| 2 people marked this as FAQ candidate. |
Dear fellows,
could a paladin using a greatsword use the "lay-your-hands" ability on himself without any kind of penality during a full-attack action?
"Touching" himself is a swift action, so it doesn't interrupt the full-attack routine, but is this true also if the paladin is using a big two-handed weapon as a greatsword?
Someone could suggest that the paladin will simply lower the greatsword point to the ground holding it with one hand and raise it again to attack in the full-attack routine after healing himself, but from an other point of view, the action to lower the greatsword point to the ground could be seen as a free drop-item action (the greatsword is long and heavy), so raising it again would became a picking-up item move action, preventing the paladin to take the full-attack round and provoking attack of opportunity.
What do you think about it?
I was under the impression that gripping/letting go with your second hand was a free action. And I see no mechanical reason to treat is otherwise. if i'm a trained swordsman (and i'm assuming a paladin using a greatsword would be), then mid-combat I think it's fully believable to release one hand, Lay a hand on his own chest, then take back up his whirlwind of god-bestowed vengeance.
I mean, it only takes one hand to hold a two-handed weapon... it only takes two to wield it properly in combat.
But I don't have a page number or anything to cite, so I'd be interested to hear what others have to say.
Greetings, fellow travellers.
gripping/letting go with your second hand was a free action.
There is a post floating around here, where James Jacobs talks about shifting a longsword from one hand to the other and back again and deems both actions free actions. So I would say yes, taking off one hand from a 2h weapon and gripping it again is a free action.
Ruyan.
|
Dear fellows,
could a paladin using a greatsword use the "lay-your-hands" ability on himself without any kind of penality during a full-attack action?
You'll get lots of different responses on this. It isn't clear cut.
"Touching" himself is a swift action, so it doesn't interrupt the full-attack routine, but is this true also if the paladin is using a big two-handed weapon as a greatsword?
Whether a swift action can interrupt a full-attack routine is a point of debate. It is not axiomatic. The 3.5 FAQ states that the general rule is that a character cannot interrupt his own action with another action. There are those who see PF as a blank slate, and others who see it as a continuation of 3.5. For those who see PF as a continuation of 3.5 and who give credance to the the 3.5 FAQ, the general rule is that youc annot interrupt the full round attack to take the swift action.
Someone could suggest that the paladin will simply lower the greatsword point to the ground holding it with one hand and raise it again to attack in the full-attack routine after healing himself, but from an other point of view, the action to lower the greatsword point to the ground could be seen as a free drop-item action (the greatsword is long and heavy), so raising it again would became a picking-up item move action, preventing the paladin to take the full-attack round and provoking attack of opportunity.
Dropping a hand off of a two handed weapon such that you are merely holding it is generally seen as a free aciton.
I see nothing here that has to do with picking up an item.
Reacquiring a useful grip to wield the weapon is not universally seen as a free action. Again looking at the 3.5 FAQ on a related matter, "The rules don’t state what type of action is required to switch hands on a weapon, but it seems reasonable to assume that it’s the equivalent of drawing a weapon (a move action that doesn’t
provoke attacks of opportunity)." (p. 11)
I would expect to see lots of variation on this. Table variance for a matter like this commonplace and is up to the GM.
My GM lets me do this with a two-weapon fighting pally.
|
I'm a bit confused about the point of this. Why would the Paladin not heal himself before or after his full attack?
Whether a swift action can interrupt a full-attack routine is a point of debate. It is not axiomatic. The 3.5 FAQ states that the general rule is that a character cannot interrupt his own action with another action. There are those who see PF as a blank slate, and others who see it as a continuation of 3.5. For those who see PF as a continuation of 3.5 and who give credance to the the 3.5 FAQ, the general rule is that youc annot interrupt the full round attack to take the swift action.
Well, you can interrupt your Full Attack with a 5' step. That's fact.
You can take a 5-foot step before, during, or after your other actions in the round
Dropping a hand off of a two handed weapon such that you are merely holding it is generally seen as a free aciton.
I see nothing here that has to do with picking up an item.
Reacquiring a useful grip to wield the weapon is not universally seen as a free action. Again looking at the 3.5 FAQ on a related matter, "The rules don’t state what type of action is required to switch hands on a weapon, but it seems reasonable to assume that it’s the equivalent of drawing a weapon (a move action that doesn’t
provoke attacks of opportunity)." (p. 11)
I don't buy the move action thing. I have a couple of two handed swords. I can hold both in a single hand and I'm likely only slightly above average strength. I wouldn't want to try to use it with only one hand, but I can take a single hand off without needing to ground the point.
