| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
I did a little searching on 2h weapons to try and find the answers, but technically didn't find one, so here goes.
I've been reading a lot of feedback on the Magus play test, where what I thought an old question keeps surfacing - the concept of having a hand free for casting a spell.
I'll start by admitting that I haven't combed entirely through the PF Core book, because enough of the mechanics remain the same to 3x, though likewise I haven't really gone over the rules for that in a while. I did once, and I usually run games, and everything seems to be working out.
Now here's the real question:
If you're wielding a 1h weapon and have a hand free, you can cast, right?
It seems though (through post conversations) that you're not allowed to cast while using a 2h weapon. Is this true, and if so, why?
Let me explain my thought process.
As far as I'm concerned about it, releasing the handle of a weapon with one hand takes pretty much no effort. My searches returned the general idea that loosing a hand from a 2h weapon (or re-grasping one) would essentially be free actions. Clearly you can't cast a spell in the middle of a full-attack-action, but what about before or after?
Let's say you're wielding a greatsword, and somehow you have the ability to cast a spell in the same round as a full-attack. What's preventing you from letting go of the handle to cast your spell, then grasping it again and hacking them up (or the reverse for casting after)? I personally think it's totally reasonable to hold a 2h weapon in one hand, especially for such a short period of time, but you'd need both to use it properly still.
Is there some rules law that I'm missing here that would prevent this? Does it actually state somewhere that this can't be done? Is there even really anything stopping you from wielding a 2h weapon and casting at the same time, or is this a wide-spread phantom fear without substance?
Thanks in advance for any answers I can get.
|
If you're wielding a 1h weapon and have a hand free, you can cast, right?
No, because you are actually casting the spell WHILE you are attacking. That is why you can cast the spell and attack at the same time. Your character is using his or her free hand to make the neccessary gestures. That is why there is an attack penalty and a concentration penalty.
Attacking with the two-handed weapon and casting at the same time is not possible because you must have a hand free to cast the spell.
OP: Yes, you can do more or less how you describe it. Release the grip with one hand, cast the spell, grip it again. Note though that while you're casting the spell, you aren't wielding the weapon, and bonded weapons require you to wield them when you're casting spells. In other words, don't get a 2-handed bonded weapon.
For the spear-wielding sorcerer, this isn't a problem.
So basically, these are the different setups and how you cast spells:
No weapon - no issue.
1-handed weapon - no issue
1 handed weapon and buckler/light shield - no issue
2-handed weapon - release grip, cast, grip
1-handed weapon and heavy shield - sheath weapon, cast spell, draw weapon (requires move action or quickdraw)
dual wielding - sheath weapon, cast spell, draw weapon (requires move action or quickdraw)
There is a difference between HOLDING a weapon and WIELDING it.
HOLDING: is like have in your scabbard and you must use a MOVE ACTION to wield it (as if you draw a weapon)
WIELDING: your weapon is ready to strike
Do you have any rules support in it requiring a move action? Because James Jacobs have stated that switching hand is a free action, and I can't see how wielding a weapon and releasing it should take less effort than merely wielding it.
If you're wielding a 1h weapon and have a hand free, you can cast, right?No, because you are actually casting the spell WHILE you are attacking. That is why you can cast the spell and attack at the same time. Your character is using his or her free hand to make the neccessary gestures. That is why there is an attack penalty and a concentration penalty.
Attacking with the two-handed weapon and casting at the same time is not possible because you must have a hand free to cast the spell.
I think he's talking about casting spells in general, not the magus class ability.
|
I absolutely understand where this RAW discussion around 2H weapons is coming from. Munchkins who want to make a 2H-sword or other similar weapon there bonded object for the magus class.
But to a certain degree I can only shake my head. Isn't the quarterstaff the most prominent wizard weapon of all times. And isn't the quarterstaff also the most likely bonded weapon for a role-playing wizard - just think Tolkien. And yes - the quarterstaff also is a 2H weapon.
You even have the Staff of the Archmage. Doesn't the staff of the Archmage (and other staffs) double as a quarterstaff.
So please someone tell me that to use a staff of the Archmage properly I actually need quickdraw ...
Have we always done this wrong in all the years when we allowed a wizard with a quarterstaff cast spells and not checking if he properly let lose of the staff with at least one hand?
Just wondering
Thod
|
|
No problem.
Quaterstaff is a double weapon, so you can WIELD it with two or ONE hand... (you can attack as double weapon with TWF rules OR as two-handed weapon OR one-handed weapon)
Perfect weapon for bonded weapon ;)
Where is this written? Table 6.4 - Core Rulebook:
Two-Handed Melee Weapons
Longspear 5 gp 1d6 1d8 ×3 — 9 lbs. P brace, reach
Quarterstaff — 1d4/1d4 1d6/1d6 ×2 — 4 lbs. B double, monk
Spear 2 gp 1d6 1d8 ×3 20 ft. 6 lbs. P brace
I've just started the very instructive discussion that Defreater has linked to.
But I haven't seen anywhere that a quarterstaff is not a 2H weapon. There is a remark that a staff can be used while casting - while it often also could be used as a quarterstaff. Does it mean a quarterstaff could also be used as staff?
Anywhere something official about this?
Thod
OP: Yes, you can do more or less how you describe it. Release the grip with one hand, cast the spell, grip it again. Note though that while you're casting the spell, you aren't wielding the weapon, and bonded weapons require you to wield them when you're casting spells. In other words, don't get a 2-handed bonded weapon.
For the spear-wielding sorcerer, this isn't a problem.
+1
There is a difference between HOLDING a weapon and WIELDING it.
HOLDING: is like have in your scabbard and you must use a MOVE ACTION to wield it (as if you draw a weapon)
WIELDING: your weapon is ready to strikeDo you have any rules support in it requiring a move action? Because James Jacobs have stated that switching hand is a free action, and I can't see how wielding a weapon and releasing it should take less effort than merely wielding it.
I can't remember the topic, but he says that a strict reading of the rules means you need a move to re-grasp a 2-handed weapon, even if he understand some prefer just a free action for switch.
It's up to the GM...
I'd like a link to that, because that sounds like bulls***. The rules are 100% silent on this issue. Also, if that was the rules, an archer would be more or less totally screwed unless he had three arms.
Shoot - standard actionRelease bow with one hand, reload - free action
Wield bow - move action.
Only one shot per round, no full attacks, no movement. For light crossbow:
Shoot - standard action
release crossbow, reload - move action
Round 2:
wield crossbow - move action
shoot - standard action
Round 3:
reload - move
wield - move
So he gets out less than one bolt per turn. I guess the sling is the new standard weapon; same speed as a bow, strength to damage with no investment, simple weapon, can use at the same time as shield.
No, that's just insane. I don't think James Jacobs would in one thread state that switching weapons between hands is a free action (not even a swift!) while wielding a weapon that you already have in your hand is a move action, and that that would be supported by the RAW when the RAW doesn't mention it, and when that would make all projectile weapons suck.
But I haven't seen anywhere that a quarterstaff is not a 2H weapon. There is a remark that a staff can be used while casting - while it often also could be used as a quarterstaff. Does it mean a quarterstaff could also be used as staff?
Anywhere something official about this?
Thod
A quarterstaff is always a two-handed weapon. However, as a double weapon, it can be wielded in one hand; see the double weapon section in the "equipment" chapter under "weapons". The requirement for bonded weapons is that you wield them, thus, quarterstaves work.
And a quarterstaff is a staff; it's a staff made for hitting people. Magic staves (such as staff of the archmagi) are staffs made for casting spells. Some staves might be made to do both things, thus magic staves that function as quarterstaves in combat.
edit: damn doublepost
|
|
But I haven't seen anywhere that a quarterstaff is not a 2H weapon. There is a remark that a staff can be used while casting - while it often also could be used as a quarterstaff. Does it mean a quarterstaff could also be used as staff?
Anywhere something official about this?
Thod
p 491 core rulebook: STAVES "...a typical staff is like a walking stick, QUATERSTAFF or cudgel..."
p 144 core rulebook Special Double: "...a double weapon can be wielded as a one-handed weapon, but they..."
A staff/quaterstaff is a 2-handed weapon which can also be used as one-handed OR double-weapon.
Thanks - sorry for taking that long ...
Off course this is the solution for the Magus and his bonded weapon:
Use a double weapon like an Orc Double Axe, Dire Flail, Two Bladed Sword or Dwarven Urgosh and you are fine ...
Sorry - couldn't resist to apply my new learnt RAW knowledge.
But at least it makes the quarterstaff legal in a way I agree with.
Thod
BILL 1: the rules of reload are different rules...it is another rule!!!! Reload have nothing to do with holding/wielding
So, no problem to shoot many times ;)
Realism can only be suppressed to a certain limit. You don't reload with your mind, you use your hand. If you just have two hands, you clearly can't hold a bow (which is a two-handed weapon) in two hands and draw a new arrow. I'm not talking about the reload action here, I'm talking about that you would need a free hand to use it. Barring additional limbs, that hand has to come from somewhere - one of the hands holding the bow.
BILL 2: p186 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....Drawing ammunition for use with a ranged weapon (such as arrows, bolts, sling bullets or shuriken) is a free action."I agree this rule is not very "clear", that's why dev's agree for the "dual-rule".
So the problem is a lack of definition of "draw". There's no indication anywhere in that text that any sort of gripping is equal to "drawing" the weapon. Since it's under the header of "drawing and sheathing a weapon", one would assume that in that context, it's when you draw a weapon from a sheathe. Especially since the text makes sure to specify exceptions to this (other items count if they're stored easily accessible).
Nowwhere do the rules state anything on the matter. This isn't about drawing a weapon, and at least one other rule and one official ruling seem to indicate that it's a free action:
- Archery can be used in a full attack. This would not be possible unless releasing the bow with one hand and re-gripping it as a free action.
- Changing hand with a weapon that you hold in your other hand is a free action. linky. Thus, the the physical action of gripping the weapon itself is a free action.
Because a somatic component is a complete set of actions during a phase. You essentially need your hand free for entirety of your turn just like you would need to have your weapon in hand in order to attack.
One way to ameliorate this would be a Mage Arcana worded thusly...
First off let me say that this question actually in no way-shape-or-form is actually directed AT the Magus. The topic on the class is merely what got me thinking about it and little more, as noted by Stringburka.
I continue to contest though, that the line on somatic components isn't entirely true. I don't think it is a "Complete set of actions during a phase" - because a standard action is not your entire phase, nor would some extra action such as with a quickened spell or haste type effect (I know haste doesn't allow spellcasting - just using it as a comparative event). You can cast a spell, then climb a ladder for your move, which requires your hands - provided the cast time is a standard action or less. Or in reverse, you can climb the ladder and then cast a spell. I don't really see this as being any less of a use of one's hands.
As far as wielding and holding go, I suppose I allowed too much room here... I was mainly using them simply in a descriptive sense, without meaning to tie them in so much.
I guess the simplified question would be;
"Can you temporarily hold a weapon with 1 hand to cast a spell with the other, then grab it again?"
I believe the answer to this (per apparent rules and opinions) is "yes".
Even then though, I wonder.
Wielding is to have in both hands ready to use. Holding is different, sure, but I wonder how much this actually comes into play. I'm imagining a Sorcerer into Eldritch Knight that prefers a greatsword. At the start of your turn, you're still wielding the sword as you were previously. You drop one hand to cast your spell, then grab the weapon again, and take your haste-action attack. Far as I can tell, this works.
I see the important difference between wielded and held. Mainly that you can't make any AoO if you're merely holding a weapon. At least not with the weapon you're simply "holding".
But when does the change between held and wielded occur?
Myself as a GM, I think I'd say "wielded" would resume when next you made an attack, but I'm apprehensive considering you can wield a weapon without actually using it to strike. Oh sweet confusion... Heh.
By the way - posted this before I went to work this morning, and just got back. Glad to see this much upon returning home. Thanks to everyone who's contributing. :)
|
But I haven't seen anywhere that a quarterstaff is not a 2H weapon. There is a remark that a staff can be used while casting - while it often also could be used as a quarterstaff. Does it mean a quarterstaff could also be used as staff?
Anywhere something official about this?
Thod
p 491 core rulebook: STAVES "...a typical staff is like a walking stick, QUATERSTAFF or cudgel..."
p 144 core rulebook Special Double: "...a double weapon can be wielded as a one-handed weapon, but they..."
A staff/quaterstaff is a 2-handed weapon which can also be used as one-handed OR double-weapon.
Per the linked thread above, here is the reason for staves
Staves are only 2H weaopns when you hit folks on the head with them. A magic staff is not a weapon. It's a magic staff; it's different than a quarterstaff (although some magic staffs can be USED as quarterstaves). You can use a staff and shoot spells from it with one hand (see Lord of the Rings or any other movie/story/picture of a wizard with a staff, pretty much), or cast spells, PROVIDED you're not wielding said staff like Little John (aka: Wielding the staff as a weapon).
But I haven't seen anywhere that a quarterstaff is not a 2H weapon. There is a remark that a staff can be used while casting - while it often also could be used as a quarterstaff. Does it mean a quarterstaff could also be used as staff?
Anywhere something official about this?
Thod
p 491 core rulebook: STAVES "...a typical staff is like a walking stick, QUATERSTAFF or cudgel..."
p 144 core rulebook Special Double: "...a double weapon can be wielded as a one-handed weapon, but they..."
A staff/quaterstaff is a 2-handed weapon which can also be used as one-handed OR double-weapon.
None of this allows the wielding of a quarterstaff, or any double weapon, in one hand.
Double weapons, inc. Quarterstaffs are two handed weapons. Double weapons can be used for Two Weapon Fighting, or they can be used to make a single attack. Either way, they are still two handed weapons and require both hands to wield. One way, you get more attacks. The other you get more strength bonus damage. Both ways require both hands.
|
|
But I haven't seen anywhere that a quarterstaff is not a 2H weapon. There is a remark that a staff can be used while casting - while it often also could be used as a quarterstaff. Does it mean a quarterstaff could also be used as staff?
Anywhere something official about this?
Thod
p 491 core rulebook: STAVES "...a typical staff is like a walking stick, QUATERSTAFF or cudgel..."
p 144 core rulebook Special Double: "...a double weapon can be wielded as a one-handed weapon, but they..."
A staff/quaterstaff is a 2-handed weapon which can also be used as one-handed OR double-weapon.
None of this allows the wielding of a quarterstaff, or any double weapon, in one hand.
Double weapons, inc. Quarterstaffs are two handed weapons. Double weapons can be used for Two Weapon Fighting, or they can be used to make a single attack. Either way, they are still two handed weapons and require both hands to wield. One way, you get more attacks. The other you get more strength bonus damage. Both ways require both hands.
Yes it does because even JJ says it does. After he mentions the magical staff not being a quarterstaff, the double weapon rule was brought up and he flat out said that works too and he just plumb forgot about that rule. So we have a devloper saying yes you can you saying no you can't. Guess which one matters more when your not the DM.
But I haven't seen anywhere that a quarterstaff is not a 2H weapon. There is a remark that a staff can be used while casting - while it often also could be used as a quarterstaff. Does it mean a quarterstaff could also be used as staff?
Anywhere something official about this?
Thod
p 491 core rulebook: STAVES "...a typical staff is like a walking stick, QUATERSTAFF or cudgel..."
p 144 core rulebook Special Double: "...a double weapon can be wielded as a one-handed weapon, but they..."
A staff/quaterstaff is a 2-handed weapon which can also be used as one-handed OR double-weapon.
None of this allows the wielding of a quarterstaff, or any double weapon, in one hand.
Double weapons, inc. Quarterstaffs are two handed weapons. Double weapons can be used for Two Weapon Fighting, or they can be used to make a single attack. Either way, they are still two handed weapons and require both hands to wield. One way, you get more attacks. The other you get more strength bonus damage. Both ways require both hands.
Um... no Quarterstaves are double weapons and as such can be used as one handed weapons, as per the double weapons special trait. Please note that all double weapons are listed as two handed weapons -- but the double weapon trait bypasses this in the case you do want to attack with a double weapon as if it was an one handed weapon.
|
|
Well, you need to remember something important about wizards and staves. Wizards generally do not cast spells and attack at the same time. Thus, they can free a hand to make the neccessary gestures while holding the staff.
However, the magus is a different story because he is both attacking and casting a spell in the same action. He needs a hand free because of his divided focus. This is simply not going to work with a staff or a double weapon. It would be too unwieldy and imbalanced to work properly.
Thus, it makes perfect sense for the magus to be restricted to one-handed weapons. Now, the magus could use a two-handed or double weapon and still cast spills. They just would not be able to make use of the class feature that allows them to both attack with a melee weapon and cast spells.
Sorry, my friend, it just won't work as-is.
I'm seriously almost regretting making this post. -_-;;
Wish I could get something more official than opinion - it's getting crazy.
