I took message and minor illusion with eldritch knight, if I made a simple fingerless gloves out of fleece and sewed a copper wire wrapped around the pointer finger would I be able to cast the spells? Without stopping and getting components out?
I took message and minor illusion with eldritch knight, if I made a simple fingerless gloves out of fleece and sewed a copper wire wrapped around the pointer finger would I be able to cast the spells? Without stopping and getting components out?
I'd allow it, but you still have to have that hand free and not occupied with anything else, like a weapon.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
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!
Ya that's fine I basically want instant access whenever I wanna cast them then I can quickly grab my sword while keeping my shield up the whole time, I was just worried there might b some rulings against it or something, personally I think it's a cool idea lol
Ya that's fine I basically want instant access whenever I wanna cast them then I can quickly grab my sword while keeping my shield up the whole time, I was just worried there might b some rulings against it or something, personally I think it's a cool idea lol
If you are wielding a sword and shield, you don't have hands free so to speak. You'd have to put down the sword to cast the spell, even with the components literally sewn into your gloves.
My concern would be that you're trying to bypass a mechanic intended to stop you from switching between physical weapons and magic without consequence (namely, having to use an action in order to do one of the two tasks of putting your spell focus away and drawing your sword.
There is precedent. With the Paladin, your shield can effectively be your spell focus or you can just use your amulet without gripping it. However, the Paladin is already built around that premise. A Paladin is not trying to bolt on extra features of power up their character, like you. They're making their core concept work. Artificers have a similar ability, but that is a class ability. I'm always weary of taking a class ability and making it available to everyone with little cost.
I'm not saying I'd say no, but there are reasons to tread carefully, and why a DM might say no - and this is a DM decision. I don't believe that this is within RAW.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
Ya that's fine I basically want instant access whenever I wanna cast them then I can quickly grab my sword while keeping my shield up the whole time, I was just worried there might b some rulings against it or something, personally I think it's a cool idea lol
It sounds like you are expecting to cast first then draw your sword the next round which is fine. Trying to do both in the same round is normally not allowed. Technically once in combat you can drop your sword and cast then you have to find and pickup your weapon the next round (or three) - not ideal. One real world solution to this is the saber knot - a short length of cord attached to the weapon and then looped over and tightened around the wrist/gauntlet before entering combat. Originally used by mounted troops ( imagine loosing your sword in the middle of mounted combat) it would allow you to keep track of your weapon when dropped for casting and enable a quick “redrawing” of it the next round. You still are limited to either casting or attacking in each round unless you have a class/subclass feature allowing both.
Maybe take liberties and customize the cantrp so that you can wear a copper wire wielding headpiece, and activate it by thrusting out your neck and popping your eyes out as you push thoughts into the wire. Call it Message - Hands Free.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
There is precedent. With the Paladin, your shield can effectively be your spell focus or you can just use your amulet without gripping it.
That is not "precedent" and absolutely does not apply to this case in any way. A Paladin or Cleric can use a Holy Symbol as a casting focus and that symbol can be "carefully engraved or inlaid as an Emblem on a Shield" but Holy Symbol has a separate entry in the PHB equipment listing from Arcane Focus and works differently. Specifically, a Wizard (or Eldritch Knight) can not use a Holy Symbol as a focus, they have to use an Arcane Focus which must be held in a hand. Wizards are not clerics and Eldritch Knights are not Paladins. To call that a "precedent" is comparable to saying you can pilot an airplane by sitting in the cockpit and flapping your arms because that's how birds do it.
For the OP, I agree with the others who say it should work as long as that hand is free. Neither of those spells state that the component is consumed, so having said components literally wrapped around your hand should be fine. Both of your spells also require somatic components (spell-specific ritual gestures and magic finger wiggling) and the spellcasting rules specifically state that the same hand can be used for both material and somatic components of a spell, so you're good there, but you can't be doing anything else with that hand (such as holding a weapon). So if you're just looking for a bit of flavor for your character to not have to dig through a fanny pack to cast their spells (even though doing so doesn't RAW require any extra action so long as you have a hand free) then I see no problem with your idea. As neither minor illusion nor message are spells I imagine you'd even want to cast during combat in most cases it shouldn't really be an issue as long as you just remember you need the hand wearing the glove to not be holding anything else because you're effectively "holding" the spell with it via the material components and somatic gestures.
There is precedent. With the Paladin, your shield can effectively be your spell focus or you can just use your amulet without gripping it.
That is not "precedent" and absolutely does not apply to this case in any way. A Paladin or Cleric can use a Holy Symbol as a casting focus and that symbol can be "carefully engraved or inlaid as an Emblem on a Shield" but Holy Symbol has a separate entry in the PHB equipment listing from Arcane Focus and works differently. Specifically, a Wizard (or Eldritch Knight) can not use a Holy Symbol as a focus, they have to use an Arcane Focus which must be held in a hand. Wizards are not clerics and Eldritch Knights are not Paladins. .