Right, given that PRPG gives specific exemptions for actions which can be taken at any time (within another action), such as speaking and taking 5´ step, it seems the default is actions can only be done in a sequential, discrete manner.
In most cases, you should potentially be able to do a Swift Lay on Hands before or after a Full Round Action, though, so that isn´t so much of a problem.
I´m not aware of James Jacobs´ post on the topic, though he apparently feels switching from 1Handed grip to 2Handed should be a Free Action (that´s usable on the same round you used a Free Action to drop the 2Handed grip). It´s clear enough that dropping 1Hand (such as after the Full Attack) is a Free Action. Drawing a weapon from it´s sheath is a Move Action, which would be the MAXIMAL action that putting another hand back on the weapon could be classed as, but just switching grip back to 2Handed is clearly less of an action IMHO.
If one wanted a compromise between those extremes, I think saying that switching from 1-Handed to 2-Handed is a Free Action IF you haven´t already used a Free Action to switch from 2Handed to 1Handed that round... Which would leave you wielding the weapon 1Handed until your next turn (so you wouldn´t gain 2Handed dmg bonus on AoO´s, and couldn´t even use it for AoO´s if it requires 2Hands). I guess in that case, it would still be allowable on the 2nd round to switch back to 2-Handed, do your Full Attack, and then use another Free Action to switch back to 1-handed to do the Lay on Hands stuff (and again be holding the weapon 1-handed until your next turn starts). But that´s clearly a very specific usage not suggested by the RAW, so is definitely house-rule territory.
And obviously, Quickdraw allows drawing an entire new weapon from it´s sheath as a Free Actionk so if you have that, you should be able to switch from 2Handed to 1Handed to 2Handed in the same round with no problem whatsoever.
Mother of god.
You're letting go of the blade for one bloody second to tap yourself on the chest.
This does not require a rule.
Mother of god.
You're letting go of the blade for one bloody second to tap yourself on the chest.
This does not require a rule.
Agreed. Maybe if there were rules for partial disarmament, and the blade was knocked away, and you had to re-balance it. I have a bastard sword with my paladin, and I free my hand all the time to touch myself in combat, and we never had a problem with it.
Paladins - They like touching themselves ;)
and I free my hand all the time to touch myself in combat, and we never had a problem with it.
Paladins - They like touching themselves ;)
Yah, there's no way for this not to be awkward.
Mother of god.
You're letting go of the blade for one bloody second to tap yourself on the chest.
This does not require a rule.
Agreed.
Couldn't we just sidestep the OP's entire question by having the paladin LoH himself before or after the full attack? Same outcome either way, without having to worry about whether a swift action can interrupt a full one.
Opinion acknowledged. Now, given that this is the rules forum, rather than the opinions forum, do you have any rules to discuss?
So since James Jacobs has said releasing and re-gripping a weapon should be considered a free action (at least according to the earlier poster), then your argument is not so much whether or not he can release/regrip his weapon but that he can't do it in the middle of his full attack?
I guess that's a fair question, but I haven't read anything in Pathfinder that says a full-round action can't be interrupted by any other actions.
I realize you said it's (in some people's opinion) a holdover from 3.5, but - as you said - this isn't in the opinions forums, so where in the rules does it say you can't do that?
|
|
Opinion acknowledged. Now, given that this is the rules forum, rather than the opinions forum, do you have any rules to discuss?So since James Jacobs has said releasing and re-gripping a weapon should be considered a free action (at least according to the earlier poster), then your argument is not so much whether or not he can release/regrip his weapon but that he can't do it in the middle of his full attack?
I guess that's a fair question, but I haven't read anything in Pathfinder that says a full-round action can't be interrupted by any other actions.
I realize you said it's (in some people's opinion) a holdover from 3.5, but - as you said - this isn't in the opinions forums, so where in the rules does it say you can't do that?
I have identified where the answer is to be found for those who understand Pathfinder to be a continuation of 3.5. That isn't opinion.
Whether Pathfinder is a continuation of 3.5 is something for which people have different opinions. That debate is not one that I've addressed here.
Opinion acknowledged. Now, given that this is the rules forum, rather than the opinions forum, do you have any rules to discuss?So since James Jacobs has said releasing and re-gripping a weapon should be considered a free action (at least according to the earlier poster), then your argument is not so much whether or not he can release/regrip his weapon but that he can't do it in the middle of his full attack?
I guess that's a fair question, but I haven't read anything in Pathfinder that says a full-round action can't be interrupted by any other actions.
I realize you said it's (in some people's opinion) a holdover from 3.5, but - as you said - this isn't in the opinions forums, so where in the rules does it say you can't do that?
I have identified where the answer is to be found for those who understand Pathfinder to be a continuation of 3.5. That isn't opinion.
Whether Pathfinder is a continuation of 3.5 is something for which people have different opinions. That debate is not one that I've addressed here.
The rules don't say it is a continuation of 3.5 so for those who think that it is opinion. So your ruling is as much opinion as the rest of these. Point is nothing in pathfinder references interrupting your own action so there is no RAW ruling
This may come off a little snarky, If so I apologize, bolding words has that effect
Given that PRPG gives specific exemptions for actions which can be taken at any time (within another action),
such as speaking and taking 5´ step, it seems the default is actions can only be done in a sequential, discrete manner.
Plus, if actions can generally be taken amidst other actions, why does Spring Attack exist as written?
The only text it would need would be re: AoO negation...Fly-By Attack doesn´t even offer that, and so has absolutely no reason to exist under your scenario.
The rules have a variety of specific exceptions allowing actions to be taken within another, yet I´m not aware of any specifically barring an action from being taken within another one. Sure, the rules SHOULD spell this out, since this sort of not-obvious base assumption is a crucial part of the functioning of the game, but I don´t need to be familiar with 3.x to realize ALL the evidence we have from RAW is pointing ONE direction, that actions must be taken in sequential order, after the previous action has finished (unless specifically allowed, e.g. speaking, 5´ steps, immediate actions, etc).
James Jacobs has changed his mind so often that how he classes switching grips 1H->2H shouldn´t necessarily be taken as RAI gospel or something... Though I don´t see any problem with playing like that, different groups can have different preferences. The rules definitely aren´t clear there.
The other day, I had an encounter with my 2h paladin, and there was a disarm attempt. I could not find anything indicating there is a benefit from wielding a weapon 2handed. Have they dropped it, or am I just blind?
The idea I had was that there is a weakness to be exploited with holding the sword one-handed to heal yourself; Ready action to disarm the sword when he is holding it one-handed. IF there still is any difference between 1 and 2 handed.
No benefit now for 2Handed vs. Disarm, though IMHO that´s a great house-rule (+4 vs. Disarm for example)
As per my previous post, if the Paladin ends up holding a Greatsword (or Polearm) with 1-hand until his next turn comes up, he couldn´t use the weapon for AoO´s (since it requires 2 Hands). If it´s a Bastard Sword or Scimitar or something, he COULD make AoO´s with 1 Hand, but with the lesser STR/Power Attack damage bonus.
Other than those aspects, the main difference AFAIK is that you cant use weapons 2Handed while Grappled.
The other day, I had an encounter with my 2h paladin, and there was a disarm attempt. I could not find anything indicating there is a benefit from wielding a weapon 2handed. Have they dropped it, or am I just blind?
The idea I had was that there is a weakness to be exploited with holding the sword one-handed to heal yourself; Ready action to disarm the sword when he is holding it one-handed. IF there still is any difference between 1 and 2 handed.
Penalties/bonuses gone.
And for the best, because otherwise weapons supposed to be good for disarming (like sai) were almost completely useless barring vs daggers.
The rules don't say it is a continuation of 3.5 so for those who think that it is opinion. So your ruling is as much opinion as the rest of these. Point is nothing in pathfinder references interrupting your own action so there is no RAW rulingMy point is being completely missed. Enjoy.
You wrote an opinion and then called someone else out for writing an opinion, So I'm confused. Maybe you should restate your point?
The creators of this game have on numerous occasions mentioned that there is a Game Master for a reason. If this comes up in play you do NOT stop the game and look for the rule. As ProfessorCirno said, "You're letting go of the blade for one bloody second to tap yourself on the chest." This has absolutely no difference in the outcome of the actions during game play, so there is no reason for a rule stating exactly how it is done. It makes no difference.
Also consider, this is a Role-Playing game, not Chess. The rules simulate a fantasy world and provides rules to arbitrate actions that have uncertain outcomes. When your Paladin is making a full attack it will take several seconds for him to get all 2 to 4 swings in. Why would he only be able to lay hands before the first swing or after the fourth? Especially since they are not the 1st and 4th, but probably the 8th and 11th swing in the combat or something like that? Remember that the Paladin is going to have no concept of rounds, he is going to take a fraction of a second at some point between swings to tap himself on the chest, which swings it is is irrelevant.
