| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Attacks in collegiate fencing usually are resolved in 1/10 of a second or less.
....
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.
....
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.
I really have to disagree here on a number of levels. I've fenced at college too, done a lot of katana/bokkan work while doing Aikido and both my parents were top level fencers (father with epee - just missed out on Olympic selection one year - and mother with foil - didn't win selection but they did win each other's heart!).
While the actual time to make a strike may take 1/10th of a second (open to debate, but let's treat it as possible for the purposes of discussion), the actual strike is only one portion of an attack. There is manouevring into position, sizing up your opponent, feints, recovery etc. Plus when you're fighting for your life you are also a lot more concerned about not getting hit, as opposed to fencing where you just want to get your hit in before your opponent.
To say that you could get 60 attacks into a six second period is complete nonsense. Recovering from a strike takes just as long as delivering it. How long would taking 60 practice lunges with an epee take or 60 diagonal cut strokes with a katana? Try doing 60 with a long sword wearing plate armour with a heavy shield on your other arm....
And if your opponent can take an attack in every 1/10 second interval (while making these apparent constant 5 foot steps), placing your weapon in a position so that you can lay on hands without being subject to an attack would be impossible - and if you did it would be foolish.
That aside, I agree with Prof Cirno - it is not something requiring a rule. Would you make a rule about a fighter with a two-handed weapon quickly wiping his brow (mechnically not dissimilar to LoH) at any point in a round?
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.
Sounds to me like a +2 to the enemy's attack-roll, which is really kinda minor considering it is a d20 roll and usually factor double digits except on the lowest of levels.
I know D&D/PF fighting is far from realistic if you count an attack in D&D to be an swing/lunge/punch etc IRL. Heck I used to do some martial arts (karate and boxing for the most part) back in the day, and I could easily get off more "strikes" than a lv20 monk using flurry of blows at my prime.
But I think that a successful "attack" constitutes more than one swing. In my mind it is a successful push, a cut that lands among the many, a significant turn in the match. My experiences in martial arts is that I end up throwing a lot of attacks to gauge defenses, distance, relative reach, etc, even before setting up feints and blowing open a guard to land a blow. Barring gross mismatches or flukes, I rarely landed more than a few real hits in 6 seconds.
|
My general rule is that as a swift action, lay on hands when used for self healing does not require "hand" use at all. Since the RAI is to allow the character to fight a full sequence and heal themselves at the same time, I treat it as a quickened ability requiring no somatic or verbal components, although it does give off a minor light show.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?
And a swift prayer muttered under your breath, right? :) Yeah, this is more or less how I treat it, too.
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.
Purely for entertainment's sake, I can come up with at least one example where it matters.
Ranged weapons. Say a Paladin has a longbow but is threatened by a melee opponent. The Paladin starts his full attack sequence, provoking. If the AoO hits and does damage, that could put the Paladin in a position where he is disinclined to wait until the end of his full attack sequence to heal himself. He may be concerned that he will be unable to complete his attack sequence because he is dropped unconscious or rendered dead. Yes, he could have used the LoH before starting his attack sequence, but he may not have had a good idea if his opponent could hit, or how hard.
Readied actions. A paladin begins a full attack sequence only to discover his foes have readied actions. While it's unlikely, he could face multiple foes who have readied for different conditions. "If the paladin takes a second swing at me or my friend, I attack him with my sword." In that case, not waiting until his full attack sequence is complete would be wise. Again, not terribly likely, but mechanically possible.
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.
I thought the biggest flaw to TWF is that it does hilariously less damage due to having pathetic damage modifiers in lacking strength and power attack? :p
I thought the biggest flaw to TWF is that it does hilariously less damage due to having pathetic damage modifiers in lacking strength and power attack? :pCould 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.
In and of itself, TWF is rather weak. The strength of a TWF S&B fighter at my table comes from having a wizard with no personal life, dedicating all his time to crafting. If he is not past double expected wealth, he is pretty damn close. Now add a cleric, wizard AND an Order of the Dragon cavalier to buff him both to hit and damage, granting the teamwork thing that adds sneak attack to your attacks if you flank. This makes all the otherwise so-so attacks rather powerful.
But then again, I foolishly ran Kingmaker with a 25 point buy, because we are used to harsher encounters, so my campaign is more or less baby-mode apart from the few encounters I juice up to make relevant. And even then the risk of dying is minimal barring stupidity and flukes. Sooo bad example, I guess >_>