Odd but legal?

[James McMurray]

Maybe I'm dreaming but wasn't there a FAQ or a Sage Advice answer that stated that moving things from 1 hand to the others was a move action. If its true then that pretty much ends the debate....

Yes and No.

The rules don’t state what type of action is required to switch hands on a
weapon, but it seems reasonable to assume that it’s the equivalent of drawing a weapon (a move action that doesn’t provoke attacks of opportunity).

It doesn't give a rule, it gives a rule that Skip Williams believes is reasonable. I personally agree with him 100%, but whereever there's wiggle room, some folks will want to dance.

 

[Hypersmurf]

No, because attacks without manufactured weapons (including unarmed strikes) use a different underlying paradigm to attacks with weapons. Unarmed strikes do not threaten an area unless you have a feat; you take an AoO if you make an unarmed strike (again unless you have a feat); creatures with natural attacks do not get iterative attacks the way they would if they used weapons. And hence treating unarmed strikes as if they were equivalent to weapons is invalid.

Which is why I stated TWF with an unarmed strike to be one of the assumptions further upthread.

But if you like, we'll remove that assumption.

I make my primary attack with my longsword in my right hand, taking TWF penalties, while wielding a dagger in my left hand. I drop my dagger, switch my longsword to my left hand, Quick Draw a second dagger with my right hand, 5' step, and make my off-hand attack with the longsword in my off-hand.

I am wielding two manufactured weapons at the time I make my attacks.

-Hyp.

 

[Hypersmurf]

It doesn't give a rule, it gives a rule that Skip Williams believes is reasonable. I personally agree with him 100%, but whereever there's wiggle room, some folks will want to dance.

Actually, that's the rule that Andy Collins believes is reasonable.

Skip Williams' answer in the 3E Main FAQ was 'free action'; then Andy posted what you quoted above in the 3.5 Main FAQ - move action; then Skip posted in a RotG article 'free action'.

-Hyp.

 

[The Blow Leprechaun]

Based on my re-reading a couple of the rules, here's my best insight before I leave the office:

The full round attack option specifically mentions you can take a 5' step before, during, or after the attack. This has been interpreted herein to mean you can make a free action during a full round attack.

But look again. A 5' step is not considered to be a free action. As written in the rules, it is considered to be no action, along with delaying.

Therefore, as far as I am aware, there is no justification for being able to take a free action during a full round attack. Before or after, maybe, but I'd need to see an example to accept it during with the RAW.

 

[hong]

Which is why I stated TWF with an unarmed strike to be one of the assumptions further upthread.

Not in the post to me, you didn't.

I make my primary attack with my longsword in my right hand, taking TWF penalties, while wielding a dagger in my left hand. I drop my dagger, switch my longsword to my left hand, Quick Draw a second dagger with my right hand, 5' step, and make my off-hand attack with the longsword in my off-hand.

I am wielding two manufactured weapons at the time I make my attacks.

Nope, because that would require that you take -4 to your attacks for making your off-hand attack with a non-light weapon, and you didn't do that with the first attack.

And for your hypothetical (meaning never-happened-in-actual-play) scenario coming up, whereby you make a shortsword attack with the right hand and then switch the shortsword to the left hand, all the while having weapons in both hands -- nope, because all this demonstrates is the limitations of the rules principle whereby all attacks are treated separately, even if they occur simultaneously within the in-game reality.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Nope, because that would require that you take -4 to your attacks for making your off-hand attack with a non-light weapon, and you didn't do that with the first attack.

Oversized Two-Weapon Fighting feat. Or I took the -4 when I said "taking TWF penalties".

And for your hypothetical (meaning never-happened-in-actual-play) scenario coming up, whereby you make a shortsword attack with the right hand and then switch the shortsword to the left hand, all the while having weapons in both hands -- nope, because all this demonstrates is the limitations of the rules principle whereby all attacks are treated separately, even if they occur simultaneously within the in-game reality.

