Mistwell can you tell me where? If WOTC has said that a hand with a shield on it can be used to do somatic components, that seems like a fairly big change.
D&D 5E Shields and Somatic Components: Will you play it "as is?"
- Thread starter Stalker0
- Start date
Mistwell can you tell me where? If WOTC has said that a hand with a shield on it can be used to do somatic components, that seems like a fairly big change.
Juriel
First Post
Not until you can cast + attack in the same round, at least, like Valor Bard's lv14-ish feature...
Mistwell
Crusty Old Meatwad
It's here (and see Twitter exchange below). But it's not a change at all. The rules already say you can use the same hand for somatic gestures as you use for the material component or focus replacement for the material component. The rules also say a divine focus can be engraved on your shield. So you bear your symbol on your shield, and can do the somatic components with that same hand.
PHB (p.151): "Holy Symbol. A holy symbol is a representation of a god or pantheon. It might be an amulet depicting a symbol representing a deity, the same symbol carefully engraved or inlaid as an emblem on a shield, or a tiny box holding a fragment o f a sacred relic. Appendix B lists the symbols commonly associated with many gods in the multiverse. A cleric or paladin can use a holy symbol as a spellcasting focus, as described in chapter 10. To use the symbol in this way, the caster must hold it in hand, wear it visibly, or bear it on a shield.""
PHB (p. 203) "A spellcaster must have a hand free to access these (material/focus) components, but it can be the same hand that he or she uses to perform somatic components."
See also:
Jon @DBassJon Sep 3
[MENTION=4036]Jeremy[/MENTION]ECrawford can a Cleric or Paladin cast spells requiring somatic components when wielding weapon + shield emblazoned with holy symbol?
Jeremy Crawford ‏ [MENTION=4036]Jeremy[/MENTION]ECrawford 15h
@DBassJon 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"
I personally don't like that ruling, but there you have it.
Last edited:
A shield emblem is a valid holy symbol. A holy symbol can be used as a focus for a cleric spell. The limb which manipulates the focus can also perform the somatic components of a spell. Therefore, a cleric with a shield emblem can cast with a weapon in one hand and a shield in the other. Q.E.D.
During the play test, I had a big issue with the (ever-changing) way foci were being presented, because everyone could use them one-handed, except the bard. Well, the bard *could*, but it was silly (you didn't play your lute to get the benefit, you just held it out and shook it at the opponent).
When released, the game had made changes, both with what the focus did, and that it was essentially interchangeable with a material components pouch. Despite their training in musical instruments, I think that many bards will naturally take the pouch instead because conceptually it only requires one hand.
I've not seen enough bards in lay to have a clear sense of this. So, problem solved, I guess, but it still doesn't feel fully satisfactory.
When released, the game had made changes, both with what the focus did, and that it was essentially interchangeable with a material components pouch. Despite their training in musical instruments, I think that many bards will naturally take the pouch instead because conceptually it only requires one hand.
I've not seen enough bards in lay to have a clear sense of this. So, problem solved, I guess, but it still doesn't feel fully satisfactory.
Mistwell
Crusty Old Meatwad
Hands free mini mouth organ is the way to go
[video=youtube_share;Y4Fsb06R5wI]http://youtu.be/Y4Fsb06R5wI[/video]
travathian
First Post
Hands free mini mouth organ is the way to go
I was going to post the very same thing! People get stuck in a rut thinking every bard has to use a lute. If you are looking for ideas for musical instruments for bards, consider checking out the http://mim.org/ for pictures. Many of them can be used hands free, one handed, etc.
This will be my interpretation regardless of what WotC says.
Most shields are strapped to the arm anyway, with some having a handle to grip on to. Letting go of the handle for a second to wiggle your fingers and point at a target seems reasonable.
I feel that if the character is proficient in the weapon they are wielding, they can still use their weapon hand to cast a spell or reach for a material component, without having to stow it for a round. Given the large number of classes and sub-classes that have magic casting abilities doing otherwise puts them at a significant disadvantage.
Prism
Explorer
This or putting your weapon in your shield hand temporarily therefore freeing the other hand up.
