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

PaizoCon 2014!

Alternating between how you carry weapons?


Rules Questions

151 to 200 of 239 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>
Andoran

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

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

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

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

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

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

A bow requires two hands to use, but only one to hold. Just like, say, a greatsword. The act of your right hand (which is already holding an arrow) to to nock the arrow (which involves letting the bow string go between the fingers of my right hand...

If regripping things is not an action then there is mechanically no reason for light shields to exist... I drop the grip of my heavy shield, cast a spell and then re grip it. does this not follow your same logic?


@ Chaosthecold: The actions for donning and removing shields (which, while they are different from re-gripping a weapon, there's no hilt to grip with) are explicitly listed; you can't re-grip a shield because it's usually attached to your hands, unlike some weapons where a constant shift in how you hold it with the proper amount of hands occurs.

Light shields exist for a reason; they provide armor, and defensive benefits, most of which any other weapon cannot. They can also hold an item or object (but not use other weapons to attack with) for the purposes of fulfilling open hand requirements (though if it were ruled as per a Movement action, this function would be useless and you would be correct). Yes, they can also be used as weapons, but they can be used as both a line of defense, and a weapon at the same time, whether through a simple enchantment, or a set of feats, something you can't do nearly as effective with other weapons.

If I could hold and wield a Shield the same way I could a Sword, then by all means it would apply. But since you cannot (otherwise, you would not be wearing it as a shield, but as an improvised weapon), these rules would not apply to them.

Silver Crusade

Chaosthecold, it takes a move action to remove a shield; you can't just 'drop' it as it is strapped on.

If you were to use an off-hand weapon as an example, you could drop it as a free action, but it would be on the floor.

As mentioned previously, the devs think that a creature with a mace and light shield can switch the mace to the shield hand, use the (now free) hand to Lay On Hands or cast a spell, then switch the mace back, all in the same round, without using move actions.

Not only is that much more complex than adding a second hand to add power to an attack, it also shows why light shields still have a use; you can 'hold' an item in the same hand as a light shield, but you cannot 'use' a weapon in that hand. You can't do that with a heavy shield.


Darksol (I liked shining force too, fwiw) I really think that you are trying too hard to make something work when the rules seem to indicate that it does not work that way.

I know you have somehow convinced yourself that this is RAW correct, but it cannot be.

On the face of it, it does not make sense. Even if the RAW (which I believe it does) does not agree with this the RAI certainly does.

The game is not built with this concept of constantly swapping a 2 handed weapon from 1 to 2 hands. If you look at every other rule it is very consistent. I even showed you a nearly identical ability to the cranewing stuff in regards to the duelist- you still had to be able to hit that opponent.

The long and short of it is this; you cannot AoO something you do not threaten, you do not threaten while holding a 2h weapon with 1h. An AoO is a single melee action, so any other actions are not considered part of it.

The only circumstance under which your theory of "I can swing my 2h sword even though I am only holding it with 1h" (I know you would disagree, but that IS what you are trying to do (don't get all preachy about semantics, that is what you are trying to do)) is if you could move that free hand (the one that is preventing the attack from hitting you) to your greatsword as a free action AND if that action is considered not an action AND if that is something you can do on not your turn.

You have a very thin premise for the way this would work, and it only works when you interpret every rule in the most liberal way possible.

As a GM I would not let that fly, I think most people are on the same page as me.

I think you are arguing because you have established a flawed premise of how these rules have to work and have decided that your bizarre flow-chart is the only one that makes sense. I do not believe that the Dev's need to step in and tell us how we can't do something that rules don't allow.

I also believe you will now try and refute what I am about to say with some inane view of the rules that only makes sense when every single interpretation of the rules you have is exactly the way you believe it is.

How about this; at my table it won't work, and at your table it will (though I would still not do it at your table).

Thanks- And I am not trying to beat up on you, I just feel this discussion has gone on longer than is reasonable. Dark Dragon will rise again.

Andoran

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

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.

- Gauss

Shrink Item

...
Optionally, you can also change its now shrunken composition to a clothlike one.
...

Cloth patch on the glove.


Ubercroz wrote:

Darksol I really think that you are trying too hard to make something work when the rules seem to indicate that it does not work that way.

I know you have somehow convinced yourself that this is RAW correct, but it cannot be.

On the face of it, it does not make sense. Even if the RAW (which I believe it does) does not agree with this the RAI certainly does.

The game is not built with this concept of constantly swapping a 2 handed weapon from 1 to 2 hands. If you look at every other rule it is very consistent. I even showed you a nearly identical ability to the cranewing stuff in regards to the duelist- you still had to be able to hit that opponent.

The long and short of it is this; you cannot AoO something you do not threaten, you do not threaten while holding a 2h weapon with 1h. An AoO is a single melee action, so any other actions are not considered part of it.

The only circumstance under which your theory of "I can swing my 2h sword even though I am only holding it with 1h" (I know you would disagree, but that IS what you are trying to do (don't get all preachy about semantics, that is what you are trying to do)) is if you could move that free hand (the one that is preventing the attack from hitting you) to your greatsword as a free action AND if that action is considered not an action AND if that is something you can do on not your turn.

You have a very thin premise for the way this would work, and it only works when you interpret every rule in the most liberal way possible.

As a GM I would not let that fly, I think most people are on the same page as me.

I think you are arguing because you have established a flawed premise of how these rules have to work and have decided that your bizarre flow-chart is the only one that makes sense. I do not believe that the Dev's need to step in and tell us how we can't do something that rules don't allow.

I also believe you will now try and refute what I am about to say with some inane view of the rules...

There is no RAW written about this. Whether this was purposeful or not, I don't know. But what we do know is that the lack of RAW regarding this is pretty crucial, especially for my character and what I want him to do. Also try and understand that I am trying to argue an "ideal" situation for my character; I never said that my view was 100% fool-proof, I merely said that my view of the rules is also viable, as I use correlations to support it (the same as you do for your side), and I also said that if the rules or GM FIAT do require me to use a feat to do what I plan to do (since normally it would not be allowed), then so be it.

The point with my situation is that I'm trying to get the best bang for the buck, if you catch what I mean. If a guy is selling an item for 5,000 gold, whereas another guy is selling the same exact item for half the price, why would I not buy the 2,500 gold item when it functions the same and does not cost me nearly as much? I'd rather not spend a feat if I don't have to, and put that feat that I would otherwise not have to spend to better use.

Now then, back to the RAW at hand, the problem is there's a difference with how to classify such an action. People argue move action; this has dire consequences which I have listed (and most likely then some). People argue free action; this might be the least impacting, and is a solution acceptable for my situation. And people (like Malachi and Myself) argue Non-Action; the only major issue with this is the whole abstract concepts regarding non-actions, and whether you can apply such abstract concepts to a subject, knowing that it's being used for cheese (when I already explicitly argued that it is more-or-less on the contrary).

So what we should all do is step back, and analyze what each action classification would do and its impact on the rules as a whole.

I already explained how it would function, were it classified as a Non-Action. Whether you read/comprehended it all or not isn't of my concern, but it's there for you to re-read if you still doubt/question my explanation/view.

James already explained how it would function, were it classified as a Move Action, and seems...unnerved by its dire consequences on the other RAW in impacts. I can't say that it's completely incorrect, or that I cannot be wrong in my evaluation, but I can say that it will affect a heck of a lot more (important) things than my ruling.

And you already explained how it would function, were it classified as a Free Action, and I've already stated before, while it is acceptable for my situation (with a few tweaks here and there that are allowed), it is not ideal for my situation, which as a PC, is what I would strive for.

And yet again, we are arguing about "using a two-handed weapon one-handed". And again, I must state within yet another post that this is not the purpose of the thread. I will again state that I already know the answer to do something like this, and that is something I do not give a damn about and is a pointless argument when the answer is already in my head and right in front of my face. (Hint: It's not my answer, and it's an answer that's already published by the Devs.)

My situation of using a Crane Style, while it has associations with this thread, is not the title and purpose of the thread, and if you read a few bits of my post, you would understand that my ruling has no statement whatsoever about using a Two-handed weapon one-handed. It's not what this thread it about. This is not only getting old and redundant, but it's also quite irrelevant to the thread's question, which is "What action is it to change how you hold/wield a weapon?" as well as the respective specifics of such an action. So let's stay on topic, and not delve into the whole "two-hand as one-hand" bulls*** again, shall we?

Now then...Let me answer your statement regarding AOO's and threatening. Not once did I not say that you cannot make AOO's at squares you do not threaten, or with weapons you do not threaten with, nor does my extravagant post violate such rulings. If you read it, you would know that at each instance that I would threaten with AOO's, I would either mention my Greatsword when it would respectively not threaten (i.e. When I do not have 2 hands on it), or I would mention my Greatsword when it otherwise would threaten (i.e. When I do have 2 hands on it), and I explicitly made statements saying that I do, or do not threaten with my Greatsword.

In regards to your "AOO = Attack Action," I will first start by saying you're still sticking with that? Either the AOO rules your group runs with does not sync properly with the other rules for it to function, or its some completely different rules outside RAW, which says (as well as indicates due to correlatory text) it's a Free Attack Action done outside your turn.

Next, I will again reference my post, in saying that a Non-Action can be inherently done as a part of something else; that something else can very well be that AOO, i.e. that "single melee action". But wait, I already also mentioned that I did not threaten with my Greatsword, so it's not possible for me to do it upon an AOO, when there is not one present, hence why I also made (and agreed with) the statements of me not threatening with my Greatsword when I'm not wielding it properly, as well as saying that the proxy is not the AOO itself (because there is not one there), but as part of completing Crane Wing, which is the proxy designated.

But wait, what if I use the proxy regarding an Immediate Action or some other design?! Then I invalidate the criteria to perform Crane Wing, meaning I can no longer deflect attacks. And if I don't use that proxy, then I'm obviously not using it to attack with my Greatsword during that point in time, which may very well be crucial, should it be during a spell casting or some other important action.

I already looked at this from...well, generally just about any angle possible, and I analyzed it; I not only analyzed and tried to come up with faults with my own ruling, but I also evaluated yours and noted some key concepts. I hope you also understand that when I noted yours, I did not say it was "unacceptable" or "incorrect" or "complete BS," infact, I said it was the exact opposite; that it was "acceptable," "plausible," "sensible".

The things I did not say about it, were ideal, fitting or perfect, and while I may apply these terms to my case (and my case only), one will argue against my side with a claim of bias or cheesing or some other subject that would otherwise try and put me at supporting my side for just those reasons alone. Sure, they can do that. Sure, I'll just sit here and take it, and chances are, they may be right (in their minds, and perhaps even in the material that is reality); but am I completely, stupidly, and outrageously wrong in making such a claim as this, and going out of my way just to prove my case is not flawless, not 100% correct GM FIAT, or fool-proof, but at the least a plausible theory to consider when a GM, Casual Gaming Group (, or perhaps more solvingly, the Devs) make their decision? No. Because you need to understand that my view is just that; a plausible theory.

I'm not sitting here, saying "You're wrong, it's this way," or "Quit being an ignorant f*** about things, it's supposed to be done like so," or anything along the sort. If anything, as I've stated before, I analyzed all the sides of this issue, pointed out any faults they may (or may not) have, explicitly explained how each decision would impact the current rules, in just about any spectrum that I can think of, and if you haven't noticed (or perhaps, I should just plainly say it), the only "griping" (if you can even call it that) I have with calling it a Free Action is that 1. It's not ideal for my situation, which I can just suck it up, because the Rules don't always have to play by how I would like them to be, and 2. It has the potential to make my situation null and void, should there not be a feat that allows a character to do what I originally planned to do as an Immediate Action instead of a Free Action.

Ok? That's where I'm at so far in this, and hopefully you understand my position and view in this. I've been as abstract and specific in my views and evaluations as I possibly can, and if that's not enough, well, I'll just leave this thread alone until it comes across an individual who has a much broader spectrum on such a situation (i.e. A Dev, or somebody damn near close) come in, posting at least signs of an official ruling coming to fruition, and even then, I would just be watching and waiting until the task has finally be done...that is, if it will ever reach that point. My gut says it won't, seeing as how the Devs are constantly occupied with new content, plus other more important rulings and erratas and such, but my mind says this is quite an important ruling, not just within my situation, but within many others that encompass a heck of a lot more RAW (and a lot less homebrew, if any) than my own.


Holy large post Batman!

- Gauss


Gauss wrote:
Holy large post Batman!

With a topic such as this, and with how much it has expanded in terms of involved content, there is a lot to cover. This isn't my first one, either.

Even if I decided to try and put the stuff in spoilers to organize it, I would have no clue as to how to set it up in terms of said organization, or if it even would be necessary...

Cheliax

I got mixed up on the other page about free actions and non an action for stuff like drawing an arrow and placing it on the bow string. I am not even sure anymore which one is which. It got me to the point that I began to wonder if we were beginning to split hairs too thin. The point was, even if I am still in the move action camp, I am thankful for this thread opening my mind more on the topic than others on the same topic.

I want to add that I do not think making suff harder or taking more actions is a problem. Stuff like a paladin lay on hands or a cleric keeping both mace and shield up is not that big of a deal. A weapon cord can allow you to drop(free), cast(standard), retrieve weapon with a swift action. Heck, you still have a move action still left.

I would actually say that making those actions without a weapon cord forces the players to make hard choices. How much do you really want that spell to go off? Is it worth those actions? I also do not think that a paladin has to cast his spells during combat. She could save them for after or cast before opening the door. She could walk around without a weapon in her hand to have the freedom to decide if she wants to cast or be already armed at the start of her turn. She could choose weather or not the quick draw feat is worth it in hopes of getting an extra full attack from time to time when she begins her turn with an enermy already next or at least within a five foot step of her.

I do not think these hard choices are a problem. Is that not part of what balance is? Make the choices hard so that no one or two choices out of many are the clear cut favorite. Their are many clerics that decide to go with a heavy shield nosing they will have to make these types of hard decisions but rather make them turn to turn and have a heavy shield defense than a light shield with less defense. These are not just clerics that use a weapon cord from the APG. Their are others without that book who choose to still do so. They can try to lessen the problem by taking an extra backup weapon or two. Taking quick draw would be another option. By using a spiked gauntlet instead of a mace or their god's favored weapon even though the other weapon has a better damage die and or crit ranges/multipliers.

The staff issue does not seem to be a problem to me. Is it not the staff itself casting the spell, does a wand not do the same thing. I do not see a problem with both your hands on a staff to activate it. The activation even says you must have at least one hand on it, if two hands would rule out activating it, why would it use the word least instead of just saying you must hold it in hand?

I also always felt the juggling was odd. Why not just use the hand with the light shield arm to cast the spell.

I still want this in the FAQ. So click that FAQ button in the upper right corner of the first post if you have not already.

I am also a big fan of Shining Force, not so much Shining in the Darkness,Shining Wisdom or the later shining games for ps2. That is to say, I loved the turn based tactical games on the grid for the SEGA Genisis, SEGA CD, and the Shining Force 3 series on the SEGA Saturn. I even got my hands on all three of the SF3 games, having to play through SF3 scenario 2&3& the premium disk in Japanese. I so much wish they would do another real force style game again.


Malachi Silverclaw wrote:


As mentioned previously, the devs think that a creature with a mace and light shield can switch the mace to the shield hand, use the (now free) hand to Lay On Hands or cast a spell, then switch the mace back, all in the same round, without using move actions.

Devs plural?

As I recall it was Mr Jacobs saying how he would rule at a table assuming that the player was acting thematically rather than trying to game the system...

This is certainly not a rules answer. He pointedly doesn't want to make those calls, but rather is telling you how he'd fly with things as a DM at a table. It's a decidedly better way of answering things, but not germane to this discussion.

But don't get me wrong, they can make that rule. Or they can change the rule requiring a move action to draw a weapon... they can make it a 'minor' action or whatever they wish.

Until they do so, in the rules forum, the conservative rule is to call it a move action... however that may flummox your (or other's) conception of the game. I will tell you that others have played this game with those rules (which were actually spelled out as being the case in 3.5 and never changed to not being in PF) and the gaming table did not spontaneously burst into flame contrary to what you might like to believe.

-James


Raymond Lambert wrote:

The staff issue does not seem to be a problem to me. Is it not the staff itself casting the spell, does a wand not do the same thing. I do not see a problem with both your hands on a staff to activate it. The activation even says you must have at least one hand on it, if two hands would rule out activating it, why would it use the word least instead of just saying you must hold it in hand?

To activate a staff, just like a wand you only need one hand holding the staff.

To use a staff as a quarterstaff you need to wield it in two hands.

It's just someone getting confused as to the black and white rules there, don't worry about it.

Raymond Lambert wrote:


I also always felt the juggling was odd. Why not just use the hand with the light shield arm to cast the spell.

Nothing is stopping you from doing so.

Possibly why Mr Jacob's didn't have an issue with someone wanting to do it at a table, as it would just be a flavor change. Now if that player started trying to abuse a ruling James would have shut them down fast. But that's the nature of the answer and rule, and why it's not what is really being discussed here.

-James


JJ stated that "wielding" is different from just "holding" a weapon; in order to be wielding it, you've got to be "doing something" with it (most often attacking, occasionally using it for total defense or as an aid in spell-casting in the case of a bonded weapon). So in order to provoke AOO, you have to have "done something" with your weapon in your previous turn (ie. attack, defend, flourish, etc). So if you were just holding your Greatsword in one hand while casting a spell, regardless of what kind of action it is to put both hands back on it, you didn't "do anything" with it, hence you were not wielding it, hence you don't get AOO even if you ended the round with both hands on it (you're just holding it with both hands as opposed to one). That's why you can't make AOO when you're flat-footed... you haven't wielded your weapon yet.

