RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32
|
We have a E.Knight in our group who is using the elven curveblade. Our GM is a little concerned with how he is using a two-handed weapon and casting spells. Now, the character does have two feats from Open Design's "Visions of the Oracle." They are Armed Touch Casting and Battlecaster. Armed Touch Casting lets the touch spell be delivered through a weapon attack, while the Battlecaster lets the spellcaster use his full attack action to attack with a weapon and then cast a spell in a single round.
My GM's question is, should this PC be allowed to interchange attacks with a two-handed sword and spellcasting?
I personally say yes, as unless the character is wearing locking gauntlets, there is nothing that says they can't simply let go with one hand to cast a spell and then grab on once again to attack.
Anyone out there know of any rules that would say otherwise? Anyone have any thoughts on this matter?
The general consensus is that you can free one hand to cast a spell. It is not in the book IIRC, but stated by a developer. It might take some searching to find it though.
Having a two hand weapon does not stop you from pulling and drinking a potion, and that is virtually a full round action. I don't see why it would stop spell casting.
| 5 people marked this as FAQ candidate. 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
A two-handed weapon sized for you can be held (but not wielded) in one hand. Putting your other hand on it to wield it is (or should be) a free action. Taking your other hand off it to cast a spell is (or should be) a free action.
That's my story and I'm sticking to it!
A two-handed weapon sized for you can be held (but not wielded) in one hand. Putting your other hand on it to wield it is (or should be) a free action. Taking your other hand off it to cast a spell is (or should be) a free action.
That's my story and I'm sticking to it!
This.
However, do note that the very similar Magus ability specifically requires you to have a free hand for the entire full-round action.
A lot of 3rd party material has always been notorious for being poorly tested or balanced. It's really up to the GM what he thinks is appropriate for his games. There's arguments for both sides.
In any case, it's always been my opinion that terms like RAW are meaningless when speaking of 3rd party material. Just because someone has published some of their houserules doesn't automatically make them any better than anyone else's houserules.
|
It's get odd if the spell had material and somantic components to me.
It's like you've got the magic dust in the one hand and your making the gestures with the other and then I guess your holding your sword in your teeth or something? If it just has one (or the other somehow) then it'd seem fine to not worry about it which is why the potion works. Assuming you don't by the ones with the childproof caps. ;D
|
It's get odd if the spell had material and somantic components to me.
It's like you've got the magic dust in the one hand and your making the gestures with the other and then I guess your holding your sword in your teeth or something? If it just has one (or the other somehow) then it'd seem fine to not worry about it which is why the potion works. Assuming you don't by the ones with the childproof caps. ;D
Throwing the dust with the hand going the gestures can be the somatic component, so that is not a problem.
The cleric with shield, one hand weapon and spells with somatic or material components has a problem.
It's get odd if the spell had material and somantic components to me.
It's like you've got the magic dust in the one hand and your making the gestures with the other and then I guess your holding your sword in your teeth or something? If it just has one (or the other somehow) then it'd seem fine to not worry about it which is why the potion works. Assuming you don't by the ones with the childproof caps. ;D
Throwing the dust with the hand going the gestures can be the somatic component, so that is not a problem.
The cleric with shield, one hand weapon and spells with somatic or material components has a problem.
IIRC you can cast while holding a light shield.
|
|
IIRC you can cast while holding a light shield.It's get odd if the spell had material and somantic components to me.
It's like you've got the magic dust in the one hand and your making the gestures with the other and then I guess your holding your sword in your teeth or something? If it just has one (or the other somehow) then it'd seem fine to not worry about it which is why the potion works. Assuming you don't by the ones with the childproof caps. ;D
Throwing the dust with the hand going the gestures can be the somatic component, so that is not a problem.
The cleric with shield, one hand weapon and spells with somatic or material components has a problem.
Somatic (S): A somatic component is a measured and precise movement of the hand. You must have at least one hand free to provide a somatic component.
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.
Like, no if you are using the AC, and only for the last part as you can carry your weapon with the same arm where you have the shield?
Think about it a second, sequence:
1) left hand shield right hand weapon
2) grab your weapon with the left hand and release it with your right
3) pick up your spell components
4) somatic gesture
5) pass back your weapon from left to right
A bit too many free actions (Free Action: Free actions consume a very small amount of time and effort. You can perform one or more free actions while taking another action normally. However, there are reasonable limits on what you can really do for free, as decided by the GM).
Call it a move action to free your hand for spellcasting [b]when you wield a shield and a weapon[b] and have your weapon ready for AoE at the end of your turn and I will agree.
Buckler: no problem
Heavy shield: you can't use your off hand for anything.
IIRC you can cast while holding a light shield.It's get odd if the spell had material and somantic components to me.
It's like you've got the magic dust in the one hand and your making the gestures with the other and then I guess your holding your sword in your teeth or something? If it just has one (or the other somehow) then it'd seem fine to not worry about it which is why the potion works. Assuming you don't by the ones with the childproof caps. ;D
Throwing the dust with the hand going the gestures can be the somatic component, so that is not a problem.
The cleric with shield, one hand weapon and spells with somatic or material components has a problem.
Somatic (S): A somatic component is a measured and precise movement of the hand. You must have at least one hand free to provide a somatic component.
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.
Like, no if you are using the AC, and only for the last part as you can carry your weapon with the same arm where you have the shield?
Think about it a second, sequence:
1) left hand shield right hand weapon
2) grab your weapon with the left hand and release it with your right
3) pick up your spell components
4) somatic gesture
5) pass back your weapon from left to rightA bit too many free actions (Free Action: Free actions consume a very small amount of time and effort. You can perform one or more free actions while taking another action normally. However, there are reasonable limits on what you can really do for free, as decided by the GM).
Call it a move action to free your hand for spellcasting when you wield a shield and a weapon[b] and have your weapon ready for AoE at the end of your turn and I will agree.
Buckler: no problem
Heavy shield: you can't use[/b]...
If you can pull a potion with a hand then you can cast spells with it. IIRC.
James Jacobs-I believe so. A light shield allows spellcasters to use their hand to cast, and lets you carry an object; the only thing it actually prevents is wielding a weapon. Since lay on hands only requires you to touch someone, you could indeed use this ability while wearing a light shield.
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.
|
|
If you can pull a potion with a hand then you can cast spells with it. IIRC.
James Jacobs-I believe so. A light shield allows spellcasters to use their hand to cast, and lets you carry an object; the only thing it actually prevents is wielding a weapon. Since lay on hands only requires you to touch someone, you could indeed use this ability while wearing a light shield.
prd wrote:
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.
Carry =/= using
Lay of hand =/= spellcastingTouch attack spells =/= Lay of hand
Touch attack spells are considered a armed attack so they are a no-no for the shield hand.
So:
1) find the exact quote. As you report it the caster has a free hand, the one that isn't keeping the shield;
2) carrying something in a hand is very different from retrieving it from your pouch, backpack or whatever, so if you start your round with a potion in your shield hand you can (maybe*) drink if. BTW, drinking a potion is a standard action.
3) the RAW you cited say specifically "lets you carry other items in that hand", that is very different from allowing you to do " measured and precise movement of the hand. You must have at least one hand free to provide a somatic component."
4) Where Lay of hand has anything to do with spellcasting?
* I would like to hear an explanation on how you are doing that without hitting yourself with the shield or putting it before your face in a way that will not allow you to see what is happening, but that probably is one of the reasons why drinking a potion provoke an attack of opportunity.
Can a paladin do LoH with during combat when holding a sword and light shield?I believe so. A light shield allows spellcasters to use their hand to cast, and lets you carry an object; the only thing it actually prevents is wielding a weapon. Since lay on hands only requires you to touch someone, you could indeed use this ability while wearing a light shield.
Probably the quote you are citing.
Switching a held object from one hand to the other doesn't require an action, so the end result is the same whether or not you use the light shield hand to lay on hands or your weapon hand after switching your weapon to the off hand, and then back to your weapon hand.
The fact that allowing you to use your light shield hand to do so without so many fiddly steps is why I'd say it's fine to let it work that way.
Honestly allowing to pass back and fort a weapon, retrieve a component and cast while moving at base speed seem a lot of cheese for a 6 second round. Doing "measured and precise movement" when the shield handle rest in your palm is far from credible.
I accept the concept of keeping the story going, but there is a limit. Limiting the spellcaster to a 5' move as he is using a move action to free his hand and then retrive his weapon seem a reasonable compromise to me.
If you can pull a potion with a hand then you can cast spells with it. IIRC.
James Jacobs-I believe so. A light shield allows spellcasters to use their hand to cast, and lets you carry an object; the only thing it actually prevents is wielding a weapon. Since lay on hands only requires you to touch someone, you could indeed use this ability while wearing a light shield.
prd wrote:
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.
Carry =/= using
Lay of hand =/= spellcasting
Touch attack spells =/= Lay of hand
Touch attack spells are considered a armed attack so they are a no-no for the shield hand.So:
1) find the exact quote. As you report it the caster has a free hand, the one that isn't keeping the shield;2) carrying something in a hand is very different from retrieving it from your pouch, backpack or whatever, so if you start your round with a potion in your shield hand you can (maybe*) drink if. BTW, drinking a potion is a standard action.
3) the RAW you cited say specifically "lets you carry other items in that hand", that is very different from allowing you to do " measured and precise movement of the hand. You must have at least one hand free to provide a somatic component."
4) Where Lay of hand has anything to do with spellcasting?
* I would like to hear an explanation on how you are doing that without hitting yourself with the shield or putting it before your face in a way that will not allow you to see what is happening, but that probably is one of the reasons why drinking a potion provoke an attack of opportunity.
The RAW restricts you from weapon use. It does not restrict spell casting. I am only speaking to the casting of the spell. As to the touch attack spells you do have a point that they may not be able to be executed after the spell is cast, but being able to touch does not mean not able to cast.
|
|
prd wrote:
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.
The RAW restricts you from weapon use. It does not restrict spell casting. I am only speaking to the casting of the spell. As to the touch attack spells you do have a point that they may not be able to be executed after the spell is cast, but being able to touch does not mean not able to cast.
Round and round we go.
The RAW only allow you to have an item in the hand beside the shield handle.
Then it specify that if that item is a weapon you can't use it.
I don't see anything that allow me to do precise movements with that hand.
You see it as "I can do anything that is not using a weapon".
I doubt we will ever agree.
(and please read the part I added to the previous post after you started to comment)
prd wrote:
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.
The RAW restricts you from weapon use. It does not restrict spell casting. I am only speaking to the casting of the spell. As to the touch attack spells you do have a point that they may not be able to be executed after the spell is cast, but being able to touch does not mean not able to cast.
Round and round we go.
The RAW only allow you to have an item in the hand beside the shield handle.
Then it specify that if that item is a weapon you can't use it.
I don't see anything that allow me to do precise movements with that hand.
You see it as "I can do anything that is not using a weapon".
I doubt we will ever agree.
True. Even if the intent is not to cast with light shields I would probably just houserule it. I might even houserule heavy shields since I don't think the extra point of AC is worth losing spells over.
To get around all of this minutae you guys are talking about. I would go a different direction with spellcasting while wearing a shield. I think a spellcasting class that has shield proficiency is trained to cast spells while wearing a shield. I would rule their spells don't have a somatic component. Problem solved and all of the restrictions that Diego wants to put on an already complicated game are gone.
I'm just not a fan of making a game more complicated than it has to be. Bear in mind the players are supposed to feel heroic, trying to stymie them at every turn is not fun for players.
|
|
To get around all of this minutae you guys are talking about. I would go a different direction with spellcasting while wearing a shield. I think a spellcasting class that has shield proficiency is trained to cast spells while wearing a shield. I would rule their spells don't have a somatic component. Problem solved and all of the restrictions that Diego wants to put on an already complicated game are gone.
I'm just not a fan of making a game more complicated than it has to be. Bear in mind the players are supposed to feel heroic, trying to stymie them at every turn is not fun for players.
You are gifting me with the Still spell feat for free and a no spell slot cost?
Can I play in your campaign?Just to better explain my position to Wraith, if I was a rogue with the shield proficiency would you allow me to use disable device to open a lock wile using a small shield and having a weapon in my other hand?
If the reply is no, why are you treating a rogue differently than a cleric when we are speaking of doing delicate work with a hand with a shield?
|
RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32
|
Hey, we seem to have gone away from the primary topic. You are talking about two weapons, not two-handed weapons. Please move your conversation to another thread so we don't confuse the subject here. My GM is already confused enough, he does't need additional arguments.
Based on the feats your GM is already allowing, I don't see why he is being a stickler about the two-handed weapon thing.
I would be much more strict and probably would not allow the third party feats your GM is allowing, and would probably rule more strictly on the casting as well. I might restrict casting to only spells with no material components, for example, with a few exceptions if I could talk to the player and figure out how he is managing the material components while in the middle of battle with a two handed weapon.
