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.
Larger swords do not require being sharp. In fact, many large swords were really quite dull. In the evolution of swords and armor the sword sizes increased due to improvements in armor. They were used 'slashing style' but that damage against heavy armor was force being applied through a blunt edge rather than force being applied through a cutting edge.
D&D in general does not model this well (at all). Oh well.
This is why warriors had no problem with carrying a bare large sword on the shoulder.
Note: I do not have any references for my information. I used to have a friend who owned a greatsword sized sword passed down through his (scottish) family. When I asked why it was dull he answered that that kind of sword is always dull.
- Gauss
Your friend was mistaken, the blades were kept quite sharp. That particular blade was most likely dull because nobody had sharpened it, and swords are often kept dull if they are to be used for decorative or training purposes. It also helps with transporting them through customs and the like. A dull sword is still somewhat effective, but a sharp one is always better.
As to the issue at hand... I would say the longstanding house rule is a candidate for revision. Certain weapons, including longbows, are designed quite well to be carried, ready to use, for long periods of time. Swords are one of the few that do not share this quality. If anyone in the party uses a spear, quarterstaff or polearm, I'd say they are just as right to be holding it at all times. Frankly, he wouldn't even need to guide his mount with his knees, holding a longbow in one hand is entirely doable... integral to proper use, even.
Try looking at this from his perspective: you are insisting that his character be strictly worse at his role in combat simply so that everyone else gets to be strictly better, despite the fact that ranged combat is already disadvantaged to melee by lower damage output, fewer options, greater feat dependency, limited ammo, and AoOs; you are further insisting that his character, who is supposed to be a skilled combatant with wilderness experience, is too foolish to do something that he, personally, knows to be standard operating procedure from his being a skilled combatant with wilderness experience.
Just let everyone have out a bow if they were sensible enough to own one and let combat start with the PCs able to engage at range if they prefer.
If you really insist on everyone walking around with all weapons securely stowed, then I hope you're at least consistent, and force enemies to do the same. Heck, while you're at it, you might as well demand they don and doff armor; it's far more uncomfortable to walk around all day wearing even the least restrictive armor than carrying any but the heaviest weapons, so unless they believe themselves to be in mortal peril they would be insane to wander around wearing armor all the time, and if they do believe that to be the case, they would be insane not to wander around with weapons at the ready.
I love that people are tryi g to rules lawyer out a way to use a 2 handed sword with one hand.
It's ridiculous on its face. As a GM I would not allow it, not just for balance reasons but because it's ridiculous
I think if there is this much ambiguity in the rules, then let's err on the side of not doing something that seems silly.
This. Just use a feaking longsword, once you have a few levels under your belt the difference in damage from the smaller die is mostly irrelevant anyway.
Let's get something clarified as to the purpose of this thread, since it seems people get confused with something here.
WE ARE NOT ARGUING ABOUT USING A TWO-HANDED WEAPON IN ONE HAND.
There is a Class Archetype for this; if I wanted to do that, I'd use that Archetype, and that's that. No custom feats, no homebrew traits, no 3.5 magic items, no whatever. More importantly, that is not what I want to accomplish with my character at all. If I wanted to argue that, I would've made a thread called "Using a Two-handed Weapon in One Hand: Can it be done?" And there would've been no point when I already know the damn answer.
(I apologize if I sounded rude, but it is something that has been brought up repeatedly, and is something that this topic does not address, nor should it really have an impact in the first place.)
You asked about using a two-handed weapon while keeping a hand free. You can claim this is not about using a two-handed weapon in one hand all you like, but ultimately that is precisely what you wish to accomplish.
For what it's worth, I would give you the regripping as an inherent part of the attack based partly on the rules saying that is what happens, and partly on my knowledge that actual swordsmen do so constantly, and indeed failing to do so would pretty much get you killed. The sticking point for me would be using Crane Wing as well, since that takes a hand.
You have two options: either accept the limitations of the system and the weapons, or don't. Greatswords in PF are designed to sacrifice defense and flexibility for sheer damage output. There are literally dozens of other weapons, most of which are entirely usable, which would do exactly what you're talking about without roundabout justification or hand-wringing over what the devs think about your wacky corner case.
One solid reason not to use Dervish is that in a home group it is liable to be banned due to cheese. In my opinion (and those of most of the people I game with), there is a huge balance problem with allowing dex to govern AC, attack AND damage rolls.
My Kensai uses a falcata, by the way. It's pretty wreck even with a sub-optimal strength.
I love that people are tryi g to rules lawyer out a way to use a 2 handed sword with one hand.
It's ridiculous on its face. As a GM I would not allow it, not just for balance reasons but because it's ridiculous
I think if there is this much ambiguity in the rules, then let's err on the side of not doing something that seems silly.
This. Just use a feaking longsword, once you have a few levels under your belt the difference in damage from the smaller die is mostly irrelevant anyway.
