Greatsword weilding caster

[Infiniti2000]

This is only intended by your statements to keep clerics from being too uppity.

Where in the world did you get that idea? Are you not even reading the thread? I never said any such thing nor have I even hinted at it. The diversion on the cleric has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with wielding a two-handed weapon while casting. I merely said that a buffed cleric need not take out raise dead insurance.

Do you understand the real point of this thread yet? Let me somesum it up for you in one word: simultaneity.

 

[werk]

Do you understand the real point of this thread yet? Let me sum it up for you in one word: simultaneity.

"When a character’s turn comes up in the initiative sequence, that character performs his entire round’s worth of actions. "

A hypothetical...
BG - ready to disarm caster if he casts.
Caster - Moves 5' but is still threatened.
Uses free action to remove hand from 2-h sword so he can cast.
Begins to cast, ready triggers.
BG - attack to disarm.

Is the caster's weapon one handed or two handed? What mechanics should be used for the disarm? Does the caster get an AoO against the BG even though he is only 'holding' a 2-h weapon? How about the +4? What if the BG wants to sunder rather than disarm?

 

[TheRelinquished]

Think Tank: Part 2

Originally Posted by TheRelinquished
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.

I'm sorry if I seemed like I was jumping to conclusions. Allow me to ellucidate and address your points more specifically.

What I view as the primary argument which I seek to combat:

You can take your hand off your greatsword, but then you no longer threaten for the remainder of the round (until the beginning of your next turn when you can place your hand on the greatsword again as a free action).

First, let's address the subject of "wielding" a weapon.

Originally Posted by Infiniti2000
He can not 'wield' the quarterstaff when he casts a spell with somatic or material components or focus components that require a hand. He can hold it, and that's fine. He doesn't need to actually 'wield' a magical staff to use the staff's powers, though, so your classic wizard is not hampered by this.

By my research, there is no definition for "wielding" a weapon that differs from "holding" a weapon. Because there is no defintition to clarify this, I've turned to a third party resource (the online thesaurus at dictionary.com) to illustrate the synonymous relationship between holding and wielding:

Main Entry: wield
Part of Speech: verb
Definition: control
Synonyms: apply, brandish, command, conduct, employ, exercise, exert, flourish, handle, have, hold, maintain, manage, maneuver, manipulate, operate, ply, possess, shake, swing, throw, use, utilize, wave, work

Main Entry: hold
Part of Speech: verb 1
Definition: have
Synonyms: adhere, arrest, bind, bottle up, carry, catch, check, cherish, clasp, cleave, clench, clinch, cling, clutch, confine, contain, cork up, cradle, detain, embrace, enclose, enjoy, fondle, freeze to, grasp, grip, handle, hang on, have, hug, imprison, keep, keep close, keep out, lock up, maintain, nourish, occupy, own, palm, possess, press, restrain, retain, secure, seize, squeeze, stay put, stick, take, trammel, vise, wield, withhold, wring

Rather, a weapon is either "drawn" (being held or handled by the character) or "sheathed" (stowed in some fashion appropriate of the weapon while within easy reach). The only errata which I have found regarding two-handed weapons and the manner in which they are held was presented in my previous post, wherein I denoted the fact that it only applies when engaging in melee with that weapon.

Finally, I want to point out that the Player's Handbook illustrates that one is only denied attacks of opportunity under the same conditions that deny a character their Dexterity bonus to their Armor Class (i.e. being flatfooted, paralyzed, stunned, etc.), which casting does not do, obviously.

So with all of that in mind, if you agree that a two-handed weapon can be held while casting, but assert only that the caster will no longer threaten adjacent squares after casting, then I assert that you are wrong based on the points presented here (and in my previous post) that (A) holding and wielding are synonymous for all intents and purposes of this game, (B) there is more than enough time in a round to use two free actions in addition to casting a spell of 1 standard action, and (C) spellcasting does not in any way affect one's ability to threaten squares.

As opposed to my last post, if you read this entire post, then you'll notice that I addressed your argument thoroughly and completely. I hope that doing so has persuaded you to see my point.

 

[Infiniti2000]

What I view as the primary argument which I seek to combat:

You can take your hand off your greatsword, but then you no longer threaten for the remainder of the round (until the beginning of your next turn when you can place your hand on the greatsword again as a free action).

Agreed.

Rather, a weapon is either "drawn" (being held or handled by the character) or "sheathed" (stowed in some fashion appropriate of the weapon while within easy reach). The only errata which I have found regarding two-handed weapons and the manner in which they are held was presented in my previous post, wherein I denoted the fact that it only applies when engaging in melee with that weapon.

