Somatic Components and Two-Handed Weapons

[Rhaegar14]

The title pretty much covers it. I'm playing a gish character in an ongoing campaign and want to know if, by RAW, I can form Somatic components while wielding a Two-Handed Weapon, because I couldn't find anything on it one way or the other.

[Gwendol]

Letting go of the grip with one hand is a free action. There is nothing to stop you from using 2-handed weapons and casting spells.

[Heliomance]

I think it might be in the description of the Duskblade, of all places. Taking a hand off the sword in order to do somatic components is a free action, you can do it just fine.

[DragonOfUndeath]

Considering you can hold 2-handed weapons in 1 hand (just can't attack) I would say yes.
Also: Not all Somatic Components are hand-waving. Doing a jig could be a valid way of casting spells (well, if your an Irish Wizard maybe...)

[Yuki Akuma]

The iconic weapon of the Wizard is a two-handed weapon.

Yes, you can cast spells with somatic components while wielding a two-handed weapon.

[Rhaegar14]

Okay, thank you for the overwhelming "Yes, absolutely's," but the problem for my DM (who asked me to verify it) is not logic, but balance. Thus, I would really appreciate it if someone could point me to a book and page number. XD

[Big Fau]

Okay, thank you for the overwhelming "Yes, absolutely's," but the problem for my DM (who asked me to verify it) is not logic, but balance. Thus, I would really appreciate it if someone could point me to a book and page number. XD

The Sage is the only source we have.

[Gurgeh]

I would argue, however, that any spell with both somatic and material components cannot be cast one-handed without the benefit of Somatic Weaponry (plus obviously Eschew Materials for cheap spells). Same deal with focus components.

It's a lot harder to do all the necessary handwaving for a spell if said hand is clenched around a miniature archery target or a bunch of diamond dust.

[Ashram]

If you want to burn a feat slot, there's a feat in Complete Mage that deals with this:

Somatic Weaponry (Complete Mage, pg. 47)
Prerequisites: Concentration 5 ranks, Spellcraft 5 ranks
Benefits: When wielding a weapon (Or item of comparable size) in one or both hands, you can use that weapon to trace the somatic component of a spell rather than using your fingers. This allows you to cast spells with somatic components even while your hands are full or occupied, as long as at least one hand is holding an item of the proper size.
This feat does not allow you to use somatic components while grappling, regardless of the size of your foe.
Normal: You must have at least one hand free to cast spells that have somatic components.

Edit: Semi-swordsaged.

[Yuki Akuma]

I would argue, however, that any spell with both somatic and material components cannot be cast one-handed without the benefit of Somatic Weaponry (plus obviously Eschew Materials for cheap spells). Same deal with focus components.

You explicitly only need one free hand to manipulate material components and perform somatic gestures.

Also, Somatic Weaponry is for people who wield two weapons, or a weapon and a shield. Not people who wield two-handed weapons like, say, Wizards.

[Thefurmonger]

You explicitly only need one free hand to manipulate material components and perform somatic gestures.

Also, Somatic Weaponry is for people who wield two weapons, or a weapon and a shield. Not people who wield two-handed weapons like, say, Wizards.

Quoted for truth.

Just ask your DM what all the wizards out there do with their quarterstaff when casting time rolls around?

[Quietus]

Quoted for truth.

Just ask your DM what all the wizards out there do with their quarterstaff when casting time rolls around?

Drop it and then create a new one as a free action, of course. They cost less than a bit of bat guano; the guano is cost : Negligible, as covered by spell component pouches. The staff? Explicitly 0 GP. :smalltongue:

[Greenish]

The iconic weapon of the Wizard is a two-handed weapon.Well, to pick nits, those can be used one-handed.

[Edit]: And of course, you can hold any two-handed weapon with one hand. Most wizards aren't going to hit people with them.

[Yuki Akuma]

Quarterstaffs can't be used one-handed. They can be used either as a two-handed weapon or as a one-handed weapon and a light weapon.

But yes, the point is, you can hold a two-handed weapon in one hand, and use the other to cast spells. It takes no time at all to change your grip and cast the spell.


Drop it and then create a new one as a free action, of course. They cost less than a bit of bat guano; the guano is cost : Negligible, as covered by spell component pouches. The staff? Explicitly 0 GP. :smalltongue:

Sure, that works at level 1, but what about a magic spell staff? :smalltongue:

[Greenish]

Quarterstaffs can't be used one-handed. They can be used either as a two-handed weapon or as a one-handed weapon and a light weapon.From SRD:
A creature wielding a double weapon in one hand can’t use it as a double weapon—only one end of the weapon can be used in any given round.


But yes, the point is, you can hold a two-handed weapon in one hand, and use the other to cast spells. It takes no time at all to change your grip and cast the spell.Not contending that, even if it isn't spelled out in the rules.


Sure, that works at level 1, but what about a magic spell staff? :smalltongue:Not to mention the costs of the two wands in their chambers (and the cost of two wand chambers, negligible as it is).

[dextercorvia]

Quarterstaffs can't be used one-handed. They can be used either as a two-handed weapon or as a one-handed weapon and a light weapon.

But yes, the point is, you can hold a two-handed weapon in one hand, and use the other to cast spells. It takes no time at all to change your grip and cast the spell.



Sure, that works at level 1, but what about a magic spell staff? :smalltongue:

Some wizards don't carry a bow or crossbow at level 1?

[Yuki Akuma]

Most Wizards, in fact, don't carry a bow. Ever.

Because they're not proficient and their low Strength makes it undesirable.

[dextercorvia]

Hence the "or crossbow." Elves (a fairly standard race for Wizards) are proficient with bows.

[Taelas]

From SRD:
Quarterstaves are Large, thus cannot be wielded in one hand by a medium-sized creature. The quote from the SRD is for creatures wielding double-weapons of inappropriate size.

[Yuki Akuma]

Quarterstaves are Large, thus cannot be wielded in one hand by a medium-sized creature. The quote from the SRD is for creatures wielding double-weapons of inappropriate size.

3.5 doesn't use weapon sizes anymore. At least, not in that way - a quarterstaff sized for a medium creature is a medium quarterstaff. A large quarterstaff would be sized for a large creature.

But yes. That quote is about, say, a troll wielding a quarterstaff sized for a human.

[Greenish]

Quarterstaves are LargeI was talking about 3.5.

[Edit].
That quote is about, say, a troll wielding a quarterstaff sized for a human.How did you figure that one out?

[Taelas]

I was talking about 3.5.

:smallsigh: My apologies. It is a two-handed weapon for medium-sized creatures. Happy? :smalltongue:

[Greenish]

:smallsigh: My apologies. It is a two-handed weapon for medium-sized creatures. Happy? :smalltongue:It's also a double weapon, which have their own rules.

Besides, quarterstaves are two-handed weapons for creatures of all sizes, assuming they're using one sized for them.

[Yuki Akuma]

[Edit]. How did you figure that one out?

:smallsigh:


Inappropriately Sized Weapons

A creature can’t make optimum use of a weapon that isn’t properly sized for it. A cumulative -2 penalty applies on attack rolls for each size category of difference between the size of its intended wielder and the size of its actual wielder. If the creature isn’t proficient with the weapon a -4 nonproficiency penalty also applies.

The measure of how much effort it takes to use a weapon (whether the weapon is designated as a light, one-handed, or two-handed weapon for a particular wielder) is altered by one step for each size category of difference between the wielder’s size and the size of the creature for which the weapon was designed. If a weapon’s designation would be changed to something other than light, one-handed, or two-handed by this alteration, the creature can’t wield the weapon at all.

This. This is how I figured that one out.


It's also a double weapon, which have their own rules.

Besides, quarterstaves are two-handed weapons for creatures of all sizes, assuming they're using one sized for them.