Andoran

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Card Game, Companion, Modules, Pawns, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
james maissen wrote:

Raymond Lambert wrote:


I also always felt the juggling was odd. Why not just use the hand with the light shield arm to cast the spell.

Nothing is stopping you from doing so.

Possibly why Mr Jacob's didn't have an issue with someone wanting to do it at a table, as it would just be a flavor change. Now if that player started trying to abuse a ruling James would have shut them down fast. But that's the nature of the answer and rule, and why it's not what is really being discussed here.

-James

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


Somatic (S): A somatic component is a measured and precise movement of the hand. You must have at least one hand free to provide a somatic component.

I would say that your shield hand don't count as a free hand. You can hold your weapon with the shield hand while you cast a spell with the other hand but you can't cast a spell with the shield hand.

A interesting question is if you can hold something in the shield hand while benefiting from the shield AC bonus.
I think you should as long as it is something you can manage with one hand without excessive encumbrance (i.e. you could do it if you are holding a sword in your shield hand, you can't if you are holding a longspear).

Silver Crusade

Kazaan wrote:
JJ stated that "wielding" is different from just "holding" a weapon; in order to be wielding it, you've got to be "doing something" with it #most often attacking, occasionally using it for total defense or as an aid in spell-casting in the case of a bonded weapon#. So in order to provoke AOO, you have to have "done something" with your weapon in your previous turn #ie. attack, defend, flourish, etc#. So if you were just holding your Greatsword in one hand while casting a spell, regardless of what kind of action it is to put both hands back on it, you didn't "do anything" with it, hence you were not wielding it, hence you don't get AOO even if you ended the round with both hands on it #you're just holding it with both hands as opposed to one#. That's why you can't make AOO when you're flat-footed... you haven't wielded your weapon yet.

There is absolutely no requirement to have done something with a weapon in the previous round in order to either threaten with it, or make an AoO with it!

When an opponent provokes an AoO, you can only take an AoO if you threaten that square. If you take an AoO you must use a weapon that threatens the square for that AoO.

Attacks of Opportunity wrote:-

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

You must be able to make that attack without taking any actions between the AoO being provoked and executing the attack.

In the situation where a combatant is holding a greatsword in one hand #by the hilt# and the other hand is free, he does not threaten with the greatsword if he must use either a move action or a free action to add his free hand to the sword. However, he does threaten with it if adding that free hand is not an action!

So we go back to the OP. What action does 'adding a free hand to an already held weapon' consume, if any?

There is no cheese here! Whatever the answer is, that's how it works. Players will make choices based on whatever the rules are, and doing so is not cheesy.

Unfortunately, no such action (or non-action) is listed in the Actions In Combat tables, and there has been no definitive dev ruling. We have to divine the answer from the clues we can glean from the RAW that does exist.

When trying to find the closest action to 'changing from holding a weapon in one hand to holding it in two', the nearest thing I can find is in the description of 'Not an Action'. Unlike the other lists, which define certain things in terms of what type of game action each activity consumes, the list of things which are not game actions is infinite! There is no requirement for one to be listed on the table to prove that something is not an action. Even the example in the text (nocking an arrow) is not listed on the table. Of course it isn't! There is no obligation to print an infinitely long list!

On the lists of things which are game actions, it is reasonable to assume that, if something is a game action, then it will either be on the appropriate list, or will have it's action defined in the description of the activity itself.

Meaning, that if something is on none of the Actions In Combat lists, the strong likelihood is that it is not an action!

BTW, the reason I think that 'nocking an arrow' is the closest thing to 'changing from one hand to two, or vice versa' is that nocking an already drawn arrow also involves switching from holding a weapon in one hand (the bow) to holding it in the two hands required to use it.

There is nothing on the list of free actions which is close to changing from one hand to two. The only thing on the move action table which comes close is 'drawing a weapon'. But the weapon is already drawn! I don't have to draw it again! A weapon is either drawn, or it's not!

If switching from one-handed to two-handed were a move action. then we're in trouble! My greatsword is sheathed at my hip and initiative is rolled. It's my turn and I want to move 20-feet and slash the baddy. So I use a move action to move and draw my greatsword (my BA is +1), and a standard action to to attack. Right, DM?

Wrong! You have drawn the weapon with one hand; now you need to use another move action to switch from holding it in one hand to holding it in two! Unless you're trying to convince me that you draw a greatsword with two hands on the hilt during the entire drawing process!

Cheliax

I do not think there should be a problem with saying that when you draw a two handed weapon, you are automatically wielding it in two hands.

Since looking at similar actions to compare and contrat them are influencing us, I want to point out the dwarven dorn-dergar from Dwarves of Golarion.

It is an exotic(I think dwarves with martial weapon proficientcy can skip the exotic feat because it has dwarven in it's name) two handed weapon that takes a move action to switch reach modes between if you wield it as a reach weapon or an adjacent weapon. With an extra feat called darting viper, it can switch gears from a move action down to a swift action.

Another feat for the weapon called Dorn-dergar master allows you to wield the weapon in only one hand. In that case, switching mods is a full round action. If you also have darting viper from above, that full round action is reduced to a move action.

I am not saying that bastard swords or dwarven war axes, or even regular one handed weapons should require so much action to switch grips. I think the issue with the dorn-dergar is that it is particularly differ cult to handle, requiring more action to switch modes or grips. If that weapon changes modes so expensively in actions and a feat is needed to reduce the action cost, than maybe is not so much to accept that switching gears take something in cost. On the bright side, you do not Ned a feat to do so with other weapons but I do not believe that you should be able to switch gears for no cost at all.

I would seem like I was trying to lean the argument in favor of the move action camp if I did not also specify that a similar exotic weapon called the meteor hammer(printed four times with the most recent being UE). This weapon also has two modes, reach with a shield bonus as a two handed weapon or adjacent as a double weapon. This weapon says you choose which mode to wield it in as a free action (specifically) at the beginning of your turn. It is nice that you can freely choose witch mode is right for you at the beginning of your turn but than you are stuck with it that way. I wish more judges would allow the manipulate an item move action on page 187 of the crb to switch it again or for the first time after a single attack but some reason, most are closed minded to such.

Echo
If you are new to the thread, please click that FAQ in the upper right corner of the first post in the thread. Please do it now so you do not forget. Do not worry, we will still be hear ready for your return.
Echo


The OP wants to gain both the benefits of Crane Riposte and a 2 hander. I mean nothing stops him from making the AoO from Crane Riposte with his unarmed strikes, other than that he wants more damage with his 2 hander.

He is referencing Snap Shot to argue changing grip as part of an AoO. Let me tell you the rules doesn't cover this and it is a good thing. Because this rightly belongs in the realm of GM fiat.

If this was my game I'll say no, because if you need to reference a different feat, that effects range weapons to argue that you can change grip with a melee 2 hander after a Crane Riposte you already lost the argument in my books.


Gignere wrote:

The OP wants to gain both the benefits of Crane Riposte and a 2 hander. I mean nothing stops him from making the AoO from Crane Riposte with his unarmed strikes, other than that he wants more damage with his 2 hander.

He is referencing Snap Shot to argue changing grip as part of an AoO. Let me tell you the rules doesn't cover this and it is a good thing. Because this rightly belongs in the realm of GM fiat.

If this was my game I'll say no, because if you need to reference a different feat, that effects range weapons to argue that you can change grip with a melee 2 hander after a Crane Riposte you already lost the argument in my books.

Some confusion with this regarding how I see it function, so I will correct them as to how I said/interpreted it.

Technically, what I want to do is utilize the Crane Wing to deflect an attack (to help serve my capabilities to nullify attacks made against me, which is a key factor that distinguishes a tank from any other fighter). And the RAW regarding a Riposte does not limit me to using a single handed weapon to make that AOO. Let's get that clear at least; should a function that can occur outside my turn allows me to change from holding my Greatsword to actively wielding it (and thusly threaten with it), after the ability that requires me to have an open hand (but before the ability that follows, which makes no such requirement), I would be in no way, shape, or form violating the RAW that is currently present.

Also understand that it is Malachi who is making the statement of changing grips as part of an AOO. Obviously, we should not be the same person, and while we argue on similar sides in this manner, we still have our differences, and we argue those differences as well.

What I said was changing grips as part of completing a deflection to perform an AOO with my two-hander. I referenced the example text for Non-Actions regarding Nocking Arrows as part of Bow Attack, and I also stated that such an action can occur outside your turn, and referenced Snap Shot as proof, because were such a thing not the case, Snap Shot would not be functionable as a feat (that is, if you are arguing/saying that Non-Actions cannot occur outside your turn).

The realm of GM FIAT does have a place, but in a situation like this, where the rulings can range from no action at all, to a movement action in some tables (and I will state that it is quite a large range for such a supposedly "minor" ruling, especially regarding what this rule affects as a whole), some official clarification is going to be necessary, especially since such sides would be "sketchy" in terms of reasoning for their ruling.

Also note that I would change grip after a Crane Wing deflection, as should I not do such a thing, I currently would not threaten with my Greatsword, meaning no Crane Riposte would even take place, which if you state is the proxy for me to change grip, would not even occur (since I would not have two hands on it to threaten, defeating the entire purpose of the action and planning altogether).

Grand Lodge

james maissen wrote:
Dust Raven 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.

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.

-James

If moving a weapon from one hand to another is a move action, does it provoke an AoO? When you draw a weapon (a move action), there is no AoO. When you sheath a weapon (also a move action), you do. So if I take my greatsword, which I'm holding in 2 hands, and switch to a 1 handed grip, would that provoke an AoO? If I shift that mace into the hand my shield is strapped to, will that provoke an AoO? I don't think so.

I don't think changing how you are holding an object you are already holding should be treated the same way as drawing or sheathing it.

Silver Crusade

Dust Raven wrote:
james maissen wrote:
Dust Raven 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.

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.

-James

If moving a weapon from one hand to another is a move action, does it provoke an AoO? When you draw a weapon (a move action), there is no AoO. When you sheath a weapon (also a move action), you do. So if I take my greatsword, which I'm holding in 2 hands, and switch to a 1 handed grip, would that provoke an AoO? If I shift that mace into the hand my shield is strapped to, will that provoke an AoO? I don't think so.

I don't think changing how you are holding an object you are already holding should be treated the same way as drawing or sheathing it.

Spot on!


@ Dust Raven: Exactly my point that I made before. Hands aren't the same thing as Scabbards or Backpacks or Extradimensional Space items (like a Bag of Holding) or anything of the sort. If our hands are no different than containers or sheathes for weapons, why even use our hands to attack? I might as well just use my back or my arse to hit him, and use an Improved Unarmed Strike, since I would not suffer damage and attack penalties for it.

Classifying hands with an action changing how you hold/wield a weapon the same as drawing a weapon from a sheath or a belt pouch is ridiculous, both in terms of RAW and realism. My hands aren't clunky or restricting (or in terms of bags, constricting) like a sheath or pouch (and its contents), why would they be ruled the same?

Honestly James, the question I should ask you is "What makes changing how you hold/wield a weapon a move action any more 'conservative to RAW' than any other interpretation?"


Okay, so let me make sure I understand the crux of your argument, and all the pertinent rules.

1: you cannot make an AoO into a square that you do not threaten.

2: you do not threaten into squares with a 2H weapon being held with 1 hand (barring some class ability like jutongrip).

These above things, I believe we can agree on.

3: you contend that as part of the crane wing (riposte?) you could potentially grab your weapon with your free hand to make an AoO.

4: to grip the weapon in this manner the action of gripping it must be considered not-an-action, and must be not-an-action that you can take as part of a riposte.

So the fundamental disagreements are in regards to the kind of action, and whether it could be accomplished as part of another action outside of your turn.

Lets say for a moment that the action of re-gripping is not an action. You still have nothing in the rules that allows you to take this non-action as part of the crane riposte or the crane wing. I would contend that unless the rule explicitly states that you CAN regrip the weapon as part of the action, you can't. You don't get to re-grip a staff as part of a spell so why would you here?

Based on other instances of similar abilities, you must threaten the creature to take the AoO, and there is never a reference of taking a non-action to regrip your sword to let you do it.

I believe the most conservative view on this issue (which doesn't really need dev assistance since it will only come up for your character, or a handful of others) is that unless you threaten at the time the AoO occurs, you cannot make the attack. Meaning you cannot inject any intermediate actions between the opportunity of the AoO and the AoO itself.

It seems like you are trying to insert an action between these two things.


Darksol the Painbringer wrote:

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.

So you're asking an extremely esoteric question, the answer to which you believe will allow you to wield a greatsword while still having a free hand. Again, use a longsword. Or a bastard sword. Or a scimitar. At the point in the game where you have Crane Riposte, your damage die should not be terribly relevant to your damage output.

The exercise is to determine whether or not you have found an effective workaround for greatswords needing two hands to wield. Looking at what is or is not an action is somewhat valid, but stop trying to sell this as a sincere rules clarification to allow something that clearly ought to work when it is pretty blatantly an attempt to do something directly contrary to RAI.

I did read through your ideal scenario, and I think it will be easiest to go through it point by point.

Spoiler:
Quote:

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.

I'm actually with you right up to that last semicolon. RAW, for reaasons that have been pretty thoroughly discussed previously in the thread, you do still threaten with your greatsword, because your hand is equally free to use for wielding it. Crane Wing does not, to the best of my reading ability, require any declarations until the moment of use or prepared actions, so your hand remains free. I would even say that, while it is certainly cool flavor for you to announce removing one hand from your sword (and I suggest throwing out the "come at me" gesture when you do, just for the awesome), doing so is completely superfluous, because Crane Wing would allow you to free the hand for the deflection.

Quote:
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.

You threaten with both unarmed strike and your greatsword [see above], but that's not super important to the situation, since the enemy did nothing to provoke a standard AoO. You deflect the attack, totally cool.

Quote:
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[.]

WHOA! Slow down cowboy! That is a huge block of convoluted rules jargon pulled from every corner of the RAW. That said, you mention "inherent part" in there, which means the fair thing to do here is to ask what putting your hands back on your weapon might be an "inherent part" of. You seem to think it is an "inherent part" of Crane Wing:that seems a nit wrong to me, since Crane Wing is a technique requiring a free hand, and you are suggesting that it logically requires putting your hand back on a weapon after completion(?!?). So no, as of right now, I see you holding (not wielding) a greatsword in one hand, while deflecting a blow with the other. It seems like you're getting bogged down here, and perhaps not seeing the forest for the trees. Up to now, the situation is mostly clear, and the inclusion of obfuscatory rules text is simply counterproductive. That said, in my opinion, your cause is not yet lost, because while your mechanism may be wrong, your outcome may well work anyway.

Quote:
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.

This, in my opinion, is where the rules actually get sticky. If, after Crane Wing, the free hand you used for it becomes free again, you most certainly do threaten with your greatsword, because you have two hands available to wield it. Conversely, if Crane Wing does not release the use of your hand until some other point in the sequence, then you have no hands free, because one is busy deflecting and one is busy holding-but-not-wielding a greatsword.

RAW, I'm not sure this is made clear enough, so I will make the rather predictable statement that the Crane style feats need some serious clarification. Of course, you could entirely resolve the issue by using a longsword/bastard sword/scimitar, which would clearly work.

Quote:
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.

A bit verbose, but non-controversial.

Quote:
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.

See above for why I do not believe that this would ever be the case.

Quote:
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.

If this were apparently the case, you wouldn't have started the thread. Also, to reiterate, I think you've made the issue far more complex than necessary, and that the main thrust of your question is generally immaterial to your actual goal.

Grand Lodge

Ubercroz wrote:
Okay, so let me make sure I understand the crux of your argument, and all the pertinent rules.

We've got a number of viewpoints here, and I'm fairly sure it's not mine you are indicating, but I see where you are at on this, and I believe I agree... kinda.

Quote:

1: you cannot make an AoO into a square that you do not threaten.

2: you do not threaten into squares with a 2H weapon being held with 1 hand (barring some class ability like jutongrip).

These above things, I believe we can agree on.

I think we are agreed here.

Quote:

3: you contend that as part of the crane wing (riposte?) you could potentially grab your weapon with your free hand to make an AoO.

4: to grip the weapon in this manner the action of gripping it must be considered not-an-action, and must be not-an-action that you can take as part of a riposte.

==and other stuff==

Here is where you and I definitely agree... kinda. In the case of this, and any similar abilities which allow you to do something requiring a free which end up allowing you an AoO as a result of the action, you only get that AoO if you threaten the target at the time you performed the action which caused the target to provoke an AoO from you. So if you have a 2H weapon you can't at the time wield in one hand, you don't threaten with that weapon. You might threaten with an unarmed strike (provided you have the appropriate feat), but definitely not with that weapon.

But outside of this very specific circumstance, I think we disagree. I'm currently on the fence of treating changing grips to or from 1 handed or 2 handed as a not an action, or a free action. I'm leaning toward not an action, but more like a free action you can perform while it's not your turn, like speaking (you can talk with sign language after all, and that uses you hands).

So while I don't think you can combine Crane Wing/Riposte with an AoO using a 2H weapon, I do think if you happen to have a 2H weapon in hand (one or two), and nothing else in hand, then you threaten your adjacent squares (or those in your weapon's reach). Basically, as long as all you are holding is the weapon, it is indistinguishable whether you are holding it on one or both hands. It only matters if you attempt to perform an action which requires you to use the weapon with both hand at the same time you are required perform an action requiring a free hand (such as Crane Wing/Riposte).


@ Ubercroz:
Yes, we are in agreement regarding #'s 1 and 2. I would not threaten with my weapon should I not have 2 hands on it, ready to use.

Well, I am, and there is good reason that it is plausible. Let's look at the cited example listed for the Non-Action, and the Snap Shot feat again.

If I threaten 15 feet with the Imp. Snap Shot feat, and I have an arrow drawn at the end of my turn (which is a free action to do so), I can make an AOO against all targets who would normally provoke.

So let's say the noober Caster decides to cast a buff spell or some other sort of spell while within my threatened range. I have a Bow out and in one hand, and I have an Arrow out in the other hand. So now comes the question: What action does it take for me to apply that arrow to the Bow in my one hand, treating it as two hands (the requirement to shoot the bow), and make that AOO?

As per the cited example, to Nock an Arrow (which, after some official research, is putting the feathered end of an arrow to the string of a bow) as part of a bow attack is an example of a Non-Action. Keep in mind, that in the cited example, it says attack, not attack action, further supporting that such an "action" is doable outside your turn, again supporting the concept that "Non-Actions" have even less limitations than Free Actions.

I also listed that Non-Actions would have to be specified whether they can be constituted as an "action" inherently done as a part of something (which, I shall remind you, can be anything, due to its ambiguous relation, and is something the Nocking an Arrow thing is associated with), or if it's an "action" in its own right (which is what the 5-foot step "action" is classified as).

Again, with what I just mentioned, you could apply any and all restrictions stated with the Non-Action rules to changing how you hold/wield your weapon because it can vary from "It's an action in its own right with so and so restriction" to "It's an action that can be done as a part of completing or performing some other activity you do, which can occur inside or outside your turn." There is no "Move Action" or "Free Action" to be listed, because an Action that is a "Non-Action" (the 5-foot Step, as well as the Delay "action") otherwise has its listed limitations and other important miscellaneous information.

So at this point, we can argue that "Yes, it should have so-and-so restriction," or "No, it should not have this-or-that restriction, and should also function like that-and-this." And like you say, it then becomes semantics, because we both have plausible, sensible means to describe our sides and viewpoints. But we're no Devs, and our words technically carry zero water in RAW terms, meaning until a Dev (or some other equally credible rules adjustor) comes in and says one of us is right and the other is wrong, we're stuck at this stand still.

@ Butterknife + Ubercroz:
: It seems people get confused as to which Crane feat is which, and as to what each one does, especially regarding RAW.

I'll link the Base Crane Style, Crane Wing, and Crane Riposte, so let's get this out of the way (regarding my situation). But first, let's establish that to activate a Style Feat (which is the First feat's effects in a certain line of Style Feats), it requires a Swift Action to activate. There are feats that can make this a Free Action, but that is irrelevant to the topic at hand. Now then, on to the Crane Style feat tree's descriptions...

Here's the Base Crane Style:

Crane Style wrote:
You take only a –2 penalty on attack rolls for fighting defensively. While using this style and fighting defensively or using the total defense action, you gain an additional +1dodge bonus to your Armor Class.

To use the Base Style, it states the penalty for fighting defensively is reduced to -2. It also says when you use a Fighting Defensively/Total Defense option, you gain a +1 Dodge Bonus to AC. There is no RAW regarding needing a Free Hand to activate or receive these bonuses, only that you must be fighting defensively or using a total defense option.

Here's Crane Wing:

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

With what is stated here, we have 3 things to note: We have an effect (deflecting a melee attack made against you that would otherwise hit you), we have a requirement to utilize said effect (open hand free, a big flag right here), and we have miscellaneous, yet important, information (effect only works once per round, and requires fighting defensively/total defense action to have been used). When combined, it works as it is written.

Here's Crane Riposte:

Crane Riposte wrote:
You take only a –1 penalty on attack rolls for fighting defensively. Whenever you use Crane Wing to deflect an opponent’s attack, you can make an attack of opportunity against that opponent after the attack is deflected.

It says the penalty for fighting defensively is reduced even further (to -1). Fairly irrelevant, but the other point the feat makes here is that after you perform what is described by Crane Wing and follow its pre-requisites, you are then allowed to make an attack of opportunity against that target.

Let's evaluate this as a matter of criteria, the most common of which is the whole "hands" thing.

1. Does the Base Crane Style say you must have an open hand to use it or gain its effects? No such line exists within the RAW presented, meaning no, you must not have open hands constantly.

2. Does the Crane Wing say you must have an open hand to use or gain its effects? Yes. In order to deflect an attack, you must have an open hand free.

3. Does the Crane Riposte say you must have an open hand to use or gain its effects? Not exactly, if any correlation can be made. It says that whenever you use Crane Wing (the ability that says you must have an open hand free) to deflect an attack, you can make an attack of opportunity after the attack is deflected.

Not only does it not specifically mention any hand restriction (which should be consistent with abilities that should have such a restriction in terms of RAI), but also that there is a pause between when you deflect an attack, and when you make that AOO. Realistically, this is not to say that the pause is of an indefinite time, since AOO's function as per the rules, and is resolved immediately, but the effect occurs after an attack is deflected, indicating a window of actions between the activity to deflect an attack, and the activity to make an attack of opportunity after deflecting an attack. That window is the completion of the deflection.

Now then, if we go to my listed statement, saying I apply my free hand used to deflect the attack as part of completing the deflection, per the Non-Action rules, back to my Greatsword, I can do so within said open window, and still fulfill the two-hand requirement to threaten with my Greatsword.

Of course, if we are going to argue the "It's not a 'Non-Action'" side, let's say for example that I have a feat or item that allows me to change how I hold/wield a weapon as an Immediate Action instead of X Action (where X is the Action type you are arguing); would I still not threaten with my Greatsword? If not, then why?

@ Butterknife:
1. Wait a minute, I'm actually confused on that myself. I thought you had to actively have 2 hands on a weapon designed for two hands in order to threaten with it. Is that not the case for the purpose of threatening with a weapon, and/or using (or fulfilling the criteria for using) a weapon to attack? Is there RAW that says this?

2. I figured this would not have issue. It's usually not that part which causes an issue, it's the stuff afterward that raises eyebrows.

3. Here's the thing. It's kind of no different than putting a Greatsword in one hand at the end of my turn. Let's say for example, during my turn, I use a Move Action and a Standard Action; upon completing the standard action (to attack or do whatever), I grip the Greatsword in one hand only (as X action, where X is the action you argue, and if it's a Move Action or whatever, then let's say I didn't even move or whatever).

It's not much different here. Creature attacks me, normally hitting me, the activity that is Crane Wing triggers. Upon completing that activity, I change how I grip my weapon as per the Non-Action rules (in that it is inherently done as a part of something, in this case completion of the Crane Wing activity).

It's probably a good question; but I refer back to my "Lack of RAW" card, the text not stating something along the lines of "You can only use one hand to make the AOO" or "You are limited to only using one hand while performing the Crane Riposte", and if the intent of the deflection/riposte was to maintain that hand's usage for both activities, I don't see why they wouldn't have made the statement. (Just like how I think if the Devs wanted us to actually make swings with a Defending weapon to get its AC benefits, why they didn't just say "Attack" or whatever.) Sure, nobody, even the Devs, can come up with every corner case imaginable, and I even admit that I sure as heck can't either, but I honestly doubt I'm the first person to ask a question like this, (and if the Devs want to keep something like this ignored/under wraps due to their arbitrary involvement with a subject such as this, then it's obvious they want us, the players, to make the rules for stuff like that, since it is quite the touchy subject).

In regards to Deflect Arrows, the only issue is that there is no "Counter-attack" element to be made after deflecting that ranged attack; this is pretty much the crux of my situation, the aftermath of the deflection. (Which, by the way, looking at the feat pre-reqs, I just might pick that feat up as well later on, should I encounter some crazy ranged punks; chances are, I will.)

**Edit** Yes, another big wall of text, but luckily I managed to shrink it down to sections for who this post applies to, and what each spoiler provides. Feel free to read each if you wish, but it is organized as such in coordination to analyze points made by those mentioned.


@ Dust Raven: The first 2 parts I concurred with.

The second 2 are parts that he does not agree with regarding me (and yes, I know you acknowledged that it's not you he made those statements toward).

I will state, though, that the RAW regarding Crane Wing and Crane Riposte suggest they are both independent activities in their own right, as I mentioned and explained in the middle spoiler of my most recent "big post," meaning there is no instance where I must have two hands to attack and a free hand to attack simultaneously, when the two feats are written and seem to function as their own, independent actions.

**Edit**

Bed time for me; I'll be back on later tomorrow to see how (and if) my points were countered. Happy reading (my big post of spoilering)!


Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
Honestly James, the question I should ask you is "What makes changing how you hold/wield a weapon a move action any more 'conservative to RAW' than any other interpretation?"

His interpretation is conservative in that one couldn't reasonably argue that it would be any worse than a move action. The problem is his interpretation is founded upon a very very broad/liberal interpretation of what it means to draw a weapon. He is pushing both extremes in one aspect or another, and as you noted, it really just doesn't mesh well with RAW, RAI, or realism.

As to holding it in one hand and being able to make AoO's... RAI is almost certainly that you cannot threaten with a 2-hander while just holding it in one hand, especially not if you have one hand free with the intent of gaining some other benefit at the same time such as the crane wing. The whole point of 2-handed weapons is they take both hands, preventing you from using them if you need to free one of your hands to do something else.

@Malachi, arguing that changing grips is a non-action because there are an infinite number of non-actions that aren't listed is a weak premise. The same could also be said of free actions. They give a few examples of free actions, but like non-actions, imply that there are an infinite number of types of free actions that could be made. Given RAI of two handed weapons, changing grips would best fall under free actions, and thus something you could only do on your turn. Switch to one hand, cast a spell, switch back all during your turn? No problem. Hold it in one hand and expect to threaten with it? Not okay.


You know, I don't think that using Crane Wing/Riposte would allow this type of movement. I'd say you could threaten with a gauntlet of some sort or an unarmed strike provided you had IUS.


RipfangOmen wrote:
You know, I don't think that using Crane Wing/Riposte would allow this type of movement. I'd say you could threaten with a gauntlet of some sort or an unarmed strike provided you had IUS.

There is no conceivable way of getting crane style without IUS or at least some kind of natural attack (looking at you tengus).


bbangerter wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
Honestly James, the question I should ask you is "What makes changing how you hold/wield a weapon a move action any more 'conservative to RAW' than any other interpretation?"

His interpretation is conservative in that one couldn't reasonably argue that it would be any worse than a move action. The problem is his interpretation is founded upon a very very broad/liberal interpretation of what it means to draw a weapon. He is pushing both extremes in one aspect or another, and as you noted, it really just doesn't mesh well with RAW, RAI, or realism.

Realism:

With a free action interpretation you then allow the PC to juggle a weapon back and forth and back and forth without issue.

Thus a PC could have a long spear, but TWF fight using a pair of spiked gauntlets and still threaten squares with the long spear between their rounds.

That doesn't seem to mesh well with realism or the RAI.

As to my not meshing well with RAW, I disagree:

You have manipulate an item, draw weapon, and sheathe weapon as all being move actions. This seems to set a reasonable precedent that altering the status of such items should require a move action (baring special cases/investments like drawing on the move, quick draw, etc).

There is no reason by RAW or RAI to believe that the following situation is consistent:

1. PC holds a trio of daggers in one hand.
2. PC takes a dagger from that hand into the other.
3. PC throws said dagger.
4. PC does this twice more to full attack with thrown daggers.

Take the same situation but instead of holding the trio of daggers awkwardly with one hand, that there is a brace on which these daggers are placed. Now the daggers obviously need a move action to draw.

This is having issues meshing by making it a free action. Making it a move action simply has issues meshing with want some people want and that's a big difference.

There are cries of the sky is falling by making it a move action. Well it's been that way since 3rd edition and no cataclysm.

Here's the 3rd ed FAQ:

Quote:


In a previous column, the Sage ruled that switching weapons from one hand to the other should take a move action. My group and I thought that seemed pretty long, since it’s only a free action to drop something. Why can’t you just drop it into your other hand? It’s not really true that switching weapons from one hand to another is just like dropping a weapon. When you drop a weapon, you’re releasing it and letting it drop to the ground, with no real guidance (or attention) as to exactly where it lands. Switching a weapon from one hand to another is certainly more complex than simply dropping it. At the very least, switching hands would require you to use one hand to take the weapon from the other and at most it involves using both hands together in a coordinated action. Either way that sounds a lot like drawing a weapon, which is a move action. When you simply drop a weapon, you don’t really care where it lands, and it doesn’t require you to use the other hand to guide the action.

Nothing has changed in this regard with Pathfinder. The whole can of worms that 'everything goes' is not only spurious and disingenuous, but it is ignoring who the actual person writing these rulings was..

-James

Cheliax

I had a brain fart last night and forgot to regrip my 2hw after casting a spell and then approaching the enemy. When I realized the error, I waited till the turn ended and interrupted to explain the problem and ask that we act as if I had regripped the weapon as I moved, like the way that a person could draw on the move. Everyone was cool with that. I would have been cool with just dropping the weapon and drawing another on the move as well. I still fall in the move action camp. I just thought it would be funny to add how even though i am in the move action camp, even I had a brainfart and goofed up. It was only when I realized I was standing there without threatening and realized I would not be able to take an attack of opportunity on the enemy prone on the floor that I thought of asking if it was ok to say I regripped as I moved. In the past, I would just cast, regrip as a move action and then limit myself to only a 5 foot step. Seems fair to me to allow regrip when moving similar to drawing on the move. Still feel it odd to do it for free. It should be at least a swift in my opinion, though I am also ok with upgrading QuickDraw to make it free in that case.

Silver Crusade

bbangerter wrote:
@Malachi, arguing that changing grips is a non-action because there are an infinite number of non-actions that aren't listed is a weak premise. The same could also be said of free actions. They give a few examples of free actions, but like non-actions, imply that there are an infinite number of types of free actions that could be made. Given RAI of two handed weapons, changing grips would best fall under free actions, and thus something you could only do on your turn. Switch to one hand, cast a spell, switch back all during your turn? No problem. Hold it in one hand and expect to threaten with it? Not okay.

Although I admit that the lack of an entry for grip changing on any table is not proof that it's 'not an action', it does lend weight.

The reason I believe what little RAW we have supports the non-action case is that 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.'

A bow requires two hands to use. Assuming the archer is right handed, while drawing an arrow from his quiver (free action) with his right hand, the archer is holding his bow with only one hand, his left. This leaves him with a problem. Not only is his bow 'unloaded', but he is only holding his bow in one hand when it requires two hands to use! He not only needs to nock his arrow, he also needs to switch from holding his bow in one hand, to holding it in two hands! Both of these 'actions' absolutely must be done to enable him to shoot that arrow from that bow!

Hmmm! Big problem! What kind of game action does 'nocking an arrow' consume, and what kind of game action does 'changing from holding a weapon in one hand to holding it in two hands' consume?

According to James, the second part should cost a move action! If that's true, how do archers ever get a full attack?

Fortunately, although it's not an entry on the 'not an action' table, the text for not an action makes it clear that the entire process does not consume any game actions at all! Both of these 'non-actions' are part of the attack with the bow! This demonstrates that the devs believe that changing from holding a weapon in one hand to holding it in two is simply not any kind of game action at all! This concept is not new to us! We all know that, for example, 'jumping' does not consume a game action in and of itself, jumping is done as part of movement. It doesn't matter if that movement was taken as a move action or the movement was part of a full-round action (charge, run, withdraw).

So, we have clear precedent of changing from holding a weapon in one hand to holding it in two not consuming a game action of any type, but instead being part of the attack. Just swap 'greatsword' for 'bow' and you're good to go! It's even easiier for the swordsman, as he doesn't need to nock an arrow!

Given this, and the lack of an entry for grip-changing, how does it make sense to require a game action to be consumed by the swordsman to change his grip when we know, RAW that an archer doesn't consume a game action to do it, and the archer is nocking an arrow as well as changing grip?

So, my belief is not just based on the lack of an entry for 'grip changing' on the tables, but that lack does help my case. : )

Silver Crusade

Raymond Lambert wrote:
I had a brain fart last night and forgot to regrip my 2hw after casting a spell and then approaching the enemy. When I realized the error, I waited till the turn ended and interrupted to explain the problem and ask that we act as if I had regripped the weapon as I moved, like the way that a person could draw on the move. Everyone was cool with that. I would have been cool with just dropping the weapon and drawing another on the move as well. I still fall in the move action camp. I just thought it would be funny to add how even though i am in the move action camp, even I had a brainfart and goofed up. It was only when I realized I was standing there without threatening and realized I would not be able to take an attack of opportunity on the enemy prone on the floor that I thought of asking if it was ok to say I regripped as I moved. In the past, I would just cast, regrip as a move action and then limit myself to only a 5 foot step. Seems fair to me to allow regrip when moving similar to drawing on the move. Still feel it odd to do it for free. It should be at least a swift in my opinion, though I am also ok with upgrading QuickDraw to make it free in that case.

The trouble with this argument is that you'd have to add rules that aren't there!

You'd have to add an entry to the 'move action' table, you'd have to add notes that say you can re-grip as part of a move, and you would have to change the wording of Quick Draw to allow it. And archers still would be stuck only shooting one arrow per round!

The fact that you would have to add all these rules, and the fact that these rules do not exist, indicates that 'grip-changing' is not a move action! If it were, it would be on the 'move actions' table, along with explanatiory notes! It undeniably isn't!


Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
According to James, the second part should cost a move action! If that's true, how do archers ever get a full attack?

Really?

Let's see an archer gets to draw arrows as a free action. Should you extend that to say that all weapons can be drawn as a free actions? Of course not you say? Yet this is how you are attacking here.

We can agree that in 3.5 that this was expressly spelled out as a move action, correct?

-James


I think making it a swift action is probably the most balanced approach. You are limited to one swift action per round so this means you can switch grip once per round on your turn. Also most melees aren't using their swift actions for anything anyway.

This also eliminates the rule lawyers from arguing that you can take a grip shift as part of a non-action like AoO or another non-action like deflecting an attack.

Silver Crusade

james maissen wrote:
Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
According to James, the second part should cost a move action! If that's true, how do archers ever get a full attack?

Really?

Let's see an archer gets to draw arrows as a free action. Should you extend that to say that all weapons can be drawn as a free actions? Of course not you say? Yet this is how you are attacking here.

We can agree that in 3.5 that this was expressly spelled out as a move action, correct?

-James

We all know that drawing ammunition consumes a free action and drawing other weapons consumes a move action (modified by the notes).

Our disagreement is about changing from holding (non-ammunition) weapons in one hand to holding them in two hands. This 'action' (or non-action) has never been defined in the RAW of either 3.0, 3.5 or PF.

A bow is not ammunition! It's a weapon that requires two hands to use. Whatever the rules are for changing grip apply to bows just as much as they do for swords! If the rule was that changing grip were a move action, then that would apply to bows and swords alike; the special rules for 'drawing ammunition' do not apply to changing grip on a bow, as 'drawing' and 'changing grip' are not the same thing, and a bow is not ammunition! Therefore, if grip changing were ever to be made a move action then that would restrict archers to one attack per round because to draw an arrow (free action) involves one hand not on the bow, re-gripping the bow! If that's a move action then the archer can't have a full attack in the same round!


Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
james maissen wrote:
Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
According to James, the second part should cost a move action! If that's true, how do archers ever get a full attack?

Really?

Let's see an archer gets to draw arrows as a free action. Should you extend that to say that all weapons can be drawn as a free actions? Of course not you say? Yet this is how you are attacking here.

We can agree that in 3.5 that this was expressly spelled out as a move action, correct?

-James

We all know that drawing ammunition consumes a free action and drawing other weapons consumes a move action (modified by the notes).

Our disagreement is about changing from holding (non-ammunition) weapons in one hand to holding them in two hands. This 'action' (or non-action) has never been defined in the RAW of either 3.0, 3.5 or PF.

A bow is not ammunition! It's a weapon that requires two hands to use. Whatever the rules are for changing grip apply to bows just as much as they do for swords! If the rule was that changing grip were a move action, then that would apply to bows and swords alike; the special rules for 'drawing ammunition' do not apply to changing grip on a bow, as 'drawing' and 'changing grip' are not the same thing, and a bow is not ammunition! Therefore, if grip changing were ever to be made a move action then that would restrict archers to one attack per round because to draw an arrow (free action) involves one hand not on the bow, re-gripping the bow! If that's a move action then the archer can't have a full attack in the same round!

Have you seen a bow, nocked and fired? You don't change grip at all.

Edit: Unless you are arguing that pulling the drawstring is gripping. I'll say you are out of your mind.

Silver Crusade

Gignere wrote:
Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
james maissen wrote:
Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
According to James, the second part should cost a move action! If that's true, how do archers ever get a full attack?

Really?

Let's see an archer gets to draw arrows as a free action. Should you extend that to say that all weapons can be drawn as a free actions? Of course not you say? Yet this is how you are attacking here.

We can agree that in 3.5 that this was expressly spelled out as a move action, correct?

-James

We all know that drawing ammunition consumes a free action and drawing other weapons consumes a move action (modified by the notes).

Our disagreement is about changing from holding (non-ammunition) weapons in one hand to holding them in two hands. This 'action' (or non-action) has never been defined in the RAW of either 3.0, 3.5 or PF.

A bow is not ammunition! It's a weapon that requires two hands to use. Whatever the rules are for changing grip apply to bows just as much as they do for swords! If the rule was that changing grip were a move action, then that would apply to bows and swords alike; the special rules for 'drawing ammunition' do not apply to changing grip on a bow, as 'drawing' and 'changing grip' are not the same thing, and a bow is not ammunition! Therefore, if grip changing were ever to be made a move action then that would restrict archers to one attack per round because to draw an arrow (free action) involves one hand not on the bow, re-gripping the bow! If that's a move action then the archer can't have a full attack in the same round!

Have you seen a bow, nocked and fired? You don't change grip at all.

Edit: Unless you are arguing that pulling the drawstring is gripping. I'll say you are out of your mind.

I've not only seen it, I've done it!

I own a native American bow given to me as a gift when I visited family in America, and I was taught to shoot it there!

The bowstring is as much part of the bow as the hilt is part of a sword or the haft is part of a polearm! Yes, you need to hold a bow in two hands in order to use it; one hand is on the stave and the other on the string. Two hands required on the bow, and a requirement to change from holding the bow in one hand to holding it in two hands.


Malachi Silverclaw wrote:


Our disagreement is about changing from holding (non-ammunition) weapons in one hand to holding them in two hands. This 'action' (or non-action) has never been defined in the RAW of either 3.0, 3.5 or PF.

Please go back up thread where I quoted the RAW for 3.5,

James


@ James:

How does changing how you hold/wield a weapon fall under manipulating an item?

Even with the examples it listed as well as the ones mentioned in the table, nothing classifies it as the same; in addition, this still supports the fact that our hands are no different than our sheathes or backpacks from which we draw weapons or other items.

Why the hell would I even have hands if I can just cut them off and attach sheathes to them instead, since they are the same thing, and thusly makes it so that the sheathes of my weapons can't be taken (meaning I can use them as improvised weapons)? Because they are not the same.

Hands are malleable, they have joints, they can move around with said joints a hell of a lot more than a pre-carved, petrified wooden sheath, or a pre-stitched, skinned leather backpack; saying that they should consume the same actions as backpacks or sheathes when they are a much higher level in terms of availability is a bunch of crap not only in terms of realism, but RAW and RAI as well. Why even have hands? To cast spells? According to you, our hands have the same blocky, immobile movements as backpacks or sheathes, meaning spells aren't even viable unless you have Still Spell; which, by the way, would still indicate you don't need hands. To grasp things? Yet a Backpack/Sheathe does this a heck of a lot more effective, since a Hand and a Backpack/Sheathe function with the same action consumption, yet a Hand is very limited in what it can carry, compared to what a Sheathe or Backpack can.

I believe the whole "It hasn't changed in previous editions, it doesn't now" does not apply here; why? Because Pathfinder is now a game in its own right. Maybe if they were still using 3.5 rules, then perhaps the rules would apply. But they aren't. Rules have changed from 3.X to this game, and plus, in terms of RAW, using a previous edition of a game ruling, which has no bearing on the current edition of a separate game, regardless of similarities, holds no grounds.


james maissen wrote:


Realism:

With a free action interpretation you then allow the PC to juggle a weapon back and forth and back and forth without issue.

Limits on free actions are specifically subject to GM fiat. I would not allow Darksol to do what he wants to do with crane wing and THF.

james maissen wrote:


Thus a PC could have a long spear, but TWF fight using a pair of spiked gauntlets and still threaten squares with the long spear between their rounds.

That doesn't seem to mesh well with realism or the RAI.

Holding a long spear in one hand would prevent you from using that hand to TWF. I'd have no issue with you attacking with the spiked gauntlet in the other hand, then holding the spear in both at the end of your turn to AoO at range. You do not have 2 'wielded' weapons when you take the full attack action, and thus cannot TWF in this scenario. Moving the spear to the other hand as a free action after your main hand iterative attacks does not fulfill this criteria.

james maissen wrote:


As to my not meshing well with RAW, I disagree:

You have manipulate an item, draw weapon, and sheathe weapon as all being move actions. This seems to set a reasonable precedent that altering the status of such items should require a move action (baring special cases/investments like drawing on the move, quick draw, etc).

Every example of manipulating an item given in the table is something that requires significant muscle effort or fine dexterous manipulation. From the move actions table we have:

Control a frightened mount - would require hands on the reins restraining the creature and soothing the animal, and if mounted use of legs/knees to keep the animal steady.
Draw a weapon/Sheathe a weapon - dexterous manipulation to cleanly pull it from/insert it into the scabbard, or undo/redo a snap of some kind.
Load a hand crossbow or light crossbow - drawing a bolt from a quiver then lining it up perfectly in the crossbow slot and pulling back the string to lock it in place.
Open or close a door - pretty easy, but grabbing a door handle and twisting, pushing, pulling, etc.
Mount/dismount a steed - feet in/out of the stirrups. Also includes a short jump down or pulling yourself up on top.
Move a heavy object - heavy meaning you probably could not carry it in one hand, or at least not easily. A one handed grip on the object would be awkward at best.
Pick up an item - lean over and grab an item, and depending on the item may include things like not picking it up by the sharp/poisened/hot end. Or for small items getting your fingers around it.
Stand up from prone - probably involves using at least one arm, more likely both, you push yourself up from off the ground. Shifting your balance as your weight shifts back to your legs.
Ready or drop a shield - tightening or loosing the straps that hold it onto your arm.
Retrieve a stored item - manipulating draw strings, straps, snaps, flaps, whatever that keeps the item securely in place.

