Summary of Spell Casting with a Shield?

[JiffyPopTart]

Irrelevant strawman and doesn't pertain to two-handed or double weapons at all. Drawing ammunition is explicitly allowed as a free action: (from the SRD) "Drawing ammunition for use with a ranged weapon (such as arrows, bolts, sling bullets, or shuriken) is a free action."

In post #15 a step-by-step breakdown of every action was given for what the caster with a shield would be doing, with the caveat that it seemed like a lot of free actions. I posted a reply that showed that a commonly accepted (and indeed RAW allowed) situation would result in even more free actions per round than the original post, yet nobody has a problem with it.

If you argue...well yea, you can do those extra actions but you spend feats to do it (getting Rapid Shot) then I would counter and say that you could do the same things as a 6th level fighter with no feats.

The point you made (Putting a hand back on a 2-handed weapon and preparing it for battle should be a move action) to me is invalid because RAW putting a hand on an arrow and nocking it to be able to shoot it is NOT a move action, and IMHO it should take longer to nock an arrow and prepare to shoot than it should to put a hand back on a weapon and prepare to swing.

DS

 

[JiffyPopTart]

I happen to be an expert with the bo and the answer is zero in a real combat. If you fight me and we both have a bo, I can guarantee you'll lose your weapon (or worse) if you take a hand off it.

Fair enough. I have never used one, so I will defer to someone that does. Since you are trained in weaponry and have done battle with other folks trained in weaponry, can you provide an example of a weapon that is tranferred from one hand to the other in the normal course of battle or is this NEVER done. I am curious. How about nunchucks?

DS

 

[irdeggman]

In post #15 a step-by-step breakdown of every action was given for what the caster with a shield would be doing, with the caveat that it seemed like a lot of free actions. I posted a reply that showed that a commonly accepted (and indeed RAW allowed) situation would result in even more free actions per round than the original post, yet nobody has a problem with it.

I didn't answer it because the action depended upon using a feat. Several people have posted that using Quick Draw or something similar sould probably work.

You also broke down actions that that are part of each other.

For example "nocking an arrow" and firing the arrow are part of the same action the same as making a somatic component of a spell is part of "casting" the spell and not a separate action, although getting the hand "free" in order to do the casting is another matter.

Which puts the actions to shoot a single arrow to the following:
1. Draw an arrow from quiver (free)
2. Fire arrow (standard)
3. Take a 5 ft step (not an action)

You also assumed that only a material component (or a focus) was involved. My post addressed the combination of somatic, material and focus (which all require a "free hand").

If you argue...well yea, you can do those extra actions but you spend feats to do it (getting Rapid Shot) then I would counter and say that you could do the same things as a 6th level fighter with no feats.

That is a good point, but by the time a fighter gets extra attack a wizard can cast a 6 HD fireball which in almost all cases will do more damage (at range) than a fighter with 2 attacks a round. That is part of the "balance" between classes. One gets fewer "actions" (re: in this case that means "attacks") but does more damage with his actions than the other one does.

The point you made (Putting a hand back on a 2-handed weapon and preparing it for battle should be a move action) to me is invalid because RAW putting a hand on an arrow and nocking it to be able to shoot it is NOT a move action, and IMHO it should take longer to nock an arrow and prepare to shoot than it should to put a hand back on a weapon and prepare to swing.

DS

But the rules cover that drawing ammunition is a "free" action in all cases. Which means that those who wrote the rules believe that it is "simplier" to draw an arrow than to "ready" a melee weapon.

This pretty much goes back to a fairly recent discussion (before the crash) of how many actions does it take to ready a great sword?

Note that the FAQ (as quoted) seem to back up the stance in opposition to yours. Now using the FAQ as an absolute answer is not a good thing, but using it for supporting evidence is.

 

[Twowolves]

So, what's wrong with having a weapon on a strap or loop? Drop it as a free action, but it doesn't go anywhere since it's attached to the caster's wrist. Cast the spell, then as part of a move action (assuming a BAB of +1 or more) "draw" the weapon for free.

Or, convince the DM that your cleric with the War domain uses his deity's favored weapon AS a holy symbol.....

 

[irdeggman]

So, what's wrong with having a weapon on a strap or loop? Drop it as a free action, but it doesn't go anywhere since it's attached to the caster's wrist. Cast the spell, then as part of a move action (assuming a BAB of +1 or more) "draw" the weapon for free.

Or, convince the DM that your cleric with the War domain uses his deity's favored weapon AS a holy symbol.....

This comes back to the definition (which is actually missing in the RAW) of "wield" and "hold".

The FAQ follows the logic that they are different and thus the reasoning behind the move action to "wield" or "epuip for wielding" instead of "holding".

Now the draw a weapon as free action using a move action is actually incorrect.

The RAW states:

Draw or Sheathe a Weapon
Drawing a weapon so that you can use it in combat, or putting it away so that you have a free hand, requires a move action. This action also applies to weapon-like objects carried in easy reach, such as wands. If your weapon or weapon-like object is stored in a pack or otherwise out of easy reach, treat this action as retrieving a stored item.

If you have a base attack bonus of +1 or higher, you may draw a weapon as a free action combined with a regular move. If you have the Two-Weapon Fighting feat, you can draw two light or one-handed weapons in the time it would normally take you to draw one.
Drawing ammunition for use with a ranged weapon (such as arrows, bolts, sling bullets, or shuriken) is a free action.

It is a common misconception that the rules state as part of a move action when they actually state as part of a "regular move". The two are different, one is actually movement and the other is an action that takes up roughly the same amount of time as actually moving.

So technically without the Quick Draw feat you can't draw your melee weapon as part of a 5 ft step since a 5 ft step is not a regular move action. I let that one slide, but it is a house-rule to do so.

 

[KarinsDad]

So, what's wrong with having a weapon on a strap or loop? Drop it as a free action, but it doesn't go anywhere since it's attached to the caster's wrist. Cast the spell, then as part of a move action (assuming a BAB of +1 or more) "draw" the weapon for free.

I would require a grappling concentration to have a 4 to 8 pound weapon dangling from a spell casting hand (for spells with a somatic component).


I also allow a free action to switch a weapon to a hand with a light shield or buckler, then a standard action to cast a spell, then a free action to switch the weapon back.

If you make it a move action to switch the weapon to the shield hand and another move action to switch it back, than it really does not make sense for Clerics, Druids, Rangers, Paladins, etc. to use sword and board. The game appears to be designed to allow these types of characters to use sword and board, but the move action to move the weapon to the other hand makes this extremely difficult to do.

They either have to a) move the weapon to the shield hand (move action), cast a spell (standard action) and next turn switch the weapon back (move action), or b) drop weapon (free action), cast spell (standard action), and pick up weapon (move action which provokes an AoO) in order to both cast and fight in the same combat. The first not only prevents the character from doing an AoO between rounds one and two, but it also prevents movement in round two if the character wants to do a standard action in round two. The second means that these types of characters provoke two AoOs for casting a spell.


Both of these choices are ludicrous. They really make it difficult for these both cast and fight type characters to cast and fight in the same combat.


And, allowing switching the weapon from hand to hand as a free action is still limiting. A character cannot do it with a heavy shield, so they have to give up something in order to do something else. That's balance. Pros and Cons.

It also gives these types of characters an incentive to use a buckler or light shield instead of a heavy shield (where b above is the only way to easily both cast and fight).

 

[KarinsDad]

The FAQ follows the logic that they are different and thus the reasoning behind the move action to "wield" or "epuip for wielding" instead of "holding".

I don't think the writers of the FAQ hash these topics out to the nth degree like we do on these boards and do not always come up with an answer that is both balanced and playable.

This is such an example. Not allowing a character to switch a weapon as a free action is not very playable. It is, however, balanced.

So, because it is not very playable (i.e. it makes a relatively common activity in the game hard to do), it is an unnecessary rule. And hence, eventually a totally unnecessary spell or feat or magic item will show up in the game, just to handle this totally unnecessary situation.

Feature creep is fine in the game as long as it is unique and beneficial to the game. If switching the weapon to the other hand as a move action becomes the official rule of DND 4 and spells, feats, or magic items show up in the game just to handle this mechanic, then it is worthless feature creep in that case.

 

[Twowolves]

I would require a grappling concentration to have a 4 to 8 pound weapon dangling from a spell casting hand (for spells with a somatic component).

So, having a 4-8 pound weapon dangling from a hand is equivalent to having a 150+ lbs, medium sized sentient being actively trying to use his entire body to restrain your activities? A little harsh, don't you think? Weapons IRL have had lanyards and wrist straps on them and they weren't terribly restrictive, otherwise they never would have been invented.

It also gives these types of characters an incentive to use a buckler or light shield instead of a heavy shield (where b above is the only way to easily both cast and fight).

There already is incentive for the use of bucklers; missile weapon use. Light shields are also, well, light, which is important to low strength characters that still need the AC boost, but also have less armor check penalty . Doing the "boarder shift" with a 4-8 pound weapon while casting a spell with absolutely no chance for dropping the weapon strains my disbelief a lot more than a weapon strap.

 

[KarinsDad]

So, having a 4-8 pound weapon dangling from a hand is equivalent to having a 150+ lbs, medium sized sentient being actively trying to use his entire body to restrain your activities? A little harsh, don't you think? Weapons IRL have had lanyards and wrist straps on them and they weren't terribly restrictive, otherwise they never would have been invented.

That 150+ pounds is grabbing the entire character, not just the arm.

Try hanging a 5 pound weight from your arm and then sign your name. See how good it looks.

Btw, the weapon lanyard was invented to prevent a weapon from being disarmed, not to help cast spells. People did not use them to dangle a weapon and use their hand for some other intricate task. Apples and Oranges.

There already is incentive for the use of bucklers; missile weapon use. Light shields are also, well, light, which is important to low strength characters that still need the AC boost, but also have less armor check penalty . Doing the "boarder shift" with a 4-8 pound weapon while casting a spell with absolutely no chance for dropping the weapon strains my disbelief a lot more than a weapon strap.

I have never seen a PC take a light shield until I reinforced the "PCs with a heavy shield and a weapon have to sheathe or drop the weapon in order to cast a spell" rule. Once I did that, a few PCs starting taking a light shield.

I suspect that this would happen in most games if the DM reinforced that rule.

 

[Ogrork the Mighty]

I think the fundamental root of the problem is that clerics (e.g.) are being allowed to benefit both from sword and board and being able to cast spells that require M/S/DF components all at the same time. I think that's a problem. Clerics are versatile and can use weapons and shields to an extent wizards can't. But I don't think clerics should be able to use that versatility and cast spells at the same time; it should be either/or (an option that most wizards don't even have nor need to worry about).

I guess the crux of my issue is that I think it's unbalancing to allow a cleric to potentially have a +5 shield, a weapon to threaten, and be able to cast spells all in unison.

And there's no way, IMO, that someone should be able to switch their weapon from one hand to the other in the middle of combat without provoking an AoO. At the very least, you're taking both your weapon and your shield out of action, even if it's just momentarily.