Warcaster Feat tax

[djreynolds]

So what is your ruling? Especially for a feat less game?
Do you think this why dwarves, mountain, get medium armor proficiency and no shield? It was designed because they expect wizards of this ilk couldn't use a shield when casting and it was not included?

[Malifice]

So what is your ruling? Especially for a feat less game?
Do you think this why dwarves, mountain, get medium armor proficiency and no shield? It was designed because they expect wizards of this ilk couldn't use a shield when casting and it was not included?

Full plate wearing dwarven wizards can use a shield just fine. As long as they have a staff in the other hand.

That covers them for pretty much every single V, S, M spell in the game (as long as it doesnt have costly material components, and even then they could just drop the staff, pull out the costly component from their spell pouch and cast it in a single action anyway).

No warcaster required.

Bards get the hardest time of it. As do non staff using EK's who like to use shields or TWF.

The first dot point of war caster should read: 'In addition, you can use a melee or ranged weapon as a focus for your spellcasting' instead of 'You can cast spells with both hands full'

Problem fixed. Simpler, more elegant, cooler and thematically more appropriate.

In fact, thats what Im house ruling it as from now on.

[djreynolds]

But what about games without feats?

[Malifice]

But what about games without feats?

Then warcaster isnt an issue.

[krugaan]

Then warcaster isnt an issue.

wasn't drawing a weapon considered part of the attack action? or am i forgetting something?

edit: whoops, just read the relevant page, uses your free interact with object

[Kryx]

I'd prefer: To cast a spell you must be able to speak. If you cast Arcane spells, you also cannot be using two weapons, a weapon and shield, or a two handed weapon, unless you have the Warcaster Feat. As an Arcane Caster you may choose to sheath your weapon on your turn with your one free object interaction, before casting any spells.

As above I don't see the need to have divine somehow immune to the normal rules - it has never been that was as mentioned above. But you're welcome to do whatever you want.

I'm not sure getting rid of V,S,M is the best concept. Some spells are meant to be cast without sound for stealthiness or some are meant to be cast without moving your hands.

[djreynolds]

Then warcaster isnt an issue.

I'm asking only because, when has this been an issue with S&B clerics and paladins with or without war caster. Forgive my ignorance AFB, but If I'm taking warcaster as cleric, its for advantage on saves? And for wizard its for the AoO cantrip, and saves, correct?

Obviously bard is a different case

[Tanarii]

As above I don't see the need to have divine somehow immune to the normal rules - it has never been that was as mentioned above. But you're welcome to do whatever you want.

its something pretty strongly mired in my mind. Clearly. ;)

But also its how 5e currently functions. Divine has a clear advantage due to Holy Symbols being able to be worn, or especially etched on shields. it retains that distinction, while correcting what I consider to be two issues: the unnecessary advantage of 2handers, the disadvantage of TWF for divine; the inability to cast

Plus some simplicity & clarity.

I'm not sure getting rid of V,S,M is the best concept. Some spells are meant to be cast without sound for stealthiness or some are meant to be cast without moving your hands.

I actually agree. Which is why my original phrasing (pages back now) retained them, and instead was in regards to OAs only. The idea was to remove the (to me) silly idea of constantly having to sheath and draw your weapon.

It was adding: You may sacrifice you OAs to cast spells if your hands are full.

Effectively my personal preference for house rules are:
1) Two handed weapons occupy your hands when used in a way that allows attacks with them. You may use an object interaction to make it unusable as a weapon (ie hold it), or sheath it, to free up your hands. It takes another object interaction to make it useable again.
2) if you have an focus in hand, you can cast spells with S or M components freely.
3) if you have a Holy symbols worn, or etched into shield or armor, you can cast spells with S or M components freely.

The first makes 2-handed on par with TWF and weapon & shield. The second fixes focus for casting not only S/M spells, but also S spells without M. The third gets rid of the unnecessary distinction between worn and etched Holy Symbols.

It also removes Warcaster as a Feat tax for Clerics. Which was the characters I thought had a *unnecessary* feat tax to begin with. Turns out they only kind of do, with V/S (but not V/S/M).

[Tanarii]

Full plate wearing dwarven wizards can use a shield just fine. As long as they have a staff in the other hand.

That covers them for pretty much every single V, S, M spell in the game (as long as it doesnt have costly material components, and even then they could just drop the staff, pull out the costly component from their spell pouch and cast it in a single action anyway).

dont forget they a shield & staff wizards can't cast spells with S, but without M, without Warcaster. You keep forgetting it, which makes me think you've already house ruled that part. ;)

OTOH I *really* like your Warcaster change for weapon = focus. Trying to think of unintended consequences but my coffee hasn't kicked in yet and brain kinda slow.

[Tanarii]

I'm asking only because, when has this been an issue with S&B clerics and paladins with or without war caster. Forgive my ignorance AFB, but If I'm taking warcaster as cleric, its for advantage on saves? And for wizard its for the AoO cantrip, and saves, correct?

Obviously bard is a different case

RAW (and apparently RAI too) Warcaster allows Clerics to cast V/S spells, which normally they can't. They can only cast V, V/M, V/S/M, or S/M without it. In other words, for weapon & shield using Clerics if there is an S component, there must also be an M component to cast.

[Malifice]

OTOH I *really* like your Warcaster change for weapon = focus. Trying to think of unintended consequences but my coffee hasn't kicked in yet and brain kinda slow.

Yeah, its elegant and thematic.

Should arguably be a class feature for all the Gishes already, but hey.

[Kryx]

Effectively my personal preference for house rules are:
1) Two handed weapons occupy your hands when used in a way that allows attacks with them. You may use an object interaction to make it unusable as a weapon (ie hold it), or sheath it, to free up your hands. It takes another object interaction to make it useable again.
2) if you have an focus in hand, you can cast spells with S or M components freely.
3) if you have a Holy symbols worn, or etched into shield or armor, you can cast spells with S or M components freely.

1. Agreed. I think this makes a lot of sense and balances it out.
2. Why would a focus be different from a weapon? Focus replaces M, but not S (in some cases it can)
3. I really don't see how having a holy symbol lets you twiddle your fingers precisely while holding a weapon. Again, I don't agree, but you're welcome to create some kind of Divine/Arcane divide.


To me it seems best to go with the following:

1. Adjusting 2 handed grip is object interaction as you said
2. Somatic always requires a free hand.
As a result if someone holding 2handed/shield/TWF wants to cast they either need to sheathe, drop, take their hand off the 2 handed (preventing OAs)
As per RAW Warcaster lets people use S while having hands full.

Though I guess I just don't understand the point of a spellcasting focus.

[Edenbeast]

Effectively my personal preference for house rules are:
1) Two handed weapons occupy your hands when used in a way that allows attacks with them. You may use an object interaction to make it unusable as a weapon (ie hold it), or sheath it, to free up your hands. It takes another object interaction to make it useable again.
2) if you have an focus in hand, you can cast spells with S or M components freely.
3) if you have a Holy symbols worn, or etched into shield or armor, you can cast spells with S or M components freely.

I'm not going to stop you from houseruling, but I do think that the idea is that if you use a two-handed weapon, you can hold it in one hand, and use the free hand for casting.
The holy symbol is a replacement for material components, not somatic.
For the somatic component you need a free hand.
The ruling on page 203:

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.

Implies that you can take the material component from your pouch, and then do the somatics with the same hand. You can't do that when holding a focus (be it a staff or a shield) in that hand and a weapon or something else in the other. You need a free hand when a somatic component is required, unless you have the Warcaster feat.

[DanyBallon]

I'm not going to stop you from houseruling, but I do think that the idea is that if you use a two-handed weapon, you can hold it in one hand, and use the free hand for casting.

You're right on this point, but some (I'm one of them) argue that when you hold your 2-handed weapon with one hand to cast a spell, you can't use your weapon on opportunity attack. Versatile weapon, would let you use it one-handed tough.

[Edenbeast]

You're right on this point, but some (I'm one of them) argue that when you hold your 2-handed weapon with one hand to cast a spell, you can't use your weapon on opportunity attack. Versatile weapon, would let you use it one-handed tough.

That would only be the case if you dropped or sheathed the weapon. The ruling says you must use of at least one free hand. The attack of opportunity stands apart from your turn. As long as you're holding the weapon, you can use your AoO. That's all within the rules, otherwise it would state that you need two free hands for casting a spell. And if you lookup some clips of kendo or HEMA with claymore, it makes perfectly sense. Disengage, and cast chill touch. If someone runs past you, you can still wack them on the head if needed.
The sword+board guy will need to sheathe his weapon, but he keeps the shield's AC bonus.

On a side note: the discription of burning hands says you use both hands.. so there are some exceptions.

[Tanarii]

I'm not going to stop you from houseruling, but I do think that the idea is that if you use a two-handed weapon, you can hold it in one hand, and use the free hand for casting.
The holy symbol is a replacement for material components, not somatic.
For the somatic component you need a free hand.
The ruling on page 203:

Implies that you can take the material component from your pouch, and then do the somatics with the same hand. You can't do that when holding a focus (be it a staff or a shield) in that hand and a weapon or something else in the other. You need a free hand when a somatic component is required, unless you have the Warcaster feat.

The ruling on Page 203 says that you can use the same hand that is already occupied by a focus for a M component for the S component. You don't need a free hand for an S component if you have a focus in one hand, and the spell also has a M component. This is also RAI, per the link Malifice provided upthread. (link for clarity https://dnd.wizards.com/articles/fea...s-spellcasting )

What you can't do is use the hand with a focus for an S component when the spell doesn't have an M component. I think that's a silly conflict, so I was addressing that. The house-rule was to say that if you have a hand full of focus, that hand can always be used for the S component of a spell.

[DanyBallon]

That would only be the case if you dropped or sheathed the weapon. The ruling says you must use of at least one free hand. The attack of opportunity stands apart from your turn. As long as you're holding the weapon, you can use your AoO. That's all within the rules, otherwise it would state that you need two free hands for casting a spell. And if you lookup some clips of kendo or HEMA with claymore, it makes perfectly sense. Disengage, and cast chill touch. If someone runs past you, you can still wack them on the head if needed.
The sword+board guy will need to sheathe his weapon, but he keeps the shield's AC bonus.

On a side note: the discription of burning hands says you use both hands.. so there are some exceptions.

Opportunity attack may happen on an opponent turn, but it's still in the same 6 second round. In a combat round anyone act in the same 6 sec, round breackdown in turns is just a simple way to give an impression of some acting faster than other. This is the reason I, and others as well, argue that you can do both spellcasting and swinging a 2-handed weapon. Just the same as you can't drink a potion on your turn and another one as a reaction.

On the other hand, I would allow a hasted character do so, even if by RAW it may not be allowed.

[DanyBallon]

The ruling on Page 203 says that you can use the same hand that is already occupied by a focus for a M component for the S component. You don't need a free hand for an S component if you have a focus in one hand, and the spell also has a M component. This is also RAI, per the link Malifice provided upthread. (link for clarity https://dnd.wizards.com/articles/fea...s-spellcasting )

What you can't do is use the hand with a focus for an S component when the spell doesn't have an M component. I think that's a silly conflict, so I was addressing that. The house-rule was to say that if you have a hand full of focus, that hand can always be used for the S component of a spell.

It may not be RAW or even RAI, but edenbeast descritption of using the same hand for somatic and material component do make sense. But doing somatic with a staff in one hand could make sense as well (but I more often imagine such a thing when the caster ain't holding anythin in its other hand, so in the end he has a free hand...)

[JoeJ]

The ruling on Page 203 says that you can use the same hand that is already occupied by a focus for a M component for the S component. You don't need a free hand for an S component if you have a focus in one hand, and the spell also has a M component. This is also RAI, per the link Malifice provided upthread. (link for clarity https://dnd.wizards.com/articles/fea...s-spellcasting )

What you can't do is use the hand with a focus for an S component when the spell doesn't have an M component. I think that's a silly conflict, so I was addressing that. The house-rule was to say that if you have a hand full of focus, that hand can always be used for the S component of a spell.

Why is it silly? If you're not using the focus for the specific spell you're casting, then why should less of a hindrance than any other random object?

[Tanarii]

If it doesn't hinder your somatic motions when you're using it as a focus, why should it be any more of a hindrance you when you aren't?

[Edenbeast]

The ruling on Page 203 says that you can use the same hand that is already occupied by a focus for a M component for the S component. You don't need a free hand for an S component if you have a focus in one hand, and the spell also has a M component. This is also RAI, per the link Malifice provided upthread. (link for clarity https://dnd.wizards.com/articles/fea...s-spellcasting )

What you can't do is use the hand with a focus for an S component when the spell doesn't have an M component. I think that's a silly conflict, so I was addressing that. The house-rule was to say that if you have a hand full of focus, that hand can always be used for the S component of a spell.

I find that a strange ruling. Somatic always requires a free hand (in past editions at least). It doesn't make sense for spells that have both somatic and material components, and require you to touch the target, because touch attack have to be made by hand, unless the fizzlers of the coast changed that as well.

[JoeJ]

If it doesn't hinder your somatic motions when you're using it as a focus, why should it be any more of a hindrance you when you aren't?

It doesn't hinder your movements for that spell, because it's part of the spell. That is, the specific hand movements that make up the somatic component include holding the material component/focus in exactly the right way.

Suppose I'm eating lunch when I get attacked, and I've got both hands full of pork rind. Can I cast a spell without dropping it on my expensive carpet? If the spell is Grease, I can. If it's anything else with a somatic component, I can't. Pork rind doesn't get in the way of casting that particular spell because it's part of the spell.

[Tanarii]

That doesn't make sense in the context of being able to use a focus in place of the M components. Are you using different S motions to go with the different material component? Is it the same spell or not? Are S motions fixed or variable within a spell?

It also makes Holy a Symbols on shields being used to cover S components when covering M components make even less sense, unless all Cleric/Paladin spells with M components have only a single motion: present your holy symbol or M component.

Edit: on the other hand, youve manage to remind me that 'silly' is a bad reason for making a house rule in a fantasy rpg unless it's gratuitous. This isn't. How ever I'd still argue it makes for relative simplicity and consistent within the rules. Similar to having the 2-handed weapon be treated the same as twf or s&b. That said, it makes kryx's argument against retaining a holy symbol exception also comes down to that same argument.

[Icewraith]

It doesn't hinder your movements for that spell, because it's part of the spell. That is, the specific hand movements that make up the somatic component include holding the material component/focus in exactly the right way.

Suppose I'm eating lunch when I get attacked, and I've got both hands full of pork rind. Can I cast a spell without dropping it on my expensive carpet? If the spell is Grease, I can. If it's anything else with a somatic component, I can't. Pork rind doesn't get in the way of casting that particular spell because it's part of the spell.

Or you hold your lunch in one hand while you perform the somatic and/or material components with your other. If you were wearing a shield and had your lunch in your other hand, you'd need to drop your lunch anyways unless it is suitable for use as a spell component. The answer to whether or not you can hit someone with your lunch if they provoke an opportunity attack from you is a large part of the discussion in this thread and depends on how big your lunch is and whether or not it is versatile.

Of course, the whole issue is moot if the spell you want to cast has a verbal component, because it's highly likely your mouth is full. Unless you're extraordinarily lucky you're probably not ready to swallow yet (if you're being ambushed your attackers probably specifically waited for you to take another bite), so you'll get lunch on your floor anyways as you spit out your food and start casting. If you were having a peanut butter sandwich, you're dead anyways unless you've... Got Milk?

[JoeJ]

That doesn't make sense in the context of being able to use a focus in place of the M components. Are you using different S motions to go with the different material component? Is it the same spell or not? Are S motions fixed or variable within a spell?

It also makes Holy a Symbols on shields being used to cover S components when covering M components make even less sense, unless all Cleric/Paladin spells with M components have only a single motion: present your holy symbol or M component.

Unfortunately (or possibly fortunately), Wizards didn't go into detail about what hand motions are required for most spells, and whether or not they're the same with a focus as with materials, or even with different materials for spells that give you an option. For all we know, the specific motions required might change based on the phase of the moon, or the time of day, or whether or not there's a goat within the caster's line of sight. (Maybe that's why most casters only know a few spells: because they're really, really complicated.)

Edit: on the other hand, youve manage to remind me that 'silly' is a bad reason for making a house rule in a fantasy rpg unless it's gratuitous. This isn't. How ever I'd still argue it makes for relative simplicity and consistent within the rules. Similar to having the 2-handed weapon be treated the same as twf or s&b. That said, it makes kryx's argument against retaining a holy symbol exception also comes down to that same argument.

In this case, I'd suggest making your decision on a house rule based on your assessment of how it affects balance. Realism isn't a very good standard to try and apply to magic.

[Tanarii]

For all we know, the specific motions required might change based on the phase of the moon, or the time of day, or whether or not there's a goat within the caster's line of sight.

hahahaha okay my next Wild Mage now has a ready explanation for why his spell just dropped a FB on the party ... he motioned 'goat' when he should have done 'orc'. :)

[JoeJ]

hahahaha okay my next Wild Mage now has a ready explanation for why his spell just dropped a FB on the party ... he motioned 'goat' when he should have done 'orc'. :)

Also, the Verbal component for Polymorph changes based on whether or not the caster knows, or has reason to believe, that the target is named Charles.

[Vogonjeltz]

If you are a cleric or paladin, and one hand holds a weapon and the other holds a shield that has your holy symbol on it, you do not need warcaster and can cast all your spells (barring spells with specific costly material components that your shield cannot replace) just fine.

Every other casting class needs warcaster when using a shield and a weapon at the same time (unless that weapon is also a focus - such an EK or Wizard using a shield and staff, or sword and staff)

Look, as much as I respect WoTC, that article is factually challenged, unless you're saying that this no longer applies:

"Somatic (S) Spellcasting gestures might include a forceful gesticulation or an intricate set of gestures. If a spell requires a somatic component, the caster must have free use of at least one hand to perform these gestures." (PHB 203, bolded for emphasis).

The article quote seems to be saying that someone holding an object in each hand (regardless of what that object is) has 'free use' of that hand. i.e. So long as both hands aren't restrained they always have "free use". I'm arguing no, if you have to use that hand to hold something else it isn't free for somatic components, it doesn't matter what is being held, the somatic components require gesticulation which can not be done while holding an object.

And if you're holding a shield you don't have a free hand there, it's engaged in holding the shield. That the shield might constitute a holy symbol is immaterial to its status as free or not free, because the material component section only provides that "A spellcaster must have a free hand to access these components, but it can be the same free hand that he or she uses to perform somatic components." (PHB 203)

A holy symbol on a shield doesn't work precisely because you can't free your hand to do the somatic components (because a shield is strapped on and it takes an action to take it off).

you probably should have read the very next paragraph after the aid paragraph, because it shows you are wrong. A Cleric or Paladin casting a Spell with a Somatic Component and *not* a material component cannot do so while using a Holy Symbol emblazoned shield:
"If the same cleric casts cure wounds, she needs to put the mace or the shield away, because that spell doesn’t have a material component but does have a somatic component. She’s going to need a free hand to make the spell’s gestures. If she had the War Caster feat, she could ignore this restriction."

Edit: I think that's stupid, but it matches how the PhB is worded so I'm not surprised.

This doesn't make sense (and it doesn't actually match the PHB wording). The PHB stipulates that a free hand is required for somatic components, end of sentence.

In the material component section it also stipulates a free hand being required, however, it includes that proviso that the free hand can be the same one used for somatic. So what is actually described in the PHB would venn diagram as follows:

At least one free hand: Cast anything.
Hands Occupied by non-focus objects: Cast Verbal only.
Hands Occupied, but at least one focus object in hand/worn: Cast Verbal and Material for which a focus can be substituted.

At no point in the text is the requirement stricken that a free hand exist for somatic components.

[Malifice]

Look, as much as I respect WoTC, that article is factually challenged, unless you're saying that this no longer applies:

"Somatic (S) Spellcasting gestures might include a forceful gesticulation or an intricate set of gestures. If a spell requires a somatic component, the caster must have free use of at least one hand to perform these gestures." (PHB 203, bolded for emphasis).

Yeah, then a paragraph or two down it also states (under material components) that you 'can use the same hand holding a material component or spell focus to perform the somatic gestures for your spell'.

For a cleric/ paladin thats his shield. For a wizard, thats his staff. For a bard, thats his lute.

[Vogonjeltz]

Yeah, then a paragraph or two down it also states (under material components) that you 'can use the same hand holding a material component or spell focus to perform the somatic gestures for your spell'.

For a cleric/ paladin thats his shield. For a wizard, thats his staff. For a bard, thats his lute.

I agree the article states that, it just doesn't comport with what is said in the PHB, which only allows free hands to be used for both, it doesn't say occupied hands can be used for both.

I'm not opposed necessarily to them rephrasing the PHB to say that instead, just saying that they didn't.