Warcaster and material components?

[Quietus]

Rules question, thank you for any help that can be provided here! I'd like to avoid risking rules challenges at a table if possible. This is likely to be for an AL character. Cross posting from the Facebook AL group.

I am considering making a Halfling or Half-Elf sorcadin (2 Pal/X sorc) to play with my wife, aiming for a dex-based, swashbuckling type of feel. I'd like to use a rapier and a shield, but I'm trying to sort out how to go about casting spells like that. Until I get Warcaster at level 6, I was thinking I would just drop my rapier (flavored as tucking my rapier under my arm), wiggle fingers/fiddle with focus, then pick my rapier back up with my item interaction.

Once I get Warcaster at level 6, could I have my arcane focus built into my shield, or set into the hilt of my rapier, so that I could use my rapier to complete somatic components (via Warcaster) and satisfy material components as well? Per the Somatic Components rules below, if I'm completing the somatic components of a spell with the hand currently occupied by my weapon, and I can use the same hand to access material components/focus, would I be able to fulfill both requirements if my arcane focus is set into my rapier, or sewn into the back of a glove, or worn as a ring?

Somatic components :
"A spellcaster must have a hand free to access a spell’s material components—or to hold a spellcasting focus—but it can be the same hand that he or she uses to perform somatic components."

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

[JackPhoenix]

You can use shield with holy symbol emblem for your paladin spells. By RAW, you still need free hand for sorcerer spells with M component, and for paladin spells with costly or consumed components. There's a common magic item in XGtE that allows you to add it to your weapon to work as arcane focus, but that one is propably unavailable in AL.

For the component included in a ring, it's up to the GM. I'd expect the rulings to vary at different AL tables.

[Treantmonk]

I actually explain the entire thing in detail in this video: What spells can you cast with your hands full? (https://youtu.be/nk1Up4hXUko)

[BoringInfoGuy]

I’m away from book, but I’m fairly certain that the ability to put your focus on a shield is only part of the Divine Focus description. Arcane Focuses are staffs, wands, or orbs.

[BarneyBent]

I’m away from book, but I’m fairly certain that the ability to put your focus on a shield is only part of the Divine Focus description. Arcane Focuses are staffs, wands, or orbs.

Could you embed an orb into a gauntlet? Or maybe incorporate a wand into the handle of your sword?

[Spiritchaser]

Edit: Bah, you’re in AL... you’ll need paladin 5 for this to work, as you won’t be able to quicken BB. Please feel free to dessregard

If you're going half elven dex sorcadin, consider another option to rapier:

Shadow blade

Need to cast something? Drop it. You can re-form it as a bonus action next round.

You could even put warcaster off until 10th this way, since by starting sorcerer you have con save proficiency. It's not ideal, partly because even a shadow blade build wont be using shadow blade every time... and partly because without paladin 6 your saves just aren't that great... but it is possible, it's not awful, and it lets you take something else at level 6.

What could possibly be worth putting off warcaster?

Well It's not as safe or probably as optimal as warcaster at 6, but for way more fun, consider elven accuracy.

Which is just diabolical with shadow blade in dim light, which probably averages about half the time (YMMV on that one).

[BoringInfoGuy]

Could you embed an orb into a gauntlet? Or maybe incorporate a wand into the handle of your sword?

In a non AL game, you can do anything your DM allows. But in a AL game that is meant to follow RAW as homogenously as possible? Better assume the answer will be no.

A good rule of thumb in any game is that any trick or tactic that is basically an attempt to bypass a game mechanic without acquiring a feat will likely be shot down.

For example, my game allows dropping a weapon as a free action, and allowing you to draw another weapon or item as your object interaction. But my cleric could not use drop his weapon as a free action, cast a V/S spell, and then use his object interaction to pick his weapon back up.

If this was allowed, my character could essentially have the first part of the Warcaster feat for free.

Dropping your weapon to grab something else has a risk. Since you can’t pick it back up until your next turn, someone else could grab your weapon or kick it away on their action.

Dropping your weapon, casting, and picking up your weapon again does not carry the same risk. You start and end your turn with weapon in hand, having used shenanigans to get around the limitations in the V/S/M casting rules.

Now, you can try to argue things like “What if I draw a different weapon after casting, would that work?” My group would say no. If you want to keep a weapon in hand while casting, take the Warcaster feat.

Still, Your Milege Will Vary.

[BarneyBent]

In a non AL game, you can do anything your DM allows. But in a AL game that is meant to follow RAW as homogenously as possible? Better assume the answer will be no.

A good rule of thumb in any game is that any trick or tactic that is basically an attempt to bypass a game mechanic without acquiring a feat will likely be shot down.

For example, my game allows dropping a weapon as a free action, and allowing you to draw another weapon or item as your object interaction. But my cleric could not use drop his weapon as a free action, cast a V/S spell, and then use his object interaction to pick his weapon back up.

If this was allowed, my character could essentially have the first part of the Warcaster feat for free.

