|
In order to attack with most weapons you must hold the weapon unsheathed, and you must have one hand free to use it to make an attack with it if it's light or one-handed, and you must have two hands free to to use a two-handed weapon to execute an attack.Since you've gone so far from the rest of the world.. why stop?
Where does it say that you need to hold the weapon?
Does holding a dagger in one's teeth count?
This goes into the core issue of what happens when you don't require the draw action to alter going from being merely held readily accessible to being wielded.
You are claiming an absence in the rules, great. What is *in* the rules? You are drawing lines.. any basis for it?
-James
PS: Oh and I was unaware that 'wield' wasn't in the rules.. cause I've seen the word dozens of times there. Why haven't you?
The word 'wield' is in the book. But it's not a defined game term, it's descriptive. The problem with it is that it can mean one of two things ('hold' and 'attack with'), and then people conflate the two meanings.
e.g. 'You must wield a greatsword in two hands, therefore if you're not wielding it in two hands when an AoO is provoked you can't make the attack of opportunity with it!'
At first this seems to make sense. However, replace the word 'wield' in each case with the correct alternative:-
'You must attack with a greatsword in two hands, therefore if you're not holding it in two hands when an AoO is provoked then you can't make the attack of opportunity with it!'
This lets us see the fallacy. In order to attack with a two-handed weapon you need to use that weapon in two hands during the attack! Not before, not after, but during.
Crane Wing requires a hand to be free when the attack to be deflected is made. But you don't need to be holding a two-handed weapon in two hands when the opportunity is provoked in order to take the AoO with it! That is not written anywhere!
What is written is that in order to make an AoO with a weapon you must threaten the square where the provoking is taking place with the weapon which will make the AoO. And, to threaten a square with a weapon, you must be able to attack that square with that weapon. And in order to attack with a two-handed weapon you need to use both hands on the weapon at the moment of the AoO, not at the moment the AoO is provoked!
So, if you are holding an unsheathed greatsword in one hand while the other is free, do you threaten with that sword?
The answer depends on whether or not adding that free hand to the sword is something you can do when it's not your turn! Therefore, if re-gripping is not an action itself but part of the attack, then yes you do threaten! And if re-gripping is a free action then no you don't threaten, because you can't take a free action when it's not your turn!
So, we make the choice at our own table while understanding the consequences of whatever decision we make, and wait for the devs to put us out of our misery.
Incidentally, before yesterday there was only one free action which could be taken outside your own turn, and that was 'speak a few words'. Thanks to yesterday's FAQ for Snap Shot there's another! 'Drawing ammunition' is a free action, and now, thanks to this FAQ, this free action can also be taken outside your own turn! It's unclear if you need to have the Snap Shot feat to do this or not, but either way, that's now two free actions that can be taken outside your own turn!
|
Malachi Silverclaw makes a pretty darned good example of the pitfall of saying it is a free action to let go of a two-handed weapon with one hand. While it is certainly possible that the Devs could rule it a free action (and I wouldn't chaff at such a ruling), I feel calling it a non-action is more consistent with how I've (and I imagine most others) playing it: wizards running around with 10' sticks and all that.
EDIT: changed 'would' to 'wouldn't'...oops.
Deals more damage to a single target, not to a room full of things that can be dropped with one hit each.
Did you read the math above? If they drop due to any hit at all, they're exactly equal because they get the same number of attacks. If not, the higher DPR while two-weapon fighting will win out. The only case where the longsworder/shortsworder will win out is if the benefit of +1 average damage on the hardly hitting secondary attack is worth the reduction of 4.5 damage on the primary attack.
EDIT: Just realized I calculated the TWF damage wrong:
.65*13+.1*.65*13 + .45*4.5+.05*.45*4.5 = 11.4 average - 30% higher with Gsword/Spiked Armor than Longsword/Shortsword. For the record, I think longsword in two hands/spiked armor might be better than longsword/shortsword at this level and with this lack of specialization. When you TWF you generally 1. really really want the feats and 2. want two light weapons so WF/WS/ImpCrit works with both.
In a TWF build it is a great move to THF on the first attack where you only get one attack, then pull out your second weapon to TWF the next round.
Something you can't do with a great sword.
Again, you can - you don't even need to pull out the weapon, because _it's on your armor_.
