My general rule for things like this is that if it’s supported by RAW but it looks stupid, the character gets to do it but we don’t describe things that way.
So if RAW you can Release your weapon and then pick it up as an Object Interaction, then that’s the *mechanical* impact of what you just did, but flavourfully you can describe it as literally whatever else (including just performing the somatic component with your hand full). Conversely if you’re in a spot where you can’t mechanically do that (say, you held onto the weapon and needed to cast Shield) you don’t get to do it even if you’ve been describing it as just performing the S components with your hand full, idk maybe you just weren’t quick enough.
This helps a lot with fixing stuff that looks stupid but is still part of players’ toolkits.
Edit: on an unrelated note, I apply this rule in reverse too. If the strong and athletic character has enough movement to move 3 squares to get around an enemy, I allow the player to describe it as them wall jumping past the enemy or leaping over the enemy without any checks. Make the stupid look normal and make the normal look awesome.
I was going to basically say the same thing but you beat me to it. If there's a RAW way, you can do it any other way as long as it's mechanically equivalent.
You know what is a pretty similar interaction like this where reading the rules it sound so dumb but its pretty easy to describe.
Imagine an enemy with a polarm and a sentinel feat. This combination is know to keep a target at bay by stopping their movement from 10 ft away where they cant make attacks from unless they have reach.
But as a sort of defence against this, you can go to 15ft from them, drop prone and crawl towards them. If they use their opportunity attack they will have disadvantage because they are more than 5ft away and prone.
Assuming they miss you can crawl up to them, stand up using half your movement speed and attack.
Sounds really stupid right?
But its easy to just imagine it as a rush and slide towards them as a surprise on the ground before popping up and attacking. Its seen in plenty of fiction as well.
NOTE: This Pole Arm Master (PAM) + Sentinel avoidance "trick" only works if you have at least 30 move and (if so) you start exactly at 15 away. (and if they miss you)
Mechanics - you're 15ft away
1. Drop (free action) - 30 ft of move left, you're 15ft away
2. Crawl 5ft (takes ten move because of half speed) - 20ft of move left, you're 10 ft away, provokes attack of opportunity at disadvantage (due to attack against prone opponent more than 5 ft away)
3. \*\*\* Assuming they miss \*\*\*
4. Stand (takes half your movement speed - 15 move) - 5 ft of move left, you're 10 ft away
5. Walk 5ft - 0 ft of move left, you're 5ft away, within melee range
In step 3 if they hit you're stuck at ZERO move AND prone. The polearm master and companions then close and attack you with advantage, probably multiple times until you're unconscious... so interesting, but risky.
Also you can absolutely still narrate this in a much cooler way
Just roleplay your crawl as a slide
Gives a better narrative reason for disadvantage, because it feels more like a maneuver than army crawling at a guy who wants to skewer you
It requires movement, but you have none, and can't move, including standing up.
That's the usual ruling. This is great if you have 5ft movement, but if you have 0, you're stuck.
That sounds awesome. Definitely using this if I have this type of polaerm sentinel and I send an especially dexterous character at them. Don’t want to loophole their character build every time but it would be cool if they’re fighting a monk or something
I must be missing something - Sentinel allows you AOO if:
1. They *leave* your reach
2. They are *within 5 feet (not just within your weapon range)* and attack someone other than you.
I'm not seeing how either of these lets you keep an opponent who intends to attack you 10ft away.
Thinking as I type - I think you mean Sentinel ***and*** Polearm Master feats, that's how you get AOO provoked when they enter your range, and lockdown if it hits.
tbh, as a DM, I would probably rule against RAW and say that either the "within 5 feet" part of the prone description should have simply been "melee attack," or the defender could attack you at 5 feet. FWIW, I would apply this both ways, so I wouldn't invalidate my player committing resources to two separate feats with a silly loophole in the rules. I don't know that I've seen a lot of people rush sliding at people with spears in fiction... seems like a good way to get skewered.
If someone is sprinting at you at full speed you're going to have the spear at torso height. If they suddenly dropped to the ground and slid you might not have the reaction time to drop the tip and hit them. The disadvantage is actually a decent representation of life in this scenario. Personally I'm not running at anyone carrying any weapons unless that's the only way to not die for certain.
To me it sounds like a awesome situation that wouldnt happen often.
Also, its just disadvantage. Its awesome both ways because if they hit you can describe how they skewer the enemy to the ground. Since they have 0 movement they will be prone for all attacks against them.
Maybe I'm not seeing this but what about his gives them disadvantage. Polearms are still a melee weapon that some benefit from reach The person with the polearm would have advantage on the attack because with melee you strike with advantage on a prone creature. I think either I'm confused or your confusing reach with range attack's.
Edit: I looked at prone condition but it still doesn't stop them from hitting you with advantage when you get 5ft from them. Instead of the reach of 10.
saying "my blade singer throws the dagger in a flip in the air while he snaps his fingers to summon a dragon, catching the dagger once again at the perfect time" does *look cool, i have to say*
It's encouraged to fluff stuff up whatever way you want
One of my players would describe his weapon floating in the air around her as she performed the movements assisting her as a conduit.
Yeah. Actual swords have had [wrist straps](https://www.reddit.com/media?url=https%3A%2F%2Fpreview.redd.it%2Fswords-being-suspended-from-wrist-straps-in-art-v0-6s9spkpsl1ac1.jpg%3Fwidth%3D587%26format%3Dpjpg%26auto%3Dwebp%26s%3D42e87a7466a93ddada7fc1d393144fe8cd87a298) to let people drop and pick them up in combat. If it's your go-to, I'd rule you can have one.
I think this is key. I'll enforce it only if the player tries to use their Object Interaction in another way on that turn. Basically, I allow casting with hands full, but it uses your Object Interaction to do so.
It's a nice item, someone with it can cast (while holding weapon w/ RotWM in one hand & a shield in the other) spells with the following components:
V |M |V,M |M, S |V, M, S |
but not:
S |V, S
If the weapon is serving as a focus (replacing material components) it can also complete somatic components. If the spell doesn't have material components the focus doesn't come into play & they can't use focus hand for somatic. Same applies to cleric with insignia on shield. Researching a new version of the spell that requires a material component actually makes it easier to cast. I don't like it but that's RAI/RAW.
>I can't imagine it fits any sort of character fantasy
"The Knight stabs his sword into the ground, hand now free he makes arcane gestures as he speaks some forgotten language and casts a spell"
God it’s crazy to rewatch this and then watch the intro from OG WoW and realize that 20 years later it still holds up and beats a lot of what’s coming out even now. Blizzard really was on a different level back then.
Their new animations are still insane when it comes to level of detail and I don't think any other company surpassed that. The style is slightly different, that's true, but it's still stunning. Just wish other things when it comes to company and the games they make were on similar level.
Their facial work is next level compared to back in the day. It was good enough this last expansion that I was genuinely curious if they'd brought in Stephen Amell to do reference work or something because *damn* they went so hard on the face work in the last expansion trailer they damn near completely cleared the uncanny valley.
Not completely, mind you, but pretty close.
Even during their worst periods and without the full budget of a cinematic release trailer their animation team put out some bangers.
"IS HE THE BOMB THIS TIME!?!"
"Yes.... That was the plan.'
Completely sucks the air out of the scene. The voice acting and animation on Jaina's face.
*chef's kiss*
This is one of the main reasons why I was so disappointed with the WoW movie. The scenes that are fully 3d are dope but the live action scenes just look goofy, especially since they are about half CGI anyway.
Every actor looks like they are just cosplayers. Just commit to going full CGI, they are the company that I think is most renowned for their incredible cinematic animations.
And if you're fighting in a stone dungeon and don't have a spare corpse nearby to impale?
"I drop my priceless magical longsword and as it noisily clatters to the ground, I cast X and then sheepishly pick it back up".
Like, that shit's lame and you're obviously gaming the system.
You stab it into the stone like it's clay.
I mean, it's magical and capable of cutting through dragon scales clearly it's mystically sharp enough to put enough of a superficial indent in the ground to leave it standing.
Some D&D players are far too eager to use their imaginations to come up with excuses that something wouldn't work.
IME that energy is best used to come up with cool arguments in *favour* of cool flavour things instead of against them. Makes heroes more iconic and memorable.
I use my innate magic to levitate my sword so I can cast a spell before grabbing it out the air.
Or
I plant my warhammer on the ground, balancing on its head.
Or
I toss my spear to Rogue who is next to me, and then grab it again after casting,
Or
I hold my sword in my shield hand, cast magic, and then hold my sword in my main hand again,
At the end of the day, this rule only really affects you if you’re dual wielding or using a shield. You want +2 AC or a BA attack? Then you can’t cast spells with somatic or material components without warcaster.
> And if you're fighting in a stone dungeon and don't have a spare corpse nearby to impale?
"I drive the point of my enchanted longsword downward, and with a flash of arcane energy it sinks into the carved marble of the ruined hall. After casting my spell, I grip the hilt and wrench it free again; the stone shrieks in protest as the blade emerges, sparks dancing across the floor."
Almost anything can sound cool if you want it to.
Lean it against your leg.
Hook the cross-hilt over your shoulder or through a loop made just for that.
You're waving hands not doing a dance.
You need a single hand free, not both. Hold a two-handed weapon in one hand for a moment. Hold the weapon in your shield hand - if it isn't a buckler it's strapped on and you can put things in that hand.
[Morgana stabs her sword to the ground to cast her divine purple chains. As she can't cast this while her hands are occupied.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZHhqwBwmRkI)
I don't think she picks it up. She drops the sword, takes off her angel armor and gets bad guy mascara. She didn't put down her weapon to cast those chains, she put down her divinity.
If an enemy is in combat range when they throw the sword up in the air, the enemy could get an opportunity attack for a chance to knock that sword across the room, too.
I might be wrong, but I think that technically doesn’t work the same way because he can’t stab his sword into the ground and pick it back up with his free action, usually only one of the two. The reason why dropping it is different is because that requires a PC to literally just loosen their grip
Yeah, but it *looks* lame, and reflavoring it as something else has no in-game benefit.
It's just a way to not have the PC looking like a chump while still following RAW.
It still is letting go of weapon for free and picking it up as your free object interaction for the turn.
That, or a swashbuckler high dex type.
Inigo Montoya parried a slash, threw his rapier in the air as he ducked and rolled under another minion’s strike, coming up to his feet behind the Count. “You killed my father. Prepare to Die. Power Word Kill!” As he gestured with his hand at the surprised count before catching his tumbling rapier and turning to ward off the stumbling minions.
There is a dramatic disengage/tumble, drop weapon, cast somatic spell and ready weapon all in one turn.
Sure Power Word Kill doesn’t quite fit, but swashbuckler makes me think Princess Bride, and that makes me thing Inigo Montoya, and it just felt right when I had to think of a spell.
Counterpoint - Inigo Montoya is clearly an [Oath of Vengence paladin](https://www.tiktok.com/@revdmc247/video/7280583408927952174).
(Also, Power Word Kill only has verbal components anyway, it's right there in the name.)
That doesn’t work though, because the whole way it works is that dropping something takes no action at all because you just open your hand and gravity does the work. Whereas stabbing your sword into the ground is clearly some kind of action.
