|
...Comments? Corrections?Well, it's not very stealthy. You're gonna need a silencer. :)
For a CANNON?!?! Even Cav guys don't try that! Pretty funny, though.
Search Posts
Transformative: This ability can only be placed on a
Moderate transmutation; CL 10th; Craft Magic Arms
It says "At the wielders command" but does NOT say that a command word is used or that the item is being activated. Using Staves, wands or most commands is a standard action because they mimic other abilities that would be a standard action, such as casting spells. Then again, a Flaming Sword must be activated and that is a standard action, so it's probably is easier to go standard action here. There are other benefits of this weapon that balance it out.
Or just a sequence... (i.e., a combination lock does not require different numbers) Some of that can be done with the Amulet of Mighty Fists, and a Flaming Two-Handed Sword doesn't raise it's own damage four levels later. I can see the desire to do it, but I can also see why the Amulet of Mighty Fists works the way it does. Monks get the equivalent of Magical weapons that can't be disarmed (unless the statement is made a bit too literal) and scale up with levels. Would be fun, but a little much. Most groups and DMs I've dealt with seem to hate monks because they are considered to be too powerful to start. Not saying it couldn't be done, just redundant. Attack rolls I understand well, though.
True, obvious and consistent with past rulings. So if you change a transformative greatclub into a quarterstaff, only one end of the quarterstaff gets the enhancement bonus and any other magic properties.The obvious solution is that only one weapon head is enchanted.for example quaterstaff 1d6 into greatsword 2d6Probably the most worrisome exploit is the opposite: changing a two-handed weapon into a double weapon. If you can buy a cold iron transformative spear +1 and change it into a cold iron orc double axe +1, you've just saved many thousands of GP on making and enchanting the second axe head, which designers in the past seemed to consider a great problem. This, however, poses an odd quandry. What if you create the double weapon first with all it's costs and separate heads included, then add the tranformative property? What happens to the enchatment if you chage a DOUBLE WEAPON into a TWO-HANDED weapon, like a greatsword? As for material, just make it from the material you want to start with. Saves you trouble.
Originally it was for an Eldritch Knight who wanted to concentrate on two-weapon fighting, hence all the questions. AS it is, the question was already answered a while ago in my game (here the question just broke down to useless bashing and the 'can' and 'can't' remarks), so I'm done with the entire line of questioning. I thank you for your input, but this thread was for two-weapon fighting. The question on the Quick Draw feat was a side question, based on the written rule not mentioning sheathing in the Quick Draw feat. A side question that has wasted far too much space here. I would truly appreciate it if everyone could return to two-weapon fighting questions and comments. That is the reason for this post. If quick draw is a major issue, please create a new post for it. Thank you.
Does a monk really NEED to be enchanted? Their hands scale up in damage pretty quickly. I can see using the Amulet of Mighty Fists to deal with attack rolls and certain DR, but not much more than that. Considering that a monk can potentially cause as much damage as a two-handed sword by about twelfth level (and likely have more attacks than a user of said weapon) that should be enough. If you are really looking for unarmed damage, try a variant from the Advanced Player's Guide. If you look, you will know which one I speak of.
Back to Two-Weapon Fighting, please.
