Summary of Spell Casting with a Shield?

[Twowolves]

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.

I don't know about you, but I can rather easily sign my name with a 5 pound weight on my arm. My sister can perform American sign language with a 5 pound weight hanging from her arm and not "stutter". And if that 150+ pound grappler is grappling with the intent of stopping the caster from casting spells, you are STILL making it equivalent to a 5 pound weapon on a thong. By your ruling, a weight on the arm is just as distracting during spellcasting as having a full grown man trying to pin your arms to your sides in a wrestling match. Oh, and tossing that weapon into a hand already holding a shield, casting a spell, then tossing it back, all as free actions (except the casting part obviously), in combat, with absolutely zero chance of dropping the weapon is easier? Ooookay...

Also, dropping a weapon so you can cast a spell with that hand and being forced to drop a weapon via a disarm attempt isn't all that different. If the lanyard is good for one, it should be just as good for the other.

 

[KarinsDad]

I don't know about you, but I can rather easily sign my name with a 5 pound weight on my arm.

But will the signature be neat? I suspect you did not actually try this. I also suspect that you have not done this in combat either.

My sister can perform American sign language with a 5 pound weight hanging from her arm and not "stutter".

I suspect she did not try this either.

And if that 150+ pound grappler is grappling with the intent of stopping the caster from casting spells, you are STILL making it equivalent to a 5 pound weapon on a thong. By your ruling, a weight on the arm is just as distracting during spellcasting as having a full grown man trying to pin your arms to your sides in a wrestling match.

No, my ruling put a penalty on something that the game rules do not explicitly support (i.e. casting a spell with a weapon hanging from a lanyard). In core, they do not have a lanyard, they have a locked gauntlet which has Cons: no spell casting with that hand, attaching or detaching a weapon is a full round; in addition to a Pro: +10 versus disarms.

That's the difference. Your solution only has a Pro. That's not balance. Mine has a Pro and a Con, you can cast the spell with a lanyard, but you need a Concentration check. Not much different then dropping the weapon and picking it back up which results in an AoO which is core.

That gives the character options, but it does not give it to him for free like your solution.

Oh, and tossing that weapon into a hand already holding a shield, casting a spell, then tossing it back, all as free actions (except the casting part obviously), in combat, with absolutely zero chance of dropping the weapon is easier? Ooookay...

Who said anything about tossing the weapon? This is a spin you are putting on the conversation, just to make your side look better. I was talking about switching the weapon, both hands on the weapon when you make the switch. I did this just now with a hunting knife and I was able to do it 20 times in 6 seconds (or a round). Sounds like two free actions to me to do it twice in 6 seconds.

Also, dropping a weapon so you can cast a spell with that hand and being forced to drop a weapon via a disarm attempt isn't all that different. If the lanyard is good for one, it should be just as good for the other.

What are you talking about? In one case, you are doing nothing with the weapon (i.e. on a disarm). In the other case, you are casting a spell (a standard action). Again, apples and oranges. These are nowhere near equivalent.

 

[Twowolves]

But will the signature be neat? I suspect you did not actually try this. I also suspect that you have not done this in combat either.

My signature isn't neat in any event. What's your point? You said I couldn't sign my name with a weight on my arm, and you didn't mention combat at all. I assure you, I can do so.

(Besides, casting a spell "in combat" draws an AoO anyway, which obviously you aren't talking about in your example. So you are making a strawman because your intitial position is weak.)

I suspect she did not try this either.

You got me. My sister honestly didn't strap a weight to her arm while signing. How does that in any way whatsoever invalidate what I said? I said she could do so. If you want, I can call her up and have her sign for you with a weight on her arm, but you'd say something else trying to invalidate the comparison, so there's no point.

No, my ruling put a penalty on something that the game rules do not explicitly support (i.e. casting a spell with a weapon hanging from a lanyard). In core, they do not have a lanyard, they have a locked gauntlet which has Cons: no spell casting with that hand, attaching or detaching a weapon is a full round; in addition to a Pro: +10 versus disarms.

