Reach and Gauntlets


Rules Questions

1 to 50 of 139 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Ok, you have your reach weapon, and you have a spiked gauntlet or two on.

Some guy is all up in your face. Due to having the gauntlets on, are you threatening the area around yourself, since nothing stops you from popping someone with your gauntlets?


yes.


why would you lose your reach weapon just because you happen to be holding it with "metal gloves"?

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

I was more asking about losing the 'metal glove' threat zone due to holding the reach weapon.

But I always figured you could hold the weapon one handed for the moment it takes to give someone a black eye.


Yeah, if some baddie gets in your face:

1. Free action to remove gauntlet'd hand from your two-handed reach weapon while still holding it with the other hand.
2. Punch baddie in face with combat actions (Standard, Full, etc.)
3. Free action to put your hand back on your two-handed reach weapon.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Right, but until you take that 'free' action, are you still threatening(since you could do that any time?) Or do you have to blurt out loudly 'I AM GOING ONE HANDED' as the bad guy does something you want to punish him for while adjacent.


Can you give an example of a situation for what you're asking about?

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Foolish mage is trapped against a wall and thinks he is clever, so he steps towards the reach weapon user, believing himself safe! He then casts a spell.

Do I get AoO?


Well, most likely he five-foot-stepped to get next to you, so no AoO from your reach weapon as they move next to you. But yes, if he begins to cast, you can punch him in the mouth with your gauntlet via an AoO...assuming the caster doesn't successfully cast defensively.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Excellent!

Many thanks, that is what I was wanting to know. Filling in that 5 foot circle with threatened squares seems like a solid idea.


This kind of thing really starts to shine if you incorporate Combat Reflexes, Whirlwind Attack, etc.


Lamontius wrote:

Well, most likely he five-foot-stepped to get next to you, so no AoO from your reach weapon as they move next to you. But yes, if he begins to cast, you can punch him in the mouth with your gauntlet via an AoO...assuming the caster doesn't successfully cast defensively.

So, if you can punch the caster in the mouth while holding the reach weapon, there's really no need for you to take a free action to take your hand off the weapon.


Well if you want to think of it that way just take Catch Off-Guard as a feat and treat the polearm haft as your improvised weapon.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Except this way doesn't require a feat, so yay!

Silver Crusade

Actually, people don't always use the term 'free action' correctly, sometimes leading to confusion.

A free action can only be done on your own turn (with the exception of speaking and, as a by-product of a recent errata, drawing ammunition).

However, when wielding a weapon in two hands you can switch to holding it in one hand, and/or add your free hand to be holding it in two, and this switching is not an action (in terms of free/swift/move/standard/etc); it is a non-action, like nocking an already drawn arrow to your bow.

Much like jumping is not an action itself, but part of movement, changing grip is not an action itself, but part of another action; typically an attack.

The upshot is that, when holding a two-handed reach weapon and wearing a spiked gauntlet, you threaten both 5-feet (with the spiked gauntlets) AND 10-feet (with the reach weapon), as it doesn't cost any type of action to take your gauntletted hand off the reach weapon as you punch the cheeky mage, nor to use both hands to spear his charging ally a moment later.


does a gauntlet make it so you can unarmed with no penalty? AoO, etc?

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

My dwarf could not be happier.


IejirIsk wrote:
does a gauntlet make it so you can unarmed with no penalty? AoO, etc?

... wrong link... and this seems a tad broken when you deal with monks and reach...

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

A gauntlet is not unarmed, I thought?

Silver Crusade

You count as armed when using a spiked gauntlet (so you threaten with it), but not a normal gauntlet (so you don't threaten with that).

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Excellent, all is well then.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

Armor Spikes will work better, as you won't have to ungrip a two-handed Polearm.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Malachi Silverclaw wrote:


However, when wielding a weapon in two hands you can switch to holding it in one hand, and/or add your free hand to be holding it in two, and this switching is not an action (in terms of free/swift/move/standard/etc); it is a non-action, like nocking an already drawn arrow to your bow.

That's an interesting take, do you have a source on this, that removing a hand from a weapon is a not an action?


2 people marked this as a favorite.

kick them with a boot knife .

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

Basically, you want a weapon that you can attack with, without using your hands.

Armor Spikes, Ratfolk Tailblade, Dwarven Boulder Helmet, Kobold Tail Attachments, Boot Blade, Barbazu Beard, and the Unarmed Strike all work.


Quantum Steve wrote:
Malachi Silverclaw wrote:


However, when wielding a weapon in two hands you can switch to holding it in one hand, and/or add your free hand to be holding it in two, and this switching is not an action (in terms of free/swift/move/standard/etc); it is a non-action, like nocking an already drawn arrow to your bow.

That's an interesting take, do you have a source on this, that removing a hand from a weapon is a not an action?

I'd like to see a quote or source, too. I was sure it was a free action and as such not possible when it's not your turn.

Silver Crusade

Umbranus wrote:
Quantum Steve wrote:
Malachi Silverclaw wrote:


However, when wielding a weapon in two hands you can switch to holding it in one hand, and/or add your free hand to be holding it in two, and this switching is not an action (in terms of free/swift/move/standard/etc); it is a non-action, like nocking an already drawn arrow to your bow.

That's an interesting take, do you have a source on this, that removing a hand from a weapon is a not an action?

I'd like to see a quote or source, too. I was sure it was a free action and as such not possible when it's not your turn.

An understandible desire!

Go to the combat chapter, and then the Actions In Combat tables. All the actions that you can do that consume a game action (standard, move, full-round, free, swift, immediate) are listed, as well as wether or not the listed action provokes an AoO.

Check the Standard Action table. Is 'changing grip on a weapon' there? No.

Okay, now check the Move Action table. Is it there? No.

Full-Round Action? No.

Free Action? No.

Swift Action? No.

Immediate Action? No.

What about 'No Action'? It lists 'Delay' and '5-foot step', but that's just to clarify that these two defined game actions do not consume any action type.

In the text after the tables:-

Not An Action wrote:
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.

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)!

Although it is important to list any action which does consume a game action, and to define what action type it consumes, there is no similar requirement to list every possible action which does not consume a game action! The CRB would have to be infinitely large to list every non-action!

Thus, the Actions In Combat tables list every action which does consume a game action, and if something is not on there than it does not consume a game action!

Changing grip on a weapon is not some esoteric corner case! If the 3.0, 3.5 or PF devs wanted grip-changing to consume some kind of action they've had plenty of time (since the last millenium) and opportunity (three editions) to add 'grip-changing' to the Actions In Combat tables!

According to RAW, and real life, in order to attack with a two-handed weapon (or attack with a one-handed weapon in two hands):-

Quote:
Two hands are required to use a two-handed melee weapon effectively.

And what does 'use' mean? That's right, it means 'attack'!

At the moment you make an attack with a two-handed weapon, you must have two hands free to hold that weapon at that moment. At all other times (i.e. when not in the actual process of executing an attack) only one hand is required to hold it!

This perfectly reflects real life. It's nice when real life and the rules match! In reality, a two-handed weapon is not wielded with both hands 'glued' to the weapon! Both hands are constantly shifting; letting go and re-gripping many times over a six second period! Visualise a competant quarterstaff wielder! I've been privileged to watch greatsword combat demonstrations in the Royal Armouries, and those demonstrations are reconstructed from actual combat manuals contempory with the weapon's historical use. Their hands are flying all over the weapon! Changing grip is constant and unceasing. All that is required is that, at any instant, at least one hand is holding the thing!

Attacking with a two-handed weapon requires both hands to be available to use the weapon at the moment the attack is executed; both hands are not required to hold it between attacks!

I can't point to a rules quote that does not exist, of course, but the burden of proof is on those who think that grip-changing does consume a game action!


Lamontius wrote:


Well if you want to think of it that way just take Catch Off-Guard as a feat and treat the polearm haft as your improvised weapon.

I've read here on the forums that that isn't kosher due to "game balance issues".

