Here's something I've heard a lot of debate about in other editions, want to see how this should be working in 5th Ed.
The somatic component requires free use of at least one hand to perform gestures. That's all well and good for Mr. Wizard, but Ms. Cleric has complications here.
Most clerics, being proficient in shields, tend to want to actually use one. Given that holy symbols can even be embedded in them this seems a likely expectation in this edition. However, the vast majority of their spells have somatic components.
So, does that cleric have to drop the shield like an idiot every time they want to help out their friends in a non-bashy sort of way? If so, hey, you don't have your holy symbol anymore, which would make this an assinine option to even have to put it in a shield.
Can you shift the shield to just hang strapped to your arm as a part of manipulating one object in the turn, then cast? If so, do you get lesser or no bonus from the shield until you can grab it with a hand again? I thought I recalled earlier editions having shields that didn't require the use of a hand.
Basically, it seems so far to be a great way to make clerics not defend themselves well or not cast for poo. Is this what was intended, or is it one of the myriad of instances where the rules say exactly this, regardless of what was intended?
Thanks in advance!
You can sheathe your weapon when you want to cast a spell, then draw it again afterwards. No action cost. Shield unaffected.
Keep in mind that you can only manipulate one item per round. So you'd have to draw your weapon the round after you sheathed it, leaving you unable to use said weapon between those two turns. That's the price you pay for being an armed and armored spellcaster. Although you could always take the War Caster feat, which would be very nice for Clerics, especially since it helps them keep up their combat buffs as well as letting them use somatic components even while wielding their weapon and shield.
JRutterbush wrote:
Jarodeth wrote:
It seems like you would either need to pull the "drop weapon" routine, allow clerics to use the hand with a weapon for the somantic component or houserule away the somantic components of cleric spells.
I will probably just handwave it when possible.
... or just sheathe your weapon
I'd agree with the sheathing your weapon interpretation in order to get a free hand to use your focus. You're missing out on optimal opportunity attacks, which is an acceptable consequence of spellcasting. If you're using a versatile weapon, you go down to one-handed damage. On your next turn you can rearm yourself as part of your action if desired.
This doesn't just apply to spellcasting, though. You might have to do it if you need a free hand to grab a magic amulet from the ground, operate a door handle, or catch a falling comrade. Using two-handed weapons, two weapon fighting, or weapon and shield fighting does come with a few innate wielding limitations. I would probably allow someone to sheath/draw two melee weapons simultaneously as part of their normal turn. I would definitely do it if they were fighters with TWF, since people are always doing so in movies and I want to do what all the cool kids are doing.
It is true that you can no longer both sheath and draw a weapon in the same turn (without spending your action on one of them, which would eliminate your ability to cast any spell that wasn't a bonus spell).
For those who missed it, just having a focus doesn't negate your need to provide a somatic component. If you are holding your focus in hand you could manipulate it as your somatic component (specifically allowed) but just hanging around your neck isn't negating your need for a free hand--and waving around a shield as a somatic component seems a bit of a stretch.
However, the rules don't say anything about shifting your weapon from hand to hand, which is significantly easier than sheathing it. The way that I rule it is that the cleric simply shifts his weapon to his shield hand (he can't wield it in that hand, but I just assume he's using the type of shield that allows you to hold something, since there is only one shield entry on the equipment chart) long enough to provide his somatic component, and then back again after casting the spell.
Simple. There's your mechanism, and it has no effect on the actual crunch involved.
Sword_of_Spirit wrote:
Sword_of_Spirit wrote:
Sword_of_Spirit wrote:
mrpopstar wrote:
The rules as written seem to be that the shield-using cleric must sheathe their weapon as part of their action on the turn in which they cast the spell, and draw the weapon again as part of their action on the following turn.
They don’t seem to be meant to don and doff the shield, which takes an entire action each.
Overpromises wrote:
E-Tallitnics wrote:
Thanks, those are great ideas and discussion. This is one of the few instances where I think 4th Ed got it right with "eh, what the hell, who cares". 
I think I'd pretty much let any reasonable explanation fly when I'm DMing, but these also give me ideas if I'm ever a player for some ultra anal DM in Adventurer's League who apparently wants people who play clerics to be even rarer. Hate it when you get stuck with a DM like that for a game, you know the next four hours of your life you'll wish for back.
By the technical rules though, you couldn't even hold a holy symbol in the hand you're using for somatic components though, and that's nuts by me. I think I'd even go as far as to allow clerics to make holy gestures with the built in holy symbol in their sheild and call it good. Hey, you can make the sign of the cross, or Pelor, or whatever the hell, good by me. 
BTW, that dropping the hammer and picking it up again while smashing someone wins the cool test by me. That's the kind of thing you could see in an action movie. I might have to make that happen just because of how boss that'd be. 
Jarodeth wrote:
Jarodeth wrote:
I don't see any reason that you couldn't drop or sheathe a weapon "for free" (as per the "Other Activity On Your Turn" section, pg.70), then use your free hand for the somatic component requirement. I also don't see why you couldn't pick up or draw your weapon as part of a Reaction action that you attack with. The Reaction is still an "action you use to attack", it can just be on another person's turn. I don't think it's too much of a stretch to allow drawing your weapon "as part of the same action you use to attack" to work with Reactions, off-turn.
E-Tallitnics wrote:
E-Tallitnics wrote:
lawrencehoy wrote:
2Chlorobutanal wrote:
lawrencehoy wrote:
lawrencehoy wrote:
E-Tallitnics wrote:
E-Tallitnics wrote:
mrpopstar wrote:
Overpromises wrote:
mrpopstar wrote:
Overpromises wrote:
mrpopstar wrote:
Overpromises wrote:
I wouldn't allow repetitive drop & pick-up during a creature's turn neither and would tell a player attempting that that picking up an item again on his turn would require an action according to the rules;
BR70 Other Activity on Your Turn: You can also interact with one object or feature of the environment for free, during either your move or your action. For example, you could open a door during your move as you stride toward a foe, or you could draw your weapon as part of the same action you use to attack. If you want to interact with a second object, you need to use your action.
mrpopstar wrote:
mrpopstar wrote:
Perhaps if you see my cleric you'll understand better.
Sparks a 9th level Cleric of Light
Now, fine folks of the Wizard 5e forum: tell me where I would "sheath" that War Hammer to "follow the rules"?
Also tell me you don't see that sitting that hammer down (or to "drop") as a free action, head flat on the ground, isn't the absolute best way for this cleric to free up a hand for casting? Then as part of his Action he picks it back up.
I find that this is well within the RAW and the RAI for weapons, actions, and casting in combat. I also fully realize that too much of that in combat is going to leave an opening for an opponent to Ready their action and snatch it away!
I understand how if this was a great sword wielding character that was dropping it instead of sheathing it that would be a problem too. That's why I like Sword_of_Spirit's comment about passing it to your other hand. I also find that to be RAW and RAI complient. (Honestly at my table I'd just let the player stow AND draw their sword as a sign that they've done this so often it's super quick and second nature to them by now...)
What I don't find complient is some comments here whereas people would change the rules as a form of punishment to the player for their inventiveness. I thought this game was suppose to be fun? What's fun about changing the rules to punish a player at your table?
Yeah, the words "sheath" and that monster don't go together well. Sheathing for it is pretty much laying it down somewhere. You're right, if the enemies hate that so much then they can ready an action to try to grab it when it's let go. I have a feeling Sparks there has extra special punishment for someone touching the smack hammer.
For me, I'm going to constantly rule that the holy symbol being a part of a sheild means that it is being manipulated as the focus, so no need for further annoyance. If you think about it, the whole shield front could be designed as a holy symbol, no reason it has to be a metal piece 9" by 9" square with brass inlay or anything specific like that. I've definitely seen historical shields where the religious symbol is covering the whole thing.
I still need to do the whole drop hammer, cast, grab and whomp thing though sometime, the mental picture is beautiful.
