Can you cast a somatic component spell if you are using a two handed weapon or holding a shield in the offhand? Curious how a wizard with a staff, paladin going sword and board and the such deal with that requirement to cast spells?
No, and yes.
You need 1 free hand for somatics, not 2. So you can hold an off-hand shield.
And some spells (palains and rangers in paticular) do not have a somatic component.
Also, there's a warcaster feat.
If a paladin is holding a sword and a shield, just to be clear, they couldnt cast a somatic component?
Same if they are wielding a two handed weapon? (Which I understand that its a balancing act of course)
Edit: Also means a wizard using a quarter staff cant cast half of their spell library?
According to Mearls, if a Paladin (or Cleric) has a holy symbol emblazened on their shield enabling the shield to be used as a Divine Focus, that same sheild hand can also be used for Somatic components too. The same applies to a wizard holding a Staff that's an arcane focus with two hands.
-Polaris
What about druids...bards...rangers?
Ranger using a two handed bow for instance.
Faytte wrote:
A paladin or cleric can put the required holy symbol upon a shield, which satisfies both the material and somatic components. If you use a weapon in two hands, then it's trivial for you to remove one hand from your weapon, just long enough to cast a spell (but you would need the holy symbol somewhere else on your person). Paladins cannot easily perform the somatic component of spells while dual-wielding, which is probably why they don't have access to that fighting style.
A wizard can use a staff in two hands, or use a staff in one hand while carrying a shield, and use the staff as both somatic and material components. A wizard could also use some other two-handed weapon, and remove a hand briefly for the purpose of casting a spell, but would also need a spell component pouch. Wizards cannot easily benefit from dual-wielding, as doing so would also prevent them from casting spells with somatic (or possibly material) components.
Basically it's up to your group and DM to determine how important this sort of concern is versus the potential mental recordkeeping required to enact it.
Personally, I think there should be a trade-off between using lots of (or big) weapons and shields, so I make my characters sheathe a weapon before using S or M spells. (Or take the War Caster feat.)
I'm coming around to the Holy Symbol/Shield situation being okay for Paladins and Clerics, as it is pretty clear the designers intended it (even though I interpreted the actual rules differently.) Druids, Bards, and Rangers are pretty boned about the shield thing though. They have to sheathe something or take War Caster.
As far as two-handed weapons go, I definitely don't agree with "taking a hand" off the weapon to cast a spell- you either sheathe it or you don't, but you can't go half-way. In my book, "taking your hand of the weapon long enough to cast a spell" is the same mechanic as sheathing it. Versatile weapons wielded in two hands obviously allow for this "taking a hand off" approach, which is why I wouldn't use it with a greatsword - it gives one small consideration for using a longsword (or other versatile weapon) in two hands.
It seems weird they would make a rule then basically give you so many ways to ignore it o.O
Pretty confusing to know if by ignoring it if im overpowering spells, or if by adhering to it if im penalizing player fun too much.
On spell Focuses:
I see nothing saying a spell focus frees up your hand. Chapter 10 (unter material components) notes that a spell focus can replace material components but you still need a free hand to access your spell focus. But...thats MATERIAL component, not somatic.It states you can use the same FREE hand to also cast your somatic component, but even if a shield counted as a material component cause the symbol of pelor was on it, its not a FREE hand to cast a somatic spell with.
It seems by raw, everyone casting spells is sheathing weapons repeatedly or using one handers. This is probably the first awkward/bad rule I have seen in 4e but sadly, it affects more than half the classes. Ignoring it means things like Warcaster are not s valuable...
Faytte wrote:
Somatic components require a free hand.
Focuses count for the material component.
Paladin and cleric's focus do not take a hand.
To use the symbol in this way, the caster must hold it in hand, wear it visibly, or bear it on a shield.
Component pouches are also worn, but still require a free hand.
Having researched the issue:
For anyone who gets Holy Symbol, it's as easy as having a holy symbol 'visible' on your person. It specifically exempts people with holy symbols from having this restriction, so that negates the necessity for paladins and clerics.
As for druids, they can use staves and totems (read: clubs) as druidic focuses. There is specific wording in the case of Holy Symbols and Druidic focii that allows them to be items easily incorporated into other items, whereas arcane focii seem to lack this. Rangers don't need an implement of any kind, they just have their proficiency baked in, and the same is true for monks.
