Valor bard forced to get War Caster?

[MrUberGr]

So, I'm having a conversation with my group, where we figured out the following:

If you get Valor bard supposedly you'll be using a shield and some weapon. So, how will you be able to cast spells? What I thought is that you attack and use your action to sheathe your weapon. Then, on the next round you cast and take out your weapon. Or at some order like that.

[Whammydill]

Pretty much any spell with a somatic and/or material component will require you to have that feat or a hand free. Pretty much with the method you described. That's the way I understand it anyway.

[Theodoxus]

Or they don't use a shield... or only when they're expecting to wade in and support their meat shield with extra defense. It's just a different mindset, I guess - I don't expect my bards to be going frontline fighting, unless they build (ie, take the feat(s) required to make it practical) for it.

[BW022]

You can stow a weapon as part of your one 'interact with object' action during your turn. You can always move, stow a weapon, and then take an action (such as cast a spell). You just can't redraw the weapon to have it in your hand at the end of your turn. However, next turn you could then draw the weapon and still have all action. About the only downside is that you wouldn't be able to take a reaction attack if someone provokes an attack by moving out of your reach.

Further, you don't necessarily have your hands free if the spell only has a verbal component. In addition, if the spell can be cast as a bonus action... you could put your sword away, cast (bonus action), and draw your sword (using your action).

[Galen]

You can use a Versatile weapon w/o a shield. But, for best results, yes, seems like War Caster is a feat tax for gishing.

[Rilak]

You can stow a weapon as part of your one 'interact with object' action during your turn. You can always move, stow a weapon, and then take an action (such as cast a spell). You just can't redraw the weapon to have it in your hand at the end of your turn. However, next turn you could then draw the weapon and still have all action. About the only downside is that you wouldn't be able to take a reaction attack if someone provokes an attack by moving out of your reach.

Further, you don't necessarily have your hands free if the spell only has a verbal component. In addition, if the spell can be cast as a bonus action... you could put your sword away, cast (bonus action), and draw your sword (using your action).

The wording is "You can interact with one object ... during either your move or action". Sheathe a sword, casting, drawing sword is only interacting with one object. There is no restriction on interacting with the same object twice.

[Shadow]

The wording is "You can interact with one object ... during either your move or action". Sheathe a sword, casting, drawing sword is only interacting with one object. There is no restriction on interacting with the same object twice.

Interacting with the same object twice is the same as interacting with two objects. It's two interactions, when you only get one interaction for free.

[Rilak]

Interacting with the same object twice is the same as interacting with two objects. It's two interactions, when you only get one interaction for free.

Nowhere does it say I am limited to one interaction. Same object twice is different from two different objects.

[Shadow]

{{scrubbed}}

[Rilak]

{{scrubbed}}

No. People saying iconic casters like greatsword-wielding EK's need feats is unintended in 5e (feats are optional; not everyone plays with them; and the game is supposed to be fast and easy to play).
Note that even if you allow sheathe,cast,draw... you still need to care about somatic components. That dragon trying to bite you and you want to cast Shield? Tough luck; if you switched back to your two-hander or sword+board you can't do that.

[Shadow]

No. People saying iconic casters like greatsword-wielding EK's need feats is unintended in 5e (feats are optional; not everyone plays with them; and the game is supposed to be fast and easy to play).
Note that even if you allow sheathe,cast,draw... you still need to care about somatic components. That dragon trying to bite you and you want to cast Shield? Tough luck; if you switched back to your two-hander or sword+board you can't do that.

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.

[Graustein]

Nowhere does it say I am limited to one interaction. Same object twice is different from two different objects.

True, and in this specific case of sheathe-->cast-->redraw I'd follow a DM ruling on whether it's kosher or not, but also I'd be wary of a sweeping ruling that lets you interact multiple times with the same object. If a DM isn't careful that's potentially abusable.

Also this ruling does functionally give you one of the abilities explicitly granted by War Caster, so there's that. It's still a pretty great feat, though.

[DrLemniscate]

Pick up the Druid cantrip Shillelagh.

Now you can use your lute (or other wooden spellcasting focus) as a sturdy 1d8 bludgeoning weapon! Of course, you have to use your WIS bonus instead of STR/DEX.

[Rfkannen]

Pick up the Druid cantrip Shillelagh.

Now you can use your lute (or other wooden spellcasting focus) as a sturdy 1d8 bludgeoning weapon! Of course, you have to use your WIS bonus instead of STR/DEX.

Wait I thought the bards casting stat was charisma?

[Shadow]

Wait I thought the bards casting stat was charisma?

It is, but as a College of Valor bard, he won't get access to Shillelagh until level 10 unless he uses a feat to grab it earlier. And if he does that, he has to use Wis as per the feat's rules.
If he doesn't use a feat, he's giving up one of his two choices at level 10 for a cantrip.
So it's (a) use a feat and Wis, or (b) wait until level 10 and use Magical Secrets for Cha.
I's kind of lose/lose, but it's an option.

[Rfkannen]

It is, but as a College of Valor bard, he won't get access to Shillelagh until level 10 unless he uses a feat to grab it earlier. And if he does that, he has to use Wis as per the feat's rules.
If he doesn't use a feat, he's giving up one of his two choices at level 10 for a cantrip.
So it's (a) use a feat and Wis, or (b) wait until level 10 and use Magical Secrets for Cha.
I's kind of lose/lose, but it's an option.

Hmm I guess it could work, it would allow you to dump str and dex. So then you could have charisma and wisdom. So the question is wether you want high streangth, dexterity, or wisdom

[Townopolis]

If you pick up Shillelagh using the Magic Initiate feat, you use WIS for attack and damage with it. If you pick up Shillelagh at level 10 through your bard class feature, you use CHA for attack and damage with it.

There are a few options available for valor bards who don't want to take/can't take the feat. One is to use a versatile weapon, switching between 1h and 2h mode as needed. Ostensibly, you could also use your offhand to cast while holding a 2h weapon (like greatsword) provided you do not attack using the weapon that round, for whatever that's worth. You also have access to a number of spells with only verbal component including one cantrip,Vicious Mockery; a heal, Healing Word, a level 1 direct damage, Dissonant Whispers, as well as both Power Word Stund and Power Word Kill. You don't lose much by just sticking to these spells in combat and using your spells with somatic & material components between fights.

[MrUberGr]

BTW, would someone be so kind as to explain RAW and RAI? I do have a vague idea but I'm not exactly sure what the terms mean.

[Shadow]

RAW = Rules as Written
RAI = Rules as Intended
Sometimes the wording of a rule doesn't reflect what was intended and can be abused due to ambiguities. As 5e was designed with DM judgement calls prevailing rather than creating rules for practically any given situation, 5e is riddled with areas where the RAW and the RAI don't line up completely, and some players attempt to abuse this.
Claiming that not holding a two handed melee wepaon with both hands so that you can cast with s/m is just one example. It doesn't specifically say anywhere that you can't do it, so they think that the requirement of needing a hand free can be explained by just not holding the weapon as it is supposed to be held.

The problem is that these players are used to 3.x and 4e, where the RAW was Law. But in 5e, the DM is Law, and the RAI are more important than the RAW.

This thread was about sword and board bards, but as for two handed bards, I don't see the issue. They are proficient with longswords, which are slashing 1d8 (versatile 1d10) already. Grab a component pouch and you're fine.

[MrUberGr]

I'm playing a dex bard, given that I'm also the party's skill monkey, and it's what was mostly fitting to my character. Having a big sword was never my issue. Not dying was my issue

[toapat]

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.

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

[hecetv]

Just have one of your instruments be singing. Or drumming a la sword and shield. You could probably make a case for dancing. Whistling even why not? Poetry. Inspiring words. What else can you do duel wielding? There's probably more.

[MrUberGr]

That's not the problem. The phb actually says you can sing, cant etc instead of playing an instrument for bardic inspiration. The problem is with other spells, such as Sleep or Shatter, which are V - S - M spells.

[Shadow]

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

Common sense dictates that the shield itself becmes the holy symbol, so yes, you are holding it. So unless there are specific mats needed (with a price or consumed) you don't need a hand free anymore for the mats. You are holding your focus, so that requirement is nullified. The focus/pouch completely replaces the need for components in most cases. In the case of a focus rather than a pouch, you already have the components in your hand via the focus.

The issue with a somatic component still exists, however, unless you find a way around it (ala war caster feat, etc).
Personally, I rule that the hand holding the focus is the same one that performs the somatic comps. In effect, that hand doesn't have to be free as long as the thing in that hand is your focus.

[toapat]

Common sense dictates that the shield itself becmes the holy symbol.

No, it doesnt. My Mom does restoration and most of the work she does is religious art. The only part that she or the people she deals with consider the religiously significant portion of the objects are the characters and designs that the work depicts. The Canvases behind the work or the material making up the piece is irrelevant and is not considered part of it, and this includes statues where the holy symbol is the whole damn thing.

In other words, you are Seeing a tree and thinking its a forest.

[Shadow]

In other words, you are Seeing a tree and thinking its a forest.

The only important part about the cleric holding his holy symbol is the fact that he presents it with faith.
When you hold prayer beads and pray, the cross is the important part, not the beads themselves as they are just the chain upon which the cross hangs.
By holdnig his shield, the cleric is always presenting his holy symbol. He doesn't need to touch the symbol itself just as a catholic doesn't need to touch the cross hanging on his prayer beads.

It is quite clear what the intention was for adding foci and component pouches to the game. Just because the exact wording leaves something to be desired doesn't mean that you can no longer cast clerical spells while holding a weapon and shield. That's exactly why they added the clause about holy symbols (clerical foci) being able to be placed upon shields.
What's the point of it otherwise?
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.

[Scirocco]

The shield becomes a holy symbol, no argument there, but without the Warcaster feat the cleric can't perform somatic components with a weapon in the other hand. This is an intended effect, given the mention of shields as holy symbol. Now Warcaster is awkwardly worded, but it's pretty clear elsewhere that you can perform the somatic gestures as long as you have one hand free (shield hand isn't free/two-hander isn't free).

[Shadow]

The shield becomes a holy symbol, no argument there, but without the Warcaster feat the cleric can't perform somatic components with a weapon in the other hand. This is an intended effect, given the mention of shields as holy symbol. Now Warcaster is awkwardly worded, but it's pretty clear elsewhere that you can perform the somatic gestures as long as you have one hand free (shield hand isn't free/two-hander isn't free).

Which is exactly why:

Personally, I rule that the hand holding the focus is the same one that performs the somatic comps. In effect, that hand doesn't have to be free as long as the thing in that hand is your focus.

In my games, it doesn't matter to me if it's a cleric with a hammer and shield, a wizard with a dagger and wand, a bard with a sword and flute, etc.
In my games, if your hands are both full, one of those hands must be holding your focus, and then you can cast freely.

[hecetv]

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.

[Theodoxus]

That's cool, Shadow. I wouldn't rule that way, but I'd play it if it was offered.

I come from a primarily LARP background, where trying to cast a spell with while holding a weapon/shield is disallowed. You have to point at your designated target with an empty hand as part of the casting rules. Or, if a material component, like a spellball is required, it can be in your casting hand. But then, it's harder to gish up a LARP - they tend to frown on melee competent casters as being 'op'. Short sighted in my view, but people put a lot of emphasis on balance in pvp games.

At any rate, between a 3.x mindset and a LARP background, I find somatic components to be a particularly sticky wicket. YMMV, of course.

I'm not sure anyone's pointed this out, but Clerics can't cast spells in heavy armor without heavy armor proficiency either... that's a new trend.