Two-handed weapons and spellcasting

[Thanee]

So it's both a free action and a move action. That's cool. I like it.

How about it's a move action, if you have acted before on your turn, but a free action, if not.

That would actually be rather reasonable.

Bye
Thanee

 

[Factol Rhys]

He can do it. It's fine.

The rules for somatic components say you need one hand free for gesturing. I don't think it's a stretch at all to say that you can hold, but not wield, a two-handed weapon in one hand. You can't attack in the same round that you cast a spell because both of those are standard actions (usually).

He doesn't really have an advantage in being "armed" (i.e. holding a weapon) other than the ability to make attacks of opportunity. But a mage in melee combat is more likely to be recieving attacks of opportunity than he is to be dishing them out.

If you're having difficulty imagining the change in action from swinging around a spinning double axe, just remember that a round is six seconds long and you're not necessarily doing that action throughout the entire six seconds. He has time to slow that axe down.

Let him do it.

 

[drnuncheon]

However, Andy Collins subsequently wrote in the 3.5 FAQ that it's a move action.

Actually, what the FAQ says is that "the rules don't state what type of action is required to switch hands on a weapon" - but it's talking about the weapon from one hand to the other, not letting go with one hand and putting it back on.

It goes on to say "it seems reasonable to assume that it’s the equivalent of drawing a weapon" (which implies that anyone with a +1 BAB should be able to do it as part of another move action).

Does the GM also make the halberd or greataxe-weilding fighters take a move action to put their second hand back on their weapons after they've been carrying it? How come the archer can draw an arrow, nock it, draw the bow, and fire without taking an action? Free action for removing/replacing the hand is the only way that doesn't result in a cascade of stupid rulings.

J

 

[Ravellion]

Does the GM also make the halberd or greataxe-weilding fighters take a move action to put their second hand back on their weapons after they've been carrying it? How come the archer can draw an arrow, nock it, draw the bow, and fire without taking an action? Free action for removing/replacing the hand is the only way that doesn't result in a cascade of stupid rulings.

J

Agreed. I would feel really silly explaining the discrepancies (sp?). But then, I'm so lax that I allow Clerics to cast with weapon and shield provided the shield is light.

Rav

 

[Alzrius]

He can do it. It's fine.

The rules for somatic components say you need one hand free for gesturing. I don't think it's a stretch at all to say that you can hold, but not wield, a two-handed weapon in one hand. You can't attack in the same round that you cast a spell because both of those are standard actions (usually).

He doesn't really have an advantage in being "armed" (i.e. holding a weapon) other than the ability to make attacks of opportunity. But a mage in melee combat is more likely to be recieving attacks of opportunity than he is to be dishing them out.

There doesn't seem to be any real obstacle to him just grabbing it again. If it's a free action to take one hand off a weapon you're holding with both hands, then it'd likewise be a free action to put it back on. Since there is no limit to the number of free actions you can take during your turn, he could be holding the weapon, remove one hand to cast, cast the spell, and then put it back on as a second free action, making him "armed" again.

A lot of people have mentioned that this doesn't seem like a big deal, and it probably isn't, but it just doesn't seem right to me that a spellcaster can have both hands holding a weapon, and still be able to cast spells in a round.

 

[Ravellion]

A lot of people have mentioned that this doesn't seem like a big deal, and it probably isn't, but it just doesn't seem right to me that a spellcaster can have both hands holding a weapon, and still be able to cast spells in a round.

Why doesn't it seem right to you? It's not like he's using a mithril buckler as well now is he?

There isn't a balance problem.
There is rules "precedent" to allow it (archers & arrows).
I can visualize it just fine. (if a wizard still has enough time after a spell to move 30 feet, I can also seem him cast, then in someone's else's turn, maken an AoO)

Really, what's the problem here. We can't help you if you don't give us any reasons now, can we?

Rav

 

[DaveStebbins]

However a Half-Orc Sorcerer can't select an exotic weapon proficiency at first level.

Don't half-orcs treat the orc-double axe as a martial weapon?

Strange, the other racial exotics (Dwarven Urgosh and Waraxe, Gnome hooked Hammer) specify that members of that race treat it as a martial weapon, but the that text doesn't appear in the entry for the Orc double axe (at least not in the version of the SRD I use). I think I would give it to him anyway, as long as he spent the feat to use a martial weapon.

My main qoncern at first was wether or not the sorcerer could threaten with the axe if he was only using one hand to hold it. However, since the orc double axe is a double weapon, it can be weilded in one hand just fine to take AoOs.

A creature wielding an orc double axe in one hand can’t use it as a double weapon—only one end of the weapon can be used in any given round.

 

[Alzrius]

There isn't a balance problem.

Probably not, but it still seems to favor the spellcaster a bit too much. It seems off to me that a spellcaster can, in the course of a single round, be wielding a weapon in both hands, and still use one of those hands to cast a spell.

There is rules "precedent" to allow it (archers & arrows).

That isn't precedent, since it's specific to using those ranged weapons. Any precedent would be from the cited portions of the FAQ and Rules of the Game listed above.

Really, what's the problem here. We can't help you if you don't give us any reasons now, can we?

See above. Beyond that, this is mostly me trying to head off a problem before it occurs.

 

[Saeviomagy]

See above. Beyond that, this is mostly me trying to head off a problem before it occurs.

I'm failing to see what the problem is. Oh my goodness, casters might get AoOs. The humanity.

 

[Alzrius]

I'm failing to see what the problem is. Oh my goodness, casters might get AoOs. The humanity.

Allow me to replace the word "problem" with "rules confusion issue". There, that should set your mind at ease.