Uchawi wrote:

I agree that it makes more sense to integrate some combat feats into skills, but it would have to be weapon skills, which do not exist in D20. Where a system like GURPS or RuneQuest, even melee attacks and defenses are skill based.

The only equivalent you may implement in D20, is to make a combat feat checked based on your BAB, and some type of DC. This would make fighter types the clear winner with those types of maneuvers.

It would require re-rigging all the actions relating to drawing and stowing items.

And therefore, you get back to the feats just requiring a certain BAB, like the current implementation of quick draw. I would suggest creating some other feats to cover the remaining items.

I think my last post broke.

Cartigan wrote:

Uchawi wrote:

I agree that it makes more sense to integrate some combat feats into skills, but it would have to be weapon skills, which do not exist in D20. Where a system like GURPS or RuneQuest, even melee attacks and defenses are skill based.

The only equivalent you may implement in D20, is to make a combat feat checked based on your BAB, and some type of DC. This would make fighter types the clear winner with those types of maneuvers.

It would require re-rigging all the actions relating to drawing and stowing items.

And therefore, you get back to the feats just requiring a certain BAB, like the current implementation of quick draw. I would suggest creating some other feats to cover the remaining items.

Completely unnecessary. There is no reason for quick draw not to apply to other items that you would want to quickly draw. The only reasons espoused so far are so absurd as to be farcical if one of them wasn't put forward by some one involved in making the game.

That is another approach, but either way it would be housed ruled versus RAW.

The answer to all your problems with Quick Draw is a bandoleer. You can draw anything sheathed/stowed in the bandoleer as a free action (great for a thrower build). It has 8 slots normally and 10 if it's masterwork.

Completely unnecessary. There is no reason for quick draw not to apply to other items that you would want to quickly draw. The only reasons espoused so far are so absurd as to be farcical if one of them wasn't put forward by some one involved in making the game.

Damn.. I'm agreeing with Cartigan..

didn't see that one coming.

-James

Except that feats are character resources. They are finite character resources. If you are expending a character resource and not getting any measurable benefit from it, you are intentionally weakening yourself.

You're missing the point. It's about simulation *not* gaming / optimization. These things require extra effort, the feat signifies the application of that time and effort. Your time *is* finite and if you want to spend some of it in a non-optimized way, it's your call. It's not all about building the perfect charcater and making the optimal choice every time.

For example: I could very easily rewrite what my heavy flail looks like into being a length of chain with some spikes on the end. Voila! A mechanically superior spiked chain, and all it takes is a martial weapon proficiency.

You can house rule anything you want. Nobody else is going to look at that and say "flail". And again, you're missing the point. The flail is part of the normal weapon range. Exotic weapons are not. Hence the extra effort and time (a feat) needed to be proficient with it. The relative strength / weakness of the weapon is irrelevant.

You only have so many feats to go around. One option you could take is EWP: Repeating Crossbow. Or you could take Vital Strike or Rapid Shot and use a Mighty +4 Composite Longbow. Or you could take Leadership and gain the assistance of an entirely new character, doubling your action economy. One of these is significantly inferior to the others.

Characters should not be mechanically penalized for flavor reasons. Otherwise, you get generic, boring characters because they're the most mechanically efficient.

Yes. Your time is limited. There are choices to be made. Not every one will be optimal. Not everybody considers a non-optimal choice a penalty. If somebody wants a feat, skill, or h*ll, class that is not "optimal" that's fine. There may be personal (roll playing}, in-game or other considerations that outweigh the "optimal choice". Generic and boring is when everybody makes the same optimal choices.

Unless you find yourself within the capacity to full attack before drawing your weapon, you are not going to need Quick Draw. If you're wandering around a dungeon without your weapon drawn already, you're probably already doing something wrong (or you just climbed a wall). If monsters get the drop on you like that on a regular basis, you may want to invest ranks in Perception.

If your players run around with their hands filled with weapons constantly I'd imagine their dungeon trips are short. Stopping at the first door, or when they need to oil up a lantern, or when they have to crawl through the rubble, rig a rope bridge at a chasm, or a hundred other things. Scratch an itch... eat... blow their nose.. take a break. Do you people have antiseptic perfectly clean ruins and caverns? Do your characters have a hiddem pair of hands? Or does your DM assume you have hands free / occupied instantly as needed? There are plenty of reasons and times when your hands aren't going to be free to carry weapons. Fatigue or simply having the wrong weapon out are possibilities as well.

As for the other possibilities... if that other guy draws and cuts while you are trying to get your weapon out they don't matter all that much. Situational, yes. Useful, yes. It depends on the type of character you want to play.

Completely unnecessary. There is no reason for quick draw not to apply to other items that you would want to quickly draw. The only reasons espoused so far are so absurd as to be farcical if one of them wasn't put forward by some one involved in making the game.

Getting a bit snide aren't we? You may not agree, but the reasons aren't farcical any more than the concept of quick drawing other items is.

The reasons aren't "farcical", they are mostly drawn from historical "reality". There are a number of historical precedents for weapon quick draw skills. There aren't for scrolls (for example). The lack of scrolls to use in combat is one reason for the "real life" lack, of course. The extended nature of using one in-game is another. You could argue that potions or flasks could be "quick drawn" but they aren't designed to be thrown (making it a bit clumsy) and there is an extra step involved in drinking one. The relative fragility of many magical implements / devices may be another. Of all the magical implements I think the wand is the best fit for a quick draw equivalent feat. Still, it begs the question, is the prospective user going to practice hundreds of draws tediously working the numerous hours needed to iron it into muscle memory... is it in-charcater for a magic user? Fighters practice constantly. Typical magic users are nose down in a book for obvious reasons for the same amount of time.

If you're going to have a quick draw equivalent feat I would suggest a new feat. Not adding it on to the existing one. And limiting what can be "quick drawn". This also caters to the different techniques of drawing a wand / flask / rod / etc. as opposed to a weapon. And no, I'm not suggesting a different feat for each one...

The answer to all your problems with Quick Draw is a bandoleer. You can draw anything sheathed/stowed in the bandoleer as a free action (great for a thrower build). It has 8 slots normally and 10 if it's masterwork.

There's a few earlier posts that cite the bandoleer, and some good ones responding with the comical things a DM might do in those cases. Can you confirm that it's in the Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting? I'd like to check it out... though my DM might torture me, too. ;)

The reasons aren't "farcical", they are mostly drawn from historical "reality". There are a number of historical precedents for weapon quick draw skills. There aren't for scrolls (for example).

Because scrolls are magical in the real world right?

and there is an extra step involved in drinking one.

Just like an extra step is required to make a weapon do anything more than use up a hand slot.

The relative fragility of many magical implements / devices may be another. Of all the magical implements I think the wand is the best fit for a quick draw equivalent feat. Still, it begs the question, is the prospective user going to practice hundreds of draws tediously working the numerous hours needed to iron it into muscle memory... is it in-charcater for a magic user? Fighters practice constantly. Typical magic users are nose down in a book for obvious reasons for the same amount of time.

