I have a question in regards to deflect arrows feat, and multihanding a weapon works.
Example:
Character is using a longsword 2 handed in his round. End of his round, he lets go with one hand.
Deflects arrows using his now free hand during the opponents round.
On his next round, he regrips the longsword with the free hand, and then 2 hands it for the rest of his round, and then lets go with one hand.
Is this a legal approach ?
Lareman, could you provide the link to that faq ?
I cannot seem to find it.
Thank you.
I understand the AoO's would be one handed, but the question that I was asking, is the procedure that I wrote in the original post, RAI legal for the purposes of the deflect arrows feat ?
Huh, why not?
No, that is not part of RAI. If that were the case you couldn't climb a ladder, get off of it and then use this feat afterwards.
It all comes down to the exact instant, not the last 6 seconds.
While I dislike the term, I would say it's definitely cheesy. I agree that it is allowed by RAW. A full attack is a full round action, meaning you are using the entire round to perform the action. So you have both hands on your weapon the entire round. However, barring a ready action or something similiar, no one else takes their turn during your turn, so if you start with one hand on the sword and finish with one hand on the sword, then you have effectively spent the entire round with only one hand on the sword. So you have now created this paradox where you have spent the last 6 seconds both two handing and one handing your sword. Thus some people's dislike.
So yes, it is rules legal but only because of the abstract nature of combat rounds. It's only possible by metagaming. Your character essentially knows he is safe while taking his turn, that no one can shoot at him while he is attacking. It is using a construct of the game to an advantage.
So feel free to do it. Barring a house rule, it is perfectly legal. You may get some disapproving stares but I get those all the time when I wear my "Nuke the Whales" t-shirt. Hasn't hurt me any. (Emoticon that denotes light-hearted post)
That is incorrect. A full attack takes up your actions for the round, not the entire round. A 1-round action takes up the entire round. This distinction really matters.
So if I am climbing a ladder, or rope, (move-move) does that mean I can't quick draw a weapon at the end since I had used both my hands during the turn? Of course not.
Changing grips is common in combat. I due it in training with my M9 all the time. It is even more common with melee weapons. Try spinning a staff without ever letting go with either hand.
If I was GM'ing, i would allow it, (I am not though), however, I would have it described, as putting the blade or hilt of the weapon into the path of the arrow. However, I would still require that they keep the one hand free during the opponents turn, as per the feat description. :)
The main thing that I am looking at, is seeing if this pattern is actually legal. However, from what I can see, the RAW shows that it is, however, I am looking for a RAI, interpretation. Hopefully by one of the Dev's, even if it takes time.
I'd just rule that the arrow deflection was done by the blade of the sword instead of the 'free' hand.
My take on the 'must have a free hand' is that the character must have a hand that they are able to employ, not necessarily that it is not holding anything. In other words, a character couldn't deflect arrows if hanging from both hands from a rope, carrying a lame donkey or with his hands in handcuffs, but is able to take a hand from a two-handed weapon or wave a one-handed weapon at the incoming missile.
Arrow cutting, after all, is often done with swords and staves in the reference material (i.e. Hong Kong martial arts films).
I am asking this for my GM, as he doesn't think it should work that way for the deflect arrows feat.
However, my debating point, is that I release the weapon with one hand, I now have a free hand for the arrow deflection.
I suspect that Lareman got it from here .
Thank you for the link. I have bounced that to my GM.
However, the question that I was wondering about, does releasing one hand from the weapon, now qualify the character for the feat deflect arrows ?
His side of the debate, is that you have used both hands on the weapon, and thus it is not available.
My side, is that the hand is free, and thus is available for the feat deflect arrows.
I don't see anywhere where the player is taking a full attack round. Just to run and swing with both hands will get the 1-1/2 str damage. Also, in that six seconds, based on the FAQ that I linked earlier, you would still be able to deflect arrows. I agree, entirely, if you take a full attack then you should not be able to use it. But, like the example with the wizard getting an OoA with two hands on the staff, even though he used one hand to cast a spell on his standard action, then the two free actions to take hand off and put back on would apply to deflect arrows.
Thanks pinky. If I was DMing, I would say that the free actions of let go, deflect, and regrip, would be nearly the end of the free actions that player could take in one round. Maybe, saying, AHHHHHH!. But, that's pushing it. ;)
|
RAW, this works. You only need to have one free hand at the time you want to Deflect Arrows, not for the entire round.
Mechanically (balance wise) it's fine since you're using a weapon with a lower damage die and your AoO are less powerful than they otherwise would be.
Thematically, also fine. If you have a hard time visualizing this with "simultaneous" turns, then consider the character to only have both hands on the weapon during the instant that they make a committed attack - between the swings of the full attack the off-hand is brought back a little bit to check for incoming arrows, which also has the effect of preventing a full-strength swing for opportunistic attacks since these occur between fully-committed swings before the character's momentary grip shift has completed.
It's perfectly rules legal, it's just cheesy. You're gaming a rules construct. It's only viable due to the abstraction of combat. It's meta-gaming. That's why some people dislike it.
If your DM dislikes it, I would suggest not doing it.
It's perfectly rules legal, it's just cheesy.
Opinion. Personally I don't find this cheesy.
You're gaming a rules construct. It's only viable due to the abstraction of combat. It's meta-gaming. That's why some people dislike it.
There are lots of things that can happen that are meta-gaming under this pretext.
Example. Foe is trying to flee down a narrow corridor and at the end of its turn it is 5' in. It has a movement speed of 30'. I have a moment speed of 20'. Next round starts, and me 10' away, run forward, tumble past the foe (with a successful acrobatics check) and am now blocking its movement. In real world simultaneous movement I'd never even catch up to him, let alone get past him.
It would be easy to create dozens more scenarios that operate in a similar fashion based on rules mechanics and the one turn at a time construct.
This isn't meta-gaming. Meta-gaming is you as a player knowing demons are immune to fire, but your character fails to make the Kn roll and chooses to not do his standard tactic of opening combat with a fireball.
You're gaming a rules construct. It's only viable due to the abstraction of combat. It's meta-gaming. That's why some people dislike it.
There are lots of things that can happen that are meta-gaming under this pretext.
Example. Foe is trying to flee down a narrow corridor and at the end of its turn it is 5' in. It has a movement speed of 30'. I have a moment speed of 20'. Next round starts, and me 10' away, run forward, tumble past the foe (with a successful acrobatics check) and am now blocking its movement. In real world simultaneous movement I'd never even catch up to him, let alone get past him.
I think that you would catch them in real life, because while they are faster, if you are before them in the initiative, then you actually got the jump on them.
Two humans (equal move speed), look at a taxi in New York. They both see light go on. They look at each other, and one starts moving before the other (roll for a reference check). One beats the other. They don't arrive at the same time. I think that is the purpose of initiative. It's not at the same time, it is staggered. Not as much, obviously. And it is a little weird. Because now the Foe in bbangerter's scenario doesn't have to run towards the door and get caught, they can turn right around. But, not that weird.
I think that you would catch them in real life, because while they are faster, if you are before them in the initiative, then you actually got the jump on them.
Two humans (equal move speed), look at a taxi in New York. They both see light go on. They look at each other, and one starts moving before the other (roll for a reference check). One beats the other. They don't arrive at the same time. I think that is the purpose of initiative. It's not at the same time, it is staggered. Not as much, obviously. And it is a little weird. Because now the Foe in bbangerter's scenario doesn't have to run towards the door and get caught, they can turn right around. But, not that weird.
Ok, so let's change the scenario. You are both 30' movement speed. He is 50' away from you. You do a double move, tumble past him, and block him before he moves 5'? In real life? No, not at all in real life, even if you got the initiative jump.
