A character, say, inquisitor, with rapid reload can fire his hand crossbow as many times as he can in a full attack action.
Reloading it is a free action but needs a free hand to pull the lever(nothing else held in that hand).
Would it theoretically work to shoot the crossbow, quick draw, say, a dagger, throw it with the other hand, then, with the "free" hand reload the crossbow, shoot it, quickdraw another dagger and throw it, then reload again and shoot a third time?
On a further note, how would a glove of storing synergize with a weapon cord in this example?
Do you HAVE to take your two-weapon attacks alternating or can do do all attacks with one hand, then all attacks with the other hand?
(The idea being to "drop" the off hand crossbow, do the attacks with the main hand, then swift-action-retrieve the offhand, free action store the main hand, do the attacks with the offhand, free action retrieve the main hand)
(Alas: Glove of Storing only takes the magical wrist slot for us, so DOES work with nonmagical items on the other hand(such as weapon cord)).
Basically we are looking on making the vision of a dual-crossbow-wielding inquisitor come true for a new player, so if needed, i will houserule in this case. But i would not want to set a precedence at my table if it IS possible in RAW.
Well, purely by RAW, if you can drop and pick up a weapon using cords both as free actions, then this is no different from a [massively massively weaker version of] dual-pistolero build. People take issue with it because you're doing like twenty free actions in a round, but for crossbows instead of pistols [which really oughta be getting the doubleshot once per round not every shot] it shouldn't be a problem.
If you had BAB 20, rapidshot, and GTWF you'd be doing [let's say the bonuses bring you back to 20]: +20[main]/+20[rapid]+20[off]/+15[main]/+15[off]/+10[main]/+10[off]/+5[main].
Honestly though, if you need to houserule, d20 came with an irrational hate of crossbows that pathfinder never felt like fixing. This is a world with guns, giant robot spiders, composite magical longbows [that's BEFORE any enchanting mind you, and composites used to be just short] that are quick and easy to learn by anyone [a racial or character trait at WORST will still let a wizard get it] have no recovery time with quivers that don't leave you vulnerable while drawing even though taking a bolt instead of an arrow provokes attacks of opportunity...
... And somehow the crossbows are still old wooden ones from early roman times and can't be mastered and somehow repeaters are an exotic proficiency that's worse after higher feat expenditure than most bloody simple weapons.
If you want to make repeaters simple and give them ten bolt magazines, probably only PFS would ever take an issue with that there. I mean, he's already paying for the feats to use these things, so why not just let it be fluffed as a sensible piece of regular equipment instead of a overly convoluted set-up of strings, overly-archaic-for-their-own-fantasy-level-of-technology weapons and free actions?
Everyone loves autocrossbows anyways.
MordredofFairy wrote: Would it theoretically work to shoot the crossbow, quick draw, say, a dagger, throw it with the other hand, then, with the "free" hand reload the crossbow, shoot it, quickdraw another dagger and throw it, then reload again and shoot a third time? Assuming you have Quickdraw and Rapid Reload, and presumably Two-Weapon Fighting, then yes, this is legal.
MordredofFairy wrote: Do you HAVE to take your two-weapon attacks alternating or can do do all attacks with one hand, then all attacks with the other hand? Actually, I believe you can. The text for the various Two-Weapon Fighting rules never say you take your attacks with your off-hand in alternation. Indeed, they don't even say they take place at a lower BAB than full - the text just says things like "at a -5 penalty" for ITWF, of "at a -10 penalty" for GTWF. It's just that that math works out equally to using your lower iterative BAB.
They are still described at being "second" and "third" off-hand attacks, though, so you still have to take them in that order.
So you have to do:
Xbow: +11/6/1
Dagger: +11/+11(-5)/+11(-10)
But you can take two crossbow attacks, then all your dagger ones, then the crossbow, or any combination thereof.
Keep in mind this involves a LOT of free actions - it sounds like you, as GM, want to allow the player to be able to do this, but just be aware that the book does advise coming up with a reasonable limit, so keep that in mind.
Like I say though, reasonable limit and reasonable equipment can be combined.
What the player wants isn't broken, and is expending feats, additional gold and his damage potential just to fit a concept hamstrung by a weapon that was told "no, being powerful and easy to use would be bad for this fantasy game but being fast or useful would be unrealistic".
By purchasing Rapid Reload, he's already spent more feats on crossbows than he would on a bow [which he is also proficient with]. By purchasing Quickdraw, he's spent another again. Hand Crossbows are horribly expensive for what they do, he'd have been buying weapon cords atop this.
So yeah, being reasonable is a houserule here, but just... forget the entire complex sequence. Crossbows are repeaters by default, reloading's not an issue until he expends his bolt cases, and weapon cords are for when you let go of your grip.
Everyone'll breathe easier and feel less... 'special' about the whole process.
As an added bonus, have him write the load order of each bolt-case because that could now be relevant. "oh so your THIRD attack's the lightning bolt? the one that heals these things?" "I... uh... CRAP."
thanks you two.
Yes, it's a lot of free actions, but it seems very reasonable power-wise.
Comparing
a.: a dual-wielder with hand crossbows(light weapon for -2 penalty and 30 feet range increment and 1d4 weapon damage) that has to spend 3 feats on making this work basic for 2 attacks, then more feats on getting more iterative attacks out of it....
with
b.: a adaptive composite longbow wielder with rapid shot(for a -2 penalty and 110 feet range increment for 1d8+str weapon damage) that can spend feats on deadly aim, point blank shot and more feats on weapon focus/precise shot...
kind of makes the latter come out ahead, ESPECIALLY if you factor in that the inquisitors "bane" ability only affects ONE weapon, and he also has to get 2 magic hand crossbows to stay competitive, and even so, will be at a severe disadvantage at range.
