|
carrying!=weilding!=usingI don't like that notation for "does not equal". I kept reading it with the exclamation points applied to the preceding word, and the "=" being "equals".
Thus, I read that line as "extremely carrying is the same as wielding with intensity is the same as using".
:P
I thought it said, "carrying factorial".
|
Old thread.
Armor Spikes get special unwritten "f*ck you" rules, because some people want them to not exist.
I do mean unwritten, by the way.
All these neat things are doable with the Improved Unarmed Strike feat.
The moment you use any non-hand weapon, that is not an unarmed strike, then everyone's trousers brown, and the air fills with a putrid stench, and the screams of thousand adult children.
Soon, a barrage of metaphorical ghost hands will choke, and molest you, as you are demanded to read the unwritten rules.
Should you dare point to the actual written rules, torches will be lit, rope will be grabbed, and the mob will demand your head.
Sorry for double post from another thread, but it seems more relevant here:
An elf fighter using a bow and having armor spikes while being enlarged and having improved trip feat, could prevent a non-reach opponent from closing to melee. Then add parting shot, and you have a silly combo.
But its well withing the letter of the rules, no?
Stabbing Shot, rather than parting shot... had to get up at 4am, because i began doubting i had used the right feat :-)
Could anyone please address what I wrote in regards to glove weapons like gauntlet, spiked gauntlet, and cestus? I was previously adamantly told about the issue at hand (no pun intended) was that it takes a free action to let go, or hold onto a two handed weapon, so switching on an aoo, or threatening both 5ft and 10ft with a two handed polearm couldn't be done. Where in the rules does it blatantly say this, or at least can strongly support this? Please, consider the fact that snap shot exists, and I'm sure plenty of other presidents that show people taking much more complex actions during an aoo that involve free actions.
Pretty much I am going to argue I'm threatening both 5ft and 10ft at every pfs that holds issue with it until the gm can show me proof otherwise. It's not too be a jerk, but it seems in my mind, just saying no because the rules say so is being unfair when it seems to not be true at all.
If I can't on an aoo attach my hand to a long sword to now do two handed damage from leaving off on my turn one handed, but can reload a crossbow multiple times to shoot many targets with combat reflexes, then there is something wrong with your interpretation of what is acceptable for a free action during these circumstances.
Unloaded ranged weapon while you have snap shot mean you're not threatening with snap shot? Let's say you're loaded on your fist aoo, and combat reflexes goes off. Now you can't take that aoo, because you're not loaded, and shouldn't be threatening, because you're not threatening with a crossbow or longbow unless you have a feat to use them as improvised melee or ranged weapons that'll threaten. This is all in relation to free actions being taken when it's not your turn.
The glove doesn't needed to be drawn, but is on your fist at all times. It seems absurd that you're not threatening both 5ft and 10ft, over this interpretation.
Is there anything beyond people saying "no this doesn't work"? I can't choose on an aoo to take my hand off to one hand a longsword, or put another hand on to two hand it? How can someone reasonably argue that you can't? What am I missing with the rules?
Again, just to appreciate the interpretation in context to the game.
Target provokes an aoo from me, and I trip him, and I have greater trip which from my success I trigger for not only myself, but for others an aoo. I take mine to disarm this target of their weapon....
I'm sure there is a more elaborate example, but...
I can't by this interpretation take my hand off a long sword, or put another on it during an aoo.
So people reach their interpretation from I'm guessing "thinking logically" from what rules do exist, but I think the time that should have been taken to really appreciate the limitations wasn't properly done.
Also, by raw, a cestus makes your unarmed attacks deal lethal damage and allow you to threaten. Mechanically, it shouldn't matter if your hand is holding anything additionally, because your unarmed attack will deal the damage. Even if you needed to make the hand do the damage, you while still holding whatever should be able to swing your hand into the next square adjacent to you.
Sorry for the triple post.
Snap shot
Benefits
While wielding a ranged weapon with which you have Weapon Focus, you threaten squares within 5 feet of you. You can make attacks of opportunity with that ranged weapon. You do not provoke attacks of opportunity when making a ranged attack as an attack of opportunity
Where is the part that overrides you taking free actions that aren't on your turn? Did I just make an argument destroying my archer from having snap shot to go off, or is taking a free action on an aoo a reasonable thing?
|
|
Also, by raw, a cestus makes your unarmed attacks deal lethal damage and allow you to threaten. Mechanically, it shouldn't matter if your hand is holding anything additionally, because your unarmed attack will deal the damage. Even if you needed to make the hand do the damage, you while still holding whatever should be able to swing your hand into the next square adjacent to you.
Sorry for the triple post.
Cestus has been errata'd.
It functions exactly like any other Light weapon, doing it's own damage.
I don't know what the erratta was, but I don't think it applies to negate my point, unless what I'm reading off the paizo site isn't corrected. It says your unarmed damage is lethal, and you're considered armed, which in a way is saying it doesn't care if you punch with that hand. Yes, this is still light, and does the medium weapon version of 1d4 instead of the normal 1d3 nonmonk.
Regardless, I still don't know if I'm missing an actual rule, or this is people in my opinion making a bad interpretation. It's irrelevant right now about the cestus, but I felt it was interesting. My other points still exist, and I don't understand these exceptions, and comparing what is legal to what people somehow deem unreasonable.
Could you cite in the rules where it says this?
By having the cestus on your fist, you are threatening with it. Yes, I agree it seems odd, but I don't think glove weapons get much discussion for people to see how exceptional they are.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm seeing mixed comments regarding cestus, Snap Shot, and reach weapons, so I'll toss up some links and give some examples and hope one of them addresses the actual question.
Gripping or removing your grip from a weapon is a free action. It is "fair" to assume you may grip/ungrip your weapon once each round.
Free actions can only be taken on your turn. Immediate actions are free actions that can be taken when it's not your turn (though you only get 1).
So, gripping/ungripping your weapon, in the context of the rules, may only be done on your turn.
If you are holding a two-handed reach weapon in two hands, and one of those hands is wearing a gauntlet, and it's not your turn, then you don't threaten adjacent.
If you are holding a two-handed reach weapon in one hand, and your other hand is wearing a gauntlet, and it's not your turn, then you only threaten adjacent.
Bows are technically not two-handed weapons, though you need one hand to hold the bow and one hand to draw your ammunition. Additionally, drawing ammunition is considered "Not an Action" (see link above).
If you have Snap Shot, and are holding a bow in one hand, and a gauntlet in your other, you threaten with both your bow and your gauntlet.
Does that clear things up?
|
I think the problem is that people have somehow acquired the idea that there was a deep and significant decision, to make you choose between threatening at reach and threatening close by.
I've seen no evidence that this was ever actually intended.
Most reach weapons happen to be two-handed because they're pretty big (which they have to be, to reach). Those hands are therefore occupied. That's just a verisimilitude thing.
I don't think it was ever the intent to stop you from also giving someone a bump with your spiky shoulder, or to kick them with your boots of curbstomping. That is fine.
I personally prefer the kick over the armor, aesthetically. Sadly, the armor is more optimal because you need a feat for the kick.
|
|
Yes, indeed, I forgot to include that in my examples.
If you're holding a two-handed reach weapon you may still make Attacks of Opportunity, and threaten adjacent, with your Armor Spikes.
Just please don't try to use two-weapon fighting with them. I don't know if Paizo's servers could handle the onslaught of comments.
Twf is cleared up by the faq to not work in tandem a thw.
Ammunition: Projectile weapons use ammunition, such as arrows for bows, bolts for crossbows, darts for blowguns, or sling bullets for slings and halfling sling staves. When using a bow, a character can draw ammunition as a free action
So forget the bow specially, and think of a crossbow with rapid reload, or throw weapons with quick draw, or a musketieer, etc. It's just convenient that they're the exception when making the assumption here. Also, why can't we just assume you can still hold the object and still send in your gauntlet to threaten?
Again, by this interpretation, my long sword example is a thing, and that seems crazy
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
4 players get aoos on a target that is moving around one ally, followed by drinking a potion. Each have combat reflexes.
