GM decides on corner cases like this one. I would allow allow all of the above.
Summary: I'll allow it.
Just remember this line of text. In the hands of a monk... You're required by the weapon's entry to have at least one level of monk for this to work!
I have never heard anyone else ask this question, so I don't think it should be in the Frequently Asked Questions...yet.
Something to factor into this...it works like a katana. Which is a one handed weapon.
So this weapon is kind of weird, because assuming you weren't wielding a katana two handed you have a free hand (also assuming you don't have a shield) to use abilities that require a free hand.
I think this is a really weird weapon that was meant to function in a special way for a monk (clear from the "in the hands of a monk") and the wording of the weapon wasn't clealry laid out.
Edit: Just saw that I missed that it's two-handed without EWP.
|
Start with katana:
Katana: Specifically constructed for samurai, katanas employ multiple types of steel combined in a distinctive forging process. The result are swords noted for their wickedly sharp yet slender, gently curved blades, designed to make graceful hacking strokes capable of severing opponents' heads and limbs. Though finely balanced, these blades are difficult to master. Characters can use a katana two-handed as a martial weapon, but must take the Exotic Weapon Proficiency (katana) feat to use it one-handed.
If you don't have the exotic weapon proficiency you don't have a free hand, if you have it you have a free hand.
The Blade of the Sword Saint don't change anything in that piece of text.
So if you have the proficiency you have a free hand, if you don't have the proficiency, you must use both hands even with a Blade of the Sword Saint.
It's sounds like the best way to treat this, and how it would probably resolve issues the easiest is to say that the Blade of the Sword Saint gives you exotic weapon proficiency(katana) and that monks can flurry with it.
|
|
Start with katana:
Katana: Specifically constructed for samurai, katanas employ multiple types of steel combined in a distinctive forging process. The result are swords noted for their wickedly sharp yet slender, gently curved blades, designed to make graceful hacking strokes capable of severing opponents' heads and limbs. Though finely balanced, these blades are difficult to master. Characters can use a katana two-handed as a martial weapon, but must take the Exotic Weapon Proficiency (katana) feat to use it one-handed.If you don't have the exotic weapon proficiency you don't have a free hand, if you have it you have a free hand.
The Blade of the Sword Saint don't change anything in that piece of text.
So if you have the proficiency you have a free hand, if you don't have the proficiency, you must use both hands even with a Blade of the Sword Saint.
Well, that doesn't quite cover it. If I have EWP Katana, but am wielding, say, a wakizashi in my other hand, the hand wielding the katana one-handed should still count as unarmed. Whether or not I have EWP, I can wield the one-handed weapon with two hands and in both cases, I should still count as being unarmed.
Regarding the "in the hands of a monk" clause, it smacks of fluff. Furthermore, the very next line states that the wielder counts as being unarmed, and then states that a monk can treat it as a Monk weapon. If both were to apply only if you have levels of Monk, it would put the "A monk can..." part at the very beginning of the sentence. Though, that's an auxiliary issue to the main topic at hand.
You are inventing an interpretation that has no sense.
"In addition to its more common properties, this weapon can be employed as though the wielder were unarmed: ..."is not the same as "the wielder hand is free".
If some feat or ability call of you to be unarmed it work. if the feat or ability call for you to have a free hand, you must have a free hand.
It is not Munchkin (the card game) two handed sword that give you 2 extra hands.
The write up states you can use the weapon to do certain things regarding two feats. That is all it does.
If you don't have EWP:Katana you can use the feats while wielding the weapon 2h'ed but are unable to 'catch' a weapon via Snatch Arrows.
If you do have EWP you can catch a weapon as per Snatch Arrows.
You may use the weapon as a monk weapon and lastly you may treat the wielder as unarmed (which could be important for other feats).
I would say only "deflective" actions could be taken with the BotSS since it specifically states you can't catch an arrow. It treats you as though you had a free hand for deflecting attacks, but it seems that you don't actually have a free hand to catch an arrow or for instance grapple without penalty. Of course this is void if you have exotic weapon proficiency(katana) as you can use it one handed.
So I would allow Crane Wing all the way to Crane Reposte.
I would not allow the manipulation of spell components (unless you can use a katana one handed or use a free action to remove your hand from holding it).
I would not let you use it for spell combat unless you can use it as a one handed weapon, which it has to be for use with spell comabt anyway:
To use this ability, the magus must have one hand free (even if the spell being cast does not have somatic components), while wielding a light or one-handed melee weapon in the other hand.
Humanoids without two free hands take -4 penalty to grapple and that would be in full effect.
Snapping Turtle feat line I'm not sure on.Tiger Claws no, both hands aren't free.
Sash of the flowing Water, yes.
Of course, all these are just my opinion on what the BotSS was intended to allow.
|
** spoiler omitted **Question: Does the special property of 'Blade of the Sword Saint' count as having a 'free hand'? If not, what limitations are there?
Note the line, "In addition to its more common properties, this weapon can be employed as though the wielder were unarmed: the wielder benefits from feats such as Deflect Arrows or Snatch Arrows..." Then, we look at the Deflect Arrows feat; no where does it mention "while unarmed", but it does say you must have a "free hand" (nothing held in it) in order to qualify. I extrapolate from this that "...as though the wielder were unarmed" equals "as though the wielder has a free hand". It calls out explicitly that this satisfies the use requirement for Deflect/Snatch Arrows. Does it apply for any situations which call for having a "free hand", including, but not limited to:
- Free-hand Fighter archetype's pertinent abilities
- Crane Wing feat
- Somatic Components for Spells
-...
Unless you have one free hand, well you don't have one. Remember, that an unarmed strike isn't limited to attacking with your hands.
I feel like people aren't getting the concept of this weapon. According to how it's written, the hand(s) wielding it are considered free hands, even though they're holding the weapon. The only thing it explicitly limits is being able to hold another item in a hand occupied by the BotSS, but even then, it allows you to "skip over" that part when you use Snatch Arrows to "catch and throw back", only restricting you from the "catch and keep" functionality of the feat.
Regarding Spell Combat, I have two hands; hand A and hand B. Hand A is holding a one-handed weapon (the BotSS). Hand B is also holding the BotSS, but it's considered a 'free hand' because of the special quality of the weapon. Thus, you have a one-handed weapon in one hand, and your other hand is (effectively) free.
Regarding Tiger Claws, both hands are free because, again, BotSS.
The ability to wield the weapon one-handed or not is inconsequential to the question; this isn't about free action release and re-grasp. The weapon has a special ability that allows you to take "free hand" actions even if your hand(s) are occupied with the weapon and, furthermore, any answers also have to address the possibility of having the BotSS wielded one-handed but having another weapon/item held in the other hand.
Actually it specifically says you cannot catch at all, so it's not catch and keep. It's deflect. And I think the wording of this weapon is very poor, and I think trying to read it in the most literally RAW doesn't give a clear picture of how it's supposed to operate.
I have clicked FAQ because it of how unclear the wording really is. As the above poster pointed out treating as unarmed should actually do nothing since an unarmed strike can be made with any part of the body. So it doesn't actually give you free hands to begin with. Then it just says deliberately that you can use Snatch Arrows and Deflect Arrows ignoring the fact you don't have a free hand (because being "unarmed" doesn't really mean anything in game turns unless referring to unarmed strike or provoking AoO for not having Improved Unarmed Strike).
It seems we agree that as written, the weapons description isn't clear.
In such cases I always go with the strictest interpretation possible on the meaning of such things. I think the sword is intended to allow you to use feats that normally require a free hand to deflect things, but not for actually have a free hand. That ultimately what I see it as.
You don't have two free hands to grapple so you take a penalty. You don't have a free hand to use spell combat and it's not even a one-handed wepaon unless you have EWP (so you can't use it), you're not even making unarmed strike so how would Tiger Claw apply, etc.
No, I could be wrong, that may not be the intention. I have FAQ'd, and I don't think there is a clear and strong position supported by any text for either of us. The best we can do is hope this will be addressed by FAQ.