What’s the amount of interaction needed to use a spellcasting focus? Does it have to be included in the somatic component?
If a spell has a material component, you need to handle that component when you cast the spell. The same rule applies if you’re using a spellcasting focus as the material component.
If a spell has a somatic component, you can use the hand that performs the somatic component to also handle the material component. For example, a wizard who uses an orb as a spellcasting focus could hold a quarterstaff in one hand and the orb in the other, and he could cast lightning bolt by using the orb as the spell’s material component and the orb hand to perform the spell’s somatic component.
Another example: a cleric’s holy symbol is emblazoned on her shield. She likes to wade into melee combat with a mace in one hand and a shield in the other. She uses the holy symbol as her spellcasting focus, so she needs to have the shield in hand when she casts a cleric spell that has a material component. If the spell, such as aid, also has a somatic component, she can perform that component with the shield hand and keep holding the mace in the other.
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.
You've made a fair point. I'm content that someone finally gave a source for their argument (if someone had posted that 20 hours ago, this would have been over then). That's sufficient for me to stop arguing, even as I continue to believe that it is a poor ruling that isn't in the rulebook itself, and instead comes from an online article that includes other bad rulings, even though they're technically "official".
Example:
Can a monk use Stunning Strike with an unarmed strike, even though unarmed strikes aren’t weapons?
Yes. Stunning Strike works with melee weapon attacks,and an unarmed strike is a special type of melee weapon attack.
The game often makes exceptions to general rules, and this is an important exception: that unarmed strikes count as melee weapon attacks despite not being weapons.
Can a paladin use Divine Smite when they hit using an unarmed strike?
No. Divine Smite isn’t intended to work with unarmed strikes.
Divine Smite does work with a melee weapon attack, and an unarmed strike can be used to make such an attack. But the text of Divine Smite also refers to the “weapon’s damage,” and an unarmed strike isn’t a weapon.
If a DM decides to override this rule, no imbalance is created. Tying Divine Smite to weapons was a thematic choice on our part—paladins being traditionally associated with weapons. It was not a game balance choice.
Merely a page apart, the Sage Advice Compendium says that unarmed Strikes are, and are not weapons. Their rules lack consistency of interpretation.
One checks for a "weapon attack" the other checks for an "attack with a weapon". While superficially similar, the first is simply referring to a type of attack roll- to contrast with a magic attack- and the second checks for the character using a piece of equipment to make an attack.
What’s the amount of interaction needed to use a spellcasting focus? Does it have to be included in the somatic component?
If a spell has a material component, you need to handle that component when you cast the spell. The same rule applies if you’re using a spellcasting focus as the material component.
If a spell has a somatic component, you can use the hand that performs the somatic component to also handle the material component. For example, a wizard who uses an orb as a spellcasting focus could hold a quarterstaff in one hand and the orb in the other, and he could cast lightning bolt by using the orb as the spell’s material component and the orb hand to perform the spell’s somatic component.
Another example: a cleric’s holy symbol is emblazoned on her shield. She likes to wade into melee combat with a mace in one hand and a shield in the other. She uses the holy symbol as her spellcasting focus, so she needs to have the shield in hand when she casts a cleric spell that has a material component. If the spell, such as aid, also has a somatic component, she can perform that component with the shield hand and keep holding the mace in the other.
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.
You've made a fair point. I'm content that someone finally gave a source for their argument (if someone had posted that 20 hours ago, this would have been over then). That's sufficient for me to stop arguing, even as I continue to believe that it is a poor ruling that isn't in the rulebook itself, and instead comes from an online article that includes other bad rulings, even though they're technically "official".
Example:
Can a monk use Stunning Strike with an unarmed strike, even though unarmed strikes aren’t weapons?
Yes. Stunning Strike works with melee weapon attacks,and an unarmed strike is a special type of melee weapon attack.
The game often makes exceptions to general rules, and this is an important exception: that unarmed strikes count as melee weapon attacks despite not being weapons.
Can a paladin use Divine Smite when they hit using an unarmed strike?
No. Divine Smite isn’t intended to work with unarmed strikes.
Divine Smite does work with a melee weapon attack, and an unarmed strike can be used to make such an attack. But the text of Divine Smite also refers to the “weapon’s damage,” and an unarmed strike isn’t a weapon.
If a DM decides to override this rule, no imbalance is created. Tying Divine Smite to weapons was a thematic choice on our part—paladins being traditionally associated with weapons. It was not a game balance choice.
Merely a page apart, the Sage Advice Compendium says that unarmed Strikes are, and are not weapons. Their rules lack consistency of interpretation.
One checks for a "weapon attack" the other checks for an "attack with a weapon". While superficially similar, the first is simply referring to a type of attack roll- to contrast with a magic attack- and the second checks for the character using a piece of equipment to make an attack.
The distinction between a "weapon attack" and an "attack with a weapon" is poorly defined, nonsensical, and asinine. It's like saying "the wall that is blue" means something different than "the blue wall".
One checks for a "weapon attack" the other checks for an "attack with a weapon". While superficially similar, the first is simply referring to a type of attack roll- to contrast with a magic attack- and the second checks for the character using a piece of equipment to make an attack.
The distinction between a "weapon attack" and an "attack with a weapon" is poorly defined, nonsensical, and asinine. It's like saying "the wall that is blue" means something different than "the blue wall".
Yup. The fact there’s a difference between a “melee weapon attack” and an “attack with a melee weapon” is one of the most maddening things about this edition. But, there it is.
Effectively to do your escrima dual wielding spellcaster you need the TWF fighting style, the dual wielding and war caster feats and a Ruby of the war mage and a sword knot on at least one stick. Even then any spells cast that use up components or have costly components you will have to drop one stick to handle the components. The r y allows one weapon to be your focus so you can ignore non costly/used up material components, war caster allows you to cast with both hands full, dual wielding allows you to use non light weapons and TWF style grants you the stat bonus on both attacks. Blade song doesn’t give a fighting style so you probably want 2 levels in either ranger or Paladin to get the style as well as base class spells and slots.
Effectively to do your escrima dual wielding spellcaster you need the TWF fighting style, the dual wielding and war caster feats and a Ruby of the war mage and a sword knot on at least one stick. Even then any spells cast that use up components or have costly components you will have to drop one stick to handle the components. The r y allows one weapon to be your focus so you can ignore non costly/used up material components, war caster allows you to cast with both hands full, dual wielding allows you to use non light weapons and TWF style grants you the stat bonus on both attacks. Blade song doesn’t give a fighting style so you probably want 2 levels in either ranger or Paladin to get the style as well as base class spells and slots.
The damage bonus from the fighting style is nice, but I don't know that I'd call it necessary to the concept -- especially if you end up using your bonus action more for casting (misty step etc) or bladesinging
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
I grant that above about L8 whether a ranger, bladesinger, bard etc you are better off casting than meleeing in most cases, you are going to have to melee occasionally. Escrima is a double weapon style so you might as well grab all the pieces you can. For that matter the big benefit to the dual wielding feat isn’t the non light weapons it’s the +1 to AC. The Escrima sticks are actually a stand in for kris knife like weapons that qualify as either short swords or scimitars which are both light weapons. I can see a bladesinger forgoing the ranger/fighter/etc dip and skipping the fighting style in order to get to L6 and 2 attacks as quickly as possible.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
One checks for a "weapon attack" the other checks for an "attack with a weapon". While superficially similar, the first is simply referring to a type of attack roll- to contrast with a magic attack- and the second checks for the character using a piece of equipment to make an attack.
The distinction between a "weapon attack" and an "attack with a weapon" is poorly defined, nonsensical, and asinine. It's like saying "the wall that is blue" means something different than "the blue wall".
Yup. The fact there’s a difference between a “melee weapon attack” and an “attack with a melee weapon” is one of the most maddening things about this edition. But, there it is.
Effectively to do your escrima dual wielding spellcaster you need the TWF fighting style, the dual wielding and war caster feats and a Ruby of the war mage and a sword knot on at least one stick. Even then any spells cast that use up components or have costly components you will have to drop one stick to handle the components. The r y allows one weapon to be your focus so you can ignore non costly/used up material components, war caster allows you to cast with both hands full, dual wielding allows you to use non light weapons and TWF style grants you the stat bonus on both attacks. Blade song doesn’t give a fighting style so you probably want 2 levels in either ranger or Paladin to get the style as well as base class spells and slots.
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
The damage bonus from the fighting style is nice, but I don't know that I'd call it necessary to the concept -- especially if you end up using your bonus action more for casting (misty step etc) or bladesinging
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
I grant that above about L8 whether a ranger, bladesinger, bard etc you are better off casting than meleeing in most cases, you are going to have to melee occasionally. Escrima is a double weapon style so you might as well grab all the pieces you can. For that matter the big benefit to the dual wielding feat isn’t the non light weapons it’s the +1 to AC. The Escrima sticks are actually a stand in for kris knife like weapons that qualify as either short swords or scimitars which are both light weapons. I can see a bladesinger forgoing the ranger/fighter/etc dip and skipping the fighting style in order to get to L6 and 2 attacks as quickly as possible.
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.