Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 Sherman Aug 09, 2014 23:25:20	I'm not sure how casters with two weapons/weapon and shield are supposed to cast spells with Somatic components.   What's your thought? Ignore it, life's short. Make them stow as a free interaction, then redraw next turn as another free interaction. Make them drop one even though there are no rules about dropping things being free, and then pick it back up as an interaction (ie - practically ignore it, just make them use an interaction). Something I haven't thought of. I'm leaning towards just making them use a free interacion but calling it something more along the lines of putting a weapon in the off-hand (so two weapons or with shield grip) and then readying it again after casting. I think someone could reasonable change grips and swap weapons from hand to hand a couple times in six seconds. "Cast with busy hands" or something along those lines...   I'm not sure what the design intent was here...
#2 AaronOfBarbaria Aug 10, 2014 1:29:15	If the character is a class that can use a holy symbol as a spellcasting focus (cleric, and I believe paladin too), then a shield can be in the hand that is doing the somatic components (because a holy symbol can be in the hand that is doing somatic components, and a holy symbol can be etched or inlaid upon a shield, and a holy symbol beared on a shield counts as the same as holding a holy symbol in hand).   As for having two-weapons... unless the character has some way to use one of the weapons as a spellcasting focus, they need to drop or stow one of the weapons - which likely isn't going to be a big deal because they can stow the weapon for free with the casting action and draw it for free as part of their next Attack action they intend to follow with a Bonus Action for an off-hand attack.
#3 h347h50 Aug 10, 2014 7:39:32	Sherman wrote:
(Reply to #2) 2Chlorobutanal	AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
(Reply to #4) AaronOfBarbaria	2Chlorobutanal wrote:
(Reply to #5) 2Chlorobutanal	AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
(Reply to #6) AaronOfBarbaria	2Chlorobutanal wrote:
(Reply to #7) 2Chlorobutanal	AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
#9 Undrhil Aug 11, 2014 17:59:49	If worse comes to wear, you can sheathe the weapon in the same action that you are casting your spell, which lets you then carress your shield lovingl -- err, I mean, fondle your holy symbol neckl --- um ... I mean ... uh .....   Yeah .. you get the idea, right?  -nervous chuckle-
#10 Suzume_Stjohn Aug 11, 2014 18:04:10	Yeah, this isn't really something worth arguing over.   If you want to cast spells with a Somatic component, while having your hands full of weappons and sheilds (In any combination that you so choose), then you need the Warcaster feat.  That is what it is for (Along with it's other effects.)   House ruling it so that you can do it without the feat negates the benefit of having the feat available.  Thus, I would only do this in a game that is not using the option of feats.   Have fun regardless though!  Hope you find something that works for you!
(Reply to #9) 2Chlorobutanal	Undrhil wrote:
(Reply to #8) AaronOfBarbaria	2Chlorobutanal wrote:
#13 RCanine Aug 11, 2014 21:18:32	AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
(Reply to #12) 2Chlorobutanal	AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
#15 Thank_Dog Aug 12, 2014 5:10:35	What about a two-handed weapon?   A dwarven wizard, for instance, wielding a battleaxe with two hands wants to cast a spell? Since it's a versatile weapon he doesn't need to hold it with both hands all the time, right? So he can just cast a spell whenever he needs to without dropping his weapon, yeah?   What about someone with a greatsword?
(Reply to #15) 2Chlorobutanal	Thank_Dog wrote:
#17 mrpopstar Aug 12, 2014 5:17:39	The cleric and paladin are given the specific ability to use a holy symbol as a spell focus by bearing it on a shield.   It's a wordy and convoluted way of giving them the benefit of the War Caster feat for free (in the instance their holy symbol is engraved, inlaid, or otherwise emblazoned on their shield).
(Reply to #17) 2Chlorobutanal	mrpopstar wrote:
#19 downlobot Aug 12, 2014 6:49:42	2Chlorobutanal wrote:
#20 AaronOfBarbaria Aug 12, 2014 10:18:27	I keep seeing the logic used to say that you can't use your free hand for somatic components to hold your shield, which is the only way to satisfy the "bear it on a shield" condition specifically stated as a valid way to use a holy symbol as a spellcasting focus, and it makes me wonder this: How is your hand a "free hand" if you are holding your holy symbol in it?
(Reply to #20) ObeseBoyWonder	AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
#22 2Chlorobutanal Aug 12, 2014 17:03:42	Strictly speaking, if a spellcaster is holding a focus in one hand, their other hand must be free to cast a spell with S (somatic) or M (material) components.  This isn't really an issue for clerics, though, because they can wear their symbol and not hold it (as long as they have the hand free to manipulate it during a spell casting).   A wizard, for example, though, would technically need a hand free in addition to the hand holding his staff focus if he were casting a spell with S components (and technically M components as well).   In the same vein, a cleric would need a hand free to cast S and/or M spells even if holding his symbol, but a symbol can explicitly be "presented" without being held, so it would be pretty disadvantageous to usually run around gripping a religious icon in a fight.
(Reply to #19) 2Chlorobutanal	downlobot wrote:
#24 mrpopstar Aug 12, 2014 19:04:45	2Chlorobutanal wrote:
(Reply to #24) 2Chlorobutanal	mrpopstar wrote:
#26 RCanine Aug 12, 2014 22:05:14	mrpopstar wrote:
(Reply to #26) 2Chlorobutanal	RCanine wrote:
#28 Sherman Aug 12, 2014 22:12:26	Just to get everyone on the same page, D&D has a history of sub optimal character options. Just because there is a Warcaster Feat doesn't mean everyone else has to suffer being inept just because they don't have it. I think at worst we're looking at using two "flourishes" over two turns or just one to cast with both hands occupied. Either way it's not worth a feat. For my part I think I'm just going to have people use a "flourish" to make it happen and not worry too much about it. Thank you everyone for your input.
(Reply to #28) 2Chlorobutanal	Sherman wrote:
#30 Sherman Aug 12, 2014 22:36:03	I get all that. The problem is the work around is so inconsequential that all it does it create for a lot of chatter about what's going where while you cast, at worst that you can't use your weapon for reaction attacks during the rest of the round until your next turn when you get to ready it again. It's just hassle for the players and more for the DM to listen to and it will barely ever affect game play. One and done fits my game style. The wizard can shift his staff to his torch hand and back again after casting as a "flourish". I'm good with that. Maybe a good alternative is you can't do it in combat which is where people seem to be hung up. I'm looking at it from the perspective of the wizard in the back, and eveyone else seems to be thinking battle cleric. Realistically you shouldn't even be able to sheath a sword as a flourish in combat, so there is your fix. Play it by ear and think about what makes sense in the moment and I think we have an answer. Actually, that's what makes me happiest about this edition, getting to DM again rather than moderate a bunch of rules.
#31 RCanine Aug 13, 2014 0:08:17	2Chlorobutanal wrote: