The light steel quickdraw shield and attacking with 2h during your turn


Advice

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Hey everyone,

I'm wondering if a consensus was ever reached on if the light steel quickdraw shield allowed someone to attack with a one handed weapon held in two hands during your own turn while keeping it equipped for full AC bonus outside of your turn. The basic combo is: start turn with shield and weapon wielded, use free action to put away shield, use free action to hold weapon now with both hands, full attack, don shield as free action. This leaves you with the weapon held in one hand outside of your turn, but unless I am missing something it seems this sequence should work (there will be some DM variance on how many free actions are allowed to be taken I suppose, but this doesn't seem abusive). Some downsides are that I need quickdraw as a feat, that the shield is limited to a base 1ac shield with ACP-2 and that most one handed weapons aren't that exciting.

Quickdraw light shield cited below:

"Benefit: If you have a base attack bonus of +1 or higher, you may don or put away a quickdraw shield as a swift action combined with a regular move. If you have the Two-Weapon Fighting feat, you can draw a light or one-handed weapon with one hand and a quickdraw shield with the other in the time it would normally take you to draw one weapon. If you have the Quick Draw feat, you may don or put away a quickdraw shield as a free action."

All I've found on this are some short threads throughout the years that have wildly varying opinions by different posters. Has there ever been a generally accepted ruling? If not, is there any clear reason the above sequence wouldn't work?


There's never going to be a consensus unless Paizo puts out a FAQ saying it works one way or another, but far as I can tell it works by the same precedent as trying to cast a spell with a 2-handed weapon. A bit goofy, but a valid use of the rules as they are written.


Shouldn't that be in the ''rules question'' subsection ?

Anyway, funny that you mention it, I was looking up the very same question just yesterday. I was considering using that trick for ranged attacks actually.

Make full round attack with longbow -­­­> Don shield for free -> End of turn -> At the start of next turn Take off shield for free -> Grab longbow in two hands and make a full round attack -> Repeat

This does seem like it is totally RAW legal at first glance, but I think it is not RAI. I would call that a loophole and if you ask me, I think this is super cheesy. If I were a GM I would definitely be annoyed if a player tried to pull that off. The best argument I can give you in favor of this not being allowed is that in most ( if not all ) instances where you are allowed to use your shield hand to do anything else than just wield the shield, you lose your shield AC bonus until next turn.

Make a shield bash ? You lose shield AC bonus.
Attack with two hands while wearing a buckler ? You lose shield AC bonus from buckler.

There are some specialized feats to go around these limitations, such as unhindering shield or shield brace and both are rather costly and have some limitations of their own. If it was intended that you could simply go around most of these penalties by simply taking quick draw feat, then it makes little sense that they design these specialized feats.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I don't know that it isn't RAI.

If you 2 weapon fight with sword and Armor Spikes, and you use a shield, you get your Shield Bonus to AC, don't you?

If you can make an off-hand attack and use a shield, why can't you use a 2 handed weapon attack and use a shield?

I have a cautionary note, though. Per RAW, a GM has total discretion as to how many Free Actions a character can take in a turn. If the GM is offended at the idea of your putting your Shield away as a Free Action, make your Full Attack with your Greatsword, and then pull your shield out again as a Free Action, he can arrogantly stroke his neckbeard and say, "I think a reasonable limit to the number of Free Actions you can take this round is zero!"


Scott Wilhelm wrote:

I don't know that it isn't RAI.

If you 2 weapon fight with sword and Armor Spikes, and you use a shield, you get your Shield Bonus to AC, don't you?

If you can make an off-hand attack and use a shield, why can't you use a 2 handed weapon attack and use a shield?

I have a cautionary note, though. Per RAW, a GM has total discretion as to how many Free Actions a character can take in a turn. If the GM is offended at the idea of your putting your Shield away as a Free Action, make your Full Attack with your Greatsword, and then pull your shield out again as a Free Action, he can arrogantly stroke his neckbeard and say, "I think a reasonable limit to the number of Free Actions you can take this round is zero!"

Though again, by that logic the GM would have to make it so you can't cast while wielding a 2h weapon either since that works by the same "free action remove hand/free action put hand back" mechanics as the quickdraw shield. This would effectively write Clerics of Gorum/Lamashtu/other gods with 2h favored weapons out of the game.

