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

[Amphimir Míriel]

Ready is an immediate reaction, so immediate interrupts against that lower defense are going to be rare.

If you use a heavy shield you're 'punished' for needing to drink a potion - you have to sheath your weapon, take out the potion, drink it, and... oh, you're done, that's three minor actions: a full round to drink a potion, and you're unarmed until you can draw your weapon again. If you want to look silly, you can drop your weapon, pull out the potion, drink it, then pick your weapon back up - still takes all round. Wasting a standard action is arguably worse than having an AC bonus reduced.

As a student of Western Martial arts, let me tell you that it's easier to hold your sword in your armpit, behind your shield, while you take a quick drink of potion, and then just go ahead and continue the combat.

 

[elecgraystone]

I'll have to disagree with both of you, keterys and Hypersmurf. The combat round is defined as a standard, a move and minor action. They always take up the same amount of time in a round. Free actions are just like action point actions. It fills in the extra time in the round not taken up by the other thee actions. If someone only did a basic melee attack, only moved one square and didn't take his minor action would he have more free actions to use? IMO no, the actions took the same amount of time as the guy that attacked 9 people and then ran 9 squares.

I see no reason to limit some free actions and not others. A free action is just like every other free action. It just makes no sense that one action that takes little of no time can only be done once when another can be done 17 times. Both are mechanically identical and treated 100% the same under the rules. There is nothing supporting some actions of the same type taking longer to do. Keterys said 'Different free actions do take different amounts of time, by RAW.' so I would be interested to see an actual quote or pg# for this since I've never seen it.

I have no problem with limiting the total number of free actions. I just don't see how you can say it's RAW to limit some free actions and not others. It says you can limit the number of free actions, not the types of free actions.

 

[Lacyon]

I see no reason to limit some free actions and not others. A free action is just like every other free action. It just makes no sense that one action that takes little of no time can only be done once when another can be done 17 times.

How many free actions is it to say "Four"? How many to say "Score"? How many to say "Four score"? How many to say "Elbow"?

Why do you insist that it makes no sense to have a character say "Four Score" at the same time as he changes his grip on a weapon?

Because if he can do these things at the same time, then you have to restrict the number of each of these free actions that can be done per turn separately.

 

[Hypersmurf]

The combat round is defined as a standard, a move and minor action.

No, those are the things you can do in a turn.

They always take up the same amount of time in a round.

What reference are you finding to connect an action to an amount of time?

The only reference to time is in the definition of a round, on p266: "A round represents about 6 seconds in the game world."

We don't know how long a turn takes, we don't know how long a standard action takes; all we know is how long a round takes.

-Hyp.

 

[MyISPHatesENWorld]

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

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

Time doesn't matter here either.

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.

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

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

Besides the official FAQ answer and the customer service response previously posted, Mike Mearls posted the intent of versatile:
"This is not an official answer, but let me give some insight into how versatile is intended to work.
As a rule of thumb when using a versatile weapon, default to giving the player the most beneficial reading of a rule or situation regarding one or two handed use.
So, the fighter would still get his weapon talent, and he could also gain the benefits of reaping strike.
Versatile is intended to let you have your cake and eat it too."

Yes, you can change as a free action and yes, you can get the +3 swordmage warding in conjunction with the +1 damage bonus if you are using a versatile weapon. And, yes, you can screw a player out of gaining the benefit of wielding a versatile weapon via house rule or abusing your role as rule arbiter to limit his free actions just because you don't like it (if the player will tolerate it). You can give him a situational modifier of -2 to all his attacks, checks and defenses all the time if you don't like the class or race he is playing too (again, if the player will tolerate it).

The swordmage with a longsword or bastard sword gets 1d8+1 or 1d10+1 to damage and +3 AC warding. The Swordmage with a fullblade gets 1d12 damage and the superior critical property and +1 AC warding. The swordmage with a double-bladed sword gets 1d8 and the defensive and off-hand properties and the weapon is considered both light blade and heavy blade (enabling more options for multiclassing and feats) and +1 AC warding.

That fighter that can't wield his shield and get the +1 to damage at the same time as using his shield can always take the heavy weapon focus feat with that feat slot the swordmage had to use to take Intelligent Blademaster so his basic attacks work. Then he'll be doing the same x[W]+1 damage as the swordmage with powers and basic attacks, as well as hitting better (due to his +1 fighting style bonus) with all attacks. And he has the reflex bonus from his shield, and a better FORT save, and easier gain of feats relating to weapons, shields and armor. All classes don't benefit in the same way from all weapons/groups/properties.

That fullblade-wielding swordmage isn't being nerfed by not being allowed to get the +3 - he has both the higher damage die (superior to the +1 damage) and the superior crit property. He (and the double-sword wielder) specifically gain the benefit of swordmage warding when they are wielding the weapon, and you can't wield a two-handed weapon in one hand.

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

You don't like that players can switch grips more than once a round. That doesn't change the fact that there is a reason, to allow players to get the benefit of using a versatile weapon, or the fact that the rules clearly allow it.