Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game
Pathfinder Society

Pathfinder Beginner Box

Pathfinder Adventure Card Game

Pathfinder Comics

Pathfinder Legends

Alternating between how you carry weapons?


Rules Questions

1 to 50 of 239 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>

24 people marked this as FAQ candidate. Answered in the FAQ. 2 people marked this as a favorite.

This is a question I ask that some "official" clarification would be nice to get. (In other words, this is a FAQ thread, with some friendly discussion included.) If you have attempted something similar to the questions I am asking in a PFS game, some answers in regards to how your GM ruled this would also be appreciated and help solve this. I have a number of questions that pertain to this, and if all of them can be answered, it will solve an..."issue" I have with my character, as well as some others who may be interested in things like Switch-hitting, etc. So let's begin, and start with the most basic questions and scenarios, leading to some of the most important. (I also ask that we try and be civil about our answers and reasoning, and not to scoff at others' "answers," so that we can get a proper establishment as to how this would be ruled.)

1. Are weapons/items restricted to being held in the way they are to be wielded? For example, if I had a Greataxe, would I only be able to carry this Greataxe in two hands and nothing else (if I only have 2 hands to carry things), or could I hold it in one hand and draw out/pick up another weapon (one-handed) and attack with the one I draw out or pick up?

2. What type of action would it be to carry the Greataxe from two hands to one hand? Would it vary in action consumption if I were to do the reverse as an action (from one hand to two hands)? Could I perform this action at any time, or would it be limited to my turn only? Would having a different sized weapon impede my ability or action consumption to hold a weapon/item that is larger (or smaller) than a size fit for my character in one hand?

3. Would I be able to use actions that would require open hands, or fulfill the proper criteria for some actions (such as casting spells) when changing from a wielding a two-handed weapon to holding it in one hand? If I were done fulfilling an action that required open hands, would I be able to change how I carry a drawn two-handed weapon before another action takes place?

I ask for a FAQ on these, as well as leave any answers that you have to the questions I proposed, and I appreciate any reasonable/official answers in advance!

Grand Lodge

This all seems reasonably well established so far.

1a. You can carry a two-handed weapon in one hand, unless it's so heavy the GM doesn't believe you can lift it with one hand (say, if it alone is over your light encumbrance). In no way and for no game purpose are you wielding it.
1b. You can wield and attack with a one-handed weapon in the other hand while doing so.

2a. Developers have said it's a free action.
2b. Free action
2c. You can only take free actions on your turn unless the action specifies otherwise.
2d. It makes no difference if the weapon is sized for a different creature size.

3a. After changing to holding it in one hand, yes.
3b. Yes, you can take that free action.

4. If this is leading up to the phrase "spell combat", heck no, for several reasons, unless you have three or more hands.


Starglim wrote:

1a. You can carry a two-handed weapon in one hand, unless it's so heavy the GM doesn't believe you can lift it with one hand (say, if it alone is over your light encumbrance). In no way and for no game purpose are you wielding it.

1b. You can wield and attack with a one-handed weapon in the other hand while doing so.

2a. Developers have said it's a free action.
2b. Free action
2c. You can only take free actions on your turn unless the action specifies otherwise.
2d. It makes no difference if the weapon is sized for a different creature size.

3a. After changing to holding it in one hand, yes.
3b. Yes, you can take that free action.

4. If this is leading up to the phrase "spell combat", heck no, for several reasons, unless you have three or more hands.

Do you have a FAQ/Statement link that shows/has a developer saying what type of action it is? Because it's not something that is listed as a Free Action in the Core, and if the Dev made a mention about it being able to be done outside your turn, it would be a key factor to have a note of.

Thanks for the other answers, though; I do have some other questions...

As for "Spell Combat," no. I only listed "Casting Spells" as an example for something that requires free hands. Now we shall pertain to my scenario, and the questions I have regarding that.

My Issue, Part 1:
Now then; I am a 5th level Mobile Fighter wielding both a Greatsword and a Buckler. A Buckler technically does not take up an open hand to use (since it's just attached to your hand, and for simple purposes regarding our sessions, the GM stated it does not), and when you attack with using the hand that has the Buckler equipped, you do not get the Buckler's AC benefits. Our GM has houseruled that I take a feat (similar to that of Improved Buckler Defense, which is what it is based off of) that allows me to maintain my AC when I attack with the Buckler for using the off-hand (but I still suffer the -1 penalty to hit).

A question I have regarding this is would a character that has something like a Buckler or Light Shield equipped be considered as having a free hand for fulfilling criteria/actions that would require this?

My Issue, Part 2:
With our Invulnerable Rager Barbarian tank (and I myself am also a tank) for our party, and not having a primary healer, getting all kinds of miscellaneous features is a huge benefit, something that our Barbarian tank gets a bunch of due to his class features and archetype. He also has a taunt mechanism (which as far as I know, is not Antagonize), meaning he's fulfilling the tank position much more efficiently than I am, especially in the long run, where AC will be easy to bypass from melee-heavy creatures. I was peering around for feats that may help alleviate this issue, as well as help with fleshing out the flavor and fighting technique of my character, and came across the Crane Style. I did note that it has the Imp. Unarmed Strike Pre-req, which is no problem due to our Bonus Feats, and is something that can help in those situations where that is all I have left. Since I am using a two-handed weapon (Greatsword), its special effect says that to deflect an attack, I must have an open hand. I first thought that meant "Not allowed to use Two-Handed Weapons," but I read some other threads, and noticed that you can put a two-handed weapon in one hand as an action, fulfilling the "open hand" criteria. I also plan on taking the Vital Strike line of feats so I can make better use of Furious Focus, and also help flesh out my character's fighting technique.

With the RAW for the Crane Style line of feats, if I do a Standard Attack/Full Attack Option, and at the end of my turn hold the Greatsword in one hand, would I be able to fulfill the "Free Hand" criteria, despite the fact that I am holding a two-handed weapon?

My Issue, Part 3:
Now, I do know that if I take the Crane Riposte feat, I get better at Fighting Defensively, and I am allowed an Attack of Opportunity after I deflect the attack. This does not say that the enemy provokes an Attack of Opportunity, it only merely says that I am allowed to make one upon deflecting an attack.

So let's say I face Creature A, make my attack action, and change how I hold my weapon. When the creature would otherwise hit me, I would be able to deflect an attack. If I am allowed to change how I hold my weapon outside my turn, could I change how I hold my weapon before I make the Attack of Opportunity, being able to attack with my Greatsword instead of my Unarmed Strike?

In homebrew terms, If I am not allowed to change how I hold my weapon outside my turn, would it make sense balance-wise to "construct" a feat similar to that of Step Up, in that I can instead make how I hold my weapons from a Free Action to an Immediate Action?


1. There is no rule saying you have to hold a two-handed weapon in two hands.

2. It should be a not an action, similar to nocking a bow. I would restrict the player to doing it on his turn though. Weapon size should not matter, unless the item is just so large you can't use it as a weapon.<--No RAW for this, other than nocking the bow.

3. Everyone GM I have played for considers removing one hand to cast a spell as a free action or less. As an example a wizard can get a staff as a bonded item, which is a two handed weapon. If he could not remove one hand to cast then he could not cast spells. After the spell you should be allowed to hold the staff normally again.


Be warned that if you're just holding that 2H sword in one hand, you're now not wielding it and can't use it to threaten or make AoOs. Which means that you'll be a pretty ineffective tank. Opponents can just run past you.

Silver Crusade

wraithstrike wrote:

1. There is no rule saying you have to hold a two-handed weapon in two hands.

2. It should be a not an action, similar to nocking a bow. I would restrict the player to doing it on his turn though. Weapon size should not matter, unless the item is just so large you can't use it as a weapon.<--No RAW for this, other than nocking the bow.

3. Everyone GM I have played for considers removing one hand to cast a spell as a free action or less. As an example a wizard can get a staff as a bonded item, which is a two handed weapon. If he could not remove one hand to cast then he could not cast spells. After the spell you should be allowed to hold the staff normally again.

1.) Agreed

2.) Wraithstrike may restrict this to your own turn in his games, but RAW it's officially Not An Action, so it makes no difference if it's your turn or not.

Actions In Combat wrote:-

'Not an Action: Some activities are so minor that they are not even considered free actions. They literally don't take any time at all to do and are considered an inherent part of doing something else, such as nocking an arrow as part of an attack with a bow.'

Adding a hand to, or taking a hand from, a weapon that you have two free hands to manipulate, is part of using a weapon, certainly less effort than nocking an arrow!

3.) Spot on! The devs have even said that a creature with a light shield and mace can switch the mace to the shield hand to free a hand to cast a spell, then after the spell is cast switch it back, without using any actions at all.

Silver Crusade

Mudfoot wrote:
Be warned that if you're just holding that 2H sword in one hand, you're now not wielding it and can't use it to threaten or make AoOs. Which means that you'll be a pretty ineffective tank. Opponents can just run past you.

If you are holding the greatsword in one hand and something else in the other you do not threaten with the sword.

If you are holding nothing except the greatsword, then you have two hands free to use it to attack, so even if you are holding it in one hand you threaten with it and can add the second hand as part of the attack. Look up 'threatening a square' to understand it better.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Malachi Silverclaw wrote:


2.) Wraithstrike may restrict this to your own turn in his games, but RAW it's officially Not An Action, so it makes no difference if it's your turn or not.

Actions In Combat wrote:-

'Not an Action: Some activities are so minor that they are not even considered free actions. They literally don't take any time at all to do and are considered an inherent part of doing something else, such as nocking an arrow as part of an attack with a bow.'

Adding a hand to, or taking a hand from, a weapon that you have two free hands to manipulate, is part of using a weapon, certainly less effort than nocking an arrow!

And removing ALL hands from something should then be Not an action as well. Except it's not. It's a free action and you need to wait until your turn for that.

Personally I subscribe to it being a move action to go from having the weapon accessible but not usable to wielded & usable. Then a free action to remove any number of hands from what you are holding.

-James

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

The statements about a dev chiming in on the action to switch between one hand and two-hand on a weapon, as well as regarding casting spells by switching what hand is holding a weapon along with a light shield, are both statements that have been made by JJ. JJ has also stated that his statements in the forums are along the lines of what he would do in his own game, rather than as a developer making a ruling on the rules. His position is as Creative Director; he isn't a rules guru.

Officially, the word on what is required for these actions is undefined. Happy to be corrected if it is otherwise.

That all said, many players have either accepted his statements as authoritative, or are unaware of the distinction. As a result, the typical gaming culture has taken these statements on as standard practice.

Silver Crusade

Attack of Opportunity wrote:-

'Threatened Squares: You threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack, even when it is not your turn.'

In order to attack with a two-handed weapon, you must have two hands free (holding nothing except the two-handed weapon) at the moment you attack with it. Between attacks you only need to hold it in one hand. Adding the 'non-holding' hand is part of the attack; it is not an action in itself, not even a free action.

Therefore, if you are holding a two-handed weapon in one hand and the other hand is free, you can attack with that weapon, the other hand joining for the attack. And, since you can attack with it, you threaten with it.

This would not be the case if there was something held in the other hand at the moment you wanted to attack with the greatsword. In your own turn you could drop that object to free your hand, but you cannot do that when it isn't your turn as dropping an object is a free action, and you can only take free actions on your turn.


I would agree with the adding a hand/taking a hand away thing is a free action.

It would mechanically make sense, given that we want to give people the appropriate benefits for using their weapon correctly.

It would also realistically make sense, when you are reacting to an attack of opportunity it is a split second reaction and if your weapon is not ready then neither are you. You don't have time to grip it and swing.

If you have a hand free to use the crane wing stuff you don't have 2 hands on your weapon to make an attack.

I don't think there is much room for interpretation on these rules. You have to have 2 hands on your sword to threaten with it, if you don't threaten you can't swing.


Ubercroz wrote:

I would agree with the adding a hand/taking a hand away thing is a free action.

It would mechanically make sense, given that we want to give people the appropriate benefits for using their weapon correctly.

It would also realistically make sense, when you are reacting to an attack of opportunity it is a split second reaction and if your weapon is not ready then neither are you. You don't have time to grip it and swing.

If you have a hand free to use the crane wing stuff you don't have 2 hands on your weapon to make an attack.

I don't think there is much room for interpretation on these rules. You have to have 2 hands on your sword to threaten with it, if you don't threaten you can't swing.

I thank everybody for their input and answers, arguments on both sides make sense, both balance wise, as well as RAW-wise.

@ Ubercroz: True, but Malachi makes excellent points, and ones that I like (and argues what I would want to have happen with my character). The thing is, when a character using a Bow makes a Ranged Attack, he must have the ammunition ready to shoot. Pulling out an arrow from a quiver is considered as not an action for the purpose of action consumption, the same as a 5-foot follow-up, but the example also states that doing so must be part of an attack action for it to be considered as such, otherwise it'd be treated as an improvised weapon all by itself. Unless specified otherwise, these "actions" can occur at any point during the turn (which the exception for 5-foot follow-up comes from).

With the issues I mentioned, here's what I plan to do with the Crane Style and my character (who uses a Greatsword and Buckler):

Round 1: I win initiative; I activate Crane Style (Swift Action), make a full attack option/standard attack option against a creature (Full Round/Standard Action) while Fighting Defensively, and at the end of my turn I change how I hold the weapon from two hands to one hand (Not an Action).

Creature's turn: Swings at me with the Vital Strike option, and would normally hit me; it is Not an Action to Deflect that attack, taking no damage, and upon deflecting the attack, I am allowed to make an Attack of Opportunity (which does not consist of being an Action). Before I make the Attack of Opportunity, I can change how I hold my Greatsword from one hand to two hands, again, not consuming any actions, and continue with the rest of the actions, making my Attack of Opportunity with my Greatsword.

By RAW, is this legit?

And another question: For those who would normally not allow this in their game, would it make sense balance-wise to allow a feat that allows a character to change how they hold/wield a weapon as an Immediate Action, similar to that of the Step Up feat?


Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Companion, Maps, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Count me among those who would not normally allow that.
Remember that your character's turn and the creature's turn are the same six seconds, everything is happening simultaneously.

That said, I would entertain such a feat. I might call it Lightning Ready, with a prerequisite of Quickdraw. It would allow you to quickdraw or wield a weapon already in hand but not wielded as an immediate action whenever an enemy provokes an AoO from you.


SlimGauge wrote:

Count me among those who would not normally allow that.

Remember that your character's turn and the creature's turn are the same six seconds, everything is happening simultaneously.

That said, I would entertain such a feat. I might call it Lightning Ready, with a prerequisite of Quickdraw. It would allow you to quickdraw or wield a weapon already in hand but not wielded as an immediate action whenever an enemy provokes an AoO from you.

Yes, the rate at which combat flows between involved parties is Universal; once all characters' and creatures' actions occur, 6 seconds go by. Initiative determines which character's/creature's actions get resolved first, but the rules for AOO are already implemented.

The issue with this is that it ultimately boils down as to how changing from wielding to holding a two-handed weapon consumes as an action. It can be a free action for balance purposes, it can also be listed as not an action by RAW purposes, since it says that it takes no time at all (like a Free Action) and is usually an inherent part of doing something (in this case, from Deflecting an Attack). While we can get a Dev or something to comment and give us an official answer as to how it should be categorized, both would make sense in their own respect.

I am pretty much kind of using this as a means to gear up as to what my GM is going to propose what it would be considered for me to utilize the Crane Style line of feats. Right now, it can go from him just allowing it due to RAW text and correlations, or it could go to not at all if he does not want to allow it for balance purposes. Granted, it is a little silly of me to use a thread for what my GM would rule it compared to everyone else, but it gives me examples and such that I can either cite or list off for him to help "persuade" him.

Even if he wouldn't allow it, that's what we said when I wanted to use a Greatsword and a Buckler for tanking, yet he let me do it with a custom feat similar to that of a 3.5 feat (Improved Buckler Defense). If I have to spend a feat to allow me to make an AOO upon a deflection, then it's a small price to pay for a Fighter (plus the Anti-Feats system helps in getting extra feats as well).

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Note: I haven't read the rest of the thread, as I'm late to a very wordy party. ;)

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
1. Are weapons/items restricted to being held in the way they are to be wielded? For example, if I had a Greataxe, would I only be able to carry this Greataxe in two hands and nothing else (if I only have 2 hands to carry things), or could I hold it in one hand and draw out/pick up another weapon (one-handed) and attack with the one I draw out or pick up?

If the two-handed weapon was instead a log of the same weight, could you carry it in one hand? Yes? Then there's no reason that it being in the shape of weapon means you can't carry it in one hand.

Quote:
2. What type of action would it be to carry the Greataxe from two hands to one hand? Would it vary in action consumption if I were to do the reverse as an action (from one hand to two hands)? Could I perform this action at any time, or would it be limited to my turn only? Would having a different sized weapon impede my ability or action consumption to hold a weapon/item that is larger (or smaller) than a size fit for my character in one hand?

