D&D 5E War Caster Confusion

[Wolfskin]

So, in 5th ed ... a Cleric with a Mace and a Shield can't cast spells with Somatic componets w/o droping his Mace or shield??

That is my interpretation of the rules and I think it was meant to be that way, so that a Cleric must choose between melee combat or combat casting. (unless he takes the War Caster Feat, of course)

If that's the intention of the wording, it's probably to avoid the all-too-famous "I buff myself and run into melee, overshadowing the Fighter" Cleric gimmick.

 

[Boarstorm]

Yeah, on retrospect, I'll have to retract my statement. I'd read "replaces components" and remembered that bit (and considered somatic and verbal components to be... by definition components), but forgot that it was explicitly under the material component header.

 

[Ahrimon]

The holy symbol replaces the material components so you'll still need a free hand for somatic. Mike Mearls has stated, and I agree, that while not explicitly called out in the rules, it's completely reasonable to allow the cleric to switch his mace to his off hand cast the spell and then grab it again.

 

[erf_beto]

The holy symbol replaces the material components so you'll still need a free hand for somatic. Mike Mearls has stated, and I agree, that while not explicitly called out in the rules, it's completely reasonable to allow the cleric to switch his mace to his off hand cast the spell and then grab it again.

Thank God! Otherwise, to be a combat caster, you'd have to fight using only a shield and no weapon, like Captain America.

 

[Joe Liker]

The holy symbol replaces the material components so you'll still need a free hand for somatic. Mike Mearls has stated, and I agree, that while not explicitly called out in the rules, it's completely reasonable to allow the cleric to switch his mace to his off hand cast the spell and then grab it again.

Which makes me wonder why somatic components even exist. Sure, there are times when your hands are literally tied or whatever, but could such rare and extreme situations really be the only reason?

I don't want to make spellcasting unnecessarily cumbersome, but it honestly feels like they're saying, "Here's this thing that limits spellcasting, but you can totally ignore it if you want to. Oh, that feat? It's mainly there for the Con save bonus."

I think it would be within the letter and spirit of the rules to say that switching the mace to the shield hand is like the free weapon draw you're allowed with a normal Attack action, but you can't switch back for free, so any reaction involving a weapon (such as an opportunity attack) would have to be done without the mace until you can switch it back at the start of your next turn.

 

[fuzzyset]

Which makes me wonder why somatic components even exist. Sure, there are times when your hands are literally tied or whatever, but could such rare and extreme situations really be the only reason?.

Perhaps. If you're questioning an enemy mage, you better tie his hands. You don't want him to Thunderwave/Sleep/whatever everyone who has circled around to question him. There are even Grappler builds that are designed to pin and restrain enemy casters. It's a thing.

 

[Paraxis]

"A spellcaster must have a hand free to access these components, but it can be the same hand that he or she uses to perform somatic components." - under material components

I know it doesn't say this, but I allow the reverse of this in my games, if you are holding a material component of focus in one hand it can be counted as the hand performing your somatic components. So in this case a cleric with a shield that has a holy symbol on it that hand counts has holding a focus and being able to use it for somatic components.

 

[Psikerlord#]

Which makes me wonder why somatic components even exist. Sure, there are times when your hands are literally tied or whatever, but could such rare and extreme situations really be the only reason?

I don't want to make spellcasting unnecessarily cumbersome, but it honestly feels like they're saying, "Here's this thing that limits spellcasting, but you can totally ignore it if you want to. Oh, that feat? It's mainly there for the Con save bonus."

I think it would be within the letter and spirit of the rules to say that switching the mace to the shield hand is like the free weapon draw you're allowed with a normal Attack action, but you can't switch back for free, so any reaction involving a weapon (such as an opportunity attack) would have to be done without the mace until you can switch it back at the start of your next turn.

yeah this is how I see it. Free put mace away or switch to other hand and cast spell in same turn. But hten until the start of his next turn, that PC has no mace in hand, so any OA will be a kick or shield bash or whatever.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Don't forget too though, that there are also several spells typically used in combat that don't require somatic components at all, and which we might consider to be ones geared towards the war cleric and the like. Command, Healing Word, Suggestion, Prayer of Healing... these spells are ones that a typical war cleric might be inclined to use in and around their melee attacks, and which don't require them to change hands on their weapons whatsoever.

And then by the time they get 3rd level spells, they will have already gotten their first potential feat, and thus could haven take War Caster to allow for the other spells they might want to use, if they were so inclined.

 

[GX.Sigma]

yeah this is how I see it. Free put mace away or switch to other hand and cast spell in same turn. But hten until the start of his next turn, that PC has no mace in hand, so any OA will be a kick or shield bash or whatever.

This is how I've been running stuff like this too. If you want to cast a spell, you put away your mace as part of that action. Next round, if you want to attack with your mace, you draw it as part of that action.