Rule clarification / change request for Interact and drawing two weapons

[N N 959]

I've noticed some GMs and some (past) discussion on forums that some people are requiring two actions to draw two one-handed weapons. If that's what the rule intends, then i have the following request.

Request: Clarify/Change the Interact rules so that a creature can draw one weapon with each hand.

Alternatively: Allow any PC with Twin Feint, Double Slice, Flurry of Blows, Twin Takedown, or any other feat that requires using two separate weapons, the ability to draw both weapons with one Interact.

Alternative 2: Allow two weapon draws as long as one of them is Agile.

Reasons/Rationale

1. Verisimilitude - As the rules clearly allow you to grab one item with both hands, it stands to reason that a person should be able to grab two separate items, one with each hand. It doesn't make sense to require two Interacts to put your hands in your pockets, to grab both oars in a rowboat, to pick up two mugs of ale with each hand, and to do any number of things that people routinely do with two hands involving different object. I don't need two Interacts to pull the french doors open on my refrigerator.

2. Balance - If the rules actually do require two Interacts, this poses a substantive disadvantage to class/builds that are expected to dual wield. If a class (build option) which is designed to use two-handed weapons can grab a greatsword with two hands, then duel wielding build options put the character at an action economy disadvantage.

This is even more impactful for Flurry Rangers who are already paying a Hunt Prey action-tax. Requiring a Flurry Ranger to Hunt Prey and then spend two Interacts, and then move, pretty much guarantees they won't get Twin Takedown in round 1 in many situations.

3. Fairness - In PF1, if you took Two-Weapon Fighting, it also allowed you to double draw. There is no such feat in PF2 (which is why I've interpreted Interact to allow a double draw). Nor is there any class feat which specifically allows this. If I'm wrong about Interact already allowing a double draw, then you've got three or four classes who are expected to dual wield, but you've not provided them any means to avoid the action penalty (Please don't add a general feat to do this as it would nothing more than a feat tax).

I'll also point out that two Interacts, screws over Fighters who do not use a shield, and instead want to dual wield. GMs seem to want to impose Fatigue rules for carrying around a light weapon in one had, but not a steel shield on your arm.

My goal with this post is _not_ to start a debate on what the rule actually allows. I'm asking Paizo to either change it, if I'm wrong, or clarify if I'm right. I"m sure some poster will be against this change for whatever reason. That's fine. I can't stop you from posting.

[mrspaghetti]

It's unfortunate if some GMs are choosing to take the most restrictive view on this. As I read it, the rules allow for drawing 2 items/weapons with one Interact already.

[Taja the Barbarian]

mrspaghetti wrote:

It's unfortunate if some GMs are choosing to take the most restrictive view on this. As I read it, the rules allow for drawing 2 items/weapons with one Interact already.

Nope, interact is quite specifically a 'single' item.

Interact <Single Action> wrote:

Manipulate

Source Core Rulebook pg. 470 1.1Y
ou use your hand or hands to manipulate an object or the terrain. You can grab an unattended or stored object, open a door, or produce some similar effect. You might have to attempt a skill check to determine if your Interact action was successful.

[N N 959]

mrspaghetti wrote:

It's unfortunate if some GMs are choosing to take the most restrictive view on this. As I read it, the rules allow for drawing 2 items/weapons with one Interact already.

As you can see there are differences of opinion on how this can work. I've run into both in PFS. If it's one acton per weapon, regardless, I'd like Paizo to amend that for reasons stated above.

[Zapp]

N N 959 wrote:

I've noticed some GMs and some (past) discussion on forums that some people are requiring two actions to draw two one-handed weapons. If that's what the rule intends, then i have the following request.

The two-weapon wielder pretty much needs Quick Draw.

This allows the character the following turn:

Action 1. Draw first weapon and attack with it
Action 2. Draw second weapon and attack with it
Action 3. Twin Takedown (or whatever third action you need to take; just an example to show you now have two weapons)

You'll note that this isn't THAT much worse than in a regular round.

Also note Quick Draw is only available to Rangers and Rogues (and the Vigilante archetype), so the ability to ease the action economy is clearly not intended to be generally available.

I think the rules clearly say and intend that you must use two actions to draw two one-handed weapons. I think your suggestion might work as a houserule, but that you should not expect it to become RAW.

[Squiggit]

While it's definitely not RAW right now, it seems like a reasonable change to make. TWF has a lot of nuisance restrictions working against it and making them a little more manageable would be nice.

[N N 959]

Zapp wrote:

The two-weapon wielder pretty much needs Quick Draw.

I was expecting someone to bring up Quickdraw, though I thought it would be from a slightly different angle.

While I'm not sure how to quantify "need" in this context, if what you say is true, then any class expecting or supporting TWF, would have Quickdraw. Or, Quickdraw would be a general feat. As the Fighter and Monk (given Monastic Weaponry) do not have Quickdraw. Paizo obviously doesn't feel Quickdraw is a "need" for TWF.

Nor should they. Quickdraw was not needed in PF1, and I'm pretty sure its been stated that PF2's design philosophy is not to impose feat taxes. Requiring an extra feat to do something like TWF, when the class build options clearly support TWF, would be a feat tax.

Quote:

You'll note that this isn't THAT much worse than in a regular round.

While it is certainly better to have Quickdraw (as that is true about any class feat), even using Quickdraw it is substantially worse than allowing someone to draw a weapon witch each hand, just as you can draw one weapon with both hands.

Quote:

Action 1. Draw first weapon and attack with it

Action 2. Draw second weapon and attack with it
Action 3. Twin Takedown (or whatever third action you need to take; just an example to show you now have two weapons)

Your example is also misleading. Rangers cannot use Twin Takedown in that situation because they must first designate a prey. And, if you're melee, you're probably having to move at least once to reach your prey. In that same example, you could use Hunt Prey, draw weapons. then use Twin Takedown. The advantage is you have your prey designated, and you've combined damage for your light weapons which might not even penetrate individually.

I should also point out that Quickdraw uses an Interact.

Core rulebook p. 172 Quickdraw wrote:

You Interact to draw a weapon, then Strike with that weapon.

Interact has the "manipulate" trait which can trigger AoOs unless there's some extra rule contradicting this that I haven't come across. So Quickdaw requires that you are next to your foe to use. You get nothing if you Quickdraw and then have to move to attack. Bearing that in mind, even if we agree that QD can be useful to a TWFer, I think it's accepted as verities that Quickdraw was intended for "switch hitting," not for TWF.

Quote:

Also note Quick Draw is only available to Rangers and Rogues (and the Vigilante archetype), so the ability to ease the action economy is clearly not intended to be generally available.

That's assuming you can't already grab two separate items with each hand. If you can, then the fact that there is no way to reduce the action economy for drawing two weapons as compared to drawing one weapon with two hands, would be moot. It doesn't exist because it's not needed.

Quote:

I think your suggestion might work as a houserule, but that you should not expect it to become RAW.

I expect that it is RAW. And if not, I'm hoping Paizo will agree that this is an oversight and address it (but not by introducing an extra feat everyone would have to take).

As I stated before, in PF1, anyone who expected to TWF, got TWF and that automatically addressed the drawing of weapons There's no such feat in PF2. In PF1, there was no intentional nerfing TWF via action economy, and I don't see why Paizo would do it in PF2, especially when TWF builds are essentially mandated by their respective class feat to have "two melee weapons."

Again, I'm not here to debate RAW. An interpretation such that you cannot draw two weapons is entirely defensible, so there's no point in arguing that its wrong, as written.

[Themetricsystem]

Yeah, um... if you're not here to discuss the Rules I'm not sure you put this in the right part of the forum because that's what the Rules Forum is for unless your intent is to appeal for Paizo to relase a Feat in a later book but given your follow-up posts, it sounds like you're against that.

As Taja said, you explicitly draw one item per Action you spend and I'm certain that is by design (in other words it is NOT a "bug" or oversight) given the language they used. So yeah, if you're drawing 2 weapons that's 2 actions, but if you make a habit of walking about in exploration mode with at least one weapon drawn already that can help lessen the burden.

[graystone]

If drawing weapons is too onerous, maybe pick up a free hand weapon or 2.

[Ascalaphus]

Does starting combat without weapons drawn really happen that often to you?

[Cordell Kintner]

It's more likely than you think. Walking for hours with weapons in hand is annoying, as most weapons aren't balanced for walking with but striking with. I usually only assume weapons are out if the party is searching an area that may have threats, like a dungeon. If the party is simply traveling the countryside and gets ambushed by a bear, or some thieves while in the middle of a city, it's very likely they don't have weapons out. Certain weapons are more apt for traveling with, like staves, so there's some exceptions, but I would usually expect the players to mention they have their weapons out before combat starts.

[graystone]

Cordell Kintner wrote:

Walking for hours with weapons in hand is annoying

In real life? Sure. In game? Not so much. This is a game where you can wear all your equipment for easy of drawing... I can walk around all day with halfling under my arm so a sword is nothing. :P

Cordell Kintner wrote:

I usually only assume weapons are out if the party is searching an area that may have threats, like a dungeon.

I'd assume weapons stowed only in situations that are seen as 'safe' like in town or during diplomacy with relatively friendly NPC's. Outside town [or traveling in questionable area of a town], I'd be surprised to have anyone with their weapons sheathed/stowed.

[rainzax]

I stand with OP.

Many GMs already "rule of cool" this anyway - might as well standardize it. "Future-proofing":

Draw
Interact to draw a stowed or worn weapon. If you have a class feat whose requirement is "You are wielding two melee weapons", you may instead Interact to draw two stowed or worn weapons.

[Qaianna]

I'd say in exploration mode you're not really weapons out unless you're hunting, looking for trouble, or would otherwise be using a tool at that time. I think the only weapons that are normally out on a not-so-leisurely stroll are staves as walking sticks, maybe a machete/shortsword for the one up front if terrain requires.

Although it's fun to imagine adventurers scanning the foliage, their crossbows held ready as they creep through the jungle, maybe with one near the back carrying a light ballista with bolts in bandoliers across their chest.

Speaking of which, yes, this probably does disadvantage crossbow users even more, since I don't think those store well while loaded.

[HammerJack]

Depends on the exploration mode. Clearing a crypt that's just full of the walking dead? Weapons out the whole time (aside from when you're doing things you need your hands for) makes sense. Travelling 30 miles to the next town? Weapons constantly ready just in case something attacks makes a lot less sense.

A large amount of combat happens at times when you'd likely have at least one weapon ready. Definitely not all combat, though.

[graystone]

HammerJack wrote:

Travelling 30 miles to the next town? Weapons constantly ready just in case something attacks makes a lot less sense.

You must travel to different towns than I do: I hear these days they even let goblins in them! ;)

[Qaianna]

HammerJack wrote:

Depends on the exploration mode. Clearing a crypt that's just full of the walking dead? Weapons out the whole time (aside from when you're doing things you need your hands for) makes sense. Travelling 30 miles to the next town? Weapons constantly ready just in case something attacks makes a lot less sense.

A large amount of combat happens at times when you'd likely have at least one weapon ready. Definitely not all combat, though.

Mostly agree, yes. Tho honestly I'd rather not be holding a sword or halberd for five or ten hours straight, as noted in the thirty mile trip. (Or however long it would take.) I'd have it in an easy to grab position -- worn, as the rules go -- but I think outright travel wouldn't be weapons out the whole trip.

[Ascalaphus]

Frame challenge: about half of exploration mode is non-threatened and the other half is threat-sensitive.

As we half-know, it's not required to use exploration activities. You could just be walking normally. Doing stuff like casting Detect Magic every couple of steps isn't mandatory.

In fact, most exploration activities halve your speed:
- Avoid Notice, unless you have the right skill feat
- Defend always halves your speed
- Detect Magic halves your speed if you want to ensure you never walk into an aura before detecting it
- Follow the Expert mimics whoever you're following
- Hustle actually goes faster, but can only be done for limited time
- Investigate halves your speed
- Repeat a spell halves your speed
- Search halves your speed if you want to check everything before you step into it

Looking at all of that, Scout is the only tactic that doesn't halve your speed. So I contend that any time you care enough about how you're moving to adopt one of these tactics, that it might also be reasonable to be walking with weapons drawn.

On the other hand, when you're just traveling miles and a miles of wilderness - yeah then you probably don't have weapons drawn for the same reason that you're not Searching for traps. The expectation of danger is low and you want to arrive at your destination before dark.

So really what I'm trying to say is, two-weapon users shouldn't be all that much out of step with other characters. If you feel like you're the only one at a disadvantage, maybe it's time to rethink how you handle exploration tactics vs. the assumption of ready weapons?

[Zapp]

N N 959 wrote:

long post

Look, you missed my point.

My point is: since Quickdraw exists, your percieved slights against two-weapon fighting can be mitigated in a way that makes your proposals unlikely.

Tl;dr: the game already supports TWFing, just not in the way you'd like.

[N N 959]

Themetricsystem wrote:

Yeah, um... if you're not here to discuss the Rules I'm not sure you put this in the right part of the forum because that's what the Rules Forum is for unless your intent is to appeal for Paizo to relase a Feat in a later book but given your follow-up posts, it sounds like you're against that.

Hunh. I'm asking Paizo to either clarify a rule, or change it. I'm talking about how one interpretation affects game play. What forum would you suggest this be posted in?

[Themetricsystem]

The rule, as it stands, is pretty clear that it functions for only one Weapon at a time so your best bet is to talk to your GM (or make the executive decision on your own) to house rule that it works the way you want it to so you can avoid the additional Action one or more times per combat.

In that regard I'd suggest the Advice or Homebrew Forums so you can gather some feedback about how best to word the house rule or feature you want to bake into the various Two-Weapon fighting Feats and Features.

[graystone]

Themetricsystem wrote:

The rule, as it stands, is pretty clear that it functions for only one Weapon at a time so your best bet is to talk to your GM (or make the executive decision on your own) to house rule that it works the way you want it to so you can avoid the additional Action one or more times per combat.

In that regard I'd suggest the Advice or Homebrew Forums so you can gather some feedback about how best to word the house rule or feature you want to bake into the various Two-Weapon fighting Feats and Features.

This one is difficult to say where it should go. While it technically can fall under rules, "why a rule exists or doesn't exist", that's really going to boil down to N N 959 saying 'I think it should allow 2 weapons to be drawn' and most others going 'the game sets it at 1 weapons and that seems fine' and/or 'you can have 1-2 weapons in hand so how often do you start an encounter with none in hand'. So I'm not sure what good this thread will actually do.

IMO, I think getting a usable 2 weapon draw would more likely come out of a Advice/Homebrew too.

N N 959 wrote:

I'm asking Paizo to either clarify a rule, or change it.

I don't see anything to clarify and I don't see the rule likely to be changed as I haven't seen anyone other than you bring it up as an issue. It looks to me that it's working as intended.

[N N 959]

graystone wrote:

If drawing weapons is too onerous, maybe pick up a free hand weapon or 2.

The issue is not that it's "onerous."

1. Believe the rules, as written, allow a person to draw "an item" with each of "2 hands." While this could be the same item, there is no requirement that has to be the same item. Obviously others disagree and some others agree. If my interpretation is correct, then it's clear Paizo needs to state this.

2. If I'm wrong, which I may be, then I am asking Paizo to reconsider this based on the reason I provided: TWFers in all movies, TV shows, draw both weapons with a single action (essentially no one draws two daggers, one at a time.); I don't see why thee is a balance need to allow a two-handed fighter to spend one Interact but a TWF has to spend two; I don't see anything that off-sets the burden on TWF to justify requiring two Interacts when its clear TWF is a compelled/intended combat style.

[graystone]

N N 959 wrote:

1. Believe the rules, as written, allow a person to draw "an item" with each of "2 hands." While this could be the same item, there is no requirement that has to be the same item. Obviously others disagree and some others agree. If my interpretation is correct, then it's clear Paizo needs to state this.

Did anyone else agree? I don't recall any but I might have missed them. IMO, the rules seems pretty clear: Table 6-2: Changing Equipment

Change Hands, Action = Draw, stow, or pick up an item.

It's an Interact action so: Core Rulebook pg. 470
Interact: You use your hand or hands to manipulate an object or the terrain. You can grab an unattended or stored object, open a door, or produce some similar effect.

I don't see any reference to draw including any terms to imply multiple items at once.

N N 959 wrote:

2. If I'm wrong, which I may be, then I am asking Paizo to reconsider this based on the reason I provided

Sure you can but it seems unlikely IMO. It seems to be something that's 'working as intended'. I'd LOVE to see switching grip not be an action too but I don't think that'll ever change.

