Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="takasi" data-source="post: 3272409" data-attributes="member: 20194">We've discussed this many times.  Here is the closest thing in the FAQ:"The light shield doesn’t give you a free hand for spellcasting, but since you can hold an item in the same hand that holds the light shield, you could switch your weapon to that hand to free up a hand for spellcasting. (You can’t use the weapon while it’s held in the same hand as your shield, of course.) The rules don’t state what type of action is required to switch hands on a weapon, but it seems reasonable to assume that it’s the equivalent of drawing a weapon (a move action that doesn’t provoke attacks of opportunity)."From this statement as a DM I would rule that it's a move action to shift a two handed weapon from one hand to another.So if you are casting as a swift action on a two-handed weapon you would not get your full attack but you could get a single attack.Again, the FAQ does not specifically address this issue.  I'm sure some DMs would rule that it's a free action to shift a two handed weapon from one hand to the other, cast a spell and then a free action to shift it back.  DMs could also make it an swift action, allowing someone to move and cast a spell without dropping their two-handed weapon but then you couldn't cast a spell in the same round that's also a swift action.Edit:  So it sounds like Artoomis is ruling that it's a move action to shift a staff from two hands to one hand and then ANOTHER move action to shift a staff from one hand to two hands.  So for a spell that takes a standard action to cast if you shift from two to one and cast you cannot take an AoO as a two-handed weapon.  You could, however, take an AoO with the staff as a one-handed weapon because the wizard is still armed.  Personally I find this a little too strict but since there is no ruling that I know of then this is just as valid an interpretation as any other.</blockquote>

Verification