|
| 2 people marked this as FAQ candidate. |
So here is my question. Say you are using a double weapon, use it for 2 attacks, then later you are able to get an AoO. Since it is a double weapon, usable as a two handed weapon, can you use it as a two handed weapon for the AoO (thus negating the TWF penalties, and getting the bonus STR damage)?
|
From the PRD.
Double Weapons: Dire flails, dwarven urgroshes, gnome hooked hammers, orc double axes, quarterstaves, and two-bladed swords are double weapons. A character can fight with both ends of a double weapon as if fighting with two weapons, but he incurs all the normal attack penalties associated with two-weapon combat, just as though the character were wielding a one-handed weapon and a light weapon.
The character can also choose to use a double weapon two-handed, attacking with only one end of it. A creature wielding a double weapon in one hand can't use it as a double weapon—only one end of the weapon can be used in any given round.
*EDIT* Didn't paste it all.
Here's how I see your question breaking down.
When can you choose to two-weapon fight ?
You choose during your turn before you make any attacks that round.
How long do the penalties last ?
They last until you choose to NOT two-weapon fight.
When can I choose to NOT two-weapon fight ?
a) At the same time you would choose to two-weapon fight.
b) Any time after your regular and additional attack are complete
I lean towards answer a
Here's why. In general, because of the nature of turn-based combat, penalties you generate by your actions last the entire turn (your round and your opponent's round). Examples: The charge penalty to AC applies not only during your charge but until your next turn. If you choose to give up your buckler shield bonus to fire your bow, you loose the shield bonus not only during your round while firing, but until the start of your next turn.
Your actions are really simultaneous with your opponent's (in the same six second slice of time). While you're busy smacking him upside the head with your stick, he's busy trying to shoot you in the face with his pistol (provoking an AoO). Because you won initiative, your smacking is RESOLVED first and then his attempt to shoot you in the face (and your AoO)is resolved second. He wasn't really six whole seconds slower than you, just slower enough that you could put him down before he got his pistol on target.
That said, it's certainly not game breaking to allow a character to shift what or how he's wielding during his turn, provided he still takes all the appropriate penalties. If you were wielding a two-handed weapon but had had two-weapon fighting and quick-draw, it's certainly OK to make your regular attacks then drop your two-handed weapon and quick-draw two one-handed weapons.
Well, it's very much like a character choosing to hold a weapon versus wielding it. Such an action is a free action; changing as to how you wield your weapon (unless stated otherwise) should function the same, since it is no different.
However, keep in mind that choosing not to use TWF does incur some penalties (such as feats that grant AC while TWF, penalties incurred on attacks from TWF, etc). Meaning that after a Full Attack Option from your TWF (or Standard Attack Action with Doublestrike feat), your character can, as a free action, switch from TWF to Two-handed fighting.
switch from TWF to Two-handed fighting.There is no such thing.
TWF is simply when making the full attack action a way to gain an extra attack (think like rapid shot, etc) and not a different way of wielding weapons.
A character could have a dagger in each hand and make an attack with each (say from BAB 6 then iterative BAB 1) and NOT be TWFing.
The Two weapon defense feat would APPLY even though the character is not using TWFing. Likewise the feat applies even if the character does not even ATTACK that round, or when flatfooted even.
-James
For a Double Weapon, there is. You can wield it as both using a light and off-hand weapon, or use it as a two-handed weapon with one edge. There are two ways to wield Double Weapons by RAW, meaning that a character using a Double Weapon (such as the OP) would have two options to wielding a weapon.
Again, the action consumption should be no different than switching from wielding a two-handed weapon to holding a two-handed weapon, in that it is a free action to switch from these two wielding styles.
As I have said before, there are penalties and such that would apply when he would make this switch; if he used TWF during this, those penalties would take effect on his AOO, as well as any others for not using TWF, which is something that he would need to mark down.
The Two-Weapon Defense point is a good one. I think that's got me leaning back to option b, that is, at the end of your turn you can alter your grip to wield your two handed / double weapon to one method (TWF) or the other (THF) so that you can take AoOs (if any) two-handed, but you give up the ability to use Two-Weapon Defense in this case.
A one-handed weapon can be wielded in two-hands OR in one hand. A double weapon can be wielded as two one-handed weapons OR as a two-handed weapon. Can you really switch each time you attack ? If you're not using TWF to get an extra attack, sure. If you are using TWF to get an extra attack ? Can you switch even when it's not your turn ?
A one-handed weapon can be wielded in two-hands OR in one hand. A double weapon can be wielded as two one-handed weapons OR as a two-handed weapon. Can you really switch each time you attack ? If you're not using TWF to get an extra attack, sure. If you are using TWF to get an extra attack ? Can you switch even when it's not your turn ?
No, you can't switch how you wield a weapon outside your turn. I do think there would be a feat for something like this, though there isn't one. Doesn't mean you can't make one up.
@ Maissen: How is it incorrect? Why can he not do a Full Attack Option with TWF then at the end of his turn choose to wield the Double Weapon as a Two-Handed Weapon instead for AOO's outside of his turn?
It's a Free Action to change how you wield a weapon (whether it be using it as a One-handed and Light Weapon, or as a Two-handed Weapon using only one of the two sides to attack with). Saying he can't stack a Free Action with a Full Round Action is a bunch of horse.
@ Maissen: How is it incorrect? Why can he not do a Full Attack Option with TWF then at the end of his turn choose to wield the Double Weapon as a Two-Handed Weapon instead for AOO's outside of his turn?
He can full attack and elect to TWF, and then he can make an AOO with the weapon and claim 1.5x STR.
What he doesn't have to do is take a free action to change from wielding it in two hands to wielding it in two hands.
It's a weapon that can be wielded in two ways. If he wielded it in one way, he can't TWF. If he wielded it another way, he can't use 1.5x Strength. That's why there's a difference in how it is wielded, and it is important that a character makes this designation before the end of their turn; especially considering you can't change how you wield a weapon when it's not your turn.
Alright, let's put this to the test; Let's say I have a +2 Fire/+2 Frost Orc Double Axe, and I am facing a creature with Resist Frost 5. I make my full attack option and hit with each side of my weapon once, noting that my Fire effect was more potent than my Frost effect.
Now it's the creature's turn; it moves and it provokes an Attack of Opportunity from me. When I go to make the attack, since I did not specify that I was changing as to how I wield my weapon, I would only deal base Strength modifier damage, or half Strength modifier damage, on top of which, I would only be able to use my Primary, which may very well be Frost, and reduce my damage altogether. If I said that I could just use my +2 Fire side of my weapon for 1.5X Strength, what do you think the DM would say? He'd say no, because I did not change as to how I normally wield my weapon (AKA, I did not mention that I did this change), and that claiming such would be Powergaming. He wouldn't allow me to change which side I use to attack, or my 1.5x Strength, because I am currently using it as a One-hand/Light weapon, not a Two-Handed weapon (with using one of the two sides).
Requoting the note for Double Weapons:
You can use a double weapon to fight as if fighting with two weapons, but if you do, you incur all the normal attack penalties associated with fighting with two weapons, just as if you were using a one-handed weapon and a light weapon. You can choose to wield one end of a double weapon two-handed, but it cannot be used as a double weapon when wielded in this way—only one end of the weapon can be used in any given round.
(Emphasis Mine)
Bolded part proves that regardless of it being a two-handed weapon or wahtever, it has to wielding styles that must be differentiated from when it is being used. Double Weapons are classified as either a set of Two Weapons to Fight with, or a single Two-Handed Weapon with 2 sides to it, which you designate one side you use at any given round.
Let's try the following:
You have the deflect arrows feat and are proficient with a bastard sword. Your BAB is +6 so you get an iterative attack. You attack a strange porcupine like critter with your first attack wielding your bastard sword in one hand. You discover that it has DR, so for your second attack, you switch to wielding two-handed for the extra damage but leaving you with no free hand.
A) After your attacks, you as a free action change back to wielding one-handed. The strange critter shoots a quill at you. That's a ranged attack, so it provokes. You MUST take your AoO using one hand. Then, you can deflect his "arrow" because you have a free hand.
OR
B) After your attacks, you do not change but continue to wield your bastard sword two-handed. The strange critter shoots a quill at you. That's a ranged attack, so it provokes. You MUST take your AoO using two hands. Then, you can NOT deflect his "arrow" because you have no free hand.
