Support the GITP forums on Patreon
Help support GITP's forums (and ongoing server maintenance) via Patreon
Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 31 to 60 of 171
  1. - Top - End - #31
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    CNagy's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Warcaster Feat tax

    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.)

  2. - Top - End - #32
    Ogre in the Playground
    Join Date
    Nov 2013

    Default Re: Warcaster Feat tax

    Quote Originally Posted by Tanarii View Post
    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:
    Quote Originally Posted by PHB 170
    You can perform The somatic components of spells even when you have weapons or a shield in one or both hands.
    Last edited by Kryx; 2015-11-02 at 02:24 PM.

  3. - Top - End - #33
    Ettin in the Playground
    Join Date
    Dec 2014

    Default Re: Warcaster Feat tax

    Quote Originally Posted by EvilAnagram View Post
    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.

  4. - Top - End - #34
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Tanarii's Avatar

    Join Date
    Sep 2015

    Default Re: Warcaster Feat tax

    @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.
    Last edited by Tanarii; 2015-11-02 at 02:22 PM.

  5. - Top - End - #35
    Ogre in the Playground
    Join Date
    Nov 2013

    Default Re: Warcaster Feat tax

    Quote Originally Posted by Tanarii View Post
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by Tanarii View Post
    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:
    Quote Originally Posted by Kryx View Post
    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

  6. - Top - End - #36
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Tanarii's Avatar

    Join Date
    Sep 2015

    Default Re: Warcaster Feat tax

    Quote Originally Posted by Kryx View Post
    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?

    Quote Originally Posted by Kryx View Post
    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.
    Last edited by Tanarii; 2015-11-02 at 02:42 PM.

  7. - Top - End - #37
    Ogre in the Playground
    Join Date
    Nov 2013

    Default Re: Warcaster Feat tax

    Quote Originally Posted by Tanarii View Post
    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/showthr...-with-a-Shield, http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2k5xy?Cl...tic-components, and https://www.reddit.com/r/DnD/comment..._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)

    Quote Originally Posted by Tanarii View Post
    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.


    Quote Originally Posted by Tanarii View Post
    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.
    Last edited by Kryx; 2015-11-02 at 02:54 PM.

  8. - Top - End - #38
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Tanarii's Avatar

    Join Date
    Sep 2015

    Default Re: Warcaster Feat tax

    Quote Originally Posted by Kryx View Post
    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.

  9. - Top - End - #39
    Ogre in the Playground
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Location
    United States
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Warcaster Feat tax

    Quote Originally Posted by Kryx View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kryx View Post
    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.

  10. - Top - End - #40
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    CNagy's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Warcaster Feat tax

    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.

  11. - Top - End - #41
    Ogre in the Playground
    Join Date
    Nov 2013

    Default Re: Warcaster Feat tax

    Quote Originally Posted by EvilAnagram View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by EvilAnagram View Post
    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.
    Last edited by Kryx; 2015-11-02 at 03:15 PM.

  12. - Top - End - #42
    Ettin in the Playground
     
    EvilClericGuy

    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Somewhere
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Warcaster Feat tax

    Quote Originally Posted by EvilAnagram View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tanarii View Post
    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
    Last edited by JackPhoenix; 2015-11-02 at 03:50 PM.
    It's Eberron, not ebberon.
    It's not high magic, it's wide magic.
    And it's definitely not steampunk. The only time steam gets involved is when the fire and water elementals get loose.

  13. - Top - End - #43
    Troll in the Playground
     
    BardGuy

    Join Date
    Aug 2014

    Default Re: Warcaster Feat tax

    Quote Originally Posted by CNagy View Post
    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.
    Last edited by JAL_1138; 2015-11-02 at 04:12 PM.
    Spoiler: Playground Quotes
    Show

    Quote Originally Posted by Safety Sword View Post
    JAL_1138: Founding Member of the Paranoid Adventurer's Guild.
    Quote Originally Posted by TeChameleon View Post
    - If it's something mortals were not meant to know, I've already found six different ways to blow myself and/or someone else up with it.
    Gnomish proverb


    I use blue text for silliness and/or sarcasm. Do not take anything I say in blue text seriously, except for this sentence and the one preceding it.

  14. - Top - End - #44
    Ogre in the Playground
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Location
    United States
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Warcaster Feat tax

    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.

  15. - Top - End - #45
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    MonkGuy

    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    Utah
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Warcaster Feat tax

    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.
    Last edited by ruy343; 2015-11-02 at 04:30 PM.
    My first homebrew: 5e Strategist

  16. - Top - End - #46
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Tanarii's Avatar

    Join Date
    Sep 2015

    Default Re: Warcaster Feat tax

    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by EvilAnagram View Post
    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 ... ;)

  17. - Top - End - #47
    Bugbear in the Playground
    Join Date
    Nov 2014

    Default Re: Warcaster Feat tax

    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.

  18. - Top - End - #48
    Bugbear in the Playground
    Join Date
    Nov 2014

    Default Re: Warcaster Feat tax

    Quote Originally Posted by Tanarii View Post
    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.

  19. - Top - End - #49
    Orc in the Playground
     
    GnomeWizardGuy

    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Warcaster Feat tax

    Quote Originally Posted by EvilAnagram View Post
    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.

  20. - Top - End - #50
    Troll in the Playground
     
    SwashbucklerGuy

    Join Date
    Feb 2014

    Default Re: Warcaster Feat tax

    Quote Originally Posted by Kryx
    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."

    Quote Originally Posted by The Shadowdove
    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).

    Quote Originally Posted by Tanarii
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by 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.
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by 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.
    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.

  21. - Top - End - #51
    Banned
     
    ClericGuy

    Join Date
    Aug 2014

    Default Re: Warcaster Feat tax

    Quote Originally Posted by Tanarii View Post
    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).

  22. - Top - End - #52
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Tanarii's Avatar

    Join Date
    Sep 2015

    Default Re: Warcaster Feat tax

    Quote Originally Posted by Vogonjeltz View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Vogonjeltz View Post
    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.
    Last edited by Tanarii; 2015-11-02 at 05:18 PM.

  23. - Top - End - #53
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    HalflingRangerGuy

    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    where South is East

    Default Re: Warcaster Feat tax

    Quote Originally Posted by DanyBallon View Post
    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.
    Trust but verify. There's usually a reason why I believe you can't do something.

  24. - Top - End - #54
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    HalflingRangerGuy

    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    where South is East

    Default Re: Warcaster Feat tax

    Quote Originally Posted by Vogonjeltz View Post
    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.
    Last edited by bid; 2015-11-02 at 06:14 PM.
    Trust but verify. There's usually a reason why I believe you can't do something.

  25. - Top - End - #55
    Bugbear in the Playground
    Join Date
    Nov 2014

    Default Re: Warcaster Feat tax

    Quote Originally Posted by bid View Post
    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.

  26. - Top - End - #56
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Tanarii's Avatar

    Join Date
    Sep 2015

    Default Re: Warcaster Feat tax

    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. :)

  27. - Top - End - #57
    Ogre in the Playground
    Join Date
    Nov 2013

    Default Re: Warcaster Feat tax

    Quote Originally Posted by Tanarii View Post
    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.

  28. - Top - End - #58
    Ogre in the Playground
    Join Date
    Nov 2013

    Default Re: Warcaster Feat tax

    Quote Originally Posted by bid View Post
    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.

  29. - Top - End - #59
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    Imp

    Join Date
    Feb 2010

    Default Re: Warcaster Feat tax

    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?
    This signature is no longer incredibly out of date, but it is still irrelevant.

  30. - Top - End - #60
    Ettin in the Playground
     
    Kobold

    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Euphonistan
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Warcaster Feat tax

    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.

Posting Permissions

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