Greatsword weilding caster

[irdeggman]

If the situation is under the PC's control then the cleric can absolutely rock. Such as a designed assualt on a fairly well known position with fairly well known foes (e.g., what they can and usually do) then the cleric can plan his spells for the day and cast them jsut before going into comabat an pretty much take charge. Note that in this type of scenario a wizard will in general excel over a sorcerer due to the fact that he knows more spells and can choose the right ones for the situation.

Now on the other hand if the situation is not under the PC's control - like say an ambush. The cleric does not have time to cast his buff spells nor ensure he has the right ones memorized for the day. Same with a wizard. A fighter rules here since his combat abilities are "always on", except for maybe wearing armor. Likewise a sorcerer will rule as far as spellcasters due to the fact that he can cast on the fly by choosing a more appropriate (but not necesarily the most appropriate) spell for the situation.

Pretty much all of this is based on the situation at hand.

 

[RangerWickett]

This is a bizarre argument to me. Has anyone here ever fought with
weapons, even in fencing? It is not hard at all to go from holding a
weapon to defending yourself with a weapon, as long as you're aware of
your foe. Now sure, I can understand not being able to wield a
greatsword at the very instant you cast a spell -- say an enemy in
melee with you readies an action to cast a spell if you cast a spell;
as you cast your spell, he casts his, and for that moment you don't
threaten and so can't attack back -- I can accept this.

But to suggest that, by virtue of momentarily not fighting you lose the
ability to threaten people for an entire round is foolish.

I mean, as far as I know there's no rule listing how difficult it is to
'ready' a weapon. No where in the rules does it even say you
have to ready weapons. It looks like the rules assume that if you are
holding the weapon with the requisite number of hands, you are
'wielding' it, and thus are able to threaten people with it. That's my
experience with boffer fighting and fencing, and since the rules don't
say anything about needing to prepare a weapon, I think it's obvious
that you can, as posted way back in this thread:

1. Take a hand off the weapon (free action).
2. Use that hand to cast the spell (standard action).
3. Put your hand back on the weapon and be considered to be wielding
the weapon (free action).
4. Use a move action for whatever you want (move action).

Hell, I'd even let you, if you were wielding a bastard sword without an
exotic weapon proficiency, take your hand off the weapon, cast a spell,
make an attack of opportunity in the middle of casting a spell with a
-4 nonproficiency penalty, and then put your hand back on the weapon.

 

[Infiniti2000]

But to suggest that, by virtue of momentarily not fighting you lose the ability to threaten people for an entire round is foolish.

This just proves that you do not understand what we are saying. But, hey, we're foolish, so who can really understand fools anyway?

 

[Infiniti2000]

But the monster(s) bashing away at the cleric lives for 2-3 rounds longer than the monster(s) bashing away at the fighter.

A buffed cleric? Nah, no way. But, that's all speculation and hearsay.

 

[TheRelinquished]

Think Tank

This must be one of the most melodramatic posts I've ever read. "Can a caster use a Greatsword and still cast?" Why not? There are no rules that suggest otherwise. In fact, I think that the rules all but beg us to be so creative....

The SRD has this to say about somatic components and two-handed weapons, respectively:

Somatic (S)

A somatic component is a measured and precise movement of the hand. You must have at least one hand free to provide a somatic component.

Light, One-Handed, and Two-Handed Melee Weapons

This designation is a measure of how much effort it takes to wield a weapon in combat. It indicates whether a melee weapon, when wielded by a character of the weapon’s size category, is considered a light weapon, a one-handed weapon, or a two-handed weapon.
....
Two-Handed

Two hands are required to use a two-handed melee weapon effectively. Apply 1½ times the character’s Strength bonus to damage rolls for melee attacks with such a weapon.

Now from what I understand here, the two-handed rule only applies to melee, and has no dominion over how a character is holding the weapon, or with what number of appendages.

So, with that in mind, consider the time that it would take to remove, and replace your hand on a weapon held in both hands, if the weapon's size and balance were inconsequential. You might have come to the same conclusion that I have, being that the aforementioned time is utterly negligable, as these actions can be performed within a fraction of a second.

So one could even suggest that a character could, Gary Gygax forbid, hold the weapon off-handed for a few mere moments for whatever reason during his/her turn, without having to announce a series of actions (free or otherwise) to "ready" the weapon again, the time to do so being so negligable. And therefore the amount of time the character's hand could be removed (again, for whatever reason) would only be limited by the time within a round, and the actions that the character could perform (one-handed) within that time.

Now, looking back at casting in general, a spell with a casting time of 1 standard action normally takes up an amount of time short enough that it can be coupled with as much as a 30 ft. movement (in the case of most medium creatures). This includes the time that it would take to retrieve material components, recite verbal components, and perform somatic components. It would stand to reason then that these actions can be performed quickly and with general ease (conditions permitting) and that combined they require no more than a clear voice and a single free hand.

With these assertions in mind, it follows that one could, in fact, cast a spell while using a two-handed weapon (i.e. a greatsword) without sacrificing their ability to defend themselves or threaten others.

However, it's your house and your rules. To compromise, I would be willing to assert that a caster could use a full round action to cast while wielding a two-handed weapon. That meaning that it is too taxing to hold a weapon of that size one-handed while casting, and that a caster could rest the end of his staff/greatsword/etc on the ground with a partial action (not losing control of it entirely) and spending a second partial action to ready the weapon once casting is done.

Mind you, that still seems harsh, IMHO.

 

[Elephant]

A buffed cleric? Nah, no way. But, that's all speculation and hearsay.

Well, the cleric isn't buffed the whole time...

Joe Fighter
Bob Cleric
Gug monster
Kek monster

Round 1: Gug and Joe bash each other. Kek bashes Bob, Bob casts Righteous Might.
Round 2: Gug and Joe bash each other. Kek bashes Bob, Bob casts Divine Power.
Round 3: Gug and Joe bash each other. Kek bashes Bob, Bob hits back.
*** Gug is at 30% HP, Kek is now at 80% HP. ***
Round 4: Gug and Joe bash each other. Kek and Bob bash each other.
Round 5: Gug and Joe fight...Gug dies. Kek and Bob bash each other.
Round 6: Joe Charges Kek while Bob and Kek fight normally.
Round 7: Kek hits Bob, then dies when Joe and Bob flank him.

Joe takes damage in 5 of the rounds while Bob takes damage in all 7 rounds.

Or how about...

Round 1: Joe Charges, killing Mooks 1 and 2 (Cleave). Bob casts Divine Power.
Round 2: Joe full attacks Gug. Gug and Kek strike back. Bob casts Righteous Might.
Round 3: Joe full attacks, Gug dies on the first hit, and Kek follows by the end of the attack sequence. Bob moves into position, looks down at the corpses in disgust, and casts Cure Moderate Wounds on Joe.

 

[RangerWickett]

So what is the current argument over, then? Because this thread got longer than I was willing to devote a close reading to. What is the hang-up of the "can't fight with greatsword and also cast" crowd?

 

[Sledge]

There is no real argument. Simply that certain DMs would choose to restrict their players from doing so. The basis for this decisions seems to be "Clerics make my fighters look lame".

 

[Infiniti2000]

Well, the cleric isn't buffed the whole time...
...
Round 1: Joe Charges, killing Mooks 1 and 2 (Cleave). Bob casts Divine Power.
Round 2: Joe full attacks Gug. Gug and Kek strike back. Bob casts Righteous Might.
Round 3: Joe full attacks, Gug dies on the first hit, and Kek follows by the end of the attack sequence. Bob moves into position, looks down at the corpses in disgust, and casts Cure Moderate Wounds on Joe.

Yes, that's the example that I'm talking about. Of course, whether Joe kills all the monsters by the time Bob is ready is irrelevant. The fact is that Bob, at that point, does not need raise dead insurance. Of course, if Bob is getting hammered while he's buffing and he doesn't change his mind about what to do, then there are other problems, and I'm not talking about that situation.

So, with that in mind, consider the time that it would take to remove, and replace your hand on a weapon held in both hands, if the weapon's size and balance were inconsequential. You might have come to the same conclusion that I have, being that the aforementioned time is utterly negligable, as these actions can be performed within a fraction of a second.

Of course. Even a cursory reading of the thread would have uncovered agreement that they are free actions with only 1 nay-sayer (not me, irdeggman I believe is the only one).

With these assertions in mind, it follows that one could, in fact, cast a spell while using a two-handed weapon (i.e. a greatsword) without sacrificing their ability to defend themselves or threaten others.

This part is invalid because you've failed to suitably handle the points I've brought forward.

What is the hang-up of the "can't fight with greatsword and also cast" crowd?

I don't think anyone except Sledge would agree that you can attack with a greatsword and cast in the same round without using quickened or swift spells. What rules do you cite that allows you to do so?

 

[Sledge]

On your turn you might not get an attack in, but attacks are not necessary to threaten. If at the end of your turn you are holding the greatsword in two hands you are threatening the squares around you. If someone draws an AOO you can take it because you threaten.
Seems quite simple.
Your method of removing this is to prevent people from using the free action to either let go of the sword with one hand, or to put the hand back on. The rules allow the dm to make limits to free actions, so you are quite within your rights to do this as you like.
The rules however do not assume this, or require this. This is only intended by your statements to keep clerics from being too uppity.