The bastard sword has a special clause which I just quoted. It says in no uncertain terms that it is to large to use in one hand without special training.
Which is why it's an exotic weapon. You've got to read the entire sentence.
Being exotic only applies to proficiency.
It also says "A character can use a bastard sword two-handed as a martial weapon." It does not say "A character can use a bastard sword as a two-handed martial weapon."
The only thing that changes is the proficiency.
Proficiency does not change the size of an object.
It is essentially a two-handed weapon that can be used in one hand if you have the EWP feat.
If that was true, Amiri couldn't wield her large bastard sword, even with two hands. But she can, because it's a one-handed weapon.
A medium bastard sword is a small object. If it were a two-handed weapon, it would be a medium object.
A level 6 Cleric can animate 11 medium bastard swords because they are small objects.
Someone with Improved Whip Mastery can snag a medium bastard sword, because it's a small object.
None of this would be possible if you randomly decide the table is wrong and it's actually a two-handed weapon.
Anyone can use any exotic weapon using the number of hands listed on the table. Proficiency only means you don't take the -4 penalty.
You've had to let your guard down twice in order to pull off what you want to do in 6 seconds.
Right, and while that was happening, you were not armed.
You've stopped wielding your two-handed weapon.
You've pulled out something (accessible) from your belt.
You've bitten off the stopper of the potion with your teeth.
You've guzzled the contents down.
Now you want to argue, from a simulationist view that you defend yourself normally as if you had been swinging and parrying the entire time???
No, of course not. Drinking the potion provoked. And while all that was happening, you were not armed. Had something else provoked, or had a readied action, you would be unable to hit them with the weapon you're not wielding.
But after that, near the end of your turn, when your hand is empty, you can use a free action to put your empty hand back on the hilt of the weapon. From that point on you're wielding it again, and can threaten and take AoOs etc.
I do contend that there is support that going from merely holding an object to wielding a weapon can be a move action.
But let's quote a little RAW:
Here's the most pertinent, as it is the draw/sheathe action:
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.
That is not going from holding to wielding. It's going from not holding to wielding, which should take more time and effort.
Others:
Moving or manipulating an item is usually a move action.Strapping a shield to your arm to gain its shield bonus to your AC, or unstrapping and dropping a shield so you can use your shield hand for another purpose, requires a move action.Not to quote a table, but pick up an item is a move action.
All of these ways to go from having an item using up a hand, freeing it up and back again that require at least one move action.
None of those are going from holding to wielding. You've got nothing to nothing (move object), nothing to wielding (strap), wielding to nothing (unstrap), and nothing to holding (pick up). All of which should take more time and effort than grasping the hilt of a weapon you're already holding.
I guess I inflate the value of quickdraw while you diminish it...
Since you're not drawing the weapon, quick draw doesn't do anything.
It's a free action to open your fingers and drop the weapon. Why not a free action to close your fingers and grip it? If you're going to make them 'draw' to put one hand on, are you going to make them 'sheathe' to take one hand off?
All the move actions I listed earlier should take more time and effort than grasping a hilt. (loading a crossbow, mounting a horse, standing up from prone, sheathing a weapon, or digging an item out of your bags)
But it's not specifically in the rules. So if using extra actions to do common things creates more fun at your table, go right ahead. Just be sure to mention it up front.
I can take my hand off and on as a free action during any other action i take including casting the spell.The hand, that is to say, being used as a part of casting the spell. I believe when casting a spell with somatic component, the hand is occupied until completion of the spell. Since the attack is made as a part of the spell, not following the completion of the spell, you cannot just skip the somatic component to put your hand back on the hilt.
Very interesting. I like this interpretation.
The bastard sword has a special clause which I just quoted. It says in no uncertain terms that it is to large to use in one hand without special training.Which is why it's an exotic weapon. You've got to read the entire sentence.
Being exotic only applies to proficiency.
It also says "A character can use a bastard sword two-handed as a martial weapon." It does not say "A character can use a bastard sword as a two-handed martial weapon."
The only thing that changes is the proficiency.
Proficiency does not change the size of an object.
It is essentially a two-handed weapon that can be used in one hand if you have the EWP feat.If that was true, Amiri couldn't wield her large bastard sword, even with two hands. But she can, because it's a one-handed weapon.
A medium bastard sword is a small object. If it were a two-handed weapon, it would be a medium object.
A level 6 Cleric can animate 11 medium bastard swords because they are small objects.
Someone with Improved Whip Mastery can snag a medium bastard sword, because it's a small object.
None of this would be possible if you randomly decide the table is wrong and it's actually a two-handed weapon.
Anyone can use any exotic weapon using the number of hands listed on the table. Proficiency only means you don't take the -4 penalty.
Not that I even disagree with you, but you're sort of using your point to prove your point.
I don't see how either interpretation would prevent what Amiri does.
Since the attack is made as a part of the spell, not following the completion of the spell, you cannot just skip the somatic component to put your hand back on the hilt.Very interesting. I like this interpretation.
Except the attack is made following the completion of the spell. You can even take a full move action in between casting and attack. If that move action provokes, it doesn't disrupt your spell, because it's already cast.
I don't see how either interpretation would prevent what Amiri does.
You can't wield a large two-handed weapon regardless of proficiency.
If a PC were carrying a stack of swords in their hands. (Say they are hauling treasure and they are greedy).
You would let them in round one drop all but two and full attack with TWF without need for any special feats or abilities?
After all it's a free action to drop items. And for you its a free action to go from merely holding them to wielding them. Right?
Bad example. Once you've dropped them, you're not holding anything, so you need a move action to pick up an item off the floor.
If, instead, you're carrying your greataxe in one hand (not wielding) and the other hand is full of whatever, you can drop whatever (free), grip axe (free) then full attack.
You're not plucking your weapon out of midair while it's falling. You're already holding it in your other hand. It's right there. All you need to do is grip it. That's not in any way the same as snagging something out of a hail of falling blades.
A question for you.. how many times would you let a PC do this in a given 6 second round? Or would you never feel the need to limit it?
Do what, re-grip a weapon? I don't see how it could get problematic. If anything was going to exceed a limit, it wouldn't be the gripping. (IE: "I use quick draw to draw a dagger as a free action, I drop it as a free action, I continue doing this under there is a wall of daggers and the monster can't get to me, and THEN I put my hand back on my axe!" It's not the axe that's the problem.)
Yes, I would allow a cleric to use a non-action to pass her mace into her light shield hand, cast a spell, touch a buddy, then pass the mace back so she threatens. I would let a bard shoot his crossbow with both hands, then let go with one hand so he can threaten with his gauntlet. The next round he could re-grip his crossbow as a free action, reload it as a move, and shoot again as standard.
Disallowing those things would not increase the enjoyment at my table.
I don't see how either interpretation would prevent what Amiri does.Then it's a good thing the feat let's her use it as a one handed weapon then. I think you're trying to hard to be rigidly general about a very specific exception to the rules.
The bastard sword has a special clause which I just quoted. It says in no uncertain terms that it is to large to use in one hand without special training.Which is why it's an exotic weapon. You've got to read the entire sentence.
Being exotic only applies to proficiency.
It also says "A character can use a bastard sword two-handed as a martial weapon." It does not say "A character can use a bastard sword as a two-handed martial weapon."
The only thing that changes is the proficiency.
Proficiency does not change the size of an object.
It is essentially a two-handed weapon that can be used in one hand if you have the EWP feat.If that was true, Amiri couldn't wield her large bastard sword, even with two hands. But she can, because it's a one-handed weapon.
A medium bastard sword is a small object. If it were a two-handed weapon, it would be a medium object.
A level 6 Cleric can animate 11 medium bastard swords because they are small objects.
