What action would it take to simply "hold" a two handed weapon in one hand?


Rules Questions

51 to 93 of 93 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

Mynameisjake wrote:
Speaking strictly from a metagame perspective, I'd have to cast my vote for a gauntlet, actually. It doesn't take up a slot like a ring or amulet, it can't be disarmed, and it doesn't interfere with casting, holding an item, or wielding another weapon in the same hand. It sounds goofy for anything except an EK build, I know, but....

He.

Just had to think of 1) the Gnome artificer from Faerun with his big, goofy gauntlets and 2) Rasputin from Hellboy with his not-at-all-goofy arcane implement gauntlet...thingy.
One brings back fond memories, the other I wouldn't want to meet in my hometown. ^^

Oh and Auntie Edith tells me that in her time, folks didn't need more than a free action each to hold their 2H-weapon one-handed and reestablish their grip on said 2H-weapon. Also she says "Kids these days...".


Wow, how many times does James have to humbly assert the dominance of Rule Zero before people stop feeling like he is raining on their parade? For those who don't know, Rule Zero is: What the GM says is law. If your GM says you can wield your bonded staff with one foot while casting with one hand and juggling hand-grenades with the other, then that is how it is. If you are a GM, and you do not agree with a ruling James makes, then change it. To quote the man himself "If you don't agree, don't take my advice."

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber
Kthulhu wrote:

Walking Staff (AKA Arcane Staff)

Martial One-Handed Melee Weapon
Cost: 3 gp
Dmg(S): 1d4
Dmg(M): 1d6
Weight: 3 lbs
Type: Blunt

The walking staff is approximately 4-5 feet long. The bottom end of a walking staff is often shod in steel. They are often topped with an orb or some other decorative device, which can add to the cost of the staff. A character can use a walking staff two-handed as a simple weapon.

This is a quarterstaff. Seriously. You're just counting it as a martial to use it one-handed. Rather than make a new weapon, say you can use a quarterstaff one-handed as a martial weapon. Although I feel that is silly. You can already use double-weapons one handed, only losing the ability to use TWF. Just say your wizard is using his staff one-handed.

Mabven the OP healer wrote:
To quote the man himself "If you don't agree, don't take my advice."
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Santen Kesshun, I reject!

I already did. :)


Mabven the OP healer wrote:
Wow, how many times does James have to humbly assert the dominance of Rule Zero before people stop feeling like he is raining on their parade? For those who don't know, Rule Zero is: What the GM says is law. If your GM says you can wield your bonded staff with one foot while casting with one hand and juggling hand-grenades with the other, then that is how it is. If you are a GM, and you do not agree with a ruling James makes, then change it. To quote the man himself "If you don't agree, don't take my advice."

QFT

In my opinion: if there isn't a balance reason or a "coolness" reason and all it does is add more actions to manage you're wasting the player's time and your own. Free action, or not-an-action. If there's an arcane bond weapon involved (which is a bad idea anyway) the player can wield it for AoOs on any turn he is not casting a "1 Round" CT spell.

But I advise you to get a Ring instead. Can't sunder/disarm a ring. Losing your Arcane Bonus sucks and don't even think about Hand of the Apprentice.

This would be the ruling at my table, anyway.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

As far as the quarterstaff-Arcane Bond thing goes: Page 144 of the core rules, where it describes Double weapons, says that "a double weapon can be wielded as a one-handed weapon [but when doing so] only one end of the weapon can be used in any given round".

If that is the case, couldn't you just wield your quarterstaff as a one-handed weapon on any round that you aren't attacking with it, and thereby be able to cast spells?

Paizo Employee Creative Director

2 people marked this as FAQ candidate. 2 people marked this as a favorite.
MaxAstro wrote:

As far as the quarterstaff-Arcane Bond thing goes: Page 144 of the core rules, where it describes Double weapons, says that "a double weapon can be wielded as a one-handed weapon [but when doing so] only one end of the weapon can be used in any given round".

If that is the case, couldn't you just wield your quarterstaff as a one-handed weapon on any round that you aren't attacking with it, and thereby be able to cast spells?

Absolutely.

Shadow Lodge

James Jacobs wrote:
MaxAstro wrote:

As far as the quarterstaff-Arcane Bond thing goes: Page 144 of the core rules, where it describes Double weapons, says that "a double weapon can be wielded as a one-handed weapon [but when doing so] only one end of the weapon can be used in any given round".

If that is the case, couldn't you just wield your quarterstaff as a one-handed weapon on any round that you aren't attacking with it, and thereby be able to cast spells?

Absolutely.

You really should have pointed this out way back when this first arose, because how you (and everyone else) worded it until this post implied that you had to wield the bonded quarterstaff with both hands in order to cast spell, which would have precluded it from being used with any spells that included somatic components. Thats why people were so dumbfounded.

I still like my arcane staff. Even if it is now not a necessary addition, it still has more flavor than a simple quarterstaff.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Kthulhu wrote:
You really should have pointed this out way back when this first arose, because how you (and everyone else) worded it until this post implied that you had to wield the bonded quarterstaff with both hands in order to cast spell, which would have precluded it from being used with any spells that included somatic components. Thats why people were so dumbfounded.

If I had remembered the rule, I certainly would have pointed it out. I did not remember the "use double weapons onehanded" rule, though.

Turns out, the game's kinda complicated, and I'm not a computer.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber
James Jacobs wrote:
Kthulhu wrote:
You really should have pointed this out way back when this first arose, because how you (and everyone else) worded it until this post implied that you had to wield the bonded quarterstaff with both hands in order to cast spell, which would have precluded it from being used with any spells that included somatic components. Thats why people were so dumbfounded.

If I had remembered the rule, I certainly would have pointed it out. I did not remember the "use double weapons onehanded" rule, though.

Turns out, the game's kinda complicated, and I'm not a computer.

Error. Does not compute.

Liberty's Edge

TriOmegaZero wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:
Kthulhu wrote:
You really should have pointed this out way back when this first arose, because how you (and everyone else) worded it until this post implied that you had to wield the bonded quarterstaff with both hands in order to cast spell, which would have precluded it from being used with any spells that included somatic components. Thats why people were so dumbfounded.

If I had remembered the rule, I certainly would have pointed it out. I did not remember the "use double weapons onehanded" rule, though.

Turns out, the game's kinda complicated, and I'm not a computer.

Error. Does not compute.

Your Head A Splode


James,

I just want to say, even if it doesn't sound like we appreciate it (because pathfinder is a subject we feel passionate emotions about, and can sometimes have an emotional reaction before we think about what we are saying), it is absolutely incredible to have you participating in the forums on your day off. I understand that you probably have much less time during the week to spend it on the forums, and perhaps you just can't get enough and feel compelled to contribute on your day off, but I for one understand that this is a busman's holiday for you, and am very grateful for how much of a work-a-holic you are. :)


James Jacobs wrote:
Kthulhu wrote:
You really should have pointed this out way back when this first arose, because how you (and everyone else) worded it until this post implied that you had to wield the bonded quarterstaff with both hands in order to cast spell, which would have precluded it from being used with any spells that included somatic components. Thats why people were so dumbfounded.

If I had remembered the rule, I certainly would have pointed it out. I did not remember the "use double weapons onehanded" rule, though.

Turns out, the game's kinda complicated, and I'm not a computer.

I personally believe the 'use double weapon one-handed' is a typo, since on page 144 we have that sentence, while on page 141 the text says:

"Double Weapons: Dire flails, dwarven urgroshes, gnome hooked hammers, orc double axes, quarterstaves, and two-bladed swords are double weapons. A character can fight with both ends of a double weapon as if fighting with two weapons, but he incurs all the normal attack penalties associated with two-weapon combat, just as though the character were wielding a one-handed weapon and a light weapon (see page 202).
The character can also choose to use a double weapon two-handed, attacking with only one end of it. A creature wielding a double weapon in one hand can’t use it as a double weapon—only one end of the weapon can be used in any given round."

Obviously, the two sentences contradict themselves - and the reference to 'a creature wielding a double weapon in one hand' is for larger creatures wielding a smaller double weapon (like a Human wielding a Small Quarterstaff), for preventing an Ogre (for example) to benefit from a human-sized Two-Bladed Sword for two-weapon combat.
However, this can answer the question for wielding a Two-handed weapon while casting a spell - it would be enough to craft a smaller two-handed weapon, in order to wield it in only one hand (hey, you have a -2 to hit, but who cares ?)...

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber

I don't think it is contradictory, but it would have been helpful to have them together. As it is, you can wield it as a double weapon and TWF, one-handed and only attack with one end, or two-handed and only attack with one end but get 1.5 Str bonus to damage.


James Jacobs wrote:


Quarterstaves and staves are not necessarily the same thing. A magic staff could be a clumsy or delicate length that simply isn't optimized to be wielded in combat.

"Typical" magic staves are defined to be like "a walking stick, quarterstaff, or cudgel." They may not be balanced for combat, but I doubt you couldn't wield it in combat. And were it to be "wielded," it would be a two-handed weapon. In fact, at least two act like an enchanted quarterstaff. Would those two be bad choices for Arcane Bond?


TriOmegaZero wrote:
I don't think it is contradictory, but it would have been helpful to have them together. As it is, you can wield it as a double weapon and TWF, one-handed and only attack with one end, or two-handed and only attack with one end but get 1.5 Str bonus to damage.

This is correct. I have just posted in 2 other threads retracting my claim that the sections on double weapons on pages 141 and 144 conflict and that one must be wrong.

The section quoted from page 141 above does make reference to a creature wielding a double weapon in one hand.

The Wraith wrote:


Obviously, the two sentences contradict themselves - and the reference to 'a creature wielding a double weapon in one hand' is for larger creatures wielding a smaller double weapon (like a Human wielding a Small Quarterstaff), for preventing an Ogre (for example) to benefit from a human-sized Two-Bladed Sword for two-weapon combat.

In 3.5 this would be true as according the 3.5 FAQ a double weapon could only be wielded as 2 weapons or a single weapon two handed.

RAW specifically states that two handed weapons with the Special Quality Double can be wielded with one hand. While two handed weapons cannot by RAW be wielded in one hand unless the wielder is at least one size category larger than the weapon (which previously accounted for the reference to wielding a double weapon one handed), the Special Quality Double creates an additional exception condition.

Scarab Sages

Ok, seems to me that if you want to hold a 2-handed weapon in one hand, this is what you need to do:

First, spend some time getting to know the 2-handed weapon. If there's no connection between you two, things just won't work out.

Second, try to see if the 2-handed weapon is interested in you too.

Third, ask if it would like to go on a date with you. If things work out well, you'll soon be holding your 2-hander... in just one hand :)

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber

*slow clap*


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
The Wraith wrote:

I personally believe the 'use double weapon one-handed' is a typo, since on page 144 we have that sentence, while on page 141 the text says:

"Double Weapons: Dire flails, dwarven urgroshes, gnome hooked hammers, orc double axes, quarterstaves, and two-bladed swords are double weapons. A character can fight with both ends of a double weapon as if fighting with two weapons, but he incurs all the normal attack penalties associated with two-weapon combat, just as though the character were wielding a one-handed weapon and a light weapon (see page 202).
The character can also choose to use a double weapon two-handed, attacking with only one end of it. A creature wielding a double weapon in one hand can’t use it as a double weapon—only one end of the weapon can be used in any given round."

Obviously, the two sentences contradict themselves - and the reference to 'a creature wielding a double weapon in one hand' is for larger creatures wielding a smaller double weapon (like a Human wielding a Small Quarterstaff), for preventing an Ogre (for example) to benefit from a human-sized Two-Bladed Sword for two-weapon combat.
However, this can answer the question for wielding a Two-handed weapon while casting a spell - it would be enough to craft a smaller two-handed weapon, in order to wield it in only one hand (hey, you have a -2 to hit, but who cares ?)...

As far as the second pair of sentences goes, they are being very redundant if you are correct. Think of it this way: First it says "The character can also choose to use a double weapon two-handed, attacking with only one end of it." Then it says "A creature wielding a double weapon in one hand can’t use it as a double weapon—only one end of the weapon can be used in any given round."

I think these are separate cases - one for two handed and one for one handed. Otherwise why state twice that you can only attack with one end of it?

On a more personal note, I like the flexibility of double weapons being able to mimic any fighting style. With the exception of the statistically weak quarterstaff, all double weapons are exotic - but do not out-damage their martial counterparts. If you are going to be burning a feat on using one, you should get something out of it.


MaxAstro wrote:

As far as the second pair of sentences goes, they are being very redundant if you are correct. Think of it this way: First it says "The character can also choose to use a double weapon two-handed, attacking with only one end of it." Then it says "A creature wielding a double weapon in one hand can’t use it as a double weapon—only one end of the weapon can be used in any given round."

I think these are separate cases - one for two handed and one for one handed. Otherwise why state twice that you can only attack with one end of it?

Of course they are separate cases - only thing is, I personally believe it is referred only to creatures which can ONLY wield such Double Weapons one-handed (such as an Ogre wielding a Medium-sized Quartestaff), which could make attacks with both ends if the specification was not made (think of an Ogre wielding two medium-sized Two-bladed Swords and making two-weapon fighting with both of them...)

Freesword wrote:

RAW specifically states that two handed weapons with the Special Quality Double can be wielded with one hand. While two handed weapons cannot by RAW be wielded in one hand unless the wielder is at least one size category larger than the weapon (which previously accounted for the reference to wielding a double weapon one handed), the Special Quality Double creates an additional exception condition.

And that is exactly the sentence on page 144 which (again, IMHO) contains the contradiction with page 141. Otherwise, why such weapons are listed as 'Two Handed' and not 'One Handed'? Even a Longsword can be wielded with two hands and benefit from the Str bonus x1.5 ... The only Two-handed weapon which has a specific entry for being wielded one-handed is the Lance (... which has its own personal thread ...)

Cartigan wrote:


"Typical" magic staves are defined to be like "a walking stick, quarterstaff, or cudgel." They may not be balanced for combat, but I doubt you couldn't wield it in combat. And were it to be "wielded," it would be a two-handed weapon. In fact, at least two act like an enchanted quarterstaff. Would those two be bad choices for Arcane Bond?

This is exactly my point of view, and the reason I would allow to 'hold' a two-handed weapon Magic Bond in one hand (not for wielding) and still benefit from casting spells. First of all, as stated above, a Staff of Power (one of the most potent magic items a Wizard can wield in his entire career) is also a +2 Quarterstaff - and in my mind, having a Wizard who decides to forge during his entire career such a powerful item only to be able to cast spell only through it is strange indeed (since such a Wizard started crafting a Bonded Staff without such powerful abilities, and so he was forced... to cast all his spells with Concentration checks !?!...); then, there is the fact that the sentence on page 78 specifically says 'If a wizard attempts to cast a spell without his bonded object worn or in hand, he must make a concentration check or lose the spell.' - it doesn't speak about having to swing it wildly.

James Jacobs wrote:

ALL THAT SAID: If you want to say that you can cast a spell with a 2H weapon arcane bond just held in one hand, that's fine. That's a perfectly legitimate interpretation of the rules, I suppose. It's not the interpretation I made, but given time and thought I might be some day inclined to change my mind. In fact, I suspect I probably WOULD change my mind if a player in a game I was running made an impassioned plea without doing so in an argumentative and annoying manner.

I hope that the reading Cartigan and me made regarding Arcane Bonds quarterstaves can at least be pondered by James for starting changing his mind. Of course, this does not prevent me for using it even if he doesn't agree, but I believe it's a thing worth considering (man, I cannot believe I'm actually trying to convince one of the devs XD ...).

Scarab Sages

I don't think there's a contradiction at all.

I believe that you can wield a double weapon as EITHER a 1-handed weapon, a two-handed weapon, or dual wield it as a 1 handed and light weapon.

Going general to specific:

General rules apply except where specific rules change them.

I'm going to pick a specific weapon and go with that. I choose the Axe, orc double.

Under two-handed weapons: pg 141
1. Two-Handed: two hands are required to use a two-handed melee weapon effectively. Apply 1 1/2 times the characters Strength Bonus to dmg rolls for melee attacks with such a weapon.

Then, same page, under Double Weapons:
2. "A character can fight with both ends of a double weapon as if fighting with two weapons..."
3. "The character can also choose to use a double weapon two-handed, attacking with only one end of it."
4. "A creature wielding a double weapon in one hand can't use it as a double weapon-only one end of the weapon can be used in any given round."

Page 144 under special:
Double:
5. "You can use a double weapon to fight as if fighting with two weapons..."
6. "A double weapon can be wielded as a one-handed weapon, but it cannot be used as a double weapon when wielded in this way-only one end of the weapon can be used in any given round.

Sentences 2 and 5 make it clear that you can two-weapon fight.
Sentences 1 and 3 say you can use it as a 2-handed weapon.
Sentences 4 and 6 make it clear that you can use a double weapon in one hand, as a 1-handed weapon.

It's the transformer of weapons. Mayhem in disguise.


It's 3.0 but you could get the Monkey Grip feat.


Magicdealer wrote:

Under two-handed weapons: pg 141
1. Two-Handed: two hands are required to use a two-handed melee weapon effectively. Apply 1 1/2 times the characters Strength Bonus to dmg rolls for melee attacks with such a weapon.

Then, same page, under Double Weapons:
2. "A character can fight with both ends of a double weapon as if fighting with two weapons..."
3. "The character can also choose to use a double weapon two-handed, attacking with only one end of it."
4. "A creature wielding a double weapon in one hand can't use it as a double weapon-only one end of the weapon can be used in any given round."

Page 144 under special:
Double:
5. "You can use a double weapon to fight as if fighting with two weapons..."
6. "A double weapon can be wielded as a one-handed weapon, but it cannot be used as a double weapon when wielded in this way-only one end of the weapon can be used in any given round.

Sentences 2 and 5 make it clear that you can two-weapon fight.
Sentences 1 and 3 say you can use it as a 2-handed weapon.
Sentences 4 and 6 make it clear that you can use a double weapon in one hand, as a 1-handed weapon.

Actually, sentence 4 is a legacy from the 3.5 SRD, which was slightly different from the D&D 3.5 sentence.

The 3.5 PHB included a specific example (as Can'tFindthePath noted here):
"A creature wielding a double weapon in one hand (such as a human wielding a Small two-bladed sword)..."

The only reference to one-handling a double weapon is on the (in)famous passage on page 144.
Plus, for what it is worth, the 3.5 FAQ specifically stated that a Double weapon could only be wielded either as a one-handed+light or as a two-handed weapon.

D&D Frequently Asked Questions wrote:


Is a double weapon considered a two-handed weapon or a one-handed weapon plus a light weapon, for the purposes of feats such as Weapon Finesse and Power Attack?
A double weapon can be wielded in two ways, either as a one-handed weapon and a light weapon, or as a single twohanded weapon. Either way, it follows the normal rules for using such weapons.
Wielding as Two Weapons: The primary end (the “onehanded weapon”) adds your Strength modifier to damage, and the secondary end (the “light weapon”) adds one-half your Strength bonus to damage. When using Power Attack, bonus damage applies only to the primary end. If you have Weapon Finesse, you can add your Dexterity modifier instead of your Strength modifier to attack rolls with the secondary end (but not with the primary end).
Wielding as One Weapon: Add one-and-one-half your Strength bonus to damage rolls. When using Power Attack, double the bonus damage granted by the feat.
The Sage strongly recommends that characters who wield double weapons record attack and damage values for both methods of use, to speed play.

My character has 18 Strength and wields a two-bladed sword. When I make only a single attack with it, how much of my Strength bonus can I add to the damage? Does it matter which end I swing with?
When you make only a single attack with a double weapon, the weapon is treated as a two-handed weapon. Thus, you’d add 1–1/2 times your Strength bonus (in this case, +6). If you used Power Attack on this attack, you’d add double the value of the penalty you applied to your attack roll (+2 damage per – 1 on attack). It doesn’t matter which end you swing with.)

Again, take this with a grain of salt - this is not 3.5 anymore. Yet, it is based on 3.5 rules, and I cannot see why a weapon should be listed as a 'Two Handed' if in every circumstance can be either wielded as a double weapon or a one-handed weapon (a one-handed weapon like a Longsword CAN be wielded and benefit from a two-handed grip, while the only two-handed weapon which has a specific one-handed grip use is the Lance while mounted).

However, I think that this off-topic is best dealt in the Errata thread (as it is currently debated). Threadjack off.


The Wraith wrote:
Again, take this with a grain of salt - this is not 3.5 anymore.

It must be noted that Paizo made no changes to the double weapon rules, they are direct from the SRD. That means it is 3.5. The example omitted from the SRD was a WotC mistake, but it has been carried on verbatim. Too many times the rules get copy/pasted and then treated as if they were carefully researched, discussed, and playtested before a panel of developers led by Jason and James decided, "yeah, let's keep those exact words, but we might mean something completely different".

This is crazy folks, PRPG is 90% SRD 3.5, warts and all. They didn't go over it with a fine toothed comb and "re-decide" on every rule, they inherited it.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber

It's a new edition. That means we get to reprint all the old arguments. :)


TriOmegaZero wrote:
It's a new edition. That means we get to reprint all the old arguments. :)

I thought that was the whole point!

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Felgoroth wrote:
LazarX wrote:


Most wizards however aren't swinging with thier staves... unless they're truly in desperate straits. If it's a standard size quarterstaff, they're balancing it on the ground with one hand, Gandalf style while doing something else with the other.
So you can't balance a spear on the ground?

Didn't say that, was just making a point.


well until it's officially eratad i'll use the text as printed in pathfinder for my pathfinder campaign. i'll let the players know my interpretation of the rule. monsters and pc's play by the same rules so it all works out.

all pg 141 tells me is a character can use a double weapon 2hnded for 1-1/2 str damage. and an ogre can't fight with with a double weapon in one-hand as a double weapon. IE. he can't wield a double weapon in each hand and 2wpn fight and attack 2x for each hand.

page 144 tells me a double weapon can be wielded in one hand (as a ne hended weapon)but only attack with one end.

so in summery in MY campaign with a double weapon you can fight-double weapon (2weapon style),2hnded-one ended for 1-1/2 str,one-handed one end for 1x str+ open hand,One-handed one end +buckler+reverting to 2hnded or double and losing buckler shield bonus. mages can arcane bond a quarter staff or other double weapons,wield it one-handed,and still cast somatic spells,then go back to 2hnded or double.

-It's good to be the GM!-

and with that said all is good in golarian....until my players start kingmaker next saturday. MWA HA HA HA HA!


JaceDK wrote:

This question is also highly relevant for wizards with a two-handed weapon for an Arcane Bond.

Rules state that you have to hold the weapon to cast, and you can only cast with one hand free, which means that you probably release and re-grip you weapon every time you cast a spell in combat.

I agree with both actions being free actions. If for nothing else than keeping the book-keeping to a minimum.

The rules here, if I remember right from the official ruling, is that they have to wield the item to be able to use it. If a two handed item is in one hand it is not wielded at the time of casting.


Captain Sir Hexen Ineptus wrote:


The rules here, if I remember right from the official ruling, is that they have to wield the item to be able to use it. If a two handed item is in one hand it is not wielded at the time of casting.

Which, as has been beat to death, is an absurd ruling. How does one wield a staff of power? In one hand? But it's a +2 Quarterstaff! A two-handed weapon!


everyone is making this more complicated than it actually is lol.

first off there are TWO kinds of 2hnded weapons.

2hnded weapons=must be WIELDED in two hands unless your a size category larger, then you can use it as a one handed weapon.

2hnded weapons with special-DOUBLE=they are a 2hnded weapon BUT double special quality trumps the 1st rules and ALSO makes then a one handed weapon if ONLY one end is used. they can be use as a 2hnded weapon, OR as two wepaons, OR as one weapon one handed.

Cartigan- in that case a staff of power is used as it says under the staffs descriptor. i think it says "treat it as a +2 quarter staff"
so with that said it could be WIELDED like any other weapon with the DOUBLE special ability. 2hnded as a double weapon (2wpn style)1d6+2+1x str bonus/1d6+2+1/2 str bonus,OR 2hnded 1d6+2+ 1-1/2 str bonus, OR one handed at 1d6+2+1x str bonus. you can change back and forth one-handed or two handed as a free action.

you could have a bonded staff of power but NOT say a 2hnded sword. a 2hnded sword is a 2hnded weapon ONLY. meaning it does not have the special quality of DOUBLE-allowing it to be used as a one-handed weapon. you could still cast spells if you didn't need somatic component. or if you could do away with them with metamagic.

the point of paizo wording double the way they did was to flat out avoid- fighting 2 weapon style with TWO double weapons for 4x attacks! while with DOUBLE weapons you could do this it would only be (in the case of a double bladed sword)1d8/1d8 and the second weapon would no longer count as a light weapon. it would not be 1d8/1d8/1d8/1d8.

I think in 3.5 in order to USE a staves DOUBLE quality(and weild it as a one-handed weapon) you had to have exotic weapon. eather paizo forgot about that and it was omited or it was omited on purpose.


Okay, I know the last post was over a year ago, but I have to respond. The basic question being raised here was somehow never answered in two full pages, and it should be because it comes up quite a lot, actually. Forget the specifics of quarterstaves, greatswords, TWF, etc. The question here is this:

"Presumably you can hold (not attack with, just hold) a two-handed weapon in one hand. Does doing so require any sort of action? Does it incur any penalties if you are also doing something with the other hand?"

This really ought to be an extremely important question to every spellcaster who wants to use a two-handed weapon as their primary. It's also important to two-handed weapon wielding alchemists who want to throw bombs. Oh, and most warriors who like to, say, drink potions. Etc.

The Official Answer (RAW): To the best of my knowledge, there is not one. The rules do not directly address this question. In theory, that means that the answer is, by default, "Yes you can and no there is no penalty incurred by or action required for doing so."

What Most DMs Answer (often by default, because it never occurred to them): Yes you can and no there is no penalty incurred by or action required for doing so.

What Some DMs Answer: Yes you can, but you cannot make AoO's with the weapon until the beginning of your next turn.

The End. (until someone official answers the actual question)

P.S. There are a couple of associated questions raised here that would also benefit from clarification.

1: "What if it's a double weapon?"

Answer: No difference, because all double weapons thus far printed are also two handed weapons and therefore follow the same rules. The core rulebook says, "A creature wielding a double weapon in one hand can't use it as a double weapon." I think that has confused a lot of people, but basically the point is to just treat the double weapon as a two handed weapon. The only exception I know of is a character with the Quarterstaff Master feat, and the feat clarifies this point anyway.

2: "Does switching weapons or items from one hand to the other require any kind of action?"

Answer: There is (as far as I know) no RAW answer to this. This is more complicated, but it may as well be ruled on. It rarely matters, but can come up. Let's say I have a flail and a katana (I have Exotic Weapon: Katana). I want to trip people with my flail and then attack them with my katana. I also have Quick Draw. On a full attack, can I trip on my first attack with my flail, switch the flail to my offhand, draw the katana as a free action with Quick Draw and attack with the katana for my second attack? (And yes, I know how annoying this question is.)


Okay, I went back over all this with a fine toothed comb. Man, this issue is complicated. What I said above basically stands, but I have two things to add/clarify:

1. The double weapon issue is actually more complicated than I thought. My clarification above is correct, but that is only made clear by FAQ qualifications from 3.5, as someone in the thread mentioned.

Bottom Line: There is an innate contradiction in the RAW rules about double weapons. You can argue all day about whether they can or cannot be wielded one handed, and you will be neither right nor wrong by RAW.

Sub-Bottom Line (as made clear by 3.5 errata): double weapons are two-handed weapons and can be wielded as such or as two one-handed weapons, but not as a single one handed weapon.

2. James Jacobs made a ruling regarding using a two-handed weapon as an arcane bond item. I didn't make reference to it before because, sadly, the ruling is not really lucid and so does nothing to clarify the issue. I'm not saying I disagree with the ruling. I'm saying the ruling does not have enough lucidity to be agreed or disagreed with. It basically just raises the same question we started with. It is not clear what is meant, in the ruling, by the distinction drawn between "carrying" and "wielding" a two-handed weapon. That distinction is basically what this thread is trying to clarify, and so all the posts that refer to that ruling as evidence for one thing or another are actually not really helping. And yes, I have tremendous respect for Mr. Jacobs and his work. That ought to go without saying. But his ruling on this issue simply is not fully coherent, and there should be nothing wrong with saying so. (Curiously enough, his ruling probably would make sense had he been referring to the Magus's spellstrike ability rather than the Wizard's arcane bond. Is it possible the two got mixed up somewhere along the way?)

Somebody please tell me this has all been definitively ruled on and I'm just not finding it! This is a really important issue, since entire swaths of character builds thrive or collapse based on the answer to this...


Erick Wilson wrote:


Okay, I went back over all this with a fine toothed comb. Man, this issue is complicated. What I said above basically stands, but I have two things to add/clarify:

...

2. James Jacobs made a ruling regarding using a two-handed weapon as an arcane bond item. I didn't make reference to it before because, sadly, the ruling is not really lucid and so does nothing to clarify the issue. I'm not saying I disagree with the ruling. I'm saying the ruling does not have enough lucidity to be agreed or disagreed with. It basically just raises the same question we started with. It is not clear what is meant, in the ruling, by the distinction drawn between "carrying" and "wielding" a two-handed weapon. That distinction is basically what this thread is trying to clarify, and so all the posts that refer to that ruling as evidence for one thing or another are actually not really helping. And yes, I have tremendous respect for Mr. Jacobs and his work. That ought to go without saying. But his ruling on this issue simply is not fully coherent, and there should be nothing wrong with saying so. (Curiously enough, his ruling probably would make sense had he been referring to the Magus's spellstrike ability rather than the Wizard's arcane bond. Is it possible the two got mixed up somewhere along the way?)

Somebody please tell me this has all been definitively ruled on and I'm just not finding it! This is a really...

OK... I re-read the thread. Even though I posted in it, it wasn't too memorable. I didn't think this one deserved the post count it got, but hey. And I looked over your post. Not interested in the "double weapon" aspect, but the arcane bonded item / two handed weapon was clear.

To use an arcane bonded weapon you have to "wield" the weapon (i.e. hold it as if you were using it in combat), not just hold it (casually / in one hand). Hence an arcane bonded two handed weapon requires both hands to get the use of the arcane bond. In short, using a two handed weapon for the arcane bond was a bit limiting (as in problems with somatic spell requirements). There was then much discussion about quarter staff vs. magic staff vs. clubs (or canes) etc. That was the ruling. And James Jacob's basically said feel free to "Rule 0" it in your own game. What's unclear about it?

*edit* The OP was just on the type of action needed in switching from holding to wieldind a two handed weapon. The arcane bond thing came in later iirc. And the Magus class wasn't out at the time of this thread (?), was it?


Yes, that would be clear if that were what he had meant, but I'm not sure it was. He says "two-handed weapons make for relatively poor bonded objects, since they'd limit your spellcasting to things without somatic components." Does he mean it would limit specifically the once per day spell that you cast through the object? Fine, if that's what he meant, but his phrasing ("limit your spellcasting") reads much broader than that, as though he's saying having a two handed weapon limits your spellcasting in general.

Then later on he says, "A feat or class ability that lets you use a 2H weapon's swings and stabs and motions as your somatic component would be pretty interesting... but nothing in the core currently lets you do that. Your best bet in this case is to only cast Still spells or spells without somatic components." Again, this language reads as being very broad and inclusive. Sure, maybe he's talking about "a feat or class ability that lets you use a two handed weapon's swings and stabs and motions as your somatic components" when specifically casting a spell through a bonded object, but it really sounds like he's suggesting such a feat be considered for EVER casting a spell while wielding a two handed weapon.

Further, he says, "You have to have both hands to cast spells with a two-handed weapon bonded object." That's clearly muddled, even if we think we know what it means. I think he means, "you have to have both hands on your two-handed weapon (your bond object) in order to be considered 'wielding' it, and then you have no hands left to cast the spell your bond object is giving you access to." But who can be sure?

Finally, he said later that you could "wield" a quarterstaff one handed, thereby using it as your arcane bond object, which I (and Jason Buhlman) believe is a shoddy ruling, and which is what brought in all the double weapon confusion.

So maybe it's just ambiguous language, but in the case that you are right about what he meant, then the ruling does not address or clarify the question this thread was discussing (not that it was intended to originally, but some people attempted to use it for that purpose). Or else it only raises questions about the thread without answering any. If I am "carrying" as opposed to "wielding" a two-handed weapon, can I cast spells? Can I make AoO's with it? Is there an action to switch between "carrying" and "wielding" a weapon? These are the same questions we started with, and they're pretty important questions.


Merkatz wrote:

Let's say that I'm wielding a two handed weapon, such as a spear. If I wanted to make a thrown range attack with a dagger for instance, I would need to free up a hand. Now drawing the dagger would count as my move action, and throwing it would count as a standard action, but what action would letting go of the spear with one hand be considered?

