RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Feel free to review my dialogue with Jodokai if you like. I'm done repeating myself for someone who only sees what they already assumed I was going to say instead of really looking into what I actually write. If you come up with a question I haven't already addressed or a point I might not have thought of, I'd be happy to respond. Otherwise, you'll just have to follow along with my other posts.
|
Feel free to review my dialogue with Jodokai if you like. I'm done repeating myself for someone who only sees what they already assumed I was going to say instead of really looking into what I actually write. If you come up with a question I haven't already addressed or a point I might not have thought of, I'd be happy to respond. Otherwise, you'll just have to follow along with my other posts.
I did, and you never answered the question.
You stated that the penalty was great enough because you lost specific things, but you never said what the intent of the two handed fighting rule is.
And that is the only real question in this whole thread. It really and truly is. What did they intend the rule to do.
Either devs intend for THF to require you to sacrifice use of a hand in exchange for greater damage (in which case you don't have your hand free at the end of a round where you use THF) or they didn't.
You concede they intended a penalty in exchange for the bonus to damage, or at least you seem to. You just seem to be arguing semantics of how you can not have to suffer the penalty because an action you admit isn't defined is one you believe is a free action.
If the intent of THF is to trade use of a hand for greater damage, the rest is moot.
If that isn't the intent, I honestly want to know what you believe the intent of the rule was. Once we have that, we can have an honest discussion of if we agree or disagree on the intent.
At this point, it seems like you are saying "It is a free action because it isn't defined and it should be easier in the real world than X which is a free actions, so it is a free action."
The game isn't real life. If THF is intended to remove a hand from use as a trade for greater damage, that is the mechanical intent.
If it isn't, what do you think the intent is.
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.
I swapped hands mid attack as, apparently, a free action...but I can't use that same free action at the end of my attacks to switch to a one handed grip?
So you say I can 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, and drop my sword...
but I can't 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, and take one of my hands off my sword.
Yes. Badly.
Count 6 Mississippi and try to do those things while you are doing that.
See.
Except being able to swap hands on and off a grip between swings.. it's basic technique when dealing with a Katina or Bastard Sword.
which is cake to do within 6 seconds..
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
I swapped hands mid attack as, apparently, a free action...but I can't use that same free action at the end of my attacks to switch to a one handed grip?
So you say I can 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, and drop my sword...
but I can't 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, and take one of my hands off my sword.
You've misunderstood him. When he says "at the end of your turn", he means after you've done whatever free-action grip-changing you wanted to do. He's saying you can take your last attack with a two-handed grip, then take one hand off your sword. He's just saying that afterwards, when it's not your turn anymore, you can't change grips until your next turn comes around. But he's totally fine with you changing grips in between finishing all your other actions and declaring that your turn is completely 100% done.
@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).
Please read my posts to understand my positon. You're arguing things I don't even care about. I never said a re-grip is a 'move action of sorts'. I said in that particular instance, I would rule it as a move action. I went on to say that a Paladin could full attack and then heal, so if I said it was always a move action, this would work would it?
The thing that makes me different than most (especially Grick) is that I'm not looking for a consistent set of rules that apply to every situation. I try to keep things mechanically balanced. I feel there should be trade offs for choices.
Let me say again, that I'm not trying to convince anyone that I am correct, and I'm not telling anyone else they're wrong. I will say that I think it was the the dev's intentions to make things work the way I play them, and the buckler rule is what has me leaning that way, but I've been on the boards long enough to know that I have no line on dev intentions.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
I said in that particular instance, I would rule it as a move action. I went on to say that a Paladin could full attack and then heal, so if I said it was always a move action, this would work would it?
.....
I will say that I think it was the the dev's intentions to make things work the way I play them...
Am I understanding you to mean that the action required to change grips will change based on what else you're doing in the round, and that you believe that to be the developers' intent?
Or am I misunderstanding you?
I swapped hands mid attack as, apparently, a free action...but I can't use that same free action at the end of my attacks to switch to a one handed grip?
On your turn, you can put your hands wherever you want, since it's all free actions. When it's not your turn, you can't take free actions, so you're stuck with however you left your hands at the end of your turn.
Grick's position is there is no trade, you just get extra damage...because
...because the rules say so.
Either devs intend for THF to require you to sacrifice use of a hand in exchange for greater damage (in which case you don't have your hand free at the end of a round where you use THF) or they didn't.
If they intended it to work that way, they probably should have written it in the rules or mentioned it or something. They didn't, which is a good thing because it doesn't make any sense.
At this point, it seems like you are saying "It is a free action because it isn't defined and it should be easier in the real world than X which is a free actions, so it is a free action."
Not quite. Try this: "It is a free action because it isn't defined and the closest defined action in the game is a free action."
Drop an Item: "Dropping an item in your space or into an adjacent square is a free action."
You can attack with a greatsword (standard action), drop it (free action), and climb a wall (move action) because as soon as you drop the sword, your hands are free. That's how the game works. When you climb, you must have your hands free. There's nothing that says your hands must have been free for the entire round.
ciretose, you haven't actually made an argument yet. You keep (incorrectly) rephrasing what other people are saying, but you haven't said what you think is right.
Tell us.
Stop saying "If the intent is..." tell us what the intent is. Make a statement. Be clear.
Which of the six types of actions is it to drop one hand from a weapon?
I say it's "free", because it's nearly identical to the Drop an Item action.
Others on the forum say it's "move", presumably because they think it's more similar to the Draw or Sheathe a Weapon action.
Malachi Silverclaw says it's "not an action", because he thinks you automatically move your hands around as part of an attack. (There's a separate issue about how he also wants to threaten with a weapon he's not wielding, but that's not really relevant to the initial action type)
So you, ciretose, what action is it?
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
I tell you what, this longsword-and-free-hand guy we're using in all these examples is starting to sound pretty cool - I keep having mental flashes of the movie version of Aragorn. I might have to build him for PFS, even if action costs change from game to game. He sounds fun, and much cooler/more cinematic than most martials. :D
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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...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
Malachi's argument, and I'm bound to agree at least somewhat to the reasoning, is that by RAW you don't really "wield" weapons as in having them "equipped" - you use them. This is the same for ranged weapons, two-handed weapons etc. And what you need to use a two-handed weapons is a free hand.
To quote the weapons rules:
Light, One-Handed, and Two-Handed Melee Weapons
This designation is a measure of how much effort it takes to wield a weapon in combat. It indicates whether a melee weapon, when wielded by a character of the weapon's size category, is considered a light weapon, a one-handed weapon, or a two-handed weapon.
//
Two-Handed: Two hands are required to use a two-handed melee weapon effectively. Apply 1-1/2 times the character's Strength bonus to damage rolls for melee attacks with such a weapon.
"wielding" is less of a state and more of an action (not the game term but as in "something you do")
I'm sure this isn't the rules as intended, but I do think the RAW is vague. Not that I care much that much for RAWy-RAW, but I can see where malachi is coming from.
Stop saying "If the intent is..." tell us what the intent is. Make a statement. Be clear.It's perfectly reasonable to not know what the intent is but still criticize others interpretations/guesses. Though I agree there's a lot of incorrect rephrasing on his part.
Malachi Silverclaw says it's "not an action", because he thinks you automatically move your hands around as part of an attack. (There's a separate issue about how he also wants to threaten with a weapon he's not wielding, but that's not really relevant to the initial action type)
I think it should be noted that Malachi is not alone in the 'not an action' "camp" - James Jacobs seem to also be there, though he hasn't chimed in on the debate so maybe this is incorrect rephrasing from my side. But his earlier statements has been 'not an action', though even within that standpoint there are different views to how non-actions work and how weapon wielding work.
Personally I'm on the fence on which of the non-action and free action interpretation are the closes to RAW and/or RAI, but when I DM, it's free action all the way - if it isn't intended as free action, I disagree with their intents.
I tell you what, this longsword-and-free-hand guy we're using in all these examples is starting to sound pretty cool - I keep having mental flashes of the movie version of Aragorn. I might have to build him for PFS, even if action costs change from game to game. He sounds fun, and much cooler/more cinematic than most martials. :D
One reason I disagree with ciretose's criticism of the free action, that it would overpower THF, is just that - what gains power isn't the greatsword-wielder, it's the one-handed weapon without proper shield/secondary weapon wielder. And that's a trope that is common in fantasy but very hard to make work in D&D. I think that an interpretation that helps it is a good thing, and an interpretation that hinders it is a bad thing.
You've misunderstood him. When he says "at the end of your turn", he means after you've done whatever free-action grip-changing you wanted to do. He's saying you can take your last attack with a two-handed grip, then take one hand off your sword. He's just saying that afterwards, when it's not your turn anymore, you can't change grips until your next turn comes around. But he's totally fine with you changing grips in between finishing all your other actions and declaring that your turn is completely 100% done.I swapped hands mid attack as, apparently, a free action...but I can't use that same free action at the end of my attacks to switch to a one handed grip?
So you say I can 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, and drop my sword...
but I can't 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, and take one of my hands off my sword.
Ok, that I'm 100% cool with..
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
I think that the developers intended for us to be able to do some things ... but not others(swap weapon to shield hand, cast with free hand, then swap weapon back in order to keep shield bonus).
For the record, I believe James Jacobs has been quoted (in this thread, even) as saying that you are intended to be able to do that. For whatever impact that may have on your view.
Ok, that I'm 100% cool with..
Thought so. :)
I think it should be noted that Malachi is not alone in the 'not an action' "camp" - James Jacobs seem to also be there, though he hasn't chimed in on the debate so maybe this is incorrect rephrasing from my side. But his earlier statements has been 'not an action'...
Actually, what JJ said was that taking one hand off of your weapon was a free action, not a non-action. Grick's quoted and linked the statement a couple of times in this thread.
|
|
@Grick - I literally wrote what I think the intent is.
Literally, I wrote it in this thread. Multiple times.
Here is one, let me know if you need more.
.
In case you don't want to click on the link
"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."
What I keep asking you and Jiggy is what you think the intent of the THF rule is.
And neither of you are answering.
I suspect it is because you both know that the intent of the rule is to trade greater damage for loss of use of your other hand.
Which is what I said.
And if that is the intent of the rule, to create a trade off of your free hand for damage in the same way TWF is a trade off of accuracy for an additional attack, your argument falls flat.
Feel free to prove me wrong by explaining what the intent of the THF rule is.
|
|
For the record, I believe James Jacobs has been quoted (in this thread, even) as saying that you are intended to be able to do that. For whatever impact that may have on your view.
JJ also is quoted as saying you can spring attack with vital strike.
Because James is on the creative side and not the rules side. He is awesome in his own way, anything he says about Golarion or the Canon is gospel, however he is not a rules dev and he would be the first to admit this.
Eventually SKR or Jason might weigh in and say I'm wrong, in which case I will be wrong. Or they may go the other way in which case...well...you know.
But if the intent of THF is to give up a hand for more damage, it makes no sense to remove the penalty.
Actually, what JJ said was that taking one hand off of your weapon was a free action, not a non-action. Grick's quoted and linked the statement a couple of times in this thread.
Actually, it seems he's said both, more or less.
"Switching a held object from one hand to the other doesn't require an action"if you're wielding a 2H weapon, you can let go of the weapon with one of your hands (free action).
It's kind of confusing.
But if the intent of THF is to give up a hand for more damage, it makes no sense to remove the penalty.
The penalty isn't removed. The limitation of requiring two hands, however, only applies while you are actually attacking/wielding the weapon (depending on Malachi's interpretation of wielding). Being able to switch at will during your own turn in no way invalidates this.
Even if it's a free action to release the weapon, and even if it's also a free action to regrip it (but we don't include Malachi's interpretation of not having to actively wield a weapon to threat), some examples of things you can't do with a two-handed weapon:
1. Attack while having a non-buckler shield, without dropping the shield first.
2. Attack while holding something in the other hand
3. Deflecting arrows and make AoO's in the same turn (unless one of the occurs on your turn, which is pretty rare)
4. Attacking while climbing
You CAN do 3 with a one-handed weapon, but will only gain the extra strength bonus during your own turn - and the price you pay for that extra damage is being unable to do 1, 3 and 4.
The ONLY time you'll have a noticeable benefit from this is when wielding a one-handed weapon without a secondary weapon or shield.
|
|
@Ilja And this is why I haven't been going after you like the other two.
You have a clearly articulated view of the intent of the rule and what the trade is. I may not agree, but it is a view.
I think the intent was simpler than you do. I think the Devs were trading power for loss of hand straight up.
But you have actually articulated your view on dev intent. You seem to think the restriction was for shield use only.
We can agree to disagree, but I respect you actually are taking a position rather than just arguing against one like others in the thread.
But when you say stuff like "if the intent of THF is to give up a hand for more damage, it makes no sense to remove the penalty" you still infer either that the free action ruling negates all penalties of THF, or that they claim it does. Whichever it is is incorrect and if you've understood that I don't get why you continue to claim it.
|
|
But when you say stuff like "if the intent of THF is to give up a hand for more damage, it makes no sense to remove the penalty" you still infer either that the free action ruling negates all penalties of THF, or that they claim it does. Whichever it is is incorrect and if you've understood that I don't get why you continue to claim it.
You don't believe the penalty is a direct trade for the hand.
If you do believe that, you can't infer a free action because a) That would be in direct contradiction of the intent of THF and b) There is no rule saying it is a free action, so you have nothing to cite saying that it is an exception to the intent of THF.
You seem to be arguing that THF isn't a trade of a hand for more power. You seem to be arguing that THF is, basically, trade of access to a shield.
Under your reading of the intent, having a hand free is no problem as long as you don't use it for a shield.
I just don't share your reading of the intent.
You don't believe the penalty is a direct trade for the hand.
I don't even get this sentence. Exactly what penalty are you talking about?
You seem to be arguing that THF isn't a trade of a hand for more power.
No, I'm arguing that it is that trade and that the trade is done and that you do lose access to the other hand whenever you attack or threaten with a two-handed weapon or a one-handed weapon held in two hands. And from what I've read, that's what Jiggy and Grick argue too (J & G, please correct me if I'm wrong).
One thing I'm unclear on: Do you think there's an actual balance issue with this interpretation, or is it because of design esthetics?
|
|
You don't believe the penalty is a direct trade for the hand.I don't even get this sentence. Exactly what penalty are you talking about?
