Do you let Eldritch Knight or Clerics cast while using a (real) shield?

[CleverNickName]

This is true, but people don't want balance, they want to just do whatever they want without restriction. I have been personally insulted on these boards for suggesting using variant encumbrance, which just so happens balances out the STR dump builds, in particular the medium armor and shield carrying hexblade dips by slowing them down. I also use it because without using it powerful build trait, dwarf armor trait, mithral as a material, boots of striding, bags of holding, Hewards haversack, portable holes, converting coins into more portable gems, etc are all devalued, but mainly the complaints are the STR dump builds.

I just figure once you start handwaving things that are meant as balancing factors when does it stop?

I didn't mean to nit a nerve. Game balance is always important, but the exact amount of importance people give it can vary. Some people play this game as a power fantasy (and things like rules and restrictions really spoil their fun), others play it as a combat simulator (and things like weightless weapons and armor really spoil their fun). Most of us fall somewhere in between, picking and choosing the things that are most important to maximize fun for everyone. I'm willing to bend on some things, but I will not bend at all on magic.

But since you brought it up, and at the risk of going off-topic, here's my thoughts on Strength as a dump stat. I don't require the player to keep track of every pound and coin they are carrying. But if a character has a below-average Strength score, they are "on my radar." I will constantly describe the player as being out of breath, muscles still sore from carrying their backpack the day before, breaking a sweat over menial tasks, etc. I start asking for Strength checks out of the blue for things like using a heavy weapon or trying to lift a trapdoor open (and then ignore the result.) And so forth. It reminds the player that I'm watching for exploits, and that their build matters...which keeps them from trying stunts like dual-wielding halberds or whatever. It creates a bit of work for me, but no more than tracking every pound of weight on ever character sheet would.

 

[Aiden_Keller_]

BTW that's a good DM. You wont forget things like that again and clearly you can make your own stuff.

He is an AMAZING DM!
I have become a better player because of his style....and yes I could have it made (I was not skilled enough of a character to do so)...it cost more then a normal shield and took time but it was worth that so I could have the shield...also gave me Resistance to Acid Damage if the Shield was being wielded. He argued that an Ankheg's shell would have this...so the shield should as well.

 

[Bacon Bits]

Do you let spellcasters cast with weapon & shield in hand?

Yes, effectively. Everybody understands that, in practice, there's more than enough action leeway built into the system to allow just about everything you'd want to do to happen and it just slows the game down to require the caster to vocalize the juggling. Actual problems of impossible sequences come up so extremely rarely that it's essentially ignored.

Note that we have pretty loose rules. We also allow:

* Allow drawing readily accessible thrown weapons for each attack you're making. Thrown weapons suck enough.
* Ignore ammunition tracking. We charge 20 times the price of a normal quiver (20gp), and then we just ignore it as a part of maintenance costs. Not worth the bookkeeping.
* Ignore encumbrance, except for excessive abuse. Not worth the bookkeeping, especially once there's a bag of holding.
* Allow drinking your own potion as a bonus action. Potions are generally not powerful enough to bother with otherwise.

And a few other things that less flexible tables would probably object to.

 

[Volund]

In our group we stick fairly close to RAW and RAI, but after some discussion agreed that it wasn't fun to keep track of which spells needed an arcane/divine focus and an empty hand. We use the following rules for VSM components:
1) Casters are able to cast spells if they are able to freely speak and move their hands - i.e. not bound and gagged by physical or magical means.
2) If a generic material component or focus is required, we assume the character has it readily at hand in a way that makes sense for that character. For any caster class that has built-in sword and board or two-weapon fighting, it makes sense for the shield or weapon to be the material component.
3) If a spell requires a specific material component that would not normally be at hand, you need a free hand to retrieve it and use it. For example, a cleric would not be able to cast Holy Aura unless they had a free hand to hold the holy reliquary while casting the spell.

This speeds up play while not making casters any more powerful, and the War Caster feat is still popular for its other benefits.

To us, XGtE was a tacit admission by the 5e team that the rules for S&B or TWF casters in the PHB needed to be tweaked, but since they have a policy of not re-writing any rules in previously published material, they would just make do with fixing it going forward. Exhibit A is the College of Swords, which gets to use a weapon as an arcane focus to enable their TWF option. Sucks to be you, Valor Bard, with your weapon and shield proficiency but still needing an instrument in hand to cast spells! Exhibit B was the Improved Pact Weapon invocation that made the pact blade an arcane focus. Between the first and second UA playtests the minimum level was dropped from 5th to become immediately available when the warlock got the pact weapon boon at 3rd level. Why do this unless the designers recognized that a hexblade with a shield and weapon required an exception to the "empty hand for an arcane focus" rule? There was enough there for us to conclude that the RAI are that these sorts of characters should be able to cast spells while holding their combat gear.

 

[Immortal Sun]

I voted yes, because fundamentally if your classes' shtick is "magical warrior" you should be able to, ya know, do that. You shouldn't have to choose between magicking or warrioring, that's the choice between Fighter and Wizard. But if you picked the "magic fighter" class you should, well, be able to be a magic fighter.

That said, I'm also not a huge stickler for tracking the VSM/F elements of spells unless people get abusive. I also allow gold-to-components at 2x component cost.

 

[Yunru]

BTW that's a good DM. You wont forget things like that again and clearly you can make your own stuff.

It's really not. It's punishing a player for assuming something occurred off-screen that their character would naturally do.
It's only a couple of steps removed of having a character's bowels explode because the player didn't mention they took a dump.

 

[epithet]

The only real change I make to the published rules on spell components is that you can use a focus to perform somatic components. "Swish and flick," as Hermione says. If you're a cleric, the forceful presentation of your holy symbol is adequate for almost any spell that requires a somatic component.

One thing I've been considering but haven't yet implemented is a feat to allow the use of a focus for casters (arcane tricksters, eldritch knights, or even magic adepts) who do not have the focus class feature. It seems like +1 to your spellcasting stat and the ability to use the focus associated with the class your spell list comes from would be a reasonable feat, but I also see the value of having these casters limited to a component pouch.

 

[smbakeresq]

It's really not. It's punishing a player for assuming something occurred off-screen that their character would naturally do.
It's only a couple of steps removed of having a character's bowels explode because the player didn't mention they took a dump.

No, just no. It’s not natural to build a shield out of an ankheg, it was probably down off table. If the player does something like that and fully describes what they are doing and leaves something out, hey that’s on them. It had no effect on game except to make it more fun, the player clearly enjoyed it and it was memorable.

 

[Yunru]

No, just no. It’s not natural to build a shield out of an ankheg, it was probably down off table. If the player does something like that and fully describes what they are doing and leaves something out, hey that’s on them. It had no effect on game except to make it more fun, the player clearly enjoyed it and it was memorable.

It's fully natural for a character who routinely uses a holy symbol embossed on their shield to have a holy symbol embossed on any shield they intend on using.

 

[guachi]

There was an Eldritch Knight IMC who used sword & shield. I would let him cast 'Shield' as a reaction. Pretty sure that's not RAW - but per RAW he could just have dropped the weapon then resummoned it, so it was more that the visuals looked better than any mechanical advantage.

In general, I was wondering how strict people are about letting spellcasters cast spells while equipped with weapon & shield?

I let the EK in my campaign toss her sword in the air, cast Shield, and resummon it to her hand. Yes, you can't use a bonus action on someone else's turn but turns are just artificial, anyway.

She had fun coming up with silly ways to throw her sword. The "throw" never actually did anything. It was all fluff and fun descriptions.