If you use your bow during your turn, both of your hands are dedicated until your next turn. You have nothing free for melee AOOs period.
If both hands where dedicated to wielding your bow, then you'd need a third hand to draw and load ammo. The normal operation of the bow doesn't work unless you actually have that free hand.
Does using a hand throwing Shurikens during your round become unusable for AoO? If not, what's different than the bow?
isn't the arrow loading part of the fire action, and the action is what requires 2 hands(to use the bow), thus meaning you only need a free hand as you attempt to load and attack which are part of the same action?
basically - to use the bow = use the attack or full round action to use it as a weapon
to use the bow requires 2 hands
that action has the arrow load as part of it
so the loading is part of the required 2 hands bit.
not only that but if a projectile weapon says it only requires 1 hand to be used, then you still have a free hand...
though i don't see a bow negating AoO in any way other than it is much harder to threaten people.
If you use your bow during your turn, both of your hands are dedicated until your next turn. You have nothing free for melee AOOs period.
Please address my example above regarding a mage keeping both hands busy during the duration of his turn.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you use your bow during your turn, both of your hands are dedicated until your next turn. You have nothing free for melee AOOs period.
Balderdash.
First, your full attack both starts and ends during your own turn. When your turn is over, your full attack has already completed, and there is no need to have two hand dedicated to it when you're not shooting arrows from it.
Second, the very act of shooting an arrow from a bow requires the hand holding the bowstring to let go of it, automatically leaving that hand free!
Third, two hands are required to shoot the bow, but are not required when not shooting the bow. Your full attack takes place entirely within your own turn, so you're not shooting it between turns. Therefore, between turns, you do not need to dedicate two hands to it, and can hold the bow with one hand and have the other hand free from the end of one of your turns to the start of the next. Or, more precisely, from the moment you last shot an arrow until the moment you want to shoot the next, and those moments will be entirely within your own turn.
|
Longbow
At almost 5 feet in height, a longbow is made up of one solid piece of carefully curved wood.
Description: You need two hands to use a bow, regardless of its size. A longbow is too unwieldy to use while you are mounted. If you have a penalty for low Strength, apply it to damage rolls when you use a longbow. If you have a Strength bonus, you can apply it to damage rolls when you use a composite longbow (see below), but not when you use a regular longbow.
RAW you don't have a free hand when using a bow. It's a reasonable houserule to allow otherwise, but this is the rules forum.
|
To use the bow (pull the string), you use both hands. Clear enough.
After you fire the arrow, do we all agree that the string hand is not touching the bow any more?
Doesn't that basically make the hand free as a consequence? Not even as a free action, but simply as an after-effect of the standard/full action of firing the bow?
Drawing an arrow is a free action that occurs during an attack with the bow.
When not attacking, the hand that would be drawing the arrows is not assumed to have an arrow in it.
Therefore the off hand is "free" when not attacking.
|
|
Do you regrip the string, after firing the bow?Do you continue waving your buckler hand after you cast a spell?
"Use" in game terms is broader than "attack". See the crossbow description where you can fire it one handed but require 2 hands to reload, bows lack anything in their description that MECHANICALLY allow you to use the reloading hand as a free hand.
The buckler has explicit text saying you can't use it at that point.
The bow doesn't have that text.
|
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
RAW I think the idea that you can let go of the bow as a free action, hold it between your turns while having a free hand, then "regrip" it on your next turn to attack works in the rules.
However, I also think it's an extremely reasonable house rule to put the kibosh on that notion. We use turns in combat because trying to do everything at once would be more complication than it's worth. But turn based system sometimes produces oddball artifacts like this rule, which implies that your archer is cramming a whole bunch of shots into a couple seconds, then standing there like a lump watching everybody else take their "turn," then taking a whole bunch of shots again.
Conceptually there is no "in between" your turns, from your character's POV each flows seamlessly into the next. We accept some quirkiness to make the game playable, but that leaves us open to oddball situations like this. This is very similar to "my eyes are closed when it's not my turn" when fighting a gaze attacker. Using "tricks" of the system like this to gain advantage hurts my suspension of disbelief because it calls into sharp focus the limitations of turn based combat.
Do you regrip the string, after firing the bow?
if he's holding multiple arrows in one hand, then he probably would...
RAW I think the idea that you can let go of the bow as a free action, hold it between your turns while having a free hand, then "regrip" it on your next turn to attack works in the rules.
However, I also think it's an extremely reasonable house rule to put the kibosh on that notion. We use turns in combat because trying to do everything at once would be more complication than it's worth. But turn based system sometimes produces oddball artifacts like this rule, which implies that your archer is cramming a whole bunch of shots into a couple seconds, then standing there like a lump watching everybody else take their "turn," then taking a whole bunch of shots again.
Conceptually there is no "in between" your turns, from your character's POV each flows seamlessly into the next. We accept some quirkiness to make the game playable, but that leaves us open to oddball situations like this. This is very similar to "my eyes are closed when it's not my turn" when fighting a gaze attacker. Using "tricks" of the system like this to gain advantage hurts my suspension of disbelief because it calls into sharp focus the limitations of turn based combat.
In all cases where actions come with penalties or limitations that persist beyond the taking of the action itself, the duration of these penalties or limitations are specifically called out in the rules. When nothing is called out, we don't need to make them up ourselves.
Let's not forget that we're talking about a system that has elaborate rules for determining how flying creatures are allowed to move during their turns, but explicitly disregards the flyer's states at the start of their next turn, allowing them to just determine their course 'from scratch' in any direction they chose. Even the most clumsy flyer can make a dead stop and reverse after every 6 second interval. Obviously, abstraction for ease of play wins out over realism most of the time.
|
|
RAW I think the idea that you can let go of the bow as a free action, hold it between your turns while having a free hand, then "regrip" it on your next turn to attack works in the rules.
I personally think that you have already let go of the bow with your string hand after firing the last arrow, rather than having to spend a free action on it. But oh well.
However, I also think it's an extremely reasonable house rule to put the kibosh on that notion. We use turns in combat because trying to do everything at once would be more complication than it's worth. But turn based system sometimes produces oddball artifacts like this rule, which implies that your archer is cramming a whole bunch of shots into a couple seconds, then standing there like a lump watching everybody else take their "turn," then taking a whole bunch of shots again.Conceptually there is no "in between" your turns, from your character's POV each flows seamlessly into the next. We accept some quirkiness to make the game playable, but that leaves us open to oddball situations like this. This is very similar to "my eyes are closed when it's not my turn" when fighting a gaze attacker. Using "tricks" of the system like this to gain advantage hurts my suspension of disbelief because it calls into sharp focus the limitations of turn based combat.
I respect the sentiment, but if you did that, I think it should be consistent across the board, not just for bows; it should also stop the 2H warrior from letting go at the end of his turn and regripping at the beginning of his next turn.
|
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
RAW I think the idea that you can let go of the bow as a free action, hold it between your turns while having a free hand, then "regrip" it on your next turn to attack works in the rules.
I personally think that you have already let go of the bow with your string hand after firing the last arrow, rather than having to spend a free action on it. But oh well.
I respect the sentiment, but if you did that, I think it should be consistent across the board, not just for bows; it should also stop the 2H warrior from letting go at the end of his turn and regripping at the beginning of his next turn.
However, I also think it's an extremely reasonable house rule to put the kibosh on that notion. We use turns in combat because trying to do everything at once would be more complication than it's worth. But turn based system sometimes produces oddball artifacts like this rule, which implies that your archer is cramming a whole bunch of shots into a couple seconds, then standing there like a lump watching everybody else take their "turn," then taking a whole bunch of shots again.Conceptually there is no "in between" your turns, from your character's POV each flows seamlessly into the next. We accept some quirkiness to make the game playable, but that leaves us open to oddball situations like this. This is very similar to "my eyes are closed when it's not my turn" when fighting a gaze attacker. Using "tricks" of the system like this to gain advantage hurts my suspension of disbelief because it calls into sharp focus the limitations of turn based combat.
