3.x Spell casting and holding a shield question

[samduke]

I have looked but failed to find.
for 3.x not pathfinder

What I am looking for is if there are any magical shields or other shields (not bucklers) that while worn to provide the shield armor bonus, that would still allow for the spell casting requirement of somatic.. the other hand is filled with a weapon.

[DeTess]

I have looked but failed to find.
for 3.x not pathfinder

What I am looking for is if there are any magical shields or other shields (not bucklers) that while worn to provide the shield armor bonus, that would still allow for the spell casting requirement of somatic.. the other hand is filled with a weapon.

The animated property (equivalent cost to a +2 bonus) gives you all the benefits of having a shield without occupying a hand.

[MisterKaws]

Shields Bucklers don't fill your hand. Just having one with a 0% failure chance is enough. Otherwise you could get an animated shield. You can go nuts with those.

Edit: Half-swordsage'd

Edit 2: Bucklers

[RNightstalker]

Somatic Weaponry, CM 47, could be another alternative if you don't want to spend on an animated shield...there is also the Shield spell.

[Kaleph]

Shields don't fill your hand. Just having one with a 0% failure chance is enough.

Please provide more info.
I always considered that a shield (not a buckler) fills your hand, based on this: http://archive.wizards.com/default.a...d/rg/20040810a

[MisterKaws]

Please provide more info.
I always considered that a shield (not a buckler) fills your hand, based on this: http://archive.wizards.com/default.a...d/rg/20040810a

Oh, yes, I mistook. Bucklers don't fill your hand. Been ages since I tried a gish.

[RNightstalker]

Please provide more info.
I always considered that a shield (not a buckler) fills your hand, based on this: http://archive.wizards.com/default.a...d/rg/20040810a

I agree, and the PH reinforces that. On p122 (PE), it states that Arcane Spell Failure from armor is because it interferes with the somatic component of casting. Using a shield stacks with the penalty from armor, and even if you're using an animated shield, the ASF still applies.

[samduke]

Somatic Weaponry, will solve the main issue. as for ASF there are plenty of ways to reduce that to 0

[ayvango]

Shieldbearer spell let the shield hover around you. It has rounds/level duration, but Unguent of Timelessness could be applied to wooden shields.

[ericgrau]

No special ability or enchantment is required.

You can wield a weapon in a buckler hand with a -1 to hit, and you also lose your shield AC for a round after attacking.
You can hold a weapon or other item in a light shield hand, though you can't attack with it in that hand.
You can neither wield nor hold a weapon or item in a heavy shield hand.

Simplest solution is a mithril buckler for no arcane spell failure, pass your weapon into your buckler hand every time you want to cast as spell, then put the weapon back into your main hand. It's probably a pair of free actions but it's not clearly defined. You could talk with your DM. At most a pair of move actions. Which sucks for attacks of opportunity but at least you can regrab your next turn. Hopefully your DM would at least let you move and regrab at the same time, similar to drawing a weapon. If not make it two free actions.

[happycube]

Simplest solution is a mithril buckler for no arcane spell failure, pass your weapon into your buckler hand every time you want to cast as spell, then put the weapon back into your main hand. It's probably a pair of free actions but it's not clearly defined. You could talk with your DM. At most a pair of move actions. Which sucks for attacks of opportunity but at least you can regrab your next turn. Hopefully your DM would at least let you move and regrab at the same time, similar to drawing a weapon. If not make it two free actions.

On this front, the table on page 8 of the Rules Compendium does indeed indicate that switching hands with an item is a move action, though I agree that it seems more than reasonable to draw the weapon from your other hand as part of a move.

[Doctor Awkward]

Only heavy shields and tower shields prevent you from using your shield hand for anything else. Light shields and bucklers will allow you to use that hand for somatic gestures.

[RNightstalker]

Only heavy shields and tower shields prevent you from using your shield hand for anything else. Light shields and bucklers will allow you to use that hand for somatic gestures.

How do you figure light shields allow for the somatic component?

[Doctor Awkward]

How do you figure light shields allow for the somatic component?

How do you figure they don't?

[RNightstalker]

How do you figure they don't?

Because a light shield still has to be gripped by hand, and somatic components require a free hand.

[Doctor Awkward]

Because a light shield still has to be gripped by hand, and somatic components require a free hand.

Apparently not if you can still hold things in that hand besides the shield.

You strap a shield to your forearm and grip it with your hand. A light shield’s weight lets you carry other items in that hand, although you cannot use weapons with it.

[ayvango]

A light shield’s weight lets you carry other items in that hand, although you cannot use weapons with it.

Magic gestures require more than just "carry items"

[Doctor Awkward]

Magic gestures require more than just "carry items"

They require a free hand. How is your hand not free if you are able to carry something with it?

[ayvango]

They require a free hand. How is your hand not free if you are able to carry something with it?

Easy. I could carry one plastic bag in my hand. Is the hand free? No the bag occupied it. Could I carry something in this non-free hand? Sure, I could carry another bag.

Whey you carry shield in your hand, the hand already is not free. But you could carry something else in addition to the shield. But you would limited with actions you could perform, specifically casting somnatic spells.

[Doctor Awkward]

Easy. I could carry one plastic bag in my hand. Is the hand free? No the bag occupied it. Could I carry something in this non-free hand? Sure, I could carry another bag.

Whey you carry shield in your hand, the hand already is not free. But you could carry something else in addition to the shield. But you would limited with actions you could perform, specifically casting somnatic spells.

That's an inference that's not at all spelled out in the rules. Light shields do not say, "but you can carry something that could easily be slung over an otherwise occupied limb." It says, "but you can use it to carry other items." Zero restrictions or limitations.

If such a hand that is wielding a light shield is not "free" enough to cast spells, then neither is one wielding a buckler.

[Kaleph]

That's an inference that's not at all spelled out in the rules. Light shields do not say, "but you can carry something that could easily be slung over an otherwise occupied limb." It says, "but you can use it to carry other items." Zero restrictions or limitations.

If such a hand that is wielding a light shield is not "free" enough to cast spells, then neither is one wielding a buckler.

Skip Williams explains it here: http://archive.wizards.com/default.a...d/rg/20040810a

You don't wield a buckler, you strap it onto your forearm. You do wield a light shield, since it has a grip you must hold.

You may say it's DM territory, and rule a light shield exactly the same as a buckler, but that's clearly not what the game designer had in mind.

[ayvango]

It says, "but you can use it to carry other items." Zero restrictions or limitations.

That is quite specific permission. You could carry. Nobody says you could use hand freely to cast somnatic spells. Assume the hand had withered and character could not move his shoulder. But he still could carry items in the hand, despite he could barely move it.

You extrapolates that being able to carry items implies that you could move hand freely. But that is not true. Examples exist when you could carry, but couldn't move hand. So you couldn't substitute one with another.

Manacles is a good example of when you could carry items but have no free hands. Grapple prevents using somnatic component but allows to draw material components.

[ericgrau]

I won't make a 100% decision one way or another but "I can do it because the rules don't say I can't" and "You can't do it unless the rules say you can" are both fallacies. When the rules aren't specific enough then discussing alternatives like real world examples are a good idea I think, and you can't simply say "RAW doesn't have that restriction" when it doesn't have that permission either. Hunting down other rules, rulings or even FAQ is also helpful, because again "RAW doesn't say you can't" doesn't fly. At best that forces an "I don't know" if you absolutely positively won't accept anything else.

So I agree you can hold any item in your shield hand that a real person could be reasonably expected to hold while also holding a shield. The example given is a torch with a light shield IIRC. Simply held and not manipulated. Also I agree you can't cast with a hand holding a light shield. Beyond that it sometimes gets fuzzy. You probably can't cast with a buckler hand either IMO but I'm not 100% clear on that. There might be a rule or ruling somewhere.

[Doctor Awkward]

Skip Williams explains it here: http://archive.wizards.com/default.a...d/rg/20040810a

You don't wield a buckler, you strap it onto your forearm. You do wield a light shield, since it has a grip you must hold.

You may say it's DM territory, and rule a light shield exactly the same as a buckler, but that's clearly not what the game designer had in mind.

Ruling this way would prevent sword and board clerics, druids, rangers, and paladins from casting any spells combat since roughly 99% of spells in core that they have access to require somatic components. After a quick check the light orison, holy word/dictum/blasphemy, and the power word spells granted to the War Domain were the only ones I could find that don't. Many cleric and paladin spells additionally require a divine focus which must also be "presented" to complete the casting.

This would take two-handed melee builds from being merely the optimal choice to the only viable choice for these classes.

Skip may be a lead designer but he is still human, and this is quite certainly one of those instances where he did not think through the ramifications of such a rule.

[ericgrau]

Ruling this way would prevent sword and board clerics, druids, rangers, and paladins from casting any spells combat since roughly 99% of spells in core that they have access to require somatic components. After a quick check the light orison, holy word/dictum/blasphemy, and the power word spells granted to the War Domain were the only ones I could find that don't. Many cleric and paladin spells additionally require a divine focus which must also be "presented" to complete the casting.

This would take two-handed melee builds from being merely the optimal choice to the only viable choice for these classes.

Skip may be a lead designer but he is still human, and this is quite certainly one of those instances where he did not think through the ramifications of such a rule.

Unless you put your weapon in your shield hand for a second so you can cast. Or sheathe it. Casting is a standard action. Not like you don't have a move action to spare. And next turn you an draw as you move and also attack.

Requiring a free hand to cast and a shield occupying a hand is something very much intended and understood by the designers from early on.

[ayvango]

This would take two-handed melee builds from being merely the optimal choice to the only viable choice for these classes.

dura lex sed lex.

Take Somatic Weaponry feat.

Wizards have Daggerspell Stance which require using daggers in both hands. This would prevent them from casting spell to unless they take Somatic Weaponry feat.

[Vaern]

A buckler is a small shield that straps to the forearm where it provides a bit of a defensive bonus without restricting movement.

The light shield straps to the arm and must be gripped by the hand to use it properly. You may let go of the grip to hold an item, but the large chunk of wood or metal still prevents you from moving in certain ways. In particular, the fact that the shield must be gripped means that it must be large enough to extend past your wrist. This means that if it is strapped securely to your arm then it will be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to bend your wrist backward to form certain hand gestures that a somatic component may require. Plus, depending on the exact size of the shield and what wide, sweeping gestures the somatic component may require of you, you may end up giving yourself a bloody nose with the edge of the shield.
In other words, you may hold an item in the same hand that your light shield is strapped to, but you lack the freedom of movement to actually use the item in that hand (or the empty hand itself, as it were) in a meaningful way. At least, that's how I would interpret the official ruling that you can't use the same hand as your light shield to perform a somatic component.

A force shield ring creates a shield-sized wall of force that stays with the ring and can be wielded as a heavy shield. The shield is described as weightless and encumbrance-free, incurring no armor check penalty or arcane spell failure chance. Activating and deactivating it is a free action, meaning you can simply disable the shield as you cast the spell and bring it back once the spell is complete if it's decided that the shield should occupy a hand slot (though I would imagine it floating a couple of inches out from your arm and passively moving with you rather than actually being held).
The item itself is created with the wall of force spell and mentions that the item creates a wall of force, though I'm not certain if the shield actually functions as the "wall of force" spell which is immune to all sorts of things that a normal shield can't block. It would presumably be much cheaper to make a similar item based on the Shield spell, granting you a tower shield of force that gives a +4 shield bonus to AC and blocks magic missiles.

[Doctor Awkward]

Unless you put your weapon in your shield hand for a second so you can cast.

A move action, which results in your character no longer threatening squares around them, stopping them from making attacks of opportunity and providing your allies with a flanking bonus.

Or sheathe it.

Not only does this provoke an attack of opportunity, afterwards which you are left in the exact same disadvantage as the previous option.

Casting is a standard action. Not like you don't have a move action to spare. And next turn you an draw as you move and also attack.

You likely don't.
You'd be dead from all the opportunity attacks you'd be provoking.

Requiring a free hand to cast and a shield occupying a hand is something very much intended and understood by the designers from early on.

And I'm sure you have some citation rendering this statement as something other than baseless speculation.

dura lex sed lex.

It's your opinion that the designers deliberately rendered the most iconic fantasy combat style ever to be a trap?

Take Somatic Weaponry feat.

Of those four classes, only cleric has Spellcraft as a class skill. The rest will not be casting spells until level 9.

Wizards have Daggerspell Stance which require using daggers in both hands. This would prevent them from casting spell to unless they take Somatic Weaponry feat.

No, it wouldn't.
The Daggerspell Stance spell doesn't have any somatic components. Quite intentionally, I imagine.

Although that does bring up the interesting point that the Ranger Two-Weapon Combat Style class feature is also a trap.

[ayvango]

It's your opinion that the designers deliberately rendered the most iconic fantasy combat style ever to be a trap?.

Take physical combat and spellcasting separately. If you wish to combat with two hands you would get troubles with casting. Wizards have troubles casting in armor. It is a trade-off. You need to burn feats, class levels and other resources to be able both cast and fight effectively.

Well, games should be fun, so you always could house-rule restrictions off. You could disannul somatic components, costless material components to make spellcasting more fun. Or you could lose skill requirements for the somatic weaponry feat.

The Daggerspell Stance spell doesn't have any somatic components. Quite intentionally, I imagine.

But it prevents mage from using other spells while the Daggerspell Stance is in effect.

[ericgrau]

A move action, which results in your character no longer threatening squares around them, stopping them from making attacks of opportunity and providing your allies with a flanking bonus.


Not only does this provoke an attack of opportunity, afterwards which you are left in the exact same disadvantage as the previous option.

Oh well, far from a big loss. Can't always have it all. You can still switch between casting and attacking fast enough, which is the main thing.

You likely don't.
You'd be dead from all the opportunity attacks you'd be provoking.

Take a 5' step.

And I'm sure you have some citation rendering this statement as something other than baseless speculation.

It's in the PHB and various web articles (like rules of the game articles, casting, somatic components) whenever they explain casting. Not sure if the SRD has as much. It's quite extensive and well explained so you know they knew about it and it didn't just slip through. Now if you're asking for 47 quotations, I have a rule against giving more than I get.

Based on the article Kaleph linked, interestingly enough, it says casting with a buckler hand is fine. Light shield hand isn't though. So that seems like the easiest solution right there. Cast with your buckler hand. You'll want a mithril buckler anyway for no spell failure. But the OP doesn't want a buckler for some reason. A light shield works by handing off the weapon as stated. If she needs a heavy shield, then that takes sheathing or a special ability or etc.