Someone with Improved Whip Mastery can snag a medium bastard sword, because it's a small object.
None of this would be possible if you randomly decide the table is wrong and it's actually a two-handed weapon.
Anyone can use any exotic weapon using the number of hands listed on the table. Proficiency only means you don't take the -4 penalty.
You can be proficient with it as a martial weapon. You just can't use it in one hand. Only EWP allows you to do that for this weapon. I know you think it is fluff when they say you can't do it, but it does not read as fluff/flavor to me. If they would have said it was difficult then I would agree.
No to both. If you want to make outlandish claims then back them up so they can be seen for what they are.To the first, the first quote was drawing or sheathing a weapon.. which is perfectly relevant as you will see what the quote IS, rather than simply reacting to someone disagreeing with you.
The second, is spurious and false, frankly I have no idea where you're trying to leap there... perhaps you're confusing a bow for a 2 handed weapon?
What is outlandish?
NONE of the examples you gave are analogous to taking a weapon, ALREADY IN HAND, and placing an additional hand on it. Your examples are of taking something from a sheath, from a sack, from the ground, etc. and wielding them or manipulating them in some way.Your logic doesn't track.
While a bow isn't a technically two handed weapon, it EXPLICITLY states that it requires two hands to wield it, and thus fire it.
IF you are required to use two hands to wield something (i.e. a bow).
AND IF, when you hold it in one hand, it is not wielded.
AND IF it requires a move action to wield something that you are already holding in one hand (the bow again).
THEN it follows logically that IF you take one hand off your bow it takes a move action to wield it once again.
IF THIS IS SO then every time you try to knock an arrow it will require a move action to wield your bow once again, even though you are holding it in one hand, because getting an arrow from a quiver DESPITE BEING A FREE ACTION requires you to take one hand off your bow.
THUS you can NEVER fire more than one arrow in a turn. Ever.
THUS archery doesn't work, as per your interpretation.
Please feel free to point out flaws in my logic, but I have laid it pretty plain and resorting to personal attacks get us nowhere.
You can be proficient with it as a martial weapon. You just can't use it in one hand. Only EWP allows you to do that for this weapon. I know you think it is fluff when they say you can't do it, but it does not read as fluff/flavor to me. If they would have said it was difficult then I would agree.
So.
What you are suggesting is that the bastard sword, on top of being an exotic 1h weapon that can be wielded 2h as a martial weapon, has a special clause that appears nowhere else in the rules that prevents it from being used one-handed at all without EWP:Bastard Sword.Every other weapon in the game, every single one exotic, martial, or simple, can be wielded without proficiency with a -4 penalty, but not the Bastard Sword, it is a special case. Furthermore, it can't even be wielded as an improvised weapon for someone with the proper feats because it SIMPLY CANNOT BE USED without EWP:BS.
Is that your assertion?
I never said the BS could not be wielded. I said it can not be wielded in one hand without EWP. Well actually the book is saying that. My assertion is that is not fluff, but a rule.
Too large to wield in one hand without feat X means "you can not do it" without feat X. You read it is "very hard to do" without feat X.
"Too" normally applies to hard limits not just more difficulty. If something is too high for me to reach without a ladder then it is out of my reach. It does not mean it is hard for me to reach. The last sentence assumes I am not climbing shelves by the way.
If something it too heavy for me to lift until I get stronger(EWP) that does not mean I can lift it with difficulty. It means I can not lift it.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@ meatrace
What wraithstrike is saying is that it work like weapon finesse.
You can't use a weapon with weapon finesse taking a -4. You either have the feat and then you can use it with together with your dexterity modifier or you haven't it and then you use it with your strength.
Sure it does. AND I gave an example of a weapon that when properly wielded requires a move action (baring a feat) to wield in a different way.That seems EXACTLY on track. Why does it take a move action there to change your grip, but not for ANY other weapon in your world?