I'm still doubling back to my one thought though, which hasn't come up again;
You can cast a spell, and climb a ladder in the same round. Both take hand(s).
So why couldn't you cast a spell with a free hand, simply holding the greatsword in the other (already drawn and out mind you), then with your haste action reapply your other hand, and swing?
Now people... Respectful and constructive please. :)
"stop cheating. and watch your tone. " - Really?
C'mon man... that's not even close to helping.
SabreRabbit, and everyone else who's walking down that path again...
This is NOT about the Magus, or I would have put it in the Magus forum.
It was merely a conversation there that rekindled this thought about rules in general, which is why I'm posting it here! (sigh)
Please don't make me go back to my first post, and edit it to remove that class name.
Please base opinions and rules related thoughts on the following actions only:
--- Weapons used: Greatsword (2h)
- Standard (cast a spell)
- Move (???)
- Haste (single attack)
- Swift (???)
- Free (???)
Is there a rule that says you cannot temporarily relinquish your hold with one hand to cast a spell before attacking, and if so where?
If there is, would this not prevent you from doing any other hands-required action during the same turn you cast a spell?
(I'm still thankful for the feedback - I just don't want people stabbing at others here)
Well, you need to remember something important about wizards and staves. Wizards generally do not cast spells and attack at the same time. Thus, they can free a hand to make the neccessary gestures while holding the staff.
However, the magus is a different story because he is both attacking and casting a spell in the same action. He needs a hand free because of his divided focus. This is simply not going to work with a staff or a double weapon. It would be too unwieldy and imbalanced to work properly.
Thus, it makes perfect sense for the magus to be restricted to one-handed weapons. Now, the magus could use a two-handed or double weapon and still cast spills. They just would not be able to make use of the class feature that allows them to both attack with a melee weapon and cast spells.
Sorry, my friend, it just won't work as-is.
Obviously you haven't bothered reading the double weapon. It works as is because of the rules involved.
Yes it does because even JJ says it does. After he mentions the magical staff not being a quarterstaff, the double weapon rule was brought up and he flat out said that works too and he just plumb forgot about that rule. So we have a devloper saying yes you can you saying no you can't. Guess which one matters more when your not the DM.
You need to take another look at the post. Here's the JJ quote I assume you are referring to:
"Staves are only 2H weaopns when you hit folks on the head with them. A magic staff is not a weapon. It's a magic staff; it's different than a quarterstaff (although some magic staffs can be USED as quarterstaves). You can use a staff and shoot spells from it with one hand (see Lord of the Rings or any other movie/story/picture of a wizard with a staff, pretty much), or cast spells, PROVIDED you're not wielding said staff like Little John (aka: Wielding the staff as a weapon)."
Just for clarity, there are two issues here.
1. Can a Quarterstaff be a bonded weapon?
Yes. It can even be held in one hand and still be used as a bonded weapon for the purpose of casting. The above quote from JJ quite specifically says you can.
2. Can a double weapon be wielded in one hand?
No. JJ's quote also specifically states that when wielding a quarterstaff "as a weapon," it is still a 2H weapon. There is nothing in his post that contradicts my interpretation that when using a 2H weapon to make a single attack, it is still a 2H weapon. You cannot wield a double weapon and a shield, for example, at the same time. Nothing he says contradicts this.
Yes it does because even JJ says it does. After he mentions the magical staff not being a quarterstaff, the double weapon rule was brought up and he flat out said that works too and he just plumb forgot about that rule.
Where did he state that? It wasn't in that thread. There are also no posts on that thread that I can find where he says anything even vaguely like this. He DOES say, however, that:
"You can ABSOLUTELY cast spells while holding a 2H weapon in one hand. But if that 2H weapon is your bonded object, you can't use it as a bonded object and may run into troubles. If you're playing a 2H weapon wizard, your best bet for arcane bond is something NOT your 2H weapon is all this means."
And:
"An arcane bonded weapon must be wielded in order for it to have effect. This, unfortunately, does mean that two-handed weapons make for relatively poor bonded objects, since they'd limit your spellcasting to things without somatic components. Carrying a 2-handed weapon in one hand isn't "wielding" it... you're just carrying it. You have to have both hands to cast spells with a two-handed weapon bonded object."
*
*
*
TL;DR: JJ said absolutely NOTHING abut whether double weapons could be wielded in one hand. Nothing at all.