It's still a two-handed weapon. A Large creature can wield a Medium quarterstaff in one hand. He cannot use it as a double weapon. A Medium creature cannot wield a Medium quarterstaff in one hand. Because for him it's a two-handed weapon.

[Greenish]

This. This is how I figured that one out.I fail to see what that has to do with double weapons.

[Taelas]

It's also a double weapon, which have their own rules.

Besides, quarterstaves are two-handed weapons for creatures of all sizes, assuming they're using one sized for them.

You cannot wield a two-handed weapon in one hand. Whether it is a double-weapon is immaterial.

[Greenish]

You cannot wield a two-handed weapon in one hand. Whether it is a double-weapon is immaterial.Can you provide a source for that?

Since to me it seems that the rules for double weapons are giving you a free pass for it.

Anyhow, tossed the question to the RAW thread.

[Yuki Akuma]

No, the rules for double weapons are stating that a Huge creature can't wield a weapon the comparitive size of a dagger as a double weapon. Because his hand is too big.

[Greenish]

No, the rules for double weapons are stating that a Huge creature can't wield a weapon the comparitive size of a dagger as a double weapon. Because his hand is too big.You can keep asserting your opinion 'till the end of the world, but it doesn't make it any more true.

What, exactly, are you basing your reading?

[Taelas]

Can you provide a source for that?

Since to me it seems that the rules for double weapons are giving you a free pass for it.

Anyhow, tossed the question to the RAW thread.

The rule is the same as it is for any two-handed weapon. Double-weapons do not magically stop being two-handed weapons simply because they are also double-weapons.

The rule can only be for inappropriately-sized weapons, because that is the only way to wield a two-handed weapon in one hand.

[Psyren]

This thread is hilarious :smalltongue:

*The Psion sits on the sidelines shaking his head ruefully*

[Greenish]

Double-weapons do not magically stop being two-handed weapons simply because they are also double-weapons.True, but they do gain their own specific rules, such as being wieldable as an one-handed and a light weapon, or being able to be wielded in one hand, which both appear in the same entry, and make no connection to the sizing rules found later.


The rule can only be for inappropriately-sized weapons, because that is the only way to wield a two-handed weapon in one hand.Well, except for double weapons, which have specific language trumping this general rule. :smallamused:

[Yuki Akuma]

You can keep asserting your opinion 'till the end of the world, but it doesn't make it any more true.

What, exactly, are you basing your reading?

On the rules for two-handed weapons and inappropriately-sized weapons?

You know, how two-handed weapons must be wielded in two hands, unless they're too small for you, in which case you can wield them in one hand?

Double weapons are two-handed weapons. Being a double weapon does not stop it from following the rules for the number of hands required. It just lets you attack with it as though it were a pair of weapons rather than just one.


Well, except for double weapons, which have specific language trumping this general rule. :smallamused:

Nnnno. No it doesn't. It has specific language telling you what happens if you somehow manage to wield a double weaopn in one hand.

Really, how are you getting this reading?

[Taelas]

No, it does not. It states what happens when you wield a double-weapon in one hand, not that you can do so all the time.

[Tvtyrant]

On the rules for two-handed weapons and inappropriately-sized weapons?

You know, how two-handed weapons must be wielded in two hands, unless they're too small for you, in which case you can wield them in one hand?

Double weapons are two-handed weapons. Being a double weapon does not stop it from following the rules for the number of hands required. It just lets you attack with it as though it were a pair of weapons rather than just one.

Links or it never happened :P

[Greenish]

This thread is hilarious :smalltongue:

*The Psion sits on the sidelines shaking his head ruefully*We should start charging for admission, if this becomes popular. :smallcool:


On the rules for two-handed weapons and inappropriately-sized weapons?That provides a nice general rule, yes, and the entry on double weapons gives a specific exception.


You know, how two-handed weapons must be wielded in two hands, unless they're too small for you, in which case you can wield them in one hand?Yes.


Double weapons are two-handed weapons.Yes.


Being a double weapon does not stop it from following the rules for the number of hands required.Why not? The entry specifically says you can do it.

