It's not ideal, but if you want to pop someone with a cantrip while concentrating on another spell it's got acceptable power. Or you can take Gust and try to push around enemies- this can be handy if you set something out that creates a long-lasting danger zone like Spike Growth- keep them in it as long as possible.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
Take one level as an Arcana Cleric to get two Wizard cantrips cast with Wisdom. I'd suggest Chill Touch and Shocking Grasp (although Fire Bolt does more damage, but is resisted more often).
That's a good work-around.
It's similar to what the Bard in my party did when he took a level in Sorcerer to start to get better attack cantrips than what the Bard can choose from.
Both of my characters right now have done that - started off with one level in one class and then taken the rest of their levels in a different class. Coming up with a backstory to link an Arcana Cleric that becomes a Druid is a bit hard though. And unlike multiclassing Sorcerer or Fighter, it doesn't give proficiency in Con Saves.
Do people dislike Druid cantrips enough to do this? Are Druid cantrips really bad enough to justify multiclassing just to get a better attack cantrip?
He's a Wood Elf who was first turned towards the study of magic as a cleric, but then returned to the land and became a Druid.
I like the shortsword/longbow proficiency that Wood Elves bring to the Arcana cleric as non-martial clerics don't get anything in the way of finesse weapons except daggers.
Arcana Cleric Wood Elf with Fire Bolt and Green-Flame Blade is quite fun, and you're still a cleric.
I disagree that Magic Stone loses effectiveness immediately at level 5 or that you should dismiss it out of hand because it doesn't scale. Sure you're not using your action to make multiple attacks with it, but you're using your concentration and making that attack. With it and damage from summons or a longer duration spell, I find that although it may not be optimal, it will be acceptable. Up to level 10 on my shepherd druid, I'm still using it often as my action, and because I'm also getting between 1 and 8 other attacks from my conjures, I'm actually holding my own in my group.
I would take 1d6+4 over 2d6 any day, and many of the druid cantrips that do more than d6 damage are problematic in other ways (as already stated) and don't gain much damage over MS. I would also consider 1d6+5 hard before I dismiss it for 3d6 out of hand; having a much higher damage floor is more satisfying to me when it feels like I always roll 1s and 2s on damage dice. I wish I could get Toll the Dead or some other cantrips, but I'm not willing to delay my druid spell progression to get them - I might consider a feat for them though. In the face of all of that, and through level 10, I've just accepted Magic Stone as my main "filler" action.
I've actually had a bit of the other problem. I have not been effectively making use of my level 1 and 2 slots. I have absorb elements often prepared, but haven't taken much elemental damage yet. I have goodberry prepared, but don't use it much since at the end of a day if I have 4th level slots, I often entreat some dryads to procure some for the coming adventure - and using an otherwise wasted 4th level slot for 60 seems like a far better deal. I sometimes keep detect magic prepared, but that is a ritual. Finally, I sometimes prepare faerie fire, in the case that a combat won't require the use of a summoning spell, but because of the CON save I'm not sure that I've ever actually used it to effectiveness.
I have tried the UA summon beast spell as 2nd level slot and that is problematic because it gives a use for 2nd level castings, but it doesn't take full advantage of the bonuses that a shepherd gets. Again, I have tried a variety of second level spells, but if you remove the ones that require concentration from the list, you're left with a rather short list (though you could argue that a few of the concentration ones are non-combat spells). I tend to keep protection from poison just in case, the revised healing spirit for emergencies, and that's about it.
That's really useful advice. Your reasoning for Magic Stone is why I would use a longbow as a Wood Elf. As a Wood Elf, I would have the dexterity to use a longbow and the D8 attack die instead of the D6 would make up for using dexterity instead of wisdom, and the 150ft range would be much better than 60ft range, just like the 60ft range on Magic Stone is much better than the 30ft range on Thorn Whip.
