The General D&D thread

Alternatively they realized that unlike giving magic to a physical combatant, giving a dedicated caster class the ability to wield a weapon and shield without giving them some way to cast spells with those in hand means depriving them of most of what their class does (like how Clerics can affix their holy symbol to their shield to cast spells other than Touch spells without freeing up a hand).

Your making assumptions about what was intended with items like the Ruby of the War Mage is based more on what you want that intent to be than on actual evidence that was the intent.

Yes Xanathar's adds options for certain caster classes to wield weapons and armour on top of their magic. It also gives a special subclass for using (more) weapons and a subclass that allows punching at a distance as its basic feature to Monks, a subclass that's all about uncovering secrets rather than keeping them and a subclass that allows for being a front line fighter to the Rogue, gives Sorcerors a subclass that can heal rather than being focussed on dealing damage etc...

The running theme there is that Xanathar's adds a broad variety of options to the game, focusing on one of them and going 'they did this because x needed to be fixed' is... Questionable logic at best.

It's not an assumption, Crawford literally said they designed the item with them in mind.

I mean, yeah. It's obviously intended for the use of characters that are likely to have to choose between casting spells or using their equipment to the fullest, because that's the only people it's actually useful for.

What you're assuming is that this is because they felt that (sub)classes like Eldritch Knight needed to be 'fixed'.

I played an Eldritch Knight for a year and a half and reminder: The very first thing every Eldritch Knight gets in addition to being able to cast some basic spells is a feature that lets them drop their weapon, for instance to free their hand so they can cast a spell, and get their weapon back in their hand as a bonus action.

While I suppose there's definitely table variation, for what it's worth, I've never seen a DM enforce the rules you would. It just makes sense that you could hold a heavier weapon in one hand when not attacking with it. I HAVE held large, heavy weapons in one hand before. It's not necessarily an easy thing for me to do, but it was certainly physically possible- and I'm not, you know, a 6 foot hulk of a man throwing fireballs at people. If my skinny ass can hold a (real life) longsword one handed, I'm pretty sure my 18 Strength Eldritch Knight that's basically a body builder can hold his greatsword at rest and cast with his other hand.

It's also supported by both Jeremy Crawford and Mike Mearls, for what that's worth. I don't particularly consider either the die-hard only source for 5e rules, but it's certainly something to point to as an "intended" sort of thing.

https://www.sageadvice.eu/2017/03/02/2-weapon-casting/

I'm not saying it needs a fix because it's weak. It's just an issue it shouldn't really have to deal with, because it honestly is so minor. Hell, you don't need the EK feature for that, you can just drop your weapon (explicitly no action) and pick it up as your object interaction. But flavour-wise, dropping and picking up your weapon constantly is pretty silly. The focus thing is such a non-issue that baking it into new gish classes just makes everything smoother and fulfill the class fantasy better.

The 'use your weapon as a focus' feature is practically a ribbon given that you can get around it with just the object interaction rules. It's definitely not powerful enough to cause a balance concern, regardless of who you slap it on. Especially on a class that almost exclusively uses two-handed weapons, which by RAW impose no difficulty on casting spells.

Some rando DMs enforcing harsher rules should not be used as the basis for evaluating unrelated people's homebrew.

So I finally finished the Protoss homebrew race I'd been working on for a good part of last week. I'm mostly happy with it (it's making me want to continue by making more things for possibly a Starcraft DND homebrew setting) but I'm torn about the ability score increases for the subraces. Should I give each of the different Protoss a point in a spellcasting ability? Like the Khalai would have Intelligence, Nerazim would get Wisdom, and Tal'darim would get Charisma.

I've had basically this same discussion with a group of local HEMA types one night when 5e was just a week old (beer may have been involved) and what we discussed was that:

Yes, in real life you can easily hold a two-handed weapon in one hand to do something with your other hand.

But in real life you can also easily rest your one-handed weapon on your shield arm (or hold the weapon pressed against your shield with your thumb the way you hold your second Pilum at the start of a battle) for the maximum of six seconds an action in D&D takes. Same with holding two light weapons in one hand for six seconds.(One guy pointed out he realized during that conversation that he and other re-enactors regularly hold two full weight two-handed weapons in one hand while helping each other get their mail and plate on).

