I saw in an older thread (that I don't wish to necro) about someone saying that with a bastard sword, as a free action you take one hand off the hilt, cast the spell as a standard, then as another free, put your hand back on the hilt and deliver the spell through Spell Strike.
If I'm not using Spell Combat, could I do this, per RAW?
I would say yes. Only spell combat has the rule about having a free second hand. I believe this is the best reason to have a Bastard Sword as an exotic weapon for a Magus. It would also work well if he were to enlarge himself for some nice attack damage.
Somatic components require at least one free hand. Unless I'm missing something in my brief look over of the rules, that would seem to be a legitimate move. Technically you could do that with any weapon, not just a bastard sword.
The only thing that might be a little fuzzy is if you can take a free action to grab the weapon before you deliver the spell. Technically, delivering the spell is part of the action of casting the spell so some might not allow it to be interrupted by the action of grabbing the weapon. There is very little in the rules regarding that kind of order of operations.
At 2nd level, whenever a magus casts a spell with a range of “touch” from the magus spell list, he can deliver the spell through any weapon he is wielding as part of a melee attack. Instead of the free melee touch attack normally allowed to deliver the spell, a magus can make one free melee attack with his weapon (at his highest base attack bonus) as part of casting this spell.
So unless the touch spell lacks somatic component, no.
Edit: if the spell is Stilled though, you can happily cast the spell with both hands on the sword and smack the opponent with it as part of casting the spell.
I would say yes. Only spell combat has the rule about having a free second hand. I believe this is the best reason to have a Bastard Sword as an exotic weapon for a Magus. It would also work well if he were to enlarge himself for some nice attack damage.
Enlarge person requires a 1 round casting time. So the turn he begins casting he would have to make a 1-handed attack, and he would finish it when his next turn begins. Switching over to two-handed at the point would be a normal action.
At 2nd level, whenever a magus casts a spell with a range of “touch” from the magus spell list, he can deliver the spell through any weapon he is wielding as part of a melee attack. Instead of the free melee touch attack normally allowed to deliver the spell, a magus can make one free melee attack with his weapon (at his highest base attack bonus) as part of casting this spell.So unless the touch spell lacks somatic component, no.
Edit: if the spell is Stilled though, you can happily cast the spell with both hands on the sword and smack the opponent with it as part of casting the spell.
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
I can take my hand off and on as a free action during any other action i take including casting the spell.
Ask you GM. It can be ruled either way.
I can take my hand off and on as a free action during any other action i take including casting the spell.
The hand, that is to say, being used as a part of casting the spell. I believe when casting a spell with somatic component, the hand is occupied until completion of the spell. Since the attack is made as a part of the spell, not following the completion of the spell, you cannot just skip the somatic component to put your hand back on the hilt.
I would say yes. Only spell combat has the rule about having a free second hand. I believe this is the best reason to have a Bastard Sword as an exotic weapon for a Magus. It would also work well if he were to enlarge himself for some nice attack damage.Enlarge person requires a 1 round casting time. So the turn he begins casting he would have to make a 1-handed attack, and he would finish it when his next turn begins. Switching over to two-handed at the point would be a normal action.
I was not talking about the timing of the spell. I was saying if you had a Bastard Sword then Enlarge Person is a better deal as you get more bang for your buck with the spell then you would with a long sword or scimitar.
The assumption was enlarge person was cast before closing to melee range and then you use spell strike while already enlarged in melee range two handed.
You are correct that you cannot spell strike with enlarge person... and you cannot spell combat with a bastard sword in "two hand mode".
You are correct that you cannot spell strike with enlarge person... and you cannot spell combat with a bastard sword in "two hand mode".
I knew that, and I'm not trying to make it work with spell combat, but merely with spell strike, during a move+attack. I'm thinking of a specific fighting style for my magus.
|
I knew that, and I'm not trying to make it work with spell combat, but merely with spell strike, during a move+attack. I'm thinking of a specific fighting style for my magus.
You are correct that you cannot spell strike with enlarge person... and you cannot spell combat with a bastard sword in "two hand mode".
I've been wondering this same problem myself.
It makes power attack and furious focus a must have for a str based magus
@ Matt Stich - You an I are in agreement. The above post was directed at a side comment I made that did not really have anything to do with your post other then as an aside that there were some other synergies in a Magus using a Bastard Sword.
(A lot of folks do not like that weapon out in the game world... but I think it would work well for a Magus for many reasons not limited to those posted above. I plan on using it and making a Half Elf Magus with the alternate racial trait next campaign myself.)
