Greatsword weilding caster

[HeapThaumaturgist]

So getting my sword off my back and ready to hit people is a move action ...

Taking my hand off my sword is ... a move action? Putting my hand ON my weapon is a move action?

Man I love the people I play with sooooo much.

--fje

 

[Infiniti2000]

I have a dagger in my hand. Can I cast magic missile?

I'm betting his comment was within the context of the thread, i.e. a two-handed weapon.

So getting my sword off my back and ready to hit people is a move action ...

Off your back? If you keep your sword in a hidden location or 'in storage' it is a different type of action than withdrawing your sword from a scabbard at, say, your hip.

Taking my hand off my sword is ... a move action?

It's not given anywhere in the rules, but I think the consensus here is a free action.

Putting my hand ON my weapon is a move action?

Same thing, a free action.

 

[HeapThaumaturgist]

I'd written in response to jrdeggmen and then got distracted for two minutes, so my questions were a bit out of joint.

And one usually keeps one's greatsword on his back, I thought, since it's a little long for hip-slingage ....

--fje

 

[irdeggman]

I have a dagger in my hand. Can I cast magic missile?

How about reading the next sentence I wrote to see what I was talking about?

Wielding implies that you threaten with a weapon.

I didn't say anything about "holding". I was responding to "wielding" which as I stated IMO is more than merely "holding".


With a great sword how do you put it down?

It can't be wielded without 2 hands (which is why it is a 2 handed weapon).

The only way the OP can accomplish is original situation is by setting the weapon down with its point in the ground and leaning it against something while the character attempts to cast a spell. Well it could be "held" in one hand, even though IMO this is real awkward due to nature of a great sword.

But shifting from "holding" to "wielding" for a great sword is a tad more than a free action IMO.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

How about reading the next sentence I wrote to see what I was talking about?

I read it. I'm just stepping through this nice and slow, one point at a time.

Since you want to discuss that now, how about the following: I'm not holding (or wielding) a dagger (or a staff, or whatever).

But, I do have Improved Unarmed Strike.

I move my speed as a move action, and then I cast Magic Missile as a standard action.

Do I get to make an AoO on the guy who runs past me during his turn?

With a great sword how do you put it down?

Why would I need to put it down? I only need one hand free to cast a spell - unless you are positing that you cannot carry a two-handed weapon in one hand?

Which brings me back to my point. I've got a dagger in my hand (not, as one poster mentioned above, through my hand! ).

Can I cast Magic Missile?

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

In short, make sure you understand my position before making wild exaggerations and being snarky.

Well, given the way you framed your position, I don't think the exaggerations were so wild. If you're claiming RAW support under the "reasonable limits to the number of free actions" clause, you need to be prepared to limit the number of free actions.

Claiming that moving one's hand off of a sword is a move action would have earned different mockery (for instance, dropping the sword is a free action, but letting go with only one hand is a move action--it makes sense... not) but would have official RAW support since it is a situation not clearly covered under the rules. So would the claim that beginning to "wield" instead of "hold" the weapon is a move action, but that has a weaker case against it. But if you frame the answer in terms of "number of free actions," that's a pretty broad response that covers a lot more than just this situation.

It's not just a caster, it's also the fighter who wants to drink a potion, etc. I'm not positive I would call it overpowered either, I just don't think it works well (call it flavor). In my personal combat experience, shifting hands on a weapon is not taken lightly. You don't do it without good reason and you try to limit it as much as possible because many things can, and do, happen when you decide to shift a weapon. If you want to think of it this way, though, I consider it a minor attempt at maintaining a certain amount of simultaneity. Making a character carry an action-decision to the next round (like TWF, charging, etc.) is what creates a stronger feel for continuity in the combat. Does this explanation make sense?

It understand what you're saying, but I think it's quite wrong. I know for my part that, in my combat experience, shifting grips on a two handed weapon is almost constant. There are any number of manuevers with a quarterstaff, pudo, spear, whip chain, etc where you briefly let go with one hand in order to complete the manuever. Going from holding such a weapon in one hand to using it is certainly not nearly as much of a disadvantage as having to draw a sword or fully retreive a whip chain from one's belt.

And, I think the attack of opportunity rules and missed attacks are perfectly sufficient to maintain the illusion of simultenaity in this case. It's plenty hard enough to use potions in combat--there's no need to make it harder--especially when it has wierd consequences for multi-use weapons like bastard swords and longswords which are often wielded either one or two-handed on a round-by round basis.

 

[Infiniti2000]

It understand what you're saying, but I think it's quite wrong. I know for my part that, in my combat experience, shifting grips on a two handed weapon is almost constant. There are any number of manuevers with a quarterstaff, pudo, spear, whip chain, etc where you briefly let go with one hand in order to complete the manuever.

But that is most certainly not what is happening here. You are not attempting a combat maneuver with the weapon. You are, in fact, trying to perform a combat maneuver without the weapon -- the weapon is actually in the way and you are trying to do something around it.