Attack with a two handed weapon and cast a spell in a single round? Since you also say he has a feat that lets him deliver a spell through a melee attack, does that mean he could deliver two spells and weapon damage in a single round?
All I can say is "wow".
Yeah, you can take a hand off the weapon as a free action to fling dust in the air and cast a spell.
The only complication comes in when you start talking about Wizard's with bonded items that are two handed weapons. Then there is some serious debate as the text requires you to be wielding the weapon in order to cast spells, and two-handed weapons require two hands to wield...taking away your ability to take a hand off as then you are no longer wielding the weapon. (Of course then that opens the pandora's box of Bows...since they are two handed weapons yet require a free hand to draw ammunition in the first place...)
|
RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32
|
Based on the feats your GM is already allowing, I don't see why he is being a stickler about the two-handed weapon thing.
I would be much more strict and probably would not allow the third party feats your GM is allowing, and would probably rule more strictly on the casting as well. I might restrict casting to only spells with no material components, for example, with a few exceptions if I could talk to the player and figure out how he is managing the material components while in the middle of battle with a two handed weapon.
Attack with a two handed weapon and cast a spell in a single round? Since you also say he has a feat that lets him deliver a spell through a melee attack, does that mean he could deliver two spells and weapon damage in a single round?
All I can say is "wow".
The character is a sorcerer/fighter/E.Knight so most of the material components he would be using are covered by the eschew materials feat. I would agree that any significant material components might cause some issue, but I will leave that for the player and GM to discuss.
The feats Battlecaster and Armed Touch Casting work together but not in a way that lets him cast two spells in a round. Armed Touch Casting states that if a spell uses a touch attack then it can be delivered with a weapon or unarmed melee attack. Battlecaster lets the PC attack once and then cast a spell using a full attack action.
If the spell cast after an attack is a touch attack then the sword can be used to deliver it. I think the issue is if the PC can attack, release the sword with one hand, cast the spell, and then grab the sword again to deliver it.
Oh, and just for cheese factor, if the PC was using the battlecaster feat, using a spell storing weapon, and used a quickened spell, then he could use three spells in a round. See where my GM is starting to wonder about how to handle this?
He could cast three spells, but only attack twice. The EK capstone ability will eventually let him quicken spells anyway. The problem here is the Battlecaster feat. Also, delivering touch spells through a weapon that likely has a crit range of 15-20 is a Magus class staple, but probably shouldn't be available for a singe feat.
Spellstoring Weapons and the EK's capstone will get any EK two spells and a FULL attack in a single round. The PC in question is trading iterative attacks for a spell, which is the real problem...especially since he probably dropped 3 BAB to even get into the class, giving him only one real decent attack anyways.
|
RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32
|
Also, delivering touch spells through a weapon that likely has a crit range of 15-20 is a Magus class staple, but probably shouldn't be available for a singe feat.
Actually, the feat states that the spell still only has a critical range of 20/x2 no matter what weapon is used. If a critical hit is rolled for the weapon and not the spell, then only the weapon damage is multiplied. If a critical is rolled for both, the feat says two confirmation rolls need to be rolled. One for the spell and one for the weapon.
|
|
Hey, we seem to have gone away from the primary topic. You are talking about two weapons, not two-handed weapons. Please move your conversation to another thread so we don't confuse the subject here. My GM is already confused enough, he does't need additional arguments.
Changing from a two handed grip to keeping the weapon in a single hand while casting the spell back -> no problem
Delivering the spell while doing the attacks with your weapons as you have the feat -> no problem.
I don't get where the "multiple spells per round" come from.
- Battle caster [3.5 complete arcana]: it allow you to cast spells in heavier armour.
- Armed Touch Attack: [the description I have found on the net, possibly the wrong feat]
Prerequisites: +1 BAB, ability to cast spells, 13 Dex
Description: This feat allows the user to cast a "touch" spell (melee or ranged touch: Shocking Grasp, Scorching Ray, etc) and deliver it through an attack with a weapon. If the attack hits, weapon damage is determined as usual, and the spell is delivered to the target. If the attack fails, the weapon holds the charge. Touching the enemy with the weapon will not deliver the spell.
All casting in combat rules apply, such as Defensive Casting and Attacks of Opportunity. As a full round action, the caster may attack once in the same round as the spell is cast. Spell damage is not affected if the attack is a critical hit.
Nothing about multiple spells in a round. You get to cast a spell and deliver it as a full round action with a weapon attack.
I see no reason to say you can't use a two hand weapon (see above).
As you cite a third party (fourth I would say as it is neither Payzo or WOC) source, can you give us the relevant data if they are different?
"They are Armed Touch Casting and Battlecaster. Armed Touch Casting lets the touch spell be delivered through a weapon attack, while the Battlecaster lets the spellcaster use his full attack action to attack with a weapon and then cast a spell in a single round."
By this description I would say that what you get is a 1 spell round and full attack in that round.
Again, I see no reason why it can't be done using a two handed weapon.
I will have some problem allowing the full attack + spell cast combo of Battlecaster feat you cite, but that is another thing.
To get around all of this minutae you guys are talking about. I would go a different direction with spellcasting while wearing a shield. I think a spellcasting class that has shield proficiency is trained to cast spells while wearing a shield. I would rule their spells don't have a somatic component. Problem solved and all of the restrictions that Diego wants to put on an already complicated game are gone.
I'm just not a fan of making a game more complicated than it has to be. Bear in mind the players are supposed to feel heroic, trying to stymie them at every turn is not fun for players.
You are gifting me with the Still spell feat for free and a no spell slot cost?
Can I play in your campaign?Just to better explain my position to Wraith, if I was a rogue with the shield proficiency would you allow me to use disable device to open a lock wile using a small shield and having a weapon in my other hand?
If the reply is no, why are you treating a rogue differently than a cleric when we are speaking of doing delicate work with a hand with a shield?
Try to think outside the rules for a moment. I didn't grant any feat. I just deleted the "S" from every cleric spell listing for components. Again problem solved.
That is different than the siuation you describe with the rogue. Rogues don't have shield proficiency so no issue there. Also I would argue that the rogues job is more difficult and more delicate than a few hand gestures. Spell casting is not dex based, you can have a 5 dex and still be nimble enough to cast spells. Not so with disable device.
|
|
To get around all of this minutae you guys are talking about. I would go a different direction with spellcasting while wearing a shield. I think a spellcasting class that has shield proficiency is trained to cast spells while wearing a shield. I would rule their spells don't have a somatic component. Problem solved and all of the restrictions that Diego wants to put on an already complicated game are gone.
I'm just not a fan of making a game more complicated than it has to be. Bear in mind the players are supposed to feel heroic, trying to stymie them at every turn is not fun for players.
You are gifting me with the Still spell feat for free and a no spell slot cost?
Can I play in your campaign?Just to better explain my position to Wraith, if I was a rogue with the shield proficiency would you allow me to use disable device to open a lock wile using a small shield and having a weapon in my other hand?
If the reply is no, why are you treating a rogue differently than a cleric when we are speaking of doing delicate work with a hand with a shield?
Try to think outside the rules for a moment. I didn't grant any feat. I just deleted the "S" from every cleric spell listing for components. Again problem solved.That is different than the siuation you describe with the rogue. Rogues don't have shield proficiency so no issue there. Also I would argue that the rogues job is more difficult and more delicate than a few hand gestures. Spell casting is not dex based, you can have a 5 dex and still be nimble enough to cast spells. Not so with disable device.
Think inside the rules: you are giving Still spell to each clerical spell that require a somatic component. BIG boost.
I take the "birthmark as holy symbol" feat and I can cast a large percentage of my spells without any trouble.Give that as a gift to the arcane spellcasters and half the forum will scream "overpowered".
A rogue can easily get shield proficiency, it is a feat after all.
And he can have dex 5 and still disable devices. He only need a higher level of skill and/or skill focus and/or better gear to overcome his drawback.
There is no minimum dex requirement to enter the Rogue class.
I realize that a rogue can achieve what you're saying with a feat and a high enough level. What I was trying to point out was, not the mechanic of a rogue and how it works but, the difference between spell casting and the situation you're talking about with the rogue. You were equating the two situations and they are not comparable.
|
RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32
|
As you cite a third party (fourth I would say as it is neither Payzo or WOC) source, can you give us the relevant data if they are different?
I apologize, I should have quoted the feats directly. I gave the source as the "Visions of the Oracle" PDF by Open Design.
I am not sure if I should be posting these feats in their entirety, so I will spoiler them and summarize.
Armed Touch Casting
Benefit: When casting a spell with a range of touch, you may deliver the spell using a melee weapon or unarmed attack as a free action during the same turn.
Special: Though there is only one attack roll, the spell does not share the weapon’s critical range or multiplier. Instead, the spell uses the standard profile (critical range 20, ×2 damage). If both spell and weapon threaten a critical, roll each confirmation separately.
Battlecaster
Benefit: As a full attack action, after making your
first attack, you may cast a spell with a casting time of a
standard action or less instead of taking any additional
attacks.
|
Honestly allowing to pass back and fort a weapon, retrieve a component and cast while moving at base speed seem a lot of cheese for a 6 second round. Doing "measured and precise movement" when the shield handle rest in your palm is far from credible.
I accept the concept of keeping the story going, but there is a limit. Limiting the spellcaster to a 5' move as he is using a move action to free his hand and then retrive his weapon seem a reasonable compromise to me.
But here lies the problem. You asked upthread for a ruling that would allow this. The actual ruling that you quoted stated that you can cast spells with a light shield. Said ruling was judged by you as being "full of cheese". You then discounted said ruling and essentially listed your house rules as a reasonable compromise. But there is no need for a compromise when a clear, reasonable and easily executed rule exists. What you are doing here is invalidating a clear and logical rule (from a mechanical standpoint) because you don't like it. If we eliminated everything that we couldn't rationally complete in 6 seconds the game would be completely messed up.
Sorry, but I don't see how your dislike of this rule would be ground to invalidate. If I tried this on my players they would (rightly) call shenanigans on me.
|
|
I realize that a rogue can achieve what you're saying with a feat and a high enough level. What I was trying to point out was, not the mechanic of a rogue and how it works but, the difference between spell casting and the situation you're talking about with the rogue. You were equating the two situations and they are not comparable.
Why they aren't comparable?
Both require precise movements of the hand.
Both should be equally impaired by having the handle of the shield pressing on your palm and the weight of the shield on the arm.
So why you should treat one in one way and the other the opposite way?
|
|
As you cite a third party (fourth I would say as it is neither Payzo or WOC) source, can you give us the relevant data if they are different?I apologize, I should have quoted the feats directly. I gave the source as the "Visions of the Oracle" PDF by Open Design.
I am not sure if I should be posting these feats in their entirety, so I will spoiler them and summarize.
** spoiler omitted **
Again I don't see any reason why you can't use a two handed weapon.
On the flip side, the first feat allow you to "deliver the spell using a melee weapon or unarmed attack as a free action" so the spell require the normal casting time and effort.
Then the second feat allow you to do a full action that allow you to make 1 attack and then cast 1 spell requiring 1 standard action or less.
So again no extra spells.
The only difference I see in the two feats is that the first allow only the use of "touch attack spells" while the second allow any spell (the description is a bit unclear about the delivery part, if needed, as normally you can deliver a touch spell as part of casting it, but as you already have done an attack you normally would be penalized as it is a second attack with the -5 modifier).
The key to your problem is that switching grip on your weapon fron 2 handed to 1 handed and back is a free action and that you can keeep but not use a 2 handed weapon with one hand.
BTW: I am 95% sure that the Pathfinder and 3.5 rules specify that you can't cast more than 1 spell and 1 quickened/swift spell each round.
To get around all of this minutae you guys are talking about. I would go a different direction with spellcasting while wearing a shield. I think a spellcasting class that has shield proficiency is trained to cast spells while wearing a shield. I would rule their spells don't have a somatic component. Problem solved and all of the restrictions that Diego wants to put on an already complicated game are gone.
I'm just not a fan of making a game more complicated than it has to be. Bear in mind the players are supposed to feel heroic, trying to stymie them at every turn is not fun for players.
You are gifting me with the Still spell feat for free and a no spell slot cost?
Can I play in your campaign?Just to better explain my position to Wraith, if I was a rogue with the shield proficiency would you allow me to use disable device to open a lock wile using a small shield and having a weapon in my other hand?
If the reply is no, why are you treating a rogue differently than a cleric when we are speaking of doing delicate work with a hand with a shield?
If it was a light shield, yes. You just have to eat the ACP penalty.
Hey, we seem to have gone away from the primary topic. You are talking about two weapons, not two-handed weapons. Please move your conversation to another thread so we don't confuse the subject here. My GM is already confused enough, he does't need additional arguments.
We already answered your GM's question. The answer is yes for two-handed weapons.
If your GM needs more proofJames Jacobs-if you're wielding a 2H weapon, you can let go of the weapon with one of your hands (free action). You're now only carrying the 2H weapon, not wielding it, but your free hand is now free to attack or help cast spells or whatever. And at the end of your turn if your free hand remains free you'd be able to return it to grip your 2H weapon so you can still threaten foes and take attacks of opportunity if you want.
|
|
Honestly allowing to pass back and fort a weapon, retrieve a component and cast while moving at base speed seem a lot of cheese for a 6 second round. Doing "measured and precise movement" when the shield handle rest in your palm is far from credible.
I accept the concept of keeping the story going, but there is a limit. Limiting the spellcaster to a 5' move as he is using a move action to free his hand and then retrive his weapon seem a reasonable compromise to me.
But here lies the problem. You asked upthread for a ruling that would allow this. The actual ruling that you quoted stated that you can cast spells with a light shield. Said ruling was judged by you as being "full of cheese". You then discounted said ruling and essentially listed your house rules as a reasonable compromise. But there is no need for a compromise when a clear, reasonable and easily executed rule exists. What you are doing here is invalidating a clear and logical rule (from a mechanical standpoint) because you don't like it. If we eliminated everything that we couldn't rationally complete in 6 seconds the game would be completely messed up.Sorry, but I don't see how your dislike of this rule would be ground to invalidate. If I tried this on my players they would (rightly) call shenanigans on me.
I have a bit more problem when the sequence is something like this:
1) left hand shield right hand weapon
2) grab your weapon with the left hand and release it with your right
3) pick up your spell components
4) somatic gesture and cast spell (possibly doing a touch attack too)
5) pass back your weapon from left to right
6) be ready to do your attacks of opportunity
7) in the meantime move your full movementMy opinion is that there are too many "free actions" in there. I would limit the guy doing that to a 5' adjustment and not full movement .
My opinion is that that's an awful lot of clutter going on in the middle of a combat, and that I would indeed become annoyed at a player trying to do all of that at once because it slows down the game.My take: you can do two of these three things in a round:
1) cast a spell
2) gain AC from a buckler or light shield
3) threaten with a weapon so you can take attacks of opportunityPick the two you want and that's the two you get.
And in the 2nd edition of Pathifnder, I'd champion adding "switch objects held in hands" to be a swift action, which would limit you to doing one per round.
His opinion is slightly different from mine, instead of penalizing movement he prefer to make you choose between freeing your left hand (and so losing the shield), or freeing your right hand (and so loosing the attacks of opportunity).
Rulings depend a lot on the question. My question was about the current situation and to be fair I cited his previsions opinion (trying to blindside a developer is never a good idea).
You know what? There's an easy way to settle all this. Take the player in question out to the driveway. Have him pick up a shovel, and get a stopwatch ready. If he can two handed swing the shovel, then take a hand off, pull a crumpled ball of paper off his belt and toss it in the air, say three weird words while waving to you, then grip the shovel with two hands again and swing...then he's fine. However much he can pull off effectively in 6 seconds, give it to him and move on, especially since he's probably no hero in a fantasy world.
(Plus you'll all get a great story and memory out of it.)
(Plus you'll all get a great story and memory out of it.)Unless he brain you with the shovel by accident.
Couch potato swinging a shovel is a bad mix, better keep your range. ;)
Like I said...great story.
|
|
I have a bit more problem when the sequence is something like this:
1) left hand shield right hand weapon
2) grab your weapon with the left hand and release it with your right
3) pick up your spell components
4) somatic gesture and cast spell (possibly doing a touch attack too)
5) pass back your weapon from left to right
6) be ready to do your attacks of opportunity
7) in the meantime move your full movementMy opinion is that there are too many "free actions" in there. I would limit the guy doing that to a 5' adjustment and not full movement .
I can agree with this. The DM does have the freedom to limit the number of Free Actions during a round.
My opinion is that that's an awful lot of clutter going on in the middle of a combat, and that I would indeed become annoyed at a player trying to do all of that at once because it slows down the game.
My take: you can do two of these three things in a round:1) cast a spell
2) gain AC from a buckler or light shield
3) threaten with a weapon so you can take attacks of opportunityPick the two you want and that's the two you get.
And in the 2nd edition of Pathifnder, I'd champion adding "switch objects held in hands" to be a swift action, which would limit you to doing one per round.
Fairly simple way to adjudicate it. I like the idea of swift actions to switch objects because it will be held to your own turn unlike free actions which can be done anytime, even on another turn.