@ Matt Stich - You an I are in agreement. The above post was directed at a side comment I made that did not really have anything to do with your post other then as an aside that there were some other synergies in a Magus using a Bastard Sword.
(A lot of folks do not like that weapon out in the game world... but I think it would work well for a Magus for many reasons not limited to those posted above. I plan on using it and making a Half Elf Magus with the alternate racial trait next campaign myself.)
Well my problem is that I have the potential to make a good str Magus with an human, or a good dex Magus with an elf build. If this works, it fits the character perfectly for his style of combat.
Sorry if my post seemed snippy, it wasn't, I was just saying I knew it wasn't going to work with spell combat, that's why I specified while not using spell combat.
EDIT: it would be awesome if we could get a developer's response on this
One thing to help the argument for
FAQ/Errata snipit
"So, just like casting a touch spell, a magus could use spellstrike to cast a touch spell, take a move toward an enemy, then (as a free action) make a melee attack with his weapon to deliver the spell."
That to me heavily suggests the casting and the delivery are two separate actions thus more than reasonable to be able to put your second hand back on the weapon.
As far as other 2 handed weapons there is a difference between the bastard sword and say a greatsword. in one hand a bastard sword is still being wielded a greatsword is just being held. Spell strike does call that you need to be wielding the weapon, although one could argue by the time you strike you are wielding the weapon.
But there is certainly a very strong logical case that if any weapon could do it a bastard sword costing a exotic wep feat can
Not in the same round. Your hand is either free through the entire round for spell casting or your not doing ANY casting at all. The best you can do is prepare for a spellstrike NEXT round.
You're confusing Spellstrike (2H legal) with Spell Combat (2H not legal).
You can't deliver the spell until it's cast. Once it's cast, you don't need the free hand to perform somatic components.
You can cast the spell, move up to your speed, and then deliver the spell as a free action. There's no reason why, during that time, you can't take a free action to put another hand on your weapon.
You can do this with the free attack from casting, or with a held charge. You can do it with a bastard sword, longsword, or broadsword. You can even cast it holding a sword, drop the sword, draw another sword, and deliver the spell with that one.
The Devs went to great lengths to keep two handed weapons out of the spell combat routine.
Spell Combat, yes. But Spellstrike has no problems with two-handed weapons.
I saw in an older thread (that I don't wish to necro) about someone saying that with a bastard sword, as a free action you take one hand off the hilt, cast the spell as a standard, then as another free, put your hand back on the hilt and deliver the spell through Spell Strike.
If I'm not using Spell Combat, could I do this, per RAW?
Not in the same round. Your hand is either free through the entire round for spell casting or your not doing ANY casting at all. The best you can do is prepare for a spellstrike NEXT round.
Or you can spend the lousy feat and get EWP bastard sword and spell combat and strike with it to your hearts content.
The Devs went to great lengths to keep two handed weapons out of the spell combat routine. There isn't a clever way around it that's not breaking a rule somewhere. You can have your bastard sword, but you have to wield it one handed to get full magus functionality and that means spending the feat to do so.
I'm very inclined to agree, based on the wording of the Spell Combat ability:
Spell Combat (Ex): At 1st level, a magus learns to cast spells and wield his weapons at the same time. This functions much like two-weapon fighting, but the off-hand weapon is a spell that is being cast. To use this ability, the magus must have one hand free (even if the spell being cast does not have somatic components), while wielding a light or one-handed melee weapon in the other hand.
First off, the working that it "functions like TWF" is enough to display the RUI is that you need to have one hand free, and wield the weapon in your other hand for the entire round. Secondly, the text does say that a light or one-handed weapon is required, meaning that by RAW, without EWP, Bastard Sword is out.
I'm very inclined to agree, based on the wording of the Spell Combat ability
He's specifically talking about Spellstrike, NOT Spell Combat. You even quoted him saying "If I'm not using Spell Combat..."
I wish they hadn't given the abilities such similar names.
Arguably 'put your hand back' is a draw action.
It would be nice to have it in the FAQ, but in the meantime:
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.
I saw in an older thread (that I don't wish to necro) about someone saying that with a bastard sword, as a free action you take one hand off the hilt, cast the spell as a standard, then as another free, put your hand back on the hilt and deliver the spell through Spell Strike.
If I'm not using Spell Combat, could I do this, per RAW?
Not solidly, no.
Arguably 'put your hand back' is a draw action.
This has been debated long before magi roamed the gaming tables.
