Greatsword weilding caster

[JimAde]

Readying or loosing a shield is explicitly a Move action. It's in the "Actions in combat" tables.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

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.

So - so long as I am merely holding the dagger, instead of wielding it, in my off-hand, I can cast without issue? Excellent.

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

You agree that I can carry a two-handed sword in one hand. Would it be a stretch, then, to say that I could hold a two-handed sword in one hand, but I would not be wielding it?

If so, how does this mesh with your earlier statement that the OP cannot do this without "setting the weapon down with its point in the ground and leaning it against something while the character attempts to cast a spell?"

Moreover, is it not true that, in order to threaten with a weapon, I must be wielding it? How, then, could someone with Improved Unarmed Strike possibly take an AoO, given that he must be wielding his US which you specifically prohibit ("You can't cast and wield a weapon at the same time.")?

Now, if we are talking about "Can I take an AoO that might be provoked while I'm casting the spell (probably due to a readied action going off)?" then I'll agree - you cannot. That is specifically prohibited by the rules.

Additionally, consider a fighter walking along a dungeon corridor. He's carrying a torch in one hand, and his bastard sword in the other (he has EWP in it). An enemy appears around the corner, 40' ahead. Both are surpised to see the other, so there is no surprise round. The fighter wins initiative, and drops his torch (a specifically listed free action). Can he charge his opponent and make an attack with his bastard sword wielded in one hand?

Same situation: Can the fighter charge his opponent and make an attack with his bastard sword wielded in two hands?

Same situation, but the fighter lacks EWP: Can the fighter charge his opponent and make an attack with his bastard sword wielded in two hands?

Same situation, but the fighter has a two-handed sword: Can the fighter charge his opponent and make an attack with his two-handed sword?

Where do your answers change, and why?

EDIT:

Oh, and the original question wasn't patronizing. I was just asking the initial question. Your response, on the other hand ...

 

[Infiniti2000]

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."

How so? How does it give up a full attack?

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).

You must be talking about your rule here because it certainly isn't mine. I suggest you reread the thread so that you actually understand my position. I don't know where you're getting this 'move action' to change grips business, but it isn't from me.

 

[irdeggman]

You agree that I can carry a two-handed sword in one hand. Would it be a stretch, then, to say that I could hold a two-handed sword in one hand, but I would not be wielding it?

If so, how does this mesh with your earlier statement that the OP cannot do this without "setting the weapon down with its point in the ground and leaning it against something while the character attempts to cast a spell?"

I was confused.

Moreover, is it not true that, in order to threaten with a weapon, I must be wielding it? How, then, could someone with Improved Unarmed Strike possibly take an AoO, given that he must be wielding his US which you specifically prohibit ("You can't cast and wield a weapon at the same time.")?

Now this one is different since the feat specifically allows you to be treated as armed and you can use your feat as weapons also (well that is under the monk but is is the same feat after all)

Additionally, consider a fighter walking along a dungeon corridor. He's carrying a torch in one hand, and his bastard sword in the other (he has EWP in it). An enemy appears around the corner, 40' ahead. Both are surpised to see the other, so there is no surprise round. The fighter wins initiative, and drops his torch (a specifically listed free action). Can he charge his opponent and make an attack with his bastard sword wielded in one hand?

Does he have the exotic weapon feat? Does he have Quick draw?

If not then absolutely no.

QUICK DRAW [GENERAL]
Prerequisite: Base attack bonus +1.
Benefit: You can draw a weapon as a free action instead of as a move action. You can draw a hidden weapon (see the Sleight of Hand skill) as a move action.
A character who has selected this feat may throw weapons at his full normal rate of attacks (much like a character with a bow).
Normal: Without this feat, you may draw a weapon as a move action, or (if your base attack bonus is +1 or higher) as a free action as part of movement. Without this feat, you can draw a hidden weapon as a standard action.
Special: A fighter may select Quick Draw as one of his fighter bonus feats.

Charging is a full-round action and since drawing a weapon is either a part of a normal move action (can't take a move action and a full round action in the same round).

If he has quick draw then getting the weapon drawn is a free action and still allows a full round action to be done.

If he doesn't have exotic weapon proficiency he can't wield a bastard sword in one hand at all.

Same situation: Can the fighter charge his opponent and make an attack with his bastard sword wielded in two hands?

Same as above, except for the prerequisite for exotic weapon proficiency.

Same situation, but the fighter lacks EWP: Can the fighter charge his opponent and make an attack with his bastard sword wielded in two hands?

Same as above

Same situation, but the fighter has a two-handed sword: Can the fighter charge his opponent and make an attack with his two-handed sword?

Same as above - no exotic weapon proficiency required.

Where do your answers change, and why?

Drawing a weapon is a move action or part of a normal move action with a +1 BAB unless the character has the quick draw feat which makes it a free action.

A charge is a full round action so no move action allowed.

Using quick draw action would allow the charge snce it is a free action.

EDIT:

Oh, and the original question wasn't patronizing. I was just asking the initial question. Your response, on the other hand ...

Well I though we were just now engaging in freindly banter but I guess I might have been mistaken.

My comment was based on this:

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.

And my original post was this:

You can't cast and wield a weapon at the same time. Well I haven't found anything that allows you to do this. Perhaps some Prestige Class might though.

Wielding implies that you threaten with a weapon.

To drop off the second sentence which clarifies what was meant by the first one and then to say you were taking things slow and 1 point at a time does seem to be patraonizing to me.

 

[IndyPendant]

I will never understand the people that try to argue DND from a standpoint of 'realism'. When you're casting magical spells, conducting Whirlwind attacks, fighting dragons, etc etc, *any* definition of realism is purely personal and arbitrary--and thus, utterly without foundation.

Let me ask you this: leave your arbitrary definitions of what is 'realistic' aside. Where's the problem, here? What is so incredibly, awesomely unbalanced in wielding a two-handed weapon (as opposed to a one-handed) while spellcasting that you, as a GM, would limit your players' enjoyment of the game, and refuse to let them have their fun?

There are certain GMs in this thread I would never, ever, *ever* PC under. See my sig for why. : )

 

[JimAde]

I will never understand the people that try to argue DND from a standpoint of 'realism'. When you're casting magical spells, conducting Whirlwind attacks, fighting dragons, etc etc, *any* definition of realism is purely personal and arbitrary--and thus, utterly without foundation.

Let me ask you this: leave your arbitrary definitions of what is 'realistic' aside. Where's the problem, here? What is so incredibly, awesomely unbalanced in wielding a two-handed weapon (as opposed to a one-handed) while spellcasting that you, as a GM, would limit your players' enjoyment of the game, and refuse to let them have their fun?

There are certain GMs in this thread I would never, ever, *ever* PC under. See my sig for why. : )

This from the GM who whacked us all in Sunless Citadel.

Just kidding. That game was actually lots of fun.

</hijack>

 

[werk]

Let me ask you this: leave your arbitrary definitions of what is 'realistic' aside. Where's the problem, here? What is so incredibly, awesomely unbalanced in wielding a two-handed weapon (as opposed to a one-handed) while spellcasting that you, as a GM, would limit your players' enjoyment of the game, and refuse to let them have their fun?

OK, let's not argue realism (I try not to) let's argue balance. Allowing casters to 'weild' a two-handed weapon on rounds that they have cast spells requiring material or somatic components is a bad attempt at twinking better AoO attacks for the caster. They are getting the benefit of a two-handed weapon (better damage) without any penalties. Say that extra damage doesn't bother you...OK, make it a double weapon and give the caster TWF feats...and enchant the double weapon with some nice enchantments. How bad does it have to get before it is considered unbalanced twinkage?

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

I was confused.

Alright; I'll leave that one alone, then.

Now this one is different since the feat specifically allows you to be treated as armed and you can use your feat as weapons also (well that is under the monk but is is the same feat after all)

It allows you to be treated as armed only so long as you are wielding your IUS - which you specifically prohibit. IUS is a weapon that must be wielded just as any other.

Now, to continue, let's say my hypothetical caster has armor spikes - spikey knees, pointy boots, serrated shoulders, the works.

Can he cast and still take that AoO? After all, he's not wearing spiked gloves, so he doesn't even need to use his hands to attack.

EDIT:

Also, how do you respond to the following rule?

While casting a spell, you don’t threaten any squares around you.

Does he have the exotic weapon feat?

I'll refrain from making any comments about reading what I've posted ... Yes, he has EWP (bastard sword), meaning he can use it as a one-handed weapon.

Charging is a full-round action and since drawing a weapon is either a part of a normal move action (can't take a move action and a full round action in the same round).

So, despite the fact that he has the sword in his hand, he has to spend a move action to go from "holding" to "wielding"?

I think at this point we can call this done.

 

[HeapThaumaturgist]

OK, let's not argue realism (I try not to) let's argue balance. Allowing casters to 'weild' a two-handed weapon on rounds that they have cast spells requiring material or somatic components is a bad attempt at twinking better AoO attacks for the caster. They are getting the benefit of a two-handed weapon (better damage) without any penalties. Say that extra damage doesn't bother you...OK, make it a double weapon and give the caster TWF feats...and enchant the double weapon with some nice enchantments. How bad does it have to get before it is considered unbalanced twinkage?

How is it different from any other situation in those regards? I mean ... he's spent money on upgrading the two ends of his stick, he's spent feats on TWF, and regardless of what feats or weapons he has in regards to TWF, when somebody runs by and provokes an AoO he only gets one attack ... just like Bob The Ranger with TWF can only strike with one end of his weapon or one of his weapons when he makes an AoO.

The better damage off of a double weapon IS already balanced into the equation (other than Greatsword, which is another issue altogether). The difference between a Battleaxe and a Greataxe isn't that I can cast when using a Battleaxe. The difference is that the greataxe costs more and weighs more.

Does that mean that somebody not planning on using a shield or weilding an off-hand weapon is better off taking a greataxe over a battleaxe? Yes. That's ... sort of the point, I think.

To go back to the: "It'll break potions!" statement somebody made above ... a potion is an object that has to be held. Thus, if you're holding two objects, you can't weild a 2-handed weapon. The balance in potions is that it requires a full round to use one: 5'-step away from the raging orc barbarian, Free action to take a hand off of the greatsword, move action to fish out the Potion of Cure Moderate Wounds, Standard Action (provoking AoOs) to drink the potion, free action to drop the bottle, free action to regrip the sword. That's pretty punative and about as realistic as I want to get with my games.

A caster-fighter would be better at that than a full fighter. He could: 5' step away, free action to take a hand off of his sword, standard action to cast Cure Moderate Wounds, free action to put his hand back on there, and, well, Move action to waggle his rear at the fighter across the way who had to spend his MA on pulling a potion.

The punative aspect of spellcasting or drinking potions in combat is already there in the rules: They both provoke AoOs.

--fje

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

You could equally say that disallowing them is a pathetic DM attempt to prevent casters who wield two handed weapons from making AoOs at all. The ad-homonim goes both ways.

As for making it a double weapon with nice enhancements and giving the caster two weapon fighting feats--that's hardly an example of "extra damage on an AoO." Making a two-handed weapon into a double weapon with nice enhancements on each end just reduces the damage that the caster would get on an AoO. (Since ordinary two handed weapons deal 1d8 for simple to 1d10/2d6 for martial and double weapons deal 1d6 for simple and 1d8 for exotic; furthermore, enhancing a double weapon on both ends just means that whatever end you hit the bad guy with has less enhancements than an ordinary two handed weapon worth the same amount of money would have). A best case scenario for the double weapon wielder vis a vis the one-handed weapon wielder is that he gets a little bit out of 1.5 strength bonus (which of course, a one-handed weapon wielder without a shield could also get by wielding it in two hands under the same rulings) and only loses a little out of having his weapon (typically) be a +1 equivalent enhancement lower.

The only possible balance problem here (other than depriving two-handed weapon casters of AoOs unless they have armor spikes, spiked gauntlets, etc) will come if you require the caster spend a move action on the next round to wield his double weapon and thus deprive him of a full attack or charge option. In that case, the balance issue is that your ruling makes double weapons and two-handed weapons non-viable for casters (as if the requirement to spend three or four feats and get a 19+ dex for a minor advantage on full attacks against foes without DR wasn't enough to dissuade casters from going the double weapon route).

OK, let's not argue realism (I try not to) let's argue balance. Allowing casters to 'weild' a two-handed weapon on rounds that they have cast spells requiring material or somatic components is a bad attempt at twinking better AoO attacks for the caster. They are getting the benefit of a two-handed weapon (better damage) without any penalties. Say that extra damage doesn't bother you...OK, make it a double weapon and give the caster TWF feats...and enchant the double weapon with some nice enchantments. How bad does it have to get before it is considered unbalanced twinkage?