But if I wasn't a Wood Elf, and I was a Human, Firbolg, or other race, that certainly makes me consider using Magic Stone instead of Thorn Whip. 1D6 + Wisdom will definitely be better than 2D6, and 60ft range is definitely better than 30ft range. But Thorn Whip does have that really nice ability to reposition enemies, although you only get to reposition them closer to you. But I think the most important thing is probably the 60ft range instead of the 30ft range.
I really don't like the idea of getting too close to the enemy when I'm trying to concentrate on a spell. I'm obviously doing that on my two gish characters I am playing right now, but they're both with high AC and designed to be in melee range. I don't see a way to design my Druid with high enough AC and good enough concentration Saves to feel like it's safe putting him in melee range while he's concentrating on a high level spell. My Warlock gish has +6 to con saves and 19 AC, and my Tempest Cleric gish has +5 to con saves with war caster and 18 AC. I don't see getting a Druid anywhere up near that. As a human Druid, I would take either war caster or resilient constitution at level 1, and as a Wood Elf Druid, I would probably have 16 dexterity, but I still don't think that either of those would still be a character that I would feel safe putting in melee range, and even going up to a 30ft range for Thorn Whip would be a bit risky.
Are you able to use a shield while attacking with Magic Stone? I know I couldn't use a shield while using a longbow, but with a 150ft range, I think I would be fine. When using Thorn Whip, I could use a shield in one hand and a druidic focus in the other hand and still attack with Thorn Whip, and that makes me slightly more comfortable having a 30ft range. But with Magic Stone, I don't think I could use a shield, a druidic focus, and still make an attack with a Magic Stone. Am I understanding this correctly?
As for your 1st and 2nd level spell slots, I would think that the Unicorn Spirit totem makes Healing Word a great use of a spell slot. Is that the totem that you normally use? The way I read the rules on that totem, all of your allies within 30ft of the totem, and not just your summoned allies, would gain HP equal to your Druid level if you cast a 1st level Healing Word. Healing a bunch of people for 10 each (because you're up to level 10 now) and healing one more person for 1D4+Wisdom seems like a great use of a 1st level spell slot, especially since you can do it with a bonus action.
Unicorn is AMAZING for healing, but you'll likely find it overkill on run of the mill fights. Bear tends to be my goto unless I think the group will need more then 2 healing spells cast. Me dropping Unicorn is my signifier to my group that I'm legit concerned about surviving the fight.
As to your worry about 30 ft being too close, I wouldn't stress. Those 30ft tend to be full of your party's melee fighters and a bunch of your angry summons. It's fine.
Bear Spirit would give advantage to your allies when they try to grapple, right? But you're mainly just doing it for the temporary hit points? It'd be fun to have a character that enjoys grappling, but no one in our group has done a character that loves to grapple in any of our campaigns so far. I suppose if at some point in the future somebody wants to do a grappling character, that'd make playing a Circle of the Shepherd Druid an especially useful teammate because of the Bear Spirit.
I'm not sure I would agree about 30ft being fine, not from what I've seen from our group's experiences so far. But with a bunch of melee summons, that might be different.
It also helps with escape checks and some other times str saving throws pop up, you can also have your summons be your grapplers, though plenty of summoned beasts have grapple built in to their attacks.
The Bear VS. unicorn question for me is one of efficiency. Unicorn can clearly blow Bear out of the water on overall healing done when you really need it, but you'll have to spend actions/slots getting there, and everyone/everything needs to be a little damaged. There are times that makes sense sure, but other times Bear is enough of a cushion without spending any spell slots that it will do and I can spend my turns hucking rocks (unoptimal cantrip choice, but I like the flavor and the range is good) or helping out some other way. Bear's temp HP don't expire either, so an early casting of bear can carry on throughout the adventuring day until their needed.
I prefer to give preemptive THP rather than reactive HP. There are many reasons for this, but partially it is because I am not the only character that can heal in my party (and the other players tend to prefer healing to, say preventing damage or out-damaging the opponents). I guess that the unicorn spirit would change that, but again, that would require two resources.
