Why is gripping a weapon with 2-hands an action with a sword but not a bow?


General Discussion


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Lately I have been thinking a bit about the use of a free hand for various spellcasting needs and overall came to the conclusion that two-handed weapons is a bit of an issue because you need to lose grip (free action), cast spell (two-actions most of the time) and regrib (one action) if you want the weapon to be used as a two-hand weapon. However when using a bow you can easily cast a spell with your free hand and then use the bow to fire an arrow.

I'm not sure whether it would affect balance much if two-handed weapons was changed to 1+ hands like a bow. But realistically I don't understand why gripping my weapon in two hands and swinging is twice the process that fetching an arrow, drawing the bow using two hands and firing it, is.

Do you think it should be changed so two-handed weapons were 1+ hands instead and do you think this would destroy balance? (It would let a character fighting with a two-handed weapon, drop grib, fetch a potion, drink it, grib weapon and swing, all in one turn; however I don't think two-handed weapons are that powerful so to me it would make sense)


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Because bows are not two-handed per se. You always have to have a hand free to pull the arrow, hence why you cannot use that hand for other stuff and still attack - but at the same time, you don't need to grip a bow in two hands to use it (unless you have to hit someone in the head, I guess?).


1 person marked this as a favorite.

@Nettah,

I agree completely with you and in 20 or so years of D&D we have ruled it that way.

if it benefits your game just ignore it.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

Bows are not 2H since 1 hand is free to draw arrows but the main thrust of your point stands.

I think part of the thinking that went into the action cost to establish a 2H grip is to make 1h weapons with an open hand more attractive. I get why they want to do this as the style is iconic in popular media (Errol Flynn, etc) and inside the hobby as well (ADnD 2E Bladesong Style, for example).

I appreciate the dev goals here. I like the 1H fighting form aesthetically but I have to agree that charging the player an action to grip a held weapon with two hands feels unintuitive.

The game has other such offenders. Pointing stuff out, for example, probably shouldnt be an action either.

Quote:
I don't think two-handed weapons are that powerful so to me it would make sense

When you consider how this game does magic weapons, two handers are MUCH more powerful.


Another part of it was people using TWF with two handed weapons for some time in PF1E. They'd swing with their greatsword/falcion/whathaveyou, drop the grip as a free action, punch/claw with their now 'free' hand, then get their grip back again as a free action. It was silly until common sense errata was put in place to stop the nonsense.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Nathan Hartshorn wrote:
Another part of it was people using TWF with two handed weapons for some time in PF1E. They'd swing with their greatsword/falcion/whathaveyou, drop the grip as a free action, punch/claw with their now 'free' hand, then get their grip back again as a free action. It was silly until common sense errata was put in place to stop the nonsense.

Ya, could be done in PF2 too if free action grip is allowed come to think of it.

2h smash, then swing on a guy twice with an agile spiked guantlet. Free action regrip.

Still, with the damage 2H do now, would probably be better to just keep smashing with the 2H.


Nathan Hartshorn wrote:
Another part of it was people using TWF with two handed weapons for some time in PF1E. They'd swing with their greatsword/falcion/whathaveyou, drop the grip as a free action, punch/claw with their now 'free' hand, then get their grip back again as a free action. It was silly until common sense errata was put in place to stop the nonsense.

that is just exploiting. As you double dip a same hand with more than one attack without any penalties.

But, what I would allow is with current 3 actions is

attack with 2handed weapon, lose one hand from grip(no action), draw one handed weapon(1 action or 0 if you have some kind of quick draw), attack with that weapon(usefull only if it agile), attack as 3rd action again if you have quick draw,
drop one handed weapon(no action)
Regrip 2handed one.

http://images6.fanpop.com/image/photos/32300000/Game-of-Thrones-game-of-thr ones-32360264-696-464.jpg

This is one example of it as Jamie fight with 2handed sword, binds his oponents weapon, and then draws a dagger for a sneak attack and kill.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

With the new magic weapons rules favoring bigger damage dice weapons I'm completely fine with the action to grip the 2h. They already have a lot of advantages, I think it's a necessary nerf.


Personally I like the one-handed weapon + free hand fighter, and did a build for level 12 with bard dedication that seemed pretty good. But you guys might be right about the scaling due to magic weapon dice of the two-handed weapons.

But yea as some of your examples have shown, if you got a limitless amount of drop grib and regrib action each turn it could be problematic.


I have not attempted it yet, but I hope the one-handed weapon/no shield style is supported (something 5th Ed lacks): The Man-in-Black (The Dread Pirate Wesley).


Vic Ferrari wrote:
I have not attempted it yet, but I hope the one-handed weapon/no shield style is supported (something 5th Ed lacks): The Man-in-Black (The Dread Pirate Wesley).

you can climb and fight at the same time.

You can use it in more constricted area.

You can carry a torch and fight at the same time.

You can grab someone and still fight with one handed weapon.

But as one handed style is in general faster and you present more narrow profile to one attacker, one handed weapon style could be:
As bonus action pick one opponent, you have +1 melee attack and +1 AC vs that opponent.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I think it is fine the way it is. Most two handed weapons are indeed quite heavy.

To me, the cost is not necessarily literally the time it takes loosen ones grip.

It is the time and energy to manhandle this heavy weapon back into an attack position before and after acually swinging.

I think it is actually more realistic.

You simply would no t be able to let go with one hand(and the other hand keep the weapon in a ready state), take out another weapon...swing away...or cast a spell, handle some components all while holding the huge weapon...then be ready again for the next round with two haned stance again.


Igor Horvat wrote:
Vic Ferrari wrote:
I have not attempted it yet, but I hope the one-handed weapon/no shield style is supported (something 5th Ed lacks): The Man-in-Black (The Dread Pirate Wesley).

you can climb and fight at the same time.

You can use it in more constricted area.

You can carry a torch and fight at the same time.

You can grab someone and still fight with one handed weapon.

Yes, those same exceptions/circumstances always come up (though, constricted area doesn't mean much in 3rdEd/PF, that's more an AD&D thing). While they are handy, something a little more consistent would be nice, more useful in general, like keeping up with two-handers, TWFers, and sword & boarders, in AC and/or damage.


Well fighter got class feats supporting the one-hand build. Caster classes like a free hand, rogues don't get their bonuses to two-hand weapons. So most of the characters does have some support with going with one-hand over two-handed weapon.


Nettah wrote:
Well fighter got class feats supporting the one-hand build. Caster classes like a free hand, rogues don't get their bonuses to two-hand weapons. So most of the characters does have some support with going with one-hand over two-handed weapon.

Right on, good news, I have been focusing on Monk builds, lately.

Sovereign Court

4 people marked this as a favorite.

For a caster, a bastard sword would be a good choice; you can still hit 1H if you can't spare the action to re-grip. Means a greatsword isn't for everyone; that's fine. It's good if every weapon has a reason to pick it for someone but not everyone.

Liberty's Edge

4 people marked this as a favorite.

The grip on the bow isn't as much an issue as the Reload 0 is. Reload 0 makes absolutely no sense if you have to spend an action to put your hand on a sword hilt or remember that the big green thing is a troll (via the Recall action).


I think allowing free regrip would make two handers too powerful. Maybe just a free interact action with every stride or step would help. Like drawing a weapon as you move in PF1.

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.
swordchucks wrote:
The grip on the bow isn't as much an issue as the Reload 0 is. Reload 0 makes absolutely no sense if you have to spend an action to put your hand on a sword hilt or remember that the big green thing is a troll (via the Recall action).

This is an interesting point. I think adding a reload action to all ranged weapons and then giving fast reload and shooting multiples of ammunition with a single shot as feat choices might bridge the gap between different ranged weapons. It would be nice to see slings and crossbows in equal amounts to bows.


Vic Ferrari wrote:
I have not attempted it yet, but I hope the one-handed weapon/no shield style is supported (something 5th Ed lacks): The Man-in-Black (The Dread Pirate Wesley).

