Greatsword weilding caster

[Sledge]

So switching hands is free with quickdraw.
Infiniti2000 good luck with your game. As is obvious I wouldn't limit actions that way in mine, but have fun with it in yours. Don't let anyone tell you, you are breaking the rules.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

No, instead compare it to drawing a weapon - which is explicitly a move action. Don't compare weapons with ammunition - apples and oranges.

I think you misunderstood.

The FAQ's rationale for making this a move action is that it requires "you to use one hand to take the weapon from the other and at most it involves using both hands together in a coordinated action."

And yet, pulling an arrow from a quiver, knocking it to a bow, and drawing the bow requires you "use one hand to take" an arrow from a quiver, perform a complicated mechanical operation to align the arrow with your bow and nock it, and then draw your bow, which "involves using both hands together in a coordinated fashion."

However, drawing and prepping ammunition is a free action - but by the FAQ's rationale it should be a move action.

 

[Artoomis]

I think you misunderstood.

The FAQ's rationale for making this a move action is that it requires "you to use one hand to take the weapon from the other and at most it involves using both hands together in a coordinated action."

And yet, pulling an arrow from a quiver, knocking it to a bow, and drawing the bow requires you "use one hand to take" an arrow from a quiver, perform a complicated mechanical operation to align the arrow with your bow and nock it, and then draw your bow, which "involves using both hands together in a coordinated fashion."

However, drawing and prepping ammunition is a free action - but by the FAQ's rationale it should be a move action.

Sure - but sometimes the REAL rationale - spoken or not - is game balance. Let's face it, getting many arrow shots off in only six seconds with any kind of accuracy at all is all but impossible in the real world. The trick here is to maintain the appropraite balance of real-world believablitiy, supension of belief and game balance.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Sure - but sometimes the REAL rationale - spoken or not - is game balance.

Then they should make that argument.

And, let's face it, is allowing a wizard with a staff to cast a spell and then take an AoO unbalanced?

 

[Artoomis]

Then they should make that argument.

And, let's face it, is allowing a wizard with a staff to cast a spell and then take an AoO unbalanced?

My opinion on the matter is that, in general, you should only get an AoO if you are wielding the wepon. If you take some other action (like casting a spell), then you probably should not get an AoO unless you give up a move action to be ready to do so.

From a game balance perspective.

 

[Infiniti2000]

I think you misunderstood.

The FAQ's rationale for making this a move action is that it requires "you to use one hand to take the weapon from the other and at most it involves using both hands together in a coordinated action."

And yet, pulling an arrow from a quiver, knocking it to a bow, and drawing the bow requires you "use one hand to take" an arrow from a quiver, perform a complicated mechanical operation to align the arrow with your bow and nock it, and then draw your bow, which "involves using both hands together in a coordinated fashion."

However, drawing and prepping ammunition is a free action - but by the FAQ's rationale it should be a move action.

I didn't misunderstand. At least, if I did, I didn't realize it.

Drawing your bow is part of the using the weapon, not part of drawing the ammunition. Drawing the ammunition will always only take 1 hand. You're combining the firing of the bow with drawing the ammunition and I don't agree that that comparison is legitimate.

Firing a bow takes two hands. Drawing the ammunition takes 1.

Drawing a weapon, on the other hand, takes one hand (for a one-handed weapon at least, e.g. dagger). Yet, why is drawing a weapon a move action while drawing ammunition a free action? The answer is obviously for game play. I don't think anyone could reasonably present an argument that doing one is faster than the other (and please don't try on my account because I've heard it all already -- I'm not interested in that futile discussion).

Continuing, switching hands takes two hands (obviously), and requires IMO much more concentration (if not time) than merely drawing a weapon in one hand. You can equate it to ammunition instead, but as I said I think that's a fallacy.

But can be combined with a move. Apparently, using the WotC definition, one could drop a weapon, use a standard action (like casting most spells), move 30 feet, and while moving, draw a second weapon, but not shift the weapon back and forth with a standard action sandwiched between all without moving, because that would take too much time.

Sounds reasonable to me. What's the hassle in just drawing the weapon to the hand(s) you want to use it in? I see no problem in this at all.

So switching hands is free with quickdraw.

Yes, IMC.

And, let's face it, is allowing a wizard with a staff to cast a spell and then take an AoO unbalanced?

Not really, but it's not the style of play I want or like. If the sorcerer (better example) casts a metamagic spell for the full 6 seconds, why should he be able to stop a grapple that (theoretically) occurs in the middle of his casting? Apparently most of the people here choose to ignore simultaneity, but when/where it's easily feasible, I do not.

 

[irdeggman]

IMO the gist of the WotC ruling is what involves around wielding and threatening.

You do not threaten or wield ammunition.

You are armed with the bow getting the ammunition is minor in comparision.

Holding a weapon is not the same as wielding it. That is where most of the discussion breaks down, IMO. Some say holding and wielding are the same.

The term drawing a weapon is what is used for becoming armed and wileding it - which is why that takes the move action. I believe that the WotC ruling falls in line with this logic.

 

[Storm Raven]

Sounds reasonable to me. What's the hassle in just drawing the weapon to the hand(s) you want to use it in? I see no problem in this at all.

I don't think you understood the point I was making. Using WotCs ruling, you get this dichotomy:

(a) Bob is holding a weapon in one hand, with a light shield in the other. He drops the weapon, takes a standard action (let's say he casts a spell), and moves 30 feet. While moving 30 feet, he draws a second weapon.

(b) Bob is holding a weapon in one hand and a light shield in the other. He transfers the weapon to his shield hand, takes a standard action (once again, casting a spell), and then transfers the weapon back from his shield hand to his weapon hand.

Apparently, (a) is perfectly okay, but somehow (b) takes too much time. I'm just not seeing how this makes any sense, especially since the end result for the character is effectively the same (he has a weapon at the beginning and end of the sequence, threatening those around him). Moving 30 feet should take more time by itself than moving weapons back and forth between your hands, and that's without considering the dropping the weapon and drawing a new one.

 

[buzz]

1. Take a hand off the weapon (free action).
2. Use that hand to cast the spell (standard action).
3. Put your hand back on the weapon and be considered to be wielding
the weapon (free action).
4. Use a move action for whatever you want (move action).

This is absolutely correct, especially given there is no state of being "considered to be weilding". The PC is either performing an action, or being affected by a condition, that prevents him from threatening or he is not; otherwise, as long as the PC is armed and conscious, he threatens.

Ruling otherwise, IMO, severely screws the PC. E.g., in specific reference to greatswords, said caster has already either spent the feat or taken a level in a class that provides proficiency in that weapon, i.e., blowing a feat that could have been used to enhance their core purpose (spellcasting), or sacrificing a level of spellcasting advancement (a big hit). Invalidating that sacrifice by saying that they cannot use their weapon at all in any round in which they have cast a standard-action (or shorter) spell is a double-whammy, and not in the spirit or letter of the rules at all. (In the case of a cleric using a 2H weapon with which they already have proficiency, balance for this is already built into the class's simple weapon proficiency. The best 2H simple weapons only do 1d8. Big whoop.)

If you're going to do this, then you need to apply the same penalty to any 2H weapon-weilding PC who performs any non-attack standard or move-equivalent action in a round. Which makes no sense whatsoever.

Hell, I'd even let you, if you were wielding a bastard sword without an exotic weapon proficiency, take your hand off the weapon, cast a spell,
make an attack of opportunity in the middle of casting a spell with a -4 nonproficiency penalty, and then put your hand back on the weapon.

Technically, a spellcasting PC does not threaten. The situation you describe could only happen while the PC was casting a spell with a 1 round or longer casting time, and at no time during the casting does the spellcaster threaten.

Though they certainly threaten before or after casting, of course.

 

[buzz]

Not to mention, it's entirely possible that moving one's hand to and from their 2H weapon could be considered "Not an Action", i.e., no time at all. Considering that preparing spell components and dropping prone are considered Free Actions, upgrading "shifting your hand" to Free, not to mention saying it expends all the PC's reasonable Free actions, is just way over the top.

I mean, you're basically saying that if a PC waves to their comrades at any point, they forefeit using their weapon for the rest of the round. Crazy!