But ANY character can take Quick Draw. So I'm a 3rd level Wizard, I guess I practice drawing and sheathing my dagger over and over so I can do it as a free action.

Because scrolls are magical in the real world right?

I mentioned the lack of real world usage. Read. Or did you do so and choose not to acknowlege that? Then I went on to consider other reasons. Things that you, apparently don't want to bother addressing.

Quote:

and there is an extra step involved in drinking one.

Just like an extra step is required to make a weapon do anything more than use up a hand slot.

You try drinking a flask of fluid. Pull it out. Pop the tight stopper. Tilt it up and down it. Or stare at me and try to suction it out of the flask. I'll drop your intestines on the floor before you finish. Simple. There is a considerable difference in the speed at which these two things can happen. Draw, cut. Or: draw, unstopper (don't spill it), drink it, effect happens. While your popping the top he's cutting. You can argue the times involved, so ymmv.

But ANY character can take Quick Draw. So I'm a 3rd level Wizard, I guess I practice drawing and sheathing my dagger over and over so I can do it as a free action.

So? Take it. Could save your rear in a tight situation. Work with whatever weapon you have. For some spell casters that may not be just a dagger of course. They probably find it more useful. Or add that other "Quick Draw" feat. I'd suggest one for wands and, maybe, rods personally. You can do that without taking your eyes off the enemy or spending a round plus unstoppering and drinking. Draw, point, word of command. "Quick Wand". That works, better than accidentally flinging that little glass or ceramic flask across the room.

Right now, the rules are set. They may introduce a new feat in the APG. That would be fine. I can see it. Or you can houserule away. If you're not the DM they may agree with you and then you don't have to house rule it yourself. Again, ymmv.

You try drinking a flask of fluid. Pull it out. Pop the tight stopper. Tilt it up and down it. Or stare at me and try to suction it out of the flask. I'll drop your intestines on the floor before you finish. Simple. There is a considerable difference in the speed at which these two things can happen. Draw, cut. Or: draw, unstopper (don't spill it), drink it, effect happens. While your popping the top he's cutting. You can argue the times involved, so ymmv.

Attack action - standard action

And for more fun:
Using a scroll or wand - standard action

Well look at that, they are all the same using game rules!

So?

So you made the point that it makes sense that Quick Draw only applies to weapons because martial classes would be familiar with drawing a sheathing a weapon. You casually ignored the fact that Quick Draw isn't limited to a class.

We've used Quick Draw to cover more than weapons, and it's never broke the game. When a player has Quick Draw and they attempt to draw something other than a weapon(scroll, wand, potion, etc), we've just always allowed it. I played with a guy who played and Artificer, and his main combat focus was on wands. He purposely kept his wands within easy reach(bandoleers, holsters, etc) and would Quick Draw just as a fighter would a weapon.

Your game experience may differ, but it's never been a point of contention with us.

It's like any other rule in the game. If someone is actively trying to exploit it and use it unfairly, it's going to happen. Watching out for this sort of exploitative behavior is just part of being a DM. Not purposely exploiting the rule is just part of being a decent player.

I'd have to agree that in terms of fluff I don't see any reason why other items could not be drawn just as quickly.

In a fantasy world where potions, scrolls, wands, alchemical items, etc. are all stable and functional tools that have a combat role, I'd think that there would be people taking seriously the ability to draw them just as fast as any sword or dagger.

Just think of Harry Potter, people in those stories are whipping out wands like they were guns, because, well... the function like guns. The same thing could easily be seen for a host of items which are combat related but don't have the gamist "weapon" tag attached to their specific rule item. If it is an issue of simulationism then these gamist tags shouldn't be getting in the way of people using the feat for what common sense would allow.

An Alchemist would greatly desire to be able to quick draw alchemical fire flasks, a combat wizard would greatly desire to quick draw a wand or scroll. And a fighter would greatly desire to be able to quick draw a potion of healing, haste, blur, etc. These aren't tools that are outside of the martial tradition in a fantasy world, they're embedded in it.

Just imagine the psychology around your basic potion of healing. If troops in Iraq and Afghanistan had these in large quantities then they wouldn't be stored away deep in a rucksack, they'd probably be designed to be administered as quickly as possible, likely being a second tube in their camelback bags, ready to sipped on at a moments notice when they get shot.

Alchemical fire flasks are basically grenades and I can only assume many a soldier over the last few centuries has practiced at length how to handle one of these as quickly as possible.

What is being asked for with an more open Quick Draw feat isn't that big of a deal, at least so far no one has explained how it could be abusable, is to be able to draw an item, move and use the item, or in a surprise round be able to draw an item and use it.

Right now unless it is a weapon you have to stand still, draw a non-weapon, and then use it. In terms of simulation it's hard to imagine what is preventing someone from reach in a pouch, grab an alchemist flask while running across the room and then tossing it. Or if someone had the drop on you to be able to quickly whip out your wand of magic missiles and light them up.

As many people have stated, they house rule that it works for any item and as it makes sense and doesn't seem to cause problems. What I'm confused about is that with the Pathfinder revision, rather than opening up the feat to what many people have houseruled for a decade, instead they went out of their way to close up the improvised weapon loophole by specifically naming several items which may not be used with the feat.

"Why not just house rule it if you don't like it?" could be asked. It would just be better if the system itself was more flexible, plus in games like Pathfinder Society, we're supposed to stick to RAW, which means you're stuck in that situation. I guess it's just a bit disappointing as the system is saying "No!" to me, rather than saying "Yes!"

Felgoroth wrote:

The answer to all your problems with Quick Draw is a bandoleer. You can draw anything sheathed/stowed in the bandoleer as a free action (great for a thrower build). It has 8 slots normally and 10 if it's masterwork.

There's a few earlier posts that cite the bandoleer, and some good ones responding with the comical things a DM might do in those cases. Can you confirm that it's in the Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting? I'd like to check it out... though my DM might torture me, too. ;)

I'm pretty sure it's in arms and equipment. At least that's where I think my group pulled it from. We never played in the Forgotten Realms.

Having been a pikeman at one time(17th century battle reenactment) I would agree that you can't quick draw pole arms.

+1 for WTF factor!!! "I quickdraw my pike ..." lol!

Unfortunately, I think this is another instance of game designers creating some feats that are just sub-par, effectively punishing characters who have a desire to build a certain type of character. Much like the mechanical inferiority of most Exotic Weapons that still require feats, this is something that should be either a basic part of BAB or, at most, a function of Sleight of Hand checks.

All feats are not created equal, of course, but some are so very situational and/or inefficient for all but the oddest corner cases that I do wonder why they exist. Granted, this feat predates PFRPG, but the revision would have been an excellent opportunity to address it.