You seem to be arguing that THF isn't a trade of a hand for more power.No, I'm arguing that it is that trade and that the trade is done and that you do lose access to the other hand whenever you attack or threaten with a two-handed weapon or a one-handed weapon held in two hands. And from what I've read, that's what Jiggy and Grick argue too (J & G, please correct me if I'm wrong).
One thing I'm unclear on: Do you think there's an actual balance issue with this interpretation, or is it because of design esthetics?
If you are trading your off-hand for an attack, you don't get to also use your hand.
The base line attack is the baseline. 1 attack, no penalties, full access to use your other hand to wield a shield, deflect an arrow, hold a scroll, whatever you want to do.
Two-weapon fighting you lose accuracy in exchange for being able to get another attack using your off hand.
To me, Two-handed fighting is intended as losing use of your offhand when you dedicate both hands to fighting in exchange for additional power.
To you, it seems from what I'm reading, THF is losing access to your offhand to hold a shield to gain additional damage, but that you still have access with your offhand to do other things.
I don't think that is the intent. The buckler rule reinforces my belief that the Devs want the offhand to be sacrificed by the use of THF. You disagree.
But you do so honestly, so I'm not quarreling with you.
|
A few points, bearing in mind that, for the entirety of this post assume that 'changing grip' is not an action:-
• JJ has said 'free action' sometimes, and 'not an action' at other times. This doesn't show any lack of comprehension on his part, rather that it illustrates that 'free action' is sometimes used as an imprecise, shorthand way of saying 'not a game action'. Imprecise? Yes! But people don't converse in legalese!
Two hands are required to use a two-handed melee weapon effectively.
As mentioned before I had a chance to reply, the game system does not require you to be gripping a two-handed weapon in a death-grip before you attack! You must have two hands available to use it! 'Use', in this case, means 'attack with'. Not only is this true of the game system, it is also true of real life! Katanas, spears, quarterstaffs, etc. are manipulated with two hands in normal use, but both hands are not glued to the hilt throughout a compound attack. The rules reflect this. As long as both hands are free to use a two-handed weapon you may attack with it! If you may attack with it, then you threaten with it! If you threaten with it, then you may take AoOs with it!
• I'm a great believer in marrying RAW with RAI. I find those posters who invoke RAW when RAW would lead to an absurd consequence to be of limited help.
• We all know that there is no RAW for changing grip. It's perfectly okay to decide what action it consumes, if any, in our games; it may even be essential. Fine. I even think that the case for 'free action' is workable and not unreasonable, and if the devs were to rule it this way I wouldn't be too surprised, even if I think that the 'non-action' case is more workable and more reasonable. I'm as certain as I can be that if the devs do put us out of our misery, then it will be one of these two options.
• The word 'wield' causes more problems in this community than it solves, c.f. the wizard's Bonded Item. It's not crazy to make assumptions; it's very human! But the assumption that you must be holding a two-handed weapon in two hands when not attacking with it is an incorrect assumption. I understand why some people make this assumption, but wrong is wrong! RAW does not require you to hold a two-handed weapon in two hands at any time except to execute an attack! I invite anyone to quote the part of RAW which says otherwise!
If you are trading your off-hand for an attack, you don't get to also use your hand.
Correct, while you attack. Everyone is on the same page on that one. What we're arguing is if that limitation should be forced on the character for the rest of the round, regardless of if the hand stops holding the weapon (whether from releasing a two-handed weapon with one hand, from being disarmed, or by dropping a weapon to the floor).
The base line attack is the baseline. 1 attack, no penalties, full access to use your other hand to wield a shield, deflect an arrow, hold a scroll, whatever you want to do.
Two-weapon fighting you lose accuracy in exchange for being able to get another attack using your off hand.
Just so we're clear, you know you can two-weapon fight and still have a hand free right?
To you, it seems from what I'm reading, THF is losing access to your offhand to hold a shield to gain additional damage, but that you still have access with your offhand to do other things.
No, you lose access to your offhand while attacking or wielding a two-handed weapon (or a one-handed weapon in two hands). You regain that access when you stop wielding the two-handed weapon in the off-hand, just like you regain the access to your off-hand if you drop your dagger if you dagger/dagger TWF.
The buckler rule reinforces my belief that the Devs want the offhand to be sacrificed by the use of THF. You disagree.
But why would only one single item in the whole book be that way if it wasn't an exception? Such an important rule should be in the combat section, or the weapon section.
Also, I must ask, is this just when using your hand for attacking? How about if you use your hand for something else, let's say clucking a potion? If you use your left hand for drinking a potion, is that hand "locked" for the rest of the round and not able to deflect arrows or whatever despite you throwing away the vial afterwards?
|
|
I think that the developers intended for us to be able to do some things ... but not others(swap weapon to shield hand, cast with free hand, then swap weapon back in order to keep shield bonus).For the record, I believe James Jacobs has been quoted (in this thread, even) as saying that you are intended to be able to do that. For whatever impact that may have on your view.