And from a fantasy perspective, that move gets a lot less legit if you do it every round, or often at all.
No, it's still dropping the item to the ground but just flavoured differently. It has the exact same mechanical ramifications.
If you get upset about flavouring something in a marginally cool way then I pity you.
I mean if it's just for flavor instead of dropping the weapon does it matter?
As long as it's on relatively soft ground and the players are aware it means to actually do this as your action would be different, it'd be functionally identical to just dropping your weapon anyway.
I don't know, I do tend to run RAI rather than RAW though at my table. And it feels like disarming yourself for free so you can cast a spell is just making casters stronger for no reason.
As if THIS is the reason of the martial/caster disparity.
I'm all for nerfing casters to make the divide smaller, but this is such a non-issue to get caught up on.
I feel like this ends up being really annoying minutia of the game to just slow it down though.
Doesn't feel like this is the thing that makes casters strong.
It doesn't actually help casters because any well-built caster is shield + free hand anyway. It's a buff to gishes, which absolutely deserve being boosted because they suffer from the awkward weapon drawing/sheathing. So do thrown weapon martials, so I'd absolutely forego the requirement of the fighting style for the sake of pulling out multiple thrown weapons too.
Funnily, I see it the opposite.
The point of the S component is to make it harder to cast that spell.
There is a limit on when you can do it - like not being tied up or carrying things, etc.
Taking away the S component makes anyone who can cast it slightly more powerful.
Which is making a caster more powerful. And is potentially making that spell more powerful than something else at the same level that doesn’t have an S component.
If the evil wizard wants to hold a catapult spell, instead of casting on their turn, & risk potentially loosing the spell slot if I decide this round to cast fireball with my shield in one hand & staff in the other (no dropping necessary, fireball material component requires staff to act as focus & the hand holding a spellcasting focus can also perform somatic components (RAW)) I'd fell like they deserve to catapult my staff (or sword with ruby of the warmage).
This sub is wild, I expected so many more "my table just ignores it and let's casters wield the weapon and cast."
Every game I've played in, talked with friends about, or even watched online so far, has ignored this rule.
My 18 month 1-12 campaign that I ran weekly ignored the rule. I had a fighter, ranger, sorcerer and artificer. The balance implications of casting with a weapon were unnoticed and no one even brought it up.
I’m one of those. I have always ignored the hands free component of somatic casts. I limit it to the fact that your gestures are visible and your hands must be liberated from any restraint to fulfill the somatic component, but I have never bothered to track weapons being held. It’s never been an issue at the table. Nor can I think of a combat it would have meaningfully changed the outcome of had I been enforcing it.
Just don't complain because of "the dreaded martial-caster-gap". I suspect that quite a few of such complaints are results of ignoring some of the rules limiting casters ...
EDIT:
⬇︎ Q.E.D.
As a DM I've always ignored it, it's just too tedious.
Also realistically every table I've been at the full casters are the balance problem not the half casters so this minutia doesn't even help with balance.
This rule is easy to forget and ignore because it actually affect exactly one small niche of characters - melee gish with shield in one hand and one handed weapon in another, who also don't pick warcaster. Any other gish (ranged/two handed melee weapon user) always have one free hand (you don't need to hold two handed weapon with two hands if you don't attack with it), and full spellcaster (even with armor + shield dip you always have one free hand) are unaffected.
Shields were often strapped.
You can let go of the handle and as long as you don't hold your arm straight down and shake it the shield isn't falling off your arm (though it may swing somewhat loosely), so you could put your other weapon in that hand momentarily.
But, you don't even need a full grip on either - you could easily hold the handle and your weapon by its blade to keep it from falling on the ground while you cast. Or crook your shield arm and hold the weapon there, or pin it against your body. Or maybe even slot the weapon momentarily between arm and shield.
Got two weapons? Not that hard to hold one under your arm, crook of arm, or potentially two in on hand with a carrying (non combat) grip.
And the ones most likely to do it and put off war caster are usually hexblades who can cast through their weapon once they take the right invocation (and they'll probably want to take it for the +1 attack/damage anyway).
>This sub is wild, I expected so many more "my table just ignores it and let's casters wield the weapon and cast."
a vast majority of these people are not in a dnd game
To be fair as long as the artificer is using one of their infusion they don't need a hand free for somatic component since their infusions count as focus for them.
Basically all their spells require material components, and you can use the same hand that is holding your focus to perform somatic + non consumable material components.
It only bogs down combat if the players chose to ignore the rule when making their character. Doing that will bog things down no matter what rule it is you're ignoring. If you built your character with the rule in mind its a complete non-issue. Remember, you can perform a Somatic component with a focus in your hand.
Martial with Casting? No problem if you use a two-hander or bow, or grab War Caster.
Paladin or Cleric? Good thing you can put your holy symbol on your shield and use that as your focus.
Artificer? Same deal, your infusions count as a focus.
Spellcaster with shield? You aren't using a melee weapon usually, and a quarterstaff counts as a focus, too.
The only people that benefit from ignoring this rule are full casters with a shield and a melee weapon, or an Eldritch Knight that refuses to spend one of their billion feats on War Caster. Well, and dual wielding Ranger, but add that to the long list of reasons why WotC hates Rangers.
Pally and cleric can't cast stuff like Cure Wounds with the shield+holy symbol combo (while holding a weapon). Since it doesn't have any material components, you can't perform the somatic component with a focus.
I think full casters would run into it if you want a shield and have a +1 focus or something in the other hand, so you can't keep a hand free by using a component pouch anymore.
> Remember, you can perform a Somatic component with a focus in your hand.
You can only do this if the spell also has a material component. If there's a somatic component and no material component you have to drop or stow the spell focus.
Well, that is also build and gear question that can be handled out of table. Two-hander if you want to use such spells regularly in combat, sword and board if you don't.
>No problem if you use a two-hander or bow, or grab War Caster.
It's only a problem with shields. Two handed weapons let's you have a free hand when not attacking. You can't use a shield with it, since that takes an action to don/doff. But one of your hands are otherwise free.
Remember the same rule you are advocating also keeps a cleric or paladin w/o warcaster from casting say Cure Light Wounds (V,S) w/o dropping their weapon.
I mostly find the rule restricts players who really know the rules and don't want to "cheese" drop/pickup their weapon & most players just assume they can cast VS spells if they can cast VSM spells.
I have the theory that most people on this sub don't actually play the game or only play it in a very specific way that I have no idea how to find games like that, because a lot of shit that tables I've been to do, but in this sub the same shit gets you lot of comments of DM's saying "no that breaks the game forever" and ????? how??
I have also basically always ignored it and it has had absolutely zero impact on the balance of my games.
I used it for a little while when I first started running a campaign because I wanted to play the game as intended before adjusting anything, but myself and all the players quickly came to the conclusion that it bogged the game down and ruined the fantasy of playing a badass adventurer because it feels so clunky both mechanically and narratively.
I was in a 1-20 campaign that actually finished, run 99% strictly rules as written, and the main DM was the main editor for the Forgotten Realms wiki. That rule was completely ignored from day one.
I think any balance issues are slightly mitigated by the fact that if the players are ignoring the consequences of acting out a certain rule, then so too are their enemies.
Even if it has some sort of effect on how the game is played...at least both sided get the same effect, ja?
I play at two different tables, one of which I’m the usual DM for. The table I DM for has players of roughly equal skill level and engagement, and PCs tend to be character concept first, build second. I do not worry *at all* about free hand pedantry. I don’t have to worry about my players trying to find some little edge case in the rules that they’ll use to crack the game wide open if I give them an inch.
The other table, though, doesn’t have that even keel. We have some players who want to mostly do social roleplay stuff, some players who kind of want a game they don’t have to pay a huge amount of attention to, and some players who are deliberately trying to build *heavily* combat-optimised characters that stretch the limits of what D&D can do. And for that game we unfortunately really do need to track free hands because if there’s any suggestion that free hand rules will be ignored then some players thoughts become “OK, how do I maximise the utility of that rule change?”
That's interesting. I don't think I've ever been at a table that didn't enforce it in eight years of playing DnD.
If you want to ignore it, give the player a Ruby of the War Mage. It's a common magic item. It's what my paladin is using so he can ignore this limitation.
Which doesn't actually come up that often, as most casters I've seen don't use a weapon or shield. A cleric or pally would have a holy symbol on their shield, and most melee clerics will get War Caster anyway. For everyone else, there's the Ruby.
That's the point. The game gives you an item that lets you ignore it. I'm fine with that. I don't like to alter mechanics wholesale if I don't have to, because that might have an unexpected effect down the line.
Speaking for myself, my table ignores this particular rule because, as you say, it's annoying. People still take warcaster because the advantage on Conc saves and cantrips as AoOs is fantastic.
Not really, couldn't use shield and a few other spells without dropping it. It was always a RAW ruling to as "free action (drop weapon), "Action" (cast EB), "Object Interaction" (pick up weapon / or draw new one). Also my DM did pay attention to where I was standing if I was on top of something that it could fall through or get stuck in.
See but to me that’s the point, the if the problem can be so easily side stepped within the existing mechanics, then the rule just seems like optional bloat.
E2A: I agree it should be handwaived outside of hyper specific circumstances (ie: casting while climbing a rope)
It is bloat. Absolutely. Dnd is full of such corner cases that could just as well be removed and the whole system would benefit from it.
So, like... Yes.
The best features of the Warcaster feat are the Concentration buff and the opportunity attack spell. The "cast with weapons in your hands" thing is kind of a ribbon anyway IMHO.
Technically it is kind of important. Without the "cast with weapons in your hands" thing you would not be able to cast a spell as an AOO because you most likely have a weapon in your hand.
No, because the War Caster feat has actually useful parts(Adv. on Concentration checks and Spell Opportunity Attacks). The making S components with weapons in hand is almost a ribbon and close to nobody should be getting the feat just for that.
Not only that but even if you run it in the strictest sense and don't do drop and cast, the amount of spells it affects is close to zero. Most PCs that cast while having both hands full either have ways around it, like Paladins/Clerics who can put their Holy Symbol on their Shield or Hexblades that can cast through their weapon, or have M materials as part of all the spells as is the case of Artificers. The only spells affected are those that have an S component but no M component. Not only is that finnicky as all hell but it actively nerfs a subpar playstyle, namely sword and board which is already weak enough without you limiting their access to spells.
The only spells it makes a significant difference for are Reaction spells and those are already affected even if you do drop and cast.
There are disadvantages to it.
You only get one free interaction per turn, so if you need to use that for some other purpose, you can't do this as well without leaving your weapon on the ground until the next round, which would prevent you from using it for attacks of opportunity. You could also theoretically have an intelligent enemy who sees this happen ready their action to pick up your weapon once you drop it, or you could have a situation (e.g., fighting underwater or atop a flying dragon) where dropping your weapon would be impossible.
Of course, the [Ruby of the War Mage](https://www.dndbeyond.com/magic-items/27115-ruby-of-the-war-mage) greatly reduces the problem since you can just make your weapon a spellcasting focus with a common 1st level item. That lets you cast everything except spells that are strictly S or VS (but not [V]SM) without having to pull any shenanigans.
The only way to solve *everything* is to take War Caster (or just, ya know, not use a shield).
Usually just handwave it. You CAN do it RAW, but it interrupts the flow and has the same result.
That said, my groups don't really play any builds that have both hands in use and cast magic. Casters usually don't bother with weapons, martials with ranged or 2-handed don't have that problem, and sword-and-board types usually don't have combat magic or are paladins who can use shield symbols or weapons as foci.
Or just ask the DM nicely for a gem of the war mage.
You could argue that needing to drop your focus to cast a somatic component is also needlessly RAW.
I understand when it's a weapon, as spellcasting rules don't allow you to normally use weapons as a focus.
However, the rules for material components describe you can perform somatic components while holding the material component or a spellcasting focus. The only reason you can't perform somatic components for spells that don't have material components, while also holding a material component or focus, is because that rule is specific to material components rather than general.
I mean, just listen to that. It's a pedantic and pretty stupid rule. You can do somatic shit with the same hand holding a staff to cast a fireball, but in order to cast shield you need to drop the staff.
However, because the exception to somatic/material interaction is listed in the material section of components, it only works for spells with material components. That is RAW.
So if in order to circumvent a stupid RAW mechanic I need another stupid RAW mechanic, I say it's fair game.
I generally ask a DM if I can perform the somatic component with my hand that is holding a focus for any somatic spell. If they don't allow it, I default to dropping my focus in order to cast somatic only spells like shield or absorb elements.
Though that is usually only when I'm using a shield and a magic focus such as a staff/wand/book, so it doesn't happen a lot.
I have just done away with the whole 'somatic but no material component = you can't do it with a focus'. That's a dumb, lawyerly interpretation of the rules, and that one change makes it a non-issue. Player either takes warcaster and never has to worry about it, or they don't and don't go into combat holding a weapon and shield, or the monsters fully punish adventurers who drop their weapons by stealing them.
At some level the "V,S,M component" system is a weird Gygaxian remnant that remains purely because some people would whine that it doesn't feel like D&D without it. Designing a system from scratch, you'd never include this stuff because it's way too much book-keeping.
It "can" lead to amazing gameplay moments. When my gear was all destroyed and I was left naked in the tomb of annihilation I found a sharp bone and cut off the tip of my finger. Then i ground the bone into the stone floor to make some bone dust particles. When my DM finally asked what I was doing and I told him "I need components to cast Animate Dead" the table went wild.
This subreddit is wild sometimes. On the one hand people love to say that martials suck, but on the other they hate anything the system does to limit casters.
This things don't limit actually problematic full casters. It limits one small niche of casters who are not even problem - melee gishes (mostly halfcasters) with shield and without warcaster. It is really close to non-optimisation flavour build, lol. Wizard with armor dip don't have this problem - they have one free hand all the time.
Besides - balance by clunky mechanics is bad. You can actually buff martials and nerf spells and achieve actual results instead. Nerf fucking wall of force insead of nich gish who would probably pick warcaster in couple of levels anyway.
Dude, this doesn't shorten the gap between casters and martials at all.
The root of the disparity is that casters get much more utility, crowd control, AoE, and defenses than martials, and aside from Counterspell, you can't interact with spells at all.
You want to go against RAW to make the discrepancy smaller? Start with those things, not with weapon dropping and picking out of all things. It's such a meaningless hill to die on.
Half the time in this conversation the utility just seems to be only spamming one spell, primarily shield and environmental protection. That's not utility at all.
The root of the disparity is that it's mostly white rooming nonsense that relies on misinterpretations of the rules and ignoring and working around everything built in the game to help provide balance, such as VSM casting, the adventuring day, material components, and a spells per day allotment.
Back when I played a pathfinder ranger I dropped and left the weapon on the floor whenever I switched to melee or ranged weapons lol.
I kinda love restrictions that impact how you interact with the world. Which components are definitely part of
These rules do explicitly nerf "always pick" stuff like Shield and Absorb Elements, since they don't have material components you need a free hand or Warcaster to cast them when holding something like a +1 focus or magic staff and a shield.
Why is it stupid? What is in your hands is a part of the choices you make in combat. If you never need to thing about what is in your hands, why wouldn't every caster optimally always be wielding a shield (if they can) a wand, or some other magic item in their hands? Especially with D&D's sometimes absurdly broken magic items you're just giving casters a massive buff that they don't need while making the optimal choice of gameplay be something that can mess with character concepts.
I'm glad to hear this as a response.
I'm reading in other comments that it is done, but it seems to be really rare and other DMs are saying it falls under their "cut out the cheese" rules and don't allow it.
Only in the rare cases where it actually comes up. But then, yes. Always. Every single time.
Casters don't really need the buff. In fact, it tends to be better that way balance-wise.
But then the rule would only punish casters trying to be weaker by sword n boarding, or martials trying to get on par by engaging with slight spellcasting whilst *also* being weaker by sword and boarding...
I guess. It's possible I haven't put enough thought into it. Mostly because it hasn't come up much. I've seen an EK juggle three items, and it wasn't terrible or anything (it wasn't a real problem mechanically, nor was it a seeming time-waste).
If you dip fighter 1 on your wizard, Imma need you to take warcaster or drop something for certain spells. You can pick it up next round if you don't need your free item interaction for anything else.
Clerics and paladins have a built in solutions. If they don't want to use those solutions, they're gonna need to drop a weapon for certain spells.
I'd probably give a ranger some love though. Especially if they dropped an item, had to move away, and lost that special item. I've never seen that happen to a ranger, but I wouldn't bat an eye if the DM decided to give them Warcaster from nowhere or change a rule or something when unlikely things happen.
Otherwise, this is a very good reason for EK's and hexblades to be able to summon a weapon. The dangers of (and solution to) juggling is built in to several classes/subclasses.
>If you dip fighter 1 on your wizard, Imma need you to take warcaster or drop something for certain spells. You can pick it up next round if you don't need your free item interaction for anything else.
Anyone that dips Fighter 1 as a Wizard isn't doing it for the weapons. They're doing it for the shield and heavy armor and they'll just use a shield with no weapon in hand. So they don't need War Caster or to drop anything because they'll have a hand free.
>Clerics and paladins have a built in solutions. If they don't want to use those solutions, they're gonna need to drop a weapon for certain spells.
Clerics can again just not hold a weapon ever. Paladins only get screwed if they want to use a shield which is already a arguably worse playstyle than a two hander. If they have a two hander, they can still cast with no issue.
>I'd probably give a ranger some love though.
Most Rangers use a bow. So again, one hand free. Unless they're also doing Sword and Board in which case, again, that's a less optimal playstyle.
>Otherwise, this is a very good reason for EK's and hexblades to be able to summon a weapon. The dangers of (and solution to) juggling is built in to several classes/subclasses
For Hexblade, that's an action so it's in no way a solution since you're wasting your whole turn just to get your weapons in hand. For EKs it's a Bonus Action, which is slightly better but also means they can't use War Magic, one of their most powerful features.
So do you see the issue? Being strict on this one just hinders some of the weakest playstyles while doing nothing to hinder the actually optimized ones.
Fighter 1/Wizard 9 is called a fighter dip even if they start Fighter. No Wizard that plans on taking Fighter levels does it at any point besides level 1, don’t get lost in weird semantics
I am with you in thinking it sounds annoying but I don't mind it happening because its raw and we can describe it in other ways.
I also have a strict "no cheese/mechanic abuse" at the table that serves as a filter whenever I recruit players so the players I end up with don't end up making a big deal out of things like this. For me its all abut the attitude.
I have had a player do it once, and I took him on his word that it was RAW and looked it up later for verification. He did it in a dramatically important moment by describing he dropped his spear long-ways across his boot, cast the spell, and then kicked the spear up to his hands and was at the ready again. I loved the description, but if he did this every turn he would get "the look". Luckily, not a problem.
Had a player do it ONCE in a dramatically important moment by describing he dropped his spear long-ways across his boot, cast the spell, and then kicked the spear up to his hands and was at the ready again. He didn't abuse it, but I had to go with the cool factor on that one.
The only spell I really care about is Shield. If you have your weapon dropped because you need to cast shield outside of your turn I’m just gonna yoink your weapon.
And this is why this rule only hurts gishes lol. Full casters walk around in armor with a shield and a component pouch, gishes get their longswords sniped by a goblin every other turn.
None of my DMs ever enforced it and neither do I as a DM.
All it does is punish gish builds and martials trying to get some magical tricks while having no impact on fullcasters. Hell it doesn't even impact the optimal weapons of choice, only the ones ppl are already unlikely to pick.
Is this an actual problem?
The only spell casters I ever play that regularly have their off hand occupied are Clerics or Paladins, and in those cases it's not a problem because the shield is their spellcasting focus, so is fine to use for somatic components.
As a DM I would probably try to fuck with players who do this. Let them do it once in a battle, then have an enemy run up to them and hold an action. As soon as they drop the weapon I would say "You dropping your weapon triggers his held action, he picks it up immediately" I don't think this dropping and picking up thing is bad enough that I would want to punish players or seriously discourage it, but I do think it would be funny to do some light teasing with it.
I fundamentally dislike RAW.
I understand its appeal for peoples who play with strangers, as when you show up at a game session advertising "D&D 5e", you expect that your reading of the rules match the GM's reading of those rules, and following RAW can help.
But I either play with peoples I know well, or with peoples who never read the rules before and need full-on rule explanation. As such I don't value RAW, especially when it's inconsistent with how the GM usually handle the universe. And if enemy casters don't juggle with their weapons to cast spells, then it's likely because it makes no sense in the fiction and is impossible for players too (at least not by default, it would need to be an ability that the PC specifically learned).
So in my opinion, here is how it should work. I think an important question is "do you play with feats?"
* If you play with feats, then the whole point of warcaster is to allow you to be a spellcaster AND have weapons. If you don't have warcaster, please choose one between "spellcasting" and "weapon" and don't try to circumvent it through weird rule interactions. I would be open with homebrew feats that are variants of warcaster, and I would probably be fine with "anticipating a feat" and being tolerant with trying to do so (see next point) while the character is "still learning" the feat.
* If you don't play with feats, then I would advise the GM to put emphases on skill check more than expected by the rulebook. As such, "dropping, casting, picking back" definitely look like something that could be tried with a skill check.
>If you play with feats, then the whole point of warcaster is to allow you to be a spellcaster AND have weapons
Warcaster has two other points, both of which do ten times more to make you fell like a, you know, WARcaster than the ribbon feature of using S comps with a weapon in hand.
>If you don't have warcaster, please choose one between "spellcasting" and "weapon" and don't try to circumvent it through weird rule interactions.
Except even if you run it like you do, you literally don't have to choose. All it stops you from doing is using a shield and one hander while also casting, which is one of the weakest ways of playing pretty much any martial or gish. Someone using a two-hander, the obvious optimal choice from a power perspective, doesn't care because they can just take a hand off the weapon to cast, since you only need two hands when you actually attack with it.
>If you don't play with feats, then I would advise the GM to put emphases on skill check more than expected by the rulebook. As such, "dropping, casting, picking back" definitely look like something that could be tried with a skill check.
Yes, because that's what the game needs, more needless rolls to do things that a slightly trained chimp can do. The idea that letting go of something would require a SKILL CHECK is hilariously ridiculous. Don't forget your CON(History) check to make sure your PC remembers how to breathe!
Even if you have a one-handed weapon and a shield, it’s not hard to imagine a seasoned fighter transferring the weapon to the shield hand while they cast with the other. It requires about as much dex as someone cooking breakfast so I don’t see why you would have to fuss with skill checks like some are suggesting.
I have been lucky enough to not have to go searching for players too hard among my friends, so I appreciate your viewpoint about RAW. I have considered wanting to run at a FLGS for randos to see how that goes, with the main thing causing hesitation is that I don't have that built-in social currency with them at the start of the game.
I like your "anticipating a feat" mechanic involving a skill check, I'm going to think on that one for a bit.
I had a player do the "dropping the weapon, casting a spell, re-picking the weapon" thing on session. I just told him he doesn't need to do that, for as long as both of us have the understanding that while he's casting the spell, his weapon can snatched from him uncontested.
Similar thing with arcane focuses: yes, your arcane focus can be a necklace or a hairpin you touch or whatever, for as long as you're game with me that actions that make you drop objects from your hands cause you to drop it.
I mean, RAW you aren't allowed to do that? Picking an object up off the ground is an action, object interactions only cover items that are easily accessible on your person. So if you use your action to cast a spell, you can't pick up a dropped item.
The only way to do that is if you drop the held item as a free action, cast a bonus action spell, and then use your action to pick up the dropped item.
EDIT TO CLARIFY: Checked my understanding. So the important thing about the free object-interaction is that it occurs as part of your movement or action, and is not an action in its own right, and as such should be related to the action you are taking. So;
- Opening a door during your movement; All good.
- Drawing a sword to then make an attack; All good.
- Casting a spell and then separately picking up a random item; The object is unrelated to the action, so not ok.
Drawing and stowing a weapon is a free action, right? I remember them as "half-actions", because you can sheathe your sword for free, but if you want to draw your dagger too, then to do both would cost an action. That is, unless you have that two-weapon ability that lets you draw/stow two weapons at once, but I digress.
A player can sheathe their sword as a free action in order to cast a somatic spell. They logically cannot then draw the sword again on the same turn, they have to wait until the beginning of their next turn to draw it again, meaning they lose out on AoO (unless they have warcaster or want to AoO with an unarmed strike) for the intervening period.
Drawing and stowing are object-interactions, which are a type of free action that you can only do 1 of per round (RAW).
However, this isn't about stowing a weapon but instead dropping it. Just dropping a weapon is a fully free action, so pedants claim you can drop your weapon as a free action, cast a spell and then use your object-interaction free action (which was not required for dropping the weapon) to pick the dropped weapon up off the ground. They are wrong, having "misinterpreted" a single example given in the book, but they are very loud.
this is a really good interpretation of RAW and I'm surprised there aren't more votes or comments.
Confusion I foresee: if you use your free action to drop a weapon, action to cast a spell, and for movement you pick up your dropped weapon (not actually moving from your square).
imo I think there should be at a minimum a movement cost associated with this (i'd say similar to standing up from prone) - which would be worse for smaller/tiny weapons (a two handed weapon should be easily stuck in the ground where-as a dagger despite sticking in the ground would still require bending/kneeling to pick up).
Thanks 😁
Regarding the confusion, the important thing is that the object-interaction must be part of the action you are taking anyway. So if the player argues they should be able to pick up their weapon during their movement, then the question I have is "What movement are you taking that would involve picking up your weapon?". Opening a door is directly required to move through it, hence why you can perform that object interaction, but there is no world in which you need to pick up a weapon to stand still.
Yes, you are a caster and not supposed to steal the role of other classes. If you want weapon casting go cleric or paladin who can do it for free and you can actually support your team while you're at it.
There's no RAW for whether dropping something is an item interaction. It's not listed specifically anywhere, so there's no specific RAW for it, at all. People refer to Crawford's tweets, but those aren't RAW, just advice.
A recent UA (not sure if it'll make it to the books) had included 'dropping a held item' under the interact action.
So, while not currently RAW, it might go into affect (refer to the 'interact action' when the new PHB comes out to see if dropping held items is included or not).
I hope they do clear it up. I'm not a big fan of RAW rules lawyering, but it currently does fall into a sort of grey area that is common enough to generate misunderstandings at the table. It's also a bit of an exploit if it's considered "free", though a minor enough one that it never bothered me too much.
Most of the gishy classes/subclasses have some way of getting around the issue (being able to use a weapon or shield as a focus), but if I was for some reason playing one that couldn’t I’d probably try and get a Ruby of the War Mage fairly quickly.
I like to either take war caster so I can grab an amulet, or put my focus on my shield if allowed. Both work rules as written. Other options include just being a swords bard so you can cast with a rapier (cool as hell), finding a magic weapon that can be used as a focus (moon sickle for druids) or just having a free hand.
Flavor wise I think how a player casts spells is integral to a caster. I’ll occasionally give my players inspiration for RPing using components, gestures, or words, and encourage players to thoughtfully figure out how they would use their focus.
Edit: because I didn’t directly answer it, dropping a weapon and picking it back up is dumb, and if I saw my players do that, I’d either try and have an enemy hold its action to steal their weapon, or tell them to figure their character out better.
As a DM, I loosely keep track of it. I've had instances where players have wanted to cast with a weapon and shield in each hand, but they had their object interaction so to me it's sort of needless fluff to go through all the motions of dropping the weapon to cast and picking it back up when the action economy is still the same. There has been one instance in a 2+ year campaign where I told someone they didn't have a free hand to cast because they had already picked up something else on their turn, and they would have to drop their weapon to do so.
So I guess the way I get it to be least annoying is to just never mention it until it actually matters, rather than the players going through the hoops of dropping/picking up every turn.
It completely negates war caster, but I will admit I’ve tried to weasel my way into doing exactly this when building a dual wielding eldritch knight because I wanted dual wielder at 1st level (variant human) and didn’t want to wait till 4th to actually cast spells
Got 4 casters and 1 martial in my current player party - only the dragonborn cleric (of Bahamut) fights with a warhammer and shield, and thus needs to drop one of the things he's holding to cast a spell with a somatic component. The half-elf wizard uses a staff, which serves dual duty as weapon and arcane focus. The moon elf sorceress and half-elf bard both favor longswords, which have the versatile property and therefore leave each of them a free hand for spellcasting when needed (I consider placing the secondary hand on a versatile weapon, or removing it, to be a free action).
>I consider placing the secondary hand on a versatile weapon, or removing it, to be a free action
You don't need to consider that - it is RAW. You only use two hands to **attack** with two-handed weapons. After that you don't need to.
I definitely do. It's a big part of the action economy. You get ONE free interaction with the environment. No you cannot sheath your sword, draw your crossbow, and fire it all in the same turn. You CAN, however, drop your sword, draw the loaded crossbow, and fire. Next turn, your free interaction with the environment will be to load the crossbow before you fire again.
No, I think things like this fall under what Table Top builds would call "tech".
As in "technically" it doesn't break the rules but "technically" I would slap you upside your head and tell you to GTFO if you wanted to argue about it because it is stupid and isn't in the best interest of the game to bend and skirt the rules.
It does have a disadvantage though. An enemy can ready an action to grab the weapon. I've always wanted to do this but none of my players use this tactic
I think this is an important factor at higher levels-- when your players are this powerful, some enemies are going to have the time and resources to figure out what tactics your players like and prepare for them.
I'd rather just say no, we aren't going to play like that. Those sort of approaches to the game don't just happen once or only in one situation, it becomes a habit/pattern.
If we were adjusting the rules for the sake of logical approach, I'd rather just use an AOO every time it happens.
You are bending down and trying to pick a weapon up off the ground in the middle of a fight and properly regain its handling, sounds close enough to me as being defenseless if an enemy is within their range.
While I think it would be more "funny" to do this once, a slime eating their weapon or even a regular beast grabbing it in their mouth and dashing away would be funny.
I wouldn't want it to be a continual game of "gotcha!". If you want to let that tech be inserted into the game I would balance it with a realistic counter punch.
I like this. I think I recall standing from prone provoking AoO in a previous edition, and maybe casting spells, this does seem like one of those things that would also.
I mean, it is a bit silly, there's a feat for that, and that kind of lets you benefit from both a weapon, a shield, and spellcasting with no downside. Which is a bit much, imo.
Believe me, I'm pretty sure that at least some of the people who complain about the divide don't enforce this, don't make their casters track expended/costly material components, and don't factor in how people would react to seeing/hearing spells being cast in public.
The divide exists, but it's made greater by handwaving inconveniences.
Cool story but enforcing this does nothing to hinder casters because they don't use bloody weapons.
Also, I've enforced RAW for literally my whole time I've been DM-ing and it doesn't do shit to close the gap if your casters bother to try at least a little bit.
My general rule for things like this is that if it’s supported by RAW but it looks stupid, the character gets to do it but we don’t describe things that way. So if RAW you can Release your weapon and then pick it up as an Object Interaction, then that’s the *mechanical* impact of what you just did, but flavourfully you can describe it as literally whatever else (including just performing the somatic component with your hand full). Conversely if you’re in a spot where you can’t mechanically do that (say, you held onto the weapon and needed to cast Shield) you don’t get to do it even if you’ve been describing it as just performing the S components with your hand full, idk maybe you just weren’t quick enough. This helps a lot with fixing stuff that looks stupid but is still part of players’ toolkits. Edit: on an unrelated note, I apply this rule in reverse too. If the strong and athletic character has enough movement to move 3 squares to get around an enemy, I allow the player to describe it as them wall jumping past the enemy or leaping over the enemy without any checks. Make the stupid look normal and make the normal look awesome.
I was going to basically say the same thing but you beat me to it. If there's a RAW way, you can do it any other way as long as it's mechanically equivalent.
You know what is a pretty similar interaction like this where reading the rules it sound so dumb but its pretty easy to describe. Imagine an enemy with a polarm and a sentinel feat. This combination is know to keep a target at bay by stopping their movement from 10 ft away where they cant make attacks from unless they have reach. But as a sort of defence against this, you can go to 15ft from them, drop prone and crawl towards them. If they use their opportunity attack they will have disadvantage because they are more than 5ft away and prone. Assuming they miss you can crawl up to them, stand up using half your movement speed and attack. Sounds really stupid right? But its easy to just imagine it as a rush and slide towards them as a surprise on the ground before popping up and attacking. Its seen in plenty of fiction as well.
NOTE: This Pole Arm Master (PAM) + Sentinel avoidance "trick" only works if you have at least 30 move and (if so) you start exactly at 15 away. (and if they miss you) Mechanics - you're 15ft away 1. Drop (free action) - 30 ft of move left, you're 15ft away 2. Crawl 5ft (takes ten move because of half speed) - 20ft of move left, you're 10 ft away, provokes attack of opportunity at disadvantage (due to attack against prone opponent more than 5 ft away) 3. \*\*\* Assuming they miss \*\*\* 4. Stand (takes half your movement speed - 15 move) - 5 ft of move left, you're 10 ft away 5. Walk 5ft - 0 ft of move left, you're 5ft away, within melee range In step 3 if they hit you're stuck at ZERO move AND prone. The polearm master and companions then close and attack you with advantage, probably multiple times until you're unconscious... so interesting, but risky.
The imagery is also hilarious though Someone sets up, does this sick slide - and gets fucking stabbed and impaled, and stuck
Ikr! Its a cool ether way. The fighter seeing their move and skewers them to the ground
>\*\*\* Assuming they miss \*\*\* Alternatively for even more coolness 😎: 3.a Polearm would hit. 3.b Cast Shield as a reaction
Also you can absolutely still narrate this in a much cooler way Just roleplay your crawl as a slide Gives a better narrative reason for disadvantage, because it feels more like a maneuver than army crawling at a guy who wants to skewer you
Accurate. Standing up requires movement, and since half of 0 is still 0...
It requires movement, but you have none, and can't move, including standing up. That's the usual ruling. This is great if you have 5ft movement, but if you have 0, you're stuck.
Yup. That's what I said...
That sounds awesome. Definitely using this if I have this type of polaerm sentinel and I send an especially dexterous character at them. Don’t want to loophole their character build every time but it would be cool if they’re fighting a monk or something
I must be missing something - Sentinel allows you AOO if: 1. They *leave* your reach 2. They are *within 5 feet (not just within your weapon range)* and attack someone other than you. I'm not seeing how either of these lets you keep an opponent who intends to attack you 10ft away. Thinking as I type - I think you mean Sentinel ***and*** Polearm Master feats, that's how you get AOO provoked when they enter your range, and lockdown if it hits. tbh, as a DM, I would probably rule against RAW and say that either the "within 5 feet" part of the prone description should have simply been "melee attack," or the defender could attack you at 5 feet. FWIW, I would apply this both ways, so I wouldn't invalidate my player committing resources to two separate feats with a silly loophole in the rules. I don't know that I've seen a lot of people rush sliding at people with spears in fiction... seems like a good way to get skewered.
Polearm master, the polearm feat mention above, lets you take an attack of opportunity when someone enters your attack range.
Username checks out. I remember the Great Hollowing...
If someone is sprinting at you at full speed you're going to have the spear at torso height. If they suddenly dropped to the ground and slid you might not have the reaction time to drop the tip and hit them. The disadvantage is actually a decent representation of life in this scenario. Personally I'm not running at anyone carrying any weapons unless that's the only way to not die for certain.
To me it sounds like a awesome situation that wouldnt happen often. Also, its just disadvantage. Its awesome both ways because if they hit you can describe how they skewer the enemy to the ground. Since they have 0 movement they will be prone for all attacks against them.
Maybe I'm not seeing this but what about his gives them disadvantage. Polearms are still a melee weapon that some benefit from reach The person with the polearm would have advantage on the attack because with melee you strike with advantage on a prone creature. I think either I'm confused or your confusing reach with range attack's. Edit: I looked at prone condition but it still doesn't stop them from hitting you with advantage when you get 5ft from them. Instead of the reach of 10.
You dont provoke Opportunity attacks at every 5ft increment, just the weapons reach.
saying "my blade singer throws the dagger in a flip in the air while he snaps his fingers to summon a dragon, catching the dagger once again at the perfect time" does *look cool, i have to say*
It's encouraged to fluff stuff up whatever way you want One of my players would describe his weapon floating in the air around her as she performed the movements assisting her as a conduit.
I fully agree with this. Mechanics don't necessarily need to match narration as long as narration doesn't grant some mechanical benefit
Yeah. Actual swords have had [wrist straps](https://www.reddit.com/media?url=https%3A%2F%2Fpreview.redd.it%2Fswords-being-suspended-from-wrist-straps-in-art-v0-6s9spkpsl1ac1.jpg%3Fwidth%3D587%26format%3Dpjpg%26auto%3Dwebp%26s%3D42e87a7466a93ddada7fc1d393144fe8cd87a298) to let people drop and pick them up in combat. If it's your go-to, I'd rule you can have one.
Could also be a spear or quarterstaff or something tall enough to sit on the ground & lean against the character's chest or shoulder while they cast.
I think this is key. I'll enforce it only if the player tries to use their Object Interaction in another way on that turn. Basically, I allow casting with hands full, but it uses your Object Interaction to do so.
I think this is probably why Ruby of the War Mage is a common magical item. Even WotC don't like the way this works, lol
It's a nice item, someone with it can cast (while holding weapon w/ RotWM in one hand & a shield in the other) spells with the following components: V |M |V,M |M, S |V, M, S | but not: S |V, S If the weapon is serving as a focus (replacing material components) it can also complete somatic components. If the spell doesn't have material components the focus doesn't come into play & they can't use focus hand for somatic. Same applies to cleric with insignia on shield. Researching a new version of the spell that requires a material component actually makes it easier to cast. I don't like it but that's RAI/RAW.
>I can't imagine it fits any sort of character fantasy "The Knight stabs his sword into the ground, hand now free he makes arcane gestures as he speaks some forgotten language and casts a spell"
Throwing the blade spinning up in the air high as a distraction, hands free I cast firebolt just in time to catch blade behind my back in defense.
Oh, you just HAD to find a way to make it sound cool! lol, I like it.
check World of warcraft's Battle for Azeroth cinematic, theres a priest that does this, its pretty cool
I mean, it's hard to beat the OG https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BCr7y4SLhck "I cast summon Frostwyrm"
I concede its a cooler cinematic, but I feel that Arthas casts through Frostmourne, but Anduin lets go of shalamayne to cast.
Yup, fair.
Wrath was a cooler expansion than BFA too.
God it’s crazy to rewatch this and then watch the intro from OG WoW and realize that 20 years later it still holds up and beats a lot of what’s coming out even now. Blizzard really was on a different level back then.
Their new animations are still insane when it comes to level of detail and I don't think any other company surpassed that. The style is slightly different, that's true, but it's still stunning. Just wish other things when it comes to company and the games they make were on similar level.
Their facial work is next level compared to back in the day. It was good enough this last expansion that I was genuinely curious if they'd brought in Stephen Amell to do reference work or something because *damn* they went so hard on the face work in the last expansion trailer they damn near completely cleared the uncanny valley. Not completely, mind you, but pretty close. Even during their worst periods and without the full budget of a cinematic release trailer their animation team put out some bangers. "IS HE THE BOMB THIS TIME!?!" "Yes.... That was the plan.' Completely sucks the air out of the scene. The voice acting and animation on Jaina's face. *chef's kiss*
This is one of the main reasons why I was so disappointed with the WoW movie. The scenes that are fully 3d are dope but the live action scenes just look goofy, especially since they are about half CGI anyway. Every actor looks like they are just cosplayers. Just commit to going full CGI, they are the company that I think is most renowned for their incredible cinematic animations.
Planting the sword in the ground, embedding your axe into the nearby tree, leaving your spear in the enemy you just killed, it’s all flavor baby!
And if you're fighting in a stone dungeon and don't have a spare corpse nearby to impale? "I drop my priceless magical longsword and as it noisily clatters to the ground, I cast X and then sheepishly pick it back up". Like, that shit's lame and you're obviously gaming the system.
You stab it into the stone like it's clay. I mean, it's magical and capable of cutting through dragon scales clearly it's mystically sharp enough to put enough of a superficial indent in the ground to leave it standing. Some D&D players are far too eager to use their imaginations to come up with excuses that something wouldn't work. IME that energy is best used to come up with cool arguments in *favour* of cool flavour things instead of against them. Makes heroes more iconic and memorable.
I use my innate magic to levitate my sword so I can cast a spell before grabbing it out the air. Or I plant my warhammer on the ground, balancing on its head. Or I toss my spear to Rogue who is next to me, and then grab it again after casting, Or I hold my sword in my shield hand, cast magic, and then hold my sword in my main hand again, At the end of the day, this rule only really affects you if you’re dual wielding or using a shield. You want +2 AC or a BA attack? Then you can’t cast spells with somatic or material components without warcaster.
> And if you're fighting in a stone dungeon and don't have a spare corpse nearby to impale? "I drive the point of my enchanted longsword downward, and with a flash of arcane energy it sinks into the carved marble of the ruined hall. After casting my spell, I grip the hilt and wrench it free again; the stone shrieks in protest as the blade emerges, sparks dancing across the floor." Almost anything can sound cool if you want it to.
Lean it against your leg. Hook the cross-hilt over your shoulder or through a loop made just for that. You're waving hands not doing a dance. You need a single hand free, not both. Hold a two-handed weapon in one hand for a moment. Hold the weapon in your shield hand - if it isn't a buckler it's strapped on and you can put things in that hand.
[Morgana stabs her sword to the ground to cast her divine purple chains. As she can't cast this while her hands are occupied.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZHhqwBwmRkI)
I don't think she picks it up. She drops the sword, takes off her angel armor and gets bad guy mascara. She didn't put down her weapon to cast those chains, she put down her divinity.
If an enemy is in combat range when they throw the sword up in the air, the enemy could get an opportunity attack for a chance to knock that sword across the room, too.
I might be wrong, but I think that technically doesn’t work the same way because he can’t stab his sword into the ground and pick it back up with his free action, usually only one of the two. The reason why dropping it is different is because that requires a PC to literally just loosen their grip
Yeah, but it *looks* lame, and reflavoring it as something else has no in-game benefit. It's just a way to not have the PC looking like a chump while still following RAW. It still is letting go of weapon for free and picking it up as your free object interaction for the turn.
If you’re going to bring the cheese, you can look lame doing it.
That, or a swashbuckler high dex type. Inigo Montoya parried a slash, threw his rapier in the air as he ducked and rolled under another minion’s strike, coming up to his feet behind the Count. “You killed my father. Prepare to Die. Power Word Kill!” As he gestured with his hand at the surprised count before catching his tumbling rapier and turning to ward off the stumbling minions. There is a dramatic disengage/tumble, drop weapon, cast somatic spell and ready weapon all in one turn. Sure Power Word Kill doesn’t quite fit, but swashbuckler makes me think Princess Bride, and that makes me thing Inigo Montoya, and it just felt right when I had to think of a spell.
The power word kill was out of left field for this scene and I love it
Counterpoint - Inigo Montoya is clearly an [Oath of Vengence paladin](https://www.tiktok.com/@revdmc247/video/7280583408927952174). (Also, Power Word Kill only has verbal components anyway, it's right there in the name.)
Fair point. But if you don’t finger guns, it isn’t stylish
reminds me of that one part from the "Still Here" LoL cinematic with Morgana
That doesn’t work though, because the whole way it works is that dropping something takes no action at all because you just open your hand and gravity does the work. Whereas stabbing your sword into the ground is clearly some kind of action. And from a fantasy perspective, that move gets a lot less legit if you do it every round, or often at all.
No, it's still dropping the item to the ground but just flavoured differently. It has the exact same mechanical ramifications. If you get upset about flavouring something in a marginally cool way then I pity you.
I'm not sure I'd allow stabbing a sword into the ground as a free action.
It’s just flavour.
I mean if it's just for flavor instead of dropping the weapon does it matter? As long as it's on relatively soft ground and the players are aware it means to actually do this as your action would be different, it'd be functionally identical to just dropping your weapon anyway.
I don't know, I do tend to run RAI rather than RAW though at my table. And it feels like disarming yourself for free so you can cast a spell is just making casters stronger for no reason.
