Free Hands - Wield vs. Carry

[Fatespinner]

Another post about Duskblades briefly touched on this issue and, instead of threadjacking that one, I thought I would start up this thread to raise awareness and get some thoughts stirring:

Casters must have a free hand in order to cast spells requiring a somatic component. The situation that came up was "Does wielding a two-handed weapon prevent the caster from using his spells?" I've sided with the camp that says you can opt to simply hold the two-handed weapon in one hand in order to cast and doing so requires no action on your part. You cannot wield the weapon in one hand without things like Monkey Grip but, having actually held a greatsword before (I own one), I can honestly say that it would not be a big deal to free one hand for a moment, cast a spell, then place your hand back on the hilt and be ready to swing again.

Someone brought up the issue of wizards holding staves (which are two-handed weapons) as well. What are the thoughts of the readers out there? Does a wizard need to stow the staff or toss it to the ground before casting, necessitating a move action to pick it back up? Does the spellsword wielding a falchion need to act any differently than the wizard with the staff?

I could even take this another step and say that exceptionally weak characters (Strength < 10) might not be able to hold up a two-handed sword in one hand long enough to cast but most weak characters don't wield two-handed weapons so it has never been an issue for me. What does everyone else think? Discuss.

[Moff Rimmer]

I think that it would be more difficult for a cleric to cast a spell with somantic components with a weapon in one hand and a shield in the other.

I don't see a problem with this. Two weapons? They better be able to explain it or at least have quick-draw or something similar, but one weapon I don't see a problem with doing somantic components.

Of course any benefit the character might get from the weapon I feel would not apply -- Weapon Expertise, a Defending weapon, etc.

[Fyraxis]

I've always been in the camp of having at least one hand free (unless using "still spell"), but for those who rule casting as two-handed, the staff could just have one end on the ground and be balanced in the crook of the caster's elbow...

[Saern]

I'm also firmly in the camp with those who say "Go for it." I also own a large weapon (granted, only a replica claymore, but the only difference is a weak hilt and the lack of a sharp blade), and I can't see any problem with freeing one hand for the approximately 3 seconds it takes to cast most spells. As to enforcing a Strength requirement, I'm against it. It's overly complicated, and realisitically, you'd have to be pretty damned weak not to be able to pull that feat off. I'm far, far, far from muscle-man, and I know I can hold the sword in one hand and wave the other around freely for a lot more than 3 seconds.

A staff is a (barely) glorified stick. If you can't hold that in one hand and wave the other freely, do the party a favor and just die already.

[Rift]

Funnily enough, this turned out to be a issue at our LARP organisation.(yes geek alert, I larp :P)

Turned out that after a quick rule-check that suddenly all our mages and priests had to drop whatever they were holding to cast a spell. Since Game Control received a boatload of emails full of complaints it was changed to temporarily freeing up one hand or just using the staff or weapon as an extra way to channel the spell.

I'd rule the same thing with D&D. Besides, this is just one of those non-issue’s in the game, you shouldn’t go into this too deep and just play.

[Fake Healer]

This is all cleared up over on the Duskblade thread and the FAQ has ruled that you can remove a hand from a 2-handed weapon to cast as a free action (moving the hand, not casting).
Takasi admitted that my superior intellect was indeed correct in this ascertation and apologized for his futile attempt to refute my declaration.
(boy, that was WAY too many big words!)

FH

[Azrad]

Thinking about this, id toss in a house rule...
If there is a somatic component, it requires a hand.
If theres a material component, it requires a hand...
if both material and somatic, you need both hands, one to ready the components and the other to trace the spell runes in the air.
You could also rule that particularly complex spells with somatics require both hands and a partial to ready the components (if any) beforehand.
Even turning undead i think requires displaying prominantly your holy symbol, making it a one handed affair as well, unless you have it on a shield or something.

As far as defending onself with a weapon while casting, i would allow the bonus by expertise and other feats. Especially the feats, since they are martial training in handling your weapon for defense specifically. Two handed weapons require two hands to effectively attack with, but one should be able to pull a defense easy enough since the movements are usually tight to the body, quick, and the weapon can be braced with other body parts or the ground.
Other feats, like 'defensive throw' presented in Complete warrior could be usable since in martial arts there are many ways to arive at an oponent flying through the air and landing with an ungraceful thud, not all requiring hands or excessive movement. with a concentration DC vs the oposing attack roll to prevent spell disruption i think your wizards would get some more fun outta that skill and relieve the meat shield to do more hacking and slashing. Id treat such things as an attack of opportunity however and limit it in the same fassion.

[Jeremy Mac Donald]

I think the flaw is treating two handed weapons held in one hand as weapons. Essentially once you remove a hand you don't have a weapon in your other hand at all but simply an object and it follows all the (rather limited) rules for holding an object.

This also quickly fails the logic test once one gets to Long Bow - Can you hold a Long Bow in one hand? You must be able to unless your notching arrows with your teeth.

[Saern]

But it's a free action. You take a hand away, cast the spell, and put it back. For that limited amount of time, sure, you can consider the greatsword as an object, but why bother? Unless someone happens to use an immediate action that somehow pertains to held objects and differentiates them from weapons, then it really doesn't matter. It could matter for determining threatening rules for AoOs, but again, unless someone uses an immediate action to move through your space while you're casting, it really doesn't matter. Both of those things seem extremely unlikely and probably aren't worth the effort needed to adjudicate a rule based upon them.

Azrad, I'm not totally sure what you're talking about (no Complete Warrior), but as far as what happens to a character's defense when casting a spell, that's represented by provoking the Attack of Opportunity. Whatever defenses you have mounted lapse for a few seconds as you cast the spell, allowing those that threaten you to take a free shot. Unless, of course, you succeed at a defensive casting check, which I represent as simply continuing to duck and weave in such as fashion as to not leave yourself open, but I suppose could represent maintaining some functionality of your weapon as well. No new mechanic is needed.

That's what the dice are there for- to represent all the hundreds of different things that could be going on in the game without the DM or players having to actually declare each variable.

[Jeremy Mac Donald]

Saern wrote:

But it's a free action. You take a hand away, cast the spell, and put it back. For that limited amount of time, sure, you can consider the greatsword as an object, but why bother? Unless someone happens to use an immediate action that somehow pertains to held objects and differentiates them from weapons, then it really doesn't matter. It could matter for determining threatening rules for AoOs, but again, unless someone uses an immediate action to move through your space while you're casting, it really doesn't matter. Both of those things seem extremely unlikely and probably aren't worth the effort needed to adjudicate a rule based upon them.

Why is it necessarily a free action? I contend that you can take your hand away and use a standard action to drink a potion or cast a spell for example. If you happen to have a long bow in your other hand - well what of it? Certainly I can't fire my long bow if I've used a standard action this turn but I can still hold it.

[Saern]

I apologize for not being clear. You stated that once you took your hand off the weapon, it effectively becomes a generic "object," and not a weapon at all. However, what I was saying is that you remove your hand (a free action; barely an action at all), take the intended action (drinking a potion, casting a spell, flipping the bird, whatever), and replace the hand on the weapon, returning it to its "weapon" status because you are wielding it again. Unless your turn is somehow interrupted by an immediate action that deals with held objects and differentiates them from held weapons (and no such thing exists that I am aware of), then the entire point of reclassifying what you're holding is moot.

If you're using a weapon and shield, or two weapons, then both hands are full. If you are carrying something so immensely large that taking a hand from it would cause you to drop it (such as a gilded statue that you found in a dungeon), then both hands are full. In almost every other circumstance, you effectively have a free hand, since you can just take it off whatever you're holding.

The only time I would rule against this is if a character is wielding a two-handed weapon and tries to use the Deflect Arrows or Snatch Arrows feat, since I would having your hands on the weapon or object at the time would slow your reflexes too much for the feats to work.

But all that is just my opinion and interpretation of the rules. Seems logical, though.

[Peruhain of Brithondy]

I think we've all seen so many visual representations of wizards casting spells with a staff in one hand that this should be mostly a non-question--I've never seen a picture of a wizard with a staff slung over his back. There is no reason why you shouldn't be able to carry a two-handed weapon in one hand while casting with the other. You could rule one hand is required for the material components, but I think that adds too much complexity. Wizard holds staff in left hand, right hand completes a gesture, pulls out components, and the magic happens. If someone steps past the wizard a moment later, he can freely grasp his staff with his other hand and take a whack at the guy. (Unless he's in the middle of a full-round spell like summon monster, of course).

Things are much trickier for clerics, who typically carry both a shield and are frequently expected to make use of a weapon in combat. More cleric spells are "verbal component only," which helps--but I've seen lots of DMs who don't pay close attention to what the cleric has in his hands, leading to rapid shifting between fighting, turning, casting, using CLW wand, etc. They should--otherwise the cleric ends up being much more powerful than he should. (Note that a lot of DMs don't make PCs expend as many actions as they should in shifting between melee and missile weapons as well). If I were running a cleric, I'd seriously think about using a two-handed weapon instead.