Hi all,
I have two questions.
1. Could a gish type cast a spell (with somatic) while merely holding his greatsword in one hand?
2. How many hands are required for activation of scrolls? Is it one hand to hold the scroll and one hand for any somatic component? The logic says yes, but the balance says no (it would suck..).
Related question, but I think I know the answer here.
Do material components require a hand? No, they don't, but why?
Can the hand that does the somatic component handle the material component as well, or does the material component not need to be retrieved from storage to be consumed.
Hoping for enlightened answers and thanks for your time.
The core rules have nothing on switching hands, but JJ and others have said in the past it should be a free action. So,
1. Yes.
2. No idea, but I agree with your assessment.
Material components: Yes they require a hand, but it could be the same hand that's doing somatic components (whether they "burn up" before making gestures, or you make your gestures then free action draw the components).
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Pretty much what StreamOfTheSky said. Basically, you need one hand for spellcasting unless the only component is verbal, and that's all there is to it.
As for the two-handed weapon thing, ask your GM if you don't already know him fairly well. Nothing should prevent the scenario you suggest, but there's a vocal minority of grognard GMs who get really butthurt about that topic for some reason.
|
|
2. The only requirement to activate a scroll (after you have first deciphered it) is to read out the words. The most obvious method is to unfurl the scroll and hold it up where you can see it with one hand, but if you can get around that by finding some other creature, object or effect to hold it, no rule requires a free hand. If the spell encoded in a scroll has a material or somatic component, they are supplied by the scroll's magic.
|
What's the point of the derogatory language toward those who disagree with how many hands it takes to cast a magic spell, when there can't possibly be a correct answer per se?
As for the two-handed weapon thing, ask your GM if you don't already know him fairly well. Nothing should prevent the scenario you suggest, but there's a vocal minority of grognard GMs who get really butthurt about that topic for some reason.
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.
This is where folks get the idea of one hand for a somatic component from. Take it as you will.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
What's the point of the derogatory language toward those who disagree with how many hands it takes to cast a magic spell, when there can't possibly be a correct answer per se?
As for the two-handed weapon thing, ask your GM if you don't already know him fairly well. Nothing should prevent the scenario you suggest, but there's a vocal minority of grognard GMs who get really butthurt about that topic for some reason.
Sorry, couple of clarifications:
First, I'm not even talking about "how many hands does it take to cast?". I'm not even aware of any disagreements on that - I haven't seen anyone claim that you needed both hands. So I'm not saying anything "toward those who disagree with how many hands it takes to cast a magic spell". Sorry for the mix-up.The issue surrounding that question is if he can be using a two-handed weapon one turn, then the next turn cast a spell without dropping or sheathing the weapon. Some people think you can do so (by simply releasing one hand, leaving you carrying your weapon rather than wielding it, to be re-gripped afterwards), some people think you can't, and then a third subset of people not only think you can't do it but are offended by the very suggestion and will treat you like a criminal just for announcing that as your action.
I was merely cautioning the OP that this is one of those topics that some people get really butthurt about and so he should be ready. Not saying that everyone who disallows it gets butthurt, just that they're out there and might surprise him.
it was my impression that you could release a two handed weapon with one hand to cast (with your now free hand) but this would cause your character to be no longer weilding the two handed weapon (meaning you don't threaten adjacent squares) until you ready the weapon on your next initiative pass. As for the type of action, I'm not sure if it would be a free, swift or move to re-ready the weapon.
On a side note the bastard sword is cool because it can be weilded as a one handed weapon (via exotic prof) or 2 handed (as martial prof) so using that weapon withthe exotic prof, you could presumably let go with one hand to cast, and still threaten.
I guess that puts me in the first of three groups.
As to the OP's question number 1
If the action you're performing does not involve BOTH casting a spell with somatic components AND attacking with the greatsword as part of the same action, then yes you can simply hold the greatsword while you cast the spell.
The disagreements come with the magus who can cast and deliver the spell through a weapon as part of the same action. There are other threads discussing this, so I won't give my opinion here.
As to scrolls:
Material components were (generally) provided by the scriber of the scroll. If it's a scroll of resurrection, obviously the body to be resurrected was not provided when the scroll was scribed, so there may be exceptions.
The scroll must be read by the user of the scroll. This implies the user of the scroll must not be currently blinded and there must be enough light to read by.
It's not directly specified but most assume the same restrictions on verbal components when casting a spell (a clear, strong voice) also apply when using a scroll. This implies the scroll user must be currently able to speak.
It's less clear about somatic components. If I'm using a scroll of fireball, do I still have to point at the desired target ? Does the little pea still fly from my fingertip or does it fly from some point on the scroll ? If I still need to point my finger, can that be done at the very end so I can use the same hand I was holding the scroll in ? If it's a scroll with more than one spell on it, do I need two hands to unroll the scroll to the right place ?
Ask your DM, as none of that is spelled out in the rules as far as I can find. Perhaps my search-fu is weak.
EDIT: Cleaned up sentence structure, minor spelling.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
it was my impression that you could release a two handed weapon with one hand to cast (with your now free hand) but this would cause your character to be no longer weilding the two handed weapon (meaning you don't threaten adjacent squares) until you ready the weapon on your next initiative pass. As for the type of action, I'm not sure if it would be a free, swift or move to re-ready the weapon.
Here's something that might help:
Weapon Cord (APG)"Weapon cords are 2-foot-long leather straps that attach your weapon to your wrist. If you drop your weapon or are disarmed, you can recover it as a swift action"
So you can literally have your weapon dangling from a cord on the ground in front of you, and get it back up into your hands as a swift action. Already having it in hand and simply adding a second hand to the grip should be easier, not harder.
Changing grip is a free action. Unless stated otherwise, you can't take free actions out of turn. So during your turn, you can change between 1H and 2H as much as you want; once your turn ends, you're locked into your choice till next round comes up.
The disagreements come with the magus who can cast and deliver the spell through a weapon as part of the same action.
It is not the same action.
When you cast a touch spell, you can deliver it as a free action any time that round during your turn.
A magus can, specifically, cast a touch spell (standard), drop his weapon (Free), draw a different weapon (move), and hit someone with that new weapon discharging the touch spell (free).
See This FAQ for details.
Okay, so I'm the GM and you're playing a Gandalf-type wizard who's using a two-handed sword in melee combat. You just took an orc's head off last round. On the bad guys' turn, more orcs move in to melee range to attack you with scimitars. They don't get through your shield spell, and all miss.
On your move action, you take a five-foot step back from your opponent into an non-threatened square, in order to cast a spell without drawing an AOO. You then take a free action to let go of your sword with one hand, and then use your standard action to cast burning hands to blast your opponent. You then take another free action to hold the sword with both hands again. End of your turn.
The only penalty I'd rule here would be in the case that an opponent chooses to ready an action for "when you cast a spell," with the idea of interrupting the spell. In that case, if that action would normally provoke an AOO from you, it would not, because at that instant you're holding a two-handed weapon in one hand, which means that you don't threaten adjacent squares.
Re: question 2 (scrolls): The RAW don't say how many hands it takes, but I've ruled that it requires two hands to unfurl a scroll and invoke its magical energy.
On your move action, you take a five-foot step back from your opponent into an non-threatened square, in order to cast a spell without drawing an AOO. You then take a free action to let go of your sword with one hand, and then use your standard action to cast burning hands to blast your opponent. You then take another free action to hold the sword with both hands again. End of your turn.
The only penalty I'd rule here would be in the case that an opponent chooses to ready an action for "when you cast a spell," with the idea of interrupting the spell. In that case, if that action would normally provoke an AOO from you, it would not, because at that instant you're holding a two-handed weapon in one hand, which means that you don't threaten adjacent squares.
This is all correct, except taking a 5' step is not a move action.
And, technically, the orc's action would still provoke, but the wizard would be unable to make that AoO with the greatsword he's carrying.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
The only penalty I'd rule here would be in the case that an opponent chooses to ready an action for "when you cast a spell," with the idea of interrupting the spell. In that case, if that action would normally provoke an AOO from you, it would not, because at that instant you're holding a two-handed weapon in one hand, which means that you don't threaten adjacent squares.
And that would be 100% correct. You can release and re-grip in the same turn, but there's still time in between.
This is all correct, except taking a 5' step is not a move action.
Huh. I stand corrected. Thanks, Grick!
I was thinking that this was a PF change, but I just checked the 3.5 and 3.0 SRDs, and it's been pretty much the same since the first OGL came out. Looks like we've been playing the 5-foot step wrong for more than a decade!
Changing grip is a free action.
Just for reference, can you point out where this is written ... either in RAW or FAQ/developer statement?
On the subject of scrolls and somatic components.
Also:
Spell Completion: "This is the activation method for scrolls. A scroll is a spell that is mostly finished. The preparation is done for the caster, so no preparation time is needed beforehand as with normal spellcasting. All that's left to do is perform the finishing parts of the spellcasting (the final gestures, words, and so on)."
Changing grip is a free action.Just for reference, can you point out where this is written ... either in RAW or FAQ/developer statement?
It's not specifically written in the rules. Making it more than a free action breaks the game. Also:
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.
|
Changing grip is a free action.Just for reference, can you point out where this is written ... either in RAW or FAQ/developer statement?It's not specifically written in the rules. Making it more than a free action breaks the game. Also:
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.
This is the element that you tend to get some of Jiggy's unfortunately worded um...grognard...um...butthurt. The action associated with moving a weapon to another hand, changing from two-handed to one-handed grip, and from one-handed grip/holding to wielding with two hands are all undefined in the rules. James statement cited above tends to be be that which has become the most common in PF play. The 3.5 describes these both as a free action and as the equivalent of drawing a weapon (move action). Since there is no PF FAQ on it, developer rulings in board posts are laregely advisory rather than "official," and many PF players played 3.5 at some point, there does tend to be some degree of variance on the matter. Whether that variance is merely board posters waxing theoretically and/or reflectively, or whether it is variance in fact, I dunno.
and then a third subset of people not only think you can't do it but are offended by the very suggestion and will treat you like a criminal just for announcing that as your action.
I would imagine it is offensive to them because they feel the player is trying to abuse the nature of combat abstraction!
To them, everyone is performing their round's worth of actions in the same time frame. The initiative cycle only exists so the GM does not have to resolve everyone's actions in one big clump. As someone finishes their actions, it actually is the end of the round, the abstraction just lets them complete their actions, with little interference from others. They feel if you didn't have something out and usable, WHILE you were acting, you shouldn't benefit from it as others action's then resolve.
It is a valid concern, IMHO "Everyone Declares Actions, Actions simultaneously resolved" initiative systems are FAR superior to "Cycles of Actions" initiative systems.
and then a third subset of people not only think you can't do it but are offended by the very suggestion and will treat you like a criminal just for announcing that as your action.I would imagine it is offensive to them because they feel the player is trying to abuse the nature of combat abstraction!
To them, everyone is performing their round's worth of actions in the same time frame. The initiative cycle only exists so the GM does not have to resolve everyone's actions in one big clump. As someone finishes their actions, it actually is the end of the round, the abstraction just lets them complete their actions, with little interference from others. They feel if you didn't have something out and usable, WHILE you were acting, you shouldn't benefit from it as others action's then resolve.
It is a valid concern, IMHO "Everyone Declares Actions, Actions simultaneously resolved" initiative systems are FAR superior to "Cycles of Actions" initiative systems.
I disagree wholeheartedly. Grognard. ; )