I really don't have a problem with the creation of a feat, just illustrating why it wouldn't be a gamekiller to add it to quick draw. As for drawing 8 weapons and making 8 attacks, this falls under the same idea as talking as a free action. It can be done, the character is not going to quote a chapter from 'War and Peace' with that free action, neither should they be able to draw and sheathe all that and attack. Even the rules quote common sense in certain circumstances. No this does NOT mimic reality all that well. Neither does launching fireballs from your hands, teleporting, flying, riding a mount at a possible walking speed of 900 ft/Min, killing 6 people with a single swordstroke, etc. Not seeing where the training issue is, either. The same training to sheathe a weapon would also go with using the aforementioned chain or string on the weapon idea. Getting around that thing while fighting with it or getting the weapon back to your hand would take some extra effort, but noone her so much as suggested a feat for that. Interesting how easily acceptable one is rather than the other.... In any case, this seems a matter far more of opinion than any one view, as I have seen on this post. Solved my own problem a long time ago, now just looking at options. Think I pretty much got what I need from here. Thank for the ideas, thoughts and the reminder not to ask about any options that are not absolute and incontrovertably written in stone tablets (rulebooks). Just seems to start arguments. Since this discussion is now severely off-topic let's go back to two-weapon fighting questions. Anyone? P.S. It doesn't say that any character can use the bathroom either. Does that mean they can't? :)
I am not sure what 'trolling' is supposed to be, so try to make your statement plain and understandable, please. Such jargon only speaks of rudeness and an elitist attitude. There is little difficulty in acquiring the skill of quick sheathing if you actually make an effort. I also said 'In combat' and 'in a training situation'. I also stated that this is done in a COMBAT training environment. LARPing with foam sticks is not a viable source of information. There are too many rules in it to create a proper simulation of a battle, which has no rules. However, to be fair I have LARPed at one time, myself. I watched my opponent use the string tactic. I also mopped the floor with him when the aforementioned situation presented itself and he hit himself with his own weapon. I also stopped due to the fact that it was not a truly viable training atmosphere for practical combat simulation. It can be fun and was for a time, but it is a game, one that is not geared for combat training, therefore got boring pretty quickly for me. I would also ask that you e-mail ME instead of putting personal attacks on the board. It wastes space that can be used by others to place opinions, rules and content that allows sharing of information on two weapon fighting. From here on in, that is what I will be doing. The final point I would make as to LARP is that the weapons are not designed to draw or sheathe as an actual weapon would. They are designed not to hurt anyone, which is a contradiction to the concept of a weapon. I'm not saying it is a bad thing to LARP, just that using it as an example for combat situations is not logical. Again, I apologise to those who are posting to share actual info on this subject. I felt the need to deal with this one publicly.
There is a difference between things that are ridiculous and things that can actually work. Sheathing a weapon quickly can actually work, I've seen it personally and I've done it personally. I have worked with swords in real life, so I KNOW it can be done. That's why I started talking about it. The movies are MOVIES, and even some of those have quick SHEATHING as well as quick drawing. Equating sheathing a weapon with blowing yourself up is so COMPLETELY out there that the only reason someone would mention it is to illustrate the point that the rulebook is an infallible bible written by angels...an equally ridiculous proposition. The book is written by people who make mistakes and have their own viewpoints just like anybody else. This forum and your comments would not exist if that were not true. It IS however possible to "blow yourself up" in some ways. For example, with spells if that book-smart mage doesn't check his distance before firing them. Try using a little imagination if you're going to be condescending. It sounds better when you do. Most of the postings here prove that few would actually think of sheathing a weapon quickly as useful or possible. The usefulness of training with quick sheathing AND quick drawing is more important for someone in actual combat situations, instead of games. In such a situation you don't DROP your weapon...ever. Already talked about this. The only difficult thing about quick sheathing is that few make the effort to practice sheathing a weapon. So many people try to find ways AROUND making an effort because it's a game. It's fantasy so I can understand the viewpoint, even though I think it's pretty lazy. It is harder to TRAIN to do anything than not to, that's why it's called TRAINING. Power Attack doesn't say anything about movement because the feat doesn't cover movement at all. Stay on task, would you? As for making a feat for it, that's not a terrible idea. So why didn't Pathfinder do it to begin with if the balance is so crucial and the balance of the game so insanely upset by it? Because the writers hadn't THOUGHT OF IT as relevant enough to create a feat. As for a weapon cord, try doing that with a real weapon in combat. Better yet, do it in a training situation. When your enemy starts kicking your butt because you got tangled in the string or got hit by your own weapon when it swung back at you due to your own movements after losing grip on the weapon, I want to be there. The entertainment value would be priceless! As for what developers say, Haven't seen too many of them actually personally TEST some of these theories. I have, and not in the SCA or with rules and foam sticks. Not every RAW is RACS (Rules As Common Sense.) and after seeing some of these arguments, common sense is even LESS common than I thought. Oh well. It IS just a game in the end. For those who are just mentioning their ideas, I have no quarrel. Thank you for the posting and I'll keep your thoughts in mind. Not everyone has to agree, but thank you for taking the time to discuss things. Your opinions will be valued. The sarcasm is for those who want to spend time being condescending jerks rather than simply posting views. If it's really that much of an issue for you, send a personal message. That way you waste only MY time, and not everyone else who posts here. From here on, I'll keep to the points of discussion. I ask that everyone else do the same. Flame reels go elsewhere and it wastes the time of those who want to actually DISCUSS rules rather than annoy others for fun.
I certainly won't say you couldn't have a feat to allow for quick sheathing - but by default, no matter how much you've practiced, it's going to be much harder to sheath in combat than it will be to draw. Too much chance of sheathing your sword in your leg instead of the sheath if you're not careful.True enough, but if one trains to DRAW quicky, why not learn to SHEATE quickly, for the same reason you learn to draw? only in Iaijutsu have I seen any speed draw without speed sheathing and that's because the idea is to draw and strike with perfect force and accuracy. Even with this example, some schools also taught the practitioner to sheathe the weapon with the same lightning speed, to prepare for the next draw and attack sequence. The first blow didn't ALWAYS decide things, and fencing was not originally part of Japanese culture. The Katana was too expensive to lose or chip (even though it happenned more often than not when fencing became an option.... There is also a good chance of drawing so fast you throw it at the enemy, leaving yourself without a weapon. Then there's weather conditions that could make the blade stick, length and type of blade making a simpler or more difficult draw... Of course it's more difficult if it is not practiced. As for the "can't" post, you CAN blow yourself up. You'd just have to make a new character afterwards. As for reforming, that's up to your GM. I'd just let ya' die, smart guy. Seriously, though, I'm not concerned just that a statement wasn't made against it, but that the idea of just dropping your weapon on the ground in ANY battle is a REALLY bad idea. There are too many ways to lose it, and there is no guarantee you will get it back. This seems like a concept that is not even CONSIDERED by most roleplayers who have not had experience in a real conflict, or even trained for it. I personally WOULD train to sheathe and draw quickly at the same time, to ensure that I didn't lose weapons in combat. Dealt with too many players that whined about losing weapons they dropped. Ho, you didn't think the bad guy would STEAL that pretty magic bow when you dropped it in front of him to draw your sword? The way the section is worded, it looks like it just wasn't addressed as an option, rather than a stated inability to do so. This is not D&D 3.5. Let the marketing strategy die. PLay Station 3 did.
True enough, but if one trains to DRAW quicky, why not learn to SHEATE quickly, for the same reason you learn to draw? only in Iaijutsu have I seen any speed draw without speed sheathing and that's because the idea is to draw and strike with perfect force and accuracy. Even with this example, some schools also taught the practitioner to sheathe the weapon with the same lightning speed, to prepare for the next draw and attack sequence. The first blow didn't ALWAYS decide things, and fencing was not originally part of Japanese culture. The Katana was too expensive to lose or chip (even though it happenned more often than not when fencing became an option.... That leads nicely to my next point, weapons are EXPENSIVE. Maybe not to an adventurer always, but realistically it is! Whether you switch weapons or just need to get it out quickly you NEVER drop a weapon as a soldier, even to draw a new one. You might just need it later, and you are not guaranteed time to go get it. If I am training to draw with speed, I want to train to sheathe it at the same time.
Again the only argument FOR sheathing a weapon as a move action even with Quick Draw is that the rule does not mention that you can...or CAN'T. The idea seems to be simply neglected. "If you think about it" statements are not RULES, just opinions. I can argue the other way around with some of the same analogies and nothing would get done. For example (Since it states that it is a move action on pg 186 and no where else does it state something that changes this to a free action) can also be used as (Since the Quick Draw feat states that you can draw a weapon as a free action and the feat doesn't mention that you can't sheathe that weapon in the same action, One may sheathe the weapon as a free action). As it is there really isn't a game balance issue with allowing Sheathing with as a free action with the Quick Draw feat, nor is there a game balance issue with NOT allowing Sheathing as a free action with the Quick Draw feat. Still opinion-based. Chat away!
