Duskblades & greatswords

[RigaMortus2]

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.

Basically, you are letting them apply Still Spell feat for free. Does this mean if a Duskblade is bound and has both his hands tied together, he can still cast spells that require only Verbal and Somatic components? What if he declares he is "wielding" the ropes that tie his hands together as an improvised weapon?

 

[ainbimagh]

I dont see a simple problem with his hand coming off the sword to cast the spell and returning to the sword, as a free action. I mean c'mon we allow you to unstrap a heavy shield and drop it as a free action.

 

[RangerWickett]

Basically, you are letting them apply Still Spell feat for free. Does this mean if a Duskblade is bound and has both his hands tied together, he can still cast spells that require only Verbal and Somatic components? What if he declares he is "wielding" the ropes that tie his hands together as an improvised weapon?

Still Spell lets you cast spells while fully bound, while grappled, or while wearing full plate and a tower shield. This would just be letting you cast spells while your hands are occupied. I think you overstated the influence of this change.

 

[Sithobi1]

I dont see a simple problem with his hand coming off the sword to cast the spell and returning to the sword, as a free action. I mean c'mon we allow you to unstrap a heavy shield and drop it as a free action.

Actually, it takes a move action to remove a shield...

 

[Torx]

Basically, you are letting them apply Still Spell feat for free.

I really don't see this as a problem because, again, this is fuzzy rules territory where logic (and flavor) should dictate. I personally don't know how someone is supposed to say "bippity boppity boo," make intricate gestures with his hand, and retrieve and throw some bat guano in the air all in swift action time (less than a second, say?). I'm just trying to make sense of all of that.

Logic then tells me (YMMV) that the duskblade does not in fact do all of those things, and instead performs an abbreviated ritual with his/her weapon as the focal point, since the spell is delivered therefrom. I really don't see any logical inconsistency or balance problem in allowing a de facto Still Spell feat in combat situations where movement is free.

Does this mean if a Duskblade is bound and has both his hands tied together, he can still cast spells that require only Verbal and Somatic components? What if he declares he is "wielding" the ropes that tie his hands together as an improvised weapon?

This, however, I see a logical inconsistency in, as you may have intended for it to come across. Unless we're talking a lot of heavy rope, I wouldn't allow rope to be used as an improvised weapon, no. This example does not preclude the possibility of a greatsword being used as part of somantic gestures by a duskblade though.

What we're really dealing with here are rules that do not address this issue at all. The rules just state that a spell with a casting time of a standard action or less can be delivered as part of a melee attack. Nothing else. Thus, there's nothing that specifically contradicts whether a duskblade can or cannot use Arcane Channeling with a two-handed weapon. I personally think you can, and my justifications are sufficient for me. I also don't see what all the hubbub is about. It's not like a greatsword-wielding duskblade is going to break anyone's game, not anymore than a longsword/heavy shield-wielding one would.

 

[ainbimagh]

Ok well... in old 3.0 there wasnt a special ruling on the shield thing, hehe but yer right..

Ok we'll use dropping prone is a free action, it takes less energy/time/effort to fall over than it does to remove your hand and replace it on something?

 

[Hypersmurf]

What about all those battle clerics waving around greatswords or hauling heavy shields of their own?

A cleric with mace and heavy shield, say, can't cast spells with somatic components. This is frequently overlooked, perhaps, but it is not at all unclear.

-Hyp.

 

[FireLance]

The real question is, can a wizard with a quarterstaff cast a spell with somatic components? The same rule should apply to a duskblade with a greatsword.

 

[RigaMortus2]

This, however, I see a logical inconsistency in, as you may have intended for it to come across. Unless we're talking a lot of heavy rope, I wouldn't allow rope to be used as an improvised weapon, no. This example does not preclude the possibility of a greatsword being used as part of somantic gestures by a duskblade though.

What we're really dealing with here are rules that do not address this issue at all. The rules just state that a spell with a casting time of a standard action or less can be delivered as part of a melee attack. Nothing else. Thus, there's nothing that specifically contradicts whether a duskblade can or cannot use Arcane Channeling with a two-handed weapon. I personally think you can, and my justifications are sufficient for me. I also don't see what all the hubbub is about. It's not like a greatsword-wielding duskblade is going to break anyone's game, not anymore than a longsword/heavy shield-wielding one would.

My point is, if you are going to come up with some "reason" as to why you would allow a Duskblade to cast spells when both hands are occupied, that reason being "the weapon is part of the somatic component", then you have to be prepared when a player says "I am using the manacles as an improvised weapon so I can still cast when I am bound".

I don't really care WHAT the reason is for the Duskblade being allowed to cast when wielding a greatsword, if that is how one wants to rule it. Just that this reason in particular (it's part of his somatic component) could lead to other problems down the road...

Hmmm, makes me wonder... A Monk uses his whole body as a weapon. Could a non-Monk declare his whole body a weapon and (since he is not proficient with it), declare it as an improvised weapon? Would certainly make Throw Anything feat interesting... LOL

 

[Kishin]

The RAW are at least clear on this much:

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.

This is correct.

It is clearly stated that you can still freely hold a two handed weapon with one hand, you just can't make an attack with it that way. Thereby, the Duskblade can simply release one of his hands from gripping the weapon (Which really should be a free action) and then return his grip after the spell is completed.

I'm surprised at the contention here, in all honesty. Letting the Duskblade function as the class intended is hardly what I'd start to consider unbalancing.