As a reference 3e allowed holding of items in a shield hand with a light shield so it pretty much how we played then. Earlier editions didn't worry much about this kind of stuff
As others have said, the only class that might have some issues is bard since I assume they might need two hands for some of the instruments.
Li Shenron
Legend
In 3e we typically played by the rules: you needed a free hand to cast spells with somatic component, so you had to take into account every action for freeing your hand (such as dropping or stoving a weapon and then retrieving it, or changing hands, whatever the action economy dictated). That's because 3e was highly tactical, and this sort of things mattered. No ting shortcuts like mace-straps or whatever, the tactical choices were supposed to be part of the game, so you either accepted this tactical edge of 3e or completely removed the issue of somatic components (for everyone, not just the cleric) without a need for explanation.
In 5e I don't feel like I want to go back to that tactical detail, at least for a long time. So I am basically just considering somatic components irrelevant, except perhaps in corner cases when it might sound interesting to add some challenge (e.g. a character is completely immobilized, or is using both hands to holding something important, or to hold herself from falling).
I may also consider doing the same for material components and divine focus. Except for rare circumstances, the spellcaster is going to have whatever it takes her to get the proficiency bonus on spells. Once in a while, it might serve the story to have her lose access to that: maybe she loses her staff/orb/wand/pouch. What matters to me is that I will try to treat all character options equally. For example with musical instruments as bardic focus, I don't want to see people feel penalized because they chose a lute over a flute or drum. Now if the game actually provided trade-offs (so that instruments requiring 2 hands had additional benefits) it would become a tactical choice, but since it doesn't, I don't want to see some characters penalized for such kind of choice, and I don't want suddenly all "smart" bards in the fantasy world to be singers because it's more convenient...
Verbal components are actually the more interesting ones to decide about. If you enforce "full volume" required, you have spellcasters who can't cast spells while hiding, or who can't conceal their spellcasting while for example in a social environment. However this is not necessarily the right choice. It's just as valid to have a fantasy world where spells can be whispered, as a way to conceal them, or stay hidden while spellcasting; considering that you can always let the dice decide (i.e. request a Hide or similar check), I will probably allow this to happen. Completely removing verbal components on the other hand may have more significant consequences, for instance in the interaction with spells like Silence so I won't probably go that far.
ting shortcuts like mace-straps or whatever, the tactical choices were supposed to be part of the game, so you either accepted this tactical edge of 3e or completely removed the issue of somatic components (for everyone, not just the cleric) without a need for explanation.In 5e I don't feel like I want to go back to that tactical detail, at least for a long time. So I am basically just considering somatic components irrelevant, except perhaps in corner cases when it might sound interesting to add some challenge (e.g. a character is completely immobilized, or is using both hands to holding something important, or to hold herself from falling).
I may also consider doing the same for material components and divine focus. Except for rare circumstances, the spellcaster is going to have whatever it takes her to get the proficiency bonus on spells. Once in a while, it might serve the story to have her lose access to that: maybe she loses her staff/orb/wand/pouch. What matters to me is that I will try to treat all character options equally. For example with musical instruments as bardic focus, I don't want to see people feel penalized because they chose a lute over a flute or drum. Now if the game actually provided trade-offs (so that instruments requiring 2 hands had additional benefits) it would become a tactical choice, but since it doesn't, I don't want to see some characters penalized for such kind of choice, and I don't want suddenly all "smart" bards in the fantasy world to be singers because it's more convenient...
Verbal components are actually the more interesting ones to decide about. If you enforce "full volume" required, you have spellcasters who can't cast spells while hiding, or who can't conceal their spellcasting while for example in a social environment. However this is not necessarily the right choice. It's just as valid to have a fantasy world where spells can be whispered, as a way to conceal them, or stay hidden while spellcasting; considering that you can always let the dice decide (i.e. request a Hide or similar check), I will probably allow this to happen. Completely removing verbal components on the other hand may have more significant consequences, for instance in the interaction with spells like Silence so I won't probably go that far.
Similar Threads