Ok, that I'm 100% cool with..Thought so. :)
I think it should be noted that Malachi is not alone in the 'not an action' "camp" - James Jacobs seem to also be there, though he hasn't chimed in on the debate so maybe this is incorrect rephrasing from my side. But his earlier statements has been 'not an action'...Actually, what JJ said was that taking one hand off of your weapon was a free action, not a non-action. Grick's quoted and linked the statement a couple of times in this thread.Ok how about this? Imagine I have 2 claw attacks and a 2 handed weapon. I could full hand attack with weapon, take one hand off weapon and stab with claw, switch hand and do the same with other claw.
According to the rules, when combining natural attacks with weapon attacks, you must use the 'iterative attack' mechanic. One consequence of this is that the claw in question, when using TWF to gain an extra attack with it, becomes an 'off-hand' attack, and must obey the rules for TWF.
As made clear under the entry for 'armour spikes' (strange place, I know):-
'You can't also make an attack with (your off-hand weapon) if you have already made an attack with another off-hand weapon, and vice versa.'
So, once you've used one claw to make an off-hand attack, you can't use the other claw to make an extra Improved TWF attack. Nothing to do with changing grip.
Of course, if all you're talking about is iterative attacks without TWF, then mix and match to your heart's content! No-one should have a problem with you replacing a greatsword attack with a sub-optimal claw attack!
|
|
If you are trading your off-hand for an attack, you don't get to also use your hand.Correct, while you attack. Everyone is on the same page on that one. What we're arguing is if that limitation should be forced on the character for the rest of the round, regardless of if the hand stops holding the weapon (whether from releasing a two-handed weapon with one hand, from being disarmed, or by dropping a weapon to the floor).
The base line attack is the baseline. 1 attack, no penalties, full access to use your other hand to wield a shield, deflect an arrow, hold a scroll, whatever you want to do.
Two-weapon fighting you lose accuracy in exchange for being able to get another attack using your off hand.Just so we're clear, you know you can two-weapon fight and still have a hand free right?
To you, it seems from what I'm reading, THF is losing access to your offhand to hold a shield to gain additional damage, but that you still have access with your offhand to do other things.No, you lose access to your offhand while attacking or wielding a two-handed weapon (or a one-handed weapon in two hands). You regain that access when you stop wielding the two-handed weapon in the off-hand, just like you regain the access to your off-hand if you drop your dagger if you dagger/dagger TWF.
The buckler rule reinforces my belief that the Devs want the offhand to be sacrificed by the use of THF. You disagree.But why would only one single item in the whole book be that way if it wasn't an exception? Such an important rule should be in the combat section, or the weapon section.
Also, I must ask, is this just when using your hand for attacking? How about if you use your hand for something else, let's say clucking a potion? If you use your left hand for drinking a potion, is that hand "locked" for the rest of the round and not able to deflect arrows or whatever despite you throwing away the vial afterwards?
You can two weapon fight and have a hand free if you drop or sheath the weapon in your hand. Otherwise there is a weapon in your hand, and you by definition, don't have a free hand.
If you drop the weapon, yes that is a free action but now you don't have access to your weapon unless you use a move action to pick it up next round. You could draw another one, but that particular weapon is no longer accessible without a move action. You can have a free hand if you drop the weapon you are using two handed, also. But that is probably not a smart move.
The other option, sheathing one of the weapons, is a move action (there may be a feat, but I can't think of it). So to use the hand that has a weapon in it, either you are losing a move action and so you can't two weapon fight (it is a full round action) or you are dropping a weapon and no longer fighting with that weapons next round, as you lose move action picking it up, leaving only one attack with your standard action.
That is, unless you are of course fighting with one attack being an unarmed attack.
Chucking a potion means there is nothing in your hand as a result of the throwing of the object. Your hand is empty, which is the requirement. But that is a standard action, so you can't use that hand to make another attack if you used it for a standard action, can you?
Using a potion is also a standard action, so considering you lose your attack that is like losing access in the same way as above. I would argue you don't likely hold on to the vial after you drink, and so you drop the object as a free action (dropping is a free action) but if you said you were holding onto the vial, perhaps to reuse it or throw it later, no your hand would not be free.
I don't think the buckler was an exception. It was the only item where you could have a shield and TWF given the intent of the rule, so they made clear you couldn't by closing the potential loophole.
If they wanted you to be able to TWF and quickdraw a shield, why say no to bucklers, which would be the same effect only easier.
It isn't aesthetics, it is design. If the devs intended for you to be able to quickdraw a shield while THF, why block the buckler from being used?
If you can release as a free action, why wouldn't you be able to use the buckler with your now empty and free hand?
You can two weapon fight and have a hand free if you drop or sheath the weapon in your hand. Otherwise there is a weapon in your hand, and you by definition, don't have a free hand.