Would you call it a sheath action (another move action) or a drop action (a free action) or something else entirely?

Then after the dagger has been thrown, what type of action would be required to wield the spear completely again (such that I would be ready to make opportunity attacks, for instance)?

Any thoughts?

I know. Old thread and my answer will be grossly unpopular, but.

How I learned to deal with this sort of question was to see if the actions being taken could be identified by specific rules terminology.

Character drops weapon (one hand, anyway).
Character readies weapon (the dagger).
Character attacks (ranged) with weapon.
Character READIES weapon (the two-handed one).

As I understand things, the above are free action, move equivalent action, standard action, and move equivalent action (barring feat modifications). Saying you WANT the second move equivalent to be free is fine. Saying that it is free just because you refuse to use the game engine's technical terms should not be fine.

Liberty's Edge

James Jacobs wrote:
Mynameisjake wrote:
Understood. But still, does bonding with a quarterstaff (the weapon) have the same limitations? I'm assuming, yes, as a two handed and double weapon it would have the same limitations as a great sword. Some people insist that a double weapon can be wielded in a single hand for a single attack, just like a "normal" weapon. I disagree, but....
As quarterstaff is listed as a 2H weapon on the list, you'd treat it the same as a greatsword. Even if you're not using it as a double weapon.
Wikipedia wrote:

A quarterstaff (plural quarterstaves), also short staff or simply staff is a traditional European pole weapon and a technique of stick fighting, especially as in use in England during the Early Modern period.

The term is generally accepted to refer to a shaft of hardwood from 6 to 9 feet (1.8 to 2.7 m) long, sometimes with a metal tip, ferrule, or spike at one or both ends. The term "short staff" compares this to the "long staff" based on the pike with a length in excess of 11 to 12 feet (3.4 to 3.7 m).

I would say that there is "some" base to call it a 2handed weapon and not allow it to be easily wielded in one hand.

Based on that definition Gandalf is not using a quarterstaff but a walking stick.
The wonders of language ambiguity.
(I mean the one cited in the books, seeing the actor height the one in the film can be a quarterstaff)

Edit: I hadn't noticed as necromancer has passed by.

Kthulhu wrote:

First off, I love Paizo. and their products.

That said, this is an absolutely horrible ruling. It makes the most iconic wizardly bonded item into a completely unusable POS. It would be akin to saying that paladins cannot use their special abilities while wielding a holy avenger sword.

My proposed solution: introduce a new weapon...the walking staff (also commonly known as the arcane staff). Like the bastard sword, it can be "wielded" either one-handed or two-handed. It would, of course, be added to the list of weapons that sorcerers and wizards are proficient with.

Walking Staff (AKA Arcane Staff)
Martial One-Handed Melee Weapon
Cost: 3 gp
Dmg(S): 1d4
Dmg(M): 1d6
Weight: 3 lbs
Type: Blunt

The walking staff is approximately 4-5 feet long. The bottom end of a walking staff is often shod in steel. They are often topped with an orb or some other decorative device, which can add to the cost of the staff. A character can use a walking staff two-handed as a simple weapon.

I think that what you want is called club and is a simple weapon.

No need to reinvent it.

Mynameisjake wrote:
RunebladeX wrote:
i kind of like the thought that a quarter staff has to be wielded (as in with 2 hands)if it's a bonded item. the power of a staff isn't it's ability to wack someone over the head but it's magical power. when you really think about it a staff is really a poor choice for a bonded item. since wizards are suppose to be so smart they should know this. a staff can be sundered,disarmed,lost,stolen etc. a ring would be the best choice.
Speaking strictly from a metagame perspective, I'd have to cast my vote for a gauntlet, actually. It doesn't take up a slot like a ring or amulet, it can't be disarmed, and it doesn't interfere with casting, holding an item, or wielding another weapon in the same hand. It sounds goofy for anything except an EK build, I know, but....

But a gauntlet can't be a bonded object:

PRD wrote:
Objects that are the subject of an arcane bond must fall into one of the following categories: amulet, ring, staff, wand, or weapon.

Well, unless you are speaking of a spiked gauntlet, but then you are wearing a piece of a heavy armour and we get another kind of problem.

Cestus bonded item?

Liberty's Edge

MaxAstro wrote:

As far as the quarterstaff-Arcane Bond thing goes: Page 144 of the core rules, where it describes Double weapons, says that "a double weapon can be wielded as a one-handed weapon [but when doing so] only one end of the weapon can be used in any given round".

If that is the case, couldn't you just wield your quarterstaff as a one-handed weapon on any round that you aren't attacking with it, and thereby be able to cast spells?

It has been changed with the 5th printing (so well after your post):

5th printing errata wrote:

Page 144—In the Weapon Qualities section, in

the Special section, in the Double paragraph in the second sentence, replace “A double weapon can be wielded as a one-handed weapon” with “You
can choose to wield one end of a double weapon two-handed”.


hustonj wrote:


Character drops weapon (one hand, anyway).
Character readies weapon (the dagger).
Character attacks (ranged) with weapon.
Character READIES weapon (the two-handed one).

As I understand things, the above are free action, move equivalent action, standard action, and move equivalent action (barring feat modifications). Saying you WANT the second move equivalent to be free is fine. Saying that it is free just because you refuse to use the game engine's technical terms should not be fine.

There is no terminology in Pathfinder to my knowledge that describes what type of action it is to "ready a weapon." The only similar wording that I find is readying a shield, which is specifically called out as strapping a shield to your arm, which is quite a stretch to compare to reaching a hand across your body to grasp something.

I can't see how re-grasping a weapon is a move equivalent action. You may WANT it to be, but saying it is just because you want it to be doesn't make it so. Drawing a weapon is a move equivalent action, but I'd argue that grasping a weapon is less that half the action of drawing one, since you're basically doing the first half of drawing a weapon. And since drawing a weapon can be combined with a move after BAB +1 to be a single move action, I think you can make a very strong case that re-grasping a two-handed weapon is less than 1/4 of a move action. Which doesn't officially make it a free action of course, but it's a stretch to call it a move action. And by "stretch," I mean "totally inaccurate statement."

Scarab Sages

Merkatz wrote:

Let's say that I'm wielding a two handed weapon, such as a spear. If I wanted to make a thrown range attack with a dagger for instance, I would need to free up a hand. Now drawing the dagger would count as my move action, and throwing it would count as a standard action, but what action would letting go of the spear with one hand be considered?

Would you call it a sheath action (another move action) or a drop action (a free action) or something else entirely?

Then after the dagger has been thrown, what type of action would be required to wield the spear completely again (such that I would be ready to make opportunity attacks, for instance)?

Any thoughts?

Probly a strength check, depending on the size/weight of the weapon.

Possibly also an acrobatics check to avoid overbalancing yourself when trying to throw the other weapon, so you dont stumble or something and possible throw off your aim...
-But....this is me injecting reality into stuff again.

Shadow Lodge

James Jacobs wrote:
An arcane bonded magic staff and an arcane bonded magic quarterstaff are two VERY different things. They aren't identical at all.

Except for, perhaps, the most iconic magical staff in the game:

PRD wrote:

Staff of Power

The wielder of a staff of power gains a +2 luck bonus to AC and on saving throws. The staff is also a +2 quarterstaff, and its wielder may use it to smite opponents. If 1 charge is expended (as a free action), the staff causes double damage (×3 on a critical hit) for 1 round.

EDIT: Damn, caught by the dread thread necromancer.


Erick Wilson wrote:
He says "two-handed weapons make for relatively poor bonded objects, since they'd limit your spellcasting to things without somatic components." Does he mean it would limit specifically the once per day spell that you cast through the object? Fine, if that's what he meant, but his phrasing ("limit your spellcasting") reads much broader than that, as though he's saying having a two handed weapon limits your spellcasting in general.

This is probably because he said that before the text was (going to be) changed to say "held in hand" instead of "wielded." Back then, if you had a two-handed bonded object, and it was held in one hand (and thus not wielded) you would have to make concentration checks for all your spells. Hence, it limits your spellcasting.

As Wielding a weapon has turned to mean "trying to hit people with it" then as SKR says: "obviously you can't wield the weapon and cast a spell in the same round, so we'll change the text in the arcane bond section so it says 'held in hand' rather than 'wielded.'"

Diego Rossi wrote:

But a gauntlet can't be a bonded object:

PRD wrote:
Objects that are the subject of an arcane bond must fall into one of the following categories: amulet, ring, staff, wand, or weapon.
Well, unless you are speaking of a spiked gauntlet, but then you are wearing a piece of a heavy armour and we get another kind of problem.

Gauntlets and Spiked Gauntlets are both weapons, and neither have Arcane Spell Failure or Armor Check Penalty. The Locked Gauntlet prevents you from casting spells with it, the others do not. Even though gauntlets are free with certain suits of armor, they are not heavy armor, and they don't interfere with spellcasting.


MyTThor wrote:
hustonj wrote:


Character drops weapon (one hand, anyway).
Character readies weapon (the dagger).
Character attacks (ranged) with weapon.
Character READIES weapon (the two-handed one).

As I understand things, the above are free action, move equivalent action, standard action, and move equivalent action (barring feat modifications). Saying you WANT the second move equivalent to be free is fine. Saying that it is free just because you refuse to use the game engine's technical terms should not be fine.

There is no terminology in Pathfinder to my knowledge that describes what type of action it is to "ready a weapon." The only similar wording that I find is readying a shield, which is specifically called out as strapping a shield to your arm, which is quite a stretch to compare to reaching a hand across your body to grasp something.

I can't see how re-grasping a weapon is a move equivalent action. You may WANT it to be, but saying it is just because you want it to be doesn't make it so. Drawing a weapon is a move equivalent action, but I'd argue that grasping a weapon is less that half the action of drawing one, since you're basically doing the first half of drawing a weapon. And since drawing a weapon can be combined with a move after BAB +1 to be a single move action, I think you can make a very strong case that re-grasping a two-handed weapon is less than 1/4 of a move action. Which doesn't officially make it a free action of course, but it's a stretch to call it a move action. And by "stretch," I mean "totally inaccurate statement."

See, unpopular.

You even agreed that FREE is too little, but are too caught up refusing the answer you don't want to actually make a difference in the overwhelming tide of popularity for being able to have a character keep 3 hands worth of wepaons usable at all times. If you are using a hand to cast a spell, that hand is not avaialble to swing a sword. It just isn't.


hustonj wrote:
If you are using a hand to cast a spell, that hand is not avaialble to swing a sword. It just isn't.

Well, not while the spell is being cast. Before and after, sure. If you cast a 1-round spell, you wont be threatening with your greatsword while that's happening. But if you cast a normal standard action spell, the spell is over, and at the end of your turn you can put your hand back as a free action. (As James Jacobs clarified almost 2 years ago in this very thread)

If you are proposing a house rule, aside from being in the wrong forum, you need to note how long it takes until you can use your hand again after casting a spell.

51 to 93 of 93 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / What action would it take to simply "hold" a two handed weapon in one hand? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.