2 handed weapons and spells [Archive] - Wizards Community

2 handed weapons and spells [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
silvergamgee
12-01-07, 01:30 PM It has finally happened. I've been told I can no longer cast spells with somatic componants while holding a 2-handed weapon. And here's the kicker, nowhere and I mean nowhere can I find anything that states that you can simply hold your two handed weapon in one hand during casting.

Is this really true? Can a wizard who holds a quarterstaff just in case he gets tied down in melee really be stuck without a good third of his spells? Or even more fun...a duskblade or spellsword holding a two handed weapon, are they also stuck without their spells without spending move actions to stow and retrieve weapons?

Can anyone find any hard evidence in either direction?
ArcTan
12-01-07, 01:37 PM "Two-handed" does not mean you must always hold the weapon in two hands. That defies logic -- even a really heavy greatsword, in real life, can be *held* in one hand, just not wielded that way. (Indeed, if it's so heavy you can't physically hold it up without both hands, then it's not going to be possible to wield it as a weapon, period.)

Notice that you can always choose whether to hold a one-handed weapon in one hand or two, thus choosing whether to get 1x your Str bonus or 1.5x your Str bonus on damage rolls, and that switching between the two requires no action. Notice that being trained to *use* the Bastard Sword in one hand is a matter of martial training, not a matter of having a higher Str score or anything like that.

In any case, if you're not playing a gish character, then just keep in mind that dropping a weapon is a free action anyway.
silvergamgee
12-01-07, 01:52 PM That has been my argument as well. However, the DM has pointed to the rule "you must have one free hand to cast a spell with a somatic componant".

I'm really hoping that there's some official ruling on this matter so I can continue playing the character I spent so much time building.
CryoSilver
12-01-07, 02:05 PM Try to compromise. Maybe if you have to let go with one hand, you give up the chance to make attacks of opportunity for that round, or something.
ArcTan
12-01-07, 02:18 PM That has been my argument as well. However, the DM has pointed to the rule "you must have one free hand to cast a spell with a somatic componant".

And your hand is free when you let go of the two-handed weapon with that hand, which takes no action in D&D time.

Does he concede that it's possible to *hold* a two-handed weapon in one hand? Does he concede that dropping an item is a free action? Can't you point out that therefore merely letting go of something you hold in two hands with one hand must also be a free action?
imakuni67
12-01-07, 02:28 PM I'd say you could hold the weapon that's two handed in one hand to cast the spell. If you had to make an attack of oppurtunity though after you switch to just holding it, I wouldn't let you do it unless you had quick draw.
1 ton ghost
12-01-07, 02:29 PM solution my group & i use for 2-handed:

you let the Hell go (Free Action) and shoulder your blade. this does have the nasty side effect of you no longer effectively wielding said weapon, so you don't get a threat while you cast on your Standard Action.
typically, the only time i can exploit this is if there's a Readied Action or an enemy is already in the previously threatended squares and wants to do something that would normally have drawn an attack but now doesn't.
and here's the really complex part...after you cast, you put your other hand back on the sword as another Free Action and you're good.

initially, we were of the opinion that you couldn't, however, you aren't limited to the number of Free Actions more or less and this is basically equivalent to dropping a weapon then wielding it properly again, not nearly as hard as drawing one by any means.
Zathress
12-02-07, 12:34 AM There is a feat that lets you make somatic gestures with your weapon. That would allow a cleric to cast spells with a hammer in one hand and a heavy shield in the other.

The rules state you need one free hand to cast a spell with somatic components.

The rules also state you need a two hands to wield a two-handed weapon
.
However they do not say you need two hands to hold a two handed weapon.

But simply do this, ask your DM does it make sense that your standard wizard with a quarterstaff can't hold the stick in one hand while he casts a spell with the other. The rules about wielding weapons and hands are just that wielding weapons not holding them

Remind him that many one handed non-light weapons can be wielded in both hands such was warhammers and longswords.

Oh here is the crippler.
A Longbow must be wielded in two hands can you hold it in one hand?
The answer is of course yes otherwise you couldn't get arrows from your quiver.
draco1119
12-02-07, 02:37 AM There is a feat that lets you make somatic gestures with your weapon. That would allow a cleric to cast spells with a hammer in one hand and a heavy shield in the other.
Somatic Weaponry from Complete Mage
welkin_heathcote
12-02-07, 04:50 AM I think it would be very silly of the Dm to not let you cast somatic spells while holding a 2 handed weapon for the reasons listed above.

In the campaign I run, I let thigns go a step further. As you need just one hand to cast spells, I don't apply arcane spell failure chance to a charecter for holding a shield if they have nothing in the other hand. I figure it makes sense, assumedly clerics can cast spells with their hand that has a shield strapped to it (else all those pictures of guys in chunky armour with a shiled and a mace are a little off) so the spell failure chance is for casting a spell with your shield hand.

Its hardly game breaking I feel as a single class wizard will be non-proficient with a shield and will not have a threated square like this.
kuonji
12-02-07, 06:24 AM In the 3.5 FAQ there is a question about quick draw and full attack (making a full attack with a +6 or better BAB and using quick draw in the middle of the attack to change weapons, page 39 in the Feats section) and in that answer it is stated that a person with a 2-handed weapon can hold the 2h weapon with 1 hand in order to quick draw something else.

You typically cannot weild a 2-hand weapon with one hand, but it's pretty clear you can certainly hold the weapon with one hand and free up the other hand.
Nephlite
12-02-07, 10:22 AM Somatic Weaponry from Complete Arcane

Complete Mage I thought.
draco1119
12-02-07, 10:34 AM Complete Mage I thought.
You are correct. That's what I intended to write, but had a brain spasm halfway in. :)

My post has been editted.
Knightblde
12-02-07, 01:27 PM Also consider the fact that one can 'hold' a weapon without any hands. While LARPing (Live Action Role Playing) when I was younger, we used to 'hold' weapons between our arm and torso all the time. It is REALLY easy to wrap ones arm around a pole like weapon (quarterstaff) and hold it with both hands free to use, not arms mind you, but your hands are free to open potion bottles (we uses film canisters), tie shoes, adjust armor, and the like. Now this is not just me imagining it, I have seen 100s of people do it over the years.

Try it your self:
1) Take a broom and hook it parellel to the ground, under your armpit.
2) With your arm straight down, move it under the broom and place your hand on your belt buckle.
3) Lift your arm up while turning your palm up slowly until you can see it flat.
4) You can now use your hand, and your weapon is ready to use. A quick twist of your forearm up and out equals a real weapon strike with a quarterstaff.

While a sword would not be 'ready' it surely could be held in this manner. Anyone that won't let you do so in a game is just looking to make it harder than it is fun. For that, just tell them you are using a loop through the handle of the weapon to attach it to your wrist. Drop the weapon to cast the spell, and you can quickly retriev it because it never hit the ground. Make sure you point out that the loop is not super strong so that you cannot be 'pulled' by it.

Happy gaming!

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
silvergamgee 12-01-07, 01:30 PM	It has finally happened. I've been told I can no longer cast spells with somatic componants while holding a 2-handed weapon. And here's the kicker, nowhere and I mean nowhere can I find anything that states that you can simply hold your two handed weapon in one hand during casting. Is this really true? Can a wizard who holds a quarterstaff just in case he gets tied down in melee really be stuck without a good third of his spells? Or even more fun...a duskblade or spellsword holding a two handed weapon, are they also stuck without their spells without spending move actions to stow and retrieve weapons? Can anyone find any hard evidence in either direction?
ArcTan 12-01-07, 01:37 PM	"Two-handed" does not mean you must always hold the weapon in two hands. That defies logic -- even a really heavy greatsword, in real life, can be held in one hand, just not wielded that way. (Indeed, if it's so heavy you can't physically hold it up without both hands, then it's not going to be possible to wield it as a weapon, period.) Notice that you can always choose whether to hold a one-handed weapon in one hand or two, thus choosing whether to get 1x your Str bonus or 1.5x your Str bonus on damage rolls, and that switching between the two requires no action. Notice that being trained to use the Bastard Sword in one hand is a matter of martial training, not a matter of having a higher Str score or anything like that. In any case, if you're not playing a gish character, then just keep in mind that dropping a weapon is a free action anyway.
silvergamgee 12-01-07, 01:52 PM	That has been my argument as well. However, the DM has pointed to the rule "you must have one free hand to cast a spell with a somatic componant". I'm really hoping that there's some official ruling on this matter so I can continue playing the character I spent so much time building.
CryoSilver 12-01-07, 02:05 PM	Try to compromise. Maybe if you have to let go with one hand, you give up the chance to make attacks of opportunity for that round, or something.
ArcTan 12-01-07, 02:18 PM	That has been my argument as well. However, the DM has pointed to the rule "you must have one free hand to cast a spell with a somatic componant". And your hand is free when you let go of the two-handed weapon with that hand, which takes no action in D&D time. Does he concede that it's possible to hold a two-handed weapon in one hand? Does he concede that dropping an item is a free action? Can't you point out that therefore merely letting go of something you hold in two hands with one hand must also be a free action?
imakuni67 12-01-07, 02:28 PM	I'd say you could hold the weapon that's two handed in one hand to cast the spell. If you had to make an attack of oppurtunity though after you switch to just holding it, I wouldn't let you do it unless you had quick draw.
1 ton ghost 12-01-07, 02:29 PM	solution my group & i use for 2-handed: you let the Hell go (Free Action) and shoulder your blade. this does have the nasty side effect of you no longer effectively wielding said weapon, so you don't get a threat while you cast on your Standard Action. typically, the only time i can exploit this is if there's a Readied Action or an enemy is already in the previously threatended squares and wants to do something that would normally have drawn an attack but now doesn't. and here's the really complex part...after you cast, you put your other hand back on the sword as another Free Action and you're good. initially, we were of the opinion that you couldn't, however, you aren't limited to the number of Free Actions more or less and this is basically equivalent to dropping a weapon then wielding it properly again, not nearly as hard as drawing one by any means.
Zathress 12-02-07, 12:34 AM	There is a feat that lets you make somatic gestures with your weapon. That would allow a cleric to cast spells with a hammer in one hand and a heavy shield in the other. The rules state you need one free hand to cast a spell with somatic components. The rules also state you need a two hands to wield a two-handed weapon . However they do not say you need two hands to hold a two handed weapon. But simply do this, ask your DM does it make sense that your standard wizard with a quarterstaff can't hold the stick in one hand while he casts a spell with the other. The rules about wielding weapons and hands are just that wielding weapons not holding them Remind him that many one handed non-light weapons can be wielded in both hands such was warhammers and longswords. Oh here is the crippler. A Longbow must be wielded in two hands can you hold it in one hand? The answer is of course yes otherwise you couldn't get arrows from your quiver.
draco1119 12-02-07, 02:37 AM	There is a feat that lets you make somatic gestures with your weapon. That would allow a cleric to cast spells with a hammer in one hand and a heavy shield in the other. Somatic Weaponry from Complete Mage
welkin_heathcote 12-02-07, 04:50 AM	I think it would be very silly of the Dm to not let you cast somatic spells while holding a 2 handed weapon for the reasons listed above. In the campaign I run, I let thigns go a step further. As you need just one hand to cast spells, I don't apply arcane spell failure chance to a charecter for holding a shield if they have nothing in the other hand. I figure it makes sense, assumedly clerics can cast spells with their hand that has a shield strapped to it (else all those pictures of guys in chunky armour with a shiled and a mace are a little off) so the spell failure chance is for casting a spell with your shield hand. Its hardly game breaking I feel as a single class wizard will be non-proficient with a shield and will not have a threated square like this.
kuonji 12-02-07, 06:24 AM	In the 3.5 FAQ there is a question about quick draw and full attack (making a full attack with a +6 or better BAB and using quick draw in the middle of the attack to change weapons, page 39 in the Feats section) and in that answer it is stated that a person with a 2-handed weapon can hold the 2h weapon with 1 hand in order to quick draw something else. You typically cannot weild a 2-hand weapon with one hand, but it's pretty clear you can certainly hold the weapon with one hand and free up the other hand.
Nephlite 12-02-07, 10:22 AM	Somatic Weaponry from Complete Arcane Complete Mage I thought.
draco1119 12-02-07, 10:34 AM	Complete Mage I thought. You are correct. That's what I intended to write, but had a brain spasm halfway in. :) My post has been editted.
Knightblde 12-02-07, 01:27 PM	Also consider the fact that one can 'hold' a weapon without any hands. While LARPing (Live Action Role Playing) when I was younger, we used to 'hold' weapons between our arm and torso all the time. It is REALLY easy to wrap ones arm around a pole like weapon (quarterstaff) and hold it with both hands free to use, not arms mind you, but your hands are free to open potion bottles (we uses film canisters), tie shoes, adjust armor, and the like. Now this is not just me imagining it, I have seen 100s of people do it over the years. Try it your self: 1) Take a broom and hook it parellel to the ground, under your armpit. 2) With your arm straight down, move it under the broom and place your hand on your belt buckle. 3) Lift your arm up while turning your palm up slowly until you can see it flat. 4) You can now use your hand, and your weapon is ready to use. A quick twist of your forearm up and out equals a real weapon strike with a quarterstaff. While a sword would not be 'ready' it surely could be held in this manner. Anyone that won't let you do so in a game is just looking to make it harder than it is fun. For that, just tell them you are using a loop through the handle of the weapon to attach it to your wrist. Drop the weapon to cast the spell, and you can quickly retriev it because it never hit the ground. Make sure you point out that the loop is not super strong so that you cannot be 'pulled' by it. Happy gaming!