Greatsword weilding caster

[Infiniti2000]

Apparently, (a) is perfectly okay, but somehow (b) takes too much time. I'm just not seeing how this makes any sense, especially since the end result for the character is effectively the same (he has a weapon at the beginning and end of the sequence, threatening those around him). Moving 30 feet should take more time by itself than moving weapons back and forth between your hands, and that's without considering the dropping the weapon and drawing a new one.

It's identical to the situation with drawing a weapon. *holds up hands ala My Cousin Vinny* "Eye-dentical".

In other words, change your sentence to "Moving 30 feet should take more time by itself than moving weapons back and forth between your hands drawing a weapon..."

In fact, many people would agree that drawing a weapon should be quicker than shifting hands. So, this ruling certainly makes a lot of sense in that regard (i.e. with respect to existing rules).

 

[buzz]

If the sorcerer (better example) casts a metamagic spell for the full 6 seconds, why should he be able to stop a grapple that (theoretically) occurs in the middle of his casting? Apparently most of the people here choose to ignore simultaneity, but when/where it's easily feasible, I do not.

A sorcerer adding metamagic to a standard-action spell needs to take a full action to cast the spell, not 1 round. A grapple attempt would never come in the middle of this; it would have to be a readied action which preempts the casting. I don't believe that the sorcerer would get an AoO since they do not threaten while casting (which the grapple is essentially interrupting).

If the casting time is 1 round or more, the situation is similar. They do not threaten while casting, so the 2H weapon issue is moot; they don't get any AoOs against attempted grapples.

Where you're screwing the player is in denying them AoO's during the rest of the round in which they are not casting.

A similar situation would be a greatsword-weilding fighter with a dagger and quick draw. Say she's in combat and decides to Quick Draw her dagger and throw it at an opponent 30 feet away. Drawing (Free) + ranged attack (Standard) is the same as readying spell components (Free) + casting (Standard). Does it make any sense at all that the fighter should be denied AoOs for the rest of the round becaude they threw a dagger? Of course not. It's not supported by the rules, and it screws the player.

 

[Infiniti2000]

A sorcerer adding metamagic to a standard-action spell needs to take a full action to cast the spell, not 1 round.

I didn't say 1 round. A full-round action, however, still consumes the full 6 seconds.

A grapple attempt would never come in the middle of this; it would have to be a readied action which preempts the casting.

You're not the first person, so don't feel bad, but you're totalling misunderstanding my comment. When I say that the grapple occurs (theoretically) in the middle of his comment, I'm talking about simultaneity.

Where you're screwing the player is in denying them AoO's during the rest of the round in which they are not casting.

There is no "rest of the round." When the caster is finished he (according to the laws of physics, laws of physics, laws of physics) immediately starts his next action. Or, are you telling me that you don't agree with the DMG and instead make people wait and actually count time for all combatants? Obviously, you don't so there's no rest of the round.

A similar situation would be a greatsword-weilding fighter with a dagger and quick draw. Say she's in combat and decides to Quick Draw her dagger and throw it at an opponent 30 feet away. Drawing (Free) + ranged attack (Standard) is the same as readying spell components (Free) + casting (Standard). Does it make any sense at all that the fighter should be denied AoOs for the rest of the round becaude they threw a dagger? Of course not. It's not supported by the rules, and it screws the player.

If you actually would have read the thread, you would have realized that I allow quickdraw to work. If the sorcerer has quickdraw, he's good-to-go. So, no it's not a similar situation unless you make it similar and then your point is moot.

 

[irdeggman]

Where you're screwing the player is in denying them AoO's during the rest of the round in which they are not casting.

So it is fair for a wizard to cast a quickened fireball, a standard fireball and then take AoO with his great sword for the round?

IMO one of the reasons for this readying a weapon (see the WotC reference from the FAQ) equating to drawing a weapon was to mitigate this type of power imbalance.

Fighters as a class don't get to take swift actions, while spellcasters and psionicists do. These swift actions can make them extremely powerful. Casting multiple spells in a round is considered more powerful than making multiple attacks - this was one of the reasons why Haste was changed in 3.5.

