Cleric Casting rules?

[Daniel_USA]

Clerics should be allowed to use their shields as casting focus as well as not require a free hand to cast spells that require material or somatic components yet the life cleric you get at the start can't cast shield of faith on herself because the game is looking for a free hand.

[EdrickV]

A Sylvan Elf Cleric would be able to use Longswords/Shortswords in addition to Long-bows/Short-bows. (Though if you used to do 2e, the idea of a cleric with an edged weapon may be a bit foreign.)

[Hero_Weasel]

引用自 EdrickV：

A Sylvan Elf Cleric would be able to use Longswords/Shortswords in addition to Long-bows/Short-bows. (Though if you used to do 2e, the idea of a cleric with an edged weapon may be a bit foreign.)

I too have 2e stains on my brain, but what helped me get past it is thinking of the clerics training a bit more in battle and moving a step closer to paladins who fight with swords and use divine spells.

Makes me remember the argument at the table top years back that evil clerics should be able to use any weapons cause mercy isnt a consideration. I always argued they should be limited to the bludgeoning weapons too for the opposite reason. They may not be showing mercy, but they need to be trained to draw out the suffering, and laugh cruelly as their victims succumb to their broken ribs and crushed organs... cutting off heads and stabbing hearts would be too swift! If you watched "The Walking Dead" think Negan beating people to death in front of their friends with a bat... its a whole different kind of evil than cutting a throat.

[amiablequinn]

The RAW for holy symbols on shields is wonky. Basically spells with a material and somatic component CAN be be cast if you have a holy symbol on the shield, but, oddly spells with ONLY a somatic component may not. They actually did a whole podcast of a rules show on this.

Honestly it makes zero sense that you need to stow a shield but not a giant greatsword to cast a spell.

Apparently there is a workaround though: go into your inventory manually and remove the weapon from your main hand manually. You can put it back the next round and do not lose the ac boni from your shield.

[TrueWarlord真の武]

引用自 Daniel_USA：

cleric’s holy symbol is emblazoned on her shield. She likes to wade into melee combat with a mace in one hand and a shield in the other. She uses the holy symbol as her spellcasting focus, so she needs to have the shield in hand when she casts a cleric spell that has a material component. If the spell, such as aid, also has a somatic component, she can perform that component with the shield hand and keep holding the mace in the other.

If the same cleric casts cure wounds, she needs to put the mace or the shield away, because that spell doesn’t have a material component but does have a somatic component. She’s going to need a free hand to make the spell’s gestures. If she had the War Caster feat, she could ignore this restriction.

the correct answer according to Sage Advice is that it depends on the spell.

If the spell has BOTH somatic and material components then they CAN use the focus hand (shield) to cast it.

If the it only has somatic and NOT component then they need a free hand.

There you go. You weren't completely right, but I wasn't completely wrong either.

Also BlackMage seems hell bent on treating D&D like reality. Please show me an elf and a gnome in real life BlackMage, o that's right! they don't exist therefore you have forgo reality to even play this game. Why can't I just have a magic gauntlet that holds the shield for me? why does it have to be forced to follow the rules of reality? You don't know what type of shields they use in Faerun, for all you know they are all imbued with some sort of latent magic.

This is the right take on the official rules.

If the spell has both S/M components it can be cast while holding a shield. If the spell only has somatic then it needs a free hand.

Also, we should be able to draw a weapon with an "interacting with an object" action, meaning one could cast a spell and pick a weapon at the same turn.

Anyway, while Solasta is very faithful, it has its problems.

But since we're in Early Access still, you're absolutely right to put your worries and suggestions here, and don't mind the sheep's saying "take it as it is" for everything, some people have this need to whiteknight even early access games, just ignore the sheeps and keep the constructive feedback.

[Elwetritsch]

Sheathing the weapon aka putting it into the inventory should keep the cleric capable of defending with the shield. A bit unwieldy though, going into the inventory every turn and searching where that weapon hides now. And of course a possible opportunity attack would be bare handed for a spellcasting turn.