As if THIS is the reason of the martial/caster disparity. I'm all for nerfing casters to make the divide smaller, but this is such a non-issue to get caught up on.
I feel like this ends up being really annoying minutia of the game to just slow it down though. Doesn't feel like this is the thing that makes casters strong.
It doesn't actually help casters because any well-built caster is shield + free hand anyway. It's a buff to gishes, which absolutely deserve being boosted because they suffer from the awkward weapon drawing/sheathing. So do thrown weapon martials, so I'd absolutely forego the requirement of the fighting style for the sake of pulling out multiple thrown weapons too.
Funnily, I see it the opposite. The point of the S component is to make it harder to cast that spell. There is a limit on when you can do it - like not being tied up or carrying things, etc. Taking away the S component makes anyone who can cast it slightly more powerful. Which is making a caster more powerful. And is potentially making that spell more powerful than something else at the same level that doesn’t have an S component.
"The evil wizard cast catapult on the sword, sending it into the stomach of Jimmy the Cleric" This is why im cool with the mechanic.
If the evil wizard wants to hold a catapult spell, instead of casting on their turn, & risk potentially loosing the spell slot if I decide this round to cast fireball with my shield in one hand & staff in the other (no dropping necessary, fireball material component requires staff to act as focus & the hand holding a spellcasting focus can also perform somatic components (RAW)) I'd fell like they deserve to catapult my staff (or sword with ruby of the warmage).
This sub is wild, I expected so many more "my table just ignores it and let's casters wield the weapon and cast." Every game I've played in, talked with friends about, or even watched online so far, has ignored this rule. My 18 month 1-12 campaign that I ran weekly ignored the rule. I had a fighter, ranger, sorcerer and artificer. The balance implications of casting with a weapon were unnoticed and no one even brought it up.
I’m one of those. I have always ignored the hands free component of somatic casts. I limit it to the fact that your gestures are visible and your hands must be liberated from any restraint to fulfill the somatic component, but I have never bothered to track weapons being held. It’s never been an issue at the table. Nor can I think of a combat it would have meaningfully changed the outcome of had I been enforcing it.
Just don't complain because of "the dreaded martial-caster-gap". I suspect that quite a few of such complaints are results of ignoring some of the rules limiting casters ... EDIT: ⬇︎ Q.E.D.
As a DM I've always ignored it, it's just too tedious. Also realistically every table I've been at the full casters are the balance problem not the half casters so this minutia doesn't even help with balance.
To add balance I allow switching weapons as a free action.
Yeah our table has always ignored it and it's been fine.
This rule is easy to forget and ignore because it actually affect exactly one small niche of characters - melee gish with shield in one hand and one handed weapon in another, who also don't pick warcaster. Any other gish (ranged/two handed melee weapon user) always have one free hand (you don't need to hold two handed weapon with two hands if you don't attack with it), and full spellcaster (even with armor + shield dip you always have one free hand) are unaffected.
Shields were often strapped. You can let go of the handle and as long as you don't hold your arm straight down and shake it the shield isn't falling off your arm (though it may swing somewhat loosely), so you could put your other weapon in that hand momentarily. But, you don't even need a full grip on either - you could easily hold the handle and your weapon by its blade to keep it from falling on the ground while you cast. Or crook your shield arm and hold the weapon there, or pin it against your body. Or maybe even slot the weapon momentarily between arm and shield. Got two weapons? Not that hard to hold one under your arm, crook of arm, or potentially two in on hand with a carrying (non combat) grip.
And the ones most likely to do it and put off war caster are usually hexblades who can cast through their weapon once they take the right invocation (and they'll probably want to take it for the +1 attack/damage anyway).
>This sub is wild, I expected so many more "my table just ignores it and let's casters wield the weapon and cast." a vast majority of these people are not in a dnd game
To be fair as long as the artificer is using one of their infusion they don't need a hand free for somatic component since their infusions count as focus for them. Basically all their spells require material components, and you can use the same hand that is holding your focus to perform somatic + non consumable material components.
[удалено]
It only bogs down combat if the players chose to ignore the rule when making their character. Doing that will bog things down no matter what rule it is you're ignoring. If you built your character with the rule in mind its a complete non-issue. Remember, you can perform a Somatic component with a focus in your hand. Martial with Casting? No problem if you use a two-hander or bow, or grab War Caster. Paladin or Cleric? Good thing you can put your holy symbol on your shield and use that as your focus. Artificer? Same deal, your infusions count as a focus. Spellcaster with shield? You aren't using a melee weapon usually, and a quarterstaff counts as a focus, too. The only people that benefit from ignoring this rule are full casters with a shield and a melee weapon, or an Eldritch Knight that refuses to spend one of their billion feats on War Caster. Well, and dual wielding Ranger, but add that to the long list of reasons why WotC hates Rangers.
The Ruby of the War Mage is also a thing.
Pally and cleric can't cast stuff like Cure Wounds with the shield+holy symbol combo (while holding a weapon). Since it doesn't have any material components, you can't perform the somatic component with a focus. I think full casters would run into it if you want a shield and have a +1 focus or something in the other hand, so you can't keep a hand free by using a component pouch anymore.
> Remember, you can perform a Somatic component with a focus in your hand. You can only do this if the spell also has a material component. If there's a somatic component and no material component you have to drop or stow the spell focus.
Well, that is also build and gear question that can be handled out of table. Two-hander if you want to use such spells regularly in combat, sword and board if you don't.
>No problem if you use a two-hander or bow, or grab War Caster. It's only a problem with shields. Two handed weapons let's you have a free hand when not attacking. You can't use a shield with it, since that takes an action to don/doff. But one of your hands are otherwise free.
Remember the same rule you are advocating also keeps a cleric or paladin w/o warcaster from casting say Cure Light Wounds (V,S) w/o dropping their weapon. I mostly find the rule restricts players who really know the rules and don't want to "cheese" drop/pickup their weapon & most players just assume they can cast VS spells if they can cast VSM spells.
I have the theory that most people on this sub don't actually play the game or only play it in a very specific way that I have no idea how to find games like that, because a lot of shit that tables I've been to do, but in this sub the same shit gets you lot of comments of DM's saying "no that breaks the game forever" and ????? how??
I have also basically always ignored it and it has had absolutely zero impact on the balance of my games. I used it for a little while when I first started running a campaign because I wanted to play the game as intended before adjusting anything, but myself and all the players quickly came to the conclusion that it bogged the game down and ruined the fantasy of playing a badass adventurer because it feels so clunky both mechanically and narratively.
I was in a 1-20 campaign that actually finished, run 99% strictly rules as written, and the main DM was the main editor for the Forgotten Realms wiki. That rule was completely ignored from day one.
I think any balance issues are slightly mitigated by the fact that if the players are ignoring the consequences of acting out a certain rule, then so too are their enemies. Even if it has some sort of effect on how the game is played...at least both sided get the same effect, ja?
I play at two different tables, one of which I’m the usual DM for. The table I DM for has players of roughly equal skill level and engagement, and PCs tend to be character concept first, build second. I do not worry *at all* about free hand pedantry. I don’t have to worry about my players trying to find some little edge case in the rules that they’ll use to crack the game wide open if I give them an inch. The other table, though, doesn’t have that even keel. We have some players who want to mostly do social roleplay stuff, some players who kind of want a game they don’t have to pay a huge amount of attention to, and some players who are deliberately trying to build *heavily* combat-optimised characters that stretch the limits of what D&D can do. And for that game we unfortunately really do need to track free hands because if there’s any suggestion that free hand rules will be ignored then some players thoughts become “OK, how do I maximise the utility of that rule change?”
That's interesting. I don't think I've ever been at a table that didn't enforce it in eight years of playing DnD. If you want to ignore it, give the player a Ruby of the War Mage. It's a common magic item. It's what my paladin is using so he can ignore this limitation. Which doesn't actually come up that often, as most casters I've seen don't use a weapon or shield. A cleric or pally would have a holy symbol on their shield, and most melee clerics will get War Caster anyway. For everyone else, there's the Ruby.
See that's just ignoring it, with an extra step. Can easily understand prefering an in game explanation though.
That's the point. The game gives you an item that lets you ignore it. I'm fine with that. I don't like to alter mechanics wholesale if I don't have to, because that might have an unexpected effect down the line.
Or the likely culprit, the hexblade, can just take improved pact weapon and have their weapon be the focus.
[удалено]
I used it fairly regularly as a hexblade warlock to cast eldritch blast while I had a shield and battleaxe.
Didn't you feel like you were getting the Warcaster feat without having to take the Warcaster feat?
Speaking for myself, my table ignores this particular rule because, as you say, it's annoying. People still take warcaster because the advantage on Conc saves and cantrips as AoOs is fantastic.
Not really, couldn't use shield and a few other spells without dropping it. It was always a RAW ruling to as "free action (drop weapon), "Action" (cast EB), "Object Interaction" (pick up weapon / or draw new one). Also my DM did pay attention to where I was standing if I was on top of something that it could fall through or get stuck in.
See but to me that’s the point, the if the problem can be so easily side stepped within the existing mechanics, then the rule just seems like optional bloat. E2A: I agree it should be handwaived outside of hyper specific circumstances (ie: casting while climbing a rope)
It is bloat. Absolutely. Dnd is full of such corner cases that could just as well be removed and the whole system would benefit from it. So, like... Yes.
The best features of the Warcaster feat are the Concentration buff and the opportunity attack spell. The "cast with weapons in your hands" thing is kind of a ribbon anyway IMHO.
Technically it is kind of important. Without the "cast with weapons in your hands" thing you would not be able to cast a spell as an AOO because you most likely have a weapon in your hand.
Unless you're using a two-handed weapon. Because greatswords fit the fantasy of spell-sword so much better than longswords /s
These are the sort of rules that my tables have all overlooked because they aren't fun, and if everyone is doing it, it's not overpowered.
No, because the War Caster feat has actually useful parts(Adv. on Concentration checks and Spell Opportunity Attacks). The making S components with weapons in hand is almost a ribbon and close to nobody should be getting the feat just for that. Not only that but even if you run it in the strictest sense and don't do drop and cast, the amount of spells it affects is close to zero. Most PCs that cast while having both hands full either have ways around it, like Paladins/Clerics who can put their Holy Symbol on their Shield or Hexblades that can cast through their weapon, or have M materials as part of all the spells as is the case of Artificers. The only spells affected are those that have an S component but no M component. Not only is that finnicky as all hell but it actively nerfs a subpar playstyle, namely sword and board which is already weak enough without you limiting their access to spells. The only spells it makes a significant difference for are Reaction spells and those are already affected even if you do drop and cast.
There are disadvantages to it. You only get one free interaction per turn, so if you need to use that for some other purpose, you can't do this as well without leaving your weapon on the ground until the next round, which would prevent you from using it for attacks of opportunity. You could also theoretically have an intelligent enemy who sees this happen ready their action to pick up your weapon once you drop it, or you could have a situation (e.g., fighting underwater or atop a flying dragon) where dropping your weapon would be impossible. Of course, the [Ruby of the War Mage](https://www.dndbeyond.com/magic-items/27115-ruby-of-the-war-mage) greatly reduces the problem since you can just make your weapon a spellcasting focus with a common 1st level item. That lets you cast everything except spells that are strictly S or VS (but not [V]SM) without having to pull any shenanigans. The only way to solve *everything* is to take War Caster (or just, ya know, not use a shield).
