Shift grip as a free action?

[Doug McCrae]

A character moves (move action) and casts a spell (standard action). He is holding a spiked chain in one hand. Can he then, as a free action, switch to a 2h grip so the chain is available to make AoOs?

Can you shift grip as a free action? Is this a house rule or is it covered anywhere in the rules, sage advice, etc?

 

[RangerWickett]

There have been long debates over this. I think it was determined that the closest analog is 'readying a shield,' which is a move action. But I believe you're in house rules territory. Me personally, I think that if the game lets you be engaged in melee with someone right in front of you, and then to spin around and hit someone who runs past behind you, and then turn back to the first person you were fighting with no penalty, it's fair to let someone let go of their weapon and then grab it again without spending an action.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Can you shift grip as a free action? Is this a house rule or is it covered anywhere in the rules, sage advice, etc?

In the 3E Main FAQ, Skip Williams called it a free action. Then in the 3.5 Main FAQ, Andy Collins called it a move action. Then in the Rules of the Game, Skip Williams called it a free action again.

-Hyp.

 

[s-dub]

Seeing as how you can retrieve a component from a spell component pouch as a free action, I don't see why you couldn't shift grip as one.

 

[Elethiomel]

IMG, going from a one-handed grip (be it just carrying a two-handed weapon, or wielding a selectable-grip weapon like a longsword) to a two-handed grip is the same kind of action as drawing a weapon. That it, it is a move equivalent action that you can take during movement if your BAB is 1 or larger, or a free action if you have Quick Draw.

 

[Ogrork the Mighty]

Just be careful as you're getting into the territory of a spellcaster shifting his weapon to his shield hand, casting a somatic spell, then shifting back.

 

[SteelDraco]

Just be careful as you're getting into the territory of a spellcaster shifting his weapon to his shield hand, casting a somatic spell, then shifting back.

The compromise my GM and I reached when I was going to play an arcane spellcaster with a dwarven waraxe was that it was a free action that you could only do once per turn. So, over the course of two turns, I could full attack with a two-handed grip, then switch to a one-handed grip. On the next turn, I could cast a spell, and then switch back to a two-handed grip.

 

[Anguish]

Just be careful as you're getting into the territory of a spellcaster shifting his weapon to his shield hand, casting a somatic spell, then shifting back.

Not really. If the spell-caster's shield hand is free enough that it can hold a weapon, it's free enough that it can perform the somatic component.

Wearing a buckler? That hand can do the somatic, unless you also fill it with a torch or something similar. Carrying a light/heavy shield? That hand is occupied holding the grip, and can't also hold another item, or be used for somatic components, or be the second hand for a two-hand weapon.

On the original topic, I don't feel this degree of micro-managing actions brings any benefit to the game. Spell-casting actions are already mired in enough detail from ASF to AoO to divine foci to material components. Just let the damned spell-caster get their "overpowered" ability off and move on to the melee folks getting mangled. <Grin>

 

[RangerWickett]

Just be careful as you're getting into the territory of a spellcaster shifting his weapon to his shield hand, casting a somatic spell, then shifting back.

What's wrong with that? And I ask the question both in a mechanical sense and a flavorful sense. Why is it a problem of game balance if the cleric grabs his mace with his shield hand long enough to cast a spell? Why is it a problem of realism or flavor for someone to do that?

 

[Elemmakil]

I allow players to release their grip with one hand, or grab the weapon again, as a free action. Shifting hands, however, is not.

This doesn't make using two-handed weapons such a trivial choice. You can't take this action on other people's turns, so you get to choose to either be armed or get access to immediate action spells.

This is clearly a house rule. I don't think that you will find anything in the core rules to sufficiently support either side.