As for arcane focii, it looks like they need to be held to remove component costs and add proficiency, however that may be done as a balance mechanic. It says nothing about removing the somatic component, therefore it would be my suggestion that one essentially needs to always have an open hand to do somatic components of spells until one gets warcaster, provided your spells actually have somatic components (typically only arcane spells)
Focus does not negate the need to have a hand free for spells with the S tag, only for spells with the M tag. I think people are confusing the two.
Arcane Focus Replaces Material components and can be worn=Awesome.
Somatic Spells require a hand free=nothing negates this minus War Caster.
As to Paladin spells, there are plenty of paladin spells with the S component; Bless for instance. If you mean Paladin ONLY spells, thats I think is true.
Faytte wrote:
Faytte wrote:
Polaris wrote:
mellored wrote:
If you use a little common sense in addition to the RAW & RAI it's not that difficult. If you are weilding a weapon in 2 hands(i.e. 2 handed or versitile trait), what happens if you let go with one hand? Nothing, you just can't swing it effectively. Which you're not, because you are casting a spell with the free hand(which is all that is required). If you are weilding a weapon in each hand or using a shield/weapon combo(dual-wielding for the weapons), what happens if you free one of your hands up? You drop something. The reasoning behind the not normally being able to cast with a shield in the off hand is because a shield is strapped to the forearm and there is a handle for your hand. If you release the hand, you won't have full dextrous mobility of that hand, it's restricted by the shield being in the way. Apparent;y, in D&D, that is enough to not qualify for casting a spell, you need full mobility of a free hand. And as stated above, the easiest solution would be to emblazon your focus onto your shield or maybe make the crosshilt design of your sword or blade of axe your focus. It would require spending money on the weapon/shield and the focus and maybe a fee depending on the type of work being done(emblazoning a shield with a picture should be fairly simple). Same with a wizard and a staff. Just pay the purchase price for a quarterstaff and a staff focus and maybe pay a small fee to have the quarterstaff made into a focus.
Faytte wrote:
Polaris wrote:
So...this is my problem with this line of logic.
If every spell casting class has a way of getting around this (more or less)
1) why have the rule at all. Seems very anti 5e
2) why list it at ALL as a feature (even if its one of many) for War Caster?
This seems like a hack job after the fact.
It also does not account for any other situation. What if your dual wielding swords? what if your using a two hander without the versatile quality? Going back to the ranger (who is as good of a spell caster as a paladin) it seems they are unfairly going to be penalized without the easy copout of 'im baring my gods holy symbol'.
Faytte wrote:
I don't think it's unreasonable to hold a greatsword in one hand to cast a spell, or to hold a longsword in your shield arm (assuming said shield had a strap) and then switch it back into your hand once you've cast the spell.
I'd say in such cases you couldn't attack on your turn with the weapons like that, but the action acconomy mostly deals with that as it is.
(Checks for Somatic and bonus action/reaction spells here: http://community.wizards.com/comment/51251316#comment-51251316 )
The interacting with a single object rule looks a bit more defined than it really needs to be for me.
I think it's a bit tigher than how it appeared in the earlier playtests where it was phrased:
Many of the most common interactions with items—drawing or sheathing a sword, moving through a door that opens easily, picking up a scroll, withdrawing a potion from your backpack, and the like—do not require an action. You are generally assumed to be able to incorporate such uses into your turn, while you move and take your action.
Sometimes, however, the DM will require you to use your action when an item needs special care or when it presents an unusual obstacle. For instance, a DM could reasonably expect you to use an action to open a stuck door.
Illithidbix wrote:
OoftaMeg wrote:
Illithidbix wrote:
Guest703856308 wrote:
I love that this debate keeps resurfacing on the forums. I wonder if the thread count has reached 20 yet :P
For myself as a DM, I follow these rules when hands are occupied by a sword and shield (or two weapons. or a two handed heavy weapon) and a non-holy symbol focus:
Can you cast a V spell? Yes, as long as you can speak
Can you cast a V,S spell? No, unless you have the War Caster feat, then yes.
Can you cast a V,S,M spell. No. Just no. You need to have one hand free to access and use the material components or foci.
In regards to holy symbols on a shield:
Can you cast a V,S,M spell? No. Unless you have War Caster. Then yes.
I like having balance in my games and consider it unbalanced for anyone to cast a V,S,M spell while wielding a greatsword. This is why versatile weapons exist ... they are one handed weapons, carried one handed, that can be used two handed to attack if the second hand is free. And while the exception may be a holy symbol, its important that it be *very* prominent. A small little scratch on a shield won't cut it. Your god wants that thing to be an eyesore.