Thank you, but not quite. It only details what it takes to draw or sheathe a weapon WITHOUT a feat. Draw or Sheathe a Weapon Drawing a weapon so that you can use it in combat, or
Looking at the RAW, the draw and sheathe of a weapon takes the same amount of time, unless you have a +1 to attack. Quick Draw as written isn't any better. It only talks about draw, not sheathe. Quick Draw (Combat) You can draw weapons faster than most. Prerequisite: Base attack bonus +1. Benefit: You can draw a weapon as a free action instead
Other than rogues, this makes the feat almost worthless unless you are a Rogue looking to get in a sneak attack in the city. The only reason it can be said that you would not be able to sheathe the weapon as quickly as you can draw it with the feat Quick Draw because it is not mentioned either way. This could be purposeful, or a simple not thought of as relevant by the writers. Who cares if you can SHEATHE the weapon quickly? Aren't you doing that when combat is OVER? I was looking at D&D 3.5 for awhile, but doing so made me realise that the idea of "Backwards Compatibility" was more of a marketing strategy than truth. Things can be tweaked, but that can be done to ANY game. D&D is somewhat close, but not close enough. That said.I would personally rule that you can, but I didn't post for my opinion alone, so chat away!
I see most of them, but two are still clear as mud to me. First where are the rules for sheathing weapons? Second, why would it NOT work for quick draw? Other than throwing daggers or similar weapons, it seems a wasteful feat. Two-Weapon Rend is what's called a wording nightmare. You can argue yes or no all day, based on whether you want to emphasize that "the rules don't say yes" or "the rules don't say no".
Here's a few questions concerning Mounted Combat. 1. If the character has Ride-By Attack Feat, does the mount receive an attack of opportunity for moving through the enemy's space? 2. If you have Mounted Skirmisher Feat, can you move before and after attacking with the character's full attack action? 3. If you Have Mounted Skirmisher AND Ride-By Attack feat, can you move before and after your full round of attacks or before and after EACH attack? 4. Does a Scout (APG page 134) gain the benefit of Sneak Attack when his mount moves 10 feet or more? 5. Does the Scout Retain the Skirmisher Ability with Ranged weapons while mounted? 6. If The Scout has a ranged weapon and is mounted, can he gain Sneak attack damage on ALL attacks in a surprise round if his mount 10 feet or more? 7. Does the rider of a mount retain the effects of Mobility if he moves through threatened areas on his Mount? 8. If a mount has the mobility feat, does the RIDER benefit from it? 9. Does Spirited Charge feat apply with the full attack action given by Mounted Skirmisher? 10. Does any of this even matter with mounted archery when making ranged attacks from a mount?
I have a few questions on Two-Weapon Fighting and weapons used for it. Bear with me, these are a little odd. 1. Can a character use Two-Weapon Rend with a double weapon
2. Is there a such weapon as a sword gauntlet/short sword gauntlet? 3. Can the Two-Weapon Defense feat be improved in any way? 4. Can you sheath a weapon or two weapons as a free action with
5. Can you both sheathe and unsheathe a weapon or two weapons in the
6. If you have two-weapon fighting feats, do you throw daggers with
7. Is there any way to remove the -2 initial penalty to attack with
Perhaps you are correct, but I wasn't looking at it as that major an innovation, just working as a 'secondary hand' for the purposes of the two-handed bonus for power attack. I find it a bit difficult an idea for the two-handed use of a lance for line-based cavalry formations to work without some aid. The position one would need to be in seems unbalanced without some form of help. As for cavalry itself, I'm glad you have such an interest in it. I would be interested to hear more about your reenactments. Send a wave at dreddwulf1@yahoo.com. Interestingly enough, I am currently serving in a cavalry regiment with the U.S. Army. That's where some of my knowledge comes from.
sometimes, a player asks me for playing a "monster race", mostly drows/duergars/ and such, so instead of punishing him for playing a "rare" race, i often ask for a plausible background for that character and usually "tone up" the other players a bit, so they dont feel lagging behind.- A truly excellent strategy! With enough of a background, you can even help enhance the character's role-playing experience by adding elements of his past.
For the record, it would seem that I need to apologize for unintentionally starting an unneccessary battle here, not to mention that the purpose of this post has failed utterly. Unfortunately, the only thing I have learned here is that the idea of 'backwards compatibility' was simply marketing strategy. Taking ideas from one game and using them in another is all that is occurring here. It would seem that not every D20 system is compatible. If I am 'tweaking' things for them to be compatible, the are NOT compatible. In that case, I am merely using ideas from one game and tranferring them to another, separate game which suggests lack of compatibility rather than the existence of compatibility. I could perform the same 'tweaking' with two entirely different systems. In either case, I would seem to be more trouble than it's worth, as this entire discussion has been. I thank all those who presented ideas and criticism with good intent. It has allowed me to come to this conclusion. This post has also taught me not to ask about concepts or anything that is not directly quoted in the Pathfinder material. Doing so just seems to cause unneccessary conflict and unprecedented lack of civility. Put simply, sorry I asked. At least I got a solid conclusion from it.
Backwards compatibility was pure marketing, nothing more. Like I said earlier, not looking for flaming (Though it would seem that you ARE), Just ideas and some opinions. It seems this is a far more controversial subject than I originally thought, but chiding others for being opinionated while doing it yourself would seem self-contradictory. Lets try to stick to the issue of Pathfinder compatibility to 3.5 and vice versa (which I have found NOT to be true in my experiences thus far, though I am still happy to accept ideas to the contrary) rather than the flaming you just chose to perform. Try to be civil, everybody. This is a discussion, not a war.
Wouldn't say that entirely. Some good ideas in 3.5 got left out of Pathfinder. However, I like the way Pathfinder is set up better. Some of the questions I've asked here have been answered with rulings that I were told were "backwards compatible". When attempting to use these solutions most were not nearly as compatible as stated, but a few others actually worked BETTER within this system. It is a question of adaptibility, in the end. You are right about the screaming between 2nd and 3rd edition D&D! I remember that argument VERY well.
Whoops, I missed the lance being x3. God help your enemy should you actually crit with a lance on a spirited charge!
My main issue with this is that some of the things I've attempted to use were not backwards compatible. For example, a heavy warhorse isn't NEARLY that same in the two editions. Races have been problematic, Feats changed to odd usage, the name of some do not match their usage while others. When I stopped thinking of the game as D&D things got alot easier to deal with. These are my experinces, others will have different ideas. It is these ideas I would like to draw upon, to gain more insight on some problem-solving tactics.
My main issue with this is that some of the things I've attempted to use were not backwards compatible. For example, a heavy warhorse isn't NEARLY that same in the two editions. Races have been problematic, Feats changed to odd usage, the name of some do not match their usage while others. When I stopped thinking of the game as D&D things got alot easier to deal with. These are my experinces, others will have different ideas. It is these ideas I would like to draw upon, to gain more insight on some problem-solving tactics.
Yes I have seen, and I agree with you 100%! For those who believe in the 'backwards compatibility' idea, I need to see their reasoning and how other GMs balance this concept in their games. That gives me greater awareness as to the uses and flaws of such a concept. I denoted one flaw that I have seen with adapting the races from 3.5 to Pathfinder as an example of my experience with it, to start off this conversation.
Thanks for starting a flame war, we didn't have enough of those as it is :/ Not starting a flame war, just a discussion on pathfinder itself. I grant that this is a controversial subject, but I want to hear some views on this. If people decide to be passionate about their views, it's cool as long as we can all respect each other, whether or not our opinions match. Don't be so glum, chum. We're all gamers, right?
The name is derived from Lancea. The lancea was the Roman auxiliaries' short javelin. It is mentioned as a throwing weapon in Roman times. The 'Cavalry Spear' is as close as you get to a lance (So far as I've read). Having trouble finding a picture of the piece, but it was a simple hook grafted to the armor or saddle where the lance was set so that the rider could properly balance the lance forward with one arm. Made it easier to run charging lines, so I've noticed thus far. SOrry to get overly historical, I was just trying to mention a way to add the two-handed damage to power attack that made sense to me. Seem to have gotten a little too much into minutia.
RAW has little to say on the matter, so how the lance would be used (along with game balance) is the only sound way to make your decisions as a GM. If you just look at what page it's on, the reading itself does not answer the question properly.RAW has plenty to say on the matter.
No, I am not just writing about jousting armor, though the changes in cavalry armor most famous were made for that purpose. The modifications on a saddle (for example) is what defines a "Military Saddle" versus a riding saddle. Some equipment was used for jousting, but other advents had military applications and were used as such. Even jousting was itself a sport based on combat applications. Things were added for safety of course, but that is not what I spoke of when I said Lances were long spears before the Cradle (which was actually invented along with other 'safety features' well before jousting was popular and merely became famous with the popularity of the joust). There remains the fact that even the jousting lists were at times used as testing ground for inventions used to improve lance combat. The argument you speak of is not mine, anyway. Historians have been arguing for years as to whether this or that development was useful in combat, the Great Stirrup Controversy was one such argument.
I have seen this argument pop up again and again in discussions across this board. The words "Backwards compatibility" tend to be used alot, even though Pathfinder itself had changed alot when it comes to how the game is played. For example, I can tell you right now that EVERY race in Pathfinder would have an ECL +1 based on their stat adjustments, several weapons would not be allowed to exist and several other racial weapons DON'T exist. Tip of the iceberg stuff here. I was just wondering what other differences people have noticed and how you all "Fill the holes" as it were. I am of the opinion that Paizo has created it's own game in Pathfinder, not just an extension of someone else's. Just an opinion, mind you. Any and All comments welcome, FIRE AWAY!!!
I think you're a bit caught up in how you think one uses a lance. You don't have to be charging (and the majority of the shock is taken by leaning back in the saddle and bracing against the stirrups). The lance existed long before the stirrup did, after all.Without the cradle design, a lance would be TOO LARGE TOO BE USED FROM HORSEBACK!! The very attempt would dislocate the Lancer's... That IS how one uses a lance, at least it would be the proper explanation as to why a longspear doesn't get the same damage on a charge as the lance does. The method you describe could be used with either weaon. The cradle was created to stabilize the lance and make the charge work. Without it, you're just using a spear from horseback. Not to mention that simply leaning back in the saddle and bracing against stirrups spreads some shock, but not enough for the force necessary for a charge. You still have a great deal of force tramsmitted to the arm itself due to the rearward jerk of the lance's impact. Unless secondary bracing is used, it becomes just the same as using a spear for a charge. In fact, the Lance was simply classified as a longspear before the stirrup, and was used as such. Armor was also specifically modified for heavy cavalry to accomodate the use of a lance. The side expected to take the impact was strengthened and other pieces were added SPECIFICALLY for the Lance. Even the saddle was modified with a high back to allow the rider to lean back in it. RAW has little to say on the matter, so how the lance would be used (along with game balance) is the only sound way to make your decisions as a GM. If you just look at what page it's on, the reading itself does not answer the question properly.
It seems alot for some, but remember that as a lancer you are charging someone with the force of not just yourself, but an animal that weighs in at close to 3/4 of a TON as well, all focused into the point of your Lance, more or less. That's ALOT of power, an should be reflected in it's damage.