Edit:
Since this is the Rules forum here is the specific rule I am referencing from the Gamemastery Guide:
|
I know this is hard for some GM's in the middle of a hard fought battle with the BBEG you spent all week working on BUT...
If the action lets your Player do something cool, fun, cinematic, badass, or otherwise just plain made of win LET THEM DO IT! Bend the rule.
The game is all about having fun with your friends. The GM's job is to make fun, exciting encounters for their friends to demolish. Your job is to lose 99% of the time. All your monsters will die, but that's ok there are plenty more. I often have to step back from that adversarial mind set (mostly in the midst of combat) and remember I'm not the vile red dragon who blew the last three villages up, just the guy pulling his virtual strings for the amusement of the table.
--Dick Clark's Vrockin' New Years Eve!
Opinion acknowledged. Now, given that this is the rules forum, rather than the opinions forum, do you have any rules to discuss?Mother of god.
You're letting go of the blade for one bloody second to tap yourself on the chest.
This does not require a rule.
Ok this IS the rules forum so here is the rule:
"You don't need a rule for every freaking thing"
|
|
Opinion acknowledged. Now, given that this is the rules forum, rather than the opinions forum, do you have any rules to discuss?Mother of god.
You're letting go of the blade for one bloody second to tap yourself on the chest.
This does not require a rule.
Rule: Free actions consume a very small amount of time and effort. You can perform one or more free actions while taking another action normally. However, there are reasonable limits on what you can really do for free, as decided by the GM.
The only stipulation as to how many Free actions you can do is that the DM may set a limit. They take a small amount of effort and time, and so as it reads can be done in the middle of other actions. As has been mentioned switching hands on your weapon is considered a free action.Rule:A swift action consumes a very small amount of time, but represents a larger expenditure of effort and energy than a free action. You can perform only a single swift action per turn.
Lay on Hands is a swift action and takes more energy and time than a free action, a quickened spell is a swift action.
Personally. I would allow the hand shift in the middle of the Full Attack. I would not allow the LoH as I would also not allow the Quickened spell.
I also see the allowed 5' step as something more akin to the free action than the swift action in this case.
|
|
You wrote an opinion and then called someone else out for writing an opinion, So I'm confused. Maybe you should restate your point?The rules don't say it is a continuation of 3.5 so for those who think that it is opinion. So your ruling is as much opinion as the rest of these. Point is nothing in pathfinder references interrupting your own action so there is no RAW rulingMy point is being completely missed. Enjoy.
My apology for being snarky about Cirno coming into a rules discussion with the statement that rules aren't needed.
I didn't write an opinion. I provided references for the relevant rules with respect to those who approach the rules from a given perspective. That you don't distinguish is why I backed out of the convo; it's pointless to discuss something where the vocabulary has such varied meaning amongst the participants.
|
|
You wrote an opinion and then called someone else out for writing an opinion, So I'm confused. Maybe you should restate your point?The rules don't say it is a continuation of 3.5 so for those who think that it is opinion. So your ruling is as much opinion as the rest of these. Point is nothing in pathfinder references interrupting your own action so there is no RAW rulingMy point is being completely missed. Enjoy.My apology for being snarky about Cirno coming into a rules discussion with the statement that rules aren't needed.
I didn't write an opinion. I provided references for the relevant rules with respect to those who approach the rules from a given perspective. That you don't distinguish is why I backed out of the convo; it's pointless to discuss something where the vocabulary has such varied meaning amongst the participants.
Well, yeah, but as the good Professor said: do we really need rules for everything, i.e. if it isn't in the books, it's not possible? And is this thing really such an important thing in your group that it absolutely must be spelled out? IMO that's not something that every GM couldn't adjudicate themselves, and to me the RAI is pretty clear; LoH works as a swift action so that the paladin can heal himself during melee, even at higher levels, without losing actions.
Back in the "olden days" there were pretty strict rules for stuff like climbing walls; as per RAW, only thieves could try it. And nobody, I think, could ever jump from building to building, or try to catch thrown things, or craft items, etcetera etcetera. And somehow we worked out how to adjudicate and houserule these situations that were omitted from the rules. How is this any different?
Now, can a cleric cast spells without spending extra actions if his wielding a shield? How about a shield and a weapon, i.e. no hands are free? Should a wizard drop his staff every time he casts a spell? I don't mean to sound condescending, but to me these questions are just as silly as forcing a paladin to drop (or sheath) his weapon to use a swift action to heal himself during battle.
|
|
You know, there is nothing that states that the paladin needs to touch his chest (or anything specific at all, just a touch). He could just be channeling from one hand to the other. No need to let go at all. When you look at it vs. undead, it is just a melee touch attack. Melee touch attacks are just as powerful if you touch a shield, arm, tentacle, etc than they are when you touch the chest of your opponent. Why would it be different for the healing side?
What do you think about it?
I think it is completely allowable. If a wizard can hold his staff (two handed weapon) and cast a (full round) spell and then a quickened (swift action)spell, which I think everyone will agree they can then there is 0 reason a Paladin cannot full attack with a two handed sword(full round) and then lay hands on themselves as a swift action.
Our house rule is that paladins do not even need to actually touch themselves to 'lay hands', they merely need to be able to use the swift action since they are always in contact with themselves in some manner.
|
|
Well, yeah, but as the good Professor said: do we really need rules for everything, i.e. if it isn't in the books, it's not possible? And is this thing really such an important thing in your group that it absolutely must be spelled out? IMO that's not something that every GM couldn't adjudicate themselves, and to me the RAI is pretty clear; LoH works as a swift action so that the paladin can heal himself during melee, even at higher levels, without losing actions.
If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice.
You're letting go of the blade for one bloody second to tap yourself on the chest. This does not require a rule
The professor's post, which I originally described as opinion, is as much a ruling on what can or cannot be done as a more detailed evaluation. The benefit of rules discussions is not the answer to a single question; it particuarly isn't the benefit derived from minor/who care's type questions. Rather, the benefit of rules discussions is in developing a enjoyable and deep knowledge of the rule system as a whole.
I improvise, make a best guess, etc. with the best of of 'em. I have a much greater ability to do so, and a greater level of confidence in doing so, when I understand the underlying rules system better. I am absolutely positive that I deliver a better game when I am able to make those decisions with a higher degree of confidence that they make sense overall.
Back in the "olden days" there were pretty strict rules for stuff like climbing walls; as per RAW, only thieves could try it. And nobody, I think, could ever jump from building to building, or try to catch thrown things, or craft items, etcetera etcetera. And somehow we worked out how to adjudicate and houserule these situations that were omitted from the rules. How is this any different?
When faced with a situation with no known rule (rather due to ignorance or lack of rule), you have the choice of a free-form ruling ("yeah, you can do that", "No, you can't do that") or of inventing/modifying a rule that is within the existing system. You might choose to put a given amount of effort into it based on how important it was. As such, this is no different. There are rules and/or rulings from conflicting authorities regarding both 1) type of action, and 2) inserting an action in the midst of another action. You can either choose to use them, be ignorant of them, or ignore them to your heart's content.
Now, can a cleric cast spells without spending extra actions if his wielding a shield? How about a shield and a weapon, i.e. no hands are free? Should a wizard drop his staff every time he casts a spell? I don't mean to sound condescending, but to me these questions are just as silly as forcing a paladin to drop (or sheath) his weapon to use a swift action to heal himself during battle.
That you find them silly reflects the style of game you choose to play. Action economy, essentially, is about tactics. Different people get different things out of the game. When actions are deemed free, the effect is to ramp up the power level of the game. When actions have a cost, the effect is to reduce the power of the game. When characters more options, the effect is to increase the power of the game. Hand management is an inherent part of the action economy.
My experience is that I highly enjoy the small recurring problem solving associated with this level of tactics. It doesn't take away from the role-playing or the big story. Rather, it adds to the game for me.
As for the questions above, at my table: 1) the cleric with one hand free is golden, 2) with shield and weapon he's usually going to do something with items, 3) the wizard can hold a staff while casting with no issue (in the general case), 4) I didn't say a paladin had to drop or sheath anything, and won't attempt to explain OP's though on it.
At your table: whatever you say.
|
|
If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice.
I don't get your reply; please clarify this. Who didn't choose to decide and what?
The professor's post, which I originally described as opinion, is as much a ruling on what can or cannot be done as a more detailed evaluation. The benefit of rules discussions is not the answer to a single question; it particuarly isn't the benefit derived from minor/who care's type questions. Rather, the benefit of rules discussions is in developing a enjoyable and deep knowledge of the rule system as a whole.
I improvise, make a best guess, etc. with the best of of 'em. I have a much greater ability to do so, and a greater level of confidence in doing so, when I understand the underlying rules system better. I am absolutely positive that I deliver a better game when I am able to make those decisions with a higher degree of confidence that they make sense overall.
