Thinking about the relative pros and cons of various feats, I realized that neither Paladins nor Rangers get cantrips, and both usually have little regard for the spellcaster focus aspect of spellcasting in most campaigns I've seen. A few questions then:
1) Who has played a Paladin or Ranger to level 12 without taking Warcaster?
2) If you have taken Warcaster, does that make you want to multi-class MORE (or plan your build for eventual multi-classing) in order to use the Spell of Opportunity feature that comes packaged with the feat?
I probably wouldn't take it on a Ranger unless I was multiclassing with a full caster too (which I would also never actually do), but it can be useful on a Paladin depending on circumstances.
If the Paladin is going to be using a lot of multi-round concentration spells (not the smite spells), then it's useful for the advantage on concentration checks. One way or another Paladins are going to be in melee.
If the Paladin is multiclassing with Sorcerer or Warlock, then it becomes more valuable for the Booming Blade AoO replacement.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
The biggest benefit to taking Warcaster for a paladin or ranger is the ability to cast spells while holding weapons and/or shields in both hands. The ability to cast Bless or Hunter’s Mark and have advantage on your Concentration checks to maintain it is huge too since those spells are great, you don’t have many spell slots, and you want to be doing weapon damage anyway.
If it is a question of concentration, the paladin in my game plans on getting resilient in constitution instead (it will also up his modifier) and with that at level 8 he is at a + 10 constitution saving throw (+3 contitution, +3 proficiency, +4 charisma) wich is pretty good in my opinion. It also helps will all constitution saving throws instead of just concenration.
If it is a question of concentration, the paladin in my game plans on getting resilient in constitution instead (it will also up his modifier) and with that at level 8 he is at a + 10 constitution saving throw (+3 contitution, +3 proficiency, +4 charisma) wich is pretty good in my opinion. It also helps will all constitution saving throws instead of just concenration.
Sure, but most full casters will get both if they are at all afraid of being melee'd. Seems to me that Warcaster is a strictly inferior benefit-wise to Paladins and Rangers, though, due to not having any cantrips.
The biggest benefit to taking Warcaster for a paladin or ranger is the ability to cast spells while holding weapons and/or shields in both hands. The ability to cast Bless or Hunter’s Mark and have advantage on your Concentration checks to maintain it is huge too since those spells are great, you don’t have many spell slots, and you want to be doing weapon damage anyway.
Not particularly. A lot of DMs wholesale ignore the spellcasting focus thing, esp for Paladins and Rangers. On top of that, most Paladins I know put their holy symbol on their shield and Rangers, by some quirk of design, just use a component pouch, which also mostly gets ignored by DMs. The only time most DMs will even think about the focus is when they want to disarm the party and throw them in a 60s-era Batman death trap or in a prison.
Not by much. It even says in the PHB that in the Materials section that you can put your spellcasting focus on a shield. And this focus biz isn't even mentioned at all in regards to Rangers, but Rangers are supposed to be able to cast in combat while dual-wielding or while wielding a bow. See also this tweet from Jeremy Crawford. It's not in a book, but Crawford flat-out says that Rangers don't use a spell-casting focus.
"If the same cleric casts cure wounds, she needs to put the mace or the shield away, because that spell doesn’t have a material component but does have a somatic component. She’s going to need a free hand to make the spell’s gestures. If she had the War Caster feat, she could ignore this restriction."
--Jeremy Crawford
By RAW, a paladin or cleric who attempts to cast a spell while wielding both a weapon and a shield must free up one of their hands if the spell has a somatic component but lacks a material component, even if they have their holy symbol emblazoned on their shield. This includes fairly popular spells such as Cure Wounds, Divine Favor, Heroism, Dispel Magic, and Spirit Shroud. The only way to get around this is to pick up the War Caster feat,or deal with the stupidity of having to drop and pick up weapons in order to cast certain spells. This feat tax is yet another way that 5e disincentivizes people from playing sword-and-board builds. Generally, you are far better off using a two-handed weapon if you decide you want to play a melee combatant.
