Here Are The Most Popular D&D Feats (War Caster Leads The Pack!)

DM Dave1 said:

The point seems to be just outside your grasp, fluttering on the breeze like the feather in Forest Gump. You see, all the characters at our table actually are fully optimized. Optimized for fun. How about yours?

Click to expand...

That's rude. Assuming I didn't grasp your post because I pointed out the optimizers perspective that takes the same initial evidence as you and results in the opposite conclusion.

The simplest reason I responded to your post is not because you optimized for fun and I failed to grasp that but because I disagreed with a fundamental premise of your post: you used the buzzwords that are used to belittle optimizers "robotically pursuing DPR, that's what I'm supposed to do, white room theories" and that meant your post went to far.

OverlordOcelot said:

How does this work if the enemy sees you drop your cool sword and snags it for their own use? It's also a free action for them to grab it, so it seems like if you're actually doing this per RAW you'd end up with your preferred weapon being used against you an awful lot.

Click to expand...

You can only use a free action (or in this case, an object interaction) on your own turn, not during another's turn. The only risk is that you drop your sword in acid, or down a cliff, or something else like that.

Leatherhead said:

You can only use a free action (or in this case, an object interaction) on your own turn, not during another's turn. The only risk is that you drop your sword in acid, or down a cliff, or something else like that.

Click to expand...

DM: Okay Paladin McSwordDrop - roll me a d20 and let's see if something randomly bad happens to your sword upon dropping it...

ClaytonCross said:

Yep and of all those the only one you would use in battle instead of before or after (as a rule) is Cure wounds, which you can ignore with lay on hands....?

Click to expand...

If you have a DM who always lets you know that combat is coming up in exactly a few rounds but not many rounds and exactly what you'll be fighting, then you can pre-cast one minute buffs before combat. I have never met a DM who always tells you when the next combat will be, and never has the bad guys run away, talk, activate something that takes time to deal with before you can get to them, or call in allies after combat is joined, however, so I certainly wouldn't count on never casting one minute buffs during combat. Similarly, if you have a DM who never gives you nasty magical effects that you want to dispel in combat, more injury than your LOH alone can cure, or any kind of curse or restorable condition that you want to remove during combat, then you'll never cast those in combat. But, again, it's not reasonable to assume that every DM avoids those conditions all the time. (The 'you can always pre-cast 1 minute buffs' sounds a LOT more like white-room theorycrafting than play experience, BTW)

Leatherhead said:

You can only use a free action (or in this case, an object interaction) on your own turn, not during another's turn. The only risk is that you drop your sword in acid, or down a cliff, or something else like that.

Click to expand...

You only get one object interaction on your own turn, so you have to use one to drop the weapon, then another to pick it up, which adds to two, which is more than you can do on one turn. During the intervening turn, someone else can use their free object interaction to pick up the weapon off the ground. All of this stuff with these special invulnerable, non-hindering tethers is an attempt to keep people from doing just that. If you allow two free object interactions per turn instead of one then of course you don't need that, but if you're house ruling I don't see why you wouldn't just house rule that someone can cast with a weapon in hand instead of house ruling the 'drop-recover' silliness. Also, like above, the assumption that you're never fighting near any kind of bad terrain is pretty at-odds with my experience too. Boss fights often involve things that make throwing your weapon on the ground rather risky.

Azzy said:

I don't see how leather strips or or light chains are either "unbreakable" (they'd certainly not be easily breakable, but you're indulging in a bit of a staw man) or beyond the scope of the rules or the setting of most D&D games. But you do you.

Click to expand...

If they're not easily breakable, then you're attaching handles for people to easily grab and grapple you while your weapon is dangling. That's generally not a good idea in a fight. If they are easily breakable, then people can easily grab and break them to take these tethered weapons you keep dropping and grabbing.

Um, I suggest you take a heavy hammer, mallet or some other fairly heavy tool, tie a leather loop into the a hole in its base (if it has one) or otherwise afix the loop into a strap. Then put the loop around your wrist. Then hold the tool. Then let it go from your grasp. Wow! You can do this in the real world—some tools or devices already come with straps. It's like as if this is easily a thing.

Click to expand...

Take 4' long tool weighing 2 pounds or more, strap it to your wrist, then try to rapidly touch someone with your outstretched hand without having the tool slap into them and injure them. Try to accurately and quickly (maybe 3 sec casting time) move your arm forward and paint a symbol on a wall. Attempt to climb a rope or throw a javelin accurately while the weapon is tethered to your wrist (or do the tethers prevent you from doing these activities). Show me the footage of SCA or HEMA people doing this kind of trick if it's really so easy and risk-free, this seems like something that would be handy for them if it would be handy for a fantasy game fighter!

Click to expand...

pukunui said:

It just makes it so a holy symbol on a shield works the same way as every other spellcasting focus: a focus can be used in place of a material component, and if a spell has both somatic and material components, you can perform the somatic component while holding the focus.

It makes it so a holy symbol on a shield is no different to a holy symbol on an amulet. If you’re holding a shield with a holy symbol on it, then you’re considered to be holding the holy symbol.

Click to expand...

I think by the RAW if you choose to use an amulet as a focus you need a free hand to "hold" it so it's not the same.

However, IMHO the RAW allows you to use the same hand for a focus as the free hand you are already using for the somatic component and NOT the other way around. And the RAI is clearly to require ONE free hand rather than TWO when you have both components.

Mistwell said:

Yes but you cannot do BOTH on your turn. You get ONE object interaction and he's talking about dropping the weapon (free action) and then picking it up (single object interaction on your turn). If you sheath your weapon as part of spellcasting, you no longer have it in your hand after the spellcasting. So for example you will not be able to make an opportunity attack with that weapon if it comes up, until you draw your weapon again on a later turn. And of course if you draw it, you won't be able to sheath it on that turn. The only way to really avoid this is the war caster feat.

Click to expand...

I want to point out that nobody is "entitled" to count an object interaction as free. It's the DM deciding if it's free or it costs your action. There is no players entitlement in cheating on the spellcasting component by use of a tether.

Li Shenron said:

I think by the RAW if you choose to use an amulet as a focus you need a free hand to "hold" it so it's not the same.

Click to expand...

I would argue that it is exactly the same.

Some pertinent rules from the PHB:

On page 203, it states: "A spellcaster must have a hand free to access [material] components, but it can be the same hand that he or she uses to perform somatic components."

Also, "A character can use a component pouch or a spellcasting focus ... in place of the [material] components specified for a spell."

On page 151, it states: "A cleric or paladin ... must hold [the holy symbol] in hand, wear it visibly, or bear it on a shield."

I would argue that, in the case of cleric and paladin spells that require both a material and somatic component, that the latter is the act of presenting the former, especially if you are using a holy symbol rather than whatever is specified in the spell description.

If you've got an amulet, you hold it in your hand. If you've got a shield with a holy symbol on it, you hold it so the holy symbol is facing whatever your target is. If you've got it as a reliquary strapped to your arm, you touch it or move your arm so the box is "pointing" in the desired direction.

I've even allowed players to have a holy symbol as a tattoo. In that case, they've needed to have a free hand to touch the tattoo.

Anyway, I don't really see how having a holy symbol on an amulet is any different to having a holy symbol on a shield. If you have to have a hand free to grab your holy symbol amulet to use it as a focus, fine. If you've got the symbol on your shield, well, you're already holding it, so that makes things easier for you! Imagine if you had it on an amulet and you used a shield that *didn't* have the symbol on it. That could get awkward!

pukunui said:

I would argue that it is exactly the same.

Some pertinent rules from the PHB:

On page 203, it states: "A spellcaster must have a hand free to access [material] components, but it can be the same hand that he or she uses to perform somatic components."

Also, "A character can use a component pouch or a spellcasting focus ... in place of the [material] components specified for a spell."

On page 151, it states: "A cleric or paladin ... must hold [the holy symbol] in hand, wear it visibly, or bear it on a shield."

I would argue that, in the case of cleric and paladin spells that require both a material and somatic component, that the latter is the act of presenting the former, especially if you are using a holy symbol rather than whatever is specified in the spell description.

If you've got an amulet, you hold it in your hand. If you've got a shield with a holy symbol on it, you hold it so the holy symbol is facing whatever your target is. If you've got it as a reliquary strapped to your arm, you touch it or move your arm so the box is "pointing" in the desired direction.

I've even allowed players to have a holy symbol as a tattoo. In that case, they've needed to have a free hand to touch the tattoo.

Anyway, I don't really see how having a holy symbol on an amulet is any different to having a holy symbol on a shield. If you have to have a hand free to grab your holy symbol amulet to use it as a focus, fine. If you've got the symbol on your shield, well, you're already holding it, so that makes things easier for you! Imagine if you had it on an amulet and you used a shield that *didn't* have the symbol on it. That could get awkward!

Click to expand...

The way I see it, the RAW doesn't specify that using a focus removes the requirement for a free hand in general. Only that if both the somatic and material components require a free hand, it can be the same hand so you don't need 2 free hands.

Things do get awkward with a holy symbol because the RAW says you can either hold it or wear/bear it, and the latter clearly doesn't require a free hand (the errata also says you need a free hand to HOLD the focus, it doesn't say you need it to WEAR it).

Also notice there is no need to "present" the focus, that word is used for Channel Divinity but not spellcasting. So you literally need to do nothing at all with your hands if you wear/bear the holy symbol.

But the point is, because you don't need to do anything at all, you are not using a hand. So you cannot say you are using the "same hand" also for somatic components. If you want to do that, you need a free hand.

Meh. I feel that is needlessly pedantic.

pukunui said:

Meh. I feel that is needlessly pedantic.

Click to expand...

Yes, but if people start arguing pedantically I respond pedantically

Don't judge me badly. In my own games I don't give a damn about spells component rules except extreme circumstances (a Silence spell preventing verbal components for instance). Anything less than extreme or clearly specified gets handwaved because the reality of somatic/material components rules is that they ARE pedantic but nearly useless (they are irrelevant for most Arcane casters who normally don't use shields and provide exceptions for clerics and paladins so what is REALLY their purpose... to bully Druids?). Their main effects are to frustrate those wanting to follow the RAW, and making people pedantically and uselessly argue with each other. In short, they are a neat example of BAD DESIGN. And sage advice is even wrong about it, but even if it were correct it wouldn't redeem the rules a bit.

So when I answer pedantically and annoyingly, it's not because I want to prove you wrong... it's because I want to fuel the feeling that some rules are cr4p.