Odd but legal?

[Veril]

If the sword is on the floor, do I use the 'Pick up an item' action, or the 'Draw a weapon' action?

If I use the 'Pick up an item' action, do I then need to take the 'Draw a weapon' action in addition so I can use it in combat?

I echo Jame's comment. whch one best describes what you are doing?

since pick up provokes AoO it's more involved than draw, and I think that it would include draw. In addition, anyone with BAB of +1 gets to to draw as a free action in combination with a move action.

And if I wish to take a hand off a one-handed weapon wielded in two hands, the same? It's going from a state wielded in two hands dealing 1.5x damage, and moving to a state wielded in one hand dealing 1x damage.

Hmm, yes, strictly speaking it should be a draw action. From my experience using a bastardsword You do in fact fight very differently with a weapoon in 1 hand from a weapon in 2 hands. your stance changes. However I think I would allow it as a free action as described earlier. (what is true for the wizard is true for the barbarian, and performing a drop action with 1 hand)

So your objection is not to do with making both normal and extra off-hand attacks with the same weapon, just with the mechanics of shifting hands?

-Hyp.

Yes.

Rather than detailing the machanics of "how you are doing something" look at "what you are doing". You don't describe your attacks in D&D in terms of swinging high then coming in fast and low, you state that you are making an attack and roll the D20.

 

[Hypersmurf]

I echo Jame's comment. whch one best describes what you are doing?

since pick up provokes AoO it's more involved than draw, and I think that it would include draw. In addition, anyone with BAB of +1 gets to to draw as a free action in combination with a move action.

In combination with a regular move, not with a move action. That is, while moving up to my speed with a move action. I can't combine drawing a weapon with standing from prone, or loading a light crossbow, or opening a door; I can combine drawing a weapon with a regular move.

Hmm, yes, strictly speaking it should be a draw action.

The draw action is used for drawing a weapon to make it ready for combat.

Making a weapon ready for combat doesn't necessitate the Draw a Weapon action. Drawing a weapon to make it ready for combat is what requires the Draw a Weapon action.

If the weapon is on the floor, it doesn't need to be drawn. If the weapon is in my hand, it doesn't need to be drawn. It's already out!

It's like if there were a "Purchase a pie in order to eat it" action. I have a pie in my pocket, and since I want to eat it, I have to take the Purchase a Pie action. But it's nonsense - I want to eat it, but the Purchase a Pie action only applies if I need to purchase it in order to eat it. I don't - I already own it.

If my sword is in my hand, the Draw a Weapon action is inapplicable. It's already drawn.

If I'm wielding the sword in one hand, and I want to wield it in two, which action best describes what I'm doing - Put Hand on Weapon, or Draw a Weapon? Since I am putting a hand on a weapon, and I am not drawing a weapon, I'd say it's the former.

From my experience using a bastardsword You do in fact fight very differently with a weapoon in 1 hand from a weapon in 2 hands. your stance changes.

Would you say the stance used to throw a knife is different to the stance used to stab with a knife? If I'm fighting in melee with my dagger, and then wish to throw it, would this 'strictly speaking' require a Draw a Weapon action?

-Hyp.

 

[Veril]

If my sword is in my hand, the Draw a Weapon action is inapplicable. It's already drawn.

If I'm wielding the sword in one hand, and I want to wield it in two, which action best describes what I'm doing - Put Hand on Weapon, or Draw a Weapon? Since I am putting a hand on a weapon, and I am not drawing a weapon, I'd say it's the former.

The corollory of that first quoted statement is : If the sword is not in your hand then the draw a weapon action is applicable.

The second paragraph has the sword not in both hands and going to being in both hands.

We will just have to disagree. You think it is a free action to change hands and I don't.

Here is what your ruling allows: Mr Base attack +16 Fighter.
Starts with the sword in his primary hand, strikes with it at +16 (str*1), uses a free action to put it into both hands and strikes at +11 (str*1.5), then he uses a free action to let go with the primary and strikes with the seondary at +6 (*.5 str), then puts the primary back on as a free action and strikes at +1 (str*1.5). Then he takes his secondary hand off as a free action at the end of the round and begins using his snatch arrow feat t0 throw back daggers at opponents.

Again under your ruling, Joe the BAB 16 fighter with a sword in his right hand, uses a free action to put hie left hand on the weapon. He then uses a free action toe take his right hand off the weapon. Now he uses his empty right hand to make a stunning attack at his full BAB (he has the relevant feats). He then swaps the sword into both hands wit 1 free action by placing his right hand on the weapon makes the rest of his iterative attacks with the sword in his both handa (+11, +6, +1 and Str*1.5).

Fred the cleric with a light shield and a heavy mace swaps the heavy mace to his shield hand (with 2 free actions) casts a spell (with his now free hand) and swaps the weapon back to his primary hand again using 2 free action as already described.

Arrant nonesnese.

 

[Veril]

Would you say the stance used to throw a knife is different to the stance used to stab with a knife? If I'm fighting in melee with my dagger, and then wish to throw it, would this 'strictly speaking' require a Draw a Weapon action?

-Hyp.

Regarding taking a hand off the bastardsword, I said I think it should be a free action (what is true for the wizard with a staff is true for the barb with an axe).

and as for the dagger no. It's already in the hand you are going to use it for.

 

[Hypersmurf]

The corollory of that first quoted statement is : If the sword is not in your hand then the draw a weapon action is applicable.

No - that's taking "A dog is not a cat", and drawing the conclusion "That is not a dog, therefore it is a cat".

"A sword in my hand is already drawn" does not yield the conclusion "A sword not in my hand is not drawn". It does tell us "An undrawn sword is not in my hand".

A sword on the floor (but not sheathed) is drawn; it is not ready for combat, because I'm not holding it.

The second paragraph has the sword not in both hands and going to being in both hands.

It has a drawn sword not in both hands going to being in both hands.

We will just have to disagree. You think it is a free action to change hands and I don't.

Again under your ruling, Joe the BAB 16 fighter with a sword in his right hand, uses a free action to put hie left hand on the weapon. He then uses a free action toe take his right hand off the weapon. Now he uses his empty right hand to make a stunning attack at his full BAB (he has the relevant feats). He then swaps the sword into both hands wit 1 free action by placing his right hand on the weapon makes the rest of his iterative attacks with the sword in his both handa (+11, +6, +1 and Str*1.5).

Fred the cleric with a light shield and a heavy mace swaps the heavy mace to his shield hand (with 2 free actions) casts a spell (with his now free hand) and swaps the weapon back to his primary hand again using 2 free action as already described.

These two sound fine to me.

Starts with the sword in his primary hand, strikes with it at +16 (str*1), uses a free action to put it into both hands and strikes at +11 (str*1.5), then he uses a free action to let go with the primary and strikes with the seondary at +6 (*.5 str), then puts the primary back on as a free action and strikes at +1 (str*1.5). Then he takes his secondary hand off as a free action at the end of the round and begins using his snatch arrow feat t0 throw back daggers at opponents.

This one bothers me, for the same reason I'd disallow greatsword and armor spikes - I'm not convinced the rules permit making a two-handed attack and an off-hand attack.

If those two-handed attacks were straight primary (one-handed) attacks, or if he didn't avail himself of the off-hand attack, I'd have no problem with this example.

and as for the dagger no. It's already in the hand you are going to use it for.

So "change of stance" isn't really anything to do with the action required.

Regarding taking a hand off the bastardsword, I said I think it should be a free action (what is true for the wizard with a staff is true for the barb with an axe).

So "going from not being in both hands to being in both hands" requires the Draw a Weapon action, because the state is changing, but "going from not being in one hand to being in one hand" doesn't, despite the state changing?

-Hyp.

 

[James McMurray]

Hyp, go reread those definitions of draw that you asked for and I provided. If a hand is an applicable source to be drawn from, why not the floor?

 

[Kmart Kommando]

If you are holding the sword in one hand, and wish to make an attack with the sword using the other hand, then the sword is not drawn, in relation to the hand that you wish to be wielding it.

Therefore, you must draw it into the hand with which you intend to make the attack roll, using the Draw Weapon action.

BTW, a whip and a scimitar are both one-handed weapons, so that's a -4 to each, assuming TWF.

Also:

If you wield a second weapon in your off hand, you can get one extra attack per round with that weapon.

Not with any weapon you choose, with the second weapon. If you didn't use the first weapon, then the assumed second weapon does not exist, and is in fact the first weapon.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Hyp, go reread those definitions of draw that you asked for and I provided. If a hand is an applicable source to be drawn from, why not the floor?

I don't think a hand is an applicable source to be drawn from. That's Veril's assertion.

The definition that's applicable to a sword:
2. to bring, take, or pull out, as from a receptacle or source

Switching hands isn't taking it out of a receptacle or source. It's just moving it.

Pulling it out of a scabbard, or a stone - that's drawing it.

BTW, a whip and a scimitar are both one-handed weapons, so that's a -4 to each, assuming TWF.

Yup.

Not with any weapon you choose, with the second weapon. If you didn't use the first weapon, then the assumed second weapon does not exist, and is in fact the first weapon.

If I didn't wield the first weapon. Whether or not I attack with the first weapon, the requirement is that I wield a second weapon. For a wielded weapon to be a second weapon, all that is required is that another weapon be wielded, not that I attack with it.

-Hyp.

 

[hong]

If I didn't wield the first weapon. Whether or not I attack with the first weapon, the requirement is that I wield a second weapon. For a wielded weapon to be a second weapon, all that is required is that another weapon be wielded, not that I attack with it.

To be precise, you have to wield it in combat. Which means that you attack with it.

I still see no alcohol here.

 

[James McMurray]

So you don't think a hand can be a source?