I'm on the side of those that argue that you cannot cast a spell that does not have a material component, but does have a somatic component, with your hands full unless you have the Warcaster feat. I think the rules are clear on that, although others argue differently. I don't think it is a bad DM that enforces that rule, I think, on the contrary, it supports balance as it diminishes somewhat the rather large advantage that classes which can use weapon or shield as spell focuses have over those that can't, it make Warcaster that much more useful and, in the particular case of Shield, it prevents sword+board+Shield, without Warcaster, which I think right. Make that clear at the outset, don't surprise your characters, and you are good to go.
By the way, you can also count me as among those that think that dropping a weapon, casting and picking it up again on the same turn is ridiculous cheese that won't happen at my table.
By the way, you can also count me as among those that think that dropping a weapon, casting and picking it up again on the same turn is ridiculous cheese that won't happen at my table.
I don't think there's anything particularly cheesey about dropping stuff and picking it back up. Completely kosher as far as rules go. That player is forgoing an item interaction every turn to cast on their turn. You wouldn't even be able to cast shield as a reaction in this manner.
I'm on the side of those that argue that you cannot cast a spell that does not have a material component, but does have a somatic component, with your hands full unless you have the Warcaster feat. I think the rules are clear on that, although others argue differently. I don't think it is a bad DM that enforces that rule, I think, on the contrary, it supports balance as it diminishes somewhat the rather large advantage that classes which can use weapon or shield as spell focuses have over those that can't, it make Warcaster that much more useful and, in the particular case of Shield, it prevents sword+board+Shield, without Warcaster, which I think right. Make that clear at the outset, don't surprise your characters, and you are good to go.
By the way, you can also count me as among those that think that dropping a weapon, casting and picking it up again on the same turn is ridiculous cheese that won't happen at my table.
While I agree that the rule is the rule, I think its a dumb rule. The idea if I have my holy symbol on my shield I can move my hands to cast a S spell when it also needs to use my holy symbol, but I can't when it doesn't also need the M component is just illogical on its face. That being said, if they had been clear and said any time a spell has a S an M component, the S component is merely presenting the M component forcefully. Or as someone suggested there never should be spells with both a S and M component. It would at least be logical. And now this sounds dirty.
I'm not sure I'd call that ridiculous cheese, but visually absurd or silly I'll agree with. I would let it happen but I'd probably find a way to make it backfire on them with a readied action or something if they tried to pull it off multiple times in the same fight.
I'm on the side of those that argue that you cannot cast a spell that does not have a material component, but does have a somatic component, with your hands full unless you have the Warcaster feat. I think the rules are clear on that, although others argue differently. I don't think it is a bad DM that enforces that rule, I think, on the contrary, it supports balance as it diminishes somewhat the rather large advantage that classes which can use weapon or shield as spell focuses have over those that can't, it make Warcaster that much more useful and, in the particular case of Shield, it prevents sword+board+Shield, without Warcaster, which I think right. Make that clear at the outset, don't surprise your characters, and you are good to go.
By the way, you can also count me as among those that think that dropping a weapon, casting and picking it up again on the same turn is ridiculous cheese that won't happen at my table.
While I agree that the rule is the rule, I think its a dumb rule. The idea if I have my holy symbol on my shield I can move my hands to cast a S spell when it also needs to use my holy symbol, but I can't when it doesn't also need the M component is just illogical on its face. That being said, if they had been clear and said any time a spell has a S an M component, the S component is merely presenting the M component forcefully. Or as someone suggested there never should be spells with both a S and M component. It would at least be logical. And now this sounds dirty.
I'm not sure I'd call that ridiculous cheese, but visually absurd or silly I'll agree with. I would let it happen but I'd probably find a way to make it backfire on them with a readied action or something if they tried to pull it off multiple times in the same fight.
I look at it the other way. In my mind's eye, spells that have both material and somatic components are cast in such a way that the material component is used with the somatic component - you throw the dust, you squeeze the guano, whatever - whereas where there is no material component, the somatic component is that much more sophisticated and complicated and cannot be performed with your hands full unless you have Warcaster.
Look at it this way. Could a Warlock cast Shield holding a match stick in either hand? Not by RAW. Let's give the Warlock a Longsword (pact weapon) in each hand. 4 feet long, weighing 3 lbs each and equally useless in the casting of Shield. He can now perform the somatic components of Shield, when he couldn't if he were holding two match sticks?
A Wizard can make "a forceful gesticulation or an intricate set of gestures" as a part of casting Acid Arrow while holding a powdered rhubarb leaf and an adder's stomach, as well as a dagger. Could he cast Shield instead? No. But why not, he is holding a dagger and a material component, and you can perform somatic components with the same hand that is holding material components. The problem is, it's not a material component for the spell he is casting. Same with the Warlock; the pact weapon is not a material component for the spell, Shield, that he is casting, and he has no free hand, so he can't cast Shield.
As for the drop-act-pick up proc, there is a whole thread on this in Rules and Game Mechanics, so I won't go into it here.
Yes, if you want to cast Shield with a sword and board warlock you're going to need War Caster. That said, by the time you get access to a feat (level 4 unless variant human) you're going to have level 2 spell slots, and do you really want to waste a level 2 slot (of two) on Shield?
Shield is a great spell for classes that have lots of level 1 slots, because they don't care about those, but Warlocks always cast at maximum power. That's why we get Eldritch Blast/Agonizing Blast to compensate for our lack of ability to do much else. The best Warlock spells are ones that have long and significant effects, utility spells, or spells like Spirit Shroud that boost our melee damage.
Here's a fix: scribe spell scrolls. You just need arcana proficiency, some gold, and down time.
That gets into a whole other discussion though: is it better to have +2 from a shield all the time, or being prepared to use a scroll for the shield spell when needed?
The scroll option would be great for a double-bladed scimitar/PAM Hexblade build.
But how would that work for a sword and board Hexblade? Even if they have Warcaster? I think they would still need a free hand to pull it out and use the scroll. Although, it could be really cool for a batman-ish sort of character who is focused on preparing and spreading their limited ability way beyond what ought to be possible to read the scrolls from memory and activate them that way.
I'm on the side of those that argue that you cannot cast a spell that does not have a material component, but does have a somatic component, with your hands full unless you have the Warcaster feat. I think the rules are clear on that, although others argue differently. I don't think it is a bad DM that enforces that rule, I think, on the contrary, it supports balance as it diminishes somewhat the rather large advantage that classes which can use weapon or shield as spell focuses have over those that can't, it make Warcaster that much more useful and, in the particular case of Shield, it prevents sword+board+Shield, without Warcaster, which I think right. Make that clear at the outset, don't surprise your characters, and you are good to go.
By the way, you can also count me as among those that think that dropping a weapon, casting and picking it up again on the same turn is ridiculous cheese that won't happen at my table.
While I agree that the rule is the rule, I think its a dumb rule. The idea if I have my holy symbol on my shield I can move my hands to cast a S spell when it also needs to use my holy symbol, but I can't when it doesn't also need the M component is just illogical on its face. That being said, if they had been clear and said any time a spell has a S an M component, the S component is merely presenting the M component forcefully. Or as someone suggested there never should be spells with both a S and M component. It would at least be logical. And now this sounds dirty.
I'm not sure I'd call that ridiculous cheese, but visually absurd or silly I'll agree with. I would let it happen but I'd probably find a way to make it backfire on them with a readied action or something if they tried to pull it off multiple times in the same fight.
I look at it the other way. In my mind's eye, spells that have both material and somatic components are cast in such a way that the material component is used with the somatic component - you throw the dust, you squeeze the guano, whatever - whereas where there is no material component, the somatic component is that much more sophisticated and complicated and cannot be performed with your hands full unless you have Warcaster.
Look at it this way. Could a Warlock cast Shield holding a match stick in either hand? Not by RAW. Let's give the Warlock a Longsword (pact weapon) in each hand. 4 feet long, weighing 3 lbs each and equally useless in the casting of Shield. He can now perform the somatic components of Shield, when he couldn't if he were holding two match sticks?
A Wizard can make "a forceful gesticulation or an intricate set of gestures" as a part of casting Acid Arrow while holding a powdered rhubarb leaf and an adder's stomach, as well as a dagger. Could he cast Shield instead? No. But why not, he is holding a dagger and a material component, and you can perform somatic components with the same hand that is holding material components. The problem is, it's not a material component for the spell he is casting. Same with the Warlock; the pact weapon is not a material component for the spell, Shield, that he is casting, and he has no free hand, so he can't cast Shield.
As for the drop-act-pick up proc, there is a whole thread on this in Rules and Game Mechanics, so I won't go into it here.
I'm not sure we are disagreeing, you are just assuming thats how M&S work when on the same spell, when i am saying they should make that clear in the magic section because without that assumption it doesn't make much sense. I know its hard for WOTC but write things clearly, they should have said something like when a spell had a M and S component, the S component is less complicated and is merely presenting the M component. Or just do the easy thing and only have one or the other.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I'm on the side of those that argue that you cannot cast a spell that does not have a material component, but does have a somatic component, with your hands full unless you have the Warcaster feat. I think the rules are clear on that, although others argue differently. I don't think it is a bad DM that enforces that rule, I think, on the contrary, it supports balance as it diminishes somewhat the rather large advantage that classes which can use weapon or shield as spell focuses have over those that can't, it make Warcaster that much more useful and, in the particular case of Shield, it prevents sword+board+Shield, without Warcaster, which I think right. Make that clear at the outset, don't surprise your characters, and you are good to go.
By the way, you can also count me as among those that think that dropping a weapon, casting and picking it up again on the same turn is ridiculous cheese that won't happen at my table.
I don't think there's anything particularly cheesey about dropping stuff and picking it back up. Completely kosher as far as rules go. That player is forgoing an item interaction every turn to cast on their turn. You wouldn't even be able to cast shield as a reaction in this manner.
While I agree that the rule is the rule, I think its a dumb rule. The idea if I have my holy symbol on my shield I can move my hands to cast a S spell when it also needs to use my holy symbol, but I can't when it doesn't also need the M component is just illogical on its face. That being said, if they had been clear and said any time a spell has a S an M component, the S component is merely presenting the M component forcefully. Or as someone suggested there never should be spells with both a S and M component. It would at least be logical. And now this sounds dirty.
I'm not sure I'd call that ridiculous cheese, but visually absurd or silly I'll agree with. I would let it happen but I'd probably find a way to make it backfire on them with a readied action or something if they tried to pull it off multiple times in the same fight.
I look at it the other way. In my mind's eye, spells that have both material and somatic components are cast in such a way that the material component is used with the somatic component - you throw the dust, you squeeze the guano, whatever - whereas where there is no material component, the somatic component is that much more sophisticated and complicated and cannot be performed with your hands full unless you have Warcaster.
Look at it this way. Could a Warlock cast Shield holding a match stick in either hand? Not by RAW. Let's give the Warlock a Longsword (pact weapon) in each hand. 4 feet long, weighing 3 lbs each and equally useless in the casting of Shield. He can now perform the somatic components of Shield, when he couldn't if he were holding two match sticks?
A Wizard can make "a forceful gesticulation or an intricate set of gestures" as a part of casting Acid Arrow while holding a powdered rhubarb leaf and an adder's stomach, as well as a dagger. Could he cast Shield instead? No. But why not, he is holding a dagger and a material component, and you can perform somatic components with the same hand that is holding material components. The problem is, it's not a material component for the spell he is casting. Same with the Warlock; the pact weapon is not a material component for the spell, Shield, that he is casting, and he has no free hand, so he can't cast Shield.
As for the drop-act-pick up proc, there is a whole thread on this in Rules and Game Mechanics, so I won't go into it here.
That gets into a whole other discussion though: is it better to have +2 from a shield all the time, or being prepared to use a scroll for the shield spell when needed?
The scroll option would be great for a double-bladed scimitar/PAM Hexblade build.
But how would that work for a sword and board Hexblade? Even if they have Warcaster? I think they would still need a free hand to pull it out and use the scroll. Although, it could be really cool for a batman-ish sort of character who is focused on preparing and spreading their limited ability way beyond what ought to be possible to read the scrolls from memory and activate them that way.
I'm not sure we are disagreeing, you are just assuming thats how M&S work when on the same spell, when i am saying they should make that clear in the magic section because without that assumption it doesn't make much sense. I know its hard for WOTC but write things clearly, they should have said something like when a spell had a M and S component, the S component is less complicated and is merely presenting the M component. Or just do the easy thing and only have one or the other.