They're not occurring simultaneously. They're occurring with a dropped weapon, a switched weapon, a drawn weapon, and a 5' step in between.

You'd allow it if instead of switching my shortsword from right to left, I dropped the shortsword and drew a different shortsword with my left hand, right?

-Hyp.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Therefore, as far as I am aware, there is no justification for being able to take a free action during a full round attack. Before or after, maybe, but I'd need to see an example to accept it during with the RAW.

Ammunition: Projectile weapons use ammunition: arrows (for bows), bolts (for crossbows), or sling bullets (for slings). When using a bow, a character can draw ammunition as a free action; crossbows and slings require an action for reloading.

I have a bow and the Rapid Shot feat.

I take a free action to draw ammunition, then I take the Full Attack action to take two shots.

During my Full Attack action - in between my first and second shot - I need to draw a second arrow as a free action.

Do you permit this?

-Hyp.

 

[hong]

Oversized Two-Weapon Fighting feat. Or I took the -4 when I said "taking TWF penalties".

Which you didn't specify.

They're not occurring simultaneously. They're occurring with a dropped weapon, a switched weapon, a drawn weapon, and a 5' step in between.

However, in the in-game reality that the rules attempt to capture, they are occuring as a series of swings, thrusts, hits and misses where the attacker is using two weapons simultaneously. The fact that the game abstracts them into distinct rolls, with the added convenience feature of letting players decide where to target their attacks, is beside the point.

You'd allow it if instead of switching my shortsword from right to left, I dropped the shortsword and drew a different shortsword with my left hand, right?

And the answer to that is, why are you drawing that shortsword in the middle of the round, as opposed to using it from the start?

 

[Hypersmurf]

However, in the in-game reality that the rules attempt to capture, they are occuring as a series of swings, thrusts, hits and misses where the attacker is using two weapons simultaneously. The fact that the game abstracts them into distinct rolls, with the added convenience feature of letting players decide where to target their attacks, is beside the point.

They can't be occurring simultaneously, since I wasn't even holding the mace when I made the attack with the sword! The mace attack - in the in-game reality that the rules attempt to capture - occurs as a series of swings, thrusts, hits and misses that takes place in a timeframe that is absolutely discrete and separate from the series of swings, thrusts, hits and misses represented by the longsword attack roll. I'm not making any swings, thrusts, hits and misses with my longsword while I'm attacking with my mace - the zombie is already dead. I'm not making any swings, thrusts, hits and misses with my mace while I'm attacking with my longsword - it's still hanging from my belt, not even in my hand!

And the answer to that is, why are you drawing that shortsword in the middle of the round, as opposed to using it from the start?

Because I didn't know until I saw the result of my first attack if I wanted to use my First-Opponent-Bane dagger, or my Second-Opponent-Bane shortsword.

For example.

-Hyp.

 

[hong]

They can't be occurring simultaneously, since I wasn't even holding the mace when I made the attack with the sword! The mace attack - in the in-game reality that the rules attempt to capture - occurs as a series of swings, thrusts, hits and misses that takes place in a timeframe that is absolutely discrete and separate from the series of swings, thrusts, hits and misses represented by the longsword attack roll. I'm not making any swings, thrusts, hits and misses with my longsword while I'm attacking with my mace - the zombie is already dead. I'm not making any swings, thrusts, hits and misses with my mace while I'm attacking with my longsword - it's still hanging from my belt, not even in my hand!

Exactly. The fact that the model allows you to decide what to do with your second attack after seeing your first attack's result is a flaw in the model, but one that's there for a good reason (ie, removing the need for tedious announce-and-resolve phases). Exploiting that flaw may or may not be bad, depending on how egregious the results are. Bad Hypersmurf!

Because I didn't know until I saw the result of my first attack if I wanted to use my First-Opponent-Bane dagger, or my Second-Opponent-Bane shortsword.

Tell me how often you have a dagger and a shortsword both with bane enchantments.