 

[buzz]

I didn't say 1 round. A full-round action, however, still consumes the full 6 seconds.

No. It consumes the entirety of that PC's turn in the initiative. At the end of that full-round action, the spell is cast, and the PC can take a 5-foot step if they so choose. Once we move on to the next character in the initiative order, the caster PC isn't doing anything that prevents them from making AoO's.

This is no different from a fighter making a full attack. Once they are done with the full-round action of making multiple attacks, they are free to make AoO's. They are not occupied with making their full attack throughout the rest of the round while other characters' are taking their turns. Everything happens on their turn. Unless you're ruling that making a full attack negates a character's ability to make AoO's, which is in no way supported by the rules.

A spell with a casting time of 1 round, however, doesn't take effect until the beginning of the caster's next turn in the initiative. Until that time, the caster is occupied with the casting process, and cannot make AoO's.

There is no "rest of the round." When the caster is finished he (according to the laws of physics, laws of physics, laws of physics) immediately starts his next action. Or, are you telling me that you don't agree with the DMG and instead make people wait and actually count time for all combatants? Obviously, you don't so there's no rest of the round.

If you read the whole of the section in the DMG on "Simultaneous Activity", p.24, you'll notice the part that says: "However, when everyone at the table plays out a combat round, each individual acts in turn according to the initiative count for his character. Obviously, this is necessary, because if every indidivual took his turn at the same time, mass confusion would result."

You should also note the following:

An attack of opportunity "interrupts" the normal flow of actions in the round. If an attack of opportunity is provoked, immediately resolve the attack of opportunity, then continue with the next character’s turn (or complete the current turn, if the attack of opportunity was provoked in the midst of a character’s turn).

AoO's, I should add, are not listed on the "Actions in Combat" table on p.141 of the PHB. As stated above, they interrupt the normal flow.

There is a "rest of the round". What PC A does on his turn happens on that initiative count. Unless they are taking an action or suffering a condition that specifically prevents them from acting past their turn in the initiative order or prevents them from threatening, they are free to make AoO's.

If you actually would have read the thread, you would have realized that I allow quickdraw to work. If the sorcerer has quickdraw, he's good-to-go. So, no it's not a similar situation unless you make it similar and then your point is moot.

There's no call for snarkiness. I've read the thread; pardon me if I missed that bit.

So, you're going to make a sorcerer blow a feat on an ability that has almost no utility for them in order to let them use the RAW? I don't find that fair to the PC.

I don't see any part of the rules that supports your interpretation. If you can cite someting, please feel free.

 

[buzz]

So it is fair for a wizard to cast a quickened fireball, a standard fireball and then take AoO with his great sword for the round?

Fair? Absolutely!

In order to cast a quickened fireball, the wizard would have had to blow a feat on Quicken Spell and be at least 13th level. On top of this, he's either blown another feat on proficiency with the greatsword or sacrificed a level of spellcasting prowess in order to take a level of fighter. He's paid the price and properly strategized. Dang right he gets to cast two spells and then make AoO's. "Fair" isn't the issue; this is basic D&D rules competency.

IMO one of the reasons for this readying a weapon (see the WotC reference from the FAQ) equating to drawing a weapon was to mitigate this type of power imbalance.

This isn't a power imbalance, and we're not talking about "readying" a weapon (there is no "ready"; a weapon is either drawn or not, switching-hands FAQ entry or no). We're talking about a PC using a weapon they've already drawn while not suffering any conditions that prevent their making AoO's. You're screwing the PC with no support from the rules.

On top of this, our hypothetical greatsword-weilding caster is likely never going to be the powerful combatant a dedicated fighter is. Whether he went the feat or the multicalssing route to get greatsword proficiency, he's weaker than his pure spellcasting and fighting companions. You want to penalize them even more? Even though they ahve paid the costs lain out in the rules? What for? To serve your personal concept of "realism"?

Fighters as a class don't get to take swift actions, while spellcasters and psionicists do. These swift actions can make them extremely powerful. Casting multiple spells in a round is considered more powerful than making multiple attacks - this was one of the reasons why Haste was changed in 3.5.

Fighters, however, do get to make mutiple attacks six levels before most spellcasters do, and will never be matched by them in the regard, even beyond 20th level.

Haste was overpowered for its level. There's nothing inherrently unbalancing about spellcasters/psionicists getting to cast more than one spell in a round. It depends on when in their careers and how often. The balancing factor is the cost; w/r/t Quicken Spell, you need to spend a feat, and that feat isn't at all useful for wizards untl 9th level or higher.

Swift actions exist becuase it's simpler to define an action as "swift" than "a free action you can only take once in a round." These sorts of actions just happen to be spells and magic-item related. It's got nothing to do with balance; it has to do with rule clarity.

 

[irdeggman]

This isn't a power imbalance, and we're not talking about "readying" a weapon (there is no "ready"; a weapon is either drawn or not, switching-hands FAQ entry or no). We're talking about a PC using a weapon they've already drawn while not suffering any conditions that prevent their making AoO's. You're screwing the PC with no support from the rules.

All following quotes have previously been given, just disagreed with.


From Rules of the Game

Drawing or Sheathing a Weapon: Drawing a weapon so that you can use it in combat, or putting it away so that you have a free hand, usually is a move action.

From the FAQ:

In a previous column, the Sage ruled that switching
weapons from one hand to the other should take a move
action. My group and I thought that seemed pretty long,
since it’s only a free action to drop something. Why can’t
you just drop it into your other hand?

It’s not really true that switching weapons from one hand to
another is just like dropping a weapon. When you drop a
weapon, you’re releasing it and letting it drop to the ground,
with no real guidance (or attention) as to exactly where it lands.
Switching a weapon from one hand to another is certainly more
complex than simply dropping it. At the very least, switching
hands would require you to use one hand to take the weapon
from the other and at most it involves using both hands together
in a coordinated action. Either way that sounds a lot like
drawing a weapon, which is a move action. When you simply
drop a weapon, you don’t really care where it lands, and it
doesn’t require you to use the other hand to guide the action.

In both cases getting a weapon ready to use (or weilding it for those who still don't like to use dictionaries for meanings and would rather attempt to use a Thesaurus) is like drawing a weapon which is normally a move action. Feats not withstanding to make it otherwise.


If the wizard takes quick draw he can draw his weapon as a free action, if not it is a move action (or part of a move action if he has a BAB of +1 or more).

If you want to keep on attempting to insert some sort of real world logic to the rules, well it will only end up causing even more issues overall. The rules are afterall the rules.

 

[buzz]

If you want to keep on attempting to insert some sort of real world logic to the rules, well it will only end up causing even more issues overall. The rules are afterall the rules.

I'm not citing "real world logic"; I'm citing the rules as written. It's others who are attempting to justify that some Free, Standard, and Full actions are "more equal than others", as it were, based on DM fiat and what's "realistic" or "fair". (The "switching hands" FAQ entry is also obfuscation; it doesn't really talk to the greatsword-caster issue.) No one has been able to cite actual rule text that supports these interpretations.

Casting a spell is a Standard action (barring longer casting times). Making an attack is a Standard action. Saying that one prevents you from threatening after the fact but the other doesn't is contradictory, illogical, and not supported by the rules. You're screwing the player by essentially ruling that their ability to utilize weapons in which they are proficient is a "Mother-may-I" decision made by the DM. There's no point to using 2H weapons in such a campaign.

 

[buzz]

In both cases getting a weapon ready to use...

This is exactly the kind of "real-world logic" that's been bogging down the discussion, i.e., trying to establish a state ("ready" or "properly weidled") between "drawn" and "not drawn". The specific FAQ case notwithstanding, there is no such state, RAW. Nothing in the rules supprts the idea that a PC forfeits their ability to threaten just because one of their hands leaves their 2H weapon at some point on their turn in initiative. This is a level of specificity that's far, far beyond the level of abstraction in D&D. Heck, it's probably beyond the level of abstraction in Phoenix Command.

 

[Storm Raven]

You're not the first person, so don't feel bad, but you're totalling misunderstanding my comment. When I say that the grapple occurs (theoretically) in the middle of his comment, I'm talking about simultaneity.

So, you are basically ignoring the rules as written in order to preserve "simultaneity", which is an invention of your own.