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

RPG Superstar 2015

Alternating between how you carry weapons?


Rules Questions

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

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:


And things changed from 3.5 to Pathfinder.. dramatically

And yet when we list the things that changed concerning drawing weapons we get.. oh wait, there's nothing cause nothing changed here.

What we have is an area that wasn't altered, but because it's now 'different' people want to call what was put in black and white as 'grey'. It's a selective reading that's very self serving, and frankly dishonest.

I get that you want it to be a free action, I get that you've played it as a free action, and I get that when you find out that rules are not the way that you've played it that you believe that things cannot function in any way other than that way you've played it (say when you were wrong about combat reflexes).

But the truth of the matter is that this is something that was answered back in 3.5, and wasn't altered the slightest in the changeover to Pathfinder.

There are many things that I wish that Paizo hadn't simply taken the SRD en masse, but had rather rewritten things. Heck there are parts of the SRD that are misleading because the SRD is the old 3e material stripped of the examples, some of which are still referenced in the SRD obliquely.

I'm sure that the devs have a ton of things on their list before they will want to say, go through the old 3.5 FAQ and 're-say' all of it again for the sake of those that didn't like it the first time and are hoping because it's not currently being said that somehow it's disappeared...

-James

Silver Crusade

james maissen wrote:
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

Without wishing to offend you, the quote you supplied is was not written by Skip. It was written by someone querying a previous Skip answer. It also referenced:-

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

This gives us the impression that this is a quote from the Sage Advice column which did not have the weight of FAQ. It rings a bell in my memory from reading the column for all those years.

While I read every column at the time, I did not have access to the Internet or official FAQs. This doesn't mean that the question and answer weren't cut and pasted into an official FAQ. this is why you were asked to provide a link to the original question and answer.

Asking that you provide evidence for us to peruse is not equivalent to calling you a liar.

Even now, I don't know how to get the FAQs for Pathfinder, let alone 3.5! So I haven't searched for it, nor do I have the skills to know where to start. I only recently learned how to bold my text!

The fact that, according to the quote you provided, Skip was answering a related but different question, makes us eager to study the original for ourselves. I believe you have the skills to provide a link, and it would help us if you did. If you do not have the skill (and I wouldn't think badly of you) then say so and we'll hope that another poster can.


@ James

Then why is Pathfinder its own game if it's just recycled material from 3.X books, which is what you say most of their rules are?

Things change, and things that we want to do, but aren't mentioned in the books then become questions we ask, and just because they ruled that way in 3.X does not mean the same rule applies here; because it's a game of its own right, and its rules can either be different, or very similar (if not identical).

The point is that you're taking words from a Dev of 3.5 (which, AFAIK, is not a part of the Pathfinder Dev team whatsoever), and applying that ruling to a game where the rules are on a completely separate scale. I then followed with my example of bringing 2nd Edition Answers and Materials to answer a 3.X game question, saying that at the least, it is to be scoffed at, especially considering that 3rd Edition and above D&D more-or-less left 2nd Edition in the Dust, the same as what Pathfinder did to 3rd Edition and beyond D&D.

Dark Archive

I think PF is more more based on 3.5 than just loosely. I would admit that many a time, I and other 3.5 vets were surprised to see a rule changed, but I still think PF is much closer than what you suggest it is.

I also feel that when Paizo fails to give us answers, the past is where we need to dig deeper and look for answers when Paizo failed to update said rule and has not yet addressed in their own FAQ. As long as the person says the evidence is from another edition, there is nothing wrong with presenting it for consideration. James referenced the 3.5 FAQ on several times and said it was from a 3.5 source so he did no foul, he never said it was the PF FAQ.

To find the PF FAQ, head to the very top of the page and find the link for help/FAQ in the very utmost top right of the page. That will lead you to many FAQs. Several of the hardback books have their own FAQ in a box on the right.

I doubt these attempts to make links will work. I need to learn about links, holding, quoting,

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/er/20030221a

I went to wizards.com
Typed in their search box 3.5 FAQ in the top middle of the screen and that gave me a list of links with the first one being to the 3.5 FAQ page where I could download various PDFs of FAQs.

http://paizo.com/paizo/faq


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Is anyone seriously trying to claim that pathfinder hasn't been developed to be backward-compatible with 3.5? Because paizo would tend to disagree with you.

A logical consequence of

Paizo wrote:
While the Pathfinder RPG is 100% compatible in both rules and feel with 3.5, the changes that have been made are too numerous to list

and

Paizo wrote:
The Pathfinder RPG will be backward-compatible with the 3.5 rules, and the staff has kept this goal as a primary focus since design began in 2007

is that, unless a rule has been explicitly changed, we can assume that it is the same.


Malachi Silverclaw wrote:


This gives us the impression that this is a quote from the Sage Advice column which did not have the weight of FAQ.

Only for someone that doesn't read any of the countless times where I've said that it was taken from the 3.5 FAQ.

You've been told from where I took it. You've said that I've lied and that's not the case. Then you admit that you have no way of knowing one way or the other. Now you demand that others find it for you.

Goodbye,

James

Silver Crusade

james maissen wrote:
Malachi Silverclaw wrote:


This gives us the impression that this is a quote from the Sage Advice column which did not have the weight of FAQ.

Only for someone that doesn't read any of the countless times where I've said that it was taken from the 3.5 FAQ.

You've been told from where I took it. You've said that I've lied and that's not the case. Then you admit that you have no way of knowing one way or the other. Now you demand that others find it for you.

Goodbye,

James

At no point did I call you a liar, James. As I said, asking to see the evidence is not the equivalent of calling you a liar.


Malachi: PF FAQs can be found by going to the following link:

Book list

Then you click on the appropriate book for example, Core Rulebook.

Then you scroll down to where the comments begin. Right above the comments are 3 tabs. One of those tabs is 'FAQs and Updates'. Click on that tab and you find the FAQ for the Core Rulebook.

Repeat for other books.

- Gauss


Gauss, the issue is that this comes from the 3.5 FAQ, which you can find here.

James has quoted from it correctly. Mind you, the question is about switching weapons from one hand to the other, so isn't directly apposite.


Glendwyr, perhaps you misunderstood. Malachi stated he was unable to find PF FAQs. I showed him where to find them. I was not re-entering this discussion in any other context.

Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
Even now, I don't know how to get the FAQs for Pathfinder, let alone 3.5! So I haven't searched for it, nor do I have the skills to know where to start. I only recently learned how to bold my text!

- Gauss


Gotcha. Since Malachi also doesn't know where to find the 3.5 FAQ, call my post a misunderstanding of yours, plus me being unintentionally helpful!


Well, I gave the 3.5 FAQ statement a good read through. I will swallow my pride and note that if I was to change how I held a Longsword from my right hand into my left hand instead that it would be classified as a movement action, meaning that in terms of this question regarding outright changing hands, it has been answered. Changing how you hold a single object in one hand into another hand is classified as a movement action. (Oh well, that's the rules for you.)

While this answers the question regarding outright changing which hand holds an item, this raises even more questions pertaining to my scenario, specifically regarding two-handed weapons. Yes, it is clear that a single object in a single hand changed into another hand is classified as a movement action, meaning that Paladins and other Spellcasters who try to use spells or any other action requiring free hands while weapons are drawn, have received the shaft majorly. (Why should they even have spells and weapons when this rule makes them mutually exclusive?)

It is not clearly defined, however, what action type it would be to remove one hand from a weapon, and/or apply an open hand to said weapon, which is probably the main focus of my issue at this point, and is also an important part of this thread topic as a whole.

Of course, while one chapter of this thread is answered (and closed), yet another opens in its wake, and so the question once again, is to be asked.

Silver Crusade

Gauss and Glendwyr, thankyou both for helping a net challenged person such as myself.

Gauss, I tried it and it worked! For the CRB at least! Not many of them, though. : (

Glendwyr, I tried and it went to a page, but when I clicked on the FAQ button it said 'Safari cannot download this file', and so I clicked on 'errata' instead and it took me to a page where I could click on a link to some errata but it came up with the same message.

FAQ-blocked! : (

This process shows me that there is a difference between FAQ and errata. Does this mean that FAQ carries less weight than errata?

A few weeks ago I came across a link in another thread that showed me something I didn't know about the interaction between Magic Missile and Mirror Image. It said that the Magic Missile always hits the real person on the grounds that Magic Missile targets a creature, and an image is not a creature. For years playing 3.5 we've been using Magic Missile specifically to rid baddies of their Mirror Images.

So I told the DM of my 3.5 game the reasoning behind this. Anyway, yesterday he told me that he'd looked at the FAQ for 3.5 which said that you can target images with Magic Missile as if they were creatures!

They can't both be true.

My question is, just how much can we trust the FAQ for 3.5 to help resolve issues in PF?


FAQs are usually clarifications to help us understand the rules but sometimes they include errata as well until that errata makes it into the book.

As for FAQs that are not the CRB, click on the APG and follow the same procedure. Repeat for UC and UM. Not all books have a FAQ but the big hardbacks usually do.

- Gauss


No idea why you couldn't get to the file - it works fine for me!

As far as trusting the 3.5 FAQ to resolve issues in PF, my belief is that if the PF rules read substantively the same as did the 3.5 rules, and no pertinent PF FAQ/errata has been issued, we should use the 3.5 ruling until told otherwise.

All that said, I've always played that changing grips from one-handed to two-handed is a free action. I figure, if it's good enough for James Jacobs, it's good enough for me.

Silver Crusade

I'm on my proper computer now instead of my phone, and the link Glendwyr provided works!

Looking through the 3.5 FAQ makes it clear that it was taken from the Sage Advice column from Dragon Magazine written by Skip Williams. It's possible that not all of them are from Sage Advice, but I remember some. There are some that reference a 'previous column', as in the quote that James provided earlier, some even give an issue number!

Also, I remember reading more than once that Skip had to admit a ruling he gave previously was wrong, and scanning these FAQs I found a reference to one such occasion:-

'The Sage didn’t do his homework on that question and you
caught him'

I've also been reading some of his Warlock FAQs and he's wrong about Hideous Blow provoking, and that's according to the guy who wrote the Warlock class!

Here is Skip anwering a question about being able to use different weapons with different iterative attacks:-

'...This situation is actually improved if the melee weapon is a
two-handed weapon. A character can hold a two-handed
weapon in one hand; he just can’t attack with it while it’s held
like that. Thus, he wouldn’t even have to drop the weapon in
order to draw and throw the dagger. If Krusk the 6th-level
barbarian had Quick Draw, he could swing his greataxe (using
his full base attack bonus), then leave the axe in his off-hand
while drawing a javelin with his primary hand (free action), and
finally throw the javelin (using his base attack bonus –5). If
Krusk were drawing a ranged weapon that required two hands
to use (such as a bow), he’d have to drop his greataxe...'

Here, Skip thinks that changing from holding a greataxe in two hands to holding it in one hand isn't an action. He's calling out everything that is an action, even a free action, and freeing one hand isn't called as an action even though Quick Drawing a javelin is!

EDIT: BTW, this is why I wanted to see the thing for myself. Not because I thought anyone was lying, but seeing the source material allows all sides of the debate access to the thing we are debating.


@ Malachi:

The FAQ you quoted supports the theory of the "Non-Action" to add or subtract hands to an object.

Removing the whole "Two hands" concept, it makes sense as well. Let's say that I was using a Longsword instead of my Greatsword. When the time comes to make the AOO after deflecting the attack, would I not be allowed to apply 2 hands to my Longsword to get 1.5x Strength/PA bonuses?

Silver Crusade

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:

@ Malachi:

The FAQ you quoted supports the theory of the "Non-Action" to add or subtract hands to an object.

Removing the whole "Two hands" concept, it makes sense as well. Let's say that I was using a Longsword instead of my Greatsword. When the time comes to make the AOO after deflecting the attack, would I not be allowed to apply 2 hands to my Longsword to get 1.5x Strength/PA bonuses?

Spot on!

Dark Archive

I do not think anyone has ever argued that going from two handed damage to just one handed damage or just holding is anything more than a free action at most.

I do not see how you can boast about that and think it leads to it being a non action in the other direction where now you gain a benefit of gaining 1.5 str bonus for double gripping.

Darksol complains that casters like paladins have gotten shafted. They have not gotten shafted, they always were. In their case, the player has to ask themselve, how bad do they really want that spell to go off, is it woth the real price? That price is more than a spell slot, it may have an action cost associated with it as we'll. Not every ranger will feel that action cost is worth it in combat and will forgo doing such in combat and save the spell slot for something like long strider with an hour per level duration and not have to deal with the action cost of of spell in combat. Alternatively, a bard may take quick draw to lessen the problem, or a paladin may wait till the fight is over to cast cure light wounds when the actions per turn budget is turned off. You do not get to have your cake and eat it too. You have to make a choice.

Havering to make choices is one of the creative forces in the game. It leads people to create such like feats that allow characters to do things better than what the basic rules allow anyone and everyone to do.

Silver Crusade

Raymond Lambert wrote:

I do not think anyone has ever argued that going from two handed damage to just one handed damage or just holding is anything more than a free action at most.

I do not see how you can boast about that and think it leads to it being a non action in the other direction where now you gain a benefit of gaining 1.5 str bonus for double gripping.

Darksol complains that casters like paladins have gotten shafted. They have not gotten shafted, they always were. In their case, the player has to ask themselve, how bad do they really want that spell to go off, is it woth the real price? That price is more than a spell slot, it may have an action cost associated with it as we'll. Not every ranger will feel that action cost is worth it in combat and will forgo doing such in combat and save the spell slot for something like long strider with an hour per level duration and not have to deal with the action cost of of spell in combat. Alternatively, a bard may take quick draw to lessen the problem, or a paladin may wait till the fight is over to cast cure light wounds when the actions per turn budget is turned off. You do not get to have your cake and eat it too. You have to make a choice.

Havering to make choices is one of the creative forces in the game. It leads people to create such like feats that allow characters to do things better than what the basic rules allow anyone and everyone to do.

You're right that players have to make choices.

What they choose to do is partly dependent on the action cost for those actions, and working within the limits of action economy.

The problem here is that 'changing grip' is not defined as a game action! The 'wishing' here applies to all of us; we all wish that grip changing was defined in the rules as either consuming some type of game action (and what type of action that would be) or made clear that it doesn't consume any action at all.

There may be supplemental wishes from each individual; each person may very well wish that, when and if the action finally is defined, that this definition matches his previous belief.

In the absence of a RAW definition it is not reasonable to point to one side of this debate and not the other, and accuse that side of 'wanting to have their cake and eat it too'.

Both sides in this debate have a sincere belief regarding the action cost, if any, for 'grip changing'. Whatever the rule is, following that rule is not 'gaming the system' in a cynical way, just following the rules.

If it turns out that the devs say that it's a, say, free action, would anyone refuse to change grip in protest on the grounds that they would have ruled it a move action or a non-action? No.

It's wrong to judge those who think that grip changing is not an action are somehow trying to get away with something they shouldn't but those who believe it's a move action are pure of motive! Judgements like that are impossible to take seriously if they are based simply on which side of the debate they lean toward.

Dark Archive

First, thank you for remaining polite and civil, it is amazing how some people blow up about things that make no sense all. Of course that goes to show how sadly our society has devolved that I think I should thank someone for exercising civilized behavior.

I could say the move action camp is based on preventing abuse as much as the non action camp is about utilizing everything available. I do not believe either of those descriptions are inflammatory in any way. I respect people who keep others in check from ruining the game with cheating. I take a bow when people complement my characters on stinging things together that produce an effect much more powerful than their separate parts would on their own.

I really do not understand how you think it is unfair to use the term have your cake and eat it to. I explained people have to make a choice. It is like a buckler vs a small shield vs a large shield vs a (extreme shield from or gauntlet shield from races of stone) a tower shield. They all have both benefits and hindrances compared to the others. I think it is a good example for our discussion since I am less inclined to use a two handed weapon and more inclined to use a one hander or use exotic weapon proficiency to use a bastard sword or similar weapon. That would open up stuff like arcane channel and spell strike. Or more rather extend the conversation to if it was fair to interrupt those actions with a grip switch between casting and attacking.

I do not understand how you perceive me to be acting as if I thought I was more pure than another camp. I actually thanked the other camp for making good points that led me to be a little bit more open minded. As in I will present their evidence to my private group for the judge to make a more informed decision than if I only presented my side of the story.

I sure as hell will not limit myself if the issue is answered in a FAQ to be in your favor. Until then, I sincerely believe the move action camp is the best answer with what we have to work with.


Raymond Lambert wrote:

I do not think anyone has ever argued that going from two handed damage to just one handed damage or just holding is anything more than a free action at most.

I do not see how you can boast about that and think it leads to it being a non action in the other direction where now you gain a benefit of gaining 1.5 str bonus for double gripping.

Darksol complains that casters like paladins have gotten shafted. They have not gotten shafted, they always were. In their case, the player has to ask themselve, how bad do they really want that spell to go off, is it woth the real price? That price is more than a spell slot, it may have an action cost associated with it as we'll. Not every ranger will feel that action cost is worth it in combat and will forgo doing such in combat and save the spell slot for something like long strider with an hour per level duration and not have to deal with the action cost of of spell in combat. Alternatively, a bard may take quick draw to lessen the problem, or a paladin may wait till the fight is over to cast cure light wounds when the actions per turn budget is turned off. You do not get to have your cake and eat it too. You have to make a choice.

Havering to make choices is one of the creative forces in the game. It leads people to create such like feats that allow characters to do things better than what the basic rules allow anyone and everyone to do.

Honestly? The situation I described before is not much different than my own; the only issue is the whole "Two Hands needed to swing" and the "Trying to Cheese the System," which I believe is severely getting in the way of people's judgement regarding my situation, because that's the only part of it that they see. Giving a similar scenario removing those factors, accomplishes this without being narcissistic or mocking in any form. I have no need to game the system when I have no motivation to do so. I always bring subjects that I would like to try and implement to my DM, give my reasoning behind why I think it's good to do this, or run this rule in that manner, so it's not like I'm saying I can do what I plan to do on a whim, either.

Regarding my situation, our next gaming session should occur this coming Monday (we had to cancel last week for unknown circumstances), and I already told him that I was going to talk to him about the Crane Style and the Improved Unarmed Strike when I get a chance (since he was looking for a way to get that as a feat from an item, and I found a solution as to how, but whether he will allow it or not, since it comes from a separate, non-hardcover Pathfinder book with variant optional rules, which I have the PDF for, is again questionable).

In terms of the whole "Paladins get the shaft" ordeal, I listed numerous examples of which a Paladin must have a free hand in order to use spells and/or class features, and I also listed a couple examples that extend beyond the Paladin, to the likes of a Cleric, or a Staff Caster, etc. That ruling almost nullifies those, and it severely puts those classes in their place, or in the ground, depending on which class/archetype we're talking about. (Fortunately, it would seem that my situation remains unchanged.)

It honestly doesn't matter whether or not you even have those features when the times you can use those features are outside the times where it would count the most, which defeats the entire purpose of having those features to begin with.

Kind of an off-topic question here, but I believe it should be asked in regards to this: Does a situation like this come up frequently with such rules in place? Because it almost seems like it would be the case.

Spoiler:
Player 1: I'm dying over here, dang it! One more round of this and I bleed out!

Player 2: Hold on, I'm coming to save your life. (Double Move action to get there.) It's going to be hard to heal you back up and defend myself against that Ogre at the same time. I'll Quicken Cast a Cure Light Wounds with my Rod just to stabilize you. Now for my concentration che-

DM: Nope, you can't cast a spell with that rod in your hand, and you can't drop that shield since you have no actions left to do so. You cannot perform the Spell, meaning your turn is done.

Player 2: Wait...I can't even use this spell because of my drawn weapons? Why did I even get this spell if I can't use it?

DM: Because you can't use both equipment and spells at the same time. It's one or the other.

Player 2: Well, if I drop the Rod, that Ogre is going to Grapple me since I don't threaten and my CMD sucks, meaning I can't heal you; if I can't heal you, you just might bleed out. I'll have to stick with my Metamagic Rod to threaten.

(Big blow-up between Player 1 and Player 2 with his limited choices, either one resulting in Player 1 having to roll for stabilize.)

DM: Player 1's turn, roll for stabilize.

Player 1: *Rolls the Dice and fails* Good job idiot; why do you even have spells and equipment to enhance them when you can't use them to begin with, jacka**?

DM: Player 1 has been slain, and bleeds out. Ogre's turn; *rolls dice* he grapples you.

Player 2: How did he grapple me, don't I have a Rod out and threaten with it?

DM: Yeah, and you don't threaten with that Rod because it's not a weapon.

Player 2: Why do I even have this stuff if I can't use it?

Again, it defeats the purpose. This is about as silly as a Fighter not being able to use Armor Training or Weapon Training simultaneously because he is limited to one type of Training at any given time.

Silver Crusade

Raymond Lambert wrote:

First, thank you for remaining polite and civil, it is amazing how some people blow up about things that make no sense all. Of course that goes to show how sadly our society has devolved that I think I should thank someone for exercising civilized behavior.

I could say the move action camp is based on preventing abuse as much as the non action camp is about utilizing everything available. I do not believe either of those descriptions are inflammatory in any way. I respect people who keep others in check from ruining the game with cheating. I take a bow when people complement my characters on stinging things together that produce an effect much more powerful than their separate parts would on their own.

I really do not understand how you think it is unfair to use the term have your cake and eat it to. I explained people have to make a choice. It is like a buckler vs a small shield vs a large shield vs a (extreme shield from or gauntlet shield from races of stone) a tower shield. They all have both benefits and hindrances compared to the others. I think it is a good example for our discussion since I am less inclined to use a two handed weapon and more inclined to use a one hander or use exotic weapon proficiency to use a bastard sword or similar weapon. That would open up stuff like arcane channel and spell strike. Or more rather extend the conversation to if it was fair to interrupt those actions with a grip switch between casting and attacking.

I do not understand how you perceive me to be acting as if I thought I was more pure than another camp. I actually thanked the other camp for making good points that led me to be a little bit more open minded. As in I will present their evidence to my private group for the judge to make a more informed decision than if I only presented my side of the story.

I sure as hell will not limit myself if the issue is answered in a FAQ to be in your favor. Until then, I sincerely believe the move action camp is the best answer with what we have to work with.

It's good to have a civilised debate. : )

There are limits to the text medium; no body language or tone of voice mean some nuances of conversation can easily be misunderstood. Also, some words can carry either a positive or negative connotation independent of their literal meaning. A mundane example is that both 'scent' and 'odour' both mean a 'smell', but if you complement that hot blonde on her 'odour' you're going home alone!

So when you said 'have your cake and eat it too', that carried negative connotations whether you meant it that way or not. It sounded like you were judging the motives of those in the 'not an action' camp as selfish; that the only reason they support that case is to give their characters an advantage. In contrast, it seemed as though you were judging those in the 'move action' camp as unselfish guardians of game balance.

Such is the power of language. If my inference of your intent was mistaken, I apologise.

Although those stereotypes seem common, the truth is that the rules fall on the just and unjust alike. They apply to NPCs as well as PCs, whatever those rules are. My reasons for believing the 'not an action' case are well developed up thread. Among my reasons for believing that 'move action' is not appropriate is that that would make adding a free hand to an already held and drawn weapon would be harsher than drawing a weapon from a scabbard! At least when you draw a weapon you can combine it with a move if your BA is at least +1, and you can take the feat Quick Draw to make it a free action, which does not apply to 'not drawing a weapon'.

There are those who would allow changing grip to have the same advantages as drawing a weapon. To make that happen the Actions In Combat table (the 'move actions sub-table) would have to be amended to include 'changing grip', and a note would have to be added similar to the note on 'drawing a weapon'. 'Changing Grip' is not 'drawing a weapon' and new rules would have to be written to to make it the equivalent. Quick Draw would also have to be amended to apply to changing grip, all to make it as easy as drawing a weapon, when conceptually adding a free hand as part of an attack should be easier than drawing a weapon.

All these rules we'd have to invent to make it work. Those rules certainly don't exist now!

In contrast, the list of things which do not count as game actions is infinite! There is no burden of inclusion on the 'not an action' sub-table to not be a game action. Even the example of 'not an action' given in the explanatory text (nocking an arrow) is not on that table! Why? Why should it? It's not an action!

This is not proof, of course, but it does lend considerable weight to the case for 'not an action'. There's no need to write new rules to make it 'not an action'; it's very absence from the 'Actions In Combat' tables can be construed as evidence that it is not an action.

I'd still like it to be clarified, though.

I have other reasons; if you're interested you can read my previous posts. In the meantime, I've just discovered what 'TL;DR' means, so I'll sign off now. : )

Dark Archive

As much as I hate to say it, I don't think Paizo would want to bother with having to rewrite stuff to clarify any new questions. At least not until the next edition of the game. With that being the case, I suspect that if they ever did definitively answer it, they would declare it a free action or non action. I would also hope they state weather it could be done only on players turn or whenever. Things get to a point where you have to hope the audience will us good judgement and spelling out every single possibility just gets to be too much. It is also unlikely a single company can come up with every possible situation in a fantasy world.

In the recent campaign I joined, I brought the issue up with the DM and said I do not mind which way he wants to rule. I just want it to be consistent between both myself and the enemies. He ruled no action so I will be able to do a little more damage from time to time.

Silver Crusade

Interesting, RL!

When you've had a chance to play using the 'non-action' re-grip, it'd be great if you could post your thoughts about the impact, if any, of this way to play compared with other games where the interpretation was 'free' or 'move'.

Dark Archive

I will be happy to return every few games to report my findings.

Silver Crusade

Raymond Lambert wrote:
I will be happy to return every few games to report my findings.

Brilliant! How cool is that!

Dark Archive

I found this while looking up advice for playing a 3.5 Duskblade. It sheds some light on the topic. It is from a 3.5 article(Wonder how many people still want to throw out 3.5 stuff when it is in their favor?) on wizards official site about attacks of opportunity by Skip Williams. What makes me scratch my head is that he says

"Although the rules don't mention it, letting go of a two-handed weapon with one hand or putting a free hand back on the weapon is a free action for you. Drawing the smaller weapon requires an action, but if you have the Quick Draw feat, it's a free action. Note that you can take a free action only during your turn."

If the rules do not mention it, how is it a rule? I am guessing in that we are to expect such from general guidlines. Anyway, I believe this is a little stronger evidence than JJ telling us how he does stuff in _his_ games. Though I wonder if anyone corrected such, corrections do happen from time to time.

For those who want to see more context of when he said it.
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20041102a

"Adjacent Squares and Reach Weapons: There are some tricks you can use to threaten those adjacent squares when you're using a reach weapon. If you're a monk, your unarmed attacks continue to threaten the squares adjacent to you. Even if you're not a monk, you can use a smaller weapon to threaten the adjacent squares. You'll have to hold the reach weapon in one hand and wield the smaller weapon in the other hand. Since most reach weapons are two-handed weapons, you're only holding onto the reach weapon, not wielding it, and you don't threaten an area with it. Although the rules don't mention it, letting go of a two-handed weapon with one hand or putting a free hand back on the weapon is a free action for you. Drawing the smaller weapon requires an action, but if you have the Quick Draw feat, it's a free action. Note that you can take a free action only during your turn.

If you want to use this trick, you must draw the smaller weapon while it's still your turn. When you do so, you don't threaten any area with your larger weapon until you wield it in two hands again. To resume using the bigger weapon on your turn, you'll have to drop the smaller weapon (a free action) to free up your hand for the bigger weapon."


It's considerably stronger, noting that it's from a 3.5 Dev, and using the reproach system, this would technically mean that doing what I would attempt to do is a free action.

Well...I'm somewhat disappointed in the fact that I would have to spend more than I like in order to do what I have planned for my character. At the same time, I do look at it this way.

Starting with the Defending Weapon property, you'd need to remember that there is a FAQ that says you must swing (i.e. make an attack of some kind) with that weapon during your turn in order to gain its effect.

However, AFAIK, such elaborate (and vitally important) information is not cited within the actual description of the property within the book itself. So how can that be an actual rule when the text only says "use," which can mean multiple different things in terms of RAW mechanics?

In terms of Rules Lawyering, the book RAW doesn't say I have to make an attack (during my turn) in order to gain its benefit, only that I have to "use" it; so outside GM FIAT, why should I have to make an attack when the book makes no mention of it?

The same concept applies to here. The book RAW doesn't say what type of action it is. The book RAW also says that many "actions" aren't listed in the Non-Action section, and lists an example of an action that can be done outside your turn (otherwise it makes certain feats useless), which is not listed as an "action" within the table; even the action-type that it was listed as an example for, supporting that viewpoint immensely.

Dark Archive

Darksol, I am a bit confused about it allowing you to do what you want. I remember you wanted to keep a hand empty for the stance and than double grip when making an attack of opportunity. Even as a free action, the text I quoted says free actions can only be done on your turn. I guess you are talking about something else you wanted to do that this now supports?


There are concepts that are quite similar to what I like to do. What I argued above was like what you said "How is it an official rule when it's not listed within a rulebook?" The argument can be applied here as well.

Let's take for example, a Free-Hand Fighter using a Longsword.

