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

51 to 100 of 239 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>

Quandary wrote:

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.

True. His stance has differences from mine; as you said with his interpretation, it alters a very important piece of RAW, and no matter how you look at it, that's what would happen. Personally, I do not see a problem in regards to balance involving interpretation for the "Drop a Weapon/Item" action one way or the other.

My stance, again while similar to his, does not change this, and is more "RAW Conservative" than his interpretation. While I have said I do not have a problem with his change since I believe it would make sense both realistically, fluxing towards balancing mechanics, I would make an agreement with that interpretation. Simultaneously, I see no reason to make the change because such a change isn't exactly necessary, either.

Back to my stance, while I have my reasons for my viewpoint regarding this issue, there is also the matter of differing opinions and proof to back it up.

For my stance, I have listed multiple sources, repeated said sources, included fairly solid examples about what I want to accomplish as well as what should be accomplishable by RAW. Of course, I am not saying that my stance is 100% correct and/or fool-proof, I do not see anything within the RAW tell me otherwise.

I have also said before that even if I am wrong that I would still find a way to maneuver around it through the most RAW-conservative means possible, and I have listed as to how (and why) I would go about that situation, and as to why it should (and perhaps should not) be legit to include such a feat.

Again, I do not argue my position because I believe it is completely right and nothing can change it; I argue it because it is another credible plausibility interpreted by the rules. The question I should be asking is if they disagree with my stance due to the fact that they think it's wrong, or if they disagree because they believe their stance is also correct?


Malachi Silverclaw wrote:


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?

Let's run with this:

A PC is holding a longsword by the blade in the hand that they are using a light shield. Is it easier or harder to wield that in the other (free) hand than take a longsword being handed to them by another? What about one resting on a table hilt perfectly accessible to the PC?

You would have the former be part of any attack with the longsword, so that one would use the right hand free to make the attack, put it back on the shield hand backwards, and then rinse repeat without problem or issue.

Others would say that the PC is using free actions each and every time; and then seek to limit the number that they allow the PC to make as they see this as being ludicrous.

I would call this a move action, much like the other two alternative situations listed right after it.

I think that others are looking for what the want the rules to model rather than what the rules are actually modeling here. That's perfectly fine in many settings.. at the gaming table is one of them. In the rules forum calling it RAW, however, is not.

The case for 'not an action' is trying to say that the essential act of attacking with a sword involves flipping it from holding it the wrong way to properly wielding it. This is false at least to me.

Likewise that the act of swinging a sword involves holding it in an off hand for a second before wielding it properly.

This is also untrue.

Meanwhile the act of firing a bow does involve drawing the arrow, pulling the bow back, aiming, and shooting. They elected to have this be different than a crossbow or sling that is loaded, as they saw this as one set of actions that comprised 'fire a bow'. That's why it is 'not an action' to notch an arrow while firing a bow.

And this is different than juggling a sword being required to swing it at someone.

-James

Silver Crusade

James, I'm not talking about holding a weapon by the wrong end or juggling it or doing things that aren't part of your full attack.

I'm thinking of, say, a RL samurai, who is in a stance ready to slash a foe. His 'ready' stance is left foot forward, left hand not on the hilt of his katana but free to use it, his right hand holding his katana vertically above and behind his head. When he performs the stroke the left hand joins his right on the hilt as part of that attack.

The game is not trying to make combat less heroic than RL; combat involving PCs goes beyond RL capabilities when you get to any kind of level, and the game allows you to create and play characters that can do at least what their RL counterparts can do!

I think the devs agree with me. I say this on the grounds that in every dev comment that I have seen posted that touches on this issue the dev sees grip changing as either 'not an action' or as a 'free action'; I have never seen a dev say anything that would lead anyone to believe that he thinks that it is a move action.

I mentioned one dev stating that a creature using mace and light shield could switch his mace to his shield hand to cast a spell, then switch it back ready to use, in the same round. This precludes it being a move action; if it was it would be move/standard/move! No can do!

I think you know you are ploughing a lonely furrow on the 'move action' front! If the devs choose to rule at all (and I wish they would) it will be either 'free' or 'not an action'.

Andoran

Malachi, as I posted above, the "dev" you are referring to is JJ, and he has also said that his statements reflect his approach to the game; they are not game rulings, and he isn't a rules developer. Rather, he is Creative Director.

Can you provide any reference to the rules developers chiming in on this?

If it holds any weight for you (I recognize it doesn't for everybody), the 3.5 FAQ identifies changing grip/moving equipment more on par with drawing a weapon (move action).


Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Companion, Maps, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
I think the devs agree with me. I say this on the grounds that in every dev comment that I have seen posted that touches on this issue the dev sees grip changing as either 'not an action' or as a 'free action'; I have never seen a dev say anything that would lead anyone to believe that he thinks that it is a move action.

Put me in the camp that says it's either 'not an action' or a 'free action' that can ONLY BE DONE DURING YOUR TURN, because outside your turn you can do only immediate actions (and speaking).

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Howie23 wrote:
and he isn't a rules developer.

Not in title, but he has mentioned before that he's written lots of rules. So although you're technically correct that he's not making binding/official rulings, if an issue comes down to JJ vs Random Forumite Who Hasn't Written Any PF Rules... ;)

Silver Crusade

Howie23 wrote:

Can you provide any reference to the rules developers chiming in on this?

I'm afraid my skill with computers is not up to the task. I can't even use the quote function, and I've only just learned to use bold and italics for emphasis instead of capitals; at least now people don't think I'm shouting!

Once, my Pit Boss came into the pit looking miserable. 'Whats up?' I asked. 'I've lost some files off the computer,' he replied. 'Maybe they've fallen down the side!', I helpfully suggested!

Another time I was asked to turn on the computer. I said 'How? I've pressed the button and this message came up which says ''Press cont+alt+del''!' I was told 'So press control, alt and delete!' So I looked for the control button, found it and pressed it. Then I found the alt button and pressed that. Then I found the delete button and pressed that. 'it didn't work,' I said, 'it must be broken!'

I certainly don't have the skill to create a link! I also stayed on the 'rules' page for the first three weeks or so of contributing to these threads on the grounds that I wouldn't be able to find it again if I ever left!

Any dev post I've read was provided by other contributors, and I'm happy to let others do that now.

Although I'm rubbish at computers that doesn't mean I'm new to RPGs! I've been at it since the late 70s. That doesn't make me always right, but it does mean that I'm not ignorant of how the game works.


Jiggy wrote:
if an issue comes down to JJ vs Random Forumite Who Hasn't Written Any PF Rules... ;)

Then you would know how JJ would happen to rule at the table that has nothing to do with a rules forum question. :)

Are you taking his statements out of context here? Or am I misremembering his post and he wasn't saying that it was just how he'd rule at a table, but rather was claiming that by RAW it would be a free action?

-James

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

I'm saying that if a given issue ultimately comes down to a matter of opinion, such that I'm going to have to make a decision for my own table while accepting that it will be different at other tables, then in the process of determining what decision I will make for my own table (something I don't take lightly), James Jacobs' opinion will carry more weight than that of some random forumite.

Such is the case with this issue for me - the rules are not clear, cannot be conclusively extrapolated, and are therefore up to the GM to interpret. When I'm the GM, my interpretation in this case is going to be based in part on my knowledge of JJ's opinion on it (among plenty of other things, mind you).

-----------------------

I occasionally look to JJ in other circumstances as well - in some cases, a rule's intent is of high relevance, and in a smaller subset of those occasions, JJ has stated that "X was poorly worded but the intent was for it to work like thus-and-so" (as opposed to "this is how it works", which implies that it's just how he runs it). Sometimes you'll even get "this was the intent, but I think that's stupid and run it this other way", which is always enlightening.

But that's not this topic. :)


Jiggy wrote:

I'm saying that if a given issue ultimately comes down to a matter of opinion, such that I'm going to have to make a decision for my own table while accepting that it will be different at other tables, then in the process of determining what decision I will make for my own table (something I don't take lightly), James Jacobs' opinion will carry more weight than that of some random forumite.

But that's not this topic. :)

Nor is it relevant here.

It's not a question: how would you rule at the table, but rather what is the best RAW ruling.

JJ was not speaking towards that later case, but rather the former... as it seems are you for whatever reason.

-James

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I feel that when the rules are unclear on a topic, it is acceptable to discuss (in the Rules forum, even) the merits and flaws of various and similarly-defensible interpretations. (I feel very differently when the rules are clear, however.)

I believe the rules are unclear as to the action requirement (or lack thereof) for changing your grip on an item already in-hand. Therefore, discussion of different interpretations seems like a reasonable endeavor.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I have a feeling that the answer will be something that allows all sorts of munchkin-y things, like attacking with a greatsword during the round, and then taking a hand off to satisfy crane style.

Silver Crusade

Cheapy wrote:
I have a feeling that the answer will be something that allows all sorts of munchkin-y things, like attacking with a greatsword during the round, and then taking a hand off to satisfy crane style.

I think you're right! Ill be fine with how it works; what bothers me is the Crane Wing feat! It's that that is broken, not grip changing!


Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
Cheapy wrote:
I have a feeling that the answer will be something that allows all sorts of munchkin-y things, like attacking with a greatsword during the round, and then taking a hand off to satisfy crane style.
I think you're right! Ill be fine with how it works; what bothers me is the Crane Wing feat! It's that that is broken, not grip changing!

Honestly? I believe that the issue isn't so much that the feat is broken, it's more of what is required to maintain its benefits. The Base Style has no issue, as the base style only helps with fighting defensively and using total defense (which is still very nice for those tank characters who would like a little better offense).

As I have mentioned multiple times before, the only time it requires a character to have an open hand free is to deflect the attack. By RAW, should you be able to change how you hold/wield a weapon outside your turn, via "Not an Action," it becomes an issue as to why you even have the open hand free to begin with.

A simple fix to this "broken" concept would be to also require that a character must have a free hand in order to make an AOO after deflecting a weapon, meaning that a character with a two-handed weapon would not get the full use out of a feat that was designed for characters who do not use two-handed weapons, or just use a single one-handed weapon with nothing else.

Of course, while I personally would not like such a fix (obviously due to the bias of my current situation), it is a very simple fix that would further balance the functioning of the Crane Style, does as little as possible to adjust the already-present RAW, and makes the feat as a whole much more easy to understand in terms of intent.

Again, while I feel that such a requirement should not be this extensive, this is primarily due to personal bias, yet also at the same time I don't think it should have such a requirement because this is something that is gray area, and leads to GM FIAT, which is what we all currently have inputted, due to our own separate rulings from RAW. In addition, I don't believe that the Style Feats should limit what those feats are meant for; Style Feats should not be meant purely for unarmed martial classes, nor should it be that way. Martial Characters have all kinds of fighting stances, and a stance is a way that a person fights. Honestly, such terminology is more-or-less interchangable, meaning that putting such an enhanced restriction on a style feat such as this defeats the entire purpose regarding the flavor of a character and class, which is something that the mechanics of this game are primarily based off of.

Andoran

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Card Game, Companion, Modules, Pawns, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
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!

But nowhere the rules say that "no action" actions can be taken out of turn. Actually the two examples of no actions given in the combat section, 5-foot step and Delay, can be taken during your turn only.

All action or no actions that can be taken off turn have that exception explicitly stated.

Malachi Silverclaw wrote:

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.

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

You can't use the two handed sword because you are gripping it in one hand -> you can't make an attack -> you aren't threatening -> no Attack of Opportunity.

It don't say "you threaten every square in which you could attack if you were wielding a weapon, even when you aren't wielding it but only holding it."

Andoran

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Card Game, Companion, Modules, Pawns, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:


@ 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).

Till very recently it was impossible to threaten with or make a AoO with a ranged weapon. Now that it is possible taking a specific line of feats how drawing ammunition work should be re-tougth.

In any instance you are wrong about it being a no-action under the current rules, a few citations that you could have easily found:
"Draw or Sheathe a Weapon: Drawing ammunition for use with a ranged weapon (such as arrows, bolts, sling bullets, or shuriken) is a free action."
"Equipment-Weapons: Ammunition: Projectile weapons use ammunition: arrows (for bows), bolts (for crossbows), darts (for blowguns), or sling bullets (for slings and halfling sling staves). When using a bow, a character can draw ammunition as a free action; crossbows and slings require an action for reloading (as noted in their descriptions). "

So you can easily complete your attack routine and draw one more arrow after completing it to be ready for the AoO.
Generally people don't do that and prefer to draw a arrow just before firing the bow because:
1) they have to chose what kind of arrow they use when they draw it, so it can be beneficial to wait till you fire it;
2) they can't make AoO with a bow.

As the rules are currently written a character using missile weapons can make only one AoO as he can't reload off turn as that free action don't have an exception allowing it to be done off turn.
As bows are already a powerful weapon maybe it is even an intended limit and not simply the feat writer forgetting to add that little caveat.


Cheapy wrote:
I have a feeling that the answer will be something that allows all sorts of munchkin-y things, like attacking with a greatsword during the round, and then taking a hand off to satisfy crane style.

I don't know if we should use the term "munchkin" as a means to demean a person who is exploiting a "loophole," which may not only not be a loophole to begin with, but such close perception may be from a person who is trying to enjoy the complexity and growth of their character through learning and mastering such a sophisticated yet effective fighting stance.

**EDIT**Please note that there is no "open hand" requirement to use the Base Crane Style. It is only the Crane Wing (AKA, in order to deflect the attack) that needs the open hand. Not even the AOO that follows.

The way I have read the Crane Wing regarding two handed weapons is that the free hand requirement, while it suggests character who utilize both hands would not benefit very much from it, does not outright say "This is not meant for characters who use more than 1 hand for items/weapons". The character wielding a two-handed weapon should be able to change how they hold/wield a weapon no problem on their turn, whether they utilize a buckler/light shield or not.

The main issue is whether allowing a character to change how they hold/wield a weapon outside their turn is truly gamebreaking or not. Putting my bias aside, I still do not see the problem with allowing this, especially when we consider other facets and examples provided from the RAW.

I will argue my side of the action consumption, and will start with an example again...

Combat Begins: I win initiative against Creature A.

My Turn: I activate Crane Style. Activating a Style is normally a Swift Action. I make a Fighting Defensively Attack Action (whether it is Full Attack or Standard Attack Option is irrelevant), which is a Standard or Full-Round Action. At this point, if I want to have an open hand free, I would have to change how I hold the weapon. Upon doing so, this can consume a Move Action (which means I can't make a Full Attack), a Free Action (which means I can make a Full Attack within the same turn), or No Action (which means I currently have no limit or any free actions used, such as Dropping a weapon). Now, this is where the variants will occur.

Creature's Turn: Option 1: Attacks Me. The attack would normally hit; however, Crane Wing deflects this attack, dealing no damage. With the current descriptions, the open hand requirement no longer needs to be enforced. If I were to make an AOO, I would not be able to make it with my Greatsword as I only have one hand on the Greatsword, I must have two hands on it to use it to swing at the creature for my AOO. Since Free or Move Actions cannot be taken outside your turn (unless specified otherwise; in this case, it does not specify), I would not be able to make the AOO with my Greatsword. If, however, it were No Action to change how you hold/wield a weapon, I would be able to change it at this point, and resolve the AOO with attacking with my Greatsword.

From here, I will reference the "Not an Action" description to note what this would mean as a ruling, and list in explicit detail the reasoning behind my judgement. It says...

Not an Action Details:
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.

I will again note that the first bolded part mentions that it is not even a free action, the text suggesting that a "No Action" subject consumes even less effort than a free action.

I will again note that the second bolded part further establishes the first bolded part in terms of "effort."

The third and final bolded part then lists a Combat Situation Example, which is more-or-less drawing a bow from a quiver as part of a bow attack. It also lists that it is an inherent part of doing something. Let's expand upon this listed concept even further and do a word-for-word example.

The Example lists an "action" that is not covered within an Actions Table (or within any Official Rulebook, mind you) as an example of something that is not considered an action, which is "nocking an arrow". Please note that doing this can occur at any point within, not just within a turn, as there are feats that allow characters with bows/crossbows to make bow attacks outside their turn; the only way a character can normally make attacks outside their turn is with an Attack of Opportunity. Also note within this note that regarding threatening with a bow regardless of what point it currently is at within the round, that there are feats present that allow such an action, whereas normally it is not allowed. This part explains why I state that a character should be able to change how they hold/wield a weapon outside their turn, and that even if such a limitation exists within the RAW/GM FIAT, that it is fair to include feats that can more-or-less bypass such limitations.

The Example also lists such "actions" as "an inherent part of doing something else," and the italicized section follows this list, continuing "as part of an attack action". While this listed subject has specific "guidelines", such guidelines vary from these "action" types, and is also an important thing to note that the listed subject is just one of multiple "actions" under this category and limitation, and can vary from action to action. This part explains why I state that even if I cannot do such an action independently, I can do this action upon deflecting an attack aimed against me, balancing out the fact that I should not be able to make an AOO with my Greatsword outside of a creature that makes an attack against me that would normally hit In addition, not all subjects which are listed as "Not an Action" even follow this guideline, as the 5-foot step "action" is an independent "action" in its own right, not done as a part of something else. This explains as to why I can also say I do not have to rely on deflecting an attack in order to change the grip on my weapon, though this part I can do without.

Now then; if I were to deflect this attack made against me, I would be able to change how I hold/wield my weapon as a part of deflecting the attack, mimicking word by word the example listed for the "Not an Action" section, proving that I am violating no RAW in stating that such an "action" would fall under that category, and thus be able to make the attack of opportunity against the creature that swung at me.

The Impact of This Ruling:
This is the most crucial part of my interpretation; how this stacks up with all the other rules of the game. Obviously, I did not turn a blind eye to this, and not only will I explain multiple viewpoints from both a player and a GM and list in-game examples, I will also go on to "combat" the balance issues that were commonly mentioned by others in this thread.

I will first discuss an objective player's view: Confusing. In one word, this is about as basic as I can get, as such a ruling is not explicitly stated, and for those trying to balance it out, it can get frustrating as well as ambiguous and time-consuming. All factors that make the term "Confusion" as down-to-earth as it gets. How can we, as a player, expect a GM to have a 100% definite answer on this with no RAW to support his claim, other than the "What he says goes" rule? What would even be acceptable in terms of ruling something as important as this have nothing (directly) stated from the creators? There are other variants, but this it to be expected with each person. This is the matter of interpretation. I will no doubt state that each person involved in this game would be confused (that is, until "official" clarification comes in).

But from a GM's perspective? It can vary from "That's overpowered and goes against how it functions, I won't allow it period," to "Why the hell not?" The first can be made because the GM believes that the PC would be able to bypass a specific criteria listed within the feats due to "munchkinning," and makes little to no effort in investigating why a PC would try to make such a claim (and by investigating, I am not talking about a background check of previous groups that have the player "munchkinning"). Opposingly, a GM may have already investigated it, and has found acceptable ways agreed upon by both the player and the GM to allow such a concept; of course, while this may include homebrew functions (*cough*feat*cough*), there are still solutions that avoid such concepts, and thusly would be an available option for PFS gameplay.

Keep in mind, that such acceptable ways do not always include change involving the RAW, but change involving the creatures that the PCs face. For example, if a creature with typical animalistic intelligence were to constantly assault a character with my view's concept established, there would be nothing wrong, because as far as RAW and RAI is concerned, the creature is functioning as it were against any other player. When a GM needs to make said creature apply different tactics due to the player's success or overly effective capabilities due to the combination that was allowed, that is a sign of metagaming, something that is not only generally frowned upon, but also something that goes against how the creature would normally function.

At the same time, when faced against an opponent with normal humane intelligence, they would (eventually) come to a point of understanding in that making the same moves against that character over and over again would be futile, and would have probable reason to change tactics. If I was fighting some high-intelligence Magus and using the combination mentioned previously, it wouldn't be much of a surprise to see the Magus change tactics and use pure non-attack roll damage spells to counteract my abilities. This shows that the concept can be easily beaten when put in the right scenario, and a powerful feature when put in the right scenario as well. That is what balance is all about; applying the proper level of effectiveness/discrepancy of a rule/concept to the proper subject is what comprises ideal balance.

Now, I do know there are some that argue that granting such a thing is overpowered; they listed what they would classify it as, and gave their reasoning. I went to the best of my ability to understand this reasoning, and while I can agree it is an acceptable interpretation (in that it can also be viewed correct), it is also one that has a different level of consequence, and has different sections regarding its balance.

One of the most common of these is Dropping a weapon/item within your hand(s). I can say that while yes, it is a free faction, there is also a bit more realism to take into consideration, and while many will argue that it is silly to use realism in a fantasy game at a concept where such a thing is not considered, it also doesn't make sense to not implement realism, which is a foundation from which these rules were founded.

On to "combat" this from a realism perspective; when you "drop" an item/weapon, that item/weapon descends at a rate from a source that is outside your control, which primarily functions due to the realism that is Gravity. It was present in both the real world that we exist, and the fantasy world (of Golarion) that our characters "exist". While fantasy does have a different interpretation for gravity levels regarding the universes and/or planes, gravity (or perhaps the lack thereof) is still present, and is a factor that exists that alters the control you have over an item/weapon outside your hands, hence the real life scientific term Gravitational Pull, and this source comes from more than just the environment, it can come from another entity, such as a PC or trap or creature or some other source. Generally, when looking at environmental gravity, it is a constant; it is not a force that varies, such as when we exert our legs to run, or our arms to swing, and functions automatically. Thusly, it would make sense that dropping an item and letting Gravity handle the rest would be hardly exerting, but simultaneously it is more difficult to grab an item that is being controlled by something other than yourself, meaning that dropping and item and letting the automatic Gravity take its course would be more exerting in terms of overall action to change how you already hold/wield a weapon/item that's within your hands, and ultimately, your control.

Ranging from grabbing a weapon/item from a table to grabbing a weapon/item from a friendly's hand(s), this results from a move action, and makes sense since more effort is to be placed from a subject outside your control. However, attempting to snatch an item from an opposing creature is more difficult as a force that is generally much stronger than Gravity, meaning more effort would have to be exerted in order to complete the action, simulating the Standard Action it would take to disarm/steal a weapon from a foe who is actively guarding/using that item within their control.

Quite the "rant" I went on, but back to the example with my creature; if it decided not to attack me, and move after someone else, taking the rule that I must deflect an attack in order to use my Greatsword for AOO's, a smart enough creature (or a creature with this proper tactic set-up) would know that I do not threaten with my Greatsword, and only with my Unarmed Strike. If there was no such rule, then any square that I threaten with my Unarmed Strike I would also be able to use my Greatsword in. If there was no ability to do this at all, then a creature would not see me as a threat and go on about its merry business, me just sitting there wondering why I did that action.


Diego Rossi wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:


@ 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).

Till very recently it was impossible to threaten with or make a AoO with a ranged weapon. Now that it is possible taking a specific line of feats how drawing ammunition work should be re-tougth.

In any instance you are wrong about it being a no-action under the current rules, a few citations that you could have easily found:
"Draw or Sheathe a Weapon: Drawing ammunition for use with a ranged weapon (such as arrows, bolts, sling bullets, or shuriken) is a free action."
"Equipment-Weapons: Ammunition: Projectile weapons use ammunition: arrows (for bows), bolts (for crossbows), darts (for blowguns), or sling bullets (for slings and halfling sling staves). When using a bow, a character can draw ammunition as a free action; crossbows and slings require an action for reloading (as noted in their descriptions). "

So you can easily complete your attack routine and draw one more arrow after completing it to be ready for the AoO.
Generally people don't do that and prefer to draw a arrow just before firing the bow because:
1) they have to chose what kind of arrow they use when they draw it, so it can be beneficial to wait till you fire it;
2) they can't make AoO with a bow.

As the rules are currently written a character using missile weapons can make only one AoO as he can't...

Define "Very Recently," as your definition of "Very Recently" can be different from mine, and I doubt this is something that hasn't been around for less than a year, at best.

Yet the two "citations" you listed contradict each other, as well as the example listed in the "Not an Action" section; the first says drawing or sheathing a weapon as far as ammunition is always a Free Action, whereas the second says that they require an action that is not a Free Action. The third is that the example listed for something being "Not an Action" would go against what it mentioned for "Drawing/Sheathing Ammuntion". (Ironically enough, no one else arguing their side on this thread listed such citations, so the fault is not just mine for "ignoring them".)

Andoran

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Card Game, Companion, Modules, Pawns, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
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.

There is a specific feat that allow you to attack the limb or weapon of a creature with reach. Without that feat you can't.


Diego Rossi wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
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.
There is a specific feat that allow you to attack the limb or weapon of a creature with reach. Without that feat you can't.

Do you know what the feat is called?

Andoran

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Card Game, Companion, Modules, Pawns, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:

Define "Very Recently," as your definition of "Very Recently" can be different from mine, and I doubt this is something that hasn't been around for less than a year, at best.

Yet the two "citations" you listed contradict each other, as well as the example listed in the "Not an Action" section; the first says drawing or sheathing a weapon as far as ammunition is always a Free Action, whereas the second says that they require an action that is not a Free Action. The third is that the example listed for something being "Not an Action" would go against what it mentioned for "Drawing/Sheathing Ammuntion". (Ironically enough, no one else arguing their side on this thread listed such citations, so the fault is not just mine for "ignoring them".)

Very recently = Ultimate Combat where the feat was introduced.

Basic rules about drawing arrows Core rulebook.
So late 2011 against late 2008.

Where is the difference between:
"Drawing ammunition for use with a ranged weapon (such as arrows, bolts, sling bullets, or shuriken) is a free action."
"When using a bow, a character can draw ammunition as a free action; crossbows and slings require an action for reloading".
Reloading is not drawing. Crossbows and sling require an action to reload, not to draw the ammunition.

And try to read what people write instead of skimming it, what I did say is that you didn't tried to check your apparent rule citation.
You say "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)." treating it as an actual rule citation, I checked the PRD and I can't find anything resembling that text or any part of it. Maybe it exist in Pathfinder but more probably it is from the 3.x edition.

Probably you are repeating something you heard at your gaming table again and again, but a good percentage of the players and GM are still using consciously or not, remnant of 3.x rules that haven't been ported over in Pathfinder.

Andoran

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Card Game, Companion, Modules, Pawns, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

The rule citation that you are trying to make is:

PR 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.

Compare it with

Darksol wrote:
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.

You are attacking a lot of riders that don't exist to that example.

Drawing a arrow is a free action. If you draw a arrow as part of making an attack with a bow it become a no action. Nowhere it states that you can't draw an arrow as a free action after firing your bow.

Andoran

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Card Game, Companion, Modules, Pawns, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Malachi Silverclaw wrote:


I'm afraid my skill with computers is not up to the task. I can't even use the quote function, and I've only just learned to use bold and italics for emphasis instead of capitals; at least now people don't think I'm shouting!

At the bottom of the page, while you are writing a post, outside of teh writing window, there is a piece of thext:

"How to format your text"

and a button

"Show"

press the button and you will get a few examples.

They aren't the best of the world, but they help with formatting.

You should see the examples replying to my post, too.

Someone said wrote:
Quoted material here....

This is bold and italics.

Go to Paizo Publishing.

Contact customer.service@paizo.com

  • one
  • two

This is bigger and this is smaller.

This is out-of-character commentary for play-by-post threads.

Movie plot spoiler:
This is a spoiler, such as revealing who really did frame Roger Rabbit.

1d20 + 3 ⇒ (15) + 3 = 181d6 + 2 ⇒ (5) + 2 = 7 This is a dice expression.

- * -

I wish there was a underline option, as I would use fairly often instead of the bold option.

Andoran

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Card Game, Companion, Modules, Pawns, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
Diego Rossi wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
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.
There is a specific feat that allow you to attack the limb or weapon of a creature with reach. Without that feat you can't.
Do you know what the feat is called?
PRD - Ultimate Combat wrote:

Snap Shot (Combat)

With a ranged weapon, you can take advantage of any opening in your opponent's defenses.

Prerequisites: Dex 13, Point-Blank Shot, Rapid Shot, Weapon Focus, base attack bonus +6.

Benefit: While wielding a ranged weapon with which you have Weapon Focus, you threaten squares within 5 feet of you. You can make attacks of opportunity with that ranged weapon. You do not provoke attacks of opportunity when making a ranged attack as an attack of opportunity.

Normal: While wielding a ranged weapon, you threaten no squares and can make no attacks of opportunity with that weapon.

and

PRD - Ultimate Combat wrote:

Improved Snap Shot (Combat)

You can take advantage of your opponent's vulnerabilities from a greater distance, and without exposing yourself.

Prerequisites: Dex 15, Point-Blank Shot, Rapid Shot, Snap Shot, Weapon Focus, base attack bonus +9.

Benefit: You threaten an additional 10 feet with Snap Shot.

Normal: Making a ranged attack provokes attacks of opportunity.

And to give my reply and opinion about the main question:

1) switching a weapon grip from one to two hands and visa versa is a free action that can be done only during your turn;

2) you can free one hand at the end of your attack routine to fulfil the crane wing requirement;

3) you can't regrip your 2 handed weapon with the free hand when you get the AoO from the Crane Riposte, you must act immediately to benefit from the AoO, getting an AoO interrupt the flow of actions and should be resolved immediately (barring specific, stated, exceptions);

4) you can absolutely make your AoO with IUS (improved unarmed strike), spiked gauntlets and similar things.

Andoran

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Card Game, Companion, Modules, Pawns, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
Diego Rossi wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
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.
There is a specific feat that allow you to attack the limb or weapon of a creature with reach. Without that feat you can't.
Do you know what the feat is called?

My bad! I was still fixed on the bow thing and missed what you where actually asking.

Here it is, from the CRB:

PRD wrote:

Strike Back (Combat)

You can strike at foes that attack you using their superior reach, by targeting their limbs or weapons as they come at you.

Prerequisite: Base attack bonus +11.

Benefit: You can ready an action to make a melee attack against any foe that attacks you in melee, even if the foe is outside of your reach.

Silver Crusade

Diego Rossi, you said that actions which are defined as 'not an action' can't be taken outside of you turn because 'nowhere does it say you can'.

First, the whole 'actions that aren't actions' is too self contradictory to touch with a proverbial 10-foot pole.

Second, as the text you quoted says:-

'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.'

If the 'something else' happens outside your turn, so does the associated non-action. This is the case when making an AoO.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Roleplaying Game, Tales Subscriber
Malachi Silverclaw wrote:


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'!

No it isn't. It's just an example of how wonky the Paladin ability is and the dev at question could not think of a better way to address it save by creating a specific exception to the general rule. The ruling on the Paladin ability really can't be used as precedent for anything else.

Andoran

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Card Game, Companion, Modules, Pawns, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Malachi Silverclaw wrote:

Diego Rossi, you said that actions which are defined as 'not an action' can't be taken outside of you turn because 'nowhere does it say you can'.

First, the whole 'actions that aren't actions' is too self contradictory to touch with a proverbial 10-foot pole.

Second, as the text you quoted says:-

'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.'

If the 'something else' happens outside your turn, so does the associated non-action. This is the case when making an AoO.

Instead of trying to refute only what is convenient for supporting your point, try to cite all that is relevant:

(Original Post by Diego Rossi)
But nowhere the rules say that "no action" actions can be taken out of turn. Actually the two examples of no actions given in the combat section, 5-foot step and Delay, can be taken during your turn only.
All action or no actions that can be taken off turn have that exception explicitly stated. (end of self citation)

So your rebut fail from the start.

About actions that are no actions, it is a problem with the use of the word action in the rules. Notching a arrow is an action under a dictionary definition, but it is a No Action under the game terms usage. Until you learn to differentiate the two thing you will have problems with any rule manual.

To repeat it again:
You can't take any kind of action or no action outside your turn unless a rule specifically allow it.

Silver Crusade

Diego Rossi wrote:
Malachi Silverclaw wrote:

Diego Rossi, you said that actions which are defined as 'not an action' can't be taken outside of you turn because 'nowhere does it say you can'.

First, the whole 'actions that aren't actions' is too self contradictory to touch with a proverbial 10-foot pole.

Second, as the text you quoted says:-

'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.'

If the 'something else' happens outside your turn, so does the associated non-action. This is the case when making an AoO.

Instead of trying to refute only what is convenient for supporting your point, try to cite all that is relevant:

(Original Post by Diego Rossi)
But nowhere the rules say that "no action" actions can be taken out of turn. Actually the two examples of no actions given in the combat section, 5-foot step and Delay, can be taken during your turn only.
All action or no actions that can be taken off turn have that exception explicitly stated. (end of self citation)

So your rebut fail from the start.

About actions that are no actions, it is a problem with the use of the word action in the rules. Notching a arrow is an action under a dictionary definition, but it is a No Action under the game terms usage. Until you learn to differentiate the two thing you will have problems with any rule manual.

To repeat it again:
You can't take any kind of action or no action outside your turn unless a rule specifically allow it.

Rubbish! Show me the RAW that says that!

Just repeating it doesn't makeit true!

Jumping is 'not an action' in and of itself, it takes place as part of movement. Therefore, whenever you move, jumping during that move happens whenever that move happens!

If grip changing is part of the attack, then grip changing happens when the attack happens as part of the attack. If that attack is an AoO, then the grip changing happens as part of that AoO!

This is a separate issue to wether grip changing is a free or non-action.

So your assertion that:-

'All action or no actions that can be taken off turn have that exception explicitly stated.'

Is trumped by:-

'They literally don't take any time at all to do and are considered an inherent part of doing something else'


Diego Rossi wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:

Define "Very Recently," as your definition of "Very Recently" can be different from mine, and I doubt this is something that hasn't been around for less than a year, at best.

Yet the two "citations" you listed contradict each other, as well as the example listed in the "Not an Action" section; the first says drawing or sheathing a weapon as far as ammunition is always a Free Action, whereas the second says that they require an action that is not a Free Action. The third is that the example listed for something being "Not an Action" would go against what it mentioned for "Drawing/Sheathing Ammuntion". (Ironically enough, no one else arguing their side on this thread listed such citations, so the fault is not just mine for "ignoring them".)

Very recently = Ultimate Combat where the feat was introduced.

Basic rules about drawing arrows Core rulebook.
So late 2011 against late 2008.

Where is the difference between:
"Drawing ammunition for use with a ranged weapon (such as arrows, bolts, sling bullets, or shuriken) is a free action."
"When using a bow, a character can draw ammunition as a free action; crossbows and slings require an action for reloading".
Reloading is not drawing. Crossbows and sling require an action to reload, not to draw the ammunition.

And try to read what people write instead of skimming it, what I did say is that you didn't tried to check your apparent rule citation.
You say "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)." treating it as an actual rule citation, I checked the PRD and I can't find anything resembling that text or any part of it. Maybe it exist in Pathfinder but more probably it is from the 3.x edition.

Probably you are repeating...

Good catch on that discrepancy; I apologize in that regard.

Then the question that I should be asking with Snap Shot is how would that factor with Combat Reflexes? Say a caster is within 15 feet and the archer has Imp. Snap Shot; he moves toward a creature and casts a spell. He doesn't know that the archer threatens those squares, so he figures he'd be fine to do such an action.

By the statement of the archer obtaining those feats, the archer threatens those squares, but he would not be able to make the two AOO's because he only has one arrow to use, and by RAW, he can't carry two arrows in the same hand (unless those arrows were within a quiver, in which case they would not be out and ready to use). In addition, he cannot draw arrows outside his turn, as you stated, drawing ammunition is a free action, and is something that does not state allows the character to do so outside their turn.

I will also remind you that the Bow Example listed for 'Not an Action' lists that nocking the arrow is only listed as "part of an attack with a bow," not "part of an attack action with a bow"; this is an important discrepancy to make, as an "Attack Action" is a type of "Standard Action," as clarified by the Vital Strike feats. Were it an Attack Action, it would support that such an option would not be doable outside your turn. Were it merely an attack (which an AOO is a Free Type of Attack that can be done outside your turn), like the text states, this makes no discrepancy as to what type of attacks allow such an action.

Now we look as to what "Nocking an Arrow" refers to. Realistically, since a character carries a bow in one hand and an arrow in the other (as is the conventional way to shoot), applying the hand that has the arrow to the hand that carries the bow is what "Nocking an Arrow" means.

Comparison-wise, this is not much different than applying the free hand that was used to deflect an attack with Crane Wing to my Greatsword upon completing the deflection, to make the AOO with my Greatsword, as I stated in my "extravagantly explained" post.

As I stated within that post, again, RAW also supports that such an act would be possible only if the creature swings at me; I would not be able to make any other AOO with my Greatsword as there is no activity made on my behalf that occurs before the AOO generated from using Crane Wing, which is a proxy that would be needed in order to change how I hold/wield a weapon, another factor that is linked with the "Not an Action" statement. This, meaning that logically, a creature that provokes through movement or casting would only be threatened by my Unarmed Strike/Gauntlet/Spiked Gauntlet, whereas when a creature swings at me, the activity that I perform is deflecting that attack, and upon doing so, I can inherently place the hand that I used to deflect the attack as part of something else (deflecting the attack made at me) back on my Greatsword, and immediately resolve the AOO using either my Unarmed Strike/Gauntlet/Spiked Gauntlet, or my Greatsword.

Honestly? It's a bit more balanced than people might think when these concepts are taken into consideration, and may very well lead to a "tank liability" when it comes to using a two-handed weapon with this style. Any smart creature would not go after some big dumb fighter trying to bait you with his lack of threatening, and would go ahead and go after a creature with severely weaker defenses. I can definitely go ahead and say that no extra restriction is needed to be listed when these factors that I brought up are included.

Silver Crusade

In the Crane Wing example, re-gripping wouldn't be part of the deflect bit, it would be part of the AoO with the greatsword.


Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
In the Crane Wing example, re-gripping wouldn't be part of the deflect bit, it would be part of the AoO with the greatsword.

It's an inherent part of doing something else; the AOO can be made after the deflection, which is the proxy needed to change how you hold/wield a weapon. It is arguable that you can do so at any point outside your turn without needing a proxy, since the 5-foot step "action" is an activity in its own right with its own limitations; simultaneously, it is also required to take feats to do the 5-foot step "action" outside your turn, and is also under restrictions of the Immediate Action rule, yet since no such claim is made regarding how you hold/wield weapons/items, we can also say that the "action" made to change such does not require a proxy; but for my word-for-word example, I will stick true to the concept it lists, which is to be a part of something else.

Also take note that with it being a part of something else, it leaves much ambiguity; while I normally cannot make the AOO with my Greatsword due to having 1 hand, it still leaves an option for me to change how I hold it to using it in 2 hands after the deflection, since that would also be a proxy that can allow such an "action". As I said before, the ambiguity would allow such a thing, as there is no explicit subject(s) stating or suggesting otherwise.

Silver Crusade

Darksol, why wouldn't the AoO allowing you to re-grip the greatsword be enough for you? Why do you need it to be Crane Wing allowing you to re-grip?


Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
Darksol, why wouldn't the AoO allowing you to re-grip the greatsword be enough for you? Why do you need it to be Crane Wing allowing you to re-grip?

The thing to understand is that I'm not saying that isn't enough for me; if anything, it saves a lot of time arguing that could be used to play the game instead of creating a headache. I would enjoy it as a player to do this for my character, and is something that I was planning to do all along. At the same time, I am using a word-for-word example, and sticking to its criteria so as to explain the reasoning behind my explanations while sticking to RAW down to the T.

The problem with assuming this via the word-for-word example is that in a basic scenario outside the Crane Wing, I would normally not threaten since I am not using two hands on the sword; the argument would be "How can I swing the weapon when you currently are in no way to use it to attack?" The thing you're saying is "Why not? I can just grab two hands on it and it says it costs no action whatsoever." While I personally do not care which one is right, let's look at it this way:

The other important factor to consider with the "Not an Action" description is that generally anything that falls under this category is done in conjunction with something else. Re-gripping the sword as part of an AOO is not possible because I did not threaten with that weapon to begin with, meaning there is no proxy presented that would allow me to fulfill the criteria for such an "action" with the respective weapon. In this case, since there is no action before-hand (besides the AOO), there is nothing that enables me to fulfill the criteria needed to make the AOO with my Greatsword, which is to have two hands to wield it.

The Crane Wing deflection, which is done at any point during the turn, is such a proxy, and is specifically listed to be before the AOO (or as pure RAW states, the AOO I make is after the attack is deflected). That said, the Crane Wing would enable me an "action" such as re-gripping the sword since I would inherently do so after I deflect the attack, thus fulfilling the criteria needed to make the AOO with my Greatsword.

But I view this not just in terms of RAW mechanics, but as my extravagant post mentioned, the impact on universal balance of the game. I explained that I would not threaten AOO's with my Greatsword unless I was given the proxy needed to make the AOO threaten with my Greatsword (which is the Crane Wing). And here's a couple questions related to this:

FAQ:
Q: What happens when you perform another immediate-like action which would enable this proxy?

A: Quite simply, if this immediate-like action is not the Crane Wing deflection, and the PC chooses to make that "action" based on that proxy, they would no longer fulfill the criteria needed to use the Crane Wing deflection, meaning they cannot make the Deflection and Riposte combo to begin with, meaning the feat, regardless of other "immediate actions" taken and associating the proxy with them, still functions as intended, and there would be no need to errata anything on it.

Q: Why would any sensible GM look at it this way?

A: Again, as I have said, such a concept is simple to balance out. If I were a GM, I would rule that yes, the character can use his Greatsword to Riposte after Deflecting a melee attack, but that before this he would not threaten with his Greatsword for actions that provoke, such as movement and spell-casting, as there is no proxy that would allow him to do this before the AOO is provoked outside of the immediate action, and simultaneously were there any other proxy outside the Crane Wing, the criteria needed to deflect a melee attack would be voided, and thusly the entire combination along with it.

Q: What if we rule it this way?

A: Whatever the answer, it's fine. Until a Dev comes in to clarify/errata any of this information, it's open to GM FIAT, and thusly is open to interpretation and differing viewpoints. Ultimately, there is no right or wrong answer in this regard, but there is a decision and its aftershocks, and that if a decision is made without thorough investigation (such as mine), it can quite frankly be game-breaking.

Silver Crusade

Okay, Darksol, I'll go through it.

• An AoO is provoked by certain trigger actions performed in a threatened square

• In order to threaten a square you must be able to make a melee attack into that square with a weapon

• In order to make an attack with a two-handed weapon (or a one-handed weapon in two hands BTW) you need to have two hands free to use the weapon, and the weapon must be held

• You may hold a two-handed weapon in one hand, but you need two hands to make an attack with it

• You may add a free hand to a weapon you are holding in one hand as part of an attack, thus using it in the required two

• Therefore, if you are holding a two-handed weapon in one hand, and your other is free to grip it at the moment of attack, then you are able to attack with it

• Since you are able to attack with it, you threaten squares with it!

• Since you threaten squares with it, you may use it to make AoOs!


The issue is the threatened squares. A threatened square is a square that a character that can make an attack into (such as an adjacent creature for Medium-sized PCs). With the Crane Style feat, you also have the Improved Unarmed Strike feat, and as such you threaten with your Unarmed Strike/Gauntlet/Spiked Gauntlet, not your Greatsword, which requires 2 hands to utilize.

With the RAW example, in order for you to change how you hold/wield a weapon, it must be done as a part of something. Since you normally cannot swing with two hands of a Greatsword, including AOO's, the Greatsword is the weapon that does not threaten, it is the Unarmed Strike/Gauntlet/Spiked Gauntlet; as such the AOO is made with that. The "action" must occur as a part of something; generally, you cannot change how to do so during an AOO, especially considering that at the time it is provoked or has to be made, the character cannot make an attack with a Greatsword as they currently did not have 2 hands active.

What I would say, is that instead of making the AOO, they could use the provocation as a proxy to make the "action", and should another creature provoke or the same creature provoke through a different method, then the PC would then be ready with the Greatsword to swing.

Silver Crusade

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:

The issue is the threatened squares. A threatened square is a square that a character that can make an attack into (such as an adjacent creature for Medium-sized PCs). With the Crane Style feat, you also have the Improved Unarmed Strike feat, and as such you threaten with your Unarmed Strike/Gauntlet/Spiked Gauntlet, not your Greatsword, which requires 2 hands to utilize.

With the RAW example, in order for you to change how you hold/wield a weapon, it must be done as a part of something. Since you normally cannot swing with two hands of a Greatsword, including AOO's, the Greatsword is the weapon that does not threaten, it is the Unarmed Strike/Gauntlet/Spiked Gauntlet; as such the AOO is made with that. The "action" must occur as a part of something; generally, you cannot change how to do so during an AOO, especially considering that at the time it is provoked or has to be made, the character cannot make an attack with a Greatsword as they currently did not have 2 hands active.

What I would say, is that instead of making the AOO, they could use the provocation as a proxy to make the "action", and should another creature provoke or the same creature provoke through a different method, then the PC would then be ready with the Greatsword to swing.

I've just gone through the chain of events!

If you can attack with it, you threaten with it!

If you are holding it in one hand and the other hand is free, then the free hand can join in as part of the attack!

So you can attack with it, and you do therefore threaten with it!

What part of the chain of events is incorrect?


Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:

The issue is the threatened squares. A threatened square is a square that a character that can make an attack into (such as an adjacent creature for Medium-sized PCs). With the Crane Style feat, you also have the Improved Unarmed Strike feat, and as such you threaten with your Unarmed Strike/Gauntlet/Spiked Gauntlet, not your Greatsword, which requires 2 hands to utilize.

With the RAW example, in order for you to change how you hold/wield a weapon, it must be done as a part of something. Since you normally cannot swing with two hands of a Greatsword, including AOO's, the Greatsword is the weapon that does not threaten, it is the Unarmed Strike/Gauntlet/Spiked Gauntlet; as such the AOO is made with that. The "action" must occur as a part of something; generally, you cannot change how to do so during an AOO, especially considering that at the time it is provoked or has to be made, the character cannot make an attack with a Greatsword as they currently did not have 2 hands active.

What I would say, is that instead of making the AOO, they could use the provocation as a proxy to make the "action", and should another creature provoke or the same creature provoke through a different method, then the PC would then be ready with the Greatsword to swing.

I've just gone through the chain of events!

If you can attack with it, you threaten with it!

If you are holding it in one hand and the other hand is free, then the free hand can join in as part of the attack!

So you can attack with it, and you do therefore threaten with it!

What part of the chain of events is incorrect?

The weapon threatens a square. A weapon that is not wielded in the proper method does not threaten a square. Since the Greatsword is in one hand, and not two, it does not threaten a square, meaning there is no 'proxy' before-hand in order to use two hands on the Greatsword to make an AOO.


Let's looks at the real-life example of the Nunchaku, where "grip-shifting" is not just something you *can* do, but in many cases how you attack properly.

If you're making an AoO with a pair of Nunchaku, you're probably shifting your grip, passing it from one hand to another, maybe more than once.

The same holds true of the Balisong knife, just about every staff weapon ever invented, and many others.

I bring it up because this concept is not unique. Being able to shift your stance and grip in response to what your enemy does is the mark of someone who knows how to fight. That's one of the ways you can tell they know what they are doing.

It's not just that she rules are ambiguous about the concept, it's that, if anything, they should be permissive. There is absolutely no reason that someone should not be able to add or remove a hand from a weapon at absolutely any time.

Lastly, anyone arguing that Crane Wing is broken, what do you think of Deflect Arrows?

Silver Crusade

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
The weapon threatens a square. A weapon that is not wielded in the proper method does not threaten a square. Since the Greatsword is in one hand, and not two, it does not threaten a square, meaning there is no 'proxy' before-hand in order to use two hands on the Greatsword to make an AOO.

I've helpfully bolded the part that's wrong.

Nowhere in the rules does it say that! It's simply not true!

Let's see what it does say:-

'Threatened Squares: You threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack'

When you are holding a two-handed weapon in one hand and the other hand is free to grip the weapon, the free hand grips the weapon as part of the attack. Ergo, you can make a melee attack with it, completely satisfying the conditions for 'threatening a square'!

Now, if you can quote the RAW which says a weapon that is not wielded in the proper method does not threaten a square then I'll happily admit I'm wrong. Of course, if you are unable to quote such RAW then you'll have to admit that there is no requirement to be holding a two-handed weapon in two hands to threaten, you just have to have two hands that are free to use it in two hands, and that the weapon is drawn and held in at least one hand.


Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
Now, if you can quote the RAW which says a weapon that is not wielded in the proper method does not threaten a square then I'll happily admit I'm wrong. Of course, if you are unable to quote such RAW then you'll have to admit that there is no requirement to be holding a two-handed weapon in two hands to threaten, you just have to have two hands that are free to use it in two hands, and that the weapon is drawn and held in at least one hand.

Last things first, lack of saying does not give free reign. This leads to madness and absurdity in cases.

But to directly answer you, I do believe that if you do a search for two-handed weapons with arcane bond in these forums that you will find a dev saying that having the weapon in one hand doesn't count as wielding it for that requirement.

And if you're not wielding a weapon, how are you going to attack with it?

Then again, I'm from a completely different basis in that I see that in most cases a move action is required here.. so I'm likely diametrically opposed in points of view.

I certainly do agree with your conclusion, I just don't agree that adding a hand on and off a weapon is an integral part of attacking with the weapon like your example with an arrow. You'll note that the actual drawing of the ammunition is a free action, it's just the part that is essentially attached to attacking with it that is not an action.

Not that it requires little effort, but rather because it is something separate and not integral to the action to which you wish to link it.

-James

Silver Crusade

james maissen wrote:
Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
Now, if you can quote the RAW which says a weapon that is not wielded in the proper method does not threaten a square then I'll happily admit I'm wrong. Of course, if you are unable to quote such RAW then you'll have to admit that there is no requirement to be holding a two-handed weapon in two hands to threaten, you just have to have two hands that are free to use it in two hands, and that the weapon is drawn and held in at least one hand.

Last things first, lack of saying does not give free reign. This leads to madness and absurdity in cases.

But to directly answer you, I do believe that if you do a search for two-handed weapons with arcane bond in these forums that you will find a dev saying that having the weapon in one hand doesn't count as wielding it for that requirement.

And if you're not wielding a weapon, how are you going to attack with it?

Then again, I'm from a completely different basis in that I see that in most cases a move action is required here.. so I'm likely diametrically opposed in points of view.

I certainly do agree with your conclusion, I just don't agree that adding a hand on and off a weapon is an integral part of attacking with the weapon like your example with an arrow. You'll note that the actual drawing of the ammunition is a free action, it's just the part that is essentially attached to attacking with it that is not an action.

Not that it requires little effort, but rather because it is something separate and not integral to the action to which you wish to link it.

-James

I remember the Arcane Bond/quarterstaff thing! I also remember the devs saying that it was never the intention to nerf staff wielding wizards, and the language will be changed from 'wielding' to 'holding' to avoid confusion.

This is another example of the use of the word 'wield' sometimes meaning 'held' and sometimes meaning 'use'.

We don't want the rule book to cause confusion. If it did there would be a 25% chance that the confused reader would attack the nearest creature.

Threatening with a two-handed weapon held in one hand while the other is free is sound, if re-gripping is a non-action which is part of the attack, in the same way that nocking an arrow is part of the attack with a bow. I'm convinced it is, but if the devs were to rule that re-gripping is a free action then you would not threaten with it unless you hold it it two hands.

I don't think they will rule this way, but if they do I'll have to accept it, of course. : )


Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
I remember the Arcane Bond/quarterstaff thing! I also remember the devs saying that it was never the intention to nerf staff wielding wizards, and the language will be changed from 'wielding' to 'holding' to avoid confusion.

Right, but if your supposition is correct that would have been a non-issue, would it not?

I do grant you that if going from merely holding a weapon to wielding it is a non-action part of an attack that you could do all that you claim.

But I honestly think such an action should require a move action and not a free action nor being a non-action.

Nocking an arrow is a non-action because it is seen as part of the attack with the bow.

Getting a two handed weapon from being merely held to attacking with it is not part of the attack with the two handed weapon. There are combat styles that utilize this and they typically are given quick draw as a way to fit into the combat model here, but even then it is not part of the attack.

Can one fire a bow without nocking arrows? No.

Can one swing a sword without constantly regripping it? Yes.

One is therefore considered part of the attack action, while the other is not.

Now if you want to introduce 'how one holds a weapon in two hands' and try to distinguish between 'choking up' and the like.. THEN I'll say that the system models THOSE as non-actions in as much as they don't distinguish between them at all. Likewise if you want to try to introduce double weapons as being wielded in more than one fashion, I'll grant that 'switching' between those non-existent (in sight of the rules) stances is a non-action.

However, switching from a pole arm in one hand to two hands and back again is not something that is part of an attack with the pole arm. It doesn't fit the definition.

But let's run with yours for a second. Why require the weapon to be in hand at all? If BOTH hands were free, wouldn't that ALSO satisfy YOUR criteria?

Why not? Well certainly there you have the draw weapon action being expressly listed. But this doesn't fit your model. Some of the same styles that switch back and forth as part of the combat style, ALSO go from sheathed to unsheathed as part of the combat style. Why shouldn't these be non-actions as part of the attack?

-James


@ James: The only distinguishing factor with the "Non-Action" is that generally it is inherently done as a part of something, and that if it was an "action" in its own right like the 5-foot step, it would be clarified as such; for an action like this and for us to classify it as such, it would have to follow that guideline. But the important thing to note is that this can lead to multiple variants, especially regarding what that something is.

While the example states it is "as part of an attack," some non-actions aren't limited to just this restriction, or even have such a restriction to begin with. An issue would be that would an "action" such as this have a restriction or not? I would say that it should, since generally a non-action is done as a part of something else, and this wouldn't be much different. For my instance, the proxy's for switching hands would be directly after I make an attack (going from 2h to 1h), and after deflecting an attack made at me, but before I make the AOO (going from 1h to 2h).


as far as two handed weapons go, I allow players to swing them one handed, as long as their other hand isnt full, or other wise occupied (its all semantics) so they can look cool or whatever, the swing could be started with two hands and end with one, or circle around with one hand and end landing on target with both hands on the grip or whatever (using the off hand for balance or centrifugal force.)

If their off hand is full (say a torch or a rope they are hanging from) I use fighting with two weapon penalty rules with no feat figured in (even if they might have that feat) but I still elt them swing it.

If in the case a character is swinging on a rope and wants to close line something as part of his move and attack and technically is using a a two handed weapon one handed? I usually let them make a full attack bonus with no strength bonus added to damage and then figure their movement like falling damage (unless they want to make a bull rush attempt or trip)

On another note the Titan Mauler barbarian archetype would let you do all sorts of things with big weapons (jotungrip)

Silver Crusade

James, the reason I cite the example of nocking an arrow being a non-action part of the attack is that it includes switching from holding a weapon requiring two hands to use (the bow) to holding it in two hands enabling it to be used, all as a non-action. If it's a non-action for an archer to switch in this way then it's a non-action for a swordsman to switch in this way.

The fact that nocking an arrow consists of even more than switching grips does not hurt my argument at all!

This, combined with the fact that there is no action listed in the Actions In Combat section that better matches this grip switching convinces me that 'non-action' is the answer!

With Quick Draw, drawing a weapon is a free action. Free actions can only be taken on your own turn. Therefore, even with QD, you don't threaten with sheathed weapons.

Logically, if, for whatever reason, QD was re-written to make it a non-action to draw a weapon, then you would threaten with sheathed weapons if you had QD!

That's not the case now, of course. : )


Iajutsu would then be rendered useless.


Malachi Silverclaw wrote:

James, the reason I cite the example of nocking an arrow being a non-action part of the attack is that it includes switching from holding a weapon requiring two hands to use (the bow) to holding it in two hands enabling it to be used, all as a non-action. If it's a non-action for an archer to switch in this way then it's a non-action for a swordsman to switch in this way.

False analogy.

First, there were people that claimed because one needed two hands to use a bow that an archer with a spiked gauntlet would not threaten squares with the spiked gauntlet when not firing the bow.

Clearly this is false, but it goes to the misunderstanding of how a bow is fired. Certainly two hands are required, but only one is ever holding the bow. The other is nocking the arrow, drawing it, and releasing the shot.

Yes these things are all part of the attack with a bow.

Drawing the arrow is not part of that attack, but rather is a separate free action.

Switching hands on a weapon from say holding it in the left hand to transferring it into the right hand is not part of making an attack with it. It is not 'Not an Action'.

Likewise switching from holding a weapon in one hand to wielding it in two hands is not part of making the attack with the weapon, but rather something that is done prior to making such attacks (if at all). It, too, is not 'Not an Action'.

If you are fixated on 'amount of effort' then perhaps it takes less effort to fire a bow after nocking the arrow and aiming, than it does to swing a sword several times to create an opening in which to hit an enemy.

However, changing grips is not part and parcel something that occurs in all of that swinging. It is more akin to loading the crossbow, drawing the arrow, drawing the weapon, and the like. Something that needs to be done first, but not part of the attack.

As to drawing weapons.. you miss my point. Apply your logic on adding a hand to the weapon, to switching the weapon between hands, to starting with the weapon sheathed.

From my reading of your argument you should conclude that a sheathed weapon on a character with two free hands is ready to attack with... and thus that character threatens squares.

Obviously this is false, but the question is.. where does your argument fail here, and why is it different in terms of your argument for the case when the weapon is out, but not wielded?

-James


I love that people are tryi g to rules lawyer out a way to use a 2 handed sword with one hand.

It's ridiculous on its face. As a GM I would not allow it, not just for balance reasons but because it's ridiculous

I think if there is this much ambiguity in the rules, then let's err on the side of not doing something that seems silly.

Silver Crusade

James, as I mentioned in my previous post, sheathed weapons do not threaten, even with QD, because with QD it's a free action to draw a weapon and you can only use free actions during your own turn. It order to attack with the weapon you'd need to draw it first, a free action. To threaten a square you must be able to attack with a weapon into that square, without taking any game actions between the AoO being provoked and the AoO being taken. If re-gripping is not an action then re-gripping does not prevent you from taking the AoO in response to one being provoked.

When using a bow you have two hands on the bow; the bowstring is just as much a part of a bow as a hilt is part of a sword!

Drawing an arrow from a quiver is a free action. What is not an action is nocking a (previously) drawn arrow to a held bow. This also changes the bow to being held unuseably in one hand to using it in two hands, without any action.

I would not allow a two-handed weapon to be used in one hand. At the moment of attack two hands must be free to use it, and it must be drawn and held.

51 to 100 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.