How the hell are clerics, paladins, and rangers supposed to

[Lago_AM3P]

Various FAQ updates have made it all but impossible for divine spellcasting classes to cast spells in the middle of combat using anything but a mace in one hand or using a buckler.

That is, you cannot cast spells holding a shield, a two-handed weapon, or arguably a bow and arrow.

What's up with that? When did this stealth nerf come in? I'm pretty sure that this is a stealth nerf, as almost of the iconic clerics I've seen (especially sword and board cleric Jozan) used this style and it's implied that they can cast spells in the middle of combat.

[erik]

Ehhh. Are you certain you're reading the FAQ right?

The FAQ addresses a cleric who may want to cast while holding a weapon and using a heavy shield, which ties up both of his hands. And that set up has always prevented use of somatic components. The FAQ doesn't address bows or two-handed weapons, which to my knowledge, have never prevented casting somatic component spells. Since when not using them, you may hold them with only 1 hand, and simply cast with the other.

A stealth nerf I could imagine, but have not yet seen, would be that one must have at least one hand free for somatic components, and also another free to hold onto your focus or material components. That gets a little ridiculous since some spells have all 3 components, and wouldn't be castable.

However as a fun aside, under the FAQ entry on critters with no hands casting spells, it refers to that they really only need to be touching material components, not necessarily holding them. So there isn't much reason why one couldn't just smear bat dung over one's self in order to cast fireballs without a spell component pouch, cultural biases aside of course.

[Fwib]

That _is_ interesting... as you correctly point out, the NPC cleric and druid in the DMG (and presumably others) have been given heavy shields and a weapon, which by the 'you can't do anything else with your shield hand' wording on the heavy shield, means they need to drop their weapon to cast. I shall have fun pointing that out to the casters with heavy shields in my next game session.

Not so much a stealth nerf as a stealth head-whack with the read-the-rules-bat.
[edit=spelling]

[RandomCasualty]

1135861996[/unixtime]]The FAQ doesn't address bows or two-handed weapons, which to my knowledge, have never prevented casting somatic component spells. Since when not using them, you may hold them with only 1 hand, and simply cast with the other.

Right, but the FAQ does say that switching hands on a weapon is a move action (Skip equates it to drawing a weapon). Also, arguably if you've got quick draw you can switch hands for free.

[Fwib]

I dont see how letting go of your 2-hander with one hand could be a move action, when letting go of it with both hands is a free action.

I can see how it might be ruled that shifting it from one hand to 2, readying for use, takes more than a free action tho.

[erik]

1135877488[/unixtime]]

Right, but the FAQ does say that switching hands on a weapon is a move action (Skip equates it to drawing a weapon). Also, arguably if you've got quick draw you can switch hands for free.

I don't believe that has any bearing on a two-handed weapon fighter, and especially not on a bow user. Switching hands is a bit different than releasing one hand, and not at all related to the act of drawing and knocking an arrow (a known free action).

Moving a one-handed weapon from one hand to another would indeed qualify as switching however, and I can imagine a world where that does take a move action, so I have no problem with that ruling.

[edit: well, I do have a problem with the ruling upon further consideration as it turns out.]

[User3]

1135877997[/unixtime]]I dont see how letting go of your 2-hander with one hand could be a move action, when letting go of it with both hands is a free action.

I can see how it might be ruled that shifting it from one hand to 2, readying for use, takes more than a free action tho.

Switching hands on a weapon is tossing the dagger from your right to your left. Totally different from releasing a TH weapon from one hand.

[RandomCasualty]

Well the problem isn't so much releasing the weapon, so much as grabbing it again. If you want to put your second hand back on it, it's a move action.

While a bow user doesn't have this problem (since drawing ammo is a free action), a two handed wielder constantly has to put his free hand back on the weapno as a move action. It's a slight hindrance, but can still be bad at some points.

[User3]

1135913002[/unixtime]]Well the problem isn't so much releasing the weapon, so much as grabbing it again. If you want to put your second hand back on it, it's a move action.

While a bow user doesn't have this problem (since drawing ammo is a free action), a two handed wielder constantly has to put his free hand back on the weapno as a move action. It's a slight hindrance, but can still be bad at some points.

Heh. I certainly find that grabbing something I'm already holding is just as time consuming and difficult as running 30 feet.

[User3]

1135924810[/unixtime]]
Heh. I certainly find that grabbing something I'm already holding is just as time consuming and difficult as running 30 feet.

Indeed!

Nevermind that shifting hands can be done in a fraction of a second and may in some cases be required for weapon manuevers when wielding a two-handed weapon (any twirling of a pole arm or staff, certainly).

Random's use of the cite has no basis, as switching hands is not the same thing as removing one hand's grip and then reapplying it. I do of course disagree with that hip-shot ruling too. It should just be a free action to switch hands and only be allowed once per round.

[Fwib]

Switching hands on a weapon is tossing the dagger from your right to your left. Totally different from releasing a TH weapon from one hand.

OK, but why would you ever want to move a weapon from one hand to another in D&D?

[Josh_Kablack]

1135957935[/unixtime]]OK, but why would you ever want to move a weapon from one hand to another in D&D?

1. Your primary hand weapon could have just been disarmed, sundered, rust monstered or destroyed by striking a remorhaz-like creature.
2. Your offhand weapon might have a lesser bonus, but penetrate your opponent's DR better than your primary weapon.
3. You might only have one Glove of storing.
4. You're trying to get away with sword-chucking, to get +2 per -1 with 3.5 Power Attack while Two-Weapon fighting, which probably doesn't work anymore with this FAQ update, if it ever really did.

[Username17]

Actually, Random's cite is right on target.

It’s not really true that switching weapons from one hand to
another is just like dropping a weapon. When you drop a
weapon, you’re releasing it and letting it drop to the ground,
with no real guidance (or attention) as to exactly where it lands.
Switching a weapon from one hand to another is certainly more
complex than simply dropping it. At the very least, switching
hands would require you to use one hand to take the weapon
from the other and at most it involves using both hands together
in a coordinated action. Either way that sounds a lot like
drawing a weapon, which is a move action.

So removing one hand and putting it back is a MEA, as per the FAQ. Especially because the "previous Sage Article" being justified in that question was one in which Skip claimed that it was a Move Action to switch between one handed and two handed modes on your Bastard Sword.


Ugh. You fvckers made me read the "hands" rulings in the FAQ, I feel dirty now. The FAQ says:

[*] You can use Armor Spikes as an off-hand weapon when wielding a two handed weapon.
but
[*] You can't use Armor Spikes as an off hand weapon when wielding two weapons.

[*] Weapons follow the rules for one handed or two handed weapons when wielded that way.
but
[*] Light Weapons don't follow the one handed or two handed weapon rules regardless of how they are used.

[*] You don't get the bonuses for a Lance being two handed while mounted.
but
[*] You don't get the benefits for a Lance being one handed while mounted either.

Fvckers! There's no consistency at all. It's just a bunch of crazy crap special cases.

And there's still no explanation for why a character with a light shield couldn't just divine cast spells with the empty hand. You can cast without penalty in heavy armor, what's the fvcking problem?

-Username17

[erik]

Ha ha! You read it too now. Suffer as we have. Sufferrrrrr.

Well damn. I totally missed the bit on page 33 about switching. Just figured he was reading more into the cleric bit since that was only part of the FAQ mentioned. I still don't see it having anything to do with releasing a two-handed weapon and re-grabbing it however, as that is different than moving it from one hand to the other.

Heh, maybe the sage wants to require a move equivalent action to simply wield two-handed weapons in the next article. It's just as sane.

I have no idea why they imply that one has to weapon juggle to use a light shield either.

[Fwib]

1135961433[/unixtime]]

1135957935[/unixtime]]OK, but why would you ever want to move a weapon from one hand to another in D&D?

1. Your primary hand weapon could have just been disarmed, sundered, rust monstered or destroyed by striking a remorhaz-like creature.
2. Your offhand weapon might have a lesser bonus, but penetrate your opponent's DR better than your primary weapon.
3. You might only have one Glove of storing.
4. You're trying to get away with sword-chucking, to get +2 per -1 with 3.5 Power Attack while Two-Weapon fighting, which probably doesn't work anymore with this FAQ update, if it ever really did.

Doh! there was me thinking that your off hand was any hand you wanted it to be at will. So I went and looked up 'off hand' in the 3.5PHB and it certainly appears that your off hand is fixed.

[RandomCasualty]

I've always thought the rules for armor spikes are the dumbest thing ever. I hate the idea of an offhand weapon attack with something that isn't a hand. If it's going to be some other form of attack, it should just be considered a secondary natural attack and not an offhand weapon.

All of D&D's crap about attacking with things other than your hands as a human never really made much sense, and that includes the monk's attacks. Somewhere along the line, they need to come up with a uniform system for attacks, whether its a sword or a monster's claw. I stil fail to see why manufactured weapons, unarmed strikes and natural weapons have different systems to handle them. Until they clarify that crap, armor spikes and similar things are always going to be a problem, because the current D&D systme doesn't handle it well when you have more than one offhand.

I'm kinda ok with lances having special rules while mounted because they're special case weapons. A lance is driven by the momentum of a charging mount as opposed to someone's actual muscle which means it is fundamentally different than a sword. Certain feats that are muscle powered, like power attack and even strength bonuses, make little sense when applies to a lance charge. So I think lances really deserve some special rules.

[Sir Neil]

A lance is driven by the momentum of a charging mount as opposed to someone's actual muscle which means it is fundamentally different than a sword. Certain feats that are muscle powered, like power attack and even strength bonuses, make little sense when applies to a lance charge.

http://www.classicalfencing.com/articles/shock.shtml