# switching a versatile weapon between 1h and 2h, what action?



## bjorn2bwild (Sep 16, 2008)

Well the title pretty much says it all.

If I have a character holding a versatile weapon, say a longsword, in one hand and want to switch to holding it in two hands, what type of action is required?

Likewise, if I'm holding a versatile weapon in two hands and want to switch to holding it in one hand, what type of action is required?

I can't seem to find anything specific in the PHB with regards to versatile weapons, although I suspect it's a free action to go from 2h to 1h as that would essentially fall under the category of dropping a weapon.



The end result of all of this is I'm trying to determine the net worth of a swordmage carrying a versatile weapon in one hand and nothing in the other.  

Is it possible to trade off between holding it in two hands for attacking and holding it in one hand the rest of the time (and still have that all important minor action available for assigning the aegis).  

Likewise, if you're an assault swordmage and you're holding your sword in one hand, would you be able to get both hands on the blade for your aegis basic attack?


----------



## Chris_Nightwing (Sep 16, 2008)

We've been playing that switching from 1H to 2H is a free action. I think it's fine if a Swordmage does this - for 1 extra damage they risk any interrupts that the enemy might have and being vulnerable in their defenses against those attacks.

Incidentally, we've also been playing that if you're holding two things, swapping hands is a minor action (this comes up a lot when you have a light shield and carry a second weapon in the hand, but can't use it).


----------



## infocynic (Sep 16, 2008)

I smell a lot of cheese if you let the SM attack 2-handed and then immediately go 1-H for a free action. I would rule that your hand is "occupied" if you used it to attack since the start of your last turn. Solvable by requiring minor to switch grips, now you have the tradeoff between damage and marking.


----------



## inati (Sep 16, 2008)

Mechanically it should be a free action to switch grips, or switch from onehanded to two handed.  Take a real world example of tennis players that switch between a one handed and two handed grip, and how it is done seemlessly and without any thought, and it would be hard to argue that switch grips is anything but a free action.

Now throw in the Swordmage class feature of either one handed or two handed bonusesm which is your REAL question.  For this, I would say that if you use a two handed attack during a round and then swap as a free action to one handed, I would rule that your one handed defense bonus doesn't kick in until the start of your next turn.  

This way, the mechanics of swapping hands doesn't effect everyone across the board, but the swordmage class is prevented from the cheese that people are afraid would happen.


----------



## keterys (Sep 16, 2008)

I think I'd be tempted to go with a minor action, mirroring the usual rules for readying a weapon.


----------



## Solodan (Sep 16, 2008)

Best I can come up with:

2H to 1H is free action - as you're "Dropping a weapon" with one hand, which is a free action.

1H to 2H is a minor action - No real reason other than I don't want 1-h to 2-h shenanigans - there is nothing in the rules which is close to this that I can tell.  Maybe readying a weapon.


----------



## Skyscraper (Sep 16, 2008)

I'd say that 2H-1H and 1H-2H is a free action. If anything doesn't require any time, that is it. Even speaking during combat takes more time. Good for your swordmage.

Sky


----------



## Starbuck_II (Sep 16, 2008)

Solodan said:


> Best I can come up with:
> 
> 2H to 1H is free action - as you're "Dropping a weapon" with one hand, which is a free action.
> 
> 1H to 2H is a minor action - No real reason other than I don't want 1-h to 2-h shenanigans - there is nothing in the rules which is close to this that I can tell. Maybe readying a weapon.



 The only thing coming close to this in the books is mage hand switches stuff for a minor action.


----------



## keterys (Sep 16, 2008)

Skyscraper said:


> Even speaking during combat takes more time. Good for your swordmage.




1) It doesn't matter if speaking takes more time, but how much of your ability to do other actions it takes
2) This entire discussion shouldn't have anything to do with the swordmage. The rule is clearly intended for swordmages to leave a hand free while fighting, and this is an intentional attempt to circumvent that rule. Just say no and move along. This isn't a competitive tournament game where every advantage must be secured.


----------



## inati (Sep 17, 2008)

> 2) This entire discussion shouldn't have anything to do with the swordmage. The rule is clearly intended for swordmages to leave a hand free while fighting, and this is an intentional attempt to circumvent that rule. Just say no and move along. This isn't a competitive tournament game where every advantage must be secured.




I disagree with this, as this issue can, will, and already has come up in RPGA tournament play.  Heck, my Living Forgotten Realms character is a swordmage, so I would love to hear discussions about rules from other people.

In fact, I am surprised there are people who will try and shut down conversations on this board by saying things like 'this is obviously cheese, so stop.'  

Isn't the whole point of threads like this to prevent cheese by coming up with a fair and reasonable ruling made through spirited discussions?

In any case, when a swordmage is using a versatile weapon, there must be a way, mechanically, to make sure that he does not attack two handed, and then switch to one handed at the end of his turn in order to benefit from his Swordmage Warding class feature for +3 instead of only +1.  I do not feel that the Warding feature was meant to be used in such a manner, and I feel it was  a poor decision on the designers part for not addressing this glaring hole in the rules before it went to print.

Unfortunately, the rules don't address this (yet).  

A solution, other than the one I gave earlier, would be that the Swordmage must declare at the beginning of their turn if they are using their versatile weapon one handed or two handed, and consequently their Warding will grant them the corresponding bonus until the beginning of their next turn, where they can choose to switch grips or keep it the same.

I feel that this eliminates the "is it a free action or not" issue, keeps the spirit of the warding feature intact, and still gives players of swordmages with versatile weapons the ability to choose which grip they want to use.


----------



## Celtavian (Sep 17, 2008)

*re*

If I were DMing, I would go with the intent of the rules. There is no real world analogue to base magic powers on and 4E is strongly oriented towards balance.  If it says you must have a hand free and your last attack was made with two hands to gain the versatile advantage, then you lose the ability to gain any benefits from having an offhand free such as gaining the shield bonus or the ability to use your aegis.

I do not allow exploitation of the rules by players that try to fast talk the DM into allowing them to do something that the rules clearly do not intend them to do because of some fuzzy or poor wording they are trying to manipulate.

So as far as the Swordmage goes, no, I wouldn't allow them to use 2 hands and then use their Aegis if it says they must have one hand free. I would consider that a requirement of the power. And if they want some real specific reason, I would just tell them the hand just be working in some strange pattern to enable the ritual throughout the round.

I do not allow power gamer exploiters and will decide against them immediately when they try to abuse. This sounds like an uintended abuse of a class ability to me. That +1 damage may not be a big deal, but the shield using fighter or paladin can't gain the +1 damage while using their shield, so neither can the sword mage.


----------



## the8bitdeity (Sep 17, 2008)

What about making it analogous to stances? Isn't switching / activating a stance a minor action? I conceptually view stances in the same context as weapon position / grips.


----------



## Nytmare (Sep 17, 2008)

Would a standing rule that you can't take the "same" free action more than once in a round solve things?  Or that the same free action, done twice, becomes a minor?


----------



## Pickles JG (Sep 17, 2008)

Nytmare said:


> Would a standing rule that you can't take the "same" free action more than once in a round solve things? Or that the same free action, done twice, becomes a minor?




This used to come up in 3rd too (spell casting while holding a 2 handed weapon for example). We ruled it was a free to switch but you could not do it after your last "real" action. So if you moved/cast you would be stuck but if you cast/ moved you were OK. Hmm I guess that's cos in 3 you could have drawn a weapon while moving. 

I think "free action but dont take the mickey" is right for 4th .


----------



## keterys (Sep 17, 2008)

inati said:


> I disagree with this, as this issue can, will, and already has come up in RPGA tournament play.  Heck, my Living Forgotten Realms character is a swordmage, so I would love to hear discussions about rules from other people.




Let me word it differently, then. As an LFR player, don't do it. As a DM, request that people don't do it.

The return on doing it (1 damage) is not worth the cost.

For a tournament, eh, follow the RAW, which are curiously silent except for the free drop a weapon and minor ready a weapon. But it's a tournament, so go ahead and exploit loopholes.



> In fact, I am surprised there are people who will try and shut down conversations on this board by saying things like 'this is obviously cheese, so stop.'




It's errata waiting to happen. You make note of it, possibly send WotC a mail, and move along. This generally isn't a competitive game. Searching for loopholes is healthy for the game, but using them is not. This is a particularly minor example, but that only makes it easier to avoid. 



> Isn't the whole point of threads like this to prevent cheese by coming up with a fair and reasonable ruling made through spirited discussions?




Sometimes there are obvious questions on how the game works and whether something is intended to work that way and it is good to discuss the rules in that light, absolutely. Do you honestly believe that the swordmage is intended to _ever_ get the +1 versatile damage while retaining the +3 AC? That's the easiest cheese prevention ever. "That's not how the class is designed. Whether it's possible to work that way or not, that's not how we'll be playing it." - a "fair" ruling is subjective, so you're just as likely to annoy someone and it's easy for loss of respect, distrust, or animosity to arise from attempted bending or cheesing of the rules. Especially in con games. And that cost is too high.



> I feel it was  a poor decision on the designers part for not addressing this glaring hole in the rules before it went to print.




Agreed.



> A solution, other than the one I gave earlier, would be that the Swordmage must declare at the beginning of their turn if they are using their versatile weapon one handed or two handed, and consequently their Warding will grant them the corresponding bonus until the beginning of their next turn, where they can choose to switch grips or keep it the same.




Sure. Also avoids silliness like wielding it two-handed and back on opportunity attacks 

Which is one reason I dislike free action, especially with the minor action precedent for equipping a weapon already set.


----------



## Lakoda (Sep 17, 2008)

Seems to me to be a really easy thing to fix, it should be an easy thing to use too, no of this complicated crap.

Change Grip (Free Action)
Effect: You may change between holding a 1H weapon with one or two hands.
Special: Until the beginning of your next turn you may Change Grip again.

At worst you could have shenanigans every other turn, but at the trade off of the character not making their attack with their preferred number of hands ever other turn as well.  Seems fair to me, and it makes sense.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Sep 17, 2008)

The rules don't give an action for changing grips or swapping hands.  Maybe it's because it's not an action at all?  A two-handed weapon (or a versatile weapon gaining the +1 damage) has a requirement:  that you use both hands to wield it.  If you have two hands available, you meet that requirement.  OTOH, holding an item only requires one hand.  If you're not wielding a two-handed weapon, but only holding it, you have a hand free.  Thus you could perform any activity that requires one free hand while holding the weapon.  'Changing grips' thus isn't an action at all, it's just a matter of whether you have the right number of hands free to perform an action you want to perform, when you perform it.


----------



## yesnomu (Sep 18, 2008)

I don't really see anything wrong with letting the Swordmage get +1 damage. I agree with the tennis example, adding a hand and taking it off is pretty effortless.

For what it's worth, I played a swordmage using this trick with a Bastard Sword. I didn't really see any power disparity between me and the other players, and nobody complained I was outdamaging them.


----------



## keterys (Sep 18, 2008)

It's a difference of 1 damage. It's hardly noticeable.

It doesn't make it right.


----------



## Mahali (Sep 18, 2008)

I make it a non-action (Free) but also make them choose between wielding a weapon on or two handed for the entire round.

Combat is an abstract of constant fighting, not "I do all of this and no one else does anything.  Now it's your turn."

Prevents any cheese and is 100% with the spirit of the game.


----------



## Drakhar (Sep 18, 2008)

I'd rule it a free action useable once per round, so a SM can switch from 1h to 2h for extra damage but loses the two AC from their warding until their next round when they can switch back if they wish to.


----------



## Thordain (Oct 20, 2008)

Bumping from the grave..

I just called WotC about this. In my game my player is playing a swordmage and wants to switch to 2h as a free action, attack, then switch back to 1h. WotC said that this is within the rules, although it's up to me if I want to disallow it. I think asked if it's within the intent of the rules or if it's a loophole. He said "it's not the intent and it's not NOT the intent. It's not a loophole either, it's a creative use of the rules". So I will allow it in my game. Also if a monster has an interrupt attack then I will rule that the swordmage is using 2h at that time and will not get the +3 to AC


----------



## the8bitdeity (Oct 20, 2008)

Thordain said:


> Bumping from the grave..
> 
> I just called WotC about this. In my game my player is playing a swordmage and wants to switch to 2h as a free action, attack, then switch back to 1h. WotC said that this is within the rules, although it's up to me if I want to disallow it. I think asked if it's within the intent of the rules or if it's a loophole. He said "it's not the intent and it's not NOT the intent. It's not a loophole either, it's a creative use of the rules". So I will allow it in my game. Also if a monster has an interrupt attack then I will rule that the swordmage is using 2h at that time and will not get the +3 to AC





With WotC's ruling my current mindset is that a player can freely change as a free action, as many times as they want, but I'm ruling that the Free Action is not Immediate Interrupt "speed". If I say I'm attacking you and you didn't switch back to 1H (before I even mentioned I'm attacking you), you're only getting the +1 AC. After the attack you can switch, but it puts the responsibility on the player to maintain the state of their handedness.


----------



## elecgraystone (Oct 21, 2008)

Check out question #20 in the FAQ. It's official, free action to change grips.
Answer


----------



## Tony Vargas (Oct 21, 2008)

Since the Swordmage has come up, it seems like its class feature is meant to substitute for a shield to an extent.  That is, that the swordmage, like a defending S&B fighter, should favor one-handed weapons.  It's worth noting that a shield is considerably more trouble to ready or stow than a weapon or other item - presumably, that's to keep the S&B and THW types 'honest' by not rapidly switching between two-handed weapons for offense and shields for defense.  If a class feature is meant to make characters of that class favor one-handed weapons, it should be similarly restricted in some way.

Perhaps the swordmage feature could be house-ruled to start with language along the lines of "If you have had a hand free since the start of your turn..." or end with something along the lines of "In order to use this power, you must keep one hand free throughout your turn."


----------



## Henry (Oct 21, 2008)

It really hasn't made an issue in my 4e games to date (no swordmage), but I'm inclined for my games to say "free action, but you can only change grips once per round." That way, if you attack with one hand, you get the benefit to AC; if you attack with two hands, you get the benefit of the big old weapon, but also the penalty. At worst, a swordmage with a fullblade would get his extra shield bonus every other round.


----------



## elecgraystone (Oct 21, 2008)

If you do that then drinking a potion or anything like that would make you use the lower defense. Seriously, it's only a +1 damage. I fail to see the big deal. 

If someone interupts you when you attack they use the lower defense, if not they use the higher. Punishing a guy for needing to drink a potion seems extreme.


----------



## Zsig (Oct 21, 2008)

Thordain said:


> I think asked if it's within the intent of the rules or if it's a loophole. He said "it's not the intent and it's not NOT the intent. It's not a loophole either, it's a creative use of the rules".




I actually like that WotC response. And I have no problem with it. Cheese? There's lots of things worse than that in the game (I almost threw up the first time I saw Blinding Barrage).

Anyways, I'm running a game, and there's a Swordmage in the group, I had no trouble telling him he could do it, even though he didn't even know whether it was possible or not.


----------



## Lacyon (Oct 21, 2008)

As always, the DM is free (and encouraged) to limit the number of times per round a free action can be used.

Seems like a non-issue to me.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Oct 21, 2008)

elecgraystone said:


> If someone interupts you when you attack they use the lower defense, if not they use the higher. Punishing a guy for needing to drink a potion seems extreme.



Ready is an immediate reaction, so immediate interrupts against that lower defense are going to be rare.  

If you use a heavy shield you're 'punished' for needing to drink a potion - you have to sheath your weapon, take out the potion, drink it, and... oh, you're done, that's three minor actions: a full round to drink a potion, and you're unarmed until you can draw your weapon again.  If you want to look silly, you can drop your weapon, pull out the potion, drink it, then pick your weapon back up - still takes all round.  Wasting a standard action is arguably worse than having an AC bonus reduced.


----------



## elecgraystone (Oct 22, 2008)

Tony Vargas said:


> If you use a heavy shield you're 'punished' for needing to drink a potion - you have to sheath your weapon, take out the potion, drink it, and... oh, you're done, that's three minor actions: a full round to drink a potion, and you're unarmed until you can draw your weapon again. If you want to look silly, you can drop your weapon, pull out the potion, drink it, then pick your weapon back up - still takes all round.



Big difference. Sword and shield users have things in both hands and as you point out they have to use minor actions. All a swordmage needs is a minor action and 2 free actions but somehow he's treated as if his hand is full all round? You are trying to equate 3 minor actions to a minor and two free but they just don't take the same amount of time. I still see it as an extreme reaction to +1 damage.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Oct 22, 2008)

Nope, I'm equating class features.

Paladins & Fighters are defenders and get heavy shield proficiency free, even if they don't meet the preqs.  That's two feats worth of defense for a defender class.  It gives them +2 AC, at the price of having one less hand free.  It also gives +2 REF, but with little use for DEX and none for INT, that doesn't give them a very high REF.

Swordmages are defenders and get a special Ward that gives them +1 AC, +3 if they're only using one hand for other things.  That's a +2 difference in AC for giving up the use of a hand in combat.  (They don't get the REF of a shield, but with INT being an important stat, they're REF will be just fine for a defender).

Shields are the /only/ item in the game that takes more than a free action to drop or a minor action to begin wielding, making switching items around - using a potion or throwing a weapon while still keeping a primary weapon in hand, for instance - much less convienient for such characters.

If it's so 'wrong' to 'punish' the swordmage for needing to drink a potion, wouldn't it be equally 'wrong' to 'punish' the other two defenders for the same thing?


----------



## Zsig (Oct 22, 2008)

I'm not sure that kind of comparison is really that relevant, otherwise you'll have to consider lots of other facts since you're not being fair, like for instance, both the Paladin and Fighter have powers that allows them to regenerate and/or spend healing surges to heal or even give them temporary HP, the Swordmage doesn't.

If said Fighter/Paladin drops in battle, once he's up again, he still got his shield, the same is not true for the Swordmage, so he gotta stand up and tough all the time, he simply cannot afford to go down.


----------



## elecgraystone (Oct 22, 2008)

Tony Vargas, in an effort to 'punish' swordmages from doing something you don't thing they should, you 'punish' all swordmages not just those using versatile weapons. Dare to drink a potion, pull on a rope, open a door or throw a dagger and you lose 2 AC until your next round? Seems lame to me.

As far as equating class features does a fighter or a paladin lose there shield bonus if they drink a potion? Lose it the rest of the encounter in they fall unconscious? You are equating shields with a Ward. The creators made it hard to put on a shield and easy to drop what's in your hand. Both seem reasonable as is.

Bottom line it DOES seem very 'wrong' to 'punish' someone for needing a free hand the entire round to get the full bonus. Would you make a fighter wait until the next round to get the bonus from his shield? Or wait until next round before he could attack with a new weapon he just pulled out? Why time delay magic warding when mundane bonuses activate the instant the object is ready?


----------



## Tony Vargas (Oct 22, 2008)

It may seem 'lame' to you, but if a feature comes with a restriction, it's just as lame to ignore that restriction.


----------



## keterys (Oct 22, 2008)

You don't need to "punish them" for doing anything else - you can just say that it's a free action to wield or cease to wield a weapon in two hands. And you can take that free action once per round.

And you'd even be within the RAW and FAQ in doing so, as the limit on how many free actions, especially of the same type, that you can do is limited by the DM. It's a judgement call based on how much it impacts the rest of your turn. The example I used in another thread is that saying "four" or "score" is a free action, but reciting the full Gettysburg address is not a free action you can perform on your turn but one that takes many turns. Similarly, it's a free action to drop something, so if you have two hundred marbles in your hand and you drop them one by one while counting, that's a _lot_ of free actions and likely takes all of your actions for many combat rounds to perform.


----------



## Danceofmasks (Oct 23, 2008)

That's cool in theory, but then would you allow a player to downgrade their minor for a second use of the grip-switching free?


----------



## elecgraystone (Oct 23, 2008)

SO just how many free actions do you limit the character to? Any other free actions other than switching grips? And if you allow more than one free action per round then why not 2 grip changes?

In you own words keterys, "four" or "score" are free actions. Would you only be able to say one or the other? "four score" pushed the free actions for the round too far? Not for me. Switching your grip twice isn't in the same as dropping 200 items. 2 grip changes isn't '_lot_ of free actions'.

To Tony Vargas, the feature does indeed come with a restriction. You, however, are trying to add a new one to it. That's what is lame, not the restriction the feature already has. Your 'fix' effects swordmages that aren't even using the versatile weapon trick to get that awesome +1 damage.


----------



## Danceofmasks (Oct 23, 2008)

Well, to be fair, # of free actions in a round is one of those few places in 4e where it's _actually_ up to the DM to draw the line.
(That's right, I'm a rules lawyer that considers random ignorance of RAW = crap DM)
So, there _will_ be DMs out there that draw the line at once a round.

Which is actually not that bad a deal still, if the trick ends up costing a minor in addition to a free, folks would still do it and it won't seem quite as cheesy.


----------



## elecgraystone (Oct 23, 2008)

Seems odd to me to limit free actions to once per round or once per kind of action. If I'm fighting with two weapons, it'd take a free AND a minor to drop both weapons? The same if I wanted to say something to two people? If not why only grips? They all time the same amount of time to do.

I have no problem with stopping the 'two hundred marble' drop' or the 'full Gettysburg address'. There SHOULD be a limit when you do enough free action that it takes you a minor to finish them all. I don't think that limit is two however. While the grip change for swordmages might be 'cheesy', I don't see it as the least bit powerful and I don't see it taking more than 2 free actions to do. Like what Tony Vargas wanted to do, this solution affects more people than the person that MIGHT use the cheesy tactic. Is fixing the 'problem' of one whole extra point of damage worth limiting everyone to 1 free action?


----------



## keterys (Oct 23, 2008)

At least if you let someone do it as a minor action, then it stops you from switching many times per round for opportunity attacks, aegis, etc.

Or from just using a fullblade that they ready as a free when you attack, remove as a free when you are attacked.


----------



## keterys (Oct 23, 2008)

elecgraystone said:


> Seems odd to me to limit free actions to once per round or once per kind of action.




Absolutely agree - it should only be restricted as appropriate for the type of action.

So drop something in both hands? Sure. Grip a weapon in one hand or two hands? Sure.

Drop 200 things, one by one? Definitely not.

Change your grip twice (or four, or six, or eight times) in a round to eke in an extra point of damage? Depends. Eight is certainly starting to get silly, so where is the line drawn?

But as a player, I don't see a reason to do it. As a DM, I see no reason to allow it. If a class has a restriction, then using a rules loophole to get around that restriction isn't necessarily good gaming. If you're in a tournament, then you find every advantage you can.

For a home game, making the game easier doesn't necessarily make it more fun, and doing something that is questionable that might cause _any_ member of the table to be less comfortable with the tactic is not worth it. At all.

So, if WotC wants people to free action switch grips to and fro every time they make an attack (and I've made 12 attacks in one round with a character due to opportunity attacks and a warlord - that'd be 24 grip changes), then all they have to do is state it. In the meantime I don't see a need to give swordmages a +1 damage for doing this any more than I see a need to give a +1 damage to fighters using shields because well, let's be honest, they don't need to fully drop their shield to just get a hand on their weapon so all they need to do is grip it _really briefly_.

Obviously, some people think differently.


----------



## Patlin (Oct 23, 2008)

keterys said:


> At least if you let someone do it as a minor action, then it stops you from switching many times per round for opportunity attacks, aegis, etc.
> 
> Or from just using a fullblade that they ready as a free when you attack, remove as a free when you are attacked.




Free actions can only be done on your own turn.  I think it would have to be a non-action to be as abusable as you suggest.

That is, if it even _is_ an abuse.  Looking at my swordmage character sheet, it would increase my first level encounter power (Lightning Clash) from 1[w]+int and 1d6+int to 1[w]+int+1 and 1d6+int.  Factor off whatever portion you find apropriate due to needing to make two attack rolls.  Compared to my Paladin's encounter power (Piercing Smite) of 2[w]+str the Swordmage is definitely light on damage, even with the +1.

Versatile is a nearly useless weapon traight.  If the swordmage can make some minimal use of it, he's saving the traight from being a complete waste of space in the PHB, and he should be encouraged.


----------



## keterys (Oct 23, 2008)

You can do a free action whenever you want. There is no such 'only on your turn' restriction.

Swordmages are quite effective without the +1 damage. Attempting to argue otherwise only condemns the argument that the +1 damage isn't meaningful.

For example, Lightning Clash can hit a second target, which boosts its damage past that of the paladin's 2W.


----------



## Griogre (Oct 24, 2008)

Patlin said:


> Free actions can only be done on your own turn.  I think it would have to be a non-action to be as abusable as you suggest.




As mentioned this is not correct:


			
				PH pg 267 said:
			
		

> Free Action: 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. The DM can restrict the number of free actions in a turn.



The changing of a grip, if it is considered a free action, has no limit other than the DM's restriction on it.


----------



## Patlin (Oct 24, 2008)

Griogre said:


> As mentioned this is not correct:
> 
> The changing of a grip, if it is considered a free action, has no limit other than the DM's restriction on it.




Ouch.  Was I confusing that with 3.5? Sorry for the wrong info!


----------



## elecgraystone (Oct 24, 2008)

keterys said:


> So, if WotC wants people to free action switch grips to and fro every time they make an attack (and I've made 12 attacks in one round with a character due to opportunity attacks and a warlord - that'd be 24 grip changes), then all they have to do is state it. In the meantime I don't see a need to give swordmages a +1 damage for doing this any more than I see a need to give a +1 damage to fighters using shields because well, let's be honest, they don't need to fully drop their shield to just get a hand on their weapon so all they need to do is grip it _really briefly_.
> 
> Obviously, some people think differently.



Well, WOTC FAQ already said that it's a free action to switch grips and as already pointed out free actions take almost no time and can be done anytime. Seems to me WOTC has already said you can switch grips whenever you want as many times as you want. 

I'll admit, I've never had more than three attacks in a round so I wouldn't know about 12. I'd have no problem with a DM putting a limit on the total number of free actions a person could take in one round. However, I'd want it to be a logical limit, not one JUST made to limit the swordmage. As long as it's constant for everyone, it's all good.


----------



## keterys (Oct 24, 2008)

elecgraystone said:


> whenever you want as many times as you want.




No, they've explicitly said you can't do it as many times as you want. It's in the definition of free action. We already know you can't switch grips, say, 1000 times. I'd guess you couldn't switch grips more than, say, six times, since there are six seconds in a round.

Of course, I have no idea how you'd even do it that many times, since you need time to swing, parry, etc. So, less than 6...

I've never had to rule or make the decision at all, but I can say that at every table I've sat at that it's come up at, the DM has ruled you can switch once per round - either getting the +1 damage or the +2 AC.

And I never had to offer my opinion on the matter.


----------



## Danceofmasks (Oct 24, 2008)

Well my point is one of:
Though I think you should be able to do it (and get both bonuses), by RAW it's up to the DM, so there will be tables which will say no and it's perfectly legal by RAW.


----------



## elecgraystone (Oct 24, 2008)

keterys said:


> No, they've explicitly said you can't do it as many times as you want. It's in the definition of free action. We already know you can't switch grips, say, 1000 times. I'd guess you couldn't switch grips more than, say, six times, since there are six seconds in a round.



PH pg 267 and the FAQ seems to disagree with you. "You can take as many free actions as you want during your or another combatants turn." The FAQ states that changing grips is a free action. So by WOTC RAW, you can change grips as often as you wish. Now a DM can limit the number of free actions you can use, but RAW doesn't say you can limit JUST the number of grip changes. 

As far as the 'switch once per round' thing. That doesn't make much sense to me. How do you limit one type of free action to once in a round without doing the same for others? It's not consistent unless you have a hard limit of only 1 free action per round. If you don't then you should be able to make as many grip changes as you are allowed free action for the round.

In response to Danceofmasks, the DM may limit the number of free actions, NOT limit the number of grip changes (by RAW). So as I pointed out to keterys, unless the DM has set a limit of only 1 free action per round, he isn't following RAW by limiting only 1 grip change per round.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Oct 24, 2008)

elecgraystone said:


> How do you limit one type of free action to once in a round without doing the same for others? It's not consistent unless you have a hard limit of only 1 free action per round.




I'd guess you'd do it the same way that core 3E and 3.5 did.

Before the introduction of swift actions, casting a Quickened spell was a free action, but you could only cast one Quickened spell per round, even though you could take more free actions.

-Hyp.


----------



## elecgraystone (Oct 24, 2008)

Hypersmurf said:


> I'd guess you'd do it the same way that core 3E and 3.5 did.
> 
> Before the introduction of swift actions, casting a Quickened spell was a free action, but you could only cast one Quickened spell per round, even though you could take more free actions.
> 
> -Hyp.



You could house-rule that of course but I was talking RAW. In 4E an action is either a free action or it's not. There aren't different kinds or types of free actions. 

IMO saying that you could only change grips once but allowing multiple other free actions doesn't make a lot of logical sense. Switching grips takes as long as it takes to say "four". Switching back takes as long as it takes to say "score". Unless you are going to rule that you can't say "four score" in one round, you are doing it JUST to stop swordmages from getting a +1 damage NOT because it makes any sense. 

Since it doesn't make logical sense to limit it to once per round and it's allowed by RAW the only reason left for that house-rule is that the +1 damage is overpowering somehow. That I just don't see. Many other things in 4E are stronger and/or cheesier than the swordmage grip change that are perfectly RAW and legal.


----------



## keterys (Oct 24, 2008)

elecgraystone said:


> You could house-rule that of course but I was talking RAW. In 4E an action is either a free action or it's not. There aren't different kinds or types of free actions.




Nor was a quickened spell a different type of free action. It was just a free action you could only do once per turn.



> IMO saying that you could only change grips once but allowing multiple other free actions doesn't make a lot of logical sense.




Then your logic fu may be weak. How much does singing interfere with your ability to juggle? How about your ability to tap a rhythm with your foot? Each of these things are a bit separated so that's something, at least, though in truth there is _some_ impact to quality but you can still do these things.

Now, while singing, juggling, and tapping a rhythm with your feet, recite a spell, parry attacks with your magic shield hand, and dodge back and forth to assist your own attacks. Oh, and launch the juggled balls at enemies bouncing them back to your hand.

Okay, getting a bit more complicated.



> Switching grips takes as long as it takes to say "four". Switching back takes as long as it takes to say "score".




Potentially, but gripping something, leveraging that grip, taking a swing, then releasing the grip, takes more than "four score".

So where's the line?

Thankfully, the RAW answers that:

"The DM can restrict the number of free actions in a turn." and it even gives an example of a limited free action. "Speaking a few sentences" - you can only do that once, you can't do it twenty times 



> Unless you are going to rule that you can't say "four score" in one round, you are doing it JUST to stop swordmages from getting a +1 damage NOT because it makes any sense.




Saying "four score" makes sense. Saying the whole Gettysburg address doesn't. So there's your line of sense. Similarly, I don't think it "makes sense" for them to design the swordmage so that it has a restriction unless it has a restriction, nor do I think that it makes sense to allow grip swapping an infinite number of times if you're using that other hand to gain AC.

Thankfully, I don't have to care how it works, but as I said before - every table I've been to, it's been ruled the same. You pick one grip for the turn, take it as a free action. So you pick between +1 damage or +2 AC.



> Since it doesn't make logical sense to limit it to once per round




As noted, your logic fu is weak. It definitely makes sense to limit it to _some number_ per round. I'd imagine no one thinks you can change grips one hundred times per round. I already know some people think one time per round. So each DM will pick their own number from there. We've already established there _is a limit_, we're just haggling.



> the only reason left for that house-rule




Except it's not a house rule 



> is that the +1 damage is overpowering somehow. That I just don't see. Many other things in 4E are stronger and/or cheesier than the swordmage grip change that are perfectly RAW and legal.




It's no more overpowered than giving any character +1 damage. So let me know when you decide to give rogues +1 damage, or fighters, or warlords, or clerics, etc.


----------



## elecgraystone (Oct 24, 2008)

It is very much a house-rule. It reads "The DM can restrict the number of free actions in a turn." NOT the "The DM can restrict SOME free actions but not others." The DM can restrict the total number of free actions per RAW. Saying you can use this free action only once but can still do other free action isn't RAW so it's a house-rule. 

Bottom line, a RAW ruling on free actions would be you could only do 5 free actions in a round. The house-rule would be you can only change grip once per round, you can only speak twice a round, you can drop three items a round ect. As long as the person has free actions left, by RAW they can change grips again. It's not "haggling" over a limit, it's the fact that you are limiting JUST one free action that makes it a house-rule.

As far as "So let me know when you decide to give rogues +1 damage, or fighters, or warlords, or clerics, etc." all rogues fighters, or warlords, or clerics can do the exact same thing with a versatile weapon. SO WOTC decided to give them ALL a +1, not me. The "design the swordmage" is really one handed vs two-handed weapons for their ward bonus. In 4E versatile weapons are always 1 handed weapons (even when wielded two handed). All this could be fixed by altering the ward to read +3 when wielding a a single one-handed weapon and +1 when wielding a two handed. That's more or less what they were trying to do. They just tried to make it as complicated as possible by bringing a free hand into it instead.


----------



## keterys (Oct 24, 2008)

elecgraystone said:


> It reads "The DM can restrict the number of free actions in a turn."




Very good, then. This is simpler. How many sentences can a person speak per turn? It appears that you've just instituted a limit that all free actions are alike so you can say, I guess, hundreds of sentences per six second turn?

Or perhaps only a few, and ergo can only change grip (or drop a weapon, or whatever) once per turn?

I mean, that sure sounds like a house rule, all free actions somehow being the same.



> Bottom line, a RAW ruling on free actions would be you could only do 5 free actions in a round. The house-rule would be you can only change grip once per round, you can only speak twice a round, you can drop three items a round ect.




You are incorrect. 



> As long as the person has free actions left, by RAW they can change grips again. It's not "haggling" over a limit, it's the fact that you are limiting JUST one free action that makes it a house-rule.




Of course not - I'm limiting _ALL_ free actions - to "what you can reasonably fit into six seconds while doing everything else".



> As far as "So let me know when you decide to give rogues +1 damage, or fighters, or warlords, or clerics, etc." all rogues fighters, or warlords, or clerics can do the exact same thing with a versatile weapon.




Sure - but I didn't ask about versatile weapons. I asked about just giving them a +1. 

If they're designed, as is, to do the expected damage, is it overpowered to just give them a +1? That is the question, and nothing to do with versatile.

Either +1 to damage is overpowered. Or it's not.



> All this could be fixed by altering the ward to read +3 when wielding a a single one-handed weapon and +1 when wielding a two handed. That's more or less what they were trying to do. They just tried to make it as complicated as possible by bringing a free hand into it instead.




Agreed - they need to change the wording, though I suspect your choice of wording is not the best either. Really, all they need to do is say quite specifically about the swordmage, how they want it to work. It'd be pretty easy


----------



## elecgraystone (Oct 24, 2008)

keterys said:


> Very good, then. This is simpler. How many sentences can a person speak per turn? It appears that you've just instituted a limit that all free actions are alike so you can say, I guess, hundreds of sentences per six second turn?
> 
> Or perhaps only a few, and ergo can only change grip (or drop a weapon, or whatever) once per turn?
> 
> I mean, that sure sounds like a house rule, all free actions somehow being the same.



But all free actions DO take up the same amount of time, just like all minor actions take the same amount of time and all standard actions take the same amount of time. Making one different is a house-rule.


keterys said:


> You are incorrect.



I'll have to disagree. All free actions are treated the same under the rules. Treating one differently or saying it takes longer would be a house-rule.


keterys said:


> Of course not - I'm limiting _ALL_ free actions - to "what you can reasonably fit into six seconds while doing everything else".



Then you would have a general limit on free actions, NOT limiting only one. Different free actions do not (at least by RAW) take different amounts of time.


keterys said:


> Sure - but I didn't ask about versatile weapons. I asked about just giving them a +1.



But they give them the exact same benefit as the swordmage right? 


keterys said:


> If they're designed, as is, to do the expected damage, is it overpowered to just give them a +1? That is the question, and nothing to do with versatile.



But it has everything to do with versatile


keterys said:


> Either +1 to damage is overpowered. Or it's not.



Not. That's why every character can pick up a versatile weapon and do it. 


keterys said:


> Agreed - they need to change the wording, though I suspect your choice of wording is not the best either. Really, all they need to do is say quite specifically about the swordmage, how they want it to work. It'd be pretty easy



Well, mine would be the easiest. If you just drop the free hand thing, people would stop trying to change how free actions work JUST to stop swordmages that MIGHT try to get the extra +1 damage. 

From what I've read, the +1 damage wasn't intended but they aren't planning on changing it. That's why I suggested my wording. It seems that it's going to stay RAW that they can get the +1 damage so why not change the wording to make it easier on everyone. If we ignore the free hand and focus on the type of weapon, we get the same effect without having to worry about free actions or grip changes.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Oct 24, 2008)

elecgraystone said:


> But all free actions DO take up the same amount of time, just like all minor actions take the same amount of time and all standard actions take the same amount of time.




Let's say the hobgoblin takes a swing at our swashbuckling hero, but he misses.

"Ha - you'll have to do better than that, if you want to strike a swordsman trained by the Scarlet Snake!" the hero cries.

Reasonable as a free action?

-Hyp.


----------



## elecgraystone (Oct 24, 2008)

Hypersmurf said:


> Let's say the hobgoblin takes a swing at our swashbuckling hero, but he misses.
> 
> "Ha - you'll have to do better than that, if you want to strike a swordsman trained by the Scarlet Snake!" the hero cries.
> 
> ...



Sure, why not? Works for me. In that amount of time, however, I could switch my grip at least twice in real life. 

One of the mistakes that keterys is making is that he's thinking some free actions take longer than others. In real life, sure. In the game not really. All actions of the same type take the exact same amount of time (even if we know they don't in real life).

Lets take 2 rogues. One make a basic ranged attack and one attacks 9 targets with a blinding barrage. Which one takes more time? In real life the blinding barrage should take 9 times longer. In game it takes the exact same amount of time, 1 standard action.

His other mistake is that you can take more than one action at the same time. Unless a feat or ability lets you, you have to wait until the action is over to start another one. In real life I could move and fire a loaded crossbow at the same time. In game I have to finish moving before I can fire. So speaking and changing grips takes twice as long as doing either one instead of being able to both at the same time frame.

The game round doesn't follow real life. Each action happens on it's own and each type of action takes the same amount of time as others of it's type.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Oct 24, 2008)

elecgraystone said:


> Sure, why not? Works for me.




I agree.

But would you let him make a similar comment after every attack made in a round by either a PC or a monster?  Let's say there are five PCs and a dozen minions, for a total of seventeenish attacks in the round... can our hero make a pithy remark along the lines of the above seventeen times?

I wouldn't allow it.  Once, fine; twice, maybe.  Not seventeen times.  I would, on the other hand, be perfectly comfortable with a "Ha!" or "O-Ho!" after each of those attacks.

I can see a sentence as a free action.  I wouldn't allow seventeen sentences in a round.  I see "Ha!" as a free action, and I have no problem with seventeen of those in a round.



> All actions of the same type take the exact same amount of time.




I don't agree.  I don't think you can say that "All move actions take 3 seconds, and all minor actions take 2 seconds, and all standard actions take 4 seconds", or anything like that; an action's category is not necessarily related to how long it takes, but rather to what sort of 'effort' the game rules require.

As soon as you start saying they take up X amount of time, action points become a form of time travel - the character has shoehorned a few extra seconds into a round somehow with which to fit his extra standard action.

"Ha!" and a sentence are both free actions, and both require the same rules-mechanical 'effort', but they don't take the same amount of _time_.

-Hyp.


----------



## keterys (Oct 25, 2008)

elecgraystone said:


> But all free actions DO take up the same amount of time, just like all minor actions take the same amount of time and all standard actions take the same amount of time. Making one different is a house-rule.




Incorrect - actions and time are not correlated. Especially not free actions.



> I'll have to disagree. All free actions are treated the same under the rules. Treating one differently or saying it takes longer would be a house-rule.
> Then you would have a general limit on free actions, NOT limiting only one. Different free actions do not (at least by RAW) take different amounts of time.




Incorrect. Different free actions do take different amounts of time, by RAW. Time almost never _matters_, however.



> But it has everything to do with versatile




Not really. If a feat gave you +1 damage as long as you were using your left hand to rub your belly and recite the alphabet, I'd have a similar objection.

My question was purely about giving a class +1 damage over where it was designed and balanced. If the swordmage was designed to get it, they should have worded the ability differently. If it wasn't designed to get it, then it doesn't matter if you can sketch a rule to do it. You shouldn't.

Unless, of course, you're playing in a tournament environment.



> Not. That's why every character can pick up a versatile weapon and do it.




Can every character use a heavy shield and a versatile weapon at the same time with +1 damage? 



> Well, mine would be the easiest. If you just drop the free hand thing, people would stop trying to change how free actions work JUST to stop swordmages that MIGHT try to get the extra +1 damage.




If swordmages can get the +1 damage, those who don't should. Barring a specific reason to use another weapon, such as a scimitar, they'd be stupid not to.

Regardless, I don't see that yours would be easiest -unless that's what they're trying to emulate-. As far as I can tell, they're trying to emulate a fighter/mage who leaves a hand free and deflects things with magic... in which case using a weapon two-handed at all is against design intent. So something more akin to using both hands to attack losing the bonus would cover that angle.



> From what I've read, the +1 damage wasn't intended but they aren't planning on changing it.




And if it's not intended... which we agree... then it shouldn't work that way. Simplest thing in the world 



> so why not change the wording to make it easier on everyone. If we ignore the free hand and focus on the type of weapon, we get the same effect without having to worry about free actions or grip changes.




But now you're house ruling to nerf swordmages using fullblades. What's with that? 

More seriously, though - even without swordmages I see no reason to allow _any_ character to switch grips more than once per round.


----------



## Amphimir Míriel (Oct 25, 2008)

Tony Vargas said:


> Ready is an immediate reaction, so immediate interrupts against that lower defense are going to be rare.
> 
> If you use a heavy shield you're 'punished' for needing to drink a potion - you have to sheath your weapon, take out the potion, drink it, and... oh, you're done, that's three minor actions: a full round to drink a potion, and you're unarmed until you can draw your weapon again.  If you want to look silly, you can drop your weapon, pull out the potion, drink it, then pick your weapon back up - still takes all round.  Wasting a standard action is arguably worse than having an AC bonus reduced.




As a student of Western Martial arts, let me tell you that it's easier to hold your sword in your armpit, behind your shield, while you take a quick drink of potion, and then just go ahead and continue the combat.


----------



## elecgraystone (Oct 27, 2008)

I'll have to disagree with both of you, keterys and Hypersmurf. The combat round is defined as a standard, a move and minor action. They always take up the same amount of time in a round. Free actions are just like action point actions. It fills in the extra time in the round not taken up by the other thee actions. If someone only did a basic melee attack, only moved one square and didn't take his minor action would he have more free actions to use? IMO no, the actions took the same amount of time as the guy that attacked 9 people and then ran 9 squares.

I see no reason to limit some free actions and not others. A free action is just like every other free action. It just makes no sense that one action that takes little of no time can only be done once when another can be done 17 times. Both are mechanically identical and treated 100% the same under the rules. There is nothing supporting some actions of the same type taking longer to do. Keterys said 'Different free actions do take different amounts of time, by RAW.' so I would be interested to see an actual quote or pg# for this since I've never seen it.

I have no problem with limiting the total number of free actions. I just don't see how you can say it's RAW to limit some free actions and not others. It says you can limit the number of free actions, not the types of free actions.


----------



## Lacyon (Oct 27, 2008)

elecgraystone said:


> I see no reason to limit some free actions and not others. A free action is just like every other free action. It just makes no sense that one action that takes little of no time can only be done once when another can be done 17 times.




How many free actions is it to say "Four"? How many to say "Score"? How many to say "Four score"? How many to say "Elbow"?

Why do you insist that it makes no sense to have a character say "Four Score" _at the same time_ as he changes his grip on a weapon?

Because if he _can_ do these things at the same time, then you _have_ to restrict the number of each of these free actions that can be done per turn separately.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Oct 27, 2008)

elecgraystone said:


> The combat round is defined as a standard, a move and minor action.




No, those are the things you can do in a turn.



> They always take up the same amount of time in a round.




What reference are you finding to connect an action to an amount of time?

The only reference to time is in the definition of a round, on p266: "A round represents about 6 seconds in the game world."

We don't know how long a turn takes, we don't know how long a standard action takes; all we know is how long a round takes.

-Hyp.


----------



## MyISPHatesENWorld (Oct 28, 2008)

keterys said:


> Incorrect - actions and time are not correlated. Especially not free actions.
> 
> Incorrect. Different free actions do take different amounts of time, by RAW. Time almost never _matters_, however.




Time doesn't matter here either. 



keterys said:


> Not really. If a feat gave you +1 damage as long as you were using your left hand to rub your belly and recite the alphabet, I'd have a similar objection.
> 
> My question was purely about giving a class +1 damage over where it was designed and balanced. If the swordmage was designed to get it, they should have worded the ability differently. If it wasn't designed to get it, then it doesn't matter if you can sketch a rule to do it. You shouldn't.
> 
> ...




Besides the official FAQ answer and the customer service response previously posted, Mike Mearls posted the intent of versatile:
"This is not an official answer, but let me give some insight into how versatile is intended to work.
As a rule of thumb when using a versatile weapon, default to giving the player the most beneficial reading of a rule or situation regarding one or two handed use.
So, the fighter would still get his weapon talent, and he could also gain the benefits of reaping strike.
Versatile is intended to let you have your cake and eat it too."

Yes, you can change as a free action and yes, you can get the +3 swordmage warding in conjunction with the +1 damage bonus if you are using a versatile weapon. And, yes, you can screw a player out of gaining the benefit of wielding a versatile weapon via house rule or abusing your role as rule arbiter to limit his free actions just because you don't like it (if the player will tolerate it). You can  give him a situational modifier of -2 to all his attacks, checks and defenses all the time if you don't like the class or race he is playing too (again, if the player will tolerate it).

The swordmage with a longsword or bastard sword gets 1d8+1 or 1d10+1 to damage and +3 AC warding. The Swordmage with a fullblade gets 1d12 damage and the superior critical property and +1 AC warding. The swordmage with a double-bladed sword gets 1d8 and the defensive and off-hand properties and the weapon is considered both light blade and heavy blade (enabling more options for multiclassing and feats) and +1 AC warding. 

That fighter that can't wield his shield and get the +1 to damage at the same time as using his shield can always take the heavy weapon focus feat with that feat slot the swordmage had to use to take Intelligent Blademaster so his basic attacks work. Then he'll be doing the same x[W]+1 damage as the swordmage with powers and basic attacks, as well as hitting better (due to his +1 fighting style bonus) with all attacks. And he has the reflex bonus from his shield, and a better FORT save, and easier gain of feats relating to weapons, shields and armor. All classes don't benefit in the same way from all weapons/groups/properties.

That fullblade-wielding swordmage isn't being nerfed by not being allowed to get the +3 - he has both the higher damage die (superior to the +1 damage) and the superior crit property. He (and the double-sword wielder) specifically gain the benefit of swordmage warding when they are wielding the weapon, and you can't wield a two-handed weapon in one hand.



keterys said:


> More seriously, though - even without swordmages I see no reason to allow _any_ character to switch grips more than once per round.




You don't like that players can switch grips more than once a round. That doesn't change the fact that there is a reason, to allow players to get the benefit of using a versatile weapon, or the fact that the rules clearly allow it.


----------

