|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That's an interesting compromise. It seems pretty reasonable for the base case of "you were walking around for quite a bit and now something happens". It doesn't cover quite every build equally though;
- bucklers function as free hands
- you can walk around wearing gauntlets and carrying a bow, and still have two hands free
- 1H weapon builds that don't use shields, such as swashbucklers who wanted their off-hand free for other stuff, don't care so much
- monks with shields may still need to go into stance, but that's still better than a barbarian with a shield who needs to draw a weapon and rage
It's probably impossible to create an entirely level playing field. One hand free during travel seems like the most reasonable and mostly even compromise I've heard.
---
I think it's also important to keep in mind not all exploration mode is the same, when trying to come up with a rule for this. Consider:
* 200 mile trek overland
* People standing in front of a door marked "Boss" and about to open it.
Both of them are in exploration mode. It doesn't make sense to ruthlessly push the same rule on both of them.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
...
"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.
...
My understanding is that historically, large weapons like polearms or greatswords are typically held with one hand and rested against your shoulder while marching, kinda like a rifle in a military parade / ceremony.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
- bucklers function as free hands
- you can walk around wearing gauntlets and carrying a bow, and still have two hands free
- 1H weapon builds that don't use shields, such as swashbucklers who wanted their off-hand free for other stuff, don't care so much
- monks with shields may still need to go into stance, but that's still better than a barbarian with a shield who needs to draw a weapon and rageIt's probably impossible to create an entirely level playing field. One hand free during travel seems like the most reasonable and mostly even compromise I've heard.
I mean, bucklers are worse than normal shields and one handed weapons tend to do less damage than two handed weapons.
Having an extra hand free to give them an edge seems like it's part of creating that level playing field, not an impediment to it.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It seemed like you were claiming each build is equally affected by having to have a free hand during "low intensity" exploration. But the archer vs. greataxe shows that's not the case.
Still, no need to throw out the baby because the bathwater isn't at perfect temperature. I think one free hand during low intensity exploration makes sense. It's a plausible and easy to apply rule.
I'm not sure about a Be Alert activity - we risk splitting the hair too fine with all the "eyes open" activities. We already have the problem that what most people imagine with "scouting ahead so that we don't alert the monsters" is better covered by Avoid Notice than Scout.
Pretty much all the exploration activities are variants of "instead of moving at full speed, I'm walking slowly and [name of activity] at the same time". All of them only make sense during "high intensity" exploration, which is also when having weapons ready makes sense. When you're just trying to get from A to B at full speed ("low intensity exploration mode"), you wouldn't actually want to be doing any of these things because they about halve your speed.
|
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...
I've brought this exact problem up since Pathfinder 2e released. Most recently was when the APG released. I thought at least dual wield warrior would have a feat that allows drawing two weapons at once.
Like this thread, the most common argument against it was that there is quick draw; my response was that quick draw still requires two actions to draw a weapon, meaning most dual wield actions are not used that round, and being in melee opens up the character to attacks of opportunity. It sounds like a lose-lose situation.
As such, I always make sure to tell my GM that I have my weapons out whenever I think danger is near. It sucks, but that is the only solution I have come up with.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Flagged for wrong forum, should be in homebrew
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The extra things TWFers pay are not significant to a degree that requires errata or pressures Paizo into changing their mind. They're insignificant to most users, as the overwhelming majority of this thread's responses indicate.
Emphasis mine - overwhemling majority is not something you should assume. I don't believe he is beating a dead horse. 2E is still quite new and there are areas that could be improved.
N N 959 has been clearly and consisely outlining their points as to why they would like clarification. I agree with those points on the whole. I'm flexible to the outcome - whether it be a hard ruling for Quick Draw, or drawing weapons in general, or whether it be a new option that works better for TWFs. e.g. "Double Draw" a feat that allows you to draw or stow two weapons in one action.
But either way, I would also like either a ruling, or a new option as I also believe the current steup is not supportive of TWFing.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
N N 959 has been clearly and consisely outlining their points as to why they would like clarification.
The only real problem with that, and why it's equine abuse, is that it doesn't need clarification as it's pretty clear: it's 1 weapon per action to draw. Any other reading is wishful thinking at best and willful misreading at worst.
As for a new option, he can ask but what's to talk about after that? That's up to the people that make the rules not us.
The only thing left to talk about would be some kind of homebrew option.
I see your point
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah I think it's pretty clear what the rule is; interact is to draw a single item, not some vague amount of weapons.
It does leave 2WF types a bit in the cold but there are a bunch of partial remedies:
* If the GM started by coming up with new rules why you can't start any encounter with weapons drawn, debate to dial that back do something more reasonable. I mean, if the actual cause of your problems is a GM restriction that isn't actually in the CRB, then the CRB isn't the thing that needs changing.
* Gauntlets can help a lot. If you're doing 2WF you're probably using Doubling Rings anyway. So round one, you quickdraw your main weapon with runes on it and use that and a gauntlet to strike. round two you quickdrawn your other weapon. The gauntlets also help with giving you silver/cold iron options.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm just having trouble visualizing someone standing there stupidly, only taking one item from their bandolier at a time, as if one hand is tied behind their back.
With that line of thinking, why can't I make a Strike with my one hand and Raise Shield with the other for the cost of one action?
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm just having trouble visualizing someone standing there stupidly, only taking one item from their bandolier at a time, as if one hand is tied behind their back.
In our real world, it takes practice to do two different things with each hand.
Have you ever tried to pat your head and rub your tummy at the same time? Sure it can done but it will take a little practice and some concentration to do it. Now add in hopping on one foot. Now switch what each hand is doing.
To do two different things with your hands at the same time takes practice.
Maybe a feat called "Double Draw" or something like that would be good. But it would have to be a feat because it is something that can't naturally be done by most people without practice.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Game balance is not affected if everyone can interact to draw an item with each hand at the same time.
And I'm not talking about playing a harpsichord with one hand and transcribing poetry with the other at the same time. Talking about picking up two things, one with each hand. That's not remotely the same as making a Strike at the same time as doing something else, IMO. It's what my arthritic grandmother did every time she unloaded her shopping cart onto the conveyor at the supermarket.
We will have to disagree on this. I think it would break game balance to allow the drawing of two items/weapons/whatever with a single action. It makes TWF very overpowered because it would allow an attack with both weapons on the first round of combat. Double slice becomes more a "go to" standard.
In the end, it comes down to the GM's call. The rules are clear. One action to draw one "something".
It's what my arthritic grandmother did every time she unloaded her shopping cart onto the conveyor at the supermarket.
Is she doing it while moving and/or in combat under time pressures? Can she grab 2 mini cans of soda off the conveyor and chug them down in 6 seconds? Can she grab her keys and a pack of mints out of 2 different pockets and then use both in 6 seconds? I don't think you're looking at things correctly with this example.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yes, we disagree on how significant that is for TWFs vs everyone else.We will have to disagree on this. I think it would break game balance to allow the drawing of two items/weapons/whatever with a single action. It makes TWF very overpowered because it would allow an attack with both weapons on the first round of combat. Double slice becomes more a "go to" standard.
In the end, it comes down to the GM's call. The rules are clear. One action to draw one "something".
Oh I agree is is a significant concern for those wanting to use Two Weapons. I just see the rule as being correct and there for balance.
Why else does the Fighter pregen have Double Slice but uses the shield instead of second weapon? Because he is likely carrying the shield already and doesn't have to "draw" it.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So the net effect is no change to game balance, just less nonsensical mechanics IMO.
Ok, and in your home game you can run the game without mechanics you believe are nonsensical.
But drawing two things at the same time is something that an average person can't do without training (ie a feat).
You have made your point. But a point still remains that the rule is the rule and the rule is understood how the rule works.
I don't know, Grams was a real badass.It's what my arthritic grandmother did every time she unloaded her shopping cart onto the conveyor at the supermarket.Is she doing it while moving and/or in combat under time pressures? Can she grab 2 mini cans of soda off the conveyor and chug them down in 6 seconds? Can she grab her keys and a pack of mints out of 2 different pockets and then use both in 6 seconds? I don't think you're looking at things correctly with this example.
Well painting her as an "arthritic grandmother" makes a much different impression than a "real badass" granny. I don't think the 'average' person, let alone an "arthritic grandmother" is pulling out 2 pistols, daggers or vials in one slick move action hero move so I don't see 'but people can pick up two cans of peas and drop it on a counter' as a reason to allow twin drawing.
To clarify, I don't really care and this isn't my thread. Just saying I think the OP has a point and it would make more sense to me if that were the norm. I get it that the majority here disagree.
Well the OP had 3 reasons: 1. Verisimilitude, 2. Balance and 3. Fairness.
#1 fails IMO as it covers 'worn' items. This means it's has to make sense that you can draw from an ankle sheath AND a hip sheath on the same side of your body [as location isn't mentioned]. Or pulling 2 4' bastard swords at once from a 3' tall halfling.
#2 fails IMO, as a single draw seems to be the intended balance and seems to work fine with TWF unless you have a Dm that for some unknown reason doesn't allow weapons out during exploration and even then, gauntlets are a thing.
#3 fairness... *shrug* this is pure opinion so not much to say other than it seems perfectly fair. I could see a follow up feat for quick draw is someone wanted to make it.
Which points do you agree with the OP?
Well the OP had 3 reasons: 1. Verisimilitude, 2. Balance and 3. Fairness.#1: Well, anything can fail if you make the assumption of a worst-case scenario. This easily works though, if you assume instead that what is being drawn are two potions (or anything else, really) from the pockets of a bandolier.
#2: Balance is unchanged in any significant way with either interpretation. But with my way there is less standing around after using up all your actions drawing things, so the game flows better, IMO. We've all experienced those totally anticlimactic turns where all we did was get ready to do something in some future turn. Less of that is always a good thing, IMO.
#3: I don't have an issue with fairness at all. As stated above, I see no significant change to game balance at all, just an improvement in the way the game flows for everyone.
First, thanks for the reply. We seem to see this completely opposite.
#1 lol well if you take the BEST case scenario, sure it looks better but you have to look at the whole picture. For it to make sense, it has to work for every situation it covers: I didn't even take the MOST extreme situation. The game allows you to draw a 2 handed weapon with one hand so this means you'd be able to draw 2 Scythes or Boarding Pikes in a single action.
#2 gaining more actions 100% alters balance in a great way [it's better than haste for that round]. If we're talking about wasted actions, we could talk about switching grips taking an action too... But 'feel' arguments aren't about balance. I might agree with you if we where talking about feel.
#3 I don't see the "improvement in the way the game flows for everyone" as most people are NOT impacted by drawing 2 weapons/items. I know for myself and the games I've been in, unless you're an alchemist or using 2 weapon you don't have to deal with 2 items at a time. Add to that that I rarely see an issue with having weapons out in exploration most times so it becomes even less of an improvement. At best it's an improvement for a small subset of characters playing with [IMO] a small subset of DM's. If a change was in order, IMO it would be a houserule added to a particular DM's game vs a global change to everyone's game.
I think a follow up feat for quick draw to allow 2 weapons/items to be drawn would be fair so long as they don't end up as must takes.
I also could see making it restricted to weapons for martials and the alchemist allowing potions and bombs in addition.
|
|
But Quick Draw allow the character to draw and strike with a weapon in the same action. A follow up feat would have to be pretty high to preserver balance. A feat that allows a character to work with two weapons and strike with each of them in the space of 1 action would be very powerful.
To be clear, there is no feat that I am aware of that allows a character to draw two item/weapons on the same action. I am suggesting that there could be feat allows that. I like it as a feat because that is character decision and there is a cost (selecting the feat).
But Quick Draw allow the character to draw and strike with a weapon in the same action. A follow up feat would have to be pretty high to preserver balance. A feat that allows a character to work with two weapons and strike with each of them in the space of 1 action would be very powerful.
To be clear, there is no feat that I am aware of that allows a character to draw two item/weapons on the same action. I am suggesting that there could be feat allows that. I like it as a feat because that is character decision and there is a cost (selecting the feat).
Oh yeah no way just straight upgrading quickdraw to be 2 attacks with 1 action but allowing you to draw 2 weapons and attacking with 1 of them for 1 action seems fine.
The awkward part there would be you'd be incentivized to pick this up for sword and board and just put a shield boss on the shield just to work with it.
So idk I'm not paid to make up feats or balance anything.
edit: oh just make a feat that says "instead of striking you may draw an additional weapon or a shield with quick draw, if you do it loses the attack trait"
This could bring another interesting question, if one rules that one cannot draw two weapons (or two items) in action round.
This would probably mean an archer (or someone who uses a bow) would NEVER be able to shoot their ranged weapon in the first round without a heavy penalty unless they have both their bow and an arrow drawn already.
Afterall, it would take an action to unsling a bow if they have it on their shoulder or in a case at their hip or on their back, and another to get an arrow.
Someone probably SHOULDN'T be able to quaff a potion with an action (despite rules) because not only do you need an action to unscrew the lid, but then as you separate them, you have two objects (a lid and a potion bottle), which would be two objects at that point...wouldn't it?
This could lead to all sorts of interesting rules cases I think.
Nah. Drawing ammunition is part of reloading and reload 0 weapons (like bows) get to do that as part of their attack.
This would probably mean an archer (or someone who uses a bow) would NEVER be able to shoot their ranged weapon in the first round without a heavy penalty unless they have both their bow and an arrow drawn already.
Nothing really stops you from walking around with a bow in hand and having the other free in exploration. Second, with a reload of 0 doesn't take an extra action.
Someone probably SHOULDN'T be able to quaff a potion with an action (despite rules) because not only do you need an action to unscrew the lid, but then as you separate them, you have two objects (a lid and a potion bottle), which would be two objects at that point...wouldn't it?
Most likely stoppers/corks, not screw lids. Second, there is nothing left after you use an elixir/potion: there is no value or bulk for an empty vial so in the rules, they don't exist when not part of an elixir/potion. In essence, it's disposable as you don't keep them or reuse them: they are just created every time someone make an elixir/potion and mysteriously vanish once the elixir/potion used.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think I wasn't clear. I was saying that the ability to do what I'm suggesting is not a significantly bigger advantage for a Two Weapon Fighter than for anyone else. Any character who happens to have 2 free hands (or is willing to drop whatever is in them) has advantages as well. An alchemist can draw 2 bombs or mutagens, a wizard can draw 2 scrolls, etc. And the enemy can do the same.
So the net effect is no change to game balance, just less nonsensical mechanics IMO.
That isn't what those words mean, though. Game balance is how options are compared against each other. If one option is worse, that is part of how it is balanced. When you improve that option to be up to par with the others, you have changed that balance.
What you mean is that you aren't breaking the game balance or raising the power of one option above the others. You are saying you are not raising the ceiling. Which is a coherent argument although one that could be disputed. Two weapon fighting does have certain advantages, namely being able to adjust to damage types and materials in a way other magic weapon users can't.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The rule clearly states I can use more than one hand.
Sure, you can draw a 2 handed item in both hands.
Another way to read that is "both hands can manipulate an object."
Sure, they can manipulate the same object.
It does not clearly state that each hand has to manipulate the same object.
It actually does though. "manipulate an object or the terrain" and "You can grab an unattended or stored object" are both singular. It's not 'you can grab unattended or stored objectS' as in plural or multiple ones.
If I am climbing a tree both hands don't have have to grab the same branch. If I am tying to ends of a rope together, i can certainly pick both up at the same time.
Climb isn't an Interact check. Knot tying might be an Interact action but NOTHING in that requires both objects be picked up at the same time or manipulated at the same time or that it requires a single action to do: you could pick up rope #1 in an action, pick up rope #2 in a different action then hold one rope while manipulating the other rope during multiple Interact actions to accomplish it.
Why should it?
Because that's the way the rule are written? You have to spend an action to switch grips on a weapon: IMO that requires less effort than picking up one object let alone 2. If switching grips is an action because of balance, I'd say allowing 2 draws for 1 action IS unbalancing things.
But why?
Seems like one of the LEAST controversial choices IMO. Ambidexterity has never been the default assumption for the game before so why assume it now? It's like asking why you can't attack with 1 action since you have 2 hands...
Well, that's not what I'm saying.
And I'm saying that that is how it reads to me after going through your posts in this thread. I'm having a really hard time seeing the ambiguity.
I'm saying that as writtten, it does allow 2 weapons to be drawn.
I can't see a reading that allows multiple objects to be manipulated. Each time it talks about objects/items, it refers to a singular one even when talking about hands you can use.
I'm also saying that if I'm wrong, then I think this is an oversight.
I think otherwise: it seems counter to most things costing an action so I just don't see them letting dual activities here for a single action. If someone using a shield has to use an action to sheath a sword and another to pull out a mace I don't see the intent that someone else without with both hands free can do it all in one action when the game doesn't otherwise include ambidexterity in single actions [like double slice being 2 actions]. It seems a deliberate walking away from more hands gets you more actions of 3.5/PF1.
This thread will settle the question of whether a mechanic that let's you "grab an item" but allows you to use one or two hands requires that if you do use two hands, you have to grab the same item.
I'm not sure there is anyone else other than you that thinks it's a question. I'm sure you have people that's like to have dual drawing but how many really think it is allowed and intended? I don't see it as a frequently asked question.
PS: All that said, while I just don't see your point I hope you can get this resolved to your satisfaction. You're kind of locked into RAW with your choice of PFS so I'm not sure how that'll come about with us getting errata vs FAQ's [as we know them from PF1].
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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. You might have to attempt a skill check to determine if your Interact action was successful.The rule clearly states I can use more than one hand. Another way to read that is "both hands can manipulate an object."
It does not clearly state that each hand has to manipulate the same object. Why should it?
It clearly says "an object". It doesn't say "an objects". It does not say that a character can interact with two objects. It says "an object".