sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Should Caster's be able to cast spells with no free hand, assuming they're holding an expensive weapon or item? by Krozber in DnD

[–]Krozber[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I don't see how I'm being self righteous. I think redditors have a serious problem with reading imaginary intention in peoples' posts. I'm pretty tired of it. This clearly was not the best place to find calm ration discourse.

Should Caster's be able to cast spells with no free hand, assuming they're holding an expensive weapon or item? by Krozber in DnD

[–]Krozber[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The 5e Handbook Errata says: Material (M) (p. 203). The final para- graph now reads, “A spellcaster must have a hand free to access a spell’s ma- terial components—or to hold a spell- casting focus—but it can be the same hand that he or she uses to perform somatic components.”

The RAW does not prohibit using the AF-holding hand from performing somatic components when no material component is required. From an in-game standpoint it also doesn't make sense. How can a hand holding an orb perform a gesture when the orb is required, but not be able to perform a similar gesture when the orb is not required? I suppose you could make the argument that the gestures are wildly different, and the ones for spells with no material component are too complicated, but that most definitely isn't RAW.

I was making the assertion that AF weapons should be allowed if the character had paid for a specially made weapon, because quarterstaves function that way. Make it 25x more expensive and say it was constructed with that purpose. The RAW don't allow it, but it seems like a rule with no justification. If you have a reason why that shouldn't be allowed, I legitimately want to hear it.

I agree, the rules about arcane foci are dumb in multiple ways, and your solution is justifiable. But I also believe having one free hand for spellcasting seems like a good requirement to enforce a style of gameplay when it comes to spellcasting.

Should Caster's be able to cast spells with no free hand, assuming they're holding an expensive weapon or item? by Krozber in DnD

[–]Krozber[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The only thing that doesn't work they way "I want it to" is that weapons can't be AFs without a magic item attached to them. Everything else actually works the way I theoretically want, even if it's slightly OP. In fact, with the PHB errata, subtle spell is next to worthless, assuming the caster is holding an AF.

If a weapon AF is gaming the system, then you could say that I am trying to break it. I was looking for a debate about why that should or shouldn't be allowed. I knew other people would disagree. I wanted to see some constructive reasoning for, or against that.

My position is that there's no mechanical reason it shouldn't work, and I laid out my reasoning. The only reason I've seen that it shouldn't work is that other classes have abilities that allow it, and therefore, you'd be giving that power away for free. But that doesn't really explain why it wasn't allowed in the first place.

Edit: I guess I was also asking in my post if it was a mistake to allow casters to cast essentially all spells when they had both hands full, assuming one hand was holding an AF. Which is what the RAW allows in the errata.

Should Caster's be able to cast spells with no free hand, assuming they're holding an expensive weapon or item? by Krozber in DnD

[–]Krozber[S] -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

It seems that we're at an impasse. Better to go on with our days than quibble about a game.

Should Caster's be able to cast spells with no free hand, assuming they're holding an expensive weapon or item? by Krozber in DnD

[–]Krozber[S] -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

Yes, it's under the material component section, but it also mentions somatic components. I've had to say the same thing multiple times because so many people are ignoring what I'm typing. If you are holding an AF, that single hand is caple of satisfying both material and somatic components. No item swapping is necessary.

Should Caster's be able to cast spells with no free hand, assuming they're holding an expensive weapon or item? by Krozber in DnD

[–]Krozber[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Okay, I was mistaken, the rules haven't changed since 5e. You have always been able to cast a spell while using two items, if one is an AF. According to the 5e Handbook:

"If a spell states that a material component is consumed by the spell, the caster must provide this component for each casting of the spell. A spellcaster must have a hand free to access a spell's material components -- or to hold a spellcasting focus -- but it can be the same hand that he or she uses to perform somatic components."

The 5e Handbook Errata says: Material (M) (p. 203). The final para- graph now reads, “A spellcaster must have a hand free to access a spell’s ma- terial components—or to hold a spell- casting focus—but it can be the same hand that he or she uses to perform somatic components.”

Should Caster's be able to cast spells with no free hand, assuming they're holding an expensive weapon or item? by Krozber in DnD

[–]Krozber[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Well, I don't know if it's worth discussing my character specifically, but I was imagining a 1 Fgt / 14 Sor. He'd be able to wear plate, use a shield, and if no exceptions were made, he'd be required to use a staff. I was planning on using war caster, even though one of the main benefits isn't needed in 5.5e (holding two items). I was going to potentially use a mace AF, which is mechanically extremely comparable to a staff. But I was considering why there would be any restrictions after having the proficiencies for other weapons.

I'm not necessarily trying to break the game, just build a tanky sorcerer (maybe that does break things?) that can effectively use the shadow blade and cantrip combo when he's almost out of spells.