A precedent is "any act, decision, or case that serves as a guide or justification for subsequent situations". That they used a different name for the device is irrelevant.im talking about the mechanic of being able to switch between spells and physical weapons.
It's a precedent because it's a case where a character does not have to switch between a focus and a weapon. The fact that it is specifically locked away from other casters is my point - they could have allowed a Wizard to inlay their focus into a quarterstaff and make Gandalf, or some other weapon, but explicitly chose to withhold that ability. That should give at the very least pause, before freely giving out the class abilities of three classes to someone else - would you really be happy giving a Bard the ability to regain spell slots with a short rest without thinking about it?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I took message and minor illusion with eldritch knight, if I made a simple fingerless gloves out of fleece and sewed a copper wire wrapped around the pointer finger would I be able to cast the spells? Without stopping and getting components out?
I'd allow it, but you still have to have that hand free and not occupied with anything else, like a weapon.
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!
Ya that's fine I basically want instant access whenever I wanna cast them then I can quickly grab my sword while keeping my shield up the whole time, I was just worried there might b some rulings against it or something, personally I think it's a cool idea lol
If you are wielding a sword and shield, you don't have hands free so to speak. You'd have to put down the sword to cast the spell, even with the components literally sewn into your gloves.
It'd be upto the DM.
My concern would be that you're trying to bypass a mechanic intended to stop you from switching between physical weapons and magic without consequence (namely, having to use an action in order to do one of the two tasks of putting your spell focus away and drawing your sword.
There is precedent. With the Paladin, your shield can effectively be your spell focus or you can just use your amulet without gripping it. However, the Paladin is already built around that premise. A Paladin is not trying to bolt on extra features of power up their character, like you. They're making their core concept work. Artificers have a similar ability, but that is a class ability. I'm always weary of taking a class ability and making it available to everyone with little cost.
I'm not saying I'd say no, but there are reasons to tread carefully, and why a DM might say no - and this is a DM decision. I don't believe that this is within RAW.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
It sounds like you are expecting to cast first then draw your sword the next round which is fine. Trying to do both in the same round is normally not allowed. Technically once in combat you can drop your sword and cast then you have to find and pickup your weapon the next round (or three) - not ideal. One real world solution to this is the saber knot - a short length of cord attached to the weapon and then looped over and tightened around the wrist/gauntlet before entering combat. Originally used by mounted troops ( imagine loosing your sword in the middle of mounted combat) it would allow you to keep track of your weapon when dropped for casting and enable a quick “redrawing” of it the next round. You still are limited to either casting or attacking in each round unless you have a class/subclass feature allowing both.
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
Maybe take liberties and customize the cantrp so that you can wear a copper wire wielding headpiece, and activate it by thrusting out your neck and popping your eyes out as you push thoughts into the wire. Call it Message - Hands Free.
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
That is not "precedent" and absolutely does not apply to this case in any way. A Paladin or Cleric can use a Holy Symbol as a casting focus and that symbol can be "carefully engraved or inlaid as an Emblem on a Shield" but Holy Symbol has a separate entry in the PHB equipment listing from Arcane Focus and works differently. Specifically, a Wizard (or Eldritch Knight) can not use a Holy Symbol as a focus, they have to use an Arcane Focus which must be held in a hand. Wizards are not clerics and Eldritch Knights are not Paladins. To call that a "precedent" is comparable to saying you can pilot an airplane by sitting in the cockpit and flapping your arms because that's how birds do it.
For the OP, I agree with the others who say it should work as long as that hand is free. Neither of those spells state that the component is consumed, so having said components literally wrapped around your hand should be fine. Both of your spells also require somatic components (spell-specific ritual gestures and magic finger wiggling) and the spellcasting rules specifically state that the same hand can be used for both material and somatic components of a spell, so you're good there, but you can't be doing anything else with that hand (such as holding a weapon). So if you're just looking for a bit of flavor for your character to not have to dig through a fanny pack to cast their spells (even though doing so doesn't RAW require any extra action so long as you have a hand free) then I see no problem with your idea. As neither minor illusion nor message are spells I imagine you'd even want to cast during combat in most cases it shouldn't really be an issue as long as you just remember you need the hand wearing the glove to not be holding anything else because you're effectively "holding" the spell with it via the material components and somatic gestures.
A precedent is "any act, decision, or case that serves as a guide or justification for subsequent situations". That they used a different name for the device is irrelevant.im talking about the mechanic of being able to switch between spells and physical weapons.
It's a precedent because it's a case where a character does not have to switch between a focus and a weapon. The fact that it is specifically locked away from other casters is my point - they could have allowed a Wizard to inlay their focus into a quarterstaff and make Gandalf, or some other weapon, but explicitly chose to withhold that ability. That should give at the very least pause, before freely giving out the class abilities of three classes to someone else - would you really be happy giving a Bard the ability to regain spell slots with a short rest without thinking about it?
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.