Consistent with that are the actions required to make a weapon wielded from not being wielded.
While a bow isn't a technically two handed weapon, it EXPLICITLY states that it requires two hands to wield it, and thus fire it.
Incorrect it requires two hands to USE it.
You might picture someone gripping a bow in two hands (like a quarterstaff) but that's not how it works. I've seen 'rules' lawyers' attempt this argument before.. the rules don't support them.
So, for your world, a cleric can start a combat round with light shield and mace having threatened the prior round. They then start a full attack action, in the middle toss the mace into the other hand, cast a quickened spell, then toss the mace back to their primary hand and continue the full attack action. That must seem reasonable to you for anyone to be able to do... for me it does not.
-James
OK I've gone over your quotes and I can't tell what weapon you're talking about.
What weapon in the core rules requires a move action to grip a different way?As for your other point, now YOU'RE saying that using does not mean wielding. We can't have it both ways for the purposes of this argument. If use doesn't mean wield a weapon then wraithstrike's argument is invalid since it never says you can't wield it in one hand, it says you can't use it, which is apparently, by your reckoning, a completely different thing that is not explained in the rules.
@ meatrace
What wraithstrike is saying is that it work like weapon finesse.
You can't use a weapon with weapon finesse taking a -4. You either have the feat and then you can use it with together with your dexterity modifier or you haven't it and then you use it with your strength.
That's an ENTIRELY different scenario. In that scenario we are not talking about proficiency. So your example is nonsensical.
I never said the BS could not be wielded. I said it can not be wielded in one hand without EWP. Well actually the book is saying that. My assertion is that is not fluff, but a rule.
Too large to wield in one hand without feat X means "you can not do it" without feat X. You read it is "very hard to do" without feat X."Too" normally applies to hard limits not just more difficulty. If something is too high for me to reach without a ladder then it is out of my reach. It does not mean it is hard for me to reach. The last sentence assumes I am not climbing shelves by the way.
If something it too heavy for me to lift until I get stronger(EWP) that does not mean I can lift it with difficulty. It means I can not lift it.
I don't think you're getting what I'm saying.
Say there's a hypothetical 1H exotic weapon.
Can you wield it without being proficient? Of course, you just take a -4.
What YOU are saying is that the bastard sword is a SPECIFIC EXCEPTION to the rules that can't even be wielded by taking the nonproficiency penalty. Every other 1H exotic weapon, which IS WHAT THE BASTARD SWORD IS, can be wielded by someone not proficient in it with a -4 penalty, but not the bastard sword because you read the description to say that it's too heavy to be wielded in one hand PERIOD.
I'm not attacking your position, merely trying to confirm it, and if you don't actually address my posts and answer questions posed we can't really move forward with the debate.
Grick... he didn't drop ALL of them.. he dropped all but two.
Likewise since you want to have your PCs 'wiping the sweat off their brow' then a PC that's picked up a polearm by the tip of the blade (say stretching to reach it) is then able to flip it into both hands and full attack with it?
-James
Not in the same turn, of course. It takes a move action to pick up a weapon from the ground, which wouldn't leave him with a full attack.
In that round he could pick up the weapon and attack once, however.
I don't think you're getting what I'm saying.Say there's a hypothetical 1H exotic weapon.
Can you wield it without being proficient? Of course, you just take a -4.What YOU are saying is that the bastard sword is a SPECIFIC EXCEPTION to the rules that can't even be wielded by taking the nonproficiency penalty. Every other 1H exotic weapon, which IS WHAT THE BASTARD SWORD IS, can be wielded by someone not proficient in it with a -4 penalty, but not the bastard sword because you read the description to say that it's too heavy to be wielded in one hand PERIOD.
I'm not attacking your position, merely trying to confirm it, and if you don't actually address my posts and answer questions posed we can't really move forward with the debate.
I get what you are saying. The difference is that you see it as primarily a one-handed exotic weapon that can be wielded in two hands as a martial weapon.
I see it as a two-handed martial weapon than be wielded in one hand if you have special training, and because of that they put it under the exotic weapon chart with the other exotic weapons.Another example is the Dwarven, Waraxe
Waraxe, Dwarven: A dwarven waraxe has a large, ornate head mounted to a thick handle, making it too large to use in one hand without special training; thus, it is an exotic weapon. A Medium character can use a dwarven waraxe two-handed as a martial weapon, or a Large creature can use it one-handed in the same way. A dwarf treats a dwarven waraxe as a martial weapon even when using it in one hand.
Neither of these can be wielded by a medium creature in one hand without the EWP feat.
The only difference is that the dwarven waraxe says a large creature can use it as a one-handed martial weapon or a dwarf can.For the bastard sword a large creature can use it one-handed but would suffer the penalty for it not being sized appropriately.
edit:Yes I am saying that even a bastard sword is an exception to the rule, just like the dwarven waraxe is.
|
Meatrace, I think you were looking for this weapon that James mentioned. The dwarven dorn-dergar is from dwarves of golarion page 21. It requires a move action to switch from reach mode to adjacent mode or the other way around. It is an exotic weapon. Another feat can drop the switch time from move action to swift action.
I also always felt the rules never directly addressed this case of 2hw and spell casting. I always felt that wielding a 2hw so you could threaten with it to require more than just holding it. I felt the move action of manipulate an item was the way to handle the question. This is because it takes an adjustment of the weapon and realocation of strength to proberly wield the weapon. I think it is fair to say one move action is enough to go from nothing in both hands to wielding the weapon. I do not think it feels right to use a free action to go from holding a non wielded weapon in one hand to properly wielding it in two hands. I do feel that a move action would be the right choice.
I don't agree with Mr. James Jacobs assessment that a cleric could switch his weapon from weapon hand to light shield hand, and back again as a pair of free actions. Wouldn't it make so much more sense to just cast the spell in the free hand of the light shield? Gets the same end results but makes much more sense to me. We all make mistakes, I do sometimes. Mr. James Jacobs also does, even about the rules for pf. I overall agree the light shield cleric should be able to keep his shield defense, cast a spell and threatening with a weapon but the switching seems unnecessary to me. Maybe it was in line with to preventing the loss of shield bonus the same way a pc loses the shield bonus if they shield bash that round. Glad I wrote this, just got me some more insight or an alternative perspective on the subject.
Maybe I will need to reevaluate my feelings on the 2hw and spell casting stuff but for now I am sticking to needing a move action after casting that spell to go back to wielding the 2hw weapon. Also just thought after writing it, maybe it should be a moot point since one could cast, move and deliver the spell attack after casting and moving, which I would allow a weapon draw on that move. Perhaps this makes a case to hand wave the needed move action. Seems like cast, move/draw, attack would be more actions and within the rules compared to cast, readjust grip, attack. This feels so strange, I recall always feeling the rules never covered this well enough but after writing this out, it just seems to flow so easy and still be in the rules. Well at least for casting. Oh! Here was the problem, waving that move action allows him to do another move action that turn like drawing a potion or something. In the case of cast, move/draw, attack, you are still using all your actions for the turn. You simply get to combine two of them, move/draw. If you do not move, it does still take a move action to draw. Even if you five foot step. Hand waiving that readjusted gripping would essentially give an extra move action for the turn.
I still agree that letting go with one hand, pulling out a potion, drinking it still leaves you without a weapon to threaten. Also letting go, doing something like opening a door or pulling a level would require a move action to readjust that grip. That means no attack that same round as it would take 2 moves and a standard to do that. Or another example like move to target, swith 2hw from wielded to just holding, manipulate item with free hand. That leaves no action to readjust grip. If readjusting a grip is a free action, why was it not in the rule book as a specific example. Why would someone say you had to wait until the end of the round to readjust from non wielding to 2handed wielding?
I feel foolish about how some of this writing has turned up. Though I still believe it should take more than a free action to switch from holding to wielding.
I also played around with a house rule that a bab+1 pc could switch from holding to wielding with a swift action since I see it as similar to drawing a weapon.
About bows. I do not think that is a valid argument because bows clearly state that you can full attack with them. That is a case of specific overruling general. Also bear in mind that you cannot threaten with a bow unless you take a feat for that special equipment bow that also acts like a club(3.5) or maybe there is a prestige class feature or something out there to do that. I just don't think your discussion about the bow is relevant.
I hope some people found this helpful.
For those in the "Move action crowd" this also causes a new and unexpected nerf to TWF if a guy using a longsword and a shortsword is disarmed of his shortsword he now has a choice of a full attack with his longsword with one hand or one attack for reaching over to put his other hand on his longsword which is the same amount of time used to draw a spare weapon or pick his shortsword up.
As for the Dorn Dueger your not just changing how many hands on it your chaning how you use it from a reach weapon to something that can be used right next to you.
Simply putting your hand on a weapon should not take as long as
Picking one up or drawing it from a scabbard.
Pulling a scroll from a bag.
Moving your base speed.
Moving a shield from your back to your arm.
Reloading a crossbow.
without the Exotic Weapon feat, you simply can not use a bastard sword in one hand.
James Jacobs has ruled that it changes size (also here and here, which seems to be a change of heart from back in 2008 here) even going so far as to say it's an official clarification for PFS.
That makes it a quantum object. If you're proficient, it's small, if not, it's medium. So a proficient bard could snag one using Improved Whip Mastery, because he views it as a small object (one-handed weapon). But a non-proficient bard couldn't snag the same sword using the same feat, because he views it as a medium object (two-handed weapon). Two otherwise identical clerics cast Animate Objects, the proficient cleric animating 11 medium bastard swords, while the non-proficient cleric can only animate 5 of them.
I maintain that this doesn't make any sense, but them's the rules.
without the Exotic Weapon feat, you simply can not use a bastard sword in one hand.James Jacobs has ruled that it changes size (also here and here, which seems to be a change of heart from back in 2008 here) even going so far as to say it's an official clarification for PFS.
That makes it a quantum object. If you're proficient, it's small, if not, it's medium. So a proficient bard could snag one using Improved Whip Mastery, because he views it as a small object (one-handed weapon). But a non-proficient bard couldn't snag the same sword using the same feat, because he views it as a medium object (two-handed weapon). Two otherwise identical clerics cast Animate Objects, the proficient cleric animating 11 medium bastard swords, while the non-proficient cleric can only animate 5 of them.
I maintain that this doesn't make any sense, but them's the rules.
This is pretty hilarious.
Until it's answered in a FAQ I won't take anything JJ says seriously. He has a pretty horrible track record of being wrong about damn near everything.
Until it's answered in a FAQ I won't take anything JJ says seriously. He has a pretty horrible track record of being wrong about damn near everything.
Comments like that are why he doesn't post here any more, to the detriment of us all.
If you look at the rules as programming code for us rule-processing-robots to compile, then a lot of the rulings don't really make sense.
If you look at them as guidelines for everyone to have fun at the table, then pretty much everything JJ says is good advice.
Until it's answered in a FAQ I won't take anything JJ says seriously. He has a pretty horrible track record of being wrong about damn near everything.Comments like that are why he doesn't post here any more, to the detriment of us all.
If you look at the rules as programming code for us rule-processing-robots to compile, then a lot of the rulings don't really make sense.
If you look at them as guidelines for everyone to have fun at the table, then pretty much everything JJ says is good advice.
That's kind of my point. The way he talks he expresses an opinion, but often he presents this opinion as an official ruling, even when it is obviously contrary to the rules.
I'd just as soon he didn't post general play advice in a rules forum, especially not masquerading as an official ruling.