|
There's some controversy over AoO and "wielding". Basically, JJ stated that it isn't enough to just be holding/equipped with a weapon for it to satisfy the "wielding" requirement of certain actions (such as AoO). He says that "wielding" is an active process; you've got to be using the weapon for something (usually attacking but could also encompass total defense, flourishing as a bonded weapon for a spell, etc) during your previous turn for it to qualify to be used for subsequent AoO before your next turn.
Now some simply chose to disregard all this and say that "equipping" is the same as "wielding" and so long as you have both hands on a 2-handed weapon by the end of your turn, you can make AoO with it. Personally, I think it's pretty clear that, since all these 6s turns are happening concurrently and the turn-based mechanic is merely a mechanical gameplay contrivance, it makes a lot of sense that you can't make an AoO just for having grasped your weapon by the end of your turn because subsequent turns sort of "rewind" to the beginning of that 6s round to determine what they were doing while you were doing your moving, casting, attacking, whatever. The crux of it is that AoO is adjudicated after your turn ends but it chronologically happens concurrent with your turn. A fighter, for example, would have made that AoO at the same time that he was busy doing his full-attack against whatever enemy he was fighting during his turn. Fighter is fighting Orc A, doing his two-weapon brouhaha all over the orc's face. By the end of his turn, Fighter was just fighting Orc A. Now Orc B, on his turn, passes through Fighter's "threaten" area. Orc B's actions "retcon" the fight between Fighter and Orc A so now Fighter, while going to town on Orc A, spares a moment to lash out at Orc B. Now consider the fight involving your Sorcerer player. Sorcerer throws a Magic Missile at Orc A, then grabs hold of his spear. Orc B now passes through what would have been Sorcerer's threatened area, but Sorcerer...
Yeah, I can't see that leading to any arguments at all.
Here is the problem with what you described:
lets say I have a caster that fights with a longsword:
Under how I think most people do it, a character is wielding his weapon once it is drawn.
It's simple: Is it drawn? You're wielding it. Did you drop it, sheath it, or take a hand off it for 2H weapons? It's now no longer drawn.
Under what you described, how does my caster determine when he is and is not "wielding" the weapon? What if I chose to cast spells all throughout combat? I'm still holding onto my longsword; is it realistic to say that I don't try to use my sword to defend myself or attack my foes? Gandalf manages to wield a sword and cast in combat, why can't I?
As to the Initiative issue, here is your problem: It's round 1 of combat, an I win Initiative. Because all my foes are flat footed, my character runs past 5 foes to get to a better position. Now, under the example you described, combat should of course on their turn rewind those 6 seconds and they should all get attacks of opportunity against me now. But it doesn't work that way.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
There's some controversy over AoO and "wielding". Basically, JJ stated that it isn't enough to just be holding/equipped with a weapon for it to satisfy the "wielding" requirement of certain actions (such as AoO).
Are you sure you're not thinking of the FAQ that says you must attack with a defending weapon in order to get the AC bonus?
Since what James actually said was:
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.
Combat is turn based, there's no other possible way for it to work. If the sorcerer casts a spell, then wields his weapon, he now threatens, and if an orc provokes, he can take an AoO. The orc didn't provoke until after the spell was cast and after he took a free action to put his hand back on the spear. Just like if he used Quick Draw to draw a weapon from a sheath.
Cinematically, you can describe everything happening at once, but mechanically it just doesn't work that way, at all.
Best caster weapon is a +1 Dueling Spiked Gauntlet. You always threaten, you're always armed, and you always get the initiative bonus from Dueling but you can still cast with no problem and have 2 free hands.
Forgetting any mechanics advantages let's not ignore the awesome visual of a guy with a guy wandering around with Dr. Claw's (shout out for all you Inspector Gadget fans out there!) gauntlets, but wearing a grad dress everywhere else.
Fashion fois pas for sure, but epic if you pull it off. Sort of on the same page as socks with sandals.
|
|
Best caster weapon is a +1 Dueling Spiked Gauntlet. You always threaten, you're always armed, and you always get the initiative bonus from Dueling but you can still cast with no problem and have 2 free hands.Forgetting any mechanics advantages let's not ignore the awesome visual of a guy with a guy wandering around with Dr. Claw's (shout out for all you Inspector Gadget fans out there!) gauntlets, but wearing a grad dress everywhere else.
Fashion fois pas for sure, but epic if you pull it off. Sort of on the same page as socks with sandals.
Yeah, that always has been an appealing aspect. :D
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
what JJ said in regards to changing hands is directly at odds with how he defined 'wielding' for a Wizard using a two-handed weapon as a bonded weapon; that 'wielding' involves actively doing something with it, not just carrying it.
No, it's not.
Wizard begins turn. Wizard uses free action to take hand off quarterstaff. Wizard is no longer wielding quarterstaff, he's only carrying it. Wizard casts a spell using his free hand. Since he's not wielding the quarterstaff (lets say the errata about holding bonded objects isn't in place yet) he has to make a concentration check. He makes it. Now, lets say he didn't cast defensively for some reason, and provokes an AoO. The opponent decides to make a trip attempt as his AoO, but since he doesn't have Improved Trip, he provokes from the wizard. The wizard cannot take that AoO with his quarterstaff, because he's not wielding it, he's just holding it in one hand. So he doesn't take the AoO since he's not armed. The trip attempt fails, and the wizard completes his spell. Now the wizard uses a free action to re-grip his quarterstaff. He's now wielding it, using both hands, and he threatens.
Now, the Orc begins his turn. He tries to trip the wizard again, and provokes. The wizard takes his AoO using the quarterstaff he's wielding.
In one statement, he says you can grasp it with both hands at the end of the turn and make AoO and it counts as properly 'wielding' it. In another statement, he says that just holding a weapon isn't enough to be considered 'wielding' it, it has to be "in action" to be considered 'wielding'.
Yes, both of those statements are correct.
While the wizard is holding it in one hand, he's not wielding it, and doesn't threaten with it. After he puts his hand back on it, he's once again wielding it, and threatens with it.
Here's another example.
Fighter begins his turn. He has a dagger in each hand. He throws the daggers at an orc with a full-attack using Two-Weapon Fighting. He's now unarmed, since he threw his daggers and his hands are empty. He uses a free action to use the Quick Draw feat to draw his longsword. He's now armed, and threatens with the longsword.
When the fighter had the daggers, he was armed and threatened with them. When he didn't have any weapons at all, he wasn't armed, and he didn't threaten. After he drew his longsword, he once again was armed, and threatened.
Similar example:
Fighter has a greatsword. He's armed and threatens. He uses a free action to remove one hand from his greatsword. He's no longer wielding it, he's just holding it, so he doesn't threaten. He draws a potion (move action), and drinks the potion (standard action). He still isn't armed, and doesn't threaten. After he's done that, he uses a free action to put his hand back on the greatsword, once again he's wielding it and he threatens with it.
If something had provoked an AoO while the character was unarmed, the character would have been unable to make that attack. This is specifically on the wizard/fighter's turn, and only between the actions which resulted in the character not being armed. Provoking before they let go of the weapon, or after they re-gripped the weapon, means the AoO happens while the character is armed, threatens, and can make the AoO.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Something a friend and I were wondering was this scenario:
We're assuming it's a free action to take a hand off and back on the weapon.
Oracle lets go of a greatsword and casts a touch range spell and doesn't make the touch attack.
The oracle then puts the hand back on the weapon. What happens? Does the spell discharge?
This FAQ touches on it, but we're not sure if "the magus touching his held weapon doesn't discharge it" is magus-with-spellstrike specific or a general rule.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Oracle lets go of a greatsword and casts a touch range spell and doesn't make the touch attack.
The oracle then puts the hand back on the weapon. What happens? Does the spell discharge?
Nothing happens until the end of his turn. After the end of his turn, he then holds the charge.
Holding the Charge: "If you touch anything or anyone while holding a charge, even unintentionally, the spell discharges."
So, does touching something mean a specific action initiated by the caster? Or does it mean "being in contact with another object" ? The latter has fairly dire consequences for people who wear gloves, rings, gauntlets, etc.
In the end, it's up to your GM. Some GMs want touch spells to be extremely dangerous, and will discharge spells on your equipment, self, raindrops, etc. Personally, I think it doesn't discharge until you make a conscious decision to actively touch something, with the "unintentionally" part meaning forgetting you have a held charge and shaking hands with someone. Otherwise, you get into weird situations like deciding what part of the body the 'charge' is held in, since you can discharge it with punches, touches, bites, etc. If you have a Gore attack, you can discharge it with a Gore, does that mean it discharges into your helmet? If you can bite, do your teeth discharge into your tongue when you speak? Crazy stuff.
|
|
Removing one hand from a weapon held in two hands is not an action at all, not even a free action.
Adding a free hand to a weapon held it two hands is not an action; it's part of an attack if you want to add that free hand; it's only compulsory if the weapon requires two hands to attack. It's like 'jump' is not an action itself; it's part of movement, no matter what action type that movement is consuming.
This means that if you are holding a two-handed weapon in one hand and the other hand is free, you threaten with that weapon.
The above would not be true if this adding free hand/letting go with one hand was a free action. But it isn't. Anyone who believes otherwise is invited to quote the RAW which defines it as an Action In Combat which consumes a free action (or any other type of action).
Don't worry, it's a common misconception. As is the imprecise use of the phrase 'free action" when 'not an action' is correct.
Removing one hand from a weapon held in two hands is not an action at all, not even a free action.
This has been hashed out dozens of times. In the end, the rules do not specify. Thus, we must look at the closest defined action. Hey, dropping a weapon is a free action. That's really close to letting go with one hand. So logically, dropping one hand off a weapon is pretty much the same as dropping both hands off a weapon, and that coincides with what James Jacobs has ruled: "if you're wielding a 2H weapon, you can let go of the weapon with one of your hands (free action)."
You can rule otherwise to cheese out free hand abilities, but that's not the rules, nor is it the most reasonable interpretation of the rules.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This means that if you are holding a two-handed weapon in one hand and the other hand is free, you threaten with that weapon.
I disagree with this statement.