The difference when TWFing is that the longsworder does 1d8/1d6 and the greatsworder does 2d6/1d4, and the longsworder has slightly better chance to crit. That's the TWF difference, barring certain feats/abilities that require free hands or two-handed weapons.
Malachi Silver claw makes a pretty darned good example of the pitfall of saying it is a free action to let go of a two-handed weapon with one hand. While it is certainly possible that the Devs could rule it a free action (and I would chaff at such a ruling), I feel calling it a non-action is more consistent with how I've (and I imagine most others) playing it: wizards running around with 10' sticks and all that.
Malachi isn't arguing for the free action interpretation though, Malachi is on a completely different track.
|
|
'You must attack with a greatsword in two hands, therefore if you're not holding it in two hands when an AoO is provoked then you can't make the attack of opportunity with it!'
This lets us see the fallacy. In order to attack with a two-handed weapon you need to use that weapon in two hands during the attack! Not before, not after, but during.
You didn't answer the question.
You are drawing the line at requiring the weapon that needs two hands to use be held in one hand and the other hand be 'free'.
Why require the weapon to be in any hands?
If your argument is correct, why would this be a requirement? And what support, if any, do you have for drawing the lines in the sand where you have??
You are making the leap that there is no distinction between a weapon held in one hand and one held in two hands. Why then do you have a distinction between a one-handed/light weapon not held in any hands and it being 'wielded' in hand?
An example: a dagger held in one's teeth.
By your logic, wouldn't such a character with a hand free be able to threaten squares with that dagger?
-James
In all these 'grip-changing' threads, both I and just about everyone else have been leaving one thing as assumed. That is that, when we say 'holding' in this debate, we are talking about holding it by the correct end! Of course, the 'correct end' varies by weapon! For most swords this is the hilt. At the other extreme is the quarterstaff, where every part of it is a 'correct end' and a striking surface simultaneously.
So, when I use a greatsword as my example, the 'held in one hand' part means that the hand is on the hilt, not the sharp end!
This does require some common sense, but the rules are written assuming a reasonable person is trying to make sense of them, not someone motivated to try to twist every sentence to absurdity.
In normal use, most two-handed weapons (and many one-handed ones) involve hands letting go and re-gripping almost constantly. Quarterstaff and greatsword are two good examples of this, while a fencing foil is at the other extreme as it has one hand exclusively holding it; even with a foil the single hand changes it's grip slightly to perform a beat or a bind or what have you. Even a tennis player using a one-handed grip changes that grip for forehand and backhand strokes.
So in normal use, the idea that hands don't constantly shift grip does not hold up to reality. Perhaps this is why there is no such action in the Actions In Combat tables.
I can't remember anyone on these threads (apart from you for the purposes of ridicule) say that when the say 'hold' it means by the wrong end!
As for a dagger in the teeth? That is not a normal way to attack with a dagger. I would rule it a free action to get it in hand.
There are some weapons (gauntlet, boot blade, barbezu beard!) that don't require a weapon to be held for it to be used. These are called out in their descriptions. Unless called out in such a way, weapons must be held in order to be used, but shifting between holding it in one hand and holding it in two hands is not given an action cost in RAW, and I don't think this is an accident.
In order to attack with a two-handed weapon you need to use that weapon in two hands during the attack! Not before, not after, but during.
Your reasoning and application of common sense are usually pretty good Malachi, but I think you are wresting the words in this case to fit your particular viewpoint. Using a strict definition of the words used, the viewpoint is valid, given the context of how those words are used in the rules though I think you are stretching things here. And really my only objection to your viewpoint is the idea that a person, between their turns, could both deflect an arrow and take a AoO with two hands on the weapon. Or take one or the other when the situation arises, rather than choosing which option they will have available to them at the end of their turn and hoping they chose wisely.
|
|
@Ilja - They get more attacks, so they can hit more separate targets.
With a longsword, round one I charge with my longsword and fight-two handed. I only get one attack since I moved, so might as well maximize it even if I am using a TWF primary build.
Round two I draw my short sword/dagger/whatever and TWF to get the benefit of extra attacks.
Can't do that with a greatsword.
In addition I can pull the shield, keep a hand free if needed, etc...
Either way, like I said I think we agree there is a trade off.
Removed an unhelpful post. Please post civilly people.
Ciretose: Reread my posts. I've stated clearly that they gain the same amount of attacks and how. I'm not going to repeat it like, a fourth time or whatever it is now.