Yet somehow the rules of the new D&D edition don't allow you free up one hand to cast spells, drink potions or do basically anything else that requires a free hand if you're using a shield or two weapons without dropping or sheathing your weapon.

As for reason why the D Ms I've played with don't allow casting while wielding a two-hander (without a penalty) that boils down to that there are four melee weapon stances in D&D:

Sword and board, one-hander, two-hander and two weapon fighting.\\ And literally the only advantage that using a one-hander has over the other stances is that you have one hand free... Except that in 5e with a two-hander you now also somehow get to have a hand free whenever you want. Not so in previous editions\\ And that felt really unfair to players who made the conscious decision to sacrifice the damage potential of using a two-hander by using one-handers instead.

So the first one of us to do this felt that if you were using a two-hander and you took one of your hands off the weapon to do something else for that turn, there had to be some kind of consequence for that during that turn.

And that makes sense. It's not a harsher rule for people using two-handers, it's a fairer rule for people who choose to use a single one-hander.

Only if your spell requires no material components, because pulling out the material components, component pouch or spell focus for a spell explicitly is your free object interaction for that turn the same way drawing your weapon as part of an attack is.

Similarly sheathing your weapon can be your free object interaction, but then pulling out a separate spell focus or component pouch to cast your spell is your action and you can't actually cast your spell until the next turn. At which point putting away your spell focus or component pouch so you can grab your weapon is you free object interaction for that turn and your spell was the action so you can't actually grab the weapon until the next turn (where it's a free object interaction).

That is what makes being able to use a weapon as a spell focus a powerful ability. Because a spell focus doesn't just let you cast a spell with that object in hand, it lets you use handling that object as a replacement for handling spell components.

For the record a caster can't use their weapon with a Ruby attached for any spell that requires a component with a GP cost, even if that component isn't used up, so if they're using a sword and shield they still need get rid of either their shield or sword to cast, say, Chromatic Orb (since that requires a diamond worth 50GP, which isn't consumed).

Edited by Robrecht on Mar 1st 2021 at 1:13:37 PM

Component pouches are worn, they don't need to be pulled out, and certain foci (like holy symbols) can also be worn rather than pulled out.

It's not made explicit in the rules whether it requires your object interaction to use a worn pouch/focus to cast your spells.

But... in Pathfinder (generally agreed to be a subset of D&D), you can explicitly take your hand off your two handed weapon. It's an explicit rule. In 3.5, there's no rule against it, and most people on the forums agree you can do it as well, since it falls into the 5e ruleset of "nothing says you can't and taking your hand off a bow to draw and nock an arrow is specifically a free action anyway."

I don't know about earlier editions, but earlier editions were a literal trash fire in a hell of a lot of days so anything prior to 3.5 isn't something I'm particularly interested in the rules of, given how many unfair to players decisions there were. The actual rules for 5e don't imply in any way, shape, or form that you can't do this. In fact, RAW, you can- it's using your item interaction to hold a weapon. The actual designers have chimed in to show their support for it. Like, you can rule otherwise, but you're specifically ruling against RAW, and that doesn't have any bearing on a homebrew class designed for a RAW game.

And you're sacrificing the damage potential of a two-hander for the AC bonus. Of a shield. That's how the edition works. +2 AC is no small feat- one handed and shield doesn't need buffs. If you want to play a sword without a shield, you can certainly do that, but you're specifically making your character worse to fit the concept. Don't nerf a perfectly reasonable and RAW combo so you can live out your fantasies of... being worse, I guess? Like you can't have everything.

Sage advice about interaction needed for casting spells:

So yeah, you need to physically have your Spellcasting Focus in hand (and drawing your spellcasting focus requires an action if you have already used your free object interaction as per RAW), not just somewhere on your person.

Also RAI if your weapon is your spellcasting focus, you can't actually use your weapon for the Somatic component unless it also has a Material component.

