|
While I understand what you are saying, there are alot of other areas where intent comes into play on this issue.For instance, what is the use of swift action lay on hands? Was this intended as something that only one weapon fighters would do?
No. You don't literally lay on hands. It is a standard action touch attack on anyone else, and swift action on yourself that requires a free hand.
If you use it on someone else, you clearly aren't wielding two handed that round any more than you would be if you cast a spell with a somatic component, right?
Here is the wording.
"Lay On Hands (Su): Beginning at 2nd level, a paladin can heal wounds (her own or those of others) by touch. Each day she can use this ability a number of times equal to 1/2 her paladin level plus her Charisma modifier. With one use of this ability, a paladin can heal 1d6 hit points of damage for every two paladin levels she possesses. Using this ability is a standard action, unless the paladin targets herself, in which case it is a swift action. Despite the name of this ability, a paladin only needs one free hand to use this ability."
Why say it requires a free hand if you can have a free hand at any time as a free action?
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?"
I'm not even sure how to parse that.
You don't get the buckler AC bonus until the start of your next turn if you use that hand to cast a spell or wield a weapon.
You need two hands on the weapon to fight with a two-handed weapon.
You need a hand free to use Deflect Arrows.
We've clearly stated our position. You should try answering the questions asked, or making a statement.
Why say it requires a free hand if you can have a free hand at any time as a free action?
You're aware you can only take free actions on your turn, right? Not any time.
Paladin with Greatsword.
Free action: Release left hand from greatsword. Greatsword is no longer wielded, only held. Paladin does not threaten.
Swift action: Lay on hands, targeting self, using left hand which is free.
Move action: Move 15' forward to be adjacent to buddy.
Standard action: Lay on hands, targeting buddy, using left hand which is free.
Free action: Regrip greatsword with left hand. Greatsword is once again wielded, and paladin threatens.
If an orc shoots at the paladin now, he can't use his deflect arrows feat, because he doesn't have a hand free. But he does threaten, so he could hit the orc with his sword if it provokes.
Because if you sword and board with a heavy shield, you can't. If you're tied up, you can't. If you're climbing with a weapon, you can't. Because while you're laying on hands you're vulnerable to for example readied action. There's lots of reasons.
I must ask, did you miss my last post or did you ignore it?
|
|
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.
At high levels, yes you can.
ANd it is the same system where you can also only swing one time in those same six seconds for how many levels?
Yup.
Just as unrealistic the other way, if not more so. But it is a limiting factor that makes the game mechanically viable. Same as the silly concept of initiative.
There is "making it flexible" and there is "allowing me to get around the limitation"
You start with the baseline attack.
You have variants on the baseline attack that come with advantages and penalties (Twf gets extra attacks for reduced accuracy, THF gives extra damage with the loss of access to your other hand)
When you give the advantages without the penaties, what are you doing?
|
|
Because if you sword and board with a heavy shield, you can't. If you're tied up, you can't. If you're climbing with a weapon, you can't. Because while you're laying on hands you're vulnerable to for example readied action. There's lots of reasons.
I must ask, did you miss my last post or did you ignore it?
I saw it, it was well laid out and there wasn't much to reply to. I think you are undervaluing the extra damage and over valuing AoO occurances and you disagree, and we both are making fair and honest arguements about it.
I think that it could be a problem in a number of ways, and that one example is an instance. You and I can look at the same numbers and disagree about what is significant.
1d8+6 is average 10.5, PA is 13.5
1d8+4 is average 8.5, PA is 10.5
That is significant to me. Even more so as you add to that quickdraw shield.
AC difference is -1 doing the trick for significantly more damage,
It is even more with THF, with the only loss being against AoO.
Depending on how you value AoO, is how you view the outcome.
So I didn't reply because as far as I can tell you stated the terms honestly, we just don't agree on what they mean.
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
When you give the advantages without the penaties, what are you doing?
Something different than what Grick and I are advocating.
Making it a free action to take a hand off of a weapon doesn't take away the penalties of THF, you just think it does because you don't understand the other rules involved.
And then when this was pointed out, you dismissed it, and now continue to hold a position whose best support was objectively disproved.
And now you're asking people to justify why they're removing penalties that they're not actually removing.
If you want to go with baseline....
you can draw a bow, draw, notch, and fire two arrows in 6 seconds into melee.
or you can draw two weapons and get in two attacks on 6 seconds...
or worse case you can draw 2 weapons and get in 3 attacks in 6 seconds (Monk/Two-weapon fighting/Quick Draw)
all take much more concentration then griping and releasing a weapon between swings which is a common technique in many martial techniques.
for example you draw and strike with a Katina one handed and switch to two handed after the first attack (a common technique)
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...
This sounds like a post from soneone who never/very rarely GM's. It shows a purely selfish side of gaming that a GM can't afford to have. A GM has to rule based on EVERYONE that plays. What if the whole party isn't a fully optimized switch hitting ranger? Would it be much fun to have 1 character outshine the rest of the part? A GM tells you no and you immediately assume the GM is just out to screw you. You never even consider that there might be more to the GM's decsion than you know.
Now as far as the rest, ciretose brings up a good point that people avoid by attacking other parts of what he says (not saying what is or isn't a strawman attack, but if the shoe fits...)