I've no comment whatsoever on game balance, but I do know from stick and staff fighting that smashing people in the grill with the butt of the weapon or the bit of the haft that's between both hands not only works well but sucks to be the recipient of!


Umbranus wrote:
That's an interesting take, do you have a source on this, that removing a hand from a weapon is a not an action?

The action to remove/replace a hand on a weapon is not listed in the book.

However, the most closely related action (dropping an item) is listed as a free action. And James Jacobs says it's a free action.

This means, for the polearm guy, he has to decide on his turn which weapon he's wielding, the polearm (with both hands) or the gauntlet (with one hand, thus just holding the polearm and not wielding it, and thus not threatening with it).

If you make it a non-action, that means you threaten with a weapon you're not wielding, which is clearly not the intent. (Hold greatsword in one hand, keep one hand free, but still somehow threaten with greatsword since you could put your hand back on after someone provokes in a square you would otherwise not threaten since you're holding it, not wielding it).

There is a third party which claims it's a move action, and has a whole host of extra rules they use to prevent this from breaking the game.

There's a closed 10-page thread on this issue here if you'd like to read all the arguments (and lack of arguments) for each position.


Malachi Silverclaw wrote:

At the moment you make an attack with a two-handed weapon, you must have two hands free to hold that weapon at that moment. At all other times (i.e. when not in the actual process of executing an attack) only one hand is required to hold it!

This perfectly reflects real life. It's nice when real life and the rules match! In reality, a two-handed weapon is not wielded with both hands 'glued' to the weapon! Both hands are constantly shifting; letting go and re-gripping many times over a six second period! Visualise a competant quarterstaff wielder! I've been privileged to watch greatsword combat demonstrations in the Royal Armouries, and those demonstrations are reconstructed from actual combat manuals contempory with the weapon's historical use. Their hands are flying all over the weapon! Changing grip is constant and unceasing. All that is required is that, at any instant, at least one hand is holding the thing!

Attacking with a two-handed weapon requires both hands to be available to use the weapon at the moment the attack is executed; both hands are not required to hold it between attacks!

Right on! The greatsword is often used more like a short spear or bayonet, and sometimes even one-handed when smashing people in the face or wherever with the pommel or quillons.


I think I agree with your overall conclusion, just not necessarily with the logic you use to get there. Every hand-me-down detail in the Pathfinder books isn't necessarily 100% deliberate (especially when the basic rules functions changed between editions, breaking rules that previously worked) and every edition of errata is further proof of that; a year ago, if I asked you if Rogues and Rogues only were supposed to be able to disarm certain magical traps (whether or not they had Trapfinding, even) then you could leverage that logic to say that it was obviously supposed to be that way because it was there. But now we see that is being cleared up.

I can even point you to a 'changing your grip' ability. IIRC, the Polearm Master can change his grip as a Swift action so his weapon threatens adjacent squares instead of having reach. Still, I won't say that putting your hand on or off a weapon you're already wielding isn't literally the same thing (it's already well-established that a paladin can take one hand off her greatsword, cast a spell, and put it back on without consuming a Swift action after all).

This is a very interesting subject, though. If you don't have both hands on a weapon, do you threaten with it?

Suppose a goblin runs between two paladins. Both paladins are casually carrying a greatsword in one hand, but one of the paladins has a torch in her off-hand. Does the paladin with just a greatsword threaten, triggering an attack of opportunity which allows her to place her hand on the weapon and make an attack? Does the other paladin threaten, or do we have a chicken-and-egg situation where her torch prevents her from wielding the sword, and not wielding the sword prevents her from getting an attack of opportunity, and because she can't perform an action (the AoO) she can't drop the torch as a free action?

What about a fighter with one of those rings of shielding? If he is apparently unarmed and somebody moves in his range, can he activate the force shield as a free action and perform a shield bash just because he could be armed? Maybe recovering a weapon with a weapon cord is asking for too much as a Swift action, but this action is equally free, unless somebody wants to argue that a free action takes up more time than another type of action which has yet to be named or defined.


Troubleshooter wrote:
If you don't have both hands on a weapon, do you threaten with it?

James is very clear that when you're holding a two-handed weapon in one hand, you're holding it, not wielding it, and you don't threaten with it.

Wizards used to not be inclined to use a quarterstaff as their bonded object, because they had to wield it, which means they generally didn't have a hand free for spellcasting. The rule was (mostly) changed to only require that they hold it, not wield it, specifically for this reason.

The rules say "Two hands are required to use a two-handed melee weapon effectively."

To most of us, that means you must be wielding the weapon in two hands.

To some others, it means you just need a hand free.

Troubleshooter wrote:
Suppose a goblin runs between two paladins. Both paladins are casually carrying a greatsword in one hand, but one of the paladins has a torch in her off-hand. Does the paladin with just a greatsword threaten, triggering an attack of opportunity which allows her to place her hand on the weapon and make an attack? Does the other paladin threaten, or do we have a chicken-and-egg situation where her torch prevents her from wielding the sword, and not wielding the sword prevents her from getting an attack of opportunity, and because she can't perform an action (the AoO) she can't drop the torch as a free action?

The paladin with the torch threatens, since she could hit the goblin with the torch.

Neither of them are wielding their greatswords, so neither of them threaten with those greatswords. (Unless you rule that you don't actually need to wield a weapon in order to threaten with it, or redefine wielding as having the potential to wield it if certain conditions are met.)

Troubleshooter wrote:
What about a fighter with one of those rings of shielding?

Activating a Ring of Force Shield is a free action, so it can only be done on your turn.


i think that the round system is an abstraction, and instead of "taking turns" all of that stuff is sort of happening simultaneously. So I could certainly see an argument/situation where you take your hand off the spear to punch an adjacent guy and miss a chance to hit somebody at range because you're out of position for that half-second or whatever.

On the other hand, somebody with improved unarmed strike kicking a dude who runs up to him, while continuing to threaten with the spear, is perfectly reasonable kung-fu movie stuff.

So I guess (if it were up to me) I would say that gauntlets don't cut it, but improved unarmed strike or maybe armor spikes (if they're on your boots or helmet or something) would be ok.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Alright, I'll just use a boulder hat and avoid the whole argument. Anyone getting too close is getting headbutted, reach weapon or not.


Anyways... spiked gauntlets are a light weapon. You cannot wield a two-handed weapon while wielding spiked gauntlets, period. You can wield a single spiked gauntlets and then a one-handed weapon in the other hand, which make the whole reach discussion (barring the small lance issue, but...).
It's like a dagger, not like gauntlets (which are in the "unarmed weapons" category for a reason). You can't wield a dagger AND a 2H weapon at the same time, right? (leaving aside the Quick Draw question)


FlorianF wrote:
Anyways... spiked gauntlets are a light weapon.

All the fist-type weapons are light weapons. Gauntlets, spiked gauntlets, cestus, etc.

FlorianF wrote:
You cannot wield a two-handed weapon while wielding spiked gauntlets, period.

Wield no, hold yes.

You can wield a sword while wearing a gauntlet.

You can wield a gauntlet while holding a sword.

You just can't do both at the same time.

Silver Crusade

Wearing a gauntlet does not prevent that hand from using a weapon.

In order to threaten with a particular weapon you must be able to attack with it without consuming any game action between the provoking and the AoO, and since dropping an item consumes a free action (so can only be done on your own turn) then the paladin with a torch in one hand and a greatsword in the other does not threaten with the greatsword.

The other guy threatens. If you have nothing in either hand except the greatsword, then you have both hands free to use the greatsword!

A word of advice; avoid the word 'wield' like the plague when discussing this subject! Why? Because it is used to mean two entirely different things, both in conversation and in the rulebooks! This is why the Bonded Object thing had to be errata'd; because 'wield' was being used in one sense while being misunderstood as the other.

'Wield' a weapon is used to mean 'held in one or two hands'.

'Wield' is also used to mean 'execute an attack with' a weapon.

So, 'you must be wielding a weapon to wield a weapon' could mean:-

* you must be holding a weapon to attack with it (true)

* you must be holding a two-handed weapon in two hands to execute an attack with it (true)

* you must be wielding a drawn two-handed weapon in two hands before you can attack with it (false if 'wielding' means 'attacking', as you need two hands to attack with it, not to hold it between attacks)

Because grip-changing has never been defined in the rules, different people have made different assumptions over the years, including the devs! But since this is a rules question, the rule-set does not require grip-changing to consume a game action.

To make sense of this, a two-handed weapon is constantly being re-gripped during normal use, that is, making attacks. This process does not stop when it isn't your 'turn' in combat! It is part of attacking with the weapon, and if the rules allow you to execute an attack outside of your own turn (AoO) then neither the rules nor common sense stops you from shifting your grip as part of any attack with it, wether it's your 'turn' or not!

As Grick has pointed out, there is serious disagreement in the community on this issue. We all wish the devs would make it clear if re-gripping consumes some kind of action or not.

An interesting recent development is that 'drawing ammunition', a free action(and therefore do-able only on your own turn), now can be done outside your own turn! In a recent errata the feat (I forget the name; Grick will know) which allows you to shoot a bow as an AoO, and to do so as many times as Combat Reflexes allows, must involve drawing arrows when it's not your turn! There is no mention of this out-of-turn free action being tied to possessing this feat! The upshot is that, even if the devs were to finally rule on the issue of re-gripping, and if the devs were to say re-gripping consumes a free action, there is a case to be made that it would be a free action that can be used outside your own turn! This would mean that you would threaten with a greatsword while holding it in one hand while the other is free, even if the devs say it's a free action, and that a reach-weapon and spiked gauntlet user threatens 5-feet AND 10-feet. Just like he already does with reach weapon/armour spikes.

Since a reach weapon/armour spikes combo already threatens 5-feet and 10-feet, the combo with spiked gauntlets isn't going to break your game!


Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
An interesting recent development is that 'drawing ammunition', a free action(and therefore do-able only on your own turn), now can be done outside your own turn! In a recent errata the feat (I forget the name; Grick will know) which allows you to shoot a bow as an AoO, and to do so as many times as Combat Reflexes allows, must involve drawing arrows when it's not your turn! There is no mention of this out-of-turn free action being tied to possessing this feat!

It was not errata, it was a FAQ.

FAQ wrote:

Snap Shot: Can a character with Snap Shot (page 119) and Combat Reflexes make multiple attacks of opportunity with a ranged weapon, assuming that loading the ranged weapon is a free action?

Yes. As long as you can reload your weapon with a free action you can reload your weapon as part of the ranged attack attack of opportunity you are making with the Snap Shot feat.

—Stephen Radney-MacFarland, 10/13/11

And, as you can see, it does mention specifically that you can only do so as part of the AoO using Snap Shot.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

Why fiddle around with ungripping, and using a haft as an improvised weapon, when there are viable options already presented?

Armor Spikes, Ratfolk Tailblade, Dwarven Boulder Helmet, Kobold Tail Attachments, Boot Blade, Barbazu Beard, and the Unarmed Strike are all options that don't require needless mining into the rules.

Why would someone want to create a headache for themselves with uncertain, and mechanically inferior options?

Silver Crusade

Grick wrote:
Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
An interesting recent development is that 'drawing ammunition', a free action(and therefore do-able only on your own turn), now can be done outside your own turn! In a recent errata the feat (I forget the name; Grick will know) which allows you to shoot a bow as an AoO, and to do so as many times as Combat Reflexes allows, must involve drawing arrows when it's not your turn! There is no mention of this out-of-turn free action being tied to possessing this feat!

It was not errata, it was a FAQ.

FAQ wrote:

Snap Shot: Can a character with Snap Shot (page 119) and Combat Reflexes make multiple attacks of opportunity with a ranged weapon, assuming that loading the ranged weapon is a free action?

Yes. As long as you can reload your weapon with a free action you can reload your weapon as part of the ranged attack attack of opportunity you are making with the Snap Shot feat.

