OK, I think I've just realized I've been playing Hexblade and Shield spell wrong.
How does a Sword and Board Hexblade cast Shield spell? It requires a free hand for Somatic. I realized even if your pact weapon is your spell focus, that only eliminates the needs for components.
Can you use a free action in your reaction to drop your weapon as well as cast Shield? It doesn't sounds very practicial.
Can you use a free action in your reaction to drop your weapon as well as cast Shield?
The game's designers intended for dropping or letting go of things to be a non-action. For example you can release a grappled opponent at any time, conditions like stunned can cause you to drop held items, and forcing players to waste their object interaction if they want to stop holding a weapon two-handed to grapple someone or pick something up would be absurd.
That said the topic isn't covered explicitly in the rules so technically it comes down to your DM. I think most would allow it, since if they don't they'll be giving you a big incentive to do very silly things like sheathing and drawing your sword between turns to keep that hand free for reactions. If you're really worried about it, consider taking the War Caster feat. It's a good investment for melee spellcasters for multiple reasons.
I believe the rules state that the somatic component is covered by making gestures with the hand holding the implement...in this case, your weapon.
From the PHB:
Somatic (S)
Spellcasting gestures might include a forceful gesticulation or an intricate set of gestures. If a spell requires a somatic component, the caster must have free use of at least one hand to perform these gestures.
Also:
Material (M)
...
A spellcaster must have a hand free to access a spell's material components — or to hold a spellcasting focus — but it can be the same hand that he or she uses to perform somatic components.
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Sounds a little wasted, using a whole ASI just so you can cast Shield spell while holding a sword and shield. Also that means you can't use Shield levels 1-3 without dropping your sword.
I wished Hexblades could use their pact weapon for Somatic and Material.
The rules are not clear on it. Any DM that doesn't let you cast that way is horrible.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Sounds a little wasted, using a whole ASI just so you can cast Shield spell while holding a sword and shield. Also that means you can't use Shield levels 1-3 without dropping your sword.
War Caster is never a waste for a melee spellcaster. Advantage on concentration saves and casting spells in place of an opportunity attack are already worth the feat. That goes double for Rangers and Warlocks since their bread and butter concentration spell lasts at least an hour. You're practically getting free Action Surges for your non-area spells (e.g. Booming Blade, Command, Blindness/Deafness, Mind Spike, Bestow Curse), and if anyone in the party has Dissonant Whispers they can even force those opportunity attacks for you.
Simplifying your spellcasting is just icing on the cake.
The rules are not clear on it. Any DM that doesn't let you cast that way is horrible.
It's not unclear. The text for M components is only relevant to spells that have M components, just like the rules for V components only apply to spells that have V components. Counterspell has no V components, therefore you don't say any magic words while casting it.
If you were meant to be able to perform S components with a hand that's holding a spellcasting focus independently of whether it's actually needed, they would've put that text in the rules for S components. That said, having both S and M components on a spell is a needless complication if you ask me. The system would've been a lot simpler if spells were labeled with either S or M, since M already kind of functions the same way as S.
This is also covered in Sage Advice Compendium with an example of a cleric having to put away their weapon or shield for Cure Wounds, so that's definitely the official way to interpret the rules.
Is it inconvenient? Yeah. But magic is incredibly powerful in 5e compared to the mundane things a Fighter is limited to. It should come with strings attached; spellcasters can't even be effectively disarmed since most cantrips have no M component, and unlike martial characters they only need one hand to deal damage in the same ballpark as martial weapons like longbows. Every spellcaster is effectively a human gun.
And that goes double for the Shield spell in particular, which can retroactively negate attacks you didn't see coming, and then makes you a pain in the ass to hit for the rest of the round. Having to give up your weapon or shield is literally the only drawback of the spell; it's so strong for its 1st level cost that using it every time you get hit is a complete no-brainer for wizards.
Is the limitation arbitrary? Sure, but so is being able to cast Counterspell in an area of Silence. Sometimes the rules work in your favor, sometimes they don't.
Warcaster would only help in the OP's edge case of being a blade lock. A wizard with a shield strapped on would not be able to cast the shield spell while holding an rod, wand, or crystal. technically, a focus staff does not qualify either, as it can be treated as a weapon but is not one in and of itself.
You can perform the somatic components of spells even when you have weapons or a shield in one or both hands.
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
A wizard with a shield strapped on would not be able to cast the shield spell while holding an rod, wand, or crystal.
This is rarely ever an issue for wizards since they're not proficient with shields, can't easily gain that proficiency without multiclassing, and they have very few incentives to be in melee range unless they're Bladesingers, which can't use Bladesong with a shield anyways.
technically, a focus staff does not qualify either, as it can be treated as a weapon but is not one in and of itself.
If you wanna be really pedantic about it, that's true. The improvised weapon rules do allow the DM to call an arcane focus staff a quarterstaff though, and I suspect most people already run it that way on account of magic staffs also doubling as quarterstaffs.
You're being pretty pendantic about not being able to create a semantic gesture using a hand bearing an approved implement. The rules clearly state that you CAN make a somatic gesture with a hand bearing an implement; it's very clear under the text in the PHB. You're saying that /only/ applies if the spell requires a material component. I disagree. I see your point on the exact wording, but I disagree with you. My take is that you can perform a somatic gesture while holding an implement; the rules clearly say you can and you're edge casing to say that it does not in certain scenarios. It's a purely semantic argument on your part.
I was merely pointing out a scenario where by use of feat, or multiclass, a wizard could run into the same problem and warcaster would not save them based on the text of the feat. You can rule it does what it says, or you can extrapolate that what they mean is, with warcaster you do not have to worry about keeping a free hand.
I think it's pretty clear that it's RAI to be able to cast a spell while holding only an implement in your hand, and the focus may take the place of any un-consumable component.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Good Lord are there really DM's out there who think telling a player "you have to tell me that you put away your spell focus before casting Shield" is a good way to have a productive D&D session??? Good Heavens I could never play with some of the insane rules lawyers I see on this website.......remember kids Jeremy Crawford is on the record that fun and story ALWAYS trumps mechanics/rules.
"It is true that there is a correct way to play: whatever way gives your group the most joy. That's it." -Jeremy Crawford"
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.
The last sentence is the important bit. Yes, the rules technically say that if your spell has a somatic component but no material component, you cannot use a focus occupied hand to fulfill that requirement. Many DM's ignore this, though, and that's just fine.
Good Lord are there really DM's out there who think telling a player "you have to tell me that you put away your spell focus before casting Shield" is a good way to have a productive D&D session??? Good Heavens I could never play with some of the insane rules lawyers I see on this website.......remember kids Jeremy Crawford is on the record that fun and story ALWAYS trumps mechanics/rules.
Dunno why you're getting mad at us for clearing up the rulesor some DMs for following them when it's the game's designers that made the rule you dislike in the first place.
Good Lord are there really DM's out there who think telling a player "you have to tell me that you put away your spell focus before casting Shield" is a good way to have a productive D&D session??? Good Heavens I could never play with some of the insane rules lawyers I see on this website.......remember kids Jeremy Crawford is on the record that fun and story ALWAYS trumps mechanics/rules.
Dunno why you're getting mad at us for clearing up the rulesor some DMs for following them when it's the game's designers that made the rule you dislike in the first place.
Haha not mad at all. More like bewildered amusement / exasperation. My point is a good DM is not going to force a player to vocalize that if he has a shield in one hand and a spell focus in the other that he has to use a free action to pocket the spell focus to cast shield. He is going to take the fact that the player casts shield at face value.
Since you seemed triggered by my comment, I will say I have been on this site for YEARS and I have noticed two things about Inquisitive Coder-
1- he/she is very helpful and freely shares his/her near encyclopedic knowledge of the rules & sage advice
2- he/she seems to take a particular delight in advocating positions of being a "Gotcha, you can't do that!" style of DM. This is true even on positions that are controversial and probably not correct. I suppose if that makes your table happy then you are fine.
Nah, I prefer to have rules that don't lead to "gotcha" moments (like the fact that knocking a creature prone doesn't make them any worse at dodging Fireballs), don't encourage players to do absurd things (like fighting in darkness to negate disadvantage on their attacks), and don't under-deliver on their promises (like the Way of the Four Elements.) I homebrew a lot of the core rules for the sake of a smoother play experience.