You cannot attack, and thus do not threaten, while holding (or attempting to wield) a two-handed weapon in one hand. This is regardless of whether you want to equate holding with wielding. I use the two separately so that it's easier to understand and it also alleviates other questions (regarding TWF, defending, etc.).

Finally, I want to point out that the Player's Handbook illustrates that one is only denied attacks of opportunity under the same conditions that deny a character their Dexterity bonus to their Armor Class (i.e. being flatfooted, paralyzed, stunned, etc.), which casting does not do, obviously.

Wrong: "While casting a spell, you don’t threaten any squares around you."

So with all of that in mind, if you agree that a two-handed weapon can be held while casting, but assert only that the caster will no longer threaten adjacent squares after casting, then I assert that you are wrong based on the points presented here (and in my previous post) that (A) holding and wielding are synonymous for all intents and purposes of this game, (B) there is more than enough time in a round to use two free actions in addition to casting a spell of 1 standard action, and (C) spellcasting does not in any way affect one's ability to threaten squares.

My opinion is that you are wrong on A, but either way is not provable per the rules. You are correct on B, obviously, but you ignore my points again. You are not correct on C.

As opposed to my last post, if you read this entire post, then you'll notice that I addressed your argument thoroughly and completely. I hope that doing so has persuaded you to see my point.

You did absolutely nothing to address my argument, which is entirely based on simultaneity. How come you keep ignoring that?

 

[Sledge]

Simultaneous combat being something I am used to in other games, let me express this clearly. D&D does not use simultaneous combat. Rather it implement a simulation of FLUID combat. If the game must be taken simultaneously, then casters would have to make concentration checks in any round they are hit and have or will cast a spell.
Simultaneity is not the rule. Fluidity is.

 

[dcollins]

Here's the extended grip discussion in 3.0 FAQ p. 40-41. In short, there is a distinction between "carrying" and "wielding" a weapon. It's a free action to shift grip with a free hand. However, it's not addressed how many such free actions you get -- personally, I allow only one "free action grip switch" per turn; other DMs can of course differ, that's open to interpretation.

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

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

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

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

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

By my research, there is no definition for "wielding" a weapon that differs from "holding" a weapon.

There is exactly one (which implies another reference).

You can find it in the 3.0 (and possibly 3.5) FAQ under a question about a defending weapon held / wielded in the off-hand. The FAQ states that, in order, to benefit from the defending enhancement (which provides a bonus to the wielder's AC), you must accept TWF penalties.

If you accept that distinction as true, then the TWF rules in the Combat section also distinguish between a held and a wielded weapon in their description of what "fighting this way" means.

If you do not accept the FAQ's answer, then there is no distinction in the rules between wielding and holding (other than, perhaps, a reference that you can hold a two-handed weapon in one hand, but you cannot wield it in one hand).

 

[irdeggman]

From Webster’s Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary:

wield: 1. to deal successfully with: manage
2: to handle (as a tool) esp. effectively <~ a broom>

It looks to me like "2" is the applicable one here and the use of "handle" means more than to merely "hold".

 

[irdeggman]

Quote:
Main Entry: wield
Part of Speech: verb
Definition: control
Synonyms: apply, brandish, command, conduct, employ, exercise, exert, flourish, handle, have, hold, maintain, manage, maneuver, manipulate, operate, ply, possess, shake, swing, throw, use, utilize, wave, work

Main Entry: hold
Part of Speech: verb 1
Definition: have
Synonyms: adhere, arrest, bind, bottle up, carry, catch, check, cherish, clasp, cleave, clench, clinch, cling, clutch, confine, contain, cork up, cradle, detain, embrace, enclose, enjoy, fondle, freeze to, grasp, grip, handle, hang on, have, hug, imprison, keep, keep close, keep out, lock up, maintain, nourish, occupy, own, palm, possess, press, restrain, retain, secure, seize, squeeze, stay put, stick, take, trammel, vise, wield, withhold, wring

Try the other synonyms for a better fit - "brandish", "employ", "flourish", "handle", "manage", "maneuver", "manipulate", etc.

They almost all lead to the closer similarity to what most of the rest of us are referrring to as "wield" rather than "hold".

 

[irdeggman]

From my Encarta Dictionary (PC):

{first definition is "have and exercise something", not real applicable for this subject}

2. Use weapon or tool

to hold and use a weapon or tool