Can I remove my hand from a weapon as a free action?


Rules Questions

451 to 489 of 489 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

By the way:

Sean K Reynolds: "I deliberately wrote that FAQ entry so it wouldn't mention "off-hand" attacks until the section on using the two-weapon fighting option. That's because the concept of an "off-hand" only applies when you are using the two-weapon fighting option in the Combat chapter."

(Bolding mine.)

So the statement that a greatsword does not necessarily use your off-hand because you don't necessarily HAVE an off-hand is correct.

Looking for commentary on other points.


Adamantine Dragon wrote:
There's a certain amount of vicarious humor to be had from them though. So I do enjoy most of them.

Is there some reason internet forums even exist besides this?


Pathfinder Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

I'm of the opinion that Ciretose is wrong. It is perfectly reasonable to fight with both a great sword and, say, armor spikes simultaneously.

Despite not requiring a hand to use at all, the armor spikes would be considered the off-hand weapon during the full attack (unless for some reason the wielder wanted the great sword to be the off-hand weapon of course).

There is no off-hand if you aren't fighting with two weapons simultaneously.

Liberty's Edge

Jiggy wrote:

By the way:

Sean K Reynolds: "I deliberately wrote that FAQ entry so it wouldn't mention "off-hand" attacks until the section on using the two-weapon fighting option. That's because the concept of an "off-hand" only applies when you are using the two-weapon fighting option in the Combat chapter."

(Bolding mine.)

So the statement that a greatsword does not necessarily use your off-hand because you don't necessarily HAVE an off-hand is correct.

Looking for commentary on other points.

If you are so sure, FAQ your little scenario.

Post a thread and FAQ it. If you are correct, you can cite it whenever we meet on various threads.


ciretose wrote:
Ilja wrote:
ciretose wrote:

No, I don't agree with your reading allowing you to switch between two-handed and two-weapon in the same sequence.

I am not ignoring it, I am saying I think you are wrong.

You don't "switch" - they're separate rules that applies to different things. Do you have any rules support for saying it doesn't work? In 3.5 they explicitly addressed it and said it worked, PF hasn't changed the language at all.

Armor spikes even clearly address this:
"You can also make a regular melee attack (or off-hand attack) with the spikes, and they count as a light weapon in this case."
So greatsword is your primary hand attack, armor spikes is your off-hand attack. The rules are crystal clear on this, in 3.5 they explicitly said "yes, this works" when asked about it, and nothing has changed in pathfinder despite many people pointing out that it still works.

Quote:
The greatsword attack requires your off-hand.

Source? It's nowhere in the description.

Also, note that off-hand attacks are not physical hands - there are many kinds of possible off-hand attacks that do not involve any hands (spiked armor, kicks, headbutts, a lot of other stuff for the monk, blade boots etc).

Quote:

This is exactly why I am opposed to the free action approach. It is absolutely ridiculous to think it was RAI to TWF with a greatsword.

This is irrelevant to the free action approach. Regardless of that you can TWF with a greatsword. And it's not even good - it's marginally useful at early levels (like, <4) against goons, at later levels you really don't want to do it. It's still better than longsword/shortsword until you get improved critical (*secondary weapon), but shortsword/shortsword is far better unless you have a crazy amount of extra feats. Fighters could potentially do it, potentially, but not easily - and note that they're even in different weapons groups. Battleaxe/handaxe are in the same though, as are rapier/kukri.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.
ciretose wrote:
Grick wrote:
ciretose wrote:
Tell me more about how the developers intended for you to be able to both fight two-handed with a greatsword and two weapon fight at the same time.

By creating weapons that don't require hands to use.

If you believe that was developer intent, FAQ it.

Are you honestly of the opinion that the intent of weapons that don't need hands was something OTHER than to be able to wield them while your hands were full? Or are you of the opinion that they ARE intended to be able to be wielded while your hands are full, but only if your hands are full with something other than a weapon?

Liberty's Edge

Ravingdork wrote:
I'm of the opinion that Ciretose is wrong. It is perfectly reasonable to fight with both a great sword and, say, armor spikes simultaneously.

RD, at least you are honest even if I think your readings of the rules are insane :)

That is why I respect you enough to generally leave you alone.

Will you please FAQ it, since the others won't and if I do I'll be accused of unfair wording.

If everyone is sure this was Dev intent, the we can clear this up quickly. Hell, SKR is even floating around right now I think.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

2 people marked this as a favorite.
ciretose wrote:
Jiggy wrote:

By the way:

Sean K Reynolds: "I deliberately wrote that FAQ entry so it wouldn't mention "off-hand" attacks until the section on using the two-weapon fighting option. That's because the concept of an "off-hand" only applies when you are using the two-weapon fighting option in the Combat chapter."

(Bolding mine.)

So the statement that a greatsword does not necessarily use your off-hand because you don't necessarily HAVE an off-hand is correct.

Looking for commentary on other points.

If you are so sure, FAQ your little scenario.

Post a thread and FAQ it. If you are correct, you can cite it whenever we meet on various threads.

You dismiss a direct quote from a designer, and then expect me to believe you'll accept future quotes from a designer?

Liberty's Edge

Jiggy wrote:
ciretose wrote:
Grick wrote:
ciretose wrote:
Tell me more about how the developers intended for you to be able to both fight two-handed with a greatsword and two weapon fight at the same time.

By creating weapons that don't require hands to use.

If you believe that was developer intent, FAQ it.
Are you honestly of the opinion that the intent of weapons that don't need hands was something OTHER than to be able to wield them while your hands were full? Or are you of the opinion that they ARE intended to be able to be wielded while your hands are full, but only if your hands are full with something other than a weapon?

This whole thread is predicated on just one alternative use for an empty hand.

If you are sure the Devs intended your ruling, FAQ it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Jiggy wrote:
You dismiss a direct quote from a designer, and then expect me to believe you'll accept future quotes from a designer?

This. What's more, I don't FAQ things that are CLEARLY UNDERSTOOD.

Liberty's Edge

Jiggy wrote:
ciretose wrote:
Jiggy wrote:

By the way:

Sean K Reynolds: "I deliberately wrote that FAQ entry so it wouldn't mention "off-hand" attacks until the section on using the two-weapon fighting option. That's because the concept of an "off-hand" only applies when you are using the two-weapon fighting option in the Combat chapter."

(Bolding mine.)

So the statement that a greatsword does not necessarily use your off-hand because you don't necessarily HAVE an off-hand is correct.

Looking for commentary on other points.

If you are so sure, FAQ your little scenario.

Post a thread and FAQ it. If you are correct, you can cite it whenever we meet on various threads.

You dismiss a direct quote from a designer, and then expect me to believe you'll accept future quotes from a designer?

When the developer is addressing the question at hand, I will do exactly what I did last time. Concede his rule is the rule.

Again, FAQ it.

Liberty's Edge

Ravingdork wrote:
Jiggy wrote:
You dismiss a direct quote from a designer, and then expect me to believe you'll accept future quotes from a designer?
This. What's more, I don't FAQ things that are CLEARLY UNDERSTOOD.

I take back what I said about your honesty RD.

I know if Jiggy was confident in it, he would FAQ it just to rub it in my face when the Devs come back in agreement with him.

You RD...I am disapointed.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

2 people marked this as a favorite.
ciretose wrote:
When the developer is addressing the question at hand, I will do exactly what I did last time.

You mean argue back and forth with him six times, making him repeat himself twice in the process, frustrate him to the point he's saying "if you can't get this, I'm done", and THEN concede that he makes the rules and you don't... and then still need to be corrected/have him repeat himself again because you still weren't listening? That's what you'll do?

Sorry, I have more respect for SKR's time than to invite a repeat of that.

Liberty's Edge

Jiggy wrote:
ciretose wrote:
When the developer is addressing the question at hand, I will do exactly what I did last time.

You mean argue back and forth with him six times, making him repeat himself twice in the process, frustrate him to the point he's saying "if you can't get this, I'm done", and THEN concede that he makes the rules and you don't... and then still need to be corrected/have him repeat himself again because you still weren't listening? That's what you'll do?

Sorry, I have more respect for SKR's time than to invite a repeat of that.

You and I both know you aren't going to FAQ it because you know if a Dev looks at that cheese it will be FAQed out.

There is no other reason not to do it, and you know it.

The "waste the devs" time argument is the fall back of someone who doesn't want the dev to take away thier cheese move.

I will tip my hat to the first of you that either FAQs it or creates a question thread. I will FAQ the post right back, as I am not worried one way or the other. I've been wrong before.

But I've been right far more often.


There has been threads on it, it has been marked for FAQ but the devs have never bothered to answer. Maybe it's the whole thing with "if it has exactly the same language as 3.5 it works like in 3.5 and we don't need to address it".


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Ok, I can start a thread so those that feel the rules are ambiguous can FAQ it.


ciretose wrote:
If you believe that was developer intent, FAQ it.

So, in the rules, there's nothing that even implies armor spikes (or other non-handed weapons) require a free hand to use.

Then Mark made a post about how armor spikes, like all light weapons, require a free hand. Mark even said he talked to Jason about it. Since that's not in the rules anywhere, people wanted clarification. Jason stepped in and backed off his "off the cuff opinion" and said he would get a FAQ on it. So we FAQ'd his post, which was later marked "Answered in the FAQ." It has not yet been addressed in the FAQ.

If we're lucky, they're just sitting on that FAQ, and will release a blog post or something clarifying how all the non-traditional weapons work. (Hopefully including all the gauntlet-style weapons and how they do or don't relate to unarmed strikes)

Liberty's Edge

Ilja wrote:
There has been threads on it, it has been marked for FAQ but the devs have never bothered to answer. Maybe it's the whole thing with "if it has exactly the same language as 3.5 it works like in 3.5 and we don't need to address it".

Feel free to link to either.

Liberty's Edge

Ilja wrote:
Ok, I can start a thread so those that feel the rules are ambiguous can FAQ it.

Glad to see one of you is honest.

Hat tip to you.


Ilja wrote:
There has been threads on it, it has been marked for FAQ but the devs have never bothered to answer. Maybe it's the whole thing with "if it has exactly the same language as 3.5 it works like in 3.5 and we don't need to address it".

You mean back in 3.5 where the FAQ had it as a move action?

Mind you, I also disagree with Ciretose in what he's saying in specific, even if I do agree with his conclusion.

These cries that a paladin cannot use his ability that requires a free hand if he doesn't have a free hand, are just that.. cries. A cleric with a heavy shield and weapon cannot cast, and neither can the paladin.

Now Paizo has given tools to cope with this, but the desire is to not even need them... not sure why.

It was a move action in 3.5 to switch between hands.

Now it's reasonable that it is a free action to remove a hand, as it's a free action to completely drop a weapon.

Assuming that, but it's a move action to switch between hands, then it cannot be a free action to go from one-handed to two-handed wielding.

Moreover, there is nothing in the rules to make one suspect that it would be a free action. It might not be palatable for some to take it as a move action, but that's the way it's been. And thus that's the way it will remain until it gets changed, if ever.

-James

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Just to be clear, ciretose:
Exactly which question are you currently accusing people of being dishonest for not creating a FAQ thread for? Please be specific. Write it like you would if you were making the thread yourself, instead of your usual "oh you know, the thing I've been saying all along".


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
ciretose wrote:
Ilja wrote:
Ok, I can start a thread so those that feel the rules are ambiguous can FAQ it.

Glad to see one of you is honest.

Hat tip to you.

Who is being dishonest? FAQing or not FAQing a thread has absolutely nothing to do with one's "honesty." It looks like you are attempting to paint anyone who disagrees with you in a negative light. Please stay classy, dude.


Not interested in your hat.

here it is at least: link

It would be good if you could try to present your argument as to why it isn't allowed by the rules in a concise and understandable manner, preferably with actual rules references, and I'll incorporate it in the OP.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Ilja wrote:
It would be good if you could try to present your argument as to why it isn't allowed by the rules in a concise and understandable manner, preferably with actual rules references, and I'll incorporate it in the OP.

Near as I can tell, for him it's less about what the rules actually say and more about what he believes the intent is. How he determines what the intent of a given mechanic might be seems to be based on a combination of misunderstandings of related rules and his own personal preference rather than any actual commentary from Paizo staff regarding intent (in fact, he in some cases believes intent to be contrary to such statements) or any assumption that rules might actually reflect their own intent.

Liberty's Edge

Jiggy wrote:

Just to be clear, ciretose:

Exactly which question are you currently accusing people of being dishonest for not creating a FAQ thread for? Please be specific. Write it like you would if you were making the thread yourself, instead of your usual "oh you know, the thing I've been saying all along".

You are stating that you can attack with a great sword recieving full benefit from Two-Handed fighting with one of the attack gained from TWF if your second attack is unarmed or an unarmed weapon like a gauntlet or spiked gauntlet.

I am saying fighting two handed and two weapon fighting are mutually exclusive.

@James - What part are we disagreeing on? I'm a bit confused as I agree completely with what you just wrote.


james maissen wrote:
Ilja wrote:
There has been threads on it, it has been marked for FAQ but the devs have never bothered to answer. Maybe it's the whole thing with "if it has exactly the same language as 3.5 it works like in 3.5 and we don't need to address it".
You mean back in 3.5 where the FAQ had it as a move action?

I think we're talking about a different subject.

Liberty's Edge

Ilja wrote:

Not interested in your hat.

here it is at least: link

It would be good if you could try to present your argument as to why it isn't allowed by the rules in a concise and understandable manner, preferably with actual rules references, and I'll incorporate it in the OP.

You stated your position clearly, and that was all I asked. Hat tip to you if you want it or not, you've been one of the honest brokers in this debate from the beginning.

I can disagree with your reading of the intent, but I do think you are reading for intent unlike others who seem to be reading for loopholes.

I FAQed, we'll see what happens.


Pathfinder Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
ciretose wrote:
You are stating that you can attack with a great sword recieving full benefit from Two-Handed fighting with one of the attack gained from TWF if your second attack is unarmed or an unarmed weapon like a gauntlet or spiked gauntlet.

I don't know if that's really what he is saying, but I know this to be true in any event. It's not even optimal. A guy wielding a two-handed great sword in conjunction with armor spikes is strictly inferior to the guy who simply wields the great sword by itself in terms of damage output.


ciretose wrote:
You are stating that you can attack with a great sword recieving full benefit from Two-Handed fighting with one of the attack gained from TWF if your second attack is unarmed or an unarmed weapon like a gauntlet or spiked gauntlet.

That is not what Jiggy is saying.

You also didn't answer his question.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

ciretose wrote:

You are stating that you can attack with a great sword recieving full benefit from Two-Handed fighting with one of the attack gained from TWF if your second attack is unarmed or an unarmed weapon like a gauntlet or spiked gauntlet.

I am saying fighting two handed and two weapon fighting are mutually exclusive.

You know, when someone asks you your stance, it's a bit silly to write four times as much about THEIR stance and then follow up with a little snippet about your own.

All I needed was the latter. So thanks.


ciretose, you know what's dishonest? insinuating others are looking for loopholes, wrongly ascribing opinions as theirs, and calling them dishonest when you've got no evidence of that at all. I'm not sure you realize that you do that a lot, so I'm telling you it rather than flagging it (that'd be up to the people you've been rude to), because I think you can stop it without it escalating further.

Liberty's Edge

Jiggy asked what I was saying.

If Jiggy wants to say what he is saying, he can post it and FAQ it.

@Ilja - To be frank, if you won't FAQ it, I think you know you are being dishonest about your argument. If you weren't, you would click it with confidence.

Frankly like you did Ilja.

I know a lot of this is because of my "tone", but frankly I feel like things like this chase good people out of public games (let alone the RPG community entirely) because they aren't confrontational, so they just have to sit there while the cheese gets spread by players only interested in finding new and creative exploits in the system.

But if you say that they might be bending the rule a bit you get a howl of "How dare anyone accuse someone of trying to manipulating a rule!"

If you don't think your little trick isn't a exploit, click the FAQ so you can print out the ruling and carry it with you.

But if you won't click it, it is because you have doubt about the ruling going in your favor. And if you have doubt about it being legit, why are you bringing to a table with other people who are, ostensibly, your friends?

That is what I get upset about. And that is why I have a certain "tone" towards these kinds of things.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.

*sigh*


What's the thing called where you ascribe motives to others that you're secretly feeling yourself?


Grick wrote:

What's the thing called where you ascribe motives to others that you're secretly feeling yourself?

"projection"

Paizo Employee Organized Play Developer

Ravingdork wrote:
ciretose wrote:
You are stating that you can attack with a great sword recieving full benefit from Two-Handed fighting with one of the attack gained from TWF if your second attack is unarmed or an unarmed weapon like a gauntlet or spiked gauntlet.
I don't know if that's really what he is saying, but I know this to be true in any event. It's not even optimal. A guy wielding a two-handed great sword in conjunction with armor spikes is strictly inferior to the guy who simply wields the great sword by itself in terms of damage output.

While I don't agree with Ciretose, I don't think this is true either RD. A fighter could easily take the feat chains and/or archetypes to TWF and THF and substantially outdamage someone doing only one or the other. He'd be sacrificing in other places (which is why I don't see a problem with it) but as far as straight melee damage goes it would outstrip either of the other options by itself (at least in the case of fighters who have the feats to do it effectively, or possibly well-built rangers).

Liberty's Edge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16

No wai it could work because ZOMG CRANE WING

Spoiler:
j/k. Free action or nonaction hand changing is fine, Crane Wing's fine. Wizards can stop time and dudes are on here flipping out about changing hands on a weapon?

Liberty's Edge

Jiggy wrote:
*sigh*

What happened to the other post? The one where you were too busy.

It was cute.

Assistant Software Developer

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I think this thread is more than done.

451 to 489 of 489 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Can I remove my hand from a weapon as a free action? All Messageboards