Why is Quickdraw only usable with weapons?


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

1 to 50 of 108 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Sovereign Court

This is one of my pet peeves with 3.0 onward, only finally fixed in 4e when you can finally quick draw and object that is readily available.

I've just never understood why it the feat was so restrictive in only focusing on weapons, making it only useful in very specialized builds rather than a good general feat that would be helpful to anyone.

I guess what irks me is that I don't understand the intent behind the design of the feat, and why it stayed that way in 3.5 and then in Pathfinder.


Mok wrote:

This is one of my pet peeves with 3.0 onward, only finally fixed in 4e when you can finally quick draw and object that is readily available.

I've just never understood why it the feat was so restrictive in only focusing on weapons, making it only useful in very specialized builds rather than a good general feat that would be helpful to anyone.

I guess what irks me is that I don't understand the intent behind the design of the feat, and why it stayed that way in 3.5 and then in Pathfinder.

Well, RAW I think you could use it on almost anything actually, due to the rules for improvised weapons.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

I suspect one of the primary reasons quickdraw is usable only with weapons is due to flavor, since there's a LOT of fiction and real-life examples of fast-drawing weapons, from gunslingers in westerns to samurais with their katanas. Not a lot of quickdrawing potion drinkers or wand users in legends or stories.

Also, weapons NEED something like this, particularly at high levels where part of a high-level weapon user's thing is the ability to make multiple attacks. You can draw a magic item and make full use of its intended effect already, but as you get higher level, you can't do this with weapons since a full attack requires a full round action and drawing your weapon negates that.

Anyway, I absolutely disagree that Quick Draw is useful "only in specialized builds." It's useful for ANY weapon user who wants to make more full attacks once they get their first iterative attack. It's even MORE useful for two-weapon using characters. It's ALSO useful for rogues, since Quick Draw lets them get a weapon out really fast in the first round to take advantage of sneak attacks. Especially in the case of rogues with ranged weapons on a first round where they get multiple attacks.

Scarab Sages

I think one of the best reasons to get Quick Draw too is if you plan on using a lot of throwing weapons. You pretty much need the feat to get iterative attacks with them.


I love Quick Draw for any build that is good with both ranged and melee fighting. You can sit back and plug arrows in your enemies and when they close within 5' of you, you can drop your bow, pull out your weapon(s) and hack them to bits without missing a step.


Frogboy wrote:
I love Quick Draw for any build that is good with both ranged and melee fighting. You can sit back and plug arrows in your enemies and when they close within 5' of you, you can drop your bow, pull out your weapon(s) and hack them to bits without missing a step.

I hear talk of this strategy far too often. You must have much nicer DMs than I do. If I left a weapon unattended on the ground, it would be stolen or broken in an instant.

The Exchange

Aratex wrote:
Frogboy wrote:
I love Quick Draw for any build that is good with both ranged and melee fighting. You can sit back and plug arrows in your enemies and when they close within 5' of you, you can drop your bow, pull out your weapon(s) and hack them to bits without missing a step.
I hear talk of this strategy far too often. You must have much nicer DMs than I do. If I left a weapon unattended on the ground, it would be stolen or broken in an instant.

Your fights must be easy then, because if your DM thinks that the best use of an attack action is to take away a weapon that won't be used for the rest of the combat then he's obviously not very tactical.


Demoyn wrote:
Your fights must be easy then, because if your DM thinks that the best use of an attack action is to take away a weapon that won't be used for the rest of the combat then he's obviously not very tactical.

If only this were true. He'd say the bad guy weighed enough to break it by stepping on it (or kicked it into a nearby lake/pit/lava/river as he walked by if applicable). Or it would just be gone and my character wouldn't be able to find it (I'm sure it'd go somewhere, but he wouldn't give me any clues).

Even if he did destroy it within game rules, like by using an attack to smash it while it was unattended, it's not about sound tactics for that fight. It's about making me suffer for playing a character he doesn't like. He hates archers, no idea why... and Pathfinder making archery worthwhile doesn't sit well with him either.

Sczarni

Aratex wrote:
Demoyn wrote:
Your fights must be easy then, because if your DM thinks that the best use of an attack action is to take away a weapon that won't be used for the rest of the combat then he's obviously not very tactical.

If only this were true. He'd say the bad guy weighed enough to break it by stepping on it (or kicked it into a nearby lake/pit/lava/river as he walked by if applicable). Or it would just be gone and my character wouldn't be able to find it (I'm sure it'd go somewhere, but he wouldn't give me any clues).

Even if he did destroy it within game rules, like by using an attack to smash it while it was unattended, it's not about sound tactics for that fight. It's about making me suffer for playing a character he doesn't like. He hates archers, no idea why... and Pathfinder making archery worthwhile doesn't sit well with him either.

DM stand for Douche-Meister in your group?


Icaste Fyrbawl wrote:
Aratex wrote:
Demoyn wrote:
Your fights must be easy then, because if your DM thinks that the best use of an attack action is to take away a weapon that won't be used for the rest of the combat then he's obviously not very tactical.

If only this were true. He'd say the bad guy weighed enough to break it by stepping on it (or kicked it into a nearby lake/pit/lava/river as he walked by if applicable). Or it would just be gone and my character wouldn't be able to find it (I'm sure it'd go somewhere, but he wouldn't give me any clues).

Even if he did destroy it within game rules, like by using an attack to smash it while it was unattended, it's not about sound tactics for that fight. It's about making me suffer for playing a character he doesn't like. He hates archers, no idea why... and Pathfinder making archery worthwhile doesn't sit well with him either.

DM stand for Douche-Meister in your group?

Doesnt it always?


Aratex wrote:
Frogboy wrote:
I love Quick Draw for any build that is good with both ranged and melee fighting. You can sit back and plug arrows in your enemies and when they close within 5' of you, you can drop your bow, pull out your weapon(s) and hack them to bits without missing a step.
I hear talk of this strategy far too often. You must have much nicer DMs than I do. If I left a weapon unattended on the ground, it would be stolen or broken in an instant.

Yes, much nicer than that for sure. That's just being cruel.

The Exchange

Aratex wrote:

If only this were true. He'd say the bad guy weighed enough to break it by stepping on it (or kicked it into a nearby lake/pit/lava/river as he walked by if applicable). Or it would just be gone and my character wouldn't be able to find it (I'm sure it'd go somewhere, but he wouldn't give me any clues).

Even if he did destroy it within game rules, like by using an attack to smash it while it was unattended, it's not about sound tactics for that fight. It's about making me suffer for playing a character he doesn't like. He hates archers, no idea why... and Pathfinder making archery worthwhile doesn't sit well with him either.

I'd suggest that you tell your DM to read the part of the core rulebook that says a DMs job is to provide challenging fun to the players, not to frustrate and piss them off. Personally, I'd find another DM. :(

Scarab Sages

Aratex wrote:
Demoyn wrote:
Your fights must be easy then, because if your DM thinks that the best use of an attack action is to take away a weapon that won't be used for the rest of the combat then he's obviously not very tactical.

If only this were true. He'd say the bad guy weighed enough to break it by stepping on it (or kicked it into a nearby lake/pit/lava/river as he walked by if applicable). Or it would just be gone and my character wouldn't be able to find it (I'm sure it'd go somewhere, but he wouldn't give me any clues).

Even if he did destroy it within game rules, like by using an attack to smash it while it was unattended, it's not about sound tactics for that fight. It's about making me suffer for playing a character he doesn't like. He hates archers, no idea why... and Pathfinder making archery worthwhile doesn't sit well with him either.

Yea Aratex, this does suck. Just from the realistic side of combat, no person would walk up to another and spend their action destroying a ranged weapon and leave themselves open for an attack from that character.

From the perspective of the game rules, Weapons do have a hardness and there are sunder rules for such things, even if unattended. If a character performs a sunder on your dropped weapon (it is in your square when dropped) they would open themselves up to an AoO. Even kicking the weapon out of your square provokes an AoO.

This is a strange thing that your DM is doing.

Now, if this were a recurring villain that knows your weapons from prior battles, then the weight of stealing your favorite ranged weapon and coming back another day might be appealing.

Dark Archive

Mok wrote:

This is one of my pet peeves with 3.0 onward, only finally fixed in 4e when you can finally quick draw and object that is readily available.

I've just never understood why it the feat was so restrictive in only focusing on weapons, making it only useful in very specialized builds rather than a good general feat that would be helpful to anyone.

I guess what irks me is that I don't understand the intent behind the design of the feat, and why it stayed that way in 3.5 and then in Pathfinder.

Probably flavor-influenced, yes. There are probably rules-cheese reasons, too. That qualifier in the feat will certainly help keep my goliath alchemist from behaving too badly. Throw Anything with the Brutal Throw feat and large weapons is by itself mean, before you even figure in bombs or other alchemical splash weapons. I'm still taking Quick Draw so he can chug potions or extracts he has in hand, then draw weapons for the next go-round.


Aratex wrote:
I hear talk of this strategy far too often. You must have much nicer DMs than I do. If I left a weapon unattended on the ground, it would be stolen or broken in an instant.
Aratex wrote:
It's about making me suffer for playing a character he doesn't like.

You answered your own question. You hear it often despite your experiences because your experiences are not the norm.

That's pretty much it.

...

uh.. sucks to be you? Sorry.. not much else to say. Advice? Do like my brother did very recently: DM your own game. Not a very good answer, I know, but there's not much else other than finding a different group or trying to talk to your DM about it (like that ever works).

Tough situation man...


James Jacobs wrote:
Also, weapons NEED something like this, particularly at high levels where part of a high-level weapon user's thing is the ability to make multiple attacks. You can draw a magic item and make full use of its intended effect already, but as you get higher level, you can't do this with weapons since a full attack requires a full round action and drawing your weapon negates that.

I normally hate this term, but it's appropriate. Doesn't this just make it a feat tax? If it's "needed", then why doesn't it just kick in at 6+ BAB?

Either way (feat or BAB), you are getting training with weapons.. and there's precendence for it already (BAB 1+ allows you to move while drawing your weapon).

For throwing weapons, it just seems weird that you can't make attacks by drawing and throwing as part of the training in use of throwing weapons.

Now granted, you'd need to have the weapon ready for drawing, and not hidden in a bag or backpack, nor tied up with a peace knot or slung over a shoulder instead of in a ready-to-be-drawn position.
Why can't that be the rule then?

A gunslinger wants to only quickly draw his gun, then that sounds like a class ability to me.

If you spend a feat on "readying things quickly", it can be more universal. It's competing against things like Leadership or Vital Strike. A feat feels like it needs to be more universal than that.
It could even allow drawing the weapon as a free action before gaining 6+ BAB... there you go!


I'm still waiting for the Quick Stow feat. Or the Grocery-Bag-Holding, close-a-door-without-needing-a-move-action feat!

Dark Archive

If you take out a potion with the intent of throwing it, you can quick draw it. Is it then possible, after you've drawn it, to change your mind and drink it instead?

(I know the answer, I'm just pointing out what seems like an incoherence in the rules)


Entropi wrote:

If you take out a potion with the intent of throwing it, you can quick draw it. Is it then possible, after you've drawn it, to change your mind and drink it instead?

(I know the answer, I'm just pointing out what seems like an incoherence in the rules)

No incoherence here, if you change your mind you must go on and unstopper it, set it to your mouth and drink it, making it the appropiate action.

Or do you doubt that someone can throw a potion much faster than do all of the above?

Dark Archive

In normal situations, the drawing of the potion just, retroactively, becomes a move-equivalent action, instead of a free action. But what if you don't have a move action? Then I guess it's just not possible to change your mind and drink the potion, right?

The Exchange

Hmmmm....there does seem to be a bit of rules confusion here.
Quick Draw is truly a situational beast. It's great if your enemy gets the drop on you and closes with you. It works well with the aforementioned archer defending himself (and even in that case, why would you drop the bow? Keep it in your left hand and stab with the right! If you are not attempting to USE the bow, there should be no two-weapon penalty. The situation is exactly the same as fighting with a torch in one hand and a sword in the other. ) But anything more than the beasties getting to you before you get your turn at the beginning of the fight really means that Quick Draw is going to be used in an regular game less often than a person might think.

It also seems that many of you have forgotten that you can draw a weapon as part of normal movement. (at least that's what I read into this conversation.) If you are closing on the enemy because you got to go first, draw that weapon while closing, and if you are within one movement, swing away when you get close enough. Even if you need to double move to get to the critter, you draw while moving so as to be ready for the next round. If you have Two Weapon Fighting, you can even draw both weapons. Fighter types of sixth level and higher closing on an enemy are not going to get more than one swing anyways, so there's no reason to wait til the next round to get that weapon out.

I find it interesting that the rules specifically state that drawing ammunition for a ranged weapon is a free action - as in, part of the attack action. They go on to name arrows, quarrels, sing bullets and even shuriken, but make no mention of multiple throwing knives or axes. If a shuriken is both ammunition and weapon, couldn't the same argument be used for a throwing knife? This is probably the only other situation in the game (other than those I listed above) where Quick Draw is actually useful. In fact, the rules flat out state that thrown weapons with Quick Draw are at "normal rate of attack."

Now in 3.5 I found a wonderful little Feat that made great use of Quick Draw. It was called Flick of the Wrist. Basically you drew you weapon and attacked in one fluid motion. Flick of the Wrist then had the opponent be considered Flat Footed. It was a great way to maximize my Sneak Attack damage for my rogue. Close in an enemy that I couldn't yet get flanking and BAM! Sneak Attack damage. Put the weapon away and go for the next critter.

It's kinda sad that the Feat description actually states "Alchemical items, potions, scrolls, and wands cannot be drawn quickly using this feat." I do recall seeing a potion "bandolier" and a wand quick-draw "sheath" in various books in 3.5 that allowed Quick Draw to be used for those special occasions, but those items have yet to find their way into Pathfinder.

On the other hand I can kinda see the spirit of the rules for the restricted items. Alchemical item, potions and such are delicate, and therefore more likely to be harder to pull out on a moment's notice. That's why we have such things as the Haversack and specialized Holding items that specifically state that retrieving items are a free action.

When all the rules lawering is done it all comes down to the simple fact that it's your game. If you want to have Quick Draw to be used for other things, go right ahead and don't let anybody here stop you. They're called House Rules for a reason....

The Exchange

Kaisoku wrote:
If you spend a feat on "readying things quickly", it can be more universal.

The problem with this solution is that it becomes "just HOW MANY ITEMS can a character have on his person that are ready to be used quickly?" Players will try to take advantage of any loophole they see and it will take some very nimble DM wrangling to get things under control. I can see it now...

"Bob, I'm afraid there's just no way you can have these 35 items on your person, ready to be used with a Free Action!"
"But Dave, I have this diagram showing where everything is! Here let me demonstrate how easy it really is..."


Samothrake wrote:
Kaisoku wrote:
If you spend a feat on "readying things quickly", it can be more universal.

They problem with this solution is that it becomes "just HOW MANY ITEMS can a character have on his person that are ready to be used quickly?" Players will try to take advantage of any loophole they see and it will take some very nimble DM wrangling to get things under control. I can see it now...

"Bob, I'm afraid there's just no way you can have these 35 items on your person, ready to be used with a Free Action!"
"But Dave, I have this diagram showing where everything is! Here let me demonstrate how easy it really is..."

The easy solution to this as a DM is a simple rule: if it's available to be readily drawn then it's sunderable, while if it's stowed away in a backpack/etc then it's not.

Give a PC/NPC a picture of their opponent having a bandoleer of alchemicals and someone that wouldn't normally think to sunder suddenly does...

Personally I think quickdraw is fine for wands/rods/potions/alchemicals and rather than being restricted in pathfinder should be expanded out.

-James

Grand Lodge

james maissen wrote:
Samothrake wrote:
Kaisoku wrote:
If you spend a feat on "readying things quickly", it can be more universal.

They problem with this solution is that it becomes "just HOW MANY ITEMS can a character have on his person that are ready to be used quickly?" Players will try to take advantage of any loophole they see and it will take some very nimble DM wrangling to get things under control. I can see it now...

"Bob, I'm afraid there's just no way you can have these 35 items on your person, ready to be used with a Free Action!"
"But Dave, I have this diagram showing where everything is! Here let me demonstrate how easy it really is..."

The easy solution to this as a DM is a simple rule: if it's available to be readily drawn then it's sunderable, while if it's stowed away in a backpack/etc then it's not.

Give a PC/NPC a picture of their opponent having a bandoleer of alchemicals and someone that wouldn't normally think to sunder suddenly does...

Personally I think quickdraw is fine for wands/rods/potions/alchemicals and rather than being restricted in pathfinder should be expanded out.

-James

This could be fun (for the DM)!

Player: "I quick-draw one of the 14 bottles of alchemist's fire from the bandoleer on my chest and throw it at the ogre - 6 points damage!"

DM: "The ogre smashes your chest with his club, smashing the other 13 bottles of alchemist's fire - oops, are you dead?"


James Jacobs wrote:
I suspect one of the primary reasons quickdraw is usable only with weapons is due to flavor, since there's a LOT of fiction and real-life examples of fast-drawing weapons, from gunslingers in westerns to samurais with their katanas. Not a lot of quickdrawing potion drinkers or wand users in legends or stories.

So, basically, for no real reason at all?

And arn't wands the high fantasy equivalent of guns anyway?

Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8

quick draw is good for in more than just the +6 BAB folks though.

Standing next to the guy when the fight breaks out? If you have initative you can quickdraw, single attack and move back a full move without drawing an AoO. Conditional I know, but it's a good example.

+0 BAB characters can't move and draw. Quickdraw gets you there.

(sword and spell types) bad guy charging you? If you have initaitve you can move to spoil his charge, blast him, then draw your sword/holy symbol as needed.

Archer builds as listed above.


Aratex wrote:
Demoyn wrote:
Your fights must be easy then, because if your DM thinks that the best use of an attack action is to take away a weapon that won't be used for the rest of the combat then he's obviously not very tactical.

If only this were true. He'd say the bad guy weighed enough to break it by stepping on it (or kicked it into a nearby lake/pit/lava/river as he walked by if applicable). Or it would just be gone and my character wouldn't be able to find it (I'm sure it'd go somewhere, but he wouldn't give me any clues).

Even if he did destroy it within game rules, like by using an attack to smash it while it was unattended, it's not about sound tactics for that fight. It's about making me suffer for playing a character he doesn't like. He hates archers, no idea why... and Pathfinder making archery worthwhile doesn't sit well with him either.

I see a lot of talk about DM grief on these boards. With whom do you guys play? Random jerks met online or at a game store? I guess I might be lucky and not everyone can be in this situation, but I only ever play with personnal friends.

Also, we switch DMing once in a while, so if they give me unwaranted s+!*, I can reciprocate later, either in game when I'm in control, or in real life.

Or, I can also just, you know, talk to them about the attitude. Guess that works too.


Demoyn wrote:
Aratex wrote:

If only this were true. He'd say the bad guy weighed enough to break it by stepping on it (or kicked it into a nearby lake/pit/lava/river as he walked by if applicable). Or it would just be gone and my character wouldn't be able to find it (I'm sure it'd go somewhere, but he wouldn't give me any clues).

Even if he did destroy it within game rules, like by using an attack to smash it while it was unattended, it's not about sound tactics for that fight. It's about making me suffer for playing a character he doesn't like. He hates archers, no idea why... and Pathfinder making archery worthwhile doesn't sit well with him either.

I'd suggest that you tell your DM to read the part of the core rulebook that says a DMs job is to provide challenging fun to the players, not to frustrate and piss them off. Personally, I'd find another DM. :(

+1

I'm usually the DM, so I'd love to have that opportunity...


Matthew Morris wrote:


+0 BAB characters can't move and draw.

They also can't take Quick Draw


Cartigan wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:
I suspect one of the primary reasons quickdraw is usable only with weapons is due to flavor, since there's a LOT of fiction and real-life examples of fast-drawing weapons, from gunslingers in westerns to samurais with their katanas. Not a lot of quickdrawing potion drinkers or wand users in legends or stories.

So, basically, for no real reason at all?

And arn't wands the high fantasy equivalent of guns anyway?

The item you are quick drawing is one you practice with relentlessly. It's why your quick doing it. It is designed, or it's design lends itself readily to, a fluid drawing action. Repeated practice irons itself into your muscle "memory" and you can pull it without really thinking about it. Swords, daggers, knives, shuriken... all doable. I can almost see it with a wand (much like a pistol), but not really with something as clumsy as a potion (which has to be unstoppered) or yanking out a flask and pitching it's inherantly unaerodynamic shape at someone. The steady practice with one item seems to be peculiar to weapon weilders. Although I can't see it working with larger melee weapons either. "I'm going to quickdraw my pike" just doesn't seem right :)


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

Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8

Cartigan wrote:
Matthew Morris wrote:


+0 BAB characters can't move and draw.
They also can't take Quick Draw

Ack, that's a change I missed.


Matthew Morris wrote:
Cartigan wrote:
Matthew Morris wrote:


+0 BAB characters can't move and draw.
They also can't take Quick Draw
Ack, that's a change I missed.

IIRC, they've never been able to take Quick Draw. It's not a change.

Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8

ChrisRevocateur wrote:
Matthew Morris wrote:
Cartigan wrote:
Matthew Morris wrote:


+0 BAB characters can't move and draw.
They also can't take Quick Draw
Ack, that's a change I missed.
IIRC, they've never been able to take Quick Draw. It's not a change.

I just looked, you're right. I feel quite the idiot now.


I've been quick drawing my bard's music items the entire time... DM was OK with that.

I'd also allow quick draw on potions/scrolls/wands if they were kept in a specialized container such as a potion belt or scroll case. Players need to invest to actually use it with this ability. Adds some flavor to the game.
But that's a house rule.


I've allowed players to quick-draw pretty much whatever they have if they took this feat, within reason. For instance, if they have a scroll, but it's stowed away in their backpack, I wouldn't allow quick-draw on that item.


Xaaon of Korvosa wrote:
Demoyn wrote:
Aratex wrote:

If only this were true. He'd say the bad guy weighed enough to break it by stepping on it (or kicked it into a nearby lake/pit/lava/river as he walked by if applicable). Or it would just be gone and my character wouldn't be able to find it (I'm sure it'd go somewhere, but he wouldn't give me any clues).

Even if he did destroy it within game rules, like by using an attack to smash it while it was unattended, it's not about sound tactics for that fight. It's about making me suffer for playing a character he doesn't like. He hates archers, no idea why... and Pathfinder making archery worthwhile doesn't sit well with him either.

I'd suggest that you tell your DM to read the part of the core rulebook that says a DMs job is to provide challenging fun to the players, not to frustrate and piss them off. Personally, I'd find another DM. :(

+1

I'm usually the DM, so I'd love to have that opportunity...

You should contact PETA, people for the ethical treatment of archers.


NoStrings wrote:
james maissen wrote:
Samothrake wrote:
Kaisoku wrote:
If you spend a feat on "readying things quickly", it can be more universal.

They problem with this solution is that it becomes "just HOW MANY ITEMS can a character have on his person that are ready to be used quickly?" Players will try to take advantage of any loophole they see and it will take some very nimble DM wrangling to get things under control. I can see it now...

"Bob, I'm afraid there's just no way you can have these 35 items on your person, ready to be used with a Free Action!"
"But Dave, I have this diagram showing where everything is! Here let me demonstrate how easy it really is..."

The easy solution to this as a DM is a simple rule: if it's available to be readily drawn then it's sunderable, while if it's stowed away in a backpack/etc then it's not.

Give a PC/NPC a picture of their opponent having a bandoleer of alchemicals and someone that wouldn't normally think to sunder suddenly does...

Personally I think quickdraw is fine for wands/rods/potions/alchemicals and rather than being restricted in pathfinder should be expanded out.

-James

This could be fun (for the DM)!

Player: "I quick-draw one of the 14 bottles of alchemist's fire from the bandoleer on my chest and throw it at the ogre - 6 points damage!"

DM: "The ogre smashes your chest with his club, smashing the other 13 bottles of alchemist's fire - oops, are you dead?"

As it's final attack, the Dragon swallows dave and instantaneously gains the effect of the 15 potions of cure serious wounds potions strapped to his chest...


Kaisoku wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:
Also, weapons NEED something like this, particularly at high levels where part of a high-level weapon user's thing is the ability to make multiple attacks. You can draw a magic item and make full use of its intended effect already, but as you get higher level, you can't do this with weapons since a full attack requires a full round action and drawing your weapon negates that.

I normally hate this term, but it's appropriate. Doesn't this just make it a feat tax? If it's "needed", then why doesn't it just kick in at 6+ BAB?

Either way (feat or BAB), you are getting training with weapons.. and there's precendence for it already (BAB 1+ allows you to move while drawing your weapon).

For throwing weapons, it just seems weird that you can't make attacks by drawing and throwing as part of the training in use of throwing weapons.

Now granted, you'd need to have the weapon ready for drawing, and not hidden in a bag or backpack, nor tied up with a peace knot or slung over a shoulder instead of in a ready-to-be-drawn position.
Why can't that be the rule then?

A gunslinger wants to only quickly draw his gun, then that sounds like a class ability to me.

If you spend a feat on "readying things quickly", it can be more universal. It's competing against things like Leadership or Vital Strike. A feat feels like it needs to be more universal than that.
It could even allow drawing the weapon as a free action before gaining 6+ BAB... there you go!

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.


Disciple of Sakura wrote:


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.

Just because Quick Draw does not include the kitchen sink doesn't make it "situational and/or inefficient for all but the oddest corner cases". Ask anybody who carries a weapon just how useful Quick Draw is. Imo feats shouldn't be too good or cover too much ground. A feat is more limited than that. It's a neat trick / skill with a relatively narrow focus but highly useful within that framework. Exotic weapons are "the oddest kitchen corner cases" :)

As for exotic weapons, they don't require a feat because they are superior to other weapons. They require a feat because the knowledge / training required is unusual and outside the bounds of normal weapons training.

When you divorce the knowledge of what a feat requires in "real life", dedicated practice / training, or additional training with a weapon not included within normal bounds, you begin lose the reason for the existence of the feat. It becomes simply a game mechanic to be compared to others on the basis of it's equality in game terms. Then you get questions like "why can't that be applied to everything" or "why isn't that exotic weapon better than the other weapons". I have always compared Quick Draw to iaijutsu and exotic weapon training to that odd martial arts weapons. It takes time and dedication. Hence the feat requirement.


R_Chance wrote:


When you divorce the knowledge of what a feat requires in "real life", dedicated practice / training, or additional training with a weapon not included within normal bounds, you begin lose the reason for the existence of the feat. It becomes simply a game mechanic to be compared to others on the basis of it's equality in game terms. Then you get questions like "why can't that be applied to everything" or "why isn't that exotic weapon better than the other weapons". I have always compared Quick Draw to iaijutsu and exotic weapon training to that odd martial arts weapons. It takes time and dedication. Hence the feat requirement.

I agree.

As a student of knife combat (I'm not that good), I can attest to the practice it takes to be able to reliably get your weapon out and ready to fight. It's a matter of practice and muscle memory, and part of mastering a weapon, not using a magic item that needs another action to activate, like unscrolling a scroll or speaking a command word to use a wand.

Dropping your bow and drawing your sword in one second is an obvious and frequent event for non-spellcasters.

Some gung-ho combat guy said, "A weapon you can't get to quickly is like no weapon at all."

Leave it to the the folks who don't cast spells. It's about weapons.


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.

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 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.

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.


Honestly, I would like fewer actions to require feats, and more actions be determined by skill rolls.

For an example to the relevant discussion, see Sleight of Hand. It already lets you draw a hidden weapon. Why not expand upon that with something like this:

DC 15: Draw an available weapon as a free action
DC 25: Sheath a weapon as a free action
-4 DC if light weapon, +4 DC if two handed with additional +4 DC if reach weapon

If roll fails, the action becomes a move action, if a move action is not avaiable then a standard action must be used.

Skills have so much more broad potential for mechanics, but unfortunately the trend has been to just make it a feat instead.


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.


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.

RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32

I removed some posts that were getting heated. Please feel free to remake your points, but please do so without insulting others.


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.

1 to 50 of 108 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Why is Quickdraw only usable with weapons? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.