Simply dropping an item is a free action that you can only perform on your turn (unless something forces you, like getting disarmed). Letting go of your greataxe with one hand is literally the same thing as dropping an item that was held in one hand. That seems to make it pretty clear that it's a free action (on your turn only, as well).

As for the opposite (returning that second hand to the shaft of your greataxe), it's unspecified in the rules, and is therefore up to the GM. I personally would call it a free action because it doesn't need to be anything else. I could see maybe making an exception for a particularly unwieldy item, but a weapon with which you're proficient shouldn't be hard for a heroic adventurer to shift his grip on in order to do other things he's equally heroically proficient in (like casting spells).

Quote:
3. Would I be able to use actions that would require open hands, or fulfill the proper criteria for some actions (such as casting spells) when changing from a wielding a two-handed weapon to holding it in one hand? If I were done fulfilling an action that required open hands, would I be able to change how I carry a drawn two-handed weapon before another action takes place?

What's this got to do with anything? Even if your GM made you spend a move action to change your grip each way, you'd still be able to (say) open a hand, cast a quickened spell, and re-grip your axe. Or release, cast a normal spell, then next turn re-grip.

If you spend whatever action your GM requires in order to have a free hand, then you have a free hand. If you spend whatever action your GM requires to re-establish "wieldingness" on your weapon, then you're wielding it. How is #3 even a question?


Darksol the Painbringer wrote:


The issue with this is that it ultimately boils down as to how changing from wielding to holding a two-handed weapon consumes as an action. It can be a free action for balance purposes, it can also be listed as not an action by RAW purposes, since it says that it takes no time at all (like a Free Action)

Letting go of a weapon (to drop it, or any other held item) is a free action. Seems reasonable that removing one of two hands from a weapon (or any other item held in two hands) would be a free action.

Taking a weapon in easy reach into one's hand (or hands) is a move action. It also seems reasonable for that to be the cost to switch from holding a weapon in one hand to wielding it in two.

It does NOT seem reasonable to me for someone with something large in their hands to be able to 'juggle' it back and forth letting them, say TWF with a PAIR of spiked gauntlets.

As a free action I move the awkward vase I'm holding in my left hand over to my right hand. Then I attack with my left spiked gauntlet. As a free action I move the awkward vase in my right hand back to my left. I now attack with my right spiked gauntlet. I do this 3 times as I have greater TWF...

That doesn't seem reasonable, rather it seems where any DM should be stepping in the severely limit these 'free' actions. And when you find that occurring with a frequency you know that the 'free' action likely shouldn't be 'free'.

-James

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

@James - I agree with you that the situation you describe is silly. However, I use that as evidence that the GM needs to keep an eye on the usage of free actions, rather than that changing your grip should universally be something other than a free action. Or possibly that the action consumed by grip-changing might vary by item. (For instance, it should be much easier to move a weapon - which has a handle, and with which you're proficient - from one hand to the other than to do so with a large, cumbersome item that's not built to be moved around quickly like a weapon is.)


Jiggy wrote:
I use that as evidence that the GM needs to keep an eye on the usage of free actions

I'm not saying that this is proof that it is not a free action, but rather a warning sign that it is not best adjudicated as one.

As far as keeping it simple- adjudicating it as a move action does so.

You have the simple rule that taking something from being readily accessible to being used requires a move action.

You also have a feat available if you want to be able to do this as a free action.

It seems like a reasonable fit into the rules as they stand.

-James

Silver Crusade

I would say releasing a hand and regripping with a hand are free actions that can each only be done once a turn. Most of the basis for this decision is stuff like "I dual wield with my greatsword and my cestus!" and the OP's "I attack with my greatsword and deflect with my free hand!" These are obviously munchkin concepts and completely violate the intended restrictions (specifically crane wing). This still allows for casting with a 2-hander or a paladin using LoH with one, which both seem intended.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Riuken wrote:
Most of the basis for this decision is stuff like "I dual wield with my greatsword and my cestus!"

"I dual wield with my greatsword and my cestus!"

Translation:
"I want a smaller chance of hitting with my 2d6+6 attack in hopes of hitting with a 1d4+2 attack!"

Yeah, can't let THAT kind of munchkining continue!

Quote:
and the OP's "I attack with my greatsword and deflect with my free hand!"

Translation:

"I want to give up the chance of ever getting an AoO in exchange for getting to make up for the AC hit I took by not using a shield!"

Sorry, but your ideas just sound like the usual knee-jerk reaction of "anything creative that I didn't think of first must be broken/cheesey/munchkin" that permeates these boards. Don't make rules interpretations based on such wildly inaccurate assessments of power.

If crane wing is overpowered, it's not because of people combining it with a greatsword.


Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Companion, Maps, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Jiggy: Not all munchkinning (is that a word ?) is overpowered. Of the portion that's not overpowered, a lot of it is of the "I want my cake and to eat it too !" variety. I'll reverse your statement. Just because it's not overpowered doesn't mean it's not rules abuse.

Your translation of what the OP wants to do isn't "I want to give up my AoOs to deflect", it's "I DON'T want to give up my AoOs to deflect, I want to get two-handed damage from my AoOs AND still deflect". And that's what rubs me wrong. TANSTAFL applies.

I am, however, trying to be a "Yes, but" GM, hence the feat suggestion.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

SlimGauge wrote:
Your translation of what the OP wants to do isn't "I want to give up my AoOs to deflect", it's "I DON'T want to give up my AoOs to deflect, I want to get two-handed damage from my AoOs AND still deflect". And that's what rubs me wrong.

I was translating the person I quoted, not the OP whom I did not quote. ;)

Note that earlier, when I posted my idea of how I'd run grip-changing, I said I'd only allow it during the creature's own turn, which inherently precludes the situation you mention.

Silver Crusade

1) Your hit bonus is probably high enough to take a -2 for extra damage.
2) The OP specifically calls out taking the AoO with his 2-hander after using crane wing. The requirement to have a hand free to use crane wing doesn't seem very restrictive if you can just let go of a 2-hander for a moment to use it.
3) The AC hit you took for using a shield is made up for with your higher damage from a 2-hander, you don't need to make up for it again.
4) I'm sorry if they sound that way, they really were thought out. Since a fighter with a 2-hander has so many free feats anyway, why wouldn't he take crane wing every time if this was valid? It makes 2-handing pull pretty far ahead of other fighting styles.
5) Yes, I consider crane wing generally overpowered, though not so much based on what it does, but on the situation it is usually used in. As far as I can tell, crane wing is most often taken by high AC characters. This leads to being nigh-untouchable in melee between enemies rolling for 20s and the odd attack that does roll 20 getting deflected. That's not the case with a 2-hander, so it doesn't bother me as much for balance reasons (though it still does). It bothers me that the restriction isn't a restriction. Another reason it reeks of being broken is that deflect arrows does the same thing for ranged attacks, and yet I haven't heard of anyone using a 2-hander and that feat before. It seems that crane wing is a much more desired feat and so is being rule-bent to be obtained.

I guess I'm saying, try to imagine someone doing this: they are swinging a 2-hander, then suddenly drop their grip to deflect an attack with their hand, then make a quick follow up attack with the 2-hander, in a matter of a second. It very much seems like the hand used for crane wing is not available for the AoO as it is currently being used to deflect an attack to produce said AoO.

I do agree grip switching should be on your turn only, though it still doesn't fix the "TWF with gauntlets while holding an item" problem James mentioned. A step in the right direction, if you will.

Silver Crusade

Jiggy wrote:
Riuken wrote:
Most of the basis for this decision is stuff like "I dual wield with my greatsword and my cestus!"

"I dual wield with my greatsword and my cestus!"

Translation:
"I want a smaller chance of hitting with my 2d6+6 attack in hopes of hitting with a 1d4+2 attack!"

Yeah, can't let THAT kind of munchkining continue!

Quote:
and the OP's "I attack with my greatsword and deflect with my free hand!"

Translation:

"I want to give up the chance of ever getting an AoO in exchange for getting to make up for the AC hit I took by not using a shield!"

Sorry, but your ideas just sound like the usual knee-jerk reaction of "anything creative that I didn't think of first must be broken/cheesey/munchkin" that permeates these boards. Don't make rules interpretations based on such wildly inaccurate assessments of power.

If crane wing is overpowered, it's not because of people combining it with a greatsword.

Testify!

The advantage of greatsword/spiked gauntlet is versatility. Is the extra 4.5 points of damage (if you hit) with a spiked gauntlet when you have between 18 and 21 Str worth the -2 to hit on your 2d6+6 (=13) greatsword damage?

It's not the combat rules that are broken, it's the Crane Wing feat which is broken and needs fixing.

