Hey couple of questions about Clerics and weapons/shields, this is assuming RAW for casting spells with your hands full. I know Warcaster is an option, but assuming I want to get Wisdom to 20 first, it will be a while before I can take it.
So obviously Clerics have access to shields, but I'm curious if it's *always* better to use one. My reason for forgoing one would be related to the melee weapon I choose to use and wanting to maintain my ability to cast spells and not wanting both hands being occupied.
Let's say I'm playing either a Tempest or a War Cleric. I get access to Heavy Armor, so I have 18 AC at higher levels. If I want to use a two handed weapon, either a great sword or a maul, I have to give up using a shield, but this should be enough to wade into melee especially if I have a +1 or +2 weapon which increases my chance to hit. If I really want to mix it up, I still have the option of using shield of faith to increase it to 20.
Another subclass I'm curious about is Trickery Domain and the use of a staff, specifically a staff that has a magical enchantment. No heavy armor, but I could in theory use a Breast Plate (want to avoid the stealth disadvantage of half plate armor) which gives me 14 AC, plus 2 from a 14 DEX score so 16. To make up for the lower AC, I'm thinking I would get a lot of use out of Mirror Image.
Without a shield, you need some other kind of spell focus (most put a holy symbol on the shield so it acts as a focus), which you’d need a free hand to use. You could probably do something like release the maul with one hand (so you’d be holding it, but not wielding it and could attack or take an OA with it) and use the other to cast. But in that case, your free item interaction is going to be grabbing your spell focus. Depending on the DM, they might not allow you to re-grip the maul with both hands until your next turn.
A cleric with a two handed weapon is viable but the balance of power leans more towards single handed weapons than it would with say a fighter.
As a fighter levels they get extra attacks so at level 5 you are wielding a maul that increases your damage more than if you are wielding a flail. At level 8 divine strikes mean a cleric can do an extra 1d8 per tun damage regardless of whether they are using a maul or a dagger.
Trickery domain is odd in that you don't get heavy armor but do get divine strike rather than potent spellcasting. I've never played the subclass but if I did (and the DM allowed it) I would probably fight mainly ranged and take blessed strikes at 8. An AC of 16 isn't much for a melee combatant and you are likely to be burning through spell slots to rely on mirror image (your duplicates only have an AC of 12 so will disappear quite quickly), and each casting requires an action so you can't do much offensivly when you do. If you are in a campaign where you ratrely have more than one fight a day it might work but otherwise I would advise against it.
So if you have a weapon in one hand and a focus in the other, do you need the Warcaster feat to use somatic components or can the hand holding the focus still do the somatic component?
A spellcaster must have a hand free to access a spell's material components — or to hold a spellcasting focus — but it can be the same hand that he or she uses to perform somatic components.
I'm definitely a fan of shields. Because I'm also a fan of not getting hit every round. Back when I was Life, and then Grave, an easy 20 AC was sweet. But even now as Light, with my scalemail, shield, and 14 Dex, my 18 AC is still pretty respectable. Besides, I don't really carry a weapon because I've got Sacred Flame and Spiritual Weapon if I want to smack stuff. And even if I wanted to use a real weapon, the feat War Caster makes that no problem.
So yeah, shields. Totally shields. Because I can bring any one of my party members back from death except ME!
A spellcaster must have a hand free to access a spell's material components — or to hold a spellcasting focus — but it can be the same hand that he or she uses to perform somatic components.
This is one view, but not one consistent with the rules. It does not fulfill the requirements that spells without material components have. Spells that have a somatic component but no material component require a free hand. Full stop. There is no caveat like the one above that would apply to such a spell, because the quoted statement is specifically for spells with material components.
Edit: heck, even the example in the official clarification in SAC uses a cleric casting cure wounds as an example of when the cleric needs to put his weapon down to cast.
A spellcaster must have a hand free to access a spell's material components — or to hold a spellcasting focus — but it can be the same hand that he or she uses to perform somatic components.
This is one view, but not one consistent with the rules. It does not fulfill the requirements that spells without material components have. Spells that have a somatic component but no material component require a free hand. Full stop. There is no caveat like the one above that would apply to such a spell, because the quoted statement is specifically for spells with material components.
Edit: heck, even the example in the official clarification in SAC uses a cleric casting cure wounds as an example of when the cleric needs to put his weapon down to cast.
This is not a "view." It is a direct copy and paste from the PHB section on spellcasting components.
The question was if the hand that holds the focus (which can be used as a replacement for a material component) can be the same hand that preforms the somatic gesture. The answer to that question is yes.
You are asking and then answering a different question about a spell with no material components. FWIW, you’re right. But you’re answering a different question.
you wouldn't need to be holding the focus if the spell has no material component, so they could just use one free hand from the two-handed weapon since it doesn't take two hands just to hold
A spellcaster must have a hand free to access a spell's material components — or to hold a spellcasting focus — but it can be the same hand that he or she uses to perform somatic components.
This is one view, but not one consistent with the rules. It does not fulfill the requirements that spells without material components have. Spells that have a somatic component but no material component require a free hand. Full stop. There is no caveat like the one above that would apply to such a spell, because the quoted statement is specifically for spells with material components.
Edit: heck, even the example in the official clarification in SAC uses a cleric casting cure wounds as an example of when the cleric needs to put his weapon down to cast.
A spellcaster must have a hand free to access a spell's material components — or to hold a spellcasting focus — but it can be the same hand that he or she uses to perform somatic components.
This is one view, but not one consistent with the rules. It does not fulfill the requirements that spells without material components have. Spells that have a somatic component but no material component require a free hand. Full stop. There is no caveat like the one above that would apply to such a spell, because the quoted statement is specifically for spells with material components.
Edit: heck, even the example in the official clarification in SAC uses a cleric casting cure wounds as an example of when the cleric needs to put his weapon down to cast.
This is not a "view." It is a direct copy and paste from the PHB section on spellcasting components.
The question was if the hand that holds the focus (which can be used as a replacement for a material component) can be the same hand that preforms the somatic gesture. The answer to that question is yes.
You are asking and then answering a different question about a spell with no material components. FWIW, you’re right. But you’re answering a different question.
This was actually helpful...had to go through and see exactly which spells require just V or VSM, which I can cast with a focus and which ones require VS which I'd have to sheath+attack and then draw+attack using a seperate action.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Hey couple of questions about Clerics and weapons/shields, this is assuming RAW for casting spells with your hands full. I know Warcaster is an option, but assuming I want to get Wisdom to 20 first, it will be a while before I can take it.
So obviously Clerics have access to shields, but I'm curious if it's *always* better to use one. My reason for forgoing one would be related to the melee weapon I choose to use and wanting to maintain my ability to cast spells and not wanting both hands being occupied.
Let's say I'm playing either a Tempest or a War Cleric. I get access to Heavy Armor, so I have 18 AC at higher levels. If I want to use a two handed weapon, either a great sword or a maul, I have to give up using a shield, but this should be enough to wade into melee especially if I have a +1 or +2 weapon which increases my chance to hit. If I really want to mix it up, I still have the option of using shield of faith to increase it to 20.
Another subclass I'm curious about is Trickery Domain and the use of a staff, specifically a staff that has a magical enchantment. No heavy armor, but I could in theory use a Breast Plate (want to avoid the stealth disadvantage of half plate armor) which gives me 14 AC, plus 2 from a 14 DEX score so 16. To make up for the lower AC, I'm thinking I would get a lot of use out of Mirror Image.
Would either option be gimping the class?
Without a shield, you need some other kind of spell focus (most put a holy symbol on the shield so it acts as a focus), which you’d need a free hand to use. You could probably do something like release the maul with one hand (so you’d be holding it, but not wielding it and could attack or take an OA with it) and use the other to cast. But in that case, your free item interaction is going to be grabbing your spell focus. Depending on the DM, they might not allow you to re-grip the maul with both hands until your next turn.
A cleric with a two handed weapon is viable but the balance of power leans more towards single handed weapons than it would with say a fighter.
As a fighter levels they get extra attacks so at level 5 you are wielding a maul that increases your damage more than if you are wielding a flail. At level 8 divine strikes mean a cleric can do an extra 1d8 per tun damage regardless of whether they are using a maul or a dagger.
Trickery domain is odd in that you don't get heavy armor but do get divine strike rather than potent spellcasting. I've never played the subclass but if I did (and the DM allowed it) I would probably fight mainly ranged and take blessed strikes at 8. An AC of 16 isn't much for a melee combatant and you are likely to be burning through spell slots to rely on mirror image (your duplicates only have an AC of 12 so will disappear quite quickly), and each casting requires an action so you can't do much offensivly when you do. If you are in a campaign where you ratrely have more than one fight a day it might work but otherwise I would advise against it.
So if you have a weapon in one hand and a focus in the other, do you need the Warcaster feat to use somatic components or can the hand holding the focus still do the somatic component?
Yes. It can be the same hand:
A spellcaster must have a hand free to access a spell's material components — or to hold a spellcasting focus — but it can be the same hand that he or she uses to perform somatic components.
I'm definitely a fan of shields. Because I'm also a fan of not getting hit every round. Back when I was Life, and then Grave, an easy 20 AC was sweet. But even now as Light, with my scalemail, shield, and 14 Dex, my 18 AC is still pretty respectable. Besides, I don't really carry a weapon because I've got Sacred Flame and Spiritual Weapon if I want to smack stuff. And even if I wanted to use a real weapon, the feat War Caster makes that no problem.
So yeah, shields. Totally shields. Because I can bring any one of my party members back from death except ME!
Anzio Faro. Protector Aasimar light cleric. Lvl 18.
Viktor Gavriil. White dragonborn grave cleric. Lvl 20.
Ikram Sahir ibn-Malik al-Sayyid Ra'ad. Brass dragonborn draconic sorcerer Lvl 9. Fire elemental devil.
Wrangler of cats.
This is one view, but not one consistent with the rules. It does not fulfill the requirements that spells without material components have. Spells that have a somatic component but no material component require a free hand. Full stop. There is no caveat like the one above that would apply to such a spell, because the quoted statement is specifically for spells with material components.
Edit: heck, even the example in the official clarification in SAC uses a cleric casting cure wounds as an example of when the cleric needs to put his weapon down to cast.
This is not a "view." It is a direct copy and paste from the PHB section on spellcasting components.
The question was if the hand that holds the focus (which can be used as a replacement for a material component) can be the same hand that preforms the somatic gesture. The answer to that question is yes.
You are asking and then answering a different question about a spell with no material components. FWIW, you’re right. But you’re answering a different question.
To be fair, the question asked didn’t specify the components of the spell. The answer is “it depends on the spell’s components.”
you wouldn't need to be holding the focus if the spell has no material component, so they could just use one free hand from the two-handed weapon since it doesn't take two hands just to hold
This was actually helpful...had to go through and see exactly which spells require just V or VSM, which I can cast with a focus and which ones require VS which I'd have to sheath+attack and then draw+attack using a seperate action.