Yep. Luckily for me I play with groups that feel the same way I do, so we don't need formalized house rules - we just don't do these things.
#1 - What do each of you want out of this thread? To "Win" or to get a better understanding of the rules? Well, if we can come to a better understanding, everybody wins.
#2 - To add to the discussion:"Hold 2 Weapons with one hand / Draw & Throw with the other". I find this to be the same as holding a 2h weapon in one hand.
#3 - The "Excruciating Minutiae" of how you use a bow, or if the rules description has a comma here or a period there should not be that relevant. What matters is that the weapon in question is a projectile ranged weapon that requires 2 hands to be used properly. It should be little different than any other projectile ranged weapon that also needs 2 hands to be used.
#4 - I find the rules to be somewhat inconsistent:
"Ranged Stance" - You Don't have threat with a ranged weapon.
"Ranged Stance + Snap Shot" - You have threat with a ranged weapon. Implies you need a Feat, some other prerequisite Feats and BAB +6 to threat while making ranged attacks.
"Ranged Stance + IUS/Bite/Boot Knife" - Seems to work, just may be expensive to get, maybe a feat.
"Ranged Stance + Spiked Gauntlet" - Seems to work, and it's cheap.
"2h Melee Stance" - You have threat with your 2h weapon.
"2h Melee Stance + Spiked Gauntlet + IUS/Bite/Boot Knife" - You threat with everything you have.
"2h Melee Stance + Off-hand" - You can't make off-hand attacks while using your both "hands" with your 2h weapon.
(An AoO is not an Off-hand attack)
"2h Melee Stance + Ranged Attack - You use your "free hand" to make ranged attacks while still threatening with your 2h weapon. Seems to work.
"Reach Stance" - You Don't threat adjacent squares with a Reach weapon. It's the trade off for the reach property.
"Reach Stance + Spiked Gauntlet" - Doesn't seems to work, if you attack with the reach weapon then you don't threat with the spiked gauntlet until the start of your next turn.
"Reach Stance + IUS" - Seems to work (even though you're already using both your 'metaphoriacal' hands with the reach weapon) but you spent a feat on it.
"Reach Stance + Bite/Boot Knife" - Seem to work
"Casting Stance" - You provoke AoO for casting, but you still have threat with weapons you wield, even a 2h staff.
The inconsistency I see is that the game seemed to be designed to leave you unarmed/threatless in certain conditions (ranged attacks, 5ft with reach weapons, Disarm), but then it spread it's legs and implemented many different ways to avoid that.
I think the real question is: Is it broken to allow everybody, ranged, melee, caster, monsters or monks to threat and attack freely with any weapon they can wield, or should we all declare the "stance" we are in at the start of our turn, and it would last until the start of our next turn?
"Stance" is not a game term. If you want any sort of rules-based consensus you're going to have to re-frame your premise with actual rules terminology.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If I have a BAB of +11, I get 3 attacks in a full attack.
If it turns out that the rules say that I am attacking for the entire six seconds, what is the interval between each attack?
Say my initiative is 14. On what Init is my first attack? What about my second attack? Third?
If I take my full attack on my turn (Init 14), then get disarmed on Init 12, how many of the attacks that I already rolled during my turn are taken back as if they never happened.
Say I make a full attack with my bow on Init 14, then on Init 12 one of my hands is amputated. How many of those arrows I already shot fly back into my quiver, the wounds they caused healing over and the Orcs they killed coming back to life?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I clicked on the link given, looked below the one about werewolf alignment, and saw the question IQuerent put to James Jacobs, who confirmed that everyone is acting at the same time during the round.
Feeling that this wasn't the issue, I asked him:-
If I take a full attack with a bow on my turn, can I hold the bow in one hand and have the other hand free at the end of my turn?
