I'm having a small conflict with my GM over what is acceptable for my character to do in combat.
For about 5 levels (Currently a Ninja4/Sorcerer1/DragonDisciple6) I have been using a Katana and Ring of Force Shield.
I would begin my turn with the Force shield on, Katana in one hand.
Free action deactivate Ring of Force Shield
Free action Two hand my Katana
Attack
Free action Reactivate my Ring of Force Shield.
This was acceptable for quite some time. The situation that became upsetting for my Gm was this
I started the round with the shield active and my katana in hand.
Drop katana as a free action, grow claws as a sorcerer bloodline power as a free action, deactivate shield as a free action, as a swift action go invisible with my Ninja trick (Vanishing Trick), 5 foot into base to base contact with enemy, full attack, then activate shield in my offhand as a final free action.
Am I overstepping what should be allowed with free actions? I assumed all of this was quite fluid to preform in my mind. Dropping weapon while growing claws and turning off the shield to vanish into a blindspot of my enemy, smack him a bunch while re-appearing next to him turning on my shield to defend myself.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
All up to your GM.
In your experience, what have been acceptable limits to free actions? If you don't mind.
Totally acceptable.
See this thread and specifically this post for my limits.
I think its just a wall of force that grants you +2 Ac, and if needed can be wielded as a heavy shield for the benefit of feats/ shield bashing.. that kinda stuff. But that's just how I interpret it.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah - there's no way that I or any GM I've played with would allow a ring of force shield to let you two-hand a weapon & get the shield bonus in the same turn, much less the latter combo.
Remember - you're not actually taking turns at all. Turns are just an abstraction. If you take down the shield to two-hand, there's no way that it should be up for defense in the same round.
Now - it's still not a horrible combo. You get the shield bonus in any turn you're not in melee, then get to two-hand in rounds that you are. Just not both.
I can see what you're getting at Charon, however I'm not using my Katana in two hands to make attacks of opportunity, because when its not my turn I've only got 1 hand on my weapon. Is that acceptable in your situation?
|
|
I can see what you're getting at Charon, however I'm not using my Katana in two hands to make attacks of opportunity, because when its not my turn I've only got 1 hand on my weapon. Is that acceptable in your situation?
Nope. You're playing as if the characters are actually taking turns. They're not. The game uses turns because it'd because it'd be impossible to play a system without them. But everything is actually happening all at once.
Technically - the RAW is debatable. (though I don't think that the RAI is) But there's no way it'd fly in my game.
In your experience, what have been acceptable limits to free actions? If you don't mind.
Considering it's a free action to notch an arrow to your bow, and there are archers who can make upwards of 15 attacks in a round without the GM limiting their free actions (and thus their number of attacks), I'd say your example is perfectly acceptable.
|
We allow it in our group, but it varies by DM.
But what Charon is saying is your "Turn" is 6 seconds long, not just when you declare what you are doing and resolve it. And happens at the same time as the other "turns". For only 1 attack it is easy to imagine taking the shield down, grabbing the sword, swinging, letting go of the sword, then bringing the shield back up. However never having swung a sword I'm sure anyone with experience may say that is crazy.
But even without experience, for iterative attacks it gets harder to imagine doing that, and that other people are not hitting you at the same time. So while you are swinging you are getting blasted and other attacks are coming in that you are trying to deflect. And that is why Charon and many DMs position is you can't have the shield raised during that time because you are swinging. Even if your iterative attacks are claws, the return attacks are still at the "same time", your initiative merely lets your damage apply first.
In the end your DM is the arbiter of how many free actions you can take and how quick they go by (for instance, an immediate or readied action can still stop you during your free action).
However in my table I'd allow it.
I'm having a small conflict with my GM over what is acceptable for my character to do in combat.
For about 5 levels (Currently a Ninja4/Sorcerer1/DragonDisciple6) I have been using a Katana and Ring of Force Shield.
I would begin my turn with the Force shield on, Katana in one hand.
Free action deactivate Ring of Force Shield
Free action Two hand my Katana
Attack
Free action Reactivate my Ring of Force Shield.This was acceptable for quite some time. The situation that became upsetting for my Gm was this
I started the round with the shield active and my katana in hand.
Drop katana as a free action, grow claws as a sorcerer bloodline power as a free action, deactivate shield as a free action, as a swift action go invisible with my Ninja trick (Vanishing Trick), 5 foot into base to base contact with enemy, full attack, then activate shield in my offhand as a final free action.Am I overstepping what should be allowed with free actions? I assumed all of this was quite fluid to preform in my mind. Dropping weapon while growing claws and turning off the shield to vanish into a blindspot of my enemy, smack him a bunch while re-appearing next to him turning on my shield to defend myself.
There is a FAQ regarding swapping handiness on weapons, and the FAQ says a general rule is one re-grip and one re-lease is a fair ruling (though GM still gets final say). To be honest, that is a lot of stuff going on with you there; releasing the Shield, growing Claws, and applying the Shield would be overstepping those boundaries set in the FAQ.
Its only 5 free actions bro.
what Charon is saying is your "Turn" is 6 seconds long, not just when you declare what you are doing and resolve it. And happens at the same time as the other "turns". For only 1 attack it is easy to imagine taking the shield down, grabbing the sword, swinging, letting go of the sword, then bringing the shield back up. However never having swung a sword I'm sure anyone with experience may say that is crazy.
.
It isn't crazy at all. It is, in fact, completely realistic.
In reality that fighting style can only be done with a long/bastard sword and a buckler. It essentially involves the sheild hand pulling double duty. It seems complicated, but it is surprisingly intuitive.
I can easily see a Ring of Force Shield making a fighting style like that even more effective.
As for the mechanics, switching back and forth seems explicitly allowed. It is a free action to remove or place a hand on a weapon. It is a free action to activate or deactivate a ring of force shield. Pretty straightforward.
There will be people who think that this combination violates some sort of design intention, but my argument against them is that martials have a hard enough time as it is. Throw them a bone.
The combination is interesting and not the least bit overpowered. I say let it stand.
As for the claws thing, why not? Seems cool.
Remember that the buckler-side claw will have a penalty to hit from the buckler.
As for the claws thing, why not? Seems cool.
Remember that the buckler-side claw will have a penalty to hit from the buckler.
Not a buckler though, its a shield made of force.
And on top of that its not materialized as I make the attack with the offhand claw.
My bad about that one LazarX.
It is a free action to draw the ammunition though..Right? I think that's what I was getting at.
Notching an arrow to a bow is not a free action, because it's not a separate action from the standard attack or full attack actions, it's a part of them.
What about loading a gun 5 times in a round? Loading a pistol starts as a standard action and is reduced down to free action with cartridges and feats.
Things are free actions specifically to allow them to work with anything else. Treat it as all at once. The last thing your enemy sees as you disappear is you casting your sword aside as claws form from your hands. If your GM isnt happy with it, ask to have your ring switched to deflection or an upgrade to your ring of deflection if you already have one.
I've done the same thing with a glove of storing and a heavy shield (more expensive, but also more AC). My GM allowed it, and I would too.
Notching an arrow to a bow is not a free action, because it's not a separate action from the standard attack or full attack actions, it's a part of them.In your experience, what have been acceptable limits to free actions? If you don't mind.Considering it's a free action to notch an arrow to your bow, and there are archers who can make upwards of 15 attacks in a round without the GM limiting their free actions (and thus their number of attacks), I'd say your example is perfectly acceptable.
Did that get changed at some point? I remember it being brought up in great detail in prolonged rules debates a few months back.
Maybe I'm misremembering and it was in regards to guns rather than bows.
I've never put a limit on the NUMBER of free actions - in my mind, not all free actions are equal. Shifting grip is something that I feel can be done pretty often (example is the wizard with a 2-handed weapon letting go with one hand, casting a spell, then placing his hand back on the hilt), but activating and deactivating a giant wall of force I feel has a bit more impact. Just the mental coordination to do what you describe seems daunting for a 6 second round. If I can't see it 'flowing' as a smooth string of actions it's hard to allow it.
You're playing as if the characters are actually taking turns. They're not. The game uses turns because it'd because it'd be impossible to play a system without them. But everything is actually happening all at once.
The game mechanics are likely to fall apart pretty quickly if you try to make rulings based on the idea that everything is happening at once.
If someone walks into a position where you could fire arrows at them, and then retreats, during their turn, you can't shoot them after that on the ground that you had a clear shot at one point. Only their location when your action occurs matters.
If someone switches off their force shield, makes an attack, and then brings up the force shield, you can't attack them retrospectively in the fraction of a second during which they were actually swinging their sword. There's already a mechanic for that sort of thing - the readied action.
Depending on how your brain works, i sometimes try to think like a choreographer. If the round can't fit in a moderate 8-count, something's amiss.
Notching an arrow to a bow is not a free action, because it's not a separate action from the standard attack or full attack actions, it's a part of them.In your experience, what have been acceptable limits to free actions? If you don't mind.Considering it's a free action to notch an arrow to your bow, and there are archers who can make upwards of 15 attacks in a round without the GM limiting their free actions (and thus their number of attacks), I'd say your example is perfectly acceptable.Did that get changed at some point? I remember it being brought up in great detail in prolonged rules debates a few months back.
Maybe I'm misremembering and it was in regards to guns rather than bows.
IIRC, it wasn't an official ruling so much as one of the devs saying "Oh crap, we never meant to limit the longbow! We'll change that right away! Also, it should take 2 of your 3 free actions to reload a crossbow one time. Because realism."
|
|
Considering that anyone with quick draw can do the same thing by using a quick draw shield, it seems like there plenty of reasons within the rules to accept that sequence is valid. --Free action stow shield, free action shift to two handing, full attack, free action, stop two handing, free action redraw shield--Yeah - there's no way that I or any GM I've played with would allow a ring of force shield to let you two-hand a weapon & get the shield bonus in the same turn, much less the latter combo.
Remember - you're not actually taking turns at all. Turns are just an abstraction. If you take down the shield to two-hand, there's no way that it should be up for defense in the same round.
Now - it's still not a horrible combo. You get the shield bonus in any turn you're not in melee, then get to two-hand in rounds that you are. Just not both.
And I wouldn't let that fly either.
As I said - the RAW is debatable - but you can't call me out for inconsistency on the rulings I'd make.
Considering that anyone with quick draw can do the same thing by using a quick draw shield, it seems like there plenty of reasons within the rules to accept that sequence is valid. --Free action stow shield, free action shift to two handing, full attack, free action, stop two handing, free action redraw shield--Yeah - there's no way that I or any GM I've played with would allow a ring of force shield to let you two-hand a weapon & get the shield bonus in the same turn, much less the latter combo.
Remember - you're not actually taking turns at all. Turns are just an abstraction. If you take down the shield to two-hand, there's no way that it should be up for defense in the same round.
Now - it's still not a horrible combo. You get the shield bonus in any turn you're not in melee, then get to two-hand in rounds that you are. Just not both.
And I wouldn't let that fly either.
As I said - the RAW is debatable - but you can't call me out for inconsistency on the rulings I'd make.
This is the Rules forum.
If you can't back up your rulings with actual rules then they have no place in this forum.
The RAW is not debatable. It is very clear. You just don't like them, which is fine, but is a discussion for the General or Advice forum, not here.
|
|
The RAW is not debatable. It is very clear. You just don't like them, which is fine, but is a discussion for the General or Advice forum, not here.
Yes - it is.
At the very least - whether it's possible is up to your GM as they decide the possible amount of free actions - hence the reference to my personal rulings. (If you allow infinite free actions - I can show you a combo which gives you 1,000+ attacks per turn.)
I think that it's not reasonable for the shield to both be up and not up at the same time. I believe that it's implicit that it wouldn't work that way. (much of the rules are implicit rather than explicit)
But as I said - it's debatable. On that front - there's an argument to be made both ways.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In any case, if you use a weapon in your off hand, you lose the buckler's AC bonus until your next turn.
If you use your shield as a weapon, you lose its AC bonus until your next turn.
Just throwing these two rules quotes in. The intention seems to be that if you use your shield hand to attack, you cannot use that hand to also defend during the same round (at least not without certain feats).
|
In any case, if you use a weapon in your off hand, you lose the buckler's AC bonus until your next turn.If you use your shield as a weapon, you lose its AC bonus until your next turn.Just throwing these two rules quotes in. The intention seems to be that if you use your shield hand to attack, you cannot use that hand to also defend during the same round (at least not without certain feats).
This, All of This, i wanted to say that but you got to it first. Thank you, other then that the move sounds cool and effective.
Whilst the final arbiter on free actions is your GM, all your examples seem totally reasonable to me.
The RAW is not debatable. It is very clear. You just don't like them, which is fine, but is a discussion for the General or Advice forum, not here.Yes - it is.
At the very least - whether it's possible is up to your GM as they decide the possible amount of free actions - hence the reference to my personal rulings. (If you allow infinite free actions - I can show you a combo which gives you 1,000+ attacks per turn.)
I think that it's not reasonable for the shield to both be up and not up at the same time. I believe that it's implicit that it wouldn't work that way. (much of the rules are implicit rather than explicit)
But as I said - it's debatable. On that front - there's an argument to be made both ways.
Citations please.
|
|
Citations please.
Of what? The 1,000+ attack build? All it takes is the quickdraw feat, a throwing shield, and a blinkback belt.
I already explained how - since all turns are happening at once - it's implicit that you can't have the shield up and not up at the same time. Ziere Tole's quotes imply as much as well for additional evidence of RAI at the very least.
Like I said - it's not said explicitly - which is why it's debatable.
Of what? The 1,000+ attack build? All it takes is the quickdraw feat, a throwing shield, and a blinkback belt.
That's a completely different subject and we shouldn't tangent off into it too much, but I seem to recall it being clarified by one of the devs that the throwing shield still used one of your iterative attacks, and the free action was only for the aspect of undoing the straps. I don't think it ever made it to official FAQ, but that's how I've ruled it ever since reading whatever post it was (if I have time I will try to find it).
|
|
Of what? The 1,000+ attack build? All it takes is the quickdraw feat, a throwing shield, and a blinkback belt.That's a completely different subject and we shouldn't tangent off into it too much, but I seem to recall it being clarified by one of the devs that the throwing shield still used one of your iterative attacks, and the free action was only for the aspect of undoing the straps. I don't think it ever made it to official FAQ, but that's how I've ruled it ever since reading whatever post it was (if I have time I will try to find it).
That's the way I would rule it as well (I don't think it's ever actually come up in my games), but it still makes a great example of how reading rules from a purely explicit standpoint can get silly.
My bad about that one LazarX.
It is a free action to draw the ammunition though..Right? I think that's what I was getting at.
No it is not... nocking your arrow is PART of and included within the overall action of shooting your bow. It is NOT a separate action.
And again, before anyone else says... no comment on gunslinger schenanigans.
Try again
Drawing ammunition for use with a ranged weapon (such as arrows, bolts, sling bullets, or shuriken) is a free action.
You probably didn't realize he'd changed his statement to drawing ammunition from nocking...
At what, 8,500 gp, I think that is the benefit of the shield. It is only +2 and it can't be enhanced.
We allow it in our games.
But your DM will have to decide.
|
Ring of Force Shield = 8,500gp
Heavy wooden shield = 7gp
Both give you +2 AC, but one weighs 10lbs and the other weighs nothing.
8,493gp seems a lot just to save 10lbs of encumberance.
Its intended use is to allow a character with both hands full of weapon to still benefit from the shield bonus; hence the free action activation.
If you rule that you can't use it in the same round as you attack with a 2HW, then you might as well throw this magic ring in the sea. We don't pay 8,500gp to get not much more benefit than if we bought a 7gp shield. We pay 8,500gp so that we can get the benefit of a shield even though we're using a 2HW.