If a fighter has the crane style chain feat, can he use a longsword 2-handed during his turn then switch to a 1H stance, so as to use Crane Wing ?
Once per round while using Crane Style, when you have at least one hand free and are either fighting defensively or using the total defense action, you can deflect one melee weapon attack that would normally hit you. You expend no action to deflect the attack, but you must be aware of it and not flat-footed. An attack so deflected deals no damage to you.
Same question with Crane Riposte. If I deflect the melee attack, I get a free AoO. Can I switch to a 2H stance to perform said AoO ?
It's not specified in the rules. Making hand changing more than a free action can break certain mechanics. Also:
if you're wielding a 2H weapon, you can let go of the weapon with one of your hands (free action). You're now only carrying the 2H weapon, not wielding it, but your free hand is now free to attack or help cast spells or whatever. And at the end of your turn if your free hand remains free you'd be able to return it to grip your 2H weapon so you can still threaten foes and take attacks of opportunity if you want.
If a fighter has the crane style chain feat, can he use a longsword 2-handed during his turn then switch to a 1H stance, so as to use Crane Wing ?
That said, yes, you can release one hand. If you get attacked before that happens (like an AoO or a readied action during your turn) you will not be able to deflect it.
Same question with Crane Riposte. If I deflect the melee attack, I get a free AoO. Can I switch to a 2H stance to perform said AoO ?
No, since you can't take free actions outside your turn without specific exceptions (like speaking).
I should, it takes even less time and effort than other free actions.
Agreed. I am not up on the specifics of the Crane Style feat, but in general any butthat who ever held a sword can add a hand to it or take one away from it at will.
There are other factors at work. Size of the weapon, whether the fighter needs to drop a shield, that sort of thing. But in general, putting your left hand on the handle of a sword you are already holding in your right hand, is as free an action as a free action gets short of speaking.
I should, it takes even less time and effort than other free actions.Agreed. I am not up on the specifics of the Crane Style feat, but in general any butthat who ever held a sword can add a hand to it or take one away from it at will.
I'll agree to that statement, but at the same time that butthat doesn't swing his sword with two-hands for six seconds, let go with one hand then stand there while another person swings his sword for six seconds. Which is essentially how many people view combat in Pathfinder.
The classic example is the Ring of Force Shield. Free Action to de-activate. Take all your actions using two hands. Free Action to activate. Then claim the +2 shield bonus against all attacks that round.
It completely ignores that the combat round that is being simulated is supposed to happen simultaneously.
This where I resort to Rule 0, and impose a limit on free actions. It isn't so much the free action takes too long, but rather allowing it to be used as such doesn't reflect the simultaneous nature of combat. I know combat is an abstraction, but it should be so easily subverted by a meta-gaming trick. YMMV.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I should, it takes even less time and effort than other free actions.Agreed. I am not up on the specifics of the Crane Style feat, but in general any butthat who ever held a sword can add a hand to it or take one away from it at will.
I'll agree to that statement, but at the same time that butthat doesn't swing his sword with two-hands for six seconds, let go with one hand then stand there while another person swings his sword for six seconds. Which is essentially how many people view combat in Pathfinder.
The classic example is the Ring of Force Shield. Free Action to de-activate. Take all your actions using two hands. Free Action to activate. Then claim the +2 shield bonus against all attacks that round.
It completely ignores that the combat round that is being simulated is supposed to happen simultaneously.
This where I resort to Rule 0, and impose a limit on free actions. It isn't so much the free action takes too long, but rather allowing it to be used as such doesn't reflect the simultaneous nature of combat. I know combat is an abstraction, but it should be so easily subverted by a meta-gaming trick. YMMV.
I figured that was the entire point of the ring of force shield. Otherwise, you might as well buy a cheaper item with a better type of AC boost. A ring of protection +2 is only 8000gp to the force shield's 8500.
Then i suppose that for you if i full attack a moster killing it on my fourth iterative the moster should respond in his turn even if he is dead?
Face it, D&D wrks with turns, and like any turn based game, have some "intelligent exploits" tath can be used thanks to his turn based combat. If you don't like it, go play something else.
I figured that was the entire point of the ring of force shield. Otherwise, you might as well buy a cheaper item with a better type of AC boost. A ring of protection +2 is only 8000gp to the force shield's 8500.
Ring of force shield has other goodies attached like no armor check penality or most important no arcane spell failure. Still, if you would need a hand to wield it, you could buy a mithral shield +2 and have more AC for less price.
I figured that was the entire point of the ring of force shield. Otherwise, you might as well buy a cheaper item with a better type of AC boost. A ring of protection +2 is only 8000gp to the force shield's 8500.Ring of force shield has other goodies attached like no armor check penality or most important no arcane spell failure. Still, if you would need a hand to wield it, you could buy a mithral shield +2 and have more AC for less price.
Ring of protection +2 also has no armor check penalty and no arcane spell failure. And it stacks with more things (like the shield spell).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Face it, D&D wrks with turns, and like any turn based game, have some "intelligent exploits" tath can be used thanks to his turn based combat.
Yes, but the advantage that Pathfinder has over most turn-based games in an intelligent judge that doesn't have to slavishly follow the rules to absurdity.
As for the killing blow analogy, I'm willing to give that initiative has some advantage, besides such a rule would affect the characters much more than the monsters.
I was comparing to one other items that gave the same kind of armor bonus (shield) since you can't have two +2 protection ring, but you can have a +2 protection ring and a ring of force shield (or in my example a normal magical shield)
To me the advantage of the Ring is that can switch from a one-handed weapon to a two-handed weapon, not just repeatedly in the same round.
At my table, if you have a Ring of Force Shield, you can activate it at the end of one round, then de-activate it at the beginning of the next round. You just can't re-activate it that round, you have to wait until the following round. So essentially, the Ring in 'on' every other round--50% of the time. I think this fairly well simulates the nature of turning it on and off during combat. Again, your mileage my vary.
And to you someone using a shield every other turn makes more sense? To me is perfectly applicable to use the ring every turn at the end of your actions. As for the simulationist part of the game, you can interpret it as popping out the shield anytime you need to parry then letting of when you need to strike. After all, is not that you are attacking and defending in the same istant.
To me the advantage of the Ring is that can switch from a one-handed weapon to a two-handed weapon, not just repeatedly in the same round.
At my table, if you have a Ring of Force Shield, you can activate it at the end of one round, then de-activate it at the beginning of the next round. You just can't re-activate it that round, you have to wait until the following round. So essentially, the Ring in 'on' every other round--50% of the time. I think this fairly well simulates the nature of turning it on and off during combat. Again, your mileage my vary.
Fair enough. Rule 0 and all.
I would never purchase such a ring, though, unless I already had a ring of protection +2 and had no access to shield or custom items.
I view the ability to turn it off and on so quickly as both flavorful and useful, similar to the (switches nerd hats) style of lightsaber combat that utilizes the ability to switch the blade off and on to bypass the enemy's parry. From a magic item cost standpoint, it's fine the way it is by any way I've managed to calculate it.