[Streuner]

I'd love to see an addition to Quick Draw:
"You Interact to draw a weapon, then Strike with that weapon. Alternatively, you can draw two weapons without striking."

Thematically it would make a lot of sense, and it would let you use specific dual wield thrown weapon feats on your second action.

Maybe they don't allow that because it would be too powerful...don't know.

[graystone]

Streuner wrote:

I'd love to see an addition to Quick Draw:

"You Interact to draw a weapon, then Strike with that weapon. Alternatively, you can draw two weapons without striking."

Thematically it would make a lot of sense and it would let you use specific dual wield skills on your second action.

Maybe they allow you to do that because it would be too powerful...don't know.

I think it might be an easier sell to have a new feat to draw 2 items at once instead of adding new stuff to an old feat. So maybe a Dual Draw feat to spend a single action to draw 2 one handed items.

[Gisher]

Streuner wrote:

I'd love to see an addition to Quick Draw:

"You Interact to draw a weapon, then Strike with that weapon. Alternatively, you can draw two weapons without striking."

Thematically it would make a lot of sense, and it would let you use specific dual wield thrown weapon feats on your second action.

Maybe they don't allow that because it would be too powerful...don't know.

I really like that. It seems pretty balanced to me.

[Squiggit]

I'm not convinced TWF is overbearing enough that it'd really need to be an extra feat, but better than nothing.

[TwilightKnight]

Qaianna wrote:

Speaking of which, yes, this probably does disadvantage crossbow users even more, since I don't think those store well while loaded.

I never allow crossbows to be stored loaded. If you want to travel with your crossbow loaded, you need to have it in your hand/s. YMMV

Also, I interpret the exploration actions to be clearly separate in their implementation. Meaning that if you are Searching for hazards, you do not have your weapons drawn. you need your hands free to interact with the environment. If you want your weapons drawn and ready then you will be performing the Defend activity. Essentially, I only allow weapons to be drawn when using Defend, Hustle, or Scout, and in certain circumstances Coerce and Impersonate. It is based on the fundamental idea that in 2E choices have consequences. If you decide upon one course of action, you give up other courses of action. Yes, many of you are going to disagree. No, you are not going to change my mind. I am just sharing it as a personal anecdote for each to consider for themselves.

[Themetricsystem]

This sounds like something you're going to simply have to talk to your GM about because this isn't anywhere close to the kind of thing that even approaches ambiguity but rather seems like wishful thinking so some particular builds can benefit from saving on their Action Economy.

If you're looking for suggestions perhaps a 4th level Feat that requires Quick Draw which allows you to spend your Reaction for your turn to Draw an additional 1-handed Weapon and make a Strike with it incurring all of the normal MAP involved with any other Strike wouldn't be too far out of line since it empowers you to functionally get your savings your are looking for while also costing you an alternate resource Action without costing you the type of Action you were looking to save in the first place.... I dunno though.

[N N 959]

Ascalaphus wrote:

Does starting combat without weapons drawn really happen that often to you?

I'm not sure what "that often" quantifies as.

I will say that a common encounter trop in scenarios is the party is hiking through the outdoors and...ambush. GMs are all over the board about whether party members can carry weapons during exploration mode, be it the formalized PF2 version or the informal PF1 version.

Certainly a large percentage of GMs will prevent players from carrying swords. But, have no problem with someone carrying a shield on one arm or a bow.

Let's think about this from a reality perspective. In U.S. an infrantryman has to complete a 12 mile "loaded march" while carrying a ruck sack and a loaded rifle, in 3 hours. Military rifles e.g. M1, M4, AK47, weigh between 7.5 and 8 lbs. In PF1, a shortsword and longsword combine for a weight of 6 lbs.

So weight wise, there's no reason a solider couldn't carry weapons out while marching. What some will no doubt argue is that a rifle can be carried with two hands. So comfort and fatigue would probably be more of a factor carrying two weapons. If we look at depictions of roman soldiers, they frequently carry javelins and shields while marching. I'm sure that far exceeded the weight of two one-handed weapons, but I think most would agree that there are some ergonomic differences that are the basis of allowing one but not the other.

All that aside, the real issue is that many encounter situations are simply contrived to give purpose to game mechanics, either by the authors or the GMs. All too often, monsters are allowed to get into place while simultaneously preventing PCs from reacting. But this is a typical paradigm used by game authors to create design space for a feat like Quickdraw, Sudden Charge, etc.

But let's be honet, it's kind of silly that you can't draw a sword or dagger while moving in PF2, not even with a movement penalty. Paizo undoubtedly did this to nerf PC effectiveness and make the combats last longer, via eating up PC actions.

[NECR0G1ANT]

As a GM, I'd be fine house-ruling that an PC may draw two weapons as a single Interact action. The current RAW, that Interact is limited to a single item, is unambiguous but clunky IMHO.

But in my experience GMs allow characters to have weapons out at the start of combat. To the extent that I don't think feats like Quick Draw are worth it.

[graystone]

N N 959 wrote:

GMs are all over the board about whether party members can carry weapons during exploration mode, be it the formalized PF2 version or the informal PF1 version.

I've played with a LOT of DM's and I don't recall any every giving my a problem with moving around with having weapons out.

N N 959 wrote:

Let's think about this from a reality perspective.

The game doesn't really mirror reality very well, for good or bad. In reality I can't stuff an 8 year old child under my arm and carry them for several miles as easily as without one but the game says I can easily.

N N 959 wrote:

But let's be honet, it's kind of silly that you can't draw a sword or dagger while moving in PF2, not even with a movement penalty. Paizo undoubtedly did this to nerf PC effectiveness and make the combats last longer, via eating up PC actions.

LOL It's, IMO, super silly it costs as much action to switch your grip as it does drawing a weapon or other one action actions.

[Schreckstoff]

The existence of quick draw makes me reluctant to adopt drawing both weapons in one action. TWF gets a lot of nice feats exclusively even excluding unarmed attacks. So I think it's a mostly fair trade off.

Regarding crossbow there's no durability for equipment so there's no reason a crossbow shouldn't be able to stay drawn for ever.

[Zapp]

If you have Speed 25, and your 30 ft from a door, it takes you an unreasonable time to run out that door, slamming the door behind you.

Move, move, interact, move, interact, and move.

That's almost an entire fight. Two full rounds worth of damage output. This is a practical ban.

I'm just saying this because this discussion can be simply boiled down to: if you have issues with this you need another game.

Do you see that "just" fixing
- I get to draw two weapons
- I get to draw a weapon while moving
- I get to open and shut doors while moving
...

...starts an endless list that will literally never stop growing. It's a rabbit hole. Don't go down there.

Either accept the "boardgamish" nature of the three-move system or simply play another game.

That's my most sincere recommendation.

[TwilightKnight]

graystone wrote:

I've played with a LOT of DM's and I don't recall any every giving my a problem with moving around with having weapons out.

It’s probably just a matter of time. There are actually quite a few of us out there. As stated up thread, if you allow every one to explore with their weapons out, there are a number of feats and such that are rendered obsolete. For us, it seems the intent was that you wouldn’t be exploring with your weapons draw. In fact it was presented to us exactly this way during the Playtest demos by Paizo staff. There wasn’t any meaningful change in the exploration rules to suggest that position changed. I agree that the rules are not clear on this matter so ymmv.

N N 959 wrote:

super silly it costs as much action to switch your grip

IIRC this wasn’t so much an attempt at some kind of reality, but a way to limit some of the extreme builds of the past that tried to circumvent action economy and the use of two hand weapons by having essentially infinite hands-on, hands-off during a turn. I’m not saying it’s the best way to curtail those exploits, but it’s one way.

[TwilightKnight]

Schreckstoff wrote:

Regarding crossbow there's no durability for equipment so there's no reason a crossbow shouldn't be able to stay drawn for ever.

For those of us that don’t let you store a loaded crossbow, it doesn’t have anything to do with the bowstring. A bolt just sits loosely in the channel of a crossbow. If left lose hanging on your best, etc. the bolt would fall out. That’s why I don’t allow it. Course, ymmv

[Schreckstoff]

TwilightKnight wrote:

Schreckstoff wrote:

Regarding crossbow there's no durability for equipment so there's no reason a crossbow shouldn't be able to stay drawn for ever.

For those of us that don’t let you store a loaded crossbow, it doesn’t have anything to do with the bowstring. A bolt just sits loosely in the channel of a crossbow. If left lose hanging on your best, etc. the bolt would fall out. That’s why I don’t allow it. Course, ymmv

but applying logic like that leads to a bunch fo questions like shouldn't 2 handed weapons be stowed not worn in that case? There's no way to wear a huge sword on your body that makes it easily accessible in 1 action.

[graystone]

TwilightKnight wrote:

It’s probably just a matter of time. There are actually quite a few of us out there.

Not from my perspective: I've had dozens of DM's so far, so even if I find one in the future the percentage is going to be small.

TwilightKnight wrote:

As stated up thread, if you allow every one to explore with their weapons out, there are a number of feats and such that are rendered obsolete.

I don't agree: All you have to do is look at the exploration activities to see you're wrong. Things like Investigation, Search, ect. do not have the manipulation trait which means you don't need hands to use them. Very few Activities have the trait. This goes for feats too: unless it has the manipulate trait, it doesn't require hands.

TwilightKnight wrote:

For us, it seems the intent was that you wouldn’t be exploring with your weapons draw.

Between what's written in the rules and assumed intent, I'll go with what's written.

TwilightKnight wrote:

In fact it was presented to us exactly this way during the Playtest demos by Paizo staff.

There where plenty of instances where they didn't follow the rules, either by mistake of to move things along. I don't take those as proof of anything, especially as it was playtest. We had a dev say we could use Dex for maneuvers with weapons but we found out in the errata that that was wrong...

N N 959 wrote:

super silly it costs as much action to switch your grip

PS: I said this, not N N 959. ;)

TwilightKnight wrote:

IIRC this wasn’t so much an attempt at some kind of reality, but a way to limit some of the extreme builds of the past that tried to circumvent action economy and the use of two hand weapons by having essentially infinite hands-on, hands-off during a turn. I’m not saying it’s the best way to curtail those exploits, but it’s one way.

Oh, I understand as that was my point. Saying 'it doesn't make sense' doesn't mean it's not in the rules or it was done without reason.

[Gary Bush]

rainzax wrote:

I stand with OP.

Many GMs already "rule of cool" this anyway - might as well standardize it. "Future-proofing":

Draw
Interact to draw a stowed or worn weapon. If you have a class feat whose requirement is "You are wielding two melee weapons", you may instead Interact to draw two stowed or worn weapons.

Drawing a stowed weapon with a single action is too good. Worn, of course.

[Gary Bush]

As already pointed out, the Manipulate action pretty much defines how this works.

I don't see a need to change it.

[TwilightKnight]

graystone wrote:

I don't agree

I’m fine with that. We all don’t have to agree how to interpret all the game rules.

graystone wrote:

you're wrong

Nope. Again, we can disagree, but there are plenty of examples for why my interpretation has merit. I’m not saying you are wrong, I just interpret it differently. If/when the designers want to weigh in on this subject, one that has been around since the CRB was published, then maybe we can agree on what they intended. Until then, you are the GM at your tables and should rule as you see fit.

[TwilightKnight]

Schreckstoff wrote:

but applying logic like that leads to a bunch of questions

The game is loaded with inconsistencies so this one doesn’t bother me at all. There are plenty of examples of many two-handed weapons being carried in fantasy films and TV. At least enough to create a conversation about their feasibility. Personally I don’t equate those two topics anyway so I don’t have a problem. Now if we want to talk about the logic of wearing a pike or a longspear, etc, weapons with shafts 10, 15, even pushing 20 feet on your back, that is something else.

[Falco271]

Given that you can draw a 2hander in one interact, using two hands, getting out two weapons with two hands seems a lot easier.

[graystone]

TwilightKnight wrote:

We all don’t have to agree how to interpret all the game rules.

If it was in anyway ambiguous I'd agree: the exploration activities are quite specific on on which have the traits that require hands. In the examples you gave, I'd count that as house-rules as they go against the published rules for the activities.

TwilightKnight wrote:

Nope. Again, we can disagree, but there are plenty of examples for why my interpretation has merit.

If it was houserules we where talking about, I'd agree. We aren't though and we have clear rules that hands aren't required.

TwilightKnight wrote:

I’m not saying you are wrong, I just interpret it differently.

I'm not sure how you can interpret an activity that lacks the manipulation trait as requiring hands. IMO, that's more than interpreting: it's changing the rules.

TwilightKnight wrote:

If/when the designers want to weigh in on this subject, one that has been around since the CRB was published, then maybe we can agree on what they intended.

Myself, I don't really have to look at intent as the rules are clear and unambiguous: no manipulation traits is about as clear as it gets.

TwilightKnight wrote:

Until then, you are the GM at your tables and should rule as you see fit.

This is always the case no matter what the actual rules and intent are even after a dev says something.

Manipulate
Source Core Rulebook pg. 633 2.0
You must physically manipulate an item or make gestures to use an action with this trait. Creatures without a suitable appendage can’t perform actions with this trait. Manipulate actions often trigger reactions.

[Schreckstoff]

TwilightKnight wrote:

Schreckstoff wrote:

but applying logic like that leads to a bunch of questions

The game is loaded with inconsistencies so this one doesn’t bother me at all. There are plenty of examples of many two-handed weapons being carried in fantasy films and TV. At least enough to create a conversation about their feasibility. Personally I don’t equate those two topics anyway so I don’t have a problem. Now if we want to talk about the logic of wearing a pike or a longspear, etc, weapons with shafts 10, 15, even pushing 20 feet on your back, that is something else.

Crossbows in fantasy never have to worry about being unloaded either and they are vastly more powerful than they are in PF 2nd Edition.

I just don't know why there's a need to make crossbows worse than they are already.

[TwilightKnight]

We can agree to disagree...

[N N 959]

Cordell Kintner wrote:

It's more likely than you think. Walking for hours with weapons in hand is annoying, as most weapons aren't balanced for walking with but striking with. I usually only assume weapons are out if the party is searching an area that may have threats, like a dungeon. If the party is simply traveling the countryside and gets ambushed by a bear, or some thieves while in the middle of a city, it's very likely they don't have weapons out. Certain weapons are more apt for traveling with, like staves, so there's some exceptions, but I would usually expect the players to mention they have their weapons out before combat starts.

I think your position on this is the most common one I've encountered. However, in some high level PF1 games, I've noticed GMs are more relaxed about letting PC have weapons read in what is a likely encounter situation.

The real issue is that in PbP, a GM will often transition from exploration to initiative and a player can't interrupt and say they draw a weapon based on the description text. In a recent PFS encounter, the players hear creatures coming through the wilderness, but the GM did not let anyone draw weapons prior to init, when the creatures suddenly appeared in front us. I don't know how the encounter was coded, but IME, this type of thing happens a lot.

[N N 959]

graystone wrote:

Cordell Kintner wrote:

Walking for hours with weapons in hand is annoying

In real life? Sure. In game? Not so much. This is a game where you can wear all your equipment for easy of drawing... I can walk around all day with halfling under my arm so a sword is nothing. :P

Yeah, it's funny how many GMs will arbitrarily invoke realism in the game. Paizo does the same thing. When it suits them to cite reality they do it. But when you try and argue reality to get a rule change, then it's a balance issue....lol.

Quote:

]I'd assume weapons stowed only in situations that are seen as 'safe' like in town or during diplomacy with relatively friendly NPC's. Outside town [or traveling in questionable area of a town], I'd be surprised to have anyone with their weapons sheathed/stowed.

Was recently in a PFS encounter where the party is in a small village, and the GM just flat out said no one has weapons out. Of course the paladin has her shield on at all times (like no one every puts it down).

[Zapp]

We discussed in our group and ended up settling for "you need one hand free during travel".

"No weapons drawn" just didn't fly with the group. The Fighter uses a Halberd and didn't think it was practical to stow it, instead using it as a walking stick of sorts.

And then there was the "torchbearers have only one hand free" argument.

So in the end just about the only rule/guideline we could settle on was one hand free.

This not-so-coincidentally puts everyone on equal footing. The fighter needs one action to change the grip on his Halberd to wield it. The barbarian needs one action to draw her Greataxe. The Ranger needs one action to draw his second weapon.

Since combats are over in 15 seconds in this game, it is obvious to everyone that shields (and armor!) are always worn and ready at all times, or they'd be utterly irrelevant and useless. That's not even a question.