Two-handed weapons and spellcasting

[Alzrius]

A player in my game is playing a half-orc sorcerer. Being only 1st level, he's taken something of a martial bent, and is using an orc double axe.

Now, ordinarily, he uses it as a double weapon with two hands. However, during a round when he wants to cast a spell, he simply says that he's letting go with one hand to use that hand to form somatic components. Since dropping the weapon altogether is a free action, he claims that simply releasing one hand (and, next round, grabbing it with that second hand again) should also be a free action. I can't seem to find any rules to dispute this, but I wonder if it's slightly off, since it lets him go from using a fairly intense melee weapon to casting spells with no penalty or down-time.

Thoughts on this?

 

[DelayedReactionMan]

I don't see why it should even take an action. You could argue that removing your hand, and putting it back on the weapon, could be part of the somatic component of the spell. Let's say for a second that you have your hand by your side. You don't use a free action to move it into the first position to cast a spell with somatic components, do you? Then why should moving your hand from a weapon, which has roughly the same amount of movement, require one?

 

[dcollins]

I agree with the original poster -- he's clearly getting a benefit with no disadvantage, casting a spell while still being effectively armed throughout the entire round. In a perfect world, I think it would be required that you retain the same armed configuration as on your last action until your next turn (in the spirit of Power Attack and Expertise).

However, the FAQ has an entry that allows exactly what your player is asking for (3rd Ed. FAQ, p. 40). Apologies for the length, I'll highlight the key parts. I suppose one solution to this would be for the DM to rule that you only get one of these "free action weapon-shifts" per turn.

Suppose Gruntharg the barbarian carries a longspear
and wears spiked gauntlets. He has a throwing axe at his
belt. He encounters two orcs 60 feet away and wins
initiative. For his action, Gruntharg draws the axe and
moves and also readies an action to throw the axe at any
orc that comes within 15 feet. The orcs charge. As soon as
the first orc gets within 15 feet, Gruntharg throws the axe
and kills that orc. After throwing the axe, is Gruntharg
assumed to be carrying and wielding the longspear in both
hands? Thus, does he get an attack of opportunity as the
surviving orc passes from 10 feet away from him to 5 feet
away? (Gruntharg does not possess the Monkey Grip feat
from Sword and Fist.) If not, what are the rules for going
from a one-handed (or carrying) grip to a two-handed grip
for a weapon, and what kind of action is it to change this
grip? Now suppose Gruntharg has the longspear in both
hands when a spellcaster 5 feet away from him starts
casting a spell. The longspear does not threaten the
spellcaster because it’s a reach weapon and the spellcaster
is too close. Can Gruntharg just let go of the longspear and
smack the spellcaster with his spiked gauntlet? What kind
of action is it to let go of a two-handed weapon with only
one hand?

Gruntharg’s action in the first example (throwing the readied
axe) is possible. Presumably, Gruntharg holds the longspear in
one hand, perhaps letting the shaft rest on his shoulder, or
perhaps just letting the butt drag on the ground. This
arrangement leaves one hand free to draw the throwing axe
while moving, which Gruntharg can manage because he has at
least a +1 base attack bonus. (Even a 1st-level barbarian has a
+1 base attack bonus.) As a general rule, if you’re big enough
to wield a weapon in two hands, you can just carry it
(somehow) with one hand.

The second example (an attack of opportunity against the
second orc) is not possible. Holding a two-handed weapon is
not the same as wielding the weapon. If Gruntharg wants to use
that longspear he has been holding on his shoulder or dragging
on the ground, he has to get his free hand on it. This maneuver
is similar to drawing the weapon, but a little easier, since
Gruntharg already has one hand on it. Therefore, it’s a free
action. But Gruntharg can do this only during his own turn, and
in any case, he does not threaten an area with the longspear
when he’s holding it in only one hand.

The third example (smacking the spellcaster with the
gauntlet) is not possible as described. A spiked gauntlet is a
melee weapon, and Gruntharg threatens the area around him
with it, but only when he has that hand free. In the example,
Gruntharg is holding the longspear with that hand, not wielding
the gauntlet. He could indeed just let go of the longspear with
one hand; this maneuver is the equivalent of dropping the
weapon, even though he is still holding onto it with the other
hand. Dropping a weapon is a free action, but you can use free
actions only on your own turn. Gruntharg could shift the spear
to one hand as a free action at the end of his turn, leaving one
hand free to threaten the area around him with the spiked
gauntlet, but then he would not threaten any area with the
longspear.

 

[taliesin15]

I totally agree with DCollins on this one--it seems to me the rules are somewhat broken on this because it makes intuitive sense that a Spellcaster holding a Quarterstaff, also a two-handed weapon, should be able to do spellcasting (somatic) gestures with no problem at all--I wonder if the way to fix would have something to do with the weight of the weapon--also it seems to me that weapons like staffs are just more traditionally magic-focussing in the mythical literature

 

[Diirk]

Well, there's not no down side... (presumably) he's spent a feat to be able to use the weapon, thats a pretty big investment right there.

Of course if he didn't spend the feat, there's not really any need to worry.. he's not going to be hitting much with a -4 to hit. (or even harsher penalties if he's using it as a double weapon)

 

[Herpes Cineplex]

it makes intuitive sense that a Spellcaster holding a Quarterstaff, also a two-handed weapon

This was the first thing I thought when I read the original post.

...though I phrased it as "Gee, I wonder if he'd bother asking this question if the character was using a quarterstaff?", because I am a cynic.


That said, of course you can take a hand off a two-handed or double weapon to cast a spell. As pointed out above, the only actual question is whether you can still make an attack of opportunity with that weapon after you've done so, and you can either go the restrictive route and say no, or you can shrug and say "who the hell cares?"...er...I mean, you can say "Sure, why not?"

Personally, I'd go with "Sure, why not?" When casting, he's not making a normal attack, and probably no one is going to be inviting an attack of opportunity from him anyway. The times when he'll be asking to use both a spell and the axe during the same round are therefore going to be few and far between. It's going to be an arbitrary decision either way, and permission requires less effort and attention than prohibition does.


Personally, I'm more amazed that someone made a half-orc sorceror, what with the charisma penalty and all. (Half-orcs still get a Cha penalty, don't they?)

--
you don't often see a player who'll accept a penalty to his pc's casting stat just for fun
ryan

 

[Mekabar]

It is entirely possible to hold a two-handed weapon in one hand temporarily, it's just not possible to fight effectively this way. And since the whole process of reloading a bow is considered a free action, how can loosing a hand from a two-handed weapon not be?

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

 

[Xarls Taunzund]

It is entirely possible to hold a two-handed weapon in one hand temporarily, it's just not possible to fight effectively this way. And since the whole process of reloading a bow is considered a free action, how can loosing a hand from a two-handed weapon not be?

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

This is true, as the Exotic Weapon Proficiency feat requires a +1 BAB, and a 1st level sorcerer has a +0 BAB. But as to the main subject of this thread, no, there is no penalty to do this. He can't attack if he casts a spell, and he can't cast a spell if he attacks. That is the trade off.

 

[Thanee]

I probably would not allow AoO's for the round, that is not consider the weapon wielded, since the half-orc is using one hand to cast the spell during the round.

The combat system is abstract, actions are executed one after the other, but I think it should be assumed, that they are happening somewhat simultaneously. Otherwise you would be acting for 1 second and standing around idle for another 5, which seems rather silly.

A similar case is when you have a buckler strapped to your arm and use the arm to fight with an off-hand weapon, you do not get the buckler's AC bonus. If it was simply a free action to shift back and forth between using the buckler or the weapon, you could still do so, but the rules assume, that you are occupied for the whole round using the weapon, therefore the buckler is of no use.

Bye
Thanee

 

[Hypersmurf]

Ah, changing hands.

According to Skip Williams in the 3E FAQ, as dcollins posted, it's a free action.
However, Andy Collins subsequently wrote in the 3.5 FAQ that it's a move action.
However, Skip Williams later wrote in the RotG that it's a free action. Again.

-Hyp.