General Discussion Thread VIII

[Bront]

I was just introducing my character, I wanted to actually rp out how I got to the inn. I also wanted to spice the inn up a bit, epecially when you have characters that sit at an inn for weeks/months real-time waiting. I wasn't assuming control of Michael, I just assumed he would follow me to the corner of the bar (he was already consoling me) and I left it up to him if he told the patrons of the inn my story. It wasn't an attempt to start an adventure, if it was then there would still be orc raiders running around throughout the town now wouldn't there be? Sorry for the confusion, just trying to put in my part. I don't really know much about EN World yet, I just know I want to be apart of it and it's crazy fun to rp like this.

It was more assuming he ran out with Ironwolf, which while in character, is something he should have done. Putting you in the corner I didn't have a problem with. Just avoid doing that in an actual adventure (If you need to, add the line "Assuming Dude X does such, I do...." or something instead).

And welcome btw

 

[gogo_jerrick]

ok, I understand your point, sry. I just thought of time a bit different. I figured by the time I was calmed down, Ironwolf would have already been back from checking outside (just to look outside was enough to see that nothing was wrong). So, I figured if Michael was actively trying to console Setis, he would have taken him away from the people. Sry for the mixup though. Oh and ty for the welcome.

 

[Bront]

No problem, just a good thing to keep in mind in general, particularly in an adventure

No harm, no foul.

 

[Japheth]

I thought it was alright, Japheth has gotten to play out some more character rather than just sitting in the inn. I figured it was just an introduction but went with it regardless.

 

[SlagMortar]

I'll be out of town for the Thanksgiving holdiay. I will probably be able to check in once or twice, but will be sporadic until next Monday. I expect that's true for a lot of people, but if Nars, Beamer, or Planus are holding up any games, feel free to NPC them.

 

[Kahuna Burger]

A random note. There's been yet another discussion on the rules forum of twf, with the twist that more than one person (including one with an (imho questionable) reputation as a rules guru), is saying that in order to gain the benefits of Two Weapon Defense, one must be taking the penalties for attacking with two weapons. So when sara, for instance, makes a single attack due to movement, only having one magic weapon spell up to punch through dr or whatever, she would have to trade a -2 penalty on the single attack to gain her +1 sheild bonus to AC.

Since this situation has already come up more than once, and eventually a DM and I may take different tacks on this, I'd appriciate a preliminary judges ruling on the issue. (esp since it would effect whether I keep the character around after this adventure).

 

[Patlin]

A random note. There's been yet another discussion on the rules forum of twf, with the twist that more than one person (including one with an (imho questionable) reputation as a rules guru), is saying that in order to gain the benefits of Two Weapon Defense, one must be taking the penalties for attacking with two weapons. So when sara, for instance, makes a single attack due to movement, only having one magic weapon spell up to punch through dr or whatever, she would have to trade a -2 penalty on the single attack to gain her +1 sheild bonus to AC.

Since this situation has already come up more than once, and eventually a DM and I may take different tacks on this, I'd appriciate a preliminary judges ruling on the issue. (esp since it would effect whether I keep the character around after this adventure).

This position makes the most sense to me. If you are making one attack, no TWF penalty. If you are making multiple attacks using only one weapon, no TWF penalty. If you have two weapons in your hands, TWD bonuses apply regardless.

I think this is the most generous application to TWD, and still leaves TWD trailling lamely behind improved shield bash in many ways. A light spiked shield and longsword would be d8/d4 instead of d6/d6 and wouldn't allow you to share your feats the way short sword/short sword would, but would give you more damage on average for your single attacks. And for the cost of a +5 Defending short sword you could get a +4 shield with a +4 shield spike, and get some change back.... If for example the defending sword is used to give one point to AC, that's equivalent to a 3 AC bonus to the sword and boarder. Also, I seem to recall someone lamenting power attack not working with light weapons, which wouldn't be an issue with the primary attack given the sword and board combo.

I suppose some may disagree in my preference for Improved Shield Bash over two weapon defense, but I don't think anyone can claim with a straight face that the ISB character will lose his shield bonus if he makes a single long sword attack. Why should we mess with Sara and her legion of imitators by placing this vulnerability on her?

Edit: OK, it would have been more sensible to compare long sword / shield spike to long sword / short sword than to short sword / short sword. A lot fewer variables that way, and without taking into account enchantment the TWD provides a couple of advantages: slightly more offhand damage and one more AC when fighting defensively or full defending. With enchantment, though, ISB still provides a substantial benefit over TWD.

 

[orsal]

A random note. There's been yet another discussion on the rules forum of twf, with the twist that more than one person (including one with an (imho questionable) reputation as a rules guru), is saying that in order to gain the benefits of Two Weapon Defense, one must be taking the penalties for attacking with two weapons. So when sara, for instance, makes a single attack due to movement, only having one magic weapon spell up to punch through dr or whatever, she would have to trade a -2 penalty on the single attack to gain her +1 sheild bonus to AC.

Since this situation has already come up more than once, and eventually a DM and I may take different tacks on this, I'd appriciate a preliminary judges ruling on the issue. (esp since it would effect whether I keep the character around after this adventure).

After reading through the thread to which Kahuna Burger referred, I'm still torn. My tentative ruling -- I might easily be persuaded the other way -- is to say: TWD is basically using the second weapon as a small shield and a weapon simultaneously. Since using a shield doesn't incur attack penalties for a proficient fighter, the weapon used as a shield shouldn't either.

 

[Patlin]

And come to think of it, in an emergency the sword and boarder could lose the shield to wield the long sword two handed at strength and a half, which also would have come in handy for Sara recently...

 

[El Jefe]

KB, your question is fairly straightforward. I'm using the PHB, not the SRD, but I'm sure they match in this part.

Imagine that you were fighting with a double weapon instead of two weapons. If you only made one attack instead of two, would you incur the two-weapon penalty? Of course not. Why should it be any different when wielding two weapons?

Refer to page 143 of the PHB. It plainly says that if you wish to make an extra attack (only allowed in the first place because you are wielding two weapons), then you have to make a full-round attack. No full-round attack, no attack with the off weapon (or the prime weapon, if for some reason you choose to make your only attack with the off weapon).

Page 143 also allows for converting a full attack into a standard attack + move sequence. My take on that is that's the "oh, he dropped after the first attack option". So, if your character declared a standard attack followed by a move at the beginning of the round, then I'd assume that was a flat-out attack with the primary (or off, if so declared) weapon with none of the distraction from trying to fit in a second attack by the other weapon. I wouldn't assess the two-weapon fighting penalty to that attack. On the other hand, if your character declared a full attack and then conditionally converted it to a standard attack + move sequence ("I'll do a full attack on the orc in the green armor, but if the troll flanks me, then I'll stop after the first attack and move 30' to under the bridge"), then I'd assess the two attack penalty to the first attack, then allow the character a move action. Clear?

So, if you want to use the Two Weapon Defense feat, you have to be actually wielding two weapons, but you don't have to be attacking with two weapons. If that were true, you'd have to make a full attack every time you used the Two Weapon Defense feat, and that doesn't make much sense to me. For example, what if you wanted to stack Two Weapon Defense with Total Defense (a standard action)? Page 142 says that Total Defense doesn't stack with fighting defensively or with the Combat Expertise feat because they both require an attack. Are you required to attack to use the Two Weapon Defense feat? No, you aren't. In fact, it specifically says on page 102 that you can combine Two Weapon Defense with either fighting defensively or with Total Defense (although you only bump your defensive bonus from +1 to +2 when doing so). Since you can't use Total Defense and a Full Attack in the same round, I think that makes it pretty clear.