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

[jmartkdr]

I allow it IF the EK spent the money/time/whatever to make their weapon a spellcasting focus. The Ruby of the War Mage is the quickest way, but weapons that cost +100 gp and also count as foci are available wherever fine weapons are sold.

It's a small change, and doesn't really affect much, but it creates an in-universe solution, which help make it look right. It also means that being disarmed is a slightly bigger issue, since it would interfere with spellcasting as well.

 

[Ralif Redhammer]

I generally don’t bother with making them declare that they drop a weapon, cast a spell, then pick it back up again. I totally get the argument for it, but I don’t care to micromanage a game that much.

However, if it’s the PC is already doing something like holding onto a rope or something, yeah, you only have so many hands to work with in a situation like that.

 

[5ekyu]

Within the rules, there are lots of ways around it.

Free drop weapon leaving trail of weapons.
Common magic item ruby valued at iirc less than 100gp.
Feat war caster where this is one of the benefits out of three?
For other spellcasters, a staff (d6 v d8) can be an arcane focus anyway.

Way too much of an inside baseball finicky bit for my taste to not make the sword an impediment but just make there be a few hoops to jump thru to get there.

Besides, ditch the shield, go for 2H sword or axe and it all goes away plus you open up GWM etc. Or PAM.

Its not like these hoops are "reigning in" a powerhouse.

Imo 5e needed to rethink its "components" a bit more.

 

[Oofta]

According to the PHB "A spellcaster must have a hand free to access a spell's material components -- or to hold a spellcasting focus -- but it can be the same hand that he or she uses to perform somatic components."


I allow a shield (or weapon) to be a spellcasting focus, therefore the hand holding the shield can be used to perform somatic components.

 

[DEFCON 1]

I handwave the Component system except as fluff if the player wishes to do so for their character. The only reason I see to use components is so that at some point I as the DM can take away the component use so a caster character can't cast. But as I find that gimmick to be incredibly lame as a repetitive obstacle, I don't bother with it. Same reason why I don't have my monsters disarming weapon-users all the time.

If I'm going to have the PCs unable to cast or use weapons, it'll be an actual adventure that causes the situation, not kinda-written game mechanics.

 

[Yunru]

I voted "No."
But that's a bit inaccurate, as there are several special cases, such as holy symbols on shields, and staves.
I also let Arcane Knights use weapons as spellcasting foci.

 

[Satyrn]

I guess my biggest issue around this is that RAW requires one hand free to use (S) spells, but RAW also allows a caster to drop their weapon for free, cast spell, then pick up weapon from the floor as their Object Interaction - and the visuals of this happening repeatedly are so silly that I would rather just ignore the whole thing.

Yeah, my table ignores the whole thing. (And we use feats)

We also allow someone to switch out their "weapon load" ( like go from using a bow to sure and shield) without spending an action simply because we've found it unfun to nitpick these things.

 

[Hriston]

This is a “let me explain.” My ruling is that momentarily shifting your weapon to your shield hand while you cast with your weapon hand and then shifting it back is interacting with a single object, and so takes up the same amount of the action economy as the much sillier drop and pick up routine.

 

[Dausuul]

I guess my biggest issue around this is that RAW requires one hand free to use (S) spells, but RAW also allows a caster to drop their weapon for free, cast spell, then pick up weapon from the floor as their Object Interaction - and the visuals of this happening repeatedly are so silly that I would rather just ignore the whole thing.

I concur (although note that, by the book, this trick does not work for reaction spells like shield). In general, I really do not want to devote table time to this kind of thing. Besides, playing a gish in 5E is hard enough already.

I'm aware of the concern around War Caster, but I don't think that's a good enough justification to keep this rule. War Caster is primarily about advantage on Concentration saves and being able to cast spells as OAs. If all you get is those two things, it's still a solid feat for a caster.

 

[Henry]

I'm more along the lines of Charlaquin, in that I play it fairly strictly for that (VSM components + Warcaster), though I haven't had anyone yet ask for investing in some kind of special equipment or "painting their holy symbol on their weapon/shield" kind of stuff. Mostly, spellcasters in our games just don't use shields, usually only the fighters or barabrians. (We had a Paladin who did the two-handed weapon thing, and could have dropped his grip, but he almost never cast his spells, he used them for smite-fuel. )