D&D 5E How many hands does a fighter-mage type need?

[Ancalagon]

Hello

(I know this was sort of discussed with in a bard thread but the issue got tangled with all sorts of weird bard-specific issues that I feel aren't relevant to the discussion. There is also the "shield as holy symbol" thing that I'll ignore for now).

So Lu-Po, the slugman eldrich knight, has been fighting with a halberd for a while. It's very convenient, whenever he wants to cast a spell he holds on to the halberd with the left hand and cast with his right. But Lu-Po has been getting hit a lot lately, and he's switched to a shield and talwar style. This is where it get a bit complicated.

The table on "interacting with object" in the combat chapter indicates that you can combine sheathing *or* (not both) drawing a weapon with an action or a move. So the following would be legal:

Round 1: Lu-Po draws his talwar and attacks the goblin chief three times, killing him.
Round 2: Lu-po sheathes this talwar and cast fireball on the fleeing goblins.

So far so good. But what about bonus actions and reactions?

Round 1: Lu-po sheathes his talwar to cast minor image to distract the goblins
Bonus action: Lu-po draws his sword to strike at the goblin chief
Reaction: the goblins are not fooled by the illusion and pelt Lu-po with arrows. To protect himself, he draws his sword and cast shield.

So, I think the *fundamental* question her is "can a character draw (or sheathe) a weapon as part of a bonus action/reaction". Because if he/she can, then weapon and shield is a valid style of fighting for a "gish". If he or she cannot, then unless you are "cheating" by having your shield be a focus, this style is *not* flexible enough and the character is better off with a 2-handed weapon, or a weapon in one hand and the other hand empty.

This is a bit sad because it would lessen the argument that the EK is good because of superior defensive potential.

 

[Zardnaar]

Nope RAW you need to use a two handed weapon or take the warcaster feat to enable easy casting. Two weapon feat also lets you draw/sheathe two objects.

 

[trentonjoe]

I don't think you can sheath a weapon as part of a bonus action. I am pretty sure you cant as a reaction.

Your options are:

Take Warcaster
Cast spells that are verbal only
Keep a hand free

 

[Tony Vargas]

How many hands does a fighter-mage type need?

Three.

Right Hand.

Left Hand.

Mage Hand.



..sorry..

 

[The Grassy Gnoll]

Yep, sheathing or drawing a weapon can only be done as part of your Move or your Action.
You can't do either as a Bonus Action or as a Reaction.

I'd suggest that the Arcane Focus for this would be the better solution than the component pouch. Build your spell casting focus into the hilt or pommel of your tulwar (wizards qualify for Arcane Foci, so EK's would too, as they follow the Wizard spell casting tradition). That way you are accessing it whilst holding your weapon.

The rules describe a wizard being able to have her arcane focus being an orb embedded in her staff - I think we all imagine that as "gesture with staff you're holding in the middle of its length, point the tip at the bad guy, orb glows magically, pow" rather than "rub orb". If so, the same principle applies to a sword.

Problem solved, for your EK anyway. Shield - check. Sword - check. In contact with Arcane Focus - check. No sheathing required.

For dual wielding EKs, same thing.

If Multi-Classing to obtain your 'Gish', so long as you're a Sorc, Warlock, or Wizard - or even possibly a Druid (though I can't imagine anyone sees a Druid as the best spell casting side to a 'Gish' character), you're good.

Edit: thought occurred that the EK's Weapon Bond fits perfectly with the concept of their bonded weapon containing their Arcane Focus. It's THAT important to them. Also almost demands that your bonded weapon gets a name, too.

Edit#2: Make sure your Arcane Focus pommel is a 50gp diamond and you're also good to Chromatic Orb it up. Someone steals it 'cause it's a shiny shiny diamond? Weapon Bond teleport. Boom.

 

[Prism]

Warcaster doesn't help fighter-mages that much. Too many good spells need a material component and therefore you still need to sheath your weapon often to cast. I am playing a fighter-mage type and a melee cleric both without warcaster and its fine. Sometimes you cant make an opportunity attack but otherwise it works well enough

 

[Ancalagon]

The pommel of a sword is not just a "chunk of metal" - its shape and weight have significant impact on the performance of the sword.

However, if there are students of magic who would have figures out how to make an orb "just right" as a sword pommel, it would be the EKs... And you are completely right that it does fit with the EK theme. It's not strictly RAW but I would allow it.

*adds to "house rules" folder*

 

[Kobold Stew]

I'd suggest that the Arcane Focus for this would be the better solution than the component pouch. Build your spell casting focus into the hilt or pommel of your tulwar (wizards qualify for Arcane Foci, so EK's would too, as they follow the Wizard spell casting tradition). That way you are accessing it whilst holding your weapon.

The rules describe a wizard being able to have her arcane focus being an orb embedded in her staff - I think we all imagine that as "gesture with staff you're holding in the middle of its length, point the tip at the bad guy, orb glows magically, pow" rather than "rub orb". If so, the same principle applies to a sword.

Problem solved, for your EK anyway. Shield - check. Sword - check. In contact with Arcane Focus - check. No sheathing required.

Shenanigans like this wouldn't fly at my table. If a gimmick like this were allowed, then there's no point in having the rules about the focus at all -- with this "solution" you are simply providing a workaround to the rule. (Which is fine -- to each her own, rulings not rules, etc. -- but it is obviously not the intended result.)

Why "obviously"? Because it means that there's a different mechanical consequence for a wizard who uses a crystal as a focus and one who uses a rod. It also makes the second bullet point in the War Caster feat meaningless.

As it is, the focus rules are weak and inconsistent enough already, and so I understand the desire to go around them. I still wouldn't allow it.

 

[Ancalagon]

You are definitely right that it's not RAW.

I will note however, that swords *have* been used as magical focus in Europe in the past (well yes it didn't actually work, but some people believed it did). I guess that the game designers didn't have access to the same Hermetic texts I have

In an old 3e game I was involved in oh, 15 years ago, my battle cleric would briefly tuck his mace under his left arm, cast with his right hand, then grasp it again. But I guess that too would count as shenanigans...

 

[Prism]

You are definitely right that it's not RAW.

I will note however, that swords *have* been used as magical focus in Europe in the past (well yes it didn't actually work, but some people believed it did). I guess that the game designers didn't have access to the same Hermetic texts I have

In an old 3e game I was involved in oh, 15 years ago, my battle cleric would briefly tuck his mace under his left arm, cast with his right hand, then grasp it again. But I guess that too would count as shenanigans...

Well technically you could drop your weapon, cast the spell and then pick it up again which creates the same desired effect so I'd probably allow a character to tuck it under their arm. Also in 3e light shields left your hand free so there is some precedence there too