RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Once your turn ends, you are locked in either one handed or two handed mode on your weapon.You say this like it's true!
It's unspecified, but in my opinion it's the best call. Making it a free action (during your own turn only) to take a hand off or put a hand on lets you do interesting things on your turn (like be a melee cleric) but without completely invalidating things that require a free hand off-turn (like Deflect Arrows).
If it's more than a free action, you screw some very reasonable things that really should work, such as a cleric being able to use all of their class features (weapon proficiency, shield proficiency, and spellcasting).
If it's not an action at all, then the free-hand restriction on things like Deflect Arrows no longer means anything, as someone can simultaneously threaten with a two-handed weapon and also use Deflect Arrows.
But if it's a free action, things work.
@ Jiggy: Explain how a character can threaten with both a Two-Handed Weapon and use an ability that requires an open hand at the same time.
If I need two hands to attack with a weapon, I can't use open hand feats. If I need an open hand to use certain abilities, I can't make attacks with two-handed weapons, meaning I don't threaten with them. They are mutually exclusive.
The Non-action does allow more flexible usage, but that's about it. It still needs a physical proxy outside its turn (such as an Immediate Action or other similar activity), which requires people to burn something, or to have something happen for it to occur. A dumb creature will easily fall for it quite a few times. A smart creature or the BBEG will only fall or it once or twice, and afterward it becomes a liability for the PC to rely on such tactics (since it leaves the other party members open to attacks or nasty maneuvers, etc).
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If I need two hands to attack with a weapon, I can't use open hand feats. If I need an open hand to use certain abilities, I can't make attacks with two-handed weapons, meaning I don't threaten with them. They are mutually exclusive.
I agree.
If it doesn't take an action at all to move your hand on or off of the weapon, then you get things like, "Okay, I'm done with my turn. Oh, he wants to shoot me? I take my hand off my sword so I can deflect the arrow. Once that's done, I put my hand back on my sword so I threaten again. All during his standard action on his turn."
If you want to prevent that, then you have two options:
1) Make the hand-moving a free action (or more)
2) Make up new rules for when you can and can't perform non-actions
Either way you have to make something up (the action cost - or lack thereof - of the hand-moving), but in #2 you have to make up more things. To me, "It's a free action" seems preferable to "It's technically not an action, and now I also need to either decide yea or nay every time you want to do it, or else come up with a system of new rules to govern it".
Crane Style is a stance. Crane Wing is an ability only available while using the Crane Style stance. Crane Riposte is an ability only available upon using Crane Wing. There is a difference; why even call them different names if you're going to label them as the same subject? Because they're not.
Deflect/Snatch Arrows are not Style feats, nor are they stances. They are feats that are supposed to allow you to deflect projectiles. Their effects require activity to occur outside your turn for it to work (taking no action at all), and saying only Immediate Actions can be done outside your turn invalidates these feat mechanics, no longer making them viable feats.
Snap Shot and its upgrades are not stances either. They grant an ability to the character that allows them to threaten with a bow, and make attacks of opportunity with a bow against targets that provoke within the listed range. Saying they cannot nock an arrow outside their turn means they cannot make attacks of opportunity with their bow, the entire purpose of this line of feats.
Fortification armor property can't be used outside its turn because it requires activity outside its turn, and since it's not an immediate action, this property becomes worthless.
Now what do these all have in common? They are all activities that occur outside your turn that take no action whatsoever to perform, but technically can't be performed because (according to you) only Immediate Actions can be done outside your turn. How are these exceptions, again?
|
I have no difficulty conceptualising holding a weapon in one hand with my other hand free, and adding that free hand as I execute the attack, for more power or control or whatever.
The type of weapon, in terms of one-handed or two-handed, makes no difference to this concept.
This happens whenever the attack happens. It's irrelevant when I make the attack! If the attack is an AoO, so what? It doesn't suddenly stop making sense to use a weapon in this way!
Crane Wing requires a free hand as the attack you're deflecting is made, so if both hands are holding a weapon, tough!
Attacking with a two-handed weapon requires two hands free to use the weapon at the moment of the attack, whenever that attack takes place. Attacks of Opportunity require that you threaten the square within which an AoO is provoked. To threaten a square with a particular weapon you must be able to attack that square with that weapon. If you have two hands free to use a two-handed weapon then you can attack with it.
As a concept it all makes sense. If you attack in your turn the 'attack' process is identical to the 'attack' process when you execute an AoO.
The only question left is what kind of game action, if any, does 're-gripping' consume? If it's a free action then you don't threaten with a two-handed weapon while holding it in one hand while the other is free; if re-gripping is not an action but part of the attack action (like 'nocking an arrow' is part of an attack with a bow) then you do threaten!
It's clear! The only problem is that we don't know what action, if any, 're-gripping' consumes! All we are doing is making educated guesses while waiting for FAQ/errata.
So when someone like the OP asks this community the question, we should lay out the situation, admit that there is no RAW, show the alternatives and the consequences of each alternative, then let them know that they must choose which way they'll run it in their games, advise them to let their players know which way it'll be ruled at that table (before they make their PCs), then play that way until the devs finally provide a definitive answer.
Malachi, you're right and you're wrong both at the same time.
You're right in saying that a character can apply a free hand to a one-handed weapon to deal 1.5x damage, and that doesn't consume any action whatsoever. At the end of making that attack, they can choose to not have a second hand on it, and still threaten with it.
You're wrong in saying that a character can apply a free hand to a two-handed weapon to deal 1.5x damage since 1. The hand must already be applied in order to swing with it, 2. Doing so in such a manner invalidates all criteria requiring an open hand, and 3. Leaving an open hand invalidates all criteria needed to wield and threaten with a two-handed weapon.
RAW, two hands must be on the two-handed weapon at the time of the provocation, otherwise the PC cannot make an attack with the two-handed weapon. In addition, PCs being able to change grips as a non-action isn't really gamebreaking or difficult to implement. Here's an example:
At this point, two things can happen. The creature can go after some other squishy, and provoke an attack of opportunity from the PC (who has Improved Unarmed Strike, and threatens and can use it due to having a free hand), or it can swing at the PC.
For simplicity purposes, the creature goes after a squishy, and provokes an attack from PC. The PC at the time of provocation only has one hand on the Greatsword. Because of this, he does not threaten with the weapon (since he is not able to make an attack with it, since he can't use it one-handed). The PC does threaten with his Unarmed Strike, and since he has a hand free to perform an Unarmed Strike, he can attack the creature (or make an appropriate combat maneuver against it).
If the creature swings at the PC, he can miss the PC, and his free hand can still be left open for either another attack or some other action. If the creature hits the PC, the PC can deflect the attack with Crane Wing, and after deflecting the attack, then proceed with Crane Riposte.
Now, with the follow up from Crane Wing, Crane Riposte occurs after the deflection from Crane Wing. As a non-action, I can place my free hand that I used to deflect the attack back onto my Greatsword once the deflection is done (and what's left is after the Crane Wing deflection) and make the Crane Riposte with it. If I have multiple abilities that require an open hand, such as Deflect Arrows, I may want to keep that open hand for it, but if I do that, I do not get to make the attack of opportunity with my Greatsword.
That's a simple breakdown, and as clear as I can get. It's balanced, it still requires strategy, it has a slight bit more flexibility than a Free Action, and quite frankly it doesn't seem all that different.
|
|
RAW, two hands must be on the two-handed weapon at the time of the provocation, otherwise the PC cannot make an attack with the two-handed weapon.
Not true.
Two hands are required to use a two-handed melee weapon effectively.
This means that, at the moment you execute an attack, you must have two hands available to use that weapon at that moment. It does not mean that two hands are 'glued' to the weapon during the attack, just that both hands must be free to use the weapon throughout the process. Conceptually, your hands could be sliding up and down, letting go and re-gripping, whatever, so long as both hands are free to do this throughout the attack. It certainly does not mean that both hands must be 'glued' to the weapon even before the attack is executed!
RAW, two hands must be on the two-handed weapon at the time of the provocation, otherwise the PC cannot make an attack with the two-handed weapon.Not true.
Two hands are required to use a two-handed melee weapon effectively.This means that, at the moment you execute an attack, you must have two hands available to use that weapon at that moment. It does not mean that two hands are 'glued' to the weapon during the attack, just that both hands must be free to use the weapon throughout the process. Conceptually, your hands could be sliding up and down, letting go and re-gripping, whatever, so long as both hands are free to do this throughout the attack. It certainly does not mean that both hands must be 'glued' to the weapon even before the attack is executed!
So, any held weapon is considered 'wielded' if you have the requisite number of free hands?
Does this extend to weapons anywhere on your person? If not, why not?
|
Removing one hand from a weapon is undefined in the rules. However, as you note, letting go with BOTH hands would be a free action, so it would take a pretty backward-minded GM to rule that doing less than that would cost more.
Or a GM who doesn't want a player to exploit a loophole.
Crazy concept as that might be.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Removing one hand from a weapon is undefined in the rules. However, as you note, letting go with BOTH hands would be a free action, so it would take a pretty backward-minded GM to rule that doing less than that would cost more.Or a GM who doesn't want a player to exploit a loophole.
Crazy concept as that might be.
Note that in the statement you quoted, I only talked about letting go, not putting your hand back on. That alone does not create anything remotely resembling a loophole - it's not until BOTH are free (or better) that anything starts to even look exploitable. I did not say anything about it being backward-minded to assign a different action to re-gripping.
Next time you might consider reading a post carefully before making a snarky reply to it.
Crazy concept as that might be.
I think of Deflect Missile as a very simple action and would allow it without even affecting whether you're using a two-handed weapon or not. Someone throws a dagger at your character, you free one hand and swat that offending weapon aside (possible follow up with an obscene gesture at the thrower) and quickly return your hand to your great sword ready to cut in half anyone foolish enough to enter Attack of Opportunity range.
If this is possible, why does the feat state the requirement of a free hand ?
That said, I have home-brewed a feat for a specific character that works like deflect arrows except that it requires a weapon with wich the character has weapon focus to deflect the arrow. Ting !
|
|
Removing one hand from a weapon is undefined in the rules. However, as you note, letting go with BOTH hands would be a free action, so it would take a pretty backward-minded GM to rule that doing less than that would cost more.Or a GM who doesn't want a player to exploit a loophole.
Crazy concept as that might be.
Note that in the statement you quoted, I only talked about letting go, not putting your hand back on. That alone does not create anything remotely resembling a loophole - it's not until BOTH are free (or better) that anything starts to even look exploitable. I did not say anything about it being backward-minded to assign a different action to re-gripping.
Next time you might consider reading a post carefully before making a snarky reply to it.
Crazy concept as that might be.
I did read it. This allows you to get the benefits of THF without the penalties.
Loop. Hole.
Following your logic:
Releasing your hand as a free action.
Pulling a Klar/Shield using quick draw (free action)
Profit.
|
|
RAW, two hands must be on the two-handed weapon at the time of the provocation, otherwise the PC cannot make an attack with the two-handed weapon.Not true.
Two hands are required to use a two-handed melee weapon effectively.This means that, at the moment you execute an attack, you must have two hands available to use that weapon at that moment. It does not mean that two hands are 'glued' to the weapon during the attack, just that both hands must be free to use the weapon throughout the process. Conceptually, your hands could be sliding up and down, letting go and re-gripping, whatever, so long as both hands are free to do this throughout the attack. It certainly does not mean that both hands must be 'glued' to the weapon even before the attack is executed!
So, any held weapon is considered 'wielded' if you have the requisite number of free hands?
Does this extend to weapons anywhere on your person? If not, why not?
First question: yes.
Second question: no. If it takes a game action (move or free) to draw a weapon, then you don't threaten with it. You can't take either action outside your own turn, so if someone provokes you can't draw a sheathed weapon in order to attack with it, therefore you don't threaten. In order to threaten you must be able to attack with the weapon without taking any action between the provocation and the AoO.
Which means that if 're-gripping' were a free action then you would not threaten with a two-handed weapon unless you already had two hands on the weapon. If 're-gripping' were not an action then you threaten with a drawn two-handed weapon held in one hand while the other is free, as you have two hands available to use the weapon and don't need an action to add that free hand.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
I did read it. This allows you to get the benefits of THF without the penalties.
Loop. Hole.
Following your logic:
Releasing your hand as a free action.
Pulling a Klar/Shield using quick draw (free action)Profit.
Your statement is so full of holes, your supposed loophole so full of action costs you don't seem to be aware of, that I don't even know where to begin.
Ciretose, I notice a pattern with you. It seems like every time you think something's "broken" or "a loophole", it's because you don't understand the rules of other things that interact with it. In this case, you think letting go of something as a free action creates a loophole because you don't understand the other actions that would be involved in actually executing the routine that you think is being enabled. You say X has to work a certain way because otherwise Y will break it, and then I or someone else has to come in and explain that Y doesn't actually work that way and break X. Then you say that Y can't work the way I (or whoever) said because if it did then Z would break Y, and so then it has to be explained that Z doesn't work like you thought and therefore doesn't break Y, and so on.
It just goes on and on. Just like when you had Sean K Reynolds trying to explain that you didn't understand how the T10 rules he wrote worked and you kept insisting that there would be such-and-such ramifications and just couldn't believe that no, the rules work exactly as intended and the problems you saw were imagined.
For the sake of your own blood pressure, you might want to consider sticking to what you're good at (storytelling and immersion) and leave the rules discussions to others. Rules are not your strength, just as storytelling and event organization are not mine. Accept it, and you'll be happier in the longrun.
Guys & Girls...
Just be careful here.
You can brake a lot of characters by making switching grips anything but a free action.
clerics using two handed weapons for example... Sorry did you cast? no A.O.O. for you!
Yes some people can cheese, hell I use to back in the old LG days
My TWF Ranger would charge in using a long sword 2 handed then Quick Draw his 2nd Long Sword and complete his TWF attacks.
It would only work for the opening attacks in a combat, but the extra damage helped...
It did not brake the game... there are a LOT of things which brake the game.. swamping from a one-handed grip to two-handed grip is not one of them.
call it a free action and lets all move on... and I don't know.. have fun.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hey, Jiggy, that last two sentences of your last post actually sounded a bit rude. One can put it in however fine words they want, but actually saying someone should just stop discussing rules, just because they have a brainfart sometimes, is quite unfriendly. It's not really constructive and it's a bit demeaning.
Just some word of advice.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Guys & Girls...
Just be careful here.
You can brake a lot of characters by making switching grips anything but a free action.
clerics using two handed weapons for example... Sorry did you cast? no A.O.O. for you!
You call that broken, I call that fair.
I did read it. This allows you to get the benefits of THF without the penalties.
Loop. Hole.
Following your logic:
Releasing your hand as a free action.
Pulling a Klar/Shield using quick draw (free action)Profit.
This allows you some of the benefits of THWing, for an investment (quick draw). I don't think it's unfair to let players who invest in quickdraw and get a quickdraw shield reap some minor benefit.
Note that if you do this with a two-handed weapon you'll lose your AoO's when you've released it with one hand. With a one-handed weapon you can make those attacks one-handed.
So, what this trick means is that if you're using a one-handed weapon like battle-axe or bastard sword with EWP, you can get pretty much all the benefit of having a shield and also add 1 1/2 times your strength mod to the attacks _during your turn_.
Compared to a THF you'll have a higher AC for the price of slightly lower damage on your turn and drastically lower damage on your opponents turn. Compared to a sword and boarder you'll have a higher damage on your turn, but slightly lower AC (quickdraw shields are only light shields), and one feat less (unless you where taking quickdraw anyway, which not all builds can afford).
I think that's a fair investment. And you can only do it once for every quickdraw shield on your person, so it's more or less once per combat. A neat little trick.
Now, it might be a "loophole" in that it's not an intended combat tactic, but so can be said for a lot of things PC's do. There IS a fine line between creativity and loophole exploitation. And from all examples we've seen, it doesn't seem possible to make anything really broken with the free action rule, and especially not with "free action to release" rule.
Ruling it more than a free action to _release_ the grip on a weapon also has versimillitude issues, that I personally think is far worse than the versimillitude issues from a fringe tactic to do one and a half handing with quickdraw shields.
You call that broken, I call that fair.Guys & Girls...
Just be careful here.
You can brake a lot of characters by making switching grips anything but a free action.
clerics using two handed weapons for example... Sorry did you cast? no A.O.O. for you!
but that same caster (most commonly a cleric) can hold a 15 lb. steel shield in combat..
they can
1) release the grip (all heavy shields have a handle you need to hold to use the shield correctly.
2) cast a spell
3)Get his hand back on that shield grip and gain the benefits of a heavy shield
using a shield in this was is a LOT harder the holding on to a sword grip.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Hey, Jiggy, that last two sentences of your last post actually sounded a bit rude. One can put it in however fine words they want, but actually saying someone should just stop discussing rules, just because they have a brainfart sometimes, is quite unfriendly. It's not really constructive and it's a bit demeaning.
Just some word of advice.
So I decided to post. Not everything that hurts is bad.
|
|
@Jiggy
"Free Action: Free actions consume a very small amount of time and effort. You can perform one or more free actions while taking another action normally. However, there are reasonable limits on what you can really do for free, as decided by the GM."
So if releasing the one handed weapon is a free action, and drawing a weapon is a free action...
A free action is a free action. You can do more than one a round, hence being free. What I described would be two free actions. You may be thinking of a
"Swift Action: A swift action consumes a very small amount of time, but represents a larger expenditure of effort and energy than a free action. You can perform only a single swift action per turn."
Which would only allow one per round.
If you allow the player to release the hand to perform an action such as deflecting arrows, you would also, logically, allow them to perform free actions such as...you know...pulling a shield using quick draw.
That is clearly not the intent.
The bonus you get for fighting with two hands is clearly intended to be a balance for what you lose by only having access to one hand. If you allow release as a free action, why wouldn't every THF build take quick draw so they can still use a shield?
@Nunspa
There is a difference between holding and wielding. You can hold a THW with one hand and cast with the other, however if you wield it two handed, by definition you are using two hands.
ciretose: how is that clearly not the intent? I can see it might not being the intent, but it isn't clear in any way. Also a lot of things probably aren't intended but done anyway. The devs can't know all possible uses for a certain rule, so they can't intend everything actively.
And we know, from JJ's comments, that it is the intent that you can cast while using a light shield through switching your weapon to the light shield, cast, and switch back (without wasting actions). Not having releasing a weapon as a free action breaks THAT intent instead.
An interpretation leading to something that isn't the intent of the rules is only an issue if it at the same time creates a power discrepancy compared to other options.
So if we're going to go by intent, we either have to break the an assumed intent in a corner-case that will rarely have any effect on a battle, or breaking known intent in a common scenario that affects whole builds drastically.
And isn't the issue more with the quick-draw shields than releasing your weapon then? If you don't want people switching quickly between THW and shields, why not just ban quickdraw shields?
|
|
This allows you some of the benefits of THWing, for an investment (quick draw). I don't think it's unfair to let players who invest in quickdraw and get a quickdraw shield reap some minor benefit.
Note that if you do this with a two-handed weapon you'll lose your AoO's when you've released it with one hand. With a one-handed weapon you can make those attacks one-handed.
So, what this trick means is that if you're using a one-handed weapon like battle-axe or bastard sword with EWP, you can get pretty much all the benefit of having a shield and also add 1 1/2 times your strength mod to the attacks _during your turn_.
Compared to a THF you'll have a higher AC for the price of slightly lower damage on your turn and drastically lower damage on your opponents turn. Compared to a sword and boarder you'll have a higher damage on your turn, but slightly lower AC (quickdraw shields are only light shields), and one feat less (unless you where taking quickdraw anyway, which not all builds can afford).
I think that's a fair investment. And you can only do it once for every quickdraw shield on your person, so it's more or less once per combat. A neat little trick.
Now, it might be a "loophole" in that it's not an intended combat tactic, but so can be said for a lot of things PC's do. There IS a fine line between creativity and loophole exploitation. And from all examples we've seen, it doesn't seem possible to make anything really broken with the free action rule, and especially not with "free action to release" rule.
Ruling it more than a free action to _release_ the grip on a weapon also has versimillitude issues, that I personally think is far worse than the versimillitude issues from a fringe tactic to do one and a half handing with quickdraw shields.
However THF builds use far less feats than TWF or Sword and board anyway.
And the damage is much, much higher for a THF vs a sword and board when you consider the power attack bonuses on top of the 1 1/2 strength.
I am not saying this is the most egergious exploit I have ever seen, but it is the volume of straws that break the camels back, not the weight of a single one.
In this instance, I may allow the player to release at the end of an attack for the specific purpose of deflecting arrows, as that seems a reasonable trade for the loss of AoO damage, and does make sense thematically.
But to allow what I described with the shield only makes sense as an exploit. And that would be allowed if it is made a simple free action.
@NunspaThere is a difference between holding and wielding. You can hold a THW with one hand and cast with the other, however if you wield it two handed, by definition you are using two hands.
Except that a cleric with a shield can take an A.O.O. with that shield after casting a spell (if they take the shield fighting feats)
wielding a shield is simply more difficult then switching from one handed to two handed grips.
A 15 lb. steal shield is not balanced, also the grip behind the shield requires you to slip your hand though a small space and grip the shield.
|
|
ciretose: how is that clearly not the intent? I can see it might not being the intent, but it isn't clear in any way. Also a lot of things probably aren't intended but done anyway. The devs can't know all possible uses for a certain rule, so they can't intend everything actively.
And we know, from JJ's comments, that it is the intent that you can cast while using a light shield through switching your weapon to the light shield, cast, and switch back (without wasting actions). Not having releasing a weapon as a free action breaks THAT intent instead.
An interpretation leading to something that isn't the intent of the rules is only an issue if it at the same time creates a power discrepancy compared to other options.
So if we're going to go by intent, we either have to break the an assumed intent in a corner-case that will rarely have any effect on a battle, or breaking known intent in a common scenario that affects whole builds drastically.
And isn't the issue more with the quick-draw shields than releasing your weapon then? If you don't want people switching quickly between THW and shields, why not just ban quickdraw shields?
There is "an" action and there is a series of "actions"
I think the primary reason quickdraw isn't a swift actions is to allow you to throw multiple weapons as part of a full round attack. They specifically exclude scrolls and potions for example.
Cutting through the muck, this isn't a complicated issue if you ask the following questions:
1. "What it the intent of the devs when providing the option to wield two handed?"
I think most reasonable people would answer something to the effect of "It allows greater damage in exchange for loss of the use of one of your hands"
2. "What it the intent of the devs when providing the Quick-Draw feat?"
And I think most reasonable people would answer "To be able to draw weapons and/or specialized items such as the quick draw shield immediately if you have a free hand
If you rule that releasing is a free action, you remove the primary penalty for attacking with two hands. Clearly that isn't the intent.
Quick draw works either way, if you have a free hand or drop your weapon as a free action (therefore sacrificing the weapon being available to you)
Do you disagree with on the intent of either rule? And if so, what do you think the intent was.
1. "What it the intent of the devs when providing the option to wield two handed?"
JJ: "if you're wielding a 2H weapon, you can let go of the weapon with one of your hands (free action). You're now only carrying the 2H weapon, not wielding it, but your free hand is now free to attack or help cast spells or whatever. And at the end of your turn if your free hand remains free you'd be able to return it to grip your 2H weapon so you can still threaten foes and take attacks of opportunity if you want."
If you rule that releasing is a free action, you remove the primary penalty for attacking with two hands.
Except, with a 2H weapon, you no longer threaten with it, and cannot take attacks of opportunity. And with a 1H weapon, you no longer gain the extra damage.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
3. "What is the intent behind letting one-handed weapons be wielded either in one hand or in two hands?"
Is it so you could always use them one-handed and never use the two-handed option? Is it so you could exclusively use them two-handed and wonder why you're not just using a two-handed weapon in the first place? Or might it be that you could switch between one-handed and two-handed attacks with enough ease that it's an option worth printing in the first place?
|
|
@Grick
1. JJ isn't a Dev, as he has said on many occasions and as was pointed out many times during the old Vital Strike Debate.
2. What he is saying that at the beginning of a turn you can let go of the weapon and have a free hand to do things, then return the grip for two handed fighting. Following his logic, you would still have a free hand to regrip it two handed at any time as a free action.
I don't think that is what you are arguing for, is it?
So back to the question the JJ quote did not answer, "What it the intent of the devs when providing the option to wield two handed?"
|
|
3. "What is the intent behind letting one-handed weapons be wielded either in one hand or in two hands?"
Easy.
It is a weapon that does less damage than most pure THW, so it isn't as good as those for a pure TWF build.
It can't be used as a light weapon, but it does more damage than most light weapons.
It allows you to "choose" between options, at the cost of being slightly less powerful than the full THF weapon.
But you still have to choose each round which way you are using it.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
But you still have to choose each round which way you are using it.
Wait, so you DO think someone with a one-handed weapon should be able to change grips easily? Using what action to change? Or are you treating it as a non-action that happens once at the beginning of each of your turns?
Say a cleric of Iomedae is using his deity's favored weapon (longsword). He has a buckler on one arm and a longsword in his other hand. He uses the buckler hand to cast a buff spell on himself. He ends his turn wielding the sword one-handed.
Then the enemy advances, and ends its turn adjacent to the cleric. Being all buffed up, the cleric now wants to go to town with his sword, two-handedly (eating the buckler penalties). Can he full-attack this turn with his sword wielded in both hands?
Why or why not? How would you run it mechanically, action by action?
Also, just as a suggestion, I find answering questions with answers works better.
I'll hold you to this in reference to the above.
What he is saying that at the beginning of a turn you can let go of the weapon and have a free hand to do things, then return the grip for two handed fighting.
Yep. And letting go is a free action. This is the first I've seen of someone arguing that taking the hand off in the first place isn't a free action, so I figured maybe you just hadn't seen the post where JJ explicitly says so. And since you're talking about intent, I also assumed you would value James' input.
Following his logic, you would still have a free hand to regrip it two handed at any time as a free action.
I don't think that is what you are arguing for, is it?
I'm not really sure what you mean. If you're holding the 2H weapon in one hand, and you have a free hand, you can put a hand back on the weapon to attack and stuff. If your other hand isn't free (say, you used a move action to draw a potion, but didn't drink it or drop it or whatever) then you would have to free up that hand before putting it back on the 2H weapon.
but that same caster (most commonly a cleric) can hold a 15 lb. steel shield in combat..
they can
1) release the grip (all heavy shields have a handle you need to hold to use the shield correctly.
2) cast a spell
3)Get his hand back on that shield grip and gain the benefits of a heavy shield
using a shield in this was is a LOT harder the holding on to a sword grip.
Your way, yes this is possible, not in my world. Heavy Shield specifically says your hand isn't free. No casting unless you remove it.
The other problem with this argument is that my ruling has nothing to do with "real world" logic, or rule X says maneuver Y is a free action therefore this must be too. My ruling has to do with balance. With a 2 handed weapon you are getting the beneift of 1 1/2 STR damage, plus extra damage if you have Power Attack, plus the ability to use Furious Focus. The balance is you don't have a free hand, or you have a free hand but you're not weilding a weapon. That's what balances it out, and keeps 1 handed weapons from being obsolete.
I'm not telling anyone else I'm correct and I'm not saying anyone else is wrong, this is how I rule it and why.
|
|
But you still have to choose each round which way you are using it.Wait, so you DO think someone with a one-handed weapon should be able to change grips easily? Using what action to change? Or are you treating it as a non-action that happens once at the beginning of each of your turns?
Say a cleric of Iomedae is using his deity's favored weapon (longsword). He has a buckler on one arm and a longsword in his other hand. He uses the buckler hand to cast a buff spell on himself. He ends his turn wielding the sword one-handed.
Then the enemy advances, and ends its turn adjacent to the cleric. Being all buffed up, the cleric now wants to go to town with his sword, two-handedly (eating the buckler penalties). Can he full-attack this turn with his sword wielded in both hands?
Why or why not? How would you run it mechanically, action by action?
Also, just as a suggestion, I find answering questions with answers works better.I'll hold you to this in reference to the above.
Yes each rould you choose how to wield the weapon, and that is how you are wielding it. And that is a wonderful example to illustrate my point.
In the round he cast he was wielding it with one hand. In the following round he decided to wield it with two hands.
If there were an AoO during the first round, he couldn't suddenly grip it with two hands and attack it. In the next round, he is now wielding the longsword in two hands, so he no longer gets the benefit of the buckler.
If you allow the release as a free action, in the 2nd round the cleric could hit with THF to get the added damage, then let go and still keep the buckler bonus when the monster attacks you on it's turn.
That is what I am saying no about. No you don't get to get the bonuses of THF without the penalty of losing use of the buckler.
I do NOT find a compelling reason to demand changing the move action cost down to a free action.
There's no changing anything. The action is not listed in the rules. But the closest action to that which is listed in the rules is a free action.
If you want it to be a free action, then why not take quick draw?
Because Quick Draw doesn't have any effect on releasing grip, re-gripping, or swapping weapons from hand to hand.
The only thing Quick Draw does is let you draw a weapon with a lesser action. You're not drawing a weapon, the weapon is already drawn. You're moving a wielded weapon from hand to hand, or putting a free hand on a weapon you're wielding or holding.
It seems as if this is entirely predicated upon wanting the benefits of a feat without actually taking the feat...
That could be true if there was a weapon-swap feat or weapon-regrip feat or anything like that.
However THF builds use far less feats than TWF or Sword and board anyway.And the damage is much, much higher for a THF vs a sword and board when you consider the power attack bonuses on top of the 1 1/2 strength.
Agreed - so why would a THF build use this trick anyway? They'd have to use a one-handed weapon not to be unable to AoO, dropping their damage from 2d6 to 1d8 or 2d4 to 1d6, which is a lot at lower levels. On their attacks of opportunity they'd still wield it one-handed and deal damage as normal for sword and board, and once it's their turn again, they'd have to drop the shield to be able to THF again. Retrieving an item from the ground is a move action, so they need to have a new shield to do the process all over again.
So, for a simple 1st level example just to show the payoffs done, let's consider the following, a 1st level fighter with power attack and either weapon focus or quickdraw depending on whether they want to do the trick or not. Assume a 18 strength and a greatsword or longsword:
Two-handed fighting, normal:
AC +0
Attack is +6, deals 2d6+6 damage, or PA of +5 (2d6+9).
Sword and boarding, normal:
AC +2 (heavy shield)
Attack is +6, deals 1d8+4 damage, or PA of +5 (1d8+6).
Doing the switch-trick:
AC +0 (your turn) or +1 (enemy turn, quickdraw shield)
Attack during your turn is +5, deals 1d8+6 damage, or PA of +4 (1d8+9)
Attack during enemy turn (AoOs) is +5, deals 1d8+4 damage, or PA of +4 (1d8+6)
Price at 1st level means you'll have one or maaaybe two shields (they cost 53 gp each), but that issue goes away soon, until enchanting becomes part of the expense.
So the one it resembles the most isn't THF - this isn't a tactic for THF, it's for sword and boarding to cram out a little more damage. So you have 1 ac less, and have to carry along one shield per round of combat. At low levels this is hindring in encumbrance and price, at higher levels the price of enchanting several shields will mean the S&B'er gets out ahead of you in terms of AC by a lot more.
It's not a useless tactic, but it's not at all better than just sticking with THF for damage output or S&B for defense.
Say a cleric of Iomedae is using his deity's favored weapon (longsword). He has a buckler on one arm and a longsword in his other hand. He uses the buckler hand to cast a buff spell on himself. He ends his turn wielding the sword one-handed.
Then the enemy advances, and ends its turn adjacent to the cleric. Being all buffed up, the cleric now wants to go to town with his sword, two-handedly (eating the buckler penalties). Can he full-attack this turn with his sword wielded in both hands?
Why or why not? How would you run it mechanically, action by action?
Yes each rould you choose how to wield the weapon, and that is how you are wielding it. And that is a wonderful example to illustrate my point.
In the round he cast he was wielding it with one hand. In the following round he decided to wield it with two hands.
If there were an AoO during the first round, he couldn't suddenly grip it with two hands and attack it. In the next round, he is now wielding the longsword in two hands, so he no longer gets the benefit of the buckler.
Note the lack of actions in your post. Here's what Jiggy was looking for:
Surprise Round:
* Cleric casts buff spell (Bull's Strength) - Standard Action
Cleric loses buckler AC for casting using his buckler hand.
* Enemy advances
Round 1:
* Cleric grips his longsword with both hands - Free action
Cleric full-attacks the enemy - Full-round action
Cleric loses buckler AC for wielding a weapon in his buckler hand, and takes a penalty on attack for using his buckler hand on a weapon
If there were an AoO provoked by the enemy during the surprise round, the cleric could have taken that AoO using his longsword, wielded in one hand. He can't use both hands because he can't use a free action to do so outside his turn.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Yes each rould you choose how to wield the weapon, and that is how you are wielding it. And that is a wonderful example to illustrate my point.
And your answer is a wonderful example of what I was talking about earlier, where you say "X would be a problem because of Y" and you're actually wrong about Y.
If you allow the release as a free action, in the 2nd round the cleric could hit with THF to get the added damage, then let go and still keep the buckler bonus when the monster attacks you on it's turn.
This is the "Y" that you've gotten wrong, forcing yourself into a corner where you have to rule a certain way to protect against something that doesn't actually happen.
The buckler has its own rules. It says you lose the bonus for the whole round if you attack with that arm. So even if you ungrip and regrip the sword a hundred times on your turn, the attack still costs you the buckler bonus for the whole round no matter what.
So the thing you claim will happen if he lets go as a free action won't happen. This is exactly what I was talking about.
That is what I am saying no about. No you don't get to get the bonuses of THF without the penalty of losing use of the buckler.
Like I said, already built into the rules - even if it's always a free action to change grips.
|
|
Oh Jiggy...
Your strawman "trap" only proved my point.
They designed the rules so you can't benefit from both a shield (either as a shield or a buckler) and THF.
Like. I. Said.
I know you want to argue the methodology and semantics, but in the end you can't get the bonus form a free hand and the bonus from two hands at the same time, by design.
Because that is the intended trade off. One hand lost for more damage gained.
That is the intended purpose of the rule.
So when you are done trying to play "gotcha!" maybe answer the intent questions.
Like. I. Said.
Actually, what you said ("If you allow the release as a free action, in the 2nd round the cleric could hit with THF to get the added damage, then let go and still keep the buckler bonus when the monster attacks you on it's turn.") was completely, provably, 100% wrong.
Your response was the strawman. Not Jiggy's scenario.
|
|
Same three questions to you Grick. One of them was Jiggy's.
EDIT: I'll add another one "Why do you think they don't allow you to still get the buckler bonus when you fight two handed, if as you believe the intent was that the hand can be released as a free action and therefore be ready to be use for other defensive actions (in the case of the OP, deflecting arrows?"
Same three questions to you Grick. One of them was Jiggy's
One of what was Jiggy's?
It would be much easier if you used complete sentences and would be willing to just clearly state what exactly it is you're arguing.
Saying things like "Letting go of a weapon isn't a free action because (blatantly incorrect nonsense)" doesn't really give us anything to go on.
As to the intent, by default I assume it's what was printed in the book.
The book doesn't say what action it is to let go of a weapon with one hand. It does list an extremely similar action (dropping an item) which is a free action. And JJ says it's a free action. And if it is a free action, everything works as it should. Making it a move action breaks the game. Making it 'not an action' means people will be confused and try to threaten with weapons they're not wielding. So it's pretty clear that the intent is just like JJ says: a free action.
Sorry this all seems rather silly...
we play in a game system where someone can draw, notch, and fire 6 arrows in 6 seconds...
draw and throw 6 daggers in 6 seconds.
but the idea of going from a two handed grip to a one handed grip is somehow a "crazy broken concept"
What we have here is a battle as old as RPGs...
The "you can't" GM vs. the flexible GM
to be honest there is no way this topic is going to end with an official ruling both sides will like.
if they come out and say its a free action..
the "You Can't" GMs will use the GM caveat to say its too many free actions.
while the flexable GM's will just roll with it.
reminds me of the table I played where the GM refused to allow me to swap weapons mid full attack because he didint like the idea of my character dropping an Orc with his first attack and switching to his bow for the remainder of his attacks.
I just never played with that GM again...