is there a ruling in pathfinder or anywhere that tells what kind of action it is to switch which hand you're holding a weapon in? what about switching two at the same time, such as a sling and a pick?
Moving from one hand to the other is a free action.
If both hands are full, I don't think there's anything RAW against it, but as a GM I'd call for a DC 10 reflex check since you're either tossing them in the air or awkardly fumbling them or risk dropping one. I'd also allow no chance of a drop if you take a full move action.
is there a page number?
There probably is no official rule because the hand used usually doesn't matter, since unlike in real life, both hands are equally useful. What is the reason for switching hands in your game?
your offhand applies half strength
True, but you only have an offhand when wielding a second weapon. The rules never specify if it is your left hand, right hand, or even a hand (the name is most definitely a misnomer).
How many GMs do you know who would let you change which hand is your offhand whenever it suits you?
Um...every GM I've ever heard of and/or played under.
The only time the term "off-hand" even comes into play is when you are dual-wielding weapons anyways. As long as you declare one of your wielded WEAPONS to be your off-hand at the start of any given round, it's all good.
I can see where there could be a problem, for example, could you technically, switch the longsword in your main hand over as a free action, then pull a dagger with your main hand again and then throw it... is that ok?
Sure you could, but then you would take off-hand penalties to your dagger toss and two-weapon fighting penalties to both attacks.
As I said before, thinking of it as being your literal hands is a mistake. Armor spikes, for example, can be used as an off-hand attack (or even a primary attack) even though they have absolutely nothing to do with hands.
|
There is no RAW that states what kind of action swapping items from one hand to the other is...however, the 3.5 FAQ lists the action as a move. However swapping from a one handed to two handed is a free so you could technically use two free actions to swap hands. Since nothing in the 3.5 FAQ is over written and the system is backwards compatible, until a dev or a faq says otherwise, it's a move (or two free actions). Also known in every game ever as it's a free action because it's really dumb otherwise ;) .
|
I can see where there could be a problem, for example, could you technically, switch the longsword in your main hand over as a free action, then pull a dagger with your main hand again and then throw it... is that ok?Sure you could, but then you would take off-hand penalties to your dagger toss and two-weapon fighting penalties to both attacks.
As I said before, thinking of it as being your literal hands is a mistake. Armor spikes, for example, can be used as an off-hand attack (or even a primary attack) even though they have absolutely nothing to do with hands.
No, I mean this is one attack, therefore... no two weapon fighting penalties, no off hand penalties, he attacked only once, just switched the weapon over to his other hand to hold.
No, I mean this is one attack, therefore... no two weapon fighting penalties, no off hand penalties, he attacked only once, just switched the weapon over to his other hand to hold.I can see where there could be a problem, for example, could you technically, switch the longsword in your main hand over as a free action, then pull a dagger with your main hand again and then throw it... is that ok?Sure you could, but then you would take off-hand penalties to your dagger toss and two-weapon fighting penalties to both attacks.
As I said before, thinking of it as being your literal hands is a mistake. Armor spikes, for example, can be used as an off-hand attack (or even a primary attack) even though they have absolutely nothing to do with hands.
It's easiest to just consider this to be a free action.
The question is why you'd bother switching hands. There is no "handedness" in PF. A character can attack with a longsword in one hand and get his full str. bonus. On the next round, he/she could use the other hand to draw and throw a dagger with the other hand, at full str. bonus. What you define as your "main hand" can be switched from round to round without penalty, just not within the same round.
You can even hold a longsword in one hand and a battleaxe in the other, gaining full str. for attacks with either hand, as long you didn't use both in the same round. Round one, longsword. Round two, axe, etc. You also wouldn't suffer Two Weapon Fighting penalties, unless you attack with both weapons in the same round.
It should also be noted that AoOs are never considered "off-hand" or suffer a dam. penalty, even if the character was using Two Weapon Fighting previously.
There is one situation where this matters:
A cleric with a light shield and weapon.
You move the weapon into the shield hand, cast, then move the weapon back to your weapon hand.
|
In answer to the question of why move items around, I've generally seen it for clerics with light shields who are dealing putting an item in their shield hand (which can hold an item but not make use of it) while then doing something else with their non-shield hand. One hand, but multiple uses (weapon-use, spellcasting, wands, scrolls, etc.)
The same thing can come up for other character types who have versitile roles, but it seems less common.
Edit: ninja'd
|
|
There is one situation where this matters:
A cleric with a light shield and weapon.
You move the weapon into the shield hand, cast, then move the weapon back to your weapon hand.
No because james has said that light shields leave hands free for spell casting. It did matter for 3.5...enough so that somatic weaponry was made.
No because james has said that light shields leave hands free for spell casting. It did matter for 3.5...enough so that somatic weaponry was made.There is one situation where this matters:
A cleric with a light shield and weapon.
You move the weapon into the shield hand, cast, then move the weapon back to your weapon hand.
Did he really? Cool! Can you link to it, please?
|
|
Did he really? Cool! Can you link to it, please?No because james has said that light shields leave hands free for spell casting. It did matter for 3.5...enough so that somatic weaponry was made.There is one situation where this matters:
A cleric with a light shield and weapon.
You move the weapon into the shield hand, cast, then move the weapon back to your weapon hand.
Go to Linky.
|
I gotta say, I find this sort of thread both funny and a tad ridiculous. I get wanting to follow RAW, but you realize that you are questioning handedness in a game where right at the outset you are capable of fighting off impossible beasts of myth, of performing olympian feats of athleticism, of literally changing the structure of your body, of conjuring fire and lightning from nothing. And that's just level 1. And you are worried about whether or not you are holding the weapon in your dominant hand or not?!?!?
I'm sorry, but that seems really insignificant in comparison...
I gotta say, I find this sort of thread both funny and a tad ridiculous. I get wanting to follow RAW, but you realize that you are questioning handedness in a game where right at the outset you are capable of fighting off impossible beasts of myth, of performing olympian feats of athleticism, of literally changing the structure of your body, of conjuring fire and lightning from nothing. And that's just level 1. And you are worried about whether or not you are holding the weapon in your dominant hand or not?!?!?
I'm sorry, but that seems really insignificant in comparison...
He is actually trying to bypass the off-hand restriction on strength, and the point of the double slice feat, by using a free action. I don't think too many DM's will be going for it. He may be new to the hobby though so he may not about the double slice feat.
He is actually trying to bypass the off-hand restriction on strength, and the point of the double slice feat, by using a free action. I don't think too many DM's will be going for it. He may be new to the hobby though so he may not about the double slice feat.
I don't think he/she is trying to get away with anything. At least I didn't get that from the posts. I think the OP is just under the impression that handedness exists in PF, and was trying to figure out the rules for it.
Could be wrong, tho.
|
I would say that if you had a high dex, and especially if you are a TWF, you could use both hands for all but delicate things (or perhaps writing the same) with equal prowess. I would think being able to switch hands, etc would be part of the fighting style, perhaps to catch your opponent off guard with the reach if you were fighting with a rapier/dagger combo or the like.
Thats how we treat it in house, but obviously if you want a more realism and less superhuman characters, you could impose handedness penalties.
He is actually trying to bypass the off-hand restriction on strength, and the point of the double slice feat, by using a free action. I don't think too many DM's will be going for it. He may be new to the hobby though so he may not about the double slice feat.I don't think he/she is trying to get away with anything. At least I didn't get that from the posts. I think the OP is just under the impression that handedness exists in PF, and was trying to figure out the rules for it.
Could be wrong, tho.
I did not phrase it well. I don't think he is trying to cheat, but I do think he is trying to get around the penalty, but the intent is more due to his newness than to him being an experienced player, trying to game the system. That is why I said he may not know about the double slice feat. :)
I think it's easiest to see it like this: You are equally skilled with both your hands. All characters in PF are ambidextrous in that both left and right hands can be used to equal effect.
However, if you try to use both hands AT THE SAME TIME (when dual-wielding) you'll run into coordination problems. Due to this, someone untrained in two-weapon fighting have to choose a hand to lead with, that they focus their coordination on, while the other is used to a lesser extent as a support and misdirection tool. Both attacks take penalties because you're trying to use them at the same time, but by focusing on one hand you improve your chances with it while the other hand takes an off-hand penalty - not because you're awkward at using the hand, but because your concentration is at other things.
This of course also explains the non-hand off-hands, such as using kicks and armor spikes. You focus on your greatsword, and use the armor spikes more as a diversion and threat.
If you have the TWF feat, you're far better at focusing on both weapons at the same time, and take a far lesser penalty. If you have double slice too, you're not only ambidextrous, but you can use both hands independently of each other at the same time.