If your build is TWF primary, why would you use longsword/shortsword? Why not shortsword/shortsword so you don't have double feats? And if you're going to use different weapons, why not use armor spikes so you can wield the longsword in two hands?
|
|
Ciretose: Reread my posts. I've stated clearly that they gain the same amount of attacks and how. I'm not going to repeat it like, a fourth time or whatever it is now.
If your build is TWF primary, why would you use longsword/shortsword? Why not shortsword/shortsword so you don't have double feats? And if you're going to use different weapons, why not use armor spikes so you can wield the longsword in two hands?
You can't get the same amount of attacks fighting with one weapon wielded in two hands as you can fighting with two weapons.
You can state it over and over, but it doesn't make it true. I said it was enemies that you could drop in one hit and you created enemies that didn't meet that criteria. So more hits = more dead.
You get more damage with a longsword than a short sword, and of course, you can do the move I described above. It would depend on how you are breaking out your feats at what level if you have specialized in a given weapon or not, and if you haven't, why wouldn't you?
Armor spikes cost more and do less damage (only crits on 20), and your whole argument against the longsword has been about it doing less damage.
You CAN gain the same number of attacks when wielding a weapon in two hands and one that requires no hands as someone who wields two weapons in one hand each. This is like the fourth time I state it and you just ignore it completely - that is rude.
And as I have shown in the posts above, greatsword + armor spikes deal more damage TWF than longsword + shortsword, at least at these levels. Might be different at way higher levels when crits matter more, but by then dual kukris rule the TWF scene.
And as long as your strength bonus is at least +4 and your damage per hit with secondary weapon is less than 20, TWF with longsword + armor spikes will deal more than longsword + shortsword. Shortsword has +1 and +5% damage (higher dice and crit chance) and armor spikes means the longsword has +1/2 str mod damage.
|
|
Your reasoning and application of common sense are usually pretty good Malachi, but I think you are wresting the words in this case to fit your particular viewpoint. Using a strict definition of the words used, the viewpoint is valid, given the context of how those words are used in the rules though I think you are stretching things here. And really my only objection to your viewpoint is the idea that a person, between their turns, could both deflect an arrow and take a AoO with two hands on the weapon. Or take one or the other when the situation arises, rather than choosing which option they will have available to them at the end of their turn and hoping they chose wisely.In order to attack with a two-handed weapon you need to use that weapon in two hands during the attack! Not before, not after, but during.
Er...thanks...I think...
As for your point about deflecting and THF AoO, your mileage varies from mine; fair enough. : )
I have no conceptual problem with it. We all know that the combat round represents simultaneous action, but we are forced to 'take turns' to make the game playable.
It's possible to use Crane Wing on your own turn if the enemy has readied an action to attack you as soon as you move adjacent. Say you plan to move adjacent to the enemy (while holding your greatsword in one hand) and attack with it as a standard action. As soon as you are adjacent it triggers his readied attack, which you deflect with Crane Wing. With that resolved, you now use two hands to attack with your greatsword. It's your own turn so, free action or not an action, you can re-grip to your heart's content.
An observer, unaware of the game construct of 'combat rounds', has just seen a Crane Wing deflection followed immediately by a two-handed greatsword attack, and both of us agree it was within the rules. That observer sees this sequence and it's not strange; no laws of physics have been broken either. Why should the rapid sequence 'Crane Wing/greatsword seem fine one moment and beyond the realms of possibility the next, just because in the game construct of the combat round (of which the observer is unaware) at one moment it's your turn and the next moment it's the enemy's turn?
From an observer's point of view, there's just a lot of combat going on, consisting of greatsword attacks and unarmed deflections of stop hits!
So for me the concept is sound. All that remains is to check that it's within the game rules. I've reasoned in my recent post that the legality of it depends on whether 're-gripping' is a free action (in which case it's not) or not an action itself but part of the attack (in which case it is!).
Looking forward to the devs judgement. : )
Oh, another thing. Performing a Crane Wing deflection and taking an AoO between turns (while re-gripping) doesn't seem too much when you think of the amount of things a high Dex creature can do with Combat Reflexes!
Personally, it sounds like your trying to abuse the system and get the benefits of x1.5 STR modifier AND qualify for your feats by having 1 hand free at the exact same time.
At the very least I'd impose an entangled penalty to you as your now off-balanced holding a greatsword in 1 hand while trying to perform martial arts maneuvers.
|
|
Personally, it sounds like your trying to abuse the system and get the benefits of x1.5 STR modifier AND qualify for your feats by having 1 hand free at the exact same time.
At the very least I'd impose an entangled penalty to you as your now off-balanced holding a greatsword in 1 hand while trying to perform martial arts maneuvers.
Weapons are balanced for combat. : )
BTW, I absolutely despise Crane Wing! I think it's overpowered, especially compared to the duelist's Parry, and at the very least I think the martial arts Style feats should have a minimum monk level in the same way that Weapon Specialisation has a minimum fighter level, and no BAB would substitute for those monk levels.
I only used Crane Wing to illustrate re-gripping. I have no characters with Crane Wing, and if I ever did it would be a monk.
I'd be much more likely to TWF with greatsword and spiked gauntlet. You can already TWF with greatsword and boot blade etc. and the attack penalty to get an extra 1d4+half Str mod, coupled with the feat outlay, isn't unbalancing by any stretch of the imagination.
As to imposing penalties on me; when re-gripping is finally defined, those will be the rules. If it's defined as a free action then I won't threaten, so there's nothing to worry about. If it's defined as not an action then it would be childish to impose penalties on someone obeying the rules.
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A bit of added food for thought, for anyone interested:
I've done a bit of silent observation of various PFS games I've either run or been in. Being public game days, these experiences have been with multiple groups and multiple GMs, rather than a single established home group.
So far, I've seen the following:
• Paladin is wielding a two-handed polearm. He takes a hand off, uses LoH on himself as a swift action, puts his free hand back on, and full-attacks.
• Fighter/magus is wielding a greatsword. He takes a hand off, casts, puts a hand back on, then moves.
• Three-armed alchemist fighter wields a two-handed polearm. He moves over to a hole in the ceiling (move action), then attempts to climb up (move action) using two of his hands with the third merely holding the polearm. After failing, he continues to stand under the hole, again wielding the polearm in two hands.
That's just over a few weeks. I'm sure I'll encounter more (and may have missed some already) examples.
In all of these, it required both releasing and re-gripping the weapon as no more than a free action. No one balked. Heck, no one even asked how they were allocating their actions to accomplish this - it was being treated more like a non-action. I.e., if for each thing you wanted to do (use LoH, cast a spell, climb, etc) you had enough hands to do so without dropping anything on the ground first, then the shifting around to do so was just sort of glossed over.
No one asked. No one protested. I don't think it even crossed anyone's mind, besides mine.
And it didn't break the game.
So I see no practical reason not to let it be a free action. YMMV.
(And certainly, if I had a PC who would depend on this a lot, I'd talk to the GM first and do it however they liked.)
James: As it's not really changing the rules but rather interpreting them in a very possible way, it's not a question of house rules. It's a very possible interpretation, that a lot of people have made and may very well be the most common interpretation (and also has support from JJ, for whatever that's worth). So it's not really fringe either.
And the fact that weapon cords exist, I think point in the direction of "it should be a free action" - because it makes no sense to not be able to release the greatsword with one hand and then regrip it while you can release it with both hands and then regrip it.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
@james maissen - Are you under the impression that adding/removing a second hand to/from a weapon that you're already carrying in one hand is defined in the rules?
The action type needed (if any) is undefined in the rules. I'm not claiming that free (or non-) action grip changes are "RAW". Never claimed that in this entire thread. From the beginning I've been saying those actions are undefined, and here's how I'd do it at my table.
Any answer to the main question of this thread is inherently GM fiat, because the rules don't tell us. Some of us reason that letting go with one hand is a free action based on X, some of us reason that re-gripping is a move action based on Y, but X and Y are both things other than the rules actually answering the question. They're both "I think this other rule is close enough that this should be handled similarly."
So, because the action is undefined and needs a table ruling, it becomes helpful to look at examples of how each possible ruling affects the game.
The things you listed don't break the game, but they do break the rules. Putting a second hand on a longsword you're already actively wielding as a free action doesn't break any rules. Doing it as a move action doesn't break any rules either. There is no "Which one's correct?" in this instance. Only "Which one's better?" or maybe even "Which one's good enough?"
Fighter taking their hasted attack outside of BAB order.
Full Attack: "If you get multiple attacks because your base attack bonus is high enough, you must make the attacks in order from highest bonus to lowest."
The haste attack is not granted because your base attack bonus is high enough, therefore it doesn't have to be made in order.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
How about if it's a longsword, already wielded?
Turn1: Draw longsword as move action, attack (one-handed) as standard action, end turn threatening for AoO's one-handed.
Turn2: I want to attack two-handed instead this time. I'm already wielding the weapon. Are you seriously telling me that I need to "draw" it?
Now, if you wanted to say that you believed the "draw a weapon" action was the closest analogue to putting that extra hand on and cost it as a move action, that's totally fine. But to say that it is literally the "draw a weapon" action and anything else is a houserule or contradicts "RAW" is just plain incorrect - that weapon is already drawn.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So you agree that for a two handed weapon that we're strictly within the draw action?
No. Something that's already in hand can't be "drawn". If you wanted to use that action as a precedent to support the decision to make it a move action to put your second hand on your greatsword, I can accept that. But pretending that the rules already label gripping a weapon that's already in hand as "drawing it" and therefore everyone else is houseruling/contradicting the rules is just plain silly.
You might be holding a 2H weapon in 1H, however, the weapon is completely unusable in that fashion unless your of Large size or better. For a medium creature, you HAVE to have your second hand on it in order to use it properly. So in effect, your just carrying the weapon in 1H, much like your scabbard is carrying your weapon. Draw is the closest thing that effectively works for 'readying' the weapon for use in combat, therefore, a move action.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Draw is the closest thing that effectively works for 'readying' the weapon for use in combat, therefore, a move action.
Reloading a musket requires that you hold the weapon in one hand and use the other hand to reload it. Requiring a "draw" action to put your hand back on the musket after reloading means every attack in a round after the first takes a -4 penalty for shooting one-handed.
So you get more house rules about how you can draw for free as part of whatever action it is to reload. Which means if you have an unloaded weapon, and you can reload as a free action, you can draw the weapon as a free action as part of reloading. Even if you weren't holding the weapon at all.
So you get more house rules about how the free draw action only applies if you had already drawn the weapon.
Once you look at the list of rules you're making up to get this to work, it becomes fairly clear that you're not drawing the weapon, you're just putting a hand back on it, which is pretty much the same as taking the hand off it in the first place, all of which should just be a free action (or a non-action) and then it all works just like James Jacobs says.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Don't let the name confuse you.
James, the word "draw" is not just part of the name, it's part of the rule - the part you keep conveniently not quoting.
Drawing a weapon so that you can use it in combat, or putting it away so that you have a free hand, requires a move action.
Why you think you can disregard that is beyond me. You keep focusing on "so that you can use it in combat", apparently deciding that anything which causes a weapon to be ready to use counts as this action. But that's not enough. The rule says "drawing". If you're only doing half of what the rule says - getting something ready for use, but not drawing it - then you're not "drawing a weapon so that you can use it in combat". Therefore, this isn't the action you're using.
Stop selectively ignoring inconvenient parts of the rules.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
So what's to stop some people from wearing wands and other items on their wrists so they don't have to draw them anymore?
Huh? What are you talking about? I've only been skimming certain posts, but I don't *think* anyone is suggesting that something worn near the hand doesn't need to be drawn - just things they're already holding.
|
|
You CAN gain the same number of attacks when wielding a weapon in two hands and one that requires no hands as someone who wields two weapons in one hand each. This is like the fourth time I state it and you just ignore it completely - that is rude.
And as I have shown in the posts above, greatsword + armor spikes deal more damage TWF than longsword + shortsword, at least at these levels. Might be different at way higher levels when crits matter more, but by then dual kukris rule the TWF scene.
And as long as your strength bonus is at least +4 and your damage per hit with secondary weapon is less than 20, TWF with longsword + armor spikes will deal more than longsword + shortsword. Shortsword has +1 and +5% damage (higher dice and crit chance) and armor spikes means the longsword has +1/2 str mod damage.
No, I don't agree with your reading allowing you to switch between two-handed and two-weapon in the same sequence.
I am not ignoring it, I am saying I think you are wrong.
|
|
So what's to stop some people from wearing wands and other items on their wrists so they don't have to draw them anymore?Huh? What are you talking about? I've only been skimming certain posts, but I don't *think* anyone is suggesting that something worn near the hand doesn't need to be drawn - just things they're already holding.
You could technically grasp a wand from your wrist in about the same time it would take your other hand to move over and grip that sword like you are supposed to in order to wield it two handed.
This thread is an excellent demonstration of the difficulty of writing rules which maintain balance without opening up opportunities for exploits.
In the end the argument for certain rules will have to boil down to balance and as such they may make no sense from a pure real world simulation perspective. This is one reason that the rules are deliberately described as "abstractions" not "simulations."
You could technically grasp a wand from your wrist in about the same time it would take your other hand to move over and grip that sword like you are supposed to in order to wield it two handed.
If "on your wrist" means attached to the wrist with a cord, there's rules for that: Weapon Cord. It only works for weapons, not wands, though.
If you mean in a sheath on your wrist, there's rules for that: Wrist Sheath and Wrist Sheath, spring loaded.
However, neither of those are very similar to holding a wand in one hand, and wanting to put another free hand on the wand which you are already holding.
|
|
This thread is an excellent demonstration of the difficulty of writing rules which maintain balance without opening up opportunities for exploits.
In the end the argument for certain rules will have to boil down to balance and as such they may make no sense from a pure real world simulation perspective. This is one reason that the rules are deliberately described as "abstractions" not "simulations."
Exactly. The reason you have 10 fingers but only 2 ring slots is because there has to be some limit on the number of ring slots, and they picked 2.
No, I don't agree with your reading allowing you to switch between two-handed and two-weapon in the same sequence.
I am not ignoring it, I am saying I think you are wrong.
You don't "switch" - they're separate rules that applies to different things. Do you have any rules support for saying it doesn't work? In 3.5 they explicitly addressed it and said it worked, PF hasn't changed the language at all.
Armor spikes even clearly address this:
"You can also make a regular melee attack (or off-hand attack) with the spikes, and they count as a light weapon in this case."
So greatsword is your primary hand attack, armor spikes is your off-hand attack. The rules are crystal clear on this, in 3.5 they explicitly said "yes, this works" when asked about it, and nothing has changed in pathfinder despite many people pointing out that it still works.
|
You could technically grasp a wand from your wrist in about the same time it would take your other hand to move over and grip that sword like you are supposed to in order to wield it two handed.So what's to stop some people from wearing wands and other items on their wrists so they don't have to draw them anymore?Huh? What are you talking about? I've only been skimming certain posts, but I don't *think* anyone is suggesting that something worn near the hand doesn't need to be drawn - just things they're already holding.
This is not entirely true, there is more to actions then people think. Part of drawing a wand is realizing you need a weapon, and deciding that you want the wand.
Also a two handed weapon does not have two hands on it 100% of the time it's wielded, you are constantly changing grip etc.
I.E. when wielding a two handed sword, you can start swinging and put some momentum into the blade before your second hand actually grips it for the follow through, therefore putting your hand on a greatsword is a very different action then drawing a wand.
Basically you have started the action one handed and got the second hand there for the important part, however this doesn't apply to drawing a wand or pulling something out of it's sheath.
|
|
No, I don't agree with your reading allowing you to switch between two-handed and two-weapon in the same sequence.
I am not ignoring it, I am saying I think you are wrong.
You don't "switch" - they're separate rules that applies to different things. Do you have any rules support for saying it doesn't work? In 3.5 they explicitly addressed it and said it worked, PF hasn't changed the language at all.
Armor spikes even clearly address this:
"You can also make a regular melee attack (or off-hand attack) with the spikes, and they count as a light weapon in this case."
So greatsword is your primary hand attack, armor spikes is your off-hand attack. The rules are crystal clear on this, in 3.5 they explicitly said "yes, this works" when asked about it, and nothing has changed in pathfinder despite many people pointing out that it still works.
The greatsword attack requires your off-hand.
This is exactly why I am opposed to the free action approach. It is absolutely ridiculous to think it was RAI to TWF with a greatsword.
You could technically grasp a wand from your wrist in about the same time it would take your other hand to move over and grip that sword like you are supposed to in order to wield it two handed.
In order for the wand to remain on your wrist, it would need to be in a wrist sheathe (see Gricks post above) or you'd have to have it tied or strapped in place somehow. Retrieving it from your wrist would then involve untying it or opening snaps to free it from your wrist - which then would be a lot more akin to unsheathing the wand.
