Blackbird71's page

This is one of those situations where they really don't need to legalize the entire book. The are gloves of Arrow "Snaring". They let you catch things as the feat does. With your interpretation of the wording saying it doesn't let you do that strictly as written, then the gloves do nothing but make it look like you are not wearing gloves. It is obvious the intent was the have them catch arrows, so just let them catch arrows twice a day.

And that may very well be the intent for the gloves, but it is still not what was written. Following the suspected intent is all fine and good for games around the kitchen table, but in any situation where RAW must be followed strictly (i.e., official events) would have to rule otherwise unless Paizo issues a clarification.

Plus, it still leaves the question open of how this works for the monk bonus feats? This part seems to be more of a gray area. Is the monk supposed to be able to snatch arrows by taking only one feat at a later level? Or is the intent that the monk first take Deflect Arrows as a bonus feat first?

The bottom line is that as players, we can speculate about intent all day long, but only Paizo can give a definitive answer on how these rules are truly supposed to function.

The gloves are a specific exception to the way the Snatch Arrows feat works.

The gloves simply work as advertised. There's nothing in the description that says you need Deflect Arrows to make the magic work.

Not according to the RAW.

The gloves description says that "the wearer can act as if he had the Snatch Arrows feat".

The Snatch Arrows feat says that "When using the Deflect Arrows feat you may choose to catch the weapon instead of just deflecting it."

Q: What does the Snatch Arrows feat do?

A: It lets you "choose to catch [a projectile] weapon instead of just deflecting it."

Q: When does the Snatch Arrows feat let you make this choice?

A: Only "When using the Deflect Arrows feat"

According to the text as written, neither the gloves, nor the monk's bonus feat ability, offer any exception to this functionality. Any such exception is implied by the reader's perception; nowhere is it explicitly stated. This is why official clarification is needed.

I'm also interested in this question, specifically as it applies to the Monk class.

The Monk is granted bonus feats at certain levels. Per the rules:

A monk need not have any of the prerequisites normally required for these feats to select them.

Snatch Arrows is available to the Monk as a bonus feat beginning at level 10. If a monk were to take this bonus feat, without having previously taken Deflect Arrows, what would happen?

The confusion seems to stem from the wording of Snatch Arrows. As I see it, there are two parts to this puzzle:

1) The prerequisite for the feat - Deflect Arrows is listed as a prerequisite to taking the Snatch Arrows feat. Well, the monk ability states that the prerequisites can be ignored for bonus feats (similar to the Gloves of Snaring), so this part is clear. The monk can write Snatch Arrows down as a feat on the character sheet without having Deflect Arrows. No problems there.

2) The function of the feat - this is where the issues start. The text of the Snatch Arrows feat specifically states that the ability provided by the feat (being able to catch a projectile mid-flight) triggers on use of the Deflect Arrows feat to stop an incoming projectile. If this is taken RAW, it seems to indicate that while you may have the Snatch Arrows feat, unless you are actually using the Deflect Arrows feat, Snatch Arrows will do nothing. If you never use the Deflect Arrows ability, Snatch Arrows' ability will never trigger, making it a useless feat.

The only conclusion I can draw based purely on the RAW is that while the monk does not need Deflect Arrows in order to take Snatch Arrows as a feat, he does need to use Deflect Arrows in order to use Snatch Arrows.

I will be the first one to admit that this seems a bit ridiculous for the monk, and even more so for the gloves. I've seen "intent" argued back and forth in various places, and I'll agree that the intent may very well have been for the gloves to allow anyone the use of Snatch Arrows with or without Deflect Arrows (I'm less certain on the intent of the monk bonus feats), but the strictest interpretation of the text seems to say otherwise.

The only satisfactory conclusion I can see to this discussion is an official ruling or errata on either the Snatch Arrows feat itself, or on how both the Gloves of Snaring and the Monk bonus feats work.

Patrick Gurdgiel wrote:

Not to dredge up an old issue - but was there ever a firm ruling/errata about using double weapons one-handed.

Yes.

Under normal circumstances, you can't do it.

You can use a smaller-sized double weapon in one hand, but you take a penalty. So, a human could use a small-sized quarterstaff in one hand, but could only strike with one end of it. An ogre could use a human-sized quarterstaff in one-hand, but could only strike with one end of it.

The Quarterstaff Mastery feat gets around that, and lets you use a size-appropriate QS as a one-handed weapon.

Can you cite a source for this ruling? Because every discussion I have found so far on the subject eventually comes down to a reference of a post by James Jacobs which supposedly confirmed that a two-handed weapon that has the "double" property could in fact be wielded in one hand, allowing attacks with only one end. This would seem to make the Quarterstaff Master feat redundant and useless.

This is definitely a confusing topic, brought about by an apparent contradiction in the rules. The rules state that a 2H weapon requires two hands for use. They also state that a double weapon can be used in one hand with the stipulation that only one end of the weapon may be used. Since (so far as I am aware) all double weapons are 2H weapons, the two rules appear to contradict each other. My understanding is that the 2H rule applies broadly to all 2H weapons, but the double subtype provides an exception to the rule, and so 2H weapons that are double weapons can be used one handed, with the drawback of only using one end of the weapon.

For me, this interpretation makes sense as it is reinforced by real-life experience. I've had very little formal training in use of a quarterstaff, but one of the early lessons I was taught was how to use it with one hand. One end of the staff is braced against part of your body (usually tucked under the armpit and held in place with the elbow, but it can also be braced against the waist or leg), while the other end held in hand can be used to strike.

The staff is not usually kept in this position for long, usually just long enough for a couple of strikes or blocks before returning to a two-handed grip or shifted completely to the opposite hand. It's not nearly as effective as using it in both hands, but it does free up one hand to use for a grab, block, or strike, which is usually the motivation for shifting to a one-handed grip in the first place.

So the bottom line then is, does the Quarterstaff Master feat really do anything not already accomplished by the core rules? In my opinion, no, but I would love to hear something official.