As said, it's mostly for flavor, and it definitely does not "feel" broken. Even if later with double judgements and other boni he may get 1 or 2 extra attacks(the lower iterative offhand ones) he's spent a lot of feats on that and still had plenty of weaknesses.
So thank you both for the input that matches how i hoped things would work!(btw, retrieving per weapon cord is a swift action, thats why it will be one weapon cord and one glove of storing, which is a free action)
I would rule against it.
If you use the off hand for something else, you can't use it to attack.
If you need it to load the crossbow, you can't use it to throw the dagger.
Just as, if you need the off hand to swing the Two-Handed Sword, you can't use it to throw the dagger.
Komoda wrote: I would rule against it.
If you use the off hand for something else, you can't use it to attack.
If you need it to load the crossbow, you can't use it to throw the dagger.
Just as, if you need the off hand to swing the Two-Handed Sword, you can't use it to throw the dagger.
However, Rapid Reload makes it a free action that only requires your hand to be empty.
If you swing the two handed sword, and throw a dagger, you just made 2 attack actions with the same hand.
Quite different from making 1 attack action and a free action with the same hand.
That would me more akin to saying "if you attack with your hand, you can't spend a free action to drop the weapon you were holding".
Keep in mind that 2 feats had to be spent to get this to work(quick draw to get the dagger, rapid reload to make reloading into a free action) and another one to make the penalties less severe(two weapon fighting).
In comparison, if you omitted the crossbow and ONLY used daggers, you would have to spend 1 feat(rapid reload) less and could do the exact same thing, quick draw 2 daggers, throw both, quick draw another 2 daggers etc.
Your hand is not empty if at two times during the round, it is not empty. It is not a free action to empty your hand of the dagger that you are throwing.
It *is* a free action to drop/retrieve/load the crossbow. Comparing those things to throwing a dagger is nonsense.
Komoda wrote: Your hand is not empty if at two times during the round, it is not empty. It is not a free action to empty your hand of the dagger that you are throwing.
but that is utter nonsense.
If you start the round holding a shortsword, it is also not empty, but you could drop the shortsword(free action), quickdraw a dagger and throw it in that same round.
Either you don't grasp the concept of "free actions" or you are heavily opposed for some different reason, but your argumentation has no basis in RAW.
You could NOT hold a sword AND do a free action with that hand at the same time. But a free action does not take time and can be done at any time prior or later.
To stick with the timing example of the crossbow:
You could start the round with a sword in hand, make a melee attack with it, move away with a 5-foot step, drop the sword as free action, then reload the crossbow as a free action.
You could also start the round with one hand empty, reload the crossbow as a free action, quickdraw the sword, move closer with a 5-foot step and make a melee attack with it.
Those 2 cases are completely valid in RAW, you don't have to have an empty hand for the whole round to do a free action with it. Factually, you wouldn't even need a free action for reloading from rapid reload, in both of these examples you could even spend a move action on it.
I was wondering if there was any reason why this could not be done repeatedly in the same round(with free actions, naturally), anything i could have missed ruleswise. It seems that is not the case, as nobody provided anything in the rules that opposes it.
You are, of course, welcome to houserule any of this in your game, but i was asking in the rules section to gain information about how it works RAW.
Komoda wrote: Your hand is not empty if at two times during the round, it is not empty. It is not a free action to empty your hand of the dagger that you are throwing.
This is a terrible houserule you have conjured.
The new FAQ on the suggested limit on the number of free actions per round will certainly impact this discussion. I suggest anyone posting here go read it.
Weslocke wrote: The new FAQ on the suggested limit on the number of free actions per round will certainly impact this discussion. I suggest anyone posting here go read it. This FAQ changes nothing, but provide some guidelines.
No rules clarification/change of any kind.
Incorrect.
This guideline clarifies what the developers opinion of an appropriate limit to the number of free actions per round might be.
It also leaves it in the hands of the GM to decide for himself without cementing a fixed number into place, which is all that it did before this clarification.
It also clarifies that no ranged character should get more than three attacks per round. Which is probably not what the developers intended, or at least I hope.
No change has happened.
It is confusing, as it implies there is.
Bad FAQ.
Why?
Because a confusing clarification, is not a clarification.
What, exactly, is so confusing about the numbers 3 & 5.
Mergy wrote: It also clarifies that no ranged character should get more than three attacks per round. Which is probably not what the developers intended, or at least I hope. Believe me it shocked me as much as it shocked you. Time will tell as to their actual intention. Like all rules and guidelines in a living system it will either take or it will not.
Weslocke wrote: What, exactly, is so confusing about the numbers 3 & 5. That is not what is confusing about it.
What is confusing, is it implies that it is setting a precedent, that does not, and should not, exist.
Especially with it's examples.
The answer is "DM fiat".
No more. No less.
Just wait until someone references it, as if it were a rule.
It even blurs RAI, as RAI is that it is DM fiat.
While I may not have worded it very well before, it is not rediculious to deduce that you cannot apply two options that give you extra attacks with the same hand at the same time.
In the OP's example, assuming two-weapon fighting at BAB +6, you are using one hand in each and every attack (4 times) and the other hand in half of the attacks (2 times).