I'm SO totally in agreement with this sentiment. Bravo and well state. IMO, Feats (most that do not simply unlock options anyway) *should* scale with levels and/or just get a better bonus. You're later post about "finite" resources is the ONLY stance to take, IMO, as that's precisely what they are - finite. As such, EVERY choice should grant some significant mechanical applications as they move along the character's career.

The reverse (what we have now) is Feat-taxing - where there are feats set as prerequisites to other feats. They are taken, sure, but not for actual utility so much as "I need to have X before I can get Y!" It's crap to have a limited resource provide such a marginalized mechanical benefit in ANY situation.

Balance and design-wise, I lean towards making everything matter - not in a marginal way, either. As it stands, many feats just stink. PF took a step in the right direction with the skill-adding feats, they improve (with skill, not exactly in line with what I'd like, but it's a step). I think the natural evolution would be to take that premise and apply it to all of the feats that do not presently unlock some feature somehow. I'd also get rid of redundant feats as well - things like weapon focus and weapon specialization. Both of those could be mechanically wrapped into a single feat instead of two. Weapon Focus could grant a +1 to hit for every 4 BAB points or something (minimum 1). At 8th level it would automatically take on and qualify the properties of Improved Weapon Focus (or whatever it's called), and then it would continue to be useful into higher levels as well. The feat is a good investment vs. a diminishing return (as it currently is). Dodge would be something to work this way, too. A flat +1 to AC of the Dodge type, that can be neutralized with a feint, or in a surprise round, etc. just isn't anything more than a Feat Tax in play to get to the other feats behind it which grant some "always on" unlocked combat options. A +4 to ac when moving in a threatened area - this is pretty good (but it could be better and scaled as well). It's something no one else can do at all, and anytime that comes up, it's always in play. The bonus is also significant enough to be worth an investment for those situations. Then Spring Attack - again, an option no one else can do. That's just about perfect as an "unlocked" example of an option.

This is where I'd much rather see design head towards, IMO.

The nay-sayers on quick-drawing other things than weapons and citing "reality" for this ... you realize it *is* D&D, right? Reality is hardly the best measure of this system. Now, if you bring that argument to say ... GURPS. Sure, right on, and I'd back you there. Not in D&D, though.

I admit I haven't read the whole thread, so if someone hit this already, that makes me repetitive and redundant, but...

We have a little house rule that considers Quick Draw dependent on weapon sheathes and special slings in combination with the force of a human body in motion. Therefore, if you buy a specially crafted masterwork leather case for non-weapons, you can use the Quick Draw feat to retrieve items during a move action. Of course, such an item has a limited capacity.

Thus was the masterwork potion belt born: one, three, and five bottle varieties.

Warning: do not store your glass vial of acid in the bottle slot that sits just below your navel. Really. Don't. Trust me.

Hey, this question came up in my group's game last night, and this seems like a good place to pose it - Can a character with a higher-than-one BAB draw a weapon during a five-foot step in a round in which they have taken a non-movement Move action (like drinking a potion). I do not have my book in front of me, but the two passages in the rules that would seem to deal with this are a bit confusing. The Quick Draw entry (in the "Normal" section) indicates that a weapon can be drawn by a character with a higher-than-1 BAB "as part of a movement", while the Drawing and Sheathing weapons section states that it can be done "as part of normal movement". Is a five-foot-step "Normal" movement? The QD entry would lead me to believe that you CAN do this, which the Drawing and Sheathing entry makes me wonder.

DM Wellard wrote:

Having been a pikeman at one time(17th century battle reenactment) I would agree that you can't quick draw pole arms.

+1 for WTF factor!!! "I quickdraw my pike ..." lol!

The fun part is that you can quickdraw a staff, but not a wand and people are supporting this for 'realism'...

-James

Hey, this question came up in my group's game last night, and this seems like a good place to pose it - Can a character with a higher-than-one BAB draw a weapon during a five-foot step in a round in which they have taken a non-movement Move action (like drinking a potion).

No, a 5-foot step is a different type of action. The "draw with a move" has to do with drawing while taking a regular move action, that is, moving up to your speed.

I do not have my book in front of me, but the two passages in the rules that would seem to deal with this are a bit confusing. The Quick Draw entry (in the "Normal" section) indicates that a weapon can be drawn by a character with a higher-than-1 BAB "as part of a movement", while the Drawing and Sheathing weapons section states that it can be done "as part of normal movement".

Just to make it clear, we're talking about the Quick Draw feat, which is totally different from the "draw on the move" action you're asking about.

Is a five-foot-step "Normal" movement? The QD entry would lead me to believe that you CAN do this, which the Drawing and Sheathing entry makes me wonder.

5-foot step is a miscellaneous action and not a move action and so the draw-on-the-move trick doesn't work.

Just to clarify further... the Quick Draw feat that we've been discussing WOULD allow you to draw a weapon with a 5-foot step as the Quick Draw feat makes the drawing a free action.

Just to make it clear, we're talking about the Quick Draw feat, which is totally different from the "draw on the move" action you're asking about.

Right, right - I'm referring to the "Normal" section of the Quick Draw feat, which has some language about what happens if a PC does NOT have the Quick Draw feat. Other than clarifying that, I completely accept your answer/premise.

I don't recollect this whole thread, but I wonder if anyone has called out the Alchemist? I mean, OK, the "draw on the move" action very well may (as stated by others here) reflect training/expertise with a given weapon, but for the Alchemist, drawing and using Bombs IS HIS WEAPON. He's going to develop some expertise in using them. f he can poison a weapon as a swift(?) action - at least after a certain level - then surely we should let him "draw on the move", as other characters do with their weapons, right?

Attack action - standard action

Using a potion - standard action

And for more fun:
Using a scroll or wand - standard action

Well look at that, they are all the same using game rules!

Assuming you have a quick draw action for the potion. Otherwise you're burning a move action to pull it out in addition to the standard action to drink it. I notice you didn't mention that drinking a potion draws an AoO. Since the quick draw puts the weapon at the ready it doesn't need an attack action (standard or full) whether or not you have a "quick draw potion" feat :) Well, hopefully you have a "QDP" because if not retrieving it will draw an AoO too... oh, drawing a weapon doesn't btw. Another reason I can see quick draw feats for weapons and wands but not stuff that draws an AoO...

What I was pointing out btw is the *time it would really take* and why that might effect the possibility of a "quick draw" style feat for potions. I think in *real time* a wand would be faster. Note that activating a a magic item (other than a potion or oil) while a standard action does not draw an AoO.

So you made the point that it makes sense that Quick Draw only applies to weapons because martial classes would be familiar with drawing a sheathing a weapon. You casually ignored the fact that Quick Draw isn't limited to a class.

