I don't think it's unreasonable to Quick Draw wands. I DO think trying to define wands as clubs IS unreasonable, despite the temptation created by hard@ss 'only weapons can be Quick Drawn' rulings. If your GM really doesn't want to let you use the Quick Draw feat on wands, that's really his/her prerogative. Hell, that may even be RAW/RAI, I'm not a mind-reader and I'm sloppy on combat feats 'cause I rarely play martials.
Now, if you craft a wand using a club, more power to you.
But standard wand=/=club, imo.
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
I don't think it's unreasonable to Quick Draw wands. I DO think trying to define wands as clubs IS unreasonable, despite the temptation created by hard@ss 'only weapons can be Quick Drawn' rulings. If your GM really doesn't want to let you use the Quick Draw feat on wands, that's really his/her prerogative. Hell, that may even be RAW/RAI, I'm not a mind-reader and I'm sloppy on combat feats 'cause I rarely play martials.
Now, if you craft a wand using a club, more power to you.
But standard wand=/=club, imo.
Um, this discussion was about drawing as part of a normal move, not about Quick Draw. Quick Draw actually specifies that you can't use it with wands (among other things).
Though I agree that said restriction is a bit silly, as I can't really see it being game-breaking for it to work with wands (or easily accessible alchemical items, for that matter). Oh well.
Sorry, draw w/move. I don't have a problem with doing THAT w/wands, either.
But wands still aren't clubs.
O.o
Even in 3.5 it was just a stick. The only thing that is a weapon by default IIRC is the wizard's staff.
Rods are bigger than wands and even then only some of them can be used as weapon. That is usually in the description of the rod itself though.
|
| 4 people marked this as FAQ candidate. |
As originator of the post I do have some further comments:
I'm pleased that people have been addressing the format and layout of the paragraph and heading.
Hearing the discussion, I'm more inclined to believe the devs intended the second paragraph in question to refer to the *action* "draw or sheathe a weapon", not the literal "draw a weapon".
In a game where, arguably, the action economy deserves the most scrutiny, clarity could have been easily achieved with just a few more words (sorry, devs, but clarity WAS needed on this one, not RAW.) [sigh]
It becomes more problematic in Pathfinder Society, where players/GMs vary. And on this basic action question, it sure seems like a clarification is long overdue (nudge FAQ).
Also, I'm glad people have mentioned the logical absurdity of being able to drawing a polearm as a free action in a 5' wide corridor while moving and not being able to draw a wand as a free action while moving in same said corridor. We're talking about a bulky 4'-5' weapon versus a 1' slim stick.
The rules don't make a sense common sense wise in a lot of place, but they exist for balance reasons.
As I showed in an earlier post drawing and sheathing a weapon are two completely different thing however.
One provokes, and one does not. If you want to use real life as an example of difference, trying to sheathe a sword while running at a full sprint is just a bad idea.
There is also this post-->Click me
They are definitely not tied together either by rules text or the chart which clearly show what is allows with a +1 BAB.
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
Picking a weapon up, retrieving a stowed item, and drawing a weapon are all different things.The 2nd paragraph never allows you to pick a weapon up or take an item out of your backpack. The fact that something is a weapon does not disqualify it as stowed item.
RAW that second sentence only allows you to draw a weapon.
The first paragraph defines what drawing a weapon is, if that definition doesn't apply to the second paragraph, one must devise a wholly new definition.
If the definition does apply, then, since drawing weapon-like objects are included in the definition of drawing a weapon, then, by the 2nd paragraph, one could draw a weapon-like object as part of a move.
The first paragraph defines what drawing a weapon is, if that definition doesn't apply to the second paragraph, one must devise a wholly new definition.
It doesn't...
If the definition does apply, then, since drawing weapon-like objects are included in the definition of drawing a weapon, then, by the 2nd paragraph, one could draw a weapon-like object as part of a move.
You can't..
People keep refering to "might", "should", "could", "common sense" and "realism"..
The text is right there.. you just have to read it. ---> IF <--- the devs. intended the rule to apply to wands, rods ect. they would have written so. They would have stated that the rules from paragraph 1 would apply here too. They SPECIFICALLY state weapons only and not "weapons and weapon-like items" it's only 4 more words.. come on..
If that is not enough, try to put it in context people. There's a feat called "Quick Draw" why the hell would there be a feat that dosen't allow a wand, rod, ect. to be drawn as a free action, but a rule that allows you to do it for free ?!? Where's your "common sense" here ?!?. Why even take this feat if you can pull out all weapon-like-items (aka everything.. said perfectly by wraithstrike) for free ?!?
If that's still not enough. Then resite these words again and again:
"IT'S ALL ABOUT BALLANCE NOT REALISM AND COMMON SENSE, THIS IS FICTION"
Well I for one, am moving on to other threads. If i'm proven wrong by an official faq, fine by me.. but this is a closed case in my book :)
The first paragraph defines what drawing a weapon is, if that definition doesn't apply to the second paragraph, one must devise a wholly new definition.It doesn't...
So, the first paragraph and it's definition or "drawing a weapon" doesn't apply. That's just fine.
However, the second paragraph states:
"If you have a base attack bonus of +1 or higher, you may draw a weapon as a free action combined with a regular move."
That's a problem now because "draw a weapon" doesn't mean the same thing as it did in the first paragraph. "Draw a weapon" isn't defined in the second paragraph at all.
Our only recourse is to turn to Websters...
Which, I'm not going to do, because that's just plain dumb.
"Draw a Weapon" is CLEARLY defined in the first paragraph, to argue that that definition doesn't apply to the second paragraph is, quite frankly, the thickest interpretation of RAW I've heard in quite some time.
Except, perhaps, to argue that one can pick and choose which parts of game term definitions apply. ALL parts apply, unless a rule SPECIFICALLY states a part doesn't apply.
And it's not about balance or common sense, it about the Rules As Written. The RAW isn't perfect, and can often be interpreted in more than one way, that's where common sense comes in. Balance comes in during the playtest, where the Devs devise balanced rules, then use common sense to explain those rules in print.
