I don't get it


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

101 to 150 of 222 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>

hogarth wrote:
That's also my take on it, Stalchild -- with a weapon, you can knock other weapons out of the way. Of course, that doesn't really explain why a gauntlet wouldn't work until you add a few spikes (unless they were big spikes).

Well, as I understand it, a non-spiked gauntlet is essentially just a leather glove. Not too much use for stopping a blade.

Even if the gauntlet is metal, the plating would be much thinner on the hands to allow for better mobility, and would likely get cut right through if someone were to punch a blade with it. Even if the spikes are small, it still stands to reason that the metal would be thick enough to withstand a decent blow (especially since the spikes were made with the intention of delivering those blows).


Actually studding a gauntlet would weaken the metal as you must punch throw it in order to get the spike to stay in place.

Metal gauntlets are very tough specifically because they do absorb a lot of damage since people will specifically target the hands due to the fact they are needed to hold weapons in the first place.


Lord oKOyA wrote:


What are people's thoughts on mixing a spiked gauntlet with a reach weapon, say a glaive for example.

Do you threaten ALL squares within 10' of you (assuming medium sized creature with normal reach)?

As someone else said earlier, if you attack with the glaive, no, you can't use the gauntlet (you made an attack using two hands). If you didn't attack, you can let go of the glaive to make an AoO with one hand and threaten the 5' area.

On a side note, I've always allowed anyone using a glaive or other wooden hafted weapon to treat it as a quarter staff (with a -2 penalty since it's not unbalanced) if they want to switch to close in fighting. Seems appropriate, so they can take a reach weapon and convert it to a close range but take penalties on it (and only do quarterstaff damage).


Lord oKOyA wrote:
Dennis da Ogre wrote:


Who said anything about high level or high strength? You little variation would work just as easily with a 1st level warrior with an 4 strength as a high level warrior. There is no strength requirement to wield a glaive, it's a normal martial weapon. Heck a human commoner 1 could do it.
Ok. Let me rephrase. Are your players actually from a fantasy world where the laws of our reality aren't strictly adhered to? That they might demonstrate what is and is not possible in this fantasy realm to your satisfaction?

If the rules supported your stance then whatever. But they don't. You can't effectively wield a 2 handed weapon with one hand. It's in the rules. You can't threaten with a hand that is occupied holding a weapon. Also in the rules.

"Drawing a weapon"
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.

You are basically combining 2 move equivalent actions into one free action.

Some other things you can't do:

  • Hold a longsword in your primary hand and the glaive in your offhand and drop the longsword so you can make an AoO with the glaive.
  • Hold a longbow in one hand and a sword in the other and drop the sword and make a full attack with the bow (you need a move action so the bow is ready to use in combat).

    That's why the words "So you can use it in combat" are there. You have a weapon that isn't ready, you use a move action to make it ready. A one handed glaive is not wield-able so it's not 'ready'.

    You can on the other hand use a whip to threaten far targets and a second weapon to attack close targets. Monks can also attack near targets with their unarmed strikes because they don't have to use their hands to do it.


  • mdt wrote:
    On a side note, I've always allowed anyone using a glaive or other wooden hafted weapon to treat it as a quarter staff (with a -2 penalty since it's not unbalanced) if they want to switch to close in fighting. Seems appropriate, so they can take a reach weapon and convert it to a close range but take penalties on it (and only do quarterstaff damage).

    I like this too. Personally, I would suggest a move action to change your stance though.


    Abraham spalding wrote:

    Actually studding a gauntlet would weaken the metal as you must punch throw it in order to get the spike to stay in place.

    Metal gauntlets are very tough specifically because they do absorb a lot of damage since people will specifically target the hands due to the fact they are needed to hold weapons in the first place.

    Most of the metal protection on the gauntlet would be on the back of the hands and around the wrist, as this is the easiest part of the hand to hit. There are also plenty of gauntlets with a 'brass knuckles' effect across the top ridge, to provide further protection, but that would be something to be added (probably an equivalent to armor spikes).

    As for making the metal weaker, I think that it would depend on whether the spikes were added later or forged into the metal from the beginning. Sure, they might snap off, but that would generally be the result of a sunder attempt or a bad fumble. Gauntlet spikes, at least those on the knuckles for punching, tend to be short and thick (think pointy studs, as opposed to needles) to support the impact. Longer spikes on the rest of the armor are for intimidation and very painful hugs.

    Dark Archive

    mdt wrote:
    Lord oKOyA wrote:


    What are people's thoughts on mixing a spiked gauntlet with a reach weapon, say a glaive for example.

    Do you threaten ALL squares within 10' of you (assuming medium sized creature with normal reach)?

    As someone else said earlier, if you attack with the glaive, no, you can't use the gauntlet (you made an attack using two hands). If you didn't attack, you can let go of the glaive to make an AoO with one hand and threaten the 5' area.

    On a side note, I've always allowed anyone using a glaive or other wooden hafted weapon to treat it as a quarter staff (with a -2 penalty since it's not unbalanced) if they want to switch to close in fighting. Seems appropriate, so they can take a reach weapon and convert it to a close range but take penalties on it (and only do quarterstaff damage).

    Where does it say in the rules that you are locked into some grip configuration based on your last attack mode? Following that logic a wizard that casts a spell on his turn does not threaten any squares with quarterstaff that he was holding in his off hand. Is that truly how you play that scenario?

    Does a fighter with a whip in one hand and a sword in the other not threaten everything within 10' of him? If on his last turn he made an attack with his whip does that mean he can't use his sword for an AoO?

    As for you second point/side note, that is something I championed in the beta but apparently to no avail.


    Lord oKOyA wrote:
    mdt wrote:
    Lord oKOyA wrote:


    What are people's thoughts on mixing a spiked gauntlet with a reach weapon, say a glaive for example.

    Do you threaten ALL squares within 10' of you (assuming medium sized creature with normal reach)?

    As someone else said earlier, if you attack with the glaive, no, you can't use the gauntlet (you made an attack using two hands). If you didn't attack, you can let go of the glaive to make an AoO with one hand and threaten the 5' area.

    On a side note, I've always allowed anyone using a glaive or other wooden hafted weapon to treat it as a quarter staff (with a -2 penalty since it's not unbalanced) if they want to switch to close in fighting. Seems appropriate, so they can take a reach weapon and convert it to a close range but take penalties on it (and only do quarterstaff damage).

    Where does it say in the rules that you are locked into some grip configuration based on your last attack mode? Following that logic a wizard that casts a spell on his turn does not threaten any squares with quarterstaff that he was holding in his off hand. Is that truly how you play that scenario?

    Does a fighter with a whip in one hand and a sword in the other not threaten everything within 10' of him? If on his last turn he made an attack with his whip does that mean he can't use his sword for an AoO?

    As for you second point/side note, that is something I championed in the beta but apparently to no avail.

    Whips don't actually threaten so you can't take aoo's with them, however other than that your point is very valid. You can take an attack with one weapon and an AoO with another weapon. You don't take two-weapon penalties except on a full-attack using two different weapons as part of your attack sequence.

    Dark Archive

    Dennis da Ogre wrote:


    If the rules supported your stance then whatever. But they don't. You can't effectively wield a 2 handed weapon with one hand. It's in the rules. You can't threaten with a hand that is occupied holding a weapon. Also in the rules.

    I don't believe that the RAW conclusively support or prohibit "my stance" as you wish to call it. To say otherwise at this point is an expression of opinion as fact.

    Dennis da Ogre wrote:

    Drawing a weapon"

    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.

