Using a shield VS. using Shield (spell)

[Erst]

Hello GiTP!

I'm going to be playing a multiclassed Rogue/Warlock character sometime in the future. Using the Swashbuckler for a hit-and-run type build, with booming blade+rapier, and 1 level (maybe 2 later on) Hexblade dip for CHA attacking so I can focus on it as my primary stat, and get medium armor. Hexblade patron offers the Shield spell as a patron spell that can be learned. However, it also gives proficiency in shields.

Since I'm using a rapier as my primary weapon (booming blade does not permit an offhand attack), I have the chance to use a shield for more AC on top of medium armor. However, this would leave both hands full, and since Shield has a somatic component, it would not be able to be casted with both hands full. The question arises; do I use an actual shield for consistent AC all the time, or use Shield for a lower overall AC but a higher AC if needed. DM also calls out the enemy attack rolls, going "18 VS AC", for example.

What situations would it make sense to use one over the other, or is one option superior all the time?

[MaxWilson]

Hello GiTP!

I'm going to be playing a multiclassed Rogue/Warlock character sometime in the future. Using the Swashbuckler for a hit-and-run type build, with booming blade+rapier, and 1 level (maybe 2 later on) Hexblade dip for CHA attacking so I can focus on it as my primary stat, and get medium armor. Hexblade patron offers the Shield spell as a patron spell that can be learned. However, it also gives proficiency in shields.

Since I'm using a rapier as my primary weapon (booming blade does not permit an offhand attack), I have the chance to use a shield for more AC on top of medium armor. However, this would leave both hands full, and since Shield has a somatic component, it would not be able to be casted with both hands full. The question arises; do I use an actual shield for consistent AC all the time, or use Shield for a lower overall AC but a higher AC if needed. DM also calls out the enemy attack rolls, going "18 VS AC", for example.

What situations would it make sense to use one over the other, or is one option superior all the time?

When you want to threaten opportunity attacks, end your turn with your rapier and shield in hand. When you want to use your reaction on Shield, end your turn with your rapier sheathed.

[Unoriginal]

Hello GiTP!

I'm going to be playing a multiclassed Rogue/Warlock character sometime in the future. Using the Swashbuckler for a hit-and-run type build, with booming blade+rapier, and 1 level (maybe 2 later on) Hexblade dip for CHA attacking so I can focus on it as my primary stat, and get medium armor. Hexblade patron offers the Shield spell as a patron spell that can be learned. However, it also gives proficiency in shields.

Since I'm using a rapier as my primary weapon (booming blade does not permit an offhand attack), I have the chance to use a shield for more AC on top of medium armor. However, this would leave both hands full, and since Shield has a somatic component, it would not be able to be casted with both hands full. The question arises; do I use an actual shield for consistent AC all the time, or use Shield for a lower overall AC but a higher AC if needed. DM also calls out the enemy attack rolls, going "18 VS AC", for example.

What situations would it make sense to use one over the other, or is one option superior all the time?

I think you will want your spell slots for other things than Shield. +5 as a limited ressource isn't worth it compared to +2 all the time.

[leogobsin]

The thing that's gonna hurt you is Warlock's limited spell slots. +2 AC consistently is probably better than +5 twice per short rest (and less if you ever want to cast any other spells). That said, you might consider taking the War Caster feat, which would let you perform somatic components while holding a rapier and a shield.

[MaxWilson]

The thing that's gonna hurt you is Warlock's limited spell slots. +2 AC consistently is probably better than +5 twice per short rest (and less if you ever want to cast any other spells). That said, you might consider taking the War Caster feat, which would let you perform somatic components while holding a rapier and a shield.

Or just take Defensive Duelist to get unlimited +2-6 with your rapier, at least against melee attacks. (But don't do this if you're going all the way to Rogue 5, because Uncanny Dodge also eats your reaction.)

Warcaster is neat, but you really need to be benefiting from multiple aspects to make it worth it.

[leogobsin]

Or just take Defensive Duelist to get unlimited +2-6 with your rapier, at least against melee attacks. (But don't do this if you're going all the way to Rogue 5, because Uncanny Dodge also eats your reaction.)

Warcaster is neat, but you really need to be benefiting from multiple aspects to make it worth it.

That's fair, yeah. Though this character is gonna have Booming Blade, and being able to use that for Opportunity Attacks is really nice too (especially depending on how your DM rules whether a creature could stop moving once it hit).

[Erst]

When you want to threaten opportunity attacks, end your turn with your rapier and shield in hand. When you want to use your reaction on Shield, end your turn with your rapier sheathed.
I hadn't thought of that. But I guess that creates a problem where I have to decide between the chance of taking an OA or the chance of being attacked. Also, how would that work with the rules on item interaction?


The thing that's gonna hurt you is Warlock's limited spell slots. +2 AC consistently is probably better than +5 twice per short rest (and less if you ever want to cast any other spells). That said, you might consider taking the War Caster feat, which would let you perform somatic components while holding a rapier and a shield.

I'm probably not going to use my Warlock spell slots for a lot, though. My main focus is being a Rogue first, and then using the Warlock part to enhance that. Not a lot of the Warlock spell options are that appealing. Also Warcaster isn't really on my list because there are some other feats (Inspiring leader) and I don't really have enough spellcasting to benefit. Though Booming blade as an opportunity attack might be a powerful combo, now that that's been mentioned.

[MaxWilson]

I hadn't thought of that. But I guess that creates a problem where I have to decide between the chance of taking an OA or the chance of being attacked. Also, how would that work with the rules on item interaction?

I'm probably not going to use my Warlock spell slots for a lot, though. My main focus is being a Rogue first, and then using the Warlock part to enhance that. Not a lot of the Warlock spell options are that appealing. Also Warcaster isn't really on my list because there are some other feats (Inspiring leader) and I don't really have enough spellcasting to benefit. Though Booming blade as an opportunity attack might be a powerful combo, now that that's been mentioned.

To a certain extent, you need to always make that decision about OA vs. defense anyway--you don't want to blow your reaction on an OA and then later regret not having Uncanny Dodge/Shield available. But yes, it forces you to commit extra-early. With the limited Shield slots you have I would expect that to be not as much of a problem for you as it would for e.g. a Paladin/Sorcerer: you'll probably only prep for a possible Shield when you're low on HP or facing large numbers of foes. If you take Warcaster you can delay that decision, and if (per leogobsin) you decide you want to threaten Booming Blade opportunity attacks, Warcaster may be a pretty good investment for you overall.

How it works with item interaction: by strict RAW you can interact with one item per turn, and a rapier is one item, so by the strictest interpretation you can draw your rapier, make an attack, and sheathe your rapier in a single turn. If your DM doesn't allow that but does allow dropping items for free, you can draw your rapier, make an attack, and drop your rapier. Then next round use your item interaction to pick up your rapier, attack, and drop it again. Other DMs just don't care about item interactions at all and will let you do pretty much anything. Ask your DM for his ruling.

Even in the strictest case, with a DM who allows only one interaction with an object per turn and no free dropping, you can still alternate: draw-then-attack one turn, threatening opportunity attacks, then attack-then-sheathe next turn, relying on Shield to protect you. If your DM is that strict I suggest you roll your eyes at him whenever anyone uses a spell component pouch, because clearly a spellcaster who pulls out a component pouch, whips out an eye of newt, casts a spell using that eye of newt, shoves the eye of newt back in the pouch, and stows the pouch is interacting with more than one item on that turn.

Based on what you've said about how you intend to play your character (Rogue primary, Warlock secondary) I would expect your Warlock spell options to be fairly unimpressive and low-level, which makes Shield relatively a better use of slots, but also means that Shield will be competing with Uncanny Dodge sooner rather than later. I'm therefore going to suggest that you learn Wrathful Smite off the Hexblade list instead and invest your spell slots in that instead of in Shield.

[Erst]

Ah, that helps a lot, thank you!
I'll ask my DM on the item interactions. Also, how come you suggest taking Wrathful Smite? I was wondering what makes it worthwhile?

[MaxWilson]

Ah, that helps a lot, thank you!
I'll ask my DM on the item interactions. Also, how come you suggest taking Wrathful Smite? I was wondering what makes it worthwhile?

It's a low-level spell which is still quite powerful, basically a one-hit kill if the enemy fails its save. Unlike a lot of other spells, like Hold Monster and Slow and Confusion, etc., it does not allow the victim a fresh save every turn. Instead, it imposes the Frightened condition until the enemy shakes it off by using its action to regain its composure (meditating or something I guess?) which gives it a Wisdom check (not save!) to end being Frightened. But ability checks are made at disadvantage while you're Frightened, if you can see the thing that frightens you, and even monsters that are proficient in Wisdom saves are not proficient in Wisdom checks. Long story short: the odds of most monsters making that Wisdom check at disadvantage are pretty terrible, and for most purposes you can treat the spell duration as "concentration, 1 minute," full stop.

While the creature is Frightened, it has disadvantage on ability checks attack rolls (if it can see you), and it can't willingly move closer to you. If you, being a Rogue, Disengage and back off 30', your average short-ranged MM monster will be unable to engage you in any way, and probably unable to engage any of your compatriots either. You can come back and kill it after you deal with all the other monsters, if it's still around.

So, that's pretty much it for the effects of the spell: it takes one monster almost completely out of the combat if it fails its initial saving throw. And it also has a good casting time (1 Bonus Action) which lets you cast it on the same round that you attack, if you want to.

The big downside to Wrathful Smite, normally, and the reason it doesn't see more play, is simply that it's a low-level concentration spell, and therefore it competes with all the high-level concentration spells later on, including Fear, which is basically Wrathful Smite upgraded to an AoE effect. (Fear is ended by a Wisdom save, not a Wisdom check, so in some ways Wrathful Smite is still better, but being able to affect a whole 30' cone is quite good.) Likewise Hypnotic Pattern, Wall of Force, Otto's Irresistible Dance, Maze, etc., not to mention all the delicious summoning spells like Conjure Animals and Conjure Elemental. Wrathful Smite may be unusually powerful for a 1st level spell, but it's still probably not more powerful than a good 3rd-5th level spell, and I usually don't see high-level Paladorcs casting it in important fights: they have better things to concentrate on and spend their bonus actions on.

But for a Rogue 3+/Hexblade 1-2, or whatever it is you're planning on playing, Wrathful Smite is probably ideal. High power-to-spell slot ratio.

[krugaan]

The thing that's gonna hurt you is Warlock's limited spell slots. +2 AC consistently is probably better than +5 twice per short rest (and less if you ever want to cast any other spells). That said, you might consider taking the War Caster feat, which would let you perform somatic components while holding a rapier and a shield.

Wait, hold the phone.

I thought part of hexblade's perks was that it could use the pact weapon as a spell focus, so you could sword and shield and still cast?

[nickl_2000]

Wait, hold the phone.

I thought part of hexblade's perks was that it could use the pact weapon as a spell focus, so you could sword and shield and still cast?

No you can't. A hexblade can use a weapon as a spell focus thus solving the material issue, but if a spell has Somatic component then you still need a free hand. Warcaster makes it so that you no longer need a free hand for a somatic component.

[Vogie]

One thing to think about, if you have the stats for it, is 2 levels in War Wizard.

Another Initiative Bonus
Ability to use Reaction to give yourself either +2 bonus to your AC or a +4 bonus to that saving throw.
Ritual Casting for out of combat
And that's not even including the actual ability to cast spells

Since you're a rogue, the downside of Arcane Deflection (you can't cast spells other than cantrips until after your next turn) is almost no downside at all.

[MaxWilson]

Since you're a rogue, the downside of Arcane Deflection (you can't cast spells other than cantrips until after your next turn) is almost no downside at all.

The other downside is that Arcane Deflection eats your reaction, which is already pretty busy because you're a melee Rogue with Uncanny Dodge and opportunity attack potential.

[krugaan]

No you can't. A hexblade can use a weapon as a spell focus thus solving the material issue, but if a spell has Somatic component then you still need a free hand. Warcaster makes it so that you no longer need a free hand for a somatic component.

I'm AFB, but I just quoted the passage where it says you may make somatic gestures using the same hand that's holding the material components to my DM last weekend... lemme see if I can dig it up.

Edit: Bleh, it's there somewhere....

[nickl_2000]

I'm AFB, but I just quoted the passage where it says you may make somatic gestures using the same hand that's holding the material components to my DM last weekend... lemme see if I can dig it up.

Turn out you can do it as long as your weapons is a focus. However, that assumes you have taken the Improved Pact Weapon invocation from Pact of the Blade.

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

[krugaan]

Turn out you can do it as long as your weapons is a focus. However, that assumes you have taken the Improved Pact Weapon invocation from Pact of the Blade.

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

Thanks for finding it for me. Also, I think I've been fudging the rules a little. Playing a sword bard 6 / hexblade 1, been casting shield and eldritch blast all day long with sword and shield in hand...

[nickl_2000]

Thanks for finding it for me. Also, I think I've been fudging the rules a little. Playing a sword bard 6 / hexblade 1, been casting shield and eldritch blast all day long with sword and shield in hand...

I wouldn't worry about it excessively. This and encumbrance are the two most ignored rules in the game (from my experience).

[MaxWilson]

I'm AFB, but I just quoted the passage where it says you may make somatic gestures using the same hand that's holding the material components to my DM last weekend... lemme see if I can dig it up.

Edit: Bleh, it's there somewhere....

But Shield has no material components.

Granted, the distinction is silly, and as a DM I'd go with your interpretation over the strict PHB rules here. Otherwise, holding a magic wand (or pact weapon) can actually impair your spellcasting instead of enhancing it, for VS spells, which seems contrary to genre and contrary to fun.

But according to strict RAW and Crawford's Twitter account, a VS spell requires a free hand (barring Subtle Spell or Warcaster), and a hand holding an arcane/holy focus doesn't count as free except for spells with M components.

[krugaan]

But Shield has no material components.

Granted, the distinction is silly, and as a DM I'd go with your interpretation over the strict PHB rules here. Otherwise, holding a magic wand (or pact weapon) can actually impair your spellcasting instead of enhancing it, for VS spells, which seems contrary to genre and contrary to fun.

But according to strict RAW and Crawford's Twitter account, a VS spell requires a free hand (barring Subtle Spell or Warcaster), and a hand holding an arcane/holy focus doesn't count as free except for spells with M components.

Oh, that's where the hangup is coming from.

Yeah, that does seem ridiculous.

[clash]

Take the real shield. Shield is a terrible spell for warlocks. It doesnt scale at all. It is good as a first level spell, but it is terrible value for a 3rd level spell or a 5th level spell.

[MaxWilson]

Oh, that's where the hangup is coming from.

Yeah, that does seem ridiculous.

BTW, the ref you were looking for is on p203 of the PHB in recent printings of the PHB. See Errata: https://media.wizards.com/2017/dnd/downloads/PH-Errata.pdf

[krugaan]

BTW, the ref you were looking for is on p203 of the PHB in recent printings of the PHB. See Errata: https://media.wizards.com/2017/dnd/downloads/PH-Errata.pdf

Ah, gotcha. So they fixed the "focus" part but not the "less components is more restrictive, for some reason" part.