BUT NOT
C) The strange critter shoots a quill at you. That's a ranged attack, so it provokes. You take your AoO using one or two hands, as you decide at the time. Then, you can deflect his "arrow" regardless of how you took your AoO, because you can free up a hand after your AoO.
Perhaps a double weapon is different. Is that the claim ?
In the above example you don't get to use a swift action during an AoO.
You cannot take swift or free actions (except for speaking) when it is not your turn.
In the above example, could you use a swift action along withe the AoO (like paladin lay on hands)? If you could, why not figure out how you are holding/using your weapon as a free action?
Swift or Free actions (aside from speaking) cannot take place outside your turn.
However, Immediate Actions (which consume as much an action as a Swift Action) can be done at any point during the round; they suffer the same restrictions of Swift Actions, in that you can only make 1 Immediate (or 1 Swift) Action per Round.
You CAN take an immediate action when it is not your turn; Would this slight grip change fall into the immediate/free action category?
Also @ Maissen
The way you wield the double weapon (as according to the quote on the link toward Double Weapons) is that you can use it as if it were two-weapon fighting (classified as using a One-handed and Light weapon), or using it two-handed, using only one of the "sides" of the Double Weapon to hit with. You can't treat it as both simultaneously, especially considering that Double Weapons would be broken, allowing TWF both base and half Strength Modifiers respectively, while also allowing times and a half Strength Modifiers on AOO, which isn't included when you wield a Double Weapon as a One-handed and Light weapon.
It is a free action to change how you wield a weapon or from wielding a weapon to holding a weapon, but as noted within its description, the action cannot be done outside of your turn unless specified (speaking is an example of this); meaning you can make both a Full Attack Option with TWF, afterward changing how you wield the weapon from a One-handed and Light weapon to a Two-Handed Weapon using only one of the two "sides" to hit with for AOO, including 1.5x Strength Modifiers for damage.
It is a free action to change how you wield a weapon or from wielding a weapon to holding a weapon
The idea that you can't take a hand off your two-handed weapon when it isn't your turn is flat out stupid.
First off, how about a little rules support for that idea to begin with. I don't think it's there. It's not listed on the list of example free actions. It's not in any errata or FAQ i've ever seen. As far as the rules are concerned it's a non-action.
Secondly, lets say you're wielding a longspear. A caster steps adjacent and casts but fails their Defensive Casting check.
Do you really think I can't take an AoO with my Spiked Gauntlet because I'm holding the spear? You think I can't let go in time to take swing?
But somehow I could move fast enough to elbow them with my Armor Spikes?
How the heck does that make sense?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's quite simple frankly: a double-weapon is always wielded as a two-handed weapon (and makes AoO as a two-handed weapon). You can chose to use it as two independent weapons only when you are making a full-attack action if you chose to take the penalties and extra attacks associated with TWF, but after the end of your full-attack action, you automatically revert to using your double-weapon as a two-handed weapon.
|
There is no grip switching, mode switching, or hand maneuvering going on.
I hold a double weapon, with two hands.
On my turn, I choose to full attack, and to two weapon fight, a special kind of full attack, to gain an extra attack, with some penalties to all.
My turn ends.
I am still holding that double weapon with two hands, nothing has changed.
I make an attack of opportunity, with a weapon, that I wielding, with two hands.
I get x1.5 strength to damage with that attack.
That's how it works.
It's just that easy.
There is no grip switching, mode switching, or hand maneuvering going on.
I hold a double weapon, with two hands.
On my turn, I choose to full attack, and to two weapon fight, a special kind of full attack, to gain an extra attack, with some penalties to all.
My turn ends.
I am still holding that double weapon with two hands, nothing has changed.
I make an attack of opportunity, with a weapon, that I wielding, with two hands.
I get x1.5 strength to damage with that attack.
That's how it works.
It's just that easy.
+1. There is no grip switching mechanic. You are holding the weapon and can use it 1 of two ways. With each attack you choose how to use it. So the full attack I use it one way and the AoO I use it another. You can make a choice.
You're AoO is not dictated by the action you took previously. If it were I couldn't deal lethal damage during an AoO since my full round attack was doing non-lethal at -4.
It is a free action to change how you wield a weapon or from wielding a weapon to holding a weaponNo.
If you are 'holding' a weapon in two hands then you are wielding it in the sense that you can make an attack with it.
But the rules also use 'wielding' to be 'currently using' such as in the case of defending weapons.
With a double weapon in both hands it is ready for the user to make attacks with it in 3 possibilities:
1. As a double weapon, either using TWF or not.
2. As a two handed weapon using end #1
3. As a two handed weapon using end #2.There is no action associated with switching between these. They all require that the user have the weapon in both hands.
To further expound: a PC with an Urgosh and combat reflexes could elect to take the first AOO with the axe end then the second AOO with the spear end. Both could receive 1.5x STR bonus to damage.
Yes, there is. You obviously did not read the text for the Double Weapon property well. The RAW text says it cannot be wielded as both a Light and One-handed Melee Weapon and a Two-Handed Weapon at the same time. It says it can either be wielded as one or the other, not both. Hence why I make the point that he has to "wield" it in a certain fashion.
On top of this, it also says when you use it to attack, you can only use one end of the weapon in a given round. It's either the Axe, or the Spear end. Again, not both.
When he uses TWF (which requires him to treat the Double Weapon as if he were using a one-handed weapon and light off-hand weapon for feats and damage bonuses) and does not say he reverts to using the weapon as if it were two hands (which would be considered a free action), making an attack of opportunity with the weapon using base strength or half base strength depending on which weapon he uses (since he is currently treated as having both a one-handed weapon and a light off-hand weapon for feats and such).
If I am still somehow wrong, why does the RAW text say that the weapon can be wielded in one of two ways, and that a character has to use one of two wielding methods in order to utilize certain feats (AKA TWF-related feats)?
It is a free action to change how you wield a weapon or from wielding a weapon to holding a weaponNo.
If you are 'holding' a weapon in two hands then you are wielding it in the sense that you can make an attack with it.
But the rules also use 'wielding' to be 'currently using' such as in the case of defending weapons.
With a double weapon in both hands it is ready for the user to make attacks with it in 3 possibilities:
1. As a double weapon, either using TWF or not.
2. As a two handed weapon using end #1
3. As a two handed weapon using end #2.There is no action associated with switching between these. They all require that the user have the weapon in both hands.
To further expound: a PC with an Urgosh and combat reflexes could elect to take the first AOO with the axe end then the second AOO with the spear end. Both could receive 1.5x STR bonus to damage.
Yes, there is. You obviously did not read the text for the Double Weapon property well. The RAW text says it cannot be wielded as both a Light and One-handed Melee Weapon and a Two-Handed Weapon at the same time. It says it can either be wielded as one or the other, not both. Hence why I make the point that he has to "wield" it in a certain fashion.
On top of this, it also says when you use it to attack, you can only use one end of the weapon in a given round. It's either the Axe, or the Spear end. Again, not both.
When he uses TWF (which requires him to treat the Double Weapon as if he were using a one-handed weapon and light off-hand weapon for feats and damage bonuses) and does not say he reverts to using the weapon as if it were two hands (which would be considered a free action), making an attack of opportunity with the weapon using base strength or half base strength depending on which weapon he uses (since he is currently treated as having both a one-handed weapon and a light off-hand weapon for feats and such).
If I am still somehow wrong, why...
The quote is:
"A character can fight with both ends of a double weapon as if fighting with two weapons, but he incurs all the normal attack penalties associated with two-weapon combat, just as though the character were wielding a one-handed weapon and a light weapon. The character can also choose to use a double weapon two-handed, attacking with only one end of it. A creature wielding a double weapon in one hand can't use it as a double weapon- only one end of the weapon can be used in any given round ."DarkSol I believe that the "only one end of the weapon can be used in any given round" is referring specifically to individuals who use the weapon in only one hand. However, I can see how you might interpret it your way.
The way I read it differs in that I see: "The character can also choose to use a double weapon two-handed, attacking with only one end of it." as being independent from the next sentence. Thus allowing me to switch up the end that I use between attacks.
Stuff.