If so, can this free hand be used for things like Crane Wing or Deflect Arrows, which require a free hand (outside my turn) to use?
He replied:-
You can certainly do that, I suppose, but some GMs would probably get annoyed at those shenanigans.
So, get annoyed if you want, but we can certainly do that.
On the subject of those archery videos on the Internet, that guy has trained himself to do that, then made a video of him doing it.
But it's a video of him shooting arrows. It's not a video of him shooting arrows and not bothering to punch someone in the face because he's too busy!
If he'd trained himself to do that then he'd post a video of it.
Looking at a video of him not even try to make an AoO while shooting arrows is not evidence that he couldn't if he tried.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Pretty much everything in Pathfinder takes place at a specific time.
If you have a bow and attack, you are using two hands while attacking.
If you drop it after the attack, you are using no hands. You then have two hands free.
This is the same as if you let go with one hand (which others have pointed out actually happens automatically when you loose the last shot) your other hand is free.
If you are disarmed after your attack, you again have two hands free.
It does not matter how your hand got free, if it is stated as such by the player at the end of the attack, or caused by some other action, a free hand, is free.
|
|
The inconsistency I see is that the game seemed to be designed to leave you unarmed/threatless in certain conditions (ranged attacks, 5ft with reach weapons, Disarm), but then it spread it's legs and implemented many different ways to avoid that.
I think the real question is: Is it broken to allow everybody, ranged, melee, caster, monsters or monks to threat and attack freely with any weapon they can wield, or should we all declare the "stance" we are in at the start of our turn, and it would last until the start of our next turn?
More and more I'm convinced that this "intentionally unarmed" thing doesn't exist. Maybe it was intended at some point during 3.0, but I think that dropped by the wayside.
There are some elements of plausibility at work; the longspear is just too long to use close by. That doesn't mean you're meant to be helpless close by, but you have to put some extra effort in. And usually your "off" weapon is gonna be significantly less impressive; compare armor spikes to a greatsword.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
(...)
The buckler has explicit text saying you can't use it at that point.
The bow doesn't have that text.
the explicit raw text on bow is:
you require two hands to use.there is nothing there indicating, by raw, that you only need 1 hand to grip, and one hand to draw, and that the drawing hand is free in between shots.
everything else discussed in this thread, isn't raw, it is haw a bow works irl, which has nothing to do gamewise.
As Nikolai said, you need two hands to shoot arrows with a bow. That's what (probably) using it means.
"Use" and "wield" are not properly defined terms in PF. There is an item where the "wielder" summons a thrown weapon back into his hands; apparently in that case you don't even have to touch an item to count as wielding it. So in pretty much every case you have to use common sense to figure out what it means to hold, wield or use something.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
the explicit raw text on bow is:
you require two hands to use.there is nothing there indicating, by raw, that you only need 1 hand to grip, and one hand to draw, and that the drawing hand is free in between shots.
everything else discussed in this thread, isn't raw, it is haw a bow works irl, which has nothing to do gamewise.
That's actaully a good point. Where do the rules ever say that you have a free hand while wielding/using/holding/whatever a bow? Because if it doesn't, then only arguing from the rules kind of falls apart.
This is known, but there is nothing stopping you from switching to "using" the bow with both hands to "holding" the bow with one hand at the end of your turn. At the beginning of your next turn, you switch from "holding" to "using" once more. That's RAW.
Provide evidence.
Common sense is what dictates a free hand of course, but do the rules? Sure, it's logical to assume that someone would have a free hand at all times they aren't firing their bow, but...
the realism argument doesn't get very far in a game where you can take 10 arrows to the face and keep swinging, throw a fireball that melts stone, and swing a sword which does the exact same amount of damage as a crushing hammer whether the target is wearing plate metal or nothing at all.
My problem with using videos of archers on the Internet to determine the rules about archery (or anything else in the game) is not that I have something against the Internet, but that the only answer to rules questions are the rules themselves, not real life, not camera footage, just the rules.
...apparently we aren't arguing from realism or logic(in my last post I address that too).
