Handedness

[Space Coyote]

I have a question about handedness (is that even a word? )

I cant seem to find the answer to this in the rules. If anyone can point out the correct answer that would help a lot. If their is no ruling in the RAW, then other's opinion would help.

Let's say I am a spellcaster and have a 2 handed weapon (e.g. quarterstaff) ready in hand. I only need 1 hand to cast spells, so I could hold the weapon in one hand and cast a spell with the other. Does this now mean that I am no longer *wielding* the weapon (for purposes of taking AOOS, for example) because it is a 2 handed weapon and I used one hand for spell casting? Or is it assumed that you grasp a 2 handed weapon after spellcasting automatically and, are therefore considered *armed* when it is not your turn?

 

[Bardsandsages]

I have a question about handedness (is that even a word? )

I cant seem to find the answer to this in the rules. If anyone can point out the correct answer that would help a lot. If their is no ruling in the RAW, then other's opinion would help.

Let's say I am a spellcaster and have a 2 handed weapon (e.g. quarterstaff) ready in hand. I only need 1 hand to cast spells, so I could hold the weapon in one hand and cast a spell with the other. Does this now mean that I am no longer *wielding* the weapon (for purposes of taking AOOS, for example) because it is a 2 handed weapon and I used one hand for spell casting? Or is it assumed that you grasp a 2 handed weapon after spellcasting automatically and, are therefore considered *armed* when it is not your turn?

This is an example of how the rules don't always make sense. In the terms of how the game is played, you are considered armed. In reality, since the weapon is already "drawn" and in one hand already, the time it would take to "arm" the weapon in two hands is so minimal as to be inconsequential.

Though logically, if you only need one hand to cast, why can't wizards decide to use swords instead of staves? In fact, wouldn't it make MORE sense to limit them to one handed weapons instead of a staff? Successfully using a quarterstaff is much harder than using a one handed sword (I don't know this from experience, I just watch too many History Channel programs on weapons!).

 

[Hypersmurf]

Let's say I am a spellcaster and have a 2 handed weapon (e.g. quarterstaff) ready in hand. I only need 1 hand to cast spells, so I could hold the weapon in one hand and cast a spell with the other.

Right. This is the equivalent of dropping the weapon (with one hand), and is thus a free action.

Does this now mean that I am no longer *wielding* the weapon (for purposes of taking AOOS, for example) because it is a 2 handed weapon and I used one hand for spell casting? Or is it assumed that you grasp a 2 handed weapon after spellcasting automatically and, are therefore considered *armed* when it is not your turn?

A similar question is asked about a cleric with a mace and a small shield. The small shield notes that you can hold an item in the same hand... so the cleric can, in theory, swap his mace to his shield hand (where he can't use it, but can hold it), cast his spell, and swap back. But what sort of action is the swap?

Skip Williams, in the 3E Main FAQ, said "free action" - search for "Gruntharg".
Then Andy Collins, in the 3.5 Main FAQ, said "move action".
Then Skip Williams, in the RotG, said "free action" again.

The rules don't define an action for swapping hands, or regrasping a two-handed weapon with one hand, or changing from holding a weapon unreadied to wielding that weapon. There's an action for drawing a weapon from a sheath, but that's not exactly the same. And as noted above, commentary from WotC sources has varied

I'm inclined to rule 'free action' myself, so the wizard can release, cast, and re-wield with no problem. Even if you rule the release as a free action and the re-wield as a move action, this still means the wizard can cast and continue to threaten afterwards... but it might cause a problem for a staff-wielding sorcerer using metamagic.

-Hyp.

 

[Zaruthustran]

I have a question about handedness (is that even a word? )

I cant seem to find the answer to this in the rules. If anyone can point out the correct answer that would help a lot. If their is no ruling in the RAW, then other's opinion would help.

Let's say I am a spellcaster and have a 2 handed weapon (e.g. quarterstaff) ready in hand. I only need 1 hand to cast spells, so I could hold the weapon in one hand and cast a spell with the other. Does this now mean that I am no longer *wielding* the weapon (for purposes of taking AOOS, for example) because it is a 2 handed weapon and I used one hand for spell casting? Or is it assumed that you grasp a 2 handed weapon after spellcasting automatically and, are therefore considered *armed* when it is not your turn?

Handedness (a person's preference for right or left hand) isn't defined in D&D. It's like attractiveness/comeliness, or eye color. Totally up to the player. The game doesn't make any mechanical distinctions for handedness.

There is such a thing as "off-hand", which pretty much means "not primary hand", and is a way to distinguish between attacks when fighting with two weapons. Note that even if you declare your character to be right-handed, if he wields a weaspon in his left hand and only attacks with that one weapon there are no "off-hand" penalties. The term "off-hand' only applies to circumstances of TWF, and has no bearing on right- or left-handedness.

All that said: I think the wizard would still threaten, but he'd attack at a -4 penalty (wielding a quarterstaff in one hand = improvised weapon).

-z

 

[Hypersmurf]

There is such a thing as "off-hand", which pretty much means "not primary hand"...

Right. Or, strictly, "weaker or less dexterous hand".

Note that even if you declare your character to be right-handed, if he wields a weaspon in his left hand and only attacks with that one weapon there are no "off-hand" penalties.

Not according to the PHB Glossary entry for [glossary]off-hand[/glossary]:
A character's weaker or less dexterous hand (usually the left). An attack made with the off hand incurs a -4 penalty on the attack roll. In addition, only one-half of a character's Strength bonus may be added to damage dealt with a weapon held in the off hand.

If your left hand is your weaker or less dexterous hand, an attack made with that hand takes the penalty and applies half Str bonus to damage. Whether or not you're fighting with two weapons.

All that said: I think the wizard would still threaten, but he'd attack at a -4 penalty (wielding a quarterstaff in one hand = improvised weapon).

I don't agree, there. The rules for improvised weapons say that you should compare the object to items on the weapons table to get the best match.

The best match for a quarterstaff used as an improvised weapon is... a quarterstaff. Which means that it's an improvised two-handed bludgeoning weapon dealing 1d6 damage, and a -4 attack penalty. And as a two-handed weapon, you can't wield it in one hand.

You're better off not attempting to use it as an improvised weapon, to avoid the -4

-Hyp.

 

[Machiavelli]

Then why did the Ambidexterity feat disappear, Hyp?

 

[Hypersmurf]

Then why did the Ambidexterity feat disappear, Hyp?

The Two-Weapon Fighting feat effectively removes the -4 when you are fighting with two weapons.

As far as I can tell, there's no way to remove it when you aren't. Perhaps the designers assumed someone who isn't fighting with two weapons will always choose to use the hand that isn't "weaker or less dexterous (usually the left)".

But the Glossary entry is clear.

-Hyp.

 

[Zaruthustran]

Curse you, glossary!

Is that a new thing/is that glossary entry from the PHB, or is that a wotc.com thing? I don't recall that at all.

Anyway, so what's your ruling on using a quarterstaff in one hand? Are you saying you'd just disallow any attempt to use it? I can see how it'd be impossible to use a bow with one hand, but with a quarterstaff, you could hold it exactly like a spear (a one-handed weapon the same size and length as a q-staff) and poke. Or use it like a really long, awkward club.

You know: improvise. -4 to hit, but go ahead and try.

I'd likewise allow someone to choke up on a halberd and use that as an improvised battleaxe. Or sling a spiked chain around like a cumbersome metal whip. All two-handed weapons wielded in one hand as improvised weapons. You'd really just not allow the player to use the weapons in one hand at all?

-z

 

[Hypersmurf]

Curse you, glossary!

Is that a new thing/is that glossary entry from the PHB, or is that a wotc.com thing? I don't recall that at all.

It's in the PHB.

Anyway, so what's your ruling on using a quarterstaff in one hand? Are you saying you'd just disallow any attempt to use it?

Yup. "Two hands are required to use a two-handed melee weapon effectively."

You can try swinging it in one hand, but it will be ineffective. It will have no effect.

I can see how it'd be impossible to use a bow with one hand, but with a quarterstaff, you could hold it exactly like a spear (a one-handed weapon the same size and length as a q-staff) and poke.

This is the spear listed under "Two-Handed Melee Weapons" you're referring to?

You'd really just not allow the player to use the weapons in one hand at all?

Absolutely. Two hands are required. It's right there in the definition.

-Hyp.

 

[Zaruthustran]

It's in the PHB.

This is the spear listed under "Two-Handed Melee Weapons" you're referring to?

No, I was thinking of the shortspear.

Absolutely. Two hands are required. It's right there in the definition.

-Hyp.

Yes that's very obvious: two hands are required to use a two-handed weapon as intended.

But your ruling is needlessly harsh. If someone can use a chair or a ladder or a bucket as an improvised weapon, they can certainly use a short-hafted staff or any other WEAPON as an improvised weapon.

Shortening up on a two-handed weapon isn't using it as it's supposed to be used. You're improvising. So, -4 penalty. Seems simple enough to me.

-z