|Jiggy RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32|
Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
see the RAW is two hands must be free to use it, thats the main issue, the rest is flair. Watch video of people using two handed weapons, as long as the hands are not otherwise full or used, and the weapon utilizes two hands during the stroke, it's all good. Kinda like a baseball bat, the batter brings the weapon up to prepare for the swing (often) with one hand and after he's made contact with the ball his following swing usually include letting go of it with one hand first.
If this were a weapon he wouldnt drop it, but might use the monetum of the frist swing to swing it around him and come back around for another hit, at which point his second hand would again join the holding hand to complete the next stroke.
There's nobody ruling that you can use a two-handed sword one-handed. There's a class archetype for that, and it something that is irrelevant to the discussion, which is arguing what type of action it would be to change how you hold/wield a weapon.
The thing is, if it's "Not an Action," it would have to be specified to be done outside your turn (as the example listed with the Not an Action is a general "action" done associating with something, which in turn can very well be an AOO, an "action" done outside your turn, should they have the proper feats for it), which is something that is not listed (or even explained upon) for the "action" in question, and functioning as per the example listed, it would be doable to change how you wield a weapon outside your turn through a proxy the same as making an AOO with a Bow and Arrow, whether it be an Immediate Action or some other independent "action" done outside the turn.
However, if it's a "Free Action," it would be limited to only within your turn. This may be the most "balanced" way to rule it in any game, and as I've said before, I do not have any problem with it ruling this way. Simultaneously, the RAW does support this, as well as the "Not an Action" side, meaning that outside GM FIAT, both are equally correct in their interpretations.
I am in the camp that it should be a move action to switch from holding in one hand to wielding in two.
Remember that sometimes people would like to do such with one handed weapons to get a little extra damage also. My Duskblade or a Magus who needs a free hand to cast spells or a alchemist who wants to throw a bomb and then be ready when the enermy closes the distance.
I sometimes play around with the idea of allowing a bab of +1 to reduce the action to a swift action. While reading the thread, I thought maybe that is too cheap of a cost and thought maybe a bab of +6 would be a better cost. That made me think maybe a bab of +6 would be the right time to allow switching grip on someone else's turn. But I think that would call for too much abuse. Not trying to be mean about it but the example of countering via the crane stuff with a 2hw is the type of abuse I mean. I know I would not allow it.
I like the idea of maybe allowing quick draw to help out.
Sometimes I hate how often players(with dm permission) and dms break the rules via rule 0 but cases where Paizo fails to address it in the rules and fails to fix it in the FAQ make me thankful for rule zero.
Darksol, you seem to be treating 'not an action' as a category of game action! It is not a kind of action, but the absence of an action!
What kind of action is 'breathing'? Is it a free action? No, of that were the case (why?) then you could only breathe on your turn! Breathing is not an action (in game terms) at all! If you treat things that arent actions as if nom-actions were only things that could be done in your own turn unless the rules specifically say you can do it outside your turn, then the upshot would be that you could only breathe on your own turn, as 'breathing' is not listed as an exception!
What action is heart-beating? Brain activity? Seeing obvious things? Are we saying that you can't even see anything through your own eyes except during your own turn?
I know this is absurd! But this is the consequence of treating 'non-actions' as if they were a kind of game action!
The kind of non-actions which are part of another action (such as jumping as part of movement or re-gripping as part of the AoO) take place when that action happens!
So the re-gripping that is part of an AoO takes place during the AoO, by definition!
Malachi, the issue is that there is no AOO to begin with. When I threaten a square, that means I am ready to make an attack with the respective weapon at the proper square. With a Greatsword in one hand, and with it still there upon a creature's provocation, my Greatsword is not ready, and when the opportunity comes, I am not capable of making that attack because the weapon isn't being used/wielded properly, if at all.
It would make sense if I had a one-handed weapon, threatened a square with that weapon, and wanted to 2-hand it for the AOO, but the problem is that you must have 2 hands on the weapon to even get an AOO to begin with. If you don't have the weapon in swinging capability when the opponent provokes (and by swinging capability, I mean able to make a regular attack with it), you're not ready to make the AOO using that weapon.
This is why I argue my approach, in that an "action" before-hand (such as deflecting an attack, or the completion of it) serves as the proxy to get in that readied stance. This is probably the sole reason why an archer with a bow cannot make an AOO normally, and would have to take a feat (i.e. Snap Shot) in order to do so, and I already stated that regardless of the official outcome (whether it be Free Action or No Action) that it would also be fine/acceptable for a character to do as you described, take a feat that allows them to do so.
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
I will remind you of this:-
'Threatened Squares: You threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack, even when it is not your turn.'
Since you can add your free hand as part of the attack (of opportunity), then you can make an attack, therefore you do threaten, therefore you can take the AoO!
Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
Now we can agree with James Jacobs:
So you are saying that you can make attacks without need to first wield a weapon. That not wielding a weapon, yet still threatens squares with the potential to attack with the unwielded weapon..
It seems a bit of a stretch does it not?
Moreover it allows one to two weapon fight with a spiked gauntlet and a two-handed sword, which seems to be a bit of overkill for that one hand. Likewise a bit unfair in that one could not allow a character to TWF with a dagger and a spiked gauntlet using only one hand..
It doesn't seem to fit in with the rest.
I'm sticking with my far safer and conservative move action.
I forgot to add before about AOO not being a type of standard action even though it is a melee attack. The problem with that is it would open up other actions like spell strike, vital strike(erattaed to be a standard action), martial maneuvers from Book of 9 Swords, or a monster's special abilities that are also standard actions.
I want to thank those who have brought good insight into the topic today. Took me way to long to read the whole thread today in one sitting, got off topic a bit, several times but the main topic is a topic I am passionate about myself. Hope this go around gets the question entered into the FAQ and finally answered to everyone's satisfaction.
I would benefit from free switches but I have always believed that it should be a move action to switch grips from one handed to two handed.
You cannot make an attack of opportunity with a 2handed weapon that is being held (not wielded) in one hand. Since it would take a free action to return it to being wielded and you cannot take free actions when it is not your turn (barring specific exceptions) then you cannot switch your 2handed weapon back to a being readied.
Edit: The following post by SKR does not solve whether or not you can switch grips as a free action. However, it does state you cannot use the same hand repeatedly for different attacks. I think that applies here (you are trying to use the same hand for an attack, and then another action).
I agree in that a character cannot make an attack with a 2-handed weapon with one hand, nor that they threaten or can make AOO's while in such a state.
However, there is no RAW that says changing how you hold/wield a weapon is a Free Action. There is no RAW regarding this at all, meaning it can also be labeled as not an action at all, but with a proxy required; meaning activities that occur from outside your turn would be required, i.e. Immediate Actions or other sorts of "actions"/activities; for example, the Crane Wing. Also take note that without that activity occuring, I would still not threaten, meaning if a creature is smart enough not to attack me, it could cast spells and the such and I would not be able to attack; simultaneously, I could perform an Immediate Action, use that as the proxy to change the grip on my Greatsword, and threaten then, but I would not be able to utilize Crane Wing, which is pretty much the crux of the issue. It's not as imbalanced or broken as you think it is.
And since "non-actions" can be done outside your turn (as per the example listed with the bow in the respective section), I can say that I change how I hold my weapon as part of completing the deflection back to two hands, and when the time comes to make the AOO, I would be able to use my Greatsword to attack.
@ Gauss' Edit: The post only descriminates between using two different weapons from the same hand. There is no "two different weapons," and there is no two different actions that discriminate in such a manner either. Let's take a Staff Magus for example. As a Standard Action, he casts a spell from his staff. As a free action, he puts the Staff in one hand to cast a Quicken Touch Spell to attack; if what you said is true, this combination would not even be possible, and goes against the entire purpose of staves and wands and the such.
I will agree that using a limb for two different attacks doesn't make sense and is technically illegal, because NPC creatures with natural attacks (as well as weapons) can't do such a thing to begin with. I will not agree, though, that what I am attempting to do is wrong or goes against the RAW that is currently present (which is that I make a standard/full attack, change how I hold the weapon to fulfill Crane Wing criteria, deflect the attack [and as part of completing the deflection], change how I hold the weapon back to two hands, and resolve making the AOO with my Greatsword). There are no "two different weapon attacks" to be made.
I would still threaten with an Unarmed Strike; I would not threaten with a Gauntlet/Spiked Gauntlet since those weapons occupy the same limb that I use to swing my Greatsword.
james maissen wrote:
TWF with greatsword and spiked gauntlet is no problem.
If you think that's unfair, remember you can TWF with a greatsword and armour spikes, so greatsword and spiked gauntlet isn't giving you an ability you wouldn't have otherwise.
This. Just use a feaking longsword, once you have a few levels under your belt the difference in damage from the smaller die is mostly irrelevant anyway.
Let's get something clarified as to the purpose of this thread, since it seems people get confused with something here.
WE ARE NOT ARGUING ABOUT USING A TWO-HANDED WEAPON IN ONE HAND.
There is a Class Archetype for this; if I wanted to do that, I'd use that Archetype, and that's that. No custom feats, no homebrew traits, no 3.5 magic items, no whatever. More importantly, that is not what I want to accomplish with my character at all. If I wanted to argue that, I would've made a thread called "Using a Two-handed Weapon in One Hand: Can it be done?" And there would've been no point when I already know the damn answer.
(I apologize if I sounded rude, but it is something that has been brought up repeatedly, and is something that this topic does not address, nor should it really have an impact in the first place.)