Just like when you use two-weapon fighting to attack with a two handed weapon twice and throw two daggers. One hand is used 4 times, the other 2 times.
I believe that both options exceed the action economy of the round.
I also disagree with the FAQ. I don't care about what other free actions you take, I only care about how many attacks you use. Again, applying two feats at the same time that give you extra attacks is too much, IMHO.
All the rules are guidelines, BBT. It says so in the rules.
Anyway, I am done threadjacking and now return you to your previously scheduled discussion.
Weslocke wrote: All the rules are guidelines, BBT. It says so in the rules. That's a horrible response.
Komoda wrote: While I may not have worded it very well before, it is not rediculious to deduce that you cannot apply two options that give you extra attacks with the same hand at the same time.
In the OP's example, assuming two-weapon fighting at BAB +6, you are using one hand in each and every attack (4 times) and the other hand in half of the attacks (2 times).
Just like when you use two-weapon fighting to attack with a two handed weapon twice and throw two daggers. One hand is used 4 times, the other 2 times.
I believe that both options exceed the action economy of the round.
I also disagree with the FAQ. I don't care about what other free actions you take, I only care about how many attacks you use. Again, applying two feats at the same time that give you extra attacks is too much, IMHO.
but with the two-handed sword, you use the hand for an ACTION.
swinging a two-handed sword is one part of a iterative full attack action that uses BOTH hands during EACH attack.
Alternatively, swinging it once is a STANDARD action that uses both hands.
Reloading a crossbow is a FREE action, if you spend a feat on it.
Drawing a Dagger is a FREE action as well, if you spend another feat on it.
If those feats had not been spent, you would be correct. But alas, they were. Making both of these things free actions.
Thus, your hands are used in exactly 2 attacks each. Not one hand in 2 and the other in 4. The offhand has no part in the attacks, it's merely doing a free action inbetween.
As said, you could just as easily quickdraw 6 daggers and throw them. Or quickdraw 2 kukris, make attacks with them, drop them, quick draw two daggers, make attacks with them, drop them, then quick draw 2 short sword, attack with them, drop them, then quick draw another set of 2 kukris.
In this case, we are entering a area of very questionable action economy, because technically you could carry with you 50 daggers and quick draw and drop all of them within 6 seconds. I would probably ask you for a performance check at my table and give enemies that see you a fascinated condition. ONCE, for fun. Then we are done with that.
So don't believe i don't understand what you MEAN, however, this is far from powerful. It's not gamebreaking in the slightest, and the player is spending a total of 3 feats on this rather than 1 feat on rapid shot, for lesser range, lesser base damage, and technically provoking on reload and on shooting.
If the combo in any way would seem "more powerful" than what would be approbiate, or if there was something in RAW that says this cannot work, there's a point of discussion.
But the fact it should NOT work because he is using his "free hand" inbetween attacks to do a free action is only your personal opinion.
While a reasonable limit on the amount of free actions a player can take in a round is suggested, crossbows are unneccesarily unloved.
For example: There is "Endless ammunition" as enhancement, there's also a spell "Abundant Ammunition". Why, in RAW, is there nothing like a Repeating Crossbow with a permanent "Abundant Ammunition" cast on it's bolt case?
All in all, by the rules, it seems allowed, and the only limiting factor would be "too many free actions", which i gladly handwave for such a weak weapon such as crossbows, for someone spending several feats on letting this work rather than going the easy way of composite longbow+rapid shot(which would be even nastier with bane class ability).
All beyond that is just mere personal opinion of people. As said, you are welcome to houserule whatever you want, including you cannot do free actions with a hand that you used during the round in some way. But that will be just a houserule, and my question was if there was something in the RAW rules that contradicts this.
Thanks for the input everybody.
The character with a +6 BAB can only throw 4 daggers with the two weapon fighting option and all relevant feats, not 6. As to drawing all those weapons you mentioned, I believe you are limited to two weapons when using two-weapon fighting, plus any additional thrown weapons. I am using an iPad right now, so I will have to verify that later.
I understand that they are free actions to load the crossbow, but as both hands are used to enable the loading which allows the extra firing, my interpretation of RAW is that it is not allowed to be combined with throwing of daggers, or fighting with a longsword for that matter.
Basically, with your interpretation, you could draw a longsword, make two attacks with it, drop it, then fire off two shots with your hand crossbow that required both hands to load. I think that is to much as far as action economy of "hands" is concerned.
Or, following your guidelines, you could draw one crossbow, load and shoot it twice, drop it, draw a second crossbow with the other hand, then load and shoot it twice, as everything except the firing of the crossbow is a free action.
You cannot even use a Two Handed weapon and Armor spikes as two weapon fighting because it is to many "hands" even though Armor spikes don't use hands and as per RAW there is no question that you can deploy that option. And there are zero free actions required to enable the second weapon to be deployed.
It is not out of line to apply that logic to other situations involving action economy of attacks, especially when they do use hands.
Again, my interpretation may not be correct, but I am not making up house rules.
As to power, I don't care if it is the best or worst option available, I just try to apply a consistent logic across the board.
As Pathfinder has shown logic is not always applied evenly, I can often prove the logic and still be incorrect as to the outcome of the ruling.
Komoda wrote: The character with a +6 BAB can only throw 4 daggers with the two weapon fighting option and all relevant feats, not 6. As to drawing all those weapons you mentioned, I believe you are limited to two weapons when using two-weapon fighting, plus any additional thrown weapons. I am using an iPad right now, so I will have to verify that later.
I understand that they are free actions to load the crossbow, but as both hands are used to enable the loading which allows the extra firing, my interpretation of RAW is that it is not allowed to be combined with throwing of daggers, or fighting with a longsword for that matter.
Basically, with your interpretation, you could draw a longsword, make two attacks with it, drop it, then fire off two shots with your hand crossbow that required both hands to load. I think that is to much as far as action economy of "hands" is concerned.
Or, following your guidelines, you could draw one crossbow, load and shoot it twice, drop it, draw a second crossbow with the other hand, then load and shoot it twice, as everything except the firing of the crossbow is a free action.
You cannot even use a Two Handed weapon and Armor spikes as two weapon fighting because it is to many "hands" even though Armor spikes don't use hands and as per RAW there is no question that you can deploy that option. And there are zero free actions required to enable the second weapon to be deployed.
It is not out of line to apply that logic to other situations involving action economy of attacks, especially when they do use hands.
Again, my interpretation may not be correct, but I am not making up house rules.
As to power, I don't care if it is the best or worst option available, I just try to apply a consistent logic across the board.
As Pathfinder has shown logic is not always applied evenly, I can often prove the logic and still be incorrect as to the outcome of the ruling.
The example with 6 obviously was later, since it also requires the third iterative off-hand attack.
It was just used to demonstrate things get worse, anyway. Sorry if you didn't understand what i meant.
As for what is "allowed" to be done, as said, there's the difference between swift actions, free actions and move actions.
Regulary, reloading is a move action. In that case, yes, you can't use the hand for something else. Though you could STILL spend the move action to load your off-hand crossbow, then quickdraw a sword and strike someone with the sword as a standard action.
With the feat spent, it is a free action, which are not technically limited per round as long as in any form reasonable to the GM. What you are thinking about may be swift actions which, again, are limited per turn.
The way you can easily imagine it is if after throwing that dagger, you just move your hand back from the "throw" position pulling back the lever on the hand crossbow before fetching a new dagger from your breast to throw.
And yes, if you had Improved Two-Weapon fighting, you could make two attacks with the longsword, then two attacks with the crossbow.(probably after taking a 5-foot step. I am untrained as warrior, but without any reasonably accuracy, i'm pretty sure _I_ could swing a sword 2 times, take a step, and take two shots with a hand crossbow repeater within a 6-second timeframe. Nothing really accurate, mind you, but as said, i'm a first-level NPC at best.
The armor spikes were specifically called out as circumventing "hands per attack. Because you cannot reasonably allow them rules-wise with a two-handed weapon and prevent them from being used with 2 one-handed weapons. You are allowed to use a bite attack with your normal weapon attacks though. If you want a rules-wise comparison, hitting someone with armor spikes would either be a "unarmed strike"-equivalent(where only the monk can use non-hand limbs) or a slam attack. Neither of the options presented above use the hands in an ATTACK action more often than they are allowed to. They are used in FREE actions inbetween attacks. As said, much as it is a free action to draw that dagger if you spent a feat on quick-draw, it is also a free action to reload that hand crossbow if you spent a feat on rapid reload. Thats the key point, you have to invest feats on being able to do that.
By your logic, every character should by default have the ability to cleave, especially with two-handed weapons. But no, they have to spend feats on that line. Feats are an investment with a "reward" for taking them. Basically what you are doing is eliminate this "reward" because it does not seem logical to you, but unfortunately, in RAW, there are no grounds for that if the required feats are aquired.
As said, i appreciate my "logic" as well, and i'd find it questionable if someone with two-weapon fighting wanted to juggle his weapon from one hand to the other to make all his attacks with his best sword(e.g.), because this, to me, is clearly against the intent of two-weapon fighting.
But in the above case, the best you can hope for is 6-7 attacks per round. Which is 6-7 attacks in a 6-second timeframe. For an high-level character at a time when a zen archer monk fires 11 arrows, wizards kill with a thought, rogues vanish from sight in plain view and a housecat animal companion slays a small village. What i'm trying to say is that at the power level where these actions become "logically questionable", the game is far beyond logic. In the early game, the best you can do is attack with a thrown dagger and reload a light or hand crossbow, within a 6 second timeframe, after spending 2 feats on that, which is utterly realistic even for a untrained person.
In the midgame, you can do the same within 3 seconds, or twice per round. Still quite reasonable looking at time and actions involved, and looking at the "consistent logic" already wavering at this game level.
Once you enter the teen levels, you can do the same within 2 seconds.
So in 2 seconds, a teen level character draws a dagger and throws it, then loads a small crossbow and fires it. Still doesn't seem utterly impossible(especially compared to what other characters in their teens pull off).
Thats what i mean. The action doesn't seem unreasonable by far, especially compared with other things we see at the adequate levels. It in no way contradicts something in the rules, and specifically cracking down on a relatively weak option under pretext of logic that does NOT get applied to any other game context seems weird.
blackbloodtroll wrote: Weslocke wrote: All the rules are guidelines, BBT. It says so in the rules. That's a horrible response. Still, you have to admit that it is a far wittier, much less inflammatory and near infinitely less horrible response than repeatedly spitting out, "DM Fiat!", "Houserule, Houserule!".
Which seems to be your "Go to" responses for anything and everything that you do not agree with that can be found within the rules.
Now, my Kingmaker campaign will be starting in about a half hour and I need to stat up some Underlings. (Thank you, Mr. Buhlman!)
I find it funny that you think you can do all that in 6 seconds. I am not picking on you, but as a MP I have 4 seconds to draw my M9 and fire twice at a target 5 yards away. I start in a firing stance with my hand on the weapon, holster release pressed, thumb in position to hit the safety and I know exactly when the command to fire will happen as it is counted down. It takes me 2.5 - 3 seconds and I am a designated Expert Pistol Medal recipient. Oh, and I use two hands to do it.
Back to the game...
The part that I was referring to as to how many weapons you can draw starts with Quick Draw where is states "a weapon". This can of course be read as "all weapons" are free actions or "one weapon" is a free action. I get that. Further in quick draw it specifically states that you can draw as many thrown weapons as you have attacks. Actually, it doesn't say that. It says that you can throw at your "full normal rate" which doesn't answer the question of how many you can draw, but clearly you can draw at least as many as you can throw (which was never in question anyway).
I had planned to use the limit of your rate of attack as part of my argument, but I guess that won't work with the wording of the feat.
So, on to my next support...
CRB page 187 wrote: If you have the Two-Weapon Fighting feat, you can draw two light or one-handed weapons in the time it would normally take you to draw one. This just brings us back to what does "a weapon" mean. So I guess I have some slim support, but you could use it just the same for your argument of no limit.
So that part is a wash.
As far as unarmed strikes go, they are not limited to limbs for any characters, unless there is an FAQ or something that I am not aware of (which is highly possible). I know that is a common claim of many people, but I can't find anything to support it.
But I believe you are mistaken as to Armor Spikes. You CAN use them with two one handed weapons while two weapon fighting as long as you don't go over your normal limit of attacks per round. 4 in the case of the +6 I have been using all along. So you could swing with one sword once, one twice and the spikes once. I don't believe that is contested by anyone.
The problem was gaining the action economy of +1/2 Strength bonus and extra attacks in the same round, so the ruling was even though hands are not used, Armor Spikes count as hands.
And finally, I think I may have found some strong support for my argument under Rapid Reload itself:
CRB p132 wrote: If you have selected this feat for hand crossbow or light crossbow, you may fire that weapon as many times in a full attack action as you could attack if you were using a bow. I believe this gives you extra attacks, but limits you to what you can do with a bow, which would be in line with what I was saying before.
But, your mileage may vary.
Komoda wrote: I find it funny that you think you can do all that in 6 seconds. I am not picking on you, but as a MP I have 4 seconds to draw my M9 and fire twice at a target 5 yards away. I start in a firing stance with my hand on the weapon, holster release pressed, thumb in position to hit the safety and I know exactly when the command to fire will happen as it is counted down. It takes me 2.5 - 3 seconds and I am a designated Expert Pistol Medal recipient. Oh, and I use two hands to do it. Hm, i had military service, and it never seems that hard with an assault rifle in british ready. As i mentioned, with sword and crossbow, or dagger and crossbow, i'd doubt my accuracy. But we are talking light crossbows or hand crossbows here, which are often loaded in a simple pump-action motion. So yeah, i am quite certain with some reasonable training you could draw a dagger, throw it, then load and fire the crossbow in a 6 second time frame. Nobody said it would be easy, but it's definitely not beyond realism.
Komoda wrote:
Back to the game...
The part that I was referring to as to how many weapons you can draw starts with Quick Draw where is states "a weapon". This can of course be read as "all weapons" are free actions or "one weapon" is a free action. I get that. Further in quick draw it specifically states that you can draw as many thrown weapons as you have attacks. Actually, it doesn't say that. It says that you can throw at your "full normal rate" which doesn't answer the question of how many you can draw, but clearly you can draw at least as many as you can throw (which was never in question anyway).
I had planned to use the limit of your rate of attack as part of my argument, but I guess that won't work with the wording of the feat.
Yes, i am aware. It's also a fact that two-weapon throwers, while among the weakest builds usually, are working with quick-draw. So you could technically quickdraw and throw 7+ daggers a round. Which goes beyond what we are trying to to dhere.
Komoda wrote:
So, on to my next support...
CRB page 187 wrote: If you have the Two-Weapon Fighting feat, you can
draw two light or one-handed weapons in the time it would
normally take you to draw one.
This just brings us back to what does "a weapon" mean. So I guess I have some slim support, but you could use it just the same for your argument of no limit.
So that part is a wash.
Yeah, as both the examples of "light crossbow" and "hand crossbow" specifically call out to be one handed respectively light weapons for purposes of two-weapon fighting with them.
So yeah, quickdrawing 2 light weapons(such as dagger and handcrossbow) is explicitly covered here to become the same free action with quickdraw.
Komoda wrote: As far as unarmed strikes go, they are not limited to limbs for any characters, unless there is an FAQ or something that I am not aware of (which is highly possible). I know that is a common claim of many people, but I can't find anything to support it. I wish i could quote the source, alas, i dunno either. The argumented reasoning was that not limiting them to "hands" would allow people to reasonably bypass their attack limit, by attacking with hands and other limbs, e.g. knee. The only exception, as far as i am aware, was the bite natural attack that you can do in addition.
Komoda wrote: But I believe you are mistaken as to Armor Spikes. You CAN use them with two one handed weapons while two weapon fighting as long as you don't go over your normal limit of attacks per round. 4 in the case of the +6 I have been using all along. So you could swing with one sword once, one twice and the spikes once. I don't believe that is contested by anyone.
The problem was gaining the action economy of +1/2 Strength bonus and extra attacks in the same round, so the ruling was even though hands are not used, Armor Spikes count as hands.
The problem with armor spikes in this regard, as i recall, was that the two-handed fighter with armor spikes get 1.5 times strenght on the main weapon and 0.5 times strenght on the spikes, while a two-weapon fighter gets 1 times on main weapon and 0.5 on off-hand.
So, as you said, the two-hander would get 0.5 times his strenght "extra" for free. I have to admit though that in this regard, i vaguely recall things but did not research the rulings.
Komoda wrote:
And finally, I think I may have found some strong support for my argument under Rapid Reload itself:
CRB p132 wrote:
If you have selected this feat for hand crossbow or light crossbow, you may fire that weapon as many times in a full attack
action as you could attack if you were using a bow.
I believe this gives you extra attacks, but limits you to what you can do with a bow, which would be in line with what I was saying before.
But, your mileage may vary.
I agree that it limits you to what you could do with the bow. However, the operative part is "you may fire that weapon as many times in a full attack action as you could attack if you were using a bow.
So yes, any single weapon cannot be fire more often than a bow could be. It's a clumsy way of saying you get your full iterative attacks.
However, Crossbows specifically state they can be fired with one hand.
So, the complete logic structure would "break down" if you decided to wield a crossbow in the offhand unless you apply it to "that weapon".
Same as crossbows explicitly state you can dual-wield them which is never possible for a bow.
As said, some logic reason is required here. By pure RAW, a Zen archer monk could suddenly "flurry" with a crossbow, since "if he was using a bow he'd have 8 attacks" and you can fire as many times in a full attack as IF you were using a bow. Same as a bow can never be dual-wielded. So if i had ONE two-weapon fighting feat and full base attack progression, at Level 16 i'd have 4 main hand attacks and one off-hand. If i had a bow, that would mean i would be making 4 attacks.
I can't say "okay, i'm wielding a x-bow in my offhand, and now this feat, RAW, lets me take as many attacks "as if i was using a bow" so i'm getting 4 offhand attacks with my xbow and 4 mainhand attacks with whatever else i wield/do.
So RAI, it indeed has to apply "per weapon" and "per hand" otherwise RAW would have loopholes. As said, it's not that i don't understand what you mean, but i see no reason to ban something that, by raw, is legal, unless it is unlogical by a large margin or breaking the game somehow. We can agree that it's not breaking the game in any way, we can agree that by RAW, there's nothing breaking rules.
So the last factor is the "unlogical by a large margin" and as i said, with the kind of things other characters pull off, even without magic thrown in the mix, spending 5 feats on being able to make 6 attacks a round just doesn't fulfill that for me.
As you said: your mileage may vary, but compared with what other classes and combinations pull off, getting 6 or 7 attacks at medium bab progression with a 1d4 weapon for spending 5 feats is definitely not a problem at my table when the alternative is a zen archer monk spending no feats to get 8+ attacks in a flurry with a 1d8 weapon at a higher attack bonus.
Komoda wrote: But I believe you are mistaken as to Armor Spikes. You CAN use them with two one handed weapons while two weapon fighting as long as you don't go over... Ah, i found the entry:
Core Rulebook FAQ Combat section
No, you can't.
That FAQ is only about Two-Handed weapons.
This is where hands are hands but are not hands really got crazy. A +6 BAB gets 4 attacks when two-weapon fighting with appropriate feats. Two are main-hand, two are off-hand.
If you make two main-hand attacks with a sword, one off-hand attack with a second sword and a second off-hand attack with armor spikes, you are good to go as you stay within the limits.
The two-handed weapon attacks "cost" a main-hand and an off-hand attack for their attacks. Thus attacking twice uses two main-hand and off-hand "hands", using up all 4 available "hands" for that round.
Therefore, even though it is a no action to switch to using armored spikes, and you haven't used two weapon fighting, you still can't make the attacks with the second weapon. But clearly, before a FAQ that was posted 5 years? into the game, by RAW you could.
That is what I apply to the x-bows, but I might be wrong.
2 "hands" are used for the daggers. 1 "hand" is used for the first, already loaded x-bow attack. Another "hand" is used to load it again, and finally a "hand" to fire it.
So I see the use of 5 hands even if one is a free action, because, as shown above, the no action switch to the no hands armor spikes also uses to many "hands" to allow the attack, even with the use of purchased feats.
So the logic that I see is that the free action doesn't matter as it is more costly than a no action, the cost of feats don't matter as they don't affect the two-handed option, the number of actual "hands" don't matter. But you HAVE to have two hands on the crossbow at the same time to load it, taking away your use of that "hand" for an extra attack gained by Two-Weapon Fighting with a second weapon.
But as BBT loves to point out something to the effect of, not all "hands " are "hands" and some things that's are not "hands" are "hands" so it is basically impossible to prove which "hands" are "hands" and which "hands" are not "hands" and which not "hands" are "hands".
Say that 10 times fast!
And RAW has serious loopholes, which is why there are so many interpretations of so many rules.
Which brings us back to it is not about the power of the build in question. Because with a little creativity, this gets much more powerful. It would apply to light crossbows and javelins as well. Add Throw Anything and the Throwing weapon property and there is no telling what combinations can happen.
Great debate!
Komoda wrote: That FAQ is only about Two-Handed weapons.
This is where hands are hands but are not hands really got crazy. A +6 BAB gets 4 attacks when two-weapon fighting with appropriate feats. Two are main-hand, two are off-hand.
If you make two main-hand attacks with a sword, one off-hand attack with a second sword and a second off-hand attack with armor spikes, you are good to go as you stay within the limits.
The two-handed weapon attacks "cost" a main-hand and an off-hand attack for their attacks. Thus attacking twice uses two main-hand and off-hand "hands", using up all 4 available "hands" for that round.
Therefore, even though it is a no action to switch to using armored spikes, and you haven't used two weapon fighting, you still can't make the attacks with the second weapon. But clearly, before a FAQ that was posted 5 years? into the game, by RAW you could.
Yep, because the reasoning is that you are actively using the hand in a action(attacking with the two-handed weapon) that is NOT a free action.
Komoda wrote: That is what I apply to the x-bows, but I might be wrong.
2 "hands" are used for the daggers. 1 "hand" is used for the first, already loaded x-bow attack. Another "hand" is used to load it again, and finally a "hand" to fire it.
So I see the use of 5 hands even if one is a free action, because, as shown above, the no action switch to the no hands armor spikes also uses to many "hands" to allow the attack, even with the use of purchased feats.
Which is why i disagree with your interpretation. Loading it is not an action, thus only has a "requirement" of a hand being free. That is, you could not wield a sword and a crossbow and reload the crossbow with the hand holding the sword. More importantly, you could not dual-wield crossbows and reload both of them, because both hands are "occupied".
So, you use two hand-actions for the daggers, and 2 hand actions for the crossbow.
In the example above, you'd use 4 hand-actions for the 2 attacks with a two-handed weapon and have no hand-actions left. You could still take free actions though.
For example, you could grasp your bastard sword two-handed, make two attacks with it, then let go of your bastard sword with one hand and quick draw and drop a short sword for someone else to pick up that was just disarmed, then quick draw another short sword to switch to two-weapon fighting.
Technically, you could also make a two-handed attack with your bastard sword, then drop it, quickdraw 2 daggers and make 2 one-handed attacks using two-weapon fighting.
All of this only uses a total of 4 hands in attack actions. Anything else done inbetween, be it quickdrawing a weapon, be it dropping a weapon, be it reloading the crossbow, is a free action that does not "use" a hand.
Komoda wrote: So the logic that I see is that the free action doesn't matter as it is more costly than a no action, the cost of feats don't matter as they don't affect the two-handed option, the number of actual "hands" don't matter. But you HAVE to have two hands on the crossbow at the same time to load it, taking away your use of that "hand" for an extra attack gained by Two-Weapon Fighting with a second weapon. See, and thats where you are going wrong with your thinking in my opinion. You are not "using" that hand for the attack. In the case of the light crossbow, you would even take a extra penalty for attacking one-handed with it instead of using 2 hands.
If something is a free action, it does not take a "hand action" away.
The same thing would apply to a buckler. If you do not use the hand with the buckler to attack with the crossbow, but only do the free action of loading it, you get the bucklers AC bonus.
By your reasoning, there would be no reason to EVER fire a crossbow one-handed, which is explicitly stated as carrying an extra penalty for everything larger than a hand crossbow, as you would "take away" a hand action for the process of loading it anyway, even if thats separate from firing it(which, done two-handed, would consume a hand action, i agree, as it then becomes a two-hand-wielded weapon used to make an attack, much like the two-weapon fighting with a two-hander and armor spikes).
But your way of handling it that a "free action" consumes a "hand-action"-slot is simply not based in RAW. By that same reasoning, quickdrawing a dagger which is ALSO a free action should take away the hands action-slot and prevent you from attacking with the thrown weapon. Thats why there ARE free action and why you spend feats to turn activities into a free action.
Komoda wrote: But as BBT loves to point out something to the effect of, not all "hands " are "hands" and some things that's are not "hands" are "hands" so it is basically impossible to prove which "hands" are "hands" and which "hands" are not "hands" and which not "hands" are "hands".
Say that 10 times fast!
And RAW has serious loopholes, which is why there are so many interpretations of so many rules.
Which brings us back to it is not about the power of the build in question. Because with a little creativity, this gets much more powerful. It would apply to light crossbows and javelins as well. Add Throw Anything and the Throwing weapon property and there is no telling what combinations can happen.
Great debate!
I agree that RAW has plenty loopholes still, especially if you don't use RAI.
As you mentioned, i know quickdraw+javelins/throwing weapon things work. Crazy stuff possible there.
But the question was specific about a certain build. One that uses hand crossbows and daggers, which, if nothing contradicts it in RAW, definitely is no reason to make up houserules that prevent it from working.
If someone starts abusing the system, it's usually in a way where it's no longer sensibly possible to say "yeah, theoretically you can do that".
But cracking down on something that is not in any form abusive because theoretically, maybe it could be in some certain combination that nobody found out about yet is too zealous in my eyes.
The light crossbows you mentioned: Yeah, it would apply, but they take another -2 penalty per hand for firing them single-handed. So you spend 5 feats on them to get a -4 penalty per attack, which technically means you get to do a second set of attacks, but ALL of your attacks lose the first iterative attack and get one at the bottom end.
Without any other boni, with a full BAB, instead od 20/15/10/5, or 20/20/15/10/5(haste) or 18/18/18/13/8/3(haste+rapid shot), you would get 16/16/11/11/6/6/1, or 16/16/16/11/11/6/6/1(haste) or 14/14/14/14/11/11/6/6/1(haste+rapid shot).
If you hit on a average of a die roll of 8 or more on your first iterative, thats what you'd need to roll for the latter 2 options(haste+rapid shot):
10/10/10/15/20/20 for the normal, and 14/14/14/14/19/19/20/20/20 for the dual crossbows.
So, summing that up, you get an average of 1.85 hits in the first variant, and an average of 1.55 hits in the latter variant(which also loses the threat range advantage at the last 3 attacks).
And thats after spending ONE feat on the first one(Rapid Shot) and 6 Feats on the dual-crossbow-one(Quickdraw, Two-Weapon-Fighting, Rapid Reload, Immproved Two Weapon Fighting, Greater Two-Weapon Fighting, Rapid Shot).
But i agree, Great Debate. Although i suppose we pretty much covered everything by now ;)
Komoda wrote: as a MP I have 4 seconds to draw my M9 and fire twice at a target 5 yards away. I start in a firing stance with my hand on the weapon, holster release pressed, thumb in position to hit the safety and I know exactly when the command to fire will happen as it is counted down. It takes me 2.5 - 3 seconds and I am a designated Expert Pistol Medal recipient. Oh, and I use two hands to do it. Congratulations. You are a first level character with Rapid Shot.
This game isn't supposed to model reality. At all. You should stop looking for realism in the mechanics, that way lies madness.
The mechanics are supposed to model things that are blatantly unrealistic. Start thinking about what a character in a John Woo movie would be able to do, instead of what you can do, and you'll be a lot closer to understanding the Rules As Intended.
MordredofFairy wrote: A character, say, inquisitor, with rapid reload can fire his hand crossbow as many times as he can in a full attack action.
Reloading it is a free action but needs a free hand to pull the lever(nothing else held in that hand).
Would it theoretically work to shoot the crossbow, quick draw, say, a dagger, throw it with the other hand, then, with the "free" hand reload the crossbow, shoot it, quickdraw another dagger and throw it, then reload again and shoot a third time?
On a further note, how would a glove of storing synergize with a weapon cord in this example?
Do you HAVE to take your two-weapon attacks alternating or can do do all attacks with one hand, then all attacks with the other hand?
(The idea being to "drop" the off hand crossbow, do the attacks with the main hand, then swift-action-retrieve the offhand, free action store the main hand, do the attacks with the offhand, free action retrieve the main hand)
(Alas: Glove of Storing only takes the magical wrist slot for us, so DOES work with nonmagical items on the other hand(such as weapon cord)).
Basically we are looking on making the vision of a dual-crossbow-wielding inquisitor come true for a new player, so if needed, i will houserule in this case. But i would not want to set a precedence at my table if it IS possible in RAW.
Now I know from where the FAQ about free actions has come.
Thanks (not really)
:P
Note: I don't mean the actual question, but the mindset that made it needed.
Diego Rossi wrote: MordredofFairy wrote: A character, say, inquisitor, with rapid reload can fire his hand crossbow as many times as he can in a full attack action.
Reloading it is a free action but needs a free hand to pull the lever(nothing else held in that hand).
Would it theoretically work to shoot the crossbow, quick draw, say, a dagger, throw it with the other hand, then, with the "free" hand reload the crossbow, shoot it, quickdraw another dagger and throw it, then reload again and shoot a third time?
On a further note, how would a glove of storing synergize with a weapon cord in this example?
Do you HAVE to take your two-weapon attacks alternating or can do do all attacks with one hand, then all attacks with the other hand?
(The idea being to "drop" the off hand crossbow, do the attacks with the main hand, then swift-action-retrieve the offhand, free action store the main hand, do the attacks with the offhand, free action retrieve the main hand)
(Alas: Glove of Storing only takes the magical wrist slot for us, so DOES work with nonmagical items on the other hand(such as weapon cord)).
Basically we are looking on making the vision of a dual-crossbow-wielding inquisitor come true for a new player, so if needed, i will houserule in this case. But i would not want to set a precedence at my table if it IS possible in RAW.
Now I know from where the FAQ about free actions has come.
Thanks (not really)
:P
Note: I don't mean the actual question, but the mindset that made it needed. I hope you are not serious, but go ahead, vent it.
Rather than dual-wield 2 hand crossbows for 1d4 with no strenght bonus with 30 feet range increment and spend 5 feats on making it work, that same inquisitor could wield a rapid-shot adaptive longbow for 1d8+STR damage and a 110 feet range increment and get Point Blank Shot, Manyshot, Precise Shot and Weapon Focus.
Oh, and instead of 2 weapons, there'd be only 1 weapon to enchant. Which, incidently, also is true in regards to the inquisitors instant-bane weapon giving ONE weapon up to 4d6 extra damage, or self-buffs like weapon of awe that gives ONE weapon a +2 damage bonus, or Flames of the Faithful giving ONE weapon flaming/flaming burst.
So, the mindset you are talking about is:
Hey, if i spend plenty of feats and accept a few drawbacks(such as having utterly no effective range, or not shooting into melee, or doing quite abysmal damage per shot even with destruction judgement active), i can make a stylish character that is not optimized, but still good enough to not be a burden on the group.
But oh my, after spending those 4 feats on rapid reload and Improved Two-Weapon Fighting Chain he is using a FREE action to reload his ranged weapons and gets 6 attacks, which is totally unlike a flurrying Zen Archer Monk spending a FREE action to draw a new arrow and getting 7 attacks base when flurrying, 8 if he spends a ki point that stacks with haste effects, and having spent NO feats to do so.
So, after spending those feats and a magic item slot, he is doing the same thing other characters with a bow can do with a inherently weaker weapon doing less than half the damage the bow does. That was never the intent and must of course be fixed this very instance.
Recent threads in Rules Questions
|
