Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Netjack 01-09-08, 04:50 AM	So far, a certain DM I know seems intent in nerfing certain abilities and feat, this will probably be the third or forth one I can actually remember, and asked about recently. Quick draw allows you to draw your weapon unprovoked as free action, ok. You still must use a movement holster your weapon back, but it is still a free action to draw another weapon "switching from a sword to a bow and vice versa" ok, I suppose that make sense, Not to sure about that, but fine, you can still drop a weapon as a free action, so I guess I could just drop the bow, and then pick it up later..... No, you can not use quickdraw to throw multiple weapons per round, you can only one throwing weapon per round from each hand "so total of two from both hands". Wait doesn't it specifically say on the feat "may throw weapons at his full normal rate of attacks" No because you can only use it once per round...... Am I just getting paranoid, or is my DM using variant rule for a lot of the game mechanics. This being only another example.
kuonji 01-09-08, 05:02 AM	So far, a certain DM I know seems intent in nerfing certain abilities and feat, this will probably be the third or forth one I can actually remember, and asked about recently. Quick draw allows you to draw your weapon unprovoked as free action, ok. You still must use a movement holster your weapon back, but it is still a free action to draw another weapon "switching from a sword to a bow and vice versa" ok, I suppose that make sense, Not to sure about that, but fine, you can still drop a weapon as a free action, so I guess I could just drop the bow, and then pick it up later..... You can hold the bow in one hand and draw a sword in the other. It only takes one free hand to hold a bow. It's still a move action that provokes AoOs to holster a weapon. No, you can not use quickdraw to throw multiple weapons per round, you can only one throwing weapon per round from each hand "so total of two from both hands". Wait doesn't it specifically say on the feat "may throw weapons at his full normal rate of attacks" No because you can only use it once per round...... Am I just getting paranoid, or is my DM using variant rule for a lot of the game mechanics. This being only another example. If you read the quick draw feat: A character who has selected this feat may throw weapons at his full normal rate of attacks (much like a character with a bow). you find that you can full attack with thrown weapons and quick draw. Note that quick draw is a free action not a swift action. It is possible to take multiple free actions in a round (per DM discretion) but you are usually limited to one swift action. In this case it's pretty clear that you can use quick draw more than once in a round.
runestar 01-09-08, 06:26 AM	As a free action, there is no limit on how many times you can use quickdraw in a round, save for DM fiat (some find it ludicrous that you can quickdraw 100+ daggers in a single round).
ff6shadow 01-09-08, 07:35 AM	From the look of his post, the DM is nerfing Quick Draw's ability to draw multiple weapons in one round. It sounds like your DM is being an idiot and nerfing things that don't need to be.
Tilakai 01-09-08, 07:58 AM	So your DM is nerfing a somewhat weak feat(build dependent). All I really want to know is why?:eek:
Bopple 01-09-08, 08:08 AM	Umm.. Your DM is nerfing a weak feat like Quick Draw? To what end? Perhaps it can be reasonable to limit it like 10 times per round, but once per round? What the heck is he smoking?
Sergikins 01-09-08, 10:04 AM	I know some DMs like a logical explanation someimes, and it changes their mind. so basically, just explain that, with daggers for example, you are keeping multiple ones sheathed next to each other, and when you draw them, you you get at least three with each draw, one between each finger (no thumb) and while you chuck daggers, you also draw more with your other hand. I'm pretty sure you don't need me to explain how it works, but your DM might
Netjack 01-09-08, 12:59 PM	So holding a bow in one hand and a sword in another hand would not be consider having two weapons, or would I take a negative that could be reduce with two weapon fighting. That is another thing he says happen. Apparently holding a bow in a free hand is harder then holding a 15 pound shield. So I would get a TWF negative on it? If I have potions on my belt/some where for quick access, can i quick draw that? but to be clear, it still does take a move action to holster a weapon with this feat? In all honesty though, I've seen him nerf spells, and then unnerf them later so he can use them correctly.
Tilakai 01-09-08, 01:04 PM	So holding a bow in one hand and a sword in another hand would not be consider having two weapons, or would I take a negative that could be reduce with two weapon fighting. That is another thing he says happen. Apparently holding a bow in a free hand is harder then holding a 15 pound shield. So I would get a TWF negative on it? If I have potions on my belt/some where for quick access, can i quick draw that? but to be clear, it still does take a move action to holster a weapon with this feat? In all honesty though, I've seen him nerf spells, and then unnerf them later so he can use them correctly. Holding the bow in you off hand will not net you a negitive to hit nor would holding a sword in your off hand. One only recives that when the attack with more then one weapon You cannot quick draw potions RAW And yes move action to put away a weapon.
Belkar 01-09-08, 01:18 PM	Your DM needs to read the rules. The primary purpose of Quick Draw is to allow thrown attack at your full number of attacks per round... it says so... in black and white - in the feat description. Sheesh. He's also wrong for instituting a TWF penalty for you holding anything in your other hand. The TWF penalty only occurs if you attack with whatever is in the off hand that round. You could hold a longsword in your hand, and carry greatclub in the other... as long as you only attack with the longsword - you don't take penalties for TWF. That's why it's called Two Weapon Fighting, not Two Weapon Holding.
Howie23 01-09-08, 01:32 PM	So holding a bow in one hand and a sword in another hand would not be consider having two weapons, or would I take a negative that could be reduce with two weapon fighting. That is another thing he says happen. Apparently holding a bow in a free hand is harder then holding a 15 pound shield. So I would get a TWF negative on it? TWF negatives only apply when you are gaining an additional attack in the process. Holding something=no penalty. If your BAB gives two attacks, you could split attacks without penalty as well. If I have potions on my belt/some where for quick access, can i quick draw that? By RAW, you can draw weaponlike objects. Specifically, you these include wand, rod, and staff. If you can draw it, you can quickdraw it or draw during a move. If you can't draw it, you need to retrieve it (which provokes). There are various items that can reduce the type of action or eliminate the provoking action. It is not uncommon for DMs to gloss over the retrieving action. This can be due to misinformation or the desire to concentrate on other parts of the game rather than all of the tactical detail.[/quote] but to be clear, it still does take a move action to holster a weapon with this feat? Yep. Another one that is often played at variance to the RAW for similar reasons. In all honesty though, I've seen him nerf spells, and then unnerf them later so he can use them correctly. If accurate, that is problematic and power-abusing behavior. It's also a one-sided perspective that might reflect something different, like he was more motivated to really read the spell when it affected his critters. That last may also be problematic, but it's clearly different behavior with a different solution. Here's the thing. No one will ever get the rules right all of the time, and you need to work out a way to come to a common understanding about the rules, how to raise issues, as well as how to implement change. This works best when it isn't tied to an event on the grid at the moment, as that tends to be biased. It also avoids spending the entire game discussing rules. :) "We'll do it this way now, and figure it out later," is a golden phrase. Print it out on an index card and give one to him. David Check out the "What's a Player to Do" board, maybe.
Netjack 01-09-08, 02:05 PM	If your BAB gives two attacks, you could split attacks without penalty as well. Would you need something like ambidextrous to not get negatives, which I think may have been remove and replace with two weapon fighting at some point, I'm not sure. In anycase, yes, that would make sense though. It is hard for me to argue with my DM, he was playing the game long before I started, everything I posted here is how we had been playing up to this point when I asked about full round attacks. He apparently does not like to be corrected if he think something "doesn't make sense", for example, being able to quick draw 100 daggers and dropping them, ok abit weird. That would take longer then 6 seconds, but then he changes it so you can only do it once.... Full round attack apparently didn't make sense that you could attack multiple people as long as you had enough attacks. I don't know about you, but I could see someone attack multiple people in 6 seconds. Maybe not as affective as just one person, but I could see it.
JackSnape 01-09-08, 02:32 PM	Free Action Free actions consume a very small amount of time and effort. You can perform one or more free actions while taking another action normally. However, there are reasonable limits on what you can really do for free. Ask your DM to look this up in the DM's guide, or maybe it's the Player's handbook. Then admit there should be limits, but ask if he doesn't think your number of attacks/round is reasonable. Logically, if you can attack 3 times in 6 seconds you should probably be able to use quick draw that many times. As a DM I wouldn't allow someone to draw 100 daggers as has been mentioned either, even tho it's not forbidden by the rules. As for holding something in the other hand, I don't see why it should affect your attacks in the rules, but a true longbow is over 6ft tall and indeed it wouuld be hard to effectivly use your sword while holding one out of the way. So he does have a valid concern. but you can drop the weapon free, and if you have a second bow or can stay close to where you dropped it you should be fine. If I were you I'd fight for quickdraw, and not worry much about holding your longbow, just figure out how to work around it. If you get more than one attack per round because your base attack bonus is high enough, because you fight with two weapons or a double weapon or for some special reason you must use a full-round action to get your additional attacks. You do not need to specify the targets of your attacks ahead of time. You can see how the earlier attacks turn out before assigning the later ones. The only movement you can take during a full attack is a 5-foot step. You may take the step before, after, or between your attacks. Again ask him to look it up, I'm prettty sure that's in the PH. Note that if you couldn't change there's no reason to have the last sentance of the first paragraph. But remember the second paragraph there, you often won't be able to attack more than one opponent simply due to limits of where you're standing.
MnemonicSV 01-09-08, 02:37 PM	Wow.. from what I can see from this post (and other posts you have made previously Netjack) you are in a campaign run by a DM who doesn't truly comprehend the RAW rules, or the fundamental concepts upon which they rely. The funny thing is, your DM isn't just nerfing the standard rules... he is overpowering others at the same time!!! I mean, if your DM rules that in his campaign you can't make more than one attack during a full attack (unless you have a feat, or two weapons, etc...) then he has now indirectly overpowered other aspects of the game... such as Whirlwind attack. So, what, "normally" you only get 1 attack a round, but with whirlwind attack you can suddenly jump up to as many as 8 attacks a round (and perhaps more)?!?! Your DM is introducing some serious flaws into his own game... many of which he doesn't even see the repercussions of. That is a terrible shame. The worst part is that your DM has obviously NOT made you aware of any of these changes to the core rules before you started playing in his campaign, which is all-around bad DM form (despite the problem is he didn't know how the rules worked in the first place). You probably started his game with the understanding that the PHB was how the rules worked... but that obviously isn't the case. You, my friend, were deceived. And the DM doesn't like being questioned? Tough for him! Ask questions! It is a priviledge of being a player in his game (player and GMs should interact after all). If he isn't willing to hear out his players when a genuine rule question arises... then he is power-tripping. I can understand how a DM would wait to hear such question until after the session is over, or at least out-of-combat... but if he can look at this thread in his off-time, and just say "they're all wrong," he obviously (at least) lacks open-mindedness. Hallmark of a power-tripper. Given your DM's many oversights, and lack of understanding the rules, maybe you would be better off finding another gaming group? Perhaps one that starts with the PHB and goes from there? Just a suggestion :)
JackSnape 01-09-08, 02:43 PM	OOPs I meant to edit my last post and ended up double posting.
Howie23 01-09-08, 03:05 PM	Would you need something like ambidextrous to not get negatives, which I think may have been remove and replace with two weapon fighting at some point, I'm not sure. Ambidextrous no longer exists and was replaced with TWF in the update from 3e to 3.5. I have seen variance on these boards about whether TWF penalties apply when merely using two weapons vs. obtaining the additional attack, and you rec'd a prior reply that might have been from the other perspective. When I moved to 3.5 from 1e, I initially thought it should apply to any second weapon, but the case has been set out pretty clearly that it's only when gaining an additional attack, and that is consistent in the games I play in, including RPGA. The arguments are partially grammatical, and partially on balance. Power Attack tends to serve as a baseline for melee, largely due to the 2/1 damage when using a two-handed weapon. It also tends to be moot, as it is rarely used except when doing something like tripping with an off-hand sickle or throwing a dagger with one hand and melee with the other. It is hard for me to argue with my DM, he was playing the game long before I started, everything I posted here is how we had been playing up to this point when I asked about full round attacks. He apparently does not like to be corrected if he think something "doesn't make sense", for example, being able to quick draw 100 daggers and dropping them, ok abit weird. That would take longer then 6 seconds, but then he changes it so you can only do it once.... He is applying the statement that a DM can limit free actions. Since Quickdraw states that you can take your full attacks, I think it's clear that he's wrong per the RAW, which makes it a house rule. This is why I said earlier that you need a process for resolving disagreements. He may think he is correct, or he may be reserving the right to apply a house rule. If the latter, your options are persuasion that the other way is better from a quality standpoint, that generally following the rules as written is better from a trust standpoint, put up with it, or leave the group. Full round attack apparently didn't make sense that you could attack multiple people as long as you had enough attacks. I don't know about you, but I could see someone attack multiple people in 6 seconds. Maybe not as affective as just one person, but I could see it. For what it's worth, point him to the passage on taking a 5' step in the middle of a full attack. Why, if not to attack a different opponent? There is nothing in RAW that prevents attacking multiple opponents or that applies additional penalties. That said, as long as he is consistent, and you know what his rule is, and make choices, there is a lot of latitude for what consitutes a viable game reality. The problem is when you expect to be able to do something, rely on it, and then can't, and thereby suffer as a result. He may have more experience than you, but more importantly, he may have an ego investment in doing it the way he's comfortable with. If it's important to you, lay it on the line that you want to play as written as an authoritative standard, and work on getting both of you up to speed. If you do that, be aware that he may want to stay in the comfort of being final decision maker, and then you have a choice to make about walking. Lots of ways to handle it, figure out what's important to you. David
Dheran 01-09-08, 04:01 PM	If I have potions on my belt/some where for quick access, can i quick draw that? Maybe. A potion and an alchemical weapon are the same except for their contents.Draw or Sheathe a Weapon Drawing a weapon so that you can use it in combat, or putting it away so that you have a free hand, requires a move action. This action also applies to weapon-like objects carried in easy reach, such as wands.Quick Draw [General] Benefit: You can draw a weapon as a free action instead of as a move action. So you definitely can draw an alchemical weapon bottle as a free action with Quick Draw. As a DM I see no reason to distinguish between drawing identical bottles. You still need to use a standard action to drink the potion, after all. For me, a potion bottle is sufficiently "weapon-like". But as the rules don't specifically state whether potion bottles are "weapon-like", it's a matter for each DM.
groveborn 01-09-08, 04:46 PM	I had a DM with a similar problem, that is changing the rules as he pleased. I don't have a problem with house rules at all, but I do want to know what they are ahead of time so that I can play by the rules. Ask your DM to write a full rules book for you. If he insists on changing the rules to suit his fancy, without thinking ahead of time, then it's less fun. I left that DM's game because it got too ridiculous. He cried and begged me to play again. I returned with the caveat that he not change rules nilly willy. You don't play monopoly and change how the dice work in the middle of a game. You didn't like it when in the middle of a game of tag the other player would yell "no tag backs" AFTER it's been established that there were "tag backs". This is the same, just on a larger scale.
MC_Templar 01-09-08, 09:20 PM	... It is hard for me to argue with my DM, he was playing the game long before I started, everything I posted here is how we had been playing up to this point when I asked about full round attacks. He apparently does not like to be corrected if he think something "doesn't make sense", .... I hate to make a comment like this, but realistically gaming tends to draw in people who have, ahem, 'social quirks' (maybe that's a nice enough way to put it) Your DM may have some self-esteem issues that make him defensive that you are trying to "over-rule" him when all you want is to defend the rules that are written and you believe slightly misinterpretted. I would strongly suggest you bring issues with rules clarifications up in a one-on-one setting where your DM doesn't have to concern himself with what any one else is thinking about him during the conversation. You may be able to stear a 'rules arguement' towards a 'rules clarification'. Plus he's less likely to be defensive. Based solely on what you've posted, I side with your interpretations of the rules (i.e. ability to read them as written) but you would make alot more headway if you don't approach the arguement from the perspective of "here, allow me to open this book and highlight the many ways in which you are wrong..... the rest of the group chipped in and I bought you a copy of 'hooked on phonics' to augment your reading skills" and make it more along the lines of a one-on-one "I need your help interpretting the rules in the book under these circumstances, it seems to suggest something at odds with how we are currently playing, and some insight would be helpful for me to make sure my character is both maximum fun and rules-legal."
kuonji 01-10-08, 01:37 AM	Would you need something like ambidextrous to not get negatives, which I think may have been remove and replace with two weapon fighting at some point, I'm not sure. In anycase, yes, that would make sense though. It is hard for me to argue with my DM, he was playing the game long before I started, everything I posted here is how we had been playing up to this point when I asked about full round attacks. He apparently does not like to be corrected if he think something "doesn't make sense", for example, being able to quick draw 100 daggers and dropping them, ok abit weird. That would take longer then 6 seconds, but then he changes it so you can only do it once.... Just because Quick Draw could, in theory, allow you to draw and drop 100 daggers, it doesn't make that a good reason to stop a player from drawing and throwing 4 or 5 daggers in one round of attacks. Unless your game suffers from people drawing and dropping large amounts of weapons, there is no reason to limit Quick Draw to once a round. Full round attack apparently didn't make sense that you could attack multiple people as long as you had enough attacks. I don't know about you, but I could see someone attack multiple people in 6 seconds. Maybe not as affective as just one person, but I could see it. Sigh. You can attack as many different things as you can reach and have attacks for in a given round of combat. Limiting that reduces the effectiveness of multiple attacks in some situations. If attacking multiple things doesn't make sense to your DM then how does he handle the Cleave and Great Cleave feats, which are designed to allow you to attack multiple creatures as you kill off others. Don't let amount of time he's played vs. the amount of time you've played be a factor. He is adjusting the rules based on his personal preference, which a DM can do, however, that doesn't mean that he should adjust the rules. Ask him to provide you with a copy of all his house rules and then tell him you would like to discuss the ones you have a problem with (such as the ones you've mentioned here). Explain your side and use this thread as a reference and most importantly, stand your ground. If you feel his house rules are making the game less fun for you, tell him. Just remember, as groveborn mentioned in his post, you always have the option to walk. Sure you're out of a game, but sadly that's sometimes the only way to make your point.
Netjack 01-10-08, 01:54 PM	Your DM may have some self-esteem issues that make him defensive that you are trying to "over-rule" him when all you want is to defend the rules that are written and you believe slightly misinterpretted. He might, I'm not a good judge of character.... how does he handle the Cleave and Great Cleave feats, which are designed to allow you to attack multiple creatures as you kill off others. Since those are feat he says.... He believes feats like whirlwind attack are the only way you can attack multiple people. Since your character "trained" to do so.
elonin 01-10-08, 06:37 PM	Boy he'd flip out over karmic strike and Robiliers gambit.
Bahumut 01-10-08, 11:21 PM	Since those are feat he says.... He believes feats like whirlwind attack are the only way you can attack multiple people. Since your character "trained" to do so. just so we're clear...what does he think the "+6/+1" mean for the 6th level fighter's BAB entry?
Xart 01-11-08, 12:19 AM	Drop the weapon you're holding and quick draw the weapon you want to use. Easy as that.
Netjack 01-11-08, 01:09 AM	For the indiviual people, he knows you can full round attack one person with that many attacks, he refuses to believe you can attack mutliple people with multiple attacks, like a +6/+1 or with furry of blows, so appearntly people in D&D are able to quickly attack people who are infront of them 4 times "fighter at level 20" but are unable to fight the people beside them, or better yet, with bows......... Drop the weapon you're holding and quick draw the weapon you want to use. Easy as that. I do that, but one shouldn't need to drop a short bow to use a dagger effectivly, or any light weapon for that matter, "OMG I'M HOLDING SOMETHING IN MY OTHER HAND, I CAN'T AIM!!!"
Egres 01-11-08, 03:30 AM	For the indiviual people, he knows you can full round attack one person with that many attacks, he refuses to believe you can attack mutliple people with multiple attacks, like a +6/+1 or with furry of blows, so appearntly people in D&D are able to quickly attack people who are infront of them 4 times "fighter at level 20" but are unable to fight the people beside them, or better yet, with bows......... From the SRD: Full Attack If you get more than one attack per round because your base attack bonus is high enough, because you fight with two weapons or a double weapon or for some special reason you must use a full-round action to get your additional attacks. You do not need to specify the targets of your attacks ahead of time. You can see how the earlier attacks turn out before assigning the later ones. Do yourself a favor: change DM.
JaffetC 01-12-08, 11:42 AM	I know some DMs like a logical explanation someimes, and it changes their mind. so basically, just explain that, with daggers for example, you are keeping multiple ones sheathed next to each other, and when you draw them, you you get at least three with each draw, one between each finger (no thumb) and while you chuck daggers, you also draw more with your other hand. I'm pretty sure you don't need me to explain how it works, but your DM might Look at how Navajas throws his little knives in Desperado or how Carolina Throws her knives in Once Upon a Time in Mexico. makes sense to me. Then again the producer of that movie is pretty crazy.
jozepy_the_goblin_king 01-16-08, 03:18 AM	Dude... your DM sucks. Just get a new one or better yet you can DM.
AtsuiShoto 01-16-08, 11:43 AM	You could choose to be a power-gamer, by which I mean ignoring weaponized combat and playing a cleric. With literally hundreds of spells at your disposal, your DM would have some SERIOUS power issues to deal with, instead of nerfing the tools of one of the weakest combat archetypes in the game. Heck, you could get a warlock to "break the game" more readily than a knife-thrower, with even less room available for interpretation, so I fail to see what is being gained by bringing a low-utility (though pretty cool, and quite worth it) idea even lower. Try to find out his motivation for interpreting rules in this way, because understanding him will be a huge boon to reacting appropriately.
Legdiwena 01-16-08, 08:37 PM	Holding a bow and attacking with other hand is no different than sword and board.