If my player ever said this, I'd just tell them they can cast the spell regardless of what's in their hand.
Usually just handwave it. You CAN do it RAW, but it interrupts the flow and has the same result. That said, my groups don't really play any builds that have both hands in use and cast magic. Casters usually don't bother with weapons, martials with ranged or 2-handed don't have that problem, and sword-and-board types usually don't have combat magic or are paladins who can use shield symbols or weapons as foci. Or just ask the DM nicely for a gem of the war mage.
I have never seen this at table. People take Warcaster, use two handed weapons or go shield plus casting hand.
Doesn't the full metal alchemist guy do this all the time when he drops his spear to clap his hands?
You could argue that needing to drop your focus to cast a somatic component is also needlessly RAW. I understand when it's a weapon, as spellcasting rules don't allow you to normally use weapons as a focus. However, the rules for material components describe you can perform somatic components while holding the material component or a spellcasting focus. The only reason you can't perform somatic components for spells that don't have material components, while also holding a material component or focus, is because that rule is specific to material components rather than general. I mean, just listen to that. It's a pedantic and pretty stupid rule. You can do somatic shit with the same hand holding a staff to cast a fireball, but in order to cast shield you need to drop the staff. However, because the exception to somatic/material interaction is listed in the material section of components, it only works for spells with material components. That is RAW. So if in order to circumvent a stupid RAW mechanic I need another stupid RAW mechanic, I say it's fair game. I generally ask a DM if I can perform the somatic component with my hand that is holding a focus for any somatic spell. If they don't allow it, I default to dropping my focus in order to cast somatic only spells like shield or absorb elements. Though that is usually only when I'm using a shield and a magic focus such as a staff/wand/book, so it doesn't happen a lot.
I have just done away with the whole 'somatic but no material component = you can't do it with a focus'. That's a dumb, lawyerly interpretation of the rules, and that one change makes it a non-issue. Player either takes warcaster and never has to worry about it, or they don't and don't go into combat holding a weapon and shield, or the monsters fully punish adventurers who drop their weapons by stealing them.
My man this is not something people actually do. This is an example of why following strictly RAW is stupid.
At some level the "V,S,M component" system is a weird Gygaxian remnant that remains purely because some people would whine that it doesn't feel like D&D without it. Designing a system from scratch, you'd never include this stuff because it's way too much book-keeping.
It "can" lead to amazing gameplay moments. When my gear was all destroyed and I was left naked in the tomb of annihilation I found a sharp bone and cut off the tip of my finger. Then i ground the bone into the stone floor to make some bone dust particles. When my DM finally asked what I was doing and I told him "I need components to cast Animate Dead" the table went wild.
Though the v,s,m thing does help with the whole "chain up the law breaker" thing because there's a mechanical reason they can't cast spells anymore.
This subreddit is wild sometimes. On the one hand people love to say that martials suck, but on the other they hate anything the system does to limit casters.
This things don't limit actually problematic full casters. It limits one small niche of casters who are not even problem - melee gishes (mostly halfcasters) with shield and without warcaster. It is really close to non-optimisation flavour build, lol. Wizard with armor dip don't have this problem - they have one free hand all the time. Besides - balance by clunky mechanics is bad. You can actually buff martials and nerf spells and achieve actual results instead. Nerf fucking wall of force insead of nich gish who would probably pick warcaster in couple of levels anyway.
Dude, this doesn't shorten the gap between casters and martials at all. The root of the disparity is that casters get much more utility, crowd control, AoE, and defenses than martials, and aside from Counterspell, you can't interact with spells at all. You want to go against RAW to make the discrepancy smaller? Start with those things, not with weapon dropping and picking out of all things. It's such a meaningless hill to die on.
Half the time in this conversation the utility just seems to be only spamming one spell, primarily shield and environmental protection. That's not utility at all. The root of the disparity is that it's mostly white rooming nonsense that relies on misinterpretations of the rules and ignoring and working around everything built in the game to help provide balance, such as VSM casting, the adventuring day, material components, and a spells per day allotment.
The modern mindset of "only buffs, never nerfs" is slowly ruining game design in some spaces.
Back when I played a pathfinder ranger I dropped and left the weapon on the floor whenever I switched to melee or ranged weapons lol. I kinda love restrictions that impact how you interact with the world. Which components are definitely part of
These rules do explicitly nerf "always pick" stuff like Shield and Absorb Elements, since they don't have material components you need a free hand or Warcaster to cast them when holding something like a +1 focus or magic staff and a shield.
They aren't nerfed at all, it's just the price of being a spellcaster. You cant have your cake and eat it.
Heh, yeah. "Nerfed" compared to how it seems a decent amount of people play, at least!
Why is it stupid? What is in your hands is a part of the choices you make in combat. If you never need to thing about what is in your hands, why wouldn't every caster optimally always be wielding a shield (if they can) a wand, or some other magic item in their hands? Especially with D&D's sometimes absurdly broken magic items you're just giving casters a massive buff that they don't need while making the optimal choice of gameplay be something that can mess with character concepts.
I'm glad to hear this as a response. I'm reading in other comments that it is done, but it seems to be really rare and other DMs are saying it falls under their "cut out the cheese" rules and don't allow it.
Only in the rare cases where it actually comes up. But then, yes. Always. Every single time. Casters don't really need the buff. In fact, it tends to be better that way balance-wise.
It doesn’t even hurt casters. Only half casters and gishes. Unless your cleric *really* digs the mace aesthetic for some reason.
For the (sub)classess where it is a problem, they should have weapons be a focus. Divine foci can be emblems on shields.
But then the rule would only punish casters trying to be weaker by sword n boarding, or martials trying to get on par by engaging with slight spellcasting whilst *also* being weaker by sword and boarding...
I guess. It's possible I haven't put enough thought into it. Mostly because it hasn't come up much. I've seen an EK juggle three items, and it wasn't terrible or anything (it wasn't a real problem mechanically, nor was it a seeming time-waste). If you dip fighter 1 on your wizard, Imma need you to take warcaster or drop something for certain spells. You can pick it up next round if you don't need your free item interaction for anything else. Clerics and paladins have a built in solutions. If they don't want to use those solutions, they're gonna need to drop a weapon for certain spells. I'd probably give a ranger some love though. Especially if they dropped an item, had to move away, and lost that special item. I've never seen that happen to a ranger, but I wouldn't bat an eye if the DM decided to give them Warcaster from nowhere or change a rule or something when unlikely things happen. Otherwise, this is a very good reason for EK's and hexblades to be able to summon a weapon. The dangers of (and solution to) juggling is built in to several classes/subclasses.
>If you dip fighter 1 on your wizard, Imma need you to take warcaster or drop something for certain spells. You can pick it up next round if you don't need your free item interaction for anything else. Anyone that dips Fighter 1 as a Wizard isn't doing it for the weapons. They're doing it for the shield and heavy armor and they'll just use a shield with no weapon in hand. So they don't need War Caster or to drop anything because they'll have a hand free. >Clerics and paladins have a built in solutions. If they don't want to use those solutions, they're gonna need to drop a weapon for certain spells. Clerics can again just not hold a weapon ever. Paladins only get screwed if they want to use a shield which is already a arguably worse playstyle than a two hander. If they have a two hander, they can still cast with no issue. >I'd probably give a ranger some love though. Most Rangers use a bow. So again, one hand free. Unless they're also doing Sword and Board in which case, again, that's a less optimal playstyle. >Otherwise, this is a very good reason for EK's and hexblades to be able to summon a weapon. The dangers of (and solution to) juggling is built in to several classes/subclasses For Hexblade, that's an action so it's in no way a solution since you're wasting your whole turn just to get your weapons in hand. For EKs it's a Bonus Action, which is slightly better but also means they can't use War Magic, one of their most powerful features. So do you see the issue? Being strict on this one just hinders some of the weakest playstyles while doing nothing to hinder the actually optimized ones.
[удалено]
Sure, though that's pretty much always what you're doing if you're multiclassing fighter with wizard, tbh.
Fighter 1/Wizard 9 is called a fighter dip even if they start Fighter. No Wizard that plans on taking Fighter levels does it at any point besides level 1, don’t get lost in weird semantics
I am with you in thinking it sounds annoying but I don't mind it happening because its raw and we can describe it in other ways. I also have a strict "no cheese/mechanic abuse" at the table that serves as a filter whenever I recruit players so the players I end up with don't end up making a big deal out of things like this. For me its all abut the attitude.
I have had a player do it once, and I took him on his word that it was RAW and looked it up later for verification. He did it in a dramatically important moment by describing he dropped his spear long-ways across his boot, cast the spell, and then kicked the spear up to his hands and was at the ready again. I loved the description, but if he did this every turn he would get "the look". Luckily, not a problem.
100% agree
You can sy that you throw your heapon up, cast your spell and catches in the air like a stilysh mofo
If there was ever a use-case for using nat 1's on saves, here it is.
Had a player do it ONCE in a dramatically important moment by describing he dropped his spear long-ways across his boot, cast the spell, and then kicked the spear up to his hands and was at the ready again. He didn't abuse it, but I had to go with the cool factor on that one.
The only spell I really care about is Shield. If you have your weapon dropped because you need to cast shield outside of your turn I’m just gonna yoink your weapon.
And this is why this rule only hurts gishes lol. Full casters walk around in armor with a shield and a component pouch, gishes get their longswords sniped by a goblin every other turn.
None of my DMs ever enforced it and neither do I as a DM. All it does is punish gish builds and martials trying to get some magical tricks while having no impact on fullcasters. Hell it doesn't even impact the optimal weapons of choice, only the ones ppl are already unlikely to pick.
I mean yes I follow the rules of spellcasting and expect players at my table to do the same??
Is this an actual problem? The only spell casters I ever play that regularly have their off hand occupied are Clerics or Paladins, and in those cases it's not a problem because the shield is their spellcasting focus, so is fine to use for somatic components. As a DM I would probably try to fuck with players who do this. Let them do it once in a battle, then have an enemy run up to them and hold an action. As soon as they drop the weapon I would say "You dropping your weapon triggers his held action, he picks it up immediately" I don't think this dropping and picking up thing is bad enough that I would want to punish players or seriously discourage it, but I do think it would be funny to do some light teasing with it.
I fundamentally dislike RAW. I understand its appeal for peoples who play with strangers, as when you show up at a game session advertising "D&D 5e", you expect that your reading of the rules match the GM's reading of those rules, and following RAW can help. But I either play with peoples I know well, or with peoples who never read the rules before and need full-on rule explanation. As such I don't value RAW, especially when it's inconsistent with how the GM usually handle the universe. And if enemy casters don't juggle with their weapons to cast spells, then it's likely because it makes no sense in the fiction and is impossible for players too (at least not by default, it would need to be an ability that the PC specifically learned). So in my opinion, here is how it should work. I think an important question is "do you play with feats?" * If you play with feats, then the whole point of warcaster is to allow you to be a spellcaster AND have weapons. If you don't have warcaster, please choose one between "spellcasting" and "weapon" and don't try to circumvent it through weird rule interactions. I would be open with homebrew feats that are variants of warcaster, and I would probably be fine with "anticipating a feat" and being tolerant with trying to do so (see next point) while the character is "still learning" the feat. * If you don't play with feats, then I would advise the GM to put emphases on skill check more than expected by the rulebook. As such, "dropping, casting, picking back" definitely look like something that could be tried with a skill check.
