D&D 5E Shields and Somatic Components: Will you play it "as is?"

I have found the rulings on this topic to be frustratingly inconsistent.

For my part, I'll be letting casters go through their somatic gestures with their weapon hand. If a material component is also necessary, they can draw that as part of the spellcasting action for free. Two-handed weapon wielders can just let go of their weapon briefly with one hand to complete any somatic and/or material components. Neither will be considered to be wielding a weapon during the spellcasting action, if for some reason that matters.

War Caster is still a worthwhile feat, with that taken away from it.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

For all others using a variant rule. Its important to remember that when considering rules and balances, feats should not a main factor.
VEEEERY disingenuous to call it a variant rule. It's the norm to use it, not using it would be the variant. It is also a standard rule from the previous two editions. Most importantly it is one of only 2 ways you can even customize your PC to be something other than every other PC of the same class.
 

VEEEERY disingenuous to call it a variant rule. It's the norm to use it, not using it would be the variant.

I disagree, though I'd say "variant" is the wrong word- in 5e parlance, feats are a "module" that the DM can turn on or off.

5e PH said:
This chapter defines two optional sets of rules for customizing your character: multiclassing and feats.... Your DM decides whether these options are available in a campaign.

Emphasis mine.
 


Are somatic components important to the balance of the game in this edition?

It doesn't seem so to me - it seems like they're flavor.

At my table, player/GM created flavor trumps game imposed flavor. So my ruling would be "what somatic component?" if the player of a mace & shield cleric wants to cast a spell that the book lists with a somatic component and that is clearly intended to be cast during combat. Because the fantasy equivalent of a Knight Templar should probably be allowed to make his battle prayers without sheathing his weapon.

I'd revise if it seems like they decided to balance spells by saddling them with specific component types to force that kind of juggling. But I'd also revise my opinion of 5th edition a bit because that would be a strange way to try to balance things in this day and age.
 


Jer -- it really seems like VSM components are being used as a power balancing tool. Arcane gets more powerful spells generally, but they require VSM or VS, not V only. Maybe it is a Melee primary thing, as Rangers and Paladins get V only while others must use VS. Of course, it could just be tradition.
 

The issue of spell casting focus changed considerably over the period of the play test, from allowing you to add your proficiency bonus to attack spells to the (mostly watered-down) result of it being a substitute for a component pouch.

When we discussed this in August, I pulled to gather the evolution of my concerns with the implementation in this post here.

In terms of flavour, the focus is a GREAT idea -- it's fun to play with, and the image of the paladin or cleric holding up a holy symbol, the wizard with a staff or crystal ball, the bard and his instrument, or whatever is iconic. And the flavour is there regardless of the mechanical effect.

The problem comes in implementation, because it just is never going to be balanced between classes -- there's always so much more that needs to be in your hands. And so you start to get fudges:

* the cleric and paladin can wear their focus around their neck or affixed to their shelf (but then what of somatic components?)
* the bard who plays a one-handed drum can wield a shield but the flautist cannot
* the wizard's staff doubles as an effective melee weapon, but the wand does not
etc.
* problems interacting with tool proficiencies: what does it matter if the bard is proficient or not with the instrument, when spell casting is independent of any proficiency bonus?

So -- if you assume that these things should be balanced across classes (and the general feel of 5e is that that's a design goal, cf. spell casting slots, etc.), then you have options:

a. free for all: weapons can be stored and retrieved without any expenditure of resources; when the cleric needs a symbol it can be used freely. Such a rule encourages other behaviours (such as fighters carring golf bags of weapons, etc.), which some will see as undesirable. (EDIT: the wii-strap solution is essentially a workaround of this type)

b. reduced mechanical effect: foci do very little, and are essentially just decorative. This is what has been chosen (though we see from Mearls's tweets that there's some of a. as well), with the focus being no different than a materials pouch.

c. insist on strict effects: a focus is a weapon that requires proficiency and must be stowed or wielded, etc. to have its effect. This was my preference (because it requires players to choose their actions in game, accepting consequences for a desired benefit), but (as has been clear throughout the play test) I was in a minority on this.

The result, though, is that we have inconsistencies still (e.g. the druid or wizard staff), and the benefit of using a focus is negligible.

I find it hard to believe that anyone really likes the final implementation of the whole focus issue (including the interaction with tool proficiencies, etc.) as it is, but what we have is a safe and relatively unchallenging
rule that allows flavourful play without taxing players in any real way, and which has some options that are mechanically better for some users than others.
 
Last edited:


thats what my Dwarven Cleric did.
It meshes with the rules concept well enough, but in anything close to reality I can't see it working. A mace weighs a bit more than a Wiimote, and is longer too. If you're gesticulating much at all, you're going to whack yourself. And with it's length and downward angle...

Sounds like a bad idea.
 

Remove ads

Top