They designed the rules so you can't benefit from both a shield (either as a shield or a buckler) and THF
Now what I find interesting is people accept this because it's spelled out in the rules, and yet goes against all arguments that are used in the "Free Action" camp.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
They designed the rules so you can't benefit from both a shield (either as a shield or a buckler) and THFNow what I find interesting is people accept this because it's spelled out in the rules, and yet goes against all arguments that are used in the "Free Action" camp.
Can you elaborate on how the buckler rules "go against all arguments that are used in the 'Free Action' camp"?
They designed the rules so you can't benefit from both a shield (either as a shield or a buckler) and THFNow what I find interesting is people accept this because it's spelled out in the rules, and yet goes against all arguments that are used in the "Free Action" camp.
Care to explain how?
Setting aside all the weird stuff like third arms and rings of force shield and such, the "Free Action" camp is still following the rules. If you use your buckler hand to wield a weapon, you lose the AC. That's the rules. Those rules don't change regardless of what action it took to put your buckler hand on the weapon.
If the cleric mentioned above puts his buckler hand on his longsword and attacks with it, he loses his shield AC bonus. It doesn't matter if it was a free action or a move action or whatever action. The reason he lost the AC is because he attacked with a weapon using his buckler hand.
Even if he lets go of the longsword after making that attack, he still doesn't have the AC bonus until the start of his next turn, because the rules explicitly say so.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
...And ciretose was claiming that the whole reason the GM shouldn't let the cleric change their grip back is that they would regain the AC bonus, which is false.
So now we have ciretose holding a view for which he's offered exactly one rationale, and that rationale is based on incorrectness. So on the one hand, he's still holding that view, but on the other hand, he's offered no other support for it.
So how exactly should we be responding?
|
|
I know the strawman is much, much easier to fight...
What ciretose is claiming (I know because I am him) is that the designers did not intend for your to be able to get the advantages of THF (extra damage) without the drawback (not having an open hand for a shield, spell, etc...)
Do you disagree with that?
|
|
If you want to go with baseline....
you can draw a bow, draw, notch, and fire two arrows in 6 seconds into melee.
or you can draw two weapons and get in two attacks on 6 seconds...
or worse case you can draw 2 weapons and get in 3 attacks in 6 seconds (Monk/Two-weapon fighting/Quick Draw)
all take much more concentration then griping and releasing a weapon between swings which is a common technique in many martial techniques.
for example you draw and strike with a Katina one handed and switch to two handed after the first attack (a common technique)
Yes. Badly.
Count 6 Mississippi and try to do those things while you are doing that.
See.
Why would it be harder to swing a two handed sword with a buckler on your arm, let go of the sword with 1 hand and then use the buckler? How is that more difficult than say, casting a spell with a free hand, and then putting your hand back on a sword? You're arguing that time and the "drop a weapon as a free action" is free so should this be. A buckler is, logically speaking, the same type of movements.
Or to answer a question with a question: How do you rationalize the two actions as being different?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Even if he lets go of the longsword after making that attack, he still doesn't have the AC bonus until the start of his next turn, because the rules explicitly say so.
So knowing this is in the rules, you don't make the leap that things that are little more ambiguous should follow the same pattern? You accept this because it is explicit, but then take a similar situation and try to go a different way with it. I don't see how you can rule differently in these situations when they are essentially the same.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Why would it be harder to swing a two handed sword with a buckler on your arm, let go of the sword with 1 hand and then use the buckler? How is that more difficult than say, casting a spell with a free hand, and then putting your hand back on a sword? You're arguing that time and the "drop a weapon as a free action" is free so should this be. A buckler is, logically speaking, the same type of movements.
Or to answer a question with a question: How do you rationalize the two actions as being different?
I don't even know what you're trying to ask/say. Was this supposed to be an explanation of your statement that losing your buckler's benefits for 1 round goes against the "free action re-grip" camp?
I'm really not following what you're trying to get at. Somewhere in there is a comparison involving a buckler or a spell, but I'm not sure what's supposed to be correlating to what.
And I really don't know what this sentence is supposed to mean: "You're arguing that time and the 'drop a weapon as a free action' is free so should this be." Maybe it made sense in your head as you were writing it, but try saying it out loud. It's not even really a sentence.
If you can start from the beginning and be clear and concise in what you're trying to say, I'd be happy to listen and respond.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You're arguing that time and the "drop a weapon as a free action" is free so should this be.
Who is arguing that? What is "this" that they're arguing?
ciretose is saying that it's not a free action. He hasn't said what type of action it is, only that it's not free. And he says it's not free because of stuff that's wrong. And he says he's only wrong because he's using a strawman.
Then you (Jodokai) were saying that the rules counter the "Free action camp" arguments, which I assume you're responding to now?
Dropping an item is a free action. Dropping a hand off of a weapon you're wielding is also a free action. That's the argument. It has nothing to do with casting or bucklers or anything else.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Even if he lets go of the longsword after making that attack, he still doesn't have the AC bonus until the start of his next turn, because the rules explicitly say so.So knowing this is in the rules, you don't make the leap that things that are little more ambiguous should follow the same pattern? You accept this because it is explicit, but then take a similar situation and try to go a different way with it. I don't see how you can rule differently in these situations when they are essentially the same.
Ah, this one's a bit clearer. But just to make sure, you're saying that since you lose a buckler's bonus for the whole round regardless of where your hand ends up, you should lose [something else]'s benefits for a whole round regardless of where your hand ends up.
I'm guessing you're referring to things like Deflect Arrows? That is, since a two-handed longsword attack costs you your buckler bonus for the whole round even if you free up that arm, you reason that a two-handed longsword attack costs you your Deflect Arrows benefit for the whole round even if you free up that arm?
Am I following you now?
You can't "re-grip" on a buckler to get the benefits of it, so why would you think you can "re-grip" on 2-handed weapon and get the benefits of it?
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
You can't "re-grip" on a buckler to get the benefits of it, so why would you think you can "re-grip" on 2-handed weapon and get the benefits of it?
A very legitimate question (rather refreshing, in this thread).
My answer is "Because in Pathfinder rules, not everything that looks similar is handled the same way."
For instance, if I attack with a sword and a bite on my turn, my bite is secondary and takes a -5 on the attack roll. But if I attack with a sword on my turn and take an AoO with a bite, the bite remains primary (if it was to begin with). Very similar-looking circumstances (still a sword and bite in the same round), but handled differently.
As another example, if I have BAB+5 and attack once with a longsword in my left hand and once with a mace in my right hand, I take TWF penalties on those attacks. But if I have BAB+6 and attack once with a longsword at +6 and once with a mace at +1, I don't take TWF penalties at all. Either way I attacked once each with weapons in different hands as a full-attack, but they're not handled the same way.
The list goes on. If you follow enough rules debates through to their resolution/FAQ/whatever, you start to notice that you cannot safely assume that things which look similar are meant to function the same way. In that TWF example I just gave, people were up in arms in the thread leading up to the FAQ, talking about "obvious intent" and pointing out the (very reasonable) issue of "I just attacked with two weapons; how am I not using two-weapon fighting?". But it turned out that the designers' intent was what could be extrapolated from the text rather than what "looked right".
-------------------
Is it possible that you're not supposed to be able to use things like Deflect Arrows in the same round you attacked two-handed? Yes.
Can we infer that from the buckler? No.
You can't "re-grip" on a buckler to get the benefits of it, so why would you think you can "re-grip" on 2-handed weapon and get the benefits of it?A very legitimate question (rather refreshing, in this thread).
My answer is "Because in Pathfinder rules, not everything that looks similar is handled the same way."
For instance, if I attack with a sword and a bite on my turn, my bite is secondary and takes a -5 on the attack roll. But if I attack with a sword on my turn and take an AoO with a bite, the bite remains primary (if it was to begin with). Very similar-looking circumstances (still a sword and bite in the same round), but handled differently.
As another example, if I have BAB+5 and attack once with a longsword in my left hand and once with a mace in my right hand, I take TWF penalties on those attacks. But if I have BAB+6 and attack once with a longsword at +6 and once with a mace at +1, I don't take TWF penalties at all. Either way I attacked once each with weapons in different hands as a full-attack, but they're not handled the same way.
The list goes on. If you follow enough rules debates through to their resolution/FAQ/whatever, you start to notice that you cannot safely assume that things which look similar are meant to function the same way. In that TWF example I just gave, people were up in arms in the thread leading up to the FAQ, talking about "obvious intent" and pointing out the (very reasonable) issue of "I just attacked with two weapons; how am I not using two-weapon fighting?". But it turned out that the designers' intent was what could be extrapolated from the text rather than what "looked right".
-------------------
Is it possible that you're not supposed to be able to use things like Deflect Arrows in the same round you attacked two-handed? Yes.
Can we infer that from the buckler? No.
I think Jodokai's point is, you're using the pattern:
If I can drop a weapon as a free action, then I can let go of a weapon with one hand as a free action, do something, and either leave my hand off the weapon to gain Deflect Arrows benefits or return my hand and AoO using both hands.
He's asking why you aren't just as easily assuming the pattern:
If I can't use my buckler by letting go of a weapon in the same round I've attacked with it two-handed, then I can't Deflect Arrows or perform other similar combat actions by letting go of a weapon in the same round I've attacked with it two-handed.
Both are derived conclusions from RAW, but you seem to arbitrarily assume the former is accurate and the latter is not.
Edit: There are certainly things you can do with your hand freed in combat, but using a buckler is not one of them if you used that hand to attack. The questions are:
1) Are the things you can't do with a freed hand after using it for attack explicitly defined or implicitly assumed?
2) Are the things you can do with a freed hand after using it for attack explicitly defined or implicitly assumed?
I think that's the crux of the argument right there.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Both are derived conclusions from RAW, but you seem to categorically assume the former is accurate and the latter is not.
I see where you're coming from, but your description of my position is just a tad off.
Now, my stance of letting go as a free action is based in part on being able to drop an item as a free action. So far, that leaves it on equal footing with the buckler argument that (you and I believe) Jodokai is making. But the free action stance is also supported by James Jacobs. Definitive? No. But it now has two pieces of support instead of just one.
Now, I notice you described my stance as "If I can drop a weapon as a free action, then I can let go of a weapon with one hand as a free action *and gain Deflect Arrows benefits*." and emphasized the Deflect Arrows bit.
Let's be careful not to roll DA in with the free action thing. Letting go as a free action may or may not be correct. However, Deflect Arrows is far more explicit. The ONLY requirement it lists for being able to use it is that your hand be holding nothing. It doesn't say you can't have attacked with that hand, just that it can't be holding anything.
If you throw a dagger, you can Deflect Arrows with that hand.
If you attack with a greatsword and then drop it, you can Deflect Arrows.
If you full attack, then on an enemy's turn you get disarmed, you can Deflect Arrows.
If you attack with two claws, you can Deflect Arrows.
If you attack with your greatsword and then (as some have suggested) remove your hand as a move action, you can Deflect Arrows.
So like I was saying, Jodokai's comparison of losing the buckler's benefits for a round to losing Deflect Arrows for a round makes sense in the abstract. However, they don't have the same rules. It is explicit that they have different requirements.
You only find that out when you go digging. If you stop at what "looks right", you can end up wrong instead.
-----------------------
In short, I'm not "categorically assuming" anything. Bucklers and Deflect Arrows work differently from each other - this is explicit in the rules. You can't make rulings on other topics based on thinking they're intended to work the same, because they're not.
Does "let go as a free action" involve a comparison? Yes. But it also fails to contradict anything, and is also supported by significant (though not binding) commentary. It is of course speculation, but it's also not provably wrong, nor based on anything that is.
This sounds like a post from someone who never/very rarely GM's..
as not to be side tracked.. Jodokai please click below
never mind the fact that I have written and published an award winning game system.
And lets just say I helped run and still run a world wide shared campaign, I handle the FAQ as well as all rulings for that campaign.
I have run adventures as far back as living city and run adventures for the campaign I now help run...
the #1 rule of the game master is to make sure everyone has a good time at the table.. make sure everyone has fun.
my weapon switching ranger pulled off.. maybe 10 points of extra damage an encounter with that move..
if an extra 10 points of damage is outshining the rest of the players.. the fault falls squarely on the shoulders of the game master for not tailoring the adventure and his story telling to the players at the table.
its not all that hard to do.... I have had purely social based characters walk into a encounter/combat heavy adventure.. and found a way to make them shine...
the #1 rule of the game master is to make sure everyone has a good time at the table.. make sure everyone has fun.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@jupistar - You ninja'd me with your edit. :P
I just looked up four things that require a free hand: Deflect Arrows, Spell Combat, Crane Wing, and Dervish Dance.
Dervish Dance is the weirdest, as it doesn't say anything about a free hand. It says you can't use it "if you are carrying a weapon or shield in your off hand". (This is already weird because "off hand" doesn't exist outside the context of TWF, so we have no choice but to call that an error and assume they mean "your other hand".) In any case, this one only prohibits carrying weapons or shields. So you could actually have some other item (like a potion or a wand) in that hand and still use Dervish Dance.
The other three refer to a free hand, but only one of them (Deflect Arrows) actually defines what that means: "holding nothing".
None of them say ANYTHING about attacks or other actions performed by that arm/hand.
The buckler, though, is worded entirely differently than any of them. To use it to infer that all those other abilities have requirements/restrictions that NONE of them bothered to list would be quite a stretch.
I know the strawman is much, much easier to fight...
What ciretose is claiming (I know because I am him) is that the designers did not intend for your to be able to get the advantages of THF (extra damage) without the drawback (not having an open hand for a shield, spell, etc...)
Do you disagree with that?
The reason why THW deal more damage is to balance out against other fighting styles...
THW deals more damage to balance out against TWF and to balance out against the AC bonus from Shield/Weapon...
you are over thinking the design process a bit.. look back between 3.0 and 3.5 you see why the two-handed weapons gained extra damage. wen I lead one of the play test groups for 3.5, we where told that it was the reason why two-handed weapons gained more damage from strength.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Both are derived conclusions from RAW, but you seem to categorically assume the former is accurate and the latter is not.I see where you're coming from, but your description of my position is just a tad off.
I thought better of the rhetorical "categorically" and changed it to "arbitrarily", because that's more to the point, I think. But 'eh.
Now, my stance of letting go as a free action is based in part on being able to drop an item as a free action. So far, that leaves it on equal footing with the buckler argument that (you and I believe) Jodokai is making. But the free action stance is also supported by James Jacobs. Definitive? No. But it now has two pieces of support instead of just one.
Now, I notice you described my stance as "If I can drop a weapon as a free action, then I can let go of a weapon with one hand as a free action *and gain Deflect Arrows benefits*." and emphasized the Deflect Arrows bit.
Let's be careful not to roll DA in with the free action thing. Letting go as a free action may or may not be correct. However, Deflect Arrows is far more explicit. The ONLY requirement it lists for being able to use it is that your hand be holding nothing. It doesn't say you can't have attacked with that hand, just that it can't be holding anything.
But it's important to roll them together (which is why I emphasized it). See, I don't think I or Jodokai have a problem with "removing a hand as a free action" or "returning the hand as a free action" inherently. I think that is finely conceived. The problem only occurs when so doing provides an exploitive benefit. My plain understanding of the rules implies that it might be exploitive to use an attack action with a two-handed weapon (or one handed wielded with two hands) and then to drop a hand to gain the kind of advantage provided by Deflect Arrows.
But I also see your point that you can get a similar advantage by dropping (throwing) a weapon entirely or being disarmed.
I suppose it is a correct judgment that a player is not denied these options (except the buckler) in such a case. I just also happen to think it odd that the buckler is excepted while none others are.
I think it clear, however, if you release your hand as a free action at the end of your turn, it's not available for attacking for AoOs.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
I suppose it is a correct judgment that a player is not denied these options (except the buckler) in such a case. I just also happen to think it odd that the buckler is excepted while none others are.
I can concede that it's a little odd. :)
I think it clear, however, if you release your hand as a free action at the end of your turn, it's not available for attacking for AoOs.
Uh... what's being referenced by the bolded "it"? The hand? The weapon it let go of (and if this, do you mean a one-handed or two-handed weapon)?
I suppose it is a correct judgment that a player is not denied these options (except the buckler) in such a case. I just also happen to think it odd that the buckler is excepted while none others are.I can concede that it's a little odd. :)
I think it clear, however, if you release your hand as a free action at the end of your turn, it's not available for attacking for AoOs.Uh... what's being referenced by the bolded "it"? The hand? The weapon it let go of (and if this, do you mean a one-handed or two-handed weapon)?
"It" references the hand in relationship to the weapon with which it (the hand) was previously associated. If an AoO is performed some time between the PC's end-of-turn action of releasing his grip on the weapon and the start of his next turn, he may not use the hand to perform an attack action with that weapon.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
If I followed you correctly, you mean if I end my turn with my longsword wielded in only one hand, my AoO's are locked into being one-handed? If so, then yes, that's how it would work if changing grips is a free action, because free actions (unless specified otherwise, as with speaking) can only be taken on your own turn.
So if changing grips is a free action, you're locked into one "mode" whenever it's not your turn, but can shift freely during your own turn.
Some have suggested making such shifts into non-actions or being included in the act of attacking. This would allow someone to make all their AoO's two-handed while also having a free hand, essentially making any free-hand requirement meaningless. (I think this is a poor choice.)
If I followed you correctly, you mean if I end my turn with my longsword wielded in only one hand, my AoO's are locked into being one-handed? If so, then yes, that's how it would work if changing grips is a free action, because free actions (unless specified otherwise, as with speaking) can only be taken on your own turn.
What if someone switches hands mid attacks.. for example.. I take my first two attacks one handed and my last two-handed?
For example I swing at someone with my bastard sword, throw a dagger at a target, 5 foot step, and take my last attack with a two-handed grip.
|
|
I know the strawman is much, much easier to fight...
What ciretose is claiming (I know because I am him) is that the designers did not intend for your to be able to get the advantages of THF (extra damage) without the drawback (not having an open hand for a shield, spell, etc...)
Do you disagree with that?
The reason why THW deal more damage is to balance out against other fighting styles...
THW deals more damage to balance out against TWF and to balance out against the AC bonus from Shield/Weapon...
you are over thinking the design process a bit.. look back between 3.0 and 3.5 you see why the two-handed weapons gained extra damage. wen I lead one of the play test groups for 3.5, we where told that it was the reason why two-handed weapons gained more damage from strength.
Except TWF is already balanced by the attack penalty, and more the feat cost if you want to do it without the attack penalty.
The only reason you wouldn't always attack with two hands is it takes the other hand out of action. Meaning no shield, no spells, etc...
That is the penalty offsetting the bonus.
A very legitimate question (rather refreshing, in this thread).
Thanks, once I finally figured out how to phrase what I wanted to say :)
My answer is "Because in Pathfinder rules, not everything that looks similar is handled the same way."
And I accept that, but so far, the examples you provide below, don't convince me, because you aren't getting something for nothing.
For instance, if I attack with a sword and a bite on my turn, my bite is secondary and takes a -5 on the attack roll. But if I attack with a sword on my turn and take an AoO with a bite, the bite remains primary (if it was to begin with). Very similar-looking circumstances (still a sword and bite in the same round), but handled differently.
And this makes sense mechanically. In the first instance, you can use both attacks, but you have to take a to hit penalty, fair and balanced.
In the second instance you take an AoO for that extra attack, so again, not something for nothing.
As another example, if I have BAB+5 and attack once with a longsword in my left hand and once with a mace in my right hand, I take TWF penalties on those attacks. But if I have BAB+6 and attack once with a longsword at +6 and once with a mace at +1, I don't take TWF penalties at all. Either way I attacked once each with weapons in different hands as a full-attack, but they're not handled the same way.
Again in the first example at +5 you don't have two attacks, if you were to allow this, the player would have an extra attack for no cost.
In the second example, the character gets two attacks, Pathfinder has no right/left handed rules, so everyone can be assumed to be ambidextrous. Is the player getting something for nothing? At a glance may appear that way, but if we dig deeper: The character is holding two weapons, so no shield bonus, and they didn't take the feats so their BAB is much less, so are they really getting a freebie? Not really, or at least not something that doing it another way doesn't balance it out.
The list goes on. If you follow enough rules debates through to their resolution/FAQ/whatever, you start to notice that you cannot safely assume that things which look similar are meant to function the same way. In that TWF example I just gave, people were up in arms in the thread leading up to the FAQ, talking about "obvious intent" and pointing out the (very reasonable) issue of "I just attacked with two weapons; how am I not using two-weapon fighting?". But it turned out that the designers' intent was what could be extrapolated from the text rather than what "looked right".
Here you illustrate a common problem people have with rules problems. People think real world logic should always apply to the game. Sometimes we forget that it is a game, and mechanics have to be taken into consideration. This is, I believe, the biggest obstacle those on "my side" of this discussion face. Does it makes logical sense for you to be able to grab your sword after letting go as a Free Action? Yes. but is it mechanically fair? I say no, because it gives you something for no cost.
Just to be clear, I'm okay with attacking with a Greatsword, letting go, then deflecting arrows. I know that may sound weird at first, but remember my position is about mechanics. If you let go to deflect arrows, you no longer threaten, no flanking, no AoO, so aren't getting something for nothing. It's other uses I have problems with (the Paladin "Lay on Hands" is a perfect example).
|
|
I suppose it is a correct judgment that a player is not denied these options (except the buckler) in such a case. I just also happen to think it odd that the buckler is excepted while none others are.I can concede that it's a little odd. :)
Which leads us back to the core question, what is the intent of the rule.
For the buckler it is very clear they don't want you to just be able to use it at the end of the turn if you benefited from either TWF or THF.
Why? Because you are expected to make a sacrifice of that free hand as part of either of those acts.
However the buckler, being an item that doesn't actually take a free hand slot by it's nature, can be used as a shield if your hand wasn't otherwise occupied during your round by either swinging or gripping the weapon.
In concept, the round is not actually occurring in turns. The conceptual combatants are going "You go then I go". This is just how the game works so that, well, the game works.
So when you use a full round to either TWF or THF the idea is on that round you are wielding an item in a certain way for that round. If you drop the item, your hands are empty to do something else and you have the trade off of, well, being unarmed.
If you allow the item to not be "wielded" in the way it was used (THF) or lets say rather than dropping the TWF item you are able to sheath it as a free action and have your hand empty, that to me seems very clearly outside of the intent of the trade offs of the bonuses.
As much as you seem to be saying it isn't the topic, the intent of the rule is in fact the only real question.
What were the Devs expecting the sacrifice to be when you gain the additional damage from THF.
Clearly, they intend it to have some penalty. I think you would concede that. So what do you believe that penalty is.
Except TWF is already balanced by the attack penalty, and more the feat cost if you want to do it without the attack penalty.
The extra damage and chance to critical far out weight the -2 to hit... rapid shot is a good example.
when you stack power attack (which becomes a given at higher levels)damage from TWF far out strips THW
there is a reason they gave THW a boost in 3.5 onward
|
|
Except TWF is already balanced by the attack penalty, and more the feat cost if you want to do it without the attack penalty.
The extra damage and chance to critical far out weight the -2 to hit... rapid shot is a good example.
when you stack power attack (which becomes a given at higher levels)damage from TWF far out strips THW
there is a reason they gave THW a boost in 3.5 onward
The -2 is with a feat.
So is Rapid Shot.
THF requires no feat.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If I followed you correctly, you mean if I end my turn with my longsword wielded in only one hand, my AoO's are locked into being one-handed? If so, then yes, that's how it would work if changing grips is a free action, because free actions (unless specified otherwise, as with speaking) can only be taken on your own turn.
So if changing grips is a free action, you're locked into one "mode" whenever it's not your turn, but can shift freely during your own turn.
Some have suggested making such shifts into non-actions or being included in the act of attacking. This would allow someone to make all their AoO's two-handed while also having a free hand, essentially making any free-hand requirement meaningless. (I think this is a poor choice.)
I appreciate the tone of objectivity in your post. : )
To make my position a little more clear, permit me to respond:
When I say, 'not an action', I don't mean that you can throw your hands about, willy-nilly! Just like 'nocking an arrow', though not an action in and of itself, is part of an attack with a bow, and just like 'jumping' is not an action in and of itself, but part of a move, so is 're-gripping' not an action in and of itself, but part of an attack!
You can't do something when it's not your turn, unless the rules say you can! the rules say you can:-
• make saving throws
• make attacks of opportunity
• take immediate actions
• use Crane Wing to deflect an attack
• a duelist (PrC) can Parry
• choose to avoid an overrun
• and other things allowed by the rules!
So when I say that adjusting your grip on a held weapon is 'not an action', that doesn't mean I can do it when I want! It can only be done (outside your own turn) if you are doing something (outside your own turn) that is permitted by the rules to be done outside of your own turn. Further, the grip-adjusting must be part of the act in question; making an attack with a weapon allows you to use whatever hands are free to execute an attack with that weapon, but,say, avoiding an overrun doesn't allow you to change your grip on some random weapon that you happen to be holding at the time!
What's more, there are other rules which may apply to individual acts which may render attempts at grip-changing moot. The rules associated with bucklers have already been mentioned. Another is Deflect Arrows; another is Crane Wing. Both of these require a free hand at the moment the attack is made, which means that you can't let go of a two-handed weapon to free one hand to deflect, because the rules for CW and DA require your hand to already be free!
As a practical example, understanding re-gripping to be a part of another act:-
• full attack with greatsword on your own turn (requires two hands free to use the sword), let go with one hand on your own turn (on your own turn you don't need to pair a grip change with another act because you don't need an excuse to act on your own turn)
• baddy attacks you with mace. You use Crane Wing to deflect (you have a free hand)
• baddy moves away and provokes. You have two hands available to attack with your greatsword, so you use it to execute the AoO
Everything's gone smoothly so far. But next round:-
• full attack with greatsword, then let go with left hand on your own turn
• baddy moves around you so he can flank and Sneak Attack. Both hands are available to use your greatsword, so you use it to make the AoO
• baddy, now flanking, attacks. You'd like to use Crane Wing, but you don't have a hand free! While freeing a hand to deflect would be 'part of the deflect action', this does not let you ignore the rules for Crane Wing, which require a free hand when the attack you wish to deflect is made!
But why don't you let go of your greatsword after taking the AoO, to Fre up that hand? Because while making an attack requires you to use your hands, and you can choose how you use your hands when doing so, letting go after the attack is not part of the attack! If it was your turn you could do what you like, but outside your own turn you can only do the things the rules allow you to do outside your own turn; making an AoO is allowed (so choosing how many hands will wield the weapon for that AoO is allowed), but just changing grip without being associated with a permitted act is not on! Changing grip is part of an attack, and if there isn't an attack then there is no act for the grip-changing to be a part of!
I understand that you favour the 'free action' argument, and I don't expect you to be persuaded otherwise by this post. I'm merely attempting to clarify the 'non-action' position, from as objective a viewpoint as I am able. : )
In that spirit, I'd be happy to answer any questions you may have about the consequences of this position.
It's other uses I have problems with (the Paladin "Lay on Hands" is a perfect example).I think that the paladin lay on use is an oversight on the part of the devs. I don't think they intended for Paladins to be limited to a 1 handed weapon and a buckler if they want to use two of their primary abilities. Heck, the cover art has him using a sword and heavy shield. However, two handed weapons and sword and heavy shield simply aren't worth losing two major class abilities. I think that in practice most people allow paladins to not worry about this(as evidenced by the paladin builds on this board, which aren't all 1 hand weapons with a small shield yet still use lay on hands)
I would disagree that it is an oversight. If it was, what paladin in his right mind would ever use a shield? Lay on Hands pretty specifically spells out you need a free hand. A heavy shield nor a two-handed weapon leaves you with a free hand, and depending on which side you fall out on with regards to re-grip as free action or not, it may not be possible to threaten after you lay on hands. You may have upset players if you allow special allowances that only apply to the paladin. Personally I make calls like that all the time in the interest of balance, and, in the past, had players that trusted me to make things fair and fun for all, so didn't have too many issues. Not sure that would be the case with the players on this board as there seems be a general distrust of GM's.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Except TWF is already balanced by the attack penalty, and more the feat cost if you want to do it without the attack penalty.
The extra damage and chance to critical far out weight the -2 to hit... rapid shot is a good example.
when you stack power attack (which becomes a given at higher levels)damage from TWF far out strips THW
there is a reason they gave THW a boost in 3.5 onward
There are a lot of posts with a lot of math that vehemently disagree with this statement.
It's other uses I have problems with (the Paladin "Lay on Hands" is a perfect example).
I'm curious as to which aspect of the paladins LoH you have problems with.
1) The swift action self LoH? I don't believe the intent of this ability is that you can't use it if you choose to use a two hander or sword and buckler/light shield. You talk about realism vs mechanics. Mechanics wise I simply consider this a perk of being the paladin and using the ability to heal yourself. Its a swift action for a reason. Quickened spells for example don't provoke AoO's, while normal spell casting does. I cannot think of any quick action that provokes AoO's (though I haven't really searched). The general wording and usage of swift actions implies that swift actions should not interfere with how the rest of your turn works (my interpretation on it of course).
or
2) Standard action to LoH an ally. Mechanics wise here the paladin is making a trade off. He loses his attack to do a heal instead. At BAB+1-5 the opportunity cost may not be that big of a deal. At BAB+6-10 you notice it a bit more, especially considering you could expect to have a haste going to give you 3 attacks at BAB/BAB/BAB-5. You get to BAB11+ and that quickly becomes a very poor trade off for the paladin, telling him he can't threaten with his two handed weapon for AoO's till his next round penalizes him even further. Mechanics wise I feel his loss of full attack is already sufficient trade-off for him to use his LoH on an ally.
In the standard action case I would consider this similar to a barbarians rage powers that use a standard action (which don't penalize the barbarian and make him unable to make AoO's), or a clerics channel, or an inquisitors teamwork feats, etc. They all eat the given classes standard action, but do not penalize them in any other ways. I admit this would fall in the realm of Jiggy's comments about just because something works one way doesn't mean other things that seem to be similar would also work the same way. I understand that viewpoint, and agree with it to a large extent, but sometimes the only thing one has to base a judgement on is finding something similar and applying the same rules. Intent (or the mechanics) seems to be in favor of allowing the paladin to do the same sort of thing without stacking another penalty on top of them when they use one of their core abilities.
I'm curious as to which aspect of the paladins LoH you have problems with.
I'll simplify it: If a paladin has a 2 handed sword, he needs to let go with 1 hand to heal himself.
To elaborate: If the paladin uses LoH before the paladin attacks, the paladin can't full attack. I'll rule re-gripping is a move action of sorts. If the paladin wants to LoH after a full attack, the paladin no longer threatens and cannot make AoO's with his 2 handed sword.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What if someone switches hands mid attacks.. for example.. I take my first two attacks one handed and my last two-handed?
For example I swing at someone with my bastard sword, throw a dagger at a target, 5 foot step, and take my last attack with a two-handed grip.
Of course you can, if you're doing that on your turn. At the end of your turn, you're stuck the way you're holding that sword, so if you've got two hands on the sword at the end of your turn, you don't have a hand free to deflect arrows. If you've got only one hand on the sword at the end of your turn, then you have a hand free, but you can only use that one hand to make AoOs.
What were the Devs expecting the sacrifice to be when you gain the additional damage from THF.
The requirement of using two hands during the attack. It's not a penalty, just a requirement. Just like the requirement for Deflect Arrows is having a hand free when the arrow is shot at you. It doesn't matter what you did the round before, or what you'll do later. When you attack: Are you using two hands? If so, 1.5xStr. When you get shot at: Do you have a hand free? If so, you can use Deflect Arrows.
As a practical example, understanding re-gripping to be a part of another act:-
• full attack with greatsword on your own turn (requires two hands free to use the sword), let go with one hand on your own turn (on your own turn you don't need to pair a grip change with another act because you don't need an excuse to act on your own turn)
• baddy attacks you with mace. You use Crane Wing to deflect (you have a free hand)
• baddy moves away and provokes. You have two hands available to attack with your greatsword, so you use it to execute the AoO
You cannot take the AoO because you do not threaten because you are not wielding the greatsword, only holding it. You have to put your other hand back on the weapon in order to threaten and take AoOs. Your example doesn't work because in order to do the non-action-as-part-of-another-action, you first need to be able to perform that other action, and since you're unarmed, you can't.
You do not threaten with a weapon you are not wielding.
I think that the paladin lay on use is an oversight on the part of the devs. I don't think they intended for Paladins to be limited to a 1 handed weapon and a buckler if they want to use two of their primary abilities.
It's not an oversight, because it works like you want. A Paladin can use lay on hands with a weapon+buckler, or weapon+lightshield, or two-handed weapon.
James Jacobs: "A light shield allows spellcasters to use their hand to cast, and lets you carry an object; the only thing it actually prevents is wielding a weapon. Since lay on hands only requires you to touch someone, you could indeed use this ability while wearing a light shield."
James Jacobs: "Switching a held object from one hand to the other doesn't require an action, so the end result is the same whether or not you use the light shield hand to lay on hands or your weapon hand after switching your weapon to the off hand, and then back to your weapon hand."
James Jacobs: "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."
I'll rule re-gripping is a move action of sorts.If you treat it as a move action to regrip, I would recommend telling the paladin about weapon cords so that he can lay on hands every other turn and not lose his full attacks.
Also stay the heck away from firearms and crossbows.
@Jodokai
If it is a 'move action of sorts' this then breaks down for a bow using paladin. (See numerous previous posts by, I think Grick, in this and other threads on the whole re-grip is a what kind of action).
Paladin holds his bow in one hand, but must use two hands to fire it, one grabbing and nocking arrows of course. Somewhere either before the paladin attacks on his turn or after he is done attacking on his turn he has one hand free and could LoH self as a swift action. If said paladin also had the snapshot feat, would you, or would you not allow said paladin to during his turn LoH self and take his full attack, then during an enemies turn use his snapshot ability to make an AoO? If you would allow it why is the 2 hander melee paladin suffering a penalty that the bow user does not? Both weapons are 2 handed weapons after all. If you would not allow it then I have to ask why are you making the paladins swift action LoH actually require more than a swift action to use? That is for the paladin his swift action costs him the use of his AoO's, when no other swift actions impose that penalty.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
If you let go to deflect arrows, you no longer threaten, no flanking, no AoO, so aren't getting something for nothing.
Here you and I have common ground. It seems you and I can agree on this statement:
"Whatever grip you end your turn with, you should be stuck with until your next turn."This doesn't actually directly weigh in on the action-type discussion, but it's a good starting point. The next question becomes this:
"If the PC wants to use one grip (either one-handed or two-handed) on their turn and the other grip for the rest of the round, can they? And at what cost?"
I think you'll agree that the answer to the first part of the question should be "yes, they can". I believe the fact that the rules specifically provide one-handed weapons with options of wielding them in two different ways pretty clearly demonstrates the intent that a PC should be able to switch between those "modes".
The remaining question, then, is simply what the cost would be to switch from one grip to the other.
Let's start by looking at some of the "costs" surrounding the subject:
If I'm using a longsword instead of a greatsword, I'm paying the cost of less weapon damage.
If I'm using a longsword by itself instead of with a shield or another weapon, I'm paying the cost of either lower AC or fewer attacks (or both).
As long as both of these costs remain, I think we'll be fine.
Suppose for the moment that I fight with just a longsword. Further suppose I can change my grip as a free action on my turn. We get the following:
Start turn
Grip with both hands
Full attack (or charge, or move and attack, or whatever)
Release with one hand
End turn
Repeat
Now let's see if we've still paid our costs:
On my turn, I deal less damage than if I had a greatsword, get fewer attacks than a TWF guy, and have less AC than a sword-and-board guy.
What did I get for it? I can threaten (unlike the greatsword guy, but still at reduced damage) and I have a hand free for Deflect Arrows.
Did I get something for nothing? The whole time, I have less AC than the sword-and-board guy. On my whole turn, I deal less damage than either the TWF guy or the greatsword guy.
It looks to me like I'm making a trade, not getting something for nothing.
|
|
So if I understand correctly, Jiggy's position is the trade is the loss of damage on AoO, and this is sufficient penalty for the additional damage.
My position is the trade for the damage bonus from THF is not having an empty hand at the end of round you are wielding and using the weapon two-handed because...well...you are wielding a weapon with two hands.
Grick's position is there is no trade, you just get extra damage...because.
I won't speak to anyone else, as I think they have all laid out what they beleive the intent was.
Is this about right?