Would you allow a PC to draw and drink two potions?
Switching from bow to swords - how does it work?
- Thread starter Mercurius
- Start date
Would you allow a PC to draw and drink two potions?
If both hands are free it would seem fair to let the PC draw 2 potions from his belt as 1 minor action (free action with quickdaw); but then opening & drinking a potion is a minor action that takes 2 hands, which would require dropping one of the potions he just drew...
Edit: Maybe some kind of stopper that can be opened with just a thumb-flick would solve this conundrum!
aurance
Explorer
No, because the drawing items part of Quick Draw is explicitly dependent on the usage action that it's tied to.
Drinking a potion costs a minor action. You can draw any number of potions which is required to perform that action, which happens to be one.
Twin Strike costs a standard action. You can draw any number of weapons which is required to perform that action, which is two.
I understand the argument but I'm still inclined to believe it's one item per action since the wording does not ever actually mention:
"any number of".
osezno: it's very clear that Quickdraw lets you draw multiple weapons -- Because QD doesn't care about actions -- it cares about weapons. Actions are totally irrelevant.
Let us say you are empty handed, and declare an attack with Twin strike. You're making an attack with a short sword, so QD lets you draw it as part of that attack. And you're making an attack with another short sword--so QD lets you draw it as part of that attack too.
For twin stirke, one cannot even make a division argument (as it's one attack per weapon; who cares about actions?)--but really, the same textev applies to, say, Dire Wolverine Strike. You are unarmed and declare Dire Wolverine Strike with two picks. Since you've declared an attack with a pick, you can draw it as part of the attack. And since you've declared an attack with your other pick...you can draw it as aprt of the attack too.
You've read Quickdraw as "you may draw a weapon when you declare an attack as long as it uses that weapon." That would limit you to one weapon/attack. However, the actual wording lets you placeholder weapons when you declare attacks -implicitly-, and then gives you the ability to draw a weapon for each time you placeholder. Since there's no limit on the implicit placeholder abilty, you can do it as many times as necessary based on your attacks powers.
Let us say you are empty handed, and declare an attack with Twin strike. You're making an attack with a short sword, so QD lets you draw it as part of that attack. And you're making an attack with another short sword--so QD lets you draw it as part of that attack too.
For twin stirke, one cannot even make a division argument (as it's one attack per weapon; who cares about actions?)--but really, the same textev applies to, say, Dire Wolverine Strike. You are unarmed and declare Dire Wolverine Strike with two picks. Since you've declared an attack with a pick, you can draw it as part of the attack. And since you've declared an attack with your other pick...you can draw it as aprt of the attack too.
You've read Quickdraw as "you may draw a weapon when you declare an attack as long as it uses that weapon." That would limit you to one weapon/attack. However, the actual wording lets you placeholder weapons when you declare attacks -implicitly-, and then gives you the ability to draw a weapon for each time you placeholder. Since there's no limit on the implicit placeholder abilty, you can do it as many times as necessary based on your attacks powers.
No. No it is not "very clear" and no "QD does not care about actions", and just in general, no.
But you can rule it that way if you want.
It is written as:
You can draw a weapon (or an object, such as a potion, stored in a belt pouch, a bandolier, or a similar container) as part of the same action used to attack with the weapon or use the object.
Perhaps I am being syntactically precise, but that to me means one object, one action.
Another syntactical issue is whether you can even declare the use of an attack such as twin strike to be able to use quick draw.
"Requirement: You must be wielding two melee weapons or a ranged weapon."
aurance
Explorer
""You can draw a weapon..." does not imply that you can draw only a singular item, in the same way that "you can draw weapons..." does not imply you must draw two or more weapons.
Sorry, you are not being syntactically precise. The indefinite articles "a" and "an" don't exclusively infer a singularity except with a very specific inflection.
Sorry, you are not being syntactically precise. The indefinite articles "a" and "an" don't exclusively infer a singularity except with a very specific inflection.
AbdulAlhazred
Legend
Yeah, I have to agree. English is very imprecise here. If I said "I can drive a car" you wouldn't assume I can only drive one car. Thus 'a' can be an indefinite article. The way QD is worded it can certainly be interpreted to mean that you can draw ANY weapon which you are using in the attack action, which would mean both of them in the case of Twin Strike.
I'll instruct you to look at how other published feats are written, in terms of indefinite articles and other instances of plurality.
Some notable feats:
Dirty Fighting: "...against surprised enemies". vs (against a surprised enemy)
Rending Tempest: "a melee attack using a power... when you hit it with any other melee attacks until the end of that turn." vs. (a melee attack until the end of that turn)
Martial Mastery: "you also regain the use of a martial encounter power you have used during this encounter" vs (one or more, two, any number of, all encounter powers you have used...)
You will see this careful choice of a vs. any vs. words that explicitly dictate plurality continuously through how they write feats (and corrected via errata when they've made mistakes not including them).
Inflection in text is syntax or semantics, if they explicitly meant one OR MORE weapons, in my opinion, they would have written "any (number of) items or any weapons as part of the same action..."
I'm not saying it's should be disallowed or that I think it's unreasonable, I'm saying it's not clear at best, and at worst it explicitly states A weapon with AN action. I also apply my reasoning to the Master at Arms feat.
AbdulAlhazred
Legend
I don't disagree that it is not perfectly clear. OTOH the examples you cite all clearly indicate from context that they are intended to apply to a single instance of something. The case for QD is different. When it talks about drawing a weapon that can JUST AS EASILY be taken as "each individual example of" vs "a single example of" what is being discussed. Rending Tempest for example is clearly granting you the benefit WHENEVER you hit "a target" so the question never comes up, every target you hit is a target you hit and it applies in each case, assuming the other requirements are met. Martial Mastery is using "a" as a quantifier, not an article, so this is also clearly applying in this case to a single instance. Basically what you've done is illustrate the various subtleties of the word "a" pretty effectively.
Could the author of QD have had in mind a single weapon only? Yes, that would be a consistent reading, but given the way the wording is constructed we cannot say with certainty. In this case what we can say is that had they intended it to be limited to a single weapon then the word "one" could have replaced "a" and it would have been perfectly clear. In order to clearly indicate the possibility of multiple weapons would have required a rather more wordy and not very literate piece of text. It probably should be reworded, but as you said yourself, the "each instance of" reading is reasonable and IMHO perfectly allowable.