Going from holding such a weapon in one hand to using it is certainly not nearly as much of a disadvantage as having to draw a sword or fully retreive a whip chain from one's belt.

If I were just changing grips, I'd agree, but this situation is significantly more involved. Consider that we are letting go, doing something requiring an extraordinary amount of concentration, and trying regripping the weapon for combat some time later. Also keep in mind that this person does not have the expertise for quickly utilizing the weapon (i.e. quickdraw).

And, I think the attack of opportunity rules and missed attacks are perfectly sufficient to maintain the illusion of simultenaity in this case. It's plenty hard enough to use potions in combat--there's no need to make it harder--especially when it has wierd consequences for multi-use weapons like bastard swords and longswords which are often wielded either one or two-handed on a round-by round basis.

A bastard sword wielded by a competent person (i.e. has the EWP feat) actually gains under my interpretation. Allowing a bastard sword to be wielded in one or two hands is otherwise pretty useless once the character chooses. I don't agree at all with your statement though that the AoO and missed attacks are sufficient. They do nothing at all for simultaneity as far as I'm concerned. Your point about making it harder may have merit, but not for simultaneity.

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

Allowing a bastard sword to be wielded in one or two hands is otherwise pretty useless once the character chooses.

Not so. Wielding a bastard sword in one hand with a buckler in the other and switching to two handed to take advantage of 2/1 power attack (and 2x strength bonus with the right Exotic Weapon Master trick) is a trick that is actually pretty valuable. It enables you to switch offense or defense up a notch right when you need it even if you don't have the Int for combat expertise (which, itself does nothing to help a character move to a more offensively focussed stance). With the ruling you're proposing, it would also entail giving up a full attack which would be enough to "often useful" to "rarely, if ever useful." It would also make loosing a heavy shield in order to swing a longsword two handed (which is probably advantageous once every three combats for my longsword and shield halfling) a two round affair (round one: sling shield and change grip on sword; round 2: attack or round 1: sling shield and attack one-handed; round 2: switch grip and attack once two-handed) rather than a one round affair. That's a BIG disadvantage for sword and board style fighters who can otherwise switch to two handed fighting without a huge penalty when they really need to (for instance, when they're fighting something with hardness).

 

[irdeggman]

Quote:
Originally Posted by irdeggman
How about reading the next sentence I wrote to see what I was talking about?


I read it. I'm just stepping through this nice and slow, one point at a time.

Sorry I mised the patronizing tone of your post. I'll be sure to type mmore slowly in the future.

Since you want to discuss that now, how about the following: I'm not holding (or wielding) a dagger (or a staff, or whatever).

But, I do have Improved Unarmed Strike.

I move my speed as a move action, and then I cast Magic Missile as a standard action.

Do I get to make an AoO on the guy who runs past me during his turn?

In this case definitely yes. The feat covers that pretty specifically.

IMPROVED UNARMED STRIKE [GENERAL]
Benefit: You are considered to be armed even when unarmed —that is, you do not provoke attacks or opportunity from armed opponents when you attack them while unarmed. However, you still get an attack of opportunity against any opponent who makes an unarmed attack on you.
In addition, your unarmed strikes can deal lethal or nonlethal damage, at your option.
Normal: Without this feat, you are considered unarmed when attacking with an unarmed strike, and you can deal only nonlethal damage with such an attack.
Special: A monk automatically gains Improved Unarmed Strike as a bonus feat at 1st level. She need not select it.
A fighter may select Improved Unarmed Strike as one of his fighter bonus feats.

The key here is that carrying (instead of wielding) a weapon is, IMO, equivalent to being unarmed.

Quote:
With a great sword how do you put it down?


Why would I need to put it down? I only need one hand free to cast a spell - unless you are positing that you cannot carry a two-handed weapon in one hand?

My bad, I was mixing up threads with the reading a scroll one.

Which brings me back to my point. I've got a dagger in my hand (not, as one poster mentioned above, through my hand! ).

Can I cast Magic Missile?

As long as it is not being weilded and only holding it there should be no problem. No components and the assumption of only requiring a single hand for somatic components applies here IMO.

 

[Bullgrit]

This isn't really a hijack, just a parallel subject.

My group had this debate a few weeks ago, but we didn't really come to any decision:

If you are using a heavy shield (though it was a buckler in our particular scenario) on your off-arm while casting a spell, you roll the arcane spell failure chance. But if you are just carrying the heavy shield, even holding it in your off-hand, you do not have to roll the failure chance. So can you "give up" the shield bonus of the shield (effectively changing it's status from "using" to "holding") for the standard action it takes to cast a spell, and then get the bonus back (changing from "holding" to "using")?

Really, this would only make a difference if someone attacks the caster during the casting time (like with a readied action, a AoO, or during a full-round spell).

Conceptually and by RAW, I see no problem with it. But I also slightly fear seeing every mage carrying a heavy shield for the extra +2 (or more) AC bonus.

Bullgrit