Support the GITP forums on Patreon
Help support GITP's forums (and ongoing server maintenance) via Patreon
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 31 to 60 of 71
  1. - Top - End - #31
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    DwarfClericGuy

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Albuquerque, NM

    Default Re: Valor bard forced to get War Caster?

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

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

  2. - Top - End - #32
    Banned
     
    Shadow's Avatar

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    A van down by the river.
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Valor bard forced to get War Caster?

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

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

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

  3. - Top - End - #33
    Ogre in the Playground
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Seattle, USA
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Valor bard forced to get War Caster?

    Quote Originally Posted by toapat View Post
    except that because of how the Material component exception clause works, Holy symbol on shield doesnt change the fact that you are A: Holding the shield, not the Holy Symbol and B: Dont have any free hands anyway
    I remember a word of god ruling that having a holy symbol shield allows you to use that hand for somatic components. I'll try to find it.
    "Sometimes, we’re heroes. Sometimes, we shoot other people right in the face for money."

    -Shadowrun 4e, Runner's Companion

  4. - Top - End - #34
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    DwarfClericGuy

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Albuquerque, NM

    Default Re: Valor bard forced to get War Caster?

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

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

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

  5. - Top - End - #35
    Ettin in the Playground
     
    Kobold

    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Euphonistan
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Valor bard forced to get War Caster?

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

  6. - Top - End - #36
    Banned
     
    Shadow's Avatar

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    A van down by the river.
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Valor bard forced to get War Caster?

    Quote Originally Posted by TheOOB View Post
    I remember a word of god ruling that having a holy symbol shield allows you to use that hand for somatic components. I'll try to find it.
    I went searching after I read this, and I did indeed find what you were referring to.

    Quote Originally Posted by question
    can a Cleric or Paladin cast spells requiring somatic components when wielding weapon + shield emblazoned with holy symbol?
    Quote Originally Posted by answer
    I'd say yes if the holy symbol is being used as the material component of the spell, so yes if "S, M," but no if only "S."
    Notice the "I'd say," as in, it's the DM's call, but this is what I would do. Just like the vast majority of rulings for 5e. The word of god isn't the word of god anymore. The DM's word is what matters in 5e.

  7. - Top - End - #37
    Orc in the Playground
     
    NecromancerGuy

    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Thessaloniki, Greece
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Valor bard forced to get War Caster?

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

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

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

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

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

  8. - Top - End - #38
    Troll in the Playground
    Join Date
    Jan 2012

    Default Re: Valor bard forced to get War Caster?

    Quote Originally Posted by Shadow View Post
    Please, explain it to me. What's the point of it, if not to allow what you state the wording disallows?

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

    And as a secondary point, you are also one of the players I was referring to when I mentioned that some people are too used to the 3.x and 4e format where the RAW was the Law. This is not the case in 5e, and you would do well to learn that fact.
    1: You ever heard of Heraldry? That thing that told other people who you considered your Liege? Thats what the emblem is for, and the rules about Holy Symbols as Material components cover that. However, because you Bear the heraldry of a deity, not hold it with a shield attached, the rule doesnt apply for Somatic material non-conflict

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Shadow View Post
    As I asked toapat, why would they even introduce the concept of foci if not for situations such as this?
    You didnt ask that in the first one, and there is no justifiable reason to carry a holy symbol if its not either substituting for the material components or being a necessary burden on the caster like in 3rd. Tell me how often you would even remember to add it as a bauble to your sheet if it wasnt in some way mechanically worth remembering or a necessity? 5th is the first edition where divine focuses matter in a way where players will intentionally acquire one
    Last edited by toapat; 2014-09-27 at 09:52 AM.
    My Homebrew: found here.
    When you Absolutely, Positively, Gotta Drop some Huge rocks, Accept NO Substitutes

    PM Me if you would like a table from my homebrew reconstructed.

    Drow avatar @ myself

  9. - Top - End - #39
    Pixie in the Playground
     
    PaladinGuy

    Join Date
    Jul 2014

    Default Re: Valor bard forced to get War Caster?

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

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



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

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

  10. - Top - End - #40
    Pixie in the Playground
     
    WolfInSheepsClothing

    Join Date
    Sep 2014

    Default Re: Valor bard forced to get War Caster?

    Quote Originally Posted by Shadow View Post
    As I asked toapat, why would they even introduce the concept of foci if not for situations such as this?
    Better question would be, given the streamlining and efficacy of this edition, why did they make this part of the rules overly complicated?

  11. - Top - End - #41
    Troll in the Playground
    Join Date
    Jan 2012

    Default Re: Valor bard forced to get War Caster?

    Quote Originally Posted by ArtlessMammet View Post
    So if I can't carry one of these in my hand, I'm going to need an amulet too?

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

    Personally i figure the Amulet is the best, although like the Reliquary it seems absurdly heavy for what i basically would expect to be the religion's icon on a rope or chain.
    Last edited by toapat; 2014-09-27 at 09:50 AM.
    My Homebrew: found here.
    When you Absolutely, Positively, Gotta Drop some Huge rocks, Accept NO Substitutes

    PM Me if you would like a table from my homebrew reconstructed.

    Drow avatar @ myself

  12. - Top - End - #42
    Halfling in the Playground
     
    Devil

    Join Date
    Sep 2014

    Default Re: Valor bard forced to get War Caster?

    Quote Originally Posted by Theodoxus View Post
    Eh, the music is fluff, not mechanics. I wouldn't allow a player to state that their magic was based on singing, and thus every spell that has an S is replaced with a V - V's already there... that's way too powerful. Especially if there are two bards in the party and the first bard didn't think of singing, so he's strumming his lyre, sad that he can't go out and fight, while the second bard smirks at his sad companion as he deftly sings a song of Animate Objects while jabbing a bad guy in the eye.... yeah, no.
    I understand your interpretation. I think the whole bard class is in a lot of ways badly designed. It doesn't really fit into the mechanics of the game, as written.

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

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

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

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

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

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

  13. - Top - End - #43
    Orc in the Playground
     
    NecromancerGuy

    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Thessaloniki, Greece
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Valor bard forced to get War Caster?

    Quote Originally Posted by hecetv View Post
    Maybe you need to pick up background instrumentalists and have a band that plays for you while you do the magic. Idk.
    Laughed so hard, I farted and woke up my deaf dog!


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

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

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

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

  14. - Top - End - #44
    Ogre in the Playground
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    N. California
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Valor bard forced to get War Caster?

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

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

    There are also some non-bard spells you could pick up and use with both hands full.
    Spoiler: the (b) indicates a bonus action
    Show

    Aura of Life
    Aura of Purity
    Aura of Vitality
    Banishing Smite (b)
    Blinding Smite (b)
    Blur
    Branding Smite (b)
    Circle of Power
    Command
    Compelled Duel
    Crusader's Mantle
    Destructive Wave
    Divine Word (b)
    Ensnaring Strike (b)
    Guardian of Faith
    Hail of Thorns (b)
    Hunter's Mark (b)
    Mass Healing Word (b)
    Misty Step (b)
    Prayer of Healing
    Searing Smite (b)
    Staggering Smite (b)
    Thunderous Smite (b)
    Time Stop
    Wish
    Word of Recall
    Wrathful Smite (b)
    Last edited by Townopolis; 2014-09-27 at 11:39 PM.

  15. - Top - End - #45
    Dwarf in the Playground
    Join Date
    Sep 2014

    Default Re: Valor bard forced to get War Caster?

    Quote Originally Posted by MrUberGr View Post
    In level 14 you get a class feature, which, in order to use, you have to invest in an actual feat. If you attack and then want to cast a spell that has a Somatic component, you're basically f#%^@d unless you have war caster. Which is basically nuts.
    There are no feats under the standard rules, though... So it just means the valor bard is pretty useless according to most people in this thread.

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

  16. - Top - End - #46
    Banned
     
    Shadow's Avatar

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    A van down by the river.
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Valor bard forced to get War Caster?

    Quote Originally Posted by Rilak View Post
    There are no feats under the standard rules, though... So it just means the valor bard is pretty useless according to most people in this thread.

    Let's take a ranged Ranger instead. The longbow is a heavy, two-handed weapon (just like a greatsword). Which according to the people here means you are unable to hold it in one hand (ridiculous if you have ever used a bow), and also that sheathing it or holding it in one hand would somehow be fatal in regards to your defences compared to holding it in two hands (equally ridiculous). Why would the ranger be unable to cast spells?
    That comment was specifically about two handed melee weapons, and you know it.
    Holding a bow requires one hand. Firing it requires two. You can hold it in one hand safely because you're at range.
    Holding your giant greatsword propped against your shoulder in the midst of melee combat is suicide, and you know that as well.

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

    You can't call time out, and you shouldn't be able to prop a giant weapon against your shoulder like you're on lunch break during the middle of battle.
    And none of my players wil ever get me to agree to this unless they agree that I get advantage on every attack on them until they attack with the weapon again.
    Last edited by Shadow; 2014-09-28 at 01:43 AM.

  17. - Top - End - #47
    Ogre in the Playground
    Join Date
    Mar 2006

    Default Re: Valor bard forced to get War Caster?

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

  18. - Top - End - #48
    Ogre in the Playground
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    N. California
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Valor bard forced to get War Caster?

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

    I believe the idea is that you can't fend enemies off with a 2h weapon held in one hand (which is accurate), and therefore enemies should get bonuses to hit while you aren't wielding a weapon. If this assessment is correct, it should logically apply to the above situations as well, since they all involve someone with no effective tools of defense, especially the wizard one.
    Last edited by Townopolis; 2014-09-28 at 02:00 AM.

  19. - Top - End - #49
    Banned
     
    Shadow's Avatar

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    A van down by the river.
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Valor bard forced to get War Caster?

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

    I believe the idea is that you can't fend enemies off with a 2h weapon held in one hand (which is accurate), and therefore enemies should get bonuses to hit while you aren't wielding a weapon. If this assessment is correct, it should logically apply to the above situations as well, since they all involve someone with no effective tools of defense, especially the wizard one.
    I disagree.
    In those situations, the character is still dodging and weaving, attempting to get out of the way and make attacks miss.
    Try doing that with a five foot long blade resting at your neck and tell me how it works out for you.
    Last edited by Shadow; 2014-09-28 at 02:01 AM.

  20. - Top - End - #50
    Dwarf in the Playground
    Join Date
    Sep 2014

    Default Re: Valor bard forced to get War Caster?

    Quote Originally Posted by Shadow View Post
    Try doing that with a five foot long blade resting at your neck and tell me how it works out for you.
    It is no problem at all, thank you very much. You do of course realise that a greatsword weighs only 3 kg? That is a similar weight to the dumbbells my 60-year mother does aerobics with. It is very easy to wield the sword in one hand, if a bit awkward unless you are used to wielding long objects (that's where proficiency comes in).

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

  21. - Top - End - #51
    Ogre in the Playground
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    N. California
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Valor bard forced to get War Caster?

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

  22. - Top - End - #52
    Banned
     
    Shadow's Avatar

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    A van down by the river.
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Valor bard forced to get War Caster?

    We should find out shortly.

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

    And before anyone cries about RAI, that's exactly what this discussion is about. The RAW is ambiguous, so the RAI is what matters.
    Last edited by Shadow; 2014-09-28 at 02:25 AM.

  23. - Top - End - #53
    Ogre in the Playground
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    N. California
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Valor bard forced to get War Caster?

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

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

    ... I still want to see who's "right," though.
    Last edited by Townopolis; 2014-09-28 at 03:00 AM.

  24. - Top - End - #54
    Barbarian in the Playground
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Gender
    Female

    Default Re: Valor bard forced to get War Caster?

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

    I mean, they're useful as a way to inhibit casting in a grapple or wild shape, I suppose, but neither of those things applies to 5e either. So why even worry about it? Just let your gishes gish. They're already giving up a meaningful chunk of magic power to be good with weapons, and if they're 2handing they're giving up a meaningful chunk of defense to be better at attack. Do they really need yet one more penalty, especially one that mostly just makes things fiddly and obnoxious rather than actually meaningfully difficult?
    Last edited by Sindeloke; 2014-09-28 at 06:45 AM.

  25. - Top - End - #55
    Ettin in the Playground
    Join Date
    Feb 2012

    Default Re: Valor bard forced to get War Caster?

    Quote Originally Posted by Sindeloke View Post
    the assignation of V, S and M on spells has always been, as far as I can tell, 100% arbitrary.
    Not at all. In 2nd edition AD&D, the main deal with somatic and verbal were whether they could be cast without giving your position away, while tied up, while gagged, and so on. Spells like Knock, Teleport and Word of Recall are verbal only, so you can use them to escape even if chained. Wraithform on the other hand is a means to move surreptitiously about, and it is not verbal.
    My D&D 5th ed. Druid Handbook

  26. - Top - End - #56
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    DwarfClericGuy

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Albuquerque, NM

    Default Re: Valor bard forced to get War Caster?

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

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

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

  27. - Top - End - #57
    Troll in the Playground
     
    RedWizardGuy

    Join Date
    Jul 2014

    Default Re: Valor bard forced to get War Caster?

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

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

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

    Its all for flavor, you could describe your caster turning around and letting loose a fiery fart for all it really matters. Just pick something that makes sense and appeals to you.
    Last edited by Daishain; 2014-09-28 at 10:01 AM.

  28. - Top - End - #58
    Pixie in the Playground
    Join Date
    Apr 2014

    Default Re: Valor bard forced to get War Caster?

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

    People saying that you can just "rest your sword on your shoulder while you cast" don't understand that actually doing this in a combat situation means that they'd be dead instantly.
    The rules themselves fairly explicitly state that is takes 2-hands to use a 2-handed weapon. They say nothing about requiring 2-hands to hold a 2-handed weapon.

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

    The RAI/Dev-commentary is also useless in this case. They say they intend for you to need need the warcasting feat to wield a two handed weapon. However, they also say that you can change weapons in a single round using your free interaction while using an action (essentially interacting with two different weapons.) The free interaction rule is written very poorly.
    Last edited by Warskull; 2014-09-28 at 12:12 PM.

  29. - Top - End - #59
    Banned
     
    Shadow's Avatar

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    A van down by the river.
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Valor bard forced to get War Caster?

    Quote Originally Posted by Sindeloke View Post
    They're already giving up a meaningful chunk of magic power to be good with weapons, and if they're 2handing they're giving up a meaningful chunk of defense to be better at attack.
    Um.... no they aren't. Not at all.
    All you need is proficiency and a decent attack stat to ber effective in melee. That's it. One level dip covers it.
    Same goes for defense.
    A single level of fighter/whatever is all you need to gish it up effectively. They give up absolutely nothing "meaningful" to do it.

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

  30. - Top - End - #60
    Barbarian in the Playground
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Gender
    Female

    Default Re: Valor bard forced to get War Caster?

    Quote Originally Posted by Shadow View Post
    Um.... no they aren't. Not at all.
    All you need is proficiency and a decent attack stat to ber effective in melee. That's it. One level dip covers it.
    Same goes for defense.
    By that logic an elven wizard 17 is better than an elven barbarian 16 at beating things in the face with a sword, because the wizard has one more point of proficiency.

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

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

    The idea that both are as effective in melee is as strange as the idea that a greatsword offers just as much defense as having a shield in your off-hand instead.
    Last edited by Sindeloke; 2014-09-28 at 08:43 PM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •