D&D 5E Shield in one hand, Axe in the other

[Paraxis]

There's a feat for this called War Caster.

And tough choices are a feature of D&D. Your character shouldn't be able to do and have everything at once. Without decisions to be made, you're just rolling dice.

War Caster's second bullet point only applies to somatic components, it still doesn't help if the spell has material components.

So it is great for the corner cases of paladins and clerics wanting to weapon and shield as they can always cast no matter the combination, but it doesn't help an eldritch knight or ranger that wants to cast while having weapons in both hands or weapon/shield really as they still need a hand free for material components if the spell requires them.

It is all kind of goofy, and imo best just to handwave these things especially if they take the War Caster feat.

 

[iserith]

How do I:

1. Cast a spell with S,M components and a time of 1 action?
2. Cast a spell as a bonus spell with S,M and then attack?
3. Cast a spell (like Shield) as a reaction?

Attach your spell components in some fashion to the inside of your shield in a way that they can be easily snatched off when you need them, but that won't fall off too easily when you're doing battle.

When it's time to cast a spell, toss your axe into the air end over end (the camera angle should change to above your head now), then grab your component and cast the spell. After the spell is cast, catch the axe. Then lower your shades and throw out some dry cool wit like, "Let me axe you something... are you afraid yet?"

Then pray your DM is as cool as your character.

 

[trentonjoe]

Thanks for the ideas guys. The character is actually a war/pal/sor so I have foci out the wazoo. Looks to me like the options are:

1. Ignore the rule
2. Take the Warcaster feet
3. Take and use the still spell metamagic ability

 

[I'm A Banana]

Hand juggling is one of those 4e legacies I'd have hoped we could leave behind...

Here's how I'd rule it:

1 - You need one hand free for S/M spells. So stow your shield or drop your axe as part of your action, and do it.
2 - Same story: as part of your bonus action, drop something, and use it.
3 - Same story: as part of your reaction, drop something, and use it.

Ultimately, this wouldn't affect much - your AC might drop until your next turn, or you might have your axe out of your hand (and maybe a clever little goblin or something will grab it and try to run away if you drop it on the ground instead of sheathing it) if you try to take an OA. Ulitmately, the main concern for me as a DM is that some semblance of reality is maintained - if you're gripping your shield and your axe, you can't make elaborate motions with your hand or use an item to help channel your magic. Put it away, then do it. But putting it away is part of the action of casting, and doesn't take its own thing.

 

[JackOfAllTirades]

There was also a Sage Advice article on this topic which clarified the issue:

http://dnd.wizards.com/articles/features/rules-spellcasting

 

[Tony Vargas]

As long as you can define either the shield or weapon as an implement or focus or whatever they're calling it atm, you're fine. Clerics have been getting away with a holy symbol blazoned on their shields forever, for instance.

Otherwise, you may want to stagger your actions and choose items for flexibility. For instance, if you have a way of attacking with a shield, you can leave a hand free for casting. If you want to carry a weapon ready most of the time, make it a throwable weapon, if you're not immediately in melee when a fight starts you can throw the first round, cast in later rounds, and draw a new weapon if melee'd. Your DM might let you have a type of shield (D&D 'buckler' that straps to your forearm, nothing like an historical buckler; spiked shield you can attack with) or weapon (spiked gauntlet or bladed bracer or whatever) that leaves the had free for some purposes.

 

[Dragonsbane]

Handwave it? I wouldn't. The feat is there for a reason, as are the components.

If I hand waved anything, it would be the ability for a focus to replace components.

Rulings not rules!

 

[pming]

Hiya.

That's really obscure, but it looks like it is technically correct. Wow.


This also means that a spell with a material component does not need verbal components and the caster can cast such spells in stealth mode, standing right in front of the king and his entire court:

"A character can use a component pouch or a spellcasting focus (found in chapter 5) in place of the components specified for a spell."

No, not "technically correct". A material component is one potential requirement. Verbalization is also a potential requirement. Somatic gestures are also potential requirements.

By talking about only one, it does NOT NEGATE the other ones. *IF* a spell has Somatic as a requirement, it doesn't matter if the spell also has Verbal and/or Material. Those two others are irrelivent. The spell requires Somatic gestures. Period.

"Somatic", PHB 203, "... If a spell requires a somatic component, the caster must have free use of at least one hand to perform these gestures".

That right there is all you need to read. Anything you may infer from some other section of the book should be taken as "secondary in determination", as this is the actual "rule" for Somatic components.

What was quoted a few posts above... the "...use a component pouch or a spellcasting focus in place of the components..." only refers to Material components (see PHB 151, under the actual description of "Component Pouch"; it specifically says "material components").

On top of ALL of that, there is still that little fact that everything quoted in the posts above (OP included), come from the description under the heading Material (M) on PHB 203. In other words, Material Component of a spell ONLY. So all of the stuff under that heading should be looked at as "regarding [this heading]".

How anyone could read sentences from multiple different locations and then concoct some rationalization for a blatant attempt at power-gaming-rules-lawyering is just.... well, it makes me sad.

^_^

Paul L. Ming

 

[KarinsDad]

Hiya.



No, not "technically correct". A material component is one potential requirement. Verbalization is also a potential requirement. Somatic gestures are also potential requirements.

By talking about only one, it does NOT NEGATE the other ones. *IF* a spell has Somatic as a requirement, it doesn't matter if the spell also has Verbal and/or Material. Those two others are irrelivent. The spell requires Somatic gestures. Period.



That right there is all you need to read. Anything you may infer from some other section of the book should be taken as "secondary in determination", as this is the actual "rule" for Somatic components.

What was quoted a few posts above... the "...use a component pouch or a spellcasting focus in place of the components..." only refers to Material components (see PHB 151, under the actual description of "Component Pouch"; it specifically says "material components").

On top of ALL of that, there is still that little fact that everything quoted in the posts above (OP included), come from the description under the heading Material (M) on PHB 203. In other words, Material Component of a spell ONLY. So all of the stuff under that heading should be looked at as "regarding [this heading]".

How anyone could read sentences from multiple different locations and then concoct some rationalization for a blatant attempt at power-gaming-rules-lawyering is just.... well, it makes me sad.

^_^

Paul L. Ming

I should have put a smiley face on that sentence.

It does technically state that one can use a spell focus in place of "components" (plural, potentially indicating not just material, but somatic and verbal as well), but obviously DMs would not play that way. I just found it funny that the potential loophole existed.

 

[pming]

Hiya.

I should have put a smiley face on that sentence.

It does technically state that one can use a spell focus in place of "components" (plural, potentially indicating not just material, but somatic and verbal as well), but obviously DMs would not play that way. I just found it funny that the potential loophole existed.

Yes, "components", however, still refers to only "Material components"; each is still 'individual', but part of the same classification of the type.

I can understand finding it funny that someone misunderstands something that is basic English, everyone does it now and then. But it's not a "loophole" any more than someone claiming to be able to calculate the mathematical equations for fluid dynamics as applied to 3D computer graphics can...because "I know Math". "Math" is a broad term encompassing a large range of specifics. "Spell Components" = "Math" ; "Material Components" = "Fluid Dynamics Math".

^_^

Paul L. Ming