Double: You can use a double weapon to fight as if fighting with two weapons, but if you do, you incur all the normal attack penalties associated with fighting with two weapons, just as if you were using a one-handed weapon and a light weapon.
He didn't need to because the rules already explicitedly allow it.
Um... no Quarterstaves are double weapons and as such can be used as one handed weapons, as per the double weapons special trait. Please note that all double weapons are listed as two handed weapons -- but the double weapon trait bypasses this in the case you do want to attack with a double weapon as if it was an one handed weapon.
No, it doesn't. There is nothing in the double weapons trait that contradicts the fact that double weapons are always 2H weapons. The fact that you can attack with a single end of the weapon does not mean you can use only one hand to do so. It just means that you don't have to use them as double weapons. You can swing once with each end, or swing once with one end. That's it. You cannot use a shield and a double weapon at the same time.
No, it doesn't. There is nothing in the double weapons trait that contradicts the fact that double weapons are always 2H weapons. The fact that you can attack with a single end of the weapon does not mean you can use only one hand to do so. It just means that you don't have to use them as double weapons. You can swing once with each end, or swing once with one end. That's it. You cannot use a shield and a double weapon at the same time.
Um... no Quarterstaves are double weapons and as such can be used as one handed weapons, as per the double weapons special trait. Please note that all double weapons are listed as two handed weapons -- but the double weapon trait bypasses this in the case you do want to attack with a double weapon as if it was an one handed weapon.
Again:
Double: You can use a double weapon to fight as if fighting with two weapons, but if you do, you incur all the normal attack penalties associated with fighting with two weapons, just as if you were using a one-handed weapon and a light weapon.
Don't know why you can't see that clearly in the double weapons entry.
@Rageling:
In regards to using a greatsword and casting a spell:
Yes, of course you can. Releasing a hand on the greatsword to cast a spell is perfectly allowable.
In regards to haste:
Haste works differently now. It doesn't allow you cast and attack at the same time.
In regards to threadjacking:
Sorry about that. I'll start a new one on the subject of double weapons as 2H or 1H.
Just to clarify haste a bit more:
"When making a full attack action, a hasted creature may make
one extra attack with any weapon he is holding. The attack is made
using the creature’s full base attack bonus..."
So, yeah, no extra haste attack when casting a spell.
Otherwise, I agree that you can take a hand off the weapon to cast, and it should be a free action to put it back on, as I see that as much less than drawing it from a scabbard. If you've ever tried to draw a long, straight blade from a scabbard, you know it's not that quick.
I think too much is being made of the phase "so you can use it in combat" under the rules on drawing weapons.
"You can ABSOLUTELY cast spells while holding a 2H weapon in one hand. But if that 2H weapon is your bonded object, you can't use it as a bonded object and may run into troubles. If you're playing a 2H weapon wizard, your best bet for arcane bond is something NOT your 2H weapon is all this means."...
...@Rageling:
In regards to using a greatsword and casting a spell:...
...In regards to threadjacking:
Thanks much! This almost entirely answers my question, leaving only one left:
If you choose to cast a spell, does this render you as "not wielding" the 2h until your next turn, or would a free/move action to re-grab it allow you to make AoOs as normal?From the quoted line, it seems that there is no problem switching from held to wielded at all for any purpose - except in the terms of a bonded item. Seeing that this situation (Greatsword Wielding Sorcerer/EK) doesn't care about a bonded item, I'm pretty sure casting a spell doesn't interrupt their flow - that is unless there's some very well hidden rule that nobody has yet found. =P
As for "Threadjacking" - don't worry one bit about it!
While not in this particular case, I could see 2h/Double weapons coming up in the same idea, so it's technically on-topic.
I don't mind a little deviation - I just want people to play nice, y'know? S'all good.
(Edit: Plus, thanks for fixing my Haste ignorance... Heh. Can't believe I didn't read the new version... Dumb move on my part)
So what I've gathered so far, this is my standing understanding:
- While wielding a greatsword, you may cast a spell, and resume wielding it when the spell is done.
- If the greatsword is a bonded item, freeing a hand for somatics interferes with casting by default, as the bonded item isn't wielded at that moment.
Let's go a step further with the whole 2h/Double/Bonded thing though while we're here and my question's been answered... :)
Let's say you throw a feat into the mix: Monkey Grip (WotC Complete Warrior).