I just happen to think this particular rule is fairly clear, has some merit and either way players should understand the rules and assume they'll be enforced until they've had a conversation with the DM about it.
Can you use a free action in your reaction to drop your weapon as well as cast Shield?
The game's designers intended for dropping or letting go of things to be a non-action...
That said the topic isn't covered explicitly in the rules so...
Just to clarify, dropping a shield IS specifically covered in the rules. "Getting Into and Out of Armor" in the Equipment section of the PHB lists doffing a shield as one action.
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.
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.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
OK, I think I've just realized I've been playing Hexblade and Shield spell wrong.
How does a Sword and Board Hexblade cast Shield spell? It requires a free hand for Somatic. I realized even if your pact weapon is your spell focus, that only eliminates the needs for components.
Can you use a free action in your reaction to drop your weapon as well as cast Shield? It doesn't sounds very practicial.
The game's designers intended for dropping or letting go of things to be a non-action. For example you can release a grappled opponent at any time, conditions like stunned can cause you to drop held items, and forcing players to waste their object interaction if they want to stop holding a weapon two-handed to grapple someone or pick something up would be absurd.
That said the topic isn't covered explicitly in the rules so technically it comes down to your DM. I think most would allow it, since if they don't they'll be giving you a big incentive to do very silly things like sheathing and drawing your sword between turns to keep that hand free for reactions. If you're really worried about it, consider taking the War Caster feat. It's a good investment for melee spellcasters for multiple reasons.
The Forum Infestation (TM)
I believe the rules state that the somatic component is covered by making gestures with the hand holding the implement...in this case, your weapon.
From the PHB:
Somatic (S)
Spellcasting gestures might include a forceful gesticulation or an intricate set of gestures. If a spell requires a somatic component, the caster must have free use of at least one hand to perform these gestures.
Also:
Material (M)
...
A spellcaster must have a hand free to access a spell's material components — or to hold a spellcasting focus — but it can be the same hand that he or she uses to perform somatic components.
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Tasha
That only applies when the spell actually has a material component. Shield doesn't.
The Forum Infestation (TM)
You can also just get the warcaster feat.
When the DM smiles, it is already to late.
Yeah. I think the best way to do it would be War Caster.
Please check out my homebrew and give me feedback!
Subclasses | Races | Spells | Magic Items | Monsters | Feats | Backgrounds
Sounds a little wasted, using a whole ASI just so you can cast Shield spell while holding a sword and shield. Also that means you can't use Shield levels 1-3 without dropping your sword.
I wished Hexblades could use their pact weapon for Somatic and Material.
The rules are not clear on it. Any DM that doesn't let you cast that way is horrible.
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Tasha
War Caster is never a waste for a melee spellcaster. Advantage on concentration saves and casting spells in place of an opportunity attack are already worth the feat. That goes double for Rangers and Warlocks since their bread and butter concentration spell lasts at least an hour. You're practically getting free Action Surges for your non-area spells (e.g. Booming Blade, Command, Blindness/Deafness, Mind Spike, Bestow Curse), and if anyone in the party has Dissonant Whispers they can even force those opportunity attacks for you.
Simplifying your spellcasting is just icing on the cake.
It's not unclear. The text for M components is only relevant to spells that have M components, just like the rules for V components only apply to spells that have V components. Counterspell has no V components, therefore you don't say any magic words while casting it.
If you were meant to be able to perform S components with a hand that's holding a spellcasting focus independently of whether it's actually needed, they would've put that text in the rules for S components. That said, having both S and M components on a spell is a needless complication if you ask me. The system would've been a lot simpler if spells were labeled with either S or M, since M already kind of functions the same way as S.
This is also covered in Sage Advice Compendium with an example of a cleric having to put away their weapon or shield for Cure Wounds, so that's definitely the official way to interpret the rules.
Is it inconvenient? Yeah. But magic is incredibly powerful in 5e compared to the mundane things a Fighter is limited to. It should come with strings attached; spellcasters can't even be effectively disarmed since most cantrips have no M component, and unlike martial characters they only need one hand to deal damage in the same ballpark as martial weapons like longbows. Every spellcaster is effectively a human gun.
And that goes double for the Shield spell in particular, which can retroactively negate attacks you didn't see coming, and then makes you a pain in the ass to hit for the rest of the round. Having to give up your weapon or shield is literally the only drawback of the spell; it's so strong for its 1st level cost that using it every time you get hit is a complete no-brainer for wizards.