    You are basically combining 2 move equivalent actions into one free action.

    The scenario I have put forth requires neither drawing nor putting away any weapon. Again, an archer can operate his bow with one hand holding the bow while the other hand repeatedly lets go of the string, pulls another arrow from his quiver, knocks and fires said arrow and repeats the process multiple times but a guy using a glaive cannot let go of his weapon for an instance to punch someone? Who says he even needs to release his grip on the glaive to use the gauntlet anyways? Would you have the same objection to someone holding a sword in his spiked gauntleted hand inter changing his attacks?

    Dennis da Ogre wrote:


    Some other things you can't do:
  • Hold a longsword in your primary hand and the glaive in your offhand and drop the longsword so you can make an AoO with the glaive.
  • Can you reference the rules that pertain to this? This is exactly what I'm looking for.

    Dennis da Ogre wrote:
  • Hold a longbow in one hand and a sword in the other and drop the sword and make a full attack with the bow (you need a move action so the bow is ready to use in combat).
  • Again, where does it state in the rules that you need a move action to ready a bow for use?

    Dennis da Ogre wrote:
    That's why the words "So you can use it in combat" are there. You have a weapon that isn't ready, you use a move action to make it ready. A one handed glaive is not wield-able so it's not 'ready'.

    This seems to me to apply to, say, removing the bow from your back (or wherever you have it stored) for use. Do you really require an archer who starts combat with a bow in hand to use a move equivalent action to ready his bow for use?

    Dennis da Ogre wrote:
    You can on the other hand use a whip to threaten far targets and a second weapon to attack close targets. Monks can also attack near targets with their unarmed strikes because they don't have to use their hands to do it.

    Here we agree!

    Dennis, I am really not trying to come off as adversarial. I just don't think things are as cut and dry as they appear.

    We have to stick these things in the forge, work them and burn away the dross and see what comes out in the end. That is all I am looking for.

    A tip of the hat, sir!

    Please carry on!

    Cheers

    Dark Archive

    grasshopper_ea wrote:

    Whips don't actually threaten so you can't take aoo's with them, however other than that your point is very valid. You can take an attack with one weapon and an AoO with another weapon. You don't take two-weapon penalties except on a full-attack using two different weapons as part of your attack sequence.

    See, I learned something. Whips don't threaten. I'm sure there is a good reason for that... :)

    I have yet to run into a player who has used either a whip or a spiked gauntlet. But I want to have this figured out before I get blind sided by this very scenario.

    Cheers


    Lord oKOyA wrote:
    Where does it say in the rules that you are locked into some grip configuration based on your last attack mode?
    see above.
    Lord oKOyA wrote:

    Following that logic a wizard that casts a spell on his turn does not threaten any squares with quarterstaff that he was holding in his off hand. Is that truly how you play that scenario?

    Curiously some wording was removed from the quarterstaff between versions. "A creature wielding a quarterstaff in one hand can’t use it as a double weapon—only one end of the weapon can be used in any given round." That wording was dropped in Pathfinder so I guess you can't wield it one handed any more. So unless the wizard has quick draw I suppose he would need to ready it as part of his move action. Wizard's in my game so rarely get AoOs it's really meaningless though.

    Lord oKOyA wrote:
    Does a fighter with a whip in one hand and a sword in the other not threaten everything within 10' of him? If on his last turn he made an attack with his whip does that mean he can't use his sword for an AoO?

    Maybe you should read the whip entry. The answer is irrelevant to the topic at hand for a bunch of reasons.


    grasshopper_ea wrote:
    If you have any knowledge of weaponplay (and that is not intended as a slam) you will know that you don't make every attack with your weapon. Unless maybe it's a gun. Even a knife fighter will not get monkey minded on their one weapon.

    Actually, I had a martial arts instructor once who taught us to evaluate our opponent. If his posture, footwork, and general body language indicates he has no real combat training, then he advised us to hand him a knife.

    His reasoning - give an untrained man a knife, and he forgets that his feet, knees, hands, elbows, and head are weapons. You have just limited him from 9 weapons to 1 weapon, and now he's much easier to defeat.

    I've never tested this in actual combat, but I did test it with a rubber knife and some non-martial artist friends. I didn't tell them the test. I just suggested we spar. I beat them, but they put up a good fight. Then I offered them a rubber training knife "to even the odds." Once they got the knife, they became much easier to defeat.

    Point is, my training and experience (such as it is) supports the idea that a good combatant doesn't limit their attacks to the weapon they hold in their hands.

    And I really like your idea of using the non-lethal end of your weapon, or other appendages, when your damage roll is low. Bravo.


    Lord oKOyA wrote:
    Dennis da Ogre wrote:

    Drawing a weapon"

    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.

    You are basically combining 2 move equivalent actions into one free action.

    The scenario I have put forth requires neither drawing nor putting away any weapon.

    Sure it does. Is a Glaive always "at ready"? The rules don't say "Pull a weapon out of a sheath" they saw draw it so you can use it in combat. It also doesn't say "Sheathing a weapon" it says "putting it away so you have a free hand".


    Lord oKOyA wrote:
    Where does it say in the rules that you are locked into some grip configuration based on your last attack mode?

    I feel I should point out that D&D is supposed to be a turn-based representation of simultaneous combat, not everyone standing around and taking turns to hack at people.

    Quote:
    Following that logic a wizard that casts a spell on his turn does not threaten any squares with quarterstaff that he was holding in his off hand. Is that truly how you play that scenario?

    If the Wizard is holding a weapon he can use in one hand, then he can take an AoO with that hand in the same round as he uses his other hand to cast a spell. That seems fairly logical to me.

    OTOH, if he's using a weapon that requires two hands, and he's using one of those hands to cast a spell, how can he make an effective AoO with it?

    Quote:
    Does a fighter with a whip in one hand and a sword in the other not threaten everything within 10' of him? If on his last turn he made an attack with his whip does that mean he can't use his sword for an AoO?

    Similarly here, he can make an attack with one hand on his turn and then an AoO with the other hand. What he couldn't do is attack with the whip, then make an AoO with a two-handed weapon.


    DM_Blake wrote:
    Point is, my training and experience (such as it is) supports the idea that a good combatant doesn't limit their attacks to the weapon they hold in their hands.

    Being able to kick/ headbutt/ knee an adjacent opponent is one of the big advantages to improved unarmed strike IMO.


    So, has this thread moved into the range of houserules now?

    Are we going to force wizards with a staff in their hand to be unable to make AoOs because they cast Fireball this round (thus they took one hand off their staff and are unable to re-grip it until their next round as a move action)?

    Are we really houseruling that?

    If not, are we relly houseruling that he cannot make his AoO because he cast Chill Touch and touched an orc?

    That would be a silly houserule and would be in no way close to RAW combat rules.

    If we are not advocating that silliness, then why would we make a similarly silly houserule to punish a glaive wielder for punching someone with a gauntlet?

    Equally silly, and equally unnecessary, and equally non-RAW.

    Simply put, the RAW is simple:
    If you are "armed" you make make attacks without provoking an AoO. Spiked gauntlets are considered "armed" while ordinary gauntlets are not.

    You can make an AoO into a threatened square, but to threaten it, you cannot be unarmed. An active touch spell makes you armed, and so does a spiked gauntlet. Either way, you threaten the squares you can reach, so you may take an AoO with those attacks, even if you're holding something in one of your hands, and that doesn't mean you cannot immediately return to holding that thing with both hads if you wish - no rule prevents you from doing this.

