Technically he can do it. The Staff of Defense only requires you to hold it after attunement and not wield it. He will however have some trouble casting a spell with a sword and staff setup without the Warcaster feat if the spells require a Somatic component.
There is nothing preventing the Gandalf sword and staff style. But it does have the limitation of spells with somatic components but no material component require an empty hand to cast (unless you have war caster).
Also depending on class/subclass they may not have shortsword proficiency, so check that.
They absolutely can. This really becomes a problem though when they need to doff a shield to free up a hand to cast spells because donning and doffing a shield takes an Action.
Can't a character use a free interaction with an object to sheed the sword and then use there action to cast a spell?
Then next turn, draw the sword(if they want) as a free interaction with an object? And use it for an meelee attack
Yes, you can use your free interaction for that. Just bear in mind that you will only have the staff for opportunity attacks (also, juggling weapons like that is just kind of a pain).
They can also technically just "drop" the sword to cast a spell and use their item interaction for the turn to pick it up after. Mentally this image is silly and is why many DMs just handwave this issue. There is some arguments for being able to cast a spell if the item you're holding is your arcane focus.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
They can also technically just "drop" the sword to cast a spell and use their item interaction for the turn to pick it up after. Mentally this image is silly and is why many DMs just handwave this issue. There is some arguments for being able to cast a spell if the item you're holding is your arcane focus.
It is silly, which is why other can choose to DMs do other things, such as require an action to pick a weapon up (DMs are free to make any object interaction require a full action), or have monsters kick them away, or even just saying "NO" to item interaction shenaniganery. I'd much rather hand wave the issue than actually have a player in my game go through dropping a weapon and picking it up regularly. But I really don't think the kind of DM that is a stickler minutia of tracking free object interactions isn't going to be the type that leaves the "I drop it" loophole (or really any rules loopholes) open.
They can also technically just "drop" the sword to cast a spell and use their item interaction for the turn to pick it up after. Mentally this image is silly and is why many DMs just handwave this issue. There is some arguments for being able to cast a spell if the item you're holding is your arcane focus.
It is silly, which is why other can choose to DMs do other things, such as require an action to pick a weapon up (DMs are free to make any object interaction require a full action), or have monsters kick them away, or even just saying "NO" to item interaction shenaniganery. I'd much rather hand wave the issue than actually have a player in my game go through dropping a weapon and picking it up regularly. But I really don't think the kind of DM that is a stickler minutia of tracking free object interactions isn't going to be the type that leaves the "I drop it" loophole (or really any rules loopholes) open.
Picking up a weapon is listed as an "Interact with object" free action in the core rules, so it would be a weird DM who wanted to change that. The only time I've ever seen any of this really comes up was for my Eldritch Knight, and the DM just ignored it altogether, which I agree is for the best.
Picking up a weapon is listed as an "Interact with object" free action in the core rules, so it would be a weird DM who wanted to change that. The only time I've ever seen any of this really comes up was for my Eldritch Knight, and the DM just ignored it altogether, which I agree is for the best.
Are you asking why something that is broken (a bad rule interaction in the game that leads to absolutely inexplicable gameplay) and easily fixed might be fixed?
But maybe I'm wrong anyway. I thought there was a sentence somewhere in the rules that said that a DM can decide if interacting with an object requires your entire action. I can't find that now.
Picking up a weapon is listed as an "Interact with object" free action in the core rules, so it would be a weird DM who wanted to change that. The only time I've ever seen any of this really comes up was for my Eldritch Knight, and the DM just ignored it altogether, which I agree is for the best.
Are you asking why something that is broken (a bad rule interaction in the game that leads to absolutely inexplicable gameplay) and easily fixed might be fixed?
But maybe I'm wrong anyway. I thought there was a sentence somewhere in the rules that said that a DM can decide if interacting with an object requires your entire action. I can't find that now.
Sure, it's in the introduction of the DMG:
"And as a referee, the DM interprets the rules and decides when to abide by them and when to change them."
