|
If the rule was that drawing ammunition was a free action that can be taken outside your own turn, then that FAQ would still make perfect sense using the same wording it has now. Ergo, that FAQ could mean that drawing ammunition can be done outside your own turn, and Snap Shot doesn't change it.
It also can be read as the only reason that you can draw ammunition as a free action is that the feat creates an exception to the normal rule. I wish it said one thing or the other, but it, and the feat, do not say either way.
As it is, it's a moot point. The only way you can take AoOs with missile weapons is by using Snap Shot, so the question of wether the free action draw is a general understanding of the rule, or allowed because the feat says you can (although it doesn't), is moot.
What is certain is that (for whatever reason) this free action can be taken outside your own turn, however restricted the circumstances. This makes it the only free action that can, with the exception of speaking. To be honest, players talking around the table and those players talking in character can get very blurred, so impossible to restrict to your own turn. Speaking is not exactly an 'action on combat' lime the rest of the actions though.
Ergo,
Hurrrrgghhttt...must...resist...
Hnnnnnghhht...nnnooooo...
VIS A VIS CONCORDANTLY!!
...I'm a weak, weak man.
So grip-changing is an inherent part of another action-an attack! That attack may be a standard action, a free action (touch attack spell), one element of a full-round action (full attack), the attack at the end of a full-round action (charge), or not an action (an AoO)!
I'll agree with you that changing grip on your weapon during the course of using it isn't an action, in fact, how you flavor holding and using your weapon doesn't have any impact on game mechanics at all! That kind of grip changing is completely fluff, so not only is it not an action, it isn't even a rule!
But, that's not what we're talking about. We're talking about taking a hand off of a two-handed weapon so that you are no longer wielding the weapon and are instead wielding your gauntlet. A necessary step since you can't wield two weapons in the same hand. Unless, of course that assumption is false.
If you can wield a two weapons at once, then it doesn't matter what action changing your grip. Changing your grip is still completely fluff. You can flavor the attack as taking your hand off your weapon to punch a foe, or just say that you're punching the foe with the same hand that holds the weapon.
Just because changing the grip on your weapon is fluff doesn't mean that all instances of placing your hand on your weapon or removing it is. Changing your grip from one-handed to no-handed is dropping the weapon, and clearly takes an action. Just because an action isn't listed on the table doesn't make it a non-action, either.
I still don't see any indication in the rules what action it is to remove as hand from a weapon so that is free to do other things. James says it's a free action, for what that's worth.
Perhaps a better question is whether you can wield two weapons i the same hand, a juggler can certainly hold two knives in the same hand, but can he attack with both of them?
|
|
We're talking about taking a hand off of a two-handed weapon so that you are no longer wielding the weapon and are instead wielding your gauntlet.
A perfect example of why to avoid the word 'wielding'!
Does 'wielding' in the quote mean 'holding' or 'attacking with'?
Let's see:-
• We're talking about taking a hand off of a two-handed weapon so that you are no longer holding the weapon and are instead holding your gauntlet.
But you are still holding the weapon, with one hand, which is all you need to hold it! Also, you don't hold a gauntlet, you wear it!
So 'wielding' can't mean 'holding'. Let's try the other:-
• We're talking about taking a hand off of a two-handed weapon so that you are no longer attacking with the weapon and are instead attacking with your gauntlet.
But we're talking about threatening with both so we can attack with either, so 'attacking with' doesn't fit.
Try to frame the sentence without using 'wield' or 'wielding' and see if it makes sense.
You can hold, but not attack with, two weapons in the same hand. You don't hold a gauntlet, you wear it, and a hand wearing a spiked gauntlet can hold, and attack with, another weapon without penalty.
We're talking about taking a hand off of a two-handed weapon so that you are no longer wielding the weapon and are instead wielding your gauntlet.A perfect example of why to avoid the word 'wielding'!
Does 'wielding' in the quote mean 'holding' or 'attacking with'?
Let's see:-
• We're talking about taking a hand off of a two-handed weapon so that you are no longer holding the weapon and are instead holding your gauntlet.
But you are still holding the weapon, with one hand, which is all you need to hold it! Also, you don't hold a gauntlet, you wear it!