Of course, this type of gm isn't generally the type to think rationally about their rulings...


Arachnofiend wrote:
Scott Wilhelm wrote:

I don't know that it isn't RAI.

If you 2 weapon fight with sword and Armor Spikes, and you use a shield, you get your Shield Bonus to AC, don't you?

If you can make an off-hand attack and use a shield, why can't you use a 2 handed weapon attack and use a shield?

I have a cautionary note, though. Per RAW, a GM has total discretion as to how many Free Actions a character can take in a turn. If the GM is offended at the idea of your putting your Shield away as a Free Action, make your Full Attack with your Greatsword, and then pull your shield out again as a Free Action, he can arrogantly stroke his neckbeard and say, "I think a reasonable limit to the number of Free Actions you can take this round is zero!"

Though again, by that logic the GM would have to make it so you can't cast while wielding a 2h weapon either since that works by the same "free action remove hand/free action put hand back" mechanics as the quickdraw shield. This would effectively write Clerics of Gorum/Lamashtu/other gods with 2h favored weapons out of the game.

Of course, this type of gm isn't generally the type to think rationally about their rulings...

It'd also write archers out of the game since every arrow drawn is another free action.


Trevor86 wrote:

I'm wondering if a consensus was ever reached on if the light steel quickdraw shield allowed someone to attack with a one handed weapon held in two hands during your own turn while keeping it equipped for full AC bonus outside of your turn. The basic combo is: start turn with shield and weapon wielded, use free action to put away shield, use free action to hold weapon now with both hands, full attack, don shield as free action. This leaves you with the weapon held in one hand outside of your turn, but unless I am missing something it seems this sequence should work (there will be some DM variance on how many free actions are allowed to be taken I suppose, but this doesn't seem abusive). Some downsides are that I need quickdraw as a feat, that the shield is limited to a base 1ac shield with ACP-2 and that most one handed weapons aren't that exciting.

Quickdraw light shield cited below:

"Benefit: If you have a base attack bonus of +1 or higher, you may don or put away a quickdraw shield as a swift action combined with a regular move. If you have the Two-Weapon Fighting feat, you can draw a light or one-handed weapon with one hand and a quickdraw shield with the other in the time it would normally take you to draw one weapon. If you have the Quick Draw feat, you may don or put away a quickdraw shield as a free action."

All I've found on this are some short threads throughout the years that have wildly varying opinions by different posters. Has there ever been a generally accepted ruling? If not, is there any clear reason the above sequence wouldn't work?

The rules of the shield are about as clear and clean as they can possibly be. --If you have Quick Draw, it's a snap, in or out.


Scott Wilhelm wrote:

I don't know that it isn't RAI.

If you 2 weapon fight with sword and Armor Spikes, and you use a shield, you get your Shield Bonus to AC, don't you?

If you can make an off-hand attack and use a shield, why can't you use a 2 handed weapon attack and use a shield?

I have a cautionary note, though. Per RAW, a GM has total discretion as to how many Free Actions a character can take in a turn. If the GM is offended at the idea of your putting your Shield away as a Free Action, make your Full Attack with your Greatsword, and then pull your shield out again as a Free Action, he can arrogantly stroke his neckbeard and say, "I think a reasonable limit to the number of Free Actions you can take this round is zero!"

Personally, I would take Shield Brace instead of Quick Draw and use a polearm instead of a one-handed weapon.

Outside of personal preference: it is perfectly legal under RAW to TWF and still benefit from your shield. If you have the ability to THF and still hold a shield, which Quickdraw allows, you can THF and still benefit from a shield.

Other options include using a buckler with Unhindering Shield, vestigial arms, Ring of Force Shield, etc.


Volkard Abendroth wrote:
Personally, I would take Shield Brace instead of Quick Draw and use a polearm instead of a one-handed weapon.

Or take your Fighter levels with the Phalanx Soldier Archetype.

I don't like the Armor Check Penalty of the Shield imposed on my Attack Rolls. Phalanx Soldiers don't suffer from that.

But The Armor and Weapon Training Advanced abilities are painful to trade away for Phalanx Fighter Abilities.

But my martial characters don't usually get those regardless because I multiclass so much.

I have a character build that fights with Halberd and Light, Spiked Shield who has Hamatula Strike, Shield Slam, Greater Bull Rush, Paired Opportunist, and Armor Spikes, sort of Grappling and Bull Rushing at the same time with every hit also doing Armor Spike Damage, maybe take Spiked Destroyer, too because, why not? His full attack would just be monstrous--Halberd/Grapple+Armor Spikes/Shield/Grapple+Armor Spikes/Armor Spikes/Grapple+Armor Spikes/Bull Rush + Attacks of Opportunity all around/Shield Bash/Grapple + Armor Spikes, looping for as long a people's Combat Reflexes hold out--grinding through the battlefield literally turning his enemies into hamburger.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The tactic is legal, but to many it feels cheesy and hard to picture. To some it might seem more rules exploitation than playing a character.

So I'd certainly talk about it with the GM and the group and see if this style will fit the way the group wants to play and will make it more fun for everyone, and if not, find another way.

I could certainly see a GM simply not allowing this piece of equipment to exist in his world if he felt that it disrupted from the style of game the majority of the group preferred.


Free actions are something that are completely within the GM's control and for good reason. Speaking is a free action, but you can't deliver an hour long speech during your 6 second turn. How much talking is too much, up to the GM.

The answer to this question is the RAW is it's up to your GM if you can do this. If they are cool with it then you're good, if they're not then you can't there's really no room for argument.

To me the simplest solution to this is this, it is a free action you can do once per round. if you want to swap, hit, swap cool. You get to once for free, then you can hit once, and if you have a move action left redon the shield as a move action. That's a pretty middle of thr road way to deal with it without either being too restrictive, or too gamey.

Still, the RAW is: Up to the GM.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
baggageboy wrote:
Snip..

Exactly, by RAW, it is up to the GM. The CRB also gives us some advice on how to work this out.

CRB Page 181 said wrote:

Free actions consume a very small amount of

time and effort. You can perform one or more free actions
while taking another action normally. However, there are
reasonable limits on what you can really do for free, as
decided by the GM

"Reasonable limits" is the keyword here.

What is "reasonable" will always have some degree of subjectivity. But I think a good GM will try to actually use "reason" to assess what is reasonable. As opposed to ruling by a whim of emotion or by the taking of a piece of rule texts at apparent face-value.

I definitely think that using the quickdraw shield in the way that is described by OP is outside this reasonable limits. I could again go into details about why, but I do not want to write a wall of text right now. If I were a GM I would rule this out pretty much the same as baggageboy


Scott Wilhelm wrote:
I don't like the Armor Check Penalty of the Shield imposed on my Attack Rolls. Phalanx Soldiers don't suffer from that.

Mithral or Darkwood


functionally, I feel like it should be treated the same as a buckler. Since logically, I don't see why a character would get any more or less AC, putting away a shield, doing a thing and then pulling it back out. Than a character having a shield strapped to their arm and doing that thing. In both cases the character starts and ends their turn having a shield at the ready.


MaxWar wrote:

"Reasonable limits" is the keyword here.

What is "reasonable" will always have some degree of subjectivity. But I think a good GM will try to actually use "reason" to assess what is reasonable. As opposed to ruling by a whim of emotion or by the taking of a piece of rule texts at apparent face-value.

I definitely think that using the quickdraw shield in the way that is described by OP is outside this reasonable limits.

I don't understand the desire to consider it unreasonable when being able to do so appears to be the reason for the shield existing in the first place.

* If you have Quick Draw, with this shield you can avoid the -1 penalty to attacks with two-handed weaponry that wearing a buckler full-time would otherwise entail. ...and that's basically it.

It's a nice little doodad that makes a less commonly-taken feat more useful, at the expense of forgoing all the buckler-related feats and class abilities (of which there are a considerable number sprinkled throughout the game).


It's not the penalty that is the issue, it's the fee armor class.

The abilities that allow a buckler to still be in use while two handing are very specific and are gated to be fairly difficult to get, either buy requiring specific class features or multiple feats. Quick draw provides it's own benefits and can be taken by any character at BAB +1.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

It doesn't seem overpowered to me. As other people said, polearm+shield is an option now, so wielding a 1h weapon with two hands on-turn (and one-handed off-turn) is less powerful than that. It's one feat instead of two, for smaller benefits. If I said no to a player doing this they could just do the polearm build instead, for reach and probably more damage. So, why not?

I think the objection is one of immersion (which I appreciate is not relevant to everybody). Putting the shield away and getting it out again only makes sense in the context of turn-based combat, so using it as a tactic is actively drawing to everyone's attention the artificial nature of the game environment.

I think as a GM I'd allow it, but I'd try to reflavour it a little. If it's fluffed as the shield hanging off the characters upper arm, with a strap attached at the shoulder, and them flowing from offensive to defensive stances, it seems better.


In PFS shield brace was "clarified" to say you only get 1 hand for the polearm similar to the phalanx fighter. So you spend two feats which have higher prerequisites to get a lesser benefit. They have different ancillary benefits so how they compare on other points is debatable.


Lucy_Valentine wrote:

It doesn't seem overpowered to me. As other people said, polearm+shield is an option now, so wielding a 1h weapon with two hands on-turn (and one-handed off-turn) is less powerful than that. It's one feat instead of two, for smaller benefits. If I said no to a player doing this they could just do the polearm build instead, for reach and probably more damage. So, why not?

I think the objection is one of immersion (which I appreciate is not relevant to everybody). Putting the shield away and getting it out again only makes sense in the context of turn-based combat, so using it as a tactic is actively drawing to everyone's attention the artificial nature of the game environment.

I think as a GM I'd allow it, but I'd try to reflavour it a little. If it's fluffed as the shield hanging off the characters upper arm, with a strap attached at the shoulder, and them flowing from offensive to defensive stances, it seems better.

So, what about a buckler then?

Is there any reason for me to lose the ac from my buckler just because I used the arm its strapped to, to do something?

Using the same logic shouldn't I retain the AC bonus on the buckler if there's nothing in my buckler hand between turns?


Slim Jim wrote:
MaxWar wrote:

"Reasonable limits" is the keyword here.

What is "reasonable" will always have some degree of subjectivity. But I think a good GM will try to actually use "reason" to assess what is reasonable. As opposed to ruling by a whim of emotion or by the taking of a piece of rule texts at apparent face-value.

I definitely think that using the quickdraw shield in the way that is described by OP is outside this reasonable limits.

I don't understand the desire to consider it unreasonable when being able to do so appears to be the reason for the shield existing in the first place.

* If you have Quick Draw, with this shield you can avoid the -1 penalty to attacks with two-handed weaponry that wearing a buckler full-time would otherwise entail. ...and that's basically it.

It's a nice little doodad that makes a less commonly-taken feat more useful, at the expense of forgoing all the buckler-related feats and class abilities (of which there are a considerable number sprinkled throughout the game).

What Buckler specific abilities or feats would warrant taking a buckler instead of going for Quickdraw Shield + quick Draw ?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
baggageboy wrote:

It's not the penalty that is the issue, it's the fee armor class.

The abilities that allow a buckler to still be in use while two handing are very specific and are gated to be fairly difficult to get, either buy requiring specific class features or multiple feats. Quick draw provides it's own benefits and can be taken by any character at BAB +1.

The armor class isn't free though? You're paying a feat for it. You wouldn't take Quick Draw if you weren't doing this.


LordKailas wrote:

So, what about a buckler then?

Is there any reason for me to lose the ac from my buckler just because I used the arm its strapped to, to do something?

Well yeah, it's because your character isn't good enough at switching from offensive to defensive to gain the benefits of having it.

Or mechanically, there's a feat for that.


Arachnofiend wrote:
baggageboy wrote:

It's not the penalty that is the issue, it's the fee armor class.

The abilities that allow a buckler to still be in use while two handing are very specific and are gated to be fairly difficult to get, either buy requiring specific class features or multiple feats. Quick draw provides it's own benefits and can be taken by any character at BAB +1.

The armor class isn't free though? You're paying a feat for it. You wouldn't take Quick Draw if you weren't doing this.

It is "free" because you would get this benefit for free alongside the benefit of Quick Draw. Quick draw can be super useful on its own, especially if your character is built around it.


MaxWar wrote:
Slim Jim wrote:
It's a nice little doodad that makes a less commonly-taken feat more useful, at the expense of forgoing all the buckler-related feats and class abilities (of which there are a considerable number sprinkled throughout the game).
What Buckler specific abilities or feats would warrant taking a buckler instead of going for Quickdraw Shield + quick Draw ?

Taldan Duelist, Unhindering Shield, and the Viking fighter archetype are an interesting stack for the guy who wants to TWF a pair of falcatas (needing Effortless Lace on on of them) and eventually enjoy better-than-tower-shield AC from his buckler.


Lucy_Valentine wrote:
LordKailas wrote:

So, what about a buckler then?

Is there any reason for me to lose the ac from my buckler just because I used the arm its strapped to, to do something?

Well yeah, it's because your character isn't good enough at switching from offensive to defensive to gain the benefits of having it.

Or mechanically, there's a feat for that.

thank you for making my point for me :)


Quick Draw is hardly useful at all? I'd certainly never take it under normal circumstances, only if I'm being taxed into it such as in a throwing build.


Arachnofiend wrote:
Quick Draw is hardly useful at all? I'd certainly never take it under normal circumstances, only if I'm being taxed into it such as in a throwing build.

actually kind of amazing at low levels. Start off combat with a couple ranged attacks, switch to a reach weapon and rack up aoo’s on the off turn.

Silver Crusade

Lelomenia wrote:
Arachnofiend wrote:
Quick Draw is hardly useful at all? I'd certainly never take it under normal circumstances, only if I'm being taxed into it such as in a throwing build.
actually kind of amazing at low levels. Start off combat with a couple ranged attacks, switch to a reach weapon and rack up aoo’s on the off turn.

I don't see how that would work. How does one 'draw' a two handed reach weapon? From where? Weapons like that must be carried in at least one hand, so 'draw' doesn't really apply. They can't be 'sheathed' or otherwise carried in a way that keeps both hands free. The rules don't weigh in on this, but it's how such weapons are.

Also note that Quickdraw doesn't allow one to put away weapons as a free action. You could shoot your bow during your turn, then drop it and draw a sheathed weapon, but the bow would wind up on the ground. Also the drawn weapon would have to be something it's possible to carry on your person with both hands otherwise occupied. Which excludes polearms.

Quickdraw does allow you to, say, draw and throw multiple javelins with one hand while holding your reach weapon in the other hand. You could then resume threatening at the end of your turn, as a free action.

P.s. I'd tend to be generous with QuickDraw on the basis of 'martials should get Nice Things too', but I don't see a RAW way to 'switch to' a two handed reach weapon, because there's no real way to switch it 'out' except to drop it. I'd allow the archer to plant the reach weapon in the earth nearby, fire missile weapons, then QuickDraw it from where it was planted in the ground. But that's not RAW.


Magda Luckbender wrote:
I don't see how that would work. How does one 'draw' a two handed reach weapon? From where? Weapons like that must be carried in at least one hand, so 'draw' doesn't really apply. They can't be 'sheathed' or otherwise carried in a way that keeps both hands free. The rules don't weigh in on this, but it's how such weapons are.

So RAW there's no such restriction. But if there were, an efficient quiver would solve it. 1700 is affordable eventually.


If Pathfinder iconic artwork is any guide, the number of weapons you are able to reasonably carry on your back is {∞-1}.


Here is a representation of my 3.4 ft tall Gnome cavalier carrying his 10 ft reach lance on his back.
https://imgur.com/XoqdOsM

Ok joking aside this discussion is a mess :p

Let me just focus on 2 points as to why I think this is an unreasonable use of the free action system. And then I'll be done here.

1. It is very unbalanced compared to getting equivalent results with the buckler, which requires quite a bit of investment. With this technique, using a buckler is mostly obsolete, unless you are forced into it by other restrictions. Such as being a monk, or using a two-weapon build( you can still go with the quickdraw shield trick by using a glove of storing) or maybe if you really want to make AOO with a 2-Handers while keeping the shield AC bonus. These builds however are overshadowed by all the great possibilities you get out of cheesing with you Quickdraw shield. This immediately creates a balance issue within the game as any build starting with the quickdraw shield vs. the buckler is at a clear advantage.

The whole point of using a buckler is that it allows you to use your hands for other things while you make use of shield equipment. To get the full advantage out of your buckler, you need specific proficiency and feats that you can only unlock over the course of several levels. OR...According to some people here, you can just use QuickDraw Shield + Quick draw and get the full cheese at lev 1 or 2 depending on your class. Heck, you don't even need shield proficiency. Just grab a darkwood quickdraw shield and you are good to go.

2. It makes about zero sense as an actual fighting technique. Using this is ridiculously gamey. The combat is turn by turn, but it is supposed to be an approximation of something that happens in real time. When you make full round attacks, you are pretty much attacking continuously with hardly a break, beside dodging around and parrying attacks, which a trained fighter will do fluidly through their combat form.

Using a buckler that is permanently attached to your arm in order to protect yourself while doing full round attacks with two hands is honestly a bit sketchy. But at least it can still make some sense. You can orient yourself in a way to give you some cover from the enemy in between your strikes. You do need to have a specific combat form and training and expertise to do that, as represented by the proficiency and feats you need.

Now picture yourself someone with zero shield proficiency hacking at an enemy with a two handed sword but somehow managing to pull out a shield in between sword strikes just in time to intercept an enemy blow, then somehow making that shield disappear immediately after and free their hand in time to grab the sword again and complete the swing at full power with two hands... I have trouble maintaining my suspension of disbelief.

Free actions are for the most part supposed to be actions that you can do at the same time as your other actions, so they don't actually slow down your normal action sequence. Like Throwing insults at your enemy as you attack. Drawing a weapon as part of a charge. Letting go one hand off the shaft of your 2-H weapon as your raise it to cast a spell with somatic component. A barbarian becoming enraged as they are attacking. Granted that there are some exemple of legal free actions that stretch this concept quite a bit, but few would be as gamey as the quickdraw shield.

You need to draw a line somewhere, hence, it is perfectly legit for a GM to rule that such a use of the free action system is unreasonable, for all the reasons I listed. If your group is ok with using that mechanic nobody is stopping you. But I would be annoyed if someone did that In mine.

Doing this would actually be a great help to my current build, I had that idea and considered using it for a few minutes, but then I decided I would not be the cheese guy. I will be going for the buckler feats.


@OP: By RAW this works. Some people might argue about not being able to imagine this, but that's their problem. There are more absurd things a character can do in Pathfinder than being fast with a shield. Anyway, their immersion issues are not a problem of the game engine.

Of course, a GM could always rule that only one free action per round is reasonable, but that would clearly be out of line with rest of the system.

Liberty's Edge

I must say that no matter what, by RAW this is going to require your GM to make the call on if it's valid or reasonable.

The section on Free Actions even states:

Free Actions wrote:
Free Action: Free actions consume a very small amount of time and effort. You can perform one or more free actions while taking another action normally. However, there are reasonable limits on what you can really do for free, as decided by the GM.

To me this says that anybody can take 1 free action per turn but EVERY free action beyond the first 100% requires the GM to sign off on it.

That being said, I'd never allow this at my table unless someone mistakenly showed up with their character ready and built to do this trick, in which case I'd let it go for that game and then help them rebuild into something less cheesy. The fact that it takes multiple feats, traits, and class abilities to even approach this level of cheesy switch hitting versus the base item with a simple price-bump tells me that in all likelihood this situation was not well thought out at all in terms of how free actions are handled as it seems that most folks here seem to be unaware that every free action after the first is supposed to be individually adjudicated by the GM.


Lucy_Valentine wrote:
Magda Luckbender wrote:
I don't see how that would work. How does one 'draw' a two handed reach weapon? From where? Weapons like that must be carried in at least one hand, so 'draw' doesn't really apply. They can't be 'sheathed' or otherwise carried in a way that keeps both hands free. The rules don't weigh in on this, but it's how such weapons are.
So RAW there's no such restriction. But if there were, an efficient quiver would solve it. 1700 is affordable eventually.

This. Quick Draw doesn't discriminate. So long as the weapon is on your person as opposed to in your backpack or something, it's a free action.


MaxWar wrote:
1. It is very unbalanced compared to getting equivalent results with the buckler, which requires quite a bit of investment.

Is it though? It can kick off at level 1, which is nice. But it takes a feat that you probably wouldn't bother with, you're limited to one-handed weapons for selecting, you can't get reach, and you only get one-handed damage on AoOs.

The polearm+shield brace or any two-handed plus unhindering shield routes both require two feats, but off better weapons and two-handed AoOs.

And two-handed plus casting the Shield spell is also going to be superior for a long time, for anyone who can do that.

So is this really better, mechanically? Are you really going to abandon your polearm and buckler build in order to use a longsword?

MaxWar wrote:
2. It makes about zero sense as an actual fighting technique.

I agree with this bit.


You may be underestimating how likely someone is to take Quick Draw as-is. It was a pretty common feat choice for martials Back In The Day™. Then again, maybe I'm overestimating it because of that very issue. There are so many more feats now that it's likely fallen in priority.

I still like it, though, especially for ranged characters.

Silver Crusade

blahpers wrote:
Lucy_Valentine wrote:


So RAW there's no such restriction. But if there were, an efficient quiver would solve it. 1700 is affordable eventually.
This. Quick Draw doesn't discriminate. So long as the weapon is on your person as opposed to in your backpack or something, it's a free action.

So I know that I don't have a leg to stand on, RAW. That said, do most GMs really allow PCs to somehow carry a polearm 'on your person'? As a player do you ever do this? Absent a magic item, how is it possible to EVER carry on a polearm 'on your person' without holding it in hand? Is this issue an 'inconvenient truth' that players prefer not to think about?

I know players do this [absurdity] all the time. As PFS GM I've seen 'golf club bags' of polearms, groaned, and chosen to allow it because it's not against RAW and I don't want to piss on people's fun. I consider it an exploit, because the encumbrance rules don't consider SHAPE. One simply can not store an 8 foot poleaxe in a backpack, nor is there any reasonable way to attach it. In a home game I'd never permit this abomination.


Magda Luckbender wrote:
do most GMs really allow PCs to somehow carry a polearm 'on your person'?

IDK. I've only seen someone try it once, in a WFRP campaign, and the GM allowed it.

Magda Luckbender wrote:
As a player do you ever do this?

Not so far in my roleplaying history. That sort of thing bothers me.

Magda Luckbender wrote:
Absent a magic item, how is it possible to EVER carry on a polearm 'on your person' without holding it in hand?

Riding a horse there are ways to attach it to the saddle.

I've seen someone strap a larp toy spear diagonally over their back with a two-point attachment strap. It was held up by tension. I'm pretty dubious about that working with a full weight one, but to be fair I've never got around to trying it.
I can imagine a polearm back-mounted holster that might work: Have a cup hanging down to put the butt in, and a retaining hook attached somehow at the shoulder. I don't fancy trying to do any rapid movements with something in it, though.
All told my best guess is "technically possible, but not really practical".

Magda Luckbender wrote:
Is this issue an 'inconvenient truth' that players prefer not to think about?

Obviously that depends on the player.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Themetricsystem wrote:

I must say that no matter what, by RAW this is going to require your GM to make the call on if it's valid or reasonable.

The section on Free Actions even states:

Free Actions wrote:
Free Action: Free actions consume a very small amount of time and effort. You can perform one or more free actions while taking another action normally. However, there are reasonable limits on what you can really do for free, as decided by the GM.
To me this says that anybody can take 1 free action per turn but EVERY free action beyond the first 100% requires the GM to sign off on it.

So, you're saying every archer with more than one attack per round has to ask their GM for permission to draw additional arrows?

Silver Crusade

@everyone, thank you for the feedback. I personally think the rules are very clear in that it works. However, since this is a PFS character I eventually decided to not use it; I don't want the character to suffer from table variancy nor introduce rules discussions on this issue taking away from sessions.

This probably means my character is a lot more likely to die today in the supposedly brutal module I'm about to play, but that's life :) have a nice weekend everyone.


I have never heard of a GM dream-crushing a light quickdraw shield. (In fact, this thread is the first time I've heard of a player being worried about it.)

(Disclosure: I have not read every thread in these forums or exhaustively searched, or talked to every gamer on earth.)


PFS can be fairly volatile; a GM who doesn't know about this interaction and thinks it "breaks verisimilitude" or whatever has a high chance of reacting... emotionally. It's reasonable to play it safe.

Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Advice / The light steel quickdraw shield and attacking with 2h during your turn All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.
Recent threads in Advice