Which means that getting to use a weapon as a spellcasting focus is not only not as overpowered as I though for sure... But the very first ability the Bloodrager gets besides spells is that they don't use material components for any spell whose material component doesn't have a cost.

So not only do they not need a spell focus, but they can literally never use a spell focus, weapon or otherwise, to do the somatic component of a spell even if they did have to keep their hands on their weapon at all time.

(I just realized that the Bloodrager specifically mentions that you're able to do somatic components with the weapon, which is different, but we've been talking about weapons as spellcasting focuses for a while now, so I'll just edit that bit there to make more actual sense.)

Edit:

Dude, the whole point of that ruling is saying "You can't have everything." Specifically to people who use two-handers who get to do more damage while also still retaining all the benefits of having a single weapon. "You can do more damage or you can have a hand free, you can't have everything."

Edited by Robrecht on Mar 1st 2021 at 1:47:03 PM

I've taken a step back and given it some consideration and I realize why that Bloodrager feels overpowered.

Because it is over-featured. By which I don't mean it's too prominent, but it has a butt-ton more listed features than any other Gish subclass or Barbarian Path.

And I do not mean 'it has more entries for Features', because the Storm Herald and Totem Warrior both have a heck of a lot more entries to choose between, but it has more features that the character actually gets.

All other Barbarian Primal Paths get a total of four Features: One at 3rd level, one at 6th level, one at 10th level and one at 14th level.

The Bloodrager gets:

• Three Features at 3rd level: Spellcasting, Advantage on certain checks against a certain creature type (or all creature types except Beasts, Humanoids and Plants) and the ability to forgo all Material components that don't have a listed cost.

• Three Features at 6th level: A free reroll on certain checks, the ability to use a weapon to perform the Somatic components of spells and the ability to take ten on any Concentration check that's less than ten (this and the previous feature are listed under the same entry, but unlike the things that are listed under the same entry on other Primal Paths, these are distinct features, not multiple choices for a feature from which you can pick one)

• Three Features at 10th level: The ability to cast Sending to a certain creature type (or all creature types except Beasts, Humanoids and Plants) once per short rest, the ability to give enemies disadvantage on saving throws against your spells in exchange for getting disadvantage on saving throws yourself and automatic advantage on saving throws against your own and allies' spells.

• Two Features at 14th level: The ability to cast Detect Thoughts on a certain creature type (or etc...) once per long rest and a 30ft flight speed while raging (and the ability to take 20 on concentration checks but that is technically an upgrade of an earlier feature).

Now, yeah, most of those Features aren't super powerful (although some are more powerful in combination than you might think at first glance), but then again neither are many of the Features for other Primal Paths.

Edited by Robrecht on Mar 1st 2021 at 2:50:33 PM

That Sage Advice doesn't address what happens if your focus is worn, which is explicitly allowed for component pouches or holy symbols.

Now that I don't disagree with, the BR is loaded with a bunch of stuff.

Bloodlines is just so you can barely like, well, feel like your pseudo-sorcerous origin mattered.

Blood Sanctuary is one part pretending there is any continuity between this archetype and the PF class it's based and one part I would like to cast Fireball centered on myself while crowded by enemies.

Eschew Material is barely a thing, I could have included it as a note in Spell Casting. I didn't want the clutter and I, again, continuity from the PF class.

The issue is not whether you can hold your weapon in one hand or with your shield hand, it is how long it takes, in terms of action economy. And whether you can still use your shield in the latter case.

As for the two-hander vs one-hander-and-empty-hand argument... not every configuration has to be made artificially viable by hampering others. There's zero support in the game for a one-handed-and-empty-hand stance, even the Duelist fighting style allows for a shield.

Edit: actually having a sword in one hand and a focus in the other would still have the advantage that you don't need to retrieve and stow your focus and you retain the use of your weapon the whole time.

Edited by Aetol on Mar 2nd 2021 at 1:07:57 PM

One would think that it still requires a hand, since even though component pouch eliminates the whole 'Foraging For Components' aspect of the game, it still doesn't presume that you're using the whole pouch to cast spells rather than taking out the required component as a part of the action of casting the spell.