Overpromises wrote:
mrpopstar wrote:
Overpromises wrote:
mrpopstar wrote:
Overpromises wrote:
mrpopstar wrote:
Tichrimo wrote:
Overpromises wrote:
mrpopstar wrote:
E-Tallitnics wrote:
Overpromises wrote:
All clerics get shield proficiency, can a subclass actually take proficiencies away?
Jarodeth wrote:
Luke-Lightning wrote:
Overpromises wrote:
As they damn well should. That symbol engraved on the shield is inseparable. It cannot be anything but the symbol. Therefore it is, and therefore it works, end of story, except for no-fun anal rules jerks.
Jarodeth wrote:
Jarodeth wrote:
Luke-Lightning wrote:
I would say a Holy Symbol has been, at the very least, Blessed by a cleric of a certain level. At the very least, the description for a Holy Symbol specifies that a design is "carefully engraved or inlaid as an emblem" to be considered a Holy Symbol. Otherwise it lists an amulet (suggesting an item of a certain value) or a piece of a sacred relic (an itme of a certain rarity); so, I would interpret the description of a Holy Symbol as requiring a minimum amount of craftsmanship, rarity, or value to qualify.
62 comments to say "Well, maybe?"
Combat Casting isn't like Ritual Magic you would find at your local Golden Dawn conclave. These ceremonies require both hands to be filled with your Wand (focus) and your Sword (or dagger). You use both of these for your intricate movements and patterns in the air (triangles of specific lengths, etc.) I find it ridiculous that casters with verbal and somatic components cannot simply use their foci to cast the spell, since in real life we cast ritual magic with both hands full in many cases (though this is only specific to Golden Dawn and OTO ritual, other ritual orders like SRICA perform rituals with only one sword or empty hands).
At my table, when a Cleric or Wizard comes up with their own components for spells (their own verbal chants and somatic hand gestures), and if those hand gestures require the wielder to point their mace at the enemy and call down a pillar of sacred flame upon the enemy...
... I allow it. That is our house rule, because I have experience in the world of ceremonial magic that fits with the game image that our table is trying to create.
What does my present table's Cleric, Clara, do? She sheathes her mace because she finds it to be very sacred to her and will not chance losing it. Now, she has recently asked about a wrist strap for her mace... I am excited to explain the logic behind this one to allow it.
If a caster can cast in plate armor, because they are proficient in its use, then I adjudicate (house rule!) that a character who is proficient with a weapon would be used to the weight of it on their wrist and can cast, if logically produced. I can also see the necessity to force the rule in place that says her hand must be free (free... such an interesting word... I would ask Bill Clinton to define it for me, just like the word is).
Ultimately, it depends on your view of the spell casting. The rules do not say that she must draw six triangles upon themselves in the palmspace before her face... they say that there are intricate hand gestures that require exactness.
Dropping, Casting, Picking up Again
Mechanically, this is functional in the RAW. Dropping (releasing from a grapple as well) does not count as an action or an object interaction. Picking up again (if you have not left from that spot) is a Use an Object "non-action" that you get once per turn. Are there dangers to dropping your mace? Yeah. There are. Someone could ready an action to yank it up, or you could get knocked away.
Rounds, Time, and Action IN-teraction
Sometimes as gamers we get stuck in this "Bob goes, then Jeff, then Justin, then Bella" rut that is unrealistic. Remember that all of your actions are happening about the same time. So, even if you rule that a character sheathing their weapon to cast must suffer the inability to make effective (non-unarmed) opportunity attacks... you're being realistic! Because that opportunity attack did not happen after the spell... but rather during the turn of the spell casting. And if your hand is empty to cast the spell... clearly you would only be able to smack someone with your hand/boot/head/elbow/shield/knee.
Ultimately, if I were at someone else's table, I would empty the character's hand (dropping or sheathing - prefer sheathing because if you touch my weapons I'll kill you), and then spending appropriate actions/non-actions to solve the problem. But who says you have to attack or do something "combat effective" every turn?
I DODGE YOU!
ivstin wrote:
Luke-Lightning wrote:
After all of this, the War Caster feat will probably allow somatic components while holding weapons and/or shield in both hands.
I want to piggy-back on comments made by lawrencehoy (#23 & 25). It seems that much of the discussion on somatic elements assumes that the character must have an empty hand, but the rule concerning them does not state that explicitly (nor is it implied). There are a number of examples of people gesticulating or gesturing (even forcefully or intricately) while holding an object.
In my own work I often deliver a lecture while holding a marker, a pointer, or a computer remote. I am actively gesticulating throughout the lecture. (As I think about it, at one point last week I was lecturing on a complex topic that requires a diagram. I was holding two markers in one hand and another marker and a remote in the other.) Here are a few other examples: an orchestra conductor using a baton (intricate gestures), a drum major with a mace (both forceful and intricate), a priest with a censer (they are making the sign of the Cross with that thing), handwriting is an intricate gesture performed by the hand that works much better if you are holding something, and, I imagine, there are many other examples.
Conversely, if you are hand-cuffed (manacled, if you must), you may very well have an empty hand, but you would not have free use of your hand.
The rules on material components state that the hand that accesses material components can be used to perform somatic components. That seems to imply that the hand performing a somatic gesture is holding a material component or focus.
I understand that some spells have specific gestures, but there are few of those. The Warcaster feat certainly implies the need for an empty hand. However, one bullet point in what is an optional rule seems a weak basis for overriding the fairly clear language on somatic components. It seems that a feat should expand options for the character that takes it, not unilaterally create a limitation for everyone else that is not otherwise present.
There are some very bright people on these forums that understand the rules better than I. Many of you have accepted the premise that an empty hand is required, so I am assuming that I am missing something. So help me understand how we get from “free use of a hand” to “free use of an empty hand”.
Thanks for reading this far.
I understand that some spells have specific gestures, but there are few of those. The Warcaster feat certainly implies the need for an empty hand. However, one bullet point in what is an optional rule seems a weak basis for overriding the fairly clear language on somatic components. It seems that a feat should expand options for the character that takes it, not unilaterally create a limitation for everyone else that is not otherwise present.
There are some very bright people on these forums that understand the rules better than I
1eejit wrote:
StrykerMac wrote:
It appears my actual question was lost in my post's length.
Why does the phrase "free use of a hand" to make a gesture mean the hand must be empty (not holding an item or weapon)?
StrykerMac wrote:
paulstrait wrote:
StrykerMac wrote:
StrykerMac wrote:
OoftaMeg wrote:
Coredump00 wrote:
Coredump00 wrote:
Must easier, especially for divine characters. Holding your shield/holy symbol up is your S and M components. your channeling the power, not pulling it from the weave
OoftaMeg wrote:
Coredump00 wrote:
OoftaMeg wrote:
Nevvur wrote:
Coredump00 wrote:
Nevvur wrote:
From the sounds of the tweets it sounds like Mearls and Co' are kinda regretting the phrasing of the 1/turn interact with item rule and somatic components, as I think it's being interpreted far more awkwardly than was the intent.
- Twitter isn't official rules FAQs but they do provide some useful insight into the mindset behind rules.
https://thesageadvice.wordpress.com/2014/09/06/wielding-shield-and-holy-simbol/
Irithil wrote:
paulstrait wrote:
Saelorn wrote:
paulstrait wrote:
StrykerMac wrote:
paulstrait wrote:
As in p.195 under Ranged Attacks in Close Combat?
El_Condoro wrote:
StrykerMac wrote:
paulstrait wrote:
You mean where we use the text of a feat to clarify when something would otherwise be ambiguous? I'm not sure, most rules aren't really ambiguous. Certainly though I found reading the feats that it helped me understand other rules better, by seeing the exceptions. But I don't think any of those other rules were actually ambiguous, once I looked them up...
StrykerMac wrote:
Nothing concrete in this, but as a guideline for RAI this from a tweet by Mearls:
what would the action sequence be like for sheathing one weapon,drawing another,and attacking?Is that all 1 action? yeah - the intent is to avoid punishing players for that stuff by charging an action. -M
paulstrait wrote:
StrykerMac wrote:
El_Condoro wrote: