|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Imagine a world in which Pathfinder has an action on the 'Actions In Combat' tables that our world doesn't.
Let's imagine that this action is 'switching from gripping a weapon in one hand to gripping it in two hands', and let's imagine that this is defined as a move action which does not provoke an AoO, but it can be combined with a regular move if your base attack is +1 or higher.
What would playing Pathfinder be like in that world...?
Archers could only shoot one arrow per round, no matter how high their base attack. Why? Because although you can hold a bow in one hand it requires two hands to use it in combat. You have to let go of the bow to draw an arrow from your quiver. Drawing ammunition is a free action, so no problem there. But wait! In this world it takes a move action to switch from holding your bow in one hand to holding it in the required two, and since you've just used a move action to do that then you cannot take a full-round action to do a full attack! Would you play an archer in this world?
Want to create a Little John clone, dazzling us with your flashy quarterstaff skills? Your hands are a blur as they move around the staff, using two hands to twirl it around your head and then excecuting a cruel blow to the nether regions, disappointing the baddy's future wife? Brilliant idea! Tough luck though! In this world, that attack (which is a standard attack in both worlds) involves about sixteen move actions as your hands fly all over the staff. Never mind, you can always use it as a club. Would you play Little John in this world?
You could ask your wizard friend about how best to use a staff in this world, but he threw his in the bin ages ago. All that dropping it and picking it up again, not threatening any squares if he cast a spell, not being able to move in the same round as gripping it in the required two hands because his base attack is +0. Would your wizard use a staff in this world?
I'm glad I'm not playing Pathfinder in a world like that. I'm glad I'm playing in our world, where changing from a one-handed to a two-handed grip is not an action at all, not even a free action. And we know this because we have a table detailing actions in combat and such an action does not exist.
Not surprising really. Many things that are done are not defined as Actions In Combat. Breathing in (and out!), making saves, seeing obvious things around you, making Attacks of Opportunity, wetting yourself when the dragons mum turns up to discuss your treatment of it's baby, etc. etc. etc.
Well said, Malachi. I disagree with one point -- wetting yourself when the dragon mum turns up is clearly an immediate action, not a free one. ^_^
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In case anyone missed it, since it got page-bottom'd:
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.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yes, if you are carrying around your greatsword in one hand then you are not wielding it. Therefore it takes a move action for you to be able to attack with it, as it takes a move action to start to wield a weapon.
Drawing a weapon is a move action - that is unsheathing it, or otherwise retrieving it from your person where it is stored. Switching from a single handed or double handed grip is a free action. The two are not really similar and suggesting it takes a move action to 'ready' a two handed weapon for fighting from a one handed grip is not in agreement with the rules.
I elect to have my PC carry a trio of daggers in their left hand.
No, only one.
What you could do, is if you're wearing a buckler on one hand, and holding a dagger in that hand, and wielding a dagger in your other hand, is throw the dagger in your non-buckler hand at full BAB, then free action switch the held dagger to your non-buckler hand, then throw that dagger at BAB-5. (Assuming your BAB is 6 or higher) Neither of the two attacks were made with your buckler hand, so neither of them take the -1 penalty on attack rolls, and you keep your buckler AC bonus the whole time.
No, but...
1) that is my opinion on it, not RAW.
2) I'm not aware of any rules about being allowed to hold more than one item at a time in the same hand (in this case 3 daggers) - which then leaves this completely open to personal interpretation.
Themtically I don't really like the idea of a magus using a two-hander either... but again personal opinion.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Now all this said, it has NOTHING to do with our argument one way or the other as Mr Jacobs was not talking 2 years ago about the actions required in the sequence that he described.
One can certainly:Let go of the weapon with one hand (free action).
Cast a spell (standard action).
Wield the weapon again (move action).Without any difficulty from either size of this debate...
He talks about being able to change your grip at the end of your turn. You honestly think he wasn't implying it was a free action or non-action? Sounds like a nitpick to me, latching on to the fact that he forgot to include the phrase "free action" and ignoring the idea he was obviously trying to convey. No one talks about move actions as things you could do once the end of your turn rolls around, and you know it.
And then in your very next post, you accuse someone of attacking [not just breaking, attacking!] the spirit of the rules. That, James, is hypocrisy.
Speaking of that second post:
Do you believe that the following is possible without the feat quickdraw?
Move one dagger into right hand.
Throw dagger in right hand at highest BAB.
Move second dagger into right hand.
Throw dagger in right hand at BAB-5.
Throw dagger in left hand at BAB-10.I, personally, do not. I think allowing such makes the feat nigh worthless and attacks the spirit of even having such rules.
So you've never encountered a scene in a movie/book/whatever where someone had a handful of ammo/knives/etc in one hand and quickly threw them one after the other with their other hand? That sounds pretty classic to me. Heck, I've done it myself with playing cards.
And no, it doesn't invalidate Quick Draw: the person has to be ready (have the knives out already, which means no climbing, etc), and they get exactly one "Quick Draw-esque" full-attack before they need to draw more knives - which will take a move action each. Meanwhile, the knife thrower with Quick Draw can full-attack every round. That's very far from invalidating the feat.
And once again, I think you know it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
it has NOTHING to do with our argument one way or the other as Mr Jacobs was not talking 2 years ago about the actions required in the sequence that he described.
You're arguing that while holding a two-handed weapon in one hand is a free action, and switching a held object from one hand to the other is not an action at all, to simply put a free hand back on the held weapon is a move action? And the only reason you have to think this, is that drawing a weapon from a sheath is also a move action?
Drawing a greatsword from a secured sheath is certainly more action-intensive than simply putting a free hand back on a weapon you're already holding.
Putting your hand back on a weapon you're holding is not in any way equivalent in time or effort to loading a light crossbow, mounting a horse, moving a heavy object, or retrieving a book from your closed backpack.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think we're all about to have to either ban shuriken from play or brace ourselves for the inevitable FAQ taking the ammunition-like rules away from them. It is clear that putting your hand on a weapon as anything less than a move action will destroy PFRPG, especially for a magus who gives up one of his class' two "signature" abilities.
Throwing three daggers won't work without Quickdraw, though, without an open-minded GM, but throwing two would. (This is fully spelled out, please don't anybody try to refute it).
I get where you're going and I'll even concede that the rules governing when, how, and for how many of which types of action aren't well written (by not being written) so you must decide between two options, essentially:
(1)I don't want to take anything away from Quickdraw or ammunition, especially since they don't get much to begin with.
-or-
(2)If reaching out and touching an enemy is a free action, certainly moving your hand a few inches to the left or right needn't be an action. Further, what's the difference? A tiny bump in DPR?
Obviously I fall into the (2) category. It's logic works for me and it isn't damaging the game. As long as the magus' player and GM work this out away from the table, before the game (for the love of Pete!), there is no reason to have to disallow it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
GM can limit the amount of free actions a player can use.
Yes, it's technically legal for a GM to limit the number of free actions at a table to two. (Minimum two is explicitly allowed in the rules)
And while this would hose a two-handed magus, it would also hose a lot of other players as well. Any touch spell with a material component means the caster cannot speak for one round. (free action to prepare materials, free action to touch, free action to speak) Any archer can't fire more than twice per round. (free action to draw ammunition) There are plenty more examples or how a strict free action limit breaks the game.
|
|
Changing from one-handed to two-handed isn't even a free action; it's done as part of another action (attack, full attack, attack of opportunity), in the same way that jumping is not a move or free action but something you can do during a move.
Sometimes people say 'free action' as an easy way of saying that it's not an action at all in terms of the 'Actions In Combat' table.
|
|
So, full attack with weapon, free action to free a hand, cast a spell, free action to grab blade, hit with an extra 2h weapon attack? That just doesn't seem right, somehow.Absolutely. It can't be wielded, but it can be held.EDIT: And if you can hold a weapon in one hand, why not take your melee attacks, then free action to "hold" the weapon, and have a free hand to cast spells?
What it really comes down to it, can a player "hold" a 2h weapon with one hand?
Well the first question you should be asking is how your player manged to pull off a "Full Round Action" for A Full Attack and a "Standard Action" for using spellstrike in the same turn.
Oh never mind that wasn't the question.
You're asking how a Magus would cast a spellstrike with a two handed weapon as a standard action, while a Full Attack is a Full Round Action comparatively.
It doesn't really seem farfetched to me, but I suppose in the instance where the caster removes one hand from his weapon to cast a spell logic would dictate some sort of defensive penalty.
However strictly speaking Spellstrike can be legally used with a two-handed weapon so I don't really see the problem from a PFS perspective as PFS is RAW.
Spellstrike is not a standard action. It is a non-action that modifies the free action attack that comes with touch spells.
EDIT: also, what full round action?
EDIT EDIT: nevermind, I see it. The discussion (not that instance), however, has been about casting a touch attack spell, let's say shocking grasp while holding a two-handed weapon in one hand, moving to an opponent, and using the free action to make the actual touch attack using spellstrike to change it from a touch attack to a weapon attack. The argument has been whether the magus can do this because switching from holding the weapon to wielding the weapon is either a free action or even a non-action OR the magus cannot do this since he would need to use a move action to put his hand on his sword.
|
|
Spellstrike is not a standard action. It is a non-action that modifies the free action attack that comes with touch spells.
