D&D (2024) Shield, Blade Ward, and no material component

[Neonchameleon]

I've just realised by looking at Blade Ward that the restriction to cast Shield (like Blade Ward) is much more effective than I thought. It's V, S - but crucially not M. So a paladin can't cast it using their holy symbol; the only way to cast it with a shield if you normally have either a weapon or a spellcasting focus is with War Caster.

This takes away most of my problem with Blade Ward; it's fine on the classes it's meant for (light armour or mage armour, no shields, and spellcasting stat rather than Dex primary). It also means sword and board paladins, and eldritch knights basically can't cast it. And sword and board clerics and hexblades need War Caster.

 

[mellored]

I'm not sure how many groups follow those rules.

 

[Neonchameleon]

I'm not sure how many groups follow those rules.

Neither am I. I know I hadn't spotted them, but think they should be pointed out.

 

[Mistwell]

I've just realised by looking at Blade Ward that the restriction to cast Shield (like Blade Ward) is much more effective than I thought. It's V, S - but crucially not M. So a paladin can't cast it using their holy symbol; the only way to cast it with a shield if you normally have either a weapon or a spellcasting focus is with War Caster.

This takes away most of my problem with Blade Ward; it's fine on the classes it's meant for (light armour or mage armour, no shields, and spellcasting stat rather than Dex primary). It also means sword and board paladins, and eldritch knights basically can't cast it. And sword and board clerics and hexblades need War Caster.

I don't know if that rule is going to survive to 2024. I think it's going to be clarified

 

[Horwath]

I'm not sure how many groups follow those rules.

this, of your hands or not bind or you can release a grip of one hand for a second, you can cast Somatic components.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I've just realised by looking at Blade Ward that the restriction to cast Shield (like Blade Ward) is much more effective than I thought. It's V, S - but crucially not M. So a paladin can't cast it using their holy symbol; the only way to cast it with a shield if you normally have either a weapon or a spellcasting focus is with War Caster.

Almost no groups use those rules, so it's irrelevance.

Indeed, I'd go as far as to say that the majority aren't even consciously aware of those rules, and would reject them if they were. And a large minority does actively reject them.

And balancing done on the basis of such rules indicates a profound failure to understand D&D's audience.

Also even with the rules, you're wrong - only Sword & Board/TWF people would be punished - GWM combatants, which is most EKs, would be fine. Basically the least-bad people get penalized and the most dangerous ones get to use it just fine.

 

[Stalker0]

I have never met a group that required a Paladin tk have warcaster to cast spells no matter how RAW it may be

 

[Neonchameleon]

Almost no groups use those rules, so it's irrelevance.

Indeed, I'd go as far as to say that the majority aren't even consciously aware of those rules, and would reject them if they were. And a large minority does actively reject them.

And balancing done on the basis of such rules indicates a profound failure to understand D&D's audience.

That doesn't mean it's not a disconnect. And I think a lot more DMs than you think would be fine if WotC was better at pointing out these minor design decisions.

Also even with the rules, you're wrong - only Sword & Board/TWF people would be punished - GWM combatants, which is most EKs, would be fine. Basically the least-bad people get penalized and the most dangerous ones get to use it just fine.

I'm going to disagree strongly about who the "least bad" people are here. Armour class is something that's more powerful the more you stack it and not hitting gets obnoxious - and the AC of sword-and-board fighters is 2-5 points higher than that of equivalent great weapon fighters. (You don't need to attune a magic shield). Going sword and board with duelist style also opens up both rapier/dex builds (>str when all else is equal) and the slightly broken polearm masters with spears and staves.

Yes I agree that most EKs are GWM combatants; I want to keep it that way.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

That doesn't mean it's not a disconnect. And I think a lot more DMs than you think would be fine if WotC was better at pointing out these minor design decisions.

No, I don't think so.

It's not a design that many DMs or players think enhances or improves the game in any way. For I would suggest the majority of groups, it's a bunch of fiddly bollocks which looks awfully like a Feat Tax on certain classes, which applies in an extremely irregular, perverse and counter-intuitive way to certain spells - not the ones anyone would expect.

Armour class is something that's more powerful the more you stack it and not hitting gets obnoxious - and the AC of sword-and-board fighters is 2-5 points higher than that of equivalent great weapon fighters.

I don't really buy that DMs routinely hand out +X shields in 5E. I've never seen one in play, not even from an official adventure, so I feel like you're really pushing your luck here, point-wise. GWM Fighters are drastically more effective, in my experience, than ones with high ACs, because at some point the DM just basically stops attacking them, and they've got no real way to make them, unlike 4E.

I have never met a group that required a Paladin tk have warcaster to cast spells no matter how RAW it may be

Yup. Or an EK or a Cleric or a Bard who was meleeing. I can't even think of a podcast where the DM enforces the rules that way either - I mean I'm sure it's out there, but it's got to be hella-rare.

 

[Tonguez]

You can sheath and unsheath you weapon as a free action
Turn 1 free action to sheath sword - hand is now free to cast shield (action)
Turn 2 free action to unsheath sword - combat actions go!

I’d rather Paladins use this, stinkin wizards should stay out of melee