Would make a nice FAQ/errata/exposition,
James
How would that be argued?
By definition you have to draw a weapon from something. You can't draw it from nothing.
I could see arguing that grasping a weapon is not explicitly stated as a free action, but it's certainly not a draw action, otherwise it would take two draw actions to draw a weapon; one to grasp it, and one to draw it.
In that case then switching from one hand to two is taking the weapon 'from' being wielded or merely held in one hand to being wielded in two.
Would you limit someone the same way with a one-handed weapon?
The weapon is held in one hand, it's wielded, it's ready to attack. Will you make them use a move action to put their other hand on it?
I realize this is somewhat off-topic, but how is this at all related to a bastard sword? You can wield a longsword, scimitar, or morningstar just as easily without burning an exotic feat to move your base die from d8 to d10 (longsword vs bastardsword).
As far as whether this works, I would say it's up to your GM. Personally I would not allow it, since the strike is delivered as part of the spell casting and you need a free hand to cast as a general rule (and I don't see an exception called out in the spellstrike wording). However, there is nothing explicitly forbidding it, so if your GM wants to make your magus more powerful for some ungodly reason, more power to you!
Personally I would not allow it, since the strike is delivered as part of the spell casting and you need a free hand to cast as a general rule (and I don't see an exception called out in the spellstrike wording).
It's not part of casting, though. It's a free action granted by casting.
Standard action: Cast Shocking Grasp.
Move action: Move 15 feet to enemy, drawing weapon (BAB+1).
Free action: Attack enemy using Spellstrike.
I don't see why that works with a longsword but not with a broadsword. The hand doesn't need to be empty because it's not still casting. If it was still casting, you would have to make a concentration check during the move and if you got hit or whatever.
You would need to make your free attack before the end of your turn.
Casting the spell is a standard action.
Drawing the weapon is a move action.Attacking is a free action.
You can take all three, in that order, in one turn.
Cast Spell. Draw weapon. Attack. (Standard. Move. Free.)
Absolutely correct, with a 1 handed weapon.
So what kind of action do you think drawing a two-handed weapon is?
Can a magus use spellstrike (Ultimate Magic, page 10) to cast a touch spell, move, and make a melee attack with a weapon to deliver the touch spell, all in the same round?
Yes. Other than deploying the spell with a melee weapon attack instead of a melee touch attack, the magus spellstrike ability doesn’t change the normal rules for using touch spells in combat (Core Rulebook 185). So, just like casting a touch spell, a magus could use spellstrike to cast a touch spell, take a move toward an enemy, then (as a free action) make a melee attack with his weapon to deliver the spell.
On a related topic, the magus touching his held weapon doesn’t count as “touching anything or anyone” when determining if he discharges the spell. A magus could even use the spellstrike ability, miss with his melee attack to deliver the spell, be disarmed by an opponent (or drop the weapon voluntarily, for whatever reason), and still be holding the charge in his hand, just like a normal spellcaster. Furthermore, the weaponless magus could pick up a weapon (even that same weapon) with that hand without automatically discharging the spell, and then attempt to use the weapon to deliver the spell. However, if the magus touches anything other than a weapon with that hand (such as retrieving a potion), that discharges the spell as normal.
Basically, the spellstrike gives the magus more options when it comes to delivering touch spells; it’s not supposed to make it more difficult for the magus to use touch spells.
Sean K Reynolds
Designer
I think is cristally clear that you can do whatever you want between casting the spell and striking your target for free as long as your round is not over.
I don't see why that works with a longsword but not with a broadsword. The hand doesn't need to be empty because it's not still casting. If it was still casting, you would have to make a concentration check during the move and if you got hit or whatever.
James Jacobs (Creative Director) wrote:
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.You would need to make your free attack before the end of your turn. Since you are not wielding the weapon until the end of your turn I don't see how you could make an attack with the 2 handed weapon that you are holding as opposed to wielding as a straight Magus.
with EWP you are wielding a bastard sword when holding it in one hand the weapon is being wielded for the entire round you are simply shifting a free hand to increase your damage from 1x to 1.5x
with EWP you are wielding a bastard sword when holding it in one hand the weapon is being wielded for the entire round you are simply shifting a free hand to increase your damage from 1x to 1.5x
You don't even need EWP. It's still a one handed weapon, you're just not proficient. So it's still wielded, it still threatens, you can still attack with it.
