)

hong said:
			
		

> No, they are independent within the context of the RAW. But the RAW, being an imperfect representation of in-game reality, is occasionally of lesser relevance.




 . . . In your opinion.  Which may or may not be of importance if a poster desires to know what the RAW says before making that judgment call for himself or herself.


----------



## hong (May 31, 2007)

moritheil said:
			
		

> . . . In your opinion.




No, a fact. Or as factual as it's possible to get when talking about ways to pretend to be elves.



> Which may or may not be of importance if a poster desires to know what the RAW says before making that judgment call for himself or herself.




Exactly. Judgement call.


----------



## Hypersmurf (May 31, 2007)

hong said:
			
		

> The one you posted, or the OP? If you mean the one you posted, yes. Just because the rules are of lesser relevance sometimes, doesn't mean they are of lesser relevance all the time.




But if the "It's really supposed to represents simultaneous action" assertion is ignored in the swap-axe-for-mace scenario, when you have no problem with the primary attack and the off-hand attack happening in very clear and distinct non-simultaneous sequence, doesn't that mean that your objection to longsword-and-swap-hands-and-longsword scenario is for a reason _other_ than the "It's really supposed to represents simultaneous action" assertion?

Either things that break the simultaneous action paradigm are forbidden, or they're not, right?

I've no problem with a DM disallowing longsword-swap-longsword, but it's inconsistent to deny it for breaking simultaneity, while allowing something else which also breaks simultaneity... and suggests that isn't the real reason.

-Hyp.


----------



## hong (May 31, 2007)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> But if the "It's really supposed to represents simultaneous action" assertion is ignored in the swap-axe-for-mace scenario, when you have no problem with the primary attack and the off-hand attack happening in very clear and distinct non-simultaneous sequence, doesn't that mean that your objection to longsword-and-swap-hands-and-longsword scenario is for a reason _other_ than the "It's really supposed to represents simultaneous action" assertion?




No, it's because the "simultaneous action" assertion holds in one case, but not in the other. Attack rolls in the D&D ruleset are an abstraction of lots of individual swings, thrusts, and whatnot; sometimes it's more convenient to treat the attack rolls as representing consecutive ingame-reality attacks, other times as simultaneous (or separated by a time span small enough to be ignorable for practical purposes). Looking too hard into the mincer is not recommended.



> Either things that break the simultaneous action paradigm are forbidden, or they're not, right?




Things that break the simultaneous action paradigm are sometimes allowed, and sometimes not.


----------



## Hypersmurf (May 31, 2007)

hong said:
			
		

> No, it's because the "simultaneous action" assertion holds in one case, but not in the other.




I can hit the zombie, change weapons, step, and hit the skeleton in one case, but I can't hit the zombie, change hands, step, and hit the skeleton in the second case, and the reason is that the simultaneous action assertion fails?

Bollocks.



> Things that break the simultaneous action paradigm are sometimes allowed, and sometimes not.




Then the reason they're sometimes not allowed has nothing to do with whether or not they break simultaneity.  It's some other factor that determines that, and simultaneity is a red herring masking the real reason.

-Hyp.


----------



## hong (May 31, 2007)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> I can hit the zombie, change weapons, step, and hit the skeleton in one case, but I can't hit the zombie, change hands, step, and hit the skeleton in the second case, and the reason is that the simultaneous action assertion fails?
> 
> Bollocks.




Ooh.

And the answer is that, yes, you can change hands, step and hit the skeleton in the second case. You'll just see no mechanical benefit/consequence for it. You make your second iterative attack on the zombie with your off-hand, instead of getting an extra TWF attack (or if you have no iterative attacks, it's all rolled into your one attack). I suppose I could impose a -4 penalty for attacking with the off-hand, but that seems rather vindictive.



> Then the reason they're sometimes not allowed has nothing to do with whether or not they break simultaneity.  It's some other factor that determines that, and simultaneity is a red herring masking the real reason.




Simultaneity is a convenient, shorthand way to represent what is violated in this particular scenario. Determining the hidden variables behind the observables is getting rather metaphysical.


----------



## pawsplay (May 31, 2007)

Hyp's example shows that the nearly simultaneous actions can be divided discretely. That doesn't mean they are independent, only discrete. 

Fighting with two weapons with one weapon is just nonsense. 

Fighting with a weapon and an unarmed strike might be permissible, more likely if it involves a monk. I don't think there's one answer, by the RAW. However, a weapon cannot be wielded (nearly simultanesously) in two different hands; for each discrete action if must be wielded in one hand, and each action supposes that it is already wielded in the other. It is not the same as throwing a succession of daggers; rather, it is more like attempting to throw the same dagger more than once, ignoring the fact that a discrete action has already occured.


----------



## hong (May 31, 2007)

pawsplay said:
			
		

> Fighting with two weapons with one weapon is just nonsense.




Which, in the end, is what all the business of "simultaneity" boils down to.


----------



## Hypersmurf (May 31, 2007)

hong said:
			
		

> Ooh.
> 
> And the answer is that, yes, you can change hands, step and hit the skeleton in the second case. You'll just see no mechanical benefit/consequence for it. You make your second iterative attack on the zombie with your off-hand, instead of getting an extra TWF attack (or if you have no iterative attacks, it's all rolled into your one attack).




Hmm?

In one round, with a +1 BAB, I hit the zombie, change hands, 5' step, and hit the skeleton with my extra off-hand attack.



			
				pawsplay said:
			
		

> It is not the same as throwing a succession of daggers; rather, it is more like attempting to throw the same dagger more than once, ignoring the fact that a discrete action has already occured.




Consider, as a more closely-related analogy, +1 BAB and Quick Draw; I'm holding a throwing axe and have a sheathed dagger.  I cannot throw the axe with my right hand, draw the dagger with my right hand, and throw it; I can't make multiple attacks with one hand.  Can I throw the axe with my right hand, Quick Draw the dagger with my left, and throw it as an extra off-hand attack?  (Taking TWF penalties on both attacks, obviously.)

-Hyp.


----------



## hong (May 31, 2007)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> Hmm?
> 
> In one round, with a +1 BAB, I hit the zombie, change hands, 5' step, and hit the skeleton with my extra off-hand attack.




If you had an extra weapon with which to do that off-hand attack, yes. If you don't, it's all treated as the one attack roll and so not doable without +6 BAB.



> Consider, as a more closely-related analogy, +1 BAB and Quick Draw; I'm holding a throwing axe and have a sheathed dagger.  I cannot throw the axe with my right hand, draw the dagger with my right hand, and throw it; I can't make multiple attacks with one hand.  Can I throw the axe with my right hand, Quick Draw the dagger with my left, and throw it as an extra off-hand attack?  (Taking TWF penalties on both attacks, obviously.)




Of course you can. However, ranged attacks are an explicit exception to the D&D abstraction whereby multiple swings are lumped into a single attack roll, and hence the example is irrelevant.


----------



## pawsplay (May 31, 2007)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> Hmm?
> 
> In one round, with a +1 BAB, I hit the zombie, change hands, 5' step, and hit the skeleton with my extra off-hand attack.
> 
> ...




Each successive action interrupts the action it directly precedes. As long as the final result is logically possible, you're good. In this case, you have to have accepted the TWF modifiers before throwing the axe. Once you've thrown the axe, you've made an irrevocable choice. While the actions might seem virtually simultaneous, in game order, each one is discrete.

So, yes. But the thrown axe is resolved with TWF penalties.


----------



## Hypersmurf (May 31, 2007)

hong said:
			
		

> If you had an extra weapon with which to do that off-hand attack, yes. If you don't, it's all treated as the one attack roll and so not doable without +6 BAB.




But why is hit-manipulate-move-hit two attack rolls if the two (distinct, displaced in time and space) hits are with different physical objects, and one if the two (distinct, displaced in time and space) hits are with the same physical object?

Since the hits occur at a different time and in a different place, there's no violation of the space-time continuum going on if I'm using the same object.

Especially when I've observed the result of the first hit - completely resolving that attack roll - before proceeding to the second.

-Hyp.


----------



## Hypersmurf (May 31, 2007)

pawsplay said:
			
		

> Each successive action interrupts the action it directly precedes. As long as the final result is logically possible, you're good. In this case, you have to have accepted the TWF modifiers before throwing the axe. Once you've thrown the axe, you've made an irrevocable choice. While the actions might seem virtually simultaneous, in game order, each one is discrete.
> 
> So, yes. But the thrown axe is resolved with TWF penalties.




Interrupts?  Virtually simultaneous?

I've accepted the penalties, but I'm permitted to observe the results of the attack made with those penalties - and make a 5' step - before continuing with the draw-and-throw of the dagger.  How is the first throw interrupting the second throw, and how is it considered virtually simultaneous?

-Hyp.


----------



## hong (May 31, 2007)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> But why is hit-manipulate-move-hit two attack rolls if the two (distinct, displaced in time and space) hits are with different physical objects, and one if the two (distinct, displaced in time and space) hits are with the same physical object?




Because the D&D combat model is an imperfect treatment of multiple attacks, in some places treating them as distinct rolls and in other places lumping them into the one roll. As has been the case since 1974. You want a system that splits out every attack with perfect granularity, that's called GURPS.



> Since the hits occur at a different time and in a different place, there's no violation of the space-time continuum going on if I'm using the same object.




Sure. There is, however, a violation of the underlying abstraction, which is the function that maps the space-time continuum into a die roll mechanic.



> Especially when I've observed the result of the first hit - completely resolving that attack roll - before proceeding to the second.




And that only applies if you have two weapons.


----------



## Hypersmurf (May 31, 2007)

hong said:
			
		

> And that only applies if you have two weapons.




In the case of the zombie and skeleton (longsword and handaxe), I previously proposed attack with sword (right hand), drop axe (left hand), draw mace (left hand), 5' step, attack with mace (left hand), which doesn't bother you, right?

Assuming one can transfer an item from hand to hand as a free action, would you be okay with:
Attack with sword (right hand), drop sword (right hand), draw mace (right hand), drop axe (left hand), transfer mace (left hand), 5' step, attack with mace (left hand)?

-Hyp.


----------



## hong (May 31, 2007)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> In the case of the zombie and skeleton (longsword and handaxe), I previously proposed attack with sword (right hand), drop axe (left hand), draw mace (left hand), 5' step, attack with mace (left hand), which doesn't bother you, right?




No problem, because you have 2 weapons at the moment you start making your attacks, and hence the abstraction is satisfied. Your point being...?



> Assuming one can transfer an item from hand to hand as a free action,




Insofar as it doesn't violate the underlying abstraction, yes.



> would you be okay with:
> Attack with sword (right hand), drop sword (right hand), draw mace (right hand), drop axe (left hand), transfer mace (left hand), 5' step, attack with mace (left hand)?




No problem, because you have 2 weapons at the moment you start making your attacks, and hence the abstraction is satisfied. Your point being...?


----------



## Nyaricus (May 31, 2007)

That is badass.

'nuff said


----------



## Darklone (May 31, 2007)

I don't want to interrupt this *hong-hyp-hong-hyp-hong-ping-pong*, but Hyp: Could you please tell me where's the problem is about using TWF with an unarmed strike? Because you're not wielding a weapon since you're only "considered to be armed"?


----------



## The Blow Leprechaun (May 31, 2007)

Wik said:
			
		

> Yeah, I mostly think of things like Power Attack and Powerful Build whilst urinating.




Aye, I get wistful, too, when I urinate, although mostly I think about vacationing.

I think you'd need Quick Draw to even consider this a possibility, but I think the conceptual point of departure is that you need the second weapon because your first one is either hitting someone or missing. When you fight with two weapons, again conceptually, you alternate swings because the initial weapon is out of position for another swing.

This might change when your BAB proceeds into the +6+ range, as you're then sophisticated enough in the ways of battle to make repeated swings with the same weapon, but if you're talking about a +1 BAB, I don't think you could switch weapons because your initial weapon is out of position to change hands and attack again.


----------



## darthkilmor (May 31, 2007)

hong said:
			
		

> No problem, because you have 2 weapons at the moment you start making your attacks, and hence the abstraction is satisfied. Your point being...?




An unarmed strike, or say, spiked gauntlet would qualify as two weapons. You seem to be willing to accept that you can start an attack with a weapon in your offhand, and not use that weapon.

So whats the difference between dropping the offhand weapon and quickdrawing one, and dropping the offhand weapon and putting the weapon in your primary hand in your offhand ?

If you want to just say "I dont like it, it shouldnt work, I wouldnt allow it, even if its ok(but silly) by RAW." then say so.  You don't have to justify your position.


----------



## The Blow Leprechaun (May 31, 2007)

Personally, I would rule this falls under the purview of a limited number of free actions a turn. You have to remember that combat is supposed to be kinda sorta realtime (it just happens in turns because some people are faster than others). At some point, you're taking too long to finish your attack because you're tooling around with your weapons belt.

It's like speaking is a free action, but you can't deliver the Gettysburg Address on your turn as a free action.


----------



## darthkilmor (May 31, 2007)

The Blow Leprechaun said:
			
		

> Personally, I would rule this falls under the purview of a limited number of free actions a turn. You have to remember that combat is supposed to be kinda sorta realtime (it just happens in turns because some people are faster than others). At some point, you're taking too long to finish your attack because you're tooling around with your weapons belt.
> 
> It's like speaking is a free action, but you can't deliver the Gettysburg Address on your turn as a free action.




True enough, but thats a bit ancillary to the core Q of: Can I use the same weapon with TWF for both attacks(primary hand and off hand)?

Switching the sword from one hand to the other would be one free action.


----------



## The Blow Leprechaun (May 31, 2007)

Then I think we go back to my earlier point - you can't make multiple attacks with the same weapon without a higher BAB because you're not skilled enough with your weapon to bring it back in position to strike quickly enough.

I think the same holds true with attempting to switch hands. Just try and picture it in your head and you can see how impossible the idea is. The mechanics are completely different from the way one attempts to fight with two weapons.

If physics can be a house rule, then common sense definitely should be, too.


----------



## Veril (May 31, 2007)

awayfarer said:
			
		

> Lets say you have a 1st level character with Two-Weapon Fighting. This character currently only has one weapon, a dagger. Moving an item from one hand to the other is a free action, correct? So could this character attack with the dagger in their right hand, switch hands, and then attack with the dagger in their left hand? I suspect this hinges upon wether or not you can make a free action in the middle of a full attack.




The simple answer is no.  

1) Two-Weapon fighting = full attack.  
transfering a weapon from one hand to another hand where you intend to attack with it in the other hand counts as "Drawing a weapon so that you can use it in combat" - which is a move action.  You cannot do a full action and a move action in the same round.  
You could try stating that quickdraw helps because that makes drawingh a weapon a free action....so....

2) Two-Weapon fighting states 
"You can fight with a weapon in each hand. You can make one extra attack each round with the second weapon."
using the same dagger in 2 different hands violates the condition of attacking with the second weapon.  


I'd also offer the following:
By the rules there are only 2 ways of allowing a weapon to leave your hand volunterelly.  Dropping the weapon, or sheathing the weapon.  You clearly didn't drop the weapon (it's not on the floor), therefor you must have sheathed the weapon - you chose to use the other hand as the sheath for the weapon.  Sheathing a weapon is a move action.  And Quickdraw does not help you sheath the weapon.


----------



## tomBitonti (May 31, 2007)

*Missing text*

So ...

Under two-weapon fighting, there seems to be an unstated restriction, that is, that you must take your attacks using the weapon that enabled the extra attack.

For a RAW ruling, one point of view accepts the text of the rules, and allows the imposition of no further restrictions.  Another point of view posits that there are additional unstated restrictions, but that the rules text has stripped those out in order to keep the text reasonably short, as well as comprehensible to the casual reader.

Also ...

The sense of iterative attacks (as provided by a high enough BAB) is that the attacks occur sequentially.  That is built into the definition of the attacks.  Although unstated, there seems to be a similar built in sense to attacks taken via two-weapon fighting, that is, that the attacks are simultaneous.  However, the rules don't account for this.  Getting back to the scenario where attacks are split between opponents more than 5' apart, without getting into issues regarding switching weapons, the rules allow iterative attacks to be split between the opponents, and allow two-weapon attacks to be split between the opponents.  I'm thinking that there *could have been* a restriction on the two-weapon attack, that is, that the attacks be required to be declared simultaneously, but that's too much complexity for the rules set.


----------



## darthkilmor (May 31, 2007)

The Blow Leprechaun said:
			
		

> I think the same holds true with attempting to switch hands. Just try and picture it in your head and you can see how impossible the idea is. The mechanics are completely different from the way one attempts to fight with two weapons.




I can picture it in my head and its Very Possible.   I have an enemy to my right, I stab him with my sword in my right hand and he falls, I then swap the weapon to my left hand and stab the enemy to my left, without having to turn my whole body around.  Of course DnD doesnt have facing but, thats how I'd imagine it going.

I'm trying to picture in my head how one would chant mystical words and immolate someone and you can see how impossible the idea is.  Not to be snarky but, just because you or I can't mentally invision how something would work doesnt mean RAW prohibits it.


----------



## The Blow Leprechaun (May 31, 2007)

darthkilmor said:
			
		

> I can picture it in my head and its Very Possible.   I have an enemy to my right, I stab him with my sword in my right hand and he falls, I then swap the weapon to my left hand and stab the enemy to my left, without having to turn my whole body around.  Of course DnD doesnt have facing but, thats how I'd imagine it going.
> 
> I'm trying to picture in my head how one would chant mystical words and immolate someone and you can see how impossible the idea is.  Not to be snarky but, just because you or I can't mentally invision how something would work doesnt mean RAW prohibits it.




I have no problems at all picturing in my head someone chanting mystical words and someone else bursting into flames. I've seen it in movies plenty of times.

What you've described is much more akin to how I would picture someone simply making multiple attack with the same weapon (as though from a higher BAB...). You wouldn't even need to swap hands to do it, you'd just turn slightly. Swapping hands in your picture is simply flavor, not an actual mechanic.


----------



## Hypersmurf (May 31, 2007)

tomBitonti said:
			
		

> I'm thinking that there *could have been* a restriction on the two-weapon attack, that is, that the attacks be required to be declared simultaneously, but that's too much complexity for the rules set.




No, because the definition of a Full Attack says we may observe the outcome of the first attack before making decisions about the second.

That's why in the Zombie/Skeleton example, I've got the opportunity to decide between making my off-hand attack with my axe, or dropping it, and making my second attack with a quick-drawn mace.

The attacks don't need to be made or declared simultaneously; they can be wholly sequential.




			
				hong said:
			
		

> No problem, because you have 2 weapons at the moment you start making your attacks, and hence the abstraction is satisfied. Your point being...?




I have two weapons in the longsword-switch-longsword scenario as well - one longsword, and one unarmed strike.  When I make the primary attack, I have a longsword in my right hand, and an unarmed strike 'in' my off-hand.  When I make the off-hand attack, I have an unarmed strike 'in' my right hand, and a longsword in my off-hand.

We've established that you're unconcerned with the structure of weapons and hands being different between primary and off-hand attacks (longsword and axe for the first, nothing and mace for the second), and I have two weapons at the moment I start making my attacks... hence the abstraction is satsified, no?

-Hyp.


----------



## tomBitonti (May 31, 2007)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> No, because the definition of a Full Attack says we may observe the outcome of the first attack before making decisions about the second.
> ...
> I have two weapons in the longsword-switch-longsword scenario as well - one longsword, and one unarmed strike.  When I make the primary attack, I have a longsword in my right hand, and an unarmed strike 'in' my off-hand.  When I make the off-hand attack, I have an unarmed strike 'in' my right hand, and a longsword in my off-hand.
> 
> ...




