Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Elder-Basilisk" data-source="post: 2785411" data-attributes="member: 3146">Well, given the way you framed your position, I don't think the exaggerations were so wild. If you're claiming RAW support under the "reasonable limits to the number of free actions" clause, you need to be prepared to limit the number of free actions.Claiming that moving one's hand off of a sword is a move action would have earned different mockery (for instance, dropping the sword is a free action, but letting go with only one hand is a move action--it makes sense... not) but would have official RAW support since it is a situation not clearly covered under the rules. So would the claim that beginning to "wield" instead of "hold" the weapon is a move action, but that has a weaker case against it. But if you frame the answer in terms of "number of free actions," that's a pretty broad response that covers a lot more than just this situation.It understand what you're saying, but I think it's quite wrong. I know for my part that, in my combat experience, shifting grips on a two handed weapon is almost constant. There are any number of manuevers with a quarterstaff, pudo, spear, whip chain, etc where you briefly let go with one hand in order to complete the manuever. Going from holding such a weapon in one hand to using it is certainly not nearly as much of a disadvantage as having to draw a sword or fully retreive a whip chain from one's belt. And, I think the attack of opportunity rules and missed attacks are perfectly sufficient to maintain the illusion of simultenaity in this case. It's plenty hard enough to use potions in combat--there's no need to make it harder--especially when it has wierd consequences for multi-use weapons like bastard swords and longswords which are often wielded either one or two-handed on a round-by round basis.</blockquote>

Verification