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.

[Daniel_USA]

how is my understanding wrong? i just said it uses your free action to draw your weapon when you attack.

are you just angy?

why is this forum full of so many gatekeeping aggro posters?

You're not winning anyone over with those explosive responses.

As far as Solasta goes the biggest issue is that the game doesn't have shields considered "holy symbols" which is by default an option a 1st level cleric in D&D 5e is allowed to have.

Anyone with a grain of salt that has played 5e and uses a shield automatically slaps their symbol on the shield. I didn't know that Solasta treated individual objects as focuses such as headbands, belts, bracers, etc.

But instead of just stating it, toxic DM know it alls are throwing a fit.

Very disturbing at how juvenile the DM's are, especially in regards to the rules (and they aren't even correct!).

Shame how D&D breeds such a horrid attitude.

[momodave]

Originally posted by Indure:

Berserkr had the best advice; either play with how they have it implement or go into the options and turn it off. Everyone wins.

Yes, but I want to complain nooooowwwww!

[RJM]

When Jeremy's tweets were official clarifications of the rules, a cleric could easily cast with both hands full in most situations. During any turn they could:
Free action: drop weapon
Action: Cast any spell. Your weapon hand is now free for S/M components.
Interact with object: pick up your weapon.
Move and bonus action are still available.

It's just that this sequence is anathema to players who like realism, because it looks damn stupid. It also has problems if you're swimming or flying. The same sequence had to be used if your character likes to swap between weapons because you don't get two interactions to stow the first weapon and draw the second. You have to drop one. Solasta has decided to overrule that for weapons, so it's not unreasonable to overrule it for spellcasting.

Now that the tweets are no longer considered official rulings, this has technically become impossible, because simply letting go of your weapon is not explicitly stated as something you can do for free. Unlike dropping concentration on a spell, where it's written in the rules that you can let go of it at any time (even outside your own turn). A lot of DMs have just continued to allow it.

[Daniel_USA]

it takes an action to interact with an object, unless you are a thief rogue then it's a sleight of hand bonus action.

[yaguero]

Dwarf Life Cleric + Full Plate + Shield + AC spell + high WIS and CON + able to cast with shield and weapon + AC perk = crazy AC + powerfull ranged spell = unbalanced. Just rellol until you get +4 to everything and you can pass the game the same way as setting difficulty to the minimun. Just click the option to be able to cast dual and play as you wish if that is what you are looking for...

[Daniel_USA]

I actually rolled 17,17,16,16,15,14 on like my 10th roll.

this isn't about it being easy, it's about it being correct.

[edualvespereira]

I've just started playing the game and, so far, that's the only thing that has really bothered me.

5e rules for spell components have always had room for improvement, to say the least. They tend to be forgotten, even by the designers (look at the College of Spirits Bard - I cant believe Spiritual Focus was purposefully designed to work that way). And when the spell component rules are remembered, they often create awkward situations, such as the Paladin who can cast VSM or SM spells with the shield, but not VS or S spells.

In my tables, I have always tried to rationalize things like this: if you're casting a spell with both somatic and material components, the somatic ones involve the spell focus. So, a Cleric could cast Spirit Guardians while using a shield, for example, because the somatic-material component involves, say, raising the holy symbol (emblazoned on the shield) to the sky. But a Cleric could not cast a spell like Cure Wounds (which is VS) while wearing a shield because it requires specific incantations that can't be done unless you have a completely free hand.

In practice, it rarely made any difference because one could always use the cheap trick of dropping the weapon as a free action, casting the spell, and then using the interaction with object to pick up the weapon. In my table, we decided that we would not repeat this trick every time it was used - since it didn't have mechanical consequences, we would simply pretend that the elephant in the room wasn't there. Of course, on specific occasions that rule could make real differences (for example, if we were fighting in the water), and in that case we would try to remember to enforce it.

And, now, Solasta: of course, the game is not D&D, and they are free to change rules that they don't like or think that would not translate well to a PC game. In fact, when we're talking about a controversial rule such as this one, it was kind of expected that they would modify something. But I was expecting that they would make things simpler, instead of complicating them even further.

The problem, for me, is that my idea of Paladins and Clerics is that of champions of a faith fighting with a weapon on one hand and a shield on the other, while casting divine spells. If you create rules that don't let them be like this, you're not letting them be played as they were supposed to. And if they thought there were balancing issues, they should have addressed them in another way, instead of forcing players to choose between using their Clerics with mace and shield or able to cast most spells.

There is, of course, the option of sheathing your weapon, casting the spell, and then unsheathing on the next turn before making your attack. But that leaves you incapable of using the weapon for attacks of opportunity for a turn and, even worse, it is two cumbersome for something that (at least for me) will happen very often. Besides, this rule is even more silly than the D&D rules as written: in Solasta, you can generally sheathe two weapons are unsheathe another two and then attack with them on the same turn, but you can't sheathe one, cast a spell and then unsheathe it again.

I hope they change it in the future.

[Lhasa]

Originally posted by Blackmage:

Have you ever worn a heater or kite shield in real life? Yeah, I didn't think so.

Oh okay, Sir Lancelot. We're all impressed by your knowledge of battle because you LARP like it's a profession.

Originally posted by Blackmage:

...to fit your whiny baby attitude. I gave you a solution, and you call me ignorant? Well you can just go shove it.

Thank you. Someone else who understands. Maybe this simp will listen to you?

You really are first class, snotty little ♥♥♥♥, you know that kid?

[Berserkr]

Nice Necro

[tazman1]

the issue arises from teh fact that the core rules specifically state that Clerics and Paladins can use a shield with their holy symbol on it as a holy sybol (the divine focus for cleric and paladin spell casting) the way they use a shield would qualify for the holding the holy symbol

The issue is a somatic componenet can be the same hand that holds a holy symbol. This means that RAW a cleric or Paladin can wield a sword in 1 hand a shield in the other and cast spells because their shield function as a divine focus meaning they can perform somatic components for spells with that hand.

I had a sword and board hexblade that wound up having to debate this with the DM because the hexblade gets medium armor shield and martial weapons but doesn't get any ability to cast spells while wielding his weapons and shield. It was decided that my Hexblade did a little dance everytime he cast spells where he would drop his weapon cast a spell pick his weapon up

[Sentient_Toaster]

Originally posted by tazman1:

The issue is a somatic componenet can be the same hand that holds a holy symbol. This means that RAW a cleric or Paladin can wield a sword in 1 hand a shield in the other and cast spells because their shield function as a divine focus meaning they can perform somatic components for spells with that hand.

This is only true if the spell requires a material component that does not have a specific gold value and is not consumed. V,S/S and V,S,M/S,M spells are treated very differently here. A lot of tables will handwave this away, but the rules as written do not allow you to use a spellcasting focus for somatic components without that material component requirement.

[Wantoomany]

Originally posted by tazman1:

It was decided that my Hexblade did a little dance everytime he cast spells where he would drop his weapon cast a spell pick his weapon up

I know you think that sounds cool and is an innovative way to get around rules you do not like. It is not.

[Daniel_USA]

Originally posted by tazman1:

the issue arises from teh fact that the core rules specifically state that Clerics and Paladins can use a shield with their holy symbol on it as a holy sybol (the divine focus for cleric and paladin spell casting) the way they use a shield would qualify for the holding the holy symbol

The issue is a somatic componenet can be the same hand that holds a holy symbol. This means that RAW a cleric or Paladin can wield a sword in 1 hand a shield in the other and cast spells because their shield function as a divine focus meaning they can perform somatic components for spells with that hand.

I had a sword and board hexblade that wound up having to debate this with the DM because the hexblade gets medium armor shield and martial weapons but doesn't get any ability to cast spells while wielding his weapons and shield. It was decided that my Hexblade did a little dance everytime he cast spells where he would drop his weapon cast a spell pick his weapon up

it takes an action to pick up a weapon. you only get 1 free action which is dropping the weapons.

[tazman1]

True but heres the issue eldtirtch knights are useless a fighter/wizard multiclass would be a far better option because of that we decided that a high dex based character could pull that stunt off basically they waste their turn to cast the spell and be ready for combat because otherwise there is an entire subclass that doesn't work

[Wantoomany]

Originally posted by tazman1:

True but heres the issue eldtirtch knights are useless a fighter/wizard multiclass would be a far better option because of that we decided that a high dex based character could pull that stunt off basically they waste their turn to cast the spell and be ready for combat because otherwise there is an entire subclass that doesn't work

Or you simply do not use a shield, and the class works just fine without resorting to sword juggling.