EDIT: also, what full round action?
EDIT EDIT: nevermind, I see it. The discussion (not that instance), however, has been about casting a touch attack spell, let's say shocking grasp while holding a two-handed weapon in one hand, moving to an opponent, and using the free action to make the actual touch attack using spellstrike to change it from a touch attack to a weapon attack. The argument has been whether the magus can do this because switching from holding the weapon to wielding the weapon is either a free action or even a non-action OR the magus cannot do this since he would need to use a move action to put his hand on his sword.
Fair enough it is in fact a "Free Action" modification to the way the caster delivers the touch spell. I was more speaking from the perspective that I am unaware of any touch spells a magus would likely be casting(with the intent of using spell strike.) that have a casting time of anything other than a standard action.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Spellstrike is not a standard action. It is a non-action that modifies the free action attack that comes with touch spells.
EDIT: also, what full round action?
EDIT EDIT: nevermind, I see it. The discussion (not that instance), however, has been about casting a touch attack spell, let's say shocking grasp while holding a two-handed weapon in one hand, moving to an opponent, and using the free action to make the actual touch attack using spellstrike to change it from a touch attack to a weapon attack. The argument has been whether the magus can do this because switching from holding the weapon to wielding the weapon is either a free action or even a non-action OR the magus cannot do this since he would need to use a move action to put his hand on his sword.
Well in the instance you specify "moving to an opponent" it would be irrefutably legal considering that drawing your weapon during a move is a free action if you BAB is +1 or higher.
However from a strictly personal perspective I would consider adjusting the grip you have on your blade to be an "non action", especially with the consideration that it is being incorporated into another action, ie. swinging your blade to attack.
No, no. You're absolutely correct. I hadn't really read the post that you were commenting on with the full-attack, which would indeed be wrong since that would require spell combat which doesn't work with two-handed weapons. Off hand, I can't think of any touch spells that a magus would ever use that use an action other than a standard action.
My (hopefully) last argument in favor of the two-handed spellstrike is this: at a +1 BAB, to draw a weapon is either a move action or part of a move action. Magi don't even get spellstrike until they have a +1 BAB. Can that please be enough for the neigh-sayers to see that telling someone "no" to this is not strictly upholding RAW, it is only upholding a personal belief that it just isn't right. Can it?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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.
Ok, you're missing a bit of context here. Specifically:
ALL THAT SAID: If you want to say that you can cast a spell with a 2H weapon arcane bond just held in one hand, that's fine. That's a perfectly legitimate interpretation of the rules, I suppose. It's not the interpretation I made, but given time and thought I might be some day inclined to change my mind. In fact, I suspect I probably WOULD change my mind if a player in a game I was running made an impassioned plea without doing so in an argumentative and annoying manner.
Folks looking for OFFICIAL rules are going to be constantly disappointed, I fear, since my philosophy is closer to "official" is what your GM decides. I'm just here to provide my interpretations and opinions. If you disagree, don't take my advice. I'm fine with that! I'm just trying to help folks make their decisions for their games, not trying to tell them how to run their games.
Here's some more context, which is actually about magi and THF.
No two handed weapons for the magus. Just like with two weapon fighting, using a two handed weapon is not going to work. This was a very intentional design choice.Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
Here is the question Jason Bulmahn was responding to:
So, you have to have a hand free to cast the spell, and only with one handed weapons? I can't use a two handed weapon and either cast the spell first with one hand free and the other hand holding the weapon, then grasp the two handed weapon with the free hand after casting (Or vice versa)? In game, is my character casting the spell while making the attacks?
Cheapy, these are good finds. Still, even against Jason Bulmahn's response (thank you for providing the question with it, I see a lot of quotes that support an argument until context is reintegrated), I submit that the magus who wants to give up spell combat to be able to two-handed spellstrike is neither rule-breaking nor game-breaking and should be allowed.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You're welcome, but...
Two things:
1) Jason's comments were about spell combat, not spellstrike.
2) I actually have no clue what is going on with this thread as I haven't read it. I just saw Grick's quote and was commenting on that and the thread title, kinda guessing what the thread was about.
So uh...yea...I'll be leaving now...
|
|
Strangely, a magus' Spell Combat ability mentions ',,,wielding a light or one-handed melee weapon...'.