It lets you use weapons one size step up as if they were one lower, with a penalty to attack rolls. Remember that a greatsword is mechanically a longsword one size step up.
If a Wizard were to choose a 2h weapon as his bonded weapon, and actually took Monkey Grip, would this allow him to still wield his Bonded Item while casting spells with a somatic component, as it can now be "wielded" in one hand with the penalty?
Point of reference for this question, double-1h-aside, is that a double weapon can be used as a 2h weapon by default in the entry. Step back one, and it's 1h equivalent.
If you choose to cast a spell, does this render you as "not wielding" the 2h until your next turn, or would a free/move action to re-grab it allow you to make AoOs as normal?
Unfortunately this isn't covered in the rules. I would certainly allow a character to go back to wielding his/her weapon for the purpose of AoOs, but other DMs might not.
Strictly from a playability stand point, the idea of having to keep track of whether a character used a spell in the previous round, whether that spell had somatic components, whether he/she/it cast with a standard action then had a move action left, or moved first, then cast, etc., before being able to determine if a character is entitled to an AoO, is WAY more than I can be bothered with, as a player or DM. YMMV, tho.
As for the monkey grip question, as long as you can meet the definition of "wield" (which seems to be, "ready to strike with no further actions") while leaving a hand free, then it should be allowed.
That's what I figured - as long as your hand's still able to move, you can go back to wielding it.
It simplifies a lot, and doesn't really break anything. As a DM myself, I'd allow it.
Though honestly, it'd probably be much better to snag Exotic for a Bastard Sword instead of Monkey Grip for your greatsword. Bottom end is 1 lower and top is 2 lower, but you can change style pretty freely without ever having to worry about penalties for it. Besides, if we're going with the Sorc into EK idea, a mix of Str and Weapon Spec will help fix it. :)
Always been a fan of Sword & Spell types, so I love talking about'em.
Duskblade, Hexblade (with Dev forum fix), Abjurant Champion, Jade Phoenix Mage, Eldritch Knight (even before Paizo's re-do but WAY more after) - and looking forward to what the new Class/Book will offer and become.
I'm actually running a Half-Elf Summoner right now, with melee focus and a family blade type thing - I'm not even trying to abuse the class, and we're pretty well ticking off the Half-Orc fighter... Heh. We're only level 2 at the moment though, so the fighter will rock it harder in a few levels.
Even had a DM once that was cool with me taking Eldritch Knight by letting my Warlock meet the requirements... Friggin loved that character so much.
I generally don't care so much about numbers and top-ends really, as long as the character's interesting, invested, and fun to play. Mechanically, I only really care if it works or not.
Same here. I love the martial/mystic mix. Even a one level dip into Wizard (Diviner) for an otherwise straight fighter adds so much to the role playing and character aspect of a PC, that I can hardly ever resist.
|
To my knowledge, putting a hand to a drawn weapon or letting it go had always been a free action in 3.5 and continues to be so in Pathfinder.
The argument for a move action are based on the conjecture that "holding" a weapon should be equivalent to having it in a scabbard. That doesn't make sense to me, and is not supported by the rules. Drawing a 1 - 2 m long piece of steel from your hip, or worse, from your back, is a full-body movement. Putting a hand onto a weapon that is already in place is a mere flourish, particularly since your hand most likely never moved far from your weapon for casting anyway. Likewise, putting your sword back into your scabbard is a longer motion (Move) than just moving your hand to drop it (Free).
"Wielding" is clearly not the same as "holding" -- you can't attack someone with a greatsword "held" in one hand -- but while you are not attacking, you can easily hold your greatsword in "ready" position with one hand.
Would you consider it fair for a duel to start with a weapon drawn and brandished on one side and a sheathed weapon on the other? Sure, one could minimize the disadvantage by drilling fast-draw techniques (Quick Draw feat), but nobody argues with that.
Note that a shield takes a move action to unequip because you can't just let go of it, you have to untangle your arm from the shield straps.
One more thing: If you are going to apply the "ready a weapon" rule to any transition from a non-attacking posture to an attacking one, you might as well require a Fighter to spend a move action after each blow to pull his weapon back and "ready" it for another strike... clearly a slower movement than just closing a free hand around a haft, but one that is taken for granted.
At any rate, an official clarification on this in the next PHB update would be helpful.