Yeah, rules discussions about relevant and confusing issues -- such as pre-clarified Vital Strike + charge, or Spring Attack -- are beneficial to us all, but I see this type of subjects as nitpicking. It's something I can rule on the fly, if need be. Does a deeper knowledge of the rules help with improvising and adjudicating? Yes, but I don't need to "know" the rules in such an intimate level (and I don't think it'd even be possible) that I could possibly prepare myself in advance for everything a PC might do.
If you really care about the underlying rules, and what each rule is *supposed* to do in itself and in relation to other rules, then you should ask yourself: "What have the designers possibly meant with this, and how do other, similar mechanics work?" . To me that LoH is supposed to work as a swift action -- regardless of what you're holding in either or both hands. If you don’t like it, you could ask: “Does this mechanic really fit my group, or should we tweak It a bit to better suit our preferences and style?”. However, that’s another beast altogether; it’s fine to mention houserules and offer mechanical solutions if someone asks, but I think it’s pointless to debate over something like this when it’s quite clear how it works as per RAI.
When faced with a situation with no known rule (rather due to ignorance or lack of rule), you have the choice of a free-form ruling ("yeah, you can do that", "No, you can't do that") or of inventing/modifying a rule that is within the existing system. You might choose to put a given amount of effort into it based on how important it was. As such, this is no different. There are rules and/or rulings from conflicting authorities regarding both 1) type of action, and 2) inserting an action in the midst of another action. You can either choose to use them, be ignorant of them, or ignore them to your heart's content.
That you find them silly reflects the style of game you choose to play. Action economy, essentially, is about tactics. Different people get different things out of the game. When actions are deemed free, the effect is to ramp up the power level of the game. When actions have a cost, the effect is to reduce the power of the game. When characters more options, the effect is to increase the power of the game. Hand management is an inherent part of the action economy.
My experience is that I highly enjoy the small recurring problem solving associated with this level of tactics. It doesn't take away from the role-playing or the big story. Rather, it adds to the game for me.
Action economy *is* important, especially if you emphasize the importance tactics in your game; and I’m not saying that you’re doing it “wrong” or anything. If you enjoy pondering/talking about rules minituae, it’s all fine and good. However, for me this particular subject feels like needless nitpicking. As I said above, trying to figure out how feat X works with rules Y and Z -- or whether feat W is a free or move action -- that's one thing; forcing a PC to spend a move action to change his grip when it's pretty clear what the designers meant is completely another (IMHO). Ditto with using LoH in the middle of the attack sequence; if you can take a 5' step, how's a swift channeling of healing energy and "slapping your chest" any different? The only thing that might mechanically interfere with that action would be a readied action (“If the paladin tries to heal himself…”) from an enemy. And if you absolutely want to play it by the book, you could insist that the paladin does either at the beginning or end of his turn.
I don’t think micromanaging hand economy to this degree is relevant to rules discussions, and the topic has very little to do with increasing power. Again, it’s not the same as letting PCs combine charge with VS (or similar feats) or do Spring Attack as a standard action, because that *would* give more tactical options and make PCs with those feats slightly more powerful.
Asgetrion, the actions of switching hand grips are unclear, fine.
But re: splicing in a free/swift action into another one, the rules are clear.
Free actions can because they have specific wording to that effect,
Swift Actions can´t because they are missing that wording... I.e. that wording is in the Free Action description for a reason.
If you start ignoring that distinction, that means everybody will be wanting to juggle their weapon mid-full-attack so they can pull of a Quicken Truestrike before the lowest Iterative. As one example. Free Actions and Swift Actions are definitely not meant to be action equivalent in the game... that´s why the exist separately with very different action economy rules. As mentioned several times already, it´s A-OK to LoH before or after a Full Attack. Just not in the middle of.
|
|
Asgetrion, the actions of switching hand grips are unclear, fine.
But re: splicing in a free/swift action into another one, the rules are clear.
Free actions can because they have specific wording to that effect,
Swift Actions can´t because they are missing that wording... I.e. that wording is in the Free Action description for a reason.If you start ignoring that distinction, that means everybody will be wanting to juggle their weapon mid-full-attack so they can pull of a Quicken Truestrike before the lowest Iterative. As one example. Free Actions and Swift Actions are definitely not meant to be action equivalent in the game... that´s why the exist separately with very different action economy rules. As mentioned several times already, it´s A-OK to LoH before or after a Full Attack. Just not in the middle of.
That's a good point, and I probably wouldn't let it fly, either; also, that is exactly the kind of thing I meant when I talked about mechanical impacts on actions. I didn't imply (or at least didn't mean to) that all swift action are okay to splice, but if it's something that doesn't have an immediate mechanical effect/advantage (i.e. does not directly affect any enemies, or your attack sequence) I'd likely allow it. And there's a huge difference between using LoH in between attacks, and trying to boost up your lowest iterative attack (or use any other swift spell that mechanically affects the rest of your actions). As far as switching your grip goes, I don't see a problem with it being a free/swift action (once or twice per your turn); how could it even be abused?
You know regardless of all this I am really curious as to why the OP cares if he can do it in between attacks, whats that mechanical benefit?
For a paladin, it doesn't MATTER if you are using LoH before, after or during a full attack, unless you're running some strange combo with blood sacrifice and vicious weapons. It is exceptionally rare otherwise to take damage during your own full attack action, barring weird fumble charts or whatever.
Allowing someone to cast a quickened true strike in the middle of his attack chain I have no problem with whatsoever. Think about how absurdly difficult it is to both have high enough BAB and cast 5th level spells. The optimal character for doing so would likely be an Eldricht Knight, meaning he is lagging at least 3 BAB, and 2 levels behind on casting. He is not getting a third attack until 14, and his fourth attack barely comes in at all at 19 IF he proceeds with a full bab class after EK. Personally, I would want to fill the same slot with a quickened shield spell or similar.
I think this whole issue boils down to someone thinking the paladin is over-powered, and is looking for a round-about way to nerf it.
Switching the grip of your weapon is a free action. A free action can be done at any point during your turn, any number of times within reason. I see no confusion with this rule at all. It's pretty clear as far as I'm concerned.
|
|
I think this whole issue boils down to someone thinking the paladin is over-powered, and is looking for a round-about way to nerf it.
This has nothing to do with my responses and hasn't even been considered. My motivation in responding in this thread is an enjoyment of the nitty-gritty, and a opportunity to provide an interpretation from a perspective that is consistant with Paizo's marketing for what Pathfinder is with respect to 3.5
|
|
Switching the grip of your weapon is a free action.
Rules cite, pls? This statement places PF in conflict with the prior 3.5 rulings.
A free action can be done at any point during your turn, any number of times within reason.
Rules cite, pls? This is usually supported by the the word "while," which is ambiguous.
I see no confusion with this rule at all. It's pretty clear as far as I'm concerned.
Interesting. I see it as hammering at the heart of the issue of the variance in how people view the continuity of PF within the 3.5 worldview, as well as how people choose to accept an authority other than their own.
Finally found what I was looking for - it's not exactly tied to the subject and no official errata/statement/PFS viable but I think it's close enough to be considered:
Switching a held object from one hand to the other doesn't require an action, so the end result is the same whether or not you use the light shield hand to lay on hands or your weapon hand after switching your weapon to the off hand, and then back to your weapon hand.
The fact that allowing you to use your light shield hand to do so without so many fiddly steps is why I'd say it's fine to let it work that way.
Also... lay on hands helps keep the story going by helping to avoid disruptive player death and lets everyone keep playing the game. So it's good to not stack more qualifiers and requirements on it.
Here is the whole thread.
Mind you, it's about LoH with a sword&board style - but to me that should involve even more effort than letting go and re-grabbing a 2H weapon.
Ruyan.
Finally found what I was looking for - it's not exactly tied to the subject and no official errata/statement/PFS viable but I think it's close enough to be considered:
Switching a held object from one hand to the other doesn't require an action, so the end result is the same whether or not you use the light shield hand to lay on hands or your weapon hand after switching your weapon to the off hand, and then back to your weapon hand.
The fact that allowing you to use your light shield hand to do so without so many fiddly steps is why I'd say it's fine to let it work that way.
Also... lay on hands helps keep the story going by helping to avoid disruptive player death and lets everyone keep playing the game. So it's good to not stack more qualifiers and requirements on it.
Here is the whole thread.
Mind you, it's about LoH with a sword&board style - but to me that should involve even more effort than letting go and re-grabbing a 2H weapon.
Ruyan.
thank you, that's the post I've been looking for. Also:
Free Action
Free actions consume a very small amount of time and effort. You can perform one or more free actions while taking another
action normally. However, there are reasonable limits on what you can really do for free, as decided by the GM.
Greetings, fellow travellers.
gripping/letting go with your second hand was a free action.There is a post floating around here, where James Jacobs talks about shifting a longsword from one hand to the other and back again and deems both actions free actions. So I would say yes, taking off one hand from a 2h weapon and gripping it again is a free action.
Ruyan.
Could you two-weapon fight using only one weapon by switching it back and forth between your hands?
Could you two-weapon fight using only one weapon by switching it back and forth between your hands?Greetings, fellow travellers.
gripping/letting go with your second hand was a free action.There is a post floating around here, where James Jacobs talks about shifting a longsword from one hand to the other and back again and deems both actions free actions. So I would say yes, taking off one hand from a 2h weapon and gripping it again is a free action.
Ruyan.
Going by what is mentioned in my post above I would say yes, but it is probably stretching it a bit.
I seem to recall that there was a feat in one of the 3.5 splatbooks that allowed you to do just that.
If using a combat maneuver that provokes during a full-attack, I could see a reason to want to heal mid-attack. That's really a corner case though.
Could you two-weapon fight using only one weapon by switching it back and forth between your hands?Greetings, fellow travellers.
gripping/letting go with your second hand was a free action.There is a post floating around here, where James Jacobs talks about shifting a longsword from one hand to the other and back again and deems both actions free actions. So I would say yes, taking off one hand from a 2h weapon and gripping it again is a free action.
Ruyan.
I would say that in THEORY, yes, you could probably do that by RAW (not digging through the books to prove right or wrong atm), but in PRACTICE I'd say no at my table, as you'd be cheesing past the biggest drawback of two-weapon fighting: Having to obtain two magical weapons.
Personally, I would also house-rule that if you have a poor grasp on a weapon (like a greatsword in one hand) and someone readied an attack to disarm you when you released the full grasp on it, I would give the disarming party a +2 or +4 to CMB.
|
|
Many more years ago than I really care to think about I was a pretty good collegiate fencer. I also did some Society for Creative Anachronism fighting as well. So for those who may desire some sort of a "real world" input on this I offer the following:
(1) Any character of any class that is limited to just 1 (or even 4) "attacks" per six second combat round is for all practical purposes frozen in ice/submerged in molasses/petrified in amber. In collegiate fencing foil and epee bouts are scored electronically because the blades are moving faster than the judges' eyes can follow. Saber fencers, using a weapon which can not be scored electronically, will usually go for their opponents face masks because the blade hitting the mask will generate sparks, and the judges can *see* sparks. Attacks in collegiate fencing usually are resolved in 1/10 of a second or less.
When one moves away from collegiate fencing, which could be argued to be sort of dancing with car antennas, to Society for Creative Anachronism style fighting where one is wearing armor that equals or exceeds medieval armor for weight/effectiveness using rattan clubs that weigh as much if not more than medieval swords, one finds that attacks can still be easily executed in 1/10 of a second or less.
(2) In either fighting style, one is constantly moving back and forth in order to gain even the slightest tactical advantage over one's opponent. In DnD/PF terms this means that for all practical purposes everybody is *constantly* taking 5 foot steps as opposed to just standing there.
(3) While I haven't done a lot of bastard sword/greatsword work, I have done some. I was actually surprised over how much control one could exercise over those weapons and how rapidly one could execute attacks with them.
(4) Based on that perspective, which has nothing at all to do with whatever some geeky rules lawyer might attempt to read into whatever either RAW or RAI could be argued to mean in some obscure corner of a deserted pocket dimension I would say that:
If somebody wanted to, within a six second time frame, temporarily position themselves such that an *immediate* (1/10 of a second or so) attack from his opponent was unlikely and then let go of his weapon with one hand to touch himself somewhere (likely the hand that was still holding the weapon) and take his weapon in a two handed grip again while still getting his "normal" number of attacks I would allow it. Based on my real world experiences with such weapons one should arguably be able to get roughly 60 attacks in that time frame, so I wouldn't think that blowing off a tenth of a second or so should interfere with anybody's ability to make 4 attacks in six seconds.
There would be no need to drop the weapon's point to the ground. That would be stupid and counterproductive. The best way to do the sort of grip change mentioned would be with the weapon held with the point vertically up, one hand above the other on the weapon's hilt. Even a greatsword does not weigh so much that one can't hold it with the point up briefly in one hand. One simply can't use it effectively like that, but for the 1/10 of a second or so it's going to take to perform the "maneuver" in question that's not going to matter, and the weapon is still positioned so as to "threaten" one's opponent.
Sure, it would be awkward to strike downwards with a greatsword held one handed like that, but it could be *done*, and if it connected it would still *hurt*. So even though there is a "window of opportunity" for one's opponent to try to do something in it's not as big or as vulnerable as some of the posters seem to think it would be.