wizard of the spiraling out of control

[Iron Sky]

Why Quick Draw when you could just use Mage Hand to simultaneously put an object in your hand in your pouch and a new object in your hand as a minor action?

Somewhat of an aside, but maybe because everyone with enough Dex has Quick Draw anyway? Quick Draw is as close to a universal feat as I've seen. In the 4e game I'm in and the one I'm running, a total of 8/10 characters have it, and the ones that don't have too little Dex.

 

[ShaggySpellsword]

My point is, there is little reason for any wizard to have Quick Draw, ever. It is a waste of a feat because mage hand, for all intents and purposes, IS Quick Draw.

The only time a Wizard would want quick draw is if he is okay dropping whatever he is holding and drawing the next item as part of the action he's using it for. I find it generally better to put away my stuff before someone slides me away from it and steals it, so Mage Hand is better.

 

[Amphimir Míriel]

Since in real life you cannot hold anything in your hand while using a shield effectively (you need to grab that handle tight!), then I would not allow it in my game, period.

Dual wielding of implements is fine and the current rules work

 

[rjdafoe]

Nothing there (or elsewhere that I am aware of) officially states that you can't use the implement held in your shield hand for things other than attacking.

This is one area were the 4E FAQs have failed IMO.

There are somethings that make sense, others that do not, and others that can be overlooked. Unfortunately, for a lot of people, holding a shield and an orb in the same hand does not make sense and cannot be overlooked. You do not seem to have a problem with it. I (and some other people) seem to. To each their own. There is no wrong way to play it. I do not consider the part that you cannot hold a shield and orb in the same hand as a house rule though you may differ in that.

 

[MyISPHatesENWorld]

This is one area were the 4E FAQs have failed IMO.

I disagree. I think the FAQ in this area and in others, such as the double sword and switching hands, does what it should. It makes the game not suck by default. If individual DMs want to nerf this and disallow that, they're free to do so as long as they find players that will put up with it.

There are somethings that make sense, others that do not, and others that can be overlooked. Unfortunately, for a lot of people, holding a shield and an orb in the same hand does not make sense and cannot be overlooked. You do not seem to have a problem with it. I (and some other people) seem to. To each their own.

You (and the "lot" of people whom you have elected yourself to represent) don't need to overlook it. You can cobble any rationalization of your house rule together, claim a consensus for your opinion while trying to frame my post as a lone, isolated, nonsensical, view, or do whatever else you want on your way to making a house rule and not allowing it, something which I earlier said was fine for the original poster of the house rule. As I also said, I wouldn't play in that game though.

There is no wrong way to play it.

If you're claiming to be playing by the rules in this area rather than using house rules, not allowing someone to hold an orb in the hand of their shield arm is clearly wrong. The rules and FAQ both allow it. If you don't want to allow a player to do something he or she wants to do, just man up and say that he can't do it because you don't like it. If he stays, you win (and, maybe for a "lot" of people, you win even if he leaves because you got your way).

I do not consider the part that you cannot hold a shield and orb in the same hand as a house rule though you may differ in that.

You can not consider it to be a house rule, but it clearly is a house rule. Holding an orb in the hand of your shield arm is allowed by the rules as written and that is clarified in the FAQ answer, which describes precisely something you can do while doing so.

 

[Mistwell]

Since in real life you cannot hold anything in your hand while using a shield effectively (you need to grab that handle tight!), then I would not allow it in my game, period.

"You can still use that hand to hold another item, to climb, or the like. However, you can’t use your shield hand to make attacks."

That is the rule.

Nor do you hold a handle for a light shield. Light shields traditionally strap to your forearm, and the straps were called enarmes. They often used a long guige as well, and that "allowed the two-arm combat: to handle a second weapon, to allow the shield be worn on the back while using a two-handed sword, to use a spear with two hands or various siege machines without discarding the shield, etc."

 

[rjdafoe]

I disagree. I think the FAQ in this area and in others, such as the double sword and switching hands, does what it should. It makes the game not suck by default. If individual DMs want to nerf this and disallow that, they're free to do so as long as they find players that will put up with it. You (and the "lot" of people whom you have elected yourself to represent) don't need to overlook it. You can cobble any rationalization of your house rule together, claim a consensus for your opinion while trying to frame my post as a lone, isolated, nonsensical, view, or do whatever else you want on your way to making a house rule and not allowing it, something which I earlier said was fine for the original poster of the house rule. As I also said, I wouldn't play in that game though.

There where no attacks or claim of consensus or making you look like a fool. Maybe you took it that way, but I don't know why you feel the need to respond as above.

I guess that is what I get for being curious as to why you wouldn't play in a game when a DM has said something works different.

 

[Amphimir Míriel]

"You can still use that hand to hold another item, to climb, or the like. However, you can’t use your shield hand to make attacks."

That is the rule.

Nor do you hold a handle for a light shield. Light shields traditionally strap to your forearm, and the straps were called enarmes. They often used a long guige as well, and that "allowed the two-arm combat: to handle a second weapon, to allow the shield be worn on the back while using a two-handed sword, to use a spear with two hands or various siege machines without discarding the shield, etc."

Sorry about the handle/strap confusion, English is not my first language.

I stand corrected about the RAW thing, and I will do some homework about the Real Life thing (I practice some European Martial Arts, but only with rapier/buckler/dagger and I have no expertise about bigger shields)

 

[Tony Vargas]

I will do some homework about the Real Life thing

Two RL examples of fighting with a weapon held in your shield-hand:

1) Scotts fought the English with a sword in one hand, a small shield called a targe in the other, and a dirk (long pointy dagger) held in the shield-hand. Reinactors look pretty cool doing it. The English used muskets. Oh well.

2) The macedonian phallanx employed by Alexader the Great to conquer Persia used extremely long spears. These macedonean 'peltasts' wore a light shield, called a pelta, and held thier spears in both hands. (In stark contrast to other clasical 'peltasts' who were skirmishers that used slings or javelins).

FWIW (nothing).