The point is that's irrelevant. You can Spellstrike with any weapon. That's why it says "he can deliver the spell through any weapon he is wielding as part of a melee attack." Not as part of casting, as part of an attack.
No such definition to begin with for one. Moreover its subjective as to what it would be valid to be 'from'. I'll address that more at the end.
How would that be argued?By definition you have to draw a weapon from something. You can't draw it from nothing.
Other than the one in Webster's, you're right.
Secondly, if you had say a two handed weapon merely held in one hand (for example) is it a free action to wield it? Why?
A draw action on a weapon has it go from accessible to wielded. The two handed weapon is certainly not wielded when held in one hand, but it certainly is accessible. Switching methods of wielding a weapon seems more similar to that and actually fits in.
Not necessarily. If I draw my Greatsword with one hand, likely the most common way to do it, actually, then I'm not wielding it until I put my second hand on it. Furthermore, just because it happens to go from accessible to wielded as part of the draw action, doesn't mean that's the definition of draw. Draw, like nearly every other term in the game, has it's own English definition. Unless contradicted by a game specific definition, which draw does not have, one can only use the English definition.
It originally came up in 3e when clerics wanted to cast and then use two handed weapons.. say a quickened divine favor and then a full attack, etc. They already suffered from not being able to do this without quickdraw when using a shield.. so this was the natural progression.
Is it clear that it has to be this way? Certainly not. But it is arguable, as I claimed. Now that doesn't mean that you need to subscribe to that argument or perhaps challenge its merits over another way to go.
Now back to my first statement. What action would you have a character use to take a weapon from another character that's offering it? Is it drawing the weapon 'from' them? In that case then switching from one hand to two is taking the weapon 'from' being wielded or merely held in one hand to being wielded in two.
-James
Well, you can't draw a weapon from another character unless you're pulling it from their chest. Even then, I would define this as picking up the item since, IMO, it more closely resembles that rather than retrieving it from a specially designed, and conveniently located sheath.
As to the question of what action should it be, well, certainly grasping an object is less time consuming than drawing it (you must grasp it as part of drawing it, after all), the same holds true for picking up a weapon, or retrieving a stored weapon. I suppose, in the end, though, it would be a DM ruling.
with EWP you are wielding a bastard sword when holding it in one hand the weapon is being wielded for the entire round you are simply shifting a free hand to increase your damage from 1x to 1.5xYou don't even need EWP. It's still a one handed weapon, you're just not proficient. So it's still wielded, it still threatens, you can still attack with it.
The point is that's irrelevant. You can Spellstrike with any weapon. That's why it says "he can deliver the spell through any weapon he is wielding as part of a melee attack." Not as part of casting, as part of an attack.
That is incorrect.
Sword, Bastard: A bastard sword is about 4 feet in length, making it too large to use in one hand without special training; thus, it is an exotic weapon. A character can use a bastard sword two-handed as a martial weapon.
The feat makes it into a one handed-weapon. Otherwise it is a two-handed weapon.
As to the question of what action should it be, well, certainly grasping an object is less time consuming than drawing it (you must grasp it as part of drawing it, after all), the same holds true for picking up a weapon, or retrieving a stored weapon. I suppose, in the end, though, it would be a DM ruling.
If it helps those DMs make their rulings, in addition to putting a hand back being a free action, JJ also says Switching a held object from one hand to the other doesn't require an action.
Also, some comparisons. Should putting an empty free hand on the hilt of a weapon you're already holding take the same amount of time and effort as: loading a crossbow, mounting a horse, standing up from prone, sheathing a weapon, or digging an item out of your bags?
If the paladin moves up next to the terrible fiend, points his finger at it, declares his intent to smash it with the holy fury of his deity, are you really going to not let him attack because he needs another move action to put his hand back on his sword?
The mighty barbarian draws then drinks a potion of strength, you're going to leave him unarmed because he needs another move action to put his hand back on his axe?
That is incorrect.
The feat makes it into a one handed-weapon. Otherwise it is a two-handed weapon.
The weapon does not change, only the proficiency changes.
Cleric of Irori: Not proficient. Can use a bastard sword in one hand, or two hands. Takes -4 penalty no matter what.
Cleric of Ragathiel: Proficient. Can use a bastard sword in one hand, or two hands. No penalty.
Fighter guy: Not proficient. Can use a bastard sword in one hand, or two hands. Takes a -4 penalty if used in one hand.
Every one of them can use it in one hand. If it was a two-handed weapon, they couldn't. That's because an appropriately sized bastard sword is always a one-handed weapon, no matter who uses it or how proficient they are.