[Daniel_USA]

you can't draw a weapon and cast a spell at the same time because attacking with a weapon uses your item interaction as part of the attacking. (at least that is how I understood it)

then using your arcane focus, holy symbol, or component pouch worked the same way. ( free item interaction to grab from pouch, or hold your symbol/focus if it wasn't equipped in your hand such as from a necklace)

[TrueWarlord真の武]

引用自 Daniel_USA：

you can't draw a weapon and cast a spell at the same time because attacking with a weapon uses your item interaction as part of the attacking. (at least that is how I understood it).

Your understanding is wrong. This is not even a discussion, just read the rules for god sake.

https://roll20.net/compendium/dnd5e/Combat#content

引用自 Official rules：

Your Turn
On Your Turn, you can move a distance up to your speed and take one action.

Other Activity on Your Turn
Your Turn can include a variety of flourishes that require neither your action nor your move.

You can interact with one object or feature of The Environment for free, during either your move or your action. For example (...) you could draw your weapon as part of the same action you use to Attack.

[Hero_Weasel]

Ive followed this thread for a while, wondering what people think, how they would discuss it, what rules they would reference etc.

Its really simple, only takes a bit of thought. No rule is being superseded by another rule unless it says so. So far Solasta is handling it properly.

First just look at the component descriptions:

Somatic (S)
Spellcasting gestures might include a forceful gesticulation or an intricate set of gestures. If a spell requires a somatic component, the caster must have free use of at least one hand to perform these gestures.

While it does say you can put a holy symbol on a shield, it doesnt say "u gud now, hold a weapon and a shield!"

Holding a shield uses up that hand as much as holding a mace. The hand isnt free, its holding a shield. The shield isnt a holy symbol, its a shield with a holy symbol on it. The somatic component rule still applies you need a free hand... period.

You can put your shield away and keep a mace for better attacks of opportunity, but lose AC, or you can put your weapon away for better AC, but worse attacks of opportunity. Either of these "put away" actions would free a hand up for somatic components.

Unless you have a feat, class ability, or special religious exceptions your going to need a free hand as per the somatic component rule.

I think the confusion comes from material component that reads:
"A Spellcaster must have a hand free to access a spell’s material components—or to hold a Spellcasting focus—but it can be the same hand that he or she uses to perform somatic Components."

Again, this isnt contradicted by holysymbol shields. You are not holding a holy symbol, you are holding a shield. Unless a shield IS your religions holysymbol, you still need a free hand to use somatic components just as if your holysymbol was an amulet, cloak, or whatever. Using the holysymbol on your shield as a holy symbmol thats also the free hand for somatic component would still render the AC from the shield usless cause your not "holding it as a shield anymore."

If your using your shield as a shield, then that hand isnt free, and cannot be the free hand interacting with the spellfocus... it also cannot be the free hand for somatic components... cause that hand isnt free... it is holding a shield.

[TrueWarlord真の武]

引用自 Hero_Weasel：

Ive followed this thread for a while, wondering what people think, how they would discuss it, what rules they would reference etc.

Its really simple, only takes a bit of thought. No rule is being superseded by another rule unless it says so. So far Solasta is handling it properly.

First just look at the component descriptions:

Somatic (S)
Spellcasting gestures might include a forceful gesticulation or an intricate set of gestures. If a spell requires a somatic component, the caster must have free use of at least one hand to perform these gestures.

While it does say you can put a holy symbol on a shield, it doesnt say "u gud now, hold a weapon and a shield!"

Holding a shield uses up that hand as much as holding a mace. The hand isnt free, its holding a shield. The shield isnt a holy symbol, its a shield with a holy symbol on it. The somatic component rule still applies you need a free hand... period.

You can put your shield away and keep a mace for better attacks of opportunity, but lose AC, or you can put your weapon away for better AC, but worse attacks of opportunity. Either of these "put away" actions would free a hand up for somatic components.

