Odd but legal?

[blargney the second]

DM: Kneel before Zod, son of Jor-el!
PC: But won't that provoke an AoO?

 

[Veril]

Let's say a DM introduces two actions that are missing from the actions table - kneel from prone, and stand from kneeling. He calls them both move actions that do not provoke an AoO.

Standing from prone is a move action that provokes an AoO.

If, on his turn, a prone character kneels and then stands, how many move actions have been expended? Has an AoO been provoked?

-Hyp.

The player has used a move action and a standard action - used as a move action. No AoO was provoked, under the specific conditions you described. With the house rules you introduced.

The player could have stood up as a move action, provoking a AoO and then taken a standard action after if he wished.

However this is has no relevance to the ongoing discussion. It does not establish a framework for discussion the actions as per the RAW.

The rules are pretty simple and pretty explicit to my mind in this case. "Drawing a weapon" is the action of putting a weapon into your hand in a wieldable manner when it was not there before. There is no need to make up additional stuff when the RAW already defiens it.

Simply because you can use another combination of multiple "free action" to seemingly accomplish something does not change the intent of your actions. I refer you back to the analagous case that I already quoted. Speach (a free action) and a verbal only spell. If speach is a free action, I can speak the words of a spell which is verbal only I could argue that I can cast the spell as a free action. And the rules are clear that yu cannot do this, because there is an action pre-defined for this, called "cast a spell"

 

[James McMurray]

How so?

Either the end dictates what the action type was, or the means can influence that determination.

Why should it be the end in one case and the means in the other?

-Hyp.

Because life (and that subset of life known as RPG rulesets) usually doesn't handle blanket statements which are that broad. Different situations must sometimes be handled differently.

 

[Hypersmurf]

The rules are pretty simple and pretty explicit to my mind in this case. "Drawing a weapon" is the action of putting a weapon into your hand in a wieldable manner when it was not there before. There is no need to make up additional stuff when the RAW already defiens it.

But it's necessary to know about switching hands in certain circumstances. The wizard with a quarterstaff who wishes to cast a spell with a somatic component - he needs to take a hand off his staff, and put it back on. What actions does it cost to do so? Can he still threaten with his staff if he has cast a spell and moved this round?

If you feel that a free action to place a hand on a weapon you are already holding is not sufficient to prepare it for combat, that's fine... but it must apply to the barbarian and the wizard as well as to someone switching a sword from hand to hand.

Simply because you can use another combination of multiple "free action" to seemingly accomplish something does not change the intent of your actions.

In the earlier example, my intent was to get to my feet. Your answer was that the means (kneeling then standing) meant it was two move actions, not one move actions. Why did the intent (getting to my feet) fix it as a single move action provoking an AoO?

I refer you back to the analagous case that I already quoted. Speach (a free action) and a verbal only spell. If speach is a free action, I can speak the words of a spell which is verbal only I could argue that I can cast the spell as a free action. And the rules are clear that yu cannot do this, because there is an action pre-defined for this, called "cast a spell"

Speaking is not sufficient to cast even a verbal-only spell. There is concentration required - the verbal-only spell, for example, may provoke an AoO when speaking does not, because casting a spell - even a verbal-only one - requires more care and effort than simply speaking.

-Hyp.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Because life (and that subset of life known as RPG rulesets) usually doesn't handle blanket statements which are that broad.

It's a fundamental mechanic, though.

We have three states - A, B, and C.

There is an A-B action. There is a B-C action. There is an A-C action.

If I start the round in state A and end the round in state C, do we retrospectively declare that I must have taken the A-C action? Or could I have taken one of two paths - A-C, or A-B then B-C?

The answer to this question should be a principle of the system as a general rule.

Whichever answer it is, fine... but it should be applicable to all situations.

-Hyp.

 

[James McMurray]

In the earlier example, my intent was to get to my feet. Your answer was that the means (kneeling then standing) meant it was two move actions, not one move actions. Why did the intent (getting to my feet) fix it as a single move action provoking an AoO?

If the intent was to rise from fallen to standing, why did you take two other actions that your GM was forced to create? It seems to me that the actual intent of taking those two actions is to prove some sort of point in an online debate, and not really tied to a character changing position at all.

If I start the round in state A and end the round in state C, do we retrospectively declare that I must have taken the A-C action? Or could I have taken one of two paths - A-C, or A-B then B-C?

We use whichever actions the character used to get there. If for some reason you decided that you wanted to spend two move actions standing up instead of one, then that's what happened.

The answer to this question should be a principle of the system as a general rule.

Why?

 

[Artoomis]

But it's necessary to know about switching hands in certain circumstances. The wizard with a quarterstaff who wishes to cast a spell with a somatic component - he needs to take a hand off his staff, and put it back on. What actions does it cost to do so? Can he still threaten with his staff if he has cast a spell and moved this round?...-Hyp.

The most consistent answer might be "No." - Or in the alternative, he cannot cast the spell while holding a two-handed weapon.

The rules seem to be set up to keep it from being too easy to cast a spell - you must have hand free. If you allow one to shift things around, cast the spell, and then shift back, you have effectively nullified the requirement to have a hand free, which sounds like violating the rules to me.

In this case, given the lack of actual rule, it seems like the rules on drawing a weapon would be the best, most balanced approach. All too often it seems like the cleric wants to use a two-handed weapon and cast spells, or use a weapon and shield and still cast spells. That's really not supposed to be allowed, it seems to me.

I think the whole business of shifting wielded items around form hand to hand (or shifting grips) should be explicitly dealt with in the rules.

The easier one makes it to cast spells and also wield a weapon or two, the closer one comes to marginilizing the non-spell using fighter.

 

[Hypersmurf]

If the intent was to rise from fallen to standing, why did you take two other actions that your GM was forced to create?

In this case? To avoid the AoO a single move action would have provoked.

We use whichever actions the character used to get there. If for some reason you decided that you wanted to spend two move actions standing up instead of one, then that's what happened.

Right. And if I use the Place-Second-Hand-On-Weapon free action, and the Remove-One-Hand-From-Weapon free action, I've transferred a weapon from one hand to the other as two free actions, not one move action.

Under the assumption that Place-Second-Hand-On-Weapon and Remove-One-Hand-From-Weapon are considered free actions... which I've stated from the beginning is a necessary assumption to make for the attack-switch-attack scenario to work.

Why?

Because it speaks to the fundamental nature of an action-based resolution system. If I get from this point to that point and make an attack, it's necessary to know if it was a move action and an attack action, or a charge action, to adjudicate other things.

If I have a sword in my right hand, and then it's in my left hand, it's necessary to know which actions were taken to make that happen so I can determine what else I can do.

-Hyp.

 

[Hypersmurf]

All too often it seems like the cleric wants to use a two-handed weapon and cast spells, or use a weapon and shield and still cast spells. That's really not supposed to be allowed, it seems to me.

It seems to me to be the point of a light shield - which allows you to hold (but not wield) a weapon.

The cleric with heavy shield and mace - can't cast.

The cleric with light shield and mace - can cast, by holding his mace in his shield hand temporarily.

-Hyp.

 

[James McMurray]

In this case? To avoid the AoO a single move action would have provoked.

Then you obvisouly used two move actions. Why did you need to ask what you'd done if you already knew?

Right. And if I use the Place-Second-Hand-On-Weapon free action, and the Remove-One-Hand-From-Weapon free action, I've transferred a weapon from one hand to the other as two free actions, not one move action.

Different paradigms, different requirements for underlying principles.

Because it speaks to the fundamental nature of an action-based resolution system. If I get from this point to that point and make an attack, it's necessary to know if it was a move action and an attack action, or a charge action, to adjudicate other things.

And those things are already defined. You simply tell your GM whether you want to move and attack, charge, 5' step and full attack, or whatever. Those actions existing has no bearing on the nonexistence of actions you're trying to use. Or in other words, what isn't defined is using a single weapon in an attempt to attack with two weapon fighting.

If I have a sword in my right hand, and then it's in my left hand, it's necessary to know which actions were taken to make that happen so I can determine what else I can do.

Of course. And you're going to have to house rule it, because the rules themselves are silent in the texts, and contradictory on the website. Or I should say, the rules state that this is a move action to ready a weapon but you disagree. If you come up with a house rule that allows two weapon fighters to carry a single weapon, but it works for your group, then your paradigms are maintained and all is right with your (make believe) world.