[Yuki Akuma]

Why not? The entry specifically says you can do it.

No, it really doesn't.

The exact verbiage is "A creature wielding a double weapon in one hand can’t use it as a double weapon—only one end of the weapon can be used in any given round." It says that if you are wielding it in one hand you can only use one head. That's all it's saying. It doesn't say you can magically use it with less hands than normal.

(Also, you got your answer in the RAW thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=11113900#post11113900).)

[Big Fau]

You cannot wield a two-handed weapon in one hand. Whether it is a double-weapon is immaterial.

Well, that's try, but you can still carry it in one hand. Nothing's stopping someone from removing a hand from it to cast a spell, then putting their hand back on it and taking an AoO that round.

[Taelas]

That provides a nice general rule, yes, and the entry on double weapons gives a specific exception.

No, it does not.


Double Weapons
Dire flails, dwarven urgroshes, gnome hooked hammers, orc double axes, quarterstaffs, and two-bladed swords are double weapons. A character can fight with both ends of a double weapon as if fighting with two weapons, but he or she incurs all the normal attack penalties associated with two-weapon combat, just as though the character were wielding a one-handed weapon and a light weapon.

The character can also choose to use a double weapon two handed, attacking with only one end of it. A creature wielding a double weapon in one hand can’t use it as a double weapon—only one end of the weapon can be used in any given round.

No language that says "You can use this in one hand." It only applies if you somehow manage to wield a double weapon in one hand -- which you can only do if you are wielding one that is too small and thus has become either a light or a one-handed weapon.


Well, that's try, but you can still carry it in one hand. Nothing's stopping someone from removing a hand from it to cast a spell, then putting their hand back on it and taking an AoO that round.

That is an entirely different scenario -- you are not wielding it, merely carrying it.

[Yuki Akuma]

Well, that's try, but you can still carry it in one hand. Nothing's stopping someone from removing a hand from it to cast a spell, then putting their hand back on it and taking an AoO that round.

True. You can hold anything in one hand that weighs less than your light (possibly medium? I forget) load capacity. Weapons generally do.

[Greenish]

No, it really doesn't.

The exact verbiage is "A creature wielding a double weapon in one hand can’t use it as a double weapon—only one end of the weapon can be used in any given round." It says that if you are wielding it in one hand you can only use one head. That's all it's saying. It doesn't say you can magically use it with less hands than normal.

(Also, you got your answer in the RAW thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=11113900#post11113900).)Very well, I concede defeat, for now. Seems my reading was too hasty, and you're right. RC most annoyingly fails to clarify the issue.

Though there is a double-weapon that's one-handed, I believe. Ghost Spike or something to that effect.

[Yuki Akuma]

A double weapon that's one-handed just doesn't work mechanically...

I guess if it has two heads with different properties you can decide which you hit with each time you attack.

Edit: Oh, hey, douglas brought up an interesting point: the reason you can't use it as two weapons if it's size inappropriately for you is because the "off-hand" part of the weapon is considered a light weapon - and if it's one size too small, that means you can't wield it at all.

[Greenish]

A double weapon that's one-handed just doesn't work mechanically...I know, but when has that stopped the developers? (Or well, Paizo, in this case, since it was in a dragon mag, if my memory serves).

For example, the duskblade entry (which I was just glancing over to see if it mentioned the issue of two-handers and somatic, which it didn't) has a sidebar for Twilight armour property, saying how useful it is for duskblades. :smalltongue:


Edit: Oh, hey, douglas brought up an interesting point: the reason you can't use it as two weapons if it's size inappropriately for you is because the "off-hand" part of the weapon is considered a light weapon - and if it's one size too small, that means you can't wield it at all.Hmm, but all language relating to the double weapons says how you can use the offhand end "as if" it were a light weapon, not that it'd actually become one, so by normal sizing rules a step too small double weapon would become a one-handed weapon. Would you then tread the offhand end "as if" it were a light weapon too small?

[Yuki Akuma]

Well... Twilight is useful for Duskblades. It's not as if they can cast in heavy armour right away.

As for the "treating it as a light weapon too small" thing, that's what I'm assuming the "you can't wield a double-weapon that you wield in one hand as a double weapon" rule is referring to.

[Greenish]

Well... Twilight is useful for Duskblades. It's not as if they can cast in heavy armour right away.Well, twilight mithral breastplate would still have 5% ASF, and they get medium armours before they can afford that, most likely.

Full plate has 35% ASF, Twilight reduces that to 25%. That's still way too much for most people. Of course, if you made it from mithral, it'd only be 15%, but at that point the Twilight property would be moot, since the armour is now medium, and they can cast in it with no ASF already.

So, okay, if you're willing to tolerate ASF for a few more AC, Twilight can reduce the amount (but not remove it). I guess you could call that useful…

[Big Fau]

Well... Twilight is useful for Duskblades.

Taking things out of context is fun/horrifying!

[Yuki Akuma]

Taking things out of context is fun/horrifying!

What? :smallconfused:

[Big Fau]

What? :smallconfused:

Twilight+Duskblade. Use word association.

[Yuki Akuma]

Twilight+Duskblade. Use your imagination.

A... spellcaster who wears armour and swings a sword wearing armour that doesn't constrain his somatic components quite so much?

[Greenish]

Twilight+Duskblade. Use your imagination.…Uh, sparkling gishes?

[Big Fau]

A... spellcaster who wears armour and swings a sword wearing armour that doesn't constrain his somatic components quite so much?

I take it the box you are thinking in is very comfortable?


…Uh, sparkling gishes?

With bad writing and even worse errata.

[Keld Denar]

Look down, back at me...your gish is now diamonds. Anything is possible when you take things out of context.

I'm on a phantom steed!

[Yuki Akuma]

I take it the box you are thinking in is very comfortable?

...Is that meant to be an insult? :smallannoyed:

[Psyren]

...Is that meant to be an insult? :smallannoyed:

Actually, I think he was making a Twilight joke. (i.e. you were referring to the caster-friendly armor material, he was referring to the novels that have all but ruined the modern vampire.)

You seem a bit incensed, have some catnip (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0453.html) :smallwink:

[Big Fau]

...Is that meant to be an insult? :smallannoyed:

It's a veiled way of saying "Think outside of the box".

[Worira]

Actually, I think he was making a Twilight joke. (i.e. you were referring to the caster-friendly armor material, he was referring to the novels that have all but ruined the modern vampire.)

You seem a bit incensed, have some catnip (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0453.html) :smallwink:

Actually, he was making a joke about "twilight", the word in the English language. Which happens to have a meaning closely related to "dusk", another word in the English language.

[Marnath]

I know I'm late to the party, but what about wielding a quarterstaff in both hands, but still only hitting with one end? Can you do that for the 1.5 str bonus, or can you only TWF it at that point?

[Greenish]

I know I'm late to the party, but what about wielding a quarterstaff in both hands, but still only hitting with one end?You can use double weapons as two-handers, which they actually are.


The character can also choose to use a double weapon two handed, attacking with only one end of it.

[Marnath]

You can use double weapons as two-handers, which they actually are.

That's what I get for skimming the article. Thanks.:smallsmile:

[Greenish]

That's what I get for skimming the article. Thanks.:smallsmile:That's one of their saving graces, easily switching between TWF and THW.

[Leon]

Actually, he was making a joke about "twilight", the word in the English language. Which happens to have a meaning closely related to "dusk", another word in the English language.

Which is oft flattened in the stampede of glittering bloodsuckers and word association

[Psyren]

Actually, he was making a joke about "twilight", the word in the English language. Which happens to have a meaning closely related to "dusk", another word in the English language.

Then it went totally over my head. *shrug*

Anyhow, this thread gave me a neat idea for a Pathfinder Soulknife (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/psionics-unleashed/classes/soulknife) that forms a quarterstaff-shaped "mind blade", using the TWF rules.