PDA

View Full Version : deflect arrows clarification



Raish
2007-01-08, 09:16 PM
hey i'm new....

anyway last night my group and I were taking on a bunch of tritons and a tojanida in an underwater temple.

#1. i havent been able to find rules for ranged combat (i.e. bows and such) underwater at all, hopefully i'm not dumb....what are they?

#2. We went ahead and our DM let us use range attacks underwater....i have the deflect arrows feat...i got hit by an arrow for the first time that night and tried to use deflect arrows, but my DM said i have to have at least one hand free...the question is do i have one hand free after loosing an arrow from my comp long bow? I won surprise loosed a single arrow, lost init., so in essence i hadn't had my second arrow up for my next turn, and then got hit by arrow from the triton.

this just angers me about the feat altogether even though i get it for free (i play a bard) from an item, it seems as though the feat is class (monk) specific.

anyway thanks for responding and OOTS is the best comic in the world

raish

TheOOB
2007-01-08, 09:24 PM
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/wilderness.htm#underwaterCombat

You take a -2 penalty for every 5 feet a projectile weapon moves underwater, and thrown weapons cannot be used at all.

As for the deflect arrows case it's really us to the DM, if I was a DM i'd say wielding a bow takes two hands and you couldn't use deflect arrows because taking you hand off the string to block the arrows prevents it from being able to knock an arrow(s) and fire in the same round and visa versa. If you didn't fire an arrow however I'd let you use the feat even with a bow out.

That said I belive that is DM preference, I don't think theres any rules on that specifically.

EDIT: By the way, welcome to the boards!

Seffbasilisk
2007-01-08, 10:15 PM
By the RaW your DM is correct.

By killing Catgirls? It should work, but it'd have to be houseruled...and your DM would be the one to do it. Since he didn't, we can assume he didn't houserule it as such.

Thomar_of_Uointer
2007-01-08, 10:19 PM
While the bow is a twohanded weapon, the concept of an archer who can both deflect and catch other archers' arrows is just too cool to pass up. I would rule that as long as you haven't drawn an arrow (a free action, so you can do it whenever you need to), you have a hand free to deflect.

Desaril
2007-01-08, 11:30 PM
I believe that the RAW assume that you draw a new arrow after firing. Otherwise you would have to use a move equivalent to draw each arrow. Aside- does this also apply to thrown items, such as a dagger? If not, it's really not fair.

All that aside, a PC could tell me that they were not drawing an new arrow if they wanted to keep a hand free. Alternately, it is a free action to drop an item, so he could drop the arrow in order to deflect the incoming attack, but would have to use a move equivalent to draw a new arrow. Basically, I would let you either draw a new arrow for free or have a free hand, but not both.

Of course, a better question is why does deflect arrows require a free hand? It makes more sense to allow you to deflect arrows while weilding a weapon.

Seffbasilisk
2007-01-08, 11:47 PM
I actually managed (once, cutting my palm, and only enough to miss my head by an inch or so) to deflect an arrow IRL. I used my bare hand, and slapped it out of the way. If I had to use a sword, even my fencing sabre, I know I wouldn't be fast enough to parry it. And even then, it wouldn't be a cupping block, but a slash at it, which would make the arrow spin a bit, and most likely still cut into me with almost the same force.

You can buy 'deflecting' on a weapon (+1 cost, DC 15 or 20 reflex save to knock aside an arrow I believe) but that's putting your weapon in the way of the attack and angling it so it shifts away, like bringing up an axe so the arrow deflects off the axe-head. Blocking, not deflecting...

Player1: Pray now, for the catgirls' souls.
Player2: Silly player1, catgirls don't HAVE souls!

Person_Man
2007-01-09, 09:41 AM
The weapon description clearly states that you need two hands to wield a bow. Thus you cannot use it with Deflect Arrows during the same round, as it requires a free hand. If you want to be a ranged combat expert who can also Deflect Arrows, be a Master Thrower or a Warlock.

OzymandiasVolt
2007-01-09, 10:02 AM
And you need two hands to wield a two-handed sword. Are your hands friggin' GLUED to it?

Deus Mortus
2007-01-09, 10:19 AM
I actually managed (once, cutting my palm, and only enough to miss my head by an inch or so) to deflect an arrow IRL. I used my bare hand, and slapped it out of the way. If I had to use a sword, even my fencing sabre, I know I wouldn't be fast enough to parry it. And even then, it wouldn't be a cupping block, but a slash at it, which would make the arrow spin a bit, and most likely still cut into me with almost the same force.

You can buy 'deflecting' on a weapon (+1 cost, DC 15 or 20 reflex save to knock aside an arrow I believe) but that's putting your weapon in the way of the attack and angling it so it shifts away, like bringing up an axe so the arrow deflects off the axe-head. Blocking, not deflecting...

Player1: Pray now, for the catgirls' souls.
Player2: Silly player1, catgirls don't HAVE souls!

There are several exercises to train yourself to deflect arrows with a sword, it's hard, but I believe easier then doing so with your hand, I can currently cut arrows in half when I stand next to their trajectory and know they are coming, but people with more experience in this can it when the arrows are aimed that them (we use arrows with dull heads BTW, don't want accidently kill anyone). I have also seen people deflecting it with their hands, but never without injuring themselves in the process, so I find the concept of deflecting arrows with a blade more believable that with a hand...

Lord Lorac Silvanos
2007-01-09, 11:19 AM
You need two hands to wield/use the weapon, but you most certainly do not need two hands to just hold a bow.

Arrows can be drawn as a free action.

There is no need for drawing the arrow before your next turn comes up. (unless you were planning on using it as an improvised weapon on an attack of opportunity.)

And unless you have specified that you did in fact draw an extra arrow after finishing your attack we might as well assume that you did not.
It depends on the circumstances of course (and your characters intelligence/wisdom score).
If there was no opponents close to you that you could threaten with your improvised weapon and you knew that the opposition used ranged weapon attacks with ammunition you could possibly deflect, it is very plausible that your character would not have drawn the arrow for use in the next round, unless his mental scores were such that he was acting purely on instinct.
The situation becomes more murky if enemies were already threatening you....

Person_Man
2007-01-09, 11:24 AM
And you need two hands to wield a two-handed sword. Are your hands friggin' GLUED to it?

Everything in a round is theoretically happening at the same time, it's just resolved in Initiative order. So whether you're hitting somone with a greatsword or shooting a bow and arrow, both of your hands are occupied when someone else shoots an arrow at you.

But more importantly, its a simple game balance issue. Two-handed weapon fighting is already the most optimal way of dealing damage. They don't also need the benefit of Deflect Arrows, which is one of the selling points about playing a Monk or Duelist type PC.

Person_Man
2007-01-09, 11:40 AM
To quote the SRD:


Deflext Arrows:
"You must have at least one hand free (holding nothing) to use this feat."And the FAQ:

A character can hold a two-handed weapon in one hand; he just can’t attack with it while it’s held like that.For further proof, look at the Slam Attack question in the FAQ:


Can a creature make a slam or claw attack when both his hands are used for something else, such as holding a two-handed weapon?

As long as the creature can easily let go with one hand, yes. A two-handed weapon requires two hands to wield in combat, but not to hold. A frost giant could choose to make a slam attack instead of a greataxe attack without having to drop the greataxe.

On the other hand, a frost giant carrying a heavy weight in both arms doesn’t have a free hand to use for a slam attack. He’d have to drop the object (a free action) before making a slam attack.So, bows are Two-handed weapons. If you attack with a bow during the round, both hands are occupied, and you can't use Deflect Arrows. If you wanted to, you could just hold the bow (or anything else) in one hand and use your free hand to Deflect Arrows. But you can't do both.

Lord Lorac Silvanos
2007-01-09, 11:53 AM
You are not doing both.

First you wield the bow and attack with it.
Then you let go with one hand (free action) so you have a free hand.

Next round you draw an arrow and use the bow again.

Deflect Arrows is not used on your turn, but on the opponent's and using it does not count as an action.

Person_Man
2007-01-09, 12:15 PM
You are not doing both.

First you wield the bow and attack with it.
Then you let go with one hand (free action) so you have a free hand.

Next round you draw an arrow and use the bow again.

Deflect Arrows is not used on your turn, but on the opponent's and using it does not count as an action.

Well, I guess we're just going to have to agree to disagree.

I think that both the text and the intent of Deflect Arrows was clearly designed for Monks and other people with a free hand, not two-handed weapon wielders. You don't. Whoever's DMing makes the call.

Fax Celestis
2007-01-09, 12:19 PM
Isn't there a feat or class ability somewhere that allows you to use Deflect Arrows without a free hand (ie: doing it with a weapon)?

Lord Lorac Silvanos
2007-01-09, 12:33 PM
Well, I guess we're just going to have to agree to disagree.

I think that both the text and the intent of Deflect Arrows was clearly designed for Monks and other people with a free hand, not two-handed weapon wielders. You don't. Whoever's DMing makes the call.

A free hand is definitely a requirement to use the feat and I never said otherwise.

If you are not wielding your Two-handed weapon (holding it in two hands) you do not threaten with and cannot use it for AoOs, so there is a clear drawback from having a free hand.

What you are saying is essentially that if I have used my hand for ANYTHING during my turn and even if it is holding nothing at the end of my turn, I cannot use it to Deflect Arrows.

The RAW clearly state that you must have one hand free, but has no requirements about not using the hand on your previous turn.

Matthew
2007-01-09, 05:04 PM
Interesting view Silvanos. I'm not sure I would treat a Bow any different from a Spear, but the whole threatening thing puts an interesting spin on things. Does a Character armed with a Bow and wearing Spiked Gauntlets threaten?

Lord Lorac Silvanos
2007-01-09, 05:34 PM
If you are wearing Spiked Gauntlets it becomes really sub-optimal to draw an arrow as a free action at the end of your last turn as opposed to drawing it at the beginning of your next turn.

With the gauntlets you are threatening and you have a hand free at the same time. If you have drawn the arrow you are just standing around like a fool.



There is also the question of whether it is actually possible to draw an arrow after you have used up all your attacks (unless you have Quickdraw).


When using a bow, a character can draw ammunition as a free action; crossbows and slings require an action for reloading.
(my emphasis)

Does "using" refer to actually attacking with it or just standing around with it?

You could rule that it refers to actually attacking with it. This means that the OP had a free hand after losing his last arrow.
(Such a ruling also prevents people from drawing an arrow just to be armed and threatening with this improvised light melee weapon (unless they have Quickdraw.))

Desaril
2007-01-09, 06:28 PM
I agree that Silvanos has a point, but he doesn't answer my second question- can a dagger thrower draw a second dagger as a free action? If so, why; if not, why not?

If the bow wielder chooses not to draw an arrow (or drops an arrow) in order to deflect an incoming attack, he should have to use the move equivalent to draw an arrow. This maintains the balance of the free hand requirement, but allows deflect arrows to be useful to characters other than monks.

A Person-man- I think we can all agree about what the rules say, but we also need to interpret what they forget to say and fill in the gaps. (Again, why isn't drawing an arrow like drawing a weapon? It doesn't actually say.) It's always a DM call, but DMs should be logical in making that call.

Desaril
2007-01-09, 06:31 PM
If you are not wielding your Two-handed weapon (holding it in two hands) you do not threaten with and cannot use it for AoOs, so there is a clear drawback from having a free hand.



Actually, you can wield a two handed weapon with one hand, just at a penalty and therefore would still threaten with it.

Raish
2007-01-09, 06:37 PM
wow,

thanks everyone for responding so quickly and with such enthusiasm, makes me feel like im already part of the family.

anyway im gonna run this by our DM and see what he thinks thanks again everyone.

Raish

20th level bard

Lord Lorac Silvanos
2007-01-09, 06:39 PM
I agree that Silvanos has a point, but he doesn't answer my second question- can a dagger thrower draw a second dagger as a free action? If so, why; if not, why not?

Sorry I missed that.
Daggers are not considered ammunition and can therefore not be drawn as a free action, unless you have Quickdraw (which is a good feat for a Dagger-thrower :smalltongue:).

(see my earlier SRD-quote or the equipment section)




If the bow wielder chooses not to draw an arrow (or drops an arrow) in order to deflect an incoming attack, he should have to use the move equivalent to draw an arrow. This maintains the balance of the free hand requirement, but allows deflect arrows to be useful to characters other than monks.


You cannot drop an arrow when it is not your turn. Your hand must be free at the end of your action.

And again; drawing ammunition is a free-action.

Lord Lorac Silvanos
2007-01-09, 06:40 PM
Actually, you can wield a two handed weapon with one hand, just at a penalty and therefore would still threaten with it.

I think you need to provide a rules reference for that claim :smallbiggrin:

Lord Lorac Silvanos
2007-01-09, 06:51 PM
Isn't there a feat or class ability somewhere that allows you to use Deflect Arrows without a free hand (ie: doing it with a weapon)?

Armed Deflection
3.0 Epic feat I think.

The name of classes with this ability escapes me at the moment, but I think there are a few.

Fax Celestis
2007-01-09, 06:55 PM
So if there's an epic feat and class abilities that allow you to do it while armed, wouldn't it therefore follow that you can't do it while armed otherwise?

Lord Lorac Silvanos
2007-01-09, 07:06 PM
No, that is a false conclusion.

You can use Deflect Arrows if you have a free hand (holding nothing).
That is the only stipulation in the feat description.

There are many examples of being armed and still having a free hand:
Wearing a spiked gauntlet.
Wearing spiked armor.
Wielding a one-handed weapon.
Having natural weapon(s).

I think that covers the basics.

Matthew
2007-01-09, 08:48 PM
Yes, I think this must be reliant on the last action a Character performed. The best thing is probably just to have him declare how he finishes the round [i.e. both hands full or not]. Spiked Gauntlets and Armour Spikes make for the usual problems [I might be inclined to House Rule these items to be not threatening adjacent Squares]. By not describing the action required to grip a Two Handed Weapon, the RAW has left the question somewhat open.

I know what Desaril was thinking of with the -4 Proficiency, and that's the Bastard Sword.

Lord Lorac Silvanos
2007-01-09, 09:09 PM
Yes, I think this must be reliant on the last action a Character performed. The best thing is probably just to have him declare how he finishes the round [i.e. both hands full or not]. Spiked Gauntlets and Armour Spikes make for the usual problems [I might be inclined to House Rule these items to be not threatening adjacent Squares]. By not describing the action required to grip a Two Handed Weapon, the RAW has left the question somewhat open.


Add to that the possibility of a shield bash :smallamused:
And yes, this area could use some focus.



I know what Desaril was thinking of with the -4 Proficiency, and that's the Bastard Sword.


Technically a Bastard Sword is still a one-handed weapon. :smalltongue:

Desaril
2007-01-11, 12:30 AM
I think you need to provide a rules reference for that claim :smallbiggrin:

I see the rule about drawing ammunition FOR USE WITH A RANGED WEAPON being a free action (PHB 143). I missed it before. However, the example list includes shuriken, which is not ammunition , but the actual weapon just like a dagger. Common sense tells me that since the dagger can be wielded in melee, that game balance requires a difference, but if you can draw an arrow (or bolt, sling bullet, or shuriken), you can draw a dagger.

As for the reference to wielding a two-handed sword with one hand, please note the rule on two handed weapons says it takes two hands to use them EFFECTIVELY. (PHB 113). Three paragraphs later, the rule on inappropriately sized weapons says if the weapon is too large for you to wield, you may do so at a penalty. It doesn't specifically say you can wield a two handed sword in one hand, but read together, that is the logical rule.

EDIT: Also, I'm not sure about the definition of a free action since the game added swift and immediate actions, but I haven't found a rule that says a free action can only be done on your turn. The 3.5 PHB says that the action types tells you how long the action takes WITHIN THE FRAMEWORK OF THE 6 SECOND COMBAT ROUND. That's not just your six seconds, but the six seconds in which everyone acts. Further, the rules are filled with free actions (although they are not called such) that you can take during other peoples turns (responsive trip attacks and AOOs for example. Of course, the rules on swift/immediate actions may have changed this.

Lord Lorac Silvanos
2007-01-11, 02:18 AM
I see the rule about drawing ammunition FOR USE WITH A RANGED WEAPON being a free action (PHB 143). I missed it before. However, the example list includes shuriken, which is not ammunition , but the actual weapon just like a dagger. Common sense tells me that since the dagger can be wielded in melee, that game balance requires a difference, but if you can draw an arrow (or bolt, sling bullet, or shuriken), you can draw a dagger.

The text specifically mentions that Shurikens are an exception.


Although they are thrown weapons, shuriken are treated as ammunition for the purposes of drawing them, crafting masterwork or otherwise special versions of them (see Masterwork Weapons), and what happens to them after they are thrown.


As for the reference to wielding a two-handed sword with one hand, please note the rule on two handed weapons says it takes two hands to use them EFFECTIVELY. (PHB 113). Three paragraphs later, the rule on inappropriately sized weapons says if the weapon is too large for you to wield, you may do so at a penalty. It doesn't specifically say you can wield a two handed sword in one hand, but read together, that is the logical rule.

The rules for wielding an inappropriately sized weapon has nothing to do with how much effort it takes for you to wield an appropriately sized weapon as a one-handed weapon instead of a two-handed weapon.
I am afraid it cannot be done.



EDIT: Also, I'm not sure about the definition of a free action since the game added swift and immediate actions, but I haven't found a rule that says a free action can only be done on your turn. The 3.5 PHB says that the action types tells you how long the action takes WITHIN THE FRAMEWORK OF THE 6 SECOND COMBAT ROUND. That's not just your six seconds, but the six seconds in which everyone acts. Further, the rules are filled with free actions (although they are not called such) that you can take during other peoples turns (responsive trip attacks and AOOs for example. Of course, the rules on swift/immediate actions may have changed this.


Generally you cannot perform actions on anyone else's turn.


Each round of a combat uses the same initiative order. When a character’s turn comes up in the initiative sequence, that character performs his entire round's worth of actions.
(my emphasis)

The things you can do on other people's turns, like AoOs, are exceptions to this rule, but they are not free actions.
(A noteable exception is speaking, which is a free action that specifically mentions that you can also do it during someone else's turn.)

Desaril
2007-01-12, 01:48 AM
I don't know how to split up quotes, yet, but I will respond to your segmented reply in kind.

I accept the SRD's statement that shurikens are an exception. That wasn't really my point. I just pointed out the inconsistency in the PHB. What I object to is the rationale. There's no reason a character can draw an arrow as a free action, but not a dagger. The rule doesn't make sense and so a better rule is called for.

The inappropriately sized weapon rule is completely relevant to wielding a two handed weapon in one hand. That's exactly what the rule is supposed to explain. In fact the second paragraph of the rule begins with "the measure of how much effort it takes to use a weapon..." A greatsword (for example) is not two handed because of its style of use; two-handed is the weapons size category. Weapons fall into three size categories, light, one-handed, or two-handed for each size weilder. A one-handed weapon for a Large creature is a two-handed weapon for a Medium creature. A one-handed weapon for a Medium creature is a two-handed weapon for a small creature. Therefore, the inappropriately sized weapon rule is clearly meant to explain the ineffectiveness of wielding a two-handed weapon with only one hand.

The alternative is that a PC can lift the greatsword with one hand (its only 8lbs) but can't fight with it at all. That appears ludicrous. Even worse is a spear (it's only 6 lbs) and although it's listed as a two-handed melee weapon, we all know that it is a one handed ranged weapon (ever try to throw a spear with two hands?)

Lastly, initiative is game table rule to simplify combat into some order for resolution. Each character does not realistically take all of their actions in initiative order. In a battle with 20 (or 40 or 400) opponents, the last guy does not actually sit there and do nothing until the other 399 resolve thier actions. That would take longer than 6 seconds. An DM worth his salt will modify that if initiative created such an absurd result.

Further, you can reasonably infer that free actions can only be taken on your turn, becuase immediate actions specifically say they can be taken on other's turns. However, since the rules also say that both swift and immediate actions are larger expenditures of time than free actions, you could infer that free actions can be taken at any time. In fact, the only smaller activity than a free action is no action.

Further, when we bring this back around to our particular situation- drawing ammo- the other free actions (dropping a weapon or dropping prone) take far less time and effort. Perhaps there should be an intermediate designation- free actions you can take at any time and free actions you can only take on your turn. AOOs, responsive trip attacks, responsive disarms, avoiding an overrun, responsive overruns, dropping items, dropping prone and speaking would all be free actions that you can do at any time. Other free actions, like drawing ammo or spell components could only be done on your turn.

Like I said earlier, I'm not saying WOTC hasn't written a rule covering the situation, I'm saying they have written rules that either have gaps or poorly cover the situation. Given the improvements and consistency compared with 2nd Edition, I'm not unhappy, but if we're going to make the game better, we've got to keep finding the holes and trying to plug them

Lord Lorac Silvanos
2007-01-12, 05:42 AM
I don't know how to split up quotes, yet, but I will respond to your segmented reply in kind.

Quote everything and and cut the bottom quote tag [ /quote]. Insert it after the first part in the post you want to split up.
Mark the next paragraph and press the quote icon and it wraps quote tags around it nicely. Alternatively you can insert them manually:
[ quote] [ /quote]

(I have inserted a space after the first bracket)



I accept the SRD's statement that shurikens are an exception. That wasn't really my point. I just pointed out the inconsistency in the PHB. What I object to is the rationale. There's no reason a character can draw an arrow as a free action, but not a dagger. The rule doesn't make sense and so a better rule is called for.


Well you should feel free to house rule any such thing if you thing something does not make sense.
Just remember that sometimes these things are done to preserve game balance. If an arrow could not be drawn as a free action you would have no iterative attacks with bows.




The inappropriately sized weapon rule is completely relevant to wielding a two handed weapon in one hand. That's exactly what the rule is supposed to explain. In fact the second paragraph of the rule begins with "the measure of how much effort it takes to use a weapon..." A greatsword (for example) is not two handed because of its style of use; two-handed is the weapons size category. Weapons fall into three size categories, light, one-handed, or two-handed for each size weilder. A one-handed weapon for a Large creature is a two-handed weapon for a Medium creature. A one-handed weapon for a Medium creature is a two-handed weapon for a small creature. Therefore, the inappropriately sized weapon rule is clearly meant to explain the ineffectiveness of wielding a two-handed weapon with only one hand.


The rules for inappropriately sized weapons are meant to explain what happens when you try to use a weapon that are not sized for you. This include change in effort.
However, you cannot change the designation of effort it takes to wield a weapon, not even at a penalty.
I cannot use a long sword as a light weapon if I take a penalty or a TH-weapon in one-hand.

When the RAW says

Two hands are required to use a two-handed melee weapon effectively.
it does not just mean without penalty, it means at all.




A character can hold a two-handed weapon in one hand; he just can’t attack with it while it’s held like that.





The alternative is that a PC can lift the greatsword with one hand (its only 8lbs) but can't fight with it at all. That appears ludicrous. Even worse is a spear (it's only 6 lbs) and although it's listed as a two-handed melee weapon, we all know that it is a one handed ranged weapon (ever try to throw a spear with two hands?)


No, I do not have any appendages, except for my eye stalks, so I cannot say that I have.
Again if things are ludicrous you can always house rule them into the realm of sanity, just remember game balance.
I argue from the point of RAW as default if you disagree with the rules you should come out and say that. I might even agree, but that does not really matter when we discuss the RAW.


Lastly, initiative is game table rule to simplify combat into some order for resolution. Each character does not realistically take all of their actions in initiative order. In a battle with 20 (or 40 or 400) opponents, the last guy does not actually sit there and do nothing until the other 399 resolve thier actions. That would take longer than 6 seconds. An DM worth his salt will modify that if initiative created such an absurd result.

At our table most combat rounds take longer than 6 real-time seconds, even if we are only 5 combatants. :smallsmile:



Further, you can reasonably infer that free actions can only be taken on your turn, because immediate actions specifically say they can be taken on other's turns. However, since the rules also say that both swift and immediate actions are larger expenditures of time than free actions, you could infer that free actions can be taken at any time. In fact, the only smaller activity than a free action is no action.


I already quoted the relevant rule for this.
Introducing the "new" actions does not change that.
In the description of an immediate action it is explicitly mentioned that one can be performed when it is not your turn. This is an exception to the rule that you cannot perform actions when it is not your turn, just like with the free action speaking.




Further, when we bring this back around to our particular situation- drawing ammo- the other free actions (dropping a weapon or dropping prone) take far less time and effort. Perhaps there should be an intermediate designation- free actions you can take at any time and free actions you can only take on your turn. AOOs, responsive trip attacks, responsive disarms, avoiding an overrun, responsive overruns, dropping items, dropping prone and speaking would all be free actions that you can do at any time. Other free actions, like drawing ammo or spell components could only be done on your turn.


Doing that would make D&D more like playing magic with all the interruptions of the turn.



Like I said earlier, I'm not saying WOTC hasn't written a rule covering the situation, I'm saying they have written rules that either have gaps or poorly cover the situation. Given the improvements and consistency compared with 2nd Edition, I'm not unhappy, but if we're going to make the game better, we've got to keep finding the holes and trying to plug them


The game mechanics are highly simplified because you need to balance smooth combat with "realism" and keep the overall game balance also.

Matthew
2007-01-12, 07:38 AM
I would be careful using the 'r' word unless it's preceded by 'appearance of'!

Lord Lorac Silvanos
2007-01-12, 07:49 AM
I was hoping the "s would be enough.
I am not really interested in a debate about the appearance of realism as perceived by individuals.
Any such debate is of course fine as long as it is not called a RAW-debate.

Matthew
2007-01-12, 07:52 AM
Yeah, I know, friendly joke doesn't seem to have worked.

Lord Lorac Silvanos
2007-01-12, 07:56 AM
:-D

Well I think the problem is that I do not have my emoticons in quick reply. :-p

It just is not the same....

Matthew
2007-01-12, 07:58 AM
Do Beholders have emotions?

Oh well, chalk it up to experience.

Lord Lorac Silvanos
2007-01-12, 08:26 AM
Exactly, when dealing with other races it remains a necessity to convey what they perceive as emotions, so as to make them think you are not cold and uncaring.

Desaril
2007-01-12, 05:11 PM
I stand firm that a two-handed weapon can he used one-handed in one hand. The term "effectively" means SOMETHING. We can't just conclude that the sentence was supposed to stop at "Two hands are required to use a two-handed melee weapon".

The weapon size designation indicates the effort required for a creature of that size to wield it, i.e a medium longsword is a one-handed weapon for a medium creature, a light weapon for a Large creature, a two-handed weapon for a small creature, too big for a Tiny creature and too small for a Huge creature. The weapon does not become too big (or two small) until you have two size categories between the user and the weapon. See PHB 113.

Further, your example of using a one-handed weapon as a light weapon is further proof of my point. The penalty for using a light weapon in your off hand is either a -4 (normal) or a -2 (w/ two-weapon fighting), but if you use a one handed weapon it jumps to -6 and -4 respectively. (See Table 8-10 PHB 160). That additional -2 is the exact same penalty as using an inappropriately sized weapon as described on p 113. The penalty for using a one-handed weapon in the same manner as you SHOULD use a light weapon (i.e. in your off hand) is already assumed in the other rule. Similarly, there is a penalty for using a -2 penalty for using a two-handed weapon with only one hand.

Lastly, we are not just talking about our personal opinions about the RAW, but about interpreting the RAW. Rules are always subject to interpretation. For examply, you believe that the "effectively" on the end of the two-handed weapon description means "not at all"; and I believe it means "with the penalty described below". The question is which interpretation is "better"?

"Better" could mean several things: promotes game balance, is closer to the designers intention, promotes versimilitude, is consistent with the supporting genre and literature, is consistent with similar or related rules, or even improves MY characters chance of success. But ultimately, I think we look at all of them and try to determine the rule that maximizes all of them.

The interpretation I suggest combines realism (it is possible to wield a two-handed weapon with one hand, although difficult), maintains game balance (you can try it, but you cannot use the additional STR bonus and you take a penalty), is consistent with the genre (heroic fantasy involves doing difficult tasks), is consistent with the other rules (see my argument above), is consistent with the designers intent (they used the word "effectively" and followed that statement with a rule explaining further).

Lord Lorac Silvanos
2007-01-12, 05:24 PM
I will re-post my reference to the FAQ in case the writing was to small the first time:




A character can hold a two-handed weapon in one hand; he just can’t attack with it while it’s held like that.



Do you recognize the FAQ as an authority on RAW interpretations?

Darrin
2007-01-12, 11:26 PM
Do you recognize the FAQ as an authority on RAW interpretations?

That was my inclination.

Also, if you need one hand free to draw fresh ammo, why couldn't you also use that hand to deflect arrows? If you can take your hand off a two-handed reach weapon to make a spiked gauntlet AoO, then why couldn't you deflect an arrow?

Not quite sure if you can do free actions outside of your turn... but you could easily say by RAW that after you're done attacking with your bow, you release one hand and leave it "free" to deflect.

Desaril
2007-01-15, 01:24 AM
I will re-post my reference to the FAQ in case the writing was to small the first time:



Do you recognize the FAQ as an authority on RAW interpretations?

Oops, I forgot my glasses. Thanks for the reminder.

I suppose it depends on the source of the FAQ. If that's WOTC's official FAQ, I believe the PHB should be errated to reflect that and clear it up. It definitely adds credence to your interpretation, but ultimately it just muddies the water on RAW because there are now two statements about whether you can wield a two-handed weapon in one hand- the PHB says "effectively" and the FAQ says "at all". To me that means the rulemakers don't really have an answer and we have to look beyond their intent and look at other interpretation tools. It's like a witness who contradicts themselves- you just throw out whatever they have to say.

Lord Lorac Silvanos
2007-01-15, 04:51 AM
Oops, I forgot my glasses. Thanks for the reminder.

I suppose it depends on the source of the FAQ. If that's WOTC's official FAQ, I believe the PHB should be errated to reflect that and clear it up. It definitely adds credence to your interpretation, but ultimately it just muddies the water on RAW because there are now two statements about whether you can wield a two-handed weapon in one hand- the PHB says "effectively" and the FAQ says "at all". To me that means the rulemakers don't really have an answer and we have to look beyond their intent and look at other interpretation tools. It's like a witness who contradicts themselves- you just throw out whatever they have to say.

There is no contradiction between the PHB and the FAQ on this ruling.
The FAQ interprets "effectively" in a perfectly reasonable and meaningful way.

Without that clarification we would have had to rely on more circumstantial evidence like the fact that there is no mentioning of using a weapon designated as either light, one or two-handed differently except when using a differently sized weapon.

Zeb The Troll
2007-01-15, 06:46 AM
Oops, I forgot my glasses. Thanks for the reminder.

I suppose it depends on the source of the FAQ. If that's WOTC's official FAQ, I believe the PHB should be errated to reflect that and clear it up. It definitely adds credence to your interpretation, but ultimately it just muddies the water on RAW because there are now two statements about whether you can wield a two-handed weapon in one hand- the PHB says "effectively" and the FAQ says "at all". To me that means the rulemakers don't really have an answer and we have to look beyond their intent and look at other interpretation tools. It's like a witness who contradicts themselves- you just throw out whatever they have to say.There is no contradiction between the PHB and the FAQ on this ruling.
The FAQ interprets "effectively" in a perfectly reasonable and meaningful way.

Without that clarification we would have had to rely on more circumstantial evidence like the fact that there is no mentioning of using a weapon designated as either light, one or two-handed differently except when using a differently sized weapon.I agree with Lord Silvanos in that the word "effectively" means "well enough to do what you intended to do". Therefore the text says that you cannot wield a two-handed weapon with one hand well enough to attack with it.



ef·fec·tive [i-fek-tiv]–adjective 1.adequate to accomplish a purpose; producing the intended or expected result


As for the wording of RAW...


The measure of how much effort it takes to use a weapon (whether the weapon is designated as a light, one-handed, or two-handed weapon for a particular wielder) is altered by one step for each size category of difference between the wielder’s size and the size of the creature for which the weapon was designed. If a weapon’s designation would be changed to something other than light, one-handed, or two-handed by this alteration, the creature can’t wield the weapon at all.
To me, this very clearly states that a Small creature must use two hands to "effectively" wield a weapon that is one-handed for a medium sized creature and that a Large creature can wield the same one-handed weapon as a light weapon but nowhere does it imply that a medium creature can use a two-handed weapon with one hand. In fact it seems unambiguous to me since the statement is that two-handed is "how much effort it takes" to wield it.

Weight isn't the only consideration either (e.g. a light mace is a 4lb light weapon while a club is a 3lb one-handed weapon; a heavy mace is 8lb but a quarterstaff is only 4lb).

See this link (http://www.thearma.org/essays/2HGS.html) for a discussion of how historical two handed swords were in fact sometimes lighter than the one-handed swords. You can also see in some of the pictures how, despite their deceptively light weight (which the SRD more or less accurately records, btw), it's clear why these could never have been used to any effect with one hand.

Matthew
2007-01-15, 11:24 AM
Hmmn. You would be hard pressed to find a historical Two Handed Sword that was lighter than a One Handed Sword. I think the point of that article was that Two Handed Swords were a lot lighter than people think (i.e. 5-8 lbs.).

Desaril
2007-01-15, 12:05 PM
I see the rules as creating a contradiction. The definition of effective provided by Zeb makes it seem like if you can't successfully complete the action you can't try. I think an effective attack is not the swing, but the hit. Therefore, the "effectively" means at a penalty. I think you have a very persuasive argument and concede that Lord Silvanos' interpretation is reasonable.

I don't follow that interpretation because it is inconsistent with the genre and versimilitude. Both of those factors tell me that wielding a cumbersome weapon is not impossible, just hard.

We also talked about drawing daggers as a free action. The RAW are pretty clear, that you cannot not, but that's a bad rule and someone should let WOTC know that. First, it is silly to allow someone to draw an arrow, but not draw a dagger. Second, someone mentioned that drawing ammo as a free action is a requirement for iterative attacks with bows. The same logic applies to daggers. Further, the rapid shot feat allows a character to make an extra attack with a ranged attack (including daggers). If you cannot draw a dagger as a free action, you cannot use the feat (which is a full round action). Alternately, you have to draw two daggers (one in each hand) in one round and then take the off hand penalty when making multiple attacks.

But, let's get back to the initial question. I was thinking about the notion of having a hand free. What does that mean? If I have to hold on to a rope to avoid falling, my hands are not "free" (especially if I cannot let go as an immediate action during another turn). Similarly, if I am wielding two weapons. But what if I am carrying a gold piece? This is where interpretation comes in. Does carrying a gold piece (or anything else small enough to fit in your palm) make your hand "not free"?

A common sense answer would probably be "no". But then, where is the cut off? A shuriken is not much bigger than a gold piece, neither is a sling bullet. Neither is the "handle" of a sling, actually.

Then you start going beyond interpretaion in to rules criticism. Why does it matter what's in my hand? Do I have to have an open hand? Can't I deflect an incoming arrow with my closed fist? If so, can't I do so with my fist wrapped around the handle of my dagger? Why can't I do it with the added benefit of a shield in my hand. It should not only be possible, but easier to deflect an arrow with a sheild, shouldn't it?

I don't know why WOTC decided that X action takes a penalty, but Y action is forbidden. I tend to think that characters can try virtually any combat if they take appropriate penalties. That's more consistent with many other combat rules (non-proficiency, throwing a melee weapon, inflicting not-lethal damage, etc). Whether this counts as a house rule or an interpretation of the RAW is a whole 'nother debate. I think when the RAW leave a gap, the RAW require the GM to make the call.

Lord Lorac Silvanos
2007-01-15, 01:56 PM
I see the rules as creating a contradiction. The definition of effective provided by Zeb makes it seem like if you can't successfully complete the action you can't try. I think an effective attack is not the swing, but the hit. Therefore, the "effectively" means at a penalty. I think you have a very persuasive argument and concede that Lord Silvanos' interpretation is reasonable.

I don't follow that interpretation because it is inconsistent with the genre and versimilitude. Both of those factors tell me that wielding a cumbersome weapon is not impossible, just hard.

If someone in my game wanted to do it I would allow it as a house rule, but I would apply a penalty to damage as as well as to hit.



We also talked about drawing daggers as a free action. The RAW are pretty clear, that you cannot not, but that's a bad rule and someone should let WOTC know that. First, it is silly to allow someone to draw an arrow, but not draw a dagger. Second, someone mentioned that drawing ammo as a free action is a requirement for iterative attacks with bows. The same logic applies to daggers. Further, the rapid shot feat allows a character to make an extra attack with a ranged attack (including daggers). If you cannot draw a dagger as a free action, you cannot use the feat (which is a full round action). Alternately, you have to draw two daggers (one in each hand) in one round and then take the off hand penalty when making multiple attacks.


I do not have much experience throwing daggers or shooting with a bow (I am a Beholder after all), so I do not know what would be "realistic" to allow.
However, I do know that taking Quick Draw would allow you to do it.



But, let's get back to the initial question. I was thinking about the notion of having a hand free. What does that mean? If I have to hold on to a rope to avoid falling, my hands are not "free" (especially if I cannot let go as an immediate action during another turn). Similarly, if I am wielding two weapons. But what if I am carrying a gold piece? This is where interpretation comes in. Does carrying a gold piece (or anything else small enough to fit in your palm) make your hand "not free"?

A common sense answer would probably be "no". But then, where is the cut off? A shuriken is not much bigger than a gold piece, neither is a sling bullet. Neither is the "handle" of a sling, actually.

Then you start going beyond interpretaion in to rules criticism. Why does it matter what's in my hand? Do I have to have an open hand? Can't I deflect an incoming arrow with my closed fist? If so, can't I do so with my fist wrapped around the handle of my dagger? Why can't I do it with the added benefit of a shield in my hand. It should not only be possible, but easier to deflect an arrow with a sheild, shouldn't it?


The feat is reasonably clear on what it means to have a hand free.


You must have at least one hand free (holding nothing) to use this feat.

A gold piece is something, so by the RAW your hand would not be free.
Anyone is of course free to house rule it differently.

With respect to the shield you could say that the AC bonus you receive from the shield is already factored in (you are harder to hit).
A reasonable house rule might be that your hand could be considered free for the purpose of deflection if you would forego the AC bonus from the shield until your next turn? Maybe you could work on something similar about forgoing AoOs to have your hand(s) considered free for this purpose?




I don't know why WOTC decided that X action takes a penalty, but Y action is forbidden. I tend to think that characters can try virtually any combat if they take appropriate penalties. That's more consistent with many other combat rules (non-proficiency, throwing a melee weapon, inflicting not-lethal damage, etc). Whether this counts as a house rule or an interpretation of the RAW is a whole 'nother debate. I think when the RAW leave a gap, the RAW require the GM to make the call.


I do not see any gaps in the rules (in this instance), but there are of course things one might think could have been done done "better" or does not fit the versimilitude.
You could always consider writing WotC with some of your concerns. Who knows, they might listen.

Matthew
2007-01-15, 03:01 PM
You need the Arrow Block Feat to use your Shield to Block Arrows.

Zeb The Troll
2007-01-15, 04:38 PM
Hmmn. You would be hard pressed to find a historical Two Handed Sword that was lighter than a One Handed Sword. I think the point of that article was that Two Handed Swords were a lot lighter than people think (i.e. 5-8 lbs.).That is true, but the article provides a specific example of a one handed sword weighing more than the two handed counterpart.

From that article...


A 15th century two-handed Federschwert (practice sword) of 51.5 inches in length now at the Swiss National Landesmuseum weighs in at only 3.12lbs (1.415kg). Another warsword there of 48 inches in length weighs 4.63lbs (2.10kg), and an acutely tapered one of a length of 46.7 inches weighs in at only 3.018lbs (1.369kg). By comparison, a single-hand sword of 38-inches in the same collection weighed 3.28lbs (1.495kg).Note that I didn't say "commonly weighed less" just that there were examples of it.

But you're right about the point of the article.

Matthew
2007-01-15, 04:41 PM
Interesting. Now that you point it out, I do recall it (too late, of course).

Zeb The Troll
2007-01-15, 04:58 PM
Just to throw some more wood on the fire...

I can see the argument for allowing a person wielding a bow being able to simply let go of the bowstring and deflect an arrow as a free action. I mean really, how hard is it to simply take your hand off the bow string and palm an arrow away from you? (I say palm it because the "empty hand" scenario would seem to imply that that is the described action when deflecting an arrow by RAW.)

However this is my interpretation of the mechanics of bow use and why I would argue in my game that if you did that you would not get your attack that round. Usage of a bow is not simply nock-and-fire. You nock an arrow and then spend the rest of the 6 seconds drawing a bead and choosing your shot. Therefore if you let go of the bowstring prematurely to deflect the arrow, your arrows flies wildly and you lose your shot.

I came up with this description of the usage based on my own proficiency with a rifle. I'm a pretty decent shot, but it takes me 3-5 seconds after firing to reacquire the same target, steady my breathing, and pull the trigger. And that's at a fixed target with the weapon braced, no need to manually feed the ammunition (it's a semiauto), and no one shooting back at me. If I had to move my position for any reason, such as changing magazines or needing to manually charge the weapon for example, then it would take longer to refocus on the target and take my shot.

I realize that there are many differences here, but my point is that it's the aiming that makes it so you can't fire multiple arrows in the same round without reduced accuracy. To provide a closer comparison, note that firing a repeating crossbow doesn't grant any additional attacks per round even though using the reload lever is a free action.

Lord Lorac Silvanos
2007-01-15, 05:35 PM
Just to throw some more wood on the fire...

I can see the argument for allowing a person wielding a bow being able to simply let go of the bowstring and deflect an arrow as a free action. I mean really, how hard is it to simply take your hand off the bow string and palm an arrow away from you? (I say palm it because the "empty hand" scenario would seem to imply that that is the described action when deflecting an arrow by RAW.)

However this is my interpretation of the mechanics of bow use and why I would argue in my game that if you did that you would not get your attack that round. Usage of a bow is not simply nock-and-fire. You nock an arrow and then spend the rest of the 6 seconds drawing a bead and choosing your shot. Therefore if you let go of the bowstring prematurely to deflect the arrow, your arrows flies wildly and you lose your shot.

What about next time it is your turn? The typical use of Deflect Arrows is when it is not your turn.

You do not have to draw an arrow when you have fired the last of your iterative shots in a round, so you could have your hand free at the end of your turn and ready to deflect ranged attacks.

Unless you want to rule that any round you want to use a bow you must be holding it with an arrow nocked at the beginning of that round?

Or what about using a move action followed by a quick draw of the bow (free action), drawing an arrow (free action), shooting bow (standard action).
Would that combination not be allowed either?



I came up with this description of the usage based on my own proficiency with a rifle. I'm a pretty decent shot, but it takes me 3-5 seconds after firing to reacquire the same target, steady my breathing, and pull the trigger. And that's at a fixed target with the weapon braced, no need to manually feed the ammunition (it's a semiauto), and no one shooting back at me. If I had to move my position for any reason, such as changing magazines or needing to manually charge the weapon for example, then it would take longer to refocus on the target and take my shot.

I realize that there are many differences here, but my point is that it's the aiming that makes it so you can't fire multiple arrows in the same round without reduced accuracy. To provide a closer comparison, note that firing a repeating crossbow doesn't grant any additional attacks per round even though using the reload lever is a free action.


The whole point of the Repeating Crossbow is to allow you to use iterative attacks with it.

Normally loading a crossbow is at least a move action which under normal circumstances would prevent you from using iterative attacks with it.

TempusCCK
2007-01-15, 05:38 PM
The Duelist Prestige class in the DMG allows at 9th level for you to use deflect arrows when using a light or one handed piercing weapon. http://www.d20srd.org/srd/prestigeClasses/duelist.htm

As a DM I would probably allow you to use the bow itself as a deflection tool because I think that the true skill in delfecting the arrow is in your reflexes, and it doesn' treally matter what you have on hand, as long as it's not to heavy to be moved.

Zeb The Troll
2007-01-16, 01:41 AM
What about next time it is your turn? The typical use of Deflect Arrows is when it is not your turn.

You do not have to draw an arrow when you have fired the last of your iterative shots in a round, so you could have your hand free at the end of your turn and ready to deflect ranged attacks.

Unless you want to rule that any round you want to use a bow you must be holding it with an arrow nocked at the beginning of that round?Indeed, normally I would, however I would also assume that that was the case unless the player declared otherwise. I know, I know "but what about the first round? You don't expect a player to be walking around all the time with an arrow nocked do you?" Well, when they're in danger of coming into combat, yes. In a dungeon that doesn't seem so unlikely, but what about when they're minding their own business at the pub and get jumped? At that point they're surprised and can't shoot anyway, but they can still ready themselves for the next round. What if they're not surprised and not in a dungeon? I would allow that at the buildup of tensions they could ready themselves. Of course, no matter what I say, somene can provide an example of how my normal ruling wouldn't fit. The fact is, when I'm running the game these scenarios don't normally come up. So for me, it works just fine.


Or what about using a move action followed by a quick draw of the bow (free action), drawing an arrow (free action), shooting bow (standard action).
Would that combination not be allowed either?Hmm, you give me a bit to consider. Things like this are part of what I miss about 2ed's weapon speeds and casting times. The idea of a fighter, no matter the level, taking 4 attacks all at once and then patiently waiting his turn to attack again just seems silly to me. However, I'm also a big fan of how the current method simplifies the combat round and so I do my best to work within the framework we have.

Given: we can reasonably deduce that the intention of the Deflect Arrows feat is that it is to be used by someone who is unarmed since it follows the Improved Unarmed Strike feat. Following this line of thought, it seems a bit appeasing to try to force the issue for wielders of two handed weapons.

But since there is a reasonable debate about the validity of the possibility, and going with the ideas mentioned so far I think I could be persuaded to allow it work this way...

The character can either load and then shoot, or shoot and then load. His preference for the order but he should declare it if he's going to change from his normal procedures before the beginning of the round. Therefore, if the player is in load-then-shoot mode, he can deflect arrows after his turn until the beginning of the next round. If he is in shoot-then-load mode, he can deflect arrows from the beginning of the round until his turn.

This has the potential to add in some complexity (what if he goes from load-shoot in round 1 to shoot-load in round 2?) but I'd work with that on a case by case basis using what makes sense. Frankly, since a ranged combatant probably has a high dex, I'd expect him to play the odds and go with load-shoot most of the time since he's likely to go early in the round and he'd then have the rest of the round with his string hand free for deflecting.


The whole point of the Repeating Crossbow is to allow you to use iterative attacks with it.

Normally loading a crossbow is at least a move action which under normal circumstances would prevent you from using iterative attacks with it.I meant that it doesn't provide any addtional attacks compared to a bow even though, once it's loaded, the mechanism to fire it is much less involved than a longbow is. The point is that you have to re-aim between each shot.

Lord Lorac Silvanos
2007-01-16, 03:11 AM
...
Hmm, you give me a bit to consider.
...


That was my main intention, to make you consider the full implications of your house rules. :smallsmile:



I meant that it doesn't provide any addtional attacks compared to a bow even though, once it's loaded, the mechanism to fire it is much less involved than a longbow is. The point is that you have to re-aim between each shot.


Ahhh, ok.
I was afraid you would deny the iterative attacks. :smallwink:

Desaril
2007-01-16, 04:38 PM
Now that we've moved beyond interpreting the RAW, into suggesting alternate rules, I suggest the following:

First, we have to recognize the existence of what I call a "reflexive action"- the special actions a character can take while it is not their turn such as AOO, deflect arrows, dropping a weapon in response to a counter-trip, moving in response to a bull rush, etc.

If I wanted a rule that specifically applied to THW: A combatant can choose to hold a two-handed weapon in one hand as part of the reflexive action. This applies to melee or ranged weapons. In the scenario, in which the archer already has an arrow nocked, he can release tension on the string and hold the arrow and bow in the same hand. They can then grasp the weapon again on their next action, but until then a two-hand melee fighter forgoes the opportunity to make "effective" (see above debate) AOOs until their next action.

Now if I wanted a broader rule that dealt with how/when you have a hand free after drawing ammo:

It is a free action to draw ammo immediately before you fire (i.e the base rule is load-shoot). Therefore you have a hand free up until you fire and immediately after you fire. An opponent would have to use a ready action to catch you with both hands busy. The same rule would apply to spellcaster components (unless the spell had a casting time of longer than 1 standard action or a large/awkward item as discussed on PHB 141).

If I wanted to create a rule for when you can make a hand free:

Dropping an item is a free action that can be done anytime. This includes just loosing one hand and holding on with the other. I just realized this creates an effective defense against a sunder (turning it into a disarm instead), but I happy with that as long as you drop before you get the sunder result. I'd actually probably require the player to tell me they were planning to drop the weapon before I told them what type of attack it was.

If I wanted to make a rule for drawing weapons:
Drawing a light weapon is a free action similar to ranged ammo. This gets daggers/hand axes into iterative attacks without totally unbalancing the game. It fits with the notion that its a small, quick relatively easy to wield weapon.

I basically give the advantage to the deflecter to use their feat effectively. Nothing is worse than having a cool ability get nerfed by nit-picky rules interpretation. The player who designed the character and chose the feats probably would not have chosen the feat if it was not going to be regularly useful. Although GMs should enforce rules, they should do so with an eye toward enhancing the gaming fun.