This feat needs a lot of fixing, but here's one small fix to prevent the abuse of the 'free hand' requirement; my additions in bold:-

'Benefit: Once per round while using Crane Style, when you have at least one hand free and are either fighting defensively or using the total defense action, you can deflect one melee weapon attack that would normally hit you. You expend no action to deflect the attack, but you must be aware of it and not flat-footed, and your hand must have remained free since the beginning of the round in which you chose to fight defensively. An attack so deflected deals no damage to you.'

You could then add your free hand to a weapon to make a Crane Riposte, but it does mean that you cannot have used a two-handed weapon during the turn you fought defensively, meaning you can't build you're character around a fighting style using a two-handed weapon.


Darksol the Painbringer wrote:


Round 1: I win initiative; I activate Crane Style (Swift Action), make a full attack option/standard attack option against a creature (Full Round/Standard Action) while Fighting Defensively, and at the end of my turn I change how I hold the weapon from two hands to one hand (Not an Action).

Creature's turn: Swings at me with the Vital Strike option, and would normally hit me; it is Not an Action to Deflect that attack, taking no damage, and upon deflecting the attack, I am allowed to make an Attack of Opportunity (which does not consist of being an Action). Before I make the Attack of Opportunity, I can change how I hold my Greatsword from one hand to two hands, again, not consuming any actions, and continue with the rest of the actions, making my Attack of Opportunity with my Greatsword.

By RAW, is this legit?

Thats a reasonable question, and I believe that by RAW it is not legal.

here is the thing: to complete an attack of opportunity (which is an action, it is an attack action, a subcategory of standard action) you have to be able to threaten that square with a weapon. you would not be able to shoot at someone with a bow either, you don't threaten.

It would be the same as saying that you are carrying a Colossal sized greatsword with you so you can make an attack of opportunity. you are carrying the weapon, you "get to make an attack of opportunity" so you should get to make it with any weapon you have...? No.

While you have the opportunity to make an attack of opportunity you are not capable of taking advantage of this because you are not holding your weapon correctly.

Lets say this is with a long sword rather than a 2h sword. You could make a 1 handed AoO, but could not 2 hand it to get better strength bonus- you can't add a hand as an immediate action.

With the greatsword you essentially would have the option to forgo AoO's to get better AC and a deflection. When it gets back to your turn you can do whatever you want.

To confirm this concept, lets look at the Duelists parry ability. The duelist can parry and eventually make an attack of opportunity against a creature SO LONG AS HE CAN REACH THEM. He must threaten them to be able to execute that attack of opportunity. He cannot AoO someone who is out of reach- aka whom he does not threaten.

I would take Crane Riposte in the same reading. It does not specify that you can only make it against people you can reach, but I don't believe you can AoO an archer 50 feet away either.

So if you can reach them (threaten them) then you can execute an AoO. If you cannot reach them, you cannot. If you are holding a great sword in 1 hand, you cannot reach them- therefore you cannot execute an AoO.


On why an attack of opportunity is a standard action; I would like to follow up. The reason I am doing this is because many people think it is not a specified action, but reading the rules I think it is clearly stated it is a standard action. The following are all taken from the Core Rule Book.

"An attack of opportunity is a single melee attack, and most characters can only make one per round." CRB pg 180, emphasis added.

"Attack: Making an attack is a standard action.
Melee Attacks: With a normal melee weapon, you can strike any opponent within 5 feet." CRB page 182.

The attack of opportunity page also states: "An enemy that takes certain actions while in a threatened square provokes an attack of opportunity from you. If you’re unarmed, you don’t normally threaten any squares and thus can’t make attacks of opportunity."

So if you don't threaten a square you get no AoO.


Again, thanks for all the feedback and proposals; now to reply to what was stated on the matter.

@ James: The reason why picking an item from another creature's extended hand or table/platform is a move action is because that item is not at a place that is not as easily accessible as your own hands, meaning you must exert more effort (and time) into grabbing that item. Yes, I am not arguing that it would not be a Free Action, but I am also saying that since it is not listed as a free action (and there are no Pathfinder Dev statements suggesting this), and there are actions not listed which would be considered as "Not an Action," that it could also be listed as such, and it would function as per the description rules for the "Not an Action" section.

@ Jiggy: Riuken still has some merit; in this scenario (in other words, in my shoes), I am actually using a shield. Sure, a Buckler is technically not a shield, but it grants Shield bonuses to AC and the like. For balance purposes, it would be broken balance-wise for a character with a buckler or light shield to be considered a "free hand," which is one of the questions I proposed: Do you fulfill "open hand" pre-requisites for certain actions, such as casting a spell, using Lay on Hands (Paladins), etc. by wearing a Light Shield or Buckler?

I would argue that you should, since you can use a weapon in the same hand as a Buckler (and I believe you can do this with a Light Shield as well, since a Dev made a comment about a Paladin being able to use LoH on themselves while wielding a Light Shield), but it is still a valid question/concern.

@ Slim: Yes, that is technically what I am asking; yes, I am willing to spend a feat that functions similar to that of the Step Up line of feats, since there are feats that allow characters to normally take a minor action such as a 5-foot follow-up outside their turn. It isn't much of a stretch or cost difference to allow a similar feat function on the same level, except with a different action involved, and it's fine that it would have to function that way to make sense for balance purposes; at the same time, I look at the RAW (or perhaps lack thereof in some cases), and outside of GM FIAT (which I am not saying is unreasonable or incorrect in any way), what would be stopping me from doing what I described?

@ Ubercroz: As far as I know, you can't use Crane Wing to deflect ranged attacks from thrown weapons or ammunition or whatever, it's melee only. On top of which, that was actually another question, in regards to a melee attack that I could propose...Could a character with the Crane Riposte feat make an AOO against a melee character with reach from which he deflected the attack? By RAW, it would probably be no, but there is also the factor to consider when you look at the concept of reach; the monster can hit from that distance due to its huge size, and since the concept of reach is based upon the creature being able to "reach" into the threatened square to attack. I believe that you should be able to make that AOO from a creature with that amount of reach naturally, not reach distance granted from weaponry such as whips and lucerne hammers.

Back on topic, there's a key factor that you need to consider by saying "No, you don't threaten," because if the creature is adjacent to me, and I deflect the attack, I still threaten with my Unarmed Strike/Gauntlet, since the Crane Style requires that you must take the Improved Unarmed Strike feat (which is yet another thing I am willing to do). Realistically, the Crane Riposte makes mention that you make an AOO on the target after deflecting their attack, not that they provoke one, meaning that I can make the attack with whatever weapon. Let's look toward my previous arguments...

If changing how you hold a weapon is considered as "Not an Action," (and that includes the property of inherently doing something as a part of something else, such as Deflecting an Attack from using Crane Wing) I can just put my hand back on my Greatsword and use that to make the Attack of Opportunity, which the RAW seems to support.

And in relation to the "Standard Action" clause, it is quite on the contrary. I have this to link from the PRD:

PRD Combat Section wrote:

Sometimes a combatant in a melee lets her guard down or takes a reckless action. In this case, combatants near her can take advantage of her lapse in defense to attack her for free.

...

An attack of opportunity “interrupts” the normal flow of actions in the round. If an attack of opportunity is provoked, immediately resolve the attack of opportunity, then continue with the next character's turn (or complete the current turn, if the attack of opportunity was provoked in the midst of a character's turn).

With what I linked from the PRD with exact quoting from the CRB, it would seem that an AOO functions like a Free Action that can occur outside your turn, having the limits of an Immediate Action in terms of priority, but also that the AOO can only work once per round per opportunity provoked.

The Combat Reflexes Feat (which I have) negates this "1 AOO per Round" rule, as well as the "Cannot make AOO's while Flat-footed" clause, but not the "1 AOO per provocation" statement.

In addition, if an AOO is a Standard Action, then a character who casts a Spell, makes an Attack/Full Attack Option, or uses some other sort of Standard Action, they cannot make an AOO, which is contradictory to how the rules are currently presented within the CRB, and my linked subjects which is more-or-less paraphrasing from the CRB.

Silver Crusade

CRB wrote:-

'Buckler: This small metal shield is worn strapped to your forearm. You can use a bow or crossbow without penalty while carrying it. You can also use your shield arm to wield a weapon (whether you are using an off-hand weapon or using your off hand to help wield a two-handed weapon), but you take a –1 penalty on attack rolls while doing so.'

'Shield, Light; Wooden or Steel: You strap a shield to your forearm and grip it with your hand. A light shield's weight lets you carry other items in that hand, although you cannot use weapons with it.'

So, a buckler leaves your hand free, a light shield does not (on the grounds that if it were free it could wield a weapon).

In the dev's Lay On Hands reply, he said that the paladin with mace and light shield could switch the mace to be held with his shield hand, use his now free weapon hand to Lay On Hands, then switch the mace back to his weapon hand allowing it to be used, and all this without using any actions at all, not even free actions, for the weapon-switching! Not only does this illustrate what can and can't be done with a light shield, it also is yet another example that the devs themselves consider changing grip/switching hands to be 'not an action'!


A free action can only be taken on your turn. An immediate action lets you do use a free action during any turn .

A Melee attack is a standard action only taken on your turn. An AoO is a melee attack that can be taken outside of your turn.

A melee attack is a standard action. An AoO let's you make a melee attack.

Anyway, I should have said crane ripper doesn't let you make an AoO with your great sword, but yeah a gauntlet is possible.

Also you can't AoO against a reach monster, it's either in a FAQ or Erata- I don't remember which.


Ubercroz wrote:

A free action can only be taken on your turn. An immediate action lets you do use a free action during any turn .

A Melee attack is a standard action only taken on your turn. An AoO is a melee attack that can be taken outside of your turn.

A melee attack is a standard action. An AoO let's you make a melee attack.

Anyway, I should have said crane ripper doesn't let you make an AoO with your great sword, but yeah a gauntlet is possible.

Also you can't AoO against a reach monster, it's either in a FAQ or Erata- I don't remember which.

Correction: A Free Action can only be taken on your turn unless specified otherwise; character speech is an example of this. Also, an Immediate Action functions just like a Swift Action, except it can occur at any point during the round, including the 1 per turn limitation of the Swift Action.

An AOO, as per my link, allows a character to make a melee attack against a target who provokes for free, meaning it consumes as if it were a free action, or not an action at all.

It then goes on to say that characters can only take 1 Attack of Opportunity per round, unless you have the Combat Reflexes Feat, and even then, you can only use 1 AOO per type of provocation, meaning if a creature moves 30 feet, and provokes 15 of those 30 feet, I can use my AOO at any point during which it threatens, but once I make that AOO, unless he performs another action which provokes, such as casting a spell or drinking a potion, I can make no more AOO's against that target.

It just says that I can make an AOO against that creature upon deflecting the attack; it does not say that the creature provokes, which means that in order for me to make an AOO, I must use a weapon that I threaten with. In addition, if changing how you hold/wield a weapon is "Not an Action", by RAW, I can "make" an AOO against that creature with my Greatsword upon Deflecting the Attack, which is plausible since I can do such an action as a part of something else (which Deflecting an Attack would fulfill in terms of criteria); I can't, however, threaten any creature with my Greatsword until a creature would actually hit me. I could still threaten with an Unarmed Strike, and use a Combat Maneuver or something, but not use my Greatsword.


Darksol the Painbringer wrote:


@ James: The reason why picking an item from another creature's extended hand or table/platform is a move action is because that item is not at a place that is not as easily accessible as your own hands, meaning you must exert more effort (and time) into grabbing that item. Yes, I am not arguing that it would not be a Free Action, but I am also saying that since it is not listed as a free action (and there are no Pathfinder Dev statements suggesting this), and there are actions not listed which would be considered as "Not an Action," that it could also be listed as such, and it would function as per the description rules for the "Not an Action" section.

Dropping an item is more than 'not an action'. It is listed as a free action. Thus removing and simply letting go is a free action.

Moving an item from one hand to another is certainly more effort than that. It makes no sense for it to be not an action while letting go is a free action.

Moreover an item in easy reach is certainly accessible. It needs a move action to go from accessible to wielded ready to use. This seems a reasonable category to place an item held in say the hand where one has a light shield. Arguably it's easier to grab the item in easy reach than to juggle it from the hand encumbered by the light shield.

Imho it certainly makes no sense for it to be not an action based on the free action of drop an item. It also fits into the rule-set better as a move action than a free one.

-James


The AoO verbiage does not require they provoke in a square that you threaten. Read the line that discusses unarmed combat- usually you do not threaten with unarmed combat and thus cannot take attacks of opportunity.

Threatening is seperate from the provoking rule. Provocation is not required but threatening is.

In regards to the action type the rules are very clear. An AoO is a melee attack, a melee attack is a standard action. Just look at the words in the book, I don't see how it can be read otherwise.


james maissen wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:


@ James: The reason why picking an item from another creature's extended hand or table/platform is a move action is because that item is not at a place that is not as easily accessible as your own hands, meaning you must exert more effort (and time) into grabbing that item. Yes, I am not arguing that it would not be a Free Action, but I am also saying that since it is not listed as a free action (and there are no Pathfinder Dev statements suggesting this), and there are actions not listed which would be considered as "Not an Action," that it could also be listed as such, and it would function as per the description rules for the "Not an Action" section.

Dropping an item is more than 'not an action'. It is listed as a free action. Thus removing and simply letting go is a free action.

Moving an item from one hand to another is certainly more effort than that. It makes no sense for it to be not an action while letting go is a free action.

Moreover an item in easy reach is certainly accessible. It needs a move action to go from accessible to wielded ready to use. This seems a reasonable category to place an item held in say the hand where one has a light shield. Arguably it's easier to grab the item in easy reach than to juggle it from the hand encumbered by the light shield.

Imho it certainly makes no sense for it to be not an action based on the free action of drop an item. It also fits into the rule-set better as a move action than a free one.

-James

I won't say that changing how you hold a weapon is less difficult than just dropping an item you have in hand, but I will say that it isn't more difficult, and the best example is the Lay on Hands ability.

If a Paladin is wielding a Greatsword, or a Longsword and Light Shield, he would have to spend well over a Full Round Action to use Lay on Hands on himself. It would be impossible for him to use it on somebody else within the round (normally) due to the fact that it would take up his move and standard to change grips on the weapon (according to the ruling you have placed), and while it may balance how that action functions in one instance, it most certainly outrages balance in another instance that is much more key than my own.


Paladin lay in hands on himself is a swift action, which is a bigger action than letting go of a weapon, touching someone else is a standard.

I Think that lines right up with what James is saying.


Ubercroz wrote:

The AoO verbiage does not require they provoke in a square that you threaten. Read the line that discusses unarmed combat- usually you do not threaten with unarmed combat and thus cannot take attacks of opportunity.

Threatening is seperate from the provoking rule. Provocation is not required but threatening is.

In regards to the action type the rules are very clear. An AoO is a melee attack, a melee attack is a standard action. Just look at the words in the book, I don't see how it can be read otherwise.

I put OOC in your text to show what the sentence I didn't apply it to does to the rest of your post, as well as all the other rules regarding AOO's. They become irrelevant and useless filler garbage. Why even have an AOO rule if you can just do a Readied Action which would otherwise function on a much better level, and just remove the Combat Reflexes feat, since all the rules that feat regards are thrown out the window?

If an AOO is classified as a Standard Action, by your logic I might add, it not only demonstrates that it's physically impossible to do outside your turn, but it also demonstrates that it's physically impossible to do even with this due to the fact that a character cannot take 2 standard actions within a given turn, and since Standard Actions cannot be taken outside your turn, it changes from "turn" to "round".

I already gave links that suggested otherwise: an AOO can be done for free, and is immediately resolved before the action is completed; it also goes on to state that the AOO is resolved either during their turn, or in the middle of a character's turn if they still have actions left to take that they can take, suggesting it is usable outside of your turn, which a Standard Action is not capable of doing.


Ubercroz wrote:

Paladin lay in hands on himself is a swift action, which is a bigger action than letting go of a weapon, touching someone else is a standard.

I Think that lines right up with what James is saying.

No, here's the issue:

Paladin's Turn, currently has Light Shield and Longsword in hands. Move action to move Longsword from hand to shield hand, Swift action to use Lay on Hands, left to use his Standard action to move the Longsword back to the other hand. We can even remove the Light Shield and say he has some other item in his hand, like a Buckler or Wand of Cure Light, whatever; it doesn't change anything. This could even be a Greatsword just for parallel purposes.

The Lay on Hands action itself is a Swift action. Being able to use it in conjunction with other gear would amount to being more than a Full Round, and that's including it being on yourself.

It would take 2 turns worth of actions to do what I just described on another person, which is obviously not the design intent of the Lay on Hands ability.


Okay I will try and address both parts of your question which seem to be:

1: Do I need to threaten to make an AoO?

The answer is yes, you do. Says so in the CRB, page 180. So that should settle that. I don't know why you are asking about readying an action, because that is something you could do... I guess I don't understand that part of the question.