On the first point, I think we are agreeing, but I don't think that I've communicated my point: What I'm saying is that *in drawing up the initial rules*, that there could have been more restrictions added (to require both attacks to be declared at the same time), and that the restrictions would have been in the spirit of the description of two-weapon fighting, but the rules team decided on a simple universal rule.

As for the second point ... the text at http://www.d20srd.org/srd/feats.htm#twoWeaponFighting



> If you wield a second weapon in your off hand, you can get one extra attack per round with that weapon.




Seems to imply that the extra attack must be made with the weapon that enabled the second attack ... "an extra attack per round with *that* weapon".

I'm interested now in what other text to describe two-weapon fighting.


----------



## hong (May 31, 2007)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> I have two weapons in the longsword-switch-longsword scenario as well - one longsword, and one unarmed strike.




No, because attacks without manufactured weapons (including unarmed strikes) use a different underlying paradigm to attacks with weapons. Unarmed strikes do not threaten an area unless you have a feat; you take an AoO if you make an unarmed strike (again unless you have a feat); creatures with natural attacks do not get iterative attacks the way they would if they used weapons. And hence treating unarmed strikes as if they were equivalent to weapons is invalid.



> When I make the primary attack, I have a longsword in my right hand, and an unarmed strike 'in' my off-hand.  When I make the off-hand attack, I have an unarmed strike 'in' my right hand, and a longsword in my off-hand.




Which is not the same as a manufactured weapon in both hands.



> We've established that you're unconcerned with the structure of weapons and hands being different between primary and off-hand attacks (longsword and axe for the first, nothing and mace for the second), and I have two weapons at the moment I start making my attacks... hence the abstraction is satsified, no?




No. Different abstractions apply for attacking with manufactured weapons and natural weapons, with unarmed strikes occupying a grey area between the two.


----------



## hong (May 31, 2007)

darthkilmor said:
			
		

> An unarmed strike, or say, spiked gauntlet would qualify as two weapons. You seem to be willing to accept that you can start an attack with a weapon in your offhand, and not use that weapon.
> 
> So whats the difference between dropping the offhand weapon and quickdrawing one, and dropping the offhand weapon and putting the weapon in your primary hand in your offhand ?




Because an unarmed strike is not a weapon. Or maybe it is. It depends on where you look; D&D handles different sorts of attacks in different ways, even if they all boil down to an attack roll and damage roll.



> If you want to just say "I dont like it, it shouldnt work, I wouldnt allow it, even if its ok(but silly) by RAW." then say so.  You don't have to justify your position.




Oh, but it's such fun!


----------



## Markn (May 31, 2007)

Maybe I'm dreaming but wasn't there a FAQ or a Sage Advice answer that stated that moving things from 1 hand to the others was a move action.  If its true then that pretty much ends the debate....


----------



## James McMurray (May 31, 2007)

Markn said:
			
		

> Maybe I'm dreaming but wasn't there a FAQ or a Sage Advice answer that stated that moving things from 1 hand to the others was a move action.  If its true then that pretty much ends the debate....




Yes and No.



			
				FAQ said:
			
		

> The rules don’t state what type of action is required to switch hands on a
> weapon, but it seems reasonable to assume that it’s the equivalent of drawing a weapon (a move action that doesn’t provoke attacks of opportunity).




It doesn't give a rule, it gives a rule that Skip Williams believes is reasonable. I personally agree with him 100%, but whereever there's wiggle room, some folks will want to dance.


----------



## Hypersmurf (May 31, 2007)

hong said:
			
		

> No, because attacks without manufactured weapons (including unarmed strikes) use a different underlying paradigm to attacks with weapons. Unarmed strikes do not threaten an area unless you have a feat; you take an AoO if you make an unarmed strike (again unless you have a feat); creatures with natural attacks do not get iterative attacks the way they would if they used weapons. And hence treating unarmed strikes as if they were equivalent to weapons is invalid.




Which is why I stated TWF with an unarmed strike to be one of the assumptions further upthread.

But if you like, we'll remove that assumption.

I make my primary attack with my longsword in my right hand, taking TWF penalties, while wielding a dagger in my left hand.  I drop my dagger, switch my longsword to my left hand, Quick Draw a second dagger with my right hand, 5' step, and make my off-hand attack with the longsword in my off-hand.

I am wielding two manufactured weapons at the time I make my attacks.

-Hyp.


----------



## Hypersmurf (May 31, 2007)

James McMurray said:
			
		

> It doesn't give a rule, it gives a rule that Skip Williams believes is reasonable. I personally agree with him 100%, but whereever there's wiggle room, some folks will want to dance.




Actually, that's the rule that Andy Collins believes is reasonable.

Skip Williams' answer in the 3E Main FAQ was 'free action'; then Andy posted what you quoted above in the 3.5 Main FAQ - move action; _then_ Skip posted in a RotG article 'free action'.

-Hyp.


----------



## The Blow Leprechaun (May 31, 2007)

Based on my re-reading a couple of the rules, here's my best insight before I leave the office:

The full round attack option specifically mentions you can take a 5' step before, during, or after the attack. This has been interpreted herein to mean you can make a free action during a full round attack.

But look again. A 5' step is *not* considered to be a free action. As written in the rules, it is considered to be *no action*, along with delaying.

Therefore, as far as I am aware, there is no justification for being able to take a free action during a full round attack. Before or after, maybe, but I'd need to see an example to accept it during with the RAW.


----------



## hong (May 31, 2007)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> Which is why I stated TWF with an unarmed strike to be one of the assumptions further upthread.




Not in the post to me, you didn't.



> I make my primary attack with my longsword in my right hand, taking TWF penalties, while wielding a dagger in my left hand.  I drop my dagger, switch my longsword to my left hand, Quick Draw a second dagger with my right hand, 5' step, and make my off-hand attack with the longsword in my off-hand.
> 
> I am wielding two manufactured weapons at the time I make my attacks.




Nope, because that would require that you take -4 to your attacks for making your off-hand attack with a non-light weapon, and you didn't do that with the first attack.

And for your hypothetical (meaning never-happened-in-actual-play) scenario coming up, whereby you make a shortsword attack with the right hand and then switch the shortsword to the left hand, all the while having weapons in both hands -- nope, because all this demonstrates is the limitations of the rules principle whereby all attacks are treated separately, even if they occur  simultaneously within the in-game reality.


----------



## Hypersmurf (May 31, 2007)

hong said:
			
		

> Nope, because that would require that you take -4 to your attacks for making your off-hand attack with a non-light weapon, and you didn't do that with the first attack.




Oversized Two-Weapon Fighting feat.  Or I took the -4 when I said "taking TWF penalties".



> And for your hypothetical (meaning never-happened-in-actual-play) scenario coming up, whereby you make a shortsword attack with the right hand and then switch the shortsword to the left hand, all the while having weapons in both hands -- nope, because all this demonstrates is the limitations of the rules principle whereby all attacks are treated separately, even if they occur  simultaneously within the in-game reality.




They're not occurring simultaneously.  They're occurring with a dropped weapon, a switched weapon, a drawn weapon, and a 5' step in between.

You'd allow it if instead of switching my shortsword from right to left, I dropped the shortsword and drew a different shortsword with my left hand, right?

-Hyp.


----------



## Hypersmurf (May 31, 2007)

The Blow Leprechaun said:
			
		

> Therefore, as far as I am aware, there is no justification for being able to take a free action during a full round attack. Before or after, maybe, but I'd need to see an example to accept it during with the RAW.




_*Ammunition:* Projectile weapons use ammunition: arrows (for bows), bolts (for crossbows), or sling bullets (for slings). *When using a bow, a character can draw ammunition as a free action*; crossbows and slings require an action for reloading._

I have a bow and the Rapid Shot feat.

I take a free action to draw ammunition, then I take the Full Attack action to take two shots.

During my Full Attack action - in between my first and second shot - I need to draw a second arrow as a free action.

Do you permit this?

-Hyp.


----------



## hong (May 31, 2007)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> Oversized Two-Weapon Fighting feat.  Or I took the -4 when I said "taking TWF penalties".




Which you didn't specify.




> They're not occurring simultaneously.  They're occurring with a dropped weapon, a switched weapon, a drawn weapon, and a 5' step in between.




However, in the in-game reality that the rules attempt to capture, they are occuring as a series of swings, thrusts, hits and misses where the attacker is using two weapons simultaneously. The fact that the game abstracts them into distinct rolls, with the added convenience feature of letting players decide where to target their attacks, is beside the point.



> You'd allow it if instead of switching my shortsword from right to left, I dropped the shortsword and drew a different shortsword with my left hand, right?




And the answer to that is, why are you drawing that shortsword in the middle of the round, as opposed to using it from the start?


----------



## Hypersmurf (May 31, 2007)

hong said:
			
		

> However, in the in-game reality that the rules attempt to capture, they are occuring as a series of swings, thrusts, hits and misses where the attacker is using two weapons simultaneously. The fact that the game abstracts them into distinct rolls, with the added convenience feature of letting players decide where to target their attacks, is beside the point.




They can't be occurring simultaneously, since I wasn't even holding the mace when I made the attack with the sword!  The mace attack - in the in-game reality that the rules attempt to capture - occurs as a series of swings, thrusts, hits and misses that takes place in a timeframe that is absolutely discrete and separate from the series of swings, thrusts, hits and misses represented by the longsword attack roll.  I'm not making any swings, thrusts, hits and misses with my longsword while I'm attacking with my mace - the zombie is already dead.  I'm not making any swings, thrusts, hits and misses with my mace while I'm attacking with my longsword - it's still hanging from my belt, not even in my hand!



> And the answer to that is, why are you drawing that shortsword in the middle of the round, as opposed to using it from the start?




Because I didn't know until I saw the result of my first attack if I wanted to use my First-Opponent-Bane dagger, or my Second-Opponent-Bane shortsword.

For example.

-Hyp.


----------



## hong (May 31, 2007)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> They can't be occurring simultaneously, since I wasn't even holding the mace when I made the attack with the sword!  The mace attack - in the in-game reality that the rules attempt to capture - occurs as a series of swings, thrusts, hits and misses that takes place in a timeframe that is absolutely discrete and separate from the series of swings, thrusts, hits and misses represented by the longsword attack roll.  I'm not making any swings, thrusts, hits and misses with my longsword while I'm attacking with my mace - the zombie is already dead.  I'm not making any swings, thrusts, hits and misses with my mace while I'm attacking with my longsword - it's still hanging from my belt, not even in my hand!




Exactly. The fact that the model allows you to decide what to do with your second attack after seeing your first attack's result is a flaw in the model, but one that's there for a good reason (ie, removing the need for tedious announce-and-resolve phases). Exploiting that flaw may or may not be bad, depending on how egregious the results are. Bad Hypersmurf!



> Because I didn't know until I saw the result of my first attack if I wanted to use my First-Opponent-Bane dagger, or my Second-Opponent-Bane shortsword.




Tell me how often you have a dagger and a shortsword both with bane enchantments.


----------



## Moon-Lancer (Jun 1, 2007)

Markn said:
			
		

> Maybe I'm dreaming but wasn't there a FAQ or a Sage Advice answer that stated that moving things from 1 hand to the others was a move action.  If its true then that pretty much ends the debate....





see my first post. its quasi legal but not if your using the faq.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Jun 1, 2007)

hong said:
			
		

> Tell me how often you have a dagger and a shortsword both with bane enchantments.




I'm not understanding your references to "meaning never-happened-in-actual-play" and "how often you have".

What relevance does that have to a hypothetical scenario?  In the hypothetical scenario, I _do_ have multiple Bane weapons.

-Hyp.


----------



## hong (Jun 1, 2007)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> I'm not understanding your references to "meaning never-happened-in-actual-play" and "how often you have".
> 
> What relevance does that have to a hypothetical scenario?  In the hypothetical scenario, I _do_ have multiple Bane weapons.




"All models are wrong, but some are useful" -- George Box

A model may fail to adequately represent reality (or, in this case, fictional reality) in all situations. As long as these failures are restricted to those situations that are unlikely to occur in practice, the model is still usable.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Jun 1, 2007)

hong said:
			
		

> A model may fail to adequately represent reality (or, in this case, fictional reality) in all situations. As long as these failures are restricted to those situations that are unlikely to occur in practice, the model is still usable.




I'm not seeing the failure, though.

If we accept that primary attack, draw, step, off-hand attack is both legal and adequately represents reality, then how is it different to primary attack, switch, step, off-hand attack?

If we accept that primary attack, draw, step, off-hand attack is legal but fails to adequately represents reality _and we don't care and allow it anyway_, then how is it different to primary attack, switch, step, off-hand attack?

-Hyp.


----------



## hong (Jun 1, 2007)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> I'm not seeing the failure, though.
> 
> If we accept that primary attack, draw, step, off-hand attack is both legal and adequately represents reality, then how is it different to primary attack, switch, step, off-hand attack?




Because the model is supposed to be representing attacking with two weapons, not one weapon bouncing between two hands.



> If we accept that primary attack, draw, step, off-hand attack is legal but fails to adequately represents reality _and we don't care and allow it anyway_, then how is it different to primary attack, switch, step, off-hand attack?




Presumably, in primary attack/draw/off-hand attack, you were attacking with two different weapons at the start, but for the purposes of the ruleset we simplify it to one attack roll. You then continue to attack with two different weapons throughout the round. In primary attack/switch/off-hand attack, you are not. Hence violation of abstraction.


----------



## Hairfoot (Jun 1, 2007)

Even if it's legal, any GM who allows it should be gaoled have their licence revoked.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Jun 1, 2007)

hong said:
			
		

> Presumably, in primary attack/draw/off-hand attack, you were attacking with two different weapons at the start, but for the purposes of the ruleset we simplify it to one attack roll.




If my handaxe was poisoned, it is still poisoned.  If if were a spell-storing weapon, it still stores a spell.  If it had a "the next time this weapon is used to attack, regardless of whether the attack hits" effect on it, the effect is still there.  The handaxe was never used to attack... in the rules, or in the reality represented by those rules.

-Hyp.


----------



## hong (Jun 1, 2007)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> If my handaxe was poisoned, it is still poisoned.




Because of the abstraction used by the rules to represent reality, yes. The fact that individual attack rolls only apply a single weapon enhancement is a long-standing wart in D&D. Similarly, if I'm using a frost weapon and a fire weapon, and I make a standard attack instead of a full attack, I only get one of the two damage bonuses. This is despite the rules explicitly stating that an attack roll represents multiple swings, and the (real life) fact that you can very easily swing two weapons at an enemy in 3 seconds (half a round).



> If if were a spell-storing weapon, it still stores a spell.  If it had a "the next time this weapon is used to attack, regardless of whether the attack hits" effect on it, the effect is still there.  The handaxe was never used to attack... in the rules, or in the reality represented by those rules.




No, the handaxe was never used to attack _in the rules_. In the reality represented by those rules, it may or may not have been used thus. The rules ignore that possibility for the sake of keeping things simple.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Jun 1, 2007)

hong said:
			
		

> No, the handaxe was never used to attack _in the rules_. In the reality represented by those rules, it may or may not have been used thus. The rules ignore that possibility for the sake of keeping things simple.




So my attack roll with the longsword may appear in the represented reality as multiple swings with both the longsword and the handaxe, and my off-hand attack may appear in the represented reality as multiple swings with both the light mace and the longsword.  Fair enough.

That doesn't alter that there is zero overlap between the group of multiple swings with longsword and handaxe, and the group of multiple swings with mace and longsword, because they occur in different places, and mace and handaxe are temporally mutually exclusive.

So how is this different to multiple swings with shortsword and dagger A, and multiple swings with shortsword and dagger B (represented in the game mechanics as a single attack roll with the shortsword for the primary attack, and a single attack roll with the shortsword for the off-hand attack), since both routines occur in different places and at different times?

If the mechanics aren't acceptable to model a represented reality in one case for reasons of simultaneity, then they must be unacceptable in the other for the same reason.

If they're acceptable to model a represented reality in one case despite concerns about simultaneity, then they must be acceptable in the other for the same reason.

-Hyp.


----------



## James McMurray (Jun 1, 2007)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> If they're acceptable to model a represented reality in one case despite concerns about simultaneity, then they must be acceptable in the other for the same reason.




Why?


----------



## Hypersmurf (Jun 1, 2007)

James McMurray said:
			
		

> Why?




Because we're providing an admission that concerns about simultaneity are not sufficient to forbid a mechanic, by allowing a scenario in which those concerns do not result in forbiddance.

Therefore if we're forbidding the other scenario, it must be for a reason other than concerns about simultaneity.

(Or, alternatively, we're being arbitrary and capricious.  But I'd rather assume that if someone allows A and forbids B, there's a concrete difference between A and B that explains it.)

-Hyp.


----------



## James McMurray (Jun 1, 2007)

Why can't each scenario be judged on it's own merits rather than requiring that a single rule cover them both? 

I wouldn't expect the "picking an item up off the ground" rules to cover drawing a sheathed weapon, no matter how similar they are. Likewise I wouldn't expect the "fighting with two weapons" rules to cover fighting with one weapon, with or without the change of hands.


----------



## hong (Jun 1, 2007)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> So my attack roll with the longsword may appear in the represented reality as multiple swings with both the longsword and the handaxe, and my off-hand attack may appear in the represented reality as multiple swings with both the light mace and the longsword.  Fair enough.




No, your multiple swings with the longsword and handaxe are represented in the model as one attack roll with the longsword, and another attack roll with the handaxe. The model also allows you to switch out weapons under certain circumstances, with the new weapon taking over all attack rolls from that point. The two in combination represent a failure in the model.



> That doesn't alter that there is zero overlap between the group of multiple swings with longsword and handaxe, and the group of multiple swings with mace and longsword, because they occur in different places, and mace and handaxe are temporally mutually exclusive.




There is zero overlap solely because of an artifact in the rules.



> So how is this different to multiple swings with shortsword and dagger A, and multiple swings with shortsword and dagger B (represented in the game mechanics as a single attack roll with the shortsword for the primary attack, and a single attack roll with the shortsword for the off-hand attack), since both routines occur in different places and at different times?




Both routines occur in different places and at different times because of an artifact of the rules. The underlying principle remains: if you want to use TWF, you must use two weapons, not one weapon in two hands. Artifacts of the rules do not override this principle.



> If the mechanics aren't acceptable to model a represented reality in one case for reasons of simultaneity, then they must be unacceptable in the other for the same reason.




The reason is because the ruleset is imperfect.


----------



## hong (Jun 1, 2007)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> (Or, alternatively, we're being arbitrary and capricious.




You say this like it's a negative thing.


----------



## The Blow Leprechaun (Jun 1, 2007)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> _*Ammunition:* Projectile weapons use ammunition: arrows (for bows), bolts (for crossbows), or sling bullets (for slings). *When using a bow, a character can draw ammunition as a free action*; crossbows and slings require an action for reloading._
> 
> I have a bow and the Rapid Shot feat.
> 
> ...



Fine, you can switch hands on your bow while taking shots. Happy now? This still says nothing about tossing your weapon into another hand to gain an extra attack from TWF, which only explicitly allows a 5' step (which is not equivalent to a free action).


----------



## Hypersmurf (Jun 1, 2007)

hong said:
			
		

> The two in combination represent a failure in the model.




Then either disallow the two in combination (forbidding the switch to mace for the off-hand attack), or agree that this particular failure in the model is insufficient to warrant a change in the rules.



> Both routines occur in different places and at different times because of an artifact of the rules. The underlying principle remains: if you want to use TWF, you must use two weapons, not one weapon in two hands. Artifacts of the rules do not override this principle.




If I want to use TWF, I must be wielding a second weapon in my off-hand.

If we allow the attack with the mace, the second weapon wielded in my off-hand when I make my off-hand attack is not required to be the same second weapon that was in my off-hand at the time I made my primary attack.  Nor, by extension, is the weapon in my primary hand when I make my off-hand attack required to be the same weapon that was in my primary hand at the time I made my primary attack.

Since I'm wielding a second weapon in my off-hand, and since simultaneity is not an issue (again, since we've allowed the attack with the mace), how is the underlying principle being broken more egregiously than in the mace example, merely because the assorted manipulations resulted, instead of a mace in my off-hand, in my original primary weapon in my off-hand?

In both cases, we have a primary attack made while wielding a second weapon in the off-hand, which is resolved before a manipulation sequence, which is resolved before an off-hand attack made while wielding a second weapon in the off-hand.

-Hyp.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Jun 1, 2007)

The Blow Leprechaun said:
			
		

> Fine, you can switch hands on your bow while taking shots. Happy now? This still says nothing about tossing your weapon into another hand to gain an extra attack from TWF, which only explicitly allows a 5' step (which is not equivalent to a free action).




I'm puzzled - are you saying that it's permissible to take a free action while taking another action normally (specifically, while taking the full attack action), or that it isn't?

If it's permissible to take a free action while taking the full attack action, I can draw an arrow between attacks, or drop an item between attacks, or fall prone between attacks, or cast a Quickened spell between attacks.

If it isn't permissible to take a free action while taking the full attack action, I can't draw an arrow between attacks, or drop an item between attacks, or fall prone between attacks, or cast a Quickened spell between attacks.

-Hyp.


----------



## hong (Jun 1, 2007)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> Then either disallow the two in combination (forbidding the switch to mace for the off-hand attack), or agree that this particular failure in the model is insufficient to warrant a change in the rules.




No, because the consequences of one exploit of the failure are more egregious than the consequences of the other. Hence one is disallowed, while the other isn't.



> If I want to use TWF, I must be wielding a second weapon in my off-hand.




Yes, wielding, as in using to hit. As in getting an attack roll with it.



> If we allow the attack with the mace, the second weapon wielded in my off-hand when I make my off-hand attack is not required to be the same second weapon that was in my off-hand at the time I made my primary attack.  Nor, by extension, is the weapon in my primary hand when I make my off-hand attack required to be the same weapon that was in my primary hand at the time I made my primary attack.
> 
> Since I'm wielding a second weapon in my off-hand, and since simultaneity is not an issue (again, since we've allowed the attack with the mace),




Since we've allowed the attack with the mace in a particular circumstance, which is not to say in every circumstance.



> how is the underlying principle being broken more egregiously than in the mace example, merely because the assorted manipulations resulted, instead of a mace in my off-hand, in my original primary weapon in my off-hand?




Because you are no longer using two weapons, but manipulating one weapon to use the other weapon twice.



> In both cases, we have a primary attack made while wielding a second weapon in the off-hand, which is resolved before a manipulation sequence,




Said manipulation sequence being where the abstraction breaks down, and thus requiring manual intervention to restore to health.



> which is resolved before an off-hand attack made while wielding a second weapon in the off-hand.




And said manual intervention says no, because you are not wielding two weapons, but rather one weapon twice.


----------



## hong (Jun 1, 2007)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> I'm puzzled - are you saying that it's permissible to take a free action while taking another action normally (specifically, while taking the full attack action), or that it isn't?




He's saying that it's permissible to take some free actions while taking another action, but not others. Specifically, not those that result in a violation of the underlying abstraction.


----------



## Moon-Lancer (Jun 1, 2007)

Hairfoot said:
			
		

> Even if it's legal, any GM who allows it should be gaoled have their licence revoked.




as hyp can attest to

I don't find twf sacred. Its just an extra attack to me.  

I think someone could wield a great sword, boot blades, unarmed strike (monk) , armor spikes, and use them all as apart of an iterative

I also think that someone could use a one handed weapon, take twf and get an extra attack.

Whats the deal? If its broken, sure fine lets sling it out and find out whats not broken and use that, but to argue over something as frivolous as is it legal to switch hands as a free action, and can I use use that weapon in conjunction with twf, well thats just funny. 

I think the more important question is, Is this unbalanced? how can we make it work so it is *balanced*?

*edit


----------



## Hypersmurf (Jun 1, 2007)

hong said:
			
		

> Yes, wielding, as in using to hit. As in getting an attack roll with it.




Wielding a weapon doesn't require making an attack roll!

In order to benefit from a Defending weapon, you must be the wielder.  That doesn't require you to attack anyone.

In order to threaten with my longsword, I must be wielding it.  But I'm not required to make an attack roll with it for you to gain a flanking bonus because I threaten.

-Hyp.


----------



## hong (Jun 1, 2007)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> Wielding a weapon doesn't require making an attack roll!




Yes it does, because otherwise you do not qualify for the TWF abstraction. Otherwise, you're just making an attack with one weapon, with something else held in your hand for show.



> In order to benefit from a Defending weapon, you must be the wielder.  That doesn't require you to attack anyone.




And that too is an artifact of the rules. Just because it leads to no major violations of the abstraction there, doesn't mean it can be applied elsewhere willy-nilly.



> In order to threaten with my longsword, I must be wielding it.  But I'm not required to make an attack roll with it for you to gain a flanking bonus because I threaten.




Ditto.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Jun 1, 2007)

hong said:
			
		

> Yes it does, because otherwise you do not qualify for the TWF abstraction. Otherwise, you're just making an attack with one weapon, with something else held in your hand for show.




If I am wielding a second weapon in my off-hand, I can make an extra attack with that weapon.

Can, not must.  I can wield a second weapon in my off-hand without making an extra attack with that weapon.

That's not an artifact of the rules; that's just rules.  Wielding and attacking are not synonymous.

-Hyp.


----------



## hong (Jun 1, 2007)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> If I am wielding a second weapon in my off-hand, I can make an extra attack with that weapon.
> 
> Can, not must.  I can wield a second weapon in my off-hand without making an extra attack with that weapon.
> 
> That's not an artifact of the rules; that's just rules.  Wielding and attacking are not synonymous.




That's right. But the point was what's required to be considered to be using TWF. If you _do_ make an extra attack, it has to be with a second weapon if you are to be considered to be using TWF. Because in the end, that's what TWF is about, rules manipulations to the contrary notwithstanding.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Jun 1, 2007)

hong said:
			
		

> That's right. But the point was what's required to be considered to be using TWF. If you _do_ make an extra attack, it has to be with a second weapon if you are to be considered to be using TWF. Because in the end, that's what TWF is about, rules manipulations to the contrary notwithstanding.




And it is with a second weapon.  One that, earlier in the round, was a first weapon.

Just like we can make an attack with a second weapon which, earlier in the round, was neither a first _nor_ a second weapon.

-Hyp.


----------



## hong (Jun 1, 2007)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> And it is with a second weapon.  One that, earlier in the round, was a first weapon.




No, no, that won't work. The model foundation, unlike the rules framework, cannot be given the runaround. 

At least not without large quantities of alcohol.


----------



## James McMurray (Jun 1, 2007)

If I give you a dollar, take it back, then give it to you again, have I given you a second dollar?


----------



## Hypersmurf (Jun 1, 2007)

James McMurray said:
			
		

> If I give you a dollar, take it back, then give it to you again, have I given you a second dollar?




If you give me a dollar, take it back, and then give me a different dollar, have you given me a second dollar?

What's the key criterion?  a/ I'm in possession of two of your dollars?  b/ I've received two dollars which are not the same physical object?  c/ I've received a dollar from you on two separate occasions?

If a/ is the key, both questions are No.  If c/ is the key, both questions are Yes.  The only criterion which distinguishes the two questions is b/... and is there any reason I should be concerned whether the dollar I receive on the second occasion is or is not the same dollar I received on the first occasion?

-Hyp.


----------



## hong (Jun 1, 2007)

I see no alcohol here.


----------



## Moon-Lancer (Jun 1, 2007)

James McMurray said:
			
		

> If I give you a dollar, take it back, then give it to you again, have I given you a second dollar?




do you know if i have taken the first dollar?


----------



## Darklone (Jun 1, 2007)

Wow, more ping-pong goodness


----------



## awayfarer (Jun 1, 2007)

I can't believe this much thread has been pulled out of a trip to the loo.


----------



## James McMurray (Jun 1, 2007)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> If you give me a dollar, take it back, and then give me a different dollar, have you given me a second dollar?
> 
> What's the key criterion?  a/ I'm in possession of two of your dollars?  b/ I've received two dollars which are not the same physical object?  c/ I've received a dollar from you on two separate occasions?




The key criterion is satisfying the definitions of the word second in the English language.

If it's not obvious to you that a first object and a second object are distinct entities, there's really no point in discussing it.


----------



## James McMurray (Jun 1, 2007)

Can anyone point to a rules source that says that switching hands is a free action? RotG says it is but the FAQ says it isn't, so it seems like the out-of-book sources negate themselves.


----------



## werk (Jun 1, 2007)

James McMurray said:
			
		

> Can anyone point to a rules source that says that switching hands is a free action? RotG says it is but the FAQ says it isn't, so it seems like the out-of-book sources negate themselves.




You are correct sir!


----------



## Hypersmurf (Jun 1, 2007)

James McMurray said:
			
		

> Can anyone point to a rules source that says that switching hands is a free action? RotG says it is but the FAQ says it isn't, so it seems like the out-of-book sources negate themselves.




The 3E Main FAQ said it is as well, so that's one-and-a-half OOB sources in favour vs one against 

(Actually, the 3E Main FAQ said it was two free actions, to be fair.)

-Hyp.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Jun 1, 2007)

James McMurray said:
			
		

> If it's not obvious to you that a first object and a second object are distinct entities, there's really no point in discussing it.




Alfred, Bob, and Carl are running a race.  Alfred takes an early lead.  Who is the first runner?

Bob passes Alfred at the halfway mark.  Who is the second runner?

At the time that I make my off-hand attack, the weapon is the second weapon wielded in my off-hand.  The first weapon wielded in my primary hand isn't the same weapon that was there at the start of the round (since that weapon is currently the second weapon wielded in my off-hand), but if we require that the weapon in my main hand and the weapon in my off-hand remain identical throughout the entire round, it rather screws dagger throwers...

-Hyp.


----------



## hong (Jun 1, 2007)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> Alfred, Bob, and Carl are running a race.  Alfred takes an early lead.  Who is the first runner?




Passing from absolute to relative references without justification. Bad Hypersmurf!



> Bob passes Alfred at the halfway mark.  Who is the second runner?




Ditto.



> At the time that I make my off-hand attack, the weapon is the second weapon wielded in my off-hand.  The first weapon wielded in my primary hand isn't the same weapon that was there at the start of the round (since that weapon is currently the second weapon wielded in my off-hand), but if we require that the weapon in my main hand and the weapon in my off-hand remain identical throughout the entire round, it rather screws dagger throwers...




I still see no alcohol here.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Jun 2, 2007)

hong said:
			
		

> Passing from absolute to relative references without justification.




How so?

If we're talking absolute references, isn't the mace a third weapon wielded in my off hand, since the second weapon was the handaxe, when it was wielded in my off hand?

If the mace can be considered a second weapon because I'm currently wielding two, then so can the shortsword... even if the shortsword were earlier considered a first weapon, just as the mace was earlier considered neither first nor second.

-Hyp.


----------



## hong (Jun 2, 2007)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> How so?
> 
> If we're talking absolute references, isn't the mace a third weapon wielded in my off hand, since the second weapon was the handaxe, when it was wielded in my off hand?




No, the mace is still the mace. The handaxe is still the handaxe.



> If the mace can be considered a second weapon because I'm currently wielding two, then so can the shortsword... even if the shortsword were earlier considered a first weapon, just as the mace was earlier considered neither first nor second.




No, the shortsword remains the shortsword. The mace remains the mace. And never the twain shall meet.

I still see no alcohol here.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Jun 2, 2007)

hong said:
			
		

> No, the mace is still the mace. The handaxe is still the handaxe.




Which is the second weapon when I make my first attack with the longsword, while wielding longsword and handaxe?

Which is the second weapon when I make my off-hand attack with the mace, while wielding longsword and mace?

-Hyp.


----------



## hong (Jun 2, 2007)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> Which is the second weapon when I make my first attack with the longsword, while wielding longsword and handaxe?




The weapon that is not the longsword.



> Which is the second weapon when I make my off-hand attack with the mace, while wielding longsword and mace?




The weapon that is not the longsword.

I still see no alcohol here.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Jun 2, 2007)

hong said:
			
		

> The weapon that is not the longsword.




So at the start of the round, the second weapon is the handaxe, and at the end of the round, the second weapon is the mace.

What if, instead of dropping the handaxe, I drop the longsword and transfer the handaxe to my primary hand before drawing the mace with my off-hand?  Which is the second weapon now?  Both the weapons I am wielding are "the weapon that is not the longsword".

If two weapons can be the second weapon at different times during the round, why is it impossible that one of them be the longsword?

-Hyp.


----------



## hong (Jun 2, 2007)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> So at the start of the round, the second weapon is the handaxe, and at the end of the round, the second weapon is the mace.
> 
> What if, instead of dropping the handaxe, I drop the longsword and transfer the handaxe to my primary hand before drawing the mace with my off-hand?  Which is the second weapon now?  Both the weapons I am wielding are "the weapon that is not the longsword".




What if, the name that launched a thousand flights of fancy, as unto a golden apple thrown into the midst of a host.



> If two weapons can be the second weapon at different times during the round, why is it impossible that one of them be the longsword?




Because then it is still the longsword.

I still see no alcohol here.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Jun 2, 2007)

hong said:
			
		

> Because then it is still the longsword.




The mace may be 'the mace' and, at the same time, 'the second weapon'.

Bearing one designation does not preclude the other.

-Hyp.


----------



## hong (Jun 2, 2007)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> The mace may be 'the mace' and, at the same time, 'the second weapon'.




As long as it is still the mace.



> Bearing one designation does not preclude the other.




And yet it is called "Two Weapon Fighting", and not "Extra Attack Fighting".


----------



## Hypersmurf (Jun 2, 2007)

hong said:
			
		

> As long as it is still the mace.




But it may be the second weapon, without the necessity of also being the handaxe.



> And yet it is called "Two Weapon Fighting", and not "Extra Attack Fighting".




That's what the daggers are for - to ensure that every time I attack with the shortsword, I'm fighting with two weapons.

-Hyp.


----------



## hong (Jun 2, 2007)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> But it may be the second weapon, without the necessity of also being the handaxe.




Regardless, it is still the handaxe.



> That's what the daggers are for - to ensure that every time I attack with the shortsword, I'm fighting with two weapons.




Not if the shortsword remains the shortsword.

I still see no alcohol here.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Jun 2, 2007)

hong said:
			
		

> Regardless, it is still the handaxe.




The mace is never the handaxe.  The second weapon was the handaxe; the second weapon is no longer the handaxe.



> Not if the shortsword remains the shortsword.




Even if the shortsword remains the shortsword.  I have a shortsword and a dagger at all times.  If someone provoked an AoO with a readied action while the shortsword was in my right hand, I could take it with either the shortsword or the dagger.  If someone provoked an AoO with a readied action while the shortsword was in my left hand, I could take it with either the shortsword or the dagger.

While the shortsword is in my right hand, I am wielding a second weapon in my off-hand - the dagger.  While the shortsword is in my left hand, I am wielding a second weapon in my off-hand - the shortsword.  

You can count the weapons, if you like.

-Hyp.


----------



## hong (Jun 2, 2007)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> The mace is never the handaxe.  The second weapon was the handaxe; the second weapon is no longer the handaxe.




I think we are confused.



> Even if the shortsword remains the shortsword.  I have a shortsword and a dagger at all times.




A shortsword, and a dagger, yes.



> If someone provoked an AoO with a readied action while the shortsword was in my right hand, I could take it with either the shortsword or the dagger.  If someone provoked an AoO with a readied action while the shortsword was in my left hand, I could take it with either the shortsword or the dagger.




And your point is...?



> While the shortsword is in my right hand, I am wielding a second weapon in my off-hand - the dagger.  While the shortsword is in my left hand, I am wielding a second weapon in my off-hand - the shortsword.




And hence it is still the shortsword, which is the shortsword that was the first weapon. Thus no TWF because it violates the abstraction.



> You can count the weapons, if you like.




Yes. I count a shortsword, and a shortsword.

I still see no alcohol here.


----------



## Veril (Jun 2, 2007)

I think consulting the rules here is relevant.  

to make more than 1 attack in a round requires the full attack action.  If you are using two weapon fighting to do this, you must state so, because you take a penalty on your attack roll with both primary and secondsry weapons (the penalty varies depending on feats and weapons used).  

Your statement of intent must therefore involve the fact that you intend to use two weapon fighting.  There is no way around this.  (You could abort and use a move action later if needed)

Under the rules for two weapon fighting it states "If you wield a second weapon in your off hand, you can get one extra attack per round with that weapon."

It is clear that your extra attack comes with the second weapon, and that must be the weapon being wielded in your off hand.  

It's clear that you must be wielding two weapons in order to perform two weapon fighting.  

It is clear that the weapon in your primaty hand is the first weapon

It is clear that the weapon in your off hand is the secondary weapon.  

It is clear that the first and second weapons are different weapon.  

From those it should be blindingly obvious that you cannot swap one weapon from your primary to your off hand and then attack with it, as this is the first weapon, and the extra attack comes from the second weapon.  

It is clear that at the time you *begin * to use two weapon fighting (doing a full attack) you must have two weapons in hand.  Otherwise it would not be legal to perform two weapon fighting (because of the penalties).  

I maintain that the weapon you make the offhand attack with must be the same as the one you began with.  Because of the penalties.

Hypersmurf's complicated example of attack, step, drop, draw, attack fails, because the new weapon drawn may impose different penalties on the attack roll that you have already resolved and therefor a different result.  

1st attack (longsword vs zombie AC10).  Assume rolls 11, -2 (2 weapon fighting) +2 from BAB/Strength).  that's a nett 11 vs AC 10, a hit.  damage kills zombie.  

5' step to skelly, drop handaxe, draw a heavy mace and attack skelly with that.  

At this point looking backwards we see that the 1st attack should have taken a additional -2 (from non-light in offhand) which would have resulted in the 1st attack missing.  This would result in a violation of the underlying space time continium and so cannot be allowed.  

Therefor to keep the rules consistant and prevent this sort of thing happening, and from all my previously earlier conclusiongs I would state the following

To use two weapon fighting in a round you must begin your attack sequence with the two weapons you intent to use throughout the full sequence of your attacks.


----------



## The Blow Leprechaun (Jun 2, 2007)

Veril said:
			
		

> I think consulting the rules here is relevant.



Ridiculous!


			
				Veril said:
			
		

> Under the rules for two weapon fighting it states "If you wield a second weapon in your off hand, you can get one extra attack per round with that weapon."



That pretty much says it all, doesn't it? You get one extra attack per round with *that* weapon. If you drop your initial offhand weapon, it's pretty tough to attack someone with it. 

Maybe if you drop it on their foot and it's big.


----------



## Ridley's Cohort (Jun 2, 2007)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> "appear to be" completely independent?
> 
> Let's say there is a zombie adjacent to me, and a skeleton 2 squares away.  I'm wielding a longsword and a handaxe; I have the Quick Draw feat, and a light mace available to draw.
> 
> ...




Rulewise, no.  Nothing in this sequece contradicts the RAW.

The question is what "completely independent" means -- that is as much as philosophical question as a rules question.

When I fight with a greatsword, the rest of my round is truly independent of the resolution of first attack.  I am not required to make any declarations at all.  I can observe the results of my first attack at full BAB, then decide whether to take a 5' step + my BAB-5 attack, or I can take a Move/MEA instead.

TWF fighting is more restrictive.  You _are_ fighting with a weapon in the off hand while you make your first attack from my POV -- you must declare you are fighting in TWF mode from the getgo and you must wield a weapon in the off hand.  That is how the basic mechanics work.

Now the resolution mechanics make this sequential.  Then the Quickdraw Feat bends these mechanics further.  (No problem there.  It is the nature of feats to bend reality.)

For all I care, you hit the skeleton with _both_ your handaxe and your light mace.  But due to the benefits of the reality bending effects of the Quickdraw Feat, we allow you to resolve the attack as a bludgeoning attack.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Jun 2, 2007)

Veril said:
			
		

> To use two weapon fighting in a round you must begin your attack sequence with the two weapons you intent to use throughout the full sequence of your attacks.




So the ITWF dagger-thrower is out of luck?  He's got a theoretical five attacks (+6/+1 BAB, Rapid Shot, and two off-hand attacks from ITWF), but as soon as he's thrown his first two daggers and Quick-Drawn two more, he no longer has the two weapons he began with.

-Hyp.


----------



## Ridley's Cohort (Jun 3, 2007)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> So the ITWF dagger-thrower is out of luck?  He's got a theoretical five attacks (+6/+1 BAB, Rapid Shot, and two off-hand attacks from ITWF), but as soon as he's thrown his first two daggers and Quick-Drawn two more, he no longer has the two weapons he began with.




That would be one reasonable interpretation wouldn't it?

I do doubt many DMs would be so stingy.

The "problem" is not one created by the basic mechanics of TWF, but by how to interpret the Quickdraw Feat.


----------



## hong (Jun 3, 2007)

Ridley's Cohort said:
			
		

> That would be one reasonable interpretation wouldn't it?
> 
> I do doubt many DMs would be so stingy.
> 
> The "problem" is not one created by the basic mechanics of TWF, but by how to interpret the Quickdraw Feat.



 And the fact that ranged attacks operate under a different paradigm to melee attacks. Silly D&D!


----------



## The Blow Leprechaun (Jun 3, 2007)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> So the ITWF dagger-thrower is out of luck?  He's got a theoretical five attacks (+6/+1 BAB, Rapid Shot, and two off-hand attacks from ITWF), but as soon as he's thrown his first two daggers and Quick-Drawn two more, he no longer has the two weapons he began with.
> 
> -Hyp.



This is a much trickier scenario. The two-weapon fighting rules explicitly mention being able to use it with thrown weapons, and the quick draw feat explicitly mentions being able to use _it_ with thrown weapons, so how do you combine them?

The way I see it, there are two reasonable options:
A) You set your penalties per set of thrown weapons (i.e. you have two darts out and you throw them, light weapons light penalty, but if you quickdraw bolas to follow them up with, heavy penalty on the next set of two).
B) You require that all weapons thrown during that attack be the same type for each corresponding hand.

B) sucks, I think. A)'s a little flakey. Not sure how to resolve it, since it's pretty explicit that you can do this.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Jun 3, 2007)

The Blow Leprechaun said:
			
		

> Not sure how to resolve it, since it's pretty explicit that you can do this.




And if you resolve it, aren't you accepting that it's possible to use TWF even if the off-hand weapon changes during the full attack action?



> And the fact that ranged attacks operate under a different paradigm to melee attacks.




They do, but that's got nothing to do with it, since the "Observe before continuing" concept is applicable to both ranged and melee attacks, and thus simultaneity is inapplicable to either.

-Hyp.


----------



## hong (Jun 3, 2007)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> And if you resolve it, aren't you accepting that it's possible to use TWF even if the off-hand weapon changes during the full attack action?




If it was with a ranged attack, yes? And why are we? Talking with rising inflections?




> They do, but that's got nothing to do with it,




Of course it does.



> since the "Observe before continuing" concept is applicable to both ranged and melee attacks, and thus simultaneity is inapplicable to either.




However, ranged attacks with thrown weapons explicitly involve one actual throw per attack roll, unlike the paradigm with melee attacks, regardless of simultaneity. As was mentioned before.

I still see no alcohol here.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Jun 3, 2007)

hong said:
			
		

> However, ranged attacks with thrown weapons explicitly involve one actual throw per attack roll, unlike the paradigm with melee attacks, regardless of simultaneity. As was mentioned before.




Right.  The ranged attack routine is one 'strike' per attack roll, where the melee weapon attack routine might be several.

But as long as simultaneity is deprecated in both cases, what difference does that make?  If one routine is temporally divorced from those preceding, how is it relevant whether the routine comprises a single 'strike' or several?

-Hyp.


----------



## hong (Jun 3, 2007)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> But as long as simultaneity is deprecated in both cases, what difference does that make?  If one routine is temporally divorced from those preceding, how is it relevant whether the routine comprises a single 'strike' or several?




Because sometimes it's okay to have lost the weapon before making the second strike, and sometimes it's not.

I still see no alcohol here.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Jun 3, 2007)

hong said:
			
		

> Because sometimes it's okay to have lost the weapon before making the second strike, and sometimes it's not.




Ahh.

-Hyp.


----------



## hong (Jun 3, 2007)

And so did enlightenment brighten the benighted lives of those who live in the shadow of narrow interpretations of broad principles. (More specifically, it's okay to have lost the weapon before making the second strike in the situation where ITWF is combined with Rapid Strike, because that refers to the ranged attack paradigm; whereas no such reference is made when only melee attacks are involved.)


----------



## Hypersmurf (Jun 3, 2007)

hong said:
			
		

> And so did enlightenment brighten the benighted lives of those who live in the shadow of narrow interpretations of broad principles.




It was more that it was the only answer I had to the "Just 'cos" argument.



> (More specifically, it's okay to have lost the weapon before making the second strike in the situation where ITWF is combined with Rapid Strike, because that refers to the ranged attack paradigm; whereas no such reference is made when only melee attacks are involved.)




But you've already said you're fine with the mace example, wherein only melee attacks are involved...?

-Hyp.


----------



## hong (Jun 3, 2007)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> It was more that it was the only answer I had to the "Just 'cos" argument.




The just cos argument encapsulates a litany of reasons whose explication is left as an exercise for the reader.



> But you've already said you're fine with the mace example, wherein only melee attacks are involved...?




Because I count a longsword, and a mace.

I still see no alcohol here.


----------



## Veril (Jun 3, 2007)

Hypersmurf raises the question about IUWTF and throwing daggers.  

ITWF says "In addition to the standard single extra attack you get with an off-hand weapon, you get a second attack with it, albeit at a -5 penalty. See the Two-Weapon Fighting special attack. "  
this clearly extends TWF and so should be considered to be under the same restructions as it.  i.e. the same weaon.  

Daggers are a thrown weapon.  So are nets, and spears.  The rules that apply to daggers as a thrown weapon also apply to spears.  Reread all the examples about but say spear or nets in place of daggers.  

Looking at the rules:

With no feats, you can throw a weapon from your primary hand and one from your secondary hand, with the apropriate penalties as a full round action.  Your base atk bonus is irrelevant.  that's it.  The only way to throw weapons faster than that, involves drawing them, and therefore you must have the quickkdraw feat.  which states:  

"A character who has selected this feat may throw weapons at his full normal rate of attacks (much like a character with a bow)."

It's clear from this when you read it, that the rate of attacks you get is as if you were using a bow.  

It is the quickdraw feat that lets you do this, not ITWF.  I would think it is permissable to throw a weapon from your off hand as well.  But no more than that.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Jun 3, 2007)

Veril said:
			
		

> It is the quickdraw feat that lets you do this, not ITWF.




So let's say I have ITWF and a Glove of Storing containing a dagger - but not Quickdraw.  I begin the round with shortsword and throwing axe.

I make my two iterative attacks with my shortsword against an adjacent opponent; I throw my axe as an off-hand attack, produce my dagger from the Glove of Storing as a free action, and... can or cannot throw it as a second off-hand attack?

-Hyp.


----------



## Veril (Jun 3, 2007)

I don't think you can throw the 2nd item.  To throw it you would have to be using ITWF and the item produced from the glove is not a valid target for yout TWF as it did not start in your hand.  ITWF builds on TWO and I believe is under all the same restrictions.  

Consider what if you produced a spear from the glove instead of a dagger - which is not a light weapon and thus would produce a different penalty on your previous attacks.


----------



## James McMurray (Jun 3, 2007)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> So let's say I have ITWF and a Glove of Storing containing a dagger - but not Quickdraw.  I begin the round with shortsword and throwing axe.
> 
> I make my two iterative attacks with my shortsword against an adjacent opponent; I throw my axe as an off-hand attack, produce my dagger from the Glove of Storing as a free action, and... can or cannot throw it as a second off-hand attack?
> 
> -Hyp.




I'd allow it. In the terms used in this discussion, it "doesn't violate the paradigm." In my own terminology, it "makes sense to me."


----------



## Kmart Kommando (Jun 4, 2007)

I had a monk character that started a flurry of blows, hit an adjacent opponent with my first 2 attacks, killing him, then drew a shuriken and threw it at another opponent at range for my third attack.

On the other hand, literally,  manipulating an object is generally a move action, so unless you're a psionic class with Hustle, getting a move action in the middle of a full attack isn't easy.

Switching which hand is holding a weapon isn't Quickdrawing a weapon.  Even more so after swinging said weapon in an attempt to strike someone with it.

Quickdraw lets you draw and throw a number of weapons equal to the number of attacks your BAB indicates.  TWF and the rest of that chain lets you do the same with your offhand, but only because you also have Quickdraw.  No Quickdraw, you're stuck throwing darts and shuriken.

You can start a turn with handaxe A and handaxe B, and take 2 melee hits on target C with handaxe A, throw handaxe A at target D, take 2 melee attacks on target E, and throw handaxe B at target D, provided you (1)have enough attacks allocated to you, (2)take all of the penalties associated with  each situation that granted those attacks, (4)make all allocated attacks with the corresponding weapons, and (5)make all of your attacks in order, from highest bonus to lowest bonus. 

From the Latest FAQ:


> Can a character with Quick Draw and a base attack
> bonus of +6 or better make a melee attack with one weapon
> and a ranged attack with another weapon in the same
> round? What if the melee weapon requires two hands to
> ...



Note the part about having to drop the longsword for drawing a dagger to throw (as to not incur TWF penalties).  When you're doing something that voluntarily affects your attack bonus, you need to declare it before you make an attack, otherwise, you're playing rock, paper, scissors, and switching when you see what the other guy's doing.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Jun 4, 2007)

Kmart Kommando said:
			
		

> On the other hand, literally,  manipulating an object is generally a move action, so unless you're a psionic class with Hustle, getting a move action in the middle of a full attack isn't easy.




I don't think even Hustle would let you take a Move action in the middle of a Full Attack action.



> No Quickdraw, you're stuck throwing darts and shuriken.




Darts are a move action to draw without the Quick Draw feat; they're not treated as ammunition like shuriken.



> You can start a turn with handaxe A and handaxe B, and take 2 melee hits on target C with handaxe A, throw handaxe A at target D, take 2 melee attacks on target E, and throw handaxe B at target D, provided you (1)have enough attacks allocated to you, (2)take all of the penalties associated with each situation that granted those attacks, (4)make all allocated attacks with the corresponding weapons, and (5)make all of your attacks in order, from highest bonus to lowest bonus.




Well, it's only multiple attacks gained from a high BAB that are required to be in order from highest bonus to lowest.



> From the Latest FAQ:




I'm curious as to what action the author of that answer would deem it to take up the axe in two hands once more.  For example, if the character had a third iterative attack, could he make it with his axe after throwing the javelin?

-Hyp.


----------



## Kmart Kommando (Jun 4, 2007)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> I don't think even Hustle would let you take a Move action in the middle of a Full Attack action.



yes, you certainly can. you can take you swift action any time during your round you want to, such as attacking 2 times, casting Quickened Truestrike, and attacking a third time. A Marshall ready an action to give everyone a move action before one or more of your attacks. A Warblade could attack a foe with a full attack, kill him early, use Sudden Leap to jump some distance as a swift action, and continue his full attack on someone else.  It's no different than taking a 5ft step before, between, or after attacks in your full attack.  They just haven't put the Swift Action into the SRD, but everyone who uses them knows what they can and can't do with one.




> Darts are a move action to draw without the Quick Draw feat; they're not treated as ammunition like shuriken.



 ok, so darts really do suck




> Well, it's only multiple attacks gained from a high BAB that are required to be in order from highest bonus to lowest.



and the extra attacks gained for the offhand mimic the main hand





> I'm curious as to what action the author of that answer would deem it to take up the axe in two hands once more.  For example, if the character had a third iterative attack, could he make it with his axe after throwing the javelin?
> 
> -Hyp.



likely less of an action than juggling a weapon to pretend it is 2 weapons to gain extra attacks.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Jun 4, 2007)

Kmart Kommando said:
			
		

> yes, you certainly can. you can take you swift action any time during your round you want to...




My mistake - I think I was recalling the 3E PsiHB version of Hustle, which granted an extra move action next round.  

Though I think there's still potential for interpretation over 3.5 Hustle.  You manifested the power as a swift action, and it allows you to make an additional move action in the current round... but it specifies 'in the current round', not immediately.  A free action (and therefore a swift action) can explicitly be taken while taking another action normally.  A move action can't - I can take a move action before or after a standard action, but not _during_ a standard action, for example.  Likewise, I can take a standard action before or after a move action, but not during the move action - otherwise feats like Shot on the Run would be pointless.

Hustle, manifested as a swift action, allows me to take an additional move action in the current round... but it doesn't state I can take an additional move action while taking another action normally.



> It's no different than taking a 5ft step before, between, or after attacks in your full attack.  They just haven't put the Swift Action into the SRD, but everyone who uses them knows what they can and can't do with one.




It's different, since 5' step can explicitly occur during another action, as can a free action (and therefore a swift action)... but not a move action.



> and the extra attacks gained for the offhand mimic the main hand




They have similar bonuses, but they are not multiple attacks because your BAB is high enough; they are multiple attacks because a/ you are wielding a second weapon in your off-hand, or b/ you have a feat (ITWF, GTWF, etc).  Just as Haste or Rapid Shot allow you multiple attacks, but not multiple attacks because your BAB is high enough.



> likely less of an action than juggling a weapon to pretend it is 2 weapons to gain extra attacks.




Just that it's the same FAQ that says switching hands is a move action.  If it allows removing a hand as a free action (implicit in the answer you quoted), and also allows putting a second hand on a weapon as a free action (hence my question), then you could switch hands as two free actions, rather than one move action.

-Hyp.


----------



## blargney the second (Jun 4, 2007)

Btw: Swift Actions and Immediate Actions are both in the SRD now.
-blarg


----------



## Veril (Jun 4, 2007)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> Just that it's the same FAQ that says switching hands is a move action.  If it allows removing a hand as a free action (implicit in the answer you quoted), and also allows putting a second hand on a weapon as a free action (hence my question), then you could switch hands as two free actions, rather than one move action.
> 
> -Hyp.




The action of putting a weapon into a hand in order to wield it is called drawing a weapon andf it is and a move action (feats may help reduce this etc).  The action does not state where you draw it from - in this case you drew it from the other hand.  Claiming that you are using two free actions to accomplish this does not change the meaning of the action.  

As an example where the breakdown of an action is not the same as the total action:  Speaking is a free action.  Casting a spell with a verbal only component only requires a character to speak.  It is still a standard action to cast a verbal only spell which has a casting time of 1 standard action.  It is not a free action, even though it only involvs speach.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Jun 5, 2007)

Veril said:
			
		

> The action of putting a weapon into a hand in order to wield it is called drawing a weapon andf it is and a move action (feats may help reduce this etc).  The action does not state where you draw it from - in this case you drew it from the other hand.  Claiming that you are using two free actions to accomplish this does not change the meaning of the action.




Let's say a DM introduces two actions that are missing from the actions table - kneel from prone, and stand from kneeling.  He calls them both move actions that do not provoke an AoO.

Standing from prone is a move action that provokes an AoO.

If, on his turn, a prone character kneels and then stands, how many move actions have been expended?  Has an AoO been provoked?

-Hyp.


----------



## Kmart Kommando (Jun 5, 2007)

Well, then, why don't we just introduce a feat, called Juggle Weapon Fighting, which lets you juggle a weapon and pretend it is two weapons?  

If we're going to make stuff up, why don't we just go for the gold?


----------



## Hypersmurf (Jun 5, 2007)

Kmart Kommando said:
			
		

> If we're going to make stuff up, why don't we just go for the gold?




The kneeling condition exists, with bonuses and penalties to AC defined.  But how do you get there?

There's a stand from prone action.  There's a drop prone action.  What action is it to achieve the kneeling condition?

-Hyp.


----------



## James McMurray (Jun 5, 2007)

One assumes you tell the GM that you'd like to kneel.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Jun 5, 2007)

James McMurray said:
			
		

> One assumes you tell the GM that you'd like to kneel.




Using what type of action?  Provoking an AoO?

-Hyp.


----------



## hong (Jun 5, 2007)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> Using what type of action?  Provoking an AoO?
> 
> -Hyp.



 I think you should test this. Kneel before your DM.

I still see no alcohol here.


----------



## James McMurray (Jun 5, 2007)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> Using what type of action?  Provoking an AoO?
> 
> -Hyp.




Who cares? 

If you find it mattering for you (outside of theoretical circle jerking) I suggest you go with whatever you and your players feel is best. Democracy In Action and all that.


----------



## hong (Jun 5, 2007)

I wish my players would kneel before me.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Jun 5, 2007)

James McMurray said:
			
		

> Who cares?




It matters for the analogy.

We have one set of actions which are undefined and under debate (removing a hand from a weapon held in two hands; placing a second hand on a weapon held in one hand).  We have another set of actions which are undefined (kneeling from prone; standing from kneeling).

The way in which one set of actions should be treated once we assign an action type to them (move action not provoking an AoO for the kneeling set) should give us a consistent basis from which to adjudicate how the other set of actions should be treated once we assign an action type to them (free action for placing/removing a hand).

-Hyp.


----------



## hong (Jun 5, 2007)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> It matters for the analogy.
> 
> We have one set of actions which are undefined and under debate (removing a hand from a weapon held in two hands; placing a second hand on a weapon held in one hand).  We have another set of actions which are undefined (kneeling from prone; standing from kneeling).
> 
> ...



 Why?

I still see no alcohol here.


----------



## Darkness (Jun 5, 2007)

Cheers, mate.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Jun 5, 2007)

hong said:
			
		

> Why?




Because they're both examples of arriving at the same result as one action, via two different actions.

-Hyp.


----------



## hong (Jun 5, 2007)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> Because they're both examples of arriving at the same result as one action, via two different actions.
> 
> -Hyp.



 In different contexts, for which different solutions may be appropriate.

I still see no alcohol here, Darkness notwithstanding.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Jun 5, 2007)

hong said:
			
		

> In different contexts, for which different solutions may be appropriate.




How so?

Either the end dictates what the action type was, or the means can influence that determination.

Why should it be the end in one case and the means in the other?

-Hyp.


----------



## hong (Jun 5, 2007)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> How so?




I think we are again confused.



> Either the end dictates what the action type was,




The end being different situations with nothing in common except being vaguely covered by the ruleset.



> or the means can influence that determination.




The means being the way in which the ruleset handles the underlying abstraction.



> Why should it be the end in one case and the means in the other?




To preserve the integrity of the underlying abstraction, of course.

I still see no alcohol here, Darkness notwithstanding.


----------



## blargney the second (Jun 5, 2007)

DM: Kneel before Zod, son of Jor-el!
PC: But won't that provoke an AoO?


