Is switching hands a free action?

Milambus · Oct 13, 2008

keterys said:
False. Saying "Four" takes a negligible amount of effort and time. Saying "Score" takes a negligible amount of effort and time. Reciting the Gettysburg Address requires a lot of time.

Similarly, if you hold 100 marbles in your hand and drop them one at a time (free action) while counting up to 100 (free action), it does not take 200 Free Actions = Free Action. It most likely takes all of your actions for several minutes.

Very few free actions actually take _no_ time, most take a small enough amount of time they can be done while you do other actions.

Sorry, you are correct. "Free actions take almost no time or effort. You can take as many free actions as you want during your or another combatant's turn." (PHB pg 267)

I did leave the almost out of my post above. However, I still believe that this supports the idea that someone can swap hands as a free action.

keterys said:
At any time, the DM (or player) may decide that things take too much effort or time to perform as a free action.

Thats one of the benefits of being the DM, you get to decide pretty much anything at any time you like =)

But to support your statement, the above definition of Free action continues with, "The DM can restrict the number of free actions in a turn."

So, in other words swap hands it a free action.. unless you DM says otherwise, pretty much as normal.

keterys · Oct 13, 2008

The line is wherever the DM and player draws it - and don't be surprised if many draw the line at "You can do this once per round", rather than "Sure".

Probably not a majority, but a respectable minority. Enough that I'd avoid having a character do it so I wouldn't bother some DMs or have an argument. That and most arguments for doing it rarely make any sense from a logic/story standpoint. "Okay, so I want to hold this weapon in two hands when I swing, but not the rest of the time" or "I want to juggle my daggers so that I stab with this one and throw with this one, but can still use my shield". I'll admit, I do lots of things that make more sense from a game perspective than a logic/story standpoint, but I'd just rather not bother the DM.

Milambus · Oct 13, 2008

I agree that there is a point where things just get silly if players are allowed to do too many free actions.

But here is an argument for the Swordmage being able to swing a longsword with both hands, but defend with it wielded in only one.

At baseball practice its pretty common for a player to hit balls to the out fielders so that they can practice catching. This is often done by the a player to holding a ball in their off hand, and a bat in their main hand. They toss the ball up with the off hand, then quickly grab the bat and hit the ball on its way down. As they follow through with the swing, they release with their off-hand. All of this done in under 6 seconds.

And thats just a guy in the real world, with mediocre basball skills... not a "Hero" in a fatasy world who has dedicated a large portion of their lives to mastering a weapon.

Nail · Oct 13, 2008

FWIW, my PC holds a wand in his (light) shield hand, and a torch in his weapon hand. When we're ambushed, my PC drops the torch (free action), switches the wand to his weapon hand (free action), uses Scorching Burst (standard action), then switches the wand back to his shield hand (free action). Then I draw my longsword (minor action) and move (move action).

keterys · Oct 13, 2008

Milambus said:
But here is an argument for the Swordmage being able to swing a longsword with both hands, but defend with it wielded in only one.

At baseball practice its pretty common for a player to hit balls to the out fielders so that they can practice catching. This is often done by the a player to holding a ball in their off hand, and a bat in their main hand. They toss the ball up with the off hand, then quickly grab the bat and hit the ball on its way down. As they follow through with the swing, they release with their off-hand. All of this done in under 6 seconds.

Sure - and how likely is he to be able to _catch_ a ball in that time, or successfully parry an attack with the bat _and still hit the ball_ - since that's more like what we're talking about.

The entire swordmage argument relies on pretending that the entire world still frames while you make your attack.

Milambus · Oct 13, 2008

keterys said:
Sure - and how likely is he to be able to _catch_ a ball in that time, or successfully parry an attack with the bat _and still hit the ball_ - since that's more like what we're talking about.

The entire swordmage argument relies on pretending that the entire world still frames while you make your attack.

Probably more likely than someone being able to draw a sword, the run 30 feet from a standing start, then charge another 30 feet ending it with a basic swing of his sword... then still being able to defend himself as normal.

Which is a pretty standard round in DnD.

keterys · Oct 13, 2008

Really, the only problem with that (draw, move, charge) is that dnd characters walk very quickly compared to real life people, so as long as you're okay with the concept that normal people walk at 6.8mph (which is not exactly the biggest stretch known to man), then it all sounds fine.

Of course, then there's the other argument: is the game designed for it to work this way intentionally? If not, is there a good reason to do it otherwise?

I mean, dropping torches and drawing swords sounds fine and expected. Why have a one hand limitation without specifying you can use it for versatile? Why not just say "You can't use two-handed weapons"? Heck, they really should have touched some on things like potions and wands while they were at it

Tony Vargas · Oct 13, 2008

The swordmage ward is slightly different question, since it not only has the positive requirement that the character use a one-handed weapon to gain the higher bonus, but the negative requirement that he not use his other hand for anything else, as well.

It is too often the case that a perfectly reasonable option (holding an item in one hand so you don't have to draw it later) gets unduly restricted because it's vaguely similar some cheesy trick (swordmage attacking two-handed but still getting his +3 ward).

keterys · Oct 13, 2008

Agreed. I'd much rather they just worded the ability to block what they actually want to block "You may not use your second hand to have made or as part of an attack", or somesuch.

Because it's hard to rule in favor of drinking potions while still against Versatile, to a certain extent

When we're talking the swordmage, we're also talking something that is _clearly_ something that needs to be decided. If it's possible, all swordmages should do it. If it's not possible, it should be clear. It's silly otherwise.

If it's just something like "Well, I'm multiclass and I want to once an encounter use my ability without breaking the rules" then go nuts

Nail · Oct 13, 2008

keterys said:
If it's just something like "Well, I'm multiclass and I want to once an encounter use my ability without breaking the rules" then go nuts

That's the way my Warlord(wizard) is taking it.....

Is switching hands a free action?

Milambus

First Post

keterys

First Post

Milambus

First Post

Nail

First Post

keterys

First Post

Milambus

First Post

keterys

First Post

Tony Vargas

Legend

keterys

First Post

Nail

First Post

Similar Threads