Greatsword weilding caster

[Infiniti2000]

Simultaneous combat being something I am used to in other games, let me express this clearly. D&D does not use simultaneous combat. Rather it implement a simulation of FLUID combat. If the game must be taken simultaneously, then casters would have to make concentration checks in any round they are hit and have or will cast a spell.
Simultaneity is not the rule. Fluidity is.

And yet simultaneity is addressed in the rules. How is it not a rule? It's a guideline to be sure, but it most certainly is in the rulebook.

And, please stop with the straw men. I never claimed "Clerics make my fighters look lame" and I never extrapolated ad hoc simultaneity to casters getting hit. Either address my points correctly or not at all.

 

[TheRelinquished]

Originally Posted by Sledge
Simultaneous combat being something I am used to in other games, let me express this clearly. D&D does not use simultaneous combat. Rather it implement a simulation of FLUID combat. If the game must be taken simultaneously, then casters would have to make concentration checks in any round they are hit and have or will cast a spell.
Simultaneity is not the rule. Fluidity is.

This is a partial basis for my argument. Simultaneous combat simply does not work in a turn based game. At least not satisfactorily. And it would negate the concept fo initiative entirely. I never noticed any posts regarding simultineity, however if I had, I would have addressed that issue. In short--I don't see it as an issue however, because of my previously expressed views on fluid combat.

@dcollins
Thank you for clarifying holding versus wielding. I retract that portion of my argument, however I sustain my point.

@Infiniti2000
In simultaneous combat, I would secede the point. However, I press that in fluid combat, you are wrong. And I have addressed your points in that context.

A spellcaster, in fluid combat, could easily remove a hand from a weapon, cast a spell, and then replace the hand WITHIN THE BOUNDS OF THEIR TURN DURING THE ROUND. Casting a spell does not end a character's turn. Thus a caster could use two free actions, one before and one after casting, to remove and replace their hand during their turn and still have the prerogative to move their full speed or take an equivalent action.

If changing from "wielding" to "holding" and vice versa are free actions according to the 3rd Edition FAQ, and they mean the difference between threatening and not threatening, then there is no reason that a caster can't threaten squares at the start of their turn, cease threatening long enough to cast a spell, and then begin threatening again.

Please feel free to point out any other points have I missed.

 

[dcollins]

@dcollins
Thank you for clarifying holding versus wielding. I retract that portion of my argument, however I sustain my point.

You're welcome.

 

[Sledge]

the rule: "While casting a spell, you don’t threaten any squares around you."
is under the description for full round spells. The standard action spells have their own rule.
Infiniti2000:
When the wizard part of the spellcasting group is dismissed, and the cleric is trumpeted as an example, I must assume this is where the balance problem is perceived. Am I wrong?
Can you please quote and pageref the exact mention of simultaneity?
Do you think releasing one hand is a free action?
Do you think placing a second hand on a weapon is a free action?

 

[Infiniti2000]

This is a partial basis for my argument. Simultaneous combat simply does not work in a turn based game. At least not satisfactorily. And it would negate the concept fo initiative entirely. I never noticed any posts regarding simultineity, however if I had, I would have addressed that issue. In short--I don't see it as an issue however, because of my previously expressed views on fluid combat.

I first mentioned it in post #18. I agree that it doesn't work satisfactorily, that's why I rarely choose to interpret rules with that in mind. When I can, and it makes sense, and the rules support it, however, I do. This is one of those cases.

In simultaneous combat, I would secede the point. However, I press that in fluid combat, you are wrong. And I have addressed your points in that context.

Fair enough, if that's your opinion. If your goal is to convince me otherwise, I'd be happy to entertain a discussion on it. However, I don't think you can say I'm wrong per the rules.

A spellcaster, in fluid combat, could easily remove a hand from a weapon, cast a spell, and then replace the hand WITHIN THE BOUNDS OF THEIR TURN DURING THE ROUND. Casting a spell does not end a character's turn. Thus a caster could use two free actions, one before and one after casting, to remove and replace their hand during their turn and still have the prerogative to move their full speed or take an equivalent action.

Of course. He could do this a thousand times, per the rules. Would you allow it to occur a thousand times? Ten thousand? Regardless of at what number you impose a limit, chances are you will impose a limit. So, when you choose a limit, come up with a good reason. Mine is simultaneity.

the rule: "While casting a spell, you don’t threaten any squares around you."
is under the description for full round spells. The standard action spells have their own rule.

Its location there does not negate its applicability, but to each his own. Do you not think it's inconsistent to allow AoO during swift (free), standard action or full-round action spells, but not full round or longer spells?

When the wizard part of the spellcasting group is dismissed, and the cleric is trumpeted as an example, I must assume this is where the balance problem is perceived. Am I wrong?

Huh? I never said there was a balance problem. In fact, I said the exact opposite, that there is likely no balance problem. Moreover, anything I said with respect to balance had nothing to do with wizards specifically.

Can you please quote and pageref the exact mention of simultaneity?

I can, but looking it up will cost you. It's in the 3.5 DMG, page 24 under "Simultaneous Activity." Specifically, read the sentence that has "you're within your rights".

Do you think releasing one hand is a free action?
Do you think placing a second hand on a weapon is a free action?

Yes to both, but I already said that.

 

[Sledge]

Interesting response Infiniti2000
So it appear you agree, it can be done, unless the DM doesn't like the character taking 2 free actions. As I said before the DM is allowed to limit free actions to a reasonable amount.

Allow me to finish your quote: "In order to maintain the appearance of simultaneous activity, you're within your rights to rule that Tordek doesn't trigger the trap until the end of the round." How exactly does this apply to using a free action? The standard action spell does not even take all of the character's turn, never mind the whole 6 second round.

What exactly are you arguing, because you seem to be agreeing that unless the DM decides to not allow it, then this situation should be allowed? I'm apparently a little confused.

 

[Storm Raven]

So what is the current argument over, then? Because this thread got longer than I was willing to devote a close reading to. What is the hang-up of the "can't fight with greatsword and also cast" crowd?

I can't figure out who is on what side. Apparently Infiniti2000 has some sort of issue somewhere, but I can't figure out what it is, or if he is saying that a caster should not be able to do the release one hand and stop threatening (free action), cast (standard action), replace one hand and threaten again (free action) sequence, or if he is okay with that and saying something else.

 

[lukelightning]

My decision: let the caster cast and weild. Worrying about where everyone's hands are is no fun.

 

[Infiniti2000]

What exactly are you arguing, because you seem to be agreeing that unless the DM decides to not allow it, then this situation should be allowed? I'm apparently a little confused.

Let me summarize it then. I'll number the points for easier reference, should you choose to reference them.

1. Switching grips on a two-handed weapon or one-handed weapon from one hand to two or two hands to one is not given an action type in the rules. As presented here, everyone except one person agrees that it is a free action. (Although not part of the current discussion, neither is switching hands on a one-handed or light weapon defined in the rules.)
2. Move actions, standard actions, and full-round actions are all limited by the number of actions you get in a round. Free actions are not limited. You could perform an unlimited number of them, given some specific exceptions (quickened spells). The only limit would be one chosen by the DM to ad hoc rule on the spot.
3. Any limitation on free actions is at best a DM judgment call, but is clearly supported by the rules. Whether you choose to limit a particular free action to 1, 2, or 10,000, you're likely going to limit it to something.
4. Enforcing simultaneity is left to the DM, but is also supported by the rules. The DMG seems to actually encourage it and provides an example using a trap.

I, and others, use #3 as a means to achieve #4 (for this situation). You, and others, ignore #3 and #4 (for this situation). Either choice is valid, with varying reasons. I've provided what I feel is a logical argument for limiting it. What is your reason for not limiting it? As far as I can tell, it's because you don't want simultaneity.

Additionally, all the examples you provide use only move actions and standard actions. How about using a full round action? Consider a sorcerer (or cleric with a spontaneous inflict/cure) using metamagic. He switches his greatsword into one hand, casts the spontaneous metamagic spell (full-round action) and then switches the greatsword back. Now, the full-round action consumes all of his time in the round, taking all 6 seconds. In the terms of 'fluidity', a character will start his next action (next round) immediately following the full round action. If you allow this, you're clearly operating within the rules, but you're certainly not maintaining any sort of simultaneity. Doesn't my ruling make more sense at least for this case?

Would I relent if the character wants to swap grips before/after a move action? Perhaps. A standard action? Mmm...not likely because I think (my opinion) that a standard action consumes at least a majority of the time in a round. A full round action? No. That is clearly all the time in the round. Before/after a move action + standard action? No. That is also clearly all the time in the round.

 

[Storm Raven]

Would I relent if the character wants to swap grips before/after a move action? Perhaps. A standard action? Mmm...not likely because I think (my opinion) that a standard action consumes at least a majority of the time in a round. A full round action? No. That is clearly all the time in the round. Before/after a move action + standard action? No. That is also clearly all the time in the round.

So, let me see if I have your position correct. Let's assume an unarmored human caster with a greatsword.

By your reasoning, he could remove his hand from the greatsword (as a free action), cast a spell with a casting time of one standard action (standard action), and then move 30 feet (move action); but he could not remove his hand from the greatsword (as a free action), cast a spell with a casting time of one standard action (standard action) and replace his hand upon the greatsword to threaten with it again (free action).