----------



## Veril (Jun 5, 2007)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> Let's say a DM introduces two actions that are missing from the actions table - kneel from prone, and stand from kneeling.  He calls them both move actions that do not provoke an AoO.
> 
> Standing from prone is a move action that provokes an AoO.
> 
> ...




The player has used a move action and a standard action - used as a move action.  No AoO was provoked, under the specific conditions you described.  With the house rules you introduced.  

The player could have stood up as a move action, provoking a AoO and then taken a standard action after if he wished.  

However this is has no relevance to the ongoing discussion.  It does not establish a framework for discussion the actions as per the RAW.  

The rules are pretty simple and pretty explicit to my mind in this case.  "Drawing a weapon" is the action of putting a weapon into your hand in a wieldable manner when it was not there before.  There is no need to make up additional stuff when the RAW already defiens it.  

Simply because you can use another combination of multiple "free action" to seemingly accomplish something does not change the *intent* of your actions.  I refer you back to the analagous case that I already quoted.  Speach (a free action) and a verbal only spell.  If speach is a free action, I can speak the words of a spell which is verbal only I could argue that I can cast the spell as a free action.  And the rules are clear that yu cannot do this, because there is an action pre-defined for this, called "cast a spell"


----------



## James McMurray (Jun 5, 2007)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> How so?
> 
> Either the end dictates what the action type was, or the means can influence that determination.
> 
> ...




Because life (and that subset of life known as RPG rulesets) usually doesn't handle blanket statements which are that broad. Different situations must sometimes be handled differently.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Jun 5, 2007)

Veril said:
			
		

> The rules are pretty simple and pretty explicit to my mind in this case.  "Drawing a weapon" is the action of putting a weapon into your hand in a wieldable manner when it was not there before.  There is no need to make up additional stuff when the RAW already defiens it.




But it's necessary to know about switching hands in certain circumstances.  The wizard with a quarterstaff who wishes to cast a spell with a somatic component - he needs to take a hand off his staff, and put it back on.  What actions does it cost to do so?  Can he still threaten with his staff if he has cast a spell and moved this round?

If you feel that a free action to place a hand on a weapon you are already holding is not sufficient to prepare it for combat, that's fine... but it must apply to the barbarian and the wizard as well as to someone switching a sword from hand to hand.



> Simply because you can use another combination of multiple "free action" to seemingly accomplish something does not change the *intent* of your actions.




In the earlier example, my intent was to get to my feet.  Your answer was that the means (kneeling then standing) meant it was two move actions, not one move actions.  Why did the intent (getting to my feet) fix it as a single move action provoking an AoO?



> I refer you back to the analagous case that I already quoted.  Speach (a free action) and a verbal only spell.  If speach is a free action, I can speak the words of a spell which is verbal only I could argue that I can cast the spell as a free action.  And the rules are clear that yu cannot do this, because there is an action pre-defined for this, called "cast a spell"




Speaking is not sufficient to cast even a verbal-only spell.  There is concentration required - the verbal-only spell, for example, may provoke an AoO when speaking does not, because casting a spell - even a verbal-only one - requires more care and effort than simply speaking.

-Hyp.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Jun 5, 2007)

James McMurray said:
			
		

> Because life (and that subset of life known as RPG rulesets) usually doesn't handle blanket statements which are that broad.




It's a fundamental mechanic, though.

We have three states - A, B, and C.

There is an A-B action.  There is a B-C action.  There is an A-C action.

If I start the round in state A and end the round in state C, do we retrospectively declare that I must have taken the A-C action?  Or could I have taken one of two paths - A-C, _or_ A-B then B-C?

The answer to this question should be a principle of the system as a general rule.

Whichever answer it _is_, fine... but it should be applicable to all situations.

-Hyp.


----------



## James McMurray (Jun 5, 2007)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> In the earlier example, my intent was to get to my feet.  Your answer was that the means (kneeling then standing) meant it was two move actions, not one move actions.  Why did the intent (getting to my feet) fix it as a single move action provoking an AoO?




If the intent was to rise from fallen to standing, why did you take two other actions that your GM was forced to create? It seems to me that the actual intent of taking those two actions is to prove some sort of point in an online debate, and not really tied to a character changing position at all.



> If I start the round in state A and end the round in state C, do we retrospectively declare that I must have taken the A-C action? Or could I have taken one of two paths - A-C, or A-B then B-C?




We use whichever actions the character used to get there. If for some reason you decided that you wanted to spend two move actions standing up instead of one, then that's what happened.



> The answer to this question should be a principle of the system as a general rule.




Why?


----------



## Artoomis (Jun 5, 2007)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> But it's necessary to know about switching hands in certain circumstances.  The wizard with a quarterstaff who wishes to cast a spell with a somatic component - he needs to take a hand off his staff, and put it back on.  What actions does it cost to do so?  Can he still threaten with his staff if he has cast a spell and moved this round?...-Hyp.




The most consistent answer might be "No." - Or in the alternative, he cannot cast the spell while holding a two-handed weapon.

The rules seem to be set up to keep it from being too easy to cast a spell - you must have hand free.  If you allow one to shift things around, cast the spell, and then shift back, you have effectively nullified the requirement to have a hand free, which sounds like violating the rules to me.

In this case, given the lack of actual rule, it seems like the rules on drawing a weapon would be the best, most balanced approach.  All too often it seems like the cleric wants to use a two-handed weapon and cast spells, or use a weapon and shield and still cast spells.  That's really not supposed to be allowed, it seems to me.

I think the whole business of shifting wielded items around form hand to hand (or shifting grips) should be explicitly dealt with in the rules.

The easier one makes it to cast spells and also wield a weapon or two, the closer one comes to marginilizing the non-spell using fighter.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Jun 5, 2007)

James McMurray said:
			
		

> If the intent was to rise from fallen to standing, why did you take two other actions that your GM was forced to create?




In this case?  To avoid the AoO a single move action would have provoked.



> We use whichever actions the character used to get there. If for some reason you decided that you wanted to spend two move actions standing up instead of one, then that's what happened.




Right.  And if I use the Place-Second-Hand-On-Weapon free action, and the Remove-One-Hand-From-Weapon free action, I've transferred a weapon from one hand to the other as two free actions, not one move action.  

Under the assumption that Place-Second-Hand-On-Weapon and Remove-One-Hand-From-Weapon are considered free actions... which I've stated from the beginning is a necessary assumption to make for the attack-switch-attack scenario to work.



> Why?




Because it speaks to the fundamental nature of an action-based resolution system.  If I get from this point to that point and make an attack, it's necessary to know if it was a move action and an attack action, or a charge action, to adjudicate other things.

If I have a sword in my right hand, and then it's in my left hand, it's necessary to know which actions were taken to make that happen so I can determine what else I can do.

-Hyp.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Jun 5, 2007)

Artoomis said:
			
		

> All too often it seems like the cleric wants to use a two-handed weapon and cast spells, or use a weapon and shield and still cast spells.  That's really not supposed to be allowed, it seems to me.




It seems to me to be the point of a light shield - which allows you to hold (but not wield) a weapon.

The cleric with heavy shield and mace - can't cast.

The cleric with light shield and mace - can cast, by holding his mace in his shield hand temporarily.

-Hyp.


----------



## James McMurray (Jun 5, 2007)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> In this case?  To avoid the AoO a single move action would have provoked.




Then you obvisouly used two move actions. Why did you need to ask what you'd done if you already knew?



> Right.  And if I use the Place-Second-Hand-On-Weapon free action, and the Remove-One-Hand-From-Weapon free action, I've transferred a weapon from one hand to the other as two free actions, not one move action.




Different paradigms, different requirements for underlying principles.



> Because it speaks to the fundamental nature of an action-based resolution system.  If I get from this point to that point and make an attack, it's necessary to know if it was a move action and an attack action, or a charge action, to adjudicate other things.




And those things are already defined. You simply tell your GM whether you want to move and attack, charge, 5' step and full attack, or whatever. Those actions existing has no bearing on the nonexistence of actions you're trying to use. Or in other words, what isn't defined is using a single weapon in an attempt to attack with two weapon fighting.



> If I have a sword in my right hand, and then it's in my left hand, it's necessary to know which actions were taken to make that happen so I can determine what else I can do.




Of course. And you're going to have to house rule it, because the rules themselves are silent in the texts, and contradictory on the website. Or I should say, the rules state that this is a move action to ready a weapon but you disagree. If you come up with a house rule that allows two weapon fighters to carry a single weapon, but it works for your group, then your paradigms are maintained and all is right with your (make believe) world.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Jun 5, 2007)

James McMurray said:
			
		

> Or I should say, the rules state that this is a move action to ready a weapon but you disagree.




To draw a weapon.  Nothing about 'readying' one already drawn.

-Hyp.


----------



## Artoomis (Jun 5, 2007)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> It seems to me to be the point of a light shield - which allows you to hold (but not wield) a weapon.
> 
> The cleric with heavy shield and mace - can't cast.
> 
> ...




Ah, but that's assuming switching hands like that does not take up an action (or, perhaps, is a free action).

I don't have this completely worked out (I think it needs to be published in the rules), but I see something like this as  good approach:

1.  Wielding a weapon (regardless of where it is when no being wielded) is a move action - or can be done as part of a move, unless one has teh "Quick Draw" feat.

2.  Shifting grips is the same as (1) when shifting back to wielding the weapon. 

3.  Shifting away from wielding (like transfering to the off-hand, or removing one hand form a two-0handed wepon) is a Free Action.

Both (2) and (3) assume you are not actually putting the weapon away (sheathing it)

This makes it cost a Move Action to cast spells whilw wielding a weapon with both hands occupied (shield, tow-handed weapon, whatever).  This seems quite reasonable and concistent with other stated rules on drawing weapons.

It's not entirely perfect, but seems quite workable and easy to implement.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Jun 6, 2007)

Artoomis said:
			
		

> Ah, but that's assuming switching hands like that does not take up an action (or, perhaps, is a free action).




And this is where Skip Williams and Andy Collins differed - Skip called it a free action (in the 3E Main FAQ and the Rules of the Game), while Andy called it a move action (in the 3.5 Main FAQ).

-Hyp.


----------



## Artoomis (Jun 6, 2007)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> And this is where Skip Williams and Andy Collins differed - Skip called it a free action (in the 3E Main FAQ and the Rules of the Game), while Andy called it a move action (in the 3.5 Main FAQ).
> 
> -Hyp.




And Andy's ruling is the more recent "official" one and applies to 3.5e.  So we know that is WotC's official position on this issue, for whatever you think that is worth.


----------



## Veril (Jun 6, 2007)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> In the earlier example, my intent was to get to my feet.  Your answer was that the means (kneeling then standing) meant it was two move actions, not one move actions.  Why did the intent (getting to my feet) fix it as a single move action provoking an AoO?




Your first sentance contains a lie by ommission.  
Your intention was to get to your feet *avoiding an AoO*

Your second sentance contains a further lie by ommission.  
In the RAW it is a move action to stand up and it provokes an AoO.  You specifically introduced a house rules where by you could use a move action to go from prone to kneel avoiding an AoO and then a rule to rise from knees to standing avoiding an AOO again as a move action.  I'm afraid you have raised a strawman here.  My answer specifically addressed this.  Your reply quoted above ignores this fact, and attempts to distort the underlying arguement.  

If you would care to restate the case using RAW rather than creating a houserule and then abstracting from the houserule to how that afects the RAW I'll happily refute your arguements.  

Your final sentance is a question.  
The rules as written state than standing up from prone is a move action the provokes AoO


----------



## Hypersmurf (Jun 6, 2007)

Veril said:
			
		

> Your first sentance contains a lie by ommission.
> Your intention was to get to your feet *avoiding an AoO*




My intention was to get to my feet.  Two routes to this end were available; one move action, provoking an AoO, or two move actions, without provoking an AoO.



> You specifically introduced a house rules where by you could use a move action to go from prone to kneel avoiding an AoO and then a rule to rise from knees to standing avoiding an AOO again as a move action.




It's necessary to introduce some sort of rule to cater for the kneeling condition.  It's necessary to introduce some sort of rule to cater for placing/removing a hand on or from a weapon.

The two situations are analogous. Once the rule to cater for the kneeling condition is added, we have two routes to choose from to go from prone to standing.  Once the rule for placing/removing a hand is added, we have two routes (assuming 'draw a weapon' counts as one) to choose from to go from having a weapon in the right hand to having a weapon in the left hand.

If you'd permit me to select which I wish to use to go from prone to standing, why would you forbid me to select which I wish to use to go from right hand to left hand?



> If you would care to restate the case using RAW rather than creating a houserule and then abstracting from the houserule to how that afects the RAW I'll happily refute your arguements.




Since the rule for placing/removing a hand does not currently exist (as with the rule for kneeling), it's impossible to avoid house rules.

-Hyp.


----------



## Veril (Jun 6, 2007)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> But it's necessary to know about switching hands in certain circumstances.  The wizard with a quarterstaff who wishes to cast a spell with a somatic component - he needs to take a hand off his staff, and put it back on.  What actions does it cost to do so?  Can he still threaten with his staff if he has cast a spell and moved this round?




Releasing the weapon from one hand so that it would fall to the floor (all other things being equal) is a free action.  It does not in fact fall to the floor becasue the other hand is still holding it - it is now an item being held, but not wielded.  He then has a free hand and can cast a spell.  He can then move, and if he has a BAB of +1 or more can "draw the weapon" back into both hands in combination with the move.  And thus would threaten.  

(Kind of Reality Check:  I've used a quarterstaff in LRP, you cannot just grab it at any arbitary two points - you need to have your hands at the "correct" places on it to fight with it effectivly - taking hold of it again is more than a free action)



			
				Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> If you feel that a free action to place a hand on a weapon you are already holding is not sufficient to prepare it for combat, that's fine... but it must apply to the barbarian and the wizard as well as to someone switching a sword from hand to hand.




I agree.  It should apply to both.  And it does apply to both.


----------



## hong (Jun 6, 2007)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> It's a fundamental mechanic, though.
> 
> We have three states - A, B, and C.
> 
> ...




It depends, of course.



> The answer to this question should be a principle of the system as a general rule.




No, the answer to this question should be whatever is best for that situation.



> Whichever answer it _is_, fine... but it should be applicable to all situations.




All situations that are deemed similar to that particular situation.

I still see no alcohol here.


----------



## hong (Jun 6, 2007)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> Because it speaks to the fundamental nature of an action-based resolution system.




No, it speaks to the fundamental nature of an action-based resolution system in a particular circumstance.



> If I have a sword in my right hand, and then it's in my left hand, it's necessary to know which actions were taken to make that happen so I can determine what else I can do.




You make your normal iterative attacks, of course.

I still see no alcohol here.


----------



## hong (Jun 6, 2007)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> If you'd permit me to select which I wish to use to go from prone to standing, why would you forbid me to select which I wish to use to go from right hand to left hand?




Of course you can go from right hand to left hand. It will simply have no effect on the attack rolls you make. Just as noone stops you from wearing a striped shirt with plaid shorts, it just won't affect your AC.

I still see no alcohol here.


----------



## Veril (Jun 6, 2007)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> If you'd permit me to select which I wish to use to go from prone to standing, why would you forbid me to select which I wish to use to go from right hand to left hand?
> -Hyp.




Under the context of houserules introduced to allow things it's clearly allowed.  



			
				Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> Since the rule for placing/removing a hand does not currently exist (as with the rule for kneeling), it's impossible to avoid house rules.
> -Hyp.




"Dropping an item in your space or into an adjacent square is a free action."  Perform a drop action with one hand while not doing anything with the other.  This allows you to remove one hand from a weapon.  


equipping a weapon - by which I mean taking it from a state where you cannot make an attack action with the weapon to a state where you can make an attack action is a very specific action in the rules.  It's called drawing a weapon.  And it is a move action.  
The SRD says "Drawing a weapon so that you can use it in combat, or putting it away so that you have a free hand, requires a move action."


----------



## James McMurray (Jun 6, 2007)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> To draw a weapon.  Nothing about 'readying' one already drawn.
> 
> -Hyp.




"Drawing a weapon so that you can use it in combat, or putting it away so that you have a free hand, requires a move action."

Where does it state that drawing it from one hand into another doesn't count?

Or better yet, what page number says that changing hands, in any number of steps, is a free action?

We have the rules that say that preparing a weapon for attacking requires a move action. The FAQ says it requires a move action to switch hands. RotG says it's a free action to switch hands.

So we have a rule that can be construed to mean it takes a move action. We have two non-book sources in disagreement.

So, like I said, the rule says something and you disagree. Whether you technically disagree with the rule or with my interpretation is immaterial. The fact of the matter is that you need a house rule.

Unless you've got a page number?


----------



## Hypersmurf (Jun 6, 2007)

James McMurray said:
			
		

> "Drawing a weapon so that you can use it in combat, or putting it away so that you have a free hand, requires a move action."
> 
> Where does it state that drawing it from one hand into another doesn't count?




What definition of 'drawing' includes shifting an item from one hand to another?



> We have the rules that say that preparing a weapon for attacking requires a move action.




If I'm carrying a longsword and a torch, and I drop the torch as a free action, can I make a full attack with the longsword wielded in two hands (for 1.5x Str bonus to damage and 2-for-1 Power Attack)?  Or do I need to spend a move action to change from wielding with one hand to wielding with two hands first?

Note that my sword is already 'drawn', and I can already 'use it in combat'; I just want to use both hands instead of one.

-Hyp.


----------



## James McMurray (Jun 6, 2007)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> What definition of 'drawing' includes shifting an item from one hand to another?




Several of them. 



> If I'm carrying a longsword and a torch, and I drop the torch as a free action, can I make a full attack with the longsword wielded in two hands (for 1.5x Str bonus to damage and 2-for-1 Power Attack)?  Or do I need to spend a move action to change from wielding with one hand to wielding with two hands first?




I personally would allow you to immediately attack. So what? It has nothing to do with trying to *two* weapon fight with *one* weapon, which is what you're trying to do.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Jun 6, 2007)

James McMurray said:
			
		

> I personally would allow you to immediately attack. So what?




So if I can put an extra hand on a weapon without it costing a move action, and I can take a hand off a weapon without it costing a move action, I can switch a weapon from one hand to the other without it costing a move action by doing both in succession.



> It has nothing to do with trying to *two* weapon fight with *one* weapon, which is what you're trying to do.




It's a necessary prelude to trying to make primary and off-hand attacks with the same weapon.  If it's not possible to change a weapon from one hand to the other in the middle of a full attack action, then whether or not one can make primary and off-hand attacks with the same weapon is a meaningless question, since the weapon can't be in alternate hands in the same full attack anyway.  So the question can only have meaning if changing hands is possible.

-----

There is, of course, another avenue of argument for making primary and off-hand attacks with the same weapon.  Let's say I have the TWF but not the ITWF feat, and a BAB of +6.  I have a scimitar in my right hand, and a whip in my left.  Can I take a full attack action to make two iterative attacks with the whip?

-Hyp.


----------



## James McMurray (Jun 6, 2007)

You're fighting with two weapons, and haven't broken the paradigm.

You did notice that the title of the section we're discussing is "*Two* Weapon Fighting," didn't you?


----------



## hong (Jun 6, 2007)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> It's a necessary prelude to trying to make primary and off-hand attacks with the same weapon.




Which is something ruled out by the underlying abstraction, and hence a question of no interest.



> If it's not possible to change a weapon from one hand to the other in the middle of a full attack action, then whether or not one can make primary and off-hand attacks with the same weapon is a meaningless question, since the weapon can't be in alternate hands in the same full attack anyway.  So the question can only have meaning if changing hands is possible.




No, the question can only have meaning if not already prohibited by the underlying abstraction.



