|
Further, if you assume it refers to the kind of actions in action economy, then a grappled creature could use both hands to nock an arrow to a bow, because that is not an 'action' in game economy terms.
Irrelevant, you can't use a bow in a grapple, and nocking an arrow is specifically part of firing a bow.
|
Action only has one definition in the rules text. There is no basis to use another.
Really?
Dazed: The creature is unable to act normally. A dazed creature can take no actions, but has no penalty to AC.
In this case, 'can take no actions' is either referring to 'act normally', or it's referring to the action economy. If it meant the latter, then you'd still be able to make attacks of opportunity while dazed (because they are not 'actions' in the action economy), could still nock an arrow to a bow (not an action), but would be totally unable to drop anything (free action)! That would be absurd. It refers to 'unable to act normally'.
Similarly, in the current case, 'action' either refers to an 'act' in the non-game mechanical, normal conversation sense, or it refers to the action economy. It's one or the other, it can't change it's meaning depending on if it helps your argument at that instant.
If it refers to 'any act', then the consequences of that are that no individual act (such as each individual attack in a full attack) may be taken if that act requires two hands to execute. This matches the idea that being grappled prevents your hands working in concert and you can't get the leverage. This makes sense and works perfectly in play.
However, if it refers to the action economy, then the grappled person chooses which arm is held, and he can change that choice each round and there's nothing the grappler can do to stop it. Further, the grappled person would still be able to make attacks of opportunity with two handed weapons, still use two hands to nock an arrow to a bow, because these are not actions in the action economy!
Neither case can be assumed to be correct, then used as evidence that that case is correct! The correct method is to think both cases through to their logical conclusions, then compare both cases to see which best fits the evidence and makes most sense.
The case for 'action' referring to the action economy results in Schrödinger's Arm, and allows two handed attacks of opportunity. This does not match the stated concept of being held by one arm and that arm being unuseable. It doesn't make sense, doesn't match the stated concept, and is actually absurd. Contrasted with the other case, which makes sense, matches the concept of being unable to use both arms in concert, and fits the RAW, then the correct interpretation is clear.
|
|
The grappled condition does not say how you are grappled. It only says that you can take no actions requiring two hands.
It does not state that you are being held by one arm. It does not go further than abstracting the grapple to 'you are held'. Part of that abstraction is that you cannot use both hands. You can use one, or the other. Not both.
|
For a long thread on this with lots of input and no final consensus, see Two light weapons in a grapple.
I will say that I am amused at Gwen linking the previous thread, since it was also started by Malachi. :)
|
I would go with no, but I can see the argument for both. I'll also say that monsters can let go with all their natural attacks while grappled, so perhaps it's intended that you should be able to do so?Monsters can't do that unless they are specifically built to do so, and take a -20 on their grapple checks.
A grappling tiger can make a grapple check, deliver its grappling appendage damage, an rake.
Making the grapple check at -20 don't change anything in that sequence. It simply don't count as grappled.But:
A grappled tiger can make a full attack.
It don't need to take a -20 on their grapple check. Actually they don't need to make a grapple check at all.
|
|
The grappled condition does not say how you are grappled. It only says that you can take no actions requiring two hands.
It does not state that you are being held by one arm. It does not go further than abstracting the grapple to 'you are held'. Part of that abstraction is that you cannot use both hands. You can use one, or the other. Not both.
We agree on all that; it's what the book says (and what it doesn't say).
This is of no help in actually answering the question, which is asking if the wording (especially the word 'action' in this case), which could be read either way, actually means 'action' as in 'action economy' (which leads to the grappled person being able to use either arm in any turn (implying that neither arm is unuseable) and both arms when making an AoO, or does it mean 'any act', which would prevent any two handed attack (whether an 'action-economy action' or an AoO), but still allow as many one handed attacks to which the grappled creature is entitled.
Which is it, and why?
|
|
Which is it, and why?
It's irrelevant.
If it refers to action economy, you can use one arm in a grapple to make an attack. This does not mean that neither arm is unuseable, only that you get to pick from round to round which arm is unusable. (You can't use both arms to make an AoO while grappled either, as nowhere in the AoO rules does it say AoOs aren't actions.)
If it refers to 'any act' then you still can only use one hand to attack, and since you cannot get extra attacks from TWF without using the other hand, you can only make your normal iterative attacks with your chosen hand. So you are right that you get as many one handed attacks as you are entitled, but four the max you'll ever get.
|
|
Which is it, and why?It's irrelevant.
On the contrary: it is at the heart of the matter.
If it refers to action economy, you can use one arm in a grapple to make an attack. This does not mean that neither arm is unuseable, only that you get to pick from round to round which arm is unusable. (You can't use both arms to make an AoO while grappled either, as nowhere in the AoO rules does it say AoOs aren't actions.)
What kind of 'action' (in the action economy) is an attack of opportunity? Full-round, standard, move, free, swift or immediate?
Answer: none of them. It is not one of the actions in the action economy, therefore any restriction on how you use those actions in no way restricts the things you do which are not actions!
If it refers to 'any act' then you still can only use one hand to attack, and since you cannot get extra attacks from TWF without using the other hand, you can only make your normal iterative attacks with your chosen hand. So you are right that you get as many one handed attacks as you are entitled, but four the max you'll ever get.
But every single act requires only one arm, not two. Six attacks is six 'acts'. If none of those 'acts'requires two hands, then being grappled does not prevent any of them.
|
|
What kind of 'action' (in the action economy) is an attack of opportunity? Full-round, standard, move, free, swift or immediate?Answer: none of them.
Incorrect. It is an attack action.
But every single act requires only one arm, not two. Six attacks is six 'acts'. If none of those 'acts'requires two hands, then being grappled does not prevent any of them.
The act of attacking with both weapons requires both hands.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
What kind of 'action' (in the action economy) is an attack of opportunity? Full-round, standard, move, free, swift or immediate?Answer: none of them.
Incorrect. It is an attack action.
While Malachi is in denial of a clear answer provided by JB, this is not correct. As we know from the vital strike FAQ, the attack action is a specific kind of standard action, which clearly an AoO is not.
|
|
While Malachi is in denial of a clear answer provided by JB, this is not correct. As we know from the vital strike FAQ, the attack action is a specific kind of standard action, which clearly an AoO is not.
True, I worded that in a hurry.
"An attack of opportunity is a single melee attack"
An attack is an action, regardless of what kind.
Of course, I have FAQed the OP as I always prefer a clear ruling over 'common sense'. Hopefully we will eventually get it.
|
|
While Malachi is in denial of a clear answer provided by JB, this is not correct. As we know from the vital strike FAQ, the attack action is a specific kind of standard action, which clearly an AoO is not.True, I worded that in a hurry.
"An attack of opportunity is a single melee attack"
An attack is an action, regardless of what kind.
If we're taking 'action' to mean 'action-economy type action', then the complete list of 'actions' in the game are full-round, standard, move, free, swift and immediate. If you take the word 'action' in the line, 'In addition, grappled creatures can take no action that requires two hands to perform' to mean 'grappled creatures can take no full-round, standard, move, free, swift or immediate action that requires two hands to perform', then this does not apply to actions of opportunity, because AoOs are not any of those. Meaning that grappled creatures can use a two handed weapon to make an AoO.
If you don't take the word 'action' to mean the action types in the action economy, then as you rightly point out, each attack is an action! Even each attack in a full attack! So I can't execute an attack if that individual attack requires two hands, but if all of these individual attacks only require one hand each, then the proscription on two handed actions does not apply, because each individual attack is its own action.
The word 'action' means one thing or the other. It can't switch meanings mid-debate just to make a debating point. And which is the correct meaning is at the heart of this conundrum.
|
|
An action is a discrete measurement of time during a round of combat. Using abilities, casting spells, and making attacks all require actions to perform. There are a number of different kinds of actions, such as a standard action, move action, swift action, free action, and full-round action (see Combat).
You may notice that the list of actions is not definitive. And that attacks require actions to perform. If you can find text stating that AoOs are not actions, please produce it.
