Valor bard forced to get War Caster?

[MrUberGr]

So, I'm having a conversation with my group, where we figured out the following:

If you get Valor bard supposedly you'll be using a shield and some weapon. So, how will you be able to cast spells? What I thought is that you attack and use your action to sheathe your weapon. Then, on the next round you cast and take out your weapon. Or at some order like that.

[Whammydill]

Pretty much any spell with a somatic and/or material component will require you to have that feat or a hand free. Pretty much with the method you described. That's the way I understand it anyway.

[Theodoxus]

Or they don't use a shield... or only when they're expecting to wade in and support their meat shield with extra defense. It's just a different mindset, I guess - I don't expect my bards to be going frontline fighting, unless they build (ie, take the feat(s) required to make it practical) for it.

[BW022]

You can stow a weapon as part of your one 'interact with object' action during your turn. You can always move, stow a weapon, and then take an action (such as cast a spell). You just can't redraw the weapon to have it in your hand at the end of your turn. However, next turn you could then draw the weapon and still have all action. About the only downside is that you wouldn't be able to take a reaction attack if someone provokes an attack by moving out of your reach.

Further, you don't necessarily have your hands free if the spell only has a verbal component. In addition, if the spell can be cast as a bonus action... you could put your sword away, cast (bonus action), and draw your sword (using your action).

[Galen]

You can use a Versatile weapon w/o a shield. But, for best results, yes, seems like War Caster is a feat tax for gishing.

[Rilak]

You can stow a weapon as part of your one 'interact with object' action during your turn. You can always move, stow a weapon, and then take an action (such as cast a spell). You just can't redraw the weapon to have it in your hand at the end of your turn. However, next turn you could then draw the weapon and still have all action. About the only downside is that you wouldn't be able to take a reaction attack if someone provokes an attack by moving out of your reach.

Further, you don't necessarily have your hands free if the spell only has a verbal component. In addition, if the spell can be cast as a bonus action... you could put your sword away, cast (bonus action), and draw your sword (using your action).

The wording is "You can interact with one object ... during either your move or action". Sheathe a sword, casting, drawing sword is only interacting with one object. There is no restriction on interacting with the same object twice.

[Shadow]

The wording is "You can interact with one object ... during either your move or action". Sheathe a sword, casting, drawing sword is only interacting with one object. There is no restriction on interacting with the same object twice.

Interacting with the same object twice is the same as interacting with two objects. It's two interactions, when you only get one interaction for free.

[Rilak]

Interacting with the same object twice is the same as interacting with two objects. It's two interactions, when you only get one interaction for free.

Nowhere does it say I am limited to one interaction. Same object twice is different from two different objects.

[Shadow]

{{scrubbed}}

[Rilak]

{{scrubbed}}

No. People saying iconic casters like greatsword-wielding EK's need feats is unintended in 5e (feats are optional; not everyone plays with them; and the game is supposed to be fast and easy to play).
Note that even if you allow sheathe,cast,draw... you still need to care about somatic components. That dragon trying to bite you and you want to cast Shield? Tough luck; if you switched back to your two-hander or sword+board you can't do that.

[Shadow]

No. People saying iconic casters like greatsword-wielding EK's need feats is unintended in 5e (feats are optional; not everyone plays with them; and the game is supposed to be fast and easy to play).
Note that even if you allow sheathe,cast,draw... you still need to care about somatic components. That dragon trying to bite you and you want to cast Shield? Tough luck; if you switched back to your two-hander or sword+board you can't do that.

People who say that are wrong. WotC has indeed stated that the RAI was that using a two handed melee weapon with a caster is not available without feat support (if you use those rules). They have stated that the RAI was that holding a two handed melee weapon required both hands at all times (ranged only needing one to hold, but both to fire).
This is specifically the reason that the quarterstaff is a versatile weapon rather than a two hander, for example.
This is the reason that a holy symbol can be placed on your shield, for example.
Your DM may overrule or interpret differently, but the RAI was that casters can't use two handers inherently, and I'm not the one saying it....WotC said so.

People saying that you can just "rest your sword on your shoulder while you cast" don't understand that actually doing this in a combat situation means that they'd be dead instantly.

[Graustein]

Nowhere does it say I am limited to one interaction. Same object twice is different from two different objects.

True, and in this specific case of sheathe-->cast-->redraw I'd follow a DM ruling on whether it's kosher or not, but also I'd be wary of a sweeping ruling that lets you interact multiple times with the same object. If a DM isn't careful that's potentially abusable.

Also this ruling does functionally give you one of the abilities explicitly granted by War Caster, so there's that. It's still a pretty great feat, though.

[DrLemniscate]

Pick up the Druid cantrip Shillelagh.

Now you can use your lute (or other wooden spellcasting focus) as a sturdy 1d8 bludgeoning weapon! Of course, you have to use your WIS bonus instead of STR/DEX.

[Rfkannen]

Pick up the Druid cantrip Shillelagh.

Now you can use your lute (or other wooden spellcasting focus) as a sturdy 1d8 bludgeoning weapon! Of course, you have to use your WIS bonus instead of STR/DEX.

Wait I thought the bards casting stat was charisma?

[Shadow]

Wait I thought the bards casting stat was charisma?

It is, but as a College of Valor bard, he won't get access to Shillelagh until level 10 unless he uses a feat to grab it earlier. And if he does that, he has to use Wis as per the feat's rules.
If he doesn't use a feat, he's giving up one of his two choices at level 10 for a cantrip.
So it's (a) use a feat and Wis, or (b) wait until level 10 and use Magical Secrets for Cha.
I's kind of lose/lose, but it's an option.