> There is, of course, another avenue of argument for making primary and off-hand attacks with the same weapon.  Let's say I have the TWF but not the ITWF feat, and a BAB of +6.  I have a scimitar in my right hand, and a whip in my left.  Can I take a full attack action to make two iterative attacks with the whip?




Yes. You can even do it if you had a whip in your left hand, and nothing in your right hand!


----------



## Hypersmurf (Jun 6, 2007)

hong said:
			
		

> Yes. You can even do it if you had a whip in your left hand, and nothing in your right hand!




And my off-hand is my weaker or less-dextrous hand (usually my left).  I'm wielding a second weapon in my off-hand, so I can elect to make an extra off-hand attack with that weapon (incurring penalties on attacks with my primary hand, of which I'm making none, and attacks with my off-hand, of which I'm making three).



> Which is something ruled out by the underlying abstraction, and hence a question of no interest.




The underlying abstraction isn't rules, and doesn't rule.  The rules are what rule.

The underlying abstraction is shaped by the rules.



			
				James MacMurray said:
			
		

> You did notice that the title of the section we're discussing is "Two Weapon Fighting," didn't you?




And the Deflect Arrows feat lets me deflect arrows, _and also javelins_.  The name of the section doesn't alter that the rules of the feat allow me to deflect javelins; the name of the Two-Weapon Fighting section doesn't alter that the rules allow me to make an extra off-hand attack with a second weapon wielded in my off-hand.

-Hyp.


----------



## hong (Jun 6, 2007)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> And my off-hand is my weaker or less-dextrous hand (usually my left).




Prove it.



> I'm wielding a second weapon in my off-hand, so I can elect to make an extra off-hand attack with that weapon (incurring penalties on attacks with my primary hand, of which I'm making none, and attacks with my off-hand, of which I'm making three).




No, because I count a whip, and a whip.



> The underlying abstraction isn't rules, and doesn't rule.  The rules are what rule.




The underlying abstraction is what gives rise to the rules. That's what "underlying" means. If the rules contradict the abstraction, the rules have failed.



> The underlying abstraction is shaped by the rules.




No, the rules are shaped by the abstraction.

I still see no alcohol here.



> And the Deflect Arrows feat lets me deflect arrows, _and also javelins_.  The name of the section doesn't alter that the rules of the feat allow me to deflect javelins; the name of the Two-Weapon Fighting section doesn't alter that the rules allow me to make an extra off-hand attack with a second weapon wielded in my off-hand.




When you are fighting with two weapons, which is the nature of the underlying abstraction. The fact that the feat name better reflects this in one case but not the other does nothing to change that.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Jun 6, 2007)

hong said:
			
		

> Prove it.




It's the definition of 'off-hand' in the PHB?



> The underlying abstraction is what gives rise to the rules. That's what "underlying" means. If the rules contradict the abstraction, the rules have failed.




That doesn't make them invalid; it means your suspension of disbelief takes some damage.

But the rules still define how the game reality plays out.  If the rules and your 'underlying abstraction' aren't in synch, it means that the game reality plays out differently to what you'd expect your 'underlying abstraction' to do.



> When you are fighting with two weapons...




I _am_ fighting with two weapons.  I'm fighting with a scimitar and a whip, and in the course of doing so, I'm making three attack rolls with the whip, and no attack rolls with the scimitar.

-Hyp.


----------



## James McMurray (Jun 6, 2007)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> And the Deflect Arrows feat lets me deflect arrows, _and also javelins_.  The name of the section doesn't alter that the rules of the feat allow me to deflect javelins; the name of the Two-Weapon Fighting section doesn't alter that the rules allow me to make an extra off-hand attack with a second weapon wielded in my off-hand.
> 
> -Hyp.




do you think that it's possible that the developers assumed that when they entitled the section "two" weapon fighting, and then went on to specify that you needed a "second" weapon that it never crossed their minds that someone might be so ludicrous as to try to use the "two" weapon fighting rules to fight with "a singular" weapon?

Obviously with Deflect Arrows they specified what it works against. They had a cool name they wanted to use which didn't exactly model the paradigm they were aiming for, so they expanded the definition of the feat to include the entire paradigm. With TWF you can argue all you want about what the meaning of the word "is is, but at the end of the day, it's two weapon fighting and never says that it isn't.


----------



## hong (Jun 6, 2007)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> It's the definition of 'off-hand' in the PHB?




I see no off-hand definition.



> That doesn't make them invalid; it means your suspension of disbelief takes some damage.




Given that we are talking about imaginary people in an imaginary world doing imaginary things, hurting suspension of disbelief is the exact way in which rules fail.



> But the rules still define how the game reality plays out.




And if that game reality plays out in a way contradictory to how the abstraction mandates, that indicates a failure of reality, ie a failure of the rules.



> If the rules and your 'underlying abstraction' aren't in synch, it means that the game reality plays out differently to what you'd expect your 'underlying abstraction' to do.




Exactly. And hence the rules have failed.




> I _am_ fighting with two weapons.  I'm fighting with a scimitar and a whip, and in the course of doing so, I'm making three attack rolls with the whip, and no attack rolls with the scimitar.




No, you are fighting with a whip and holding a scimitar. Because that is what the abstraction mandates.


----------



## hong (Jun 6, 2007)

James McMurray said:
			
		

> do you think that it's possible that the developers assumed that when they entitled the section "two" weapon fighting, and then went on to specify that you needed a "second" weapon that it never crossed their minds that someone might be so ludicrous as to try to use the "two" weapon fighting rules to fight with "a singular" weapon?
> 
> Obviously with Deflect Arrows they specified what it works against. They had a cool name they wanted to use which didn't exactly model the paradigm they were aiming for, so they expanded the definition of the feat to include the entire paradigm. With TWF you can argue all you want about what the meaning of the word "is is, but at the end of the day, it's two weapon fighting and never says that it isn't.



 We're in HyperWorld now, the land of spherical cows.


----------



## Moon-Lancer (Jun 6, 2007)

just to add to this cluster  of a thread... what hand do you use when making an offhand attack with spiked armor? i think that really says it all.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Jun 6, 2007)

hong said:
			
		

> I see no off-hand definition.




You're not looking hard enough.



> And if that game reality plays out in a way contradictory to how the abstraction mandates, that indicates a failure of reality, ie a failure of the rules.




But still doesn't make them say something different.



> No, you are fighting with a whip and holding a scimitar. Because that is what the abstraction mandates.




And yet, were an AoO provoked, it would be with the scimitar I took it.  Because the abstraction mandates that since I'm threatening with it, it's dangerous to do silly things in reach of it.

... since I'm fighting with a scimitar, after all.

-Hyp.


----------



## hong (Jun 6, 2007)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> But still doesn't make them say something different.




Pick 1 of 2 possible punchlines.

1. But it does make them ignorable.

2. That depends on what you mean by different.




> And yet, were an AoO provoked, it would be with the scimitar I took it.  Because the abstraction mandates that since I'm threatening with it, it's dangerous to do silly things in reach of it.
> 
> ... since I'm fighting with a scimitar, after all.




Possibly. Did you make an attack with that scimitar?


----------



## Hypersmurf (Jun 6, 2007)

hong said:
			
		

> Possibly. Did you make an attack with that scimitar?




Are you talking about an attack roll, or the underlying abstraction?

-Hyp.


----------



## hong (Jun 6, 2007)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> Are you talking about an attack roll, or the underlying abstraction?
> 
> -Hyp.



 I am talking about the attack roll that represents what you did in the underlying abstraction.

(Nothing stops you making an attack roll targeting the air, for instance. This is a legal fiction used to make the ruleset compatible with the requirements for TWF in the abstraction. Contrived, but convenient.)


----------



## Hypersmurf (Jun 6, 2007)

hong said:
			
		

> I am talking about the attack roll that represents what you did in the underlying abstraction.




I'm not making an attack roll.  I'm wielding the scimitar.  I'm threatening with the scimitar.  I'm fighting with the scimitar; I'm just not making an attack roll with the scimitar.

-Hyp.


----------



## hong (Jun 6, 2007)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> I'm not making an attack roll.  I'm wielding the scimitar.  I'm threatening with the scimitar.  I'm fighting with the scimitar; I'm just not making an attack roll with the scimitar.
> 
> -Hyp.



 If you are not making an attack roll with the scimitar (even if only to attack the air) then the legal fiction is not satisfied, hence the abstraction is not satisfied. Lazy smurf!


----------



## Hypersmurf (Jun 6, 2007)

hong said:
			
		

> If you are not making an attack roll with the scimitar (even if only to attack the air) then the legal fiction is not satisfied, hence the abstraction is not satisfied. Lazy smurf!




The legal fiction I must satisfy is "wielding a second weapon in your off-hand".

I am.  It's the whip.

-Hyp.


----------



## hong (Jun 6, 2007)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> The legal fiction I must satisfy is "wielding a second weapon in your off-hand".




No, the abstraction you must satisfy is "fight with two weapons". The legal fiction is used in support of that.



> I am.  It's the whip.




I count a whip, and a whip.

I still see no alcohol here.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Jun 6, 2007)

hong said:
			
		

> No, the abstraction you must satisfy is "fight with two weapons".




I am.  A scimitar and a whip.

-Hyp.


----------



## hong (Jun 6, 2007)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> I am.  A scimitar and a whip.
> 
> -Hyp.



 No, you are fighting with a whip and holding a scimitar.

I still see no alcohol here.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Jun 6, 2007)

hong said:
			
		

> No, you are fighting with a whip and holding a scimitar.




How do I retain the potential to make an AoO with the scimitar if I'm not fighting with it?

-Hyp.


----------



## hong (Jun 6, 2007)

You are fighting with it, if you make an attack with it.

I still see no alcohol here.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Jun 6, 2007)

hong said:
			
		

> You are fighting with it, if you make an attack with it.




So if my first attack with the whip provokes an AoO, which the opponent takes as a Disarm, provoking an AoO which I take with my scimitar... _then_ I'm fighting with the scimitar and may make my three attacks with the whip?

-Hyp.


----------



## hong (Jun 6, 2007)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> So if my first attack with the whip provokes an AoO, which the opponent takes as a Disarm, provoking an AoO which I take with my scimitar... _then_ I'm fighting with the scimitar and may make my three attacks with the whip?




Naughty smurf, introducing another area where the regular iterative attack paradigm does not apply!

I still see no alcohol here.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Jun 6, 2007)

hong said:
			
		

> Naughty smurf, introducing another area where the regular iterative attack paradigm does not apply!




I hadn't even gotten to Haste, yet!

-Hyp.


----------



## hong (Jun 6, 2007)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> I hadn't even gotten to Haste, yet!
> 
> -Hyp.



 And I still see no alcohol here.


----------



## Veril (Jun 6, 2007)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> What definition of 'drawing' includes shifting an item from one hand to another?




It is your intention to attack with it.  It was not in a state where you could attack, to being in a state where you can attack with it.  The action the causes an object to move from one of those states to the other is defined in RAW as drawing a weapon and is a move action.  let me quote it from RAW "Drawing a weapon so that you can use it in combat"

a two handed weapon (a staff) being held in one hand only may not be used in combat.  
a two handed weapon held in both hands may be used in combat.  
It mas moved between those states.  There is a defined action for this.  you used the defined action.  
The rules do not state where you draw the weapon from



			
				Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> If I'm carrying a longsword and a torch, and I drop the torch as a free action, can I make a full attack with the longsword wielded in two hands (for 1.5x Str bonus to damage and 2-for-1 Power Attack)?  Or do I need to spend a move action to change from wielding with one hand to wielding with two hands first?
> -Hyp.




You have changed the state of the weapon. 
Was the weapon initially wielded in 2 hands doing 1.5* str damage?  No.  
So it moved into that state.  
It's a move action as defined by the rules under draw a weapon.


My general look on this keeps the rules simple, consistant and avoids all the silly rules lawyering.  It looks at "what you are doing" not "how you are doing it".  I believe that fits best with the D&D rules abstraction (your attack roll with a melee weapon is the result of several swings not a single swing).


----------



## Veril (Jun 6, 2007)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> There is, of course, another avenue of argument for making primary and off-hand attacks with the same weapon.  Let's say I have the TWF but not the ITWF feat, and a BAB of +6.  I have a scimitar in my right hand, and a whip in my left.  Can I take a full attack action to make two iterative attacks with the whip?
> 
> -Hyp.




Yes.

Although you  could have 3 not 2 attacks.  One at BAB 6 (normal iterative), one at bab 1 (normal iterative), and one at bab 6 (TWF)

You obviously take the penalties for fighting with the off hand weapon on *all* of the attack rolls made with that weapon (-2 in this instancefor light+twf), even if no attacks are made with the weapon in your primary hand.  And obviously you only get str*.5 on the offhanded weapon attacks.


----------



## hong (Jun 6, 2007)

Veril said:
			
		

> My general look on this keeps the rules simple, consistant and avoids all the silly rules lawyering.




In HyperWorld, rules lawyer you.


----------



## cwhs01 (Jun 6, 2007)

hong said:
			
		

> And I still see no alcohol here.




hmm. I must admit that i skimmed through most of the last 100 posts, so could someone explain how alcohol affects twf skills? Does it allow for the switcheroo trick? 

Or did i miss some subtle insinuations as to the relevance of the discussion? If the last is correct, then why the heck has the thread continued for so long... Lets just skip the rest and get back to the  innuendo and double entendres of the first couple posts.


----------



## hong (Jun 6, 2007)

cwhs01 said:
			
		

> hmm. I must admit that i skimmed through most of the last 100 posts, so could someone explain how alcohol affects twf skills? Does it allow for the switcheroo trick?




The abstraction underlying the ruleset is immune to being given the runaround, except if alcohol is provided. So far, no alcohol has been provided.


----------



## cwhs01 (Jun 6, 2007)

hong said:
			
		

> The abstraction underlying the ruleset is immune to being given the runaround, except if alcohol is provided. So far, no alcohol has been provided.




Fair enough... Then i say back to the innuendoing people.


----------



## James McMurray (Jun 6, 2007)

hong said:
			
		

> We're in HyperWorld now, the land of spherical cows.




Are they orbital?


----------



## werk (Jun 6, 2007)

hong said:
			
		

> The abstraction underlying the ruleset is immune to being given the runaround, except if alcohol is provided. So far, no alcohol has been provided.




Thanks for that, I had no idea to what you were referring.

:cheers:


----------



## Hypersmurf (Jun 6, 2007)

Veril said:
			
		

> It is your intention to attack with it.  It was not in a state where you could attack, to being in a state where you can attack with it.  The action the causes an object to move from one of those states to the other is defined in RAW as drawing a weapon and is a move action.  let me quote it from RAW "Drawing a weapon so that you can use it in combat"
> 
> a two handed weapon (a staff) being held in one hand only may not be used in combat.
> a two handed weapon held in both hands may be used in combat.
> ...




If the sword is on the floor, do I use the 'Pick up an item' action, or the 'Draw a weapon' action?

If I use the 'Pick up an item' action, do I then need to take the 'Draw a weapon' action in addition so I can use it in combat?



> You have changed the state of the weapon.
> Was the weapon initially wielded in 2 hands doing 1.5* str damage?  No.
> So it moved into that state.
> It's a move action as defined by the rules under draw a weapon.




And if I wish to take a hand _off_ a one-handed weapon wielded in two hands, the same?  It's going from a state wielded in two hands dealing 1.5x damage, and moving to a state wielded in one hand dealing 1x damage.

If it's a two-handed weapon, going from a state wielded in two hands dealing 1.5x damage, and moving to a state held (but unwieldable) in one hand?



> Although you could have 3 not 2 attacks. One at BAB 6 (normal iterative), one at bab 1 (normal iterative), and one at bab 6 (TWF)
> 
> You obviously take the penalties for fighting with the off hand weapon on all of the attack rolls made with that weapon (-2 in this instancefor light+twf), even if no attacks are made with the weapon in your primary hand. And obviously you only get str*.5 on the offhanded weapon attacks.




So your objection is not to do with making both normal and extra off-hand attacks with the same weapon, just with the mechanics of shifting hands?

-Hyp.


----------



## James McMurray (Jun 6, 2007)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> If the sword is on the floor, do I use the 'Pick up an item' action, or the 'Draw a weapon' action?




Which one do you feel best describes the action you're taking?


----------



## Veril (Jun 7, 2007)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> If the sword is on the floor, do I use the 'Pick up an item' action, or the 'Draw a weapon' action?
> 
> If I use the 'Pick up an item' action, do I then need to take the 'Draw a weapon' action in addition so I can use it in combat?




I echo Jame's comment.  whch one best describes what you are doing?  

since pick up provokes AoO it's more involved than draw, and I think that it would include draw.  In addition, anyone with BAB of +1 gets to to draw as a free action in combination with a move action.  



			
				Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> And if I wish to take a hand _off_ a one-handed weapon wielded in two hands, the same?  It's going from a state wielded in two hands dealing 1.5x damage, and moving to a state wielded in one hand dealing 1x damage.




Hmm, yes, strictly speaking it should be a draw action.  From my experience using a bastardsword You do in fact fight very differently with a weapoon in 1 hand from a weapon in 2 hands.  your stance changes.  However I think I would allow it as a free action as described earlier.   (what is true for the wizard is true for the barbarian, and performing a drop action with 1 hand)




			
				Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> So your objection is not to do with making both normal and extra off-hand attacks with the same weapon, just with the mechanics of shifting hands?
> 
> -Hyp.




Yes.

Rather than detailing the machanics of "how you are doing something" look at "what you are doing".  You don't describe your attacks in D&D in terms of swinging high then coming in fast and low, you state that you are making an attack and roll the D20.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Jun 7, 2007)

Veril said:
			
		

> I echo Jame's comment.  whch one best describes what you are doing?
> 
> since pick up provokes AoO it's more involved than draw, and I think that it would include draw.  In addition, anyone with BAB of +1 gets to to draw as a free action in combination with a move action.




In combination with a regular move, not with a move action.  That is, while moving up to my speed with a move action.  I can't combine drawing a weapon with standing from prone, or loading a light crossbow, or opening a door; I can combine drawing a weapon with a regular move.



> Hmm, yes, strictly speaking it should be a draw action.




The draw action is used for _drawing a weapon_ to make it ready for combat.

Making a weapon ready for combat doesn't necessitate the Draw a Weapon action.  _Drawing a weapon to make it ready for combat_ is what requires the Draw a Weapon action.

If the weapon is on the floor, it doesn't need to be drawn.  If the weapon is in my hand, it doesn't need to be drawn.  It's already out!

It's like if there were a "Purchase a pie in order to eat it" action.  I have a pie in my pocket, and since I want to eat it, I have to take the Purchase a Pie action.  But it's nonsense - I want to eat it, but the Purchase a Pie action only applies if I need to purchase it in order to eat it.  I don't - I already own it.

If my sword is in my hand, the Draw a Weapon action is inapplicable.  It's already drawn.

If I'm wielding the sword in one hand, and I want to wield it in two, which action best describes what I'm doing - Put Hand on Weapon, or Draw a Weapon?  Since I _am_ putting a hand on a weapon, and I am _not_ drawing a weapon, I'd say it's the former.



> From my experience using a bastardsword You do in fact fight very differently with a weapoon in 1 hand from a weapon in 2 hands. your stance changes.




Would you say the stance used to throw a knife is different to the stance used to stab with a knife?  If I'm fighting in melee with my dagger, and then wish to throw it, would this 'strictly speaking' require a Draw a Weapon action?

-Hyp.


----------



## Veril (Jun 7, 2007)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> If my sword is in my hand, the Draw a Weapon action is inapplicable.  It's already drawn.
> 
> If I'm wielding the sword in one hand, and I want to wield it in two, which action best describes what I'm doing - Put Hand on Weapon, or Draw a Weapon?  Since I _am_ putting a hand on a weapon, and I am _not_ drawing a weapon, I'd say it's the former.