So, a lanyard is supposed to equal a locking gauntlet? I don't think so. And just because there isn't an official rule for lanyards means what exactly? That you have to try to extrapolate from a locked gauntlet? An item that completely encloses the hand and locks it into place?? That's patently absurd. Even if you have a weapon on a wrist strap and are disarmed, you still A) don't threaten a square with that weapon B) have to reaquire the weapon before you can use it or draw another C) get no other benefit from having the weapon in hand. Just because it's on a rope doesn't mean you aren't "disarmed", it just means you don't have to bend over and pick it up.

That's the difference. Your solution only has a Pro. That's not balance. Mine has a Pro and a Con, you can cast the spell with a lanyard, but you need a Concentration check. Not much different then dropping the weapon and picking it back up which results in an AoO which is core.

Right. So you impose "balance" by making a clever idea useless? I'd hate to play in one of your games. The party comes up with a clever plan for dealing with the monster and you "balance" the plan by having it not work?

And your balance STILL makes having a weight on your arm be just as distracting as having a full grown man try to pin you in a wrestling match. Overkill by a mile.

Who said anything about tossing the weapon? This is a spin you are putting on the conversation, just to make your side look better. I was talking about switching the weapon, both hands on the weapon when you make the switch. I did this just now with a hunting knife and I was able to do it 20 times in 6 seconds (or a round). Sounds like two free actions to me to do it twice in 6 seconds.

Now, to paraphrase your august self, do it in combat. Did you have a shield in either hand? Were you under attack? Did you try to cast a spell, or even sign your name? Do you think it would be even remotely possible to drop your hunting knife while holding both it and a shield, moving the knife into your other hand, signing your name perfectly and neatly, while being under threat of attack, and then switching the knife back into your primary hand? Certainly just as concievable as having a 5 pound weight on one arm be just as distracting as a 150 pound man on your back....

Never mind the fact that in D&D, a longsword weighs 4lbs, by your interpretation enough weight to warrant a concentration check, but a buckler that weighs 5lbs does not. You can cast a spell with a somatic component with a buckler on that arm, but not a 3 lb club?

What are you talking about? In one case, you are doing nothing with the weapon (i.e. on a disarm). In the other case, you are casting a spell (a standard action). Again, apples and oranges. These are nowhere near equivalent.

Here's what I'm talking about. You claimed that weapon straps were invented to prevent being disarmed. I said dropping a weapon of your own free will and having it removed by a disarm were similar. If the lanyard would work for the disarm attempt, why can't it also work when you just drop the weapon?

Drop a weapon to the ground then cast a spell, then move and draw a new weapon (free action/standard action/move action with BAB >+1). Drop a weapon on a wrist strap, cast a spell, then reaquire the weapon as part of a move (free action/standard action/move action). What's the big difference? Because it's not "balanced"? Because there is no AoO? Creative thinking and logical problem solving not allowed?

 

[KarinsDad]

My signature isn't neat in any event. What's your point? You said I couldn't sign my name with a weight on my arm, and you didn't mention combat at all. I assure you, I can do so.

Actually, my exact words were "See how good it looks.". It helps your position if you don't claim that someone said something that they did not.

So, a lanyard is supposed to equal a locking gauntlet? I don't think so. And just because there isn't an official rule for lanyards means what exactly? That you have to try to extrapolate from a locked gauntlet? An item that completely encloses the hand and locks it into place?? That's patently absurd. Even if you have a weapon on a wrist strap and are disarmed, you still A) don't threaten a square with that weapon B) have to reaquire the weapon before you can use it or draw another C) get no other benefit from having the weapon in hand. Just because it's on a rope doesn't mean you aren't "disarmed", it just means you don't have to bend over and pick it up.

So, no move action to pick it up and no AoO. Even if you require it to use up a move action to reacquire it, it still has an advantage with no down side. A pro, but not a con.

This armored gauntlet has small chains and braces that allow the wearer to attach a weapon to the gauntlet so that it cannot be dropped easily.

...

While the gauntlet is locked, you can’t use the hand wearing it for casting spells or employing skills.

A locked gauntlet does not state that it completely locks the hand. That is your own spin on it. It states that he has small chains to attach the weapon to it. Maybe you cannot use the hand because it has a weapon in it. Ever think of that?

But, having chains attached to the weapon sounds similar to a lanyard to me.

Right. So you impose "balance" by making a clever idea useless? I'd hate to play in one of your games. The party comes up with a clever plan for dealing with the monster and you "balance" the plan by having it not work?

This is called an ad hominem argument. Those are not allowed here.

As a side note, I would not call this clever. It's not particularly original or unique. People here have discussed this several times. But, I would call it an attempt to metagame. Just like I would call a lanyard to prevent or minimize a character from being disarmed with no penalty metagaming when a locked guantlet is designed for that function, is a part of the game, and does have down sides to it.

Balance is about pros and cons, not just pros.

And your balance STILL makes having a weight on your arm be just as distracting as having a full grown man try to pin you in a wrestling match. Overkill by a mile.

No, it is a choice. You get to do something unique, but there is a penalty.

And note: grappling is not pinning until round two. In round one, you merely have someone grabbed. When pinned, you cannot cast somatic component spells at all.

Btw, after reading the Concentration rules, I would downgrade having a weapon swinging from your hand while casting a spell from being grappled to being entangled. This sounds more balanced. It's still a distraction, but not a major one.

Now, to paraphrase your august self, do it in combat. Did you have a shield in either hand? Were you under attack? Did you try to cast a spell, or even sign your name? Do you think it would be even remotely possible to drop your hunting knife while holding both it and a shield, moving the knife into your other hand, signing your name perfectly and neatly, while being under threat of attack, and then switching the knife back into your primary hand? Certainly just as concievable as having a 5 pound weight on one arm be just as distracting as a 150 pound man on your back....

Never mind the fact that in D&D, a longsword weighs 4lbs, by your interpretation enough weight to warrant a concentration check, but a buckler that weighs 5lbs does not. You can cast a spell with a somatic component with a buckler on that arm, but not a 3 lb club?

Actually, if you go back to my original post on the subject, I used the word "dangling". In other words, a swinging club could cause more of a distraction due to its motion, not just its weight.

Also, quote the rule that states that you can cast a spell with a buckler on your arm. It states that you can attack with it with bows and crossbows at no penalty and with a melee weapon at a -1 penalty, but it does not state that you can cast a spell with that hand with it on. In fact, both Light Shields and Bucklers are silent on what you can and cannot use that hand for except for carrying items and weapon use. Heavy shields are not. An omission in the rules does not mean that a given rule is allowed, it means that each DM decides for himself.

Here's what I'm talking about. You claimed that weapon straps were invented to prevent being disarmed. I said dropping a weapon of your own free will and having it removed by a disarm were similar. If the lanyard would work for the disarm attempt, why can't it also work when you just drop the weapon?

Drop a weapon to the ground then cast a spell, then move and draw a new weapon (free action/standard action/move action with BAB >+1). Drop a weapon on a wrist strap, cast a spell, then reaquire the weapon as part of a move (free action/standard action/move action). What's the big difference? Because it's not "balanced"? Because there is no AoO? Creative thinking and logical problem solving not allowed?

If a player was attempting this, then no. Creative thinking in an attempt to get past game penalties is called metagaming and is not allowed in my game. There's a lot of inventions I do not allow in my game. For example, gunpowder or damascus steel. Allow lanyard knowledge in your game all you want. In my game, if a player wants to invent such a thing, it will have similar pros and cons to similar other actions. For example, similar to dropping a weapon and picking it back up = move action + AoO.

 

[Twowolves]

Actually, my exact words were "See how good it looks.". It helps your position if you don't claim that someone said something that they did not.

LoL! Talk about splitting hairs and a strawman arguement. You may like to quote chapter and verse of rules, but saying "see how good it looks" does not equal "neat handwriting" is semantics in the extreme. Argue with the wall all you like, you meant what I said, and you are now dancing around wordplay. Tsk tsk, I expected better of you.

So, no move action to pick it up and no AoO. Even if you require it to use up a move action to reacquire it, it still has an advantage with no down side. A pro, but not a con.

So, if a party were fleeing across a gorge on a rope bridge, pursued by orcs, and once reaching the other side they cut the ropes, plunging the orcs to their death, they got a pro without a con? No xp for them? Because essentially you are saying there is no way you'd let a clever idea be all good, without balancing it with some con.

A locked gauntlet does not state that it completely locks the hand. That is your own spin on it. It states that he has small chains to attach the weapon to it. Maybe you cannot use the hand because it has a weapon in it. Ever think of that?

But, having chains attached to the weapon sounds similar to a lanyard to me.

My own spin? Perhaps spun so because A) that's what they historically do (see http://www.humanities-interactive.org/medieval/chivalry/ex018_11c.html ), and B)

While the gauntlet is locked, you can’t use the hand wearing it for casting spells or employing skills. (You can still cast spells with somatic components, provided that your other hand is free.)

? Sounds like it's "locked shut" to me.

Balance is about pros and cons, not just pros.

I never disputed the definition of balance, just your insistance on it.

And note: grappling is not pinning until round two. In round one, you merely have someone grabbed. When pinned, you cannot cast somatic component spells at all.

Try again:

Grappling or Pinned: The only spells you can cast while grappling or pinned are those without somatic components and whose material components (if any) you have in hand. Even so, you must make a Concentration check (DC 20 + the level of the spell you’re casting) or lose the spell.

So, even when not yet pinned but yet still in a grapple, no difference as the RAW pertains to spell casting.

Btw, after reading the Concentration rules, I would downgrade having a weapon swinging from your hand while casting a spell from being grappled to being entangled. This sounds more balanced. It's still a distraction, but not a major one.

So, you do admit your original premise was deeply flawed. I'm so glad you read the concentration rules to sway your opinion, instead of being swayed by the completely un-clever, un-original and non-unique ideas I put forth in opposition to your house rule. Gotcha.

Actually, if you go back to my original post on the subject, I used the word "dangling". In other words, a swinging club could cause more of a distraction due to its motion, not just its weight.

And where praytell, does it state that somatic components demand grandiose gesticulations of the sort that would send a suspended, dangling weapon in such motion that it would be more unbalancing than, say, a buckler?

Also, quote the rule that states that you can cast a spell with a buckler on your arm. It states that you can attack with it with bows and crossbows at no penalty and with a melee weapon at a -1 penalty, but it does not state that you can cast a spell with that hand with it on. In fact, both Light Shields and Bucklers are silent on what you can and cannot use that hand for except for carrying items and weapon use. Heavy shields are not. An omission in the rules does not mean that a given rule is allowed, it means that each DM decides for himself.

Ok.

Buckler: This small metal shield is worn strapped to your forearm. You can use a bow or crossbow without penalty while carrying it. You can also use your shield arm to wield a weapon (whether you are using an off-hand weapon or using your off hand to help wield a two-handed weapon), but you take a –1 penalty on attack rolls while doing so. This penalty stacks with those that may apply for fighting with your off hand and for fighting with two weapons. In any case, if you use a weapon in your off hand, you don’t get the buckler’s AC bonus for the rest of the round.

Shield, Light, Wooden or Steel: You strap a shield to your forearm and grip it with your hand. A light shield’s weight lets you carry other items in that hand, although you cannot use weapons with it.

To cast a spell, you must be able to speak (if the spell has a verbal component), gesture (if it has a somatic component), and manipulate the material components or focus (if any).

So, where in there does it say you CAN'T use the free hand to cast a spell? Other than ASF that is. All it says for heavy shields is that you can't use that hand for anything else, which I'll agree prohibits spellcasting.

If a player was attempting this, then no. Creative thinking in an attempt to get past game penalties is called metagaming and is not allowed in my game.

Metagaming is using knowledge a character does not know but a player does. Usually this means knowledge of a rules system, but not always. So there is no way a character in your world could have such an idea? I'll agree, how one would implement the idea in the rules framework is for the DM, but you are saying that noone in a fantasy world could come up with such an idea, barring outside metagaming? And that you would require that balance be that harsh is your decision, of course, but it's not one I agree with.

Allow lanyard knowledge in your game all you want. In my game, if a player wants to invent such a thing, it will have similar pros and cons to similar other actions. For example, similar to dropping a weapon and picking it back up = move action + AoO.

So, having the weapon attached to your wrist is just as dangerous as dropping it and then bending over to pick it up? No wait, I'm sorry, you amended your position to say that having a weapon dangling from your wrist is as distracting as being stabbed in the stomach with a dagger (concentration checks with DCs in the same range). Balance must be observed, so sayeth Mordenkainen!

At worst, I'd say a weapon on a wrist strap would add 5% to ASF, just like a buckler, but clerics are exempt from that anyway, so it's almost a non-issue.

 

[KarinsDad]

LoL! Talk about splitting hairs and a strawman arguement. You may like to quote chapter and verse of rules, but saying "see how good it looks" does not equal "neat handwriting" is semantics in the extreme. Argue with the wall all you like, you meant what I said, and you are now dancing around wordplay. Tsk tsk, I expected better of you.

I meant what I said. I said it twice. The fact that you misread it and now cannot admit you made a mistake says a lot about you. I won't bother arguing with someone who cannot admit a mistake. Maybe you should try to expect better of yourself. Good luck with your game.

 

[Twowolves]

I meant what I said. I said it twice. The fact that you misread it and now cannot admit you made a mistake says a lot about you. I won't bother arguing with someone who cannot admit a mistake. Maybe you should try to expect better of yourself. Good luck with your game.

Can't even get past the first paragraph of my post, you are so humiliated eh? So be it.

My signature doesn't "look good" in any case, and holding a weight on my wrist while making my mark will not make it look any less good. Unlike some people, my arm and wrist strength are not so feeble that I cannot do something as mundane as writing or hand gestures with a 5 pound weight "dangling" from my wrist.

Now care to refute any of the other ridiculous assertations you made in your post? Not even to ensure you have the last word?

 

[Ogrork the Mighty]

Some people need to review the posting rules of this forum...

 

[Infiniti2000]

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.

I play a sword & cleric (LG of Heironeous, so he uses a sword a lot, and he does not have quick draw). The other DM and I use the same rules so that there is no confusion when we switch campaigns every year. We also agree on any houserules or (in this case) rules clarifications and hash them out in the group and playtest them. I can therefore say with certainty that my ruling on this is not as extremely difficult as you say.

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.

The first is the option I normally take and you're exactly right on what it prevents. That's a desirable feature, however. As for your second point, you'd normally be correct. But, in our case, since we defined the action, we made it equivalent to 'drawing a weapon' in that you can do so while moving as a free action. (Note, I did the same thing with sheathing a weapon which IMO is a mistake--it makes no sense to be able to loose a shield and not sheathe a weapon.)

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.

Luidicrous is a strong word for someone who hasn't tried it.

 

[KarinsDad]

I play a sword & cleric (LG of Heironeous, so he uses a sword a lot, and he does not have quick draw). The other DM and I use the same rules so that there is no confusion when we switch campaigns every year. We also agree on any houserules or (in this case) rules clarifications and hash them out in the group and playtest them. I can therefore say with certainty that my ruling on this is not as extremely difficult as you say.

The first is the option I normally take and you're exactly right on what it prevents. That's a desirable feature, however. As for your second point, you'd normally be correct. But, in our case, since we defined the action, we made it equivalent to 'drawing a weapon' in that you can do so while moving as a free action. (Note, I did the same thing with sheathing a weapon which IMO is a mistake--it makes no sense to be able to loose a shield and not sheathe a weapon.)

Luidicrous is a strong word for someone who hasn't tried it.

The fact that you added a house rule to allow someone to both move and put the weapon back into the weapon hand indicates that as written in the Rules of the Game (i.e. move action to put weapon in other hand, move action to put it back in original hand) made the game more difficult than you and your players wanted. You house ruled it to make it easier, hence, you compromised and took a middle ground. So, I do not quite understand how compromising and making it easier makes it any less difficult if you do not compromise and play it according to RotG.