Instead of defining how a weapon is used (one or two-handed) it defines the weapon as light, one or two-handed.
A longsword is a one-handed weapon (the only restriction mentioned) and we all know that one-handed weapons may be used two-handed to get time-and-a-half on your strength bonus. Spell Combat does NOT limit the way you use your one-handed weapon, although you may argue it should.
As written, a magus may use Spell Combat to cast a spell with his off-hand, then strike two-handed with his (one-handed weapon!) longsword.
Any questions?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
As written, a magus may use Spell Combat to cast a spell with his off-hand, then strike two-handed with his (one-handed weapon!) longsword.
Spell Combat (Ex): "To use this ability, the magus must have one hand free (even if the spell being cast does not have somatic components), while wielding a light or one-handed melee weapon in the other hand."
For the duration of the ability the magus must have one hand free. Putting his free hand on his weapon would make it no longer free.
1. He didn't mean it as a RAW quote... as the omitted parts of his post expressly says just that.
Of course not. There's always people who disregard what JJ says because he's not "official enough." Such comments are why he doesn't post in the rules forum any more. If someone doesn't agree with James, they demand SKR say something. And if he doesn't agree with them, go to JB. And if he doesn't agree, insist it must be printed in a new version. And if that doesn't work, just insist they know better and everyone else in the world is doing it wrong.
2. It didn't really matter for his example what kind of action that it would be, so why mention it one way or the other?
It does matter. If changing grip was a move action, you would be unable to remove-cast-wield.
Really, if anyone is taking liberties here it is not me when you try to use something not said as 'proof' in a post where the poster says to not take what they are saying as 'OFFICIAL'.
The rules don't explicitly say what action is required to change grips on a weapon.
You can randomly decide it's a move action, which breaks archers and gunslingers and paladins and anyone else who might want to use both hands for something.
Or you can accept that it wasn't important enough to list in the book, and given the creative director's post, rule it's a free action which makes every other game mechanic work the way it was intended. Archers can shoot multiple times. People can wield spiked gauntlets when not attacking with their whips. Paladins can cast spells and still threaten. Magi can use both hands with Spellstrike.
Please!
You're welcome.
|
|
Although I could argue the toss with Grick about having a hand free to cast then using two hands to strike, I don't have the heart for it. I truly believe that the intent was to limit the weapon attack part of Spell Combat to 'using' the weapon one-handed; it is just worded as if the weapon type (in terms of light, one-handed, two-handed) was the crucial part, when it seems obvious that the intention was that the weapon should be 'used' one-handed.
I'm sure I'm not the only one who is frequently frustrated by poorly worded abilities. I'm sure writers have a lot on their plates but, really, is it so hard to think things through; to realise the consequences of a rule you've just written?
About that; since the logical consequences of ruling that it takes a move action to change grip include archers only being able to fire a single arrow per round, wizards being afraid to use a staff, paladins being unable to Lay On Hands in combat, etc., can we see that for the game to work in a credible way that changing grip is not an action?
By the way, there must be people who have seen knife throwers on TV! They have an off-hand full of daggers, they then use their throwing hand to take a dagger and chuck it at some rotating bint in an effort not to hurt her. This is not an unreasonable way to use daggers in game, you still need actions to get a fist full of daggers in the first place; it's not a free lunch!
The game designer who talked about using a quarterstaff as an arcane bond DID agree that letting go of a staff with one hand an replacing it did not require move actions. His opinion of whether this made it a good choice for an arcane bond doesn't change that! Just because it doesn't take a move action does not mean there aren't other concerns when trying to use several different weapons in a single round! But changing grip is not one of them!
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The lead designer of Pathfinder just said that you can't a weapon two-handedly when using spell combat.
Attempts to attack two-handedly in the same turn as spell combat have been going on since the class was first released in beta, and Jason squashed that right fast :p
|
|
In case anyone missed it, since it got page-bottom'd:
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.
The man DID say that at the end of your turn, if you are holding the staff in one hand with the other free, you still threaten with it as you'd be able to return it to grip your 2h weapon, so you can still take attacks of opportunity.
He knows that attacks of opportunity are not actions in terms of Actions In Combat.
He knows you can't take actions when it's not your turn (except immediate actions).
That he says you can end your turn with one hand on the staff but return the free hand to hold it two-handed to make your AoO, provoked because you STILL threaten with it (because you've got two hands free to wield it), means that returning that free hand CANNOT be an action of any kind, and MUST be part of the attack of opportunity.
You say that 'to wield a weapon you are not wielding requires a move action'. No it doesn't. How do I know this? Because the things that are standard, move, free and immediate are detailed in the Actions In Combat tables, and there is no such action. You made it up! You made it up and are saying the rest of us are not playing by the rules when we don't follow a rule YOU made up!
What's that? It's the same as drawing a weapon? No it isn't!
Core rulebook p.186, under 'Draw or Sheath a Weapon'. 'Drawing a weapon so that you can use it in combat...requires a move action'. It is WRONG to ignore the first part of that, the part about 'drawing it' out of a sheath or scabbard or what have you. You latch on to the 'so you can use it in combat' part as if it means that ANYTHING you do to make a weapon useable must be as difficult as drawing it from a scabbard. This is clearly absurd and, more importantly for us, NOT what the rules say! It is wrong to point to half a statement and claim it as a universal rule, when it is a single, whole statement. The way you interpret it, drawing a weapon wouldn't be a move action as long as you promised not to use it in combat! To you, 'Drawing a weapon so you can use it in combat' is a different action to 'Drawing a weapon for any non-combat purpose.' Absurd! Would ANY GM let a player get away with drawing a sword without costing an action with the excuse of 'but I'm not going to hit anyone with it'.
The complete sentence reads '
|
|
(sorry, got cut off there)
The complete sentence reads '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.'
If your logic says that, because of this sentence, any way of making a weapon useable in combat counts as drawing a weapon from a sheath, then that SAME logic says that any way of freeing your hand of a weapon is the same as putting it away, costing a move action! For YOUR logic to be consistent, while holding a staff in one hand it takes a move action to grip it with your free hand, then by that very same logic using the very same sentence then letting go with one hand in order to have a free hand MUST be the same as 'putting a weapon away' and MUST require a move action! Absurd!
In our world the Pathfinder rules do not require ANY action to change from 1 to 2 hands or vice versa. In our world drawing a weapon from a sheath cost a move action whether or not you intend to 'use it in combat'. That sentence means that the weapon mist be unsheathed to use it in combat.
By the way, you still haven't explained how, in your world, archers can fire more than once per round! According to you, the archer is holding his bow in one hand while he draws his arrow (free action), but he needs a move action to use his second hand to use his bow as it requires two hands. How does your archer get a full attack if he has had to use a move action to go from 'holding' a bow in one hand to 'wielding' it in two?
I'm dying to know! You started to explain in your last post but didn't make it clear. Enlighten us to how Pathfinder makes sense in your world.
Look, man: unless the magus is a 1st level skirnir (who get spellstrike at 1st level), he can draw a weapon from a sheath as only part of another move action, since his BAB is at least +1. Quickdraw isn't as amazing or necessary as you want it to be. Darn. What about Prone Shooter or whatever it's called? The feat literally does nothing. Really, it just takes up a feat. Don't try to make putting a hand on the hilt of a drawn (held) sword harder than actually drawing a sword just to defend the usefulness of a feat! Did you write Quickdraw? It isn't an attack on the feat or you or anything to let the magus put his hand on his weapon.
The James Jacobs excerpt doesn't work to prove anything about this since he isn't writing about this; he's writing about a wizard being able to cast a spell with an arcane bound two-handed weapon. That the wizard had a move action left is irrelevant since our spellstriking magus isn't a wizard and, since it wasn't important to the discussion, JJ didn't include the type of action or lack thereof that it required for the wizard to put his hand back on his staff or whatever.
I hope this is starting to get through.
I really hope that it's starting to get through that this magus, who has given up most of what makes him powerful for very little return on investment, is not breaking any actually written rules (some that could, apparently, be inferred) and is not hurting the game.
|
|
Whether JJ intended to address this issue or not, he DID say that at the end of a round, when holding a staff with the other hand free, the wizard CAN take an AoO with his staff, because he DOES threaten, because he CAN return his free hand to the staff, and that MUST mean that returning that hand cannot be an action! You say that I claim that a wizard threatens with his staff in one hand with the other hand free. JJ claims this! It is what he wrote! No word twisting, no deliberate misunderstanding, no ambiguity. It's what HE wrote, and he is, of course, correct. : )
In real life knife throwers have a fist full of daggers. Those daggers are ALREADY DRAWN. He doesn't have to draw them again.
The 'Manipulate an Item' move action. It is 'usually' a move action, and the list of examples is 'retrieving or putting away a stored item, picking up an item, moving a heavy object, and opening a door.' These examples show that these actions are a lot more effort than moving your hands around a weapon. It is wrong to pretend that going from one to two hands is 'manipulating an item', in the same way that moving my sword in an arc intersecting the orc's head is 'manipulating an item'. Just because you can define ANY use of your hands on an object as 'manipulating an object' in terms of the English language does NOT mean that this Action type is the one to use when using your hands on an object!
|
|
A weapon is either sheathed or unsheathed. It is either drawn or sheathed. There are no quantum effects that make it both until we look.
