|
LINKBoth are free actions. For example, a wizard wielding a quarterstaff can let go of the weapon with one hand as a free action, cast a spell as a standard action, and grasp the weapon again with that hand as a free action; this means the wizard is still able to make attacks of opportunity with the weapon (which requires using two hands).
As with any free action, the GM may decide a reasonable limit to how many times per round you can release and re-grasp the weapon (one release and re-grasp per round is fair).
—Pathfinder Design Team, 03/01/13
This question is also up for a FAQ HERE with the arguments completed laid out for both sides.
As you can see from Jiggy above, people against the OPs suggestion are using a ruling that was meant for two-handed melee weapons and are then applying it to range weapons that require two hands.
However, the problem is that 1)bow are not two handed melee weapons; 2) the FAQ addressing Snap Shot states that bows (unlike two-handed melee weapons) can be re-engaged as a free action even when it is not the person turn (making the Crane Wing Block/Reflexive Shot possible); 3) nowhere does it say that bows have to be re-gripped and it is also against common sense.
This FAQ?
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, 10/14/11
You are extending it way beyond what it say.
To make an attack of opportunity you must threaten.
With snap shot you threaten with a bow if it is ready to be used. The FAQ allow you to draw a new arrow after firing one, even if it is not your turn. full stop.
It is there, in the FAQ, I have bolded the relevant text for you.
You reload the bow as part of the ranged attack of opportunity, not as a free action that you can take if you do something different.
No weapon in the game requires two hands to hold, why would the bow be any different?
A two weapon fighter doesn't loose an attack because they made an AOO. And what if the AOO comes after your "turn"? Do you go back and remove damage done by an attack they've already completed?
That's why they simplified it... otherwise it would become a headache. Back in old D&D editions AoO didn't even exist.
There is nothing in the rules that prevents someone with a two handed weapon or a bow getting an AOO with improved unarmed strike or a spiked gauntlet, etc.
There is... it's called a free action. Can be taken on your turn only.
If said Polearm user had deflect/snatch arrows then they could, as a free action, remove their hand from their weapon and utilize that feat. They could not regrip said weapon until it was their turn but could continue to threaten with improved unarmed strike/gauntlet/cestus/et al.
Letting go is a free action too... and multiple free actions are only allowed within reason (as decided by the DM).
Also AoO with melee attacks are easier because you usually keep swinging, poking for openings in your enemie's defenses... AoO (especially with Combat Reflexes) means your gotten good enough to weave your weapons fast enough and at right angles to do so in an effective way, maxing your possible hits. I doubt Gwen Smith is weaving her bow while shoooting.
|
|
The key point here is that bows aren't the same as two handed melee weapons, because the melee weapons require both hands to remain on the weapon the entire time they're used. Bows don't. I really don't understand all the people who are ignoring that fact. Just because they both require two hands to use, it doesn't mean that you're required to keep two hands on them when you're not using them in order to be ready to instantly use them again. Anyone who has ever actually seen a bow and arrow used should know this.
Fromper, the difference is between the question in the title of thr thread:
Do I have a "free hand" when using a bow?and the questions that Torger actually asked.
When wielding a bow am I considered to have a free hand for the purpose of such things as- taking unarmed AoOs with the improved unarmed strike feat?
- making use of the Crane Wing style feat?
- making use of Deflect or Snatch Arrows?or really any other ability that requires a "free hand" to use.
The answer to the thread title question is No, you don't have a free hand wile using a bow.
The answer to the other questions is "Depend".
- taking unarmed AoOs with the improved unarmed strike feat?
Yes, you can kick while firing, or you can take the AoO with your hand if you aren't using the bow but simply holding it in a hand.
- making use of the Crane Wing style feat?
Off turn, if you have not draw a arrow. But that mean that you can't use snap shot. I.e., you can end your turn with a hand free while holding the bow in the other hand. Your bow isn't ready for use during the off part of the turn.
- making use of Deflect or Snatch Arrows?
Same as above.
|
|
It's my understanding that an archer who is holding his bow while fighting with his backup melee weapon could get disarmed of the melee weapon while it's not his turn and be fully capable of using Snap Shot without having to first have a turn in which he can put a hand (somewhere?) on his bow as a free action.
Actually the FAQ say exactly the opposite. Off turn "you can reload your weapon as part of the ranged attack attack of opportunity".
That implies that you can't reload it off turn unless you have made a "ranged attack attack of opportunity".So your disarmed archer is a guy with a bow in a hand, a empty hand and a quiver full of arrow.
If he has quickdraw he can't draw a new weapon as a free action off turn and he can't draw a new arrow for his bow off turn.
I agree that someone can hold a bow in one hand without it effecting his attacks or actions with his other hand, or his ability to shoot arrows with the bow if need be.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Melee weapons have three categories: light, one-handed and two-handed.
But ranged weapons don't.
A bow requires two hands to use. Using a bow means shooting an arrow from it. In order to use/shoot an arrow from a bow, you require two hands. The very act of shooting an arrow from a bow requires you to let go of the bowstring, leaving that hand free.
Unlike letting a greatsword go with one hand (which requires a free action which can only be taken on your own turn), letting go of the bowstring while shooting an arrow is not a separate action (not even a free action), it is part of the attack action.
Drawing a weapon with Quick Draw is a free action. Thus it can only be done on your own turn. But drawing ammunition, although a free action, can be done outside your own turn; read the Snap Shot feat.
Further, nocking an arrow (which involves re-gripping the bow-string) is not an action at all, but part of the attack action with a bow, as stated in the CRB.
So, when not actually in the action of shooting an arrow, the archer has a free hand. He can use that hand for anything he likes (Crane Wing, Deflect Missiles, etc.), but if he is holding anything in that hand then he can't use it to shoot the bow, and he can't let go of anything outside his own turn because that takes a free action.