That's a good comparison between Bear Spirit and Unicorn Spirit. One thing that appeals to me about Unicorn Spirit and Healing Word is that I can cast Healing Word as a bonus action to trigger the healing from Unicorn Spirit and still have an action to cast a cantrip with. Costing a bonus action instead of an action is somewhat nice, although seeing the options for cantrips as an action has mitigated that appeal somewhat, hence this thread. That's a good point about some of the conjured allies having a grapple built in with their attack. Although for those conjured allies, it's just a straight DC on their grapple, and not a contest where having advantage would actually make a difference, right?
One of the things I love about the Longbow that no one has stated yet is that with a 150ft range (and dark vision, which I would have as a Wood Elf), you can move around in the dark and shoot enemies that are more than 60ft away if they are near a source of light (either from them and their environment, or from your melee damage dealers), and you get advantage on your attack, even if your enemy has dark vision (unless they have 120ft dark vision). I learned this on my very first character, a Wood Elf Rogue (who obviously got a huge benefit from having advantage on the attack). It's a situational perk, but in some parties/campaigns it comes up often enough that it would more than cancel out the problem of using dexterity for your attack roll instead of wisdom. Having a high dexterity score also helps with a higher AC, and gives you a slightly better saving throw in one of the most useful saving throws in the game.
I know there was a good argument made for Magic Stone, but the inability to use a shield along with a druidic focus and attack with Magic Stone I think disqualifies it for me, even though it would have a better range and higher base damage than Thorn Whip. I think carrying a shield for the AC boost and casting Thorn Whip is the choice that intrigues me the most if I'm not doing a Wood Elf. For those that use Magic Stone, do you just put away your spellcasting focus on turns when you're throwing a stone, and keep your shield out for the AC? It seems a little bit tedious to play it that way, so do you just simplify it and let your Druid throw the stone with the hand that is holding a spellcasting focus? Or do you just ditch the shield? All five of the characters that I have played have had at least 16 AC, so I do seem to be a bit overly obsessed with having a high AC, and I think playing a Druid would leave me with the lowest AC that I have ever had.
If I play a race without dark vision, the spell Produce Flame adds the fantastic utility of giving a source of light. According to the rules as written, it looks like you could hold a shield in one hand and a druidic focus in the other hand, and have the flame from the spell in one of your hands, most likely the hand carrying the druidic focus. Thematically, it doesn't make sense at all that one hand could hold your druidic focus and have the flame in it as well, but according to the rules as written, it seems like this isn't actually against the rules. I know people talk a lot about how fire damage is such a commonly resisted damage type, but I think we've run into trolls more often than we've run into enemies that are resistant or immune to fire damage. For those that have used Produce Flame, how do you handle carrying a shield and a spellcasting focus while using this spell? And how do you handle running into enemies that are resistant or immune to fire damage? Do you take a second damage cantrip, or do you just count on your conjured allies and your PC allies to pick up the slack in damage? I could see taking this spell as a second damaging cantrip if I was a race without dark vision.
I know there was a good argument made for Magic Stone, but the inability to use a shield along with a druidic focus and attack with Magic Stone I think disqualifies it for me...
Magic stone doesn't require material components, so it doesn't need a focus (strangely, it doesn't note that the pebbles are a material item in the way that shillelagh specifies a club or staff as a material item - probably because they are ammunition).
Likewise, produce flame requires no material component.
I know there was a good argument made for Magic Stone, but the inability to use a shield along with a druidic focus and attack with Magic Stone I think disqualifies it for me...
Magic stone doesn't require material components, so it doesn't need a focus (strangely, it doesn't note that the pebbles are a material item in the way that shillelagh specifies a club or staff as a material item - probably because they are ammunition).
Likewise, produce flame requires no material component.
Stowing the focus is a free action.
Stowing the focus is a free action, and grabbing a pebble from your pouch (or wherever you store it) is a free action, but you only get one free action per round.
My question wasn't about whether or not these spells have material components, but about the logistics of holding onto your spellcasting focus in case you want to cast other spells that do have a material component. I don't want to do the silly loophole that dropping your focus onto the ground isn't a free action, especially since dropping it onto the ground gives other people the opportunity to steal the spellcasting focus. It's a bit tedious trying to manage holding a shield, holding a spellcasting focus, and having a free hand to throw a pebble or use a sling.
Yes, it was. Personally, I think that a shield shouldn't prevent you from holding small items in your hand, like a sling, giving you a free hand to reach for ammo with. But that's a house rule on my part.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
If you have Conjure Animals or Conjure Woodland Beings up and at least three of your summoned creatures have hands, you could have three of them stay with you and throw the three pebbles either on their own turn or as a readied action and then you'd still have an action to Produce Flame or Thorn Whip. I can just imagine three sprites all holding pebbles together like they're toasting them, waiting with a held action for you to touch the pebbles and bless them with Magic Stone before turning to chuck them at someone.
Yes, it was. Personally, I think that a shield shouldn't prevent you from holding small items in your hand, like a sling, giving you a free hand to reach for ammo with. But that's a house rule on my part.
I have no problem with the shield + sling combo, but I am not okay with the idea of the shield + sling + spellcasting focus combo. I don't think it's reasonable to let a player hold magic stones in the same hand that's holding his spellcasting focus, while holding a shield in the other hand, and to call it a free action to stow his spellcasting focus without dropping the stones. Or to assume that he can hold magic stones in the same hand as the spellcasting focus, and perform the somatic components of a spell with the hand that is holding both the magic stones and the spellcasting focus.
One thing to remember is that without the war caster feat, you cannot cast spells with a somatic component while holding a sling and a shield. All the juggling that's necessary to do a shield + sling spellcaster seems like a bit too much for me.
On the other hand, Healing Word and Faerie Fire are both verbal only, so maybe you can make a verbal only spell caster that can cast spells holding a sling and a shield because he sticks to casting the spells with no somatic or material components.
Yes, it was. Personally, I think that a shield shouldn't prevent you from holding small items in your hand, like a sling, giving you a free hand to reach for ammo with. But that's a house rule on my part.
I have no problem with the shield + sling combo, but I am not okay with the idea of the shield + sling + spellcasting focus combo. I don't think it's reasonable to let a player hold magic stones in the same hand that's holding his spellcasting focus, while holding a shield in the other hand, and to call it a free action to stow his spellcasting focus without dropping the stones. Or to assume that he can hold magic stones in the same hand as the spellcasting focus, and perform the somatic components of a spell with the hand that is holding both the magic stones and the spellcasting focus.
Yes, but that's an additional step beyond the question that was asked. Magic Stone doesn't have a material component, so you wouldn't need a spellcasting focus out to cast it anyway. Hold the sling with your shield hand, cast with your free hand, and you're (literally) ready to rock.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Produce Flame isn't a bad choice.
It's not ideal, but if you want to pop someone with a cantrip while concentrating on another spell it's got acceptable power. Or you can take Gust and try to push around enemies- this can be handy if you set something out that creates a long-lasting danger zone like Spike Growth- keep them in it as long as possible.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
He's a Wood Elf who was first turned towards the study of magic as a cleric, but then returned to the land and became a Druid.
I like the shortsword/longbow proficiency that Wood Elves bring to the Arcana cleric as non-martial clerics don't get anything in the way of finesse weapons except daggers.
Arcana Cleric Wood Elf with Fire Bolt and Green-Flame Blade is quite fun, and you're still a cleric.
I disagree that Magic Stone loses effectiveness immediately at level 5 or that you should dismiss it out of hand because it doesn't scale. Sure you're not using your action to make multiple attacks with it, but you're using your concentration and making that attack. With it and damage from summons or a longer duration spell, I find that although it may not be optimal, it will be acceptable. Up to level 10 on my shepherd druid, I'm still using it often as my action, and because I'm also getting between 1 and 8 other attacks from my conjures, I'm actually holding my own in my group.
I would take 1d6+4 over 2d6 any day, and many of the druid cantrips that do more than d6 damage are problematic in other ways (as already stated) and don't gain much damage over MS. I would also consider 1d6+5 hard before I dismiss it for 3d6 out of hand; having a much higher damage floor is more satisfying to me when it feels like I always roll 1s and 2s on damage dice. I wish I could get Toll the Dead or some other cantrips, but I'm not willing to delay my druid spell progression to get them - I might consider a feat for them though. In the face of all of that, and through level 10, I've just accepted Magic Stone as my main "filler" action.
I've actually had a bit of the other problem. I have not been effectively making use of my level 1 and 2 slots. I have absorb elements often prepared, but haven't taken much elemental damage yet. I have goodberry prepared, but don't use it much since at the end of a day if I have 4th level slots, I often entreat some dryads to procure some for the coming adventure - and using an otherwise wasted 4th level slot for 60 seems like a far better deal. I sometimes keep detect magic prepared, but that is a ritual. Finally, I sometimes prepare faerie fire, in the case that a combat won't require the use of a summoning spell, but because of the CON save I'm not sure that I've ever actually used it to effectiveness.
I have tried the UA summon beast spell as 2nd level slot and that is problematic because it gives a use for 2nd level castings, but it doesn't take full advantage of the bonuses that a shepherd gets. Again, I have tried a variety of second level spells, but if you remove the ones that require concentration from the list, you're left with a rather short list (though you could argue that a few of the concentration ones are non-combat spells). I tend to keep protection from poison just in case, the revised healing spirit for emergencies, and that's about it.
That's really useful advice. Your reasoning for Magic Stone is why I would use a longbow as a Wood Elf. As a Wood Elf, I would have the dexterity to use a longbow and the D8 attack die instead of the D6 would make up for using dexterity instead of wisdom, and the 150ft range would be much better than 60ft range, just like the 60ft range on Magic Stone is much better than the 30ft range on Thorn Whip.
But if I wasn't a Wood Elf, and I was a Human, Firbolg, or other race, that certainly makes me consider using Magic Stone instead of Thorn Whip. 1D6 + Wisdom will definitely be better than 2D6, and 60ft range is definitely better than 30ft range. But Thorn Whip does have that really nice ability to reposition enemies, although you only get to reposition them closer to you. But I think the most important thing is probably the 60ft range instead of the 30ft range.
I really don't like the idea of getting too close to the enemy when I'm trying to concentrate on a spell. I'm obviously doing that on my two gish characters I am playing right now, but they're both with high AC and designed to be in melee range. I don't see a way to design my Druid with high enough AC and good enough concentration Saves to feel like it's safe putting him in melee range while he's concentrating on a high level spell. My Warlock gish has +6 to con saves and 19 AC, and my Tempest Cleric gish has +5 to con saves with war caster and 18 AC. I don't see getting a Druid anywhere up near that. As a human Druid, I would take either war caster or resilient constitution at level 1, and as a Wood Elf Druid, I would probably have 16 dexterity, but I still don't think that either of those would still be a character that I would feel safe putting in melee range, and even going up to a 30ft range for Thorn Whip would be a bit risky.
Are you able to use a shield while attacking with Magic Stone? I know I couldn't use a shield while using a longbow, but with a 150ft range, I think I would be fine. When using Thorn Whip, I could use a shield in one hand and a druidic focus in the other hand and still attack with Thorn Whip, and that makes me slightly more comfortable having a 30ft range. But with Magic Stone, I don't think I could use a shield, a druidic focus, and still make an attack with a Magic Stone. Am I understanding this correctly?
As for your 1st and 2nd level spell slots, I would think that the Unicorn Spirit totem makes Healing Word a great use of a spell slot. Is that the totem that you normally use? The way I read the rules on that totem, all of your allies within 30ft of the totem, and not just your summoned allies, would gain HP equal to your Druid level if you cast a 1st level Healing Word. Healing a bunch of people for 10 each (because you're up to level 10 now) and healing one more person for 1D4+Wisdom seems like a great use of a 1st level spell slot, especially since you can do it with a bonus action.
Unicorn is AMAZING for healing, but you'll likely find it overkill on run of the mill fights. Bear tends to be my goto unless I think the group will need more then 2 healing spells cast. Me dropping Unicorn is my signifier to my group that I'm legit concerned about surviving the fight.
As to your worry about 30 ft being too close, I wouldn't stress. Those 30ft tend to be full of your party's melee fighters and a bunch of your angry summons. It's fine.
Bear Spirit would give advantage to your allies when they try to grapple, right? But you're mainly just doing it for the temporary hit points? It'd be fun to have a character that enjoys grappling, but no one in our group has done a character that loves to grapple in any of our campaigns so far. I suppose if at some point in the future somebody wants to do a grappling character, that'd make playing a Circle of the Shepherd Druid an especially useful teammate because of the Bear Spirit.
I'm not sure I would agree about 30ft being fine, not from what I've seen from our group's experiences so far. But with a bunch of melee summons, that might be different.
It also helps with escape checks and some other times str saving throws pop up, you can also have your summons be your grapplers, though plenty of summoned beasts have grapple built in to their attacks.
The Bear VS. unicorn question for me is one of efficiency. Unicorn can clearly blow Bear out of the water on overall healing done when you really need it, but you'll have to spend actions/slots getting there, and everyone/everything needs to be a little damaged. There are times that makes sense sure, but other times Bear is enough of a cushion without spending any spell slots that it will do and I can spend my turns hucking rocks (unoptimal cantrip choice, but I like the flavor and the range is good) or helping out some other way. Bear's temp HP don't expire either, so an early casting of bear can carry on throughout the adventuring day until their needed.
I prefer to give preemptive THP rather than reactive HP. There are many reasons for this, but partially it is because I am not the only character that can heal in my party (and the other players tend to prefer healing to, say preventing damage or out-damaging the opponents). I guess that the unicorn spirit would change that, but again, that would require two resources.
That's a good comparison between Bear Spirit and Unicorn Spirit. One thing that appeals to me about Unicorn Spirit and Healing Word is that I can cast Healing Word as a bonus action to trigger the healing from Unicorn Spirit and still have an action to cast a cantrip with. Costing a bonus action instead of an action is somewhat nice, although seeing the options for cantrips as an action has mitigated that appeal somewhat, hence this thread. That's a good point about some of the conjured allies having a grapple built in with their attack. Although for those conjured allies, it's just a straight DC on their grapple, and not a contest where having advantage would actually make a difference, right?
One of the things I love about the Longbow that no one has stated yet is that with a 150ft range (and dark vision, which I would have as a Wood Elf), you can move around in the dark and shoot enemies that are more than 60ft away if they are near a source of light (either from them and their environment, or from your melee damage dealers), and you get advantage on your attack, even if your enemy has dark vision (unless they have 120ft dark vision). I learned this on my very first character, a Wood Elf Rogue (who obviously got a huge benefit from having advantage on the attack). It's a situational perk, but in some parties/campaigns it comes up often enough that it would more than cancel out the problem of using dexterity for your attack roll instead of wisdom. Having a high dexterity score also helps with a higher AC, and gives you a slightly better saving throw in one of the most useful saving throws in the game.
I know there was a good argument made for Magic Stone, but the inability to use a shield along with a druidic focus and attack with Magic Stone I think disqualifies it for me, even though it would have a better range and higher base damage than Thorn Whip. I think carrying a shield for the AC boost and casting Thorn Whip is the choice that intrigues me the most if I'm not doing a Wood Elf. For those that use Magic Stone, do you just put away your spellcasting focus on turns when you're throwing a stone, and keep your shield out for the AC? It seems a little bit tedious to play it that way, so do you just simplify it and let your Druid throw the stone with the hand that is holding a spellcasting focus? Or do you just ditch the shield? All five of the characters that I have played have had at least 16 AC, so I do seem to be a bit overly obsessed with having a high AC, and I think playing a Druid would leave me with the lowest AC that I have ever had.