If a weapon has been drawn and is in hand it doesn't need to be 'redrawn'' until after it has been 're-sheathed'! Once you have used your move action to draw your weapon you don't have to do it again! Changing grip is NOT drawing a weapon!
Although I could argue the toss with Grick about having a hand free to cast then using two hands to strike, I don't have the heart for it. I truly believe that the intent was to limit the weapon attack part of Spell Combat to 'using' the weapon one-handed;
No-one is talking about Spell Combat. You explicitly cannot use two hands with spell combat, ever.
The OP was asking about Spellstrike, which is perfectly legal to use with both hands.
The thread is derailed by people applying a move action to regrip a weapon.
About that; since the logical consequences of ruling that it takes a move action to change grip include archers only being able to fire a single arrow per round, wizards being afraid to use a staff, paladins being unable to Lay On Hands in combat, etc., can we see that for the game to work in a credible way that changing grip is not an action?
It works better as a free action, so it can only happen during your turn. This means whatever you're wielding at the end of your turn is what you threaten with. This is important for folks using polearms and spiked gauntlets.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But to wield a weapon that you're not wielding requires a move action (or some special ability/item).
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.
This is not anywhere near the same action as putting a free hand back on the grip of a weapon you're already holding. Heck, if it's a one-handed weapon, you're still wielding it. Do you require a move action to put your other hand back on a weapon you're still wielding?
Wielding means "actively trying to use the item," and is normally only used in the context of weapons or weapon-like objects such as rods, wands, and so on.
Otherwise, it's just an item you're holding/carrying.
And if you're not holding/carrying/bearing it, you're probably wearing it, or it's stowed in a sheath or backpack.
Wielding > holding > sheathed.
Wielding requires no action, since it's already wielded.
Holding requires a free action, since it's already drawn.
Sheathed requires a move action, since it needs to be drawn.
Why wouldn't it be the same action to go from wielding to holding as to go from holding to wielding? Just like going from sheathed to either wielding or holding is the same action to go from wielding or holding to sheathed.
It's completely clear that holding a weapon in your hand is not the same as having that weapon secured in a sheath or strapped to your back or whatever.
So in the case where JJ was talking 2 years ago about a two-handed bonded weapon on a wizard, the wizard could:
2. Cast a 1 standard action spell (standard action).
Or a full-round action spell, or any other type of action, since it's not a move action to regrip his weapon.
That you would say that this is a rules quote when the very entry says NOT TO DO SO seems off and disingenuous
I never said it was a rules quote. I explicitly quoted who said it, his title, and linked to the post in question.
Now holding to the rules on drawing weapons does not 'destroy' archers. They do need two hands to use a bow.
The move action house rule does destroy archers.
Projectile Weapons: "...shortbows, composite shortbows, longbows, composite longbows... are projectile weapons. Most projectile weapons require two hands to use (see specific weapon descriptions)."
Shortbow: "You need two hands to use a bow, regardless of its size."
Longbow: "You need two hands to use a bow, regardless of its size. "
Light Crossbow: "Normally, operating a light crossbow requires two hands."
So you need both hands to wield a bow, and both hands to use a crossbow without taking the -2 penalty. The only way to reload these weapons is by releasing the weapon with one hand (free action) and grabbing ammunition (free action) loading the weapon (free action for bow, or move action for light crossbow), wielding the weapon (free action), then firing.
One hand holds the bow, the other draws the ammunition (action for that can be disputed, but let's call it free).
If you don't put the other hand back on the bow, you can't fire it. If you don't put the other hand back on the light crossbow, you take a -2 penalty for firing one-handed.
And how in the world could the action to draw ammunition be disputed?
"Drawing ammunition for use with a ranged weapon (such as arrows, bolts, sling bullets, or shuriken) is a free action."
This is the old argument that an archer that's fired a bow somehow cannot threaten squares with a spiked gauntlet. It's spurious.
Yes, it's spurious because the archer can wield his spiked gauntlet at the end of his turn as a free action.
When they're casting their spells, they are not wielding their staves AT ALL during that combat round, and can settle for holding them in one hand while resting one end on the ground. This serves to settle any arcane bond object issues whan those objects are staves.