Yes, it potentially applies to any classes weapons. Martial classes are more likely to focus on weapons as opposses to magic and take this feat. It's the relative ease of practice as well. Draw. Return. Draw. Return. Wash, rinse, repeat. With a potion it would be: Draw. Unstopper, Drink. Return the empty? Well. Refill it, hopefully with water or maybe something that tastes as bad as many potions are reputed to (imo here). And stop for bathroom breaks :) Yes, that was a joke. Or leave off the drink it and mess up your rythym between practice and live action. The variability in reading a scroll is why I don't see this type of feat for them either. Wands, on the other hand have a simple uniform method of activation. Omit the word (maybe just think it) or use a "practice wand" and avoid expending charges as well. It keeps the rythym of training simple and uniform. Like a weapon.

As for the feat being open to non-fighters, a lot of feats are open to classes that don't make optimal use of it. The point is that you take the feats that you want to. No one forces you to take a feat that isn't all that useful to your character. Personally getting your dagger out fast could be a survival tactic for a low level magic user. Not a feat I'd suggest but I can see someone taking it.

Assuming you have a quick draw action for the potion.

That does not change the action required to use it. Or to attack with a sword. Or box. Or wand. or scroll. I have no idea what a box is. I meant bow probably.

I notice you didn't mention that drinking a potion draws an AoO.

I notice you are ignoring the fact that using a potion is indeed the same action type as attacking with a weapon.

What I was pointing out btw is the *time it would really take*

The time it would REALLY take is the same time as attacking with a weapon. You know why? Because this game is an abstraction of the "real-world" and it says that's what it takes. The rules are concrete and you are trying to ignore them in favor of making a silly argument to support your position. "Please, don't look at the 'Actions in Combat' chart behind the curtain!!"

Yes, it potentially applies to any classes weapons. Martial classes are more likely to focus on weapons as opposses to magic and take this feat.

You are STILL ignoring the fact that Quick Draw isn't limited to martial classes.

That does not change the action required to use it. Or to attack with a sword. Or box. Or wand. or scroll. I have no idea what a box is. I meant bow probably.

I notice you are ignoring the fact that using a potion is indeed the same action type as attacking with a weapon.

No I didn't ignore the fact they use the same action. I agreed. I just pointed out that a weapon would strike first courtesy of an AoO (and not need to expend an action), assuming a point blank confrontation of course. But if it's not point blank the point of quick draw for either is somewhat reduced. Still, the AoO comes before the action that provokes it can finish. Making it faster :) Simple really.

I think you need to consider why drinking a potion draws an AoO. Maybe it takes your mind off of what's in front of you? Maybe it reduces your ability to react to an attack? Not a good candidate for a combat type feat. Again, I would say a wand would not do so. The comparison between a wand and a fiream is fairly good.

The time it would REALLY take is the same time as attacking with a weapon. You know why? Because this game is an abstraction of the "real-world" and it says that's what it takes. The rules are concrete and you are trying to ignore them in favor of making a silly argument to support your position. "Please, don't look at the 'Actions in Combat' chart behind the curtain!!

Yes, it's a game. Yes it's an abstraction. The rules, currently, don't allow the quick draw of non-weapons (without a houserule or rules change). If you want to stick with strict rules interpretation why are you wanting to change the rules in regard to what can be "quick drawn"? The last time I checked I was defending the rules as they exist. You were advocating a change. I'd say the fact that the drink potion action draws an AoO while drawing a weapon does not is a point of difference in the actions.

A certain amount of "realism" has to leak into the game. It's the only point of reference we have. The only point that will maintain some consistency in our largely abstract, imaginary game world. I don't think we need too much of it, but in regards to something as mechanical as actions in a limited time, real life can help adjudicate it.

You are STILL ignoring the fact that Quick Draw isn't limited to martial classes.

No, I'm not. I said it's of limited usefulness to someone who carries a dagger. The usefulness of feats, and skills for that matter, varies by your class.

Personally, I always would prefer to carry my weapon out in hand, unless I am in hindering terrain, or impaired mobility of some sort. Solders in the past would carry their heaviest weapon, the spear, all day long, while the one handed and two handed sword would weigh almost half as much.

I have never taken the quick draw feat.

It depends on where you are. Out in the wilderness you can get away with looking like you're about to hack someone into sushi at any moment. But in an urban adventure, that's bound to get the wrong sort of attention.

No I didn't ignore the fact they use the same action. I agreed. I just pointed out that a weapon would strike first courtesy of an AoO (and not need to expend an action), assuming a point blank confrontation of course. But if it's not point blank the point of quick draw for either is somewhat reduced. Still, the AoO comes before the action that provokes it can finish. Making it faster :) Simple really.

Meh, firing a bow in melee range triggers an AoO too.

I think you need to consider why drinking a potion draws an AoO.

No I don't because it has nothing to do with retrieving a potion.

Yes, it's a game. Yes it's an abstraction. The rules, currently, don't allow the quick draw of non-weapons (without a houserule or rules change). If you want to stick with strict rules interpretation why are you wanting to change the rules in regard to what can be "quick drawn"? The last time I checked I was defending the rules as they exist.

Except you are. Your argument against why potions shouldn't be able to be quick drawn is based on "real-world" action times which would rewrite what actions take what action time.

You were advocating a change. I'd say the fact that the drink potion action draws an AoO while drawing a weapon does not is a point of difference in the actions.

Those are two different actions entirely.

Meh, firing a bow in melee range triggers an AoO too.

For the same reasons. Taking your eyes off the sharp pointy things is going to give the guy a chance to stick you with them.

Quote:

I think you need to consider why drinking a potion draws an AoO.

No I don't because it has nothing to do with retrieving a potion.

Also the fact that firing a ranged weapon in combat triggers an AoO counters your entire line of reasoning.
And activating a spell trigger item in combat does not trigger an AoO. Work that into your reasoning.

So, you're planning on retrieving it and... not drinking it? Even throwing a flask would draw an AoO. As I mentioned above, for the same reasons. You are being distracted by what you're doing. Taking your atttention off your opponent. Dropping your defences. And (maybe) getting cut as a result. The spell trigger item doesn't distract. It doesn't take your attention the way drinking a potion, reading a scroll or loading / firing a missile weapon does. It's obvious how that fits into my reasoning.

Except you are. Your argument against why potions shouldn't be able to be quick drawn is based on "real-world" action times which would rewrite what actions take what action time.

Real world and game apparently.

Those are two different actions entirely.

Yes, they *are* different actions. That is the whole point, it's why, imo, drawing / drinking a potion is not a candidate for a quick draw type feat while, again imo, a wand would be and, obviously, a weapon is. A seperate feat btw, not the same one.

Yes, they *are* different actions. That is the whole point

For the dozenth time, the action taken AFTER RETRIEVING THE ITEM is irrelevant to the action of drawing it.

R_Chance wrote:

Yes, they *are* different actions. That is the whole point

For the dozenth time, the action taken AFTER RETRIEVING THE ITEM is irrelevant to the action of drawing it.

I don't believe it's been quite a dozen :) And I repeat why draw it quickly if you are not going to use it / throw it? It's like practicing the quick draw weapon feat so you can get your weapon out... and not use it. If we just want to speed up ordinary actions we could have plenty of "quick" feats. Say "Quick Torch Lighting", "Quick Eating", "Quick Boot Lacing"... the list is endless. When you take special measures to access something quickly it usually means you plan on using it... quickly.

*edit* Thinking it over, I can see some utility in getting it out and being ready "just in case". But that's pretty limited and doesn't really call for a special fast means of getting the item out...

The Speaker in Dreams wrote:

DM Wellard wrote:

Having been a pikeman at one time(17th century battle reenactment) I would agree that you can't quick draw pole arms.

+1 for WTF factor!!! "I quickdraw my pike ..." lol!

The fun part is that you can quickdraw a staff, but not a wand and people are supporting this for 'realism'...

-James

Had a fighter in a barroom brawl, who said when his turn came up...

"Quickdraw greataxe."

The table looked at him and we spent the next couple minutes laughing at the image.

Then I played Fable with a greataxe and we saw how it was done.

I agree, it is silly to limit Quick Draw to weapons. Way too limited read of the feat.

Captain Sir Hexen Ineptus wrote:

Personally, I always would prefer to carry my weapon out in hand, unless I am in hindering terrain, or impaired mobility of some sort. Solders in the past would carry their heaviest weapon, the spear, all day long, while the one handed and two handed sword would weigh almost half as much.

I have never taken the quick draw feat.

It depends on where you are. Out in the wilderness you can get away with looking like you're about to hack someone into sushi at any moment. But in an urban adventure, that's bound to get the wrong sort of attention.

True True

Cartigan wrote:

R_Chance wrote:

Yes, they *are* different actions. That is the whole point

For the dozenth time, the action taken AFTER RETRIEVING THE ITEM is irrelevant to the action of drawing it.

I don't believe it's been quite a dozen :) And I repeat why draw it quickly if you are not going to use it / throw it? It's like practicing the quick draw weapon feat so you can get your weapon out... and not use it. If we just want to speed up ordinary actions we could have plenty of "quick" feats. Say "Quick Torch Lighting", "Quick Eating", "Quick Boot Lacing"... the list is endless. When you take special measures to access something quickly it usually means you plan on using it... quickly.

*edit* Thinking it over, I can see some utility in getting it out and being ready "just in case". But that's pretty limited and doesn't really call for a special fast means of getting the item out...

I'm sorry, so what you're saying is that the quickdraw feat should be several feats.

Like quickdraw (dagger, melee), quickdraw (dagger, thrown), quickdraw (pike), and quickdraw (staff, melee).

The later of course not being quickdraw (staff, activate magic staff) because that wouldn't make sense in the real world, right?

Also you want the quickdraw feat to require an attack with the weapon quickdrawn, you couldn't have a PC do a fullround action then quickdraw a weapon.

Sounds like you really want to change the feat as it's written even more so than we do!

Sorry, I had agreeing with Cartigan.. but here I've got to,

James

I agree, it is silly to limit Quick Draw to weapons. Way too limited read of the feat.

This is text of the feat below from the PFSRD.

Quick Draw (Combat)

Normal: Without this feat, you may draw a weapon as a move action, or (if your base attack bonus is +1 or higher) as a free action as part of movement. Without this feat, you can draw a hidden weapon as a standard action.

Tell me where anywhere in the above text does this feat become applicable to anything BUT weapons. Note also that certain items are SPECIFICALLY NAMED AS EXCLUDED from this feat.

Tell me where anywhere in the above text does this feat become applicable to anything BUT weapons. Note also that certain items are SPECIFICALLY NAMED AS EXCLUDED from this feat.

The problem is the excluded list, which I, among others, think should be removed.

I mean if someone has problems with one of the following: 'I quickdraw my lantern' vs 'I quickdraw a wand' you would hope that it would be the former and not the later!

Personally if you spend a feat I think you should be able to quickdraw any accessible item you have.

-James

LazarX wrote:

Tell me where anywhere in the above text does this feat become applicable to anything BUT weapons. Note also that certain items are SPECIFICALLY NAMED AS EXCLUDED from this feat.

The problem is the excluded list, which I, among others, think should be removed.

I mean if someone has problems with one of the following: 'I quickdraw my lantern' vs 'I quickdraw a wand' you would hope that it would be the former and not the later!

Personally if you spend a feat I think you should be able to quickdraw any accessible item you have.

-James

As it is...if your wand is in a sensible accessible place getting it out and putting it in action in the same round is covered as below...

Manipulate an Item

This includes retrieving or putting away a stored item, picking up an item, moving a heavy object, and opening a door.

So if you're taking a wand out of a bandolier you can still take it out and use it by taking a move action and a standard action.

And where in that text does it say you have to put the drawn item into action in the same round?

You could also still take out a weapon and use it taking a move and standard action.

You're missing the point. It's about simulation *not* gaming / optimization. These things require extra effort, the feat signifies the application of that time and effort. Your time *is* finite and if you want to spend some of it in a non-optimized way, it's your call. It's not all about building the perfect charcater and making the optimal choice every time.

The game isn't very simulationist. Historically, the Longbow should be an Exotic Weapon - it took years of training to be proficient with it. You want simulationist with the longbow? It couldn't be used in dungeons, at least not nearly at the range it can currently be. We ignore simulation in some facets, but not others. And we're talking about whipping out a bag of explosive chemicals, a life-saving potion, or even a wallet without any appreciable effort. None of those is really so ludicrous (especially since two of them are combat related items) as to be more difficult than quickdrawing a longsword or a half-dozen daggers in 6 seconds. Thrown weapon characters with the TWF chain could get off a good 10 daggers thrown in one 6 second period via Quickdraw. Is that an accurate simulation? Can someone pull 10 daggers out of wherever and throw them with general accuracy in 6 seconds, all aimed at moving targets?

Simulation went out the window the second you picked up a book called "Dungeons and Dragons."

You can house rule anything you want. Nobody else is going to look at that and say "flail". And again, you're missing the point. The flail is part of the normal weapon range. Exotic weapons are not. Hence the extra effort and time (a feat) needed to be proficient with it. The relative strength / weakness of the weapon is irrelevant.

Feats are precious character investments. Excluding bonus feats, a character gets 11 throughout 20 levels of adventuring. They are the primary building blocks of a character, and a gauge of their abilities. You should not have to spend a feat just to use a weapon that looks funny, especially when it is mechanically inferior to a martial weapon. The categories of weapons should mean something. Otherwise, we might as well just use 2nd edition's proficiencies system and not worry about this Simple/Martial/Exotic division. Exotic weapons 1) cost additional character resources to use accurately (a feat); 2) are less likely to be found in treasure caches than martial or simple weapons, making it less likely for you to have access to them in game; therefore they should be better than common weapons. If they're not better, they should not have an opportunity cost. The rules should be about character balance, not flavor text. Rogues don't get spells because they have lots of skill points. Wizards don't get lots of skill points because they get spells. These are mechanical balance considerations, not flavor-text balance.

My character could hail from a nation where the Spiked Chain, one-handed Bastard Sword, and Repeater Crossbow are common weapons, and the sling is so odd that you'd have to find a reclusive master to learn how to use it. Therefore, by the logic of what is part of a "normal weapon range," the sling is an exotic weapon for this character, while the other three are martial, or maybe even simple, weapons.

This is one of those nomenclature issues with the rules. "Exotic" to some people implies that it should just be "different." A better term, one that is rules based and not flavor-text based, would be "Advanced" weapons. If you had to spend a feat to get proficiency in an "advanced weapon," you'd sure as shooting expect it to be better than a martial weapon, wouldn't you?

Yes. Your time is limited. There are choices to be made. Not every one will be optimal. Not everybody considers a non-optimal choice a penalty. If somebody wants a feat, skill, or h*ll, class that is not "optimal" that's fine. There may be personal (roll playing}, in-game or other considerations that outweigh the "optimal choice". Generic and boring is when everybody makes the same optimal choices.

But people can make different choices that are still optimal for them. They can make choices that allow them to expend limited character resources on mechanically efficient benefits. If I put a skill rank in a skill, my bonus to roll it increases. I may even gain the ability to use the skill to hit a higher DC (such as with Knowledges) or use it at all (such as Use Magic Device). I am rewarded for putting a rank in to a skill, and I gain a mechanical benefit from doing so. And, barring below 10 INT scores, I get at least 40 throughout my 20 levels. Why should expending a much more limited resource (feats) give me less mechanical benefit than expending a more common, much more often gained resource (skill points). Expending a character resource should provide you with a mechanical benefit. That's why they're there. Describing your weapon as looking a little different from the norm is flavor-text. Unless said weapon provides a benefit above and beyond that of a normal weapon, it shouldn't cost you any extra.

If your players run around with their hands filled with weapons constantly I'd imagine their dungeon trips are short. Stopping at the first door, or when they need to oil up a lantern, or when they have to crawl through the rubble, rig a rope bridge at a chasm, or a hundred other things. Scratch an itch... eat... blow their nose.. take a break. Do you people have antiseptic perfectly clean ruins and caverns? Do your characters have a hiddem pair of hands? Or does your DM assume you have hands free / occupied instantly as needed? There are plenty of reasons and times when your hands aren't going to be free to carry weapons. Fatigue or simply having the wrong weapon out are possibilities as well.

Funny thing - I can hold something in both my hands and still manipulate my keys to open my front door at the end of the day. I can do the dishes while talking on the phone. In general, I can do a lot of stuff with things in my hands, because I have opposeable thumbs and four additional fingers. And I can also be holding a weapon in one hand while my other is free to manipulate things, if need be. In general, I don't think that you need a dungeon as clean and open as a modern day hospital to be able to maneuver with your weapon drawn. Oddly, in real life, which you like to reference for simulation, soldiers in combat situations commonly maneuver with a weapon in hand and at the ready in case they find themselves in combat. Why wouldn't veteran dungeon delvers who battle hideous monsters do the same?

As for the other possibilities... if that other guy draws and cuts while you are trying to get your weapon out they don't matter all that much. Situational, yes. Useful, yes. It depends on the type of character you want to play.

Why did that guy draw and cut while you were still drawing? Was he walking around with his sword out while you kept sheathing yours to open a door? Was he expecting trouble while you were just wandering around thinking everything was safe? Were you flat footed? You wouldn't be drawing your weapon in such situations. And, hey, he probably expended movement to get up to you and make that attack; now you can get an attack back. If you'd been expecting trouble, you could even get a full attack from your readied weapon.

Quick draw has limited use - it's just use that shouldn't be coming out of such a limited character resource as a feat. A couple of skill points to buy ranks in Sleight of Hand, or making the ability just be tied to your Base Attack Bonus (thereby working with the presupposed "warrior types would train this way more often than casters" thought process), or by making the feat more universal would all be ways to make it a better function. If you're expending a feat, you should get a mechanical benefit. The extremely situational benefit of Quickdraw is even worse than the 3.5 Dodge benefit, and I never saw anyone take dodge that didn't have to to get a different feat or prestige class that was using it as a requirement. Just like I've never seen anyone expend a feat on EWP: Whip (or Kama, Siangham, Repeating Crossbow, etc) or Quickdraw. They're not worth it unless you absolutely need them for some other reason.

I'm sorry, so what you're saying is that the quickdraw feat should be several feats.

Like quickdraw (dagger, melee), quickdraw (dagger, thrown), quickdraw (pike), and quickdraw (staff, melee).

The later of course not being quickdraw (staff, activate magic staff) because that wouldn't make sense in the real world, right?

Also you want the quickdraw feat to require an attack with the weapon quickdrawn, you couldn't have a PC do a fullround action then quickdraw a weapon.

Sounds like you really want to change the feat as it's written even more so than we do!

Sorry, I had agreeing with Cartigan.. but here I've got to,

James

No, that's not what I'm saying. This has become rather strung out, so to summarize:

Quick Draw applies to weapons. It does so because of training and practice. No one draws their weapons slowly when they are needed, so this is along the lines of "extra, extra fast". It is useful for anyone using a weapon. Obviously it is more useful to some charcaters than others (as are other feats).

It does not apply to just anything, nor should it. Quickdraw, covering the whole range of weapons as it does, is plenty broad.

If you want to "quick draw" other items it should be a seperate feat (i.e. for wands, say "Arcane Item Quick Draw") and many items are not really appropriate for such a feat (i.e. potions, scrolls).

No, I do not want the quick draw feat to require an attack. I suspect that often it is used in that manner (especially at point blank range)or you wouldn't be in that big a hurry to get it out.

So, I don't want the feat changed. I'm just saying that if you want to quick draw other items it should require a different feat (or the feat would be to broad).

Feel free to agree with Cartigan. That doesn't effect my opinion. I don't agree with him :)

And where in that text does it say you have to put the drawn item into action in the same round?

You could also still take out a weapon and use it taking a move and standard action.

It doesn't. We wondered into that close range encounter bit I think, or I did anyway. And if you're not using it in the same round, you just want to hold it... you can get it out with a lot less effort (and no feat required).

I think the most obvious answer is to just carry a bunch of daggers with wand chambers in them

;)

The game isn't very simulationist. Historically, the Longbow should be an Exotic Weapon - it took years of training to be proficient with it. You want simulationist with the longbow? It couldn't be used in dungeons, at least not nearly at the range it can currently be. We ignore simulation in some facets, but not others. And we're talking about whipping out a bag of explosive chemicals, a life-saving potion, or even a wallet without any appreciable effort. None of those is really so ludicrous (especially since two of them are combat related items) as to be more difficult than quickdrawing a longsword or a half-dozen daggers in 6 seconds. Thrown weapon characters with the TWF chain could get off a good 10 daggers thrown in one 6 second period via Quickdraw. Is that an accurate simulation? Can someone pull 10 daggers out of wherever and throw them with general accuracy in 6 seconds, all aimed at moving targets?

Simulation went out the window the second you picked up a book called "Dungeons and Dragons."

All role playing is simulationist, It's just a matter of degree. 3.5 / PF is far more so than say, 4E. I suspect it depends on your play style and is a matter of opinion.

I don't disagree with you about the longbow -- it should be an exotic weapon requiring an extra feat (at least). In the old days we went with underground ranges measuring in feet for what was measured in yards above ground btw. About 1/3 the range. It was amatter of shooting in the flat and not being able to arc the arrow. If you were in a big enough cavern, then it was back to yards. We came out of a historical miniatures background. We could be anal about some things.

It is a game about extraordinary characters. Larger than life heroes. That type of thing. Still, if you want to see speed and accuracy in real life, go to a practitioner of shurikenjutsu. It's educational.

Damn, looks like "simulation" went out the window 35 years ago for me :D But again, that's a matter of style, and opinion. I don't think anyone wants a perfect simulation of "real life" (God would that be boring), but a lot of people put a lot of effort into creating worlds that simulate a different reality than ours. That's why it's "fun".

Feats are precious character investments. Excluding bonus feats, a character gets 11 throughout 20 levels of adventuring. They are the primary building blocks of a character, and a gauge of their abilities. You should not have to spend a feat just to use a weapon that looks funny, especially when it is mechanically inferior to a martial weapon. The categories of weapons should mean something. Otherwise, we might as well just use 2nd edition's proficiencies system and not worry about this Simple/Martial/Exotic division. Exotic weapons 1) cost additional character resources to use accurately (a feat); 2) are less likely to be found in treasure caches than martial or simple weapons, making it less likely for you to have access to them in game; therefore they should be better than common weapons. If they're not better, they should not have an opportunity cost. The rules should be about character balance, not flavor text. Rogues don't get spells because they have lots of skill points. Wizards don't get lots of skill points because they get spells. These are mechanical balance considerations, not flavor-text balance.

Yes, feats are fairly important. Personally I always considered class abilities and features to be the most important buiding blocks of a character along with their characteristics. Oh well, guess all those spells and stuff aren't that important. Well, no, come to think of it, they are important. Feats are the little extras that help differentiate your character and give him that little extra. So here we disagree, but feats are the "new kid on the block" in character development for me. Fun, neat, useful, but not primary.

That's why I don't see your arguement about the cost of the feat. I do like the economics terminology (I teach it). They are a "cost" btw, economically, it would only be the "opportunity cost" if it's that single thing that you wanted most next to your actual choice. Again, it's not about "better", it's about the necessary effort (in game) to add that weapon to your character's repertoire. Exotic weapons, given that they are not innately superior to standard weapons (if done properly), are *all* about the flavour. Some things are about the mechanics, others are about flavour.

My character could hail from a nation where the Spiked Chain, one-handed Bastard Sword, and Repeater Crossbow are common weapons, and the sling is so odd that you'd have to find a reclusive master to learn how to use it. Therefore, by the logic of what is part of a "normal weapon range," the sling is an exotic weapon for this character, while the other three are martial, or maybe even simple, weapons.

Yes, they could be. Cultural baggage and all that. And then I'm sure your DM would make you pay an exotic weapon proficiency on those weapons that weren't in use in your homeland, like say, the longsword. At least I would :D

This is one of those nomenclature issues with the rules. "Exotic" to some people implies that it should just be "different." A better term, one that is rules based and not flavor-text based, would be "Advanced" weapons. If you had to spend a feat to get proficiency in an "advanced weapon," you'd sure as shooting expect it to be better than a martial weapon, wouldn't you?

That's probably why they are not "advanced" weapons. They aren't supposed to be necessarily better, just different. I suppose that has something to do with what happened to the spiked chain in Pathfinder. Ended up being different, not better for the most part. I think I can still hear the echoes of the screams over that one...

But people can make different choices that are still optimal for them. They can make choices that allow them to expend limited character resources on mechanically efficient benefits. If I put a skill rank in a skill, my bonus to roll it increases. I may even gain the ability to use the skill to hit a higher DC (such as with Knowledges) or use it at all (such as Use Magic Device). I am rewarded for putting a rank in to a skill, and I gain a mechanical benefit from doing so. And, barring below 10 INT scores, I get at least 40 throughout my 20 levels. Why should expending a much more limited resource (feats) give me less mechanical benefit than expending a more common, much more often gained resource (skill points). Expending a character resource should provide you with a mechanical benefit. That's why they're there. Describing your weapon as looking a little different from the norm is flavor-text. Unless said weapon provides a benefit above and beyond that of a normal weapon, it shouldn't cost you any extra.

Skills are more "core" to the character. Feats are something extra, layered on top of skills that help make your character a bit unique and give them some special ability or advantage. That's why.

Funny thing - I can hold something in both my hands and still manipulate my keys to open my front door at the end of the day. I can do the dishes while talking on the phone. In general, I can do a lot of stuff with things in my hands, because I have opposeable thumbs and four additional fingers. And I can also be holding a weapon in one hand while my other is free to manipulate things, if need be. In general, I don't think that you need a dungeon as clean and open as a modern day hospital to be able to maneuver with your weapon drawn. Oddly, in real life, which you like to reference for simulation, soldiers in combat situations commonly maneuver with a weapon in hand and at the ready in case they find themselves in combat. Why wouldn't veteran dungeon delvers who battle hideous monsters do the same?

Yes, you can. And how often do you drop the keys of something else while doing so? And using your keys at your own front door is a very familiar non stress circumstance. Hopefully. Depends where you live...

Why did that guy draw and cut while you were still drawing? Was he walking around with his sword out while you kept sheathing yours to open a door? Was he expecting trouble while you were just wandering around thinking everything was safe? Were you flat footed? You wouldn't be drawing your weapon in such situations. And, hey, he probably expended movement to get up to you and make that attack; now you can get an attack back. If you'd been expecting trouble, you could even get a full attack from your readied weapon.

Maybe because he was faster, or lucky, or heard you coming, or wasn't tired of lugging his weapon around in his hand all day long. Drop the heaqvy sarcasm (light will do), or no don't. I can manage some as well. I can think of a thousand reasons for you to have put your weapon away, and as many for having them out. Unless the damn thing is a permanent part of your hand there are times it will not be in your hand. Do you eat with it in your hand? Do you sleep with it in your hand? Do you carry it out and not your shield so you can have that free hand? Do you go to the latrine with it in your hand? Do you just use one hand on the pull ring on that huge old out of repair door with the rusty hinges? All things you may have to do unless you're on the Disneyland 45 minute Dungeon Excursion. Yes, if you are expecting trouble you have the weapon ready if at all possible. News flash: you are not always going to be ready. No one can be 24/7 365. Even in a dangerous environment. It does not happen.

Quick draw has limited use - it's just use that shouldn't be coming out of such a limited character resource as a feat. A couple of skill points to buy ranks in Sleight of Hand, or making the ability just be tied to your Base Attack Bonus (thereby working with the presupposed "warrior types would train this way more often than casters" thought process), or by making the feat more universal would all be ways to make it a better function. If you're expending a feat, you should get a mechanical benefit. The extremely situational benefit of Quickdraw is even worse than the 3.5 Dodge benefit, and I never saw anyone take dodge that didn't have to to get a different feat or prestige class that was using it as a requirement. Just like I've never seen anyone expend a feat on EWP: Whip (or Kama, Siangham, Repeating Crossbow, etc) or Quickdraw. They're not worth it unless you absolutely need them for some other reason.

It's not supposed to be all powerful. No feat is. They are limited utility tricks that are useful in some circumstances. I would argue that there are mechanical benefits to the feat. Apparently not at the level you're expecting. I don't expect "universal" utility from a feat. Just some, in certain circumstances. And I'm not arguing that some feats aren't more useful than others btw. I'm not, for instance, arguing the utility of exotic weapons. Many of them aren't all that. They are, however, different. On Quick Draw, our experiences are different. I've seen a lot of people take it and find it reasonably useful. Depends on the game I suppose.

I think the most obvious answer is to just carry a bunch of daggers with wand chambers in them

;)

Lol. Thanks, I needed that. This discussion is getting too serious and too academic... reminds me of graduate school :)

The suggestion that has been put forth is to allow for any item that has been specifically readied for quick retrieval to be usable with Quickdraw.

This doesn't mean "root around in your backpack for that wand or potion", it means "pull a wand out of a special hip holster like a magical gunslinger".

It means using a bandolier thematically and logically for your alchemical "grenades".

It means a Handy Haversack can magically make the seemingly impossible work ("quick" rooting in your backpack for that wand or potion").

If something is "readied" for "quick retrieval".. and you have a feat dedicated to "quick retrieval".. we are just suggesting that the rules be changed to allow it.

.

Now I will house rule whatever I want in my own games, of course. This was a suggestion for future revisions of the feat, as it makes logical and thematic sense.

My issue with exotic weapons is that it's retarded.

Yes, I have to use a feat in order how to use a repeating crossbow correctly, otherwise I wouldn't know how to pull a trigger then pull a lever, man this is hard.

The suggestion that has been put forth is to allow for any item that has been specifically readied for quick retrieval to be usable with Quickdraw.

This doesn't mean "root around in your backpack for that wand or potion", it means "pull a wand out of a special hip holster like a magical gunslinger".

It means using a bandolier thematically and logically for your alchemical "grenades".

It means a Handy Haversack can magically make the seemingly impossible work ("quick" rooting in your backpack for that wand or potion").

If something is "readied" for "quick retrieval".. and you have a feat dedicated to "quick retrieval".. we are just suggesting that the rules be changed to allow it.

.Now I will house rule whatever I want in my own games, of course. This was a suggestion for future revisions of the feat, as it makes logical and thematic sense.

It makes logical and thematic sense... for a different feat. *sigh* Personally I can see a version of quick draw for some arcane items (as I've said repeatedly), like wands. I don't see it for potions and scrolls. It's the "let me whip this out fast and now take my time to use it" aspect that bothers me. To each their own I guess though. My primary objection would be having one single feat that could do it all -- quick draw every item known to man. That's a feat which is overly broad and too powerful, imo of course. If the feat was revised and you had to pick categories of items and could take it multiple times choosing different categories I could see it. Just not everything and the kitchen sink in one fell swoop. And, as I've said, some categories of items don't seem like good candidates for a feat of this type. Given the wording of the original feat, this is mostly about house rules and speculation or (hoped for) revisions / new feats anyway.

My issue with exotic weapons is that it's retarded.

Yes, I have to use a feat in order how to use a repeating crossbow correctly, otherwise I wouldn't know how to pull a trigger then pull a lever, man this is hard.

The list of simple vs. martial weapons has it's oddities as well, but they had to make the divisions at some point or simply let everyone use everything or some people use nothing. Or go back to a weapon proficiency type system a la 2E. As for the exotic weapons, you can use them. With a -4 non-proficiency penalty no different from using a martial (or simple) weapon you are not proficient with. Presumably to account for the unfamiliar balance and usage. One thing that surprised me is why the non-proficiency penalty didn't vary by class, higher for people not too into weapons (i.e. Wizards) and lower for more weapon savvy classes. I think they wanted it simpler than 2E's proficiency system, but with some differentation. And that's what they got...

My issue with exotic weapons is that it's retarded.

Yes, I have to use a feat in order how to use a repeating crossbow correctly, otherwise I wouldn't know how to pull a trigger then pull a lever, man this is hard.

You should check out this site.

The point of the repeating crossbow was that you just had to do the one action (push then pull a level, or turn a crank for the more sophisticated designs), and it would fire arrow after arrow for you.

So it's learning curve is literally "do you know how to pull a lever?".

.

I disliked how exotic weapons were treated in this game. There should be a distinction between how rare it is to find or make an item (price, rarity in discovery/purchasability, etc), versus the difficulty in using the item.

Using a double weapon should be as hard as (or harder than) using two weapons for attacking. Using an offhand weapon for parrying or opening up defenses should be easier (possibly only slightly more difficult than using a shield.. it's effectively like using a gauntleted hand to force an opening).

A Kama is nothing more than a sickle with a slightly different shape. A Siangham is nothing more than a dagger with less functionality.

A 15' reach whip used to cause damage I can see being hard to use. Swinging a short length of chain (no reach), not so much. Street toughs use chain like this as they might a flail.

Yeah.. I'd like to see the entire proficiency thing changed around, and move "it's something rare/not from here" to a different part of the game.

It makes logical and thematic sense... for a different feat. *sigh* Personally I can see a version of quick draw for some arcane items (as I've said repeatedly), like wands. I don't see it for potions and scrolls.

Mind you currently you can quickdraw a lantern, but not a potion; a staff, but not a wand, a book, but not a scroll.

Does it make any sense? No.

It was a change to avoid certain things based I guess upon balance. I don't see the need personally, and think that the 3 specific things that you can't quickdraw is silly.

If you can quickdraw a polearm, really what's the point in limiting it away from scrolls or potions?

-James

Mind you currently you can quickdraw a lantern, but not a potion; a staff, but not a wand, a book, but not a scroll.

Does it make any sense? No.

It was a change to avoid certain things based I guess upon balance. I don't see the need personally, and think that the 3 specific things that you can't quickdraw is silly.

If you can quickdraw a polearm, really what's the point in limiting it away from scrolls or potions?

-James

The only thing you can currently quick draw is a weapon based on the feat description for Quick Draw (Combat) in the PFRPG Core Rulebook, pages 131-2...

I suspect those three things were specifically mentioned to head off arguements about what constituted a "weapon". The language in the feat is clear and largely unambiguous. Just weapons.