Warcaster Feat tax

[Tanarii]

The rules for Spellcasting focus are as follows:
1) you need a free hand for Somatic Components.
2) you need a free hand for Material Components.
3) you can use a focus in a free hand in place of material components.
4) if you do the free hand using a focus can also do the somatic components.
5) holy smells can be worn or etched on the shield and still replace material components.
6) Warcaster removes the need for a free hand for somatic components

Note that holy symbols remove the free hand rule for material components, but you still need a free hand for somatic components, since you aren't using a free hand to use the symbol, the 'same free hand' rule never kicks in.

This means Warcaster is a de facto feat tax for any Shield using Cleric or Paladin, which isn't exactly uncommon. That doesn't seem to fit the 5e paradigm ... Especially when feats are 'optional'.

It also affects builds of Valor Bard, Druid, and Eldritch Knight, and Ranger obviously, and they don't have the Holy Symbol get out of material components free card while using a shield. But it's Clerics in particular this bothers me, since IMX they almost universally use a shield and weapon combo.

[JAL_1138]

Everybody can stow or draw a weapon for free. See p.190, I think that's where that paragraph is.

So your shield-and-hammer-using cleric just stashes their hammer, casts their spell, and the next time they use their hammer, they use their free object-interaction to draw it as part of the attack.

Shield-and-sword-using Bards (edit: and others) may need it, as drawing the instrument or component pouch may count as a second object-interaction.

[Kryx]

So your shield-and-hammer-using cleric just stashes their hammer, casts their spell, and the next time they use their hammer, they use their free object-interaction to draw it as part of the attack.
Stowing uses your object-interaction. You don't get to freely draw as part of an attack - that's the object interaction as well.


You can also interact with one object or feature of the environment for free, during either your move or your action. For example, you could open a door during your move as you stride toward a foe, or you could draw your weapon as part of the same action you use to attack.
If you want to interact with a second object, you need to use your action. Some magic items and other special objects always require an action to use, as stated
in their descriptions.

[Tanarii]

True but you're giving up an Opportunity Attack.

However, I can see the designers making that a balance point: spell-casters, even melee ones, are intended to get a shield bonus or an opportunity attack. Not both.

It's gonna take some mental gymnastics in my head to make that not feel like a feat tax though, especially for War & Tempest Clerics, and Protection/Dueling Paladins. ;)

[Kryx]

@Tanarii: What would you propose? I'm all for getting rid of feat taxes, but it seems what you propose would basically remove the somatic component entirely.

[Tanarii]

@Tanarii: I'm all for getting rid of feat taxes, though what would you propose? It seems what you propose would basically remove the somatic component entirely.
I'm on the fence for making etched-symbol shields cover the somatic component, because 'holy symbol' it technically is a hand then, not worn. I'm not sure how over or under powered that would be though. It'd also make the Warcaster feat unappealing to Clerics/Paladins, although advantage on Concentration checks is still very good.

The Warcaster feat is one of those weird ones: almost all casters either need the 'free hands' benefit *or* the OA spells benefit, nut rarely both.

Edit: nice post rearrangement for clarity. I should have quoted. ;)

[JAL_1138]

Stowing uses your object-interaction. You don't get to freely draw as part of an attack - that's the object interaction as well.

Correct, I phrased it poorly.

Round 1: Stow weapon, cast spell. (Or smack with hammer, cast bonus-action-casting-time spell, stow weapon.)
Round 2: Draw weapon, smack with hammer, possibly cast bonus-action-casting-time spell.

[SharkForce]

a holy symbol that is part of your shield is being held in your hand. you can't hold something in a free hand. you can only hold it in a hand, because the act of holding something in that hand makes it no longer free. so if it doesn't work for holy symbols, it doesn't work for anything else either.

we're either forced into a stupid interpretation where what the rules describe is impossible, or we understand that holding a spellcasting focus in your hand allows you to perform somatic components with that hand, regardless of whether it is considered free or not.

i know which interpretation i'm going to follow.

[Tanarii]

Shield-and-sword-using Bards (edit: and others) may need it, as drawing the instrument or component pouch may count as a second object-interaction.
Missed this. Yeah for Valor Bards I always build them with Component Pouches as opposed to foci. My reading has always been that the component pouch doesn't need an object interaction. In fact I always use it over foci for *any* spellcaster because of that, so I may need to go back and reread on my assumption it doesn't use an object interaction.

[Tanarii]

a holy symbol that is part of your shield is being held in your hand. you can't hold something in a free hand. you can only hold it in a hand, because the act of holding something in that hand makes it no longer free. so if it doesn't work for holy symbols, it doesn't work for anything else either.so you're saying you consider a Shield etched with a Holy Symbol to be a Spellcasting Focus held in the hand already?

[The Shadowdove]

Why can't you draw arcane symbols with the focus?

[SharkForce]

so you're saying you consider a Shield etched with a Holy Symbol to be a Spellcasting Focus held in the hand already?

it is a spellcasting focus (specifically, a holy symbol). it is being held in your hand. the fact that the holy symbol is on a shield-shaped object is not particularly different from an arcane focus being in the shape of a club (scepter), staff, or other commonplace object.

so yes. if your holy symbol is a shield with a specific picture painted on it or etched into it, you are holding it in your hand by wielding the shield.

[EvilAnagram]

so you're saying you consider a Shield etched with a Holy Symbol to be a Spellcasting Focus held in the hand already?

That's how I would rule it.

[JackPhoenix]

If you use the shield with holy symbol as a spellcasting focus to replace material component, you can use it for somatic components at the same time. Weirdly, if the spell you're casting doesn't have material component, you can't use the shield and need to have free hand for somatic component.

[Kryx]

So to jump back to the original topic: Would giving Warcaster's component to allow somatic w/ weapons in hand be fine? Could get rid of a feat "tax".

"You can perform The somatic components of spells even when you have weapons or a shield in one or both hands."

[bardo]

Can divine casters (no warcaster feat) cast VSM spells wielding a weapon and a shield with their Holy Symbol engraved on it? I ask because the rules say you can use the same hand for M as you use for S, just not clear if shield hand counts.

Bardo.

[JackPhoenix]

They can, but not if the spell lacks M component...see my previous post

[bardo]

They can, but not if the spell lacks M component...see my previous post

Is it spelled out in the rules somewhere, or inferring from the "same hand" note on M? It also means divine casters have it a bit easier than Valor Bards, not that many front-line spells are VS.

Bardo

[Tanarii]

I feel like Holy Symbol engraved on shield = held in hand is an awfully liberal interpretation the Holy Symbol rule. IMO engraving the Holy Symbol on an item makes it 'worn', it doesn't turn the item into a Holy Symbol itself. You've still got a shield in your hand, not a Holy Symbol.

OTOH since that's exactly what I was thinking of as a possible 'fix', I guess I shouldn't be complaining. ;)

Kryx, tbh I feel it's Clerics in particular that get hosed in regards to Somatic Casting. And Paladins to a lesser degree. They're the class(es) basically designed from the ground up to be Mace/Sword & Board while casting. I find other casting classes needing to take Warcaster or use a 2-handed weapon more palatable for some reason. Even though I think it's a liberal reading of the rules to allow Holy Symbol engraved on shield = in hand, I *do* think it's something that the designers would have intended. After all, it's traditional D&D for clerics to be able to cast while M&B without issue.

JackPhoenix, you're saying if you have a Spellcasting Focus in hand when you cast a non-M spell, you have to have a separate free hand to cover the S component?

[JackPhoenix]

Is it spelled out in the rules somewhere, or inferring from the "same hand" note on M? It also means divine casters have it a bit easier than Valor Bards, not that many front-line spells are VS.

Bardo

http://www.sageadvice.eu/2015/01/04/holy-symbol-on-shield/

[Velaryon]

The rules for Spellcasting focus are as follows:
1) you need a free hand for Somatic Components.
2) you need a free hand for Material Components.
3) you can use a focus in a free hand in place of material components.
4) if you do the free hand using a focus can also do the somatic components.
5) holy smells can be worn or etched on the shield and still replace material components.
6) Warcaster removes the need for a free hand for somatic components

Note that holy symbols remove the free hand rule for material components, but you still need a free hand for somatic components, since you aren't using a free hand to use the symbol, the 'same free hand' rule never kicks in.

This means Warcaster is a de facto feat tax for any Shield using Cleric or Paladin, which isn't exactly uncommon. That doesn't seem to fit the 5e paradigm ... Especially when feats are 'optional'.

It also affects builds of Valor Bard, Druid, and Eldritch Knight, and Ranger obviously, and they don't have the Holy Symbol get out of material components free card while using a shield. But it's Clerics in particular this bothers me, since IMX they almost universally use a shield and weapon combo.

I would like to know a bit more about these "holy smells" that can be worn or etched on the shield, please. :smallbiggrin:

[Tanarii]

I would like to know a bit more about these "holy smells" that can be worn or etched on the shield, please. :smallbiggrin:

haha I use a iPad to post a lot. Auto-correct shenanigans abound. It's why I end up editing a lot, but I still miss some. ;)

[Daishain]

As the rules fail to explicitly define the situation, it is not out of the question to consider the embossed shield to BE the focus. If such is the case you can, as per RAW, have the hand holding it perform somatic components.


Somewhat off topic, but personally, I find nitpicking about this type of thing to be less than productive, not to mention counter to 5E's KISS philosophy. As such, I tend to assume that a caster has found a way to cast almost regardless of their gear. I have just two rules in this regard. 1)They must be proficient with the items in question. 2)Foci are still necessary, but can be pretty much any piece of equipment such as a longsword or a gauntlet, but the item must be crafted/adapted/blessed/etc. specifically for that purpose.

This gives players, especially gishes, one less thing to worry about when equipping their players, but leaves the component system in place for what I consider its principle purpose, a nonmagical means of limiting casting in capture scenarios.

[Kryx]

Kryx, tbh I feel it's Clerics in particular that get hosed in regards to Somatic Casting. And Paladins to a lesser degree. They're the class(es) basically designed from the ground up to be Mace/Sword & Board while casting. I find other casting classes needing to take Warcaster or use a 2-handed weapon more palatable for some reason. Even though I think it's a liberal reading of the rules to allow Holy Symbol engraved on shield = in hand, I *do* think it's something that the designers would have intended. After all, it's traditional D&D for clerics to be able to cast while M&B without issue.
Not only those, but also any TWF caster like Valor Bard, War Cleric, OoV Paladin, etc.

I think I'll just houserule those options to allow somatic while wielding a shield/weapon just like 2 handed can. It's only fair.

[bardo]

I would like to know a bit more about these "holy smells" that can be worn or etched on the shield, please. :smallbiggrin:

Holy'Scratch'n'Sniff'Symbol. When a weapon hits your shield it releases a fragrance. All enemies within 10' must pass a Wisdom saving throw (DC12) or the smell reminds them of something but they can't quite remember what it is.

Bardo.

[JoeJ]

True but you're giving up an Opportunity Attack.

However, I can see the designers making that a balance point: spell-casters, even melee ones, are intended to get a shield bonus or an opportunity attack. Not both.

It's gonna take some mental gymnastics in my head to make that not feel like a feat tax though, especially for War & Tempest Clerics, and Protection/Dueling Paladins. ;)

It doesn't give up your opportunity attack if you're using a two-handed weapon or TWF, only sword & board. Which is probably balanced with the extra protection of having a shield.

[Tanarii]

Not only those, but also any TWF caster like Valor Bard, War Cleric, OoV Paladin, etc.

I think I'll just houserule those options to allow somatic while wielding a shield/weapon just like 2 handed can. It's only fair.I'm not exactly clear what you're house-rule will be. You're going to just allow Somatic Components universally without a free hand? You're going to allow worn Holy Symbols to work with TWF?

[EvilAnagram]

http://www.sageadvice.eu/2015/01/04/holy-symbol-on-shield/
That does not mean that you need to cast a spell with a material component. It means that if you use the holy shield as a focus, you can use the shield hand to make the somatic movements. You can cast an M-less spell using an Arcane focus for the S-component, too. There's no reason to think that a focus can only be used for M-spells.

[Tanarii]

http://www.sageadvice.eu/2015/01/04/holy-symbol-on-shield/

Well, that's pretty clear RAI. Thanks. :)

[randomodo]

Daishain, that's pretty much exactly how I play it.

[CNagy]

Is this a tax? It seems more like a convenience fee.

The Paladin doesn't require War Caster to be good at what he does even if he carries a shield; a great majority of his melee combat spells are V only (all the Smites, Command, Destructive Wave, Compelled Duel, Ensnaring Strike, Hunter's Mark, Misty Step, all of the Auras, Dimension Door, Guardian of Faith). The VS and VSM stuff is mostly either ritual, buffing (not typically something you do with an ogre right in your face), or ranged (and the VSM spells are taken care of with a holy-symbol shield). This is true for the Ranger as well--their spell lists are designed with the thought of not having free hands in mind.

The Cleric is not a martial character. Certain domains make him more of a warrior than the standard Cleric, but in the end he is an armored spellcaster. Getting to keep his mace out and always at the ready is a convenience, not a necessity--even the domains that give him melee-damage buffing through Divine Strike don't give him that damage off-turn. The advantage to Concentration saves is frankly more useful, but the Cleric can minimize his exposure to melee damage by being in the midline. Word from Sage Advice is that the Holy Symbol on the shield can replace the SM components of a VSM spell but not a VS spell. The Cleric cannot, by default, Cure Wounds with a tap of a mace or the smack of a shield. That convenience is part of what you get War Caster for.

Wearing a shield as an Eldritch Knight is an opportunity cost. The protective reaction spells have somatic components (because you're dealing with the Wizard's spell list, not exactly made with a Fighter in mind.) Thing is, there really is zero reason to be an Eldritch Knight using a one-handed weapon without a shield. But I'd make a tiny tweak to the class rather than change War Caster: just make an Eldritch Knight's bonded weapon count as an arcane focus for him. That puts him on par with other spellcasters: V and VSM can be done while both hands are occupied by a shield and something that doubles as a weapon, but VS spells require putting the focus down (or rather, dropping it and either picking it up next turn or summoning it back to hand with a bonus action.)

Maybe I'm wrong in what constitutes a feat tax. If feat tax is about being optimized rather than just being good enough for the job, then yeah, this might be a feat tax. But something I've noticed playing the game a lot is that the difficulty is not inherently geared towards optimizers, so I don't think a change is necessary (except for that poor Eldritch Knight, somebody give that guy a helping hand.)

[Kryx]

I'm not exactly clear what you're house-rule will be. You're going to just allow Somatic Components universally without a free hand? You're going to allow worn Holy Symbols to work with TWF?
My goal would be to have the options equal. If we go by the RAI posted by EvilAnagram then the following options work:

Paladin w/ Shield or 2 handed
Cleric w/ Shield or 2 handed
Any other 2 handed build that casts spells


Options that still don't work:

Paladin w/ TWF
Cleric w/ TWF
Valor Bard w/ Shield or TWF
Eldritch Knight w/ Shield or TWF
Ranger w/ Shield or TWF
Bladelock w/ Shield or TWF


I can't see why the bottom list should be forced to take warcaster to have the concept work. It's not like those are amazingly powerful builds.
In that case one can simply make that one benefit of Warcaster universal:

You can perform The somatic components of spells even when you have weapons or a shield in one or both hands.

[SharkForce]

That does not mean that you need to cast a spell with a material component. It means that if you use the holy shield as a focus, you can use the shield hand to make the somatic movements. You can cast an M-less spell using an Arcane focus for the S-component, too. There's no reason to think that a focus can only be used for M-spells.

the part you're asking about just comes from RAW. it's probably unintentional, but hard to say.

basically it goes like this:

RAW requires that you have a hand free to perform somatic components. a spellcasting focus of any sort allows you to ignore inexpensive material component requirements. the rules for material components allow for you to use the same hand to use material components and perform somatic components, which by extension means you can perform somatic components... but technically only when you are using that same hand to satisfy a material components requirement, because the rule allows you to use the same hand for both, and makes no mention of the ability to use a hand with a focus in it to perform somatic components specifically separate from that (see PHB page 203).

there is, therefore, no rule allowing you to use a spellcasting focus to perform somatic components unless you are casting a spell that has material components.

now, it seems a bit silly that you can perform somatic components with a wand but only when you're also using the wand to replace the need for a live spider or bat guano or whatever else, so i'd allow you to perform somatic components with a wand whether the spell has material components or not. but RAW it doesn't work unless the spell has material components.

[Tanarii]

@Cnagy: To me it's a feat tax if it's required for the base class to do it's basic job with a basic build. And as far as I'm concerned, Clerics casting all spells while using a shield and weapon is exactly that. (I agree Paladins & Rangers spells are fairly well designed in terms of appropriate components btw.)

I'm sure part of my feeling comes from my having played every edition of D&D, and that capability being a very traditional/iconic ability for Clerics in particular, and often all Divine spell-casters. But not Arcane GISH / MC spell-casters. But also everything about the Cleric design in 5e cries out for it to be a Weapon & Shield while spell-casting class. Since one design goal of 5e was to incorporate traditions where reasonable, this really jumped out at me. And the basic design of the class seemed to be to encourage the style too.

In a nutshell, I thought I was seeing a conflict between tradition & RAI vs and RAW, and it was causing some cognitive dissonance.

[Kryx]

To me it's a feat tax if it's required for the base class to do it's basic job with a basic build.

But not Arcane GISH / MC spell-casters. But also everything about the Cleric design in 5e cries out for it to be a Weapon & Shield while spell-casting class. Since one design goal of 5e was to incorporate traditions where reasonable, this really jumped out at me. And the basic design of the class seemed to be to encourage the style too.

This doesn't align. You say it is a tax if it is the basic job of a basic build, but are ok with Arcane style classes being "taxed". I don't consider the following builds anything beyond basic:

Options that still don't work:

Paladin w/ TWF
Cleric w/ TWF
Valor Bard w/ Shield or TWF
Eldritch Knight w/ Shield or TWF
Ranger w/ Shield or TWF
Bladelock w/ Shield or TWF

[Tanarii]

I can't see why the bottom list should be forced to take warcaster to have the concept work. It's not like those are amazingly powerful builds.
In that case one can simply make that one benefit of Warcaster universal:In response the reasons why they should be forced to take War Caster: 1) Tradition. Divine casters traditionally get the benefit of casting while S&B, Arcane don't; 2) Even in 5e, especially with clarified RAI, Holy Symbol users seem to be specifically designed with that in mind due to the special worn/etched rule; 3) They probably shouldn't in the grand scheme of things.

So for you S becomes 'must be able to move freely', and Warcaster loses one of it's benefits. You planning to add something to replace the benefit, or do you feel Advantage Concentration is sufficient reason for weapon users to take it?


This doesn't align. You say it is a tax if it is the basic job of a basic build, but are ok with Arcane style classes being "taxed". I don't consider the following builds anything beyond basic:To a degree, I completely agree. It's because traditionally I think of Cleric as Mace & Board, but I don't think of any of the others as traditional, so they don't seem basic to me. Other than Ranger & TWF. But absolutely agree that EK & Valor S&B are simple and obviously intended basic options for those sub-classes. As is EK & TWF.

[Kryx]

1) Tradition.
2) Even in 5e, especially with clarified RAI, Holy Symbol users seem to be specifically designed with that in mind due to the special worn/etched rule;
3) They probably shouldn't in the grand scheme of things.
1. Tradition does not allow a Cleric to cast with a shield + weapon. See http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?167387-Summary-of-Spell-Casting-with-a-Shield, http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2k5xy?Clerics-Shields-and-Somatic-components, and https://www.reddit.com/r/DnD/comments/1khe9i/can_you_cast_spells_wielding_shield_sword/ and the plethorea of other threads about it in 3.X. The consensus seems to be only for light shields.
2. RAI is questionable regarding Somatic.
3. Why? Only because of tradition? (Which isn't what you think it is)


So for you S becomes 'must be able to move freely', and Warcaster loses one of it's benefits. You planning to add something to replace the benefit, or do you feel Advantage Concentration is sufficient reason for weapon users to take it?
Somatic still requires moving of hands. See PHB 203. If you look at Crawford tweet the guy holding the shield is still doing the Somatic part - just with his shield hand.



To a degree, I completely agree. It's because traditionally I think of Cleric as Mace & Board, but I don't think of any of the others as traditional, so they don't seem basic to me. Other than Ranger & TWF. But absolutely agree that EK & Valor S&B are simple and obviously intended basic options for those sub-classes. As is EK & TWF.
One could houserule it so EK, Valor Bard, and whatever other option you consider "traditional enough" should be able to cast Somatic spells, but really, why limit it? What are you afraid of? The TWFing Wizard?

I don't see the problem of allowing non-traditional builds to function.

[Tanarii]

1. Tradition does not allow a Cleric to cast with a shield + weapon.I hark all the way back to oD&D. ;)


I don't see the problem of allowing non-traditional builds to function.I'm not sure there is one, except in my head.

[EvilAnagram]

1. Tradition does not allow a Cleric to cast with a shield + weapon.
3.5 and 4e both allowed clerics to wield a weapon and shield while casting.


2. RAI is questionable regarding Somatic.
There are two reading of RAI in this case: either you can only fulfill the somatic requirements of spells with a focus when specific conditions are met without any in-universe justification, or the world functions in a reasonable way.

[CNagy]

Tradition didn't allow it in AD&D either. The default rules required you to be able to speak and to have both arms free. Spell component use was an optional rule, and whether or not you could cast those spells while holding a weapon and shield was determined on a per spell basis, as each spell description included any necessary actions to be taken with the material components. Good luck casting Bless with a mace and shield in AD&D if your mace doesn't also happen to be a holy water censer.

[Kryx]

3.5 and 4e both allowed clerics to wield a weapon and shield while casting.
Only with a buckler according to the links I found for 3.X. Though I don't ever remember the issue coming up in 3.5, PF, or 4e.
4e I believe just required the implement. It's been a while though.


There are two reading of RAI in this case: either you can only fulfill the somatic requirements of spells with a focus when specific conditions are met without any in-universe justification, or the world functions in a reasonable way.
Can you point me to where this issue comes up? Besides PHB 203 I'm not seeing it.

[JackPhoenix]

That does not mean that you need to cast a spell with a material component. It means that if you use the holy shield as a focus, you can use the shield hand to make the somatic movements. You can cast an M-less spell using an Arcane focus for the S-component, too. There's no reason to think that a focus can only be used for M-spells.

It does...according to component rules on page 203, you need at least one hand free for somatic component. The only exception is that you can use the same hand for material and somatic component. You can use spellcasting focus in place of a material component. There's no other use for spellcasting focus, so if you hold it in any other situation, you don't have a free hand for somatic component. It doesn't make sense, but that's magic (and D&D) for you.


I'm sure part of my feeling comes from my having played every edition of D&D, and that capability being a very traditional/iconic ability for Clerics in particular, and often all Divine spell-casters. But not Arcane GISH / MC spell-casters. But also everything about the Cleric design in 5e cries out for it to be a Weapon & Shield while spell-casting class. Since one design goal of 5e was to incorporate traditions where reasonable, this really jumped out at me. And the basic design of the class seemed to be to encourage the style too.

In a nutshell, I thought I was seeing a conflict between tradition & RAI vs and RAW, and it was causing some cognitive dissonance.

According to JC, it's very much intended, but you are free to change it if you find it inconvenient: http://www.sageadvice.eu/2015/03/27/3116/

Edit: Eh, shadow monk'd so much....started to write a reply, had to go AFK and finished much later

[JAL_1138]

Tradition didn't allow it in AD&D either. The default rules required you to be able to speak and to have both arms free. Spell component use was an optional rule, and whether or not you could cast those spells while holding a weapon and shield was determined on a per spell basis, as each spell description included any necessary actions to be taken with the material components. Good luck casting Bless with a mace and shield in AD&D if your mace doesn't also happen to be a holy water censer.

The text in 2e says "both arms free," not both hands free, for the default rule, and in the Spell Components sidebar, says that somatic components require "free gestures (thus, the caster cannot be bound or held)." Nothing in that clearly, definitively says you need to have your hands empty of any object (other than material components), such as a shield or weapon (perhaps you could gesture with a staff, for instance). It can be read either way. So it's a bit nebulous in 2nd as to what simatic components entailed.

With material components, though, the description of how they were used while casting was often (but not always) very specific. Oddly, only the reverse of Bless tells you that the unholy water must be sprinkled; Bless however just says "requires holy water" and makes no mention of what's done with it.

[EvilAnagram]

With regards to PHB 203, it seems completely ridiculous to me that anyone could interpret it as RAI that you can only use a hand with a focus to complete somatic components when a spell also requires a material component. If you can complete somatic components using a focus, you can complete somatic components using a focus, by RAI at the very least.

[ruy343]

I think that there's just a simpler way around the problem (assuming that you're using a bludgeoning weapon or med/heavy armor to avoid hurting yourself). Have a loop or length of chain that connects your weapon to your gauntlet's wrist, then "drop" your weapon (free action) when you want to cast a spell. Technically, the rules say that you must have a hand free to cast a spell, and this complies with that language.

When you want to pick it back up, just flip it back into your hand.

[Tanarii]

Ruy, I personally prefer to avoid dropping weapons type shenanigans, be they ever so legal, when playing D&D. It always feels like using a loophole.

It actually kind of bothers me that you can let go of one hand with a two-handed weapon, cast a spell, and start using it again for OAs. I've seen people suggest in other forums that doing so should require a object interaction ... which would make war caster even more important for GISH.


With regards to PHB 203, it seems completely ridiculous to me that anyone could interpret it as RAI that you can only use a hand with a focus to complete somatic components when a spell also requires a material component. If you can complete somatic components using a focus, you can complete somatic components using a focus, by RAI at the very least. I think you're probably right about RAI. Even so, IMO the RAW reading is fairly straightforward, even if it's pretty silly. OTOH that's what I thought about Holy Symbols, Shields and not counting as in the hand ... ;)

[DanyBallon]

If the problem is mainly for cleric/paladin to be able to cast spells while wielding a weapon and a shield, instead of modifying War caster, just add a houserule that cleric can cast spell in such manner if they have their holy symbol engraved/paint on either their weapon or shield ...or armor if you like. This way, general say you need a free hand to cast spell, but specific for cleric/paladin says otherwise. No more feat tax for the cleric, but other type of caster not meant to do so still can take the feat.

[DanyBallon]

It actually kind of bothers me that you can let go of one hand with a two-handed weapon, cast a spell, and start using it again for OAs. I've seen people suggest in other forums that doing so should require a object interaction ... which would make war caster even more important for GISH.

Wielding a two-handed weapon in a fight is already an advantage, since you deal more damage. Being able to get one hand free to cast a spell, if perfectly fine. Being able to do so and still fight with two hands in an OA, is just too much in my opinion. You cannot just have the best of both world, two-handed weapon deals more damage to the expense of needing two hands, leaving you with less options. Yet a versatile weapon will let you cast a spell and use your weapon on an OA, but you will do the one-hand damage instead.

[Edenbeast]

3.5 and 4e both allowed clerics to wield a weapon and shield while casting.

That is incorrect. At least for 3.5. The descriptions for shields are very clear on this. A heavy shield doesn't allow you to use your shield hand for anything else.
With a light shield you can carry items in the shield hand, but nothing else. Same goes for buckler, but there you're able to wield a weapon in that hand with a penalty. The practice is that you take your weapon in your shield hand and cast with your free hand.

In 5e you can choose to carry the holy symbol on your shield, thus becoming your divine focus. The rules for spellcasting state that you can use the hand holding the spellcasting focus/ component also for somatics. A cleric who does this doen't need the feat, but maybe he does want the feat so he cast a spell as an AoO. Then the feat is not wasted.
It's different from 3.5, where you have feats that are very focussed. In 5e the feats are versatile, giving you multiple options, but you don't necessarily need to take advantage of everything it offers.

[Vogonjeltz]

Stowing uses your object-interaction. You don't get to freely draw as part of an attack - that's the object interaction as well.

According to the Use an Object action on page 193, no, drawing is part of the attack action. Sheathing would be the free object interaction in tandem with an action.

"You normally interact with an object while doing something else, such as when you draw a sword as part of an attack. When the object requires your action for its use, you take the Use an Object action. This action is also useful when you want to interact with more than one object on your turn."


Why can't you draw arcane symbols with the focus?

Probably because that's not how an Arcane focus works (equipment chapter 5 of the PHb, page 151).


so you're saying you consider a Shield etched with a Holy Symbol to be a Spellcasting Focus held in the hand already?

That's exactly what the Holy Symbol (PHB chapter 5, equipment page 151) says. "A cleric or paladin can use a holy symbol as a spellcasting focus, as described in chapter 10. To use the symbol in this way, the caster must hold it in hand, wear it visibly, or bear it on a shield."

So they could also wear a tabard with their holy symbol and it would be used as the focus.


If you use the shield with holy symbol as a spellcasting focus to replace material component, you can use it for somatic components at the same time. Weirdly, if the spell you're casting doesn't have material component, you can't use the shield and need to have free hand for somatic component.

No, the rule is "A spellcaster must have a hand free to access these components, but it can be the same hand that he or she uses to perform somatic components." and "If a spell requires a somatic component, the caster must have free use of at least one hand to perform these gestures." (PHB 203)

If you're holding something in your hand, you don't have free use for somatic components (warcaster obviates this). So if you have your focus in hand, you actually don't have a free hand for somatic components.


Can divine casters (no warcaster feat) cast VSM spells wielding a weapon and a shield with their Holy Symbol engraved on it? I ask because the rules say you can use the same hand for M as you use for S, just not clear if shield hand counts.

Bardo.

No. If you have a free hand, it can be used for both, but if you have a shield worn that hand isn't actually a free hand for the somatic component.

Either class can get around it by using their one interact with an object to sheathe their weapon, then cast the spell (free hand for somatic + holy symbol on shield or chest), but in so doing they won't be able to draw the weapon until their next turn as part of the attack action, thus effectively weakening any opportunity attack.

[Malifice]

True but you're giving up an Opportunity Attack.

However, I can see the designers making that a balance point: spell-casters, even melee ones, are intended to get a shield bonus or an opportunity attack. Not both.

It's gonna take some mental gymnastics in my head to make that not feel like a feat tax though, especially for War & Tempest Clerics, and Protection/Dueling Paladins. ;)

Except a Paladin or Cleric with a holy symbol emblazoned on their shield doesnt need warcaster to cast even with a weapon in the other hand.

The shield hand (which holds the divine focus ie the shield) counts as both the somatic and material components. As per RAW and RAI the hand that holds shield (as the focus) also casts the spell. No warcaster required.

Sadly arcane casters don't get it so easy. They're limited to S spells only with both hands full (2H weapons don't count) and V and S spells with warcaster and both hands full.

M spells are out for them unless they have a hand free (holding a 2H, versatile or single one handed weapon, or happy to sheathe the weapon as the object interaction and then cast (using the free hand for the S and M conponents).

[Tanarii]

According to the Use an Object action on page 193, no, drawing is part of the attack action. Sheathing would be the free object interaction in tandem with an action.

"You normally interact with an object while doing something else, such as when you draw a sword as part of an attack. When the object requires your action for its use, you take the Use an Object action. This action is also useful when you want to interact with more than one object on your turn."IMO the first sentence tells you that you get a free object interaction with your actions, with an example: draw a sword as part of an attack. The second one tells you it takes your action if you want more than your free one.

Check the side bar on possible object interactions. If draw a weapon is on it, then it uses your free interaction. I'm AFB right now so I can't double check.


That's exactly what the Holy Symbol (PHB chapter 5, equipment page 151) says. "A cleric or paladin can use a holy symbol as a spellcasting focus, as described in chapter 10. To use the symbol in this way, the caster must hold it in hand, wear it visibly, or bear it on a shield."

So they could also wear a tabard with their holy symbol and it would be used as the focus.Well, my thought was by a strict reading, this only allowed them to use it for M 'worn' or 'etched'. And that etching it on your shield didn't count as holding it in your hand for also using it for S components. However, with the tweet from JC, RAI is pretty clear I was wrong.

[bid]

Wielding a two-handed weapon in a fight is already an advantage, since you deal more damage.
I feel the opposite. Having a shield is a much bigger advantage for a gish since you take less damage.

[bid]

According to the Use an Object action on page 193, no, drawing is part of the attack action. Sheathing would be the free object interaction in tandem with an action.

"You normally interact with an object while doing something else, such as when you draw a sword as part of an attack. When the object requires your action for its use, you take the Use an Object action. This action is also useful when you want to interact with more than one object on your turn."
See p 190 Other activity on your turn, "open door" and "draw your weapon" are instances of your one object interaction.

[DanyBallon]

I feel the opposite. Having a shield is a much bigger advantage for a gish since you take less damage.

I agree, but without a feat you can't cast a spell while wielding both a shield and a weapon, while your interpretation of two-handed weapon let you do so for free. And it step into the toe of versatile weapons.

[Tanarii]

Honestly, you'd think Devs would put some time into thinking about action economy, number of hands, and how they interact ... then write some crystal clear and consistent rules for it. It's not like weapon dropping, 2h-weapon hand let go regrab, stuff on cords around your neck, one-handed-staff-casting (or PaM in this edition), and S/M component shenanigans haven't been part of EVERY DAMN EDITION in one form or another to get around restrictions, whether or not they were intended.

Okay. I'm done ranting for now. :)

[Kryx]

IMO the first sentence tells you that you get a free object interaction with your actions, with an example: draw a sword as part of an attack. The second one tells you it takes your action if you want more than your free one.
That's correct.

[Kryx]

I feel the opposite. Having a shield is a much bigger advantage for a gish since you take less damage.
The trade-off is quite equal, though in the favor of S&B sue to being able to trip before normal attacks and dueling being quite good.

[Icewraith]

2h and weapon + shield are already in theory balanced with each other on the bigger damage die/more AC axis, so IMO both or neither should be casting spells and making opportunity attacks in the same round. Your arcane casters can always just get their weapon made as an arcane focus, in theory.

AFB, but if you are just wearing a shield and a free hand, can you punch someone or hit them with the shield as an improvised weapon as part of the opportunity attack?

[MeeposFire]

One way that previous editions had a way to allow this was having multiple types of shields. IN every other edition they had smaller and larger shields (only in some editions did they have different levels of protection). THis would allow for you to do things like cast spells, hold on to things, or load a weapon.

Heck one of my biggest complaints with a current ruling is that the classic cleric with a sling and shield is no longer possible due to the lack of variety of shields and therefor there are no shields officially that allow to do simple things like grab a rock and place it someplace.

[DanyBallon]

2h and weapon + shield are already in theory balanced with each other on the bigger damage die/more AC axis, so IMO both or neither should be casting spells and making opportunity attacks in the same round.

This is exactly what I'm saying, unless you take a feat neither provide you the ability to both cast spell ans make a weapon attack as an OA.

Using a versatile weapon, and no shield or another weapon, thus let you have a free hand, to cast a spell, and make a weapon attack one-handed as an OA.

[Malifice]

A Paladin or Cleric with a weapon in one hand and a shield in the other can cast every spell spell that has a V, S and M component (but lacks a costly componenent) without the need for warcaster.

Warcaster is a wasted feat for them (barring the advantage on con saves and the reaction attack). They can already do what the feat grants unless they are two weapon fighting.

Shields (with a holy symbol on them) are spell foci for Clerics and Paladins. They can use a hand that holds a spell foci as the hand that does the Somatic components. They dont need warcaster.

Everyone else is in a bit of a pickle. Unless you hold an spell foci in an least one hand (a staff will usually do; bards need an instrument) then you need at least one hand free to cast.

So you can cast just fine in the following circusmtances:


When holding a single one handed weapon, a single verstile weapon or even a single 2H weapon and leaving the other hand free (as per the errata you oly need two hands to wield a 2 H weapon, not to hold it), you can cast any V, S and M spell in the game with no need for Warcaster.

When holding 2 x one handed or versatile weapons, or a single one handed or verstile weapon and a shield (and thus with no free hands), you can only cast V, S and M spells if you are a Paladin or Cleric and at least one of the things you hold is a shield with your holy symbol scribed on it, OR you are any other class, have the warcaster feat, and spell lacks a M component OR you use your object interaction to drop or sheathe a weapon first.


The feat is a tax for valor bards really. They need either a hand free OR to be holding a lute in the other hand.

[Zalabim]

Any caster, using any kind of weapons, could sheathe their weapon then cast, or cast then draw their weapon and not have any problems casting any of their spells. They're even ready for OAs half the time.

It does not break any rule to both sheathe and draw, or draw and sheathe, a weapon on your turn. It's still only interacting with one object. It'll probably run into DM limits at some point when a fighter wants to draw and sheathe their katana between every one of their 8 attacks during an action surge, but that's the DM's discretion and not hard RAW.

It's also probably legal to just drop the inconvenient weapon for free and then pick it up. Dropping what you're holding isn't listed as any kind of action anywhere, but it is done automatically when a PC is KO'd.

None of this is available when it is not your turn. Since Warcaster wants to allow the PC to cast a spell as a reaction, it has to include an ability for the PC to cast more spells with their hands full. That is all. Anything else is just reading too much into it.

[Kryx]

It does not break any rule to both sheathe and draw, or draw and sheathe, a weapon on your turn. It's still only interacting with one object.
It allows you to draw or sheathe a weapon, not draw and sheathe or sheathe and draw. Allowing both is bending the RAW.

By that same logic you could draw & sheathe the weapon unlimited times, or open and close a door unlimited times, or drop an axe and pick it up unlimited times.


Though you do make a point: Players can simply sheathe their weapon. That's livable, but the same should be true for 2 handed if that's the case: 2 handed weapons can't OA if you cast a S spell.

[Vogonjeltz]

See p 190 Other activity on your turn, "open door" and "draw your weapon" are instances of your one object interaction.

In general yes, but specifically in this case it is also freely included as part of the action. Both can be true, they are not mutually exclusive things.


Shields (with a holy symbol on them) are spell foci for Clerics and Paladins. They can use a hand that holds a spell foci as the hand that does the Somatic components. They dont need warcaster.

No Malifice, the rule is that if you have a free hand you can use it for both somatic and focus/components. If you don't have a free hand you're still unable to do the somatic bits absent war caster.

[rollingForInit]

Given how many issues have come from Warcaster, how to interpret it, and this whole thing about shields as spellcasting foci working sometimes only (with material components), I think the Warcaster feat is a problem, although not a feat tax. I don't think it really prevents characters from functioning properly. There are spells that have only verbal components. Most Smite spells, some healing spells, etc. It would just have been easier if you could never perform somatic components while carrying a shield and a weapon. Or if you could always do it, by purchasing a shield that works as a spellcasting focus.

Or something like that.

[N810]

lol Engrave the holly symbol on the handle of the shield then. :smalltongue:

[mjcoss]

I thought that this was going to be nice concise summary...but it seemed to miss the mark just a bit


A Paladin or Cleric with a weapon in one hand and a shield in the other can cast every spell spell that has a V, S and M component (but lacks a costly componenent) without the need for warcaster. They can also cast VM spells. The only spells that cant be cast are the ones that are VS which would require either a free hand or the warcaster feat.

Warcaster is a wasted feat for them (barring the advantage on con saves and the reaction attack) . They can already do what the feat grants unless they are two weapon fighting or they wish to cast VS spells.

Shields (with a holy symbol on them) are spell foci for Clerics and Paladins. They can use a hand that holds a spell foci as the hand that does the Somatic components. They dont need warcaster.

Everyone else is in a bit of a pickle. Unless you hold an spell foci in an least one hand (a staff will usually do; bards need an instrument) then you need at least one hand free to cast.

So you can cast just fine in the following circumstances:


When holding a single one handed weapon, a single versatile weapon or even a single 2H weapon and leaving the other hand free (as per the errata you only need two hands to wield a 2 H weapon, not to hold it), you can cast any V, S and M spell in the game with no need for Warcaster.

When holding 2 x one handed or versatile weapons, or a single one handed or versatile weapon and a shield (and thus with no free hands), you can only cast V, S and M spells if you are a Paladin or Cleric and at least one of the things you hold is a shield with your holy symbol scribed on it, OR you are any other class, have the warcaster feat, and spell lacks a M component OR you use your object interaction to drop or sheathe a weapon first.


The feat is a tax for valor bards really. They need either a hand free OR to be holding a lute in the other hand.

Now I feel that if your shield hand can do S when the shield is a focus, it can do S when it's not being used as a focus, but that's not RAW.

[Tanarii]

In general yes, but specifically in this case it is also freely included as part of the action. Both can be true, they are not mutually exclusive things.You've confused what that sentence is. It is not permission to always make a specific object interaction (drawing a weapon) as free with a specific action (attacking).

It is an example of something that is a free object interaction (drawing a weapon while attacking), followed by the requirement for the Use an Object action, including for a second (not free) object interaction. If you've already taken a free object interaction, then that section is specifically telling you that you *don't* get to draw a weapon with your attack for free, even though it normally would be free. You've got it back to front.

[E’Tallitnics]

I'd like to point out:


Holy Symbol. A holy symbol is a representation of a god or pantheon. It might be an amulet depicting a symbol representing a deity, the same symbol carefully engraved or inlaid as an emblem on a shield, or a tiny box holding a fragment of a sacred relic. Appendix B lists the symbols commonly associated with many gods in the multi-verse. A cleric or paladin can use a holy symbol as a spellcasting focus, as described in chapter 10. To use the symbol in this way, the caster must hold it in hand, wear it visibly, or bear it on a shield.

So the whole argument about holding the focus vs shield is moot since the player has the viable option of simply wearing it, no?

I know that in my Encounters game my Paladin has been wearing Trinket #87 around her neck with zero problems from the DM (once I pointed out this paragraph).

[Tanarii]

You missed the point. Wearing a Holy Symbol has no affect on the free hand for Somatic Components requirement. It still has to be held in a Hand (such as by etching it on a shield) to cover the S requirements. And even then it only covers the S requirement when the spell also has M components, by a strict reading.

Edit: Encounters DMs ignore the component restrictions for casters all the time IMx.

[E’Tallitnics]

You missed the point. Wearing a Holy Symbol has no affect on the free hand for Somatic Components requirement. It still has to be held in a Hand (such as by etching it on a shield) to cover the S requirements. And even then it only covers the S requirement when the spell also has M components, by a strict reading.

Edit: Encounters DMs ignore the component restrictions for casters all the time IMx.

I'm afraid you're co-mingling two different aspects of this conversation.

Wearing a holy symbol visibly satisfies the M spell component (for non-consumed, non-GP materials). That was the quoted text in my last post (specifically the last two sentences), in an effort to show that the whole "holy symbol on shield" discussion is irrelevant.

However wearing a holy symbol does not satisfy the S spell component if both of your hands are full (sword and board, TWF, etc.). That's where War Caster comes into play.

[Tanarii]

Wearing a holy symbol visibly satisfies the M spell component (for non-consumed, non-GP materials). That was the quoted text in my last post (specifically the last two sentences), in an effort to show that the whole "holy symbol on shield" discussion is irrelevant.

However wearing a holy symbol does not satisfy the S spell component if both of your hands are full (sword and board, TWF, etc.). That's where War Caster comes into play.That's what I thought at first when I started the thread. But it appears etching it on your shield counts as "holding it in your hand" for covering S components as well as M. So it turns out the "holy symbol on shield" discussion is in fact completely relevant ... it enables a Cleric/Paladin using a weapon/shield combo to cast V/S/M & S/M component spells (but not V/S or S only spells) without Warcaster.

If you just wear the Holy Symbol, you can't cast S spells at all with weapon/shield without warcaster. So you're stuck with V & V/M spells only.

Basically it boils down to
No Holy Symbol and Weapon/Shield: V spells only.
Holy Symbol (worn) and Weapon/Shield: V & V/M spells. No S spells.
Holy Symbol (shield) and Weapon/Shield: V, V/M, V/S/M, S/M spells. No V/S or S-only spells.
Warcaster & Weapon/Shield: V & V/S spells. No M spells.
Holy Symbol (any), Warcaster, Weapon/Shield: All spells.

[Coidzor]

However, I can see the designers making that a balance point: spell-casters, even melee ones, are intended to get a shield bonus or an opportunity attack. Not both.

It certainly sounds like enough mental gymnastics are necessary to view that as sound reasoning for the designers to have come up with it, yeah.

[Tanarii]

It certainly sounds like enough mental gymnastics are necessary to view that as sound reasoning for the designers to have come up with it, yeah.I'm really good at mental gymnastics. And arguing myself in circles. ;)

[Coidzor]

I'm really good at mental gymnastics. And arguing myself in circles. ;)

Sounds like you have all the qualifications necessary to be a professional RPG designer, then. :smallamused:

[Vogonjeltz]

You've confused what that sentence is. It is not permission to always make a specific object interaction (drawing a weapon) as free with a specific action (attacking).

It is an example of something that is a free object interaction (drawing a weapon while attacking), followed by the requirement for the Use an Object action, including for a second (not free) object interaction. If you've already taken a free object interaction, then that section is specifically telling you that you *don't* get to draw a weapon with your attack for free, even though it normally would be free. You've got it back to front.

Hmm, so I have my mistake (...I don't think any of this actually makes a difference though.
The character would still be able to draw and attack the turn after they sheathed and cast a spell.

All Warcaster does for this is allow the Caster to keep their blade in hand instead of forcing them to stow it for a round.

[Kryx]

All Warcaster does for this is allow the Caster to keep their blade in hand instead of forcing them to stow it for a round.
Agreed that the default case isn't so bad. The problem is that two handed and some shield wielders are exempt from it by default.

[Tanarii]

The character would still be able to draw and attack the turn after they sheathed and cast a spell.

All Warcaster does for this is allow the Caster to keep their blade in hand instead of forcing them to stow it for a round.Which gives them a OA with the weapon. In some cases that's no small thing.

Plus as Kryx points out, it's kind of silly to punish TWF and B&S but not 2H. I'm okay with the Arcane/Divine divide, because Tradition (which may or may not actually exist per debate upthread), but it's still silly that Divine is okay with Shield & Weapon, but not 2H/TWF, and not if there's an S component but not a M component. It's all needlessly complicated.

It'd make far more sense to make just set up a simple and universal rule: If you cast a S or M spell, you can't use a weapon for OAs that round. Warcaster negates this restriction. If you like the Arcane/Divine divide, Divine also negates this restriction. Edit: This makes Warcaster help with M spells, not just S spells, so probably add the caveat: Warcaster negates this restriction, provided you have an appropriate focus or component pouch on your person.

[Malifice]

No Malifice, the rule is that if you have a free hand you can use it for both somatic and focus/components.

If you don't have a free hand you're still unable to do the somatic bits absent war caster.

The hand that holds a material focus can also do the somatic components for a spell.

Re shield and weapon:

A class with a divine focus as its focus (Paladin and Cleric) can hold a weapon in one hand and a shield (with holy symbol emblazoned on it) in the other and vast a (V, S, M) spell just fine without warcaster.

The holy symbol/ shield hand performs the somatic and material components.

The only restriction is when the spell itself requires a specific costly material component, in which case you need a hand free to interact with that specific material component.

That is RAW and RAI.


WHAT’S THE AMOUNT OF INTERACTION NEEDED TO USE A SPELLCASTING FOCUS? DOES IT HAVE TO BE INCLUDED IN THE SOMATIC COMPONENT?

If a spell has a material component, you need to handle that component when you cast the spell (see page 203 in the Player’s Handbook). The same rule applies if you’re using a spellcasting focus as the material component.

If a spell has a somatic component, you can use the hand that performs the somatic component to also handle the material component. For example, a wizard who uses an orb as a spellcasting focus could hold a quarterstaff in one hand and the orb in the other, and he could cast lightning bolt by using the orb as the spell’s material component and the orb hand to perform the spell’s somatic component.

Another example: a cleric’s holy symbol is emblazoned on her shield. She likes to wade into melee combat with a mace in one hand and a shield in the other. She uses the holy symbol as her spellcasting focus, so she needs to have the shield in hand when she casts a cleric spell that has a material component. If the spell, such as aid, also has a somatic component, she can perform that component with the shield hand and keep holding the mace in the other.

https://dnd.wizards.com/articles/features/rules-spellcasting

If you are a cleric or paladin, and one hand holds a weapon and the other holds a shield that has your holy symbol on it, you do not need warcaster and can cast all your spells (barring spells with specific costly material components that your shield cannot replace) just fine.

Every other casting class needs warcaster when using a shield and a weapon at the same time (unless that weapon is also a focus - such an EK or Wizard using a shield and staff, or sword and staff)

Re: Single 2H, Versatile or 1 H weapon:

Every single spellcaster can cast holding a 2H weapon just fine.

As per the errata, a 2H weapon only needs two hands when you attack with it. Otherwise you can hold it in one hand just fine:


Two-Handed (p. 147). This property is relevant only when you attack with the weapon, not when you simply hold it.

http://media.wizards.com/2015/downloads/dnd/Errata_PH.pdf

So an Eldritch Knight can cast (V,S,M) spells while weilding a 2H weapon (barring in the middle of an attack action or during an opportunity attack with such a weapon). He can also do the same wielding a single one handed or versatile weapon.

Re: Two weapon fighting

Clerics and Paladins need warcaster to cast when TWF, as do Bards. Alternatively they can use thier free object interaction to sheathe a weapon.

Arcane focus classes (Wizard, Sorcerer, EK etc) can go all Gandalf and fight TWF with staff + weapon and cast just fine (unless the M component has a GP value). If they use two swords (for example) they are in the same boat as Clerics and Paladins.

Bards cop it the worst. They need a free hand to hold their bardic focus (a muscial instrument) or to use M components. They're the main class that needs warcaster as a feat tax when they want to TWF or use a shield.

All the other classes barring the Bard get an exception (Arcane focus classes can staff + sword, Clerics and Paladins can sword + shield, all classes barring the Bard can staff + shield). If your Bard wants to TWF in any form, it needs warcaster (or to blow its free object interaction every round).

Which is thematically pretty crappy for the Bards, but hey.

[Tanarii]

A class with a divine focus as its focus (Paladin and Cleric) can hold a weapon in one hand and a shield (with holy symbol emblazoned on it) in the other and vast a (V, S, M) spell just fine without warcaster.

https://dnd.wizards.com/articles/features/rules-spellcasting

If you are a cleric or paladin, and one hand holds a weapon and the other holds a shield that has your holy symbol on it, you do not need warcaster and can cast all your spells (barring spells with specific costly material components that your shield cannot replace) just fine.you probably should have read the very next paragraph after the aid paragraph, because it shows you are wrong. A Cleric or Paladin casting a Spell with a Somatic Component and *not* a material component cannot do so while using a Holy Symbol emblazoned shield:
"If the same cleric casts cure wounds, she needs to put the mace or the shield away, because that spell doesn’t have a material component but does have a somatic component. She’s going to need a free hand to make the spell’s gestures. If she had the War Caster feat, she could ignore this restriction."

Edit: I think that's stupid, but it matches how the PhB is worded so I'm not surprised.

[Hawkstar]

Wearing a shield as an Eldritch Knight is an opportunity cost. The protective reaction spells have somatic components (because you're dealing with the Wizard's spell list, not exactly made with a Fighter in mind.) Thing is, there really is zero reason to be an Eldritch Knight using a one-handed weapon without a shield. But I'd make a tiny tweak to the class rather than change War Caster: just make an Eldritch Knight's bonded weapon count as an arcane focus for him. That puts him on par with other spellcasters: V and VSM can be done while both hands are occupied by a shield and something that doubles as a weapon, but VS spells require putting the focus down (or rather, dropping it and either picking it up next turn or summoning it back to hand with a bonus action.)

And by not making it an option out of the box, it lets/makes the "Sword in one hand, spell in the other" Eldritch Knight a functional choice. Go 2-hander if STR, or Rapier+Open Hand if Dex.



Bards cop it the worst. They need a free hand to hold their bardic focus (a muscial instrument) or to use M components. They're the main class that needs warcaster as a feat tax when they want to TWF or use a shield.

...

Which is thematically pretty crappy for the Bards, but hey. Umm... Kazoos?

[Malifice]

you probably should have read the very next paragraph after the aid paragraph, because it shows you are wrong. A Cleric or Paladin casting a Spell with a Somatic Component and *not* a material component cannot do so while using a Holy Symbol emblazoned shield:
"If the same cleric casts cure wounds, she needs to put the mace or the shield away, because that spell doesn’t have a material component but does have a somatic component. She’s going to need a free hand to make the spell’s gestures. If she had the War Caster feat, she could ignore this restriction."

Agree. A sword and board Cleric/ Paladin can cast:

V
V, M (divine focus)
V, S, M (divine focus)
S, M (divine focus)

With sword and shield in hand, and no need for warcaster.

They cant cast:

S
V, S
S, M (costly material component)
V, S, M (costly material component)
V, M (costly material component)

With sword and shield in hand regardless of if they have warcaster or not.

You only need warcaster (barring it's other benefits) on a cleric/ paladin if you want to 2WF and cant be bothered putting a weapon away to cast.

[Tanarii]

For sure. As I said up a few posts, the real cost of citing without War Caster (for those who need it to cast with hands full) generally turns out to be casting a spell means you can't take Opportunity Attacks that round.

Although now that I think about it, the other circumstance is Bonus Action spells you want to use with attacks, although I'm fairly sure they're mostly V only, other than quickened spells. Plus Valor Bards and Eldritch Knights that want to use their cast & attack action class features.

I know there's a list of bonus action spells floating around somewhere I'm gong to check them out and see how heavy they are on Non-V-only spells.

[Malifice]

For sure. As I said up a few posts, the real cost of citing without War Caster (for those who need it to cast with hands full) generally turns out to be casting a spell means you can't take Opportunity Attacks that round.

Only for dudes that put their weapon away.

Greatsword using EK's can make opportunity attacks after casting just fine. They cant cast while attacking. After the attack action is resolved though, they're good to go for the rest of the turn (and the round).

[Tanarii]

Okay, some of the worst offenders for EKs, Valor Bards, Clerics, Paladins, and Rangers who are most likely to have to worry about having their hands full and trying to cast IMO. I've not included M component Paladin or Cleric spells unles they also include another class. Or V-only component spells for any class.

Reaction to cast (no time for object interactions):
Feather Fall [Transmutation] (V,M) (Bard, Sorcerer, Wizard)
Shield [Abjuration] (V,S) (Sorcerer, Wizard)
Counterspell [Abjuration] (S) (Sorcerer, Warlock, Wizard)

Bonus action to cast (can be used same round as a weapon attack):
Divine Favor [Evocation] (V,S; Concentration) (Paladin)
Expeditious Retreat [Transmutation] (V,S; Concentration) (Sorcerer, Warlock, Wizard)
Magic Weapon [Transmutation] (V,S; Concentration) (Paladin, Wizard)
Spiritual Weapon [Evocation] (V,S) (Cleric)
Grasping Vine [Conjuration] (V,S; Concentration) (Druid, Ranger)


Only for dudes that put their weapon away.

Greatsword using EK's can make opportunity attacks after casting just fine. They cant cast while attacking. After the attack action is resolved though, they're good to go for the rest of the turn (and the round).Thats why I said for those who need it to cast with their hands full. Two handed weapon users don't have their hands full. Holy Symbol users casting M-Component, don't need it to cast with their hands full.

Edit: to be clear, 2h weapon users don't have their hands full except when they are attacking as you said.

[Malifice]

Components are a horribly complicated system that adds nothing to the game, and warcaster just complicates it more.

Really wish they either did away with them completely or simplified the whole thing.

[MaxWilson]

Components are a horribly complicated system that adds nothing to the game, and warcaster just complicates it more.

Really wish they either did away with them completely or simplified the whole thing.

Adds nothing? Some of us enjoy games where RP considerations like "will other people know if I'm casting Friends in public?" and "what spells can I cast while I'm handcuffed?" actually come into play. To say nothing of the purely tactical considerations that come from knowing what spells can be cast while Silenced.

If the "Components" listing for every spell were deleted from the PHB, and DMs had to make it up on their own, the game would be the poorer for it.

[Malifice]

Adds nothing? Some of us enjoy games where RP considerations like "will other people know if I'm casting Friends in public?" and "what spells can I cast while I'm handcuffed?" actually come into play. To say nothing of the purely tactical considerations that come from knowing what spells can be cast while Silenced.

If the "Components" listing for every spell were deleted from the PHB, and DMs had to make it up on their own, the game would be the poorer for it.

Yeah. It adds nothing having fiddly different components for hundreds of different spells that interact differently for each class. Its a chore to look it up all the time.

A rule as elegant as: 'To cast a spell you must be able to speak. In addition, you must have at least one hand free. A creature with the warcaster feat ignores this last restriction.' would suffice.

[Tanarii]

I'd prefer a little more finesse than that. Your method would require Paladin/Cleric spells to be reworked a lot if they want to use Weapon & Shield, and still give two handed weapons an advantage. As well as leaving room for confusion on if a two-handed weapon gives a 'free hand' for those who don't parse the rules or look up online clarifications.

I'd prefer: To cast a spell you must be able to speak. If you cast Arcane spells, you also cannot be using two weapons, a weapon and shield, or a two handed weapon, unless you have the Warcaster Feat. As an Arcane Caster you may choose to sheath your weapon on your turn with your one free object interaction, before casting any spells.

That buffs Divine casters, but hurts certain Arcane GISH. But it's simpler. Or at least clearer. It also removes the need for non-magical spellcasting focus.

[djreynolds]

So what is your ruling? Especially for a feat less game?
Do you think this why dwarves, mountain, get medium armor proficiency and no shield? It was designed because they expect wizards of this ilk couldn't use a shield when casting and it was not included?

[Malifice]

So what is your ruling? Especially for a feat less game?
Do you think this why dwarves, mountain, get medium armor proficiency and no shield? It was designed because they expect wizards of this ilk couldn't use a shield when casting and it was not included?

Full plate wearing dwarven wizards can use a shield just fine. As long as they have a staff in the other hand.

That covers them for pretty much every single V, S, M spell in the game (as long as it doesnt have costly material components, and even then they could just drop the staff, pull out the costly component from their spell pouch and cast it in a single action anyway).

No warcaster required.

Bards get the hardest time of it. As do non staff using EK's who like to use shields or TWF.

The first dot point of war caster should read: 'In addition, you can use a melee or ranged weapon as a focus for your spellcasting' instead of 'You can cast spells with both hands full'

Problem fixed. Simpler, more elegant, cooler and thematically more appropriate.

In fact, thats what Im house ruling it as from now on.

[djreynolds]

But what about games without feats?

[Malifice]

But what about games without feats?

Then warcaster isnt an issue.

[krugaan]

Then warcaster isnt an issue.

wasn't drawing a weapon considered part of the attack action? or am i forgetting something?

edit: whoops, just read the relevant page, uses your free interact with object

[Kryx]

I'd prefer: To cast a spell you must be able to speak. If you cast Arcane spells, you also cannot be using two weapons, a weapon and shield, or a two handed weapon, unless you have the Warcaster Feat. As an Arcane Caster you may choose to sheath your weapon on your turn with your one free object interaction, before casting any spells.
As above I don't see the need to have divine somehow immune to the normal rules - it has never been that was as mentioned above. But you're welcome to do whatever you want.

I'm not sure getting rid of V,S,M is the best concept. Some spells are meant to be cast without sound for stealthiness or some are meant to be cast without moving your hands.

[djreynolds]

Then warcaster isnt an issue.

I'm asking only because, when has this been an issue with S&B clerics and paladins with or without war caster. Forgive my ignorance AFB, but If I'm taking warcaster as cleric, its for advantage on saves? And for wizard its for the AoO cantrip, and saves, correct?

Obviously bard is a different case

[Tanarii]

As above I don't see the need to have divine somehow immune to the normal rules - it has never been that was as mentioned above. But you're welcome to do whatever you want.its something pretty strongly mired in my mind. Clearly. ;)

But also its how 5e currently functions. Divine has a clear advantage due to Holy Symbols being able to be worn, or especially etched on shields. it retains that distinction, while correcting what I consider to be two issues: the unnecessary advantage of 2handers, the disadvantage of TWF for divine; the inability to cast

Plus some simplicity & clarity.


I'm not sure getting rid of V,S,M is the best concept. Some spells are meant to be cast without sound for stealthiness or some are meant to be cast without moving your hands.
I actually agree. Which is why my original phrasing (pages back now) retained them, and instead was in regards to OAs only. The idea was to remove the (to me) silly idea of constantly having to sheath and draw your weapon.

It was adding: You may sacrifice you OAs to cast spells if your hands are full.

Effectively my personal preference for house rules are:
1) Two handed weapons occupy your hands when used in a way that allows attacks with them. You may use an object interaction to make it unusable as a weapon (ie hold it), or sheath it, to free up your hands. It takes another object interaction to make it useable again.
2) if you have an focus in hand, you can cast spells with S or M components freely.
3) if you have a Holy symbols worn, or etched into shield or armor, you can cast spells with S or M components freely.

The first makes 2-handed on par with TWF and weapon & shield. The second fixes focus for casting not only S/M spells, but also S spells without M. The third gets rid of the unnecessary distinction between worn and etched Holy Symbols.

It also removes Warcaster as a Feat tax for Clerics. Which was the characters I thought had a *unnecessary* feat tax to begin with. Turns out they only kind of do, with V/S (but not V/S/M).

[Tanarii]

Full plate wearing dwarven wizards can use a shield just fine. As long as they have a staff in the other hand.

That covers them for pretty much every single V, S, M spell in the game (as long as it doesnt have costly material components, and even then they could just drop the staff, pull out the costly component from their spell pouch and cast it in a single action anyway).dont forget they a shield & staff wizards can't cast spells with S, but without M, without Warcaster. You keep forgetting it, which makes me think you've already house ruled that part. ;)

OTOH I *really* like your Warcaster change for weapon = focus. Trying to think of unintended consequences but my coffee hasn't kicked in yet and brain kinda slow.

[Tanarii]

I'm asking only because, when has this been an issue with S&B clerics and paladins with or without war caster. Forgive my ignorance AFB, but If I'm taking warcaster as cleric, its for advantage on saves? And for wizard its for the AoO cantrip, and saves, correct?

Obviously bard is a different caseRAW (and apparently RAI too) Warcaster allows Clerics to cast V/S spells, which normally they can't. They can only cast V, V/M, V/S/M, or S/M without it. In other words, for weapon & shield using Clerics if there is an S component, there must also be an M component to cast.

[Malifice]

OTOH I *really* like your Warcaster change for weapon = focus. Trying to think of unintended consequences but my coffee hasn't kicked in yet and brain kinda slow.

Yeah, its elegant and thematic.

Should arguably be a class feature for all the Gishes already, but hey.

[Kryx]

Effectively my personal preference for house rules are:
1) Two handed weapons occupy your hands when used in a way that allows attacks with them. You may use an object interaction to make it unusable as a weapon (ie hold it), or sheath it, to free up your hands. It takes another object interaction to make it useable again.
2) if you have an focus in hand, you can cast spells with S or M components freely.
3) if you have a Holy symbols worn, or etched into shield or armor, you can cast spells with S or M components freely.
1. Agreed. I think this makes a lot of sense and balances it out.
2. Why would a focus be different from a weapon? Focus replaces M, but not S (in some cases it can)
3. I really don't see how having a holy symbol lets you twiddle your fingers precisely while holding a weapon. Again, I don't agree, but you're welcome to create some kind of Divine/Arcane divide.


To me it seems best to go with the following:

1. Adjusting 2 handed grip is object interaction as you said
2. Somatic always requires a free hand.
As a result if someone holding 2handed/shield/TWF wants to cast they either need to sheathe, drop, take their hand off the 2 handed (preventing OAs)
As per RAW Warcaster lets people use S while having hands full.

Though I guess I just don't understand the point of a spellcasting focus.

[Edenbeast]

Effectively my personal preference for house rules are:
1) Two handed weapons occupy your hands when used in a way that allows attacks with them. You may use an object interaction to make it unusable as a weapon (ie hold it), or sheath it, to free up your hands. It takes another object interaction to make it useable again.
2) if you have an focus in hand, you can cast spells with S or M components freely.
3) if you have a Holy symbols worn, or etched into shield or armor, you can cast spells with S or M components freely.

I'm not going to stop you from houseruling, but I do think that the idea is that if you use a two-handed weapon, you can hold it in one hand, and use the free hand for casting.
The holy symbol is a replacement for material components, not somatic.
For the somatic component you need a free hand.
The ruling on page 203:

A spellcaster must have a hand free to access these components, but it can be the same hand that he or she uses to perform somatic components.
Implies that you can take the material component from your pouch, and then do the somatics with the same hand. You can't do that when holding a focus (be it a staff or a shield) in that hand and a weapon or something else in the other. You need a free hand when a somatic component is required, unless you have the Warcaster feat.

[DanyBallon]

I'm not going to stop you from houseruling, but I do think that the idea is that if you use a two-handed weapon, you can hold it in one hand, and use the free hand for casting.


You're right on this point, but some (I'm one of them) argue that when you hold your 2-handed weapon with one hand to cast a spell, you can't use your weapon on opportunity attack. Versatile weapon, would let you use it one-handed tough.

[Edenbeast]

You're right on this point, but some (I'm one of them) argue that when you hold your 2-handed weapon with one hand to cast a spell, you can't use your weapon on opportunity attack. Versatile weapon, would let you use it one-handed tough.

That would only be the case if you dropped or sheathed the weapon. The ruling says you must use of at least one free hand. The attack of opportunity stands apart from your turn. As long as you're holding the weapon, you can use your AoO. That's all within the rules, otherwise it would state that you need two free hands for casting a spell. And if you lookup some clips of kendo or HEMA with claymore, it makes perfectly sense. Disengage, and cast chill touch. If someone runs past you, you can still wack them on the head if needed.
The sword+board guy will need to sheathe his weapon, but he keeps the shield's AC bonus.

On a side note: the discription of burning hands says you use both hands.. so there are some exceptions.

[Tanarii]

I'm not going to stop you from houseruling, but I do think that the idea is that if you use a two-handed weapon, you can hold it in one hand, and use the free hand for casting.
The holy symbol is a replacement for material components, not somatic.
For the somatic component you need a free hand.
The ruling on page 203:

Implies that you can take the material component from your pouch, and then do the somatics with the same hand. You can't do that when holding a focus (be it a staff or a shield) in that hand and a weapon or something else in the other. You need a free hand when a somatic component is required, unless you have the Warcaster feat.The ruling on Page 203 says that you can use the same hand that is already occupied by a focus for a M component for the S component. You don't need a free hand for an S component if you have a focus in one hand, and the spell also has a M component. This is also RAI, per the link Malifice provided upthread. (link for clarity https://dnd.wizards.com/articles/features/rules-spellcasting )

What you can't do is use the hand with a focus for an S component when the spell doesn't have an M component. I think that's a silly conflict, so I was addressing that. The house-rule was to say that if you have a hand full of focus, that hand can always be used for the S component of a spell.

[DanyBallon]

That would only be the case if you dropped or sheathed the weapon. The ruling says you must use of at least one free hand. The attack of opportunity stands apart from your turn. As long as you're holding the weapon, you can use your AoO. That's all within the rules, otherwise it would state that you need two free hands for casting a spell. And if you lookup some clips of kendo or HEMA with claymore, it makes perfectly sense. Disengage, and cast chill touch. If someone runs past you, you can still wack them on the head if needed.
The sword+board guy will need to sheathe his weapon, but he keeps the shield's AC bonus.

On a side note: the discription of burning hands says you use both hands.. so there are some exceptions.

Opportunity attack may happen on an opponent turn, but it's still in the same 6 second round. In a combat round anyone act in the same 6 sec, round breackdown in turns is just a simple way to give an impression of some acting faster than other. This is the reason I, and others as well, argue that you can do both spellcasting and swinging a 2-handed weapon. Just the same as you can't drink a potion on your turn and another one as a reaction.

On the other hand, I would allow a hasted character do so, even if by RAW it may not be allowed.

[DanyBallon]

The ruling on Page 203 says that you can use the same hand that is already occupied by a focus for a M component for the S component. You don't need a free hand for an S component if you have a focus in one hand, and the spell also has a M component. This is also RAI, per the link Malifice provided upthread. (link for clarity https://dnd.wizards.com/articles/features/rules-spellcasting )

What you can't do is use the hand with a focus for an S component when the spell doesn't have an M component. I think that's a silly conflict, so I was addressing that. The house-rule was to say that if you have a hand full of focus, that hand can always be used for the S component of a spell.


It may not be RAW or even RAI, but edenbeast descritption of using the same hand for somatic and material component do make sense. But doing somatic with a staff in one hand could make sense as well (but I more often imagine such a thing when the caster ain't holding anythin in its other hand, so in the end he has a free hand...)

[JoeJ]

The ruling on Page 203 says that you can use the same hand that is already occupied by a focus for a M component for the S component. You don't need a free hand for an S component if you have a focus in one hand, and the spell also has a M component. This is also RAI, per the link Malifice provided upthread. (link for clarity https://dnd.wizards.com/articles/features/rules-spellcasting )

What you can't do is use the hand with a focus for an S component when the spell doesn't have an M component. I think that's a silly conflict, so I was addressing that. The house-rule was to say that if you have a hand full of focus, that hand can always be used for the S component of a spell.

Why is it silly? If you're not using the focus for the specific spell you're casting, then why should less of a hindrance than any other random object?

[Tanarii]

If it doesn't hinder your somatic motions when you're using it as a focus, why should it be any more of a hindrance you when you aren't?

[Edenbeast]

The ruling on Page 203 says that you can use the same hand that is already occupied by a focus for a M component for the S component. You don't need a free hand for an S component if you have a focus in one hand, and the spell also has a M component. This is also RAI, per the link Malifice provided upthread. (link for clarity https://dnd.wizards.com/articles/features/rules-spellcasting )

What you can't do is use the hand with a focus for an S component when the spell doesn't have an M component. I think that's a silly conflict, so I was addressing that. The house-rule was to say that if you have a hand full of focus, that hand can always be used for the S component of a spell.

I find that a strange ruling. Somatic always requires a free hand (in past editions at least). It doesn't make sense for spells that have both somatic and material components, and require you to touch the target, because touch attack have to be made by hand, unless the fizzlers of the coast changed that as well.

[JoeJ]

If it doesn't hinder your somatic motions when you're using it as a focus, why should it be any more of a hindrance you when you aren't?

It doesn't hinder your movements for that spell, because it's part of the spell. That is, the specific hand movements that make up the somatic component include holding the material component/focus in exactly the right way.

Suppose I'm eating lunch when I get attacked, and I've got both hands full of pork rind. Can I cast a spell without dropping it on my expensive carpet? If the spell is Grease, I can. If it's anything else with a somatic component, I can't. Pork rind doesn't get in the way of casting that particular spell because it's part of the spell.

[Tanarii]

That doesn't make sense in the context of being able to use a focus in place of the M components. Are you using different S motions to go with the different material component? Is it the same spell or not? Are S motions fixed or variable within a spell?

It also makes Holy a Symbols on shields being used to cover S components when covering M components make even less sense, unless all Cleric/Paladin spells with M components have only a single motion: present your holy symbol or M component.

Edit: on the other hand, youve manage to remind me that 'silly' is a bad reason for making a house rule in a fantasy rpg unless it's gratuitous. This isn't. How ever I'd still argue it makes for relative simplicity and consistent within the rules. Similar to having the 2-handed weapon be treated the same as twf or s&b. That said, it makes kryx's argument against retaining a holy symbol exception also comes down to that same argument.

[Icewraith]

It doesn't hinder your movements for that spell, because it's part of the spell. That is, the specific hand movements that make up the somatic component include holding the material component/focus in exactly the right way.

Suppose I'm eating lunch when I get attacked, and I've got both hands full of pork rind. Can I cast a spell without dropping it on my expensive carpet? If the spell is Grease, I can. If it's anything else with a somatic component, I can't. Pork rind doesn't get in the way of casting that particular spell because it's part of the spell.

Or you hold your lunch in one hand while you perform the somatic and/or material components with your other. If you were wearing a shield and had your lunch in your other hand, you'd need to drop your lunch anyways unless it is suitable for use as a spell component. The answer to whether or not you can hit someone with your lunch if they provoke an opportunity attack from you is a large part of the discussion in this thread and depends on how big your lunch is and whether or not it is versatile.

Of course, the whole issue is moot if the spell you want to cast has a verbal component, because it's highly likely your mouth is full. Unless you're extraordinarily lucky you're probably not ready to swallow yet (if you're being ambushed your attackers probably specifically waited for you to take another bite), so you'll get lunch on your floor anyways as you spit out your food and start casting. If you were having a peanut butter sandwich, you're dead anyways unless you've... Got Milk?

[JoeJ]

That doesn't make sense in the context of being able to use a focus in place of the M components. Are you using different S motions to go with the different material component? Is it the same spell or not? Are S motions fixed or variable within a spell?

It also makes Holy a Symbols on shields being used to cover S components when covering M components make even less sense, unless all Cleric/Paladin spells with M components have only a single motion: present your holy symbol or M component.

Unfortunately (or possibly fortunately), Wizards didn't go into detail about what hand motions are required for most spells, and whether or not they're the same with a focus as with materials, or even with different materials for spells that give you an option. For all we know, the specific motions required might change based on the phase of the moon, or the time of day, or whether or not there's a goat within the caster's line of sight. (Maybe that's why most casters only know a few spells: because they're really, really complicated.)


Edit: on the other hand, youve manage to remind me that 'silly' is a bad reason for making a house rule in a fantasy rpg unless it's gratuitous. This isn't. How ever I'd still argue it makes for relative simplicity and consistent within the rules. Similar to having the 2-handed weapon be treated the same as twf or s&b. That said, it makes kryx's argument against retaining a holy symbol exception also comes down to that same argument.

In this case, I'd suggest making your decision on a house rule based on your assessment of how it affects balance. Realism isn't a very good standard to try and apply to magic.

[Tanarii]

For all we know, the specific motions required might change based on the phase of the moon, or the time of day, or whether or not there's a goat within the caster's line of sight.hahahaha okay my next Wild Mage now has a ready explanation for why his spell just dropped a FB on the party ... he motioned 'goat' when he should have done 'orc'. :)

[JoeJ]

hahahaha okay my next Wild Mage now has a ready explanation for why his spell just dropped a FB on the party ... he motioned 'goat' when he should have done 'orc'. :)

Also, the Verbal component for Polymorph changes based on whether or not the caster knows, or has reason to believe, that the target is named Charles.

[Vogonjeltz]

If you are a cleric or paladin, and one hand holds a weapon and the other holds a shield that has your holy symbol on it, you do not need warcaster and can cast all your spells (barring spells with specific costly material components that your shield cannot replace) just fine.

Every other casting class needs warcaster when using a shield and a weapon at the same time (unless that weapon is also a focus - such an EK or Wizard using a shield and staff, or sword and staff)

Look, as much as I respect WoTC, that article is factually challenged, unless you're saying that this no longer applies:

"Somatic (S) Spellcasting gestures might include a forceful gesticulation or an intricate set of gestures. If a spell requires a somatic component, the caster must have free use of at least one hand to perform these gestures." (PHB 203, bolded for emphasis).

The article quote seems to be saying that someone holding an object in each hand (regardless of what that object is) has 'free use' of that hand. i.e. So long as both hands aren't restrained they always have "free use". I'm arguing no, if you have to use that hand to hold something else it isn't free for somatic components, it doesn't matter what is being held, the somatic components require gesticulation which can not be done while holding an object.

And if you're holding a shield you don't have a free hand there, it's engaged in holding the shield. That the shield might constitute a holy symbol is immaterial to its status as free or not free, because the material component section only provides that "A spellcaster must have a free hand to access these components, but it can be the same free hand that he or she uses to perform somatic components." (PHB 203)

A holy symbol on a shield doesn't work precisely because you can't free your hand to do the somatic components (because a shield is strapped on and it takes an action to take it off).


you probably should have read the very next paragraph after the aid paragraph, because it shows you are wrong. A Cleric or Paladin casting a Spell with a Somatic Component and *not* a material component cannot do so while using a Holy Symbol emblazoned shield:
"If the same cleric casts cure wounds, she needs to put the mace or the shield away, because that spell doesn’t have a material component but does have a somatic component. She’s going to need a free hand to make the spell’s gestures. If she had the War Caster feat, she could ignore this restriction."

Edit: I think that's stupid, but it matches how the PhB is worded so I'm not surprised.

This doesn't make sense (and it doesn't actually match the PHB wording). The PHB stipulates that a free hand is required for somatic components, end of sentence.

In the material component section it also stipulates a free hand being required, however, it includes that proviso that the free hand can be the same one used for somatic. So what is actually described in the PHB would venn diagram as follows:

At least one free hand: Cast anything.
Hands Occupied by non-focus objects: Cast Verbal only.
Hands Occupied, but at least one focus object in hand/worn: Cast Verbal and Material for which a focus can be substituted.

At no point in the text is the requirement stricken that a free hand exist for somatic components.

[Malifice]

Look, as much as I respect WoTC, that article is factually challenged, unless you're saying that this no longer applies:

"Somatic (S) Spellcasting gestures might include a forceful gesticulation or an intricate set of gestures. If a spell requires a somatic component, the caster must have free use of at least one hand to perform these gestures." (PHB 203, bolded for emphasis).

Yeah, then a paragraph or two down it also states (under material components) that you 'can use the same hand holding a material component or spell focus to perform the somatic gestures for your spell'.

For a cleric/ paladin thats his shield. For a wizard, thats his staff. For a bard, thats his lute.

[Vogonjeltz]

Yeah, then a paragraph or two down it also states (under material components) that you 'can use the same hand holding a material component or spell focus to perform the somatic gestures for your spell'.

For a cleric/ paladin thats his shield. For a wizard, thats his staff. For a bard, thats his lute.

I agree the article states that, it just doesn't comport with what is said in the PHB, which only allows free hands to be used for both, it doesn't say occupied hands can be used for both.

I'm not opposed necessarily to them rephrasing the PHB to say that instead, just saying that they didn't.

[bid]

I agree the article states that, it just doesn't comport with what is said in the PHB, which only allows free hands to be used for both, it doesn't say occupied hands can be used for both.

I'm not opposed necessarily to them rephrasing the PHB to say that instead, just saying that they didn't.
I am sure you agree that holding a spell focus in your hand allows you to cast any M spell. Holy symbol on p151 states that you can hold, wear or bear for this use. We have specific language to allow clerics to cast with a shield.

[Malifice]

I agree the article states that, it just doesn't comport with what is said in the PHB, which only allows free hands to be used for both, it doesn't say occupied hands can be used for both.

Huh? That doesnt compute man.

It says you need a free hand to cast, but if that hand is holding your focus (a shield emblazoned with your holy symbol, your staff or your lute) that counts as a hand that can also do somatic components.

It only becomes a problem when there is no M component. Then you cant use your (staff/ shield) hand to do somatic components.

[SharkForce]

I agree the article states that, it just doesn't comport with what is said in the PHB, which only allows free hands to be used for both, it doesn't say occupied hands can be used for both.

I'm not opposed necessarily to them rephrasing the PHB to say that instead, just saying that they didn't.

a hand with a focus in it is supplying the material components. therefore, it can also be used to supply the somatic components, just as a hand occupied with any other material component could do.

[djreynolds]

Is this a proper rundown?

So I'm a cleric and I rush into help the barbarian who went reckless. I swing my short sword and miss. But my interact with object allows me to freely sheathe my short sword. End of turn.

Next round, with shield in hand and sword sheathed I can now wiggle my free hand and cast a spell (verbal and somatic) on the barbarian. The orcs now seeing this and fearing my magic start to run, so during my turn this round I freely draw my sword and swing in reaction to this attack of opportunity.

If had not sheathed my sword at the end of my last turn, I would've been forced to sheathe it on this turn in order to cast a spell with a free hand on my pal and would not have been able to interact with object again and draw my sword this turn and react with a sword swing at the orcs leaving my area, unless I wanted to punch out with an empty fist.

So war caster, if I had had the feat, would've negated the need and prior planning to sheathe my sword and allowed me not worry about having a free hand to perform the somatic finger waggling and even allowed me to cast 1 action spell vs a single orc running away instead of just a sword swing.

This sort of reminds me of a soldier having to sling his weapon out of the way to grab another soldier with two hands and drag him away or press a dressing on a wound. War caster allows me to keep the gun aimed and pointed with my trigger hand and just perform this with my off hand.

[mjcoss]

I agree with your scenario, but as far as I'm concerned that isn't really the issue. The issue is the two cases:

Setup:
Cleric with sword and shield, and holy symbol is on shield

1) If I want to cast a spell that is listed as VSM, VM, MS, or V then I don't need the warcaster feat because the presence of the "M" means that I can do the spell using my spell focus, and S is just holding the spell focus...although the sage advice link mentions that you're shield arm needs to be able to freely move meaning that it is something more than just holding it some way.

2) If I want to cast a spell that is listed as VS, or S then I need to put my weapon away/down or I have to have the warcaster feat to be able to cast that spell.

If 1 is true (and by RAW/RAI it appears to be), then 2 just seems odd to me but also seems to be RAW. And for me at least this is where I just don't see how it makes sense, and would probably just allow it as a house rule.

[Tanarii]

RundownAwesome! I love it when people make the game feel like it has come to life. Too often I run into people, even in-game, focusing on the battle map & description-free tactical play, or flowery over-description & hyperbole. Well described.

Also yes, it looks correct to me.

[Vogonjeltz]

I am sure you agree that holding a spell focus in your hand allows you to cast any M spell. Holy symbol on p151 states that you can hold, wear or bear for this use. We have specific language to allow clerics to cast with a shield.

A focus can substitute for any inexpensive material component, yes. (PHB 203)


Huh? That doesnt compute man.

It says you need a free hand to cast, but if that hand is holding your focus (a shield emblazoned with your holy symbol, your staff or your lute) that counts as a hand that can also do somatic components.

It only becomes a problem when there is no M component. Then you cant use your (staff/ shield) hand to do somatic components

Yes, the article states what you said.

The book says this, which is different: "A spellcaster must have a hand free to access these components, but it can be the same hand that he or she uses to perform somatic components."

The difference is that the book text is only saying the character can use the same free hand being used for somatic to then do the material component. It is NOT saying that somatic components can be done using a hand that isn't free because it's already holding a focus.

It's a one-way statement, not a two-way statement. The article also doesn't make sense logically. If you could use a hand occupied by a material component to perform the somatic components, why would it matter if you need the material component or not?

The book rules don't get into this quagmire by simply saying you can use the same free hand to do both, but they don't give the character the ability to do somatic components using a hand in which the character is holding something and can not put it down. A shield fits this bill because it is held by a character and requires an action to doff it (we can't even get around it by the free interact with an object).


a hand with a focus in it is supplying the material components. therefore, it can also be used to supply the somatic components, just as a hand occupied with any other material component could do.

Your premise (a hand with a focus in it is supplying the material component) is true so long as the component isn't expensive.
The conclusion (therefore, it can also be used to supply the somatic components) is false. No where in the book does it say that somatic components can be used by a hand occupied with a material component (or focus).

The only statement in the book allows a free hand to do both the material and somatic components, which isn't the same thing.

[Tanarii]

Page 203 PHB states that if you use a free hand to access "these components", which includes a spellcasting focus per the prior paragraphs, it can be the same free hand that you use to perform somatic components. That's absolutely clear that same hand used for somatic components can be used to access a spellcasting focus.

Exact wording:
Casting some spells requires particular objects, specified in the component entry. A character can use a component pouch or a spellcasting focus (found in chapter 5) in place of the components specified for a spell.
...
A spellcaster must have a hand free to access these components, but it can be the same hand that he or she uses to perform somatic components.

[CNagy]

Going away from RAW for a moment.

A plain arcane focus is a cosmetic choice. If you use a crystal ball or a wand that isn't otherwise magical, what you are doing is choosing to be the wizard who sweeps his crystal ball out in front of him or points and gestures with his wand instead of the wizard who is constantly rummaging through his robe and pouches for garlic and stray lengths of wire.

This cosmetic difference shouldn't affect your somatic components. It should, in fact, inform them; if you cast with Burning Hands with a crystal ball in hand, the fire should swirl out from it as you sweep it across in an arc. Or from the end of your wand/staff, or out of the crystal you are using, etc. The idea that you have to hold your hands out (both of them!) with your thumbs touching (I guess some spells do require two free hands--specific vs general!) and fingers fanned out is a fossil, a throwback to the bad old days when a vast number of the spells had some fiddly little directions that sometimes meant you didn't have all of your spells at your disposal because one hand was manacled to a wall.

Anything that acts as a spell focus should be good enough for the S and non-exotic M components of any spells you want to cast--including those with an S but no M. Then the only reason you'd need War Caster was that you wanted both of your hands full with something that didn't count as a spellcasting implement (and you want those other two really nice benefits). Pact weapons and EK bonded weapons should count as arcane focuses. So I guess I still don't think Warcaster is a feat tax, it just interacts with a somewhat messed up system that needs revising.

[bid]

A focus can substitute for any inexpensive material component, yes. (PHB 203).
Since you did not have anything more to say about my inference, that means you agree that a S&B cleric can cast M spell using his shield as holy symbol. Because that was the point I was making here.

[Malifice]

Is this a proper rundown?

So I'm a cleric and I rush into help the barbarian who went reckless. I swing my short sword and miss. But my interact with object allows me to freely sheathe my short sword. End of turn.

Next round, with shield in hand and sword sheathed I can now wiggle my free hand and cast a spell (verbal and somatic) on the barbarian. The orcs now seeing this and fearing my magic start to run, so during my turn this round I freely draw my sword and swing in reaction to this attack of opportunity.

If had not sheathed my sword at the end of my last turn, I would've been forced to sheathe it on this turn in order to cast a spell with a free hand on my pal and would not have been able to interact with object again and draw my sword this turn and react with a sword swing at the orcs leaving my area, unless I wanted to punch out with an empty fist.

You didnt need to sheathe your sword at all. As a cleric, you can freely cast with sword in one hand and shield (with holy symbol on it) in the other just fine as long as the spell had a holy symbol as one of its M components (i.e.: it had an 'M' component that wasnt a costly one).

No warcaster needed.

[Tanarii]

You didnt need to sheathe your sword at all. As a cleric, you can freely cast with sword in one hand and shield (with holy symbol on it) in the other just fine as long as the spell had a holy symbol as one of its M components (i.e.: it had an 'M' component that wasnt a costly one).

No warcaster needed.
He's specifically talking about a V/S spell, I assume Cure Wounds. Clerics cannot cast V/S spells with sword & shield, even if they have their Holy Symbol engraved on the shield. The Cleric would need Warcaster in that case.

[djreynolds]

But I thought without warcaster feat, even if my shield is my holy symbol, I still need a free hand to cast spells that require a verbal and somatic action. That even if my shield is the material component of the spell, it is not a free hand and since some spell have no material component, and only verbal and somatic, I have to drop the weapon, sheathe, or take war caster.

It honestly is not a problem at my table, I force a "component tax" on all casters in the form of pizza.

I always assumed that because paladins and cleric got shields, that this was never a problem with casting, and that this shield usage was really an issue for wizards and sorcerers and that this is why mountain dwarves got no shields because it would be useless to their casters.

[Malifice]

But I thought without warcaster feat, even if my shield is my holy symbol, I still need a free hand to cast spells that require a verbal and somatic action.

That even if my shield is the material component of the spell, it is not a free hand and since some spell have no material component, and only verbal and somatic, I have to drop the weapon, sheathe, or take war caster.

Nope.

Even if you do NOT have warcaster, a hand that holds a spell focus can also be used to complete somatic components, but only while it holds the focus.

If a wizard without Warcaster holds a Sword and Staff (ala Gandalf) he can cast a V, S, M spell just fine with his hands full (the staff is the spell focus, and also completes the somatic gestures for the spell). Same deal with cleric/ paladin with holy symbols on their shield, and a weapon in the other hand. No need to sheathe a weapon when casting a V, S and M spell.

So you can hold a weapon in one hand and a spell focus in the other and cast a (V, S and M) spell just fine without warcaster.

You cant cast a (V, S) spell with hands full. You need warcaster for that. Also, if your hands are full, and neither object is a spell focus you also cant cast a V, S and M spell with or without warcaster. You need a free hand to hold the M component.

Adding the 'M' component means that as long as at least one of the things you hold is a spell focus, you dont need warcaster to cast with hands full.

Its confusing, uncecessarily complex and silly and I dont like it, but there it is.

[djreynolds]

Thanks for the clarification. I will keep this thread. Its a good discussion, and some of the Adventurer League guys are PHB police.

[Edenbeast]

Its confusing, uncecessarily complex and silly and I dont like it, but there it is.

I agree on that. And I'll stick with previous editions ruling on that (3.5/pathfinder). Meaning: somatic needs a free hand. This ruling also depends on spell description, two good examples: burning hands and cone of cold both mention the caster is using two hands to cast the spell, thus the PC needs both hands free. Warcaster reduces the amount of hands needed for somatic component by one.

[Tanarii]

I agree on that. And I'll stick with previous editions ruling on that (3.5/pathfinder). Meaning: somatic needs a free hand. This ruling also depends on spell description, two good examples: burning hands and cone of cold both mention the caster is using two hands to cast the spell, thus the PC needs both hands free. Warcaster reduces the amount of hands needed for somatic component by one.
Be aware you just required Clerics, who traditionally mace & board, to either put away their mace every time they want to cast almost any spell, or not use shields, or take Warcaster.

If you don't see that as a bad thing, go to it. Just making sure you're aware of the most common in-game ramification. Clerics are the most likely casters to have hands full and be casting S-component spells playing default class styles.

[Kryx]

Be aware you just required Clerics, who traditionally mace & board, to either put away their mace every time they want to cast almost any spell, or not use shields, or take Warcaster.
I don't see how this is a problem. The same is true for Valor Bard, EK, Bladelock, etc using TWF or a shield.

Putting away a weapon to cast a spell isn't the end of the world - it just means no OA.

What makes less sense to me is somehow a holy symbol lets you ignore somatic movements basically.

[SharkForce]

What makes less sense to me is somehow a holy symbol lets you ignore somatic movements basically.

it doesn't. you can perform the somatic components with your empty hand, or with a spellcasting focus. but you still perform them.

the real puzzler is why it only works when the spell includes a material component.

[JoeJ]

it doesn't. you can perform the somatic components with your empty hand, or with a spellcasting focus. but you still perform them.

the real puzzler is why it only works when the spell includes a material component.

Why does playing a musical instrument with a trumpet in my hand only work if the trumpet is the instrument I'm using? If I can make the hand movements to play music on a trumpet that I'm holding, it doesn't make any sense that I can't make the hand movements to play music on a piano while I'm holding a trumpet.

Seriously, why would you imagine that the required hand movements are the same for every spell? Manipulating the material component, when there is one, is part of casting the spell. So you can't cast Alter Self holding a knife in one hand and an arcane focus in the other for the same reason you can't cast it holding a knife and a chuck of pork rind, even though you could cast Grease that way.

[N810]

"it doesn't make any sense that I can't make the hand movements to play music on a piano while I'm holding a trumpet."

But.... lvl 20 bard... :elan:

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-CXqgyeN1T0k/UkBmLa2kRMI/AAAAAAAAcaE/qcYTN0RRUBI/s1600/one+man+band.jpg

[Edenbeast]

Be aware you just required Clerics, who traditionally mace & board, to either put away their mace every time they want to cast almost any spell, or not use shields, or take Warcaster.

Exactly. Traditionally they are required to sheathe their weapon (with heavy shield), or switch the weapon to their shield hand (light shield or buckler). Or put away their shield (least favorable option).

[Kryx]

it doesn't. you can perform the somatic components with your empty hand, or with a spellcasting focus. but you still perform them.
Correction: What makes less sense is you paint your god's face on your shield you can suddenly move your fingers enough to cast spells while holding it whereas you weren't able to before.
Fluff wise that makes no sense to me. And mechanically I see no reason to give that benefit to Clerics and not Valor Bards and all the other classes.

But Tanarii and I just keep restating our opinions. So I'll stop now (if he does). :P

[DanyBallon]

Correction: What makes less sense is you paint your god's face on your shield you can suddenly move your fingers enough to cast spells while holding it whereas you weren't able to before.
Fluff wise that makes no sense to me. And mechanically I see no reason to give that benefit to Clerics and not Valor Bards and all the other classes.

But Tanarii and I just keep restating our opinions. So I'll stop now (if he does). :P

It's not just painting your shield, it's making your shield an effective holy symbol as much as an amulet or any other typical holy symbol. It's easy to imagine a cleric casting a spell by raising high in the air the holy symbol he wear around his neck as part of the somatic component of the spell, why couln't he do the same with a shield (... or a weapon) that bear his deity symbol and act a afullfledge holy symbol? Not all somatic need complexe finger movement.

I'd allow a Gandalf like wizards holding a arcane focus staff in one hand and a sword in the other. Any classes that don't have spell focus discribed in their spell casting would require a free hand, unless they have the War Caster feat. Bard could be a source of discussion as some will argue that the somatic is done playing the instrument...

[Kryx]

It's not just painting your shield, it's making your shield an effective holy symbol as much as an amulet or any other typical holy symbol. It's easy to imagine a cleric casting a spell by raising high in the air the holy symbol he wear around his neck as part of the somatic component of the spell, why couln't he do the same with a shield (... or a weapon) that bear his deity symbol and act a afullfledge holy symbol? Not all somatic need complexe finger movement.
The problem is a shield is still shield. It still limits hand movement just as much. The shield painted to be a holy symbol does absolutely nothing to bypass the normal shield + somatic restrictions imo. Hands still can't move enough for spells.

5e either should've made it not matter for all classes (effectively give everyone that benefit of warcaster), or they shouldn't made it matter for everyone. The issue I have is the intricate differences between 2 handed vs TWF and S&B as well as Divine classes vs Arcane gishes.

There is no balance reason to punish some builds and it just adds complexity.

[JoeJ]

The problem is a shield is still shield. It still limits hand movement just as much. The shield painted to be a holy symbol does absolutely nothing to bypass the normal shield + somatic restrictions imo. Hands still can't move enough for spells.

5e either should've made it not matter for all classes (effectively give everyone that benefit of warcaster), or they shouldn't made it matter for everyone. The issue I have is the intricate differences between 2 handed vs TWF and S&B as well as Divine classes vs Arcane gishes.

There is no balance reason to punish some builds and it just adds complexity.

You could rule that using your shield to cast a spell means you can't add the shield bonus to your AC until the beginning of your next turn.

[tieren]

Correction: What makes less sense is you paint your god's face on your shield you can suddenly move your fingers enough to cast spells while holding it whereas you weren't able to before.
Fluff wise that makes no sense to me. And mechanically I see no reason to give that benefit to Clerics and not Valor Bards and all the other classes.

But Tanarii and I just keep restating our opinions. So I'll stop now (if he does). :P

I think the problem is the finger twiddling.

I like the poster above that discussed using the focus should inform the somatic movements. Perhaps when using the holy symbol on shield the deity will allow shield movements to call forth that slice of its power. So instead of waggling your fingers in a particular pattern you can wave the whole shield in a particular pattern without taking it off (sort of a large arm motion instead of fine fingers).

[SharkForce]

nothing says the somatic component for using a wand, staff, orb, or whatever else is the same as the somatic component for using a spell component pouch.

[EvilAnagram]

Apparently a lot of Cleric somatic components are just lifting one of your arms in the air.

[DanyBallon]

The problem is a shield is still shield. It still limits hand movement just as much. The shield painted to be a holy symbol does absolutely nothing to bypass the normal shield + somatic restrictions imo. Hands still can't move enough for spells.

5e either should've made it not matter for all classes (effectively give everyone that benefit of warcaster), or they shouldn't made it matter for everyone. The issue I have is the intricate differences between 2 handed vs TWF and S&B as well as Divine classes vs Arcane gishes.

There is no balance reason to punish some builds and it just adds complexity.

I have no argument against balance. If it's balance you seek, then I agree, my ruling isn't.

But I prefer having cool character concept that my players will like to play (in this particular case, classes that have access to a spell focus, can can forego the free hand requirement), over a balanced ruling where players will always argue that it just don't make sense (as this discussion prove that there's no simple way to resolve the issue).

[DanyBallon]

Apparently a lot of Cleric somatic components are just lifting one of your arms in the air.

It may be that in many religion, it is custom, to raise your hands/head/offer to the sky (where the god are believed to live).

[Kryx]

Apparently a lot of Cleric somatic components are just lifting one of your arms in the air.
lol, exactly. ;)




But I prefer having cool character concept that my players will like to play (in this particular case, classes that have access to a spell focus, can can forego the free hand requirement), over a balanced ruling where players will always argue that it just don't make sense (as this discussion prove that there's no simple way to resolve the issue).
I, too, prefer interesting characters. The problem is by using WotC's choice you're effectively making niche builds worse than their counterpart (Valor Bard w/ shield vs Paladin w/ shield). That's not interesting, just favoritism. No thx.

[N810]

I guess they are like semaphore signals. :smallconfused:

[DanyBallon]

lol, exactly. ;)




I, too, prefer interesting characters. The problem is by using WotC's choice you're effectively making niche builds worse than their counterpart (Valor Bard w/ shield vs Paladin w/ shield). That's not interesting, just favoritism. No thx.

It's not necesserly favoritism, it's just that there are many different way to imagine how the classes looks/acts. And definitely your vision, ain't the same as the designer. Your idea of the classes is perfectly legitimated, but unfortunately need a bit more work to adapt frome the core rule books. I'm pretty sure that there's other area where your are in total agreement with RAW/RAI, while other argue against, and this is perfectly normal, as no one will be 100% pleased with rules. There's always something you would have done differently...

Instead of seeing the disparencies between how the different spellcaster interract with somatic spell, use it as a defining trait for your character.

i.e. as for my self, I don't feel like my EK is unfavorised for not being able to cast spell while wearing a shield and swinging a sword without the War Caster feat. I just adapted and don't wear a shield at all, anyway I think my character look cooler with his long sword in one hand, and a free hand always ready to cas a spell. It may not be the most effective build, but I have fun playing this way and it's all that matter.

[Kryx]

Instead of seeing the disparencies between how the different spellcaster interract with somatic spell, use it as a defining trait for your character.

i.e. as for my self, I don't feel like my EK is unfavorised for not being able to cast spell while wearing a shield and swinging a sword without the War Caster feat. I just adapted and don't wear a shield at all, anyway I think my character look cooler with his long sword in one hand, and a free hand always ready to cas a spell. It may not be the most effective build, but I have fun playing this way and it's all that matter.
Sure, I could fluff TWF to be a whirling dervish of blades. But that fluff still doesn't make it good. Nor would whatever rationalization technique used in this case make the inconsistencies or biases disappear.

But as you said, that's what houserules are for. :)

[Tanarii]

But Tanarii and I just keep restating our opinions. So I'll stop now (if he does). :PI was just trying to point out the ramifications of changing the rules when a house-rule was suggest. I may be letting my bias sneak into the language I'm using though. ;) But it's not my intent to say it's badwrongfun to make minor changes to the Spellcasting rules. Just for folks (including myself in my own head) to be clear what the ramifications of seemingly minor changes would be.

It may be my personal opinion that Divine Casters should be able to cast with Shield & Weapon without a feat. But it's also 5e's rules, in a specific situation: Holy Symbol Focus, on Shield, Spell has M component.

[DanyBallon]

Sure, I could fluff TWF to be a whirling dervish of blades. But that fluff still doesn't make it good. Nor would whatever rationalization technique used in this case make the inconsistencies or biases disappear.

But as you said, that's what houserules are for. :)

But what if a player says that he want his twf fighter look like a whirling dervish of blade when fighting, and just don't care if he deals less damage, be cause he think his character is cool and like it that way? Will you tell him to choose something else, because TWF is proven weaker than GWF, or any other fighting style?

The first objective when playing D&D is that everyone have fun doing so. Some will have fun being the most effective, some, will have fun, just being there sitting at the table with friens, some are in for a lot of roleplay (note that none of these are exclusive). 5e provide most of what you need in order for everyone to have fun. You may not like some options, but nothing forces you to take them. Like in anything, some option will be better for the type of fun you are looking for. And the more broader are style of play and way to have a blast, the more you'll be able to get from 5e.

[EvilAnagram]

To be fair to RAW, some spells specify the somatic components. I mean Cure Wounds requires you to place your hand on the target. If that hand has a shield attached to it, you're just going to bruise someone.

[GWJ_DanyBoy]

Now that I fully understand what the RAW and RAI are on this, it seems needlessly complicated and has far too many special cases. There's no way I could lay this out to my group and have anyone consistently remember and apply the various combinations of weapons/fighting styles and spell components. I'd have to make a chart and have them reference it constantly. Half of them haven't even read the rules and my wizard can't even be bothered to finish picking all his spells even though he's had 6 weeks.

So nuts to that. The reason I run 5e is because of its relative simplicity. So now everyone just casts as desired and we'll ignore the spell requirements unless the character is specifically disabled in some way.
Give Warcaster a minor adjustment, replace the one benefit with, I dunno, no disadvantage for ranged spells in melee or the like and call it good.

[Tanarii]

Apparently a lot of Cleric somatic components are just lifting one of your arms in the air.Pretty much. Provided the spell requires a M component, and you choose to use a Holy Symbol in the place of your component, 'present your symbol' could easily be the S component, allowing you to channel divine power through it. One thing that I forget is that etching a holy symbol on a shield effectively turns your entire shield into a Holy Symbol. Thus presenting your shield & channeling divine power through it is basically identical to doing it with a 'necklace' Holy Symbol.

As has been repeatedly pointed out, nothing says that the S components for a spell remain identical when you choose to use a Focus instead of a Material Component. It's entirely possible possible that when you use a Wand, Orb, Staff, Holy Symbol, or Druid Focus to cast a spell the S component drops any and all forms of 'finger waggling', or even particularly complex 'focus waggling', possibly depending on the focus. It may be something as simple as pointing the Focus at the target becomes the S component. We don't know ... it's left vague. But that would certainly explain why you can cast a V/S/M spell with hands full (including one having a focus) but can't cast V/S

(All of that is turning trying to make in-game interpretations of the rules, which makes it all IMO of course.) Edit: for what it's worth, my opinion is that allowing EKs to use their bonded weapon as a focus makes perfect sense. Kryx, I think it's your turn to post an opinion. ;)

[Vogonjeltz]

Page 203 PHB states that if you use a free hand to access "these components", which includes a spellcasting focus per the prior paragraphs, it can be the same free hand that you use to perform somatic components. That's absolutely clear that same hand used for somatic components can be used to access a spellcasting focus.

Exact wording:
Casting some spells requires particular objects, specified in the component entry. A character can use a component pouch or a spellcasting focus (found in chapter 5) in place of the components specified for a spell.
...
A spellcaster must have a hand free to access these components, but it can be the same hand that he or she uses to perform somatic components.

Yes, but what that doesn't say is that a hand holding a focus constitutes a free hand.


Since you did not have anything more to say about my inference, that means you agree that a S&B cleric can cast M spell using his shield as holy symbol. Because that was the point I was making here.

I agreed with that.

[Tanarii]

Now that I fully understand what the RAW and RAI are on this, it seems needlessly complicated and has far too many special cases. There's no way I could lay this out to my group and have anyone consistently remember and apply the various combinations of weapons/fighting styles and spell components. I'd have to make a chart and have them reference it constantly. Half of them haven't even read the rules and my wizard can't even be bothered to finish picking all his spells even though he's had 6 weeks.

Here's your chart. I realize you said you'd rather go simple, but you inspired me.

Spellcasting Requirements by Components


V Able to speak
S Free hand
V/S Able to speak, Free Hand

M(a) Free hand, access to M Component or a Component Pouch
V/M(a) Able to speak, Free Hand, access to M Component or a Component Pouch
S/M(a) Free hand, access to M Component or a Component Pouch
V/S/M(a) Able to speak, Free Hand, access to M Component or a Component Pouch

M(b) Focus or Shield (etched) in hand
V/M(b) Able to speak, Focus or Shield (etched) in hand
S/M(b) Focus or Shield (etched) in hand
V/S/M(b) Able to speak, Focus or Shield (etched) in hand

M(c) Holy Symbol (worn)
V/M(c) Able to speak, Holy Symbol (worn)
S/M(c) Free hand, Holy Symbol (worn)
V/S/M(c) Able to speak, Free Hand, Holy Symbol (worn)


Notes:
(a) is using M components or Component Pouch
(b) is holding a Focus or Shield (etched) in hand
(c) is wearing a Holy Symbol
Free hand means one hand not holding anything
Shield (etched) means Shield with Holy Symbol etched on it

[Tanarii]

Yes, but what that doesn't say is that a hand holding a focus constitutes a free hand.Yes it does. That's exactly what it says. It's a free hand you use for the Focus and Somatic Components. The same free hand. It doesn't retroactively stop being a free hand once you put a focus in it for somatic purposes, it's one free hand, that you then use for the focus and somatic components.

[Kryx]

Yes it does. That's exactly what it says. It's a free hand you use for the Focus and Somatic Components.
It doesn't say that.


A spellcaster must have a hand free to access these components, but it can be the same hand that he or she uses to perform somatic components.
It still requires a free hand. I've never understood how that line allows S without a freehand. Literally the first part of it is free hand!

[Tanarii]

It doesn't say that.It does say exactly that.

Allow me to demonstrate. Take a wand or other focus. Put it on the ground next to you. Make sure you have one free hand, and the other occupied. You may now use that free hand for M components, including a Focus, and may also use that same free hand for S components. That's precisely what it says. Pick up the focus and use it for an M component, per rule 203. You may still use that same free hand that you are using for the focus for S components. Because that's what it says. The same free hand that is being used for the M components, which include a spellcasting focus, is allowed to be used for S components.

You don't become retroactively unable to use the free hand because you did exactly what the rules says and use it for a Focus. You continue to be able to use it for M and S components. If you try to retroactively disallow it for S components because it's not a free hand when occupied by the spellcasting focus, you also have to retroactively disallow the hand from using the Focus for M components, because it's no longer a free hand. So clearly that's not a correct interpretation. Edit: For that matter, you also have to disallow the free hand from being used for S or M components when it has any material component in it. Got pork in your hand for a Grease spell? Sorry, can't use that hand for M or S components. It's not free.

[Kryx]

It does say exactly that.
It never negates needing a free hand - it says the same hand can be used. It doesn't say that hand remains free while it is holding a focus.

Material components don't need a free hand as outlined:

A character can use a component pouch or a spellcasting focus (found in chapter 5) in place of the components specified for a spell.

[Tanarii]

It never negates needing a free hand - it says the same hand can be used. It doesn't say that hand remains free while it is holding a focus.It doesn't need to. That's terrible logic. That's like saying I can use a free hand to pick up an apple, and I can use that same free hand to eat an apple. But telling me when I pick up an apple, it's no longer free, so I can't use it to eat the apple.


Material components don't need a free hand as outlined:
That is not correct. You need a free hand to use those components. Including a component pouch or spellcasting focus. That's what it says.

You need a free hand to use M components, the component pouch, or a spellcasting focus ("these components"). You can use the same free hand using these components (M components, component pouch, spellcasting focus) for S components.

[Kryx]

Crawford says what the intent is:

The intent: you need a hand free for an S component, unless the spell has an M component and the component/focus is in hand.

Which is utter trash. He says they intended to allow VSM, but not VS through a shield. That RAI is disgracefully bad.
No need to debate the RAW any further - bad RAI is enough.

Either way I'm happy with what I decided and my player (GMs his own games) agrees.

[Tanarii]

Crawford says what the intent is:


Which is utter trash. He says they intended to allow VSM, but not VS through a shield. That RAI is disgracefully bad.
No need to debate the RAW any further - bad RAI is enough.

Either way I'm happy with what I decided and my player (GMs his own games) agrees.
If you mean: if you can V/S/M with hands full (including focus), you should be able V/S with hands full (including focus), I agree. That's completely reasonable. For the record, I also think your position that Arcane should be treated the same as Divine in terms of components and hands free is a reasonable position to take.

[georgie_leech]

Perhaps the reason that V/S/M spells are possible while V/S isn't is that as a rule the somatic components of V/S/M spells are broad and simple to account for having something in hand at the time (like, "brandish forth thine holy symbol and trace a semicircle in the air, and thou shalt..."), while V/S spells have more complex motions (think Naruto-style jutsu signs)?

[Coidzor]

Crawford says what the intent is:


Which is utter trash. He says they intended to allow VSM, but not VS through a shield. That RAI is disgracefully bad.
No need to debate the RAW any further - bad RAI is enough.

Either way I'm happy with what I decided and my player (GMs his own games) agrees.

Bad RAI is the worst.