So 'wielding' can't mean 'holding'. Let's try the other:-
• We're talking about taking a hand off of a two-handed weapon so that you are no longer attacking with the weapon and are instead attacking with your gauntlet.
But we're talking about threatening with both so we can attack with either, so 'attacking with' doesn't fit.
Try to frame the sentence without using 'wield' or 'wielding' and see if it makes sense.
You can hold, but not attack with, two weapons in the same hand. You don't hold a gauntlet, you wear it, and a hand wearing a spiked gauntlet can hold, and attack with, another weapon without penalty.
If you don't like 'wielding', simply replace all instances with 'able to attack with.'
If you're holding a long spear in one hand and a longsword in the other, you are not able to attack with the spear and you don't threaten with it.
If you're holding two daggers in the same hand, are you able to attack with them? Why or why not?
Now the good one. If you're wearing spiked gauntlets, and holding a longsword in each hand, are you able to attack with the gauntlets? Can you attack with both swords and both gauntlets (provided you have enough attacks) in the same full-attack action?
Does it make sense that you could attack with two weapons in the same hand if your wearing one instead of holding both? What's preventing you from attacking with the daggers that allows you to attack with the gauntlet?
I'm not exactly sure what, imagery wise or stat wise, prevents you from slamming someone with a spiked gauntlet hand that is holding a dagger.
Nothing does.
The argument goes like this: You don't threaten with a polearm and the spiked gauntlet at the same time, you have to choose which one you're 'wielding' at the end of your turn. The action to do so should be the same as the one to put a hand on a weapon you're holding (going from holding to wielding). The action to put your hand on a weapon should be the same as the one to take a hand off a weapon (going from wielding to holding). The action to take a hand off a weapon should be the same as the one to drop a weapon (a free action).
Thus, at the end of your turn, as a free action, you choose if you want to be wielding (and thus threatening with) the polearm, or the gauntlet.
This is all based on that first assumption that you don't threaten with both, IE that you can't wield more than one weapon with the same limb. There's not really any rules to support this, other than the rule about losing one natural attack if you use that same limb to wield a manufactured weapon. (So if you attack with a longsword, you can't also attack with the claws on that hand)
|
|
If you don't like 'wielding', simply replace all instances with 'able to attack with.'
If you're holding a long spear in one hand and a longsword in the other, you are not able to attack with the spear and you don't threaten with it.
Agreed, since you don't have two free (as in 'holding nothing except the spear') hands.
But we're really talking about the longspear/spiked gauntlet combo, where you're holding the spear in one hand.
Since you add that free hand as part of the attack, you can attack with the spear, so do threaten with it.
'We're talking about taking a hand off of a two-handed weapon so that you are no longer able to attack with the weapon and are instead able to attack with your gauntlet.'
There is no such choice to make, either in RAW or in RL. If you are armed with a weapon in each hand (for example), you don't have to mentally decide which one is threatening; they both are! If you are able to attack with more than one possible weapon, then you threaten with all those weapons, giving you a greater choice over which weapon to use for any particular AoO as it comes up, and may use different weapons to take each AoO if you have Combat Reflexes or the like. Since adding or removing a hand is not a game action, then the only thing you need to establish is that you have the required number of hands free to use a weapon to execute an attack, and wearing a spiked gauntlet doesn't stop that hand from using a different weapon.
If you're holding two daggers in the same hand, are you able to attack with them? Why or why not?
I would say not, on the grounds that you must have a hand free (as in 'holding nothing except that weapon') to use a weapon. I may make an exception for stuff like shuriken, but that would be a rare exception, not based on RAW. As noted, you don't 'hold' a gauntlet, you 'wear' it, so it doesn't interfere with holding or attacking with other weapons.
Now the good one. If you're wearing spiked gauntlets, and holding a longsword in each hand, are you able to attack with the gauntlets? Can you attack with both swords and both gauntlets (provided you have enough attacks) in the same full-attack action?
Yes. You have your normal number of attacks from iteratives, and may choose different weapons to execute different attacks. In this case there is no 'grip-shifting' to muddy the situation.