    As for "dropping" your glaive with one hand then "picking it back up" with that hand, all the while you're still holding it with your other hand, that, again, is houserule territory, and somewhat silly. If you drop it to the ground (with both hands), then you need a move action to pick it up. Interestingly enough, nobody ever bends over to pick something up with two hands unless it is so heavy then must use both hands to lift it. Anyone on the planet would pick up their glaive off the ground with one hand - would you advocate a houserule that they need a second move action to put their other hand on it so cannot attack this round? Even without that frivolous notion, this "drop and pick back up" notion (while still holding the item in your other hand) cannot possibly take the same move action as picking it up off of the ground, can it? Really, moving your empty hand eight inches to grip a weapon you're already holding in your other hand takes exactly the same move action as bending over, grasping a dropped weapon, straightening up, and then still moving your empty hand eight inches to grasp it with two hands? The same move action in both cases???

    Come on, let's think this through people... Are we trying to make sense, or are we trying to create arbitrary rules to punish a guy who wants to be able, once in a while, to dish out a 1d4 AoO with his spiked gauntlet?

    Sheesh, let the guy punch his enemy. It's not that big a deal.

    Dark Archive

    I see a lot of posts about the glaive wielder and spells and threatening at 5 feet.

    What if it was an archer? Why would all archers not wear spiked gauntlets then? Best of both worlds...fire at range and then take AoO.

    Nah I do not feel that allowing someone to effectively perform an action that takes every one else in the game a move action to perform because they have a staff type weapon is fair. Nor do I consider giving them the threat from two weapons at one time fair, when the total number of hands needed is more than the amount of hands they possess.

    I would at LEAST require quick draw. But the glaive wielder is still getting a one-up on actions. Everyone else has to spend a move action to put their weapon away, or drop them with free actions.

    I do not see any rules in the section of any two handed weapon that says switching from wielding it, to holding it in one hand is a free action. As far as I can tell thee items operate like all other weapons:

    Move to ready/draw (or as part of regular move action if BaB is +1 or better)
    Move to put away
    free to drop.

    As for the OP, I don't have problem with gaunlets provoking. You are trying to punch the enemy. If you are not trained in hitting things with no gauntlets, then you are not trained in unarmed combat while wearing gloves.

    Wheras a spiked gauntlet is a piercing weapon, covered int he martial weapons. If you have proficiency with martial weapons and have training in stabbing folks with 10 or more other sharp pointy things, then I imagine you would probably be fairly decent at stabbing them with things built into gloves with the proper training (martial weapons).

    But those are just my own opinions.

    love,

    malkav


    DM_Blake wrote:
    retreaded stuff already said

    *yawn*

    I hate when threads start repeating themselves.

    Dark Archive

    Dennis da Ogre wrote:


    Being able to kick/ headbutt/ knee an adjacent opponent is one of the big advantages to improved unarmed strike IMO.

    ...let me see if I get this straight. If my fighter with the glaive wants to be able to attack into, AND threaten AoO, all the squares for 10' around him, all he really needs is the IAS feat? He can then use his glaive as normal and kick people in adjacent squares (without fear of provoking AoO himself). Problem solved?

    Really?

    Sold!

    That was easy.

    Now I just need to craft me some spiked boots... :)

    So, in the end, the glaive guy gets what he wants, he just needs to kick people instead of punching them.

    Was it really worth all the fuss about grips, actions etc.?

    Cheers

    The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

    lastknightleft wrote:
    gauntlet operates the exact same as an unarmed attack, but a spiked gauntlet operates as an armed attack?

    Touching the gauntlet doesn't cut you, but touching the spikes when deflecting the blow could cut your hand/arm/etc.

    In short, it makes sense that Spike Gauntlets allow armed attacks when regular Gauntlets are still unarmed.

    You can take an AoO as long as you threaten, so you can wear Spiked Gauntlets, Spiked Armour, get Improved Unarmed Strike feat, and combine with a Longspear to get inclusive reach for attacks. 0-5 with Spiked etc and 5-10 with Longspear.

    Dark Archive

    Many have wrote:

    ...he can make an attack with one hand on his turn and then an AoO with the other hand.

    Again I have to ask, where in the RAW does it say that once you use a weapon to make an attack on your turn that you cannot use it to make AoO?

    Seriously. Where is this coming from?

    Using that logic, our monk friend who, while holding a valuable artifact in each hand, decides to attack using his feet. Does he fall immediately prone after making his two attacks or just lose his ability to move seeing as how at least one of his legs have apparently become locked in some sort of condition I have never come across in the RAW.

    Does he have to spend a move equivalent action to "ready his leg" on his next turn?

    How many body parts can the monk use to attack before he loses his ability to make AoO under these rules?

    As DM_Blake has eloquently put it... this is just silly.

    Dark Archive

    Dennis da Ogre wrote:


    *yawn*

    I hate when threads start repeating themselves.

    Highly constructive here.

    How about addressing some of the other points brought up rather than avoiding/ignoring them...

    ....of course you can always remove yourself from the discussion if it bores you.

    Dark Archive

    Ok. Here is the crux of it for me.

    They nerfed the spiked chain. Ok. Fine.

    Then they added the Lunge feat that allows all melee weapons (including reach weapons) to attack at increased range (albeit with a -2 to AC).

    For the cost of this one feat your sword/ax/flail/etc can now do more than the old glaive could ever do.

    My question then is, where is the corresponding feat that allows reach weapons to attack adjacent foes? I'm not talking about "Short Haft" or whatever it is. I'm talking about a Pathfinder feat that allows a reach weapon to strike adjacent foes for a -2 penalty to AC (or something equally reasonable). And yes I am aware that lunge does not increase your threatened area, nor would the "reverse lunge" feat allow you to threaten adjacent squares.

    Why punish the reach weapons?

    I also want to apologize to the OP (lastknightleft) and all the other posters that my "minor thread jack" has spiraled this badly out of control. I should have seen this coming. So sorry.

    Cheers


    malkav666 wrote:

    I see a lot of posts about the glaive wielder and spells and threatening at 5 feet.

    What if it was an archer? Why would all archers not wear spiked gauntlets then? Best of both worlds...fire at range and then take AoO.

    Well, maybe not. Awfully hard to wear a big thick steel glove covered with spikes and blades and then reach up past your ear (oooh, be careful there Mr. Van Goh) to grab one tiny wooden stick out of a quiver full of 20 that are more or less jam packed together, then bring it foreward (watch the ear!!) and fit it to a delicate bowstring (remember those blades on that gauntlet - careful not to disable your bow by slicing the string) - and to do this as fast as you are humanly (etc.) able to.

    Now that's a hand-eye-ear coordination thing that I would love to see happen.

    malkav666 wrote:
    Nah I do not feel that allowing someone to effectively perform an action that takes every one else in the game a move action to perform because they have a staff type weapon is fair.

    Which move action are we talking about again? The one everyone else takes before their AoO?

    malkav666 wrote:
    Nor do I consider giving them the threat from two weapons at one time fair, when the total number of hands needed is more than the amount of hands they possess.

    Well, they did pay extra cash for that spiked gauntlet.

    Would you deny them the ability to ensnare someone with the tanglefoot bag they paid extra for? Deny them the ability to brighten up the darkness with the sunrod they paid extra for?

    Why deny them this ability they paid extra for?

    It's not like that 1d4 damage is going to turn the tide of battle. Even more awkward when their 18th level wielding a +3 holy brilliant energy glaive and they want to do a d4 damage with their fist. What? They paid 128,000 GP for a +4 spiked gauntlet? Sweeeeeet, now they can do `d4+4 with their fiist - that's gonna scare the tarrasque.

    Oh, wait, no, it wouldn't scare me at all.

    malkav666 wrote:
    I would at LEAST require quick draw.

    Houserule?

    malkav666 wrote:
    But the glaive wielder is still getting a one-up on actions. Everyone else has to spend a move action to put their weapon away, or drop them with free actions.

    Who does? The guy with the longsword doesn't spend any actions - he just takes whatever AoOs he can take whenever he can take them. Free. No actions. No dropping weapons. No putting his sword away.

    Oh, maybe you mean the other glaive wielder with normal gauntlets, or no gauntlets? No, he doesn't put away his glaive, take a move action to draw a sword, just so he can make an AoO - there is no way he has the time for all that, even with quickdraw. The weapon must be in your hand (remember the rule - you have to threaten the square where the AoO is provoked - even with quidraw you don't threaten that square while the weapon is sheathed).

    So, nobody is spending move actions during an AoO, so the glaive wielder is not getting a one-up on anyone.

    Unless it bothers you that he is only able to use his weapon to foes 10' away and forced to punch for 1d4 anyone closer than that? Bah, if that's getting "a one-up", I'll settle for a longsword and a shield any day.

    That glaive wielder has already sacrificed his AC for a weapon that does paltry damage and is ineffective against most foes he fights, forcing him to dance around the battlefield, retreating, giving ground, just so he can position himself each round to make an attack. And he has sacrificed being able to make AoOs against many foes that provoke them.

    Spiking up his gauntlets so he can do a puny little d4 damage doesn't make up for everything he's sacrificed at all.

    He's still one-down, not one-up.

    malkav666 wrote:

    I do not see any rules in the section of any two handed weapon that says switching from wielding it, to holding it in one hand is a free action. As far as I can tell thee items operate like all other weapons:

    Move to ready/draw (or as part of regular move action if BaB is +1 or better)
    Move to put away
    free to drop.

    The glaive wielder with a spiked gauntlet is not dropping it, putting it away, or drawing it, when he punches as an AoO. He is merely moving his hand from a position roughly in front of his chest to a position roughly in the orc's face and then back to a position roughly in front of his chest - exactly the same thing a boxer or martial artist does every time he throws a punch. The fact that his hand begins and ends with his fingers wrapped around a stick that is in front of his chest and not moving or difficult to grasp is the barest of tiny tiny motions (opening and closing his fingers) compared to the full motion of moving his fist all the way out there (5' away) and then back.

    malkav666 wrote:

    As for the OP, I don't have problem with gaunlets provoking. You are trying to punch the enemy. If you are not trained in hitting things with no gauntlets, then you are not trained in unarmed combat while wearing gloves.

    Wheras a spiked gauntlet is a piercing weapon, covered int he martial weapons. If you have proficiency with martial weapons and have training in stabbing folks with 10 or more other sharp pointy things, then I imagine you would probably be fairly decent at stabbing them with things built into gloves with the proper training (martial weapons).

    Now here we agree. No AoO stabbing with a 6" dagger, so no AoO stabbing with 4" spikes/blades on your fists.


    Since I have found that people often don't read my long posts, I'm making a short one reiterating my most salient point:

    The glaive wielder with a spiked gauntlet is not dropping it, putting it away, or drawing it, when he punches as an AoO. He is merely moving his hand from a position roughly in front of his chest to a position roughly in the orc's face and then back to a position roughly in front of his chest - exactly the same thing a boxer or martial artist or a D&D monk does every time he throws a punch: chest to face to chest again. The fact that his hand begins and ends with his fingers wrapped around a stick that is in front of his chest and not moving or difficult to grasp is the barest of tiny tiny motions (opening and closing his fingers) compared to the full motion of moving his fist all the way out there (5' away) and then back.

    Given that, I don't see why it's so hard for some of you to allow this simple motion. We're really only talking about opening and closing fingers - if that's not a free action then nothing else is either.

    Dark Archive

    DM_Blake wrote:

    Since I have found that people often don't read my long posts, I'm making a short one reiterating my most salient point:

    I read your long posts! :)

    EDIT:
    PS In fact I still have a response to one of your posts on my HDD somewhere regarding Demons and summoning. ;)


    Lord oKOyA wrote:
    Dennis da Ogre wrote:


    Being able to kick/ headbutt/ knee an adjacent opponent is one of the big advantages to improved unarmed strike IMO.
    ...let me see if I get this straight. If my fighter with the glaive wants to be able to attack into, AND threaten AoO, all the squares for 10' around him, all he really needs is the IAS feat?

    Actually I was wrong, the exception is for monks only:

    Unarmed Strike: At 1st level, a monk gains Improved Unarmed Strike as a bonus feat. A monk's attacks may be with fist, elbows, knees, and feet. This means that a monk may make unarmed strikes with his hands full.

    Funny, how they make an exception for making attacks with your hands full... kind of like you normally wouldn't be able to make attacks if your hands were full. Hmm


    Lord oKOyA wrote:

    Where does it say in the rules that you are locked into some grip configuration based on your last attack mode? Following that logic a wizard that casts a spell on his turn does not threaten any squares with quarterstaff that he was holding in his off hand. Is that truly how you play that scenario?

    Does a fighter with a whip in one hand and a sword in the other not threaten everything within 10' of him? If on his last turn he made an attack with his whip does that mean he can't use his sword for an AoO?

    As for you second point/side note, that is something I championed in the beta but apparently to no avail.

    If you are weilding a two-handed weapon, and you cast a spell with a somatic component, you have to take one hand off the weapon to do so. That means you no longer have that weapon readied, and so cannot take AoO with it. A two-handed weapon requires two hands. If, on the next round, you cast a spell with no somatic components, you can put your hand back on your weapon.

    As to the whip and sword, that's an invalid question. Whips can't AoO. But, the situatiion if it could would be two readied weapons. You can always make an AoO with a readied weapon (which goes back to the point of a spell caster, if he takes a hand off a two-handed weapon, he's no longer using a readied weapon).

    EDIT: Fixed above where bolded. :( Late at night typing sucks.


    Sorry if this has already been stated, but why not rule that unarmed attacks have a reach of 0' and require you to be in the same hex as the opponent, like grappling? In reality, even a kick doesn't have as much reach as a longsword; if you're skeptical, try sparring someone who's wielding a yardstick and see how difficult it is to get past it into striking range. Even martial arts that fight hand-to-hand versus weaponry, such as Aikido, do so by moving in to the opponent's space to deny them the reach advantage of the weapon.

    Improved Unarmed Combat could get rid of the AoO provoked by moving into the opponent's square, just like Improved Grapple. This would also give unarmed combatants a somewhat realistic edge against weapon wielders, who would have to take a step back before attacking to avoid -4 penalties to hit, just as if they were in a grapple. By this logic, small weapons like daggers would also require the attacker to be in the opponent's square, so a rule would have to be devised differentiating between such weapons and unarmed attacks (such as allowing unarmed attacks during a grapple without penalty, and incurring a -4 penalty to daggers and other such weapons in a grapple as usual).


    mdt wrote:
    Lord oKOyA wrote:

    Where does it say in the rules that you are locked into some grip configuration based on your last attack mode? Following that logic a wizard that casts a spell on his turn does not threaten any squares with quarterstaff that he was holding in his off hand. Is that truly how you play that scenario?

    Does a fighter with a whip in one hand and a sword in the other not threaten everything within 10' of him? If on his last turn he made an attack with his whip does that mean he can't use his sword for an AoO?

    As for you second point/side note, that is something I championed in the beta but apparently to no avail.

    If you are weilding a two-handed weapon, and you cast a spell with a somatic component, you have to take one hand off the weapon to do so. That means you no longer have that weapon readied, and so cannot take AoO with it. A two-handed weapon requires two hands. If, on the next round, you cast a spell with no somatic components, you can put your hand back on your weapon.

    As I said earlier, there is no reason why the spellcaster after he cast his spell cannot put both of his hands on the weapon and threaten the area around himself again!?

    After all if he cast his spell on the spot he stood he can still use his move action. If having bab +1 means you can pull your weapon out as part of a movement, I think it is much much easier just to grip the weapon with two hands again.

    Sovereign Court

    -Archangel- wrote:
    mdt wrote:
    Lord oKOyA wrote:

    Where does it say in the rules that you are locked into some grip configuration based on your last attack mode? Following that logic a wizard that casts a spell on his turn does not threaten any squares with quarterstaff that he was holding in his off hand. Is that truly how you play that scenario?

    Does a fighter with a whip in one hand and a sword in the other not threaten everything within 10' of him? If on his last turn he made an attack with his whip does that mean he can't use his sword for an AoO?

    As for you second point/side note, that is something I championed in the beta but apparently to no avail.

    If you are weilding a two-handed weapon, and you cast a spell with a somatic component, you have to take one hand off the weapon to do so. That means you no longer have that weapon readied, and so cannot take AoO with it. A two-handed weapon requires two hands. If, on the next round, you cast a spell with no somatic components, you can put your hand back on your weapon.

    As I said earlier, there is no reason why the spellcaster after he cast his spell cannot put both of his hands on the weapon and threaten the area around himself again!?

    After all if he cast his spell on the spot he stood he can still use his move action. If having bab +1 means you can pull your weapon out as part of a movement, I think it is much much easier just to grip the weapon with two hands again.

    that's actually right, a spellcaster casting a standard action spell can rearm himself as part of his movement once he hits 2nd level, but a fighter taking a full attack action can't attack with glaive and gauntlet.

    However, if he wanted to threaten near and far I'd allow it for the two weapon penalties.

    Otherwise he has to pick whether he is threatening near or far, now he could make a single attack with either weapon and then say pick the other weapon for his threat range (after all, he only used a standard action to attack meaning as part of his move action he can ready either weapon.).

    And in the same way, a spellcaster can't cast a spell with a 1-round action and still take AoOs with a weapon, a fighter can't take a full round action to attack with a glaive and then threaten with a glove, however as a houserule, I'll allow you to threaten both areas for taking the TWF penalties. otherwise, they don't mix.

    The obvious exception is the monk who can attack with a glaive and still threaten his 5' area since he's allowed to unarmed strike with any part of his body. but you'll notice that a monk can't flurry with a glaive, so it comes with it's own setbacks.

    The biggest worry is that that encourages a 1 level dip into monk (3 feats and 3 better saves for the cost of one point of BAB man did they stack the first level of monk) but if the fighter wants to set back his armor and weapon training by 1 level and lose one point of BAB to do so I don't think I have a problem with it.


    Personally I would allow each player as a free action at the end of their turn to choose which weapon they want to use to threaten. If they do not say anything the default will be their main (or the one they attacked last with).

    Same, spellcaster can at the end of their turn just grab the weapon again in two hands. For clerics with a light shield and a weapon in the other hand I allow the weapon to be switched to the shield hand, cast the spell and switch the weapon back in the original hand. Both switching moves are free actions.

    Sovereign Court

    Lord oKOyA wrote:

    Ok. Here is the crux of it for me.

    They nerfed the spiked chain. Ok. Fine.

    Then they added the Lunge feat that allows all melee weapons (including reach weapons) to attack at increased range (albeit with a -2 to AC).

    For the cost of this one feat your sword/ax/flail/etc can now do more than the old glaive could ever do.

    My question then is, where is the corresponding feat that allows reach weapons to attack adjacent foes? I'm not talking about "Short Haft" or whatever it is. I'm talking about a Pathfinder feat that allows a reach weapon to strike adjacent foes for a -2 penalty to AC (or something equally reasonable). And yes I am aware that lunge does not increase your threatened area, nor would the "reverse lunge" feat allow you to threaten adjacent squares.

    Why punish the reach weapons?

    I also want to apologize to the OP (lastknightleft) and all the other posters that my "minor thread jack" has spiraled this badly out of control. I should have seen this coming. So sorry.

    Cheers

    No prob, I've never minded thread jacks, and for the record, I had already decided to take back my houserule on spiked gauntlets by the time the threadjack started, so feel good in knowing that the thread served its original purpose, and now we can talk about glaive/glove threats and TWF.

    by the way DM blake, if it's a free action to hold a weapon with one hand and a free action to draw a weapon, what's stopping a player from taking a full attack with a greatsword and drawing a handaxe for a full attack if he has quickdraw? same difference, i'm siding with the people who say that it takes a move action to one hand a weapon, to free up the other hand if you're wielding a two handed weapon, by the by, I treat staffs as clubs, not quarterstaffs, so unless the player specifies they are using a quarterstaff they can use a staff one handed.


    -Archangel- wrote:

    As I said earlier, there is no reason why the spellcaster after he cast his spell cannot put both of his hands on the weapon and threaten the area around himself again!?

    After all if he cast his spell on the spot he stood he can still use his move action. If having bab +1 means you can pull your weapon out as part of a movement, I think it is much much easier just to grip the weapon with two hands again.

    There is nothing I know of in RAW that says you can re-ready a secondary weapon after making an attack with a different weapon. Let me give you an example, let us say that someone is using a Great Sword, but they drop the tip of the sword and hold the pomel with one hand so they can quick draw and throw a dagger.

    By your logic, they could, after performing all this, then reach down, relift the weapon back to guard position, and be ready to AoO with the great sword.

    The problem I have with this is that a round of combat is an abstracted 6 second interval where everyone is acting simultaneously. Despite how we have to do things because it's a game, everyone is running around at the same time. Everyone does not freeze in place until the guy finishes throwing his dagger and re-readying his weapon. Just like everyone doesn't stand in place waiting for the caster to re-ready his two-handed weapon. They are running around, that's the entire concept of AoO, an attack that is an Opportunity caused by the guy doing something while you were doing something else.

    Once you have declared an action and started it, that action is in effect until your next action. So, if you take your hand off a two-handed weapon to perform a move/attack action, that hand is unavailable for re-readying until your next action next turn. Any ability you look at that affects you says it lasts until your next action. For example, Power Attack, by the logic you stated, I should be able to recover from the negative effects of Power Attack by using a free action to 'stabalize' my footing after the attack and get rid of the AC penalties. But that's not how it works. A combat turn is abstracted and everyone is running around casting and attacking and blocking and tripping at the same time, so the penalty lasts until next turn on your initiative. The same should be true of your casting time.

    Now, if someone had Quickened a spell, I would absolutely let them put their hand back on their two-handed weapon, because they have a feat that says they cast the spell in less than an attack action, so they don't take the entire turn to do it.


    Think of it this way, if you are wearing armor and some guy attacks you with his fist or a gauntlet he's essentially ramming his fist into a piece of metal, you as the defender carrying a sword rather than taking a defensive stance or an attempt to parry the attack choose to hit the guy with your weapon, considering that while doing so it effectively extends your reach over theirs. Secondly in order to get the right amount of force behind your attack to injure an armored opponent without opening yourself up for attack as well would require training to do so (improved unarmed attack).

    While the spiked gauntlet is built to pierce through armor, and causes a reasonable threat to the person you are attacking.

    Dark Archive

    Dennis da Ogre wrote:


    Actually I was wrong, the exception is for monks only:

    Unarmed Strike: At 1st level, a monk gains Improved Unarmed Strike as a bonus feat. A monk's attacks may be with fist, elbows, knees, and feet. This means that a monk may make unarmed strikes with his hands full.

    Funny, how they make an exception for making attacks with your hands full... kind of like you normally wouldn't be able to make attacks if your hands were full. Hmm

    Actually I think you were right in the first place.

    (I too had assumed it were a monk class feature.)

    Anyone can make unarmed attacks.

    Unarmed attacks are defined as: "Striking for damage with punches,
    kicks, and head butts
    is much like attacking with a melee
    weapon, except for the following:" (pg 182)

    It then goes on to say that the IUS feat "arms" these attacks.

    Cheers

    So anyone with IUS can use kicks to deliver lethal attacks to adjacent foes and threaten those same squares (AoO). All the while wielding a two-handed weapon it would seem.


    mdt wrote:
    -Archangel- wrote:

    As I said earlier, there is no reason why the spellcaster after he cast his spell cannot put both of his hands on the weapon and threaten the area around himself again!?

    After all if he cast his spell on the spot he stood he can still use his move action. If having bab +1 means you can pull your weapon out as part of a movement, I think it is much much easier just to grip the weapon with two hands again.

    There is nothing I know of in RAW that says you can re-ready a secondary weapon after making an attack with a different weapon. Let me give you an example, let us say that someone is using a Great Sword, but they drop the tip of the sword and hold the pomel with one hand so they can quick draw and throw a dagger.

    By your logic, they could, after performing all this, then reach down, relift the weapon back to guard position, and be ready to AoO with the great sword.

    The problem I have with this is that a round of combat is an abstracted 6 second interval where everyone is acting simultaneously. Despite how we have to do things because it's a game, everyone is running around at the same time. Everyone does not freeze in place until the guy finishes throwing his dagger and re-readying his weapon. Just like everyone doesn't stand in place waiting for the caster to re-ready his two-handed weapon. They are running around, that's the entire concept of AoO, an attack that is an Opportunity caused by the guy doing something while you were doing something else.

    Once you have declared an action and started it, that action is in effect until your next action. So, if you take your hand off a two-handed weapon to perform a move/attack action, that hand is unavailable for re-readying until your next action next turn. Any ability you look at that affects you says it lasts until your next action. For example, Power Attack, by the logic you stated, I should be able to recover from the negative effects of Power Attack by using a free action to 'stabalize' my footing...

    This looks like you look at D&D combat as something it is not. Although in real life combat is simultaneous in D&D it is not. The system is not really trying to simulate this. If it did, it would be more similar to 2e where spells were fired off later in the round depending on its initiative modifier. Anyone hitting your in the meantime would disrupt this spells. Also anyone moving out of position where you are casting your fireball get saved from dying horribly.

    Here you end your casting during YOUR turn and your enemies take damage during YOUR turn. There is nothing simultaneous here. AoO were invented as a game mechanic to balance spellcasters and archers, not to simulate real battle.

    Also by your text you would then disallow a spellcaster to cast a spell as a standard action and then (if bab is 1+) move 30 ft while pulling out a weapon?
    I am sorry, but all you described is not RAW and not even RAI. It is your house rule. And you are perfectly allowed to have it.

    As for Power attack, well it is not described well but I always considered it as a stance (same as Combat Expertise). A stance that you do until your next turn where you can continue it or stop it.


    mdt wrote:
    If you are weilding a two-handed weapon, and you cast a spell with a somatic component, you have to take one hand off the weapon to do so. That means you no longer have that weapon readied, and so cannot take AoO with it.

    Are you quoting a rule here? Will you please cite the page number for reference?

    mdt wrote:
    A two-handed weapon requires two hands.

    Obviously. But it only takes a tiny muscle action, that of closing your fingers, to regrip it after casting the spell.

    Look.

    After the spellcaster finishes his spell, he is going to do something with his hand. He's not just going to stand there frozen in place, posed like his miniature, with his arm out to the side making a grand flourish because that's where his hand ended up after the end of his somatic component - so now he's stuck that way until his next turn.

    No, instead, after his somatic gesturing is done, he's going to return his hand close to his body. By his side. Or better yet, raised near his chest or face in a somewhat defensive position. You know, like where every boxer, kickboxer, UFC fighter, wrestler, brawler, or anyone else who fights would keep his hands when he is anticipitating being attacked by his enemy.

    Doing this is natural, normal, and part of the melee round. Leaving his arm stuck out to the side, unable to bring his arm and hand back to a natural and defensive position is silly and nowhere is it covered by the RAW.

    So, since he can bring his hand back near his body, that means he can bring it back near his 2H weapon - it's exactly the same motion.

    And since his hand is near this 2H weapon, the difference between being near it and holding it is a matter of closing his fingers. Not even closing them all the way, actually - partially closing them (just so they wrap around the weapon) is all it takes.

    That's a fraction of an instant of real time.

    Why should it take exactly the same amount of time that the spellcaster could otherwise walk 30 feet?

    Try it. Go outside, measure 30', then walk that 30'. While you're walking it, count how many times you can open and close your hand. The answer is, you can open/close your hand several times. Many times.

    And yet you're proposing that just closing his hand takes a spellcaster the same amount of time as it takes him to walk 30'?

    mdt wrote:
    If, on the next round, you cast a spell with no somatic components, you can put your hand back on your weapon.

    So, he did stand there for a whole melee round with his hand stuck out to the side like he is hailing a taxi?

    Interesting.


    Kevin Murphy 340 wrote:

    Think of it this way, if you are wearing armor and some guy attacks you with his fist or a gauntlet he's essentially ramming his fist into a piece of metal, you as the defender carrying a sword rather than taking a defensive stance or an attempt to parry the attack choose to hit the guy with your weapon, considering that while doing so it effectively extends your reach over theirs. Secondly in order to get the right amount of force behind your attack to injure an armored opponent without opening yourself up for attack as well would require training to do so (improved unarmed attack).

    While the spiked gauntlet is built to pierce through armor, and causes a reasonable threat to the person you are attacking.

    I'd say only the second point works; you still get the attack of opportunity if you're not wearing any armour. Personally, I'd house rule that unless you take improved unarmed, you're counted as being unarmed for all but the lethal damage bit, because it's still a punch and a punch still leaves you wide open unless you've been taught how to punch properly. The average thug on the street would leave himself wide open; a martial artist (of any style, including such things as boxing and the like) would be trained not to. Adding spikes to your glove shouldn't change this.


    PF RAW wrote:


    Cast a Spell

    A spell that takes one round to cast is a full-round action. It comes into effect just before the beginning of your turn in the round after you began casting the spell. You then act normally after the spell is completed.

    A spell that takes 1 minute to cast comes into effect just before your turn 1 minute later (and for each of those 10 rounds, you are casting a spell as a full-round action). These actions must be consecutive and uninterrupted, or the spell automatically fails.

    When you begin a spell that takes 1 round or longer to cast, you must continue the invocations, gestures, and concentration from 1 round to just before your turn in the next round (at least). If you lose concentration after starting the spell and before it is complete, you lose the spell.

    You only provoke attacks of opportunity when you begin casting a spell, even though you might continue casting for at least 1 full round. While casting a spell, you don't threaten any squares around you.

    This action is otherwise identical to the cast a spell action described under Standard Actions.

    And again, PF says wrote:


    Two-Handed: Two hands are required to use a two-handed melee weapon effectively. Apply 1-1/2 times the character's Strength bonus to damage rolls for melee attacks with such a weapon.

    Now,

    The RAW (as I said, despite someone above telling me it's not RAW or RAI) says you make your gestures for the casting of the spell. I said earlier that if your spell was quickened or didn't take an entire round to cast, then you were fine putting your hand back on. But RAW says you are NOT going to have your hand on that two-handed weapon if the spell takes a round to cast (or longer) and if you do not have both hands on that two-handed weapon, YOU ARE NOT MAKING AoO WITH IT.

    Now, having said that, do whatever you want. It's your game, if you want to houserule it, that's fine, but it's not RAW, it's a house rule.

    Sovereign Court

    -Archangel- wrote:

    This looks like you look at D&D combat as something it is not. Although in real life combat is simultaneous in D&D it is not. The system is not really trying to simulate this. If it did, it would be more similar to 2e where spells were fired off later in the round depending on its initiative modifier. Anyone hitting your in the meantime would disrupt this spells. Also anyone moving out of position where you are casting your fireball get saved from dying horribly.

    Here you end your casting during YOUR turn and your enemies take damage during YOUR turn. There is nothing simultaneous here. AoO were invented as a game mechanic to balance spellcasters and archers, not to simulate real battle.

    Actually you're wrong, a combat round is six seconds, each persons action represents what they do in those six seconds. so yes they represent peoples actions happening simultaneously.


    DM_Blake wrote:
    mdt wrote:
    If you are weilding a two-handed weapon, and you cast a spell with a somatic component, you have to take one hand off the weapon to do so. That means you no longer have that weapon readied, and so cannot take AoO with it.

    Are you quoting a rule here? Will you please cite the page number for reference?

    See above post.

    DM_Blake wrote:


    mdt wrote:
    A two-handed weapon requires two hands.

    Obviously. But it only takes a tiny muscle action, that of closing your fingers, to regrip it after casting the spell.

    Look.

    After the spellcaster finishes his spell, he is going to do something with his hand. He's not just going to stand there frozen in place, posed like his miniature, with his arm out to the side making a grand flourish because that's where his hand ended up after the end of his somatic component - so now he's stuck that way until his next turn.

    No, instead, after his somatic gesturing is done, he's going to return his hand close to his body. By his side. Or better yet, raised near his chest or face in a somewhat defensive position. You know, like where every boxer, kickboxer, UFC fighter, wrestler, brawler, or anyone else who fights would keep his hands when he is anticipitating being attacked by his enemy.

    Doing this is natural, normal, and part of the melee round. Leaving his arm stuck out to the side, unable to bring his arm and hand back to a natural and defensive position is silly and nowhere is it covered by the RAW.

    So, since he can bring his hand back near his body, that means he can bring it back near his 2H weapon - it's exactly the same motion.

    And since his hand is near this 2H weapon, the difference between being near it and holding it is a matter of closing his fingers. Not even closing them all the way, actually - partially closing them (just so they wrap around the weapon) is all it takes.

    That's a fraction of an instant of real time.

    Why should it take exactly the same amount of time that the spellcaster could otherwise walk 30 feet?

    Try it. Go outside,...

    I don't have to go outside. I agree, if he has a move action left after casting the spell, he's re-readying his weapon. No problem with that. I said earlier he could if he had a quickened spell or otherwise could cast it in shorter than a round. If it lasts one round or longer, then no, he can't reready his weapon, he's busy casting the bloody spell and needs his hand.

    DM_BLAKE wrote:


    mdt wrote:

    If, on the next round, you cast a spell with no somatic components, you can put your hand back on your weapon.

    So, he did stand there for a whole melee round with his hand stuck out to the side like he is hailing a taxi?

    Interesting.

    If the spell is a round or more to cast, then yes, he did stand there with his hand waving around like he's hula dancing, he also mumbled and chanted. I don't understand what is so hard to understand about the concept that if you are doing something that takes the entire round or more with your hand, it is NOT ON YOUR WEAPON.


    lastknightleft wrote:
    -Archangel- wrote:

    This looks like you look at D&D combat as something it is not. Although in real life combat is simultaneous in D&D it is not. The system is not really trying to simulate this. If it did, it would be more similar to 2e where spells were fired off later in the round depending on its initiative modifier. Anyone hitting your in the meantime would disrupt this spells. Also anyone moving out of position where you are casting your fireball get saved from dying horribly.

    Here you end your casting during YOUR turn and your enemies take damage during YOUR turn. There is nothing simultaneous here. AoO were invented as a game mechanic to balance spellcasters and archers, not to simulate real battle.
    Actually you're wrong, a combat round is six seconds, each persons action represents what they do in those six seconds. so yes they represent peoples actions happening simultaneously.

    Thank you. It drives me batty when people try to say combat is like a game of Red Rover, where everyone waits for their name to be called out before they act. The whole initiative thing is an easy way to handle a complex reality, but the reality in the game is that those six seconds are all happening simultaneously.

    Dark Archive

    mdt wrote:


    If you are wielding a two-handed weapon, and you cast a spell with a somatic component, you have to take one hand off the weapon to do so. That means you no longer have that weapon readied, and so cannot take AoO with it. A two-handed weapon requires two hands. If, on the next round, you cast a spell with no somatic components, you can put your hand back on your weapon.

    This is where we disagree. Drawing a weapon does not equal having a weapon ready or having a weapon ready does not equal drawing a weapon. In fact, I cannot find an instance in the RAW where they refer to an action called "readying a weapon". Table 8-2 only lists "draw a weapon". Or an instance, for that matter, of the action required to add or remove one hand from a two-handed weapon.

    If putting your hand back on a weapon requires a move equivalent action, shouldn't taking your hand off as well? You should have to make your hand "ready" to cast the spell, no?

    Here is yet another scenario. A fighter with a bow in one hand and a sword in his other enters combat. On his turn he wishes to sheathe his sword (move action) and then fire his bow. He wouldn't be able to, not even a standard attack, according to your thinking because he needs to use another move action to "ready" his bow (it is a two handed weapon after all). So far so good?

    But he could drop his sword (free action), "ready" his bow (move action as you state) and make his attack (standard action)?

    Ok. Let's remove the sword and replace it with a spiked gauntlet. Same scenario. On his turn he wishes to fire his bow. Before entering combat did he need to declare what weapon he had ready? His bow, or his otherwise empty hand? Let's start with his empty hand is "ready". On his turn he could "drop" his gauntlet (free action), "ready" his bow (move) and make his attack (standard)? You see here, his gauntlet is still, "in his hand" so to speak. On his next turn he needs to "unready his bow" (?free? action) (as he neither needs to drop or stow his bow), "ready" his hand (move) and make a punch attack (standard)?

    I'm just curious what constitutes a weapon being "ready"? For instance, if a bow requires two-hands occupied to be "ready" then that must mean that one hand is on the bow itself and the other has an arrow in hand (maybe even knocked), yes? So if this archer does not want to use his bow, does he need to drop his arrow or bow(free action)or stow his arrow or bow (move action) and spend a(nother) move action to ready his unarmed strike?

    If he wants to switch from his readied bow to a different two-handed weapon, does he need to drop/stow each of his "hand slots" using the required actions for both, then use another action to draw his new weapon? Since it is a two-handed weapon, must he use two actions to draw this weapon? One for each a hand? Or does drawing two-handed weapons have a special exemption to the above rules regarding making a two-handed weapon ready?

