TOPIC: Focus weapon clairification

Post #1 says it takes two hands to cast a spell. It doesn't specify this is only true of wizards.

So, while agree with Cranston's understanding of arcane vs divine magic, it conflicts with the first post which implies, as Jedi suggests, we're talking about a third equipment configuration to go along with melee and ranged. Not that I want that sort of complication.

But, maybe we're just trying to avoid something as sleazy as a wizard arguing that casting while holding a +1 Dwarven Dirk should mean that all their spells do +3 damage vs giants.

Cranston wrote: I suspect you are reading too much into this. I suspect this was added to prevent the argument about casting a spell through the Rod of Focus and then using it to bash in the same round.

We already have something that prevents though. You get 1 standard action. Casting a spell is a standard action. Attacking is a standard action. The number of hands has nothing to do with how many actions you can take.

I'll just go with "huh!?!?"

Cause I agree with others, this will cause lots of confusion. I think we need more details here.

Arcane or Divine casting or all casting?
Why did we need this?

Druegar


Have you heard anything additional about this from the powers that be?

Bump

Still looking for clarification on this ruling.

I don't want to be that guy but still looking for some clarification on this since we are 3 weeks out.


EDIT:Realized we are 3 weeks out. 2 weeks till online registration ends.

Sorry, I'm feeling extra thick... What's the question that needs clarification?

I think it is just these two in a nutshell

If two hands are required to cast a spell, does that mean while casting a spell you cannot be holding a shield?


Are wizard/clerics/druids not using a focus action suppose to use a free-action to unequip before casting?



We were attempting to figure out what this ruling means.

Druegar wrote: Sorry, I'm feeling extra thick... What's the question that needs clarification?

The ruling seems to be designed to clarify that you can't attack and cast a spell in the same round while using a focus weapon.

As phrased, it goes much beyond that in stating that:

"two hands are required to cast a spell"

And implies that:

Unless you are using a focus weapon you can not "hold a weapon and cast a spell" at the same time (else why would we need to clarify that focus weapons "allow it's owner to hold this weapon and cast a spell").

If a spellcaster requires two hands free to cast a spell unless they are holding a focus weapon, it introduces a lot of strange consequences that we haven't been playing with, and amounts to a large rules change for example:

If two hands are required to cast a spell:

• A druid wearing the Dragonscale set can't cast spells, because they can't unequip the set Dragonscale shield due to set rules
• Any spellcaster using the Might set with the Orb or Scepter of Might can't cast spells, because they can't unequip those items due to set rules
• A cleric using the Templar, Defender, Redoubt, etc., etc., sets could not cast spells, because they can't unequip those items due to set rules.
• A bard can't cast a spell and use Sheild of the Scholar's "read a scroll as a free action" in the same turn, as they would need at least 2 free actions (one to equip the Shield of the Scholar after casting a spell, and one to use the shields ability)
• Any spellcaster would have to spend a free action on a round in which they switch between "casting a spell" and making physical attacks with weapons or performing bardsong
• Bracelets of the Zephyr or Cabal Set spell bonus can only be used if the caster started the round with empty hands
• Lenses of Sage Speed and Ring of Spell Storing can only be used if the caster started the round with empty hands.
• Stu's +3 Handy Stein can not be drunk from on a round where a spell is cast.

There are lots of other lines of play that are less relevant that are also influenced by this (e.g. a 5th level Ranger can't cast Barkskin and use Pouch of Tulz on the same turn).

Matthew

Just to clarify one point you made. If a token completes a set in one mode of combat ie melee it does not have to be equipped in the other. Your druid could theoretically have no shield in his range mode and therefore drop his ranged weapon and cast a spell.

jedibcg wrote: Matthew

Just to clarify one point you made. If a token completes a set in one mode of combat ie melee it does not have to be equipped in the other. Your druid could theoretically have no shield in his range mode and therefore drop his ranged weapon and cast a spell.

Agreed. I just can't believe this is what is intended.

Ohhh I agree as well. Seems an odd ruling unless of course we will have a third mode of combat spell casting. Which I am not hoping for or asking, but that is the only thing that seems to make sense to me. Though it could create a minor uptick in token sales if casters have the option of 3 combat builds....lol.