Hi there,
I read that changing from wielding a two-handed weapon to just holding it in one hand is a free action. Has theer been clarifications whether taking it back into a two-handed grip (wielding it again) is also a free action?
The reason for my asking in this: My character is a Monk 1/Magus X.
He would like to wield a reach weapon to threaten more than the surrounding squares when it is not his turn. Then, on his turn, he would let go of one hand as a free action, no longer wielding the polearm. That hand can be used for spellcasting when using Magus spell combat, while his attacks are made using the monk unarmed strike, which doesn't require hands. Effectively he uses one hand for somatic components, and one for holding the polearm, kicking with his feet (monks explicitely can attack with both hands otherwise occupied).
At the end of the round, he would wield the polearm again as a free action, threatening a wider area again.
Is that legal?
I realize that "wielding a light weapon in one hand" isn't exactly the same as making an unarmed strike with hands full. But my group agrees that the design intent of the monks ability to attack with hands full is to count in cases where normally you would wield a weapon in one hand, it is just a special case that is not reflected in every wording. We also allow the unarmed strike to be enchanted by the Arcane Pool, even it it is technically not a "weapon he is holding". Our view is that the wording isn't meant that exclusively.
So the main thrust of the question is what action it is to wield a weapon held in one hand.
I don't see why not.
Wizards have to use a free action to free up their hand(s) to cast a spell then a free action again to keep say a quarterstaff as a weapon again.
Also yes Monks can use unarmed strike with their feet to stunning fist even though its called stunning fist as they are still using an unarmed strike. In fact any part of the body of a monk is considered an unarmed strike unless the monk has claws/bite/wings/etc as those are natural attacks.
While you hold a two-handed weapon in one hand, usually you cannot attack with it. Some exceptions exist (Quarterstaff Master feat, Bastard Sword).
Yes it is legal to do that as you now are holding your polearm with two hands again and are considered to be threatening at the end of your turn.
Cool, that's a help.
My concept is the following: The character is trip-specialized and has Snake Style/Snake Fang. In the first few rounds, he tries to trip approaching enemies before they can reach him, attacks with fists and casts buffs.
After a few rounds it's polarm-time: Wielding it in both hands he threatens 10'. Now, if an enemy gets adjacent he trips him and uses Ki Throw to fling him 10' away (unless there is a chasm or pit trap or pyre nearby). Backing 5' away, the enemy can get up, but not near enough to attack, because the character is 15' away and after getting up he can no longer charge.
|
I realize that "wielding a light weapon in one hand" isn't exactly the same as making an unarmed strike with hands full. But my group agrees that the design intent of the monks ability to attack with hands full is to count in cases where normally you would wield a weapon in one hand, it is just a special case that is not reflected in every wording. We also allow the unarmed strike to be enchanted by the Arcane Pool, even it it is technically not a "weapon he is holding". Our view is that the wording isn't meant that exclusively.
While normally a monk's ability would allow him to attack normally even when his hands are occupied, spell combat specifically only allows the use of an UAS attack that is associated with a hand as explained in this FAQ:
Magus: When using spell combat, can the weapon in my other hand be an unarmed strike or a natural weapon?
Yes, so long as the weapon is a light or one-handed melee weapon and is associated with that hand. For example, unarmed strikes, claws, and slams are light melee weapons associated with a hand, and therefore are valid for use with spell combat. A tail slap is not associated with a hand, and therefore is not valid for use with spell combat.
If your UAS is a kick, headbutt, or other non-hand-associated attack, it is not a valid weapon for the purposes of spell combat. The monk's ability lets you kick, overriding a lot of general restrictions about attacking with your hands full, but it doesn't turn your kick into a punch, and Spell Combat specifically requires a punch. So this does not work by RAW.
However, if your group is willing to allow a kick with spell combat despite this the grip-changing is fine.
as an aside question regarding monks, one handed weapons and changing grip ....
could a monk (or any character with IUS) use their arcane pool in 2 subsequent rounds to enchant both their one handed weapon and their unarmed strike (hand) either with changing grip from hand to hand (free action) or without changing grips at all?
|
|
as an aside question regarding monks, one handed weapons and changing grip ....
could a monk (or any character with IUS) use their arcane pool in 2 subsequent rounds to enchant both their one handed weapon and their unarmed strike (hand) either with changing grip from hand to hand (free action) or without changing grips at all?
Not at the same time.
A magus can only enhance one weapon in this way at one time. If he uses this ability again, the first use immediately ends.
Thanks weirdo, I didn't know that ruling.
An OT question about my monk magus: Tell me if I got this right.
I cast Alter Self to turn into a troglodyte. This gives me two claw and a bite attacks, which I can combine with my monk unarmed strike: Unarmed strike as usual, natural attacks are secondary at -5, as per Core p. 182. (Errata deleted the part about penalties to the regular attack).
Can I now make four trip attacks, once with my unarmed strike at full CMB, three times with the natural attacks at -5 for being secondary?