2: What kind of an action is the AoO?

The book says, again on page 180, that it is a "single free melee attack". That differentiates it from other kinds of melee attacks you can take, which are not "free". It is also resolved immediately.

Again on page 182 in the CRB it defines what a melee attack is, it is a standard action.

So RAW you get to make a single melee attack (which is one kind of standard action) for free. It doesn't break the rules because it is built into the rules. I don't understand your hang-up on this. Most of the time you cannot take a standard action outside of your turn... but you can ready an action so thats not during your turn.

Come to think of it a readied action is resolved immediately as well, so that kind of backs up what I am saying.

I think the fact that it is an action you get to take for free is the confusion, but since it specifies it is a melee attack, that really settles the variety of action it is. Look up melee attack and see what type of action that is. That should clear it up.

You are pointing to supporting information as primary material. You say free and immediate when it tells us that it is a melee attack. Those qualifiers tell us how it happens, the action type tells us what it is.


Ubercroz wrote:

Okay I will try and address both parts of your question which seem to be:

1: Do I need to threaten to make an AoO?

The answer is yes, you do. Says so in the CRB, page 180. So that should settle that. I don't know why you are asking about readying an action, because that is something you could do... I guess I don't understand that part of the question.

2: What kind of an action is the AoO?

The book says, again on page 180, that it is a "single free melee attack". That differentiates it from other kinds of melee attacks you can take, which are not "free". It is also resolved immediately.

Again on page 182 in the CRB it defines what a melee attack is, it is a standard action.

So RAW you get to make a single melee attack (which is one kind of standard action) for free. It doesn't break the rules because it is built into the rules. I don't understand your hang-up on this. Most of the time you cannot take a standard action outside of your turn... but you can ready an action so thats not during your turn.

Come to think of it a readied action is resolved immediately as well, so that kind of backs up what I am saying.

I think the fact that it is an action you get to take for free is the confusion, but since it specifies it is a melee attack, that really settles the variety of action it is. Look up melee attack and see what type of action that is. That should clear it up.

You are pointing to supporting information as primary material. You say free and immediate when it tells us that it is a melee attack. Those qualifiers tell us how it happens, the action type tells us what it is.

You said that an AOO is a Standard Action due to the correlation of it being classified as a melee attack. If that were true, it wouldn't even be usable outside of your turn by RAW. Just because it's "free" and it is resolved "immediately," as you've said, does not pertain to when it can occur, meaning the concept of an AOO in terms of realism is not possible under that circumstance.

Plus, a Standard Action cannot be taken outside of your turn, whereas the text for AOO, saying that the creature that provokes can continue with their turn after the AOO is "resolved" indicates that the AOO is such an action that can be taken outside your turn, whereas any Standard Action cannot, meaning it is not a Standard Action at all.

I am not here to debate the RAW as to what an AOO is as far as an action is concerned, because that is not even an issue here. The issue is what type of action it is to change how you hold/wield a weapon (should it have more than one wielding style).

You guys are arguing it is a Move Action to do so. I say that would make no sense because it would make an important Class Feature like the Lay on Hands for the Paladin obsolete.

Other people have said it is a Free Action to do so. This is at least sensible in terms of realistic action consumption and balance, since in regards to free hands, a Wizard wielding a Staff would only still take a Standard Action to cast spells, a Paladin would only have to sacrifice a Swift/Standard Action to cast Lay on Hands, etc.

Me and Malachi have said it is "Not an Action/No Action." An example of something that doesn't consume actions are the 5-foot follow-up "action," and pulling out an arrow to attack with a bow, as well as other actions that aren't listed. This supports the fact that Non-Actions can both be a part of something, and an independent "action" in their own right. By RAW, since there are no rules regarding the action consumption of this (and I am positive questions on this have come up in PFS scenarios as well as something that was on the Developer's plate at some point), and that something that is not listed can very well be "Not an Action," it can also make sense for changing how you hold/wield a weapon. The part I am arguing is that since RAW elaborates on this (or perhaps elaborates and lists examples similar to, but does not include this), changing how you hold/wield a weapon would be classified under this, meaning it would take no action for me to change how I wield a weapon, and that I can do so outside my turn unless specified otherwise (in this case, since there is nothing saying you can't do this, I am allowed to do so at any point).

Now I will again elaborate on the requirements for Crane Style; outside of the Feat Pre-requisites, there is no rule stating you must have a free hand in order to use the base Crane Style. Activating the Crane Style is otherwise a Swift Action (normally, unless you have feats). For the Crane Wing feat, it says in order to deflect a melee attack that would normally hit you, you must have one hand free, and is the only part of the Style Line of feats that requires you to have an open hand. The Crane Riposte feat says upon a successful deflection of an attack (which requires you to have an open hand free to do so), you can make an attack of opportunity against the one who attacked you. When this point is reached, the requirement for having an open hand is dropped, since the deflection is already done, and you then move on to the AOO.

By RAW, if changing how you hold/wield a weapon is Not an Action, I can change from holding my Greatsword to wielding my Greatsword before the Attack of Opportunity is made, meaning I would make the Attack of Opportunity with my Greatsword. If there were some restriction placed stating you can only do so outside your turn, whether it be by it actually being a free action, or some other restriction, making a feat that overcomes this obstacle similar to that of the Step Up feat, would be an acceptable and balanced means to bypass such an issue (which again, I am willing to do). At the same time, such a feat is not allowed, or even exists, by RAW, and while it makes sense balance-wise, is left to GM FIAT in terms of interpretation and regulation.

Not only is such a liberty not "allowed" in PFS gameplay (which I don't play in, with no offense to the style of play, of course,) but it would also not be listed as an acceptable ruling in terms of RAW, which is more-or-less the purpose of this thread. (For my purposes, it may not meet these requirements, and chances are they won't anyway. For others who may want official clarification for other players who use such tactics, or perhaps a different type of playstyle they want to see from the players but have no clue how to fairly rule it, this thread is dedicated to solving that question, of which must meet that requirement of official ruling.)


I never said it was a move action, i think i said (or at least believe) it is a free action, one you can only do on your turn.

I also believe you have to threaten with the weapon to AoO with a weapon, so you cant AoO with a great sword being held in 1 hand because you don't threaten with it.

Silver Crusade

Ubercroz wrote:

Okay I will try and address both parts of your question which seem to be:

1: Do I need to threaten to make an AoO?

The answer is yes, you do. Says so in the CRB, page 180. So that should settle that. I don't know why you are asking about readying an action, because that is something you could do... I guess I don't understand that part of the question.

2: What kind of an action is the AoO?

The book says, again on page 180, that it is a "single free melee attack". That differentiates it from other kinds of melee attacks you can take, which are not "free". It is also resolved immediately.

Again on page 182 in the CRB it defines what a melee attack is, it is a standard action.

So RAW you get to make a single melee attack (which is one kind of standard action) for free. It doesn't break the rules because it is built into the rules. I don't understand your hang-up on this. Most of the time you cannot take a standard action outside of your turn... but you can ready an action so thats not during your turn.

Come to think of it a readied action is resolved immediately as well, so that kind of backs up what I am saying.

I think the fact that it is an action you get to take for free is the confusion, but since it specifies it is a melee attack, that really settles the variety of action it is. Look up melee attack and see what type of action that is. That should clear it up.

You are pointing to supporting information as primary material. You say free and immediate when it tells us that it is a melee attack. Those qualifiers tell us how it happens, the action type tells us what it is.

Standard Actions wrote:-

'Attack: Making an attack is a standard action.'

In the same section it says:-

'Multiple Attacks: A character who can make more than one attack per round must use the full-attack action (see Full-Round Actions) in order to get more than one attack.'

If you make a single attack in your turn then it consumes a standard action. If you make a full attack (consisting of more than a single attack) it consumes a full-round action.

A full attack is not several standard actions in the same turn!

The notion that because, if you only make one attack on your turn it consumes a standard action, that therefore every attack is a standard action, is a fallacy.

AoOs do not consume any actions at all, not free, not immediate, but no action at all.


Ubercroz wrote:

I never said it was a move action, i think i said (or at least believe) it is a free action, one you can only do on your turn.

I also believe you have to threaten with the weapon to AoO with a weapon, so you cant AoO with a great sword being held in 1 hand because you don't threaten with it.

I misconstrued your statement in agreeing with James in saying that it was a movement action; I re-read the post and realized that was not the case, so I apologize in that regard.

And again, I have said that such a view is acceptable in terms of balance and realistic action consumption; I have also said, however, that by RAW it is also acceptable to say that such an action is not an action at all due to the "Not an Action" description line. Let's paraphrase that section and note the key parts of its descriptors... (For using the URL, scroll down below the Action Consumption Table to read the description for the "Not an Action" section.)

Not an Action wrote:
Some activities are so minor that they are not even considered free actions. They literally don't take any time at all to do and are considered an inherent part of doing something else, such as nocking an arrow as part of an attack with a bow.

The first bolded part notes that objects that are listed as consuming no action aren't even considered free actions in terms of limitation and freedom.

The second bolded part also notes that it takes no time at all to do so (further enforcing the first part), and says that it is an inherent part of doing something else; typically, another "event" that the player does, and the italicized part lists a combat example. Not a movement example, not a spell-casting example, a combat example.

By scrolling up to the Table and looking at the "No Action" section, it lists "Delay" and "5-Foot Step," as being No Action, and they do not provoke AOO's. While my second point is irrelevant, the rules for the 5-Foot Step are clearly listed and are something you can do in conjunction with something else with no issue at all; it also goes on to explicitly state that you cannot take an action like that outside your turn (and would have to take the Step Up feat in order to do so), whereas such a limitation for the action I am trying to get an official ruling for, is not listed within the RAW texts of the Core, or any other official book; snatching an arrow from a quiver as part of a ranged attack with a bow is a listed example that is not explicitly stated, and as such it is not a stretch for me to say that changing how you hold/wield a weapon would fall under the same limitations, or lack thereof.

Again; as I have said before, I am not saying that calling it a Free Action is by no means wrong, and is something that I am willing and ready to face as both a player, and a developing character. I am saying, however, that you should look at both sides of the spectrum, and understand that the viewpoint that I am explaining is also a valid one, and one that should not be turned down (at least, in terms of RAW and appropriate sensible correlation regarding the RAW, or lack of RAW and example listing presented).


Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
I have also said, however, that by RAW it is also acceptable to say that such an action is not an action at all due to the "Not an Action" description line.

It wouldn't be consistent with the drop an item action being a free action.

Switching wielding a weapon in one hand to wielding it in the other hand is certainly not 'not an action'. It doesn't fit the definition, nor does it compare properly with actions that are listed.

Going from having a weapon not ready for use, but readily accessible requires a move action and that seems the best choice to make for it based on RAW.

Now many people do play it as a free action, but then have to very carefully monitor the number of such free actions used. That's a clear sign that it's a bad call in making it a free action.

But regardless it is certainly not a 'not an action',

-James


james maissen wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
I have also said, however, that by RAW it is also acceptable to say that such an action is not an action at all due to the "Not an Action" description line.

It wouldn't be consistent with the drop an item action being a free action.

Switching wielding a weapon in one hand to wielding it in the other hand is certainly not 'not an action'. It doesn't fit the definition, nor does it compare properly with actions that are listed.

Going from having a weapon not ready for use, but readily accessible requires a move action and that seems the best choice to make for it based on RAW.

Now many people do play it as a free action, but then have to very carefully monitor the number of such free actions used. That's a clear sign that it's a bad call in making it a free action.

But regardless it is certainly not a 'not an action',

-James

And if bumped to a Move Action, it wouldn't be consistent with the design intent of Lay on Hands, as well as Spellcasting with objects in your hand(s), so that ruling is out the door in terms of balance as well, and on a much larger scale, mind you.

How does it not? Snatching an arrow from your quiver to attack with (which does not make the discrepency of it being an AOO or not, mind you), is listed as an example of it not being an action. Gripping your Longsword with two hands is another example as well, and as I have said, such examples do not have to be listed.

Again, while generally something that is not listed as an action is an inherent part of doing something, the 5-foot step "action" is a stand-alone option with its set limitations and such, whereas there are no such limitations regarding the example that is listed from both the book, and from me.

I believe you are using the base action consumption for drawing a weapon, which is not the same as interchanging an item between your hands. If this is not the case, then I do apologize for misconstruding your interpretation.

Silver Crusade

Darksol, although we disagree on some things, I admire your ability to update your understanding of the rules based on the evidence presented.

I disagree with James on this issue. He cites 'drop an item' being a free action to say that letting go with one hand should be at least that. By itself, that would be fine. But it's not by itself. Not An Action talks about 'nocking an arrow', and that is a more complex action than re-gripping a weapon with a free hand, it's even more complex than letting go of something!

If adjusting grip/re-gripping/etc. were specifically mentioned in the rules we wouldn't be having a debate at all! The lack of such actions in the 'Actions In Combat' table means we have to extrapolate from the rules we do have.

The closest example to grip changing we have in the rules is 'Not An Action'. James would like grip changing to be defined as a move action, and he says that it would make sense in the game rules (though not necessarily a good simulation of reality). Changing the action type of 'drop an item' from 'free' to 'not an action' would also make sense in conjunction with the other game rules! It would also simulate reality better in terms of how weapons are used in real life, not with hands 'glued' to one spot on a two-handed weapon but with hands moving all over the weapon, letting go and re-gripping several times every six seconds.

I realise that there would be consequences in such a rule change, but there would also be consequences if the rules were changed the way James wishes!

Be that as it may, we have the Rules As Written. In the RAW we have, the closest action type RAW gives us for grip-changing is 'not an action', even if that doesn't sit well with 'drop an item'. In the RAW, the more complex action of nocking an arrow is 'not an action' while the less complex action of 'drop an item' is a free action! James would like this dichotomy to be resolved by changing grip changing to a move action, I would like it to be resolved by changing dropping an item to Not An Action. I think the game would play better my way; James thinks the game would play better his way.

Whether the game is changed to his way or my way, or (more likely) if it is not changed at all (not an action to re-grip), take comfort in the fact that the rules apply to the just and unjust alike! What's good for the PCs is good for the NPCs. If you think that all this grip-changing for free is unfair, it won't seem so bad when the other side does it too!


So Malachi's position is his own, but it is not in line with RAW, while James Maissen's is:
Malachi needs to change what the RAW explicitly states, while James is merely classifing something that rules don't discuss.
(which Malachi or anybody else would also need to do) ...so James' position is the most 'conservative' in terms of the RAW.
Incidentally, Paizo's James Jacobs rules that shifting grip is a Free Action (on your turn).

I play as per James Jacobs' ruling, but I think the idea to have shifting grips be a Move Action, reducable by Quickdraw to a Free Action, is a pretty good idea. I would also rule that Nocking an Arrow is a Free Action, meaning if you can somehow take Ranged AoOs, those will be limited to 1/round unless you have a Repeating X-Bow, are wielding multiple weapons, or otherwise don't need to Draw and Nock an additional Arrow. Paizo has gone the other route, enabling non-action off-turn Arrow Nocking to your heart's content.

Silver Crusade

Quandary wrote:

So Malachi's position is his own, but it is not in line with RAW, while James Maissen's is:

Malachi needs to change what the RAW explicitly states, while James is merely classifing something that rules don't discuss.
(which Malachi or anybody else would also need to do) ...so James' position is the most 'conservative' in terms of the RAW.
Incidentally, Paizo's James Jacobs rules that shifting grip is a Free Action (on your turn).

I play as per James Jacobs' ruling, but I think the idea to have shifting grips be a Move Action, reducable by Quickdraw to a Free Action, is a pretty good idea. I would also rule that Nocking an Arrow is a Free Action, meaning if you can somehow take Ranged AoOs, those will be limited to 1/round unless you have a Repeating X-Bow, are wielding multiple weapons, or otherwise don't need to Draw and Nock an additional Arrow. Paizo has gone the other route, enabling non-action off-turn Arrow Nocking to your heart's content.

In what way is my position not in line with RAW?

There is no entry on the Actions In Combat tables specifically about changing grip on a weapon you are already holding. RAW.

The closest thing to changing grip on these tables, and the accompanying notes, is nocking an arrow, which is in the section on 'Not An Action'. RAW

So explain to me why you believe that James' opinion is RAW and mine isn't!


Quote:
James would like this dichotomy to be resolved by changing grip changing to a move action, I would like it to be resolved by changing dropping an item to Not An Action.

James isn't actually 'changing' anything, but ruling on what is not covered in the rules.

I haven't seen any objective reason from you why Nocking an Arrow is 'closest' to Shifting Grip vs. Drop an Item, you just went on about how Nocking an Arrow is more movement than Dropping an Item (and Shifting Grips), so therefore 'why not' use Nocking an Arrow's 'action cost'... But as you state, then 'why not' change the RAW action cost of Dropping an Item. You never demonstrate why Shifting Grip is closer in 'movement/action' to Nocking an Arrow, you just relied on the fact that Nocking an Arrow is classified as a non-action to justify other stuff that seemingly requires less movement also being classified as that. AFAIK, Dropping an Item and Shifting Grips ARE the most similar in movement, even if it's 'irrational' that they have a 'higher' action cost vs. the non-action Nocking Arrow, they are still more similar in what they do. It isn't any more irrational for Shifting Grips to be a Free Action than it is for Dropping an Item to be, and that is what James means by consistency with RAW... which you aren't required to like, RAW is ultimately a gamist construct, initiative order is ultimately a gamist construct.


Malachi Silverclaw wrote:

Darksol, although we disagree on some things, I admire your ability to update your understanding of the rules based on the evidence presented.

I disagree with James on this issue. He cites 'drop an item' being a free action to say that letting go with one hand should be at least that. By itself, that would be fine. But it's not by itself. Not An Action talks about 'nocking an arrow', and that is a more complex action than re-gripping a weapon with a free hand, it's even more complex than letting go of something!

If adjusting grip/re-gripping/etc. were specifically mentioned in the rules we wouldn't be having a debate at all! The lack of such actions in the 'Actions In Combat' table means we have to extrapolate from the rules we do have.

The closest example to grip changing we have in the rules is 'Not An Action'. James would like grip changing to be defined as a move action, and he says that it would make sense in the game rules (though not necessarily a good simulation of reality). Changing the action type of 'drop an item' from 'free' to 'not an action' would also make sense in conjunction with the other game rules! It would also simulate reality better in terms of how weapons are used in real life, not with hands 'glued' to one spot on a two-handed weapon but with hands moving all over the weapon, letting go and re-gripping several times every six seconds.

I realise that there would be consequences in such a rule change, but there would also be consequences if the rules were changed the way James wishes!

Be that as it may, we have the Rules As Written. In the RAW we have, the closest action type RAW gives us for grip-changing is 'not an action', even if that doesn't sit well with 'drop an item'. In the RAW, the more complex action of nocking an arrow is 'not an action' while the less complex action of 'drop an item' is a free action! James would like this dichotomy to be resolved by changing grip changing to a move action, I would like it to be resolved by changing dropping an item...

People will agree and disagree on issues for subjects that do not have RAW; while there are reasons behind this (or at least, one can hope they would be called reasons), in a condition that is set for a specific standard of gaming (in this case, PFS gameplay), such a ruling must be made, and while we can rule however we want in our own home games, such a liberty is not present (or even allowed) in PFS, which is where this would probably matter the most.

On topic, as I have said, saying it is a free action is sensible and fairly rounded, since not only does it not upset much (if anything) regarding balance as an entire game, it was also something that I, as a player, am willing to understand and accept should it come.

I have also said, though, that it is also sensible and fairly rounded to make the claim that I (and it would seem you as well) am, in stating that it wouldn't be classified as an action, and is something that the RAW also supports. If there was a Dev statement regarding this (which JJ isn't; while his word is highly regarded since he is the Creative Director of Paizo and basically interprets the RAW for the general public with the intent from the Devs included, of which I am one of those who regards him highly), or some other sort of proof dictating otherwise (which I am either not seeing or understanding, or perhaps it is quite the opposite), there would not only not be this thread, but also be no reason in arguing this or having such difference regarding RAW interpretation. (That is, to say that JJ or anyone else arguing that side is wrong or has no grounds on which to to argue their side is absolutely incorrect.)

It is also important to evaluate both sides (or perhaps all sides, in this case) of an issue, and understand their reasoning and credible plausibility. To that end, I am asking that those arguing the side(s) opposite to my interpretation to (re-)evaluate my stance to understand and see that my interpretation is one that can also be proven proper (and correct) by the rules, just as I (try to) understand the reasoning and credible plausibility of your side.

With that said, regardless of you arguing (for) my interpretation, I understand why you argue (for) my interpretation, and the possibility that such an interpretation is one that can also be viewed as correct and proper, and would agree with it on a certain level, as well as to a point.

@ Quandary: Malachi actually isn't changing anything; we technically all aren't. We are merely explaining what we believe should occur, and the reasoning behind it. His stance is that Dropping an Item should not be an action at all to realistically go in line with the difficulty of snatching an arrow from a quiver to use with a bow attack, which by RAW is classified as "Not an Action."

James is arguing that Dropping a Weapon should not have its action consumption change at all, and that changing how you Wield/Hold a Weapon should at least be on par or above the action consumption of Dropping a Weapon, listing a "Movement Action" as a means to compromise.

Both have their reasoning behind their statements, and I see and understand them (hopefully) clearly; but I also understand the aftershocks of enforcing these rules for more than just my situation in regards to other classes and as to how they function, which is something that they perhaps do not understand. I understand the aftershocks of my side (which is similar, if not the same as Malachi's), and as I have said, that I was willing to make a compromise to preserve the balance (in regards to my situation).

And JJ's and your groups are entitled and have reason and understanding to play in that method. JJ has the Direct Dev Intent benefit going his way that he can use to "influence" the others in terms of how RAW functions (that is not explicitly stated in FAQ), but is a factor that even if taken out of the picture, does not adjust the validity of his viewpoint.


OK, there is the part (shift grips) that isnt defined at all, and anybody will have to interpret.
malachi can choose his interpretation, but he is saying that he recognizes that his interpretation has less consistency with the rest of the rules set, to the point that he would change/alter the RAW that is clear in other cases (drop a weapon). he doesn't have to change dropping a weapon, but then he is left with a less coherent ruleset by his own admission.
if you want to speak of 'conservative adherence' to the rules, deliberately choosing an interpretation (while other valid ones are available) that has the less consistency with the rest of the rules is NOT my definition of a conservative reading of the rules. i don't people think enough people understand that distinction, when you speak of RAW you necessarily MUST be speaking of a conservative reading of it... that is clear for the explicit text, but it also applies to grey areas like this.
this has nothing to do with which stance is advisable, whether or not dropping a weapon SHOULD be a different action type, etc. i see it as similar to taking the path of least resistance, or choosing the most likely possibility even if there is far-out wacko possibilities that could possibly work, a conservative reading would defer to the simplest and least disruptive.

Silver Crusade

Quandary wrote:
Quote:
James would like this dichotomy to be resolved by changing grip changing to a move action, I would like it to be resolved by changing dropping an item to Not An Action.

James isn't actually 'changing' anything, but ruling on what is not covered in the rules.

I haven't seen any objective reason from you why Nocking an Arrow is 'closest' to Shifting Grip vs. Drop an Item, you just went on about how Nocking an Arrow is more movement than Dropping an Item (and Shifting Grips), so therefore 'why not' use Nocking an Arrow's 'action cost'... But as you state, then 'why not' change the RAW action cost of Dropping an Item. You never demonstrate why Shifting Grip is closer in 'movement/action' to Nocking an Arrow, you just relied on the fact that Nocking an Arrow is classified as a non-action to justify other stuff that seemingly requires less movement also being classified as that. AFAIK, Dropping an Item and Shifting Grips ARE the most similar in movement, even if it's 'irrational' that they have a 'higher' action cost vs. the non-action Nocking Arrow, they are still more similar in what they do.

I'll be more precise. When looking in the Actions In Combat section for the action type that covers changing from holding a two-handed weapon in one hand to using the weapon in two hands to execute the attack, what is the closest action?

Adding your free hand to the weapon is the opposite of dropping an item! Why would I see that as the nearest action!

I assert that the nearest example we have in the Actions In Combat section is nocking an arrow, which is 'not an action' and is part of the attack itself; in the same way that jumping is not an action but is part of the move action in which you move.

A bow requires two hands to use, but only one to hold. Just like, say, a greatsword. The act of your right hand (which is already holding an arrow) to to nock the arrow (which involves letting the bow string go between the fingers of my right hand while maintaining a correct grip on the arrow), thus changing from holding the bow in one (left) hand to having the required two hands on the bow, allowing it to be used!

This is similar to going from 'holding' a greatsword in one hand to adding your free hand to it so enabling it to be used in the required two. The only difference is that nocking an arrow involves complexity that re-gripping the greatsword doesn't, and if nocking the arrow is 'not an action' then re-gripping the greatsword can't be more of an action.

So, I've explained my reasoning behind my belief that re-gripping is not an action. To give a credible response you have to point to another action in this section of the rules, and explain why you think your choice better matches re-gripping than mine.

I doubt that you can. Prove me wrong!

1 to 50 of 239 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>
Paizo / Messageboards / Paizo Publishing / Pathfinder® / Pathfinder RPG / Rules Questions / Alternating between how you carry weapons? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.

©2002–2014 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.