You are taking the weapon that is in easy reach, and making it so that you can use it in combat
Your interpretation of something you are already holding being akin to something being within easy reach is at the very extreme limits (if not simple outside the bounds of) what the phrase 'within easy reach' means. The common usage and understanding of that phrase would imply something that you are not currently holding, but could easily grab. Note that the usage of that phrase in the rules is also in reference to things that are similar to weapons, but are not actually weapons, e.g., wands and the like. Things that might be strapped to your belt loops, or easily pulled out of pockets on a shirt (like say a pen an accountant has in his front pocket), etc.
If a warrior is currently holding a longsword in one hand (casually), by the hilt, but is not in combat, and comes across a combat, does he need to spend a move action to 'draw/ready' the weapon and get into his fighting stance to now be wielding that weapon?
The greatsword attack requires your off-hand.
"Off-hand" only exists when two-weapon fighting.
If you can't two-weapon fight with a greatsword, and you must have an off-hand to use the greatsword, then nobody can ever use a greatsword.
This is exactly why I am opposed to the free action approach.
Using two hands on a greatsword (which requires two hands) and zero hands on armor spikes, or blade boot, or barbazu beard, or unarmed strike, or boulder helmet (none of which require the use of hands) has nothing to do with the action required to put a hand back on a weapon.
It is absolutely ridiculous to think it was RAI to TWF with a greatsword.
You said here that wielding two weapons requires one hand for each weapon that is not considered unarmed. Ignoring that this would include two-handed weapons (and thus, is wrong), your intent was probably that a weapon that is considered unarmed doesn't require a hand to wield. Following that logic, there would be no problem fighting with both a two-handed weapon and another weapon which does not require a hand.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
The greatsword attack requires your off-hand.
Incorrect. The term "off-hand" in Pathfinder rules does not necessarily refer to one or the other of your physical hands. Instead, it refers to whichever weapon you use for the extra attack generated by employing the TWF mechanic.
If you're not in the process of full-attacking with TWF rules, you don't even HAVE an off-hand at the moment, even if you attack with a greatsword and then iteratively with a kick or headbutt or that bladed beard thingie. If you TWF with a sword and a kick, you get to choose one of those to be your "off-hand" attack, and don't even have to pick the one that uses an actual hand. You can also pick a different weapon to be your "off-hand" each round that you TWF, regardless of how many hands actually get used.
So no, a greatsword attack does not "require your off-hand".
|
|
Are the three of you honestly arguing that two-handed fighting does not require two hands.
Seriously, you are reading this
"Wielding a Weapon Two-Handed: When you deal damage with a weapon that you are wielding two-handed, you add 1-1/2 times your Strength bonus (Strength penalties are not multiplied). You don't get this higher Strength bonus, however, when using a light weapon with two hands."
And coming away with it not requiring two hands.
Wow.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
No, that's not what any of us are saying.
Read.
We said that the term "off-hand" doesn't necessarily refer to one or the other of your physical hands.
If you're using a greatsword but not TWFing, then you're using your left hand and your right hand but don't even HAVE an "off-hand".
Are the three of you honestly arguing that two-handed fighting does not require two hands.
There is no such thing as two-handed fighting.
There is making an attack with a two-handed weapon, which requires two hands.
|
|
No, keep going. You all are making my case better than I ever could.
Tell me more about how the developers intended for you to be able to both fight two-handed with a greatsword and two weapon fight at the same time.
We just finished how many months of discussion of the monk using one weapon to flurry being a problem, but you think this was what Jason was thinking when he revised the rules.
Go ahead an FAQ that.
Tell me more about how the developers intended for you to be able to both fight two-handed with a greatsword and two weapon fight at the same time.
By creating weapons that don't require hands to use.
|
|
Tell me more about how the developers intended for you to be able to both fight two-handed with a greatsword and two weapon fight at the same time.By creating weapons that don't require hands to use.
If you believe that was developer intent, FAQ it.
Better yet, start a thread. You too Jiggy, it would be another chance to chat with SKR.
I'm with you ciretose. Some of these discussions are reminiscent of theologists of the 18th century arguing over how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.
There's a certain amount of vicarious humor to be had from them though. So I do enjoy most of them.