"You can hit an opponent with a short sword, using it as an off-hand weapon". True or false?dcollins said:There's nothing about the "off hand" rule on PH p. 106 ("You can bash an opponent with a shield, using it as an off-hand weapon.") which implies that you can avoid that penalty by switching hands.
reapersaurus said:I'm curious - what's his character?
Why is he casting spells in melee instead of bashing people?![]()
The Lone Corndog said:As the DM in question, I'm kinda curious what the consensus opinion (if any) is on the issue of whether or not having a large shield in one hand and a small shield in the other would leave one hand "free" enough to cast spells.
Rel's theory seems to be that if you are able to hold a torch (or something other than a weapon) in the hand with the small shield, then that hand isn't totally occupied with holding the shield and is therefore "free" enough to satisfy the somatic component part of spellcasting.
This seems like a fairly shaky premise to me, so what sayeth the teeming masses?
PS - forgot to say: "Rel 's a powergamer, Rel 's a powergamer!! (Sorry pal, you did ask for it)
ForceUser said:[EDIT: Wait, you're that guy with the reputation for stirring up trouble. I guess you got me]

(Dungeons & Dragons)
Rulebook featuring "high magic" options, including a host of new spells.