So, he's golden unless he provoked an AoO by shooting an arrow! If that is the case, he doesn't have a free hand to use Crane Wing because he is in the act of using his bow, which requires two hands.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The people in favor of letting the archer use crane wing or snatch/deflect arrows keep using the "off-turn" as some sort of additional time that the combatant has when really, each turn is happening at the same time. The only reason things like attacks of opportunity exist because a person can react to things as they happen. If someone runs past you its not hard to stick your hand out and punch them, but this still has to happen in the 6 seconds in which everyone's turn is going on. They're there because its more realistic than
"Sorry, you used your action to hit someone else while he was running past you even though you didn't know he was running past you because your turn happened first and he was 15 feet away on your turn."
Can you imagine the nightmare it would be if we tried to figure everything that happened out at the same time?
Because we're human and not computers we have some limitations and use abstractions to get around them and simplify the matter for us. The turn order is one of them.
When you're shooting a bow you don't sit around for a while because "its not your turn" you immediately grab the next arrow and look for the next shot you're going to take, so both of your hands will always be busy.
Honestly, I went into this thread (and others like it) wanting to believe that it would be practical to allow the ruling of having a free hand when using a bow. In a way, it makes sense, because your hands are not always occupied... but even if that were true consistently enough to justify using a free hand, when using common sense coupled with both research and reading both sides of the argument, it dictates that too much energy and focus would be put into continually firing the bow to allow the blocking of an attack within practicality.
Practicality is the stance I'm taking here, and the accommodation for the rules to fit within it is tangible enough to form an argument on the basis of practicality without reiterating what everyone else has already said.
If we look at the turn order in a flexible way (as is required to make it work, because it can't be both simultaneous and not simultaneous) it would be far too convenient to be attacked at the EXACT moment that the bow string was released and another arrow not drawn. If you look at any video of an expert archer repeatedly firing arrows within seconds of each other, it is fairly obvious that it requires quite a bit of focus that would not allow it to be interrupted by an attack, especially one with unpredictable timing and placement.
When looking at the corner of this video (provided by Doomed Hero in this thread) at 1:04, it's clear enough, at least to me, that none of those archers had enough time or focus to block an incoming attack. That's four examples right there.
However, if mechanically we are only trying to accommodate for the Crane Style feats, the reality is that not much would meaningfully change with the 'hindrance' except for 1 aspect of Crane Riposte.
I put a spoiler because it's long and throughout. Don't blame me for TDLR; you've been warned.
First feat:
In my opinion, the first feat is really good and I would take it regardless of whether or not I planned on continuing with the tree. With it and Dodge, it creates a +4 AC bonus by only taking -2 on attacks; +5 if you have 3 ranks in Acrobatics. Dodge isn't even strictly necessary to the build, so that would make it +3 or +4 AC off a single feat. Seems worth it to me.
Here is the text on the second feat, Crane Wing:
Once per round, when fighting defensively with at least one hand free, you can designate a single opponent you can see. You receive a +2 dodge bonus to AC against that opponent for one round. If you using the total defense action instead, you can deflect one melee attack that would normally hit you. An attack so deflected deals no damage and has no other effect (instead treat it as a miss). You do not expend an action when using this feat, but you must be aware of the attack and not flat-footed.
Crane Wing doesn't even grant the 'Deflect Weapon' ability unless you are in total defense; e.g. not using your bow. It really makes no difference in that case whether you do or do not have a bow in your possession, because the "using a bow takes two hands" argument is moot. (If people want to be hard-asses about holding a bow somehow requiring two hands, I have a solution to that below.*)
The text of the feat heavily implies the continuousness of a free hand, and even with the loss of a free hand by using ANY 'two-hand requiring weapon' rules minutia, the total loss is +2 AC against a single enemy. Sure, that's good and a notable loss, but it's not why people take the feat. No one here was talking about the +2 AC loss that I saw.
Next, Crane Riposte:
You take only a –1 penalty on attack rolls for fighting defensively. Whenever you are fighting defensively, and you use Crane Wing to add a dodge bonus against an opponent, that opponent’s first attack that misses you provokes an attack of opportunity from you. In addition, when you deflect an attack using Crane Wing while taking the total defense action, you may make an attack of opportunity against that opponent (even though you could not normally do so while taking the total defense action).
The -1 mitigation happens no matter what, so no discussion there.
The ability to deflect attacks here is much more powerful, and if one accepts the lack of a free hand when using a bow, there is really no workaround. However, that doesn't make the feat useless if you're a Zen Archer.
Since Zen Archers are still monks, they still have unarmed attacks, Improved Unarmed Strike, and scaling unarmed damage. If you REALLY want to take advantage of the fighting defensively attack deflection, you can just drop your bow and punch them in the face. Their first attack can't hit you, you now have +2 AC against them from Crane Wing, and you get an additional attack from the AoO in addition to the normal unarmed strike, so at least unarmed 2 attacks each round. You can continue to attack them while remaining in a supremely effective defensive position, even if it isn't as optimal as a bow would have been.
While not optimal, it still works extremely well as a semi-emergency defensive move. Even without the Snap Shot feat, Zen Archers ALWAYS threaten AoO due to the fact that they have Improved Unarmed Strike and the monk ability to attack with appendages other than hands. Evidence:
Besides the listed changes, the Zen Archer entry states:
A zen archer’s flurry of blows otherwise functions as normal for a monk of his level.
It makes an exception to the ability of flurrying with certain weapons, but the Zen Archer maintains all other aspects of using unarmed strikes, meaning they still threaten AoO with unarmed strikes while using both hands on a bow, because they can strike with their legs.
But here's the twist. You can mitigate dropping the bow as a disadvantage as well. When I mentioned pleasing the hard-asses above, here is the payoff.
*Weapon Cords are an item I am very fond of. Here is their description:
Weapon cords are 2-foot-long leather straps that attach your weapon to your wrist. If you drop your weapon or are disarmed, you can recover it as a move action, and it never moves any further away from you than an adjacent square. However, you cannot switch to a different weapon without first untying the cord (a full-round action) or cutting it (a move action or an attack, hardness 0, 0 hp). Unlike a locked gauntlet, you can still use a hand with a weapon cord, though a dangling weapon may interfere with finer actions.
(This is a bit awkward because I only just became aware that they errated it from a swift action to a move action, but I'll continue on anyway.)
You can retrieve your bow at any time you wish using a move action when you're done using the feat to beat them senseless, immediately returning to your previous strategy of bow-use.
If the move action proves too detrimental to the build, you can always use Called, a blatantly over-powered +1 magic ability from the Ultimate Equipment. It can be added to any weapon, including bows and even thrown weapons. It's basically the pre-errated Weapon Cord, but much better. Link here.
-------------------------------------------
Basically, taking the feats could still be worth it depending on how you build your archer. Regardless, losing the benefit of Crane Riposte is not a huge hit to the archetype and I think we can move on without it... that's what I'm going to do. Again, I wanted to believe the plausibility of allowing it, but I couldn't do so in good conscience after the analysis of what people have said and real world bow physics.
|
|
Again, I wanted to believe the plausibility of allowing it, but I couldn't do so in good conscience after the analysis of what people have said and real world bow physics.
So real world physics, or our unsupported guesses about it, actually trump the game rules?
Perhaps this news should be stapled to the 'rules questions' category, so we can adjust our future rules arguments.
Also, 'videos on the Internet' as proof that the 'truth' is one thing and not the other. I can't see any problems with that.
Again, I wanted to believe the plausibility of allowing it, but I couldn't do so in good conscience after the analysis of what people have said and real world bow physics.So real world physics, or our unsupported guesses about it, actually trump the game rules?
Perhaps this news should be stapled to the 'rules questions' category, so we can adjust our future rules arguments.
Also, 'videos on the Internet' as proof that the 'truth' is one thing and not the other. I can't see any problems with that.
I never said that these observations trumped the game rules. I stated that citing the specific rules for the case I made would be pointless reiteration because it has already been said half a dozen times by other people. They argued from rules, I argued from practicality, but towards the same end:
Practicality is the stance I'm taking here, and the accommodation for the rules to fit within it is tangible enough to form an argument on the basis of practicality without reiterating what everyone else has already said.
If you want me to state it explicitly:
"I have looked at both sides of the argument and saw that they both provide good support in RAW for their stances. I wanted to believe that it would be possible to use Crane Wing under the assumption that having a free hand while using a bow would be realistically possible, however, after doing research I came to the conclusion that it wouldn't." -IQuarent, just now.
But, if you don't like my argument, you can always provide your own evidence to the contrary.
It also appears that my argument is also being misrepresented; "videos from the internet" does not automatically mean it is weak evidence. The source is much more important. The video I gave has footage of 4 expert archers from 4 different sources. Educational footage and documentaries can just as easily be described as "videos from the internet". Does that make them weak evidence?
In my comment I thought I made it very clear that this was my own conclusion based on research that I personally made. Regardless of its clarity, I wouldn't argue that others don't have the ability to make their own observations on what I provided. However, I have made my conclusion on the matter and I will definitely apply it to myself if nothing else.
Take from it whatever you wish.
|
|
All well and good, but people read threads in the rules forum to get the community wisdom on what the rules say and mean.
'I realise that I only get two attacks per round, but there is a video documentary on the Internet where a guy stabs another guy three times in one second. Therefore, having studied the rules, I've decided that my guy can attack 18 times per round. He can't take AoOs though, because he's too busy.'
You say you've made you decision based on the rules; can you quote the rules that say you need two hands to hold a bow when you're not shooting an arrow from it? Or that the act of attacking with a bow means that you can't take AoOs? The AoO system is designed to allow you to take them in the same combat rounds that you full attack!
If I'd made an archer and my DM denied me an AoO just because archers look too busy on the Internet, and my character died because of it? I'd consider that he'd abused my trust in him as a fair and impartial judge, just to kill my PC.
I don't even see how anyone can think that you can't have a free hand when using a two-handed-weapon. The only thing you are limited by is your actins and the ability to use the weapon.
As for being realistically possible, archery as presented in fantasy games aren't anywhere close to being realistic. Trying to shoot a single target, hundreds of feet away, four times in mere seconds with a longbow is so out of the scope of realistic it is absolutely absurd to use realism as your base of reasoning.
you either give all weapons wielded in two hands the ability to free action free up your hand, or you get none of them. I don't like the idea of a two-hander still having a free hand. (sure he can't AoO but you don't always need to)(and if he has improved unarmed strike or a gauntlet{armor gives them for free} then he still can and try to trip AoO of all things)
anyway, I recently saw a video of a guy using medieval archery and he learned how to do many things better than most movie characters can do. shooting accurately while running, he shot an arrow in the air in half with his own arrow, catched arrows to shoot them back, shoot up to 3 times, accurately, in less than a second.
most of what is changed is he doesn't use a quiver, at least for when he's about to shoot, he keeps arrows in his firing hand, up to four, and picks up used arrows at other times. he shoots with the arrow on the side of the bow that his pull back arm is, not putting it on the otherside to aim with one eye(takes too long to get the arrow around), among other things.
I really want to see that video. Can you source it?
'I realise that I only get two attacks per round, but there is avideodocumentary on the Internet where a guy stabs another guy three times in one second. Therefore, having studied the rules, I've decided that my guy can attack 18 times per round. He can't take AoOs though, because he's too busy.'
There are 2 logical fallacies going on here:
Composition/Division: Some Internet videos are bad examples and of questionable validity, therefore all of them are.Strawman: As I already mentioned, my argument is being misrepresented here. It has nothing to do with the example given in the above quote and doesn't pertain to it.
Reference: Here
You say you've made you decision based on the rules; can you quote the rules that say you need two hands to hold a bow when you're not shooting an arrow from it? Or that the act of attacking with a bow means that you can't take AoOs? The AoO system is designed to allow you to take them in the same combat rounds that you full attack!
I find this request odd because I already preemptively addressed this. Below are quotes of myself:
Practicality is the stance I'm taking here, and the accommodation for the rules to fit within it is tangible enough to form an argument on the basis of practicality without reiterating what everyone else has already said.
If you want me to state it explicitly:
"I have looked at both sides of the argument and saw that they both provide good support in RAW for their stances. I wanted to believe that it would be possible to use Crane Wing under the assumption that having a free hand while using a bow would be realistically possible, however, after doing research I came to the conclusion that it wouldn't."
Other people in the thread have provided why RAW can be interpreted to support bows not granting a free hand. Bows occupy two hands when used, citing the weapon entry, etc. I see no need to reiterate those rules again. But since you asked for my take on those rules here it is:
The problem I see is that according to the rules of combat, all people are technically acting within the same 6 seconds. Those six seconds are being used to continuously fire the bow. From a purely temporal standpoint, there is no pause, or end of action, or enemies turn. I am currently looking for exact wording of the Core Rulebook supporting this, and will edit them in once I find them.
I agree that feats like Snap Shot still work because Snap Shot implies that it is part of the continuous action of drawing and firing arrows. Visually this makes sense, because you are already firing arrows, so firing another arrow reflexively works with the already continuously firing. Mechanically it doesn't ask for specific contingencies; just that you have a bow and the ability to use it. So from the basis of the mechanics, there is absolutely no reason feats like Snap Shot wouldn't work as intended.
Some people say that free actions can't be taken out of turn order even when a feat makes an exception to allow them to. I disagree with this.
Crane Wing, and be extension Deflect Arrows, DO HAVE A CONTINGENCY. They require a free hand. This is where the debate comes in. Visually, the archer is taking every single millisecond of their 6 second round firing their bow. They at no point have a free hand to use for anything else. Again, I direct you to the video, as all 4 archers in it are fully occupied using the bow, which takes a lot of focus.
From this I form my personal opinion that no, archers do not have a free hand under these circumstances. If the mechanics of 6 second rounds didn't have all characters acting simultaneously, there WOULD be a pause during which the archer would only be using their dominant hand holding the bow and only the bow.
Also, Deflect Arrows and Snatch Arrows have been around way, way longer then Zen Archers have, so it wasn't surprising to me that there may have been the possibility that those feats and the Zen Archer archetype might not work together.
If I'd made an archer and my DM denied me an AoO just because archers look too busy on the Internet, and my character died because of it? I'd consider that he'd abused my trust in him as a fair and impartial judge, just to kill my PC.
The example you gave of what the DM did is not something I would ever do or support doing. I will do my best the clear up the miscommunication.
I don't recall ever saying that archers would be denied AoOs. If I did, quote me on this. I mentioned not being able to use an AoO with a bow in particular in the specific case of Crane Wing. If the ruling of not having a free hand with a bow is to be believed, then one could not use a bow for an AoO with Crane Wing. Even in the case of that, I STILL argued that unarmed attacks can be used, meaning that an archer would not be defenseless. THIS IS IN THE CASE OF CRANE WING.
I already made it clear that this was my own logic to which I made my own conclusion. If you don't agree with it, that's perfectly alright.
To quote myself again:
In my comment I thought I made it very clear that this was my own conclusion based on research that I personally made. Regardless of its clarity, I wouldn't argue that others don't have the ability to make their own observations on what I provided. However, I have made my conclusion on the matter and I will definitely apply it to myself if nothing else.
Take from it whatever you wish.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I really want to see that video. Can you source it?Here's one of the multiple threads already discussing it.
Lars can fire ten arrows in five seconds, though not with the full power and range of a longbow.
Does an attack with a Bow, count as an attack with a two-handed weapon?
No. Not in any way shape or form.
|
Does an attack with a Bow, count as an attack with a two-handed weapon?No. Not in any way shape or form.
I agree, but not everyone does.
|
|
I agree, but not everyone does.Does an attack with a Bow, count as an attack with a two-handed weapon?No. Not in any way shape or form.
A bow is not defined as a two-handed weapon in the game. A 'two-handed weapon' is a game term with a strict game definition, not a casual description.
Those who believe that a weapon which requires two hands to use means that it counts as the game definition of a 'two-handed weapon' are in error.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I really want to see that video. Can you source it?
i tried looking for it but it was a few weeks ago and through cheezburger >_> and apparently they did not put archer or archery in the tags or anything.
edit: found it on my youtube history.
I agree, but not everyone does.Does an attack with a Bow, count as an attack with a two-handed weapon?No. Not in any way shape or form.A bow is not defined as a two-handed weapon in the game. A 'two-handed weapon' is a game term with a strict game definition, not a casual description.
Those who believe that a weapon which requires two hands to use means that it counts as the game definition of a 'two-handed weapon' are in error.
i believe it says for ranged weapons look in the description
and
Description: You need two hands to use a bow, regardless of its size. A longbow is too unwieldy to use while you are mounted. If you have a penalty for low Strength, apply it to damage rolls when you use a longbow. If you have a Strength bonus, you can apply it to damage rolls when you use a composite longbow (see below), but not when you use a regular longbow.
and
Projectile Weapons: Most projectile weapons require two hands to use (see specific weapon descriptions). A character gets no Strength bonus on damage rolls with a projectile weapon unless it's a specially built composite shortbow or longbow, or a sling. If the character has a penalty for low Strength, apply it to damage rolls when he uses a bow or a sling.
to me at the least, while you are using a bow, just like when you are using a greatsword, you are using both your hands.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@ IQarent: I'm totally okay with you defending your position. I'm within my rights to address and deconstruct the arguments you put forward, by pointing out any errors or inconsistencies.
The problem I see is that according to the rules of combat, all people are technically acting within the same 6 seconds.
They are, but it's a feature, not a bug.
Those six seconds are being used to continuously fire the bow.
From a rules perspective, those six seconds are being used to perform any legal set of game actions, including making your allowed number of AoOs.
From a purely temporal standpoint, there is no pause, or end of action, or enemies turn.
Conceptually, time continues flowing, unbothered by the actions of any creature (given the typical velocities of creatures in the game and the irrelevance of Relativity), but from the perspective of the things creatures are allowed to do, there is a difference in the game between the stuff you can do on your own turn with the stuff you can do outside your own turn.
I am currently looking for exact wording of the Core Rulebook supporting this, and will edit them in once I find them.
Please do.
Crane Wing, and be extension Deflect Arrows, DO HAVE A CONTINGENCY. They require a free hand. This is where the debate comes in.
They require a free hand at the moment of the opponent's attack. They do not require a free hand throughout the six seconds of the round. The entire rules structure of AoOs already takes into account that they can still be taken even if you use a full attack action on your own turn. There is no exception to that rule when your full attack consists of shooting arrows.
The very act of shooting an arrow requires the archer to let go of the bowstring as part of that attack. This absolutely leaves that hand free!
Visually,...
Visually? What are you talking about? What's "visually" got to do with the rules of the game?
...the archer is taking every single millisecond of their 6 second round firing their bow.
No more or less than anyone using their full attack action to attack with any other weapon! In game terms, it's a full attack, just like any other full attack. There is no rules difference. The rules very certainly still allow the full compliment of AoOs even though you used a full attack on your last turn.
The game knows that, conceptually, all the action is simultaneous. Even so, every rules element has a strict game timing, and full attacks take place entirely within the turn of that creature, and AoOs are still taken when they are provoked, and one does not prevent the other.
They at no point have a free hand to use for anything else.
They have a free hand every single time they let go of that bowstring until they draw the next arrow. If they are attacked at such a point then they have a free hand.
According to the rules of the game, full attacks take place entirely within the acting character's turn, even though, conceptually, it is all simultaneous.
Visualise it however you like, but whenever a rules question arises then the rules are used to solve it.
Again, I direct you to the video,...
Really?
...as all 4 archers in it are fully occupied using the bow, which takes a lot of focus.
And here is the basis of my comments about you deciding the rules of the game from a video on the Internet.
I'm sure there are videos of swordsmen 'fully occupied using the sword', but this has absolutely no place in a rules debate, nor as a way of ascertaining how the rules work.
From this I form my personal opinion that no, archers do not have a free hand under these circumstances. If the mechanics of 6 second rounds didn't have all characters acting simultaneously, there WOULD be a pause during which the archer would only be using their dominant hand holding the bow and only the bow.
That's the point! The concept of the game has 'all characters acting simultaneously', but the mechanics of the game absolutely have full attacks taking place entirely within the turn of the acting creature, and still allow a creature to make its full compliment of AoOs even if it takes full attacks on the turns before and after the AoOs are provoked.
The 'free hand' is only required to be free at the moment you are attacked, and shooting a bow only requires two hands at the moment you shoot an arrow from it, and letting go of the bowstring is not an action (not even a free action!), but part of the action used to shoot an arrow from it.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
to me at the least, while you are using a bow, just like when you are using a greatsword, you are using both your hands.
Without doubt!
But that is not the issue.
First, 'two-handed weapon' is a game definition, and it does not apply to any old weapon that requires two hands to use! 'Two-handed weapon' is one of the three categories of melee weapons, and this definition has rules consequences.
A bow is not a 'two-handed weapon' in game terms, even though it requires two hands to use.
Second, any weapon that requires two hands to use (whether its defined as a 'two-handed weapon' or not) only requires two hands to use, not to hold. 'Use' means 'execute an attack with'. You need two hands to attack with such a weapon, not to hold it between attacks.
If you have two hands on a greatsword, attack, take one hand off, put that hand back on, and attack again, does this 're-grip' mean that those attacks didn't really happen? No! You only need two hands on it at the moment you actually attack with it!
When shooting a bow, the very act of attacking with it requires you to let go of the bowstring as part of that attack. This isn't a game action (not even a free action!), but part of the attack action itself. From the time you shoot an arrow until the time you draw another arrow (in a full attack with the bow) your hand is free, and the bow itself is just held in the other hand.
to me at the least, while you are using a bow, just like when you are using a greatsword, you are using both your hands.
But with a greatsword (or any other two-handed weapon, including polearms), I can use a free action to drop one hand from the weapon at the end of my turn, have a hand free to use Crane Wing (or whatever) off my turn. Then, at the beginning of my next turn, I can use another free action to put my hand back on my weapon and take my full attacks. When I do this, though, I am not "wielding" my weapon during everyone else's turn--I am just "holding the weapon in one hand", and I can't make attacks of opportunity with it.
Is there any reason this same ruling would not apply to a bow? (Since a bow is always only held in one hand unless you are in the act of shooting it, it makes more sense to allow this with a bow than with a polearm.)
You take your turn, drop your hand from the bow, and use your free hand for Crane Wing. On your next turn, you put your hand back on your bow and begin shooting again. All the player has to do is say the magic words, "I use a free action to drop one hand from my bow.")
You can't take AoOs with the bow when you do this (even if you have Snap Shot), and you can't do this if you want to ready an action to shoot someone.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
According to the rules Malachi Silverclaw's interpretation should clearly be correct.
The problem I see is that according to the rules of combat, all people are technically acting within the same 6 seconds.
I am currently looking for exact wording of the Core Rulebook supporting this, and will edit them in once I find them.
Please do.
Is this good enough? Or does it not count because it's from the Internet?
As for the Core Rulebook:
"When the rules refer to a "full round", they usually mean a span of time from a particular initiative count in one round to the same initiative count in the next round." -Pg. 178, Online link here.
This implies that a character is busy for the entire round if they make a full attack. Going from initiative in one round to the same initiative next round is a full round of action with no lulls or pauses.
Now, if the Zen Archer made a standard action to fire an arrow and a move action of some kind, THEN I would agree that they would have a free hand. But during a full attack I don't see how this would be possible.
Those six seconds are being used to continuously fire the bow.
From a rules perspective, those six seconds are being used to perform any legal set of game actions, including making your allowed number of AoOs.
Again, when did I EVER say anything about people not receiving or not being able to use AoOs as the rules dictate? My argument has NOTHING to do with AoOs. I was asked to explain that in my last comment, so I did.
From a purely temporal standpoint, there is no pause, or end of action, or enemies turn.
Conceptually, time continues flowing, unbothered by the actions of any creature (given the typical velocities of creatures in the game and the irrelevance of Relativity), but from the perspective of the things creatures are allowed to do, there is a difference in the game between the stuff you can do on your own turn with the stuff you can do outside your own turn.
Visually? What are you talking about? What's "visually" got to do with the rules of the game?
