D&D 5E Casting with Shield - Bard Style

[Prism]

The difficulties faced by a bard when using a spell focus as a full spell caster are different than other full spell casters in the game. The difficulties emerge both in game mechanics and in the rationalization that is required to make sense of how the rules can be made to work.

The fact that one can invent situations that can be made to fit the rules is irrelevant: other full casters don't face these arbitrary constraints, and the rules do not seem aware of their own inconsistencies.

Its not really the bard that's the problem, its just that the other classes either don't use a shield or often use two weapon fighting. It would be a problem for eldritch knight or arcane trickster too but they don't get to use a focus anyway. The bard without a shield or two weapons is just fine.

 

[Kobold Stew]

Its not really the bard that's the problem, its just that the other classes either don't use a shield or often use two weapon fighting. It would be a problem for eldritch knight or arcane trickster too but they don't get to use a focus anyway.

The bard is a full caster; eldritch knight and arcane trickster are 1/3 casters. The fact that these are the comparison is, in fact, my point.

The bard without a shield or two weapons is just fine.

The fact that one can invent situations that can be made to fit the rules is irrelevant. It's still a sloppy rule, that they knew about during the play test period.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

The bard is a full caster; eldritch knight and arcane trickster are 1/3 casters. The fact that these are the comparison is, in fact, my point.

If you're a full-caster, and you have embraced your role as a full-caster, then why are you trying to pull off some wacky martial shenanigans? The Bard is a versatile class, but it can't be all things at all times.

 

[Kobold Stew]

Please tell me what wacky shenanigans you think I have suggested.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Please tell me what wacky shenanigans you think I have suggested.

Trying to be a full-fledged fighter-type, with a sword in one hand and a shield in the other, while simultaneously casting spells. That's a wacky shenanigan.

You can be a full-fledged fighter type, and equip yourself as such, but you need to temporarily give up your spellcasting in order to do so. Or you can be a spellcaster, and hide behind your shield while you cast spells. Or you can alternate between sword strikes and spells, if you ditch the shield. The only thing you can't do is to walk into a fight, with both hands full of fighting gear, and expect to cast spells.

 

[Prism]

The fact that one can invent situations that can be made to fit the rules is irrelevant. It's still a sloppy rule, that they knew about during the play test period.

I don't see a problem. A wizard or sorcerer that uses a shield or carries two weapons is in the same boat. Clerics are the only ones that are a little more free but they still have a few issues. Do you mean that its sloppy because a bard instrument requires two hands to play whereas an arcane focus only needs one hand? I'm not sure what other ruling there could be? Musical instruments in general require two hands. If you wear a shield then don't play an instrument in combat. Or use a horn. Or use a spell component pouch.

I am playing a valor bard with a weapon, shield and a horn. Its not a problem

 

[Anakzar]

Your own mouth could be considered a valid instrument. Whistling songs is a thing... People should not over think these things... also why does the bard even need to carry a shield? He/she might look cooler without Or maybe play an archer valor bard. and leave the close up shield fighting to the more knightly/heavy armor characters.

Alternatively a shield could be used as an instrument, banging on a shield to produce a beat. This was often done to intimidate the enemy... and has been portrayed in some films.

 

[Kobold Stew]

Trying to be a full-fledged fighter-type, with a sword in one hand and a shield in the other, while simultaneously casting spells. That's a wacky shenanigan.

You can be a full-fledged fighter type, and equip yourself as such, but you need to temporarily give up your spellcasting in order to do so. Or you can be a spellcaster, and hide behind your shield while you cast spells. Or you can alternate between sword strikes and spells, if you ditch the shield. The only thing you can't do is to walk into a fight, with both hands full of fighting gear, and expect to cast spells.

And where is any of this in what I have posted in this thread, please? If you want to fight a straw man, go ahead, but you don't need to cite me for that. If you want to engage in an honest exchange of ideas, then please respond to what I'm actually saying.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

And where is any of this in what I have posted in this thread, please?

You specifically said that Bards face arbitrary restrictions which other full-casters don't face, which is false, because all spellcasters face the same restrictions in terms of what they're required to give up in order to use a focus: one free hand with which to hold and manipulate that focus. This is true regardless of whether that focus is a wand or a horn, or if it's a pouch full of spell components.

The only difference is that Bards also have the option to wield a two-handed focus, such as a lute or lyre. If you want to give up two hands for that, then you're free to do so, but you lose nothing for having the option. That's not a restriction.

 

[Kobold Stew]

You specifically said that Bards face arbitrary restrictions which other full-casters don't face, which is false, because all spellcasters face the same restrictions in terms of what they're required to give up in order to use a focus: one free hand with which to hold and manipulate that focus. This is true regardless of whether that focus is a wand or a horn, or if it's a pouch full of spell components.

We agree. Post 10, point 1. I call this lame verisimilitude: You wave your clarinet, as an arbitrary restriction, and playing it is irrelevant.

'The only difference is that Bards also have the option to wield a two-handed focus, such as a lute or lyre. If you want to give up two hands for that, then you're free to do so, but you lose nothing for having the option. That's not a restriction.

Sigh. Any spellcaster can choose to wield their focus with two hands, right? I don't see why you think the bard is given something special here.