Anyone have any suggestions/comments on my Starcraft thing?

I could not attend to one of my party's sessions and they got every single other NPC in the party killed.

Sigh.

Woooow. Are you the smart one of the party?

It feels a little on the weak side. Not to the point of uselessness or anything, just that you could stand to buff it a bit without worrying.

Edited by Gilphon on Mar 2nd 2021 at 1:51:49 PM

Alright then. Weak in what way, if I may ask?

Two of the players are new. The third one is an experienced one who went sorcerer and took thunderwave at level one and decides to become a frontliner to use it and then blames me, the bard, for not taking Healing Word

P.S: My healing strategy is actually Invisibility followed by having a shitton of potions. Healing Word just means I give you a d4 of health, you get up, you die, and then there's no more spells.

Healing Word depends, really. At higher levels, it's a powerful tool for party survival, given every second somebody is bleeding out on the ground is another second an enemy might decide to double tap them and welp, dead, instantly.

Upcasted or with the proper character choices (Grave, Life cleric) it also becomes fantastically powerful- d4 health isn't fantastic, but 7-9 HP for a 1st level bonus action as a Grave Cleric on a downed party member, of d4 + (3 or 5, depending on cast stat) + 3 is usually enough to let somebody retreat or otherwise act. Even without subclass choices, I personally take it on anyone that can get it, like my Tempest Cleric or Glamour Bard. It's very useful. At higher levels, it's not enough to keep them up if a larger, more powerful enemy focuses on you, but at higher levels you should either be upcasting it or using different methods of protecting people.

I've found that it requires a bit of strategy, but I wouldn't dismiss it off hand. Getting, say, the party Wizard off the ground so they can Misty Step away or the Barbarian so they can rage and double their health is a very good pick. Anyone with high AC has a shot at ignoring any attacks long enough for you to either heal them, them to heal themselves, or them to get out of there.

That being said, all that applies to people actually interested in playing support- I don't want to imply that you should have felt obligated to take it, because you shouldn't feel obligated to take it. As a long time Cleric player, people just assuming I'm going to be the healer just because I'm a Cleric irks me, as true as it might actually end up being.

I also like to use Aid in a pinch if I don't have Mass Healing Word but three people are down, but that's usually a very small window of usefulness.

Well again I am a bard and for healing, I have the party's Bag of Holding an a fuckton of potions. An since using an item does not take me out of stealth...it is a cheesy ass way to be a healer and, unlike Word of Healing, a 2d8+4 potion at our low levels has a much higher chance to let my party members survive a hit than a d4 Word of Healing.

So, despite the range, I am utterly unconvinced that Word of Healing and lack thereof is the issue of people dying.

Again, I point out ot the sorcerer who ran into melee to cast thunder wave. You can imaigne the level of strategizing that goes on in that to the point htat I did not attend one session and it seemed to have veered into an almost Total Party Kill.

Edited by Aszur on Mar 2nd 2021 at 4:39:40 AM

I have somehow also ended up in a party whereby the only healer is me, a bard. Well, theoretically there's a paladin but I think he's healed another person a grand total of once.

I did go for healing word. We've had plenty of battles where I've used all my spell slots on just healing word. Theoretically I could go for damage reduction, but there's four other party members and I can only cast so many buffs. The DM ended up giving me what's essentially an "extra life" magic item, which seemed very intentional (and is appreciated).

I actually went for Motivational Speech but literally every battle since then has been a surprise.

Oh, yeah, I'm more defending healing word as opposed to your party. Trying to gish like that is a poor choice outside a few very specific builds. I do think that you could have probably turned the tide if you were there, but I'd chalk that up to just more bodies being on the field, which is a very large advantage no matter what you're packing. Although, you keep calling it a "d4." You do know you add your casting mod to it, right? And it's a bonus action. 2d4 + 4 is almost as good as 2d8 + 4, and won't eat your entire turn for it.

You're got a good set up with the potions, but realistically most people should have healing word if they can grab it, if only for party cohesion.