I am currently creating a new character to play, who's way of fighting turns out to be a (official) rule nightmare. I know I can work it out with the DM to allow some sort of mixture of official rules, logic and homebrewing (which is a work in process), but I want to know how other DMs & players feel about the things that are kind of complicated with the character:
Set up: Fighter/Bard using (Short-) Sword & Buckler (shield) while fighting in melee; a whistle on a chain across his neck as a spell focus; Protection archetype for Fighter class
Situation 1 (and how we handle it): Attack with the sword as an action & bonus action: off-hand strike with the buckler using the unarmed strike rules (attack roll with normal STR based attack modifier; 1 dmg + STR mod for the damage roll if you hit); the damage is really low and the use of the buckler is true to historical fighting (strikes to the hand, elbow and head in conjunction with the sword); shield functionality stays intact, because the buckler is still kept close to the sword hand & striking a close to reach target while upholding the guard position); Not allowing Finesse to work with the buckler, because to do damage, you need to use a forceful blow. Problem 1: The buckler is not considered a "light weapon" in the off-hand, so you should not be able to use it for the off-hand attack in any way or form
Situation 2: Casting True Strike at an opponent (while holding sword & buckler), because keeping it true to the spell's description ("You extend your hand and point a finger at a target in range"). Just pointing can be done easily with one or two fingers from your off-hand holding the buckler; Because you are casting a spell with you off-hand, you forfeit you ability to gain the shield's AC bonus until your next turn & you can't use Protection to aid an ally and impose a disadvantage on the foes attack roll. Problem 2: True Strike is a Somatic spell, so the rule says for any somatic spell "the caster must have free use of at least one hand to perform these gestures". Warcaster feat (which does a lot more as a benefit to casting in combat) would be required if the character wants to hold on to his two weapons. Official rules also make no difference between "just pointing" and e.g. painting a symbol in the air (which is more complicated and would not be allowed because of the spell description). And as far as I see it, choosing a spell focus/holy symbol attached to the shield circumvents the Warcaster requirement anyway (see Problem 3).
Situation 3: He grabs the sword by the ricasso with his off-hand, touching the ally next to him calling out "Run like the wind my friend!", holds on on to the whistle around his neck and sends his ally off to follow the enemy, completing the cast of "Longstrider" with blowing the whistle; As he has cast a spell and he is holding his main hand weapon in the off-hand now, he forfeits his chance for attacks of opportunity, e.g. if an enemy runs by until his next turn & makes the full use of the buckler unavailable (no AC bonus, no Protection ability) Problem 3: Somatic component (see Problem 2) + Material component substitute with spell focus "instrument" which kind of has to be readied/ held in the hand.
(Compared to free actions like weapon swaps and loading time on crossbows - imagine resetting a crossbow with a goat's foot lever and still doing fancy stuff - , those small changes to the official rules seem to be absolutely non game breaking, despite not being 100% to the book)
Opinions and input please.
PS: I added a bit to the descriptions compared to the initial post
I'm very loose with my interpretations of the rules. If it can be argued and, when played out, doesn't seem to grant anything overly powerful, I'll allow it. With that being said I'm also transparent when I tell my players that I'll allow almost anything that is presented well, but if it turns out to break something, I'll change it as needed.
For more direct answers: 1) Sure, I don't have a problem giving you the buckler attack with your off-hand, but it's an improvised weapon, it's not light, and you don't have two weapon fighting, it's 1 damage. If you were to get two weapon fighting, you could add your mod to it.
2) Some bucklers can be strapped to the forearm rather than needing to be held in a hand, or free action to let it hang off your forearm. I can get behind that ruling.
3) You'd have to stow/drop the weapon/shield to do that, essentially what you've done by putting it in your off-hand. No attack, no bonus/off-hand attack, retain the AC bonus, no reaction (AoO).
I'm very loose with my interpretations of the rules. If it can be argued and, when played out, doesn't seem to grant anything overly powerful, I'll allow it. With that being said I'm also transparent when I tell my players that I'll allow almost anything that is presented well, but if it turns out to break something, I'll change it as needed.
For more direct answers: 1) Sure, I don't have a problem giving you the buckler attack with your off-hand, but it's an improvised weapon, it's not light, and you don't have two weapon fighting, it's 1 damage. If you were to get two weapon fighting, you could add your mod to it.
2) Some bucklers can be strapped to the forearm rather than needing to be held in a hand, or free action to let it hang off your forearm. I can get behind that ruling.
3) You'd have to stow/drop the weapon/shield to do that, essentially what you've done by putting it in your off-hand. No attack, no bonus/off-hand attack, retain the AC bonus, no reaction (AoO).
Thanks for the input. As far as I read your answer, you would give all three situations a pass as they are currently handled. (PS: you confuse a targe - strapped to the forearm - with the historical buckler - held in the fist; but that's minor nitpicking *grin*)
Well, the point of S and M spell components is exactly this thing you are facing. There is a choice to be made between shields, weapons and spells - and trying to get all three is a game of juggle-the-stuff. Cleric/Paladin get a leg up in that game with their holy shield focus, wizards with a quarterstaff focus, assorted sub classes get weapon focus, and Warcaster completes the set. Some people argue you can drop your sword (for free), cast a spell (action), then pick the sword back up (object interaction) and repeat that every turn. My games do not allow that tomfoolery. Here are some suggestions to implement this character within the rules though.
2 and 3: There are no rules I know of that prevent you using your shield AC bonus just because you cast a spell. There are no rules to describe holding your sword in the same hand with your shield, I would just make that the equivalent of sheathing the sword. Consider starting all combats with your sword sheathed, allowing unlimited casting until you are ready to draw the sword. On a single turn you can cast a spell then draw the sword. Ask the DM to help you get your hands on a Ruby of the War Mage or become a College of Swords Bard to get yourself a weapon/focus. Putting the sword away to cast then should only be for when you need to cast a M spell, and you at worst miss one turn's opportunity strike.
1: I think the rules interpretation of a shield strike is the Shove bonus action from the shield master feat. You could get your hands on that and enjoy the other bonuses it gives. As a DM I would probably allow the dual weapon strike with a shield as an improvised weapon, but maybe ask the player to pay a cost to acquire a shield made for it. Perhaps an Adamantine Buckler for 100gp, which is immune to rust/corrosion and allows a bonus action offhand improvised weapon strike when using the Attack action with a light weapon.
#1 If using a light weapon, I would allow the bonus attack using the two-weapon fighting rule. That bonus attack could then be completed using offhand shield as an improvised weapon attack mod would be STR modifier only since your not proficient with it as a weapon and would do 1d4 damage with no damage mods. Now at the DM's option, per improvised weapon rules, a character proficient with a weapon can use a similar object as if it were that weapon and use his or her proficiency bonus, but I don't know of any weapon objects similar to a shield. Now because everyone is proficient in unarmed strikes, the DM could then rule the offhand was an unarmed strike granting proficiency bonus, but still no damage mod because it is a bonus action. So do you want more of a chance to hit use the unarmed strike option, less chance to hit and more damage, use the improvised weapon option. Still would be with a light weapon unless you hand some other feature or feat stating differently.
#2 The shields definition specifically states it is carries in one hand, therefore the hand holding the shield is occupied! The weapon in other hand causes that hand to be occupied as well. True Strike requires the caster to have free use of at least one hand to perform the gestures. Since both hands are occupied by the strictest reading pointing is a gesture and this casting would not be allowed and is why the war caster feat exists.
#3 Lets break this down:
He grabs the sword by the ricasso with his off-hand == free object interaction, but If your shield was in this hand it uses the entirety of the hand per shield description and could not be done, although sheathing the sword would be possible and considered.
touching the ally next to him calling out "Run like the wind my friend!" == this is part of the longstrider Cast a Spell action
holds on on to the whistle around his neck and sends his ally off to follow the enemy, == M part of Cast a Spell action.
completing the cast of "Longstrider" with blowing the whistle; No issues with the cast other than the move of sword to hand holding the shield.
As he has cast a spell and he is holding his main hand weapon in the off-hand now, he forfeits his chance for attacks of opportunity, e.g. if an enemy runs by until his next turn & makes the full use of the buckler unavailable (no AC bonus, no Protection ability) == With shield in this hand it uses the entirety of the hand per shield description, but as previously stated sheathing would be possible. You would still have an AC bonus because the shield would still be in hand.
holds on on to the whistle around his neck and sends his ally off to follow the enemy, == Since he was not holding the whistle initially he must grab the whistle which is 2nd object interaction to move to your hand which counts as an action...
I'm not 100%, but I'm pretty sure it has been clarified somewhere that if you have a hand empty then reaching to touch your focus or to retrieve components from a pouch (as required for an M spell) does not count as an object interaction - it is just a natural part of the Cast a Spell action along with all other somatic gestures and verbal utterances. The object interaction may be needed to empty a hand in the first place (sheath a sword for example) but once one hand is empty you are ok so long as your focus/components are easily accessible.
PS: Observation - Listening to Critical Role Campaign 2 last night & thinking about my problem stated here, I noticed that Fjord always has shield & falchion ready when casting spells like Eldrich Blast, Cadusus never puts away his shield with all his magic casting as well as Jester (who explicitly has an extra holy symbol of the traveller). They always have their +2 AC bonus applied.
holds on on to the whistle around his neck and sends his ally off to follow the enemy, == Since he was not holding the whistle initially he must grab the whistle which is 2nd object interaction to move to your hand which counts as an action...
I'm not 100%, but I'm pretty sure it has been clarified somewhere that if you have a hand empty then reaching to touch your focus or to retrieve components from a pouch (as required for an M spell) does not count as an object interaction - it is just a natural part of the Cast a Spell action along with all other somatic gestures and verbal utterances. The object interaction may be needed to empty a hand in the first place (sheath a sword for example) but once one hand is empty you are ok so long as your focus/components are easily accessible.
Good point! I wasn't thinking about that with the use of the whistle! I will edit my original!
PS: Observation - Listening to Critical Role Campaign 2 last night & thinking about my problem stated here, I noticed that Fjord always has shield & falchion ready when casting spells like Eldrich Blast, Cadusus never puts away his shield with all his magic casting as well as Jester (who explicitly has an extra holy symbol of the traveller). They always have their +2 AC bonus applied.
Putting away or donning a shield takes a full action each. Drawing or sheathing a weapon is an interaction and can be done for free.
PS: Observation - Listening to Critical Role Campaign 2 last night & thinking about my problem stated here, I noticed that Fjord always has shield & falchion ready when casting spells like Eldrich Blast, Cadusus never puts away his shield with all his magic casting as well as Jester (who explicitly has an extra holy symbol of the traveller). They always have their +2 AC bonus applied.
Putting away or donning a shield takes a full action each. Drawing or sheathing a weapon is an interaction and can be done for free.
Yeah, anyone choosing to put away either a weapon or a shield in order to cast a spell will always choose the weapon. But it is worth noting that many games/DMs just ignore these restrictions judging them more trouble than they are worth. I like that a choice is required; that a balance must be maintained - but to many this just looks like a stupid amount of unnecessary juggling that interferes with the flow of the game.
OK, does that mean that in "simple 1vs1" fights (when it is pretty clear what you want to do with your next action) you can actually circumvent all those Spell Focus / Warcasting restrictions of Somatic / Material spellcasting by sticking to the official rules on free actions?
Player had the higher initiative roll, so he starts first 1. Round: Action - Attack with Sword; Free action - Sheath sword 1. Round: Enemy attack happens (as holding a weapon or not does not make a difference in D&D to AC (or defending in general) 2. Round: Action - cast Somatic / Material Spell; Free Action - draw sword (you have a free hand for casting, circumventing restrictions) 2. Round: Enemy decides to flee ==> you can make an Attack of Opportunity (because you know have a sword in hand, again)
In this situation you still spend some rounds without a sword in your hand for use in an attack of opportunity. You are also completely unable to interact with any other objects, like open a door or whatever. It's true that it is not a very high price to pay, but it is still something.
1: You are correct. According to RAW, the shield cannot be used to attack with your bonus action.
2: You are partially correct. According to RAW, you cannot cast spells with a somatic component while wielding a sword and a shield, unless you have taken the Warcaster feat. The Warcaster feat makes you able to meet the somatic requirement while your hands are occupied, but it doesn't let you bypass the material component as you stated (unless I am misunderstanding what you wrote).
3: You are partially correct. According to RAW, you won't be able to make an attack of opportunity with your sword. However you could make an attack of opportunity with either your shield (improvised weapon) or your fist. If you have the Warcaster feat you can likewise cast a spell as an attack of opportunity. I am not entirely sure what you mean by the full use of the buckler being unavailable. You can still attack with the buckler as an attack of opportunity (and normal attack on your turn), while retaining its protective benefits, as long as you are wielding it and not using it as a frisbee.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I am currently creating a new character to play, who's way of fighting turns out to be a (official) rule nightmare. I know I can work it out with the DM to allow some sort of mixture of official rules, logic and homebrewing (which is a work in process), but I want to know how other DMs & players feel about the things that are kind of complicated with the character:
Set up: Fighter/Bard using (Short-) Sword & Buckler (shield) while fighting in melee; a whistle on a chain across his neck as a spell focus; Protection archetype for Fighter class
Situation 1 (and how we handle it): Attack with the sword as an action & bonus action: off-hand strike with the buckler using the unarmed strike rules (attack roll with normal STR based attack modifier; 1 dmg + STR mod for the damage roll if you hit); the damage is really low and the use of the buckler is true to historical fighting (strikes to the hand, elbow and head in conjunction with the sword); shield functionality stays intact, because the buckler is still kept close to the sword hand & striking a close to reach target while upholding the guard position); Not allowing Finesse to work with the buckler, because to do damage, you need to use a forceful blow.
Problem 1: The buckler is not considered a "light weapon" in the off-hand, so you should not be able to use it for the off-hand attack in any way or form
Situation 2: Casting True Strike at an opponent (while holding sword & buckler), because keeping it true to the spell's description ("You extend your hand and point a finger at a target in range"). Just pointing can be done easily with one or two fingers from your off-hand holding the buckler; Because you are casting a spell with you off-hand, you forfeit you ability to gain the shield's AC bonus until your next turn & you can't use Protection to aid an ally and impose a disadvantage on the foes attack roll.
Problem 2: True Strike is a Somatic spell, so the rule says for any somatic spell "the caster must have free use of at least one hand to perform these gestures". Warcaster feat (which does a lot more as a benefit to casting in combat) would be required if the character wants to hold on to his two weapons. Official rules also make no difference between "just pointing" and e.g. painting a symbol in the air (which is more complicated and would not be allowed because of the spell description). And as far as I see it, choosing a spell focus/holy symbol attached to the shield circumvents the Warcaster requirement anyway (see Problem 3).
Situation 3: He grabs the sword by the ricasso with his off-hand, touching the ally next to him calling out "Run like the wind my friend!", holds on on to the whistle around his neck and sends his ally off to follow the enemy, completing the cast of "Longstrider" with blowing the whistle; As he has cast a spell and he is holding his main hand weapon in the off-hand now, he forfeits his chance for attacks of opportunity, e.g. if an enemy runs by until his next turn & makes the full use of the buckler unavailable (no AC bonus, no Protection ability)
Problem 3: Somatic component (see Problem 2) + Material component substitute with spell focus "instrument" which kind of has to be readied/ held in the hand.
(Compared to free actions like weapon swaps and loading time on crossbows - imagine resetting a crossbow with a goat's foot lever and still doing fancy stuff - , those small changes to the official rules seem to be absolutely non game breaking, despite not being 100% to the book)
Opinions and input please.
PS: I added a bit to the descriptions compared to the initial post
I'm very loose with my interpretations of the rules. If it can be argued and, when played out, doesn't seem to grant anything overly powerful, I'll allow it. With that being said I'm also transparent when I tell my players that I'll allow almost anything that is presented well, but if it turns out to break something, I'll change it as needed.
For more direct answers:
1) Sure, I don't have a problem giving you the buckler attack with your off-hand, but it's an improvised weapon, it's not light, and you don't have two weapon fighting, it's 1 damage. If you were to get two weapon fighting, you could add your mod to it.
2) Some bucklers can be strapped to the forearm rather than needing to be held in a hand, or free action to let it hang off your forearm. I can get behind that ruling.
3) You'd have to stow/drop the weapon/shield to do that, essentially what you've done by putting it in your off-hand. No attack, no bonus/off-hand attack, retain the AC bonus, no reaction (AoO).
Thanks for the input.
As far as I read your answer, you would give all three situations a pass as they are currently handled. (PS: you confuse a targe - strapped to the forearm - with the historical buckler - held in the fist; but that's minor nitpicking *grin*)
Keep comments coming.
Well, the point of S and M spell components is exactly this thing you are facing. There is a choice to be made between shields, weapons and spells - and trying to get all three is a game of juggle-the-stuff. Cleric/Paladin get a leg up in that game with their holy shield focus, wizards with a quarterstaff focus, assorted sub classes get weapon focus, and Warcaster completes the set. Some people argue you can drop your sword (for free), cast a spell (action), then pick the sword back up (object interaction) and repeat that every turn. My games do not allow that tomfoolery. Here are some suggestions to implement this character within the rules though.
2 and 3: There are no rules I know of that prevent you using your shield AC bonus just because you cast a spell. There are no rules to describe holding your sword in the same hand with your shield, I would just make that the equivalent of sheathing the sword. Consider starting all combats with your sword sheathed, allowing unlimited casting until you are ready to draw the sword. On a single turn you can cast a spell then draw the sword. Ask the DM to help you get your hands on a Ruby of the War Mage or become a College of Swords Bard to get yourself a weapon/focus. Putting the sword away to cast then should only be for when you need to cast a M spell, and you at worst miss one turn's opportunity strike.
1: I think the rules interpretation of a shield strike is the Shove bonus action from the shield master feat. You could get your hands on that and enjoy the other bonuses it gives. As a DM I would probably allow the dual weapon strike with a shield as an improvised weapon, but maybe ask the player to pay a cost to acquire a shield made for it. Perhaps an Adamantine Buckler for 100gp, which is immune to rust/corrosion and allows a bonus action offhand improvised weapon strike when using the Attack action with a light weapon.
#1 If using a light weapon, I would allow the bonus attack using the two-weapon fighting rule. That bonus attack could then be completed using offhand shield as an improvised weapon attack mod would be STR modifier only since your not proficient with it as a weapon and would do 1d4 damage with no damage mods. Now at the DM's option, per improvised weapon rules, a character proficient with a weapon can use a similar object as if it were that weapon and use his or her proficiency bonus, but I don't know of any weapon objects similar to a shield. Now because everyone is proficient in unarmed strikes, the DM could then rule the offhand was an unarmed strike granting proficiency bonus, but still no damage mod because it is a bonus action. So do you want more of a chance to hit use the unarmed strike option, less chance to hit and more damage, use the improvised weapon option. Still would be with a light weapon unless you hand some other feature or feat stating differently.
#2 The shields definition specifically states it is carries in one hand, therefore the hand holding the shield is occupied! The weapon in other hand causes that hand to be occupied as well. True Strike requires the caster to have free use of at least one hand to perform the gestures. Since both hands are occupied by the strictest reading pointing is a gesture and this casting would not be allowed and is why the war caster feat exists.
#3 Lets break this down:
As he has cast a spell and he is holding his main hand weapon in the off-hand now, he forfeits his chance for attacks of opportunity, e.g. if an enemy runs by until his next turn & makes the full use of the buckler unavailable (no AC bonus, no Protection ability) == With shield in this hand it uses the entirety of the hand per shield description, but as previously stated sheathing would be possible. You would still have an AC bonus because the shield would still be in hand.
#1 I would allow as I had stated.
#2 Only war caster
#3 Good!
I'm not 100%, but I'm pretty sure it has been clarified somewhere that if you have a hand empty then reaching to touch your focus or to retrieve components from a pouch (as required for an M spell) does not count as an object interaction - it is just a natural part of the Cast a Spell action along with all other somatic gestures and verbal utterances. The object interaction may be needed to empty a hand in the first place (sheath a sword for example) but once one hand is empty you are ok so long as your focus/components are easily accessible.
Thanks for the comments so far.
PS: Observation - Listening to Critical Role Campaign 2 last night & thinking about my problem stated here, I noticed that Fjord always has shield & falchion ready when casting spells like Eldrich Blast, Cadusus never puts away his shield with all his magic casting as well as Jester (who explicitly has an extra holy symbol of the traveller). They always have their +2 AC bonus applied.
Good point! I wasn't thinking about that with the use of the whistle! I will edit my original!
Putting away or donning a shield takes a full action each. Drawing or sheathing a weapon is an interaction and can be done for free.
Yeah, anyone choosing to put away either a weapon or a shield in order to cast a spell will always choose the weapon. But it is worth noting that many games/DMs just ignore these restrictions judging them more trouble than they are worth. I like that a choice is required; that a balance must be maintained - but to many this just looks like a stupid amount of unnecessary juggling that interferes with the flow of the game.
OK, does that mean that in "simple 1vs1" fights (when it is pretty clear what you want to do with your next action) you can actually circumvent all those Spell Focus / Warcasting restrictions of Somatic / Material spellcasting by sticking to the official rules on free actions?
Player had the higher initiative roll, so he starts first
1. Round: Action - Attack with Sword; Free action - Sheath sword
1. Round: Enemy attack happens (as holding a weapon or not does not make a difference in D&D to AC (or defending in general)
2. Round: Action - cast Somatic / Material Spell; Free Action - draw sword (you have a free hand for casting, circumventing restrictions)
2. Round: Enemy decides to flee ==> you can make an Attack of Opportunity (because you know have a sword in hand, again)
That sounds fishy to me :D
What exactly is fishy about it?
In this situation you still spend some rounds without a sword in your hand for use in an attack of opportunity. You are also completely unable to interact with any other objects, like open a door or whatever. It's true that it is not a very high price to pay, but it is still something.
1: You are correct. According to RAW, the shield cannot be used to attack with your bonus action.
2: You are partially correct. According to RAW, you cannot cast spells with a somatic component while wielding a sword and a shield, unless you have taken the Warcaster feat. The Warcaster feat makes you able to meet the somatic requirement while your hands are occupied, but it doesn't let you bypass the material component as you stated (unless I am misunderstanding what you wrote).
3: You are partially correct. According to RAW, you won't be able to make an attack of opportunity with your sword. However you could make an attack of opportunity with either your shield (improvised weapon) or your fist. If you have the Warcaster feat you can likewise cast a spell as an attack of opportunity. I am not entirely sure what you mean by the full use of the buckler being unavailable. You can still attack with the buckler as an attack of opportunity (and normal attack on your turn), while retaining its protective benefits, as long as you are wielding it and not using it as a frisbee.