Unless you have a feat, class ability, or special religious exceptions your going to need a free hand as per the somatic component rule.

I think the confusion comes from material component that reads:
"A Spellcaster must have a hand free to access a spell’s material components—or to hold a Spellcasting focus—but it can be the same hand that he or she uses to perform somatic Components."

Again, this isnt contradicted by holysymbol shields. You are not holding a holy symbol, you are holding a shield. Unless a shield IS your holysymbol, you still need a free hand to use somatic components just as if your holdsymbol was an amulet, cloak, or whatever. Using the holysymbol on your shield as a holy symbmol thats also the free hand for somatic component would still render the AC from the shield usless cause your not "holding it as a shield anymore."

If your using your shield as a shield, then that hand isnt free, and cannot be the free hand interacting with the spellfocus... it also cannot be the free hand for somatic components... cause that hand isnt free... it is holding a shield.

Wrong. It is not about what "people think", it's about what the developers have already stated/clarified via sage advice.

The official rule is, literally, that If the spell has both S/M components it can be cast while holding a shield. If the spell only has somatic then it needs a free hand.

Obviously, a DM can do whatever he wants in his groups. But the above is the official ruling regards this subject.

[Hero_Weasel]

引用自 TrueWarlord真の武：

The official rule is, literally, that If the spell has both S/M components it can be cast while holding a shield. If the spell only has somatic then it needs a free hand.

Obviously, a DM can do whatever he wants in his groups. But the above is the official ruling regards this subject.

Well any tweet that starts with "Id say..." doesnt sound all that well thought out, and if they were thinking when they wrote the rules it wouldnt have been a question that needed to be asked... All I can say is the bible is full of contradictions, and supposedly that was the perfect work of god. None the less, one of the writers of the rule-book farting out poorly conceived rulings on contradictions is probably what people will go with cause having a shield and weapon is convenient.

[TrueWarlord真の武]

引用自 Hero_Weasel：

引用自 TrueWarlord真の武：

The official rule is, literally, that If the spell has both S/M components it can be cast while holding a shield. If the spell only has somatic then it needs a free hand.

Obviously, a DM can do whatever he wants in his groups. But the above is the official ruling regards this subject.

Well any tweet that starts with "Id say..." doesnt sound all that well thought out, and if they were thinking when they wrote the rules it wouldnt have been a question that needed to be asked... All I can say is the bible is full of contradictions, and supposedly that was the perfect work of god. None the less, one of the writers of the rule-book farting out poorly conceived rulings on contradictions is probably what people will go with cause having a shield and weapon is convenient.

This sounds very clear to me. To each their own:

引用自 Sage Advice：

If the spell, such as aid, has a material and a somatic component, the cleric can perform the spell with the shield in a hand and keep holding the mace in the other.

If the same cleric casts cure wounds, she needs to put the mace or the shield away, because that spell doesn’t have a material component but does have a somatic component.

Does not look like a contradiction to me, not at all.

[Hero_Weasel]

引用自 TrueWarlord真の武：

Does not look like a contradiction to me, not at all.

Sage advice is given by Jeremy Crawford who contradicts himself...

https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/557816721810403329
"As with most bonus actions, you choose the timing, so the Shield Master shove can come before or after the Attack action."

Hes saying you can use bonus actions before the actual action...

https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/994993596989300736
"Clarification about bonus actions: if a feature says you can do X as a bonus action if you do Y, you must do Y before you can do X. For Shield Master, that means the bonus action must come after the Attack action. You decide when it happens afterward that turn."

He realized some years later (3 years) that the first tweet was dumb, then changed that ruling...

The holysymbol shield ruling was just as wrong as the first shieldmaster ruling, less disruptive to players making absurd action sequences cause Jeremy Crawford said so. Ruling you can cast spells with somatic and material components with a weapon and shield while ignoring that you have no free hand is contradicting the somatic component and not realizing that shield isnt a holysymbol, its a shield with a holysymbol on it.