Thanks for the link. The best I can make out is that SKR is replying to someone who's asking if a first level character can use TWF to attack with the sword in his right hand, drop it as a free action, Quick Draw a second sword with the same right hand, then use that hand to take the bonus attack granted by TWF. I'd agree that the off-hand bonus attack granted by TWF cannot be taken with the same limb as the iterative attack.
I'm confident that SKR would have absolutely no problem with a character with a BA of +16 using QD to draw and throw a handaxe, a dagger, a dart and a shuriken for those four iterative attacks at +16/+11/+6/+1, using the same limb to throw each weapon. Nor would the RAW prevent the same high level character QDrawing swords and dropping them, though we may question the wisdom of such an extravagant fighting style.
Imagine a fighter with QD and TWF, armed with a longsword and a pair of spiked gauntlets. If he used the sword in his right hand to take his iterative attack and the gauntlet on his left hand to take the bonus TWF off-hand attack, no-one would have a problem with that. If he tried to use the sword in his right hand to take his iterative attack, then use the same right hand to deliver the off-hand attack (wether he is still holding the sword in that hand or after dropping it or switching it to his left), then you, me and SKR would have a problem with that!
Now, imagine he uses the sword two-handed for his iterative. I would not have a problem with the off-hand attack being taken with either hand after that. YMMV.
What you say about not being able to take an AoO with a greatsword held in one hand while the other is free would be true if changing grip was a free action. I hope you can see that you could take that AoO if grip changing is not an action!
What makes you think it's a free action? Is it listed under 'free actions' in the Actions In Combat table? No.
The game defines Actions In Combat. It further breaks these actions down into different types of actions: full-round, standard, move, swift, free and immediate. It lists these actions, each in their own sub-table. These are the things creatures do in the game's combat system which consume full-round, standard, move, swift, free and immediate actions!
With me so far? Good!
It also admits that there are things that creatures do in combat which do not consume any kind of game action at all! Logically, this list is infinitely long! The devs of 3.0, 3.5 and PF have seen no need to exhaustively list each possible 'non-action'; such an attempt would be absurd! Even the example listed in the notes (nocking an arrow) is not listed on the table; there is no need, because it's not an action.
In the nigh on thirteen years of the existence of the Actions In Combat table over the three editions of D20, not a single dev has seen a need to list 'changing grip' in any of those sub-tables! If it were a free action they'd have listed it under free actions! If it were a move action they'd have listed it under move actions!
If it's not an action there is no need to list it. Many things that are done are not actions in and of themselves, but are part of doing something else, like the fact that jumping is not a game action, but takes place during movement (whatever game action that that movement is consuming). You'll note that 'jumping' is not on the 'not an action' list, nor is nocking an arrow, nor is changing grip. All these things are part of another action; the latter two as part of an attack.
This is why I believe that what little RAW there is supports 'grip changing' not being an action itself, but done as part of the attack. What RAW do you have which supports it being a free action?
BTW, Crane Wing is broken in so many ways! We shouldn't define the combat system with the purpose of making Crane Wing abuse-proof; we should re-write Crane Wing so that it is balanced!
Malachi: I agree with everything except 2 things...
1. The Attack Provocation: In order to threaten a square with a weapon, upon the creature's provocation, you must be able to make an attack with that weapon. In the case of the Greatsword, you must have 2 hands applied to that weapon in order to make an attack with it.
I did note that you mentioned some sort of requirement to use two-handed weapons to attack. If you can quote the RAW that says what you say it does, then perhaps I may concede on this.
2. The Crane Wing is not broken. Looking at Deflect Arrows, its Ranged Attack counterpart, it is not so powerful when you consider that it does not work against Firearms (or perhaps there is an errata or something regarding this; either way the lack of RAW supports my claim, and makes sense since Bullets aren't Arrows), nor does it work on a ranger's iterative attacks, the same as Crane Wing. IIRC, there is a chain line of feats for Ranged Attacks similar to that of Vital Strike (and there are class features that may simulate this as well); Deflect Arrows can practically stop a single one of those per round. The same as if Crane Wing were to stop a single Vital Strike action per round.
These two are essentially the same feat in terms of mechanics and power. Heck, it takes more feats to get Crane Wing than it does Deflect Arrows, but the Pre-Req Feats before obtaining Crane Wing synergize with it quite well. Then again, if you obtain a bunch of feats meant for a certain something *cough*TWF*cough*, of course it's going to reach that level of power!
Not all actions are defined. One such action is switching grips. Some people believe that switching grips from 1handed to 2handed is a move action. Others believe it is a free action. JJ has stated free action.
The GM is left to arbitrate any actions which are not defined, however I use what he said since it makes sense (less than a move action, more than a non-action).
As for my post regarding SKR's post. I was trying to demonstrate that using the same hand for multiple actions that are not allowed together is generally a no-no. Note: The FAQ already states you can use multiple weapons in the same or different hands for iterative attacks. That does not disagree with the concept that you cannot use the same hand for multiple separate actions.