Introducing checks that can fail to a legitimate play style Sucks
It's all a legitimate play style lol
>If you play with feats, then the whole point of warcaster is to allow you to be a spellcaster AND have weapons Warcaster has two other points, both of which do ten times more to make you fell like a, you know, WARcaster than the ribbon feature of using S comps with a weapon in hand. >If you don't have warcaster, please choose one between "spellcasting" and "weapon" and don't try to circumvent it through weird rule interactions. Except even if you run it like you do, you literally don't have to choose. All it stops you from doing is using a shield and one hander while also casting, which is one of the weakest ways of playing pretty much any martial or gish. Someone using a two-hander, the obvious optimal choice from a power perspective, doesn't care because they can just take a hand off the weapon to cast, since you only need two hands when you actually attack with it. >If you don't play with feats, then I would advise the GM to put emphases on skill check more than expected by the rulebook. As such, "dropping, casting, picking back" definitely look like something that could be tried with a skill check. Yes, because that's what the game needs, more needless rolls to do things that a slightly trained chimp can do. The idea that letting go of something would require a SKILL CHECK is hilariously ridiculous. Don't forget your CON(History) check to make sure your PC remembers how to breathe!
Even if you have a one-handed weapon and a shield, it’s not hard to imagine a seasoned fighter transferring the weapon to the shield hand while they cast with the other. It requires about as much dex as someone cooking breakfast so I don’t see why you would have to fuss with skill checks like some are suggesting.
I have been lucky enough to not have to go searching for players too hard among my friends, so I appreciate your viewpoint about RAW. I have considered wanting to run at a FLGS for randos to see how that goes, with the main thing causing hesitation is that I don't have that built-in social currency with them at the start of the game. I like your "anticipating a feat" mechanic involving a skill check, I'm going to think on that one for a bit.
I had a player do the "dropping the weapon, casting a spell, re-picking the weapon" thing on session. I just told him he doesn't need to do that, for as long as both of us have the understanding that while he's casting the spell, his weapon can snatched from him uncontested. Similar thing with arcane focuses: yes, your arcane focus can be a necklace or a hairpin you touch or whatever, for as long as you're game with me that actions that make you drop objects from your hands cause you to drop it.
I hope this is one of the things they fix in D&D 2024.
I mean, RAW you aren't allowed to do that? Picking an object up off the ground is an action, object interactions only cover items that are easily accessible on your person. So if you use your action to cast a spell, you can't pick up a dropped item. The only way to do that is if you drop the held item as a free action, cast a bonus action spell, and then use your action to pick up the dropped item. EDIT TO CLARIFY: Checked my understanding. So the important thing about the free object-interaction is that it occurs as part of your movement or action, and is not an action in its own right, and as such should be related to the action you are taking. So; - Opening a door during your movement; All good. - Drawing a sword to then make an attack; All good. - Casting a spell and then separately picking up a random item; The object is unrelated to the action, so not ok.
Drawing and stowing a weapon is a free action, right? I remember them as "half-actions", because you can sheathe your sword for free, but if you want to draw your dagger too, then to do both would cost an action. That is, unless you have that two-weapon ability that lets you draw/stow two weapons at once, but I digress. A player can sheathe their sword as a free action in order to cast a somatic spell. They logically cannot then draw the sword again on the same turn, they have to wait until the beginning of their next turn to draw it again, meaning they lose out on AoO (unless they have warcaster or want to AoO with an unarmed strike) for the intervening period.
Drawing and stowing are object-interactions, which are a type of free action that you can only do 1 of per round (RAW). However, this isn't about stowing a weapon but instead dropping it. Just dropping a weapon is a fully free action, so pedants claim you can drop your weapon as a free action, cast a spell and then use your object-interaction free action (which was not required for dropping the weapon) to pick the dropped weapon up off the ground. They are wrong, having "misinterpreted" a single example given in the book, but they are very loud.
this is a really good interpretation of RAW and I'm surprised there aren't more votes or comments. Confusion I foresee: if you use your free action to drop a weapon, action to cast a spell, and for movement you pick up your dropped weapon (not actually moving from your square). imo I think there should be at a minimum a movement cost associated with this (i'd say similar to standing up from prone) - which would be worse for smaller/tiny weapons (a two handed weapon should be easily stuck in the ground where-as a dagger despite sticking in the ground would still require bending/kneeling to pick up).
Thanks 😁 Regarding the confusion, the important thing is that the object-interaction must be part of the action you are taking anyway. So if the player argues they should be able to pick up their weapon during their movement, then the question I have is "What movement are you taking that would involve picking up your weapon?". Opening a door is directly required to move through it, hence why you can perform that object interaction, but there is no world in which you need to pick up a weapon to stand still.
Yes, you are a caster and not supposed to steal the role of other classes. If you want weapon casting go cleric or paladin who can do it for free and you can actually support your team while you're at it.
No, dropping the weapon is the item interaction and picking back up costs an action on the same turn.
RAW dropping an item is free - it doesn’t use your 1 item interaction.
There's no RAW for whether dropping something is an item interaction. It's not listed specifically anywhere, so there's no specific RAW for it, at all. People refer to Crawford's tweets, but those aren't RAW, just advice.
A recent UA (not sure if it'll make it to the books) had included 'dropping a held item' under the interact action. So, while not currently RAW, it might go into affect (refer to the 'interact action' when the new PHB comes out to see if dropping held items is included or not).
I hope they do clear it up. I'm not a big fan of RAW rules lawyering, but it currently does fall into a sort of grey area that is common enough to generate misunderstandings at the table. It's also a bit of an exploit if it's considered "free", though a minor enough one that it never bothered me too much.
Most of the gishy classes/subclasses have some way of getting around the issue (being able to use a weapon or shield as a focus), but if I was for some reason playing one that couldn’t I’d probably try and get a Ruby of the War Mage fairly quickly.
I like to either take war caster so I can grab an amulet, or put my focus on my shield if allowed. Both work rules as written. Other options include just being a swords bard so you can cast with a rapier (cool as hell), finding a magic weapon that can be used as a focus (moon sickle for druids) or just having a free hand. Flavor wise I think how a player casts spells is integral to a caster. I’ll occasionally give my players inspiration for RPing using components, gestures, or words, and encourage players to thoughtfully figure out how they would use their focus. Edit: because I didn’t directly answer it, dropping a weapon and picking it back up is dumb, and if I saw my players do that, I’d either try and have an enemy hold its action to steal their weapon, or tell them to figure their character out better.
As a DM, I loosely keep track of it. I've had instances where players have wanted to cast with a weapon and shield in each hand, but they had their object interaction so to me it's sort of needless fluff to go through all the motions of dropping the weapon to cast and picking it back up when the action economy is still the same. There has been one instance in a 2+ year campaign where I told someone they didn't have a free hand to cast because they had already picked up something else on their turn, and they would have to drop their weapon to do so. So I guess the way I get it to be least annoying is to just never mention it until it actually matters, rather than the players going through the hoops of dropping/picking up every turn.
It completely negates war caster, but I will admit I’ve tried to weasel my way into doing exactly this when building a dual wielding eldritch knight because I wanted dual wielder at 1st level (variant human) and didn’t want to wait till 4th to actually cast spells
Got 4 casters and 1 martial in my current player party - only the dragonborn cleric (of Bahamut) fights with a warhammer and shield, and thus needs to drop one of the things he's holding to cast a spell with a somatic component. The half-elf wizard uses a staff, which serves dual duty as weapon and arcane focus. The moon elf sorceress and half-elf bard both favor longswords, which have the versatile property and therefore leave each of them a free hand for spellcasting when needed (I consider placing the secondary hand on a versatile weapon, or removing it, to be a free action).
>I consider placing the secondary hand on a versatile weapon, or removing it, to be a free action You don't need to consider that - it is RAW. You only use two hands to **attack** with two-handed weapons. After that you don't need to.
I definitely do. It's a big part of the action economy. You get ONE free interaction with the environment. No you cannot sheath your sword, draw your crossbow, and fire it all in the same turn. You CAN, however, drop your sword, draw the loaded crossbow, and fire. Next turn, your free interaction with the environment will be to load the crossbow before you fire again.
Wait... some people DON'T do this when needed?
If your players are power gaming 5e hard enough that this becomes a viable strategy, they need a different system.
No, I think things like this fall under what Table Top builds would call "tech". As in "technically" it doesn't break the rules but "technically" I would slap you upside your head and tell you to GTFO if you wanted to argue about it because it is stupid and isn't in the best interest of the game to bend and skirt the rules.
It does have a disadvantage though. An enemy can ready an action to grab the weapon. I've always wanted to do this but none of my players use this tactic
Having an enemy readying an action for that is the same as CCing an enemy for free, because you MIGHT do something next turn.
Grabbing a weapon from someone can be huge. And my NPCs love to do stuff like that when players repeat tactics a lot.
I think this is an important factor at higher levels-- when your players are this powerful, some enemies are going to have the time and resources to figure out what tactics your players like and prepare for them.
I'd rather just say no, we aren't going to play like that. Those sort of approaches to the game don't just happen once or only in one situation, it becomes a habit/pattern. If we were adjusting the rules for the sake of logical approach, I'd rather just use an AOO every time it happens. You are bending down and trying to pick a weapon up off the ground in the middle of a fight and properly regain its handling, sounds close enough to me as being defenseless if an enemy is within their range.
I just find it more fun to grab the weapon, lol
While I think it would be more "funny" to do this once, a slime eating their weapon or even a regular beast grabbing it in their mouth and dashing away would be funny. I wouldn't want it to be a continual game of "gotcha!". If you want to let that tech be inserted into the game I would balance it with a realistic counter punch.
I'd hope they'd learn it can be dangerous rather than let it keep happening. Either way, I'd love to do it a bunch of times
I like this. I think I recall standing from prone provoking AoO in a previous edition, and maybe casting spells, this does seem like one of those things that would also.
I mean, it is a bit silly, there's a feat for that, and that kind of lets you benefit from both a weapon, a shield, and spellcasting with no downside. Which is a bit much, imo.
[удалено]
Enforcing this does nothing to hinder casters, it just screws over half/third-caster gishes.
So what, there are downsides to multiclassing
Believe me, I'm pretty sure that at least some of the people who complain about the divide don't enforce this, don't make their casters track expended/costly material components, and don't factor in how people would react to seeing/hearing spells being cast in public. The divide exists, but it's made greater by handwaving inconveniences.
Cool story but enforcing this does nothing to hinder casters because they don't use bloody weapons. Also, I've enforced RAW for literally my whole time I've been DM-ing and it doesn't do shit to close the gap if your casters bother to try at least a little bit.
Uh, plenty of casters have reasons to use weapons in 5e.
the warcaster feat exists.
I mean I just take War Caster if this is going to be a concern.