The corollory of that first quoted statement is :  If the sword is not in your hand then the draw a weapon action is applicable.  

The second paragraph has the sword not in both hands and going to being in both hands.  

We will just have to disagree.  You think it is a free action to change hands and I don't.  

Here is what your ruling allows:  Mr Base attack +16 Fighter.  
Starts with the sword in his primary hand, strikes with it at +16 (str*1), uses a free action to put it into both hands and strikes at +11 (str*1.5), then he uses a free action to let go with the primary and strikes with the seondary at +6 (*.5 str), then puts the primary back on as a free action and strikes at +1 (str*1.5).  Then he takes his secondary hand off as a free action at the end of the round and begins using his snatch arrow feat t0 throw back daggers at opponents.  

Again under your ruling, Joe the BAB 16 fighter with a sword in his right hand, uses a free action to put hie left hand on the weapon.  He then uses a free action toe take his right hand off the weapon.  Now he uses his empty right hand to make a stunning attack at his full BAB (he has the relevant feats).  He then swaps the sword into both hands wit  1 free action by placing his right hand on the weapon makes the rest of his iterative attacks with the sword in his both handa (+11, +6, +1 and Str*1.5).  

Fred the cleric with a light shield and a heavy mace swaps the heavy mace to his shield hand (with 2 free actions) casts a spell (with his now free hand) and swaps the weapon back to his primary hand again using 2 free action as already described.  

Arrant nonesnese.


----------



## Veril (Jun 7, 2007)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> Would you say the stance used to throw a knife is different to the stance used to stab with a knife?  If I'm fighting in melee with my dagger, and then wish to throw it, would this 'strictly speaking' require a Draw a Weapon action?
> 
> -Hyp.




Regarding taking a hand off the bastardsword, I said I think it should be a free action (what is true for the wizard with a staff is true for the barb with an axe).  

and as for the dagger no.  It's already in the hand you are going to use it for.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Jun 7, 2007)

Veril said:
			
		

> The corollory of that first quoted statement is :  If the sword is not in your hand then the draw a weapon action is applicable.




No - that's taking "A dog is not a cat", and drawing the conclusion "That is not a dog, therefore it is a cat".  

"A sword in my hand is already drawn" does not yield the conclusion "A sword not in my hand is not drawn".  It _does_ tell us "An undrawn sword is not in my hand".

A sword on the floor (but not sheathed) is drawn; it is not ready for combat, because I'm not holding it.



> The second paragraph has the sword not in both hands and going to being in both hands.




It has a drawn sword not in both hands going to being in both hands. 

We will just have to disagree.  You think it is a free action to change hands and I don't.  



> Again under your ruling, Joe the BAB 16 fighter with a sword in his right hand, uses a free action to put hie left hand on the weapon.  He then uses a free action toe take his right hand off the weapon.  Now he uses his empty right hand to make a stunning attack at his full BAB (he has the relevant feats).  He then swaps the sword into both hands wit  1 free action by placing his right hand on the weapon makes the rest of his iterative attacks with the sword in his both handa (+11, +6, +1 and Str*1.5).
> 
> Fred the cleric with a light shield and a heavy mace swaps the heavy mace to his shield hand (with 2 free actions) casts a spell (with his now free hand) and swaps the weapon back to his primary hand again using 2 free action as already described.




These two sound fine to me.



> Starts with the sword in his primary hand, strikes with it at +16 (str*1), uses a free action to put it into both hands and strikes at +11 (str*1.5), then he uses a free action to let go with the primary and strikes with the seondary at +6 (*.5 str), then puts the primary back on as a free action and strikes at +1 (str*1.5).  Then he takes his secondary hand off as a free action at the end of the round and begins using his snatch arrow feat t0 throw back daggers at opponents.




This one bothers me, for the same reason I'd disallow greatsword and armor spikes - I'm not convinced the rules permit making a two-handed attack and an off-hand attack.

If those two-handed attacks were straight primary (one-handed) attacks, or if he didn't avail himself of the off-hand attack, I'd have no problem with this example.



> and as for the dagger no. It's already in the hand you are going to use it for.




So "change of stance" isn't really anything to do with the action required.



> Regarding taking a hand off the bastardsword, I said I think it should be a free action (what is true for the wizard with a staff is true for the barb with an axe).




So "going from not being in both hands to being in both hands" requires the Draw a Weapon action, because the state is changing, but "going from not being in one hand to being in one hand" doesn't, despite the state changing?

-Hyp.


----------



## James McMurray (Jun 8, 2007)

Hyp, go reread those definitions of draw that you asked for and I provided. If a hand is an applicable source to be drawn from, why not the floor?


----------



## Kmart Kommando (Jun 8, 2007)

If you are holding the sword in one hand, and wish to make an attack with the sword using the other hand, then the sword is not drawn, in relation to the hand that you wish to be wielding it.  

Therefore, you must draw it into the hand with which you intend to make the attack roll, using the Draw Weapon action.

BTW, a whip and a scimitar are both one-handed weapons, so that's a -4 to each, assuming TWF.

Also:


> If you wield a second weapon in your off hand, you can get one extra attack per round with that weapon.



 Not with any weapon you choose, with the second weapon.  If you didn't use the first weapon, then the assumed second weapon does not exist, and is in fact the first weapon.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Jun 8, 2007)

James McMurray said:
			
		

> Hyp, go reread those definitions of draw that you asked for and I provided. If a hand is an applicable source to be drawn from, why not the floor?




I don't think a hand _is_ an applicable source to be drawn from.  That's Veril's assertion.

The definition that's applicable to a sword:
_2. to bring, take, or pull out, as from a receptacle or source_

Switching hands isn't taking it out of a receptacle or source.  It's just moving it.

Pulling it out of a scabbard, or a stone - that's drawing it.



> BTW, a whip and a scimitar are both one-handed weapons, so that's a -4 to each, assuming TWF.




Yup.



> Not with any weapon you choose, with the second weapon. If you didn't use the first weapon, then the assumed second weapon does not exist, and is in fact the first weapon.




If I didn't _wield_ the first weapon.  Whether or not I attack with the first weapon, the requirement is that I _wield_ a second weapon.  For a wielded weapon to be a second weapon, all that is required is that another weapon be wielded, not that I attack with it.

-Hyp.


----------



## hong (Jun 8, 2007)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> If I didn't _wield_ the first weapon.  Whether or not I attack with the first weapon, the requirement is that I _wield_ a second weapon.  For a wielded weapon to be a second weapon, all that is required is that another weapon be wielded, not that I attack with it.




To be precise, you have to wield it in combat. Which means that you attack with it.

I still see no alcohol here.


----------



## James McMurray (Jun 8, 2007)

So you don't think a hand can be a source?


----------



## Hypersmurf (Jun 8, 2007)

James McMurray said:
			
		

> So you don't think a hand can be a source?




I don't think a hand is a source from which a weapon is drawn.

A well is a source from which water is drawn.  A hand is a source from which a weapon is taken.  The act of taking a sword from a hand is not drawing it.

-Hyp.


----------



## hong (Jun 8, 2007)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> I don't think a hand is a source from which a weapon is drawn.
> 
> A well is a source from which water is drawn.  A hand is a source from which a weapon is taken.  The act of taking a sword from a hand is not drawing it.




Prove it.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Jun 8, 2007)

hong said:
			
		

> Prove it.




Next we'll be advocating the Draw a Weapon action instead of Craft: Sketch or Perform: Street Artist if I want to render an image of a sword in chalk...

-Hyp.


----------



## hong (Jun 8, 2007)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> Next we'll be advocating the Draw a Weapon action instead of Craft: Sketch or Perform: Street Artist if I want to render an image of a sword in chalk...
> 
> -Hyp.



 Now, now. After all, we're in HyperWorld where people can do ten impossible things before breakfast. Like fighting with two weapons using one weapon.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Jun 8, 2007)

hong said:
			
		

> Now, now. After all, we're in HyperWorld where people can do ten impossible things before breakfast. Like fighting with two weapons using one weapon.




While wielding two.

-Hyp.


----------



## hong (Jun 8, 2007)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> While wielding two.




No, while using one.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Jun 8, 2007)

hong said:
			
		

> No, while using one.




While wielding two, and making attack rolls with one.

-Hyp.


----------



## hong (Jun 8, 2007)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> While wielding two, and making attack rolls with one.
> 
> -Hyp.



 Exactly. While using one.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Jun 8, 2007)

hong said:
			
		

> Exactly. While using one.




But wielding two.

Which is, after all, the requirement.

-Hyp.


----------



## hong (Jun 8, 2007)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> But wielding two.




While using one.



> Which is, after all, the requirement.




No, you have to fight with two weapons to be fighting with two weapons.

I still see no alcohol here.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Jun 8, 2007)

hong said:
			
		

> No, you have to fight with two weapons to be fighting with two weapons.




You have to wield a second weapon in your off-hand for Two-Weapon Fighting.

-Hyp.


----------



## hong (Jun 8, 2007)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> You have to wield a second weapon in your off-hand for Two-Weapon Fighting.




No, to satisfy the underlying abstraction, you have to use a second weapon in your off-hand for Two-Weapon Fighting.

I still see no alcohol here.


----------



## Hairfoot (Jun 8, 2007)

Have you two ever thought about using your powers for good, instead of evil?  Imagine the contirbution you could make to string theory or corporate law.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Jun 8, 2007)

hong said:
			
		

> No, to satisfy the underlying abstraction...




Whose?

-Hyp.


----------



## hong (Jun 8, 2007)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> Whose?
> 
> -Hyp.



 The people involved in the game under discussion, of course.

Is there any other that matters?


----------



## Kmart Kommando (Jun 8, 2007)

Actually, if Two Weapon Fighting works how Hypersmurf says it does, then you'd also have to take the -10 to all attacks you make with that offhand weapon.

Although, it does say -6 with all your primary attack or attacks, and -10 with your offhand attack. (singular)  So your offhand 'flurry' still doesn't work.


----------



## Veril (Jun 8, 2007)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> So "going from not being in both hands to being in both hands" requires the Draw a Weapon action, because the state is changing, but "going from not being in one hand to being in one hand" doesn't, despite the state changing?
> 
> -Hyp.




The state is changing with the off hand.  from not being wileded to being wielded.  That's a draw action with that hand.  

Letting go is a free action (drop action)


----------



## James McMurray (Jun 8, 2007)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> I don't think a hand is a source from which a weapon is drawn.
> 
> A well is a source from which water is drawn.  A hand is a source from which a weapon is taken.  The act of taking a sword from a hand is not drawing it.
> 
> -Hyp.




You are of course free to think that, but it doesn't change the English language. I will at this time gesticulate with great glee to the fact that take and draw are synonyms. Or did you not actually read the definition of draw:

2. to bring, *take,* or pull out, as from a receptacle or source

Now it's your turn. Please find me the definition of two that means one.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Jun 9, 2007)

James McMurray said:
			
		

> You are of course free to think that, but it doesn't change the English language. I will at this time gesticulate with great glee to the fact that take and draw are synonyms. Or did you not actually read the definition of draw:
> 
> 2. to bring, *take,* or pull out, as from a receptacle or source




You're reading the commas wrong.

That's not bring; or take; or pull out.  It's bring out; or take out; or pull out.

And according to your site, chestnut and salmon are synonyms.  Despite this, "That car is chestnut in colour" and "That car is salmon in colour" will somehow manage to conjure wholly different images in people's minds.  The words might be synonyms, but that doesn't mean they're used in the same way.

That's how one of the ESL students when I was at high school ended up writing in his essay that "The 100m relays were the orgasm of the athletics day".

-Hyp.


----------



## Sound of Azure (Jun 9, 2007)

hong said:
			
		

> I still see no alcohol here.




Odd but legal, eh?


----------



## hong (Jun 9, 2007)

That's too big to use as an avatar.


----------



## James McMurray (Jun 9, 2007)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> You're reading the commas wrong.
> 
> That's not bring; or take; or pull out.  It's bring out; or take out; or pull out.




What's your point? It still doesn't change that you're taking the weapon out of the hand, thus drawing it from a source.



> And according to your site, chestnut and salmon are synonyms.  Despite this, "That car is chestnut in colour" and "That car is salmon in colour" will somehow manage to conjure wholly different images in people's minds.  The words might be synonyms, but that doesn't mean they're used in the same way.




So what you're saying is that if you break a paradigm and introduce something silly that looks legal but doesn't actually fit, the results are nonsensical?

I agree completely, and am glad you finally understand.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Jun 9, 2007)

James McMurray said:
			
		

> What's your point? It still doesn't change that you're taking the weapon out of the hand, thus drawing it from a source.




And it still doesn't change that removing a sword from a hand is not an appropriate use of 'draw'.

English synonyms are subtler than that.

-Hyp.


----------



## James McMurray (Jun 9, 2007)

I'm not talking synonymns, that was merely an amusing afterthought. I'm talking direct definitions. you know, those things I linked to several times. 

Since you apparently can't follow the links on your own, I'll spell it out for you:

1) draw: to bring, take, or pull out, as from a receptacle or source

boiled down to its essence, this simply says "to take." If you feel a source is a mandatory part of that definition despite the "as from" part, then it means "to take from a source."

2) source: any thing or place from which something comes, arises, or is obtained; origin

Again, boiled down this simply says "anywhere something comes from." 

3) draw therefore means "to take from anywhere something comes from."

4) hand: (noun) the terminal, prehensile part of the upper limb in humans and other primates, consisting of the wrist, metacarpal area, fingers, and thumb. 

A hand, being a noun, is most definitely a contender for status of "any thing or place"

Unless you're contending that the sword is not coming from the hand but from some other location, it is most definitely being taken from the hand, and therefore drawn from the hand.

Again, it's your turn to show where two can equal one.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Jun 10, 2007)

James McMurray said:
			
		

> Unless you're contending that the sword is not coming from the hand but from some other location, it is most definitely being taken from the hand, and therefore drawn from the hand.




If I drive my car out of the garage, I am bringing it out from a source.

But I'm not drawing it.

English is more subtle than that.

-Hyp.


----------



## Moon-Lancer (Jun 10, 2007)

he drew the car slowly out from the garage, the dark suspicious van on the other side of the street from last week was still their. They were probably listening to him right now, listening to the fear that pounded in his heart as adrenaline surged though his veins. 

seems to work just fine


----------



## hong (Jun 10, 2007)

It was a dark and stormy night. Suddenly, a sword drew out!


----------



## Veril (Jun 10, 2007)

Arugeing over English.  the last refuge of the desperate. 

D&D rules: drawing a weapon so you can make an attack with it is a move action.  

It's really really simple.  In the examples I quoted Hyp said he was uncomfortable with what can be done the way he thinks it should work, although fails to find any rules citation to disprove it.  

My method:  Putting a hand onto a weapon in order to attack using that hand being a draw action makes everything work and disalows all these silly corner cases.  

Keeps the sules, simple, clear and consistant.


----------



## James McMurray (Jun 10, 2007)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> If I drive my car out of the garage, I am bringing it out from a source.
> 
> But I'm not drawing it.
> 
> ...




Unless the car is a weapon you're readying to use in combat it's immaterial to the discussion at hand. If it is a weapon you're preparing to use in combat, then by both D&D and English definitions you drew it.

I agree that english can be subtle, but in this case the definitions are blatantly clear.

It's still your turn to explain how 2 is defined as 1. Since you've consistently ignored the request, I'll assume you can't do it and your entire argument falls apart.

Thank you for your time.


----------



## Ridley's Cohort (Jun 10, 2007)

I think the fundamental issue is whether a general principle can be deduced from a corner case.  I would not necessarily look to a feat such as Quickdraw for guidance on how I should understand the basic TWF rules.


----------



## Moon-Lancer (Jun 10, 2007)

hong said:
			
		

> It was a dark and stormy night. Suddenly, a sword drew out!




hahaha.  

subtle indeed.  

I cant tell if your making fun of me or someone else, but its still funny


----------



## Hypersmurf (Jun 10, 2007)

James McMurray said:
			
		

> It's still your turn to explain how 2 is defined as 1.




I'm not entirely sure what you're after, here.  Two isn't one.  Why does it need to be?

-Hyp.


----------



## Kmart Kommando (Jun 11, 2007)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> I'm not entirely sure what you're after, here.  Two isn't one.  Why does it need to be?
> 
> -Hyp.



I think what he means is: How can you fight with 2 weapons, with only 1 weapon?


----------



## Hypersmurf (Jun 11, 2007)

Kmart Kommando said:
			
		

> I think what he means is: How can you fight with 2 weapons, with only 1 weapon?




I've got three weapons!

The longsword and two different daggers.

And during any given attack, I have a second weapon in my off-hand.

-Hyp.


----------



## hong (Jun 11, 2007)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> I've got three weapons!




No, I count a longsword and a longsword.



> The longsword and two different daggers.




Which you are holding, not using.



> And during any given attack, I have a second weapon in my off-hand.




Which you must use to gain the benefit of TWF.

I still see no alcohol here.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Jun 11, 2007)

hong said:
			
		

> Which you must use to gain the benefit of TWF.




I am, when I make my off-hand attacks.

-Hyp.


----------



## hong (Jun 11, 2007)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> I am, when I make my off-hand attacks.
> 
> -Hyp.



 Not if I count a longsword, and a longsword.

I still see no alcohol here.


----------



## Kmart Kommando (Jun 11, 2007)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> I've got three weapons!
> 
> The longsword and two different daggers.
> 
> ...






> Your penalties on attack rolls for fighting with two weapons are reduced



Hmm, long sword, dagger, dagger...

Well, looks like your three weapon fighting puts you at -10 for all those offhand attacks.

English _is_ a fun language.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Jun 11, 2007)

Kmart Kommando said:
			
		

> Hmm, long sword, dagger, dagger...
> 
> Well, looks like your three weapon fighting puts you at -10 for all those offhand attacks.




Then the same thing applies to a dagger thrower.

-Hyp.


----------



## UnsocialEntity (Jun 11, 2007)

I really hope I didn't miss something important in pages 4-6... sorta had to skip to the end, heh.

Buuuut, from the SRD for two weapon fighting:
You can fight with a weapon in each hand. You can make one extra attack each round with the second weapon. 

When you make your offhand attacks with the longsword that was previously in your main hand, it's not a "second weapon". Sure, you have a weapon in your main hand and your offhand the entire time, but you're striking with the same weapon, so it doesn't qualify. 

Also from SRD:
If you wield a second weapon in your off hand, you can get one extra attack per round with that weapon

If you switch the long sword from your main hand (say right), to your offhand (left), your left hand remains your offhand. Therefore, when you go to make your offhand attack, you're no longer wielding a second weapon in your offhand, you're wielding the same weapon in your offhand.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Jun 11, 2007)

UnsocialEntity said:
			
		

> When you make your offhand attacks with the longsword that was previously in your main hand, it's not a "second weapon". Sure, you have a weapon in your main hand and your offhand the entire time, but you're striking with the same weapon, so it doesn't qualify.




So if I throw multiple daggers, and the first dagger is the 'second weapon', doesn't that make the second dagger a 'third weapon'?

-Hyp.


----------



## hong (Jun 11, 2007)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> So if I throw multiple daggers, and the first dagger is the 'second weapon', doesn't that make the second dagger a 'third weapon'?




I think we are again confused.


----------



## UnsocialEntity (Jun 11, 2007)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> So if I throw multiple daggers, and the first dagger is the 'second weapon', doesn't that make the second dagger a 'third weapon'?
> 
> -Hyp.




I'm sorry, you sort of confused me there. Could you give a complete example of the actions you'd be taking? The first dagger is the 'second weapon' seems to be what's throwing me off. I think I may have missed a post somewhere far back.

As far as throwing weapons in general however, from the SRD for quick draw:
A character who has selected this feat may throw weapons at his full normal rate of attacks (much like a character with a bow). 

So as far as throwing daggers, it acts like ammunition such as a bow with arrows. It no longer acts as seperate weapons. The feat itself "breaks" the normal rules, as listed.


----------



## James McMurray (Jun 11, 2007)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> I've got three weapons!
> 
> The longsword and two different daggers.
> 
> ...




The rules require you to attack with that second weapon*, not just have it around and drop it. Attacking with the first weapon is one weapon fighting. I can't find any text about one weapon fighting that gives you bonus attacks for wielding a first weapon in your off hand.

* You know, that rule that at least three people have quoted but you've ignored?


----------



## Veril (Jun 11, 2007)

In fact I believe you have to declare your intention to atttack with the 2nd weapon and take the penalties for it.  but in fact you can choose not to hit.


----------



## James McMurray (Jun 11, 2007)

That's true. You can't take any offhand attacks unless you've already taken the penalty for your main hand attacks, but the turn sequence allows you to stop at any time. In flavor text turns, effectively what you've done is gone to the effort to seek openings with your off hand, then declined to take any that popped up.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Jun 11, 2007)

UnsocialEntity said:
			
		

> As far as throwing weapons in general however, from the SRD for quick draw:
> A character who has selected this feat may throw weapons at his full normal rate of attacks (much like a character with a bow).




Let's say we have a character with a BAB of +6, ITWF, and Quick Draw.

What is his full normal rate of attacks?  How many attacks can he make with a bow?  How many attacks can he make throwing daggers with both hands?

-Hyp.


----------



## James McMurray (Jun 11, 2007)

4 attacks. 2 iterative attacks, one offhand attack, and one additional offhand attack for Improved Two Weapon Fighting.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Jun 11, 2007)

James McMurray said:
			
		

> That's true. You can't take any offhand attacks unless you've already taken the penalty for your main hand attacks, but the turn sequence allows you to stop at any time. In flavor text turns, effectively what you've done is gone to the effort to seek openings with your off hand, then declined to take any that popped up.




And this goes back to the zombie/skeleton axe/mace example.

If both of these are permissible:

1. Primary attack with longsword vs zombie; off-hand attack with handaxe vs zombie.
2. Primary attack with longsword vs zombie; drop handaxe; quick draw mace; 5' step; off-hand attack with mace vs skeleton.

... then 'seeking openings' is something that can be done throughout the course of the full attack action.  The fact that my off-hand weapon has changed during the round doesn't matter - I have an off-hand weapon when I wish to make an off-hand attack.

If you disagree that scenario 2 is legal (since the off-hand weapon is not the one I started with), then absolutely, it is not feasible to make both attacks with the longsword.

-Hyp.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Jun 11, 2007)

James McMurray said:
			
		

> 4 attacks. 2 iterative attacks, one offhand attack, and one additional offhand attack for Improved Two Weapon Fighting.




That's how many attacks he can make with a bow?

-Hyp.


----------



## James McMurray (Jun 11, 2007)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> And this goes back to the zombie/skeleton axe/mace example.
> 
> If both of these are permissible:
> 
> ...




The rules require your offhand attack to be with the weapon that was in your off hand when you started attacking. 2 is technically illegal. I personally would allow it, because it doesn't break what I consider to be the underlying idea of two weapon fighting. But that doesn't mean I'd allow a single weapon to be used for TWF.


----------



## James McMurray (Jun 11, 2007)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> That's how many attacks he can make with a bow?
> 
> -Hyp.




No, it's how many attacks he can make with thrown weapons using two weapon fighting. Assuming he has no bow feats, he gets 2 iterative attacks only.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Jun 11, 2007)

James McMurray said:
			
		

> No, it's how many attacks he can make with thrown weapons using two weapon fighting. Assuming he has no bow feats, he gets 2 iterative attacks only.




But if Quick Draw lets him make a number of attacks as if he were a character using a bow, isn't that two, not four?

And if Two Weapon Fighting technically requires you to use the same off-hand weapon for all off-hand attacks, how does Quick Draw (which refers to a bow, not Two-Weapon Fighting) overrule this for an off-hand dagger that's different to your other off-hand dagger?

-Hyp.


----------



## James McMurray (Jun 11, 2007)

It doesn't say he gets the same number of attacks as a bow user. It says he gets his full allotment of attacks with a ranged weapon, much like a bow user. It's talking about thrown weapons not giving full attacks at range but bows allowing them. Quick draw gives full attacks at range, much like a bow would.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Jun 11, 2007)

James McMurray said:
			
		

> It doesn't say he gets the same number of attacks as a bow user. It says he gets his full allotment of attacks with a ranged weapon, much like a bow user. It's talking about thrown weapons not giving full attacks at range but bows allowing them. Quick draw gives full attacks at range, much like a bow would.




But are off-hand attacks part of his 'full normal rate'?  Or are they additional attacks not covered by that phrase?

Bows allow full attacks at range; so does Quick Draw.  But Quick Draw says nothing about superceding a requirement for an off-hand weapon to remain consistent throughout that full attack.  You can still throw as many daggers as a bowman could shoot arrows... plus one, even, if you already had one dagger in your off-hand.

-Hyp.


----------



## UnsocialEntity (Jun 12, 2007)

I definately see what Mr. Smurf is getting at with the way quick draw/two weapon fighting/thrown weapons interacts. Unfortunately, I can't seem to find any specific rule that states two weapon fighting works with thrown weapons. Everyone seems to "know" it works, but where does the rule originate? I'd like to see if it has something that states how it gets around the normal rules.

If there are no exceptions, i'd say the rules break down and just don't actually work for throwing weapons with two weapon fighting. I'd still stick with saying you can't do the crazy "shift a weapon for dual wielding" combo.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Jun 12, 2007)

UnsocialEntity said:
			
		

> I definately see what Mr. Smurf is getting at with the way quick draw/two weapon fighting/thrown weapons interacts. Unfortunately, I can't seem to find any specific rule that states two weapon fighting works with thrown weapons. Everyone seems to "know" it works, but where does the rule originate? I'd like to see if it has something that states how it gets around the normal rules.




Two Weapon Fighting works fine... it's Improved Two Weapon Fighting where the problem arises...

... if one assumes that "the second weapon" is immutably fixed at the start of a full attack action, rather than referring to whatever second weapon happens to be in your off-hand right now.

-Hyp.


----------



## James McMurray (Jun 12, 2007)

Luckily for us, providing official answers to rules questions are what the FAQ was created for. 



> Can I throw weapons with both hands? What happens
> if I also use Rapid Shot?
> 
> The two-weapon fighting rules allow you to use thrown
> ...


----------



## Hypersmurf (Jun 12, 2007)

James McMurray said:
			
		

> Luckily for us, providing official answers to rules questions are what the FAQ was created for.




Notice he only throws one with his off-hand.  THe FAQ answer doesn't address whether or not your ITWF attack can be with a second weapon wielded in your off-hand that isn't the same second weapon wielded in your off-hand as the second weapon wielded in your off-hand that you used for the first off-hand attack.

-Hyp.


----------



## James McMurray (Jun 12, 2007)

Right, you're expected to be able to extrapolate. To not be afraid to apply your brain rather then require an airtight rulebook in legalese.

But whether or not it works with thrown weapons doesn't impact the scenario of changing hands with a single weapon, which quite explicitly doesn't work.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Jun 12, 2007)

James McMurray said:
			
		

> Right, you're expected to be able to extrapolate. To not be afraid to apply your brain rather then require an airtight rulebook in legalese.




I did that.  That's how I got the longsword-switch-longsword scenario.



> But whether or not it works with thrown weapons doesn't impact the scenario of changing hands with a single weapon, which quite explicitly doesn't work.




Quite explicitly where?

If you can use a second weapon that isn't the same second weapon with thrown weapons, that _does_ impact whether you can use a second weapon that isn't the same second weapon with melee weapons.

-Hyp.


----------



## James McMurray (Jun 13, 2007)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> Quite explicitly where?




In the quote that at least three others have posted and I've mentioned several times but you continually fail to address. Here it is one last time.



> If you wield a second weapon in your off hand, you can get one extra attack per round with that weapon.




TWF works with a sword and a dagger. When you attack with the sword, the dagger is *a second weapon in your off hand*. When you attack with a dagger, you are attacking with *that weapon.*

TWF works with a double weapon. When you attack with a staff in your right hand, it is not *a second weapon in your off hand*. However, at this point the double weapon rules step in and tell us it's ok.

TWF does not work with a single long sword and a dropped dagger. When you attack with the longsword, the dagger is *a second weapon in your off hand*. When you drop the dagger in an attempt to attack with the sword, you are no longer attacking with *that weapon.*.



> If you can use a second weapon that isn't the same second weapon with thrown weapons, that does impact whether you can use a second weapon that isn't the same second weapon with melee weapons.




Not at all. Because using ITWF with a thrown weapon is my interpretation. Not being able to use two weapon fighting rules with a single sword is the RAW.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Jun 13, 2007)

James McMurray said:
			
		

> Not at all. Because using ITWF with a thrown weapon is my interpretation. Not being able to use two weapon fighting rules with a single sword is the RAW.




If you feel that using ITWF with a thrown weapon is strictly illegal, but you choose to allow it anyway, I find no inconsistency in your position... and that position does, indeed, forbid longsword-switch-longsword.

If you feel that using ITWF with a thrown weapon is permitted by the RAW, but using multiple second weapons in melee is not, I take issue with it.

I've based the viability of longsword-switch-longsword from the beginning on the premise that the mace example is permitted.  If the mace example is deemed illegal, then I agree that so is longsword-switch-longsword.  I only hold out for longsword-switch-longsword if the mace example is permitted... but I feel that any reading that permits ITWF with thrown weapons (in the absence of an explicit house rule to allow it in isolation) also permits the mace example, which in turn enables longsword-switch-longsword.

-Hyp.


----------



## Kmart Kommando (Jun 13, 2007)

Actually, the rules say that the benefits of two weapon fighting apply when you throw a weapon with each hand, so swing sword, throw, throw isn't even covered.


----------



## James McMurray (Jun 13, 2007)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> If you feel that using ITWF with a thrown weapon is strictly illegal, but you choose to allow it anyway, I find no inconsistency in your position... and that position does, indeed, forbid longsword-switch-longsword.
> 
> If you feel that using ITWF with a thrown weapon is permitted by the RAW, but using multiple second weapons in melee is not, I take issue with it.
> 
> ...




I wish I'd realized you were arguing the validity of a house rule long ago. I could have stayed out of it and saved myself some confusion.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Jun 13, 2007)

James McMurray said:
			
		

> I wish I'd realized you were arguing the validity of a house rule long ago. I could have stayed out of it and saved myself some confusion.




It depends.

If someone considers throwing a second off-hand dagger to be legal (and if it's possible to get the longsword into the other hand in the middle of a full attack action, whether that involves the Quick Draw feat or not), then I think the same logic means the longsword-switch-longsword is legal.

If someone considers throwing a second off-hand dagger to be illegal, then so is longsword-switch-longsword.

-Hyp.


----------



## hong (Jun 13, 2007)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> It depends.
> 
> If someone considers throwing a second off-hand dagger to be legal (and if it's possible to get the longsword into the other hand in the middle of a full attack action, whether that involves the Quick Draw feat or not), then I think the same logic means the longsword-switch-longsword is legal.
> 
> ...



 Why?


----------



## Hypersmurf (Jun 13, 2007)

hong said:
			
		

> Why?




Because it dictates whether "second weapon" is a singular label that gets affixed to a hilt at the start of the round, or whether it just means that you've got two weapons at any given time.

If you can throw two daggers with your off-hand, then it can't be the sticky label... because it would still be stuck to the hilt of the first dagger, so the next throw would be illegal.  And if it's not the sticky label, then the longsword can be the "second weapon" later in the round, even if it wasn't earlier in the round.

-Hyp.


----------



## hong (Jun 13, 2007)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> Because it dictates whether "second weapon" is a singular label that gets affixed to a hilt at the start of the round, or whether it just means that you've got two weapons at any given time.




No, it dicates whether "second weapon" is a singular label that gets affixed to a hilt at the start of the round, or whether it just means that you've got two weapons at any given time, in the context of melee combat.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Jun 13, 2007)

hong said:
			
		

> No, it dicates whether "second weapon" is a singular label that gets affixed to a hilt at the start of the round, or whether it just means that you've got two weapons at any given time, in the context of melee combat.




But none of the relevant rules distinguish melee from ranged.

-Hyp.


----------



## hong (Jun 13, 2007)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> But none of the relevant rules distinguish melee from ranged.
> 
> -Hyp.



 But the underlying abstraction does.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Jun 13, 2007)

hong said:
			
		

> But the underlying abstraction does.




Then your underlying abstraction has failed in its attempt to model the reality described by the rules.

-Hyp.


----------



## hong (Jun 13, 2007)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> Then your underlying abstraction has failed in its attempt to model the reality described by the rules.
> 
> -Hyp.



 No, then the rules have failed in their attempt to model the reality prescribed by the underlying abstraction.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Jun 13, 2007)

hong said:
			
		

> No, then the rules have failed in their attempt to model the reality prescribed by the underlying abstraction.










-Hyp.


----------



## hong (Jun 13, 2007)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> -Hyp.



 Exactly. So, you do not disagree then that the rules have failed in their attempt to model the reality prescribed by the underlying abstraction?


----------



## Hypersmurf (Jun 13, 2007)

hong said:
			
		

> Exactly. So, you do not disagree then that the rules have failed in their attempt to model the reality prescribed by the underlying abstraction?




I feel that the reality is determined by the rules, so the rules cannot fail to model it.  A disconnect between the reality and the underlying abstraction illustrates a misconception in the abstraction.

-Hyp.


----------



## hong (Jun 13, 2007)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> I feel that the reality is determined by the rules, so the rules cannot fail to model it.  A disconnect between the reality and the underlying abstraction illustrates a misconception in the abstraction.




No, the abstraction determines what reality should be, and the rules are the best attempt to translate that objective into an operational basis. A disconnect between the rules and the abstraction indicates a failure in reality. Whether or not the rules "fail to model" reality is a moot question.


----------



## Moon-Lancer (Jun 13, 2007)

what came first, the rules, or the idea that the rules represent? 

I think this question shows that the rules are built on top of the abstraction. They allow us to fulfill the abstraction in a methodical way. I think changing the abstraction to fit the rules is odd as the diden't come up with the rules before the idea that the rules mimic. So instead it is the rules that must change to fulfill the abstraction, as the abstraction is the core of the idea.

if I make a typo witch i do alot, you are still able to understand my underlining idea. we can fill in the gaps. I feel that the rules and abstraction work in a similar way. 

Saying that the reality is formed by the rules presented removes any type of logical reasoning that we have to understand the game. By reading the rules, its flavor text and the title, it quickly becomes apparent what the underlying abstraction is. We also have flavor text to help us fill in the gaps. if we use the rules in much the way a computer reads computer code, its very likely we will not be able to play the game considering how many typos and mistakes are printed in the game. 

while i do think its important to carefully read the rules, I think both sides can become too extreme. On one side we have the dm who thinks rogues and cant sneak attack with spells or flasks because of its underlying abstraction and on the other side we have games that make no sense be they can be so far removed at times through poor game mechanics and their inability to represent anything of substance. Other times the game can fall apart using karmatic because of impossibility to use without because of its recursive loop created in its actions. 

ultimately both sides have thier faults


----------



## James McMurray (Jun 13, 2007)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> If someone considers throwing a second off-hand dagger to be legal (and if it's possible to get the longsword into the other hand in the middle of a full attack action, whether that involves the Quick Draw feat or not), then I think the same logic means the longsword-switch-longsword is legal.




Not at all. The logic being applied to create that house rule is not "other hilts count for TWF." It's "the TWF rules don't validly fulfill my idea of thrown weapons." The logic of thrown weapons has no bearing on the illogic of sword juggling.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Jun 13, 2007)

James McMurray said:
			
		

> Not at all. The logic being applied to create that house rule is not "other hilts count for TWF." It's "the TWF rules don't validly fulfill my idea of thrown weapons." The logic of thrown weapons has no bearing on the illogic of sword juggling.




But if you're required to create a house rule to permit multiple off-hand thrown weapons, then you don't fall into the category of "someone who considers throwing a second off-hand dagger to be legal".  You fall into the other category, and you're making a change to the rules to permit it.

That was the distinction I was drawing.  If they think the rules as they stand permit the second off-hand throw, then those same rules should permit longsword-switch-longsword.  If they think the rules as they stand don't, then those same rules shouldn't.

If they think the rules as they stand don't but they want them to and make a change, then the altered throwing rules no longer have the same relationship with the longsword scenario, so the if-then no longer applies.  It sounds like that's the position you're coming from.

-Hyp.


----------



## James McMurray (Jun 14, 2007)

Yes, I'm coming from the porisition where I feel that if the rules don't allow the second offhand attack they should. And that second offhand attack being allowed does not require that someone be able to juggle one-handed weapons into two-handed attacks. Consistency is a fine thing, but it's worthless without sanity.

I can see both interpretations for allowing full rate of thrown attacks (including ITWF). I personally don't care whether mine is a house rule ot not. If it isn't one, I still wouldn't allow the juggling, because there's wiggle room in the ITWF thrown rules, but none in the TWF needs two weapons area.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Jun 14, 2007)

James McMurray said:
			
		

> Consistency is a fine thing, but it's worthless without sanity.




The problem being that one person's sanity is another's madness, so it's important to have self-awareness of when you're imposing sanity over consistency... just so you can ensure your players are on the same page.

-Hyp.


----------



## James McMurray (Jun 15, 2007)

Right, and two weapon fighting with a single weapon is blatant insanity. There should be no reason to have to point out ahead of time that it won't work, no matter what your thrown weapon ideology is.

You can say that it's just your version of sanity, but in all my years of forums and game groups since back when this place was a twinkle in Eric's eye and 3.0 was the same in WotC's, I have never encountered anyone but you who would think it a reasonable thing to argue for 3+ pages that two-weapon fighting should be one-weapon fightable.

That might not mean anything. Perhaps it's just a statistical anomaly. But I doubt it.


----------



## Kmart Kommando (Jun 15, 2007)

lol @ statistical anomaly


----------



## Jacen (Jun 15, 2007)

James McMurray said:
			
		

> Right, and two weapon fighting with a single weapon is blatant insanity. There should be no reason to have to point out ahead of time that it won't work, no matter what your thrown weapon ideology is.
> 
> You can say that it's just your version of sanity, but in all my years of forums and game groups since back when this place was a twinkle in Eric's eye and 3.0 was the same in WotC's, I have never encountered anyone but you who would think it a reasonable thing to argue for 3+ pages that two-weapon fighting should be one-weapon fightable..




It wasn't one weapon fighting. There were always two weapons at hands. 

I have to say that I do understand that switch weapon point of view. And I would allow that in game. There are second weapon at hand. If specified that TWF is used and minuses taken, the rules allow changing the weapon.


----------



## James McMurray (Jun 15, 2007)

Not according to the RAW, which specifies your off-hand attacks must be with the weapon you held in your off hand while making primary attacks. It's a find enough house rule, I suppose, but it ain't supported in the RAW.


----------



## hong (Jun 15, 2007)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> The problem being that one person's sanity is another's madness, so it's important to have self-awareness of when you're imposing sanity over consistency... just so you can ensure your players are on the same page.




Indeed. That is why we need clear, unambiguous rules to tell us that fighting with two weapons means fighting with two weapons.


----------