Lets put it another way: If I use a weapon in my offhand, I cannot use the buckler on that arm until my next turn. That is because that ARM was in use that round. This is no different.
Really we have two separate issues:
1) Can a person switch from a holding (non-readied) grip on a 2handed weapon to a readied grip when it is not their turn.
The short answer should be NO because only immediate actions and specifically called out actions are allowed when it is not your turn.
2) Can you wield a 2handed weapon, switch to a 1handed non-combat grip and then use the free hand to defend yourself (with Crane Wing).
The answer should be no on the general premise that if you use that hand for another purpose it is repurposed for the entire round. There are multiple examples of this. SKR's post was one example. Buckler is another.
There are no hard rules here. This is firmly in GM fiat territory. Other than JJ the developers cannot comment on every corner case. He has responded to question 1 (free action, which means it cannot be done when it is not your turn). SKR has commented on something which may be applied to question 2 as a general principle.
Honestly, I think I get weary of people challenging every person that responds with any answer that might make sense but is not strictly RAW (when there is no RAW to be had). This game is NOT built on RAW. Applying strict RAW will lead to madness because this game is not built for it. It wasnt built for it in 3.5 and it is not built for it now.
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
You asked about using a two-handed weapon while keeping a hand free. You can claim this is not about using a two-handed weapon in one hand all you like, but ultimately that is precisely what you wish to accomplish.
For what it's worth, I would give you the regripping as an inherent part of the attack based partly on the rules saying that is what happens, and partly on my knowledge that actual swordsmen do so constantly, and indeed failing to do so would pretty much get you killed. The sticking point for me would be using Crane Wing as well, since that takes a hand.
You have two options: either accept the limitations of the system and the weapons, or don't. Greatswords in PF are designed to sacrifice defense and flexibility for sheer damage output. There are literally dozens of other weapons, most of which are entirely usable, which would do exactly what you're talking about without roundabout justification or hand-wringing over what the devs think about your wacky corner case.
TL;DR Cool story bro... use a freaking longsword.
Gauss, I had no wish to challenge you, just to explain my case.
We are in agreement that the changing grip action is not specifically defined in the tables, so the DM must make a call. That call should be informed by the the rules that do exist.
I've explained why the rules that are there make me believe that it's not an action, and is done as part of the attack. That being the case, then changing grip happens when the attack happens.
As for Crane Wing, it should have wordage that makes you keep a free hand for the full round. The description for buckler manages it, so do feats like Power Attack, Rapid Shot, Combat Expertise etc in the sense that the penalties last for the round.
Crane Wing should have been written the same way; that's but one of the many criticisms I have of this feat.
Please don't take this post as disrespectful to you. : )
No; what I asked was what kind of action does it take to change how you hold/wield a weapon. Incidentally, I ask this because I want to try and utilize Crane Style while at the same time use my Greatsword; I already thoroughly explained my case about how I can, how I expect it to function, and how it would be balanced in accordance to the other functions, using my arguments for my side.
I made a huge, extravagant post utilizing more than just the "Non-Action" clause, and I already stated that if it were a Free Action and that I'd have to spend feats to do what I wish to do as an Immediate Action instead, then that's also an acceptable solution for me, whereas the side that I'm arguing is more ideal towards my aim.
If you didn't get the basic understanding of what I am arguing, here's what it is:
My Ideal Accomplishment:
1. My turn, I fight defensively, and make a full attack option/standard attack. Since the issue of me changing how I hold my weapon has no discrepancy regarding when it happens during my turn, I change how I hold my two-handed weapon into one hand. This frees up a hand for Crane Wing; however, I do not threaten with this weapon at this time.
2. Creature's turn; I still threaten with my Unarmed Strike, meaning if the creature wants to move, cast a spell, or perform a combat maneuver against me, I'd get an attack in. Simultaneously, if I still threaten, it might just make a swing at me anyway. For this example, let's say it swings at me. Crane Wing goes off, and I deflect that attack, whereas it would've otherwise hit me. Were it to be labelled as a Non-Action (which there is only a list as to the common non-actions, an example of which the RAW cites is a common thing not mentioned when making attacks with a bow), as part of completing the deflection from Crane Wing (per the note of "inherently done as a part of something" in the Non-Action clause), I once again change how I hold my weapon back to two hands, and Crane Riposte says after you deflect an attack made against you, you can make an AOO, with no clause stating you must have a free hand in order to do so. Since I now threaten with my Greatsword, I can make the AOO with it.
Now then, let's say before-hand that I have a 2-handed reach weapon (which my character actually does as a secondary weapon), or that I do not like to use my Unarmed Strike for AOO's, and the creature takes a 5-foot and starts to cast a spell; before the spell completion, I may use an Immediate Action (should I have one, such as the Step Up feat), and as part of completing that Immediate Action, change how I hold my weapon back to two hands (as per the Non-Action rules), and once again threaten with my Two-handed weapon. Now, as the spell casts, they provoke an AOO, and I threaten with my Two-handed weapon, with myself being able to attack with it.
If, for whatever reason I adjust my initiative, or I cannot perform actions for that round, the creature may want to attack me again and take advantage of my lowered defenses. Should the creature hit me, and I still have both hands on my weapon, I no longer fulfill the criteria for Crane Wing, meaning no deflection on my behalf can be made.
The same can be done with Deflect Arrows, should I have that feat. It does not contradict RAW (since there is no RAW regarding this, and I am using a direct, thorough example from the Non-Action clause, meaning I am not violating the usage of the Non-Action rules), and it balances out with how the feats and such are designed/stated to function.
Since the rules are so murky on the subject I'll simply submit how I've houseruled things in my game.
Fighting defensively using Crane Wing and a two-handed weapon is obviously fine. At the end of the turn as a free action you take one hand off the weapon to be able to deflect an attack with Crane Wing.
You are then attacked and the attack is deflected since you have a hand free. I allow two-handed weapons to be used in one hand with a -4 penalty to attack and obviously you don't get the extra damage for holding the weapon in two hands. In my games you could do that or punch instead. Since I classify shifting hands on a weapon as a free action that must be done on your turn so you cannot switch to a two-handed grip on the great sword to make an AoO with it.
I only allow grip shifting on your turn. It seems very reasonable and takes a huge slice out of the cheese of wanting to have your cake and eat it too.
Again, I still don't see how what I am attempting to do is any different from a Free-Hand Fighter using TWF (with a Gauntlet in one hand and an actual weapon in the other hand), and using Crane Style/Wing/Riposte within the same round. Is my action turn so much more ridiculous than theirs due to the weapon(s) that I am using? Not really, since they are utilizing both hands for attacks; the only difference between my action and theirs is that I use a single weapon, not two different ones, and that I use an "action" to change how I hold my weapon, which still has repercussions.
If I use a hand to attack, you are saying that I cannot use that same hand to deflect an attack. It defeats the entire purpose of having a hand requirement to begin with if you're saying you can't even use that hand at all before an attack on you is made, and it also makes Crane Style nigh-useless for characters outside of those who utilize Unarmed Strikes.
In addition, this defeats the entire argument of threatening with a 1-handed weapon and then 2-handing it for 1.5X bonus, when beforehand you used TWF. If you cannot use the same "limb" for two different things in a round, then there are countless concepts that would not work.
I still agree that using two different weapons in the same hand to attack would not work, but for a different reason: Iterative attacks. If I have a +6/+1 BAB, I can draw a weapon in a single hand, swing with it at my highest, drop it (realizing it did no good), pull out another weapon in the same hand, and swing with it at +1. I will also say that for me to do this, I would not have made any movement outside of a 5-foot step, symbolizing that I made a Full Attack Option, whereas before-hand, I would only have a Standard Action, meaning only a single attack.
If I only had BAB +3, I'd only be able to make the single attack, because I am not of a high enough BAB to make multiple attacks.
I hope you're feeling better!
I agree with you re: lack of willingness to use judgement. If only we all shared the same judgement....! : )
I've been giving the topic of this thread some thought. I'm thinking figuring out how many hands are holding a weapon isn't a Not an Action action, but a Free Action, similar to preparing a spell component to cast a spell. Instead of a spell component to cast a spell, you are preparing a weapon to make an attack. As a free action, this can only be done on the character's turn, and should he has anything in his other hand he's have to drop it, or spend move action to put it away if he wanted to shift back to a two handed grip at the end of his turn.
That said, it still seems odd someone with a two handed melee weapon can effectively function, on his turn, as if he's holding his weapon in a single hand, but otherwise holding it in both hands to threaten adjacent squares. Odd but not really abusive or unbalanced, and compared to what I've seen people do in movies I'd say it's pretty reasonable.
Dust Raven wrote:
Does this mean that spells with a casting time of one immediate action and a material component don't work?
Are there any such spells?
Dust Raven wrote:
So as a free action a character could take a weapon from a pouch and wield it? No.
Could a character draw a dagger to throw it as a free action? Not without quick draw.
These expressly require move actions.
In both cases I needed 'to prepare' the weapon to use it (stab or throw), but in both cases it expressly needs a move action to so prepare.
james maissen wrote:
But you're comparing changing how you hold/wield a weapon in hand to drawing a weapon from its scabbard/sheath/pouch. Considering the weapon isn't even out, of course it's going to take more of an action to draw it (should they not have Quickdraw); even then, characters with BAB +1 or more can Draw it as a free action as part of another movement action taken during that round.
They are by no means the same thing, nor do they function on the same spectrum or level for that matter.
@ Malachi: Nope, they cannot.
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
In response to the other poster that referenced taking spell components from a pouch... it seemed perfectly reasonable.
As to ease.. personally I can see it even being easier to take from a sheathe than to juggle back and forth and back and forth from a hand where one has a light shield strapped and being used.
Again a move action is the conservative, RAW, approach to this issue. It may not wind up being what the devs decide to make this action, but it is consistent with the rules and doesn't lead to a large need to monitor and limit free actions.
james maissen wrote:
If taking material components from a pouch is a move action, then casting spells with Material components should all be FRAs, not Standards. Do you rule it as such?
But whatever shield is attached to your hand has no impact as to the ease of which it takes to change how you hold a weapon, merely what limits the item type and usage. A character with a Buckler (me) has no restriction as to what he can put in that hand; hell, he can even swing with the weapon in that Buckler, though he loses the AC, and has a -1 to hit while using that hand, but that's already explained in the description. (In regards to the AC loss, I took a 3.5 feat that allowed me to retain the AC while using it. A shame it did not follow through in PF.)
In addition, in other items such as Light Shields, it states you can put objects in that hand, but that you cannot use weapons in that hand, and the other 2 cannot have items in them at all.
If an item is to be restricted due to a shield already being in hand, it would state whether items/objects can be placed in that hand, and/or what can be used; shields otherwise make no statement regarding the impact of switching what you put between items, and they wouldn't anyway, considering what we are arguing lists no concept of changing how you hold/wield a weapon.
Interesting, just like the non-action example that is cited in the book, that too is otherwise not listed in the RAW. I mean, the example is listed under the Non-Action Clause, but is not in the Action Table. If a subject has to be mentioned under their respective tables/descriptions, then by that logic, nocking an Arrow would also be a move action as per your ruling, meaning a character with a Bow can only ever have 1 attack with that bow per round, and that's it; a 5 foot step is all they're going to get.
Again, it doesn't have to be listed (in the table) for it to be classified under that, because if that were true, the concept of using Bows and/or other ranged weapons would be broken and no longer function properly.
CRB p. 187 Manipulate an item
Even though I fall in the move action crowd for the time being, I am thankful for to the thread for pointing out replacement of an arrow is not considered an action at all. Gives me fuel for thought. Maybe one day I will change camps but I do not feel the rules clearly call it out as such and suspect that until then, Paizo workers will say it is not an action more because that is how they play in their office. We should all know not everybody plays by every rule, even the people making the game use their own house rules. Others never seen a change from one edition to the next, some people just never read a particular page of the book themselves and went with whatever they saw someone else do.
I wish we had enough people hitting the FAQ button to finally get it definitively answered once and for all. If you are reading this thread, have you remembered to hit the FAQ button in the upper corner of the first post?
Raymond Lambert wrote:
I double-checked the page. I also believe it important to link the other parts.
CRB P.187: Manipulating an Item wrote:
Moving or manipulating an item is usually a move action. This includes retrieving or putting away a stored item, moving a heavy object, and opening a door. Examples of this kind of action, along with whether they incur an attack of opportunity, are given in 8-2.
As you can tell, there are examples listed in the citation of the clause mentioned; let's evaluate each of these examples and see how they impact the action in question...
The Bolded Part:
This would make sense in terms of drawing a weapon from its sheath or some other storage compartment, perhaps a backpack, etc. As I've said, while this would be comparable were it in such a subject, the question then becomes "Is a hand and a backpack the same level of 'storage'?" Let's put this to the test, and use a Glove of Storing.
The Gloves of Storing are a magic item that allow a character to store any single weapon (assuming it follows the listed criteria) within the item; simultaneously, the Gloves of Storing work as an extra-dimensional space that the wearer can bring out the weapon on-command. Of course, I will go as far to state the honesty that it is a free action to do so. This does raise a question, but that is for another thread.
The point is, if the Gloves of Storing is an extra-dimensional space (or in this case, a backpack), there are some exceptions to this rule, whether they be through magic items, or objects that are completely separate, such as a Masterwork Potion Belt; of course, while these exceptions are stated, the action in question (should it be considered one) has no RAW whatsoever pertaining to it, and has a significant impact in terms of switch-hitting builds and the like.
The Italicized Part:
Well; this would apply were the weapon of Colossal size and you cannot carry it in your storage space, meaning you could only push, pull, or drag it like a block of stone. Otherwise sure, this would make sense completely. But since we're talking about a weapon you can hold in hand, that is appropriate for your size, this won't apply here.
The OOC Part:
I don't even know why I bothered to make a spoiler/section about this; it's a completely separate object from a weapon...though I think it would be funny to see a character bust the hinges on a door and use it as an improvised weapon in a bar fight. AM BARBARIAN would probably do this, and smash in "CASTY BRAINS FOR MAKING FUN OF AM BARBARIAN 'INN-TEHL-UH-GINTZS."