Is the limitation arbitrary? Sure, but so is being able to cast Counterspell in an area of Silence. Sometimes the rules work in your favor, sometimes they don't.
The Forum Infestation (TM)
Warcaster would only help in the OP's edge case of being a blade lock. A wizard with a shield strapped on would not be able to cast the shield spell while holding an rod, wand, or crystal. technically, a focus staff does not qualify either, as it can be treated as a weapon but is not one in and of itself.
You can perform the somatic components of spells even when you have weapons or a shield in one or both hands.
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Tasha
This is rarely ever an issue for wizards since they're not proficient with shields, can't easily gain that proficiency without multiclassing, and they have very few incentives to be in melee range unless they're Bladesingers, which can't use Bladesong with a shield anyways.
If you wanna be really pedantic about it, that's true. The improvised weapon rules do allow the DM to call an arcane focus staff a quarterstaff though, and I suspect most people already run it that way on account of magic staffs also doubling as quarterstaffs.
The Forum Infestation (TM)
You're being pretty pendantic about not being able to create a semantic gesture using a hand bearing an approved implement. The rules clearly state that you CAN make a somatic gesture with a hand bearing an implement; it's very clear under the text in the PHB. You're saying that /only/ applies if the spell requires a material component. I disagree. I see your point on the exact wording, but I disagree with you. My take is that you can perform a somatic gesture while holding an implement; the rules clearly say you can and you're edge casing to say that it does not in certain scenarios. It's a purely semantic argument on your part.
I was merely pointing out a scenario where by use of feat, or multiclass, a wizard could run into the same problem and warcaster would not save them based on the text of the feat. You can rule it does what it says, or you can extrapolate that what they mean is, with warcaster you do not have to worry about keeping a free hand.
I think it's pretty clear that it's RAI to be able to cast a spell while holding only an implement in your hand, and the focus may take the place of any un-consumable component.
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Tasha
Good Lord are there really DM's out there who think telling a player "you have to tell me that you put away your spell focus before casting Shield" is a good way to have a productive D&D session??? Good Heavens I could never play with some of the insane rules lawyers I see on this website.......remember kids Jeremy Crawford is on the record that fun and story ALWAYS trumps mechanics/rules.
"It is true that there is a correct way to play: whatever way gives your group the most joy. That's it." -Jeremy Crawford"
From the Sage Advice Compendium
The last sentence is the important bit. Yes, the rules technically say that if your spell has a somatic component but no material component, you cannot use a focus occupied hand to fulfill that requirement. Many DM's ignore this, though, and that's just fine.
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!
Dunno why you're getting mad at us for clearing up the rules or some DMs for following them when it's the game's designers that made the rule you dislike in the first place.
The Forum Infestation (TM)
Haha not mad at all. More like bewildered amusement / exasperation. My point is a good DM is not going to force a player to vocalize that if he has a shield in one hand and a spell focus in the other that he has to use a free action to pocket the spell focus to cast shield. He is going to take the fact that the player casts shield at face value.
Since you seemed triggered by my comment, I will say I have been on this site for YEARS and I have noticed two things about Inquisitive Coder-
1- he/she is very helpful and freely shares his/her near encyclopedic knowledge of the rules & sage advice
2- he/she seems to take a particular delight in advocating positions of being a "Gotcha, you can't do that!" style of DM. This is true even on positions that are controversial and probably not correct. I suppose if that makes your table happy then you are fine.
Nah, I prefer to have rules that don't lead to "gotcha" moments (like the fact that knocking a creature prone doesn't make them any worse at dodging Fireballs), don't encourage players to do absurd things (like fighting in darkness to negate disadvantage on their attacks), and don't under-deliver on their promises (like the Way of the Four Elements.) I homebrew a lot of the core rules for the sake of a smoother play experience.
I just happen to think this particular rule is fairly clear, has some merit and either way players should understand the rules and assume they'll be enforced until they've had a conversation with the DM about it.
The Forum Infestation (TM)
Just to clarify, dropping a shield IS specifically covered in the rules. "Getting Into and Out of Armor" in the Equipment section of the PHB lists doffing a shield as one action.
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.