switching a versatile weapon between 1h and 2h, what action?

[Hypersmurf]

How do you limit one type of free action to once in a round without doing the same for others? It's not consistent unless you have a hard limit of only 1 free action per round.

I'd guess you'd do it the same way that core 3E and 3.5 did.

Before the introduction of swift actions, casting a Quickened spell was a free action, but you could only cast one Quickened spell per round, even though you could take more free actions.

-Hyp.

 

[elecgraystone]

I'd guess you'd do it the same way that core 3E and 3.5 did.

Before the introduction of swift actions, casting a Quickened spell was a free action, but you could only cast one Quickened spell per round, even though you could take more free actions.

-Hyp.

You could house-rule that of course but I was talking RAW. In 4E an action is either a free action or it's not. There aren't different kinds or types of free actions.

IMO saying that you could only change grips once but allowing multiple other free actions doesn't make a lot of logical sense. Switching grips takes as long as it takes to say "four". Switching back takes as long as it takes to say "score". Unless you are going to rule that you can't say "four score" in one round, you are doing it JUST to stop swordmages from getting a +1 damage NOT because it makes any sense.

Since it doesn't make logical sense to limit it to once per round and it's allowed by RAW the only reason left for that house-rule is that the +1 damage is overpowering somehow. That I just don't see. Many other things in 4E are stronger and/or cheesier than the swordmage grip change that are perfectly RAW and legal.

 

[keterys]

You could house-rule that of course but I was talking RAW. In 4E an action is either a free action or it's not. There aren't different kinds or types of free actions.

Nor was a quickened spell a different type of free action. It was just a free action you could only do once per turn.

IMO saying that you could only change grips once but allowing multiple other free actions doesn't make a lot of logical sense.

Then your logic fu may be weak. How much does singing interfere with your ability to juggle? How about your ability to tap a rhythm with your foot? Each of these things are a bit separated so that's something, at least, though in truth there is _some_ impact to quality but you can still do these things.

Now, while singing, juggling, and tapping a rhythm with your feet, recite a spell, parry attacks with your magic shield hand, and dodge back and forth to assist your own attacks. Oh, and launch the juggled balls at enemies bouncing them back to your hand.

Okay, getting a bit more complicated.

Switching grips takes as long as it takes to say "four". Switching back takes as long as it takes to say "score".

Potentially, but gripping something, leveraging that grip, taking a swing, then releasing the grip, takes more than "four score".

So where's the line?

Thankfully, the RAW answers that:

"The DM can restrict the number of free actions in a turn." and it even gives an example of a limited free action. "Speaking a few sentences" - you can only do that once, you can't do it twenty times

Unless you are going to rule that you can't say "four score" in one round, you are doing it JUST to stop swordmages from getting a +1 damage NOT because it makes any sense.

Saying "four score" makes sense. Saying the whole Gettysburg address doesn't. So there's your line of sense. Similarly, I don't think it "makes sense" for them to design the swordmage so that it has a restriction unless it has a restriction, nor do I think that it makes sense to allow grip swapping an infinite number of times if you're using that other hand to gain AC.

Thankfully, I don't have to care how it works, but as I said before - every table I've been to, it's been ruled the same. You pick one grip for the turn, take it as a free action. So you pick between +1 damage or +2 AC.

Since it doesn't make logical sense to limit it to once per round

As noted, your logic fu is weak. It definitely makes sense to limit it to _some number_ per round. I'd imagine no one thinks you can change grips one hundred times per round. I already know some people think one time per round. So each DM will pick their own number from there. We've already established there _is a limit_, we're just haggling.

the only reason left for that house-rule

Except it's not a house rule

is that the +1 damage is overpowering somehow. That I just don't see. Many other things in 4E are stronger and/or cheesier than the swordmage grip change that are perfectly RAW and legal.

It's no more overpowered than giving any character +1 damage. So let me know when you decide to give rogues +1 damage, or fighters, or warlords, or clerics, etc.

 

[elecgraystone]

It is very much a house-rule. It reads "The DM can restrict the number of free actions in a turn." NOT the "The DM can restrict SOME free actions but not others." The DM can restrict the total number of free actions per RAW. Saying you can use this free action only once but can still do other free action isn't RAW so it's a house-rule.

Bottom line, a RAW ruling on free actions would be you could only do 5 free actions in a round. The house-rule would be you can only change grip once per round, you can only speak twice a round, you can drop three items a round ect. As long as the person has free actions left, by RAW they can change grips again. It's not "haggling" over a limit, it's the fact that you are limiting JUST one free action that makes it a house-rule.

