DMJ1
2017-01-05, 01:21 PM
In the 1.14 version of Sage Advice I found the following rule specification:
What’s the amount of interaction needed to use a spellcasting focus? Does it have to be included in the somatic component?
[...] 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.
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.
This seems a bit weird to me! If I understand this correctly if the spell has a somatic AND material component, she can leave the shield in her hand, but if it has only a somatic component (and therefore the spells appears to be simpler) she has to put it away. This seems a bit unrealistic to me. Of course, you could say that a spell with a somatic component but without a material component is from a somatic perspective always more complicated than a spell that has both components. But that seems overly artificial to me.
If a DM would allow that you never need to worry about such a thing (as long as somehow holding your focus), would that destroy the balance somehow, or would it be largely irrelevant? Of course, one of the advantages of War Caster would be redundant then, but would it still be worth taking as a feat? And would that put Rangers, Arcane Tricksters, and Eldritch Knights at too much of a disadvantage, since they are not allowed to use a spell focus?
And how would that affect casters handling a two handed weapon? Drawing a weapon (or an arcane focus) can be part of an action, so one could let go one hand of the two handed weapon, draw the lets say wand, and cast a 1 action spell. Next turn he could stow the wand away and attack with his two handed weapon. But what if he gets a bonus action for a melee attack and wants to use his two handed weapon. Can he stow away his wand then as part of the attack?
The whole thing bothers me somehow, but I do not want to destroy balance by asking the DM to alter the rules in that perspective.
Any thoughts?
What’s the amount of interaction needed to use a spellcasting focus? Does it have to be included in the somatic component?
[...] 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.
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.
This seems a bit weird to me! If I understand this correctly if the spell has a somatic AND material component, she can leave the shield in her hand, but if it has only a somatic component (and therefore the spells appears to be simpler) she has to put it away. This seems a bit unrealistic to me. Of course, you could say that a spell with a somatic component but without a material component is from a somatic perspective always more complicated than a spell that has both components. But that seems overly artificial to me.
If a DM would allow that you never need to worry about such a thing (as long as somehow holding your focus), would that destroy the balance somehow, or would it be largely irrelevant? Of course, one of the advantages of War Caster would be redundant then, but would it still be worth taking as a feat? And would that put Rangers, Arcane Tricksters, and Eldritch Knights at too much of a disadvantage, since they are not allowed to use a spell focus?
And how would that affect casters handling a two handed weapon? Drawing a weapon (or an arcane focus) can be part of an action, so one could let go one hand of the two handed weapon, draw the lets say wand, and cast a 1 action spell. Next turn he could stow the wand away and attack with his two handed weapon. But what if he gets a bonus action for a melee attack and wants to use his two handed weapon. Can he stow away his wand then as part of the attack?
The whole thing bothers me somehow, but I do not want to destroy balance by asking the DM to alter the rules in that perspective.
Any thoughts?