Dropping your weapon to grab something else has a risk. Since you can’t pick it back up until your next turn, someone else could grab your weapon or kick it away on their action.

Dropping your weapon, casting, and picking up your weapon again does not carry the same risk. You start and end your turn with weapon in hand, having used shenanigans to get around the limitations in the V/S/M casting rules.

Now, you can try to argue things like “What if I draw a different weapon after casting, would that work?” My group would say no. If you want to keep a weapon in hand while casting, take the Warcaster feat.

Still, Your Milege Will Vary.

To be clear, I don’t think there shouldn’t be a COST to what I suggested.

In the case of a wand incorporated into a sword handle, that’s going to mean you can’t just pick up that shiny +1 sword and use that like you would your normal weapon. You’d probably have to pay someone to incorporate it too.

Also, it’s not giving you the first half of the Warcaster feat - Warcaster relates to somatic components and you’d still have to meet those requirements. All it does is mean you don’t need to double handle your weapon and your arcane focus. You’re paying a minor but not insubstantial cost to get the functionality that Clerics and Paladins get by default.

Unless you think being able to put a symbol on a shield or weapon is a fundamentally important feature of the Cleric/Paladin class that shouldn’t be able to be replicated in other classes without a feat, then it really doesn’t seem worthy of shooting down. Especially since there’s a common magic item that does the same thing.

[BoringInfoGuy]

To be clear, I don’t think there shouldn’t be a COST to what I suggested.

In the case of a wand incorporated into a sword handle, that’s going to mean you can’t just pick up that shiny +1 sword and use that like you would your normal weapon. You’d probably have to pay someone to incorporate it too.

Also, it’s not giving you the first half of the Warcaster feat - Warcaster relates to somatic components and you’d still have to meet those requirements. All it does is mean you don’t need to double handle your weapon and your arcane focus. You’re paying a minor but not insubstantial cost to get the functionality that Clerics and Paladins get by default.

Unless you think being able to put a symbol on a shield or weapon is a fundamentally important feature of the Cleric/Paladin class that shouldn’t be able to be replicated in other classes without a feat, then it really doesn’t seem worthy of shooting down. Especially since there’s a common magic item that does the same thing.

The example I gave was a general example on how to tell if a build idea is likely to be shot down by a DM, especially an AL one. It was based more on the OPs idea of dropping your sword (by tucking it into your elbow) to free up your hand for somatic components, and then using your object interaction to re-grab your sword at the end of the round. This is mimicking the second benefit of Warcaster. (I said first earlier, since I was AFB and misremembered the order). You have the ability to cast spells that require a hand free, while keeping your weapon in hand and usable.

As for your example, the ability to put a Divine Focus on a shield is part of what makes them stand out from an Arcane Focus. These are supposed to be different forms of magic. Yes, clerics and Paladins get to do this by default. It’s part of their class features. Why should that be an argument for Arcane casters to use the same mechanic? Should Divine casters get to use Arcane focuses because wizards and sorcerers get to by default? Heck, by that logic, why are Eldritch Knights not able to use an Arcane Focus?

Because part of the nature of a class based system is for diffferent classes to BE different. Some of the differences are based on game balance reasons. Other or more for thematic ones.

Divine Focus being allowed on a shield is RAW. Wand built into a sword is not. If you are walking into an AL game, expect it to be shot down. Non AL games are more dependent on what the DM is willing to allow.

Incidentally, having to spend some gold to move your focus into a shiny plus one sword is hardly a cost.

Last thing, if a magic item exists that does allow Arcanists to inset their arcane focuses like a Divine one, doesn’t that actually indicate that a magic item is NEEDED to accomplish this task?

[BarneyBent]

The example I gave was a general example on how to tell if a build idea is likely to be shot down by a DM, especially an AL one. It was based more on the OPs idea of dropping your sword (by tucking it into your elbow) to free up your hand for somatic components, and then using your object interaction to re-grab your sword at the end of the round. This is mimicking the second benefit of Warcaster. (I said first earlier, since I was AFB and misremembered the order). You have the ability to cast spells that require a hand free, while keeping your weapon in hand and usable.

As for your example, the ability to put a Divine Focus on a shield is part of what makes them stand out from an Arcane Focus. These are supposed to be different forms of magic. Yes, clerics and Paladins get to do this by default. It’s part of their class features. Why should that be an argument for Arcane casters to use the same mechanic? Should Divine casters get to use Arcane focuses because wizards and sorcerers get to by default? Heck, by that logic, why are Eldritch Knights not able to use an Arcane Focus?

Because part of the nature of a class based system is for diffferent classes to BE different. Some of the differences are based on game balance reasons. Other or more for thematic ones.

Divine Focus being allowed on a shield is RAW. Wand built into a sword is not. If you are walking into an AL game, expect it to be shot down. Non AL games are more dependent on what the DM is willing to allow.

Incidentally, having to spend some gold to move your focus into a shiny plus one sword is hardly a cost.

Last thing, if a magic item exists that does allow Arcanists to inset their arcane focuses like a Divine one, doesn’t that actually indicate that a magic item is NEEDED to accomplish this task?

What benefit to Arcane foci get over Divine? What you’ve said suggested there is one.

Regardless, my point is that Divine foci being able to be put on a shield is not a key class difference. It’s a minor thing, more flavour than mechanical, although with some minor mechanical advantages.

Yes, anything (AL or otherwise) will be up to the DM. But given you would still need a feat (Warcaster) to make any real use of embedding your foci into a weapon, you’re not exactly getting some gigantic mechanical advantage.

Also, paying money to embed a wand in a sword is absolutely a cost. Not just the money (the price of which the DM could choose at their discretion), but the fact that you’d need to find an expert to do it. No picking up a magic sword, taking a short rest and then using it for the rest of the adventure - you’ve got to get to a city, remove your focus from your old sword and embed it in your new one before you can use it properly. Oh, and no switching weapons on the fly, no getting disarmed and taking a weapon from a fallen enemy, none of that. It’s still very limiting.

Finally, regarding the magic item, it’s a COMMON magic item. Like, 50-100 gp max. That would probably be at least the price of embedding a wand into the handle of a magic sword, and the magic item can be reapplied much faster and without recurring costs.

The point of bringing up the magic item was to quantify the approximate value of this mechanic, which is probably no more than 100 gp. So if you’re paying that every time you want to modify a weapon to include your wand in it, you’re paying way more than the value of the magic item, with far less flexibility. Seems a pretty fair trade to me.

Would it be accepted in AL? Depends on DM, but it would be pretty unreasonable in my personal opinion.

[JackPhoenix]

What benefit to Arcane foci get over Divine?

Generally better spell lists arcane casters tend to have, and unlike holy symbols, you can get magic items that serve as arcane foci (wands, rods and staves). Other arcane foci (crystals) are easier to disguise.


Would it be accepted in AL?

That's pretty firm "no". AL actually has to stick to written rules instead of creating a houserule any time you want to give some advantage to your character. It has to, because there's no guarantee that you'll play with the same GM or players next time, and the written rules are common to everyone who plays the game. It also can't allow favoring one character over others.

[Quietus]

Thanks for the input, everyone! I kind of figured there'd be no easy way to set this up; I'm going to have to strongly consider whether I want to continue aiming for both sword and shield to make this work. Honestly, the list of spells that require material components isn't super long, and would mostly be pre-battle buffs so that isn't so bad.

As to the concerns about dropping weapon/casting/picking weapon back up being used to bypass mechanical limitations, you're entirely correct. I do view that process as having risk, since anyone can ready an action to pick up my weapon after I drop it; it is a trick I expect to work exactly once in any given battle. The real cost, in my opinion, is that Shield has VSM; if I want to cast Shield, I will be forced to drop my weapon, even if I pick up Warcaster. Unfortunately, I don't think the "You can use the same hand you're using for somatic components" clause in material components will mesh with the "You can use your weapon hand to do somatic components" clause of Warcaster, without having some dual purpose rod/club, which won't work with finesse. Oh well.

[BoringInfoGuy]

As to the concerns about dropping weapon/casting/picking weapon back up being used to bypass mechanical limitations, you're entirely correct. I do view that process as having risk, since anyone can ready an action to pick up my weapon after I drop it; it is a trick I expect to work exactly once in any given battle.
After the first time, if an opponent readies an action instead of attacking, you can just choose to not cast a spell that requires dropping your weapon that round.

An opponent gave up their action so you take zero damage from them while you can still attack while avoiding the obvious trigger?

Opponents wasting Readied Actions on you is NOT a risk.

[Quietus]

After the first time, if an opponent readies an action instead of attacking, you can just choose to not cast a spell that requires dropping your weapon that round.

An opponent gave up their action so you take zero damage from them while you can still attack while avoiding the obvious trigger?

Opponents wasting Readied Actions on you is NOT a risk.

You're not entirely wrong. It's a risk when there's a field of mooks around, but when we're looking at large individual threats, that readied action costs a lot.

[BoringInfoGuy]

You're not entirely wrong. It's a risk when there's a field of mooks around, but when we're looking at large individual threats, that readied action costs a lot.
The first thing you said was that this was for an AL game, and you wanted to avoid rule challenges. Expect the “drop for no action, cast with my action, and pick up my weapon back up using my object interaction” to be challenged.

Easiest way to pull off the pally / sor swashbuckler build you want is to give up on using a shield.

Get a component pouch and a Holy Symbol worn visibly. Use your Rapier in one hand, and keep the other hand free for handling somatic and material components / focus. Warcaster can be skipped unless you want the other benefits. If you start with Paladin, you could consider leaving an odd score in Con and taking Resilient Con instead. More HP to counter the lack of shield and proficiency in ALL Con based saves, not just to maintain concentration.

(Why not grab a whip for swooping in to swashbuckle the day action?)