D&D 5E Sage Advice: Spellcasting

[DEFCON 1]

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.

What I like about your suggestion here is that in most of my time playing, the Versatile property is completely useless. Either one-handed weapon users have another weapon or a shield in the other hand (thus making the possibility of wielding the weapon with two hands moot), or if they intend on wielding a weapon in two hands, they just use an actual two handed weapon for the greater damage dice.

But with what you are stating here... Versatile actually comes into use. A EK cannot wield a greatsword, then let go with one of his hands to cast spells with it, because the sword is too heavy to hold up that way (while keeping it up in position to attack or defend with next turn). Thus, an EK must use a longsword instead because it's smaller enough that he can. *But* because of the Versatile property... on those rounds when he doesn't cast a spell, at least he can put his free hand onto the weapon and use two hands to wield it to get that extra point of damage.

That makes much more sense to me and makes use of a weapon property that I've never really experienced a need or use for. Good show!

 

[TwoSix]

But with what you are stating here... Versatile actually comes into use. A EK cannot wield a greatsword, then let go with one of his hands to cast spells with it, because the sword is too heavy to hold up that way (while keeping it up in position to attack or defend with next turn). Thus, an EK must use a longsword instead because it's smaller enough that he can. *But* because of the Versatile property... on those rounds when he doesn't cast a spell, at least he can put his free hand onto the weapon and use two hands to wield it to get that extra point of damage.

Wow, I'm pretty good! I didn't even think of that extra utility, but that's a pretty spot-on use. I think this is how I could combine some of these ideas.

"Replacing a weapon, a pair of weapons, or a weapon and shield you're holding with another weapon, pair of weapons, or a weapon and shield takes an action."
"Disarming yourself by dropping your weapon(s) and/or shield is a free action."
"If you are wielding a versatile weapon in one hand and have the other hand free, you may wield the weapon with two hands as a free action."
"The hand holding a focus is considered free for purposes of wielding a versatile weapon and casting a spell with somatic components".

 

[redrick]

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 have mostly ignored free-hand requirements in my game and am slightly regretting it. Our Eldritch Knight went sword and board in plate armor. As a result, he could throw up shield and get his AC up to 25. It's a limited resource, so not game breaking, but it did make combats a lot tougher for me. Since he could go most rounds without taking a hit anyway, the party could easily shut down any control point with no real risk of attrition.

I think the game definitely intends the decision to wear a shield to require a serious trade-off in offensive flexibility. An AC of 20 (or 21 with the defensive fighting style) is a huge AC that makes a character feel pretty invulnerable, especially in levels 3-5, where a lot of the opponents are still only getting +5 to hit.

On the other hand, one thing that I've been reminded of elsewhere on this forum is that casting shield burns a character's reaction, which means that a character loses the ability to make attacks of opportunity. So, monsters who would be aware of the in-world action economy, would recognize that the dude who just waved up a big force field is no longer going to pose a threat if they want to blow past him and go for the squishy guy in the back.

But, back on topic, yes, I would have appreciated a succinct summary of the intended affect of two-handed weapons on somatic casting components. If a character frees a hand from their great-sword to cast a spell, can they use that great-sword to make an opportunity attack as a reaction?

 

[TerraDave]

I have mostly ignored free-hand requirements in my game and am slightly regretting it. Our Eldritch Knight went sword and board in plate armor. As a result, he could throw up shield and get his AC up to 25. ...

Shield should not stack with shield.

 

[Tormyr]

Shield should not stack with shield.

Why not?

 

[SkidAce]

What I like about your suggestion here is that in most of my time playing, the Versatile property is completely useless. Either one-handed weapon users have another weapon or a shield in the other hand (thus making the possibility of wielding the weapon with two hands moot), or if they intend on wielding a weapon in two hands, they just use an actual two handed weapon for the greater damage dice.

But with what you are stating here... Versatile actually comes into use. A EK cannot wield a greatsword, then let go with one of his hands to cast spells with it, because the sword is too heavy to hold up that way (while keeping it up in position to attack or defend with next turn). Thus, an EK must use a longsword instead because it's smaller enough that he can. *But* because of the Versatile property... on those rounds when he doesn't cast a spell, at least he can put his free hand onto the weapon and use two hands to wield it to get that extra point of damage.

That makes much more sense to me and makes use of a weapon property that I've never really experienced a need or use for. Good show!

Interesting...there is value here...must consider....

 

[ExploderWizard]

We used to laugh at the "sage" advice in Dragon back in the day.

Good to see WOTC keeping old traditions alive.

 

[Beleriphon]

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

Thus the bard's best instrument is the harmonica on one of those neck stand things! Still gives you both free hands!

 

[sunrisekid]

I have mostly ignored free-hand requirements in my game and am slightly regretting it. Our Eldritch Knight went sword and board in plate armor. As a result, he could throw up shield and get his AC up to 25. It's a limited resource, so not game breaking, but it did make combats a lot tougher for me. Since he could go most rounds without taking a hit anyway, the party could easily shut down any control point with no real risk of attrition.

OOF! That sounds like a tough realization after the fact. I definitely do not like the sound of that, from the perspective of a DM who alreadys puts in a lot of time crafting challenging encounters. I'll keep that in mind, and perhaps stick with my original interpretation. You make great points, allow me to reply to a couple more.

I think the game definitely intends the decision to wear a shield to require a serious trade-off in offensive flexibility.

Agreed! This is a dimension of the game I really quite like. Trade offs reinforce player agency in how their character operates, and facilitates interesting character development.

If a character frees a hand from their great-sword to cast a spell, can they use that great-sword to make an opportunity attack as a reaction?

I am inclined to say "no", for three reasons:
(1) Intuitively, a great sword sounds like an enormous and awkward weapon to handle, it could be argued that it requires some readiness [OTOH, this is a flimsy argument, and I can imagine other non-attack, non-spell actions that should not necessarily preclude another two-hander from reacting to an AO].
(2) Champion and Battlemaster have the privilege of being heavier damage dealers by this reasoning, whereas the EK has greatest flexibility via spells. This is a reasonable class distinction, IMHO.
(3) The versatile property, be it longsword or battle-axe, is a compromise that still offers a reasonable trade-off from not using a shield. Overall, I am pretty satisfied with how this all works.

 

[Riley37]

Thus the bard's best instrument is the harmonica on one of those neck stand things! Still gives you both free hands!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l1EbSoiNh_Q

There are only a handful of one-hand-playable musical instruments: finger cymbals, harmonica, panpipes (and that's a stretch), kazoo. What if Bards could make musical magic by singing?