—Stephen Radney-MacFarland, 10/13/11

And, as you can see, it does mention specifically that you can only do so as part of the AoO using Snap Shot.

Cheers Grick! I continue to be in awe of your search-fu. : )

Forgive my mixing errata and FAQ.

Grick wrote:
And, as you can see, it does mention specifically that you can only do so as part of the AoO using Snap Shot.

Er....I don't see that at all!

The FAQ wrote:
As long as you can reload your weapon with a free action you can reload your weapon as part of the ranged attack attack of opportunity you are making with the Snap Shot feat.

First, the answer mentions the Snap Shot feat because the question is about the Snap Shot feat! It's entirely reasonable to read it as saying, 'As long as you can reload your weapon with a free action you can reload your weapon as part of the ranged attack attack of opportunity you are making with the Snap Shot feat, just like you can reload your weapon as part of any ranged attack of opportunity!'

It could be read either way, and if we look at the feat itself, it mentions nothing about any action being required to draw ammunition, so the feat itself makes no claim to be changing the free action to be useable outside your own turn! It's just as reasonable to read it as always being the case, and the FAQ just says it also applies when using Snap Shot and Combat Reflexes together.

While the feat, and it's FAQ, could be read either way, what is certain is that the free action of drawing ammunition can be done outside your own turn! The only dispute here is wether or not it applies generally or only when using the feat! Both the feat, and it's FAQ, remain silent on the issue!

I'd say that each DM would have to make a ruling at their table, but at the moment I can't think that the subject can come up unless using Snap Shot!


Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
First, the answer mentions the Snap Shot feat because the question is about the Snap Shot feat!

Correct. You can reload during an AoO you make using the feat.

If there was some other way of making a ranged attack AoO, that FAQ wouldn't apply, because it's specifically about snap shot.

Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
if we look at the feat itself, it mentions nothing about any action being required to draw ammunition, so the feat itself makes no claim to be changing the free action to be useable outside your own turn!

Correct, which is why pre-FAQ, you couldn't make multiple ranged AoOs. That's the whole point of it.

Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
what is certain is that the free action of drawing ammunition can be done outside your own turn! The only dispute here is wether or not it applies generally or only when using the feat!

"...you can reload your weapon as part of the ranged attack attack of opportunity you are making with the Snap Shot feat."

That's very specifically talking about an AoO with snap shot. There is nothing general about it.

In any case, there's already precedent for free actions being taken outside your turn. In general, speaking is a free action that you can perform even when it isn't your turn. This doesn't mean all free actions can be taken outside your turn, in fact it directly implies the opposite.

Silver Crusade

Grick wrote:
If there was some other way of making a ranged attack AoO, that FAQ wouldn't apply, because it's specifically about snap shot.

Any other way of making ranged attack AoOs must allow that free action outside your own turn, or it wouldn't work!

Quote:
Correct, which is why pre-FAQ, you couldn't make multiple ranged AoOs. That's the whole point of it.

Yes you could! It's just that people didn't realise this, so asked the question! As you pointed out, it's a FAQ, not an errata!

You can reload outside your own turn using Snap Shot. This doesn't mean you can't if not using Snap Shot! The sentence would be written exactly the same way if it were a general rule!

The FAQ says nothing about being able to reload outside your own turn because Snap Shot changes the rule!


Nuku wrote:
Alright, I'll just use a boulder hat and avoid the whole argument. Anyone getting too close is getting headbutted, reach weapon or not.

buy armor spikes.


Okay, the Spiked-gauntlet vs Spiked-Armor 'remove a hand from the haft or don't' debate aside...

...what about Whirlwind Attack? Say you have either of the two options list above. Can you whirlwind to hit everything within 5 feet and 10 feet? Say you're Enlarged? Can you hit everything within 5, 10 and 15 feet?


Lamontius wrote:


Okay, the Spiked-gauntlet vs Spiked-Armor 'remove a hand from the haft or don't' debate aside...

...what about Whirlwind Attack? Say you have either of the two options list above. Can you whirlwind to hit everything within 5 feet and 10 feet? Say you're Enlarged? Can you hit everything within 5, 10 and 15 feet?

I can not see why not.


Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
Any other way of making ranged attack AoOs must allow that free action outside your own turn, or it wouldn't work!

Correct, without something saying otherwise, it doesn't work.

Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
Yes you could! It's just that people didn't realise this, so asked the question! As you pointed out, it's a FAQ, not an errata!

The FAQ can and does change the rules. Errata are changes to the printed/published material.

Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
You can reload outside your own turn using Snap Shot. This doesn't mean you can't if not using Snap Shot!

Incorrect. When not using snap shot, you cannot reload outside of your turn, because doing so is a free action (or move action or whatever) which can only be done on your turn.

If I'm just standing around holding an unloaded crossbow, I can't spontaneously load it when it's not my turn unless I can reload it as an immediate action.

Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
The FAQ says nothing about being able to reload outside your own turn because Snap Shot changes the rule!

The FAQ does talk about reloading outside your turn, it says you can do so as part of the AoO you are making with the Snap Shot feat.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

I can just barely afford the boulder helmet, not enough for armor spikes. The boulder helmet has side benefits anyway, and who can argue with a headbutting dwarf?


Nicos wrote:
Lamontius wrote:


Okay, the Spiked-gauntlet vs Spiked-Armor 'remove a hand from the haft or don't' debate aside...

...what about Whirlwind Attack? Say you have either of the two options list above. Can you whirlwind to hit everything within 5 feet and 10 feet? Say you're Enlarged? Can you hit everything within 5, 10 and 15 feet?

I can not see why not.

My wife and I sat down and put our thinking caps on when we were building new level 4 characters for our LGS weekly GM-is-a-murder-machine PF game, after our last two finally got smoked.

While my Oath of Vengeance paladin bit the dust in less than two sessions due to hordes of neutral-aligned non-undead hive-mind-controlled-so-they-have-great-tactics high-AC mid-HP mooks, the Horsechopper-wielding Whirlwind Attack fighter we built for her has just been laying waste to everything in sight.

In fact, it has the GM tearing his hair out to the extent to which he ruled that she can only take one free action per turn and only wield one of her weapons per turn...either her reach-giving Horsechopper or her 5' Cestus hand. This kinda got me on this whole thread because I didn't think that was right, but then again, nothing much about his game is.

Now, it's only a matter of time until he capitalizes on her poor Will save and destroys her, but for now even with the above ruling she is just decimating waves of mooks per turn.


Lamontius wrote:
Nicos wrote:
Lamontius wrote:


Okay, the Spiked-gauntlet vs Spiked-Armor 'remove a hand from the haft or don't' debate aside...

...what about Whirlwind Attack? Say you have either of the two options list above. Can you whirlwind to hit everything within 5 feet and 10 feet? Say you're Enlarged? Can you hit everything within 5, 10 and 15 feet?

I can not see why not.

My wife and I sat down and put our thinking caps on when we were building new level 4 characters for our LGS weekly GM-is-a-murder-machine PF game, after our last two finally got smoked.

While my Oath of Vengeance paladin bit the dust in less than two sessions due to hordes of neutral-aligned non-undead hive-mind-controlled-so-they-have-great-tactics high-AC mid-HP mooks, the Horsechopper-wielding Whirlwind Attack fighter we built for her has just been laying waste to everything in sight.

In fact, it has the GM tearing his hair out to the extent to which he ruled that she can only take one free action per turn and only wield one of her weapons per turn...either her reach-giving Horsechopper or her 5' Cestus hand. This kinda got me on this whole thread because I didn't think that was right, but then again, nothing much about his game is.

Now, it's only a matter of time until he capitalizes on her poor Will save and destroys her, but for now even with the above ruling she is just decimating waves of mooks per turn.

mmm, eehh I will say nothing about that weird GM, but if she reach level 6 remeber her to take the lunge feat for even more radius and more attack.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

With so many other options, why do it?

1 to 50 of 139 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Reach and Gauntlets All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.