Of course, I will grant points and say that in the table, it too lists examples, and chances are those move action types aren't limited to just that; however, the same is said for the "Non-Action" and "Free Action," so the argument regarding "Move Action" seems only equal in that regard.
I dont mean to nitpick but the Glove of Storing does not use extradimensional spaces. It uses shrink item. The item is still here in the real world but is now shrunk down to the point it cannot be seen. Just thought I'd say that before someone got the wrong idea about when they can use a Glove of storing.
Raymond Lambert wrote:
I am thankful for to the thread for pointing out replacement of an arrow is not considered an action at all.
I thought it was a free action to draw the arrow (ammunition), but it was not an action to notch the arrow when firing it from a bow.
james maissen wrote:
Well; by RAW, it's classified as a Free Action. By a questionable FAQ (which I don't have the link for, unfortunately), you can actually do so outside your turn.
He also could have been confused by one of my previous posts, listing that drawing an arrow out from the quiver was the non-action, not readying it for attack. Of course, I too was confused and did not notice my error, so I apologize.
@ Gauss: The gloves are completely useless then; you would still have to hold the shrunken item in your hand, and grabbing anything else would be impossible since the item's weight is nullified.
RAI, that's not "storing a weapon," which is why it's called Gloves of Storing. Of course, by your logic, it's good for sneak attacks during surprise rounds at best, which is hardly worth the 10,000 gold it costs.
The glove specifically states it is shrunk down. This is not my logic. It is the description of the item.
CRB p515 Glove of Storing wrote:
The item can weigh no more than 20 pounds and must be able to be held in one hand. While stored, the item has negligible weight. With a snap of the fingers wearing the glove, the item reappears. A glove can only store one item at a time. Storing or retrieving the item is a free action. The item is shrunk down so small within the palm of the glove that it cannot be seen.
No weight, so small it cannot be seen (ie, microscopic). Because it is microscopic it does not interfere with anything.
james maissen wrote:
Preparing spell components is expressly a free action per RAW. As changing from a 2 handed to 1 handed grip, or vice versa, is not the same as drawing a weapon, but reasonably easier, I suggested treating it like a free action, using the preparing of spell components as precedent.
Raymond Lambert wrote:
I could consider manipulating an item, such as one you would already have in your hand, to be changing it in someway. Like if you had a magic rod which could reconfigure into different useful shapes (i.e. Rod of Lordly Might). Just changing what hand something is in should be quicker and easier than that.
Which means it's all the more easy to lose something, and it still classifies as an object in hand, no matter how you look at it. The only thing RAW designates is that the item has no weight impact, and that it disappears.
If it "shrunk down in size" (which is not what the item does; that's what the spell does, but not the item), then it would still classify as an item being held in hand, no matter how light or small it may be, and it would be good for sketchy chances to get a surprise round sneak attack, at best.
Thanks Gauss; you proved that not only does the spell requirement to craft it does not correlate with the item in any way, but also that it is more useless than a pair of Greater Bracers of Archery. That is, if you were correct. I highly doubt that is the case due to the RAI of the item, as well as what it is called (Gloves of Storing, not Gloves of Item Shrinking).
The spell used to craft it correlates perfectly. That spell is Shrink Item. I do not see the problem. The item specifically states it shrinks the item. I quoted this right from the Core Rulebook. I fail to see how this is a problem.
Seriously, did you not read the item? Did you not read the quote?
It shrinks it down and stores it for you, how is that a problem?
Dust Raven wrote:
I understand that getting spell components from a pouch as part of casting is a free action.
I'm saying that it doesn't have much bearing on being able to juggle weapons.
The closest thing to RAW would be to call it a move action. Palatable or not, that's the case.
You can adjudicate it to be as you desire. Some advocate calling it not an action in some cases even.
But going from having a mace held in say a hand using a light shield (and thus the weapon is not usable) over to the other hand to wield it, seems like a move action to draw the weapon. If you want it to be a free action then take the quick draw feat.
Likewise holding a brace of throwing daggers in one hand and throwing them with the other, would be either the quickdraw feat or a move action for each dagger... again that's the point of the feat.
I thought you said that the item doesn't store it for you. In addition, I wonder what "edition" you got that quote from, because I read the PFSRD version and there was no note about it not being visible in the palm of your hand (which, by the way, is not storing it, meaning it's still an object in hand, and accomplished nothing).
I think what should've been applied is a "Hold Object" spell, or something of the sort, so that the darn item doesn't fall from your hand and you look for hours trying to find a less-than-ant-sized magic weapon of uber power.
I did not state it did not store it for you, I said it did not use an extradimensional space. A pocket in your pants stores your keys, that does not make it an extradimensional space.
Glove of storing makes two statements. It states it stores the object and then it states that it shrinks it down to the point it cannot be seen. I provided both statements in my quote. Reading one without the other provides an incomplete understanding of the item.
I have a 5th printing of the CRB pdf. Your problem is the d20PFSRD. It is not always accurate. I always take my quotes from the latest version of the PDF provided by Paizo. It is the most accurate way to do so. Even the paizo PRD is not 100% accurate (light spell for example).
james maissen wrote:
But the Light Shield is not a sheath, and plus you're telling a Paladin in order to use Lay on Hands on himself he must spend a Full Round Action to do so, and that if he wants to heal anybody else, he must spend over 2 rounds worth of actions to do so, or use one turn's worth and be left completely vulnerable.
You're also telling characters who wield staves or some other nonsense to cast spells that require hands free to spend over a Full Round Action on a Quicken Spell; just to juggle an already drawn weapon back and forth between their hands, and just for that spell alone. You wouldn't even be able to cast a spell from the Staff at all unless you had 2 standard actions, which is only permissible through a Wish, or a hardly-used optional rule, so it defeats the entire purpose of getting a Quicken Feat, or using spells outside the Staff (or even using a Staff in general), since such a rule makes them mutually exclusive.
@ Gauss: I guess using flavor text apparently gets a response of clarification regarding what an extradimensional space really is, since it seems to be its own important term in its own right; either way, the Gloves example has served its purpose, and is just bogging down the thread.
No more about the Gloves, let's get back on topic.
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
Wow, I'm saying a lot aren't I?
I'm saying that juggling is not done well during 6 seconds of combat... and frankly, so are the rules.
If you require the Paladin to have a hand free to lay on hands on himself, then if he had sword and large shield then he'd have issues. Just as much as if he wanted to cast a quickened spell. Doesn't seem wrong.
And yeah, if a character wants to wield a two-handed weapon then they are in a similar boat as the character that wields a one-handed weapon and uses a large shield. Casting non-stilled spells is difficult there, the waving the hands about, taking out spell components from pouches, altering reality and all that.. and to be honest it always has been this century with 3rd edition D&D editions.
I'm not sure concerning the final other parts of this rant that causes your universe to implode, but I can see that you can't consider any other possibility as your game would simply not work the way that you think it does if you did.
Anyway, the conservative ruling for switching a weapon from not being wielded in a hand to being wielded in that hand is a move action, baring special circumstances. This doesn't seem to work for you, then I suggest in your home games that you consider it to be not an action at all perhaps even to draw it. That way it won't get in your way and your game can be saved,
james maissen wrote:
Inadvertantly, you are. That's what happens you make a ruling such as this in such a manner; it's the domino effect, and is something that occurs often when you apply rules that alter many concepts. If you change how it works overall, it's going to affect the entire prospect that is the game. The same can be said for all the rulings and sides/versions of interpreting this rule; mine included. But I overlooked my ruling on practically every detail that it effects; the balance, the mechanics, the flaws, etc. and I proofread it to make sure it functions properly, so that it doesn't follow under such a conundrum.
What RAW says this? All it says is that drawing weapons from sheaths or other similar storing, such as backpacks or pouches, unless otherwise stated (such as Masterwork Potion Belts), is a move action. For weapons, characters with BAB +1 or more, drawing a weapon done as part of a movement action is a free action; for those with Quickdraw it is a Free Action regardless (unless you want to limit it to 2 per, which destroys practically all Thrower builds that don't have Vital Strike, which wouldn't apply to throwing weapons anyway). There is no RAW; I repeat, no RAW regarding weapons already in hand and switching grips, and you're treating hands as if they were sheathes and pouches. What RAW says Hands = Sheathes and Pouches, especially for the purpose of wielding/holding weapons? If there is RAW that says this, then I'll concede and this thread would've been all for nothing.
What do you mean if we require it; the CRB says a Paladin must have an open hand to use Lay on Hands. You're taking a very crucial Paladin class feature (as well as all the spells they can cast; yet another crucial class feature) and throwing it right back in their faces with that ruling. You're also nullifying all forms of casting with drawn weapons with that ruling as well; and you call that conservative? To have classes who use weapons as well as spells, like Paladins, Clerics, and Magi, and probably even more that I did not mention, have all of their class features become null and void because you're telling them in order to cast spells they must spend a Full Round while spending a Metamagic Feat they can't cast until they have a certain level of spells (which makes it not possible for a Paladin to even cast spells with weapons) in order to use magic?
If that's "conservative," then by the Gods call me a gorging glutton, because I would rather not violate a much more important foundation over a silly feat requirement; because if I went "conservative" (and I can't believe we're using political terms for this), here's what official ruling-only games would turn out to be:
Move Action ruling result wrote:
And that's probably just the beginning of it. It's more than likely even worse than what I described in a brief summary of what would happen.
On a lighter note...@ Gauss: It's the flavor text that I myself posted describing its interesting powers; the fact that it apparently got confused with a term (even though to me it seems to function quite similarly as to what the term I used) that is clearly defined in terms of what it applies to for discerning RAW, only tells me I need to be more careful in what wording I choose...