Isn't that the opposite of what you're saying? Aren't you saying that if you use a hand for attacking, it's locked up until next turn? That's the whole issue isn't it?
Also, you can two-weapon fight while at the same time (during the attack) having two free hands, for example kick/spiked armor or headbutt/blade boot.
If you drop the weapon, yes that is a free action but now you don't have access to your weapon unless you use a move action to pick it up next round.
So if you have two longswords held in two hands you can release one hand and have it free. If you have one longsword in two hands you can't release one hand and have it free. Is that what you're saying or did I misinterpret something? Isn't that like... very weird, from a realism/logic/verisimilitude standpoint?
If they wanted you to be able to TWF and quickdraw a shield, why say no to bucklers, which would be the same effect only easier.
You can TWF and quickdraw a shield, even by your example above. Also, if they didn't want one to be able to do that, why did they create both weapon cords and quickdraw shields?
You can actually two-weapon fight while wearing, and getting the benefit of, two heavy shields with different armor abilities.
It was the only item where you could have a shield and TWF given the intent of the rule, so they made clear you couldn't by closing the potential loophole.
If the intent was "no twf and shield" they wouldn't have made the spiked armor, the blade boot, the spiked gauntlet and the unarmed strike. Or the shield bash rules. So it isn't the only item.
But I still wonder, I couldn't see you answering my previous question (sorry if you did and I didn't understand that you did): Do you see it as an actual balance issue, or as primarily a rules esthetic issue?
|
|
It isn't occupied because you are attacking, it is occupied because you are using it to wield and attack using the THF technique. And that requires the use of two hand.
What you described as two weapon fighting is not two weapon fighting.
"Two-Weapon Fighting
If you wield a second weapon in your off hand, you can get one extra attack per round with that weapon. You suffer a –6 penalty with your regular attack or attacks with your primary hand and a –10 penalty to the attack with your off hand when you fight this way. You can reduce these penalties in two ways. First, if your off-hand weapon is light, the penalties are reduced by 2 each. An unarmed strike is always considered light. Second, the Two-Weapon Fighting feat lessens the primary hand penalty by 2, and the off-hand penalty by 6."
You must wield the weapon in your off hand, therefore occupying that hand in order to two-weapon fight. The exception being unarmed strikes only.
It is not aesthetic at all. It is a mechanical issue of the game system.
They chose to give an option to add power in exchange for something. I say use of your off hand, you say something else.
When you release the longsword in the TWF scenario, you lose possession of that longsword.
|
|
You are trying to visualize as if this is actually happening.
This is a game mechanic.
EDIT: No different than Initiative meaning people take turns when in visualization it is all happening at the same time. No different than only being able to swing once in 6 seconds. No different than using graph paper to make a cone effect.
It isn't occupied because you are attacking, it is occupied because you are using it to wield and attack using the THF technique. And that requires the use of two hand.
The rules don't talk about weapon techniques though. The only thing they state is that to use a two-handed weapon you need two hands.
You must wield the weapon in your off hand, therefore occupying that hand in order to two-weapon fight. The exception being unarmed strikes only.
Off-hand has no mechanical connection to an actual physical hand, and nothing in the text indicates that it has. Off-hand just denotes a secondary weapon when two-weapon fighting (and is only used in that context). Armor spikes even references this in their description.
Note that the wording hasn't changed at all since 3.5, and it was explicitly explained in the 3.5 FAQ, and this was kind of a hot topic so nothing the devs would have missed when they created PF (and I think it was brought up in the beta too). So since they kept the wording the same and haven't commented on it in all threads that has been about it, it's probably safe to assume that is still the case.
Here you have some mentions of the issue by SKR that might be relevant.
"It doesn't matter if you're making a headbutt and a punch, or a kick and a punch, or 2 kicks, or 2 punches, you're just making two attacks per round. "
This seems to indicate that two weapon fighting does not have to be with left arm and right arm, but check out the link itself since there's some context going missing the post wasn't _exactly_ about this topic (though related).
It is not aesthetic at all. It is a mechanical issue of the game system.
But since everything in this is open to interpretation, and we're just trying to find out which is the best interpretation, I'm wondering why you oppose free action and promote... whatever you promote, round-long wielding? I'm not really sure even. A more restrictive ruling at least.
From what I've gathered, your main issue with the free-action ruling is that then characters can gain a benefit through quickdrawing stuff and/or deflecting arrows. I see two main reasons to think that is a problem: Game balance (THF using one-handed weapons become too powerful) or aesthetics (not to promote weird quickdrawing/to keep the rules similar to other rules). Please correct me if I'm wrong in those assumptions or conclusions but I still don't know what you advocate and why you advocate it, and I've tried finding it. English isn't my main language and I've got heavy perception penalties from the ADHD hex though, so I might have lost it if it was rolled into something else.
|
|
The rule saying what hand is used when you fight what way is the rule talk about the weapon technique. You can call it type or style rather than technique, but it is saying if you fight this way, this is the effect.
If you believe that THF is only intended to prevent shield use, fine. That is your interpretation. There is no conflict for you having that hand available for other things, since you seem to think the only restriction is access to a shield
I don't think that is the intent of the THF rule. I believe the intent is to trade use of your off hand for more power. I think the fact they forbid bucklers makes clear they don't want you to grab a shield as a free action.
If that is the intended trade off, using your off hand to do other things as a free action is counter to the intent of the rule. Going through all of the permutations of it being "not that bad" is beside the point, because it isn't how much better it is. It just matters if it is better at all.
Clearly it is, or no one would want to do it.
Making it a free action to change between THF and regular fighting is an advantage over not making it a free action. I don't believe it was intended to be a free action to change between them during the round.
Not complicated.
With all due respect as to your TWF analyisis, I frankly think you saying "Off-hand has no mechanical connection to an actual physical hand, and nothing in the text indicates that it has." is a completely ridiculous.
The very first line of the text says "If you wield a second weapon in your off hand, you can get one extra attack per round with that weapon."
The entire premise is you are wielding a weapon in your other hand. There is no other way to read that.
If your off-hand weapon is an unarmed weapon, like your fist then it is also potentially an open hand. Otherwise there is a weapon, wielded, in your off hand that makes it no longer open and available for other things.
The SKR quote you are referencing actually proves my point. He is saying it doesn't matter what unarmed attacks you are doing or how many arms you have, mechanically it is still only two attacks.
Mechanics trump the visualization.
If you had 4 arms and a sword in each, still only two attacks (but you would have extra arms, so they would be free to do other things in that case presumably)
If you are a humanoid, and both of your arm "slots" are occupied wielding a weapon or weapons, you don't have a free hand. If you drop a weapon, you can have one as a free action in exchange for not having a weapon anymore.
It has 32 FAQ so eventually we will get a ruling, but it makes no sense that they would restrict the buckler but be ok with other more complicated uses.
If you believe that THF is only intended to prevent shield use, fine. That is your interpretation. There is no conflict for you having that hand available for other things, since you seem to think the only restriction is access to a shield
Stop this. You're putting words in my mouth that are explicitly counter to what I've said. That's rude.
337 posts about taking your hand off of a weapon?
Sometimes I really hate this game.
|
|
If you believe that THF is only intended to prevent shield use, fine. That is your interpretation. There is no conflict for you having that hand available for other things, since you seem to think the only restriction is access to a shieldStop this. You're putting words in my mouth that are explicitly counter to what I've said. That's rude.
Say what you mean then. What is the intent of THF. What is the trade you are giving up to offset the extra damage.
|
|
That's a lot of new posts while I was home sleeping. Anything new come up?
I'm guessing not.(snip)Stop this. You're putting words in my mouth that are explicitly counter to what I've said. That's rude.
I thought Ilja made a position clear, I was apparently wrong.
You can't argue backwards from what you want to get. You start from the rule, and then extrapolate out.
What does the rule intend for you to give up for the extra damage you get from THF.
This isn't an "In real life it works 'x'" question. This is a mechanical question in the game.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
You can't argue backwards from what you want to get.
Okay, so we can't argue backwards from "you shouldn't be able switch back and forth between THF and having a free hand". Got it.
You start from the rule, and then extrapolate out.
Okay, so we start from the rule "letting go of an item with both hands is a free action" and then extrapolate out. Got it.
You also can only benefit from wearing two rings despite having 10 fingers.337 posts about taking your hand off of a weapon?
Sometimes I really hate this game.
I know!
You should only be allowed 1 ring!
|
|
You also can only benefit from wearing two rings despite having 10 fingers.337 posts about taking your hand off of a weapon?
Sometimes I really hate this game.
I know!
You should only be allowed 1 ring!
Well you do have two hands :)
In seriousness I said that to illustrate the point that this aspect of the game isn't about reality, it is about slots and actions.
As Ilja pointed out, SKR said it doesn't matter if you could access both arms, both legs and your forehead, it is still only two attacks.
It doesn't matter how many fingers you have, it is two slots.
With regards to weapons, unless you are a race with extra limbs you have two hands.
If both are occupied with a task, you have access to 0 hands.
The question is if THF occupies both hands (my position) or if it simply restricts one of the hands from being used for things like shields.
If it occupies both hands, then no you can't do anything that requires an open hand during a round you are attacking with two hands unless you dedicate more than a not free action (move or standard) for it.
We'll see what the Devs say, but given they aren't letting you take your hand off at the end of the round to use your buckler, I don't think they intended the offhand to come back into play as a free action.
Imagine I have 2 claw attacks and a 2 handed weapon. I could full hand attack with weapon, take one hand off weapon and stab with claw, switch hand and do the same with other claw.
Natural Attacks: "Creatures with natural attacks and attacks made with weapons can use both as part of a full attack action (although often a creature must forgo one natural attack for each weapon clutched in that limb, be it a claw, tentacle, or slam)."
@Grick - I literally wrote what I think the intent is.
"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."
I don't see an action type there.
You were wielding a weapon with two hands, then you stopped doing that. The only question is what action type is required to stop doing that.
The buckler rule reinforces my belief that the Devs want the offhand to be sacrificed by the use of THF.
The buckler has nothing to do with having a hand free. Further, the fact that they wrote special rules specifically for the buckler means that's not the default state, that means it's an exception for that specific item.
I think the fact they forbid bucklers makes clear they don't want you to grab a shield as a free action.
Ready or Drop a Shield: "Strapping a shield to your arm to gain its shield bonus to your AC, or unstrapping and dropping a shield so you can use your shield hand for another purpose, requires a move action. If you have a base attack bonus of +1 or higher, you can ready or drop a shield as a free action combined with a regular move."
What does the rule intend for you to give up for the extra damage you get from THF.
If you use one hand on your longsword, you're trading the potential for extra damage for having a hand free.
If you use both hands on your longsword, you're trading having a hand free for extra damage.
So there's your balance, and your intent.
On your turn, you put your free hand onto your longsword, trading having a hand free for extra damage. You attack.
Then, at the end of your turn, you take a hand off your longsword, you're once again trading the potential for extra damage for having a hand free. If an orc provokes, you don't get extra damage on your AoO (boo!), but if an orc shoots you, you could deflect the arrow (yay!).
And on your turn, you can put your hand back on the longsword, trading having a hand free for extra damage. When you attack that orc, you get extra damage (yay!) but if one shoots you, you can't deflect the arrow (boo!).
Then after your attacks, take the hand off again, making the same trade again.
The balance is still there.
If it occupies both hands, then no you can't do anything that requires an open hand during a round you are attacking with two hands unless you dedicate more than a not free action (move or standard) for it.
FINALLY.
You're saying it takes a move action to let go of a weapon with one hand. Great! That really screws lots of ranged weapons, but whatever.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The question is "Does THF allow you to release at the end of your round to have your hand open to deflect arrows/do anything else".
That's not the question.
The question, as stated in the thread title, is "Can I remove my hand from a weapon as a free action?"
A related, but more general, question that people are also discussing is "What action is it to remove my hand from a weapon?"
Another related question being discussed is "What action is it to put my free hand back onto a weapon?"
The question is not "Does THF allow you to release at the end of your round to have your hand open to Deflect Arrows/do anything else?" You came up with that question, ignored the questions other people were asking, and then started criticizing people for answering the actual questions instead of your question.
You're the only one asking that question. And in fact, the question itself is flawed, and here's why:
1) Things like Deflect Arrows don't care what else your hand did - only that it's not carrying anything. You could punch someone with an unarmed strike, and still Deflect Arrows. You could draw and drink a potion, drop the empty vial, and Deflect Arrows. And so forth. All that Deflect Arrows cares about is that when the ranged attack happens, you're aware of it, not flat-footed, and have at least one hand that is not carrying anything. If those conditions are met at the time of the ranged attack, you can deflect it. It doesn't care what else your hand has done that turn. So asking "Does X allow you to still Deflect Arrows in the same round?" is not the question, because Deflect Arrows doesn't care what you did that round.
2) Coming at it from the opposite direction as well, THF also doesn't care what else your hands might do. If you make an attack, and you're using two hands, you get a damage bonus. That's all it checks for. It's not a fighting method like TWF or any such thing. You attack, you check how many hands were used, you apply damage appropriately. It doesn't care what else the second hand has done: you could throw a dagger at BAB+6, Quickdraw a greatsword, and attack at BAB+1 even though you already used that hand. Making a two-handed attack also doesn't care what you do with your hands afterwards: you could attack with a greatsword (standard action), drop it (free action), pop a potion out of a spring-loaded wrist sheath (swift action), and drink it with Accelerated Drinker (move action), even though the hand using the potion already engaged in "THF". It doesn't matter.
---------------------
The answer to "Can you THF and also use a hand for other stuff in the same round?" is "If you have enough actions to free up that hand, then yes."
With the exception of the buckler, there is absolutely no interaction in the rules between making a two-handed attack and anything else you could do with that second hand, as long as that hand isn't trying to do two things at once. As soon as your hand isn't otherwise occupied, it's free to perform other actions. Period.
The goal of this thread is to determine what actions it takes to free up a hand and put it back, not whether or not a hand can do two different things in the same round. The former is undefined in the rules, while the latter is something that everyone but you understands.
That's why people aren't answering your question: it's an irrelevant, asinine question that everyone already understands the answer to. If you want to be taken seriously in this discussion, it might be time to start answering the questions that this thread is all about, instead of demanding answers to YOUR question.