Summary of Spell Casting with a Shield?

[Prism]

Follow? That's my 2 cents, take it or leave it. I believe it works well in practice, both from a game perspective (player and DM point of view) and adherence to "realism".

Cheers and fair enough. When our group originally decided about the action of placing your hand on a weapon to wield it we decided it was far simpler for both DM and players to make it free. That obviously effects two handed weapons and also this discussion of switching a one handed weapon into a shield hand. Situations that I guess must come up in your game are that you can't retrieve a potion and drink it in a round and then either make AoO with a two handed weapon, or full attack the following round - or something similar to that. We also generally let someone full attack in the first round if needed if they were already holding their weapon in hand, which you couldn't do if it was a move action to shift your grip to wield the weapon

As the DM i'd be most concerned with spell casting, weapon wielding monsters, though I suppose your ruling certainly promotes an advantage of one handed weapons of two handed weapons for casters and the benefit of not having a shield

 

[KarinsDad]

And I cannot conceive that you really believe your view either. For example, I cannot believe that you think you can switch grips on a weapon, or shift the weapon into your shield hand in the middle of mounting a horse, charging an enemy, or whatever.

What you state here is a logical fallacy.

Getting out spell components while casting a spell is a free action.

Getting out spell components when not casting a spell is not a free action. It is a Retrieve a Stored Item move action and cannot be done while mounting a horse.

Pulling out an arrow while firing arrows is a free action.

Pulling out an arrow when not firing arrows is not a free action. It is a Retrieve a Stored Item move action and cannot be done while mounting a horse.

Obviously, the switch a weapon action cannot be done during another action that requires the use of the hands. It can only be done (regardless of whether it is a free action or a move action) before or after the hands are no longer doing the action that required their use.

I mean, really. Try your switching the knife trick while running down the running the street, or climbing a tree.

I can do it running down the street, I cannot do it climbing a tree. Course, I would have a real hard time climbing the tree with the weapon in the first hand.

This too is a logical fallacy. The tree climbing example is one where a minimum of one hand is need at all times to climb, so obviously you cannot do a free action that requires both hands.

This is not a free action that can be done when the hands are being used for other things. It can only be used when the hands are available. Just like you cannot speak while spell casting with a verbal component, regardless of the fact that speaking is a free action.

Your logic here is "Since you cannot use this free action at all times, it is not a free action." That's bad logic. You cannot use the free action of speaking at all times, but it is still a free action when you can use it.


And, when you can use the action does not change the fact that it takes an extremely short period of time to do if both hands are available.

 

[Infiniti2000]

I can do it running down the street...

Your logic here is "Since you cannot use this free action at all times, it is not a free action." That's bad logic. You cannot use the free action of speaking at all times, but it is still a free action when you can use it.

I agree with you and that was quite honestly, an unintended side effect of my choices. So, I withdraw my examples of requiring one or both hands. Let's instead go with other examples. I disagree that you can do it running down the street. But, I'd prefer you just respond to my comment about the gun. If you can grab the knife by the blade and call that okay then we have nothing further to discuss.

And, when you can use the action does not change the fact that it takes an extremely short period of time to do if both hands are available.

That 'fact' is the point of debate, so don't call it fact.