|
Say what you mean then. What is the intent of THF. What is the trade you are giving up to offset the extra damage.I'm not going to play your game anymore and do this once again, I'm sick of it.
I'll just link some times I've already done exactly that and then I give up. First Second Third Second
What game are you talking about. I said you had, I think you have. Then I stated what I thought you were saying.
Apparently you don't agree, so clarify or don't.
|
|
[
That's not the question.
Really? Because this is the OP>
"Suppose I attack with a longsword using two hands to deal extra damage. Can I remove one hand from it, leaving it in the other hand, as a free action, much as one would drop a weapon as a free action? The reason would be to leave a hand free, when it's not my turn, to deflect arrows, and things like that."
Which is a question about THF.
Again, I know it is easier to make your argument not answering that question, but the above is the question, and it is about THF.
|
|
If it occupies both hands, then no you can't do anything that requires an open hand during a round you are attacking with two hands unless you dedicate more than a not free action (move or standard) for it.FINALLY.
You're saying it takes a move action to let go of a weapon with one hand. Great! That really screws lots of ranged weapons, but whatever.
No. I am saying when you fight with two hands, and you only have two hands, you then don't have a hand available to do other things if you use all your actions to do that.
I have no issue with you releasing as part of move action, just as when you draw the weapon. I do have a problem with it being a free action, therefore removing all consequences.
See what I did there. I stated my position, then clarified in response to an incorrect understanding.
You should try that.
Edit: Call it adjusting your grip if you like. Dropping is free, adjusting can be done as part of a move action.
So if you full round, you can't release. If you hit and move, I am fine with releasing as part of whatever move action you take.
|
Thinking "outloud",
1. Would the Quickdraw feat change anybody's opinion on what type of action (move, swift, free, non-) is releasing one hand from a weapon being wielded with both hand?
2. Can I sheath my bastard sword (using Quickdraw) as a free action to leave my hand available for deflect arrows, then pull it out as a free action on my next turn?
3. Is releasing one hand from a weapon as a free action really overpowering?
|
|
I don't follow your argument.While I believe in the conservative ruling that transitioning from the state of merely holding a great sword to where it is wielded in two hands should require a move action, I don't follow your line of reasoning for the points you seem to be trying to make.
Certainly a character can elect to drop a weapon after making a full round attack, and by doing so free their hands to do other things (say make AOOs with spiked gauntlets, quickdraw other weapons, cast a quickened spell, etc). It is not the same thing as, say, a buckler where you would not gain its benefits for a full round, the full defense action where you don't threaten squares for a full round, etc. Heck even the TWF penalty would not apply to AOOs, etc.
Also technically you are wrong, a character can TWF with a longsword (in one hand) and armor spikes (or other similar weapon) and have a hand completely unused and thus 'free'. Moreover, rather than use armor spikes the character could use a spiked gauntlet (in that otherwise empty hand) and then cast a quickened spell using the hand with the spiked gauntlet (as it does not prevent spell casting, unlike a locked gauntlet).
All that said, I do not subscribe to the hype here that things fall apart if it could not be done as a free action. Absurd arguments have been put forth towards that predicated upon this apocalypse that would have happened throughout 3e where it certainly was a move equivalent action. But that's not to say that I am agreeing with the points you are making, cause as I read them, I do not.
-James
In the instance of the spiked armor, non-wielded item you are not using the hand, so it is empty. I thought I said that earlier. But I was perhaps unclear. Those items that don't need a hand are generally inferior with other penalties or pre-requisites.
In another way I may have been unclear, I am not saying it does not require a move action to transition between one hand and two handed, but it isn't a free action, which is functionally an non-action.
When you go between one handed and two handed it is generally as part of an attack, and so like you can draw a weapon as part of a move action, changing your grip is part of the attack action. I can't think of a time you would go to THF other than because you want the extra damage when you are attacking, as in any other instance it is worse.
I agree the apocalypse isn't the result of any side of this issue. If Jason or SKR come in and say they are totally cool with it being a free action I will shrug and move on with my life unperturbed.
But I also don't like the attitude of trying to get rid of a disadvantage of an ability just because you don't like it.
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
More food for thought for those interested:
If I have a longsword in one hand, and have it on a weapon cord, I can drop it as a free action and yank it back up from the ground into two hands as a swift action.
If I have it in two hands, I can drop it to my feet as a free action and recover it into one hand as a swift action.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
I am saying when you fight with two hands, and you only have two hands, you then don't have a hand available to do other things if you use all your actions to do that.
Okay, so that's your position.
Now, you said earlier that we mustn't argue backwards from what we want, but must instead look at the rules and extrapolate out.
So from what rule(s) did you extrapolate that position?
The rules I'm thinking of don't exactly extrapolate that direction. For instance, I could carry seven swords, have Quick Draw, and be able to switch between two-handed fighting and having a free hand as free actions every round. Not debatable. I finish my full-attack, drop my sword (free action), then I "have a hand available to do other things", then on my turn Quick Draw the next sword and do another two-handed full-attack. Rinse, repeat.
As another example, I could spend less than 1gp on a weapon cord and do the same thing. I could "fight with two hands, and you only have two hands", but then I drop my weapon as a free action and I do "have a hand available to do other things". And then I can get it back as a swift action. Rinse, repeat. Once again, completely non-debatable. It's legal. Period. I've used both hands for attacking, then also get to use them for other things afterwards.
So again I ask, from what rule(s) did you extrapolate your position?
|
|
Thinking "outloud",
1. Would the Quickdraw feat change anybody's opinion on what type of action (move, swift, free, non-) is releasing one hand from a weapon being wielded with both hand?
2. Can I sheath my bastard sword (using Quickdraw) as a free action to leave my hand available for deflect arrows, then pull it out as a free action on my next turn?
3. Is releasing one hand from a weapon as a free action really overpowering?
1. No. Quick Draw is a feat which has certain parameters:-
• It only applies to weapons, so no wands or suchlike• It only applies to drawing weapons; more precisely, it helps you change a weapon from being sheathed to being held. If the weapon is not sheathed then Quick Draw is simply not applicable
2. No. Quick Draw is about drawing a weapon. It has absolutely no effect on sheathing a weapon
3. No. Nor is it overpowering for releasing a weapon with one hand while still holding it in another.
As an aside, I read the new FAQ today! One FAQ was about Snap Shot. I can't create a link for all the tea in china, but I can copy & paste like a maniac:-
Snap Shot: Can a character with Snap Shot (page 119) and Combat Reflexes make multiple attacks of opportunity with a ranged weapon, assuming that loading the ranged weapon is a free action?
Yes. As long as you can reload your weapon with a free action you can reload your weapon as part of the ranged attack attack of opportunity you are making with the Snap Shot feat.
The upshot of this could be fairly phenomenal! Until now, the only free action that you could take when it's not your turn was 'speak a few words'. Now, it could easily be read that the free action, 'drawing ammunition' , can also be taken outside your own turn!
An alternate possibility is that the Snap Shot feat itself allows you to draw ammunition as a free action outside your own turn, but not if you don't have the Snap Shot feat. But it doesn't say that. It must be said that the feat really needs to let you draw ammo as a free action outside your own turn, or you'd have to have drawn your arrow on your own turn in preparation for a possible AoO, and it couldn't work with Combat Reflexes. Or 'drawing ammunition' might be redefined as 'not an action' to match 'nocking an arrow'.
What do you guys think of that?
|
|
In the instance of the spiked armor, non-wielded item you are not using the hand, so it is empty. I thought I said that earlier. But I was perhaps unclear. Those items that don't need a hand are generally inferior with other penalties or pre-requisites.Sorry 'non-wielded' item?
When you go between one handed and two handed it is generally as part of an attack, and so like you can draw a weapon as part of a move action, changing your grip is part of the attack action.I'm sorry.. so you are claiming that a character with a longsword in one hand and is deflecting arrows with the 'free hand' can take AOOs with the longsword in both hands?
That seems completely against what you've been saying....
-James
First, I am referring to items that don't occupy your off hand. If you can use your off-hand while "wielding" an item, it doesn't occupy your off hand, so that hand is free.
Second, no I am not saying that at all.
I am saying the intent of the THF rule was to give you more damage in exchange for loss of the use of your off hand, full stop.
Anything that allows you to retain use of your off-hand is not RAI, in my opinon. Full stop.
If someone thinks the RAI is different for THF, that is open for discussion. If you think they just wanted to prevent shield use and AoO if you release for example, I don't think you are being dishonest in analysis, I just don't agree with you.
However citing actual real world mechanics to say 'X' is a free action and therefore 'Y' is a free action so you can avoid discussing what the RAI of THF was is, IMHO, being dishonest.
Perhaps I feel into that semantic mistake myself trying to clarify my position, so I'll just leave the full stop explanation and wade less into the weeds.
|
|
I am saying when you fight with two hands, and you only have two hands, you then don't have a hand available to do other things if you use all your actions to do that.Okay, so that's your position.
Now, you said earlier that we mustn't argue backwards from what we want, but must instead look at the rules and extrapolate out.
So from what rule(s) did you extrapolate that position?
The rules I'm thinking of don't exactly extrapolate that direction. For instance, I could carry seven swords, have Quick Draw, and be able to switch between two-handed fighting and having a free hand as free actions every round. Not debatable. I finish my full-attack, drop my sword (free action), then I "have a hand available to do other things", then on my turn Quick Draw the next sword and do another two-handed full-attack. Rinse, repeat.
As another example, I could spend less than 1gp on a weapon cord and do the same thing. I could "fight with two hands, and you only have two hands", but then I drop my weapon as a free action and I do "have a hand available to do other things". And then I can get it back as a swift action. Rinse, repeat. Once again, completely non-debatable. It's legal. Period. I've used both hands for attacking, then also get to use them for other things afterwards.
So again I ask, from what rule(s) did you extrapolate your position?
One at a time. What rule did I use to extrapolate that it requires two hands? I thought it being called "two handed" made that clear, but here is the rule, with the part that seems to matter bold.
Wielding a Weapon Two-Handed: When you deal damage with a weapon that you are wielding two-handed, you add 1-1/2 times your Strength bonus (Strength penalties are not multiplied). You don't get this higher Strength bonus, however, when using a light weapon with two hands.
Point two, I am completely fine with dropping and switching if you use quick draw as you have to spend a feat and lose access to a weapon in your hand. You are trading use (and control) of the weapon in your hand for another, potentially lesser, weapon. How you are carrying 7 sheathed two-handed swords on your person is between you and your, seemingly permissive, GM.
Point three, I am actually fine with your weapon cord move, as does cost a swift action and the ability to quickly change weapons.
All of these things give bonuses in exchange for penalties. All of them are trade offs.
All of them.
While we are "again asking" what do you think the RAI of THF is? What is the sacrifice for greater damage. I still haven't seen that from you.
|
|
• It only applies to drawing weapons; more precisely, it helps you change a weapon from being sheathed to being held. If the weapon is not sheathed then Quick Draw is simply not applicable
I don't see the word sheathe at all. Rather I see "carried in easy reach" you know like if I were carrying a polearm in one hand...
-James
PS: Below for your convenience..
Drawing a weapon so that you can use it in combat, or putting it away so that you have a free hand, requires a move action. This action also applies to weapon-like objects carried in easy reach, such as wands. If your weapon or weapon-like object is stored in a pack or otherwise out of easy reach, treat this action as retrieving a stored item.
If you have a base attack bonus of +1 or higher, you may draw a weapon as a free action combined with a regular move. If you have the Two-Weapon Fighting feat, you can draw two light or one-handed weapons in the time it would normally take you to draw one.
Drawing ammunition for use with a ranged weapon (such as arrows, bolts, sling bullets, or shuriken) is a free action.
You can draw a weapon as a free action instead of as a move action. You can draw a hidden weapon (see the Sleight of Hand skill) as a move action.
A character who has selected this feat may throw weapons at his full normal rate of attacks (much like a character with a bow).
Alchemical items, potions, scrolls, and wands cannot be drawn quickly using this feat.
Normal: Without this feat, you may draw a weapon as a move action, or (if your base attack bonus is +1 or higher) as a free action as part of movement. Without this feat, you can draw a hidden weapon as a standard action.
Not to be to much of a smart ass, but how do you keep your weapons easily accessible on your body if not in some kind of sheath like mechanism. They can't be hidden, they can't be in packs...
If you are arguing that having quick draw allows you to change grips as a free action as you are "drawing" the weapon, I can see that being reasonable as to the intent.
It does cost a feat after all.
I am saying when you fight with two hands, and you only have two hands, you then don't have a hand available to do other things if you use all your actions to do that.
But you didn't use all your actions. After the attack, you still have a free action at the end of your turn to let go.
I have no issue with you releasing as part of move action, just as when you draw the weapon.
...
So if you full round, you can't release. If you hit and move, I am fine with releasing as part of whatever move action you take.
So, specifically, you're using the Draw or Sheathe a Weapon action, which is a move action, or a free action combined with a regular move with BAB+1.
I do have a problem with it being a free action, therefore removing all consequences.
As we've explained, it doesn't remove all consequences. Since you can't take a free action outside your turn to re-grip the thing, you're stuck with the way you ended your turn. If you have a hand free to deflect arrows, you can't attack two-handed until you can use a free action (on your turn!) to put the hand back.
it isn't a free action, which is functionally an non-action.
Free Action: "Free actions consume a very small amount of time and effort. You can perform one or more free actions while taking another action normally. However, there are reasonable limits on what you can really do for free, as decided by the GM."
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."
I am saying the intent of the THF rule was to give you more damage in exchange for loss of the use of your off hand, full stop.
Everyone agrees. While using both hands on the weapon, you can't use your other hand for anything else.
What you're arguing is that letting go is a move action (or a draw action, or not-an action, depending on which post we believe).
Anything that allows you to retain use of your off-hand is not RAI, in my opinon. Full stop.
You said earlier that sheathing the weapon or dropping it would let you use the other hand again. Are you actually waffling on this, or are you incapable of fully explaining what you mean?
However citing actual real world mechanics to say 'X' is a free action and therefore 'Y' is a free action so you can avoid discussing what the RAI of THF was is, IMHO, being dishonest.
How else do you determine the action cost of an unspecified act? You look at defined actions and find one that's the closest match to what you want to do.
"I turn the winch to raise the portcullis!"
"Ok, that's not in the book, so, lets say that takes the Manipulate an Item action, so that's a move action, you have a standard action left.
"I let go of my sword with one hand."
"Ok, that's not in the book, so lets say that takes the Drop an Item action."
|
|
It isn't a free action when combined with a move action, it is part of the move action.
There is a huge difference between a free action and something that can be done as part of another action.
If it is a free action, you actually could take a free action to regrip the thing.
It is a free action after all, right? What kind of action is it to re-grip it with your hand if it is a free action to release it with your hand.
See the problem.
|
|
I don't believe people sheathe polearms. Therefore they don't need to draw them.
'Wielding' again! I'm coming to loathe that word simply because different gamers understand it in different ways, which creates rule arguments which would be very much reduced without such misunderstandings.
If you're carrying a polearm (one OR two hands; doesn't matter), as long as nothing else is being held, tying up a hand, then you have two hands available to use the polearm to execute an attack. This is all that is required to attack with a two-handed weapon, and no part of the RAW contradicts that. You don't need to draw a weapon if it is already in hand and not 'sheathed' (bearing in mind that different weapons can be 'sheathed' in different ways; scabbarded, tucked into a sleeve, belt loop, whatever. These are all 'sheathed', but 'in hand and unsheathed' means it's not sheathed! Therefore, you don't need to draw it)
|
|
I don't believe people sheathe polearms. Therefore they don't need to draw them.
I understand that you believe that it makes more tactical sense for a character to hold a pole arm in one hand while having a spiked gauntlet on the other, rather than having the pole arm in both hands.
I reject this, as I think do most people on either side of this debate.
-James
Granted, but I also think that most people in this debate don't think you need to draw a polearm if it's not sheathed! Most people will believe that if you are holding an unsheathed polearm then you don't need to draw it before you can use it, even if changing grip is some kind of action. And that action, whatever it actually is to change grip, is not the 'draw a weapon' action, and Quick Draw is therefore irrelevant.
|
|
Not to be to much of a smart ass, but how do you keep your weapons easily accessible on your body if not in some kind of sheath like mechanism. They can't be hidden, they can't be in packs...
If you are arguing that having quick draw allows you to change grips as a free action as you are "drawing" the weapon, I can see that being reasonable as to the intent.
It does cost a feat after all..
I'll respond with 'how do you sheathe a pole arm?'
Merely carrying a polearm is much different than wielding one, yet the polearm is readily accessible, especially when compared to somehow transporting in on your back for instance.
-James
And we had someone up thread with 7 two handed swords that they wanted to swap out as a free action.
As I keep saying, it isn't a question of "real world" comparison, but a matter of intent.
The question is what are you giving up in exchange for extra damage when you fight two handed.
If you can release as a free action, the answer to me is "not very much, and certainly not nearly as much as you gain"
I'm on the fence on this. On one hand, everyone I've ever seen until now has had pretty much the same view on wielding as me up until right now, that wielding is holding the weapon in it's intended amount of hands for use, ready to strike. But there's no RAW really specifying it that I can find...
"Wielding" is a pretty undefined term from what I can see, and sometimes used interchangebly with "use", and sometimes maybe not. It isn't impossible to read wield as interchangable with wield and still have a functional game.
On the other hand, as said, I've never seen that interpretation before, ever. And there are many other things that are undefined because there's such a common view on what something means. The "dead" condition for example. Or that characters have "hands", whatever those are ;D
The question is what are you giving up in exchange for extra damage when you fight two handed.
If you can release as a free action, the answer to me is "not very much, and certainly not nearly as much as you gain"
What are you giving up in exchange for extra damage when choosing a mace over a club? Not all options are created equal.
But the thing is, many of us has ruled it a free action whenever it has come up for many years now, and despite that we don't see an army of people wielding longswords in two hands.
|
|
I don't believe people sheathe polearms. Therefore they don't need to draw them.
I understand that you believe that it makes more tactical sense for a character to hold a pole arm in one hand while having a spiked gauntlet on the other, rather than having the pole arm in both hands.
I reject this, as I think do most people on either side of this debate.
-James
But it has nothing to do with the debate.
"Gauntlet: This metal glove lets you deal lethal damage rather than nonlethal damage with unarmed strikes. A strike with a gauntlet is otherwise considered an unarmed attack. The cost and weight given are for a single gauntlet. Medium and heavy armors (except breastplate) come with gauntlets. Your opponent cannot use a disarm action to disarm you of gauntlets."
Having a pole arm in one hand and a gauntlet on the other hand is not the same as holding two weapons.
No one is arguing for that, as far as I can tell.
Now what is being argued is that if you use the pole arm with two hands, your off hand is now occupied. It may also be wearing a gauntlet, but that is beside the point.
The reason gauntlets do so little damage (or unarmed attacks for that matter) is specifically because you also get the advantage of being able to attack with them while keeping a hand free.
Ciretose: Malachi is, more or less. Their point of view is that the rules do not really talk that much about wielding or require it or even define it - the core rules mainly use the word "use", and only states you need two hands to use the weapon in, not that the weapon _occupies_ two hands except when using it. So that if you have a gauntlet in one hand and a longspear in the other, you threaten both 5 and 10 ft because the gauntlet requires one hand to use (you have that) and the longspear requires two hands to use (you have that).
Malachi is pretty alone in that interpretation, though I somewhat support the idea that it's a valid interpretation, though a very fringe one.
|
|
Granted, but I also think that most people in this debate don't think you need to draw a polearm if it's not sheathed! Most people will believe that if you are holding an unsheathed polearm then you don't need to draw it before you can use it, even if changing grip is some kind of action. And that action, whatever it actually is to change grip, is not the 'draw a weapon' action, and Quick Draw is therefore irrelevant.A polearm merely held in one hand is not, despite your wishes, being wielded.
It is, however, certainly being carried in easy reach.
Thus we have two possibilities:
1. The act of making it wielded is undefined and we need to invent a term 're-grip' or the like that is not to be found within the rules.
2. The act of making it wielded is the draw weapon action, for which the situation falls within the described setting directly within the rules.
The 2nd is the obvious candidate, is directly modeled in the rules, and works just fine as it stands.
-James
PS: Btw why do you require that the weapon be held in ANY hands? If BOTH hands are free wouldn't that fit your logic equally well? Say if a character had a dagger in their teeth.. with a hand free you would claim that they threatened squares with it.. right?
Between choices one and two, I would choose 'one'. It exactly matches the RAW (as in grip-changing is not a free, move, or any other action by RAW, so making it 'not an action' does not change the RAW one iota).
There is a more subtle problem here, so I'm going to be unsubtle just to point it out:-
*ahem*
THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS 'WIELDED' IN THE RULES!
Hope that didn't deafen you. I apologise for shouting.
You're not alone in not realising this; we conceptualise using weapons as 'wielding', and we also conceptualise just holding weapons as 'wielding'. Hence the unnecessary debate.
'Wield' is not a rules term in PF. There are weapons. In order to attack with most weapons you must hold the weapon unsheathed, and you must have one hand free to use it to make an attack with it if it's light or one-handed, and you must have two hands free to to use a two-handed weapon to execute an attack.
There is no game 'state' of 'wielding' that's any different from 'holding' (if you think of 'wielding' that way), nor is 'wielding' any different from 'attacking' (if you think of 'wielding' that way!
THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS 'WIELDED' IN THE RULES!
Oh, I guess wielding a weapon in two hands give you no extra strength then! "When you deal damage with a weapon that you are wielding two-handed, you add 1-1/2 times your Strength bonus"
Since wielding does not exist, that rule must be non-functioning.Wielding is in the rules. It's not really defined though - but there are many other things that aren't defined. Note that there's no rule that say you can't act when you're dead, for example.
If we can't agree that wielding an item requires a hand and that wielding an item with two hands requires two hands...seriously?
Well, most here agree on it so it's not a major topic. But it's more a lack of definition of wielding, than how many hands are used.
The gauntlet does not take up a "slot" on your hand.
Yeah, that's kind of the point. That there aren't "wield" slots in the rules.
As said, that's how many you need to wield. But where do they define what wielding is?
Also, there are armed attacks that require no hand to wield (armor spikes, blade boot, apparently also spiked gauntlet and cestus according to a dev post)
Oh, and saying "but you can TWF a longsword!" is completely irrelevant as it
1. Prevents the benefit you claim to be so huge unless using a weapon like spiked armor, which you can also use with a greatsword.
2. You have to put feats into it to be relevant. So then you're giving up a lot more, so much it's like two completely different characters.
|
|
Also, there are armed attacks that require no hand to wield (armor spikes, blade boot, apparently also spiked gauntlet and cestus according to a dev post)
Yes, I've said that. Many times. And they do less damage in exchange.
No one. I repeat, no one, is arguing that they do. Just as I assume you aren't arguing they do less damage and have other drawbacks.
As to wielding, again it is a question of what you think the intended mechanics of THF are.
|
|
Oh, and saying "but you can TWF a longsword!" is completely irrelevant as it
1. Prevents the benefit you claim to be so huge unless using a weapon like spiked armor, which you can also use with a greatsword.
2. You have to put feats into it to be relevant. So then you're giving up a lot more, so much it's like two completely different characters.
It doesn't prevent it at all. You can do any of them.
Just not at that same time, which is what your side of the debate seems to want to advocate for.
|
|
An example without feats.
I have my longsword out as I am going through the dungeon. I see a single big ass enemy. I charge it two handed to maximize damage.
I see a group of weaker e.nemies, I draw a light weapon as part of my move action to engage the group with the maximum number of attacks.
I see a big ugly I need to keep off the casters, so they can take him down. I draw my shield and move in.
I can do that with a longsword.
I can't make those choices with a two handed weapon unless I change weapons.
That is what you gain in exchange for 2.5 damage a round.
If you aren't going to TWF as your main fighting method, it's far beyond suboptimal. It's straight up crappy and aiding someone who wants to TWF now and then isn't problematic. And someone with a greatsword can also TWF.
It'd be easier if you gave an example build of what character would even use this trick, and how it's better than regular THF'ing. I can see it being sliiiightly more versatile, but 2.5 damage per attack is a quite hefty price for that minor boon. There are of course other things you lose as well - you can't make use of the two-handed fighter archetype, you can't make use of shield of swings, raging hurler and other abilities.
An example without feats.
I have my longsword out as I am going through the dungeon. I see a single big ass enemy. I charge it two handed to maximize damage.
I see a group of weaker e.nemies, I draw a light weapon as part of my move action to engage the group with the maximum number of attacks.
It's interesting how you don't point out chance to hit. But let's say you're level two and the big bad is a generic CR4 while the goons are a four generic CR 1/2.
We'll disregard all feats. Say the Str is 18 for both characters, and that the light weapon is a short sword.
With longsword, you'll make your attack at +6 and deal 1d8+6 damage. Average DPR vs the big bad is .5*10.5+.1*.5*10.5 = 5.775, taking 6.9 turns to sink it (of course, with feats it'd be quite a bit higher).
Then you go for the goons. You attack at +2/-2 for 1d8+4/1d6+2 damage.
Average DPR vs the goons is .65*8.5+.1*.65*8.5 + .45*5.5+.1*.45*5.5 = 8.8 and it'll take 4.5 turns to kill them.
If you just kept to your longsword your average damage would be .85*10.5+.1*.85*10.5 = 9.8 - not high enough to kill of them quick enough for the damage to be overkill. With feats I could see using a secondary weapon being more effective. However - Let's compare it to the Greatsword wielder, using spiked armor as secondary attack.
Average DPR vs the big bad is .5*13+.1*.5*13 = 7.15 - a full 25% higher DPR. It takes 5.56 rounds to drop the BB.
Average DPR when using spiked armor as secondary vs the goons is:
.65*11+.1*.65*11 + .45*4.5+.1*.45*4.5 = 10 average - 14% higher.
When not using it it's 12.15.
And assuming even a single attack of opportunity occurs during this time, the greatsword fighter will come out even more ahead.
I see a big ugly I need to keep off the casters, so they can take him down. I draw my shield and move in.
Yeah, sure, you can do that. It's the benefit of having a longsword and isn't dependant on this ruling.
That is what you gain in exchange for 2.5 damage a round.
The ability to use a shield. And it's not 2.5 damage per round, it's 2.5 damage per _hit_.
|
|
If you aren't going to TWF as your main fighting method, it's far beyond suboptimal. It's straight up crappy and aiding someone who wants to TWF now and then isn't problematic. And someone with a greatsword can also TWF.
It'd be easier if you gave an example build of what character would even use this trick, and how it's better than regular THF'ing. I can see it being sliiiightly more versatile, but 2.5 damage per attack is a quite hefty price for that minor boon. There are of course other things you lose as well - you can't make use of the two-handed fighter archetype, you can't make use of shield of swings, raging hurler and other abilities.
But it is still a trade off, which goes back to why I haven't been as aggressive toward you as I have the others.
You think that 2.5 damage bonus deserves more of a trade off than I offered for the versatility advantage of a long sword. I disagree, but we both agree a trade off is needed.
I think not getting that 2.5 extra damage from AoO is to little a penalty for the much, much higher amounts of damage gained from fighting with two hands. You seemingly, don't.
We both agree there is a trade off expected, we are simply debating what the intended trade off was. I say use of your off-hand, you say otherwise. But we both agree a trade off was intended, and are willing to define what we believe that trade off is.
Which is more than I can say for others in the thread...
|
|
@Ilja
Depends what you are fighting. A room full of goblins and you might want the extra attacks more than you would against a single high AC/High hit point enemy.
Or you may want to deflect arrows...
The point being by my reading you can choose what you are doing with your off-hand if you are using a long sword and you can't if you are using a two-handed sword.
To some builds, that may be worth 2.5 damage per hit.
... but the greatsworder dealt MORE damage when using extra attacks than the longsworder. So I don't see how TWF damage enters the picture AT ALL.
And yes, to some specific builds that may be worth 2.5 damage per hit. As long as those don't step on the toes of the basic THF builds, is that an issue at all?
|
|
... but the greatsworder dealt MORE damage when using extra attacks than the longsworder. So I don't see how TWF damage enters the picture AT ALL.
And yes, to some specific builds that may be worth 2.5 damage per hit. As long as those don't step on the toes of the basic THF builds, is that an issue at all?
Deals more damage to a single target, not to a room full of things that can be dropped with one hit each.
In a TWF build it is a great move to THF on the first attack where you only get one attack, then pull out your second weapon to TWF the next round.
Something you can't do with a great sword.
The question is what is the penalty supposed to be for fighting two handed rather than one handed. I think you lose access to anything that requires you to have an open hand as long as you are fighting in that style. It think you think that is too much to give up.
But you have to give something up, and others on here seem to just be looking for ways around the rules rather than trying to figure out what the rule actually is intended to address.
