D&D 5E Sage Advice: Spellcasting

[Prism]

You make a good point. But to me this feels like it slightly invalidates the class needlessly, in that the spells are intended to augment the Eldritch Knight. Why restrict spell-use or weapon/armor choices "downward" (if you get my drift)?

I have an Eldritch Knight in the party and the player was non-plussed that she couldn't use a shield. I don't see much of a problem letting her have both, so I am tempted to waive the somatic component for that class given how few spells they have.

On the other, tactical class trade-offs are interesting in my opinion (not necessarily my player's opinion). However, in the negative scenario indicated, it suggests that it is less of a tactical option and more of an imposition.

I play fighter spellcaster...actually a fighter/wizard but the same problem as the Eldritch Knight. He uses a two handed sword so I just assume manipulating between hands takes no real effort. Grab in one hand, cast a spell, grab with two - that kind of thing. If it wasn't that way there would be a few monsters too that would spend their time juggling weapons to cast spells which isn't exactly what the DM wants to be worrying about. I do tend to use the component pouch so I don't have to worry about holding wands and the like. Except for the fact it doesn't seem to be able to hold all my small glass beads without them falling out as others have noticed.

Using the same idea I cannot see a problem ruling that you can move a weapon to a shield hand while casting and then back again ready for combat. 3e had a light shield that let you do that specifically - no reason 5e can't assume the same. Holding two weapons in one hand seems fine too. Besides, if a DM gets to strict about it the player is probably going to work out that they can drop their weapon (freely), cast their spell and then pick the weapon back off the floor all by the rules. Deeply unheroic.

I reckon its only reaction spells and possibly bonus spells where I would consider the timings of swapping weapons/focus

 

[CrusaderX]

Glad to see the Hand Police that suffused late 3e and 4e are alive and well...

My houserule: "It is a free action to change what you are holding in your hands on your turn."

This only interferes with spells cast as a reaction - if you didn't have your doodad in your hands at the end of your last turn, you won't be able to put it back in your hands to cast a spell as a reaction.

Very nice. A simple and elegant solution. I think I may use this.

 

[Rod Staffwand]

For globe of invulnerability the bead shatters, it's not consumed by the spell. It's a bit of flavor, that's all.

The spells that consume components are virtually all spells with long casting times or non-combat applications (clone, divination, glyph of warding, heroes' feast, magic mouth, etc.) so the inconvenience is primarily in the consumption of the component, not in how many hands you need to have free.

 

[CrusaderX]

I saw a suggestion elsewhere to allow an Eldritch Knight to use their Bonded weapon as their Arcane Focus. This is another simple houserule that seems to go a long way into streamlining things, at least for EKs.

 

[TwoSix]

Glad to see the Hand Police that suffused late 3e and 4e are alive and well...

My houserule: "It is a free action to change what you are holding in your hands on your turn."

This only interferes with spells cast as a reaction - if you didn't have your doodad in your hands at the end of your last turn, you won't be able to put it back in your hands to cast a spell as a reaction.

Honestly, I'd lean towards making it more restrictive, not less. "It is an action to change what you are holding in your hands." Keeping a hand free than becomes an actual tactical benefit, rather than worrying about situations where you're constantly juggling to make sure you have both hands doing something.

Basically, if you want to be casting spells in combat, don't use a two-handed weapon or dual-wield.

 

[jayoungr]

Bards probably have the hardest time trying to juggle weapons, instruments and when needed costly components.

Bards can use an instrument for an arcane focus, so it's not any worse than any other class that uses both a focus and a weapon.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Honestly, I'd lean towards making it more restrictive, not less. "It is an action to change what you are holding in your hands." Keeping a hand free than becomes an actual tactical benefit, rather than worrying about situations where you're constantly juggling to make sure you have both hands doing something.

Basically, if you want to be casting spells in combat, don't use a two-handed weapon or dual-wield.

Yeah, that solution works, too - ultimately, the same effect, not really worrying about juggling things, just a different emphasis. I'm cool with folks having a few more options and being able to swap on the fly, you're cool with the decision of what you're wielding being a significant one that takes time to change. Your version is also GOBS more "realistic."

 

[fjw70]

Personally I don't really worry what a spell caster is holding. As long as the hands aren't bound in some way then cast whatever you like.

 

[TwoSix]

Yeah, that solution works, too - ultimately, the same effect, not really worrying about juggling things, just a different emphasis. I'm cool with folks having a few more options and being able to swap on the fly, you're cool with the decision of what you're wielding being a significant one that takes time to change. Your version is also GOBS more "realistic."

"Realistic?" That's a low blow. I'm going to go damage something with a miss to make up for that one.

But yea, it's the corner cases and juggling that I despise. I'd rather just let you hold whatever and not worry about S or M components than get into discussions about holding your greatsword with one hand or can you make somatic gestures with your shield hand. But, I also like the image of a melee caster using a sword in one hand and a wand in the other, or a wizard just using a staff, so I wouldn't mind supporting that.

Maybe a house rule that holding a focus in one hand counts as both S and M components. That might be the ticket. Have to think about that one.

 

[Prism]

Bards can use an instrument for an arcane focus, so it's not any worse than any other class that uses both a focus and a weapon.

Its just that the other focus's are a bit easier to access quickly. Clerics and Paladins can stick theirs on a shield or around their neck for quick access, wizards, sorcerers, druids and warlocks are probably good using a staff and often have a free hand anyway for the expensive components. Rangers, Eldritch Knights and Arcane Tricksters don't get a focus so need to use a component pouch - which is probably the best general option anyway since it sits on your belt and doesn't need to be drawn

Bards probably want to use a fancy instrument (I know I would if playing a bard), but most of them are two handed and aren't really ideal during combat if you also want to mix in weapon and shield use. Some DM's won't let you put your weapon away and retrieve your instrument in a single round since the rules say only one interaction a round. Others might impose restrictions on playing while using a shield since you need two hands to play most instruments - I know our group would. You could argue that you don't actually play an instrument when casting the spell but that seems weird. So I would use a component pouch during combat and an instrument out of combat unless the DM was easy with the 'free hand/interacting' rules