Of course, TWF has its own rules which apply to off-hand attacks, and these still apply if you're TWFing.
Does it make sense that you could attack with two weapons in the same hand if your wearing one instead of holding both? What's preventing you from attacking with the daggers that allows you to attack with the gauntlet?
If you are holding a dagger in the hand that is wearing a spiked gauntlet, you can attack with either. This would be true for any weapon held one-handed. If the weapon were held two-handed you'd need to let go of the two-handed weapon with the gauntlet hand (not an action, but part of the attack with the gauntlet) while still holding the weapon with the other hand.
Assuming you did that to take an AoO at 5-feet, you'd be holding the spear in one hand and the gauntlet hand would be free to re-grip the spear as part of any AoO the spear makes, so you still threaten with both spear and gauntlet.
The argument goes like this: You don't threaten with a polearm and the spiked gauntlet at the same time, you have to choose which one you're 'wielding' at the end of your turn. The action to do so should be the same as the one to put a hand on a weapon you're holding (going from holding to wielding). The action to put your hand on a weapon should be the same as the one to take a hand off a weapon (going from wielding to holding). The action to take a hand off a weapon should be the same as the one to drop a weapon (a free action).
Since I'm explaining the consequences of 'grip-shifting' not consuming any game action, I'll move forward on that basis. If 'grip-shifting' were to ever be defined by the devs as consuming a free action, then the following may not then apply.
'The argument goes like this: You don't threaten with a polearm and the spiked gauntlet at the same time, you have to choose which one you're 'wielding' at the end of your turn.'
To illustrate why I don't agree, let's try to substitute for the offending word again:-
'The argument goes like this: You don't threaten with a polearm and the spiked gauntlet at the same time, you have to choose which one you're 'holding' at the end of your turn.'
See how that doesn't make sense? You don't really have to mentally decide which, of the weapons you are holding, you really mean to hold! Let's try again:-
'The argument goes like this: You don't threaten with a polearm and the spiked gauntlet at the same time, you have to choose which one you're 'attacking with' at the end of your turn.'
Er...no you don't! RAW, you decide which weapon you use to make any attack at the moment of the attack, and not before! You just need to be able to attack with your chosen weapon!
One last try, thanks to Quantum Steve:-
'The argument goes like this: You don't threaten with a polearm and the spiked gauntlet at the same time, you have to choose which one you're 'able to attack with' at the end of your turn.'
But, as we have seen, you are able to attack with either weapon!
Since there is no decision to be made about 'holding/attacking with/able to attack with', there can be no action cost associated with an action that doesn't exist!
I would say not, on the grounds that you must have a hand free (as in 'holding nothing except that weapon') to use a weapon. I may make an exception for stuff like shuriken, but that would be a rare exception, not based on RAW. As noted, you don't 'hold' a gauntlet, you 'wear' it, so it doesn't interfere with holding or attacking with other weapons
If you're holding two daggers in the same hand, are you able to attack with them? Why or why not?
If you were hold another weapon in a hand wearing a spiked gauntlet, you wouldn't be able to use the gauntlet, since the hand isn't free, it's holding the weapon.
The gauntlet doesn't interfere with the weapon since you're not 'holding' the gauntlet, but the reverse isn't true. You are holding the weapon; that would interfere with attacking with the gauntlet.
If the weapon were held two-handed you'd need to let go of the two-handed weapon with the gauntlet hand (not an action, but part of the attack with the gauntlet) while still holding the weapon with the other hand.
Why? I mean, you seem to be making up rules as you go, but why can you attack with one weapon in your hand but not a different one?
Since you add that free hand as part of the attack, you can attack with the spear, so do threaten with it.
Attacking with a two-handed weapon doesn't require two hands free, it requires two hands to be using the weapon.
You cannot attack with an appropriately sized two-handed weapon that you are holding in one hand.
Since you cannot attack with it, you do not threaten with it.
By interpreting the rule ("Two hands are required to use a two-handed melee weapon effectively.") to mean that you can use a two-handed weapon as long as one hand is free means you can also use a two-handed weapon if both hands are free.
But that's ridiculous, of course you need to have the weapon in your hands to attack with it. And if one hand is required to be on the weapon, then both hands are required to be on the weapon.
So it's clear that you do need two hands to actually be on the weapon in order to attack with it.
Now, even if the action to put a hand back on the weapon is not-an-action, and thus can be taken outside your turn, you would still have to perform that action before an AoO is provoked, because otherwise at the time the provocation happens, you are not threatening.
Since none of this has anything to do with wielding two weapons on the same limb, and all of it was covered quite thoroughly in the old thread, I suggest we drop it.
Man I am trying hard to follow what you all are saying but it is just like wooooshhhhhh right over my head.
Explain this to me like I am five.
If my wife's Whirlwind Attack fighter character has Enlarge Person on her and is wielding a Horsechopper (reach weapon) as well as wearing a Cestus, can she Whirlwind all the enemies that are within her 15', 10' and 5' distances?
If my wife's Whirlwind Attack fighter character has Enlarge Person on her and is wielding a Horsechopper (reach weapon) as well as wearing a Cestus, can she Whirlwind all the enemies that are within her 15', 10' and 5' distances?
By RAW, you make one melee attack at your highest base attack bonus against each opponent within reach. It doesn't say each attack must be with the same weapon. So, yes, she can.
However, many people view the flavor of the feat as being thematically similar to cleave, claiming that while you are making multiple attack rolls, they symbolize one big sweeping attack with a single weapon.
Since the whirlwind attack is on your turn, there's nothing stopping you from taking whatever action (if any) is needed to 'wield' the chopper instead of the cestus. To make it easier, consider the same question with armor spikes (or boulder helmet or unarmed strike or bite, etc.) in place of the cestus.
|
The Answer is no. A horse chopper is a two handed weapon. With Whirl Wind attack you only get to attack each person within reach at the start of the action. which means that your wife will have to choose between the horse chopper and the Cestus. If she chooses the Cestus and is enlarged then she can hit everyone at 5 and 10 feet. if she chooses the Horse chopper than she can hit everyone within 10 and 15 feet.
Edit: While I disagree with Grick about switching the weapons I think he is right about using weapons on other limbs to threaten. I.e. armor spikes boulder helmets, ect.
Thank you Grick
Yeah, in any of our other games we would absolutely be willing to go with the thematic approach you mentioned, out of respect to the GM and his/her game.
But in this particular game we are perfectly willing to go with RAW and just do a bunch of hi5's, jumping chest bumps and bull dances while generally screaming at the GM, "OH YEAH THAT JUST HAPPENED, WE ARE YOUR MOM AND WE JUST TOOK YOU TO SCHOOL IN THE MINI-VAN OF PAIN!" everytime her Whirlwind just utterly wrecks the 40 mooks he sends at us at once
With Whirl Wind attack you only get to attack each person within reach at the start of the action.
"When you use the full-attack action, you can give up your regular attacks and instead make one melee attack at your highest base attack bonus against each opponent within reach."
So does "within reach" mean threatened squares?
If so, does this mean a normal human without improved unarmed strike could not choose to do a whirlwind attack of punches to foes in adjacent squares?
|
|
With Whirl Wind attack you only get to attack each person within reach at the start of the action."When you use the full-attack action, you can give up your regular attacks and instead make one melee attack at your highest base attack bonus against each opponent within reach."
So does "within reach" mean threatened squares?
If so, does this mean a normal human without improved unarmed strike could not choose to do a whirlwind attack of punches to foes in adjacent squares?
I think threaten would not be the correct word. My understanding is that the Whirlwind attack works similarly to cleave which uses the same phrase. Cleave has been FAQd (which I can't find at the moment) to say that it only counts creatures that are within reach of your attack at the time you declare it. No dropping or 5 foot stepping.
Thus if you can hit a guy with what you are wielding (able to attack with) from your current position then you can use it during a whirlwind. But because Cestus (spiked gauntlet, ect) and the Horsechopper both need your hand you can't use them both for a whirlwind attack.
My understanding is that the Whirlwind attack works similarly to cleave which uses the same phrase. Cleave has been FAQd (which I can't find at the moment) to say that it only counts creatures that are within reach of your attack at the time you declare it. No dropping or 5 foot stepping.
Thus if you can hit a guy with what you are wielding (able to attack with) from your current position then you can use it during a whirlwind. But because Cestus (spiked gauntlet, ect) and the Horsechopper both need your hand you can't use them both for a whirlwind attack.
Here it is:
Can I take a 5-foot step in the middle of my attempt to use the Cleave feat, to bring another foe within reach?
No. Cleave is a special action and the conditions for that action are checked at the moment you begin your action. At that moment, all of the available targets are checked to make sure they adjacent to each other and within reach. You cannot take a 5-foot step in the middle of the action and check conditions again. If you do not have two targets within reach, adjacent to each other at the start of the attack, you could not even attempt to make an attack using Cleave.
Cleave (Combat): "As a standard action, you can make a single attack at your full base attack bonus against a foe within reach. If you hit, you deal damage normally and can make an additional attack (using your full base attack bonus) against a foe that is adjacent to the first and also within reach."
Whirlwind Attack (Combat): "When you use the full-attack action, you can give up your regular attacks and instead make one melee attack at your highest base attack bonus against each opponent within reach."
Unlike Cleave, Whirlwind attack is still a full-attack action.
Full Attack: "The only movement you can take during a full attack is a 5-foot step. You may take the step before, after, or between your attacks."
However, even if the intent is that you cannot take a 5' step in between the whirlwind attacks (which I think it is), that doesn't address the issue.
Which puts us back to "within reach."
If unarmed guy can whirlwind adjacent foes with his unarmed strike, so could the enlarged polearm fighter. The only way that can happen is if they are within reach. So if the adjacent enemies are within reach, and if each attack in a whirlwind can be made with different weapons, and if you can take whatever action is needed to 'wield' the cestus during that action on your turn, then I don't see any reason why you couldn't horsechop some guys and cest the others.
What if you just, still holding the two handed weapon, just slam the whole thing into them, enabling the use of the spiked gauntlets? No grip changing, no free actions, just attacking.
See the argument posted here.
Basically, while you can punch someone with the gauntlet while holding the polearm, the question is whether you threaten with both at the same time.
If you don't threaten with both, then there's the wielding thing.
And if there's the wielding thing, then there's the question of the action to do so.
If you can attack without any action economy shenanigans with a melee weapon, how would you not be threatening?
Because, if the base assumption is true (can't wield both at the same time), then there are action economy shenanigans based on what it takes to wield vs hold.
The problem is that base assumption isn't really laid out anywhere in the rules. It's all extrapolation from that one point.
|
|
If you were hold another weapon in a hand wearing a spiked gauntlet, you wouldn't be able to use the gauntlet, since the hand isn't free, it's holding the weapon.
Usually weapons must be held in order to be used. This is not the case with weapons that must be worn, like the spiked gauntlet, spiked armour, boot spikes, boulder helmet (I wouldn't be surprised if there was a spike involved), etc. These weapons don't need to be held in order to be used to attack, so holding a weapon in the same hand as a spiked gauntlet does not interfere with gauntlet attacks as long as the arm wearing the gauntlet is free to move normally, which would not be the case if that hand was holding a two-handed weapon, although that is a judgement call from me, needed because the rules are silent on this issue.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Grick, you make an excellent argument and I don't have any additional rules to back me up. I will be entering RAI/homerule territory with anything additional I add and this is the Rules forum so I will not do so.
This always comes back to a question of if a using a two handed weapon precludes other attacks. I questions I sincerely wish the devs would address.
|
|
Attacking with a two-handed weapon doesn't require two hands free, it requires two hands to be using the weapon.
It requires two hands on the weapon at the moment the attack is executed, and that requires two hands free (not holding anything except the weapon in question) to do so.
You cannot attack with an appropriately sized two-handed weapon that you are holding in one hand.
It requires two hands at the moment of the attack; not before the attack, not after the attack, only as the attack is executed.
Since you cannot attack with it, you do not threaten with it.
Since you have two available hands to use the weapon, you can attack with it and therefore you do threaten with it.