Currently, the rules still reference wielding the arcane bond, and a two-handed staff in one hand is not being wielded, it's being held. Hence SKR's post quoted earlier about changing it to be "held in hand" instead of wielded. This is probably why the iconic wizard uses a reskinned club as his 'staff' instead of a quarterstaff.
Staff Magi on the other hand have mastered a combat style that allows them to wield a stave in one hand.
They get the Quarterstaff Master feat at 1st level. They are still bound by all the other rules, and if they don't choose to wield the quarterstaff as a one-handed weapon at the start of their turn, they're in the same position as a wizard.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Keep in mind that staff wielding wizards will find themselves unable to cast spells without first having either carefully put their staves away (move actions) or actually or dropped their beloved staves to the floor (free actions) to be later picked up (move actions).
Since wizards do cast while holding staves and continue to threaten while they do, it can be assumed that switching from holding in one hand to wielding in two hands don't require actions or, if they do, only require free actions.
Staff wielding wizards are NOT using spell combat! When they're casting their spells, they are not wielding their staves AT ALL during that combat round, and can settle for holding them in one hand while resting one end on the ground. This serves to settle any arcane bond object issues whan those objects are staves.
Staff Magi on the other hand have mastered a combat style that allows them to wield a stave in one hand.
Correct. Spellstrike is not, in and of itself, an action at all!
Spellstrike (Su): At 2nd level, whenever a magus casts a spell with a range of “touch” from the magus spell list, he can deliver the spell through any weapon he is wielding as part of a melee attack. Instead of the free melee touch attack normally allowed to deliver the spell, a magus can make one free melee attack with his weapon (at his highest base attack bonus) as part of casting this spell. If successful, this melee attack deals its normal damage as well as the effects of the spell. If the magus makes this attack in concert with spell combat, this melee attack takes all the penalties accrued by spell combat melee attacks. This attack uses the weapon's critical range (20, 19–20, or 18–20 and modified by the keen weapon property or similar effects), but the spell effect only deals ×2 damage on a successful critical hit, while the weapon damage uses its own critical modifier.
Spellstrike allows you to change the free action already included in the casting of a spell with a range of "touch" from the magus spell list to a weapon attack (without changing the action economy - it is still a free action).
My argument was that if, as it had been posited, putting the free hand that had cast the spell back on a two-handed weapon was a move action, that staff-wielding wizards wouldn't work. That argument was to show that putting a free hand back onto a two-handed weapon is not a move action, but a free action or even non-action.
|
|
Hi James. If you've got time to post you must have time to explain to us how an archer gets a full attack if he has to use a move action each time he puts his arrow hand back on his bow so that it is wielded in the two hands required.
You seem convinced that it is a move action to change from holding a weapon in one hand (like a bow) to wielding it (attacking) using two. How does it work in your games. Or do you apply your 'move action' rule selectively.
Of all the posts you could make, this is the crucial one, the one we're all waiting for.
Get typing, big guy!
Can a PC hold 3 daggers in one hand?
If I'm wielding a sword in each hand, are you going to let me draw and drink a potion? Or are my hands already full?
Further, holding a bundle of weapons, separating one, and changing hands with it is not the same as holding a single weapon which was made to be used with multiple hands and gripping it with a free hand.
Yes, I've seen knife throwers hold a bunch in one hand and feed their throwing hand. That doesn't directly correlate to RPG rules, though. Maybe the juggler has quick draw. Or maybe those are specifically crafted throwing knives (Dart equivalent?) rather than combat daggers with foot-long blades. That same guy would probably have trouble holding three clubs or tridents or spears in one hand.
So the magus could use Spell Strike to deliver a touch spell with a 2handed weapon. Just not on the turn it was cast, as Spell Strike has to follow the rules of Spell Combat.
Am I reading this correctly?
No.
If you use Spell Combat, you must have a hand free.
If you're not using Spell Combat, then the rules for Spell Combat don't apply.
With Spellstrike, any time you could normally deliver a touch spell, you can choose to do so with any weapon you're wielding. (So long as you cast the spell, it was from the Magus spell list, and the range was 'touch')
A magus can cast Shocking Grasp (standard action), move up to his speed (move action), grip his longsword with both hands (free action) then take the free attack granted from casting the spell (free action) using his sword to make the attack against normal AC, via Spellstrike.
|
i just want to point something out. wielding a weapon is not listed on the "actions in combat" table. so then wielding a weapon is a non action that can be done so long as drawing a weapon is not necessary. if drawing a weapon is necessary then the act of drawing the weapon is a move action. technically you can throw a weapon between either hand back and forth wielding and unwielding as many times as a gm will allow during your turn.
with that being said, this discussion is done, and the answer is yes a magus can do it.
|
|
Thankyou James.
So you ARE using your 'move action rule' selectively. It takes two hands to execute an attack with a greatsword. It takes two hands to execute an attack with a bow. When you're not actually executing an attack you oh need to hold the weapon in one hand, and you cannot attack with it until your free hand returns to the weapon.
This is the crux of the debate. To my left we have the 'no action or at most free action' advocates, while on my right we have the 'it takes a move action' advocates.
James tells us that, for whatever reason, it takes a move action to change from holding a weapon in one hand to wielding it in two.
Except if it's a bow.
Really, James? That's your case?
You say that you believe it is a move action to go from one to two hands based on the description of the 'Draw or Sheath a Weapon' Action In Combat. I suppose you have to as there is no action listed for changing grip like that. You say that because it is a move action to draw a weapon from it's sheath to use it in combat, that therefore anything you do to ready a weapon for combat must be a move action (conveniently ignoring the other half of the sentence which, by the same logic, would mean that because sheathing a weapon gives you a free hand then anything you do to get a free hand must be a move action also).
Let's explore that point of view. Let's say that warrior A has a greatsword in one hand and the other hand free. He wants to attack, so he has to use a move action to get his free hand to enable him to attack with it.
By the same logic, warrior B has a bow in one hand and the other hand free. He wants to attack, so he uses a free action to draw his arrow, but suddenly, warrior B DOESN'T need a move action to get his free hand to enable him to attack with it, despite the fact that it takes both hands to attack with a bow.
If you can swallow that you must have won a lot of Nigerian lotteries!
Don't expect anyone else to swallow it!
While I hold out no hope of changing your mind, James, it is my hope that there are some people who came to this thread with an open mind, ready to read the cases put forward from my right and from my left. Combined with their own perusal of the rules and their own reason, I believe that there is enough for them to have come to a judgement.
To those people, I put the case to the contrary. You need two hands to use a bow, and two hands are required to use a two-handed melee weapon effectively. It helps if you think of it this way; the 'hands required to use a weapon' phrase is probably better phrased as 'to attack with a weapon requiring two hands requires that two hands are free to do so at the moment of attack'. For one handed weapons it would be 'one hand must be free to wield the weapon at the moment of attack'. By this I mean that the required hands must not be holding anything at the moment of the attack, apart from the weapon in question.
So, a warrior with a base attack of +16 can, as a full attack action, use a greataxe to attack at +16 and kill an adjacent foe, Quick Draw a dart and throw it at the Mage at +11, 5-foot step up to the werewolf and attack with his silvered spiked gauntlet at +6 and put him down, then drop his axe as a free action, Quick Draw his composite longbow as a free action, draw an arrow as a free action, then shoot down the goblins' war blimp at +1.
As well as being very cool (yay!) it is also legal. And a bit lucky in killing each baddy in one blow (they were low on hit points, alright!). At the moment of every single attack the warrior had the requisite hands free, holding nothing but the weapon being used to attack at that moment. For the greataxe attack he had nothing in the required two hands except the axe. For the dart attack he had nothing in the required one hand to both draw and throw the dart while is other hand held on to his axe. For the spiked gauntlet attack he had nothing in the gauntlet hand except the gauntlet and the other hand was still holding the axe. When he decided to take out the war blimp he had to free BOTH hands so he had to get rid of the axe. He doesn't have a move action to sheath it (I doubt he has one!) so he takes a free action to drop it. When he shoots the arrow he has two hands holding nothing except the bow. Next round he'll have to use a move action to sheath the bow and another to pick up the axe, but Quick Draw does have it's limits.
By the way, do you still think Quick Draw has no value?
The other exam
|
|
The other example is JJs wizard (remember him?). He told us that a wizard could end his turn holding his staff in one hand with the other hand free. He said that the wizard CAN execute an attack of opportunity using the staff as the free hand is free to grip the weapon. This means that, if you have the requisite hands free (holding nothing except the weapon in question) then you still threaten with it and can make AoOs with it. It also means that adding your free hand to the staff is not even a free action as free actions can only be taken on your own turn.
Contrast this with wizard B (I have a great talent for names) who is holding a staff in one hand and a wand in the other. He CANNOT use his staff for an AoO as he does not have the required two free hands to do so, and he cannot drop his wand to free that hand as dropping a held item is a free action, and free actions can only be taken on your own turn while the AoO in this case is taking place on the opponent's turn.
Just because changing from 1 to 2 hands is NOT a move action doesn't mean you can do anything you want! You have to think it through.
Sorry James.