If I play a race without dark vision, the spell Produce Flame adds the fantastic utility of giving a source of light. According to the rules as written, it looks like you could hold a shield in one hand and a druidic focus in the other hand, and have the flame from the spell in one of your hands, most likely the hand carrying the druidic focus. Thematically, it doesn't make sense at all that one hand could hold your druidic focus and have the flame in it as well, but according to the rules as written, it seems like this isn't actually against the rules. I know people talk a lot about how fire damage is such a commonly resisted damage type, but I think we've run into trolls more often than we've run into enemies that are resistant or immune to fire damage. For those that have used Produce Flame, how do you handle carrying a shield and a spellcasting focus while using this spell? And how do you handle running into enemies that are resistant or immune to fire damage? Do you take a second damage cantrip, or do you just count on your conjured allies and your PC allies to pick up the slack in damage? I could see taking this spell as a second damaging cantrip if I was a race without dark vision.
As a GM, I'd say that the fire from Produce Flame is not a physical object so I have no issue with it being gathered around your spell focus.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
Magic stone doesn't require material components, so it doesn't need a focus (strangely, it doesn't note that the pebbles are a material item in the way that shillelagh specifies a club or staff as a material item - probably because they are ammunition).
Likewise, produce flame requires no material component.
Stowing the focus is a free action.
You can’t use a shield and sling, I think, but I usually simply throw them (magic stones). You can throw a stone and hold a shield.
Slings aren't two-handed weapons, so you can use them with shields.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
Stowing the focus is a free action, and grabbing a pebble from your pouch (or wherever you store it) is a free action, but you only get one free action per round.
My question wasn't about whether or not these spells have material components, but about the logistics of holding onto your spellcasting focus in case you want to cast other spells that do have a material component. I don't want to do the silly loophole that dropping your focus onto the ground isn't a free action, especially since dropping it onto the ground gives other people the opportunity to steal the spellcasting focus. It's a bit tedious trying to manage holding a shield, holding a spellcasting focus, and having a free hand to throw a pebble or use a sling.
Slings have the Ammunition property, which means you need a free hand to load them, so a shield prevents you from being able to attack.
Somewhat ironically. Shield + Sing was a common historical combination, wasn't it?
Yes, it was. Personally, I think that a shield shouldn't prevent you from holding small items in your hand, like a sling, giving you a free hand to reach for ammo with. But that's a house rule on my part.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
If you have Conjure Animals or Conjure Woodland Beings up and at least three of your summoned creatures have hands, you could have three of them stay with you and throw the three pebbles either on their own turn or as a readied action and then you'd still have an action to Produce Flame or Thorn Whip. I can just imagine three sprites all holding pebbles together like they're toasting them, waiting with a held action for you to touch the pebbles and bless them with Magic Stone before turning to chuck them at someone.
Canto alla vita
alla sua bellezza
ad ogni sua ferita
ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty
To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me
The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
I have no problem with the shield + sling combo, but I am not okay with the idea of the shield + sling + spellcasting focus combo. I don't think it's reasonable to let a player hold magic stones in the same hand that's holding his spellcasting focus, while holding a shield in the other hand, and to call it a free action to stow his spellcasting focus without dropping the stones. Or to assume that he can hold magic stones in the same hand as the spellcasting focus, and perform the somatic components of a spell with the hand that is holding both the magic stones and the spellcasting focus.
One thing to remember is that without the war caster feat, you cannot cast spells with a somatic component while holding a sling and a shield. All the juggling that's necessary to do a shield + sling spellcaster seems like a bit too much for me.
On the other hand, Healing Word and Faerie Fire are both verbal only, so maybe you can make a verbal only spell caster that can cast spells holding a sling and a shield because he sticks to casting the spells with no somatic or material components.
Yes, but that's an additional step beyond the question that was asked. Magic Stone doesn't have a material component, so you wouldn't need a spellcasting focus out to cast it anyway. Hold the sling with your shield hand, cast with your free hand, and you're (literally) ready to rock.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.