As far as "So let me know when you decide to give rogues +1 damage, or fighters, or warlords, or clerics, etc." all rogues fighters, or warlords, or clerics can do the exact same thing with a versatile weapon. SO WOTC decided to give them ALL a +1, not me. The "design the swordmage" is really one handed vs two-handed weapons for their ward bonus. In 4E versatile weapons are always 1 handed weapons (even when wielded two handed). All this could be fixed by altering the ward to read +3 when wielding a a single one-handed weapon and +1 when wielding a two handed. That's more or less what they were trying to do. They just tried to make it as complicated as possible by bringing a free hand into it instead.

 

[keterys]

It reads "The DM can restrict the number of free actions in a turn."

Very good, then. This is simpler. How many sentences can a person speak per turn? It appears that you've just instituted a limit that all free actions are alike so you can say, I guess, hundreds of sentences per six second turn?

Or perhaps only a few, and ergo can only change grip (or drop a weapon, or whatever) once per turn?

I mean, that sure sounds like a house rule, all free actions somehow being the same.

Bottom line, a RAW ruling on free actions would be you could only do 5 free actions in a round. The house-rule would be you can only change grip once per round, you can only speak twice a round, you can drop three items a round ect.

You are incorrect.

As long as the person has free actions left, by RAW they can change grips again. It's not "haggling" over a limit, it's the fact that you are limiting JUST one free action that makes it a house-rule.

Of course not - I'm limiting _ALL_ free actions - to "what you can reasonably fit into six seconds while doing everything else".

As far as "So let me know when you decide to give rogues +1 damage, or fighters, or warlords, or clerics, etc." all rogues fighters, or warlords, or clerics can do the exact same thing with a versatile weapon.

Sure - but I didn't ask about versatile weapons. I asked about just giving them a +1.

If they're designed, as is, to do the expected damage, is it overpowered to just give them a +1? That is the question, and nothing to do with versatile.

Either +1 to damage is overpowered. Or it's not.

All this could be fixed by altering the ward to read +3 when wielding a a single one-handed weapon and +1 when wielding a two handed. That's more or less what they were trying to do. They just tried to make it as complicated as possible by bringing a free hand into it instead.

Agreed - they need to change the wording, though I suspect your choice of wording is not the best either. Really, all they need to do is say quite specifically about the swordmage, how they want it to work. It'd be pretty easy

 

[elecgraystone]

Very good, then. This is simpler. How many sentences can a person speak per turn? It appears that you've just instituted a limit that all free actions are alike so you can say, I guess, hundreds of sentences per six second turn?

Or perhaps only a few, and ergo can only change grip (or drop a weapon, or whatever) once per turn?

I mean, that sure sounds like a house rule, all free actions somehow being the same.

But all free actions DO take up the same amount of time, just like all minor actions take the same amount of time and all standard actions take the same amount of time. Making one different is a house-rule.

You are incorrect.

I'll have to disagree. All free actions are treated the same under the rules. Treating one differently or saying it takes longer would be a house-rule.

Of course not - I'm limiting _ALL_ free actions - to "what you can reasonably fit into six seconds while doing everything else".

Then you would have a general limit on free actions, NOT limiting only one. Different free actions do not (at least by RAW) take different amounts of time.

Sure - but I didn't ask about versatile weapons. I asked about just giving them a +1.

But they give them the exact same benefit as the swordmage right?

If they're designed, as is, to do the expected damage, is it overpowered to just give them a +1? That is the question, and nothing to do with versatile.

But it has everything to do with versatile

Either +1 to damage is overpowered. Or it's not.

Not. That's why every character can pick up a versatile weapon and do it.

Agreed - they need to change the wording, though I suspect your choice of wording is not the best either. Really, all they need to do is say quite specifically about the swordmage, how they want it to work. It'd be pretty easy

Well, mine would be the easiest. If you just drop the free hand thing, people would stop trying to change how free actions work JUST to stop swordmages that MIGHT try to get the extra +1 damage.

From what I've read, the +1 damage wasn't intended but they aren't planning on changing it. That's why I suggested my wording. It seems that it's going to stay RAW that they can get the +1 damage so why not change the wording to make it easier on everyone. If we ignore the free hand and focus on the type of weapon, we get the same effect without having to worry about free actions or grip changes.

 

[Hypersmurf]

But all free actions DO take up the same amount of time, just like all minor actions take the same amount of time and all standard actions take the same amount of time.

Let's say the hobgoblin takes a swing at our swashbuckling hero, but he misses.

"Ha - you'll have to do better than that, if you want to strike a swordsman trained by the Scarlet Snake!" the hero cries.

Reasonable as a free action?

-Hyp.

 

[elecgraystone]

Let's say the hobgoblin takes a swing at our swashbuckling hero, but he misses.

"Ha - you'll have to do better than that, if you want to strike a swordsman trained by the Scarlet Snake!" the hero cries.

Reasonable as a free action?

-Hyp.

Sure, why not? Works for me. In that amount of time, however, I could switch my grip at least twice in real life.

One of the mistakes that keterys is making is that he's thinking some free actions take longer than others. In real life, sure. In the game not really. All actions of the same type take the exact same amount of time (even if we know they don't in real life).

Lets take 2 rogues. One make a basic ranged attack and one attacks 9 targets with a blinding barrage. Which one takes more time? In real life the blinding barrage should take 9 times longer. In game it takes the exact same amount of time, 1 standard action.

His other mistake is that you can take more than one action at the same time. Unless a feat or ability lets you, you have to wait until the action is over to start another one. In real life I could move and fire a loaded crossbow at the same time. In game I have to finish moving before I can fire. So speaking and changing grips takes twice as long as doing either one instead of being able to both at the same time frame.

The game round doesn't follow real life. Each action happens on it's own and each type of action takes the same amount of time as others of it's type.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Sure, why not? Works for me.

I agree.

But would you let him make a similar comment after every attack made in a round by either a PC or a monster? Let's say there are five PCs and a dozen minions, for a total of seventeenish attacks in the round... can our hero make a pithy remark along the lines of the above seventeen times?

I wouldn't allow it. Once, fine; twice, maybe. Not seventeen times. I would, on the other hand, be perfectly comfortable with a "Ha!" or "O-Ho!" after each of those attacks.

I can see a sentence as a free action. I wouldn't allow seventeen sentences in a round. I see "Ha!" as a free action, and I have no problem with seventeen of those in a round.

All actions of the same type take the exact same amount of time.

I don't agree. I don't think you can say that "All move actions take 3 seconds, and all minor actions take 2 seconds, and all standard actions take 4 seconds", or anything like that; an action's category is not necessarily related to how long it takes, but rather to what sort of 'effort' the game rules require.

As soon as you start saying they take up X amount of time, action points become a form of time travel - the character has shoehorned a few extra seconds into a round somehow with which to fit his extra standard action.

"Ha!" and a sentence are both free actions, and both require the same rules-mechanical 'effort', but they don't take the same amount of time.

-Hyp.

 

[keterys]

But all free actions DO take up the same amount of time, just like all minor actions take the same amount of time and all standard actions take the same amount of time. Making one different is a house-rule.

Incorrect - actions and time are not correlated. Especially not free actions.

I'll have to disagree. All free actions are treated the same under the rules. Treating one differently or saying it takes longer would be a house-rule.
Then you would have a general limit on free actions, NOT limiting only one. Different free actions do not (at least by RAW) take different amounts of time.

Incorrect. Different free actions do take different amounts of time, by RAW. Time almost never _matters_, however.

But it has everything to do with versatile

Not really. If a feat gave you +1 damage as long as you were using your left hand to rub your belly and recite the alphabet, I'd have a similar objection.

My question was purely about giving a class +1 damage over where it was designed and balanced. If the swordmage was designed to get it, they should have worded the ability differently. If it wasn't designed to get it, then it doesn't matter if you can sketch a rule to do it. You shouldn't.

Unless, of course, you're playing in a tournament environment.

Not. That's why every character can pick up a versatile weapon and do it.

Can every character use a heavy shield and a versatile weapon at the same time with +1 damage?

Well, mine would be the easiest. If you just drop the free hand thing, people would stop trying to change how free actions work JUST to stop swordmages that MIGHT try to get the extra +1 damage.

If swordmages can get the +1 damage, those who don't should. Barring a specific reason to use another weapon, such as a scimitar, they'd be stupid not to.

Regardless, I don't see that yours would be easiest -unless that's what they're trying to emulate-. As far as I can tell, they're trying to emulate a fighter/mage who leaves a hand free and deflects things with magic... in which case using a weapon two-handed at all is against design intent. So something more akin to using both hands to attack losing the bonus would cover that angle.

From what I've read, the +1 damage wasn't intended but they aren't planning on changing it.

And if it's not intended... which we agree... then it shouldn't work that way. Simplest thing in the world

so why not change the wording to make it easier on everyone. If we ignore the free hand and focus on the type of weapon, we get the same effect without having to worry about free actions or grip changes.

But now you're house ruling to nerf swordmages using fullblades. What's with that?

More seriously, though - even without swordmages I see no reason to allow _any_ character to switch grips more than once per round.