Just like the shield master bonus action brainfart, it was... what did I say? "One of the writers of the rule-book farting out poorly conceived rulings on contradictions is probably what people will go with."

[TrueWarlord真の武]

引用自 Hero_Weasel：

引用自 TrueWarlord真の武：

Does not look like a contradiction to me, not at all.

Sage advice is given by Jeremy Crawford who contradicts himself...

https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/557816721810403329
"As with most bonus actions, you choose the timing, so the Shield Master shove can come before or after the Attack action."

Hes saying you can use bonus actions before the actual action...

https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/994993596989300736
"Clarification about bonus actions: if a feature says you can do X as a bonus action if you do Y, you must do Y before you can do X. For Shield Master, that means the bonus action must come after the Attack action. You decide when it happens afterward that turn."

He realized some years later (3 years) that the first tweet was dumb, then changed that ruling...

The holysymbol shield ruling was just as wrong as the first shieldmaster ruling, less disruptive to players making absurd action sequences cause Jeremy Crawford said so. Ruling you can cast spells with somatic and material components with a weapon and shield while ignoring that you have no free hand is contradicting the somatic component and not realizing that shield isnt a holysymbol, its a shield with a holysymbol on it.

Just like the shield master bonus action brainfart, it was... what did I say? "One of the writers of the rule-book farting out poorly conceived rulings on contradictions is probably what people will go with."

Wrong. Crawford tweets are not official rules anymore.

You're just being stubborn, this is sage advice official rule. If you don't want to , don't use it in your groups. But these are the official rules, like it or not.

I'm not saying the rule is good or bad, not judging values. Just stating official rules, despite if you or me likes or dislikes them.

[Hero_Weasel]

引用自 TrueWarlord真の武：

Wrong. Crawford tweets are not official rules anymore.

Yeah, theyre not anymore, and those tweets were before date when they stopped being official, furthermore, the first post you told me I was wrong cited sage advice about weap+shield casting which he answered by tweet?

https://www.sageadvice.eu/2014/11/26/holy-symbol-replace-somatic-components/
There are tweets in there.... so not official, unless you want it to be then it is, till he contradicts himself in a tweet, then they aint official! Ha!

So which is it? Are they official when you want to call me wrong, but not official anymore when you want to call me wrong? Its like you just flippantly decide what suits you at the time... hmm.

While I understand that its unfortunately likely added to some errata, I get that that essentially makes it "official," it doesnt mean it ISNT a poorly conceived contradictory ruling.

[TrueWarlord真の武]

引用自 Hero_Weasel：

引用自 TrueWarlord真の武：

Wrong. Crawford tweets are not official rules anymore.

Yeah, theyre not anymore, and those tweets were before date when they stopped being official, furthermore, the first post you told me I was wrong cited sage advice about weap+shield casting which he answered by tweet?

https://www.sageadvice.eu/2014/11/26/holy-symbol-replace-somatic-components/
There are tweets in there.... so not official, unless you want it to be then it is, till he contradicts himself in a tweet, then they aint official! Ha!

So which is it? Are they official when you want to call me wrong, but not official anymore when you want to call me wrong? Its like you just flippantly decide what suits you at the time... hmm.

While I understand that its unfortunately likely added to some errata, I get that that essentially makes it "official," it doesnt mean it ISNT a poorly conceived contradictory ruling.

The tweets you linked have nothing to do with the shield casting rule. This specific rule is clearly clarified in the Sage Advice.

Your problem goes beyond stubbornness, it looks more and more like actual intellectual dishonesty.

The rule is well written and very clear:

引用自 Sage Advice：

If the spell, such as aid, has a material and a somatic component, the cleric can perform the spell with the shield in a hand and keep holding the mace in the other.

If the same cleric casts cure wounds, she needs to put the mace or the shield away, because that spell doesn’t have a material component but does have a somatic component.

You can cry all you want and post all Crawford mistakes in his life, it does not change anything regards this specific rule.

I will just ignore you because you're being toxic to be honest.