    I can see doors being a major action sink following these rules. Our poor 1st level wizard wants to flee combat. Move to door (move action), remove hand from staff (free/move? action, he should he careful though, he might lose control of his weapon holding it with only one hand), ready hand for use (move action), open door (move action), move through door (move action), another (move action) to re-grip his staff unless he wants to be without a way of making an AoO.

    How about if you skip all the above and someone just explains this to me...

    How is that preparing spell components to cast a spell are considered a free action, but some of you think placing one hand back on a two-handed weapon requires a move action? I mean, you have to retrieve them from somewhere, pick the correct items and "ready" them for casting. You can do this for free but placing your hand back on a weapon after casting costs a move action?! Really?!

    You see the way I see it... wizard has his staff "ready" as you call it. On his turn he moves into position (move action), removes his hand from the staff (free action), prepares his spell components (free action), casts his spell (standard action) and replaces his hand upon the staff (free action). He could even shout a brief instruction to his comrades (free action) if he wanted. Or even drop prone at he end (free action).

    That is even granting you that having a weapon ready is a valid condition and that removing or adding hands require actions at all.

    I'm going to stop here...

    Cheers

    mdt wrote:

    As to the whip and sword, that's an invalid question. Whips can't AoO. But, the situatiion if it could would be two readied weapons. You can always make an AoO with a readied weapon (which goes back to the point of a spell caster, if he takes a hand off a two-handed weapon, he's no longer using a readied weapon).

    EDIT: Fixed above where bolded. :( Late at night typing sucks.

    Yeah, I already acknowledge the whip not getting AoO. But yes the point wasn't really about the AoO from the whip, I was getting at that just because you use a weapon to attack that doesn't mean you can't use it for an AoO as some were seeming to claim.

    Dark Archive

    lastknightleft wrote:


    by the way DM blake, if it's a free action to hold a weapon with one hand and a free action to draw a weapon, what's stopping a player from taking a full attack with a greatsword and drawing a handaxe for a full attack if he has quickdraw? same difference, i'm siding with the people who say that it takes a move action to one hand a weapon, to free up the other hand if you're wielding a two handed weapon, by the by, I treat staffs as clubs, not quarterstaffs, so unless the player specifies they are using a quarterstaff they can use a staff one handed.

    I know this wasn't directed at me...but...

    Drawing a weapon isn't a free action. You can combine it with a move action if you have BAB +1 or greater. There is the difference.

    With QD it becomes a free action, yes.

    As to your scenario, after the player makes his full attack with the great sword, with the QD feat he could draw indeed draw his handax (free action). Depending on your view, he would either need to drop the sword (free action) first or he could draw the ax AND still be holding the sword. I'm not sure to what benefit, he can't make any other attacks with this ax this turn. He would be able to threaten AoO with his ax, while waiting for his next turn.

    Dark Archive

    I was looking around in the rules.

    There are no rules for wielding two handed weapons "un-readied" in one hand that I have found (please feel free to correct me if I am wrong with a page number quote or link)

    So this whole switching around weapons is kind of a house rule in and of itself isn't it?

    I don't think it is unreasonable for a DM to say that unless the rules say otherwise that all weapons and the actions to draw them/drop them play the same way.

    There is no way to deal with the issue without making a houseruling. As the rules for switching 2 handed weapons to a non-ready position don't seem to exist.

    I would make the player expend some type of resources to swap around (in the form of move actions more than likely, but if the wanted to do it as free actions, we are talking feat territory. There are no weapons that give quick draw as a free ability). I would not let a play threaten with two weapons unless they have enough hands to do so.

    But ultimately I guess everyone plays differently. But I do not feel the glaive/spiked gauntlet is a RAW issue. Unless I have just missed the drop with one hand or the ready 2 haded weapon held in one hand actions from the list of actions available in combat.

    Here are the actions I see:

    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.

    (bolded parts mine)

    There are also reference to other move actions. Including readying a shield, picking up an item,and moving an item (all of which are move actions)

    There are 5 listed free actions: Going prone, dropping an item (to the floor), ceasing concentration on a spell, speaking, and preparing spell compnents for a spell.

    There are no free actions listed for unreadying a glaive or readying one. Is does give a Page 42ish houserule clause saying the GM can invent new houserules.

    But no where under the descriptions UIS, the glaive, or the spikes gauntlet does it say that these items confer special benefits or allow characters to take special actions or behave differently in combat as those with other weapons. If you are allowing them to in your game regardless of common sense then you are making house rules.

    House rules about it being free actions are no more right than other houserules requiring feats, or other things to make this maneuver work.

    Unless I have completely missed some RAW statement about readying and un reading glaives.

    love,

    malkav

    Dark Archive

    OK.

    According to RAW a player with two throwing axes in hand, a glaive strapped to his back TWF, IUS, QD and a BAB of +16/+11/+6/+1 can in a round:

    Make a melee attack with one of his axes.

    Then throw both his axes to hit ranged targets.

    Us QD to draw his glaive (free action) and attack two opponents at 10'.

    Use his last (extra attack granted by TWF) attack to make an IUS against an adjacent opponent (kick attack).

    He also threatens every square within 10' of him due to the glaive and his IUS feat.

    Add in mobility, spring attack, lunge etc. and watch out!

    Any problems with the above?

    Sovereign Court

    Lord oKOyA wrote:
    lastknightleft wrote:


    by the way DM blake, if it's a free action to hold a weapon with one hand and a free action to draw a weapon, what's stopping a player from taking a full attack with a greatsword and drawing a handaxe for a full attack if he has quickdraw? same difference, i'm siding with the people who say that it takes a move action to one hand a weapon, to free up the other hand if you're wielding a two handed weapon, by the by, I treat staffs as clubs, not quarterstaffs, so unless the player specifies they are using a quarterstaff they can use a staff one handed.

    I know this wasn't directed at me...but...

    Drawing a weapon isn't a free action. You can combine it with a move action if you have BAB +1 or greater. There is the difference.

    With QD it becomes a free action, yes.

    As to your scenario, after the player makes his full attack with the great sword, with the QD feat he could draw indeed draw his handax (free action). Depending on your view, he would either need to drop the sword (free action) first or he could draw the ax AND still be holding the sword. I'm not sure to what benefit, he can't make any other attacks with this ax this turn. He would be able to threaten AoO with his ax, while waiting for his next turn.

    sorry let me add, and two weapon fight with the handaxe in his off hand. all it takes is quick draw. granted he'll be at -4 unless he has the TWF feats, but what if he has just TWF, should this be allowed? it seems by the rules you're okay with it, where does the line get drawn? can we let players go ahead and twf with a two-handed weapon if they take the quickdraw feat? why would a player ever TWF with a one handed weapon in his main hand, when for one extra feat he can do greatsword shortsword?

    EDIT: heck why not extrapolate from there, since he can drop the weapon as a free action, then why not instead of a shortsword go with a bandolier of throwing axes. Each round he makes his attacks with his greatsword, lets go with one hand, draws a throwing axe makes his off hand attacks, then drops the throwing axe and puts his hand back on the great sword for AoOs. That's only four free actions, not unreasonable at all. yeah maybe after ten rounds he'll be in trouble as he runs out of throwing axes, but then he can just focus on two handed fighting with the greatsword. heck why not go human rogue and you can be doing this at second level with daggers and be combining it with sneak attack

    1 to 50 of 222 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>
    Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / I don't get it All Messageboards

    Want to post a reply? Sign in.