Realism is what dictates to us what is fantastical and what is not. Completely abandoning realism in an argument like this is just as slippery as overusing it, if not more so.
Suspension of disbelief and a complete abandonment of realism are two different things. To get a good idea of suspension of disbelief from a player/GM, see ryric's comment. He explained the concept much better than I ever could.
A bow is wielded in one hand and used with two.
Provide evidence. Again, we aren't using common sense to iron out inconsistencies in the game, so the rules have to support the claim.
For people asking for a rules quote that says turns happen sequentially and not simultaneously:
Combat is cyclical; everybody acts in turn in a regular cycle of rounds. Combat follows this sequence:
[list]
When combat begins, all combatants roll initiative. Determine which characters are aware of their opponents. These characters can act during a surprise round. If all the characters are aware of their opponents, proceed with normal rounds. See the surprise section for more information. After the surprise round (if any), all combatants are ready to being the first normal round of combat. Combatants act in initiative order (highest to lowest). When everyone has had a turn, the next round begins with the combatant with the highest initiative, and steps 4 and 5 repeat until combat ends.
Each round's activity begins with the character with the highest initiative result and then proceeds in order. When a character's turn comes up in the initiative sequence, that character performs his entire round's worth of actions. (For exceptions, see Attacks of Opportunity and Special Initiative Actions.)At the start of a battle, each combatant makes an initiative check. An initiative check is a Dexterity check. Each character applies his or her Dexterity modifier to the roll, as well as other modifiers from feats, spells, and other effects. Characters act in order, counting down from the highest result to the lowest. In every round that follows, the characters act in the same order (unless a character takes an action that results in his or her initiative changing; see Special Initiative Actions).Emphasis added by me in the above.
Now THAT is what compelling evidence for that argument looks like!
Especially this:
Each round's activity begins with the character with the highest initiative result and then proceeds in order. When a character's turn comes up in the initiative sequence, that character performs his entire round's worth of actions. (For exceptions, see Attacks of Opportunity and Special Initiative Actions.)
(Emphasis mine.)
That seems like pretty solid proof for the overarching general application of combat that Malachi Silverclaw went over. I'll address my other point on that in the next comment I make.
Honestly, I'm just enjoying this because it's a good debate. In threads with discussions like this, we usually descend into ad hominem and Personal Incredulity at this point.
Here is a little though experiment.
Lets say you have a pit fight with 20 combatants. Each combatant is a separate "side" and rolls initiative separately. Each combatant is a maxed out level 20 archer who gets 4 attacks from BAB + rapid shot. Each combatant rolls a different number for their initiative, so no turns are taken simutaneously.
By RAW,
The archer with the highest initiative takes their full turn, then the next highest, and so on... Also by RAW a whole turn is 6 seconds no matter the number of combatants.
Since by strict RAW each archer attacks in sequence, they are each only using 6/20 = .3 seconds to fire 5 shots, leaving their hand free for the remaining 5.7 seconds of the turn.
Now after 18 of the archers end up dead, there are only 2 of them, and sudden by RAW each one makes 5 attacks in 3 seconds.
Does anyone find it absurd that an archer can fire 5 arrows in 0.3 seconds? Does anyone find it absurd that an archers rate of fire is affected by the number of other people in the combat?
Maybe it is just me, but when an interpretation of RAW leads to absurd results, I have to ask if I am interpreting it right.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Here is a little though experiment.
Lets say you have a pit fight with 20 combatants. Each combatant is a separate "side" and rolls initiative separately. Each combatant is a maxed out level 20 archer who gets 4 attacks from BAB + rapid shot. Each combatant rolls a different number for their initiative, so no turns are taken simutaneously.
By RAW,
The archer with the highest initiative takes their full turn, then the next highest, and so on... Also by RAW a whole turn is 6 seconds no matter the number of combatants.Since by strict RAW each archer attacks in sequence, they are each only using 6/20 = .3 seconds to fire 5 shots, leaving their hand free for the remaining 5.7 seconds of the turn.