It is sort of supported in the Dueling Fighting Style for Fighters in the +2 to damage, though that's about all that specifically calls out limiting you to one weapon/no shield. All the other features in line with a Westley-type (swashbuckler rogue, Defensive Duelist, Mobile) aren't specific to one-handers, though you could make a deadly effective Dread Pirate Roberts.


Ascalaphus wrote:
For a caster, a bastard sword would be a good choice; you can still hit 1H if you can't spare the action to re-grip. Means a greatsword isn't for everyone; that's fine. It's good if every weapon has a reason to pick it for someone but not everyone.

Indeed, for Sombrefell Hall, my alchemist chose a Bastard Sword and Composite Longbow, just because I can still draw and throw, but be ready to switch up to attacking with one hand with no loss in action.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Data Lore wrote:
Bows are not 2H since 1 hand is free to draw arrows but the main thrust of your point stands.

That doesn't really fly for me. If removing your hand from the bow, drawing an arrow, then nocking it is a free action, why isn't adjusting your grip on a two-handed weapon?

The action tax to adjust your grip feels like an artificial counter-balance added to nerf two-handed weapons, and the whole "1+" thing is this weird exception because they didn't want to give bows the same downside that every other two-handed weapon got, even though there's no conceptual reason they should be exempted.

WizardoftheNorth wrote:
I think it is fine the way it is. Most two handed weapons are indeed quite heavy.

That's why they're two-handed in the first place; you're using two hands to control that additional mass. The strength and stamina required to wield a weapon varies much more based on the kind of weapon than whether it's one-handed or two-handed. Some two-handed weapons are actually much quicker and feel lighter than their one-handed counterparts, since two hands and a long handle can give you a lot of leverage to work with.

Ascalaphus wrote:
For a caster, a bastard sword would be a good choice; you can still hit 1H if you can't spare the action to re-grip. Means a greatsword isn't for everyone; that's fine. It's good if every weapon has a reason to pick it for someone but not everyone.

The problem is, the bastard sword is becoming the sword for everybody. The ability to two-hand when you can and drop to one-handed when you can't is simply way better than any of the other weapon traits.


Dasrak wrote:
Data Lore wrote:
Bows are not 2H since 1 hand is free to draw arrows but the main thrust of your point stands.

That doesn't really fly for me. If removing your hand from the bow, drawing an arrow, then nocking it is a free action, why isn't adjusting your grip on a two-handed weapon?

The action tax to adjust your grip feels like an artificial counter-balance added to nerf two-handed weapons, and the whole "1+" thing is this weird exception because they didn't want to give bows the same downside that every other two-handed weapon got, even though there's no conceptual reason they should be exempted.

While I agree that the shifting grip to 2H action feels un-intuitive, I disagree on this point. With a 2H weapon, both hands are on the weapon even when not swinging. With a bow, one hand is on the weapon when not firing. The reason for not having bows using an action to nock an arrow is clearly to differentiate it from crossbows and slings which clearly should fire at a slower rate.

Anywho, 2H grip tax is certainly for balance reasons; I agree. It seems to be one that most folks can accept, though.

I actually applaud Paizo for trying to make 1H style a viable thing. Its not often supported by games. I do wish they could do it in a way that feels more intuitive though.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
WizardoftheNorth wrote:

I think it is fine the way it is. Most two handed weapons are indeed quite heavy.

To me, the cost is not necessarily literally the time it takes loosen ones grip.

It is the time and energy to manhandle this heavy weapon back into an attack position before and after acually swinging.

I think it is actually more realistic.

You simply would no t be able to let go with one hand(and the other hand keep the weapon in a ready state), take out another weapon...swing away...or cast a spell, handle some components all while holding the huge weapon...then be ready again for the next round with two haned stance again.

This is exactly why it makes sense to me. In my experience doing LARP, sure, letting go of a weapon and grabbing it again is quick. But letting go of a weapon to do something else means that once you regrip your weapon you also need to adjust the position of your blade, your feet, re-center yourself vs your opponent... That bit of adjustment taking ~a second or so makes sense to me.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Data Lore wrote:
With a 2H weapon, both hands are on the weapon even when not swinging.

Most two-handed weapons are in the 5-7 lbs range; it's more the inertia of the swing than the weight that you need two hands for. One hand is more than sufficient to hold them with ease when not swinging them.

Data Lore wrote:
Anywho, 2H grip tax is certainly for balance reasons; I agree. It seems to be one that most folks can accept, though.

I greatly dislike it. I feel it's shoehorning specific classes into a narrow selection of weapons. If Paizo wants to encourage free-hand fighting they should use the carrot, not the stick.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Quote:
If Paizo wants to encourage free-hand fighting they should use the carrot, not the stick.

That's a good idea in theory. It kinda works for the fighter, right? So, if he wants to maintain that dueling parry, he has to keep that hand free. Thats tough to do all the time though. You have to make lots of feats to explicitly make keeping that hand free an attractive strategy. I am not sure you can get away from using "stick" when making a game.

Personally, I care less about carrot/stick and more about what is intuitive. I want the stuff to feel natural and I am not sure this does right now even if I agree with the intent.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Data Lore wrote:
Personally, I care less about carrot/stick and more about what is intuitive. I want the stuff to feel natural and I am not sure this does right now even if I agree with the intent.

In my view, that's an argument to ditch the "regrip" action entirely and just give up on free-handing a weapon. I always disliked how shoehorned the magus was in terms of weapon selection, and I now feel like this problem has been exported to every class. If this is the 'solution', then it would be better to just give up on free-hand entirely.

Right now we have sword-and-board giving AC and defense, two-handed giving bigger damage, and free-hand being that thing you're forced to do because your class features don't give you a choice in the matter.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Dasrak wrote:
If this is the 'solution', then it would be better to just give up on free-hand entirely.

We will have to agree to disagree on this point. Seeing free-hand style be viable is a positive in my book.

If Paizo can present or implement this in a more natural way that makes it intuitive, that would be great.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Dasrak wrote:
If Paizo wants to encourage free-hand fighting they should use the carrot, not the stick.

Is it an action to grip a two-handed carrot?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

It really feels like someone deemed releasing your grip to cast a spell then returning it "abusive" (even though it enables a bunch of builds and any "brokeness" was on the part of alternatives to spells and two handed weapons being weak. Sword and board clerics/paladins were completely unplayable without it.) and added a hard limitation to prevent it.

Data Lore wrote:
Nathan Hartshorn wrote:
Another part of it was people using TWF with two handed weapons for some time in PF1E. They'd swing with their greatsword/falcion/whathaveyou, drop the grip as a free action, punch/claw with their now 'free' hand, then get their grip back again as a free action. It was silly until common sense errata was put in place to stop the nonsense.

Ya, could be done in PF2 too if free action grip is allowed come to think of it.

2h smash, then swing on a guy twice with an agile spiked guantlet. Free action regrip.

Still, with the damage 2H do now, would probably be better to just keep smashing with the 2H.

And why was this a problem? You still take the penalties for TWF, have to spend the feats on TWF, and need to buy an expensive gauntlet. It's not like there aren't fictional sword users who will punch their opponent (the Soul Calibur series has an entire button devoted to it!)


What penalties for TWF? What are you talking about? I'm lost.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Data Lore wrote:
We will have to agree to disagree on this point. Seeing free-hand style be viable is a positive in my book.

That's zero sum, though; your free-hand "viability" is being created by forcibly making two-handing unviable for certain classes. For every concept opened up in this fashion, one is foreclosed. This is forcing annoying feat taxes on classes like cleric or paladin, and results in the bastard sword being an overpowered weapon because most free-hand builds actually want to be two-handing. That makes the bastard sword's hybrid property too valuable for such builds and much too dominant an item.

The solution is to give free-hand something it can do that two-handed and sword-and-board cannot, so that all three have carrots that attract you to them. With the current setup, free-hand's viability is entirely artificial and is causing problems elsewhere.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Dasrak wrote:
Data Lore wrote:
We will have to agree to disagree on this point. Seeing free-hand style be viable is a positive in my book.

That's zero sum, though; your free-hand "viability" is being created by forcibly making two-handing unviable for certain classes. For every concept opened up in this fashion, one is foreclosed. This is forcing annoying feat taxes on classes like cleric or paladin, and results in the bastard sword being an overpowered weapon because most free-hand builds actually want to be two-handing. That makes the bastard sword's hybrid property too valuable for such builds and much too dominant an item.

Even without the adding a hand action tax, bastard swords are still overpowered and need to be reworked. They're currently both a longsword and a greatsword, with the only downside over either is that they aren't Versatile P. This is rather silly, greatswords are really big, often about twice the weight of a bastard sword (about 6-8 pounds compared to 2.5-4.5) and much longer. The bastard sword should be more of a middle ground. I'd say give them that Versatile P (thrusts were a major thing for them historically, particularly against armor), drop the two hand damage to D10, and give them a new 'Awkward: 1-hand' trait, that works as a reverse-agile while using one hand, increasing the multiple attack penalties to -6/-12. This will help balance them to not be the best of greatsword and longsword combined, while still being useful. It would then be more like their historical counterparts, something normally used two handed, but can be used in one if needed, and lighter and more easily worn/carried than a massive greatsword (which can't really be worn at all and is instead carried more like a polearm). This would solve a lot of the need for the add a hand action tax.


7 people marked this as a favorite.
Doktor Weasel wrote:
Even without the adding a hand action tax, bastard swords are still overpowered and need to be reworked. They're currently both a longsword and a greatsword, with the only downside over either is that they aren't Versatile P.

To be completely fair, "Versatile P" is just a terrible ability, so the longsword and greatsword are in somewhat sad situations right now even without the bastard sword hogging the glory.

Doktor Weasel wrote:
It would then be more like their historical counterparts, something normally used two handed, but can be used in one if needed

In terms of historical weapons, the term "bastard sword" has been used so inconsistently that it's basically meaningless. The hand-and-a-half sword you linked to, for instance, would be considered a small longsword for its time period, which is not what is depicted in Pathfinder.

Complicating matters is that Pathfinder is anachronistic, blending weapons and armor from time periods more than 1000 years removed from each other.


Dasrak wrote:
Doktor Weasel wrote:
Even without the adding a hand action tax, bastard swords are still overpowered and need to be reworked. They're currently both a longsword and a greatsword, with the only downside over either is that they aren't Versatile P.
To be completely fair, "Versatile P" is just a terrible ability, so the longsword and greatsword are in somewhat sad situations right now even without the bastard sword hogging the glory.

There is, in fact, just one (uncommon) creature in the playtest bestiary where Versatile P actually benefits you, and without metagaming the knowledge on that it is more vulnerable to piercing than slashing, it effectively does nothing. Now the playtest bestiary isn't as comprehensive as the release bestiary, not to mention when Bestiary 2+ get released, but still, I agree that I'd like to see them find some way to boost longswords and greatswords, without necessarily penalizing bastard swords (which I'm unsure of how they fair, overall, given that I'm not sure whether the two handed aspect is more situational than Sweep, for instance. It might be a little above the curve, but I don't have much more than gut feeling to back that up).


Dasrak wrote:
Doktor Weasel wrote:
Even without the adding a hand action tax, bastard swords are still overpowered and need to be reworked. They're currently both a longsword and a greatsword, with the only downside over either is that they aren't Versatile P.
To be completely fair, "Versatile P" is just a terrible ability, so the longsword and greatsword are in somewhat sad situations right now even without the bastard sword hogging the glory.

It is. Which means there isn't much reason not to use a bastard sword currently. And there needs to be more distinction.

Dasrak wrote:
Doktor Weasel wrote:
It would then be more like their historical counterparts, something normally used two handed, but can be used in one if needed

In terms of historical weapons, the term "bastard sword" has been used so inconsistently that it's basically meaningless. The hand-and-a-half sword you linked to, for instance, would be considered a small longsword for its time period, which is not what is depicted in Pathfinder.

Complicating matters is that Pathfinder is anachronistic, blending weapons and armor from time periods more than 1000 years removed from each other.

Well yeah. Sword terminology is an absolute mess. I partly linked to that one in particular because it was refereed to as a Hand and a Half sword instead of Longsword to avoid needing to get into the terminology. Also because most of the other ones I was finding were later examples with complex hilts, and I wanted something medieval. But even historically the terms were not consistently used, and Bastard Sword was used for pretty much any unusual sword, and these days it's often used mostly for a longsword with a shorter grip and blade than is the norm. I was mostly going with the idea that Bastard Sword refers to what's normally called Longsword these days by HEMA practitioners. And yeah, the wide range of dates does complicate things where you'll run into both Falcata's and Rapiers who's periods of use are closing in on 2000 years apart. But I think the point stands that the big two-handers were significantly larger than longsowrds/bastard swords or whatever you want to call them. They were a dedicated battlefield weapon instead of a sidearm. And therefore there should be more difference between the two.

Sorry for side-tracking into historical swords. Back to handedness. I think the Bastard Sword is one of the biggest reasons for keeping the distinction. Lowering it's power level so it's not the ultimate weapon would help remove the need for the action tax. The other reason might be to keep casters from using two-handed weapons. But they don't need any more weaknesses considering the sorry state of magic, and the proficiency issues and normal physical weakness should cut back on melee wizards.

Bows I think just got grandfathered in, because having a high rate of shot has been a defining feature of them for some time.


Doktor Weasel wrote:
Bows I think just got grandfathered in, because having a high rate of shot has been a defining feature of them for some time.

I have seen some pretty impressive ROF, in person, though at closer range. 5th Ed took away a lot of the "within 30 ft." action of ranged combat in 3rd Ed, much to the game's detriment. As semi-uber as Dex is in 3rd Ed/PF1, 5th Ed compounds it.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.

The two spells I saw cast most during Sombrefell were True Strike (verbal) and Weapon Surge (specifically says you can do the somatic component with a weapon in hand). The two greatsword/guisarme clerics were not having any problems with it.

But I think those two spells may be in for a downtuning at some point because they're so dominant, so let's assume we will want to caster spells in the future as well.

What if...

Longsword: 1d8
Bastard Sword (1H): 1d6
Bardstard Sword (2H): 1d10

Greatsword: 1d12

The bastard sword would remain (appropriately) the sword of choice for people who expect to go back and forth between casting and striking a lot.

For people who rely mostly on hitting, interspersed with spells that only take 1 action or don't use a free hand for somatic components, or who take the cleric class feat to cast with your hands full, the greatsword is the biggest boy on the block.

The longsword is the obvious option for casters who expect to be casting so much that regripping is just never happening, as well as for sword & board builds.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Ascalaphus wrote:
The two spells I saw cast most during Sombrefell were True Strike (verbal) and Weapon Surge (specifically says you can do the somatic component with a weapon in hand). The two greatsword/guisarme clerics were not having any problems with it.

Clerics have Emblazon Symbol... and if we're being honest, it's kind of a feat tax. There's no 1st level feat that's remotely as good as freeing up an extra hand. Free-handing is bad, and paying a feat so you don't have to is really good.

In terms of balance, I feel the issue is more that most spell point powers are bad. The good ones feel about right, the problem is that the rest of them feel like cantrips that I'm forced to track daily usage for because reasons.

Ascalaphus wrote:

Longsword: 1d8

Bastard Sword (1H): 1d6
Bardstard Sword (2H): 1d10
Greatsword: 1d12

The bastard sword would remain (appropriately) the sword of choice for people who expect to go back and forth between casting and striking a lot.

If the longsword and greatsword had actually decent abilities, I feel this would leave the bastard sword quite underpowered at these numbers. You'd have to be two-handing the bastard sword about 75% of the time to actually come out ahead with numbers like these, and if the others had decent abilities on top of that there would be virtually no situation in which you'd ever bother with the bastard sword.

Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Playtest / Pathfinder Playtest General Discussion / Why is gripping a weapon with 2-hands an action with a sword but not a bow? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.
Recent threads in Pathfinder Playtest General Discussion