Not by much. It even says in the PHB that in the Materials section that you can put your spellcasting focus on a shield. And this focus biz isn't even mentioned at all in regards to Rangers, but Rangers are supposed to be able to cast in combat while dual-wielding or while wielding a bow. See also this tweet from Jeremy Crawford. It's not in a book, but Crawford flat-out says that Rangers don't use a spell-casting focus.
The fact that Rangers don't use a spellcasting focus does not mean that they are exempt from the material component requirements of spells. It just means that they have to draw those components from a spell component pouch, and they need to have a free hand in order to do that. In Tasha's, they introduce a variant rule for Rangers that allows them to use the same spellcasting foci as Druids if they so choose. Dual-wielding Rangers are still pretty much screwed unless they can get their hands on something like a Ruby of the War Mage, which allows them to use one of their weapons as a spellcasting focus. Even then, they will need to have the War Caster feat in order to cast spells like Conjure Animals which have a somatic component but lack a material component (see my previous post).
Unless you have a generous DM who ignores the rules for components, there's just no getting around the fact that, if you want to play a sword-and-board or dual-wielding spellcaster, you are either going to have to take the War Caster feat or deal with the banal stupidity of having to drop and pick up weapons in order to cast certain spells.
If it is a question of concentration, the paladin in my game plans on getting resilient in constitution instead (it will also up his modifier) and with that at level 8 he is at a + 10 constitution saving throw (+3 contitution, +3 proficiency, +4 charisma) wich is pretty good in my opinion. It also helps will all constitution saving throws instead of just concenration.
Right, Paladins have their Aura, which is almost as good as advantage on concentration saves as long as the PC has CHA boosted to +4 or +5. It seems silly that the other freq. melee range half-caster has no real boosts in this regard (except for maybe one or two subclasses in specific situations).
Not by much. It even says in the PHB that in the Materials section that you can put your spellcasting focus on a shield. And this focus biz isn't even mentioned at all in regards to Rangers, but Rangers are supposed to be able to cast in combat while dual-wielding or while wielding a bow. See also this tweet from Jeremy Crawford. It's not in a book, but Crawford flat-out says that Rangers don't use a spell-casting focus.
The fact that Rangers don't use a spellcasting focus does not mean that they are exempt from the material component requirements of spells. It just means that they have to draw those components from a spell component pouch, and they need to have a free hand in order to do that. In Tasha's, they introduce a variant rule for Rangers that allows them to use the same spellcasting foci as Druids if they so choose. Dual-wielding Rangers are still pretty much screwed unless they can get their hands on something like a Ruby of the War Mage, which allows them to use one of their weapons as a spellcasting focus. Even then, they will need to have the War Caster feat in order to cast spells like Conjure Animals which have a somatic component but lack a material component (see my previous post).
Unless you have a generous DM who ignores the rules for components, there's just no getting around the fact that, if you want to play a sword-and-board or dual-wielding spellcaster, you are either going to have to take the War Caster feat or deal with the banal stupidity of having to drop and pick up weapons in order to cast certain spells.
I recently realized that another option is to take 3 levels in Bard, for the College of Swords. That subclass lets them use their weapon as a spellcasting focus. Mileage may vary, though, since low level Bard spells don't necessarily synergize super well with Ranger (Tasha's Hideous Laughter, Mirror Image and Aid being main exceptions).
Not by much. It even says in the PHB that in the Materials section that you can put your spellcasting focus on a shield. And this focus biz isn't even mentioned at all in regards to Rangers, but Rangers are supposed to be able to cast in combat while dual-wielding or while wielding a bow. See also this tweet from Jeremy Crawford. It's not in a book, but Crawford flat-out says that Rangers don't use a spell-casting focus.
The fact that Rangers don't use a spellcasting focus does not mean that they are exempt from the material component requirements of spells. It just means that they have to draw those components from a spell component pouch, and they need to have a free hand in order to do that. In Tasha's, they introduce a variant rule for Rangers that allows them to use the same spellcasting foci as Druids if they so choose. Dual-wielding Rangers are still pretty much screwed unless they can get their hands on something like a Ruby of the War Mage, which allows them to use one of their weapons as a spellcasting focus. Even then, they will need to have the War Caster feat in order to cast spells like Conjure Animals which have a somatic component but lack a material component (see my previous post).
Unless you have a generous DM who ignores the rules for components, there's just no getting around the fact that, if you want to play a sword-and-board or dual-wielding spellcaster, you are either going to have to take the War Caster feat or deal with the banal stupidity of having to drop and pick up weapons in order to cast certain spells.
I recently realized that another option is to take 3 levels in Bard, for the College of Swords. That subclass lets them use their weapon as a spellcasting focus. Mileage may vary, though, since low level Bard spells don't necessarily synergize super well with Ranger (Tasha's Hideous Laughter, Mirror Image and Aid being main exceptions).
Only for your bard spells... Won't help with your ranger spells.
Bonus Proficiencies
When you join the College of Swords at 3rd level, you gain proficiency with medium armor and the scimitar.
If you’re proficient with a simple or martial melee weapon, you can use it as a spellcasting focus for your bard spells.
Well that's weirdly limiting. I guess it's a good thing that at least some Rangers, at least, can get cantrips now without feats or multi-classing. So not as much of a waste as it was before.
That's only the "Blessed Warrior" Fighting Style released in Tasha's, which is an optional rule. Rangers got something similar (also optional) in Tasha's as well. Thanks for pointing it out. This thread began before Tasha's Cauldron was published. I'm still not convinced that it's okay for Paladiins to get a free concentration boost through their Aura, but for most Rangers to get nothing.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Thinking about the relative pros and cons of various feats, I realized that neither Paladins nor Rangers get cantrips, and both usually have little regard for the spellcaster focus aspect of spellcasting in most campaigns I've seen. A few questions then:
1) Who has played a Paladin or Ranger to level 12 without taking Warcaster?
2) If you have taken Warcaster, does that make you want to multi-class MORE (or plan your build for eventual multi-classing) in order to use the Spell of Opportunity feature that comes packaged with the feat?
I probably wouldn't take it on a Ranger unless I was multiclassing with a full caster too (which I would also never actually do), but it can be useful on a Paladin depending on circumstances.
If the Paladin is going to be using a lot of multi-round concentration spells (not the smite spells), then it's useful for the advantage on concentration checks. One way or another Paladins are going to be in melee.
If the Paladin is multiclassing with Sorcerer or Warlock, then it becomes more valuable for the Booming Blade AoO replacement.
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
I played a polearm-wielding Ranger to level 14. I took Resilient (CON) because I felt Warcaster didn't do anything for the character.
Yeah, this is making me think that Rangers should have gotten some way to boost concentration other than through feats. Thanks.
The biggest benefit to taking Warcaster for a paladin or ranger is the ability to cast spells while holding weapons and/or shields in both hands. The ability to cast Bless or Hunter’s Mark and have advantage on your Concentration checks to maintain it is huge too since those spells are great, you don’t have many spell slots, and you want to be doing weapon damage anyway.
Professional computer geek
If it is a question of concentration, the paladin in my game plans on getting resilient in constitution instead (it will also up his modifier) and with that at level 8 he is at a + 10 constitution saving throw (+3 contitution, +3 proficiency, +4 charisma) wich is pretty good in my opinion. It also helps will all constitution saving throws instead of just concenration.
Dungeon Master in the world of Greyhawk,
Rawilow
Sure, but most full casters will get both if they are at all afraid of being melee'd. Seems to me that Warcaster is a strictly inferior benefit-wise to Paladins and Rangers, though, due to not having any cantrips.
Not particularly. A lot of DMs wholesale ignore the spellcasting focus thing, esp for Paladins and Rangers. On top of that, most Paladins I know put their holy symbol on their shield and Rangers, by some quirk of design, just use a component pouch, which also mostly gets ignored by DMs. The only time most DMs will even think about the focus is when they want to disarm the party and throw them in a 60s-era Batman death trap or in a prison.
Then that's house ruling the focuses, which is up to the DM.
Professional computer geek
Not by much. It even says in the PHB that in the Materials section that you can put your spellcasting focus on a shield. And this focus biz isn't even mentioned at all in regards to Rangers, but Rangers are supposed to be able to cast in combat while dual-wielding or while wielding a bow. See also this tweet from Jeremy Crawford. It's not in a book, but Crawford flat-out says that Rangers don't use a spell-casting focus.
"If the same cleric casts cure wounds, she needs to put the mace or the shield away, because that spell doesn’t have a material component but does have a somatic component. She’s going to need a free hand to make the spell’s gestures. If she had the War Caster feat, she could ignore this restriction."
--Jeremy Crawford
By RAW, a paladin or cleric who attempts to cast a spell while wielding both a weapon and a shield must free up one of their hands if the spell has a somatic component but lacks a material component, even if they have their holy symbol emblazoned on their shield. This includes fairly popular spells such as Cure Wounds, Divine Favor, Heroism, Dispel Magic, and Spirit Shroud. The only way to get around this is to pick up the War Caster feat,or deal with the stupidity of having to drop and pick up weapons in order to cast certain spells. This feat tax is yet another way that 5e disincentivizes people from playing sword-and-board builds. Generally, you are far better off using a two-handed weapon if you decide you want to play a melee combatant.
The fact that Rangers don't use a spellcasting focus does not mean that they are exempt from the material component requirements of spells. It just means that they have to draw those components from a spell component pouch, and they need to have a free hand in order to do that. In Tasha's, they introduce a variant rule for Rangers that allows them to use the same spellcasting foci as Druids if they so choose. Dual-wielding Rangers are still pretty much screwed unless they can get their hands on something like a Ruby of the War Mage, which allows them to use one of their weapons as a spellcasting focus. Even then, they will need to have the War Caster feat in order to cast spells like Conjure Animals which have a somatic component but lack a material component (see my previous post).
Unless you have a generous DM who ignores the rules for components, there's just no getting around the fact that, if you want to play a sword-and-board or dual-wielding spellcaster, you are either going to have to take the War Caster feat or deal with the banal stupidity of having to drop and pick up weapons in order to cast certain spells.
Right, Paladins have their Aura, which is almost as good as advantage on concentration saves as long as the PC has CHA boosted to +4 or +5. It seems silly that the other freq. melee range half-caster has no real boosts in this regard (except for maybe one or two subclasses in specific situations).
I recently realized that another option is to take 3 levels in Bard, for the College of Swords. That subclass lets them use their weapon as a spellcasting focus. Mileage may vary, though, since low level Bard spells don't necessarily synergize super well with Ranger (Tasha's Hideous Laughter, Mirror Image and Aid being main exceptions).
Only for your bard spells... Won't help with your ranger spells.
Bonus Proficiencies
When you join the College of Swords at 3rd level, you gain proficiency with medium armor and the scimitar.
If you’re proficient with a simple or martial melee weapon, you can use it as a spellcasting focus for your bard spells.
Well that's weirdly limiting. I guess it's a good thing that at least some Rangers, at least, can get cantrips now without feats or multi-classing. So not as much of a waste as it was before.
Paladins do gain access to cantrips. I'm a level 5 paladin with sacred flames and word of radiance cantrips
That's only the "Blessed Warrior" Fighting Style released in Tasha's, which is an optional rule. Rangers got something similar (also optional) in Tasha's as well. Thanks for pointing it out. This thread began before Tasha's Cauldron was published. I'm still not convinced that it's okay for Paladiins to get a free concentration boost through their Aura, but for most Rangers to get nothing.