"Conceptually" and "Visually" mean the same thing in this case. The things you "Conceptualized" have no true bearing on the rules either. If you think that the concept works the way you think it works, maybe you should provide some evidence? You know, like I did?
Again, I direct you to the video,...
Really?
Yes, really. The basis under which you are dismissing this as evidence is a fallacy(Composition-Division). One non-fallacious way of discrediting it would be to say "this is wrong because it doesn't represent real-life or in-game actions" and then provide your own evidence.
And here is the basis of my comments about you deciding the rules of the game from a video on the Internet.
*Slams head on desk*
Strawman logical fallacy, AGAIN. I did not use only the video to dictate my interpretation of the rules.
I used the bow item entry, feat entries, combat rules, advice from creators of the game(see the first link), advice from other people, common sense, AND THEN the video to see if it would work in real-life the way I concluded it would in the game.
I'm sure there are videos of swordsmen 'fully occupied using the sword', but this has absolutely no place in a rules debate, nor as a way of ascertaining how the rules work.
How many times do I have to say that this is my personal interpretation of the matter? I'm not saying "This is how the rules work and everyone should do it this way." I'm saying "This is my personal conclusion to how I think the rules work and I apply it to myself."
At least I actually attempt to use evidence to supplement my statements and do not use logical fallacies. Saying "It's from the Internet and therefore bad" is a fallacy.
All the rules to Pathfinder are on the D20PFSRD, but since they are on the Internet, are my links to them therefore invalid?
Explain to me WHY my source video is invalid with a reason other than "Because it's from the Internet".
Crane Wing, and by extension Deflect Arrows, DO HAVE A CONTINGENCY. They require a free hand. This is where the debate comes in.They require a free hand at the moment of the opponent's attack. They do not require a free hand throughout the six seconds of the round. The entire rules structure of AoOs already takes into account that they can still be taken even if you use a full attack action on your own turn. There is no exception to that rule when your full attack consists of shooting arrows.
The very act of shooting an arrow requires the archer to let go of the bowstring as part of that attack. This absolutely leaves that hand free!
AGAIN I will quote myself:
If we look at the turn order in a flexible way (as is required to make it work, because it can't be both simultaneous and not simultaneous) it would be far too convenient to be attacked at the EXACT moment that the bow string was released and another arrow not drawn. [Especially when firing multiple arrows]
Brackets added post-comment to increase clarity.
The problem I see is that according to the rules of combat, all people are technically acting within the same 6 seconds. Those six seconds are being used to continuously fire the bow. From a purely temporal standpoint, there is no pause, or end of action, or enemies turn.
I agree that feats like Snap Shot still work because Snap Shot implies that it is part of the continuous action of drawing and firing arrows. Visually this makes sense, because you are already firing arrows, so firing another arrow reflexively works with the already continuously firing.
On the other hand, Mechanically, it doesn't ask for specific contingencies; just that you have a bow and the ability to use it. So from the basis of the mechanics, there is absolutely no reason feats like Snap Shot wouldn't work as intended.
Some people say that free actions can't be taken out of turn order even when a feat makes an exception to allow them to. I disagree with this.
Crane Wing, and by extension Deflect Arrows, DO HAVE A CONTINGENCY. They require a free hand. This is where the debate comes in.
Visually(See video),
AND
Mechanically(See Core Rulebook quote),
the archer is taking every single millisecond of their 6 second round firing their bow. They at no point have a free hand to use for anything else. Again, I direct you to the video, as all 4 archers in it are fully occupied using the bow, which takes a lot of focus. I'm sure there are other examples of the focus fast archery requires, but there is absolutely nothing wrong with the provided video, so I'm sticking with it.
From this I form my personal opinion that no, archers do not have a free hand under these circumstances. If you don't believe that rounds work this way, then we can agree to disagree. If the mechanics of 6 second rounds didn't have all characters acting simultaneously, there WOULD be a pause during which the archer would be using only their dominant to hold the bow and only the bow; so I acknowledge the logic of that stance. I just don't agree to that interpretation of how rounds work.
|
|
My problem with using videos of archers on the Internet to determine the rules about archery (or anything else in the game) is not that I have something against the Internet, but that the only answer to rules questions are the rules themselves, not real life, not camera footage, just the rules.
The 'video' part of your argument is not bad because Internet. It's bad because not rules!
I have no problem with the rules being kept on the Internet. : )
When I clicked that link, it took me to James Jacobs discussing the alignment of lycanthropes. Not sure how that's helpful here.
Mechanically, the archer is taking every single millisecond of their 6 second round firing their bow.
That's where you're absolutely wrong. Conceptually, each combatants actions are simultaneous, but mechanically they are taking turns. Each creature, on it's own initiative, takes all of the actions it's allowed entirely within its own turn, even full attacks. Then its turn ends and another creature starts its turn.
There are some actions that do take up the entire turn. For example, casting a spell with a one round casting time not only uses a full-round action, but also means you are 'casting' from the moment you start until just before your next turn starts. This is unusual, because even if you must use a full-round action to cast a spell (because you are a sorcerer using a metamagic feat on a spell with a normal casting time of one standard action, for example) this does not mean that this spell has a one round casting time! That metamagicked spell is cast entirely within your own turn.
Full attacks use up all your actions for your turn (except free, swift and immediate), but do not prevent you from taking AoOs. However, rules-wise, you begin and complete every single attack in that full attack within that turn, and that full attack action is over before the end of your turn. The hands you need to execute those attacks on your turn are not needed between turns, and taking one hand off your bow at the end of your full attack (so it's free for Crane Wing/Deflect Artows) in no way affects the full attack you just made or the full attack you might take on your next turn.
|
The rules say you can take your hand off a weapon with a free action before or after you've attacked.
If that allows you to take an AoO with an unarmed strike, that should be fine (a kick or headbutt is fine too for unarmed strike).
The only great reason to keep a hand on the weapon is if you have something like Snap Shot, which lets you threaten with the bow. If you remove your hand from the weapon and you have Snap Shot, you threaten with your unarmed strike, but you don't threaten with your bow because your hands no longer has it readied.
There's likely more examples aside from unarmed strike for a free hand, and Snap Shot for taking actions that are specific to the weapon.
When I clicked that link, it took me to James Jacobs discussing the alignment of lycanthropes. Not sure how that's helpful here.
Comment after that one.
to me at the least, while you are using a bow, just like when you are using a greatsword, you are using both your hands.Without doubt!
But that is not the issue.
First, 'two-handed weapon' is a game definition, and it does not apply to any old weapon that requires two hands to use! 'Two-handed weapon' is one of the three categories of melee weapons, and this definition has rules consequences.
A bow is not a 'two-handed weapon' in game terms, even though it requires two hands to use.
Second, any weapon that requires two hands to use (whether its defined as a 'two-handed weapon' or not) only requires two hands to use, not to hold. 'Use' means 'execute an attack with'. You need two hands to attack with such a weapon, not to hold it between attacks.
If you have two hands on a greatsword, attack, take one hand off, put that hand back on, and attack again, does this 're-grip' mean that those attacks didn't really happen? No! You only need two hands on it at the moment you actually attack with it!
When shooting a bow, the very act of attacking with it requires you to let go of the bowstring as part of that attack. This isn't a game action (not even a free action!), but part of the attack action itself. From the time you shoot an arrow until the time you draw another arrow (in a full attack with the bow) your hand is free, and the bow itself is just held in the other hand.
yes and as i (think i) stated earlier I don't like the idea of people being able to "hold" the weapon after making an attack in the same round. seems just... really really weird. beyond that i simply stated exactly what i know is true, two-handed weapons and bows both require the same number of hands to use. no more no less.
anyway, yeah if people are trying to use terminology so that they can get the two-handed fighter stuff to work on a bow, yeah not happening.
My problem with using videos of archers on the Internet to determine the rules about archery (or anything else in the game) is not that I have something against the Internet, but that the only answer to rules questions are the rules themselves, not real life, not camera footage, just the rules.
So I can't use common sense and visual evidence in ADDITION to using the rules as reference? It has to be one or the other? Says who?
I have heard the whole "Well this is a fantasy game so we should rely on rules and completely disregard common sense, and gee, I hope there is no ambiguity in these rules otherwise we will constantly be in conflict" argument before and I believe, after much observation, that it is one of the factors that leads us to long, steadily-degrading threads like this one.
Mechanically, the archer is taking every single millisecond of their 6 second round firing their bow.
That's where you're absolutely wrong. Conceptually, each combatants actions are simultaneous, but mechanically they are taking turns. Each creature, on it's own initiative, takes all of the actions it's allowed entirely within its own turn, even full attacks. Then its turn ends and another creature starts its turn.
I disagree with that interpretation. Or rather, I disagree that it affects feats like Crane Wing more than any other interpretation of Conceptual vs. Mechanical combat. But that's what it is; a subjective interpretation.
In all honesty, it sounds like an excellent synopsis of the function of combat as executed on the game table(I play this game too), but no actual rules were cited in your statement that directly support your claims of Crane Wing and Deflect arrows not being affected. To cut to the chase, the above statement is completely anecdotal. So we can use practical application on the game table to dictate how RAW works, which is flexible and heavily reliant on GM interpretation, but all other practical applications of methodical logic, inductive reasoning, and real world physics are out? It ALWAYS works the way you say it does?
Since you have no evidence that proves or even suggests that the rules always work this way beyond anecdotal evidence, I will hold to my belief on the matter. To address what is said below:
Full attacks use up all your actions for your turn (except free, swift and immediate), but do not prevent you from taking AoOs. However, rules-wise, you begin and complete every single attack in that full attack within that turn, and that full attack action is over before the end of your turn. The hands you need to execute those attacks on your turn are not needed between turns, and taking one hand off your bow at the end of your full attack (so it's free for Crane Wing/Deflect Artows) in no way affects the full attack you just made or the full attack you might take on your next turn.
Prove that turns work this way. Provide evidence that supports your statement that this interpretation of RAW excludes all other interpretations of it. If there is still ambiguity in the face of this hypothetical evidence, then the claim that I am "Absolutely wrong" is far from definitive.
I am not afraid or embarrassed to be wrong; I would absolutely be willing to change my stance in the face of superior evidence, but I haven't seen any evidence for it at all, let alone superior evidence.
The first thing I said in the first comment I made was that I WANTED to believe that the rules work like you say they do. I have a Zen Archer build that I would love to functionally integrate the Crane Style feat tree into. However, since I take a pragmatic approach to playing this game, I couldn't convince myself that your particular interpretation of RAW is correct when observational bow physics and RAI(all things happen simultaneously) both go against it. On top of that, RAW is ambiguous in this case; the simultaneous turn concept isn't really clear on how much it effects RAW in the case of abilities, feats and etc. So, in the face of these things, I concluded that it wouldn't be possible.
Let me state this again:
This is my personal interpretation of the matter. I'm not saying "This is how the rules work and everyone should do it this way." I'm saying "This is my personal conclusion to how I think the rules work and I apply it to myself."
even if you have both hands on a bow, if you have improved unarmed strike or a boot blade, you threaten with your feet. and can take AoOs via the boot blade, or if you have improved unarmed strike, your feet. you don't need special monk training to kick people.
You don't have any free actions outside your turn.to me at the least, while you are using a bow, just like when you are using a greatsword, you are using both your hands.But with a greatsword (or any other two-handed weapon, including polearms), I can use a free action to drop one hand from the weapon at the end of my turn, have a hand free to use Crane Wing (or whatever) off my turn. Then, at the beginning of my next turn, I can use another free action to put my hand back on my weapon and take my full attacks. When I do this, though, I am not "wielding" my weapon during everyone else's turn--I am just "holding the weapon in one hand", and I can't make attacks of opportunity with it.
I don't need free actions outside my turn.
Round 1) The last action on my turn is "I take my hand off the bow."
My hand must now remain off the bow until the beginning of my next turn, so I have a hand available to do Crane Wing or Snatch Arrows or Whatever. However, I cannot use my bow for AoOs, because I am just holding it, not wielding it.