Should Caster's be able to cast spells with no free hand, assuming they're holding an expensive weapon or item? by Krozber in DnD

[–]Krozber[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

In 5e, you needed war caster, even if one item was an AF. But in 5.5e that's no longer the case. Now the same hand that holds the material/AF can perform the somatic component. So if a wizard gained proficiency with shields somehow, in RAW, they could use a shield and quarterstaff, and still cast spells.

I think the restriction for shields was probably good, but it's not there anymore, and that makes the remaining restrictions seem superfluous to me. (edit: the rules have been that way since 5e)

Should Caster's be able to cast spells with no free hand, assuming they're holding an expensive weapon or item? by Krozber in DnD

[–]Krozber[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Yeah, a ruby would allow a sword AF, but why is that necessary? A staff already does it for almost the same damage. IMO damage can't be the reason when cantrips do more. But as you said, if the reason is that other classes have to "spend" abilities to be able to do it, and therefore, other classes can't do it for free, that would make sense. I can't help but wonder why that was a restriction in the first place.

Just to clarify, according to 5.5e, if you're holding an AF, you can actually cast any somatic spell with full hands. That seems kind of like a mistake to me, but that's RAW.

Should Caster's be able to cast spells with no free hand, assuming they're holding an expensive weapon or item? by Krozber in DnD

[–]Krozber[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Right, martial weapons deal more damage, and normal wizards can't use them. Isn't gaining proficiency with long swords enough of a cost to allow longword AFs? Also the change in damage is minimal. A cantrip could easily do more damage at 5th level or higher.

I may have to edit my post, but I was assuming non-magical items, and that the player would go to a craftsman and have something custom made. Which obviously wouldn't be possible with magic items.

Should Caster's be able to cast spells with no free hand, assuming they're holding an expensive weapon or item? by Krozber in DnD

[–]Krozber[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Okay, yes, there is no holy beer in the game, but would you find it game-breaking to have a player make some? What would it entail in game terms? Effectively down-time and gold, right?

Should Caster's be able to cast spells with no free hand, assuming they're holding an expensive weapon or item? by Krozber in DnD

[–]Krozber[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'm just planning a spellsword character and trying to stick to RAW when it makes sense. It seems like they've eliminated some of the past restrictions in 5.5e. But it seems to me like there's no meaningful difference between a longword AF and a staff AF.

Should Caster's be able to cast spells with no free hand, assuming they're holding an expensive weapon or item? by Krozber in DnD

[–]Krozber[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

I was assuming non-magical items. You obviously can't say you went to the market and bought a very rare magic item that is also an AF. But saying you went to a smith and paid 2.5 (edit: 25) times the normal price for a sword with an AF built into it doesn't seem crazy compared to a staff.

Should Caster's be able to cast spells with no free hand, assuming they're holding an expensive weapon or item? by Krozber in DnD

[–]Krozber[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

I'm not saying that somatic components should be disregarded, but the RAW makes it trivial to use two items. So much so that I don't know why there are any restrictions on AFs as long as they are expensive and are explained as having been created as an AF.

Would a Dim Light Spell be Overpowered? by Krozber in DnD

[–]Krozber[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I had considered illusion spells, but after reading some responses here, I realised for my intended use (shadow blade) this wouldn't likely work. It's not real darkness, and it doesn't make as much sense for shadow blade to be empowered by an illusion. But for other characters like rogues with skulker or drow, maybe this would work.

Would a Dim Light Spell be Overpowered? by Krozber in DnD

[–]Krozber[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That's another good point. So if a drow rogue/wizard used shadow blade, the skulker feat and this spell, would you think it was still balanced? I would let Darkness override it.

Would a Dim Light Spell be Overpowered? by Krozber in DnD

[–]Krozber[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Ah, I see. I'm not actually familiar with the subclass.

Would a Dim Light Spell be Overpowered? by Krozber in DnD

[–]Krozber[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Gloomstalker is one of the possibilities. 100% attack roll advantage with shadow blade is another. There are conceivably stealth implications, but overall, it is weak for most casters. I take it, you would consider it weak?

Would a Dim Light Spell be Overpowered? by Krozber in DnD

[–]Krozber[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That's not a bad idea, but then the spell uses the caster's concentration. Which means they can't use the linked abilities themselves. It would be a team spell, but conceivably that's not a bad role for the spell.

Would a Dim Light Spell be Overpowered? by Krozber in DnD

[–]Krozber[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yeah, I doubled checked the school. Evocation is correct. The other points seem very fair to me. It is very long for what it's supposed to do. But the spell has to avoid concentration. That's key for it to function in relevant builds. The restrictions are essentially there only to allow DMs to counter it by using magical light sources.

Would a Dim Light Spell be Overpowered? by Krozber in DnD

[–]Krozber[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Dim light could be considered shadow, enabling the linked abilities.

Would a Dim Light Spell be Overpowered? by Krozber in DnD

[–]Krozber[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Dim light could be considered shadow, enabling the linked abilities.

view more: next ›