It seems alot for some, but remember that as a lancer you are charging someone with the force of not just yourself, but an animal that weighs in at close to 3/4 of a TON as well, all focused into the point of your Lance, more or less. That's ALOT of power, an should be reflected in it's damage. No I do NOT assume anyone's arm is strong enough, that is why the cradle exists in the armor design. The Lancer's Arm merely GUIDES the blow, the force is taken up by the body through the cradle, which is why the cradle was made to begin with. The stability that the cradle provides would allow for the 1.5 Strength bonus, just like the surface a spear is set against to receive a charge takes the majority of the force rather than the individual holding the spear. The Double damage is depicted by the force generated by movement, but there is still the stability given to the weapon by the cradle design, which works as another hand to both steady the lance and reinforce the blow by being set to absorb the impact. The arm of the lancer is just a guide for where the lance hits. Without the cradle design, a lance would be TOO LARGE TOO BE USED FROM HORSEBACK!! The very attempt would dislocate the Lancer's arm, if it didn't rip the arm off altogether. Even if the Character managed to connect with the lance, the body alone would not be able to steady the weapon for a decisive strike, let alone hold steady enough to do any significant damage. As for using the Lance two-handed, the weapon is in something of a position for two-handed use, but that use doesn't explain why a spear doesn't receive double damage for being used the same way, not to mention that reaching across the body in the way one would need to on horseback to use it two-handed would be far more uncomfortable than effective. It is possible, but not terribly efficient.
I agree that using a Lance two-handed on horseback is not feasable. I still believe that the 150% additive to damage from power attack should apply for lancers on horseback due to the necessary design of armor (on horse or it's rider) simulating the stability that would come with the use of two hands. It seems alot for some, but remember that as a lancer you are charging someone with the force of not just yourself, but an animal that weighs in at close to 3/4 of a TON as well, all focused into the point of your Lance, more or less. That's ALOT of power, an should be reflected in it's damage. Granted the two-handed damage is not QUITE what is happening here, but the precautions necessary to use the Lance in a charge simulate the use of more than just one hand and additional stability, the same way setting a spear vs a charge does.
My guess is when it says 'command word' it's not so much a single word as a string of awkward words, like verbal spell components (which require a standard action unless quickened or part of a swift action spell)It's a command word ability -- standard action to use.Where is this? A sentence or phrase is a FREE Action, how does ONE WORD constitute a standard action? The words in spell-casting are not the ONLY component in a spell and a command WORD is just one word, not many. Still not seeing how a command word is a standard action, or that any such ruling exists at all. There is a sketchy item in standard action that does not mention a command word, but "Activating an item other than a potion or oil" Not enough to convince me, though. Too much of a blanket term, and doesn't cover my original question.
Power Attack (Combat) You can make exceptionally deadly melee attacks by
Prerequisites: Str 13, base attack bonus +1. Benefit: You can choose to take a –1 penalty on all
RAW suggests that the weapon must be used in two hands to receive the 150% bonus. Neither the lance on horseback nor the two small greatswords would work for this. However, the armor of horse or rider who used a lance was designed with a cradle to improve stability for effective use of said weapon. That WOULD qualify the weapon for the bonus in my opinion. Without the cradle, the lance was too heavy to wield with any accuracy or force.
It doesn't take much to check the time stamps and actually read the thread. Be nice. Everyone has the right to ask questions as they feel the need. Considering the length of this thread and the number of search results I got the last time I tried that, this may sometimes happen. We're all gamers, right?
Slightly OT... but what kind of action would it be to string a bow? Move, standard or full round? SO can a character ready a bow with a free action if that character has quick draw? I have to respectfully comment that this line of discussion is a bit unneccessary. If these particular questions are a part of the fun in a particular game, then go for it. If not, don't worry about it. I understand the need for some realism and game balance, but this is a fantasy game after all. Fun is first and foremost!!
I think it's safe to say allowances can be made for baths and other things without the clock restarting. I'd say just make a seperate ruling that it takes 24 hours for the magic to be undone since it takes that long for it to go into full effect. This rule can even be used to have some fun with your PCs by getting an item (or items) stolen, giving them 24 hours to get it back or lose the magic they worked so hard to achieve. Nice little mini-adventure, yes? |