By interpreting the rule ("Two hands are required to use a two-handed melee weapon effectively.") to mean that you can use a two-handed weapon as long as one hand is free means you can also use a two-handed weapon if both hands are free.
You need one free hand (free meaning holding nothing except the weapon in question) to attack with a one-handed weapon, and two free hands to attack with a two handed weapon. You also need to be holding the weapon unsheathed, which only requires one hand for either type.
But that's ridiculous, of course you need to have the weapon in your hands to attack with it. And if one hand is required to be on the weapon, then both hands are required to be on the weapon.
A two handed weapon still needs at least one hand holding it at any given moment, or it will fall to the floor! Two hands are only required to execute an attack, not to hold it between attacks.
So it's clear that you do need two hands to actually be on the weapon in order to attack with it.
No question! But you don't need two hands on it before the attack.
Now, even if the action to put a hand back on the weapon is not-an-action, and thus can be taken outside your turn, you would still have to perform that action before an AoO is provoked, because otherwise at the time the provocation happens, you are not threatening.
No, because the 'act' of adding your other hand to the weapon is part of the attack itself, not a separate game action.
Since none of this has anything to do with wielding two weapons on the same limb, and all of it was covered quite thoroughly in the old thread, I suggest we drop it.
Hmmm....there is wisdom there....!
|
Why the Gauntlet or Spiked Gauntlet?
Those are not the only choices, and there are others that have no rules funny business.
Why must the two handed polearm and gauntlet-like weapon be a combo that people try to force upon themselves?
Just grab some Armor Spikes, and stop forcing that square peg down that round hole.
Attacking with a two-handed weapon doesn't require two hands free, it requires two hands to be using the weapon.It requires two hands on the weapon at the moment the attack is executed, and that requires two hands free (not holding anything except the weapon in question) to do so.
That's not what a free hand is. A free hand means it's not holding anything or doing anything. If you're holding a sword in your hand, it's not free. Using a two-handed weapon doesn't require two hands free, it requires two hands to be using the weapon.
It requires two hands at the moment of the attack; not before the attack, not after the attack, only as the attack is executed.
Correct. And since you don't threaten with your 2nd hand off the weapon, the moment of that attack never happens.
Since you have two available hands to use the weapon, you can attack with it and therefore you do threaten with it.
You could attack with it, if you could perform whatever action is required to put your other hand back on it. If whatever that action is hasn't been performed, then you can't attack with it.
Your hand is either on the weapon or it's not.
You need one free hand (free meaning holding nothing except the weapon in question) to attack with a one-handed weapon, and two free hands to attack with a two handed weapon. You also need to be holding the weapon unsheathed, which only requires one hand for either type.
You're inventing a lot of rules, here.
A two handed weapon still needs at least one hand holding it at any given moment, or it will fall to the floor! Two hands are only required to execute an attack, not to hold it between attacks.
If you're just holding it in one hand, you can't make an attack. This part is clear. You've agreed with this.
Since you can't make an attack, you don't threaten. That's what threatening is, being able to make an attack.
Since you don't threaten, you can't do anything as part of the AoO, because you don't get to take the AoO, because you don't threaten.
The only way you threaten with the weapon is if you have two hands on it. Not two hands free, not one hand on it and another hand free, two hands on the weapon.
So it's clear that you do need two hands to actually be on the weapon in order to attack with it.No question! But you don't need two hands on it before the attack.
We're not talking about making an attack on your turn, we're talking about making an attack of opportunity. Hands not on weapon = no threat = no AoO.
Now, even if the action to put a hand back on the weapon is not-an-action, and thus can be taken outside your turn, you would still have to perform that action before an AoO is provoked, because otherwise at the time the provocation happens, you are not threatening.No, because the 'act' of adding your other hand to the weapon is part of the attack itself, not a separate game action.
And that attack never happens. Lets say you can draw a weapon as not-an-action. And while the weapon is sheathed, you don't threaten. If someone walks up and provokes, you can't attack them, even though you could draw your weapon as part of an attack, because that attack never happens, because you didn't threaten when the enemy provoked.
You can't do something as part of an attack that does not occur.
Hmmm....there is wisdom there....!
Wisdom that went sadly unheeded.
I submit for discussion, the case of a mounted cavalier that is wielding a lance in one hand and a spiked gauntlet with the other.
I think people may enjoy talking about a more-common hypothetical situation rather than boulder helmets and tail-knives which originate from I-don't-even-know-where.
I submit for discussion, the case of a mounted cavalier that is wielding a lance in one hand and a spiked gauntlet with the other.
What about him?
If he's wielding the lance in one hand, then no problems. He threatens with both, 10' with the lance, and adjacent with the gauntlet.
If he's wielding the lance in two hands, then if you follow the one-per-limb argument, he isn't wielding the gauntlet, just wearing it. If something were to provoke in an adjacent square, he would not get an AoO because he doesn't threaten that square.
If you don't follow the one-per-limb argument, then he threatens with both, even with the lance in two hands.
|
|
In 4th ed, Quick Draw wasn't written as being able to draw a weapon as a free action, it was written so that you can draw the weapon as part of an attack.
I know that this is not the case in PF, but to illustrate a point, if Quick Draw were worded that way, then the consequence would be that a warrior with Quick Draw would threaten with every weapon he has sheathed!
He would be able to attack with each weapon without taking any action except the attack of opportunity itself! Therefoe, he threatens by definition.
Similarly, if you have nothing in your hands except a two-handed weapon, then as long as you are holding it unsheathed with at least one hand, you may execute an attack with it, and any grip-shifting to be done would be part of that attack! Since the only game action you would be doing is making that attack, then you are able to attack with it even if only holding it in one hand when the AoO is provoked. Since you can attack, you do threaten.
The ability to make an attack with a two-handed weapon does not require two hands on the weapon when the attack is provoked, it just requires two hands on it when making the attack which was provoked! And being able to attack is what defines 'threatening'.
(Incidentally, Grick, I was working when I composed my last post, and it took several breaks and several hours to compose it. I answered your post paragraph by paragraph, and by the time I got to the last line re: wisdom of dropping it I didn't just want to erase what I'd just put so much effort into.)
if Quick Draw were worded that way, then the consequence would be that a warrior with Quick Draw would threaten with every weapon he has sheathed!
You didn't quote any rules, and it's for a different game anyway, but if PFRPG had a rule that said you could draw a weapon as part of an attack, that would still mean you have to actually make that attack in order to draw the weapon. So if you don't get the opportunity to make an attack, you can't draw a weapon.
The ability to make an attack with a two-handed weapon does not require two hands on the weapon when the attack is provoked, it just requires two hands on it when making the attack which was provoked!
If you don't threaten a square, someone casting a spell in that square doesn't provoke. Since it doesn't provoke, there's no attack of opportunity. Since there's no attack, you can't do anything as part of that attack.
- You cannot attack with a two-handed weapon without using two hands.
- This means that you must put your 2nd hand on the weapon before you attack with it.
- This means you do not threaten until you put your 2nd hand on the weapon.
- This means that if you do not put your 2nd hand on the weapon before someone takes an action that would provoke, that action does not provoke.
|
|
- You cannot attack with a two-handed weapon without using two hands.
- This means that you must put your 2nd hand on the weapon before you attack with it.
- This means you do not threaten until you put your 2nd hand on the weapon.
- This means that if you do not put your 2nd hand on the weapon before someone takes an action that would provoke, that action does not provoke.
We definately disagree!
For me, it would be:-
* You cannot attack with a two-handed weapon unles you have two hands available to grip the weapon as you attack
* This means you only need to use two hands on the weapon as you execute the attack, not before or after
* This means that you do threaten if you have both hands available to grip the weapon, even if only one hand is holding it
* This means that, since you threaten, actions which provoke an AoO can use that weapon to execute that AoO, and any grip-shifting will be part of the attack
I don't believe that you or I will convince each other, but by posting both chains of logic it may help others to reach their own conclusions.
Peace.
|
|
Regarding Snap Shot:
What you're missing is that reloading arrows is a nonaction, so you don't need to worry about whether or not you can reload during an AoO. However, reloading a crossbow or gun with the appropriate feats and items becomes a free action, which you can only do on your own turn. Generally, you don't need to worry about it, as there's generally no need to reload on someone else's turn, but , since Snap Shot allows you to loose projectiles as an AoO, it's a legitimate question, which the devs have essentially ruled "as long as you can reload as a free action" (which isn't necessarily the case with crossbows and guns), "then you can reload during your AoO".
What you're missing is that reloading arrows is a nonaction, so you don't need to worry about whether or not you can reload during an AoO.
Not an Action: "Some activities are so minor that they are not even considered free actions. They literally don't take any time at all to do and are considered an inherent part of doing something else, such as nocking an arrow as part of an attack with a bow."
Draw or Sheathe a Weapon: "Drawing ammunition for use with a ranged weapon (such as arrows, bolts, sling bullets, or shuriken) is a free action."
Nocking the arrow is not an action, but drawing the arrow in order to nock it is a free action, and thus can only be done on your turn (unless you have snap shot).
|
|
Regarding Pole-arms, Gauntlets and AoOs:
I don't see the problem. As blackbloodtroll has pointed out, there are a whole bunch of ways (many of them much better than a spiked gauntlet) to attack within your reach without needing worry about whether or not you're wielding something.
Spiked armor does more damage (as is appropriate for a martial vs simple weapon) AND doesn't need to be held in your hand? Why even bother with spiked gauntlets?
Wait.... Gauntlets are part of your armor. So just spike your armor in the vicinity of your gauntlets. Somehow, the damage went up a die.
|
|
Not an Action: "Some activities are so minor that they are not even considered free actions. They literally don't take any time at all to do and are considered an inherent part of doing something else, such as nocking an arrow as part of an attack with a bow."
Draw or Sheathe a Weapon: "Drawing ammunition for use with a ranged weapon (such as arrows, bolts, sling bullets, or shuriken) is a free action."
Nocking the arrow is not an action, but drawing the arrow in order to nock it is a free action, and thus can only be done on your turn (unless you have snap shot).
Oops. Looks like you two resolved the discussion anyway.
|
|
This argument is very silly.
Spiked gauntlets, like the boulder helmet, like the tail knife thing, like the armor spikes, does NOT require an open hand. It's a worn weapon, like all the others.
The fact that you're holding two maces, or a two handed spear, or anything else, non concern. So long as you're wearing the gauntlets and your arm isn't tied behind your back, you are ready to use them, they are wielded.
Forget the grip argument. Forget the action economy argument. They are invalid. Keep your hands glued to your weapons, potions, scrolls, wands, or whatever else you're holding, and punch a dude. The rules do not prevent it in any way.
* You cannot attack with a two-handed weapon unles you have two hands available to grip the weapon as you attack
While this is sort of true, you not only need to have two hands available, you have to actually use both of them.
* This means you only need to use two hands on the weapon as you execute the attack, not before or after
This agrees that you must use both hands in order to attack. Which means being able to attack is dependent on using both hands. Not just being able to use both of them, but actually using them. If you do not actually use both hands, you cannot attack.
This means that you must put your 2nd hand on the weapon before you can attack with it.
* This means that you do threaten if you have both hands available to grip the weapon, even if only one hand is holding it
This is incorrect. Since you must put your 2nd hand on the weapon before you can attack with it, you do not threaten until you've put your 2nd hand on the weapon.
You cannot wield two weapons in the same hand.
More importantly, you cannot threaten with two weapons, wielded in the same hand.
And if the rules actually said this, it would certainly legitimize that whole argument.
Can a creature with claws, threaten with both the claws, and the polearm wielded in the same hand?
Here's one which I think better gets at your point:
A creature has a bite attack, gore attack, and is wearing a barbazu beard. With which weapons does it threaten?
Side note: During a full-attack, it can attack with any 2 of those weapons, but not with all three.
|
|
Quoted from the bestiary:
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). Such creatures attack with their weapons normally but treat all of their natural attacks as secondary attacks during that attack, regardless of the attack’s original type.
So, claw with a spear, not -usually-, but not always, depends on the critter.(See often, rather than always).
And that's only for full attacks, hm. There's still nothing saying you can't claw with a spear, you just can't mix it into a full attack with the spear... often...