And in the same section:
"The D&D rules help you and the other players have a good time, but the rules aren’t in charge. You’re the DM, and you are in charge of the game."
No, I meant one that was more directly applicable, saying something about a DM deciding if a particular object required an action to use. But again, I think I might be wrong, since I can’t find it.
No, I meant one that was more directly applicable, saying something about a DM deciding if a particular object required an action to use. But again, I think I might be wrong, since I can’t find it.
The DM might require you to use an action for any of these activities when it needs special care or when it presents an unusual obstacle.
At my table, picking up an object while in melee absolutely needs special care or presents an unusual obstacle. I'm also the "Failed your DEX check? Your dropped object bounces into an adjacent square" type as well.
So I have a player, who has a staff of defense and a shortsword...
He wants to hold one in each hand, the staff he has allows him to cast spells that increase his AC...
So can he cast the spell with the staff as one action and then on his next turn make an attack with a shortsword...
His character doesn't have any special features that I can see around weapons
Technically he can do it. The Staff of Defense only requires you to hold it after attunement and not wield it. He will however have some trouble casting a spell with a sword and staff setup without the Warcaster feat if the spells require a Somatic component.
Basically what LonelyMagi said.
There is nothing preventing the Gandalf sword and staff style. But it does have the limitation of spells with somatic components but no material component require an empty hand to cast (unless you have war caster).
Also depending on class/subclass they may not have shortsword proficiency, so check that.
Thanks guys...
Can't a character use a free interaction with an object to sheed the sword and then use there action to cast a spell?
Then next turn, draw the sword(if they want) as a free interaction with an object? And use it for an meelee attack
They absolutely can. This really becomes a problem though when they need to doff a shield to free up a hand to cast spells because donning and doffing a shield takes an Action.
Yes, you can use your free interaction for that. Just bear in mind that you will only have the staff for opportunity attacks (also, juggling weapons like that is just kind of a pain).
They can also technically just "drop" the sword to cast a spell and use their item interaction for the turn to pick it up after. Mentally this image is silly and is why many DMs just handwave this issue. There is some arguments for being able to cast a spell if the item you're holding is your arcane focus.
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
It is silly, which is why other can choose to DMs do other things, such as require an action to pick a weapon up (DMs are free to make any object interaction require a full action), or have monsters kick them away, or even just saying "NO" to item interaction shenaniganery. I'd much rather hand wave the issue than actually have a player in my game go through dropping a weapon and picking it up regularly. But I really don't think the kind of DM that is a stickler minutia of tracking free object interactions isn't going to be the type that leaves the "I drop it" loophole (or really any rules loopholes) open.
Picking up a weapon is listed as an "Interact with object" free action in the core rules, so it would be a weird DM who wanted to change that. The only time I've ever seen any of this really comes up was for my Eldritch Knight, and the DM just ignored it altogether, which I agree is for the best.
Are you asking why something that is broken (a bad rule interaction in the game that leads to absolutely inexplicable gameplay) and easily fixed might be fixed?
But maybe I'm wrong anyway. I thought there was a sentence somewhere in the rules that said that a DM can decide if interacting with an object requires your entire action. I can't find that now.
Sure, it's in the introduction of the DMG:
"And as a referee, the DM interprets the rules and decides when to abide by them and when to change them."
And in the same section:
"The D&D rules help you and the other players have a good time, but the rules aren’t in charge. You’re the DM, and you are in charge of the game."
No, I meant one that was more directly applicable, saying something about a DM deciding if a particular object required an action to use. But again, I think I might be wrong, since I can’t find it.
https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/basic-rules/combat#OtherActivityonYourTurn
The DM might require you to use an action for any of these activities when it needs special care or when it presents an unusual obstacle.
At my table, picking up an object while in melee absolutely needs special care or presents an unusual obstacle. I'm also the "Failed your DEX check? Your dropped object bounces into an adjacent square" type as well.