Firstly I know that this has been discussed in other threads but hear me out.
Now according to the core rulebook,
"If you have a base attack bonus of +1 or higher, you may draw a weapon as a free action combined with a regular move."
Now I understand that there was some debate as to what "a regular move" really meant, and in a lot of the threads they seemed to classify it as actually moving your character (like in feet) as part of a move action. But if you look at the quickdraw feat, near the end it says, "Without this feat, you may draw a weapon as a move action, or (if your base attack bonus is +1 or higher) as a free action as part of movement."
So here in the book it just classifies the prerequisite as just "movement" and if you look under 5-foot step it says, "You can move 5 feet in any round when you don't perform any other kind of movement." Since it says 'any other' this would mean that the book classifies a 5-foot step as "movement"
So would I be able to draw a weapon as part of a 5-foot step with a BAB +1?
no
Why not
We do in my games, but that is a house rule. By RAW, the drawing combined with movement is specifically stated as a "regular move" only. A 5-ft step is not classified as a regular move, it is classified as a miscellaneous action.
We do in my games, but that is a house rule. By RAW, the drawing combined with movement is specifically stated as a "regular move" only. A 5-ft step is not classified as a regular move, it is classified as a miscellaneous action.
I know it's stated as "regular move" but like I said, it's also stated as just "movement". I quoted it in my original post.
A 5ft. step is not a move action to move.
You sort pointed to some of the evidence yourself.
What you trying to draw? By which I mean, what kind of weapon?
I know it's not a move action, but like I said it's still "movement"
As to what this is all about, one of my friends says that technically by RAW you can start a round with two throwing weapons, throw them as part of a full attack, 5 foot step in-between the full attack to draw two more, and throw those as well. (if you have enough attacks of course)
"regular move" = move action used to move.
What do you make of what is says for drawing with a BAB of +1 under the quick-draw feat then? "Without this feat, you may draw a weapon as a move action, or (if your base attack bonus is +1 or higher) as a free action as part of movement."
Is the wording just bad in this case? or did the book really mean just movement. Is there someplace where it classifies "regular moves" further?
*EDIT* also sorry if I'm coming off as persnickety, contradictions like this just get me kind of riled.
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Taking "movement" in the Feats chapter to mean any and all forms of movement would flatly contradict the "regular move" passage. Conversely, taking "regular move" to mean what it says does not force the Feats reference to be untrue (just less specific). Thus, when one interpretation breaks a clear rule and another interpretation causes no problems whatsoever, it should be obvious which one is probably correct.
Yes. Under the actions table in combat. Move is defined as the base movement and it takes a move action to perform.
A 5' step is defined as no action, so it does not count as a movement.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
contradictions like this just get me kind of riled.
There is no contradiction. Something being stated twice, with one instance not being quite as specific, is not a contradiction. It would only be a contradiction if it were impossible to satisfy both at once. But that's not the case: satisfying the more specific passage will always satisfy the other.
There is no contradiction.
It's like if I pointed at a creature and said "Look, it's an ogre! And an ugly ogre at that!"
Then you're saying "That's a contradiction! Which is he, and ogre or an ugly ogre?"
I'm not sure how to make it much clearer without going so far down into basic reading comprehension and fundamental logic that it would sound insulting.
Taking "movement" in the Feats chapter to mean any and all forms of movement would flatly contradict the "regular move" passage. Conversely, taking "regular move" to mean what it says does not force the Feats reference to be untrue (just less specific). Thus, when one interpretation breaks a clear rule and another interpretation causes no problems whatsoever, it should be obvious which one is probably correct.
Thank you, I get what you are saying and it makes sense. I guess I was just thinking that maybe "regular move" really just meant literally any form of movement since regular move itself is loosely defined in the book and the description under the feat sort of pushed it that way.
**EDIT**
There is no contradiction. Something being stated twice, with one instance not being quite as specific, is not a contradiction. It would only be a contradiction if it were impossible to satisfy both at once. But that's not the case: satisfying the more specific passage will always satisfy the other.
There is no contradiction.
Yeah thanks a lot for clearing that up, I understand it now and realize that it wasn't really a contradiction more so my brain just getting really confused. I'll try to think things out more myself in the future before letting it get the better of me.
noWhy not
Simple: Because it would make the Quickdraw Feat pointless.
If I do a normal move I can already draw my weapon anyway, which means the only situations where that even matters is if you don't have to move in the first place, and most likely want to use a Full-round action to attack.
So let's assume I'm standing right next to an enemy and have my weapon sheathed.
Now I could stand still and spend a move action on drawing my sword and do a single attack. Or I could take a 5-ft step to the right, still within range of the enemy and draw my sword as free and then full attack.
Does that seem logical to you?
Does that seem logical to you?
No it doesn't, which was partly why I was confused as to why it was worded that way. But Jiggy pointed out that even though it's worded different doesn't mean it suddenly overrides the more specific definition. So thanks for all your guys' input in clearing this up for me. I know it seems silly but it really helped.
As to what this is all about, one of my friends says that technically by RAW you can start a round with two throwing weapons, throw them as part of a full attack, 5 foot step in-between the full attack to draw two more, and throw those as well. (if you have enough attacks of course)
Your friend is wrong. He is right up to the part where he five foot steps. All adter that is wrong.
If you already have two throwing weapons ready at the start of a round you can indead throw them both as part of a full attack. You can also always take a five foot step during a full attack.
What he cannot do (without Quick Draw) is draw any more weapons. Quick Draw explicitly calls that out as a benefit.
A character who has selected this feat may throw weapons at his full normal rate of attacks (much like a character with a bow).
It is listed in the benefits section of the feat. Ergo you cannot do so without the feat.
YES you can do this. No doubt. But you need the quick draw feat. :)
Your friend is wrong.
Yeah I realize that now. He was basically trying to weasel out of spending a feat on quickdraw, and he made it sound kind of convincing but as others have pointed out, regardless of semi-ambiguous wording, you still need the feat in order to throw like that.
Blinking your eye is "movement." Should you be able to draw your weapon as part of an eye blink?
Look, Ravingdork, when I take a dump it's 'movement', it doesn't mean I can pull my sword at the same time.
I usually have my "sword" out when taking a "movement!"
I usually have my "sword" out when taking a "movement!"
Look, Ravingdork, when I take a dump it's 'movement', it doesn't mean I can pull my sword at the same time.
Tee hee hee