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.

[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.

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

[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?

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?

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 Large

I 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.

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

[Greenish]

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

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?

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.