Threatening an area while casting

[Malin Genie]

What about the exact instant when casting a spell? I remember a discussion here (quite a long time ago, and definitely before 3.5) around the question of an opponent attempting to grapple (or disarm, or bull-rush etc) a mage in response to spell-casting. Does the mage continue to threaten, and thus get to take an AoO on the attacker? Or given that the attack occurs at the instant she is concentrating on her spell, does she lose the AoO?

What about if she is wielding a two-handed weapon and casting a spell with a somatic component - does she lose her grip on the weapon for the instant of spell-casting and then regain it immediately afterward, or can the gestures be made while continuing to wield the weapon?

 

[Evilhalfling]

As for two handed weapons, esp a staff it can be held with one hand for a brief time, while the spell is cast. Even the Bar/Sor with a 18 str ad 2 handed sword, resting it on his shoulder or holding it briefly doesn't appear to be a problem - If a 10 str wiz wanted to hold the 2 -handed sword while casting it he would rest it on the ground.
Here is the quote from phb 113
" two hands are required to wield a two-handed meele weapon effectivley" implying you can continue to hold it, just not use it with one hand,

 

[Darklone]

Allowing such "let go and regrab" things is generally a bad idea... but well.

 

[billd91]

Allowing such "let go and regrab" things is generally a bad idea... but well.

I disagree. In the context of a character wielding a 2-handed weapon (or a one-handed weapon with a shield on the other), and then casting a spell with somatic components, it's really inconsequential to assume that he frees up one hand temporarily while the spell is cast and then goes back to the original wielding situation.
Requiring the character to drop the weapon, cast, and then spend a move action to redraw is possible if you really want to be a stickler. But I don't see a compelling reason to do so.

 

[XArchangelX]

Shouldn't it be considered a free action for a wizard, who has some proficiency with the quarterstaff, to go from using one hand for a spell to holding the quarterstaff properly in the event of an AoO?

 

[Ovinomancer]

If a caster wishes to use a two handed weapon, then when he casts, he unreadies the weapon. It takes a trained person about the same amount of time to unsheath a weapon (ready it) as it would to bring it up from resting point down with one hand on it to an upright and 'ready' position. If the character wished to cast and then ready his weaopn, well, that's a standard action for the spell and a move-equivlent to re-ready the weapon. If he only wants to take a five foot step, no prob. If he wants to move after casting, and has at least a +1 BAB, no prob. If he doesn't have a +1 BAB, outta luck. It really doesn't make much diference in the grand scheme of things, but it does put a limit on how much you can do and still have a readied weapon. If you want to cast a ready, good. If you want to cast, pull a potions, and ready, tough. You either are ready or have a potion. 'Course, I allow the use of a two handed weapon in one hand, but you can never be proficent in it, so a -4 applies. Works for me, and the rest is just my humble opinion. Take it as you will.

 

[XArchangelX]

Shouldn't it be considered a free action for a wizard, who has some proficiency with the quarterstaff, to go from using one hand for a spell to holding the quarterstaff properly in the event of an AoO?

My reasoning would be that the wizard would have sufficient time to react to an AoO because she would be more on guard, or prepared when she is in an area threatened by an AoO, and that the action required to go from holding the weapon in the off-hand to holding it properly again would be second nature for a character with that weapon proficiency. And its not like the wizard is being caught flat-footed, the weapon is out, its right there.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I would disagree archangel. The wizard has every opportunity to use a move equiv to re-ready his staff. Allowing a free action to re-ready opens thing up for abuse. All using a move equiv to re-ready does is make for a little more planning for an action. The wizard with his staff in one hand would still threaten with it, but it he would not be proficient in using the staff one handed, so would suffer a -4 penalty to his attacks and not get the two handed STR damage. Not much of a penalty, IMHO.

 

[XArchangelX]

Well, I was just thinking in the context of being able to respond to an AoO. Presumably, depending on the spell being cast, if the wizard is done concentrating, the wizard goes back into the melee with both hands. If a wizard is concentrating on spell, she doesn't threaten anyone, but can react to an AoO in a timely manner by breaking concentration and losing the spell. If a wizard is done concentrating, at the end of the standard action the wizard doesn't need to ready anything, she's just back to holding the weapon properly. Now, taking a ready action would be an entirely different matter, but for the purpose of being able to respond to an AoO, there shouldn't be any penalty. The wizard has to take a move to cast a spell, wouldn't the readying of the melee weapon be included in that?

Edit: Confusing wording on my part. :\

 

[Darklone]

Ovinomancer and billd91 explained it quite nicely. Allowing PCs to change handling of weapons as they wish produces funny scenarios with archers wielding swords while not shooting...

I prefer not to consider the casting strictly as a singular event with no duration during a 6 second round.