Round 2) The first action on my turn is "I put my hand back on my bow", and now I can full attack with the bow.
What free actions outside my turn do you think I need here?
(This example is how it works for every other "thing I wield in two hands but can carry/hold in one hand". Why would a bow be different?)
The question is whether or not you have a free hand when you're using a bow, no? "Using" was defined upthread as firing an arrow, and the answer is no.
For those that do not believe the rules would allow you to have a hand free between your turns, here is something to consider.
If a spell caster has a potion in one hand, and a staff in the other can he:
Drink the potion (move action)
Drop the bottle (free action)
Cast a spell with a somatic component (standard action for which he must have had a free hand)
Grip his staff in both hands for AoOs (free action)
?
Note that both hands have been occupied for the entirety of his turn. One holding the staff, the other alternating between holding a potion and casting a spell.
Yet the rules are clear (from this FAQ) that such a wizard still can place his free hand on his staff for AoOs.
Now the FAQ isn't an exact identical match of my scenario, but if you believe that having the hand occupied the entire turn instead of just the standard action of your turn is different, then you need to show rules that explain this difference, and why they behave differently for your out of turn options. Given the absence of such a rule the precedent is plainly set from the FAQ.
Now Crane Wing has an entirely different reason as to why it may not work with a bow.
Benefit: Once per round, when fighting defensively with at least one hand free, you can designate a single opponent you can see.
It is activated as you fight defensively. As you are making the attacks with it you do not have the free hand to activate Crane Wing.
Do you mean "When you take the standard action to fight defensively this round, you have one hand free. Then, you can use Crane Wing off your turn."?
If so, I agree with that.
The alternative reading of your statement("You can only use Crane Wing while you are in the process of making a melee attack") is really limiting, and Crane Wing has already taken enough of a beating. :-)
Here's the current text of Crane Wing from the PRD:
"Once per round, when fighting defensively with at least one hand free, you can designate one melee attack being made against you before the roll is made. You receive a +4 dodge bonus to AC against that attack." (emphasis mine.)
As you are making your attack, no one else is making melee attacks against you...because it's your turn. If you must be in the process of making the attack to take advantage of Crane Wing, then Crane Wing can never work at all.
Even if someone takes a readied action to attack you on your turn, they effectively interrupt your turn until their attack is resolved--so you will not be in the process of attacking them until they are finished attacking you.
Crane Wing can't even help you against AoOs by this definition, because when you are in the process of making a melee attack, you won't provoke an AoO.
Now, Fighting Defensively says
"Fighting Defensively as a Standard Action: You can choose to fight defensively when attacking. If you do so, you take a –4 penalty on all attacks in a round to gain a +2 dodge bonus to AC until the start of your next turn." (emphasis mine)
Because the penalties and the dodge bonus last until your next turn, fighting defensively is a standard action with a one-round effect. I think it's reasonable to read the phrase "while fighting defensively" in Crane Wing to mean "while you are still under the effects of fighting defensively" is a standard action with a full-round effect.
Alternatively, you can read "once per round, while fighting defensively" to mean "once during a round in which you fought defensively".
With either of these readings, though, you then have to decide whether the phrase "with at least one hand free" means "you had to have one hand free when you fought defensively (i.e., when you made your attack)". If that's the case, then you can't ever use Crane Wing with any two-handed weapon even if you take your hand off the weapon at the end of your turn.
Which I think is actually what you were saying in the first place. Hence the Spoiler tag. :-)
My problem with using videos of archers on the Internet to determine the rules about archery (or anything else in the game) is not that I have something against the Internet, but that the only answer to rules questions are the rules themselves, not real life, not camera footage, just the rules.So I can't use common sense and visual evidence in ADDITION to using the rules as reference? It has to be one or the other? Says who?
I have heard the whole "Well this is a fantasy game so we should rely on rules and completely disregard common sense, and gee, I hope there is no ambiguity in these rules otherwise we will constantly be in conflict" argument before and I believe, after much observation, that it is one of the factors that leads us to long, steadily-degrading threads like this one.
Mechanically, the archer is taking every single millisecond of their 6 second round firing their bow.That's where you're absolutely wrong. Conceptually, each combatants actions are simultaneous, but mechanically they are taking turns. Each creature, on it's own initiative, takes all of the actions it's allowed entirely within its own turn, even full attacks. Then its turn ends and another creature starts its turn.I disagree with that interpretation. Or rather, I disagree that it affects feats like Crane Wing more than any other interpretation of Conceptual vs. Mechanical combat. But that's what it is; a subjective interpretation.
In all honesty, it sounds like an excellent synopsis of the function of combat as executed on the game table(I play this game too), but no actual rules were cited in your statement that directly support your claims of Crane Wing and Deflect arrows not being affected. To cut to the chase, the above statement is completely anecdotal. So we can use practical application on the game table to dictate how RAW works, which is flexible and heavily reliant on GM...
if you look at that video i posted, you can see that it is pretty easy to shoot 4 arrows in 6 seconds, but almost everything you say has no rule precedent and thus isn't really an effective argument.
if your argue that all things happen simultaneously, then i wouldn't be able to melee someone who was going to move on their turn since during this round of 6 seconds he is going to flee(and thus not be there by the end of my turn action). your argument while quoting the book doesn't actually hold any water since it is used out of context and the fact *that the game HEAVILY breaks mechanics from reality, and has that line of text to simply explain why people are standing around doing nothing for a while*.
*this is precedent, this is how the game actually plays, it is an unwritten rule, as much as every race unless otherwise told so by the rules breathes air and not water.
If you use your bow during your turn, both of your hands are dedicated until your next turn. You have nothing free for melee AOOs period.
If both hands where dedicated to wielding your bow, then you'd need a third hand to draw and load ammo. The normal operation of the bow doesn't work unless you actually have that free hand.
Does using a hand throwing Shurikens during your round become unusable for AoO? If not, what's different than the bow?
Using your bow will use both hands on your turn, but doesn't require two hands off your turn. I say you'd have a hand free if you used the bow. A full attack isn't a full round action, it's a full turn action. So it's completely done at the end of your turn, freeing you up to do whatever you want off your turn.