TOPIC: Casting Conundrums

Druegar wrote: Brad, I'll do whatever I can to push you over the edge of the Cliff of Understanding and into the Valley of Enlightenment.

If "shield means shield, period" then I know what I know. The only thing I don't know is what I don't know.

There was a (130+ post) long thread around the "Casting Conundrums" - there were some zigs and zags in that thread as rulings evolved so reading it in it's entirety is mostly of historical interest.

Here is my summary of how the most up to date rules for this are.

The rules here are from the Voice of God Jeff as explained by his High Priest Druegar, and summarized by me. I think you can consider Jeff and Druegar infallible with regard to the rules, me not so much. So - to the extent that you think what is below is hogwash - please take it up with TPTB or try to explain how I've misinterpreted the contents of the original thread.

This stuff is all new in the last 3 months, so would supersede anything written in the players manuals or other rules threads.

Hand content rules for "Using Magic":

1. "Using Magic" refers to: casting a spell from the character card, casting a spell using the ability of an item,
reading a scroll, performing Bardsong.

truedungeon.com/forum?view=topic&catid=5&id=242570&start=24#247076
truedungeon.com/forum?view=topic&catid=5&id=242570&start=60#247564

2. Two free hands are required to cast a spell.
a. "Focus" weapons aid in spell casting and avoid this restriction for the hand(s) holding them (only)
b. All currently existing shield avoid this restriction (no promises for future shields)

truedungeon.com/forum?view=topic&catid=5&id=242570&start=24#247076

3. Switching the contents of your hands between physical attack weapons and magic use require a free action.
a. Using magic (and hence what is in your hands while you use magic) has no bearing on set bonuses, and on what you may be required to otherwise equip in your hands in physical attack modes due to set bonuses.
b. You may freely unequip set items while retaining their bonuses while using magic.

truedungeon.com/forum?view=topic&catid=5&id=242570&start=24#247076
truedungeon.com/forum?view=topic&catid=5&id=242570&start=60#247568
truedungeon.com/forum?view=topic&catid=5&id=242570&start=108#249672

4. Really, truly, set bonuses don't interact with what you are allowed to hold in your hands while using magic:
a. You can hold a set-weapon in your mainhand (e.g. Scepter of Might), and a set-shield in your offhand (e.g. Defender Shield), and switch into a focus weapon (e.g. Baton of Focus) while using magic
b. You can hold a set-weapon and set-shield, and then switch hands to use magic bringing in a Shield of the Scholar and replacing your set-shield.

truedungeon.com/forum?view=topic&catid=5&id=242570&start=120#249729

5. You may choose to enter combat with your hands empty and ready to cast spells without using a free action on the first round.

truedungeon.com/forum?view=topic&catid=5&id=242570&start=60#247568

6. Random exception to these rules:
a. A Bard can use Ring of Spell Storing while holding 2 handed Bard Instrument

truedungeon.com/forum?view=topic&catid=5&id=242570&start=132#249797

Not a random exception - RoSS works differently than I thought:

tokendb.com/token/ring-of-spell-storing/

Given the previous rules summary: Things that are still somewhat unclear.


1. How is your AC determined while you are using magic? Practically I think the DM just has to pick one of your Ranged or Melee ACs. Obviously this is not 100% correct in all cases (e.g. Cleric has equipped the Redoubt set, but has momentarily equipped Shield of the Scholar for magic use).

2. How is your to-hit bonus determined while using magic. Practically I think the DM will use the ranged to-hit bonus. Obviously this is likely to be incorrect, as there are no ranged focus weapons, and the ranged to-hit bonus will often be based on the to-hit bonus of the physical weapon held for ranged combat (not magic use).

3. How on earth can a Bard use Widseth's Mystical Lute and Shield of the Scholar to perform Bardsong, Attack, and read a scroll as enshrined in TokenDB errata?

* It is clear that you need two hands free or holding focus weapons/shields to read a scroll.
* It is clear that a Bard using Widseth's Mystical Lute is holding a Lute with both hands.
* It is clear that Bards have no Focus Weapons available to them.

Therefore if a Bard has attacked while holding Widseth's Mystical Lute, then their "real" hands are holding a Lute, their "virtual" hands are holding a weapon (whatever they attacked with) and Shield of the Scholar.

How are they able to read a scroll from Shield of the Scholar?

Note - the answer is _not_ that Shield of the scholar allows you to read a scroll while holding other stuff in your main hand - it does not.

4. How does Undead Turning work exactly, should it be included in the "using magic" category? Or is it its own thing with its own rules for hand holding stuff.

Though not casting related it is related to what has been posted here.

Does a holy symbol require 1 or 2 hands? Just curious if you in fact can keep your AC from your shield.
If it is onehanded, is it mainhand or if for some reason can I wield it in my offhand?

jedibcg wrote: Though not casting related it is related to what has been posted here.

Does a holy symbol require 1 or 2 hands? Just curious if you in fact can keep your AC from your shield.
If it is onehanded, is it mainhand or if for some reason can I wield it in my offhand?

New DMG, pg 21

One hand, main or off.
Hand must be empty or holding a shield.

And Matt, why do you say this:

Note - the answer is _not_ that Shield of the scholar allows you to read a scroll while holding other stuff in your main hand - it does not.

I can't find anything in the TokenDB to support that, and the Widseth's example certainly implies that your conjecture is false. I think that's exactly how SotS works; otherwise I'm afraid my head will explode if the explanation is even more convoluted.

I should add, that I'd prefer if we just dropped the whole "hands magic" rules complication and reverted to how things worked (at least in the minds of players and DMs) before 2016.

Here are my reasons:

1. Evidently, this causes tons of confusion - multiple discussion threads, 100+ posts, tons of corner cases and weird stuff (e.g. Clerics can cast spells while holding a shield, but not the Orb of Might).

2. There are, at most, a few dozen people who will internalize all this and play by the rules. Since the rule mainly eats up free actions, this basically penalizes people who are trying to follow the rules. Casual players, non-forumites, etc. will continue to play as they have - which basically grants them an extra free action each time they alternate between physical attacks and magic use.

3. It impairs the functionality of a bunch of legacy URs/combo tokens - pretty much anything that involves casting a spell or using a free action.

Notably: Cabal Set, Bracelets of the Zephyr, Shield of the Scholar, Lenses of Sage Speed, Lenses of Divine Sight (and by extension the Eldritch 2 piece set).

People bought/traded for these tokens with one understanding of how they worked which has now been upended and not in a positive way.

4. I don't think combat DMs will broadly understand this stuff, or enforce it correctly. If they do I can imagine a lot of yelling and angry rants following GenCon.

Seriously, consider these scenarios:

Scenario 1:

Round 1: Cleric slides to attack the Black Pudding with a +3 Rod of Niltongue

Round 2: Cleric announces they will cast Cure Moderate Wounds using Lenses of Divine Sight to double the spell.

DM informs player: Sorry - you can't do that - your mainhand is holding a +3 Rod of Niltongue - you would have had to tell me you were stowing your +3 Rod of Niltongue last turn.

Player: I hate your and your stupid face.

Scenario 2:

Round 1: Druid holding Shield of the Scholar attacks with a +2 Scepter of Might, and announces they are reading a scroll from Shield of the Scholar.

DM informs player: Sorry - you can't do that - your mainhand is holding a +2 Scepter of Might, which is not compatible with reading a scroll.

Player: I hate you and your stupid face.

Scenario 3:


Round 1: Ranger casts Barkskin

Round 2: Ranger uses Pouch of Tulz to drink Potion Bulls Strength and then gets ready to slide their pucks.

DM informs player: Sorry - you can't slide this turn, because you cast a spell last turn and didn't inform me you re-equipped your weapons last turn it means your hands were empty at the beginning of this turn. You used your free action to drink Potion Bull's Strength, your hands are still empty.

Player; I hate you and your stupid face.

Scenario 4:

Round 1: Wizard attacks with Mighty Sling

Round 2: Wizard announces they are reading 2 scrolls with Lenses of Sage Speed.

DM informs player: Sorry - you can't do that - your mainhand is holding a Mighty Sling, which is not compatible with reading a scroll.

Player: I hate you and your stupid face.


In any of these scenarios is anything happening that we want to happen in the game?

Brad Mortensen wrote:
I can't find anything in the TokenDB to support that, and the Widseth's example certainly implies that your conjecture is false. I think that's exactly how SotS works; otherwise I'm afraid my head will explode if the explanation is even more convoluted.

It's rules 101 - unless an item specifically states otherwise basic rules apply.

The basic rule is you can't have something in your mainhand while reading a scroll (other than a focus weapon).

The TDb entry for Shield of the Scholar doesn't state it negates this basic rule.

In order for Shield of the Scholar to override this basic rule, it would have to explicitly do so.

I agree that the Widseth's + Shield ruling certainly implies the shield does negate this restriction.

There are three possibilities:

1. TDb should be updated for SOtS indicating it allows you to read a scroll while holding a non-focus item in your mainhand.

2. Widseth's + Shield entries should be updated to indicate you _can't_ Bardsong, Attack and read a scroll in one round.

3. Widseth's + Shield entries should be updated that the special, unique combination of those two items allow you to read a scroll while having your mainhand occupied - contrary to what the shield alone would allow.

I'm fine with #1 - it's just not what the rules say now.

Matthew Hayward wrote: I should add, that I'd prefer if we just dropped the whole "hands magic" rules complication and reverted to how things worked (at least in the minds of players and DMs) before 2016.

Here are my reasons:

1. Evidently, this causes tons of confusion - multiple discussion threads, 100+ posts, tons of corner cases and weird stuff (e.g. Bards can use Ring of Spell Storing while holding a Lyre of Rage, Wizards can't use Ring of Spell Storing while holding a Brawlers Mug. Clerics can cast spells while holding a shield, but not the Orb of Might).

2. There are, at most, a few dozen people who will internalize all this and play by the rules. Since the rule mainly eats up free actions, this basically penalizes people who are trying to follow the rules. Casual players, non-forumites, etc. will continue to play as they have - which basically grants them an extra free action each time they alternate between physical attacks and magic use.

3. It impairs the functionality of a bunch of legacy URs/combo tokens - pretty much anything that involves casting a spell or using a free action.

Notably: Cabal Set, Bracelets of the Zephyr, Shield of the Scholar, Lenses of Sage Speed, Lenses of Divine Sight (and by extension the Eldritch 2 piece set).

People bought/traded for these tokens with one understanding of how they worked which has now been upended and not in a positive way.

4. I don't think combat DMs will broadly understand this stuff, or enforce it correctly. If they do I can imagine a lot of yelling and angry rants following GenCon.

Seriously, consider these scenarios:

Scenario 1:

Round 1: Cleric slides to attack the Black Pudding with a +3 Rod of Niltongue

Round 2: Cleric announces they will cast Cure Moderate Wounds using Lenses of Divine Sight to double the spell.

DM informs player: Sorry - you can't do that - your mainhand is holding a +3 Rod of Niltongue - you would have had to tell me you were stowing your +3 Rod of Niltongue last turn.

Player: I hate your and your stupid face.

Scenario 2:

Round 1: Druid holding Shield of the Scholar attacks with a +2 Scepter of Might, and announces they are reading a scroll from Shield of the Scholar.

DM informs player: Sorry - you can't do that - your mainhand is holding a +2 Scepter of Might, which is not compatible with reading a scroll.

Player: I hate you and your stupid face.

Scenario 3:


Round 1: Ranger casts Barkskin

Round 2: Ranger uses Pouch of Tulz to drink Potion Bulls Strength and then gets ready to slide their pucks.

DM informs player: Sorry - you can't slide this turn, because you cast a spell last turn and didn't inform me you re-equipped your weapons last turn it means your hands were empty at the beginning of this turn. You used your free action to drink Potion Bull's Strength, your hands are still empty.

Player; I hate you and your stupid face.

Scenario 4:

Round 1: Wizard attacks with Mighty Sling

Round 2: Wizard announces they are reading 2 scrolls with Lenses of Sage Speed.

DM informs player: Sorry - you can't do that - your mainhand is holding a Mighty Sling, which is not compatible with reading a scroll.

Player: I hate you and your stupid face.


In any of these scenarios is anything happening that we want to happen in the game?

In all of your scenarios there was a Free Action available to use to do everything each scenario stated. If a DM is going to be that nit-picky then most likely they are a "TPK DM" and anything you or your Party does will be wrong in their eyes. They are just looking for any reason to get a TPK even if it involves making bad calls. In this case have them call an Adventure Coordinator (AC). What sucks is that if you have to do this you are eating up your valuable 12 minutes of Room time.

Ro-gan wrote:

Matthew Hayward wrote:
Scenario 1:

Round 1: Cleric slides to attack the Black Pudding with a +3 Rod of Niltongue Stu's +3 Handy Stein after drinking two potions as a free action.

Round 2: Cleric announces they will cast Cure Moderate Wounds using Lenses of Divine Sight to double the spell.

DM informs player: Sorry - you can't do that - your mainhand is holding a Stu's +3 Handy Stein +3 Rod of Niltongue - you would have had to tell me you were stowing your +3 Rod of Niltongue last turn.

Player: I hate your and your stupid face.

In all of your scenarios there was a Free Action available to use to do everything each scenario stated. If a DM is going to be that nit-picky then most likely they are a "TPK DM" and anything you or your Party does will be wrong in their eyes. They are just looking for any reason to get a TPK even if it involves making bad calls. In this case have them call an Adventure Coordinator (AC). What sucks is that if you have to do this you are eating up your valuable 12 minutes of Room time.

Oh - fine - update Scenario 1 so the Cleric instead is wielding Stu's +3 Handy Stein and drinks 2 potions in the first round of combat. Similar patches can be made to most of the scenarios.

Now there was not a free action available.

Also - in Scenario 2 there is no FA available - without further errata you can't attack and use Shield of the Scholar in the same round unless you are wielding a Focus weapon or Widseth's.

I guess my point is:

a. DMs probably won't do this (although the rules call for it).
b. DMs shouldn't do this (because it would enrage people).

Therefore perhaps the rules shouldn't call for it.

I'm a fan of Occam's Razor, especially the "economy in grammar and vocabulary" flavor.

In my world, Widseth's is mystical because it plays itself, but the bard can't do anything too thoughtful like casting or lore with the standard action. (Look at all the exceptions and rulings that fall away...) But in the rules, the Bard plays the lute, so we need pages of errata to explain all the interactions. To date, every one I can think of is unnecessary if the Lute is no-hands and plays itself.

Similarly, I'm sure there's a way to simplify this whole focus thing.

Matthew Hayward wrote:

Ro-gan wrote:

Matthew Hayward wrote:
Scenario 1:

Round 1: Cleric slides to attack the Black Pudding with a +3 Rod of Niltongue Stu's +3 Handy Stein after drinking two potions as a free action.

Round 2: Cleric announces they will cast Cure Moderate Wounds using Lenses of Divine Sight to double the spell.

DM informs player: Sorry - you can't do that - your mainhand is holding a +3 Rod of Niltongue - you would have had to tell me you were stowing your +3 Rod of Niltongue last turn.

Player: I hate your and your stupid face.

In all of your scenarios there was a Free Action available to use to do everything each scenario stated. If a DM is going to be that nit-picky then most likely they are a "TPK DM" and anything you or your Party does will be wrong in their eyes. They are just looking for any reason to get a TPK even if it involves making bad calls. In this case have them call an Adventure Coordinator (AC). What sucks is that if you have to do this you are eating up your valuable 12 minutes of Room time.

Oh - fine - update Scenario 1 so the Cleric instead is wielding Stu's +3 Handy Stein and drinks 2 potions in the first round of combat.

Now there was not a free action available.

I guess my point is:

a. DMs won't do this (although the rules call for it).
b. DMs shouldn't do this (because it would enrage people).

Therefore perhaps the rules shouldn't call for it.

I miss when TD was just fun to play without having to worry about so many rules. Back when I started playing in 2005 until just a few years ago all of the DMs cared about fun for the Parties first and rules and getting TPKs later. I really miss 1st Edition True Dungeon.

Brad Mortensen wrote: In my world, Widseth's is mystical because it plays itself, but the bard can't do anything too thoughtful like casting or lore with the standard action. (Look at all the exceptions and rulings that fall away...) But in the rules, the Bard plays the lute, so we need pages of errata to explain all the interactions. To date, every one I can think of is unnecessary if the Lute is no-hands and plays itself.

That's an intriguing suggestion!

What would be the ramifications of having Widseth's and Briano's(?) play themselves?
(that's addressed to everyone)