Summary of Spell Casting with a Shield?

[JiffyPopTart]

Why is that a bad thing?

Is your game balance destroyed by the party cleric getting AoOs after casting spells so often that this is something worth siding against the PCs on?

DS

 

[irdeggman]

Is your game balance destroyed by the party cleric getting AoOs after casting spells so often that this is something worth siding against the PCs on?

DS

No but when I play I don't like other PCs doing everything in a round. It ruins it for everyone else.

That is the point of balance - to keep all the players feeling that their PCs get to contribute roughly equally (dependent on circumstance, but on the average all having an equal contribution).

If a cleric (or wizard since using your basis they can do it also) can cast a spell and make a melee attack in the same round (at low levels) then they clearly outshine the fighters who are supposed to be superior at combat.

Since only spellcasters get to benefit from this scenario then it clearly favors them and minimizes the warrior types.

IMO this is bad game balance since not everyone contributes evenly.

 

[irdeggman]

There are metamagic feats and class abilities that let you both CAST A SPELL and DELIVER CAST SPELL VIA A MELEE WEAPON in one round. This implies that by the WotC source game rules you should be able to simply cast a spell normally and not bother to swing your weapon in the same length of time.

And realistically, if a Monk can pull off 9 or 10 attacks in a round and still get an AoO why nitpick a cleric casting a spell and being able to AoO afterwards?

DS

I don't recall a WotC 3.5 feat that allows this. If I've missed one please let me know. There are class abilities that allow it - but IIRC they are all touch spells only and not "ranged" ones.

When you get into the 9 or 10 attacks a round for a monk then a wizard can do a whole lot more damage with a single spell.

Using the swift rule a s wizard can cat 2 spells a round and take a move action. If they also get to make attacks with a weapon, well they are just flat out way too powerful IMO and make the other classes look like wimps.

Compare things like a wizard casting a disintegrate or power word kill spell in addition to using a weapon and see how much of a difference it makes.

 

[Ogrork the Mighty]

The game balance issue that originated this was too many spellcasters (usually clerics with weapons and heavy shields) who just didn't give any thought at all to how exactly they were casting spells with DF/M/S components when they didn't have a hand free.

When the caster has a potential shield bonus of +3 to +7 AC (+1 to +5 heavy shield), plus regular attacks with the weapon hand, plus spells, that's taking things a little too far IMO.

 

[EyeontheMountain]

Personally I do not worry much about it, as nitpicking too much ruins the game IMHO. I let casters use their spells and keep weapons in thier hands.

Now if a character clearly has free-hand troubles, like climbing a rope or hanging onteh edge of a cliff ,then I get strict about it. But normally, it is not worth the effort.

BTW, I do not use material components either, though I do require focuses(and in many cases those needto be retreive from a bag orsomething, so they are more restrictive.)

DWM

 

[Ogrork the Mighty]

Some people don't view actually having a hand free for somatic/material components as "nitpicking."

It's easy to just hand-wave it, but this is probably one of the most overlooked rules violations in the game.

 

[reanjr]

My take:

Small shield, yes (M because you can hold something in your hand at the same time as wielding a shield, or, if you need the hand free for S, it can be empty and you can still use a shield) for either S or M, but not for S and M together (assuming a weapon is in your "main hand") because if some M component is in your hand, then it is no longer a free hand. I would assume that if you make the relevant combat casting check (if in meelee) then you can still use the shield in defence.

Buckler, similar rules.

Divine Focus should be in hand, but is often house-ruled otherwise, so check with your DM.

I believe it is assumed that the material component being manipulated is part of the somatic component, so having M+S would be the same as having either one. I believe sage covered this at some point.

 

[Steve Jung]

The FAQ opines that switching a weapon to a different hand should be a move action.

My DM says that my cleric has to drop his morningstar to cast spells. Is he right?
Yes and no. To cast a spell with a somatic (S) component, you must gesture freely with at least one hand. (Player's Handbook, page 140) A cleric (or any caster, for that matter) who holds a weapon in one hand and wears a heavy shield on the other arm doesn't have a hand free to cast a spell with a somatic component (which involves most spells in the game). To cast such a spell, the character must either drop or sheathe his weapon.

Another simple option is for the cleric to carry a buckler or light shield instead of a heavy shield. The buckler leaves one hand free for spellcasting, and you don't even lose the buckler's shield bonus to AC when casting with that hand. The light shield doesn't give you a free hand for spellcasting. but since you can hold an item in the same hand that holds the light shield, you could switch your weapon to that hand to free up a hand for spellcasting. (You can't use the weapon while it's held in the same hand as your shield, of course.) The rules don't state what type of action is required to switch hands on a weapon, but it seems reasonable to assume that it's the equivalent of drawing a weapon (a move action that doesn't provoke attacks of opportunity).

 

[Krud]

Then theres the two handed weapon issue for melee clerics with good strength. Easier than messing around with shields and you get all your AOOs. It just encourages more damage being done by the cleric rather than a higher defense (which usually isn't game breaking)

 

[Ogrork the Mighty]

Thanks Steve, that was helpful.