The bastard sword has a special clause which I just quoted. It says in no uncertain terms that it is to large to use in one hand without special training.
Specific trumps general.
"too large to use in one hand" does not mean can use in one hand with a penalty.
Better wording-->It is essentially a two-handed weapon that can be used in one hand if you have the EWP feat.
If the paladin moves up next to the terrible fiend, points his finger at it, declares his intent to smash it with the holy fury of his deity, are you really going to not let him attack because he needs another move action to put his hand back on his sword?The mighty barbarian draws then drinks a potion of strength, you're going to leave him unarmed because he needs another move action to put his hand back on his axe?
Yep, that would be the short of it.
-James
That makes no sense from a simulationist view.
That has no precedent in the rules.I have never even heard it suggested that drawing a weapon is a separate action from wielding it, and this interpretation has no basis in RAW.
Sword, Bastard: A bastard sword is about 4 feet in length, making it too large to use in one hand without special training; thus, it is an exotic weapon. A character can use a bastard sword two-handed as a martial weapon.The feat makes it into a one handed-weapon. Otherwise it is a two-handed weapon.
This is the height of pedantry. My interpretation is that the bolded section is, in fact, merely describing non-proficiency. In other words it's just additional language to describe its existence as both a martial and exotic weapon. Notice the semicolon? They are part of the same thought.
If we REALLY wanted to get pedantic, we could say that you can't USE the bastard sword, but the wording doesn't say you can't WIELD it.
One more thought.
IF it takes two hands to wield a weapon.
AND IF any time you don't have two hands on it you are not wielding it.
AND IF going from merely holding such a weapon to "wielding" it takes a move action.
You could never get more than one attack with a bow. Bows require two hands to wield, and unless you have someone else feeding arrows into your bow you would have to release your grip with one hand to retrieve an arrow (free action) and then use a move action to re-wield it, and a standard to fire.
My intepretaton is that the weapon is made as a two-handed weapon, but due to its design if you have special training you can weild it in one hand. That also fits the raw description, otherwise they could have just said in no uncertain terms that it is a one-handed weapon requiring the EWP feat to use it in one hand with no penalty.
If you can't use it then how can you wield it? That is like saying I can't use a scroll, but I can cast the spell from the scroll. If I am wielding the weapon or casting the spell are both not being used?
I never said going from holding to wielding it(a two-handed weapon) takes a move action.
I might have to read upthread if that is the supported stance.
I see the argument of you having to draw a weapon you already have in hand upthread, and I am not convinced that it is RAW or RAI.
My intepretaton is that the weapon is made as a two-handed weapon, but due to its design if you have special training you can weild it in one hand. That also fits the raw description, otherwise they could have just said in no uncertain terms that it is a one-handed weapon requiring the EWP feat to use it in one hand with no penalty.
If you can't use it then how can you wield it? That is like saying I can't use a scroll, but I can cast the spell from the scroll. If I am wielding the weapon or casting the spell are both not being used?
And my interpretation is that it can be wielded in one hand with a non-proficiency penalty. The language you bolded sounds like flavor text before the semicolon and rules text afterwards. The fluff is describing the mechanics and written in more informal terms, the mechanics being that it requires EWP to wield in one hand.
If someone asked you "what does it mean if I'm not proficient in longbows" and they were a new player, what would you say? That they can't use longbows? Or that they get a -4 penalty if they use it?
It's all silly anyway since bastard swords suck :P
As to your other post, that's precisely what James Maissen was saying. You need a move action to wield a 2h weapon you already hold.
It's an age old question.
Is the Bastard Sword an exotic 1h weapon that has a special clause about being wielded two-handed as a martial weapon?
Or is it a 2h martial weapon that has a special clause about taking EWP to wield it in one hand?
Since it is listed on the table of Exotic Weapons, One-Handed, I would say the first proposition seems correct. In fact, even in your quoted text, it says in no uneven terms that "thus it is an exotic weapon." If it is an exotic weapon by default then anyone can wield it one-handed with a -4 non-proficiency penalty.
Get my logic? Probably explained it better this time.
None of your examples are relevant as they are all of putting something away, as in no longer in your hand.
Also, see above. If what you propose is true, archers don't work RAW.
You go beyond inflating the value of quickdraw, you make it absolutely necessary for anyone who ever wants to participate in combat on any level, because wiping your brow or pointing out oncoming enemies to your allies would, at best, cost you a move action to re-grip your weapon. Which is, to be frank, absurd.