The point is, game mechanics allow us to do all kinds of things that would never actually happen in real life played out as simultaneous movement.
Did you even role for the reference check? I'll give you a +5, you know it's with Steve Martin and Kevin Bacon.
Anyway, the initiative represents hesitation. If you are agile, and they stop concentrating, that hesitation can lead to a blind spot or a bad memory of their father drunk, or something and BOOM! You're in front of them.
Pink Dragon, with respect, I disagree with you this time.
First paragraph of chapter one in the CRB:
"The Pathfinder Roleplaying Game is a tabletop fantasy game in which the players take on the roles of heroes who form a group to set out on dangerous adventures. Helping them tell this story is the Game Master, who decides what threats the player characters face and what sorts of rewards they earn for succeeding at their quest. Think of it as a cooperative storytelling game, where the players play the protagonists and the Game Master acts as the narrator, controlling the rest of the world."
By the way, this is all very important! This is collective story telling. A good story keeps the listeners in a place of suspended disbelief. If things get to disjointed because of rules, it looses its flavor and eventually its fun.
NOW! I am not so arrogant to say that that is the end of it. Style of play is very important, as well. Such as kick-in-the-door is for and by the numbers. A math problem that some nerds just want to crack. But, to say that reality doesn't apply just because there is magic and whatnot is to say dies ex machina is a great ending for a movie and leaves people satisfied. The listeners (and players) need to believe in what's happening, because, after all, it's all in their heads.
It's perfectly rules legal, it's just cheesy. You're gaming a rules construct. It's only viable due to the abstraction of combat. It's meta-gaming. That's why some people dislike it.
If your DM dislikes it, I would suggest not doing it.
No more cheesy or meta-game than shooting an arrow at someone with two hands on a weapon because unlike real life, in this game he can't let go because it is not his turn.
I assure you, in real combat, changing hands on weapons is a common practice that happens based on the situation and not the person's turn.
|
|
Anyway, the initiative represents hesitation. If you are agile, and they stop concentrating, that hesitation can lead to a blind spot or a bad memory of their father drunk, or something and BOOM! You're in front of them.
If you can justify someone getting 60ft ahead of another equally fast person due to a moment's hesitation, you can justify someone being able to remove their hand from their weapon in the middle of an attack sequence in order to react to a threat.
Thank you for the link. I have bounced that to my GM.
However, the question that I was wondering about, does releasing one hand from the weapon, now qualify the character for the feat deflect arrows ?
His side of the debate, is that you have used both hands on the weapon, and thus it is not available.
My side, is that the hand is free, and thus is available for the feat deflect arrows.
people can use two-handers and still cast spells with their free hand by using a free action to release teh grip and then grab it again after the spell is cast for AOO, so yes, the hand is FREE for all intents and purposes.
I agree entirely, and I am not sure with what you disagree. The rules are a framework within which to work, they are not really a "math problem to crack" in my view.
The "math problem to crack" was just me saying people play it how they want and some people like it for that. Not that that is what you were saying.
The rules of the game are there to provide the framework for action, and should be taken in the context of game balance, not in the context of what might or might not work in the real world.
I was just saying that this part about "should be taken in the context of game balance" is what I disagree with. Now, that is not to say you are wrong, because you are totally right. But, I think that they are a frame work for action, as you put it, but for story telling as per "The Most Important Rule" pg. 9 of the CRB.
Now, still, not to say you disagree with that; or even this: Just that the rules aren't for one thing, and in "The Most Important Rule" there just isn't a set way to use them. That's all I was trying to advocate.
So, for the deflect arrows, I would even say, as the GM, "you use the hilt of your sword to deflect an arrow that heads strait for your head." Usually what comes out of the players mouths is "cool" and not "well, that's not what the feat says." I understand that this is not a popular view. But, it is a part of Pathfinder, because of "The Most Important Rule."
quite a few posts to wade through from my last time on here. :)
Bandw2, I will point that out to my GM, and see what he has to say.