Ok Darksol, let's say you are right: what, exactly, is preventing you from wielding your double-weapon as two weapons as a free action when initiating your full-attack action and then using another free action to wield it as a two-handed weapon just before the end of your turn (to make more powerful AoOs)?
The only thing that really distinguish your interpretation and james maissen's interpretation in terms of combat mechanics is that, according to you, the character wielding a double weapon wouldn't benefit from Two-Weapon Defense between his turns when wielding the weapon as a two-handed weapon, if he choses to do so. It seems like an acceptable compromise to me.
EDIT: Nope, it seems I was wrong, since Two-Weapon Defense gives you a shield bonus when you are wielding a "double-weapon".
__________
Two-Weapon Defense (Combat)
You are skilled at defending yourself while dual-wielding.
Prerequisites: Dex 15, Two-Weapon Fighting.
Benefit: When wielding a double weapon or two weapons (not including natural weapons or unarmed strikes), you gain a +1 shield bonus to your AC.
When you are fighting defensively or using the total defense action, this shield bonus increases to +2.
__________
So there's no mechanical difference between both interpretations, since changing the way your are wielding a double-weapon is, at most, a free action.
We still haven't addressed the fact that there are no rules anywhere for what kind of action "switching grips" is (or even if it's an action at all).
@ Mage Evolving: Of course, RAI would say that. RAW says you can't do that, but it's fairly irrelevant as to my main argument.
I still maintain my stance that he can't use it as both a Two-Handed Weapon (with 1.5x Strength) and a One-handed Weapon + Light Off-hand Weapon simultaneously, even for AOO. It's either he gets 1.5x Strength using it 2-handed, or he gets any TWF Feat benefits until he changes how he uses the weapon (which again, I still maintain it's a free action to do so, the same way of which the character may choose to go from wielding a two-handed weapon to holding a two-handed weapon in one hand, something you can do only on your turn).
the same way of which the character may choose to go from wielding a two-handed weapon to holding a two-handed weapon in one hand, something you can do only on your turn).
This.
Please quote the rules text where you get this from.
Stuff.Ok Darksol, let's say you are right: what, exactly, is preventing you from wielding your double-weapon as two weapons as a free action when initiating your full-attack action and then using another free action to wield it as a two-handed weapon just before the end of your turn (to make more powerful AoOs)?
The only thing that really distinguish your interpretation and james maissen's interpretation in terms of combat mechanics is that, according to you, the character wielding a double weapon wouldn't benefit from Two-Weapon Defense between his turns when wielding the weapon as a two-handed weapon, if he choses to do so. It seems like an acceptable compromise to me.
That's exactly what I am saying.
By RAW, he wields the Double Weapon as either a One-handed Weapon + Light Off-hand Weapon, or a Two-Handed Weapon using only one end to attack with. He cannot use it as both. Here's what would happen...(for this example, I will be using my +2 Fire/+2 Frost Orc Double Axe from the previous example against the same creature, plus some unnamed ally).
Initiative rolled, I win initiative versus Creature 1.
Round 1: I equip the Double Weapon as a One-Handed/Light Off-Hand weapon (free action), take a 5 ft. step and follow with a Full Attack TWF Option (FRA); I hit with each end once. I deal X damage with Primary end using Base Strength + whatever modifiers, and Y damage with Secondary end using Half Base Strength + whatever modifiers; at the end of my turn, I switch from using it as a One-Handed/Light Off-hand weapon to a Two-Handed weapon with my +2 Fire end to attack with (since the creature is Frost Resistant). Since I have a Two Weapon Shield feat (or whatever the feat is called), I lose my AC benefits from using a Double Weapon in the previous way I wielded it due to me now using it as a Two-Handed Weapon, and not a One-Handed/Light Off-Hand weapon.
Creature's Turn: It moves 10 feet away from me and attacks a party member, triggering an AOO. Since it didn't want to go after me and after somebody else, luckily the AC loss didn't hurt me, and now I get to make an attack with the +2 Fire end of my weapon; I hit and deal 1.5x Base Strength + whatever modifiers. Creature resolves turn trying to grapple the party member and failing, the party member missing with his attack of opportunity.
Round 2: I move up another 10 ft. and make a single attack with my weapon with two hands, using the +2 Fire end. I hit, and once again deal 1.5x Strength + whatever modifiers. Since I think he might go after me and attempt to grapple me after I bombarded it with my attacks, I switch from using it two-handed to using it as a one-handed/light off-hand weapon, gaining the benefits of Two Weapon Shield (or whatever it's called).
Creature's Turn: I was correct; the creature attempts to grapple me, and since it doesn't have the proper feats, I get an AOO. I choose to attack with my Primary +2 Fire end, and hit, dealing base Strength Damage + whatever modifiers. It resolves its turn by trying to grapple me with a grapple check; it rolls a 19, failing to grapple me due to me damaging it, and my TWF defensive feat.
(This is an example of how I would see a Double Weapon work.)
the same way of which the character may choose to go from wielding a two-handed weapon to holding a two-handed weapon in one hand, something you can do only on your turn).This.
Please quote the rules text where you get this from.
The thing is that the rules do not describe which kind of action this is, but calling it a free action would be a good judgement call IMO.
I lose my AC benefits from using a Double Weapon in the previous way I wielded it due to me now using it as a Two-Handed Weapon, and not a One-Handed/Light Off-Hand weapon.
No, you see, I was wrong and I edited my previous post. As long as you are wielding a double-weapon, no matter how you wield it (as two independent weapons or a two-handed weapon), you will benefit from Two-Weapon Defense, because the feat specifically say that you do. So, mechanically speaking, there's no difference between both interpretations. You guys are arguing about inconsequential semantics only. :)
The one thing I know for sure is that fighting with a double weapon is like having your pie and eating it at the same time, which is how it should be, since fighting with a double-weapon costs you an extra feat.
The thing is that the rules do not describe which kind of action this is, but calling it a free action would be a good judgement call IMO.the same way of which the character may choose to go from wielding a two-handed weapon to holding a two-handed weapon in one hand, something you can do only on your turn).This.
Please quote the rules text where you get this from.
I don't think so. Putting a hand on or off a weapon doesn't take any real effort or time. Going between one hand and two hands on a bastard sword is as simple as saying "I put my other hand on it".
It's not a free action, it's a non-action.
Changing methods of using a Double Weapon is even less of an action, because your hands don't even need to move.
The argument is weather or not a character's intent counts as an action or not.
The thing is that the rules do not describe which kind of action this is, but calling it a free action would be a good judgement call IMO.the same way of which the character may choose to go from wielding a two-handed weapon to holding a two-handed weapon in one hand, something you can do only on your turn).This.
Please quote the rules text where you get this from.
Unfortunately, pretty much this.
I did double-check, and you're correct in saying that it does not come in a form of text. This would lead into GM FIAT, and a general call would have to be made.
Logically, choosing how to wield (or hold) your weapon shouldn't take all that long at all, hence why I say it's a free action. For balance purposes (and common sense purposes), allowing a character to change how they wield a weapon outside of their turn is quite a broken feature.
Let's take for example, a character using Crane Style and a Two Handed Weapon (I made a thread about this); if I were a PC with a Greatsword and the entire set of Crane Style feats, it would require me to have a free hand open to deflect an attack, making it otherwise impossible.
Sure, I can carry an object in one hand (which is something a PC can do with a two-handed weapon, treating it as an object and not a weapon to attack with), something that takes hardly any action at all (in others word, the definition of a free action), leaving my other hand free and able to deflect a melee attack (that would otherwise hit my AC, to be precise). If I were to deflect this attack (and thus trigger an AOO due to deflecting it), allowing a character with a two-handed weapon to instantly change from treating it as an object to wielding it as a weapon would defeat the entire purpose of requiring an open hand to deflect the attack.
This example is perhaps the strongest reason why allowing a character to wield a weapon however they want outside their turn is significantly unbalanced, defeating the purpose of specific mechanics, and also unrealistic.
The thing is that the rules do not describe which kind of action this is, but calling it a free action would be a good judgement call IMO.the same way of which the character may choose to go from wielding a two-handed weapon to holding a two-handed weapon in one hand, something you can do only on your turn).This.
Please quote the rules text where you get this from.
I don't think so. Putting a hand on or off a weapon doesn't take any real effort or time. Going between one hand and two hands on a bastard sword is as simple as saying "I put my other hand on it".
It's not a free action, it's a non-action.
Changing methods of using a Double Weapon is even less of an action, because your hands don't even need to move.
The argument is weather or not a character's intent counts as an action or not.
Let's look at the 5-foot step option? It's doesn't take an action, but it can't be used outside of your turn unless you have a feat (and even then, it usually only occurs due to a proxy from another creature).
Logically, if you want the same rule to apply to the mechanic we're currently discussing, a similar solution would have to be proposed (AKA, a feat, or set of feats, something I plan to talk to my GM about eventually).
I lose my AC benefits from using a Double Weapon in the previous way I wielded it due to me now using it as a Two-Handed Weapon, and not a One-Handed/Light Off-Hand weapon.No, you see, I was wrong and I edited my previous post. As long as you are wielding a double-weapon, no matter how you wield it (as two independent weapons or a two-handed weapon), you will benefit from Two-Weapon Defense, because the feat specifically say that you do. So, mechanically speaking, there's no difference between both interpretations. You guys are arguing about inconsequential semantics only. :)
The one thing I know for sure is that fighting with a double weapon is like having your pie and eating it at the same time, which is how it should be, since fighting with a double-weapon costs you an extra feat.
Well I'll be damned. I thought there was a certain feat that gave you additional AC if you used TWF for that round, which is probably what I was talking about anyway.
Even so, it's important to make this clarification due to Power Attack and Strength Modifier bonuses used for calculating the damage (which is something the GM may scoff at, and catch you cheating with).
I don't think so. Putting a hand on or off a weapon doesn't take any real effort or time. Going between one hand and two hands on a bastard sword is as simple as saying "I put my other hand on it".
You are hurting your own argument here, because speaking IS actually a free action (that you can only perform during your turn).
It's not a free action, it's a non-action.
Can you quote the rule that supports this statement? Saying "it's a non-action" is as much a GM's call than saying "it's a free action".
Changing methods of using a Double Weapon is even less of an action, because your hands don't even need to move.
In the case of a bastard sword wielded either as one-handed or two-handed weapon, your hands do need to move, and dropping a weapon, which only involves releasing your grasp on the said weapon, is also a free action (that you can only perform during your turn).
Well I'll be damned. I thought there was a certain feat that gave you additional AC if you used TWF for that round, which is probably what I was talking about anyway.
Even so, it's important to make this clarification due to Power Attack and Strength Modifier bonuses used for calculating the damage (which is something the GM may scoff at, and catch you cheating with).
Well, I do hope that nobody out there really thinks that you can use a two-handed weapon to perform a full-attack action under the two-weapon fighting penalties and bonus while adding your Str modifiers and Power Attack modifiers as if fighting with a two-handed weapon AT THE SAME TIME. Common sense should prevent that. :)
Well, I do hope that nobody out there really thinks that you can use a two-handed weapon to perform a full-attack action under the two-weapon fighting penalties and bonus while adding your Str modifiers and Power Attack modifiers as if fighting with a two-handed weapon AT THE SAME TIME. Common sense should prevent that. :)Well I'll be damned. I thought there was a certain feat that gave you additional AC if you used TWF for that round, which is probably what I was talking about anyway.
Even so, it's important to make this clarification due to Power Attack and Strength Modifier bonuses used for calculating the damage (which is something the GM may scoff at, and catch you cheating with).
In the case of AOO, this would have to be kept track of. If I am still wielding a Double Weapon as a One-handed/Light Off-hand Weapon and it's the creature's turn and they provoke AOO, I would only either get base or half-base Strength and Power Attack modifiers for damage; something that may easily be lost track of or forgotten, and the DM would be scratching his head, thinking Double weapons are broken and would ban them for the next campaign, or double-check with the PC and question his credibility, something a PC would be quite ashamed of.
Can you quote the rule that supports this statement? Saying "it's a non-action" is as much a GM's call than saying "it's a free action".
No, I can't state a rule about what action it is, that's the point. There isn't one.
Darksol has a good point about the Crane-Style feats, but it still falls victim to the logic trap proposed by you.
Examples covered so far, with that logic applied-
1) Free action at start of turn, grab greatsword with both hands and swing for Str 1.5 damage, free action at end of turn, let go with one hand to take advantage of Crane Style.
2) Free action at start of round, let go of Bastard Sword with one hand to (do whatever you need a free hand for), free action at end of round, put other hand back on bastard sword.
3) Free Action at start of round, decide to use double weapon for Two-Weapon Fighting. Free action at end of round. Decide to stop two weapon fighting to take advantage of 1.5 Str mod on AoOs.
It's not the way it's probably intended to work, but Rules-Wise it's all sound, even by the interpretation you just advocated.
Ultimately, if you can switch at the end of your action to get the most advantage possible while you're it's not your turn, why would it even matter?
Well, I do hope that nobody out there really thinks that you can use a two-handed weapon to perform a full-attack action under the two-weapon fighting penalties and bonus while adding your Str modifiers and Power Attack modifiers as if fighting with a two-handed weapon AT THE SAME TIME. Common sense should prevent that. :)Well I'll be damned. I thought there was a certain feat that gave you additional AC if you used TWF for that round, which is probably what I was talking about anyway.
Even so, it's important to make this clarification due to Power Attack and Strength Modifier bonuses used for calculating the damage (which is something the GM may scoff at, and catch you cheating with).
Actually, the question of whether you can two-weapon fight with a greatsword and armor spikes is still up in the air. The dev's haven't released an official statement and the unofficial answers are on both sides of the fence.
The 13th level ability of the Thunderstriker even seems to admit that it is completely possible. (they two-weapon fight with a greatsword and a buckler)
The current consensus is that by RAW it works fine, but some people don't like it.
Ultimately, if you can switch at the end of your action to get the most advantage possible while you're it's not your turn, why would it even matter?
Again, with the Crane Style line of feats, it says that you must have a free hand in order to perform the deflection ability.
After I resolve the deflected attack, what am I going to use to attack with my AOO? My gauntlet/unarmed strike? It is considered a weapon, and since the hand is free, I can attack with it. If I was allowed to attack with my Greatsword after that, it would defeat the entire purpose of having a free hand open as a requirement to deflect the attack if it doesn't really do/change anything significant as a result.
Ultimately, if you can switch at the end of your action to get the most advantage possible while you're it's not your turn, why would it even matter?Again, with the Crane Style line of feats, it says that you must have a free hand in order to perform the deflection ability.
After I resolve the deflected attack, what am I going to use to attack with my AOO? My gauntlet/unarmed strike? It is considered a weapon, and since the hand is free, I can attack with it. If I was allowed to attack with my Greatsword after that, it would defeat the entire purpose of having a free hand open as a requirement to deflect the attack if it doesn't really do/change anything significant as a result.
I agree with you in this example. It doesn't make sense that you could Deflect, grab a giant club, and Riposte with it.
The problem is clearly in the ambiguity of the rules regarding cases such as this.
Ultimately, if you can switch at the end of your action to get the most advantage possible while you're it's not your turn, why would it even matter?Again, with the Crane Style line of feats, it says that you must have a free hand in order to perform the deflection ability.
After I resolve the deflected attack, what am I going to use to attack with my AOO? My gauntlet/unarmed strike? It is considered a weapon, and since the hand is free, I can attack with it. If I was allowed to attack with my Greatsword after that, it would defeat the entire purpose of having a free hand open as a requirement to deflect the attack if it doesn't really do/change anything significant as a result.
I agree with you in this example. It doesn't make sense that you could Deflect, grab a giant club, and Riposte with it.
The problem is clearly in the ambiguity of the rules regarding cases such as this.
With the example of the 5 ft. step option not taking an action and not able to be used outside of your turn (since there is a feat that allows you to do this as an Immediate Action), it would only make sense to allow a character to do what you described impossible with the same mechanics (being able to wield a weapon as an Immediate Action) as a feat.
This concept may allow you to bypass the whole "open hand required" thing, and is perhaps way beyond the design intent of an important concept to the Style Feat, but by RAW (and nigh-equivalent correlation), such a feat would be fair to include.
But yes, the issue is the lack of text (even correlatory text) describing actions such as these to take place.