Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 Demand Feb 25, 2015 23:01:37	I know this topic has been covered a lot but it seems every thread i read has a different answer.  I wanted to get feedback on an interpretation of the rules with casting spells in combat without the warcaster feat.   In our group we have a Bladelock with Polearm Master and a Cleric with War domain weilding a sword and shield.   As far as i understand the rules, the cleric can have his holy symbol inscribed on his shield which coveres off on the material component of most spells.  To deal with the somatic component he can on a single turn either cast a spell and then draw his mace or if his mace is out he can stow his mace and then cast a spell.  What he cant do is stow the mace, cast a spell and draw it again.  (technically he could drop it, cast a spell and pick it up since dropping it doent count as an object interaction, but i think thats not RAI)   For the cleric the PHB seems to cover this reasonable clearly.   In the case of the bladelock its not so clear.  According to the PHB he needs one free hand which can cover the Material and Somatic copmponent.  It seems physically possible that the warlock can wear a gem as his focuss and hold his polearm in one hand whilst casting the somatic portion of a spell with the other hand without losing use of the polearm, however this is not RAW or RAI. In order to keep things in line with the cleric we were talking about allowing the warlock to use his object interaction to ready or lower his polearm but not both.     This means he could at the start of battle, cast a spell, say eldritch blast and then ready his weapon and be able to take a reaction AoO. Or he could cast hex, ready his weapon and then attack and be ready for an AoO.     What he couldnt do is things like attack / tranfer hex and then still be ready for a AoO.  He would have to lower his weapon to transfer hex and then not be able to take an AoO.  He would also not be able to use hellish rebuke if he still had the polearm at the ready at the end of his turn, but could if his polearm was lowered in one hand.   To me this seems to make the casting quite even between the two classes. Would appreciate any thoughts on if it seems unreasonable or give to much advantage.
http://www.enworld.org/forum/content.php?1900-D-D-5th-Edition-Sage-Advice-from-Designers-Mearls-Crawford#.VO7-9_nF_9U#ixzz3SqhG1vA3 Ravix Feb 26, 2015 3:26:42	In a tweet exchange on 21-23 November 2014, @Sword_of_Spirit asked: @JeremyECrawford Holy symbol engraved shield counts as material component, but does holding the shield replace somatic component also?  @Sword_of_Spirit The intent is that the shield hand can be used for a somatic component if the holy shield is used to cast the spell. @Sword_of_Spirit You still need use of the shield arm to move it while performing the somatic component.     can you cast a spell that uses somatic components if you wield a 2 handed weapon or a versatile weapon in 2 hands? nope. -M   can a Cleric or Paladin cast spells requiring somatic components when wielding weapon + shield emblazoned with holy symbol? I'd say yes if the holy symbol is being used as the material component of the spell, so yes if "S, M," but no if only "S." -J Read more: http://www.enworld.org/forum/content.php?1900-D-D-5th-Edition-Sage-Advice-from-Designers-Mearls-Crawford#.VO7-9_nF_9U#ixzz3SqhG1vA3     Yes to an Arcane Focus used as a quarterstaff though.  Haha.
#3 Macv12 Feb 26, 2015 4:42:25	Demand wrote:
#4 Jamwes Feb 26, 2015 9:43:09	Ravix wrote:
#5 CahPahkah Feb 26, 2015 10:39:58	Macv12 wrote:
#6 Ravix Feb 26, 2015 13:45:49	I agree with "Less Fiddley." I've seen J comment as to the different components of spellcasting being meant to "clarify" as opposed to "limit." So, for example, J specifically pointed out that you would need free use of the shield arm in order to cast a Somatic spell.  Meaning that should that arm be restrained somehow, you could not use the Somatic parts.  Similarly with the Silence spell preventing you from using Verbal components, etc. M and J have been known to contradict each other a lot, but as far as 2-H weapons go I would say that you can cast a spell while holding a 2-h weapon.  After all, I don't need to hold a greatsword with two hands unless I'm going to be swinging it at someone.  Momentarily using 1 hand to cast a spell and then gripping the sword again would take very little time.
#7 lawrencehoy Feb 26, 2015 21:15:09	Demand wrote:
#8 lawrencehoy Feb 26, 2015 21:17:53	Ravix wrote:
(Reply to #2) Hibiki54	Ravix wrote:
#10 Ravix Feb 27, 2015 16:09:40	That tweet describes RAI. Sure you can find table variation on that, but you won't find me at a table run by someone who thinks like that. Personally, I would say you use your shield arm (Emblazed with your focus) to cast the spell.  I pointed this out before, but you should think of these components as a way to "clarify" as opposed to a way to "limit."
#11 jeff0 Feb 28, 2015 8:40:47	I lean towards this intending to put limits on mixing spellcasting and melee/ranged weapon attacks. There would not be a feat for it if it was essentially not something anyone would ever be limited by.   If a character wants to switch between ranged and melee then they pay the action cost.   If a character wants to interact with the environment and their hands are full then they pay the action cost.   If a character wants to switch between spellcasting and weapon attacking they pay the action cost OR take the feat.   So, basically when in doubt I would lean towards the rules intending to not let characters cast (S)  spells with their hands wielding equipment. I have a feeling that people who would go the other way do not really worry about action costs at all anyway, which is fine.
(Reply to #11) Hibiki54	jeff0 wrote:
#13 mrpopstar Feb 28, 2015 16:10:33	Hibiki54 wrote: