Duskblades & greatswords

[Tiberius]

Hi, all!

One of my players in an upcoming campaign is looking at a duskblade, and we're having a bit of a dispute over the use of a greatsword with its Arcane Channeling class feature. It is my contention that if he is casting a spell with a somatic component he must have a hand free to do so, thus disabling him from using a greatsword with that ability unless he takes the feat from Complete Mage which allows you to form the somatic components with your weapon. The language of the ability fails to mention any relief from the component requirements of the spell. He cites Wizards R&D and "all the boards" as saying that he need not worry about it. Is there clear RAW one way or the other? Thanks!

 

[RangerWickett]

Rules as written, sure, you're probably in the right.

But c'mon, it's not broken. Just say that Duskblades developed special somatic components for their spells that work while they're wielding weapons. In areas like this where the rules are fuzzy, I always encourage flexibility.

 

[Kurotowa]

The Duskblade is explicitly allowed to cast spells with a weapon in one hand and a shield in the other. I don't see how casting spells with a greatsword is any different.

 

[Hypersmurf]

The Duskblade is explicitly allowed to cast spells with a weapon in one hand and a shield in the other.

Is he?

I see he has a class ability that lets him ignore the arcane spell failure chance for using a shield.

But let's say we have a wizard with a shield in one hand, and nothing in the other. He can cast Ray of Enfeeblement, but with a 5% chance of ASF. Now let's say he has a dagger in his other hand. He cannot cast Ray of Enfeeblement at all; he has no hand free.

Let's say we have a duskblade with a shield in one hand, and nothing in the other. He can cast Ray of Enfeeblement, with no chance of ASF due to Armored Mage [Ex]. Now let's say he has a dagger in his other hand. He cannot cast Ray of Enfeeblement at all; he has no hand free. There's nothing in the duskblade class description that says he can ignore the one-hand-free requirement for casting a spell with a somatic component, only the ASF chance.

To confuse matters a little, the three starting packages use greataxe, waraxe-and-shield, and glaive respectively, so none of the three starting packages have a hand free in combat. Similarly, the sample Duskblade-7 uses longsword and light shield.

By my reading, there's nothing allowing the duskblade to cast with both hands occupied (for a spell with S, M, or F components), but the example characters suggest that perhaps there was supposed to be.

In areas like this where the rules are fuzzy...

What fuzziness? Somatic components require a free hand. There are no mechanics in any of the duskblade class abilities that remove this requirement.

-Hyp.

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

The RAW are at least clear on this much:

1. A duskblade wielding a weapon in one hand and a BUCKLER in the other can cast spells since the buckler hand is still free to wield weapons, hold items, and do other things.

2. A duskblade with a two handed weapon needs two hands to wield the weapon but not necessariliy to merely hold it. The character could let go of the weapon with one hand in order to free it up to cast a spell. Now, the RAW are not clear on what kind of an action it is to put the second hand back on the two-handed weapon and wield it again. My take on this is that it should be a free action (since it's not remotely as involved as drawing a weapon or picking up a weapon). The FAQ suggests that DMs might call it a move action like drawing a weapon. (As I said before, I thinkt that's silly). Even if your DM uses the "drawing a weapon" interpretation, however, Quickdraw should resolve the issue.

 

[Seeten]

Why does wielding a Quarterstaff or a Greatsword occupy both your hands? Both can be held in one hand for long enough to gesture. Do we rule that if you have a greatsword you are madly swinging it for your entire turn?

Edit: Beaten to it by a Basilisk, I see.

 

[RangerWickett]

What fuzziness? Somatic components require a free hand. There are no mechanics in any of the duskblade class abilities that remove this requirement.

-Hyp.

Fuzzy not from a rules perspective, but a flavor perspective. The duskblade casts spells through a weapon. That's one of their defining abilities. The rules don't explicitly say "Duskblades cannot use this ability while wielding a weapon in two hands," so what does it hurt to allow it?

Also, I agree with the last two posters that you can let go with one hand, cast, then put your hand back on. If it's not broken to let a fighter/mage cast a spell and then have his greatsword ready to take attacks of opportunity, I doubt it would be broken to let a duskblade use both abilities at once.

Finally, can't you wear a light shield and still have a hand free to cast spells? You can hold a torch in your shield hand with a light shield, after all.

 

[Kurotowa]

Does it make sense for the Duskblade to have a class feature (no ASF from a heavy shield) that they can't even use? What about all those battle clerics waving around greatswords or hauling heavy shields of their own?

The "free hand" requirement isn't defined at all. That means we're going on precident and common sense. Precident shows that unless someone's hands are restrained they're considered able to cast spells. And common sense says Clerics and Duskblades should be able to cast spells when armed. I don't see what the big deal is.

 

[gamecat]

IIRC, there's a feat in complete mage that lets you use a hand carrying a weapon for the somatic component of spellcasting...

 

[Torx]

I have to agree with RangerWickett here. I don't see any problem with a duskblade quick-casting a spell while holding a 2H weapon. I've always had a tough time reconciling components and quickened (swift) casting anyways. If a spell normally requires a couple seconds of speech, hand-waving, and component grabbing, how do you compress that down to an instantaneous moment? Because that's essentially what a duskblade can do here.

You can also rule that the sword (or other weapon) becomes an extension of the hand for somantic purposes. Instead of hand-waving, sword-waving takes its place. That fits perfectly with the flavor of the class, and reminds me somewhat of a bladesinger.