Now after 18 of the archers end up dead, there are only 2 of them, and sudden by RAW each one makes 5 attacks in 3 seconds.
Does anyone find it absurd that an archer can fire 5 arrows in 0.3 seconds? Does anyone find it absurd that an archers rate of fire is affected by the number of other people in the combat?
Maybe it is just me, but when an interpretation of RAW leads to absurd results, I have to ask if I am interpreting it right.
Well, it could go that way, or you could say that all the people that died before they had a chance to act still get the chance to act since it is simultaneous.
Which way is worse?
Here is a little though experiment.
Lets say you have a pit fight with 20 combatants. Each combatant is a separate "side" and rolls initiative separately. Each combatant is a maxed out level 20 archer who gets 4 attacks from BAB + rapid shot. Each combatant rolls a different number for their initiative, so no turns are taken simutaneously.
By RAW,
The archer with the highest initiative takes their full turn, then the next highest, and so on... Also by RAW a whole turn is 6 seconds no matter the number of combatants.Since by strict RAW each archer attacks in sequence, they are each only using 6/20 = .3 seconds to fire 5 shots, leaving their hand free for the remaining 5.7 seconds of the turn.
Now after 18 of the archers end up dead, there are only 2 of them, and sudden by RAW each one makes 5 attacks in 3 seconds.
Does anyone find it absurd that an archer can fire 5 arrows in 0.3 seconds? Does anyone find it absurd that an archers rate of fire is affected by the number of other people in the combat?
Maybe it is just me, but when an interpretation of RAW leads to absurd results, I have to ask if I am interpreting it right.
Well, it could go that way, or you could say that all the people that died before they had a chance to act still get the chance to act since it is simultaneous.
Which way is worse?
Having played games with simultaneous combat, I fully understand why turns are used as an abstraction, but I also understand that they are an abstraction that you do not want interpret too rigidly. Maybe just maybe a "Full round action" takes a full round to accomplish.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A 1-round action takes a full round to accomplish. That is completely different.
A 1-round action takes a full round to accomplish. That is completely different.
A 1 round action is finished at the beginning of your next turn.
A full round action still takes up your entire turn. A turn is 6 seconds.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A 1-round action takes up the entire round.
A full round action take up 1 characters actions for a turn.
There is a difference.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This is known, but there is nothing stopping you from switching to "using" the bow with both hands to "holding" the bow with one hand at the end of your turn. At the beginning of your next turn, you switch from "holding" to "using" once more. That's RAW.Provide evidence.
You may have missed the FAQ link upthread. But if a wizard can do what is described in the example, can you provide a rule that says an archer can't do the reverse?
You may have missed the FAQ link upthread. But if a wizard can do what is described in the example, can you provide a rule that says an archer can't do the reverse?
This is known, but there is nothing stopping you from switching to "using" the bow with both hands to "holding" the bow with one hand at the end of your turn. At the beginning of your next turn, you switch from "holding" to "using" once more. That's RAW.Provide evidence.
If we are talking about strict adherence to the rules, no, it doesn't apply. Bows are not "Two-Handed Weapons". They are "Ranged Weapons" that require two hands to operate.
If we are talking about strict adherence to the rules, no, it doesn't. Bows are not "Two-Handed Weapons". They are Ranged weapons that require two hands to operate.You may have missed the FAQ link upthread. But if a wizard can do what is described in the example, can you provide a rule that says an archer can't do the reverse?
This is known, but there is nothing stopping you from switching to "using" the bow with both hands to "holding" the bow with one hand at the end of your turn. At the beginning of your next turn, you switch from "holding" to "using" once more. That's RAW.Provide evidence.
But wouldn't that make both the bow and a two handed weapon weapons that "require two hands to operate"? Or do you think that two handed weapons somehow don't require two hands?
I think this post has gone on a tangent. It's about using crane wing and a bow at the same time.
Crane wing reads:
Prerequisites: Crane Style, Dodge, Improved Unarmed Strike, base attack bonus +5 or monk level 5th.
Benefit: Once per round, when fighting defensively with at least one hand free, you can designate a single opponent you can see. You receive a +2 dodge bonus to AC against that opponent for one round. If you using the total defense action instead, you can deflect one melee attack that would normally hit you. An attack so deflected deals no damage and has no other effect (instead treat it as a miss). You do not expend an action when using this feat, but you must be aware of the attack and not flat-footed.
when fighting defensively with at least one hand free
You have to have the hand free when you take the action to fight defensively so all the arguing about not having your hands on the string when it's not your turn is moot. The hand has to be free during the attack action to use crane wing.
But wouldn't that make both the bow and a two handed weapon weapons that "require two hands to operate"? Or do you think that two handed weapons somehow don't require two hands?If we are talking about strict adherence to the rules, no, it doesn't. Bows are not "Two-Handed Weapons". They are Ranged weapons that require two hands to operate.You may have missed the FAQ link upthread. But if a wizard can do what is described in the example, can you provide a rule that says an archer can't do the reverse?
This is known, but there is nothing stopping you from switching to "using" the bow with both hands to "holding" the bow with one hand at the end of your turn. At the beginning of your next turn, you switch from "holding" to "using" once more. That's RAW.Provide evidence.
I'm surprised there is still confusion about that this far into the thread.
Let me put it this way:
Bows require two hand to use.
"Two Handed Weapons" require two hands to use.
"Two handed weapons" is a game term under which a specific list of weapons apply. Rulings that refer to "Two Handed Weapons" apply to these and only these.
All "Two Handed Weapons" use two hands.
But not all weapons that use two hands are "Two Handed Weapons".
If we are talking about strict adherence to the rules, no, it doesn't apply. Bows are not "Two-Handed Weapons". They are "Ranged Weapons" that require two hands to operate.You may have missed the FAQ link upthread. But if a wizard can do what is described in the example, can you provide a rule that says an archer can't do the reverse?
This is known, but there is nothing stopping you from switching to "using" the bow with both hands to "holding" the bow with one hand at the end of your turn. At the beginning of your next turn, you switch from "holding" to "using" once more. That's RAW.Provide evidence.
Let me clarify. If you can take those actions with a two-handed weapon, what rules say the same actions couldn't be used with a ranged weapon? I'm not aware of any rules that limit what free actions you can take in regards to wielding a ranged weapon vs holding it in one hand.
Further clarification. The FAQ answer isn't specific to two handed weapons. It is specific to how many hands you have on the weapon. It could be a one handed weapon you are wielding in two hands, it could be a two handed weapon, it could be ranged weapon. The example uses a two handed weapon only to illustrate that a wizard needs a free hand to cast his spell, but is allowed to change from holding to wielding as a free action.
But wouldn't that make both the bow and a two handed weapon weapons that "require two hands to operate"? Or do you think that two handed weapons somehow don't require two hands?If we are talking about strict adherence to the rules, no, it doesn't. Bows are not "Two-Handed Weapons". They are Ranged weapons that require two hands to operate.You may have missed the FAQ link upthread. But if a wizard can do what is described in the example, can you provide a rule that says an archer can't do the reverse?
This is known, but there is nothing stopping you from switching to "using" the bow with both hands to "holding" the bow with one hand at the end of your turn. At the beginning of your next turn, you switch from "holding" to "using" once more. That's RAW.Provide evidence.
I'm surprised there is still confusion about that this far into the thread.
Let me put it this way:
Bows require two hand to use.
"Two Handed Weapons" require two hands to use.
"Two handed weapons" is a game term under which a specific list of weapons apply. Rulings that refer to "Two Handed Weapons" apply to these and only these.All "Two Handed Weapons" use two hands.
But not all weapons that use two hands are "Two Handed Weapons".
The only confusion I have is why you think removing a hand is treated as different action depending on if it's a two handed weapon or a weapon they requires two hands.