Creature A Provokes AOO from the Fighter. The Fighter decides he would like to use the Longsword in 2 hands for the AOO. This leads to so many questions similar to my position that it's almost identical.

1. Would the Fighter even be allowed to make an AOO using 2 hands, when the Longsword at the time the AOO was provoked, was only in 1?
2. If he were to make an AOO using 2 hands for his weapon, would he be able to change back to holding the Longsword in one hand to get his Free Hand bonuses?
3. If he can't use the Longsword in 2 hands for 1.5X Strength (for whatever reason) normally, is there another way by RAW that he can do so?

Dark Archive

It took a long time to play again but I finally did. I mostly went with sword and board style. In one fight when I knew the bad guy would have so much of an attack bonus that my armor and shield were meaningless, I took off my brand new full plate and put aside the shield to strike with double grip extra strength damage. I used my Duskblade spells to soften up the enermie, when I finally stepped up with double grip and swing, I missed two turn in a row! When I finally hit, I forgot about the extra damage, darn. I did not find myself wanting to switch grips often at all that game.

Dark Archive

Finally got another game in, we only play an average of about once every six weeks.

This week I only choose to swing the weapon in both hands once. Get a load of this bs. The target number was AC 12, normally I would hit on a two. I choose to swing with both hands, imposing a neg one to hit from a buckler and rolled two that only missed because of hat -1! Fight was quickly over, I might have swung once moe like that, cannot recall.

Later in the game, after walking around in gimped chain shirt because I felt there was no way I could get up over a 15 foot wall in my full plate(climb is not a class skill and thus not worth putting a rank into). I end up the unfortunate victim of a x3 crit with 3d6 sneak attack damage from invisibility, a favored enermy bonus and a bonus from deadly aim. That plus one hit early in the fight killed me. I went from over 75% health to past the negative threshold of death in that one crit. Really ticked off that with 5 levels of 3/4 bab and a deadly aim, penalty, he was still able to hit me since I was in a blasted chain shirt compared to my full plate(battle caster 3.5 feat) plus another point taken off my AC due to being denied dex from him shooting while invisible(granting sneak attack).

I think I have the money to raise from the dead but I think the DM will disallow it be cause he is biased against anything 3.5 being used. Hope I am wrong so I can come back and report more about how the freedom to switch grips freely plays out.


Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

I am surprised the world did not explode with such dastardly tactics.
;)

Dark Archive

My PC sure as hell exploded! At least that will give me something to smile about while thinking what happened. I am actually bitter about how it came about given several other events earlier in the campaign.

Silver Crusade

It sucks when you die. : /

Thanks for keeping us updated. Looking forward to your next report. : )


Raymond Lambert wrote:
Darksol, I am a bit confused about it allowing you to do what you want. I remember you wanted to keep a hand empty for the stance and than double grip when making an attack of opportunity. Even as a free action, the text I quoted says free actions can only be done on your turn. I guess you are talking about something else you wanted to do that this now supports?

AoOs are always the same as your stand attacks in the previous round, surely? e.g. they take Power Attack, Expertese penalties etc. Given that, I wouldn't allow switching stance out-of-turn. Or, at best, it would take an immediate action (and then you'd be stuck with it until your next action, so no defelct arrows etc.)

Liberty's Edge

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

Actually you can start using power attack in any moment. There is a blog or post by Sean K. Reynolds that explicitly allow that.
so you can start using power attack with your 3rd iterative attack or with an attack of Opportunity.
After you have started using it it stay active till the start of your next turn.

Combat expertise instead say " You can only choose to use this feat when you declare that you are making an attack or a full-attack action with a melee weapon. The effects of this feat last until your next turn.", so you start using it during your turn before making your first attack.


Diego Rossi wrote:

Actually you can start using power attack in any moment. There is a blog or post by Sean K. Reynolds that explicitly allow that.

so you can start using power attack with your 3rd iterative attack or with an attack of Opportunity.
After you have started using it it stay active till the start of your next turn.

Combat expertise instead say " You can only choose to use this feat when you declare that you are making an attack or a full-attack action with a melee weapon. The effects of this feat last until your next turn.", so you start using it during your turn before making your first attack.

There's nothing like consistency. And that is noth... etc.

I wish they'd stop contradicting the core rules in blog posts.

201 to 239 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.