Odd but legal?

[Hypersmurf]

Or I should say, the rules state that this is a move action to ready a weapon but you disagree.

To draw a weapon. Nothing about 'readying' one already drawn.

-Hyp.

 

[Artoomis]

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.

Ah, but that's assuming switching hands like that does not take up an action (or, perhaps, is a free action).

I don't have this completely worked out (I think it needs to be published in the rules), but I see something like this as good approach:

1. Wielding a weapon (regardless of where it is when no being wielded) is a move action - or can be done as part of a move, unless one has teh "Quick Draw" feat.

2. Shifting grips is the same as (1) when shifting back to wielding the weapon.

3. Shifting away from wielding (like transfering to the off-hand, or removing one hand form a two-0handed wepon) is a Free Action.

Both (2) and (3) assume you are not actually putting the weapon away (sheathing it)

This makes it cost a Move Action to cast spells whilw wielding a weapon with both hands occupied (shield, tow-handed weapon, whatever). This seems quite reasonable and concistent with other stated rules on drawing weapons.

It's not entirely perfect, but seems quite workable and easy to implement.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Ah, but that's assuming switching hands like that does not take up an action (or, perhaps, is a free action).

And this is where Skip Williams and Andy Collins differed - Skip called it a free action (in the 3E Main FAQ and the Rules of the Game), while Andy called it a move action (in the 3.5 Main FAQ).

-Hyp.

 

[Artoomis]

And this is where Skip Williams and Andy Collins differed - Skip called it a free action (in the 3E Main FAQ and the Rules of the Game), while Andy called it a move action (in the 3.5 Main FAQ).

-Hyp.

And Andy's ruling is the more recent "official" one and applies to 3.5e. So we know that is WotC's official position on this issue, for whatever you think that is worth.

 

[Veril]

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?

Your first sentance contains a lie by ommission.
Your intention was to get to your feet avoiding an AoO

Your second sentance contains a further lie by ommission.
In the RAW it is a move action to stand up and it provokes an AoO. You specifically introduced a house rules where by you could use a move action to go from prone to kneel avoiding an AoO and then a rule to rise from knees to standing avoiding an AOO again as a move action. I'm afraid you have raised a strawman here. My answer specifically addressed this. Your reply quoted above ignores this fact, and attempts to distort the underlying arguement.

If you would care to restate the case using RAW rather than creating a houserule and then abstracting from the houserule to how that afects the RAW I'll happily refute your arguements.

Your final sentance is a question.
The rules as written state than standing up from prone is a move action the provokes AoO

 

[Hypersmurf]

Your first sentance contains a lie by ommission.
Your intention was to get to your feet avoiding an AoO

My intention was to get to my feet. Two routes to this end were available; one move action, provoking an AoO, or two move actions, without provoking an AoO.

You specifically introduced a house rules where by you could use a move action to go from prone to kneel avoiding an AoO and then a rule to rise from knees to standing avoiding an AOO again as a move action.

It's necessary to introduce some sort of rule to cater for the kneeling condition. It's necessary to introduce some sort of rule to cater for placing/removing a hand on or from a weapon.

The two situations are analogous. Once the rule to cater for the kneeling condition is added, we have two routes to choose from to go from prone to standing. Once the rule for placing/removing a hand is added, we have two routes (assuming 'draw a weapon' counts as one) to choose from to go from having a weapon in the right hand to having a weapon in the left hand.

If you'd permit me to select which I wish to use to go from prone to standing, why would you forbid me to select which I wish to use to go from right hand to left hand?

If you would care to restate the case using RAW rather than creating a houserule and then abstracting from the houserule to how that afects the RAW I'll happily refute your arguements.

Since the rule for placing/removing a hand does not currently exist (as with the rule for kneeling), it's impossible to avoid house rules.

-Hyp.

 

[Veril]

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?

Releasing the weapon from one hand so that it would fall to the floor (all other things being equal) is a free action. It does not in fact fall to the floor becasue the other hand is still holding it - it is now an item being held, but not wielded. He then has a free hand and can cast a spell. He can then move, and if he has a BAB of +1 or more can "draw the weapon" back into both hands in combination with the move. And thus would threaten.

(Kind of Reality Check: I've used a quarterstaff in LRP, you cannot just grab it at any arbitary two points - you need to have your hands at the "correct" places on it to fight with it effectivly - taking hold of it again is more than a free action)

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.

I agree. It should apply to both. And it does apply to both.

 

[hong]

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?

It depends, of course.

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

No, the answer to this question should be whatever is best for that situation.

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

All situations that are deemed similar to that particular situation.

I still see no alcohol here.

 

[hong]

Because it speaks to the fundamental nature of an action-based resolution system.

No, it speaks to the fundamental nature of an action-based resolution system in a particular circumstance.

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.

You make your normal iterative attacks, of course.

I still see no alcohol here.

 

[hong]

If you'd permit me to select which I wish to use to go from prone to standing, why would you forbid me to select which I wish to use to go from right hand to left hand?

Of course you can go from right hand to left hand. It will simply have no effect on the attack rolls you make. Just as noone stops you from wearing a striped shirt with plaid shorts, it just won't affect your AC.

I still see no alcohol here.