Greatsword weilding caster

[Frater]

What would it take to allow a spellcaster to continue to cast spells while weilding (i.e. holding) a greatsword?

Is it just Eschew Materials and Still Spell as Feats?

 

[FEADIN]

Quicken spell can do it also.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Step 1: Take a hand off the greatsword as a free action.
Step 2: Use your free hand to gather material components and perform somatic components.
Step 3: Place hand back on the greatsword as a free action.

 

[Kristivas]

You can hold a greatsword in 1 hand, you just can't weild it properly. For instance, your character is running down a hill. On his turn, he stops and casts Fireball on the horde of goblins rushing up to meet him. It kills, say all of the goblins in the radius of the blast. On the next round, he can swing for the fences as usual, because he only needed 1 hand free to cast the spell.

 

[Frater]

Okay - so I don't really need to spend any Feats then unless I want them for flavor - correct?

 

[JimAde]

Okay - so I don't really need to spend any Feats then unless I want them for flavor - correct?

Correct. Just like if you carry/use a crossbow. You can hold it in one hand while you cast.

 

[Infiniti2000]

Step 1: Take a hand off the greatsword as a free action.
Step 2: Use your free hand to gather material components and perform somatic components.
Step 3: Place hand back on the greatsword as a free action.

This is allowable per the RAW. It's also not allowable per the RAW. For instance, I personally would disallow it, citing the "there may be limits to the number of free actions you can perform in a turn" rule. 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).

 

[andargor]

This is allowable per the RAW. It's also not allowable per the RAW. For instance, I personally would disallow it, citing the "there may be limits to the number of free actions you can perform in a turn" rule. 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).

What was the term used by someone else, mmm, "rat bastard evil DM"? (just kidding I2K )

Personally, I don't see it any differently than casting with any two-handed weapon, such as with a quarterstaff. Taking into account every hand movement is a little too far from abstraction for my taste. If I did, I'd be playing GURPS instead.

Andargor

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

That's a little harsh, don't you think. If the classic wizard carrying a quarterstaff casts a spell, that's exactly what he has to do. Do you allow wizards to cast spells and still wield quarterstaffs?

How about other types of characters. Lots of them do more than one free action per round. For instance, a fighter with Quickdraw might move forward and ready his shield as a free action then quickdraw his sword. Are you going to say he can't do it? How about if he drops his ranseur first. Now he's up to three free actions. But apparently, if two is too much then dropping one weapon and quickdrawing another is out of bounds. (Make sure to tell all your players not to bother with Quickdraw--it's worthless under such an interpretation).

Or archers. Drawing ammunition is a free action. However, with your limit of one free action per round, there's not much point in rapid shot, haste, or extra attacks from high BAB.

For that matter, thrown weapon specialists are right out despite the text of Quickdraw that explicitly allows someone using thrown weapons to make a full attack. (That could be as many as nine free actions (haste, rapid shot, greater two weapon fighting, and a +16 BAB))

And, of course, the limit on quickened spells is entirely unnecessary with a limit of one free action per round. Why, in your game a wizard can't even cast a quickened true strike, his crossbow (a move action), load it (oops--there's that pesky second free action), and fire it in the same round.

And God help any PC who actually wants to shout a battle cry (free action), quickdraw a weapon (oops, a second free action) and charge his enemies. That too is apparently unreasonable in your game.

In short, the DMG allows limiting free actions to a "reasonable number" but one is not, by any stretch of the imagination, a reasonable number. (I don't see what you're so worried about with a caster using a two handed sword and still casting spells anyway--it's not as if it's a horribly overpowered combination anyway.)

This is allowable per the RAW. It's also not allowable per the RAW. For instance, I personally would disallow it, citing the "there may be limits to the number of free actions you can perform in a turn" rule. 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).

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

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).

The issue that I always see is that most DMs won't have a problem with a wizard pulling this stunt with a quarterstaff (after all, it's what wizards are supposed to use!), but balk at things like greatswords. The qstaff's even a double weapon, too!

Consistency, I say! Consistency!