Player one
"I reach into my quiver and pull out a (Says aa very specific arrow), and for my aoo against the target using snap shot, I go to fire at the target. I notch the arrow into the bow, and with both hands, pull back, aim, and fire!"
Player two
"My turn, with rapid reload and snap shot I take my HAND OFF the cross bow, then I pull back lock my cross bow lock it in place, followed by reaching into my quiver to take out (specific bolt) and load it into my cross bow. Placing my hand back on my weapon, I aim and pull the trigger to fire."
Player three
"I take my HAND OFF my musket, and with rapid reload, and my class ability with snap shot, I take my aoo by reaching into the place where I keep my ammunition to pull out (specific ammunition) and load it into the barrel of my musket. I place my hand back on my weapon, aim and fire."
Player 4
"I hit hit with my long sword.
Gm
"Okay, good. The target provokes from drinking a potion."
Players 1-3 do their actions again with the use o of combat reflexes.
Player 4
"I trip the target"
Gm
"Okay, your trip triggers more aoo's, due to greater trip that player 4 possess."
Players 1-3 do their actions again.
Player 4
"I will instead of keeping my buckler bonus, I'll take the attack penalty and two hand my long sword for this attack."
Gm
"No! Doing that is a FREE ACTION, and by the interpretation of the rules, that is clearly NOT reasonable for you to do when it's not your turn. You can only go two handed if you by the end of your turn state that you did so, instead of keeping your normal one hand on the weapon."
Player 4
"Weren't they all doing far more complicated actions with free actions while not on their turn?"
Gm
"That's different..."
A train crashes through the wall, and ozzy osborn is the trains conductor.
|
Free actions can only be taken on your own turn (except talking).
Letting go of a held weapon with one hand, or re-gripping it so that it's held in two, is a free action so can only be done on your own turn.
Assuming your AoO is taken outside your own turn (likely), then you can't let go/re-grip, so only threaten with those weapons that are already being held in the way which allows them to be used. Two-handed weapons must already be in two hands, and gauntlets must be worn on a hand that is otherwise free.
Armour spikes don't require a hand, they just need to be worn.
The Snap Shot feat sneakily changes something quite significant in the game. Normally, drawing ammunition is a free action so can only be done on your own turn (although knocking an already drawn arrow is 'not an action'). The Snap Shot feat (and a FAQ which mentions multiple Snap Shots via Combat Reflexes) allows you to draw arrows as part of those AoOs. Meaning, taking what would 'normally' be a free action outside your turn!
Does this only apply to the Snap Shot feat? Only to the specific free action of 'draw ammunition'? Or should 'draw ammunition' be re-defined as 'not an action'?
It's clear to me at least that the exception is the aoo, and not a feat/ability.
Not an action brings madness to the game.
Question
If I have a cestus, and I hold a feather/tiny scrap of paper/pebble/etc do I threaten any more with it?
|
|
Rapanuii, I understand your frustration. 20 years ago, when I started D&D, these sorts of rules debates didn't exist.
Heck, we rarely even used figs or maps during combat, and if the GM (DM back then) said "no", the answer was "no". There was also no online forum with which to consult the masses in an attempt to find the "official response".
But that sort of open-ended play style didn't work for everyone, and as the game evolved with different editions more rules were added. Compare the thickness of the 1st Edition D&D Player's Handbook to Pathfinder's Core Rulebook. What used to to be a game mostly of imagination turned into a wargame with a splash of roleplay.
These games have always had one thing in common, though: presenting an abstract version of the real world, where you have to not only have a suspension of belief, but also a suspension of disbelief when something you wish to do doesn't comply with the rules.
People use IRL examples all the time to justify their character's actions, yet when you ask them how to cast a Fireball IRL, they stammer.
In this abstract reality we have to operate within a framework of rules. That isn't always an easy concept to understand for a fantasy roleplaying game on the one hand, and it can likewise break our verisimilitude on the other, but those are the conditions you agree to when you sit down at a game (or you houserule a different way).
By the rules, as silly as it sounds, if you're holding a feather, that hand isn't free to make attacks of opportunity. By the rules, gripping/ungripping a weapon is a free action that can only be taken on your turn. By the rules, a 16th level Gunslinger can fire a muzzle-loaded double barrel musket 12 times in 6 seconds.
Perhaps another rules system will come around in the future that better deals with the minutia of rules conflicts such as these, but for now the answer is to either make a houserule or run-as-written.
[/back in my day]
What's funny is this argument is what supports most of my arguments. This game is set by rules, and regardless of your science of things and other stuff, you can't escape what the rules are.
So, my question is to point out the absurdity, but at the same time, why are you making a closed fist attack, and not some variation of a backhand or whatever? Going deeper, you apply/equip item to said character, and are now by rules to do thing. This weapon makes unarmed attacks lethal, and you threaten the appropriate range in which you would normally reach. Going into "your hand is occupied" doesn't really matter in this case, because you threaten, and you're unarmed is what's doing it.
I'm not saying things don't exist, but where in the rules are these things clearly stated? We have that you can't take unspecific free actions outside of your turn in combat, and we have so far pointed out circumstances where certain free actions are an exception. There is no real argument that says to me that threatening and using the reach and glove cannot work, unless you choose to read things the way you want to read them.
For the record, I too played in the world of imagination only, and just last night was taking about how this have gotten real crazy in their evolution. Instead of a website of rules, I'd go buy one book, and while there have a note pad to copy some of rules down from another book because I couldn't afford it yet. Things were both horrible and awful.
Also, if you some how attach some tiny insignificant object to the palms of a humanoids hands, and then by what you say results in them incapable of drinking potions, holding most weapons, etc because their hands are occupied.
Again, back on point. Your hands aren't holding the glove, but rather, the glove is attached to your character. You can't freely drop the glove, nor can you be disarmed of it. You don't need to have your hands free to use a glove, because the glove isn't subjected to being held making you choose. So, as long as your hand can travel places (isn't stationary to being affixed to some object that can't be moved like you holding onto a bolder) then while holding a feather/pebble/short sword/great sword/polearm/large sized heavy repeating cross bow, you're smacking fools with the love glove on aoos, or even on your turn without letting go.
I usually post and quickly edit to add something, but if it's too late I look like a jerk and double post. When I post from my phone, many issues come up that I don't care to catalog them all. I think I just edited out some random letters, because one of the issues is that my phone will reposition where characters are being written to elsewhere on the screen.
It's not held in your hand, and if you can see it reasonable to touch armor to someone else to give damage, then touching a glove should be too. I don't see a reasonable argument otherwise. It's not occupying your hand, and it really doesn't matter to let go or not.
It's not held though, and thus you're wielding it while holding something else thus threatening
The fact still remains you aren't holding the weapon, just like you're not holding spiked armor, or a knife shoe weapon thingy, or that iron beard etc and you threaten. People just take issue that the spot it's in being your fist/hand. The weapon doesn't day anything about having an open hand to use it too.
Is there anything that can clarify this position that it doesn't threaten when even a feather is in your hand?
I am wielding the object, and any part of the object that I can move within my reach to touch a target with it makes it threaten that distance. I don't have to actively hold the object too, so having things like a feather in my hand don't matter.
4 players get aoos on a target that is moving around one ally, followed by drinking a potion. Each have combat reflexes.
Player one
"I reach into my quiver and pull out a (Says aa very specific arrow), and for my aoo against the target using snap shot, I go to fire at the target. I notch the arrow into the bow, and with both hands, pull back, aim, and fire!"Player two
"My turn, with rapid reload and snap shot I take my HAND OFF the cross bow, then I pull back lock my cross bow lock it in place, followed by reaching into my quiver to take out (specific bolt) and load it into my cross bow. Placing my hand back on my weapon, I aim and pull the trigger to fire."Player three
"I take my HAND OFF my musket, and with rapid reload, and my class ability with snap shot, I take my aoo by reaching into the place where I keep my ammunition to pull out (specific ammunition) and load it into the barrel of my musket. I place my hand back on my weapon, aim and fire."Player 4
"I hit hit with my long sword.Gm
"Okay, good. The target provokes from drinking a potion."Players 1-3 do their actions again with the use o of combat reflexes.
Player 4
"I trip the target"Gm
"Okay, your trip triggers more aoo's, due to greater trip that player 4 possess."Players 1-3 do their actions again.
Player 4
"I will instead of keeping my buckler bonus, I'll take the attack penalty and two hand my long sword for this attack."Gm
"No! Doing that is a FREE ACTION, and by the interpretation of the rules, that is clearly NOT reasonable for you to do when it's not your turn. You can only go two handed if you by the end of your turn state that you did so, instead of keeping your normal one hand on the weapon."Player 4
"Weren't they all doing far more complicated actions with free actions while not on their turn?"Gm
"That's different..."A train crashes through the wall, and ozzy osborn is the trains conductor.
This post is amazing, more people should read it.
But you can remove your hand from a crossbow to find specific bolts before returning hand to the crossbow.
I dont see how punching a guy with my gauntlet is more complicated.
|
|
But you can remove your hand from a crossbow to find specific bolts before returning hand to the crossbow.
I dont see how punching a guy with my gauntlet is more complicated.
As part of an attack of opportunity?
No.
You need a number a feats to accomplish that.
Again, special feats and special abilities allowing you to do special things are not a good basis for what is normally allowed.
I don't see what point I'm missing, and by all means, cite your rules.
There are two issues I'm pointing out. Free actions having exception outside of your personal turn, on your aoo, and the fact you're not holding a glove weapon.
I know I'm subject to bias, but I feel I'm being very coherent and reasonable.
You're asserting things as fact, and I want to be reasonable and get educated or reach a conclusion. If I'm missing something, please enlighten me. Anything you find relevant to help in this matter especially in regards to what I've specifically been asking for I would appreciate.
The glove is attached to your body, and the other is in your hand. In wielding both, but not in the same hand.
Heres a few things that have changed since 3.5 and pathfinder
Armor Spikes: Can I use two-weapon fighting to make an "off-hand" attack with my armor spikes in the same round I use a two-handed weapon?
No.
Likewise, you couldn't use an armored gauntlet to do so, as you are using both of your hands to wield your two-handed weapon, therefore your off-hand is unavailable to make any attacks.
We're not talking about twf
Heres a few things that have changed since 3.5 and pathfinder
Armor Spikes: Can I use two-weapon fighting to make an "off-hand" attack with my armor spikes in the same round I use a two-handed weapon?
No.
Likewise, you couldn't use an armored gauntlet to do so, as you are using both of your hands to wield your two-handed weapon, therefore your off-hand is unavailable to make any attacks.
What does 2 weapon fighting have to do with this?
What does 2 weapon fighting have to do with this?Heres a few things that have changed since 3.5 and pathfinder
Armor Spikes: Can I use two-weapon fighting to make an "off-hand" attack with my armor spikes in the same round I use a two-handed weapon?
No.
Likewise, you couldn't use an armored gauntlet to do so, as you are using both of your hands to wield your two-handed weapon, therefore your off-hand is unavailable to make any attacks.
In 3.5 armored spikes were all over: you could hit someone with a shoulder, elbow, knee etc so you COULD two weapon fight with a greatsword and your armored spikes. In pathfinder you need to whack someone with your fist to use the armored spikes as a weapon if you're not grappling.
AHAH.. found it Linky
Armor spikes are treated as light weapons for the purpose of threatening adjacent squares. Light weapons require the use of limbs, so you would only be able to make attacks with them if you have a free hand. Thus, wielding a two-handed reach weapon would negate your ability to "wield" (and thus threaten with) armor spikes. This isn't necessarily clear in the rules, but I just discussed it with Jason, and we're both on the same page about the intent. -Mark Moreland.
And yes, the threaten the area with the bow feat messed up free action and non actions. A lot of rules do.
Who says light weapons need a hand to operate? My should, knee, elbow, and fist work well enough.
Can you not punch someone with the basket guard on a dueling sword? Whats to stop the same while holding my polearm.
Snap shot in no way as far as I can tell has anything in the feat that allows you to take free actions. If you interpret rules in regards about free actions like I'm disagreeing with, then it's implied that for you to be legal to preform your AoO with a ranged weapon, you need to have the ammunition LOADED, or in hand (however you set up your attack without using a free action). Things seem pretty terrible for taking that feat if this is the case.
Yes, I don't want to over complicate things in regard to the badly written FAQ.
EDIT: The FAQ just states that while using a two handed weapon, you can't use an off-hand attack. I understand how you can read into that, and perhaps they meant it to do that, but it doesn't.
|
|
Mike Moreland made that comment for PFS, and quite honestly, im not even sure it's binding for that. For one, it doesn't really make sense. If he had said spiked gauntlets, I would agree with him 100%. Armored spikes don't require the use of hands, per se, while spiked gauntlets obviously do. I half wonder if the mention of armor spikes was a mix up with spiked gauntlets.
The real issue at hand is if you can take free actions when it's not your turn. If you can, you can shift holding your glaive to one hand while you punch out AoOs, no problem. If you cannot take a free action at any time in combat, then you cannot use AoOs in the way Rapanuii is suggesting.
The only rules of note that I can find to weigh in on the matter is that of immediate actions, which state they can be used even if it's not your turn. This makes it sound like an exception.
With that said, here's a rule from the performance combat section in ultimate combat:
...The following triggers allow a combatant to make a performance combat check as a free action or an immediate action...
Now this is by no means a definitive answer, but this suggests that free actions can be immediate actions and vise versa, which would be in favor of the idea that one could release their two-handed weapon, punch, and grab the weapon again in an attack of opportunity.
There is the discussion about doing free actions during AoO's, and one if glove weapons threaten the space while holding a weapon in that arms hand that it's attached to (if they do, then if they can attack targets without letting go of the object).
You need to have both the 10ft and 5ft threatening to make use of the AoO from both, because if they trigger from 5 ft, the ability to grab onto your two handed weapon doesn't really mean much, and vice versa.
|
|
Snap shot in no way as far as I can tell has anything in the feat that allows you to take free actions. If you interpret rules in regards about free actions like I'm disagreeing with, then it's implied that for you to be legal to preform your AoO with a ranged weapon, you need to have the ammunition LOADED, or in hand (however you set up your attack without using a free action). Things seem pretty terrible for taking that feat if this is the case.
Yes, I don't want to over complicate things in regard to the badly written FAQ.
EDIT: The FAQ just states that while using a two handed weapon, you can't use an off-hand attack. I understand how you can read into that, and perhaps they meant it to do that, but it doesn't.
Sure, but for the exception that is created with snap shot and combat reflexes allowing you to take multiple AoO with a ranged weapon.
I think it is fairly safe to say that for a character who has invested in the snap shot feat, it is implied that said character has their ranged weapon ready to use for an AoO. I don't think any GM, even in PFS, will penalize such a player just because they didn't declare that they were using a free action to draw an arrow for an AoO at the end of their turn. (Crossbows are a different story, especially if they don't have the rapid reload feat).
Snap shot in no way as far as I can tell has anything in the feat that allows you to take free actions. If you interpret rules in regards about free actions like I'm disagreeing with, then it's implied that for you to be legal to preform your AoO with a ranged weapon, you need to have the ammunition LOADED, or in hand (however you set up your attack without using a free action). Things seem pretty terrible for taking that feat if this is the case.
Yes, I don't want to over complicate things in regard to the badly written FAQ.
EDIT: The FAQ just states that while using a two handed weapon, you can't use an off-hand attack. I understand how you can read into that, and perhaps they meant it to do that, but it doesn't.
Sure, but for the exception that is created with snap shot and combat reflexes allowing you to take multiple AoO with a ranged weapon.
I think it is fairly safe to say that for a character who has invested in the snap shot feat, it is implied that said character has their ranged weapon ready to use for an AoO. I don't think any GM, even in PFS, will penalize such a player just because they didn't declare that they were using a free action to draw an arrow for an AoO at the end of their turn. (Crossbows are a different story, especially if they don't have the rapid reload feat).
Problem is you can make multiple AoO's. So when do you get the free action to knock the second arrow?