What would be involved in re-gripping a weapon? - moving one or both of your arms a few feet distance at most and closing your hand. The hilts of (most) weapons don't require any finesse in grasping them. The human bodies natural ability to know where your arms/legs/hands etc are without actually having to look at them makes this a very natural movement. For example, a juggler doesn't watch his hands. He watches the balls falling and without looking down is able to move his hands into place to catch them. Juggling up to 3 items in your hands is actually pretty trivial (given a few hours or maybe days of practice), and you can go through those 3 balls several times in the course of 6 seconds (or even 3 seconds if we assume a 'move' action takes up 3 and the standard action takes the other 3). Changing how you are holding an item is far less complicated then juggling.

james maissen wrote:


There is no reason by RAW or RAI to believe that the following situation is consistent:

1. PC holds a trio of daggers in one hand.
2. PC takes a dagger from that hand into the other.
3. PC throws said dagger.
4. PC does this twice more to full attack with thrown daggers.

GM limits on free actions should kick in here. Holding one dagger in your hand and switching it to the other to throw it? No problem. Holding more than one I'd shut down. You ever tried holding 10 pencils in one hand and quickly pick out one in such a way that you were holding the pencil in a manner you could write with it, without dropping any of the other 9? A much more difficult task than taking a single pencil from one hand to another. Depending on the size of the daggers you may not even be able to hold 3 in one hand - but that situation is beyond the scope of the rules because GM's should be able to think these things through without it being dictated to them.

james maissen wrote:


Take the same situation but instead of holding the trio of daggers awkwardly with one hand, that there is a brace on which these daggers are placed. Now the daggers obviously need a move action to draw.

This is what drawing a weapon is (or picking up an item) because they are not already in hand.

james maissen wrote:


This is having issues meshing by making it a free action. Making it a move action simply has issues meshing with want some people want and that's a big difference.

There are cries of the sky is falling by making it a move action....

The other side of this argument is beyond the RAI of how you may use a two handed weapon for AoO's and such.

Malachi wrote:
Although I admit that the lack of an entry for grip changing on any table is not proof that it's 'not an action', it does lend weight.

Thematically I'd agree with you. Mechanics wise I would call it a free action to prevent the above attempted abuse of getting the benefits of having a hand free and wielding a two handed weapon at the same time.


Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
I believe the whole "It hasn't changed in previous editions, it doesn't now" does not apply here; why? Because Pathfinder is now a game in its own right. Maybe if they were still using 3.5 rules, then perhaps the rules would apply. But they aren't. Rules have changed from 3.X to this game, and plus, in terms of RAW, using a previous edition of a game ruling, which has no bearing on the current edition of a separate game, regardless of similarities,...

Given that the rules are based on 3.5, and in some cases word for word copies, this is actually a pretty compelling argument on his side.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Hey, would anyone be willing to promise to PM me if there's ever a definitive developer comment on this, so I don't have to keep checking the thread?

Silver Crusade

james maissen wrote:
Malachi Silverclaw wrote:


Our disagreement is about changing from holding (non-ammunition) weapons in one hand to holding them in two hands. This 'action' (or non-action) has never been defined in the RAW of either 3.0, 3.5 or PF.

Please go back up thread where I quoted the RAW for 3.5,

James

You're going to have to be specific, James; we've both written a lot!


Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
james maissen wrote:
Malachi Silverclaw wrote:


Our disagreement is about changing from holding (non-ammunition) weapons in one hand to holding them in two hands. This 'action' (or non-action) has never been defined in the RAW of either 3.0, 3.5 or PF.

Please go back up thread where I quoted the RAW for 3.5,

James

You're going to have to be specific, James; we've both written a lot!

It was the 3.5 FAQ.

So we can accept that in 3.5 it was, by RAW, a move action then the question you have to ask is 'has anything changed'?

The answer is no.

-James


james maissen wrote:

It was the 3.5 FAQ.

So we can accept that in 3.5 it was, by RAW, a move action then the question you have to ask is 'has anything changed'?

The answer is no.

-James

James, the only references to 'grip' I can find in the 3.5 FAQ are in relation to the Monkey Grip feat. Can you point out in the FAQ where changing grips is implied as a move action?

Link to 3.5 faq


bbangerter wrote:


James, the only references to 'grip' I can find in the 3.5 FAQ are in relation to the Monkey Grip feat. Can you point out in the FAQ where changing grips is implied as a move action?

I quoted it up thread. Go back a few posts.

Switching having a weapon in two hands to only one hand is obviously considered a free action, as dropping the item completely is a free action.

Were it the case that switching back were a free action, then easily one can switch from one hand to the other hand as a pair of free actions. It is expressly a move action to do so per the FAQ entry quoted earlier.

Thus it makes sense to call switching from one hand to two hands a move action, as the consequence is immediately free action weapon juggling and thus a strict monitoring of free actions along the lines of swift actions.

This is certainly not the intent of 'free' actions and is, indeed, the purview of swift actions.

-James

Cheliax

I think it would have been impossible for game creators to predict every single action players would want to attempt in the game. It should not be surprising that sometimes, we come up with ideas that are outside the scope of what the game parameters are. It is like how no matter how much you read and prep the adventure, you will almost always have someone who at least thinks up a totally of the wall method of how to handle things that have nothing to do with the game story revealed as of yet. Sometimes they are even worth while ideas that make good sense. I actually surprised things do not fall through the cracks more often. When they do fall through the cracks, it is sometimes because nobody at the table knows that section of the book or it is really obscure, but in there.

Silver Crusade

James wrote that there was a 3.5 FAQ. He then quoted this:-

'In a previous column, the Sage ruled that switching weapons from one hand to the other should take a move action.'

First, this was not the answer Skip gave, but another question referencing a previous answer from Skip. It would be helpful to reproduce or link to the question that Skip was answering alongside the answer that Skip gave to it.

Second, this is from the Sage Advice column in Dragon Magazine! This does not carry the weight of official game FAQ, even for 3.5.

Third, Skip was talking about transferring a weapon from one hand to the other, not adding a free hand to an already held weapon!

Now that I've located James' 'previous post', he also scoffs at the idea that you could hold a set of daggers in one hand then throw them with the other, one after the other, in a full attack. This is because he sees taking a dagger from one hand with the other as a move action.

Are you kidding me? Have you never seen a knife thrower's act? The one where he has a fistful of knives in one hand then throws them in quick succession at some random rotating sparkly bint?

In game terms, those knives are already drawn, they don't need to be drawn again! You can certainly make a full attack like this, and Quick Draw would be irrelevant because, and I can't stress this enough, the knives are already drawn!

Now, a DM is perfectly within his rights to limit the number of weapons a person can hold in one hand like this, based on actual weapon size/shape. But this thread is about holding one weapon! We are also not transferring it from hand to hand (like Skip Williams was apparently ruling a move action-no knife throwers for Skip!), we are still holding it by the original hand and merely adding the free hand as part of the attack!

James' claim that Skip's 3.5 answer in a magazine column about transferring a weapon from hand to hand does not give us official FAQ for PF adding a free hand to an already held weapon!

The way James put it, it sounded like 'Q.E.D'! It so isn't!


Malachi Silverclaw wrote:


Second, this is from the Sage Advice column in Dragon Magazine! This does not carry the weight of official game FAQ, even for 3.5.

Malachi,

What I quoted WAS TAKEN VERBATIM from the 3.5 FAQ. I've told you this directly as well. I'm not sure where you are coming from here, but you've been told where it was from..

Did you look at the 3.5 FAQ? Did you do a search for this text? If you'd done so then you'd have found it. So you are either purposefully lying, or assuming that I am. In either case, I'm offended.

-James


bbangerter wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
I believe the whole "It hasn't changed in previous editions, it doesn't now" does not apply here; why? Because Pathfinder is now a game in its own right. Maybe if they were still using 3.5 rules, then perhaps the rules would apply. But they aren't. Rules have changed from 3.X to this game, and plus, in terms of RAW, using a previous edition of a game ruling, which has no bearing on the current edition of a separate game, regardless of similarities,...
Given that the rules are based on 3.5, and in some cases word for word copies, this is actually a pretty compelling argument on his side.

And things changed from 3.5 to Pathfinder; hence why it's now its own game, with its own rules, which are loosely based off of 3.5.

You think I'm going to bring in 2nd Edition Rules answers to a table/game that runs a completely changed, even though they come from a similar genre and whatnot, and get away with calling that answer "official"? People are going to scoff at such a prospect, and in this situation, I am one of those people who would scoff at separate material information that is independent of Pathfinder.

The same concept is brought here. The whole "It works in 3.5, it should here" can't be applied, because the rules between 3.5 and Pathfinder have changed dramatically, and just because it's not mentioned or changed does not mean it isn't different, because a Dev might have forgot to make a note or some other important piece of information to detail what they want to have happen.

151 to 200 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.