[Rfkannen]

It is, but as a College of Valor bard, he won't get access to Shillelagh until level 10 unless he uses a feat to grab it earlier. And if he does that, he has to use Wis as per the feat's rules.
If he doesn't use a feat, he's giving up one of his two choices at level 10 for a cantrip.
So it's (a) use a feat and Wis, or (b) wait until level 10 and use Magical Secrets for Cha.
I's kind of lose/lose, but it's an option.


Hmm I guess it could work, it would allow you to dump str and dex. So then you could have charisma and wisdom. So the question is wether you want high streangth, dexterity, or wisdom

[Townopolis]

If you pick up Shillelagh using the Magic Initiate feat, you use WIS for attack and damage with it. If you pick up Shillelagh at level 10 through your bard class feature, you use CHA for attack and damage with it.

There are a few options available for valor bards who don't want to take/can't take the feat. One is to use a versatile weapon, switching between 1h and 2h mode as needed. Ostensibly, you could also use your offhand to cast while holding a 2h weapon (like greatsword) provided you do not attack using the weapon that round, for whatever that's worth. You also have access to a number of spells with only verbal component including one cantrip,Vicious Mockery; a heal, Healing Word, a level 1 direct damage, Dissonant Whispers, as well as both Power Word Stund and Power Word Kill. You don't lose much by just sticking to these spells in combat and using your spells with somatic & material components between fights.

[MrUberGr]

BTW, would someone be so kind as to explain RAW and RAI? I do have a vague idea but I'm not exactly sure what the terms mean.:smallredface:

[Shadow]

RAW = Rules as Written
RAI = Rules as Intended
Sometimes the wording of a rule doesn't reflect what was intended and can be abused due to ambiguities. As 5e was designed with DM judgement calls prevailing rather than creating rules for practically any given situation, 5e is riddled with areas where the RAW and the RAI don't line up completely, and some players attempt to abuse this.
Claiming that not holding a two handed melee wepaon with both hands so that you can cast with s/m is just one example. It doesn't specifically say anywhere that you can't do it, so they think that the requirement of needing a hand free can be explained by just not holding the weapon as it is supposed to be held.

The problem is that these players are used to 3.x and 4e, where the RAW was Law. But in 5e, the DM is Law, and the RAI are more important than the RAW.

This thread was about sword and board bards, but as for two handed bards, I don't see the issue. They are proficient with longswords, which are slashing 1d8 (versatile 1d10) already. Grab a component pouch and you're fine.

[MrUberGr]

I'm playing a dex bard, given that I'm also the party's skill monkey, and it's what was mostly fitting to my character. Having a big sword was never my issue. Not dying was my issue :smallbiggrin:

[toapat]

People who say that are wrong. WotC has indeed stated that the RAI was that using a two handed melee weapon with a caster is not available without feat support (if you use those rules). They have stated that the RAI was that holding a two handed melee weapon required both hands at all times (ranged only needing one to hold, but both to fire).
This is specifically the reason that the quarterstaff is a versatile weapon rather than a two hander, for example.
This is the reason that a holy symbol can be placed on your shield, for example.
Your DM may overrule or interpret differently, but the RAI was that casters can't use two handers inherently, and I'm not the one saying it....WotC said so.

People saying that you can just "rest your sword on your shoulder while you cast" don't understand that actually doing this in a combat situation means that they'd be dead instantly.

except that because of how the Material component exception clause works, Holy symbol on shield doesnt change the fact that you are A: Holding the shield, not the Holy Symbol and B: Dont have any free hands anyway

[hecetv]

Just have one of your instruments be singing. Or drumming a la sword and shield. You could probably make a case for dancing. Whistling even why not? Poetry. Inspiring words. What else can you do duel wielding? There's probably more.

[MrUberGr]

That's not the problem. The phb actually says you can sing, cant etc instead of playing an instrument for bardic inspiration. The problem is with other spells, such as Sleep or Shatter, which are V - S - M spells.

[Shadow]

except that because of how the Material component exception clause works, Holy symbol on shield doesnt change the fact that you are A: Holding the shield, not the Holy Symbol and B: Dont have any free hands anyway

Common sense dictates that the shield itself becmes the holy symbol, so yes, you are holding it. So unless there are specific mats needed (with a price or consumed) you don't need a hand free anymore for the mats. You are holding your focus, so that requirement is nullified. The focus/pouch completely replaces the need for components in most cases. In the case of a focus rather than a pouch, you already have the components in your hand via the focus.

The issue with a somatic component still exists, however, unless you find a way around it (ala war caster feat, etc).
Personally, I rule that the hand holding the focus is the same one that performs the somatic comps. In effect, that hand doesn't have to be free as long as the thing in that hand is your focus.

[toapat]

Common sense dictates that the shield itself becmes the holy symbol.

No, it doesnt. My Mom does restoration and most of the work she does is religious art. The only part that she or the people she deals with consider the religiously significant portion of the objects are the characters and designs that the work depicts. The Canvases behind the work or the material making up the piece is irrelevant and is not considered part of it, and this includes statues where the holy symbol is the whole damn thing.

In other words, you are Seeing a tree and thinking its a forest.

[Shadow]

In other words, you are Seeing a tree and thinking its a forest.

The only important part about the cleric holding his holy symbol is the fact that he presents it with faith.
When you hold prayer beads and pray, the cross is the important part, not the beads themselves as they are just the chain upon which the cross hangs.
By holdnig his shield, the cleric is always presenting his holy symbol. He doesn't need to touch the symbol itself just as a catholic doesn't need to touch the cross hanging on his prayer beads.

It is quite clear what the intention was for adding foci and component pouches to the game. Just because the exact wording leaves something to be desired doesn't mean that you can no longer cast clerical spells while holding a weapon and shield. That's exactly why they added the clause about holy symbols (clerical foci) being able to be placed upon shields.
What's the point of it otherwise?
Please, explain it to me. What's the point of it, if not to allow what you state the wording disallows?

In other words, you can't see the forest for the trees.

And as a secondary point, you are also one of the players I was referring to when I mentioned that some people are too used to the 3.x and 4e format where the RAW was the Law. This is not the case in 5e, and you would do well to learn that fact.

[Scirocco]

The shield becomes a holy symbol, no argument there, but without the Warcaster feat the cleric can't perform somatic components with a weapon in the other hand. This is an intended effect, given the mention of shields as holy symbol. Now Warcaster is awkwardly worded, but it's pretty clear elsewhere that you can perform the somatic gestures as long as you have one hand free (shield hand isn't free/two-hander isn't free).

[Shadow]

The shield becomes a holy symbol, no argument there, but without the Warcaster feat the cleric can't perform somatic components with a weapon in the other hand. This is an intended effect, given the mention of shields as holy symbol. Now Warcaster is awkwardly worded, but it's pretty clear elsewhere that you can perform the somatic gestures as long as you have one hand free (shield hand isn't free/two-hander isn't free).

Which is exactly why:


Personally, I rule that the hand holding the focus is the same one that performs the somatic comps. In effect, that hand doesn't have to be free as long as the thing in that hand is your focus.

In my games, it doesn't matter to me if it's a cleric with a hammer and shield, a wizard with a dagger and wand, a bard with a sword and flute, etc.
In my games, if your hands are both full, one of those hands must be holding your focus, and then you can cast freely.

[hecetv]

I feel like the implication that a bard can cast spells while playing music means he can preform the necessary actions while playing music. Why would he play a lute or whatever to cure his party or something but then put it down and wave his hands around? I don't see any reason to assume that the somatic components for each class are the same thing. For the bard wouldn't his somatic component to his spell casting, which is music in his case, be the somatic component of his music? So for a bard who is playing a harp, yes his somatic component would require a free hand, or in that case more likely HANDS. But for a bard who is singing his somatic component would really be in the capacity to song.

Even for classes who share spells, I don't see why the way in which they cast them has to be identical.

[Theodoxus]

That's cool, Shadow. I wouldn't rule that way, but I'd play it if it was offered.

I come from a primarily LARP background, where trying to cast a spell with while holding a weapon/shield is disallowed. You have to point at your designated target with an empty hand as part of the casting rules. Or, if a material component, like a spellball is required, it can be in your casting hand. But then, it's harder to gish up a LARP - they tend to frown on melee competent casters as being 'op'. Short sighted in my view, but people put a lot of emphasis on balance in pvp games.

At any rate, between a 3.x mindset and a LARP background, I find somatic components to be a particularly sticky wicket. YMMV, of course.

I'm not sure anyone's pointed this out, but Clerics can't cast spells in heavy armor without heavy armor proficiency either... that's a new trend.

[Theodoxus]

I feel like the implication that a bard can cast spells while playing music means he can preform the necessary actions while playing music. Why would he play a lute or whatever to cure his party or something but then put it down and wave his hands around? I don't see any reason to assume that the somatic components for each class are the same thing. For the bard wouldn't his somatic component to his spell casting, which is music in his case, be the somatic component of his music? So for a bard who is playing a harp, yes his somatic component would require a free hand, or in that case more likely HANDS. But for a bard who is singing his somatic component would really be in the capacity to song.

Even for classes who share spells, I don't see why the way in which they cast them has to be identical.

Eh, the music is fluff, not mechanics. I wouldn't allow a player to state that their magic was based on singing, and thus every spell that has an S is replaced with a V - V's already there... that's way too powerful. Especially if there are two bards in the party and the first bard didn't think of singing, so he's strumming his lyre, sad that he can't go out and fight, while the second bard smirks at his sad companion as he deftly sings a song of Animate Objects while jabbing a bad guy in the eye.... yeah, no.

[Shadow]

That's cool, Shadow. I wouldn't rule that way, but I'd play it if it was offered.

As I asked toapat, why would they even introduce the concept of foci if not for situations such as this? They serve zero purpose otherwise. They could have just added component pouches and that would have been that. They added foci as well, but for what purpose?
Originally, in the test packets, casters didn't get their proficiency bonus to the saving throws of spells that they cast unless they were holding a focus. They removed that particular rule, but they didn't remove the foci.
Why didn't they remove the foci? What purpose do they serve?

That's why I rule the way that I do. Focus in hand = Somatic and Mats are covered (as long as you have any required specific mats on your person).
I find that it keeps the idea and flavor behind foci true, while still keeping cheese such as two-handers and dual wielding casters to require a feat.

So once again, RAI holds where the strict interpretations of RAW fail.

[TheOOB]

except that because of how the Material component exception clause works, Holy symbol on shield doesnt change the fact that you are A: Holding the shield, not the Holy Symbol and B: Dont have any free hands anyway

I remember a word of god ruling that having a holy symbol shield allows you to use that hand for somatic components. I'll try to find it.

[Theodoxus]

Why didn't they remove the foci? What purpose do they serve? I don't know, I didn't write the rules ;) I think they're a hold over from 4th ed, where you needed a specific focus for your class. Orbs and Staves and Knives and whatnot (didn't play much 4th).

I will say, that trying to juggle a staff in one hand while twisting your fingers in knots with the same hand, is a bit like holding a scalding cup of coffee and trying to throw gang signs without ending up with 2nd degree burns - at best, your focus is spun out of your hand and lands at your feet... if not smashing your knee, shin or ankle on its wayward spin to the ground.

I know this is an elf game, but sometimes you need to be reassured that things are logically consistent with what you've encountered with in the real world. Somatic components are one of those things - if this is how they want to deal with them, then I turn the question back to you - why not just get rid of them, and take that line out of War Caster? It's still a useful feat (though maybe worthy of +1 Con without the somatic component... component. heh)

[MeeposFire]

I think the idea of allowing foci instead of components is to appeal to people that are used to wizards and the like casting spells through a staff or wand (most popular being characters like Harry Potter and Gandalf). Traditionally D&D was all about components but I think they figured out that if the component had no real value that allowing a different flavor of requirement to replace them that simultaneously allows players to play casters that cast using these thematic elements such as the staff could be a benefit to a game that is trying to unite so many different styles.

[Shadow]

I remember a word of god ruling that having a holy symbol shield allows you to use that hand for somatic components. I'll try to find it.

I went searching after I read this, and I did indeed find what you were referring to (https://twitter.com/DBassJon/status/507342349966381056).


can a Cleric or Paladin cast spells requiring somatic components when wielding weapon + shield emblazoned with holy symbol?
I'd say yes if the holy symbol is being used as the material component of the spell, so yes if "S, M," but no if only "S."

Notice the "I'd say," as in, it's the DM's call, but this is what I would do. Just like the vast majority of rulings for 5e. The word of god isn't the word of god anymore. The DM's word is what matters in 5e.

[MrUberGr]

So, RAW says you can, instead of playing an insturment, orate or sing. That would free your hands from an instrument.

Now, if you think of the typical bard, Elan style, who's running around with his lute, he would have both his hands full, yet would be able to cast.

So, using simple logic you could say that any bard spell could essentialy become V - V. Yet that would be op.

If you were holding a weapon on one hand, would you be able to cast a spell with a somatic component normaly? Would you still have to sing/play instrument?

-----
All in all, I think there isn't enough flavor given on how the bard actually mixes music and magic and what he is required to do. If we could figure that, then we could probably work out the rest.

[toapat]

Please, explain it to me. What's the point of it, if not to allow what you state the wording disallows?

In other words, you can't see the forest for the trees.

And as a secondary point, you are also one of the players I was referring to when I mentioned that some people are too used to the 3.x and 4e format where the RAW was the Law. This is not the case in 5e, and you would do well to learn that fact.

1: You ever heard of Heraldry? That thing that told other people who you considered your Liege? Thats what the emblem is for, and the rules about Holy Symbols as Material components cover that. However, because you Bear the heraldry of a deity, not hold it with a shield attached, the rule doesnt apply for Somatic material non-conflict

2: RAW is still law, doesnt matter what other people believe Because its the only objective facts we have about the rules. RAI is shaky and based on conjecture and Dev-Commentary is seasoned with rules blindness and rules overexposure. You cant argue that they are correct


As I asked toapat, why would they even introduce the concept of foci if not for situations such as this?

You didnt ask that in the first one, and there is no justifiable reason to carry a holy symbol if its not either substituting for the material components or being a necessary burden on the caster like in 3rd. Tell me how often you would even remember to add it as a bauble to your sheet if it wasnt in some way mechanically worth remembering or a necessity? 5th is the first edition where divine focuses matter in a way where players will intentionally acquire one

[ArtlessMammet]

1: You ever heard of Heraldry? That thing that told other people who you considered your Liege? Thats what the emblem is for, and the rules about Holy Symbols as Material components cover that. However, because you Bear the heraldry of a deity, not hold it with a shield attached, the rule doesnt apply.

2: RAW is still law, doesnt matter what other people believe Because its the only objective facts we have about the rules. RAI is shaky and based on conjecture and Dev-Commentary is seasoned with rules blindness and rules overexposure. You cant argue that they are correct



You didnt ask that in the first one, and there is no justifiable reason to carry a holy symbol if its not either substituting for the material components or being a necessary burden on the caster like in 3rd. Tell me how often you would even remember to add it as a bauble to your sheet if it wasnt in some way mechanically worth remembering or a necessity? 5th is the first edition where divine focuses matter in a way where players will intentionally acquire one

So if I can't carry one of these (https://www.google.com.au/search?q=reliquary&client=firefox-a&hs=4RZ&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&channel=fflb&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=KL8mVPWgPMHV8gWu8oHoBg&ved=0CAgQ_AUoAQ&biw=1920&bih=937#rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&channel=fflb&tbm=isch&q=reliquary) in my hand, I'm going to need an amulet too?

For what it's worth, I like to buy signet rings with my starting gold.

[Bakakiba]

As I asked toapat, why would they even introduce the concept of foci if not for situations such as this?

Better question would be, given the streamlining and efficacy of this edition, why did they make this part of the rules overly complicated?

