Duskblades & greatswords

[shilsen]

I think one point that seems to be overlooked is that the spell isn't really being cast. I don't have the text in front of me but I believe the wording is similar to what Nonlethal Force mentions above. The Duskblade can deliver any touch spell through a weapon attack, it doesn't implicit say that he's casting it, just delivering it. Keep in mind the ability does not provoke an AoO, so it doesn't follow the same mechanics as a normal spell.

Actually the ability does say "you can use a standard action to cast any touch spell you know and deliver the spell through your weapon with a melee attack." So there is an explicit reference to casting the spell.

That being said, you're right that it says you don't draw an AoO, so evidently something is different.

 

[ainbimagh]

Wow I am just baffled, that people are even arguing that it takes anything more than a free action to move your hand away from something then back to it...

 

[Aaron L]

Wow I am just baffled, that people are even arguing that it takes anything more than a free action to move your hand away from something then back to it...

Welcome to the Rules forum. It's like a bureaucratic nightmare. It doesn't matter what the obvious intent or spirit of a rule is, if the wording isn't exactly precise, someone is going to argue that it is in fact the exact opposite of what was intended. Thus we get things like people claiming that a Duskblade has put his sword down, cast a spell, pick his sword back up, and then channel his spell through it. (yes, I know that's hyperbole)

It isn't as bad as the WotC forums, though. I've actually seen designers post in threads about rule arguments and then get told that they were wrong and they hadn't actually intend what they thought they had intended...

 

[pawsplay]

The ability states you cast the spell through a weapon as a standard action. What you are doing is a standard action (attacking) that casts the spell. The ability does not state you need do any other thing other than perform that standard action to cast the spell; therefore, this obviates the normal requirements for casting the spell. This does exempt you from the components, strictly speaking, but the effect of the ability is such that you don't need a free hand. Arcane channeling replaces the ordinary spellcasting method, in much the same way Improved Feint replaces the normal way of feinting and Quicken Spell replaces the normal casting time.

Consider for a moment that Quicken Spell does not explicitly reduce the amount of time it takes to cast a spell; it simply states that casting the spell is a free action. Arcane channeling does not explicitly state you do not need a free hand; it simply states you may cast by attacking.

 

[nittanytbone]

If you let your iconic cleric cast spells while wielding a mace and light shield, then you should let your iconic fighter-mage cast spells while wielding a greatsword.

 

[Tiberius]

If you let your iconic cleric cast spells while wielding a mace and light shield, then you should let your iconic fighter-mage cast spells while wielding a greatsword.

Fortunately, my iconic clerics use heavy shields and spiked gauntlets, neatly avoiding that problem.

Thanks for the replies, everyone. I've been very interested to see the directions in which the arguments have gone.

 

[shilsen]

If you let your iconic cleric cast spells while wielding a mace and light shield, then you should let your iconic fighter-mage cast spells while wielding a greatsword.

Not the same thing at all. You'd make a better argument if you made it - if you let your iconic cleric casts spells while wielding a two-handed weapon, then you should let your iconic fighter-mage cast spells while wielding a greatsword.

And my answer would be - yes, I already do.

 

[nittanytbone]

Not the same thing at all. You'd make a better argument if you made it - if you let your iconic cleric casts spells while wielding a two-handed weapon, then you should let your iconic fighter-mage cast spells while wielding a greatsword.

And my answer would be - yes, I already do.

How is it any different?

Mace + Shield = Two hands full, but possible to shuffle the mace over to the off-hand.
Greatsword = Two hands to wield, but possible to take a hand off.

If anything, the latter is easier.

 

[shilsen]

How is it any different?

Mace + Shield = Two hands full, but possible to shuffle the mace over to the off-hand.
Greatsword = Two hands to wield, but possible to take a hand off.

If anything, the latter is easier.

In the first case, the mace has to be moved from a hand it's in to a hand it isn't in, and then back again.

In the second case, the greatsword remains in a hand it's already in, with the other hand being removed and then replaced.

For me, that's a difference. For you, apparently not. We do, however, agree that the latter is easier.

 

[RangerWickett]

Wait, I'm confused. Are you saying you can't cast a spell with your left hand if you're wearing a light shield on that arm? Why would you need to move your mace over to the other hand?