# Two-handed weapons and spellcasting



## Alzrius (Feb 5, 2005)

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 (Feb 5, 2005)

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 (Feb 5, 2005)

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
> ...


----------



## taliesin15 (Feb 5, 2005)

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 (Feb 5, 2005)

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 (Feb 5, 2005)

taliesin15 said:
			
		

> 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 (Feb 5, 2005)

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 (Feb 5, 2005)

Mekabar said:
			
		

> 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 (Feb 5, 2005)

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 (Feb 6, 2005)

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.


----------



## Thanee (Feb 6, 2005)

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 (Feb 6, 2005)

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 (Feb 6, 2005)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> 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 (Feb 6, 2005)

drnuncheon said:
			
		

> 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 (Feb 6, 2005)

Factol Rhys said:
			
		

> 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 (Feb 6, 2005)

Alzrius said:
			
		

> 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 (Feb 6, 2005)

Mekabar said:
			
		

> 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.



			
				SRD said:
			
		

> 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 (Feb 6, 2005)

Ravellion said:
			
		

> 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 (Feb 6, 2005)

Alzrius said:
			
		

> 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 (Feb 6, 2005)

Saeviomagy said:
			
		

> 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.


----------



## Thanee (Feb 7, 2005)

DaveStebbins said:
			
		

> My main concern 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.






> Two-Handed Melee Weapons
> Axe, orc double




It's a two-handed weapon and therefore cannot be wielded in just one hand.

Bye
Thanee


----------



## Hypersmurf (Feb 7, 2005)

Thanee said:
			
		

> It's a two-handed weapon and therefore cannot be wielded in just one hand.




I'll bet it's a case of someone else misinterpreting the line "A creature wielding an orc double axe in one hand can’t use it as a double weapon" to mean "A Medium creature can wield a Medium orc double axe in one hand, as long as they don't use it as a double weapon".

Which, of course, it doesn't mean at all.  A Medium creature can't wield a Medium two-handed weapon in one hand, full-stop.

A _Large_ creature can wield a Medium two-handed weapon, like an orc double axe, in one hand (since he treats it as a one-handed weapon at a -2 penalty), but in that case, he can't use it as a double weapon.

The sentence is a restriction, not a permission.

-Hyp.


----------



## TheEvil (Feb 7, 2005)

Herpes Cineplex said:
			
		

> *snip*
> 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?)
> 
> --
> ...





Two words should be all the explaination you need:  Dragon Disciple.


----------



## MerakSpielman (Feb 7, 2005)

ooooo! Fear the AoO from the spellcaster with a double weapon!

Buggers can't hit worth squat anyway.


----------



## Thanee (Feb 7, 2005)

> Dragon Disciple




Heh. How very true.

Bye
Thanee


----------



## Thanee (Feb 7, 2005)

MerakSpielman said:
			
		

> ooooo! Fear the AoO from the spellcaster with a double weapon!
> 
> Buggers can't hit worth squat anyway.




You mean like a cleric currently affected by the Triad of Divine Smackiness - _Divine Favor_, _Divine Power_ and _Righteous Might_. 

Bye
Thanee


----------



## Amal Shukup (Feb 7, 2005)

Flip the situation around a bit...

Halberd wielding fighter. Gets hurt, decides to drink a potion.

  - 5' step back
  - Move Action to 'Retrieve a Stored Item' (Potion)
  - Standard Action to drink it ('glug')
  - He's done for the round.

Moment later, baddy runs through his threatened area. Would anybody rule that he's unable to take the AOO with his Halberd?

If the Fighter doesn't need to take a discrete action to 'put his hand back', then neither should the Wizard. 

Even if (more fun):
  - 5' step back
  - Move Action to 'Retrieve a Stored Item' (Wand)
  - Standard Action to Activate it ('zap!')
  - Free Action to drop Wand
  - He's done for the round

Should still get to put his hand back on his quarterstaff (or whatever) and wield it normally I think.

A'Mal


----------



## Thanee (Feb 7, 2005)

Amal Shukup said:
			
		

> Would anybody rule that he's unable to take the AOO with his Halberd?




I would, yes. Along the same lines as outlined above.

(Or I would allow it to them both, alternatively.)

Bye
Thanee


----------



## JackhammerJohn (Feb 7, 2005)

How strange. I read this thread yesterday and then got a request from my monk player via our message board that he wishes to use a halberd.

He asks: 

1. A Halberd allows me a 10ft threat area, if a creature moves to my 5ft area, do I get an AOO with the Halberd?

2. Can I still unarm strike while holding the halberd? I assume a Monks/Drunken Masters unarmed strikes include kicking, headbutt, Kneeing etc.........Would I be able to hold on to the Halberd and kick an opponent as unarmed strike?

Needless to say, I will be watching this thread very carefully.


----------



## Thanee (Feb 7, 2005)

Halberds only have 5' reach (just replace with Glaive). 

Bye
Thanee


----------



## Thanee (Feb 7, 2005)

Because of stuff like this, I'd do it in the following way (sounds more complicated than it is):

With each of your turns, you have to decide what weapons you are wielding during the round. You can wield either a single weapon, or multiple weapons at a time.

When you are attacking during your turn, you can only do so with a weapon you are wielding. You can freely designate any weapons available for attacking to wield as a free action before each attack. If you attack with multiple weapons at the same time, appropriate penalties for two-weapon attacks or multi-weapon attacks apply for the whole round. If you attack with only one weapon, you can still decide freely to wield any other weapons you are able to attack with in addition to the one you actually use, but then you also suffer the appropriate penalties. You can spend a move action to wield different weapons after attacking.

When you are not attacking, you can designate one of your weapons (a monk's unarmed attacks count as one weapon for this purpose) as the one you are wielding. You must be able to attack with a weapon in order to wield it. Weapons cannot be wielded in this way, if you used at least one arm necessary to hold the weapon otherwise during your turn (i.e. when freeing one hand from a two-handed weapon (free action) in order to cast a spell or drink a potion), unless you spend a move action to wield it afterwards (and put the hand back). In case of the buckler, if you also hold a weapon with the same arm, you cannot use the buckler for defense (unless you have the Improved Buckler Defense feat), if you designate that weapon as the one to wield during the round. You can also designate two or more weapons to wield this way, but then you suffer appropriate penalties for two-weapon attacks or multi-weapon attacks for all attacks made with these weapons during the round.

You can only make attacks of opportunity with a weapon you are wielding.

Bye
Thanee


----------



## kenobi65 (Feb 7, 2005)

DaveStebbins said:
			
		

> 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.




'Twas actually the topic of some debate in another thread here recently.  By the RAW, no, half-orcs don't get Weapon Familiarity with orcish racial weapons, the way dwarves and gnomes do (though it sounds like a fair number of people are willing to house-rule it).  Might be because they're only *half*-orcs, and the double axe is an orc weapon.  In any case, some folks cite it as another example of how half-orcs got jobbed.


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Feb 7, 2005)

Interesting reading, Thanee.  

I rule a little differently, the philosophy behind which is based on the way in which a monk's flurry of blows works (i.e., when you make a full attack and flurry, you can intersperse an attack with any special monk weapon you are wielding in place of an unarmed attack).  For instance, a monk wielding a quarterstaff and full-attacking can freely choose to use Head 1, Head 2, or Unarmed Strike for any given attack roll.

I believe that rule should be more generally applied to all combatants, rather than exist as a separate case.

Under my ruling, "fighting this way" from the TWF line of feats refers to "using more than one weapon to gain more attacks in a round than you normally could have."

There are no other rules on handedness.

So, if you have a Fighter 11 who has, in hand, a dagger and a rapier, and who has taken the Improved Unarmed Strike Feats, he's got three attacks per round.  He is wielding three weapons: a dagger, a rapier, and an unarmed strike.

His normal full-round attack is +11 / +6 / +1.  When he attacks, he may elect to strike Rapier, Dagger, Unarmed Strike; or Rapier, Rapier, Rapier; or Dagger, Dagger, Unarmed Strike, etc.  Each gets 1x Strength bonus (as normal for a single-hand attack).

Alternatively, he can use the TWF rules to attack at +9 / +9 / +4 / +4 / -1.  Out of any given pairing (+9 / +9, +4 / +4), the second must be made with a different weapon than the first.  So, one could attack Rapier / Dagger, Rapier / Unarmed Strike, Rapier, but one couldn't attack Rapier / Rapier, Rapier / Rapier, Unarmed Strike.  The second attack in each pairing receives .5 Strength damage.

I believe this point of view avoids some unnecessary complications - like, say, a defending weapon only working "when wielded," which means that an off-hand dagger of defending spends most of its time being useless; you can make an AoO with any weapon available to you - even though it introduces some others.

I find this makes more fun - a Fighter with multiple attacks and quickdraw can draw and throw a number of daggers and still menace the wizard with his sword.


----------



## dcollins (Feb 7, 2005)

Amal Shukup said:
			
		

> Halberd wielding fighter. Gets hurt, decides to drink a potion...
> - Move Action to 'Retrieve a Stored Item' (Potion)
> - Standard Action to drink it ('glug')
> Moment later, baddy runs through his threatened area. Would anybody rule that he's unable to take the AOO with his Halberd?




It sure seems like he just spent the whole round unarmed, with a potion in his hand. The ruling should reflect that fact.


----------



## JackhammerJohn (Feb 7, 2005)

Thanee said:
			
		

> Halberds only have 5' reach (just replace with Glaive).
> 
> Bye
> Thanee





Hehehe, you should this Order of the Stick cartoon: http://www.giantitp.com/cgi-bin/GiantITP/ootscript?SK=136


----------



## Vigwyn the Unruly (Feb 7, 2005)

I say let him. It doesn't seem to go against the RAW in any way, so not letting him do it is an added restriction. Combat is an abstraction, not a simulation of reality. As long as it's exciting and fun, what's the harm?


----------



## Hypersmurf (Feb 7, 2005)

Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> I believe this point of view avoids some unnecessary complications - like, say, a defending weapon only working "when wielded"...




Of course, a defending weapon only working "when wielded" was made explicit in the 3E Main FAQ 

-Hyp.


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Feb 7, 2005)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> Of course, a defending weapon only working "when wielded" was made explicit in the 3E Main FAQ




Which means, of course, that it's useless at least half the time.  

Can't make a full-round attack this round?  You lose the AC bonus.
Drink a potion this round (as per Dcollins' post above, though he can't read mine)?  Lose the AC bonus.
Cast a spell this round?  Lose the AC bonus.

Etc.  It's a dumb ruling, and the FAQ should be ashamed of itself.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Feb 7, 2005)

Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> Which means, of course, that it's useless at least half the time.
> 
> Can't make a full-round attack this round?  You lose the AC bonus.




I don't agree.

You can wield a second weapon in your off-hand even if you aren't making a full attack.

There's no prohibition on 'Two-Weapon Fighting' just because you're not taking a full attack action.  The prohibition is on gaining more than one attack.

So if you're taking the attack action, you can take the attack penalties, gain the AC bonus from the Defending weapon, and have both weapons available for AoOs... you just get to actually swing only one of them as part of your normal action for the round.

-Hyp.


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Feb 7, 2005)

I think that is an even worse way of ruling, Hyp.

I can carry a torch in my off-hand, and not take any penalties.  I can carry my compatriot in my off-hand (and presumably across my shoulders), and not take any penalties.  I can carry and use a shield of bashing in my off-hand, and not take any penalties.  I can carry a light shield of basing *and* a torch in my off-hand, and not take any penalties.

If I carry a magic dagger, however, I take penalties.


----------



## Pinotage (Feb 7, 2005)

Ravellion said:
			
		

> But then, I'm so lax that I allow Clerics to cast with weapon and shield provided the shield is light.
> 
> Rav




In this case I'd rule that the cleric loses the shield bonus for the round since the shield arm is holding the weapon as well.

Pinotage


----------



## Thanee (Feb 7, 2005)

Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> I rule a little differently, ...




Yep, with what I have written above you could not use different weapons in an attack without penalties, but I'm sure that could be figured in there somehow, as it certainly makes sense, as long as you do not use them together (i.e. you could make it a free action to wield another weapon you are holding just before every attack, tho any TWF/MWF penalties apply for the remainder of the round as soon as you use TWF/MWF). 

(EDIT: Changed my above post a bit to accomodate.)

Bye
Thanee


----------



## Thanee (Feb 7, 2005)

Pinotage said:
			
		

> In this case I'd rule that the cleric loses the shield bonus for the round since the shield arm is holding the weapon as well.






> A light shield’s weight lets you carry other items in that hand, although you cannot use weapons with it.




Bye
Thanee


----------



## Thanee (Feb 7, 2005)

Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> If I carry a magic dagger, however, I take penalties.




The difference is between carrying and using/wielding.

Bye
Thanee


----------



## Hypersmurf (Feb 7, 2005)

Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> If I carry a magic dagger, however, I take penalties.




Not at all!  I wouldn't dream of penalising you for _carrying_ a magic dagger.

Only for wielding it.

-Hyp.


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Feb 7, 2005)

Must you wield a shield in order to gain a benefit from it?

EDIT: Probably not. The SRD does not mention "wield" in the description of shields.  Only "wear."


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Feb 7, 2005)

Thanee said:
			
		

> The difference is between carrying and using/wielding.




Right.  And I think that this is a meaningless, and ultimately arbitrary, distinction that results in more problems than it solves.

EDIT:

Amend the above with, "... that it solves, in relation to having multiple weapons at hand."

Carrying vs. wielding are fine when it comes to, say, a sheathed weapon, or something in a backpack, etc.


----------



## Thanee (Feb 7, 2005)

I don't think so. 

For shields there is a move action to ready/loosen them to switch between carrying and using state.

Bye
Thanee


----------



## Hypersmurf (Feb 8, 2005)

Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> Must you wield a shield in order to gain a benefit from it?
> 
> EDIT: Probably not. The SRD does not mention "wield" in the description of shields.  Only "wear."




Right.  However, if someone wanted to bash/threaten/benefit-from-Defending with a shield, I'd require them to be wielding it, and thus incur TWF penalties.

-Hyp.


----------



## DaveStebbins (Feb 8, 2005)

JackhammerJohn said:
			
		

> How strange. I read this thread yesterday and then got a request from my monk player via our message board that he wishes to use a halberd.
> 
> 2. Can I still unarm strike while holding the halberd? I assume a Monks/Drunken Masters unarmed strikes include kicking, headbutt, Kneeing etc.........Would I be able to hold on to the Halberd and kick an opponent as unarmed strike?



from the SRD (should be in the PHB chapter 3 section on the Monk class):


			
				SRD said:
			
		

> Unarmed Strike: At 1st level, a monk gains Improved Unarmed Strike as a bonus feat. A monk’s attacks may be with either fist interchangeably or even from elbows, knees, and feet. This means that a monk may even make unarmed strikes with her hands full.



So that one is answered.


----------



## Darkside101 (Feb 10, 2005)

lets just try to be serious for a bit, is this a debate about how long you can take your hand off a weapon b4 your not classed as being "armed" with it? cmon people, we MUST have more to do with our time than that, no body would dare claim that there characters never let go of there weapons in a fight, being sure to keep them firmly in BOTH hands at all times, do me a favor.... as the time and nature or a somanic componant is not given it must be imposible to rule that it doesnt take a moment or two, alowing the spellcaster to atleast defend himself and gain AoO as and when they present themselves, i personaly think a spellcaster should be alowed, as a full round action, to cast a spell with one hand and attack with the other, using all the normal rules of TWF, but thats another thread, 
k thats by quids worth


----------



## KarinsDad (Feb 10, 2005)

From what I read of the RAW, there isn't an issue here.

Drop two handed weapon with one hand as free action (as part of casting the spell action).
Cast spell.
Pick two handed weapon back up with one hand as free action (as part of casting the spell action).

You can do as many free actions as the DM allows. Plus, either the first or last free action here can be done on a Move action (depending on whether you perform a move action before or after casting a spell).

Ruling against this is like ruling against the stereotypical Wizard with a staff.


----------