[toapat]

So if I can't carry one of these (https://www.google.com.au/search?q=reliquary&client=firefox-a&hs=4RZ&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&channel=fflb&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=KL8mVPWgPMHV8gWu8oHoBg&ved=0CAgQ_AUoAQ&biw=1920&bih=937#rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&channel=fflb&tbm=isch&q=reliquary) in my hand, I'm going to need an amulet too?

For what it's worth, I like to buy signet rings with my starting gold.

The implication i got of the reliquary's size was that its like the one Ron Pearlman gives Abe in Hellboy 1. an inch and a half diameter cylinder 3 inches tall. Which means its weight of 2 pounds means it would have to be made of solid steel, which means it would be a printing die which one would use to manufacture small religious texts, probably engraved on top and bottom with a sigil of the church.

Personally i figure the Amulet is the best, although like the Reliquary it seems absurdly heavy for what i basically would expect to be the religion's icon on a rope or chain.

[hecetv]

Eh, the music is fluff, not mechanics. I wouldn't allow a player to state that their magic was based on singing, and thus every spell that has an S is replaced with a V - V's already there... that's way too powerful. Especially if there are two bards in the party and the first bard didn't think of singing, so he's strumming his lyre, sad that he can't go out and fight, while the second bard smirks at his sad companion as he deftly sings a song of Animate Objects while jabbing a bad guy in the eye.... yeah, no.

I understand your interpretation. I think the whole bard class is in a lot of ways badly designed. It doesn't really fit into the mechanics of the game, as written.

By your interpretation, which I think is valid, how would a bard cast a spell with a two handed instrument? He couldn't.

Also a bard can't sing animate dead while attacking, he only has one action.

I'm just saying if a bard wanted to take his action to sing a spell, I think that would make sense, and it's not as if he could attack also, unless he was a valor bard.

Though now writing that I can see what a stupid specifically situational argument that is. How can a bard be pro at string instruments or whatever in the current uh... Rules ecosystem? He would need to sheath his sword and pull out his banjo or whatever and then start playing, which isn't really covered in the rules.

So again it's kind of poor design, because the way a bard is supposed to cast doesn't really work with how casting works, but maybe if I reread the bard entry there's something in there where specific over general a bard CAN do both.

Maybe you need to pick up background instrumentalists and have a band that plays for you while you do the magic. Idk.

[MrUberGr]

Maybe you need to pick up background instrumentalists and have a band that plays for you while you do the magic. Idk.

Laughed so hard, I farted and woke up my deaf dog!:smallbiggrin:




I'm just saying if a bard wanted to take his action to sing a spell, I think that would make sense, and it's not as if he could attack also, unless he was a valor bard.

Though now writing that I can see what a stupid specifically situational argument that is. How can a bard be pro at string instruments or whatever in the current uh... Rules ecosystem? He would need to sheath his sword and pull out his banjo or whatever and then start playing, which isn't really covered in the rules.

So again it's kind of poor design, because the way a bard is supposed to cast doesn't really work with how casting works, but maybe if I reread the bard entry there's something in there where specific over general a bard CAN do both.[/QUOTE]

This exactly is my point. In level 14 you get a class feature, which, in order to use, you have to invest in an actual feat. If you attack and then want to cast a spell that has a Somatic component, you're basically f#%^@d unless you have war caster. Which is basically nuts.

[Townopolis]

The valor bard's level 14 ability allows them to cast Blindness/Deafness, Dimension Door, Dissonant Whispers, Faerie Fire, Glibness, Knock, Otto's Irresistible Dance, Power Word Stun, Power Word Kill, Teleport, or Vicious Mockery and then attack regardless of how many hands they have full and without feat support.

Bards can also know Healing Word, but as a bonus action, it doesn't interact with the valor bard's level 14 ability.

There are also some non-bard spells you could pick up and use with both hands full.

Aura of Life
Aura of Purity
Aura of Vitality
Banishing Smite (b)
Blinding Smite (b)
Blur
Branding Smite (b)
Circle of Power
Command
Compelled Duel
Crusader's Mantle
Destructive Wave
Divine Word (b)
Ensnaring Strike (b)
Guardian of Faith
Hail of Thorns (b)
Hunter's Mark (b)
Mass Healing Word (b)
Misty Step (b)
Prayer of Healing
Searing Smite (b)
Staggering Smite (b)
Thunderous Smite (b)
Time Stop
Wish
Word of Recall
Wrathful Smite (b)

[Rilak]

In level 14 you get a class feature, which, in order to use, you have to invest in an actual feat. If you attack and then want to cast a spell that has a Somatic component, you're basically f#%^@d unless you have war caster. Which is basically nuts.

There are no feats under the standard rules, though... So it just means the valor bard is pretty useless according to most people in this thread.

Let's take a ranged Ranger instead. The longbow is a heavy, two-handed weapon (just like a greatsword). Which according to the people here means you are unable to hold it in one hand (ridiculous if you have ever used a bow), and also that sheathing it or holding it in one hand would somehow be fatal in regards to your defences compared to holding it in two hands (equally ridiculous). Why would the ranger be unable to cast spells?

[Shadow]

There are no feats under the standard rules, though... So it just means the valor bard is pretty useless according to most people in this thread.

Let's take a ranged Ranger instead. The longbow is a heavy, two-handed weapon (just like a greatsword). Which according to the people here means you are unable to hold it in one hand (ridiculous if you have ever used a bow), and also that sheathing it or holding it in one hand would somehow be fatal in regards to your defences compared to holding it in two hands (equally ridiculous). Why would the ranger be unable to cast spells?

That comment was specifically about two handed melee weapons, and you know it.
Holding a bow requires one hand. Firing it requires two. You can hold it in one hand safely because you're at range.
Holding your giant greatsword propped against your shoulder in the midst of melee combat is suicide, and you know that as well.

"Oh, hang on there Mr. Big Bad Evil Guy.... I'm going to lower my defenses and make myself completely vulnerable by propping my only defense against my shoulder while I cast this spell. Just do me a favor and don't chop my head off while I'm doing this, pretty please?"

You can't call time out, and you shouldn't be able to prop a giant weapon against your shoulder like you're on lunch break during the middle of battle.
And none of my players wil ever get me to agree to this unless they agree that I get advantage on every attack on them until they attack with the weapon again.

[Cybren]

What kind of annoys me about the college of valor bard is that the inspiration bonus is worse for me in a fight than the college of lore inspiration bonus. I can't use combat inspiration on myself, so weirdly a level 3 college of lore bard and level 3 college of valor bard identical in all other respects that choose to fight a one on one duel leaves the valor bard with fewer options.

[Townopolis]

And none of my players wil ever get me to agree to this unless they agree that I get advantage on every attack on them until they attack with the weapon again.
Would the same apply to someone only wielding a ranged weapon? It's fairly hard to fend enemies off with just a bow in melee. How about unarmed non-monk/tavern brawler characters, like say a wizard using just a spell component pouch? Also, would this only apply to melee attacks, or would ranged attacks get advantage, too?

I believe the idea is that you can't fend enemies off with a 2h weapon held in one hand (which is accurate), and therefore enemies should get bonuses to hit while you aren't wielding a weapon. If this assessment is correct, it should logically apply to the above situations as well, since they all involve someone with no effective tools of defense, especially the wizard one.

[Shadow]

Would the same apply to someone only wielding a ranged weapon? It's fairly hard to fend enemies off with just a bow in melee. How about unarmed non-monk/tavern brawler characters, like say a wizard using just a spell component pouch?

I believe the idea is that you can't fend enemies off with a 2h weapon held in one hand (which is accurate), and therefore enemies should get bonuses to hit while you aren't wielding a weapon. If this assessment is correct, it should logically apply to the above situations as well, since they all involve someone with no effective tools of defense, especially the wizard one.

I disagree.
In those situations, the character is still dodging and weaving, attempting to get out of the way and make attacks miss.
Try doing that with a five foot long blade resting at your neck and tell me how it works out for you.

[Rilak]

Try doing that with a five foot long blade resting at your neck and tell me how it works out for you.

It is no problem at all, thank you very much. You do of course realise that a greatsword weighs only 3 kg? That is a similar weight to the dumbbells my 60-year mother does aerobics with. It is very easy to wield the sword in one hand, if a bit awkward unless you are used to wielding long objects (that's where proficiency comes in).

You won't enjoy trying to parry with the sword while wielded in one hand, but you do not get any benefits from trying to defend yourself with a greatsword using two hands. So no big deal.

[Townopolis]

Well, let's see. I'm a valor bard, right? So unless I've been deprived of my usual armor--a chain shirt at least--my neck is well-enough protected that a sword at rest on my shoulder just plain won't ever get the momentum needed to cut me. In fact, I would probably want to lean the sword into the crook of my neck and my shoulder to prevent it from slipping off its resting place from all this dodging and weaving. So unless my sword can cut through tanks, I don't think its 6 lb. will cause me too much trouble, actually.

[Shadow]

We should find out shortly (https://twitter.com/search?q=%40calebrus44%202h%20weap&src=typd).

@JeremyECrawford @mikemearls
Help resolve a debate. By RAI should a caster be able to prop a 2h weap against his shoulder in order to cast?

And before anyone cries about RAI, that's exactly what this discussion is about. The RAW is ambiguous, so the RAI is what matters.

[Townopolis]

So I'm still interested to see what the devs have to say about RAI, but I also just realized that this whole argument about 2h weapons for valor bards is silly, at least or me. The level 14 valor ability is to cast and attack in the same round, and I have only been arguing that a character could switch for "wielding" to "just holding" a 2h weapon for a round in order to cast spells with S and M components; this would nullify the benefits of Battle Magic (well, I guess you could punch the guy after finishing your spell), as a "just held" weapon wouldn't--or shouldn't--be valid for making the bonus attack with.

So, even if greatsword-on-the-shoulder is legal or adjudicated as such, a valor bard still wants to (a) stick with V only spells, (b) use a versatile weapon, or (c) get War Caster if they're going to take advantage of Battle Magic. :smallsigh:

... I still want to see who's "right," though.

[Sindeloke]

Just to add a completely different facet to this debate, I'm honestly not really convinced that somatic components actually matter to begin with. If they're supposed to be a balance against a caster using a shield, well, in 3.path bucklers make that "balancing factor" completely irrelevant, and the specific use of shields as holy symbols makes it seem pretty clear that's not an intended restriction in 5e. If they're supposed to be a way to make more powerful spells unavailable in concert with a 2h weapon, well, in 3.path a wizard with a greatsword is already gimping himself far harder than any spell restriction just by having proficiency, not to mention wasting standard actions on using it, and in 5e there are a fair number of good spells with no somatic component anyway. In fact apart from expensive material components on certain spells they don't want you spamming, the assignation of V, S and M on spells has always been, as far as I can tell, 100% arbitrary.

I mean, they're useful as a way to inhibit casting in a grapple or wild shape, I suppose, but neither of those things applies to 5e either. So why even worry about it? Just let your gishes gish. They're already giving up a meaningful chunk of magic power to be good with weapons, and if they're 2handing they're giving up a meaningful chunk of defense to be better at attack. Do they really need yet one more penalty, especially one that mostly just makes things fiddly and obnoxious rather than actually meaningfully difficult?

[hymer]

the assignation of V, S and M on spells has always been, as far as I can tell, 100% arbitrary.

Not at all. In 2nd edition AD&D, the main deal with somatic and verbal were whether they could be cast without giving your position away, while tied up, while gagged, and so on. Spells like Knock, Teleport and Word of Recall are verbal only, so you can use them to escape even if chained. Wraithform on the other hand is a means to move surreptitiously about, and it is not verbal.

[Theodoxus]

I think the only spells where Somatic actually matter, is where they're specifically spelled out in the spells description. So far (I haven't scrutinized every spell yet) I've only seen this in Burning Hands and Cone of Cold.

(As an aside, even if the whole 'double casting your Cone of Cold while riding your horse' was ruled ok, it wouldn't work, as Cone of Cold specifies it coming from your hands. Last I saw, a horse doesn't have hands. Burning Hands wouldn't work for a similar reason (no thumbs on those horse hands either.)

I am curious how Burning Hands and War Caster intersect though - Where does the flame originate?

[Daishain]

I think the only spells where Somatic actually matter, is where they're specifically spelled out in the spells description. So far (I haven't scrutinized every spell yet) I've only seen this in Burning Hands and Cone of Cold.

(As an aside, even if the whole 'double casting your Cone of Cold while riding your horse' was ruled ok, it wouldn't work, as Cone of Cold specifies it coming from your hands. Last I saw, a horse doesn't have hands. Burning Hands wouldn't work for a similar reason (no thumbs on those horse hands either.)

I am curious how Burning Hands and War Caster intersect though - Where does the flame originate?
Given that you can now use objects as a focus for spells, (even if most weapons aren't technically included) I would personally describe pointing a weapon, flames running along its length to the end, and then fanning out in a massive conflagration.

Its all for flavor, you could describe your caster turning around and letting loose a fiery fart for all it really matters. Just pick something that makes sense and appeals to you.

[Warskull]

People who say that are wrong. WotC has indeed stated that the RAI was that using a two handed melee weapon with a caster is not available without feat support (if you use those rules). They have stated that the RAI was that holding a two handed melee weapon required both hands at all times (ranged only needing one to hold, but both to fire).
This is specifically the reason that the quarterstaff is a versatile weapon rather than a two hander, for example.
This is the reason that a holy symbol can be placed on your shield, for example.
Your DM may overrule or interpret differently, but the RAI was that casters can't use two handers inherently, and I'm not the one saying it....WotC said so.

People saying that you can just "rest your sword on your shoulder while you cast" don't understand that actually doing this in a combat situation means that they'd be dead instantly.

The rules themselves fairly explicitly state that is takes 2-hands to use a 2-handed weapon. They say nothing about requiring 2-hands to hold a 2-handed weapon.

In combat there isn't much difference between holding a 2-handed weapon with 1-hand or sheathing a 2-handed weapon. In both cases you can't attack with it until you interact with it next round. However, out of combat it could easily become significant.

The RAI/Dev-commentary is also useless in this case. They say they intend for you to need need the warcasting feat to wield a two handed weapon. However, they also say that you can change weapons in a single round using your free interaction while using an action (essentially interacting with two different weapons.) The free interaction rule is written very poorly.

[Shadow]

They're already giving up a meaningful chunk of magic power to be good with weapons, and if they're 2handing they're giving up a meaningful chunk of defense to be better at attack.

Um.... no they aren't. Not at all.
All you need is proficiency and a decent attack stat to ber effective in melee. That's it. One level dip covers it.
Same goes for defense.
A single level of fighter/whatever is all you need to gish it up effectively. They give up absolutely nothing "meaningful" to do it.

This is exactly why, in my games, you can either use feats or you can multiclass. The are both available, but they are mutually exclusive.

[Sindeloke]

Um.... no they aren't. Not at all.
All you need is proficiency and a decent attack stat to ber effective in melee. That's it. One level dip covers it.
Same goes for defense.

By that logic an elven wizard 17 is better than an elven barbarian 16 at beating things in the face with a sword, because the wizard has one more point of proficiency.

Melee classes (like barbs and rangers) and gishes (like valor bards and paladins) get not just proficiencies, but extra attacks, class features that add extra damage to attacks, class features that add more options to attacks, class features that grant defenses in melee, and in the case of gishes, spells that make their melee attacks more powerful.

A wizard 19/fighter 1 gets.... a sword.

The idea that both are as effective in melee is as strange as the idea that a greatsword offers just as much defense as having a shield in your off-hand instead.

[Shadow]

By that logic an elven wizard 17 is better than an elven barbarian 16 at beating things in the face with a sword, because the wizard has one more point of proficiency.
<snip>
The idea that both are as effective in melee is as strange as the idea that a greatsword offers just as much defense as having a shield in your off-hand instead.

Then perhaps that's what you should have said.
You didn't say anything about being as good as a dedicated melee class, you said "good with weapons." You did not say "as good with weapons as a dedicated melee character," and there is a HUGE difference between those two things.

What I said was that all anyone needs to be effective in melee was proficieny in the weapon in hand and a decent appropriate attack stat.... and that remains true. There's no more scaling attack bonus, so any character can melee effectively as long as those two points are true.

Furthermore, with the way that multiclassing works in regards to spellcasting, you can get 5 levels of Pally or Ranger for extra attack, and also get a 9th level spell slot. I wouldn't say that's "giving up a meaningful chunk" of anything.

[Rummy]

Then perhaps that's what you should have said.
You didn't say anything about being as good as a dedicated melee class, you said "good with weapons." You did not say "as good with weapons as a dedicated melee character," and there is a HUGE difference between those two things.

What I said was that all anyone needs to be effective in melee was proficieny in the weapon in hand and a decent appropriate attack stat.... and that remains true. There's no more scaling attack bonus, so any character can melee effectively as long as those two points are true.

Furthermore, with the way that multiclassing works in regards to spellcasting, you can get 5 levels of Pally or Ranger for extra attack, and also get a 9th level spell slot. I wouldn't say that's "giving up a meaningful chunk" of anything.

A five level multiclass is absolutely giving up a meaningful chunk of the main class. That is 25% of the available levels, for goodness sake. Also, most campaigns stay under 10 levels, which makes a five level dip an even greater sacrifice

[Shadow]

A five level multiclass is absolutely giving up a meaningful chunk of the main class. That is 25% of the available levels, for goodness sake. Also, most campaigns stay under 10 levels, which makes a five level dip an even greater sacrifice
25%? The classes are more front loaded, so that 25% of total class level is not equal to 25% of that class' abilities.
You lose one ABI, one subclass feature, the capstone, and 9th level spells known (retaining the slot).
You get armor, weapons, a fighting style, three (or four) base class features, a subclass feature, extra attack, and more spells prepared than you would have had as a single class, from a more varied list.
One could argue that you're actually gaining a whole heck of a lot more than you're giving up. So no, it isn't a "meaningful chunk" of the class.

[MrUberGr]

The most features might be at the start of the class, but the best are last. For example, you'd want to do warlock 20 or, at least 17 for the 9th level spell.

[Shadow]

The most features might be at the start of the class, but the best are last. For example, you'd want to do warlock 20 or, at least 17 for the 9th level spell.

The 9th level slot is arguably more important than the 9th level spell known. There are a few exceptions such as wish, etc, but generally speaking as long as you're still getting 8th level spells and a 9th level slot, you're losing very little power overall.

[Yagyujubei]

OR you could just use a bow and always have a hand free when you need it

[Rummy]

25%? The classes are more front loaded, so that 25% of total class level is not equal to 25% of that class' abilities.
You lose one ABI, one subclass feature, the capstone, and 9th level spells known (retaining the slot).
You get armor, weapons, a fighting style, three (or four) base class features, a subclass feature, extra attack, and more spells prepared than you would have had as a single class, from a more varied list.
One could argue that you're actually gaining a whole heck of a lot more than you're giving up. So no, it isn't a "meaningful chunk" of the class.

You definitely are giving up a meaningful chunk of the main class. As you correctly point out, doing so can be worth it. You are just more of a multiclass a/b than an a with a dash of b.

[Person_Man]

Mearls has actually answered this question a couple different times, and has said that you can sheath between casting.

"I'd let a caster use spells unless its blatantly clear he can't get a hand free - tied up, carrying a huge object."

https://twitter.com/mikemearls/status/509944695967858688

Also, I think its important to remember that the verbal/somatic/material spellcasting components go entirely against the streamlined 5E game design philosophy. They are not a real balancing factor against magic, as they were in 1E and 2E. They were basically included for the sake of tradition.

[MrUberGr]

The 9th level slot is arguably more important than the 9th level spell known. There are a few exceptions such as wish, etc, but generally speaking as long as you're still getting 8th level spells and a 9th level slot, you're losing very little power overall.

The only way for the warlock to get a 9th level spell/spellslot is via his Mystic Arcanum class feature at level 17, and it's a single spell/spellslot per day.


Mearls has actually answered this question a couple different times, and has said that you can sheath between casting.

"I'd let a caster use spells unless its blatantly clear he can't get a hand free - tied up, carrying a huge object."

https://twitter.com/mikemearls/status/509944695967858688

Also, I think its important to remember that the verbal/somatic/material spellcasting components go entirely against the streamlined 5E game design philosophy. They are not a real balancing factor against magic, as they were in 1E and 2E. They were basically included for the sake of tradition.

Wow, this extremely helpfull. Thanks.

[Shadow]

The only way for the warlock to get a 9th level spell/spellslot is via his Mystic Arcanum class feature at level 17, and it's a single spell/spellslot per day.

Warlock spell progression is the exception to the rule, and shoudn't be used as an example because of it.

[Ashrym]

Warlock spell progression is the exception to the rule, and shoudn't be used as an example because of it.

Warlock spell progression is fine in regards to the higher level spells using arcanum, however. Warlocks don't use 9th level slots with which they can cast a lower level spell, but they do get some nice spells from which to select such as true polymorph or foresight. As far actually casting a 9th level spell, it doesn't matter if a person is a bard, cleric, druid, sorcerer, warlock, or wizard when each one of them can only cast one 9th level spell per day.

There's not a lot of difference in the high level spells cast per day in that case. At 20th level the extra 6th and 7th level spell slot on standard progression isn't necessarily better than 4 addition 5th level slots per day in the warlock capstone.

I would still compare, but with a grain of salt. ;-)