While Malachi is in denial of a clear answer provided by JB, this is not correct. As we know from the vital strike FAQ, the attack action is a specific kind of standard action, which clearly an AoO is not.True, I worded that in a hurry.
"An attack of opportunity is a single melee attack"
An attack is an action, regardless of what kind.
If we're taking 'action' to mean 'action-economy type action', then the complete list of 'actions' in the game are full-round, standard, move, free, swift and immediate. If you take the word 'action' in the line, 'In addition, grappled creatures can take no action that requires two hands to perform' to mean 'grappled creatures can take no full-round, standard, move, free, swift or immediate action that requires two hands to perform', then this does not apply to actions of opportunity, because AoOs are not any of those. Meaning that grappled creatures can use a two handed weapon to make an AoO.
If you don't take the word 'action' to mean the action types in the action economy, then as you rightly point out, each attack is an action! Even each attack in a full attack! So I can't execute an attack if that individual attack requires two hands, but if all of these individual attacks only require one hand each, then the proscription on two handed actions does not apply, because each individual attack is its own action.
The word 'action' means one thing or the other. It can't switch meanings mid-debate just to make a debating point. And which is the correct meaning is at the heart of this conundrum.
JB is pretty clear on this. It is not 'official rules', but to ignore this....
The RAW do allow the grappled to make a full attack action, assuming they can do so with only one hand.
Can you take a TWF full attack action with only one hand? He has given a clear intent.
|
|
You may notice that the list of actions is not definitive.
That list isn't, but this list is:-
There are six types of actions: standard actions, move actions, full-round actions, swift actions, immediate actions, and free actions.
This is the definitive list. You'll note that attacks of opportunity are not any of these, therefore they are not 'actions' in the action economy sense, and as such are not subject to any restrictions placed on what you can do with your full-round, standard, move, free, swift and immediate actions.
So, if you interpret grappling as limiting action economy-type actions, then you can still use a greatsword for an AoO while grappled.
|
|
That's a list of types. You may notice that the examples of such are not exhaustive. You still have not shown any rule that makes AoOs not actions.
They are not actions in the action economy. They don't use up any of your full-round, standard, move, free, swift or immediate actions, and these six actions are the only ones that exist in the action economy.
If you're not talking about the action economy, but just 'actions' in the sense of 'a single thing that you do', then each attack of a full attack is a discrete action in the sense that it's a set of (five) attacks (or whatever number), and not a single one of those acts requires two hands.
So which is it, TOZ? Does 'action' in the grappled condition refer to the action economy, or to individual 'acts'?
|
|
But you still have to take an action to make that AoO. A melee attack action. You still haven't shown any rule saying AoOs are 'not an action' (which is actually called out on the table of actions).
As for 'to act', you are taking an attack with both weapons. Each act requires one hand, but performing both acts in the same round requires both hands. Or are you saying that attacking with both weapons does not require both hands?
|
|
But you still have to take an action to make that AoO.
Not a full-round, standard, move, free, swift or immediate action, which are the only actions in the action economy.
A melee attack action.
Nope. That would be a standard action, and AoOs do not use a standard action.
You still haven't shown any rule saying AoOs are 'not an action' (which is actually called out on the table of actions).
Actually, even though there are possible actions that are not listed on the Actions In Combat tables, every single thing you can do in combat that the CRB has rules for is listed on those tables.
Under which action type is 'attack of opportunity' listed?
As for 'to act', you are taking an attack with both weapons. Each act requires one hand, but performing both acts in the same round requires both hands. Or are you saying that attacking with both weapons does not require both hands?
Grappled refers to 'action', which either refers to the action economy, or it doesn't. Which is it?
If it refers to the action economy, this includes full-round actions. If this is the case, then a full attack is one 'action', and TWF would use two hands in one action, therefore forbidden to grappled creatures. However, AoOs are not full-round, standard, move, free, swift or immediate actions, therefore AoOs are not restricted by the grappled condition from using both hands.
If the 'action' referred to in the grappled condition is not the action dconomy, then it cannot refer to full-round actions, because full-round actions only exist as a construct of the action economy. Outside of that artificial construct, six attacks are six actions, not one action. Therefore, none of those six actions require two hands.
Those six attacks are not one action, unless you're talking about full-round actions, which only exist in the action economy. No action economy, no full-round actions.
|
|
Grappled refers to 'action', which either refers to the action economy, or it doesn't. Which is it?
I answered both, because it is irrelevant which it is. It doesn't matter what kind of action an AoO is, because it is still an action. It doesn't matter that each attack only requires a single hand, they are happening at the same time, thus forcing you to use both hands to make them all.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's actually (and weirdly) true that AoOs are not any sort of action by RAW. The devs have also implicitly confirmed this with the new FAQ - they state that normally free actions are not allowed during AoOs, even though free actions are allowed when you take an action.
|
|
Grappled refers to 'action', which either refers to the action economy, or it doesn't. Which is it?I answered both, because it is irrelevant which it is. It doesn't matter what kind of action an AoO is, because it is still an action.
What kind of action? Full-round? Standard? Swift? Free? Move? Immediate? If it's not one of these, then it's not an action in the action economy. and if it's not an action in the action economy, then restrictions on what you can do with those actions do not affect what you do with things that aren't one of those actions.
It doesn't matter that each attack only requires a single hand, they are happening at the same time, thus forcing you to use both hands to make them all.
You take your attacks consecutively, not simultaneously. Even when using TWF. you can take all of you main hand attacks, resolve each as you take it, see if the baddies drop, then take all of your off hand attacks, consecutively.
Grappled refers to 'action', which either refers to the action economy, or it doesn't. Which is it?I answered both, because it is irrelevant which it is. It doesn't matter what kind of action an AoO is, because it is still an action.What kind of action? Full-round? Standard? Swift? Free? Move? Immediate? If it's not one of these, then it's not an action in the action economy. and if it's not an action in the action economy, then restrictions on what you can do with those actions do not affect what you do with things that aren't one of those actions.
It doesn't matter that each attack only requires a single hand, they are happening at the same time, thus forcing you to use both hands to make them all.You take your attacks consecutively, not simultaneously. Even when using TWF. you can take all of you main hand attacks, resolve each as you take it, see if the baddies drop, then take all of your off hand attacks, consecutively.
Sometimes a combatant in a melee lets her guard down or takes a reckless action. In this case, combatants near her can take advantage of her lapse in defense to attack her for free. These free attacks are called attacks of opportunity. See the Attacks of Opportunity diagram for an example of how they work.
AoOs are a "free attack."
Also, your point is moot because you can't make AoOs while grappled.
I just looked through the style feats and didn't see any which allow for AoOs while grappled.
The only ability I can find which provides AoOs while grappling is the Tetori Monk. Which is, "can make attacks of opportunity while grappling."
Well, it is clear that you can not TWF short sword if you are grappled. No clue if you can or not TWF with unarmed strikes.The original question of TWFing in a grapple has been answered.
You can, because they don't require hands. You can TWF with headbutts and kicks unarmed, while not using either hand. (But both "hands").
|
|
The only ability I can find which provides AoOs while grappling is the Tetori Monk. Which is, "can make attacks of opportunity while grappling."
Ah, I thought that was also part of Snapping Turtle style. Either way, I didn't see a need to point out you can't take AoOs while grappling, as it was just muddying the argument.
The only ability I can find which provides AoOs while grappling is the Tetori Monk. Which is, "can make attacks of opportunity while grappling."Ah, I thought that was also part of Snapping Turtle style. Either way, I didn't see a need to point out you can't take AoOs while grappling, as it was just muddying the argument.
The point is the argument is a corner case which isn't specifically addressed because it is highly unlikely to ever come up.
|
You can, because they don't require hands. You can TWF with headbutts and kicks unarmed, while not using either hand. (But both "hands").Well, it is clear that you can not TWF short sword if you are grappled. No clue if you can or not TWF with unarmed strikes.The original question of TWFing in a grapple has been answered.
Well, you can TWF with unarmed strikes wihout using hands. But grapple say you have a hand unavaliable.
If it is just a hand you can then TWF with unarmed strikes while grappled. If it means a hand AND a "hand" then you can not.
In Jason Bultmann's example even a Tiger would get one less attack, so I'd think you couldn't TWF with Unarmed Strikes, either.
It really is "hands", not actual hands.
A grappled Monk could still Flurry, tho.
|
|
Well, you can TWF with unarmed strikes wihout using hands. But grapple say you have a hand unavaliable.You can, because they don't require hands. You can TWF with headbutts and kicks unarmed, while not using either hand. (But both "hands").Well, it is clear that you can not TWF short sword if you are grappled. No clue if you can or not TWF with unarmed strikes.The original question of TWFing in a grapple has been answered.
This mis-quote is part of the reason that people believe that you can't TWF, because they believe that being grappled means that you have one hand unavailable. This is not the case:-
In addition, grappled creatures can take no action that requires two hands to perform.
Both hands are available to you if you're grappled. There is no part of the condition which prevents you using one hand or the other hand. It prevents you from using both, not either.
I'm grappled, I have a shortsword in each hand as my turn starts. Can I use my right hand? Yes! Can I use my left hand? Yes? So....which hand is unavailable? ....neither!
The only thing you can't do is use both for the same action. What does it mean by 'action'? The actions of the action economy? In that case, attacks of opportunity are not restricted by this clause, and if you have an ability that allows you to make AoOs while grappled, then you could use a two handed weapon.
If 'action' is not talking about action economy, then it's not talking about full-round actions! Six attacks is six actions in this case, because full attacks don't exist outside the action economy; they are an artificial construct of the action economy. So six attacks is six separate actions. None of these separate attacks can require both hands, but nothing in the condition would prevent any attack that only requires one hand, because these six attacks are not one action outside the action economy, because there is no such thing as a 'full attack' as one single action, outside the action economy.
Grappled: A grappled creature is restrained by a creature, trap, or effect. Grappled creatures cannot move and take a –4 penalty to Dexterity. A grappled creature takes a –2 penalty on all attack rolls and combat maneuver checks, except those made to grapple or escape a grapple. In addition, grappled creatures can take no action that requires two hands to perform. A grappled character who attempts to cast a spell or use a spell-like ability must make a concentration check (DC 10 + grappler's CMB + spell level), or lose the spell. Grappled creatures cannot make attacks of opportunity.
A grappled creature cannot use Stealth to hide from the creature grappling it, even if a special ability, such as hide in plain sight, would normally allow it to do so. If a grappled creature becomes invisible, through a spell or other ability, it gains a +2 circumstance bonus on its CMD to avoid being grappled, but receives no other benefit.
Does it take 2 hands to make an AoO with a 2 hand weapon? Yes. Therefore, you can't do it while grappled.
Does it take 2 hands, to make a full-attack using weapons held with each hand? Yes. Therefore, you can't do it while grappled.
Basically, does the thing you are doing require both hands to do it? If yes, you can't do it. The fact that each individual attack while TWF uses one hand, does not negate the fact that the overall action being taken is a full-attack action which requires both hands.
The fact that an AoO is a non-action attack does not negate the fact that it is a thing you are doing which takes both hands, and therefore cannot be done while grappled.
|
|
Grappled: A grappled creature is restrained by a creature, trap, or effect. Grappled creatures cannot move and take a –4 penalty to Dexterity. A grappled creature takes a –2 penalty on all attack rolls and combat maneuver checks, except those made to grapple or escape a grapple. In addition, grappled creatures can take no action that requires two hands to perform. A grappled character who attempts to cast a spell or use a spell-like ability must make a concentration check (DC 10 + grappler's CMB + spell level), or lose the spell. Grappled creatures cannot make attacks of opportunity.
A grappled creature cannot use Stealth to hide from the creature grappling it, even if a special ability, such as hide in plain sight, would normally allow it to do so. If a grappled creature becomes invisible, through a spell or other ability, it gains a +2 circumstance bonus on its CMD to avoid being grappled, but receives no other benefit.
Does it take 2 hands to make an AoO with a 2 hand weapon? Yes. Therefore, you can't do it while grappled.
Does it take 2 hands, to make a full-attack using weapons held with each hand? Yes. Therefore, you can't do it while grappled.
Basically, does the thing you are doing require both hands to do it? If yes, you can't do it. The fact that each individual attack while TWF uses one hand, does not negate the fact that the overall action being taken is a full-attack action which requires both hands.
The fact that an AoO is a non-action attack does not negate the fact that it is a thing you are doing which takes both hands, and therefore cannot be done while grappled.
You're interpreting 'action' to mean one thing for one case, and the other thing for the other case. It means one or the other, not whichever is more convenient for your argument at that moment. 'Moving the goalposts'.
I am reading the word "action" in the basic english definition of "doing something." Not any game mechanic term.
Are you doing something which takes 2 hands?
AoO with 2-handed weapon? Yes.
TWF using weapons held in each hand? Yes.
|
|
I am reading the word "action" in the basic english definition of "doing something." Not any game mechanic term.
Are you doing something which takes 2 hands?
AoO with 2-handed weapon? Yes.
TWF using weapons held in each hand? Yes.
And what's the difference between one action and two actions? Just because 'fighting' is one word, 'doing fighting' is not doing one action, but doing several.
Is 'adventuring' a single action? How many hands does it require?
I am reading the word "action" in the basic english definition of "doing something." Not any game mechanic term.
Are you doing something which takes 2 hands?
AoO with 2-handed weapon? Yes.
TWF using weapons held in each hand? Yes.And what's the difference between one action and two actions? Just because 'fighting' is one word, 'doing fighting' is not doing one action, but doing several.
Is 'adventuring' a single action? How many hands does it require?
Does "doing fighting" have any rules? No.
Does "adventuring" have any rules? Not in that general of a context no.Does "fighting with two weapons" have rules? Yes.
Does "making an aoo with a two handed weapon" have rules? Yes.
Do those rules show that doing that thing takes 2 hands? Yes.
Do the grapple rules prohibit doing things with 2 hands? Yes.
Can you do those things while grappled? No.
|
|
Also, your point is moot because you can't make AoOs while grappled.
Grab (Ex) If a creature with this special attack hits with the indicated attack (usually a claw or bite attack), it deals normal damage and attempts to start a grapple as a free action without provoking an attack of opportunity. Unless otherwise noted, grab can only be used against targets of a size equal to or smaller than the creature with this ability. If the creature can use grab on creatures of other sizes, it is noted in the creature's Special Attacks line. The creature has the option to conduct the grapple normally, or simply use the part of its body it used in the grab to hold the opponent. If it chooses to do the latter, it takes a –20 penalty on its CMB check to make and maintain the grapple, but does not gain the grappled condition itself. A successful hold does not deal any extra damage unless the creature also has the constrict special attack. If the creature does not constrict, each successful grapple check it makes during successive rounds automatically deals the damage indicated for the attack that established the hold. Otherwise, it deals constriction damage as well (the amount is given in the creature's descriptive text).
Creatures with the grab special attack receive a +4 bonus on combat maneuver checks made to start and maintain a grapple.
My druid can do that in wildshape. There are other ways to get grab too.
So the right character can grapple someone, and make AoO as he don't count as grappled.
My druid can do that in wildshape. There are other ways to get grab too.
So the right character can grapple someone, and make AoO as he don't count as grappled.
Then you aren't grappled, so you aren't subject to the restrictions of being grappled. You can use 2 hands to do things all you want while you are not grappled.
|
|
I am reading the word "action" in the basic english definition of "doing something." Not any game mechanic term.
Are you doing something which takes 2 hands?
AoO with 2-handed weapon? Yes.
TWF using weapons held in each hand? Yes.And what's the difference between one action and two actions? Just because 'fighting' is one word, 'doing fighting' is not doing one action, but doing several.
Is 'adventuring' a single action? How many hands does it require?
Does "doing fighting" have any rules? No.
Does "adventuring" have any rules? Not in that general of a context no.
Does "fighting with two weapons" have rules? Yes.
Does "making an aoo with a two handed weapon" have rules? Yes.
Do those rules show that doing that thing takes 2 hands? Yes.
Do the grapple rules prohibit doing things with 2 hands? Yes.
Can you do those things while grappled? No.
You're getting closer.
An 'action' can't be 'adventuring' or 'fighting'. It can't be 'breathing' or 'seeing'.
An 'action' is something that is an individual act in the rules.
For example, 'cast a spell' is one action. If you cast a spell every round for one minute, you may be described as 'spellcasting for one minute', but this isn't one single action of 'spellcasting', it is ten actions of casting ten spells.
Making an attack with a weapon is one action. If you attack once per round for one minute, this isn't one action of 'fighting', it's ten actions of 'attacking with a weapon.
And this remains true even if several attacks take place within a span of six seconds rather than one minute. Six attacks in six seconds isn't one action of 'attacking', 'fighting', or even 'two-weapon fighting'. It is six actions of 'attacking with a weapon'.
You take the TWF penalties on all of the attacks. It represents using both of your hands to fight. Even if you start a full-attack, make only 1 attack, and then use a move action for the rest of the round, you took the TWF penalty on that one attack because you were using both hands, and the size of the off-hand affected how well you could attack with the main hand.
|
|
You take the TWF penalties on all of the attacks. It represents using both of your hands to fight. Even if you start a full-attack, make only 1 attack, and then use a move action for the rest of the round, you took the TWF penalty on that one attack because you were using both hands, and the size of the off-hand affected how well you could attack with the main hand.
Nope. You take the attack penalty to allow you to get an extra attack using the TWF rules. If you don't take the penalty, you're not allowed to get that extra attack.
Taking that penalty gives you permission to take that extra attack, but you're not actually using your off hand until you actually use it to take the extra attack.
You take the TWF penalties on all of the attacks. It represents using both of your hands to fight. Even if you start a full-attack, make only 1 attack, and then use a move action for the rest of the round, you took the TWF penalty on that one attack because you were using both hands, and the size of the off-hand affected how well you could attack with the main hand.Nope. You take the attack penalty to allow you to get an extra attack using the TWF rules. If you don't take the penalty, you're not allowed to get that extra attack.
Taking that penalty gives you permission to take that extra attack, but you're not actually using your off hand until you actually use it to take the extra attack.
If you are not using the hand, then what is causing the penalty?
Why does the penalty change, depending on whether the weapon in your offhand is light or one-handed? Because being able to make the second attack involves using the offhand during the main hand's attack.
For example, 'cast a spell' is one action. If you cast a spell every round for one minute, you may be described as 'spellcasting for one minute', but this isn't one single action of 'spellcasting', it is ten actions of casting ten spells.
Wrong, you are taking one action to cast a spell.
Under PF rules that means you are burning multiple turns to CONTINUE that one action of casting a spell, but casting that spell is still only one action - and would only provoke one AoO (not one per round). It is a continuation of the action, not a new spell casting action each round.
|
|
For example, 'cast a spell' is one action. If you cast a spell every round for one minute, you may be described as 'spellcasting for one minute', but this isn't one single action of 'spellcasting', it is ten actions of casting ten spells.
Wrong, you are taking one action to cast a spell.
Under PF rules that means you are burning multiple turns to CONTINUE that one action of casting a spell, but casting that spell is still only one action - and would only provoke one AoO (not one per round). It is a continuation of the action, not a new spell casting action each round.
Did you think I meant I was taking ten rounds to cast one spell? If that was the case, then it would be one 'action' in this context, but it would provoke every single round.
But I'm casting ten spells. Casting each spell is an action, so that's ten actions.
I guess a more unusual case comes up in the case of creatures like Xill or Mariliths which have 4 or 6 arms. Do they lose the use of 1 hand during grapples? Do they lose the use of all but 1? Can they use all of their hands independently but just not use 2 or more together?