Guest703856308 wrote:
This is what Mike Mearls has posted about it.
https://thesageadvice.wordpress.com/2014/09/11/somatic-spell-abuse/
Hi!
That doesn't clear things that much. 
Can you actually get a hand free from a greatsword while casting a spell? What happens if i do? That's the basic question (same with the shield + weapon idea, no different in concept).
I was pretty sure you could, with some limitations on extreme moments...but this eternal re-upping of the issue made me doubt about it a little bit...
KK
Faytte wrote:
baronspam wrote:
2Chlorobutanal wrote:
Combat rounds are an abstraction, and assume being "battle ready" when you have an item wielded. If your longbow is drawn, you can make an attack with it as a reaction, for example from Commander's Strike. Reactions don't allow you to manipulate an object. Therefore, if you can make a Commander's Strike reaction with your bow, you must be holding it in two hands. Thus, there is an assumption that when you have an item "wielded" or "drawn" in combat, it is occupying the necessary number of hands to use it.
The point here is not that it is physically impossible to hold a two-handed item with one hand. The point is that it is not possible to do this and fight effectively, which is a presumption in combat. Holding a bow or polearm in one hand is effectively "stowing" it, except you also have lost the free use of one hand in the process.
If you want to "sheathe" or "stow" your bow to run, that's fine. However, you don't need to do this from a game rules standpoint- there is nothing in the rules that requires an empty or free hand to Dash or Disengage, unlike Cast a Spell or Grapple, for example.
You don't stow a pike when you run (in combat no less) in one hand, and it takes moments (far less than six seconds) to plant and secure it with both hands. I don't say that. Training manuals for sixteenth century warfare for Spanish Style Tercios [2/3rds pikemen, 1/3rd aquebusers] say so.
-Polaris
Edit: No one is saying you can fight with a two handed weapon in one hand, but letting it go and grabbing it again should (and IRL is) trivial. Really it is. Also note that magic isn't real and thus any 'rules' for somatic components are a game abstraction regardless with no conjection with RL expectations (unlike holding weapons). Given that and given that the darn designers have openly stated this isn't a balance issue, then it shouldn't be a balance issue for us.
The issue for most people in favor of this situation doesn't seem to be "balance" at all, but rather "common sense," as in "of course you can do that." Your combat manual example mentions securing with both hands. Taking your hand off a weapon "for a moment" could constitute the moment when you needed it to make an attack, or it could completely disrupt the flow of whatever combat is ensuing around you. Or you could just trivially (as a "free item interaction") take your hand off your weapon for a moment (stow it), cast your spell, then trivially (as a "free item interaction") draw it again on a following turn before you attack.
2Chlorobutanal wrote:
Carrying a weapon could easily fall under the rules umbrella of it being stowed (sheathed), as it is not "ready" and you cannot attack with it. The rules for stowing and readying (drawing) weapons are pretty forgiving already.
It could also fall under "plant a flag in the ground," if your maneuver calls for the weapon being braced against the ground, which is equivalent in triviality to stowing an item.
I agree, "common sense" shouldn't apply, so real world examples of how "I would hold this two-handed pike in one hand and cast a spell" don't really mean anything.
Sorry, just to be clear:
Q1: I'm a cleric. I'm casting a V,S spell. I have Weapon + Shield. Can I cast? How? Do I need a free interaction?
Q2: I'm a caster with a Greatsword. I remove a hand to cast a spell. No problems at all, ok (free interaction to do that?). I get to react with an opportunity attack: can I make it? Do I have 2 hands on my weapon at that point? If it is so, I basically have 1 more free interactin than any other character and (even if for simplicity) I don't see it as fair.
Q3: I am a cleric with weapon + shield. I cast "Cure Wounds" which requires "touch". I basically: stow the weapon --> make gestures (read "S") with the shield hand --> touch the targe as part of casting time... Is it correct?
I don't want to over-complicate the game, I just want to get the ratio behind these rules and master it. I tend to be more "fluid", but I guess correct, official and clear answers to these questions would be much appreciated.
KK
Sigbjorn wrote:
King_Kaius wrote:
Polaris wrote:
So, wait... has it been explicitly confirmed that a ranger wielding two daggers is able to cast a spell requiring a Somatic component without having to sheathe either weapon first? It sounds like Mearls is saying they can.
mrpopstar wrote:
Polaris wrote: