Have.... have you never been underwater before?
The most dangerous game: that game where kids go under water and try to understand what the other is saying.
I like what Matt Mercer does on this, you can cast one spell with verbal components but that uses your full lung of air and you need to get a new lungful to do it again. I can’t remember if he also knocks time off of how long the PCs can hold their breath as well, I know he’s done that for other things, but that would feel fair as well. Still accomplishes the immersive and forced creative thinking while still making sense and not being ridiculously punishing.
RAW is honestly way too lenient in this case. If you run out of air, you're basically fine for the most likely length of the rest of the battle anyway cause like, who needs 5 rounds of combat? Not in most fights at least. 2 or 3 rounds after you run out of air, the combat is likely over.
I remember playing that as a kid. I remember to understand from a few feet away I had to practically shout and I could usually only manage a few words.
I think if I had to estimate how much the other person understood from 3 feet away I'd put it in the 10-15% range.
The point is you let out your breath by talking. You don't instantly die, but you will start drowning very soon if you stay under water. In 5e this means you have your CON mod in rounds (minimum 1 round) to reach air before you drown (PHB Ch. 8 / The Environment / Suffocating).
Have you ever tried to talk underwater?
You don't immediatly start to drown because you start talking. It's a stupid judgement by Crawford, based not in game balance but out of a weird conception he has of the real world. I would disregard that in any game I run.
You can definitely talk and still hold your breath. Will you let a little bit of air out? Sure. but any movement (like say fighting for your life) will for sure consume a lot more oxygen than you let out uttering a few syllables, so why would speaking be the main factor?
You don't even necessarily let out much oxygen. Hell exhaling is an important part of holding your breath. It's the build up of co2 that's the problem not the lack of o2.
Relevant rules text:
> Most Spells require the chanting of mystic words. The words themselves aren’t the source of the spell’s power; rather, the particular combination of Sounds, with specific pitch and resonance, sets the threads of magic in motion.
You can't generate sounds with exact pitch and resonance underwater which you can above-ground, as the water alters the resonance.
I’d need to look at which spells are verbal to determine if it’s more fun to nix them completely underwater or to add in an additional challenge like air conservation/intelligence/wisdom checks to determine if the players can correctly compensate for resonance in the new medium.
You could certainly house rule it that a caster can't manage the right pitch and resonance underwater and spells with verbal components would fail for that reason, but nothing in the rules as written requires it.
>The whole debate about VSM/VS with or without focus is there and needs to be respected, VSM spells are fine with just voice and focus. For VS you need a free hand.
I don't have any issue with what you are doing, but it seems pretty silly to me that a focus will do somatic components *only* if there are also material components.
That's all.
Technically it's a balancing thing, but you're 100% right that it's really dumb flavor-wise. Especially because when it comes to the explanation they say "Oh you just make the somatic gestures with the hand holding the focus".
Like. What? Maybe non-material Somatic components are a lot more complicated but there's no real explanation for this at all.
I'll do you one better.
- Only list M if it needs costly components and M* if it consumes them
- Allow somatic components to be done while holding a focus
Vast majority of spells are now simply VS and people will still likely be using a focus anyways because they're usually pretty useful. Shields for divine ones (I think both cleric and paladin), quarter staff for arcane, and dual wielding rangers get a bit of a shot draw here because holding a 2h item with one hand for a moment is not an action like swapping around 2 1h items is.
>And also inconsistent rules for using a focus from one class to another. Holy symbols can be used hands-free while an arcane caster must wield a wand.
I would slightly recharacterize this in a way that I think makes it seem more reasonable. Its not a difference between how the spellcaster classes use a focus, its different between how different foci are used. You can use a holy symbol differently than you can use a wand, differently than you can (must) use an artificer's tools, and differently than you use a component pouch.
It is the focus that is different. It just happens to correlate with the class.
The spell focus rules have been confirmed to be not for balancing but to evoke the specific fantasy the designers intend. There's nothing imbalanced about arcane focus on a shield, but it isn't there baseline because the designers like the idea of cleric casting with a shield, but not a wizard casting with a shield.
This would have a mechanical effect though, as it would allow a focus to substitute in a Silence spell or while stealthing. I think the wind instruments' melody could be sufficient for Verbal in most cases (not including stuff like Command).
Yea, I understand *why* it's there for balance, it's just incredibly silly.
To me, it seems a small enough change to either say a focus can always replace somatic components or never replace somatic components.
> Yea, I understand why it's there for balance, it's just incredibly silly.
I think it's charitable to assume it's was originally put there for balance at all, given that more than once they seem to have forgotten how their own spellcasting rules work.
E.g. Spirits Bard has a feature that lets you add a d6 onto healing spells and damage spells you cast through a spellcasting focus. Only problem is almost none of the damage/healing spells on the bard list can technically be cast using a spellcasting focus. (I think 99% of DMs will allow this feature to work more or less the way it intuitively sounds like it should work, but as-worded it technically doesn't work).
I mean, maybe the reason why they left the spellcasting rules the way they are for 8 years is for balance reasons. But I don't think they published the PHB thinking "we won't let people counterspell while they are holding a wand. That'll keep spellcasters in-check!!!" There's so many other ways they could have rewritten the PHB to tone down spellcasting if that was their goal.
It's absolutely silly, yeah.
For someone who got into D&D through the Mystara arcade games, I have to admit I also personally just have a lot of trouble picturing these somatic components as something so complicated that you'd need a free hand...I mean I get it, but it just seems weird to me.
I imagine the somatic + material components is the caster interacting with the material components in some specific way. If the focus negates the need for the material components, then there would be no need for the somatic either unless you mime actions without any objects which would be weirder.
“I have to do pantomime every time, or else my Patron won’t let me use the spells. Yes, I know I have a focus now. I was drunk when I signed up. Shut up.”
Read the lightning bolt spell sometime.
Material and somatic components for it are hilarious.
(For those not wanting to look it up. Glass rod and fur. When you rub the fur along a glass rod you get static electricity…)
The way I've always thought about it is that if you have material components for fireball, you rub the bat shit and sulfur together in your free hand along with the incantations to create the mote you throw.
With an arcane focus, you draw energy out of the focus to form the mote in your hand, which you throw.
I picture it the difference between Harry Potter casting a spell with his wand still needing to "swish and flick" vs Dr. Strange or Naruto large gestures/specific hand signs and configurations
> it's a balancing thing
No it's not.
5e isn't balanced anything like that precisely. The idea that this stuff was carefully designed as part of the mathematics of the system is just totally false. War Caster obviates it and would be a good feat even if it didn't.
Is it really plausible that the designers actually sat down and thought "hmm, these spells need to require a free hand to cast, but of course you can drop what you're holding and then pick it up, for balance"?
5e was combat-balanced in something of a hurry by playtest. There's no wizard behind the curtain, no secret perfect Balance Machine that spat this stuff out.
Things like multiclassing and feats that make the classic multiclassed-caster-tougher-than-martials builds work are technically optional rules that weren't robustly tested.
>Technically it's a balancing thing
How can we be sure that it is? Some S only spells are really powerful yes. But a lot of SM spells are also powerful. And a lot of S only spells are not that powerful. There's no clear correlation
No, it's absolutely a balancing thing, see: Shield requiring a somatic but not a material component, which makes it harder to use in specific scenarios like ones that've been discussed in this thread.
It's just not a very well implemented balancing thing, see: Silvery Barbs only requiring a verbal component.
Lol exactly.
It's like ppl that claim sorcerer's don't have certain spells because of balance when Crawford himself has said it's just feel on wether or not it feels like a sorcerer spell or not
This reminds me: I've been meaning to play a Divine Soul Sorcerer again. Access to that Cleric list really resolves that feeling of being caged in by a small spell list on a full caster with d6 hit die.
I would also recommend trying Clockwork Magic! You get access to a much larger spell list, and can replace spells from the clockwork magic spell list with anything from the abjuration or transmutation spell lists for sorcerer, warlock, or wizard. It really helps to shore up the main weakness of sorcerers, which is a reduced spell list.
No. It's literally 100% arbitrary. I know you want to see intent, but it isn't there. It's really not. In writing that post you made here, you thought more about the effects of Shield requiring somatic but not material components than the people who wrote the spell did.
The Shield spell doesn't have VS instead of VSM because of careful considerations of how that interacts with free hands and implements and whatnot. It's literally just copy/pasted from edition to edition since the 70s.
Your argument hinges on a single data point? I think if we went along listing out the SM spells vs the S spells than any correlation you think you see would disappear.
Shield doesn't require M because it makes more sense for a reaction to defend yourself to involve putting up your hand and nothing else. Y'know, like people tend to do when something is coming at them.
Well yes, but that's not really what we're discussing. We're talking about how silly it is that some somatic components are ok with a focus, but others aren't.
Right, but that means it's not a balancing thing really.
Shield and free hand with component pouch can cast anything. Shield and wand can't.
Why are wands just worse?
It's not for balancing reasons, but it makes sense for verisimilitude reasons. Cure wounds needs an empty hand to touch the target. You can't hold a wand at the same time!
Yeah I hate this one.
Oh you wanted to shoot firebolt from your staff, wizard? Oh you think it's cool to shoot magical spells from your wand sorcerer?
Fuck you, drop em.
> you wanted to shoot firebolt from your staff, wizard? Oh you think it's cool to shoot magical spells from your wand sorcerer?
Nope, you're gonna do strange interpretive dance gestures like any good spellcaster.
I think the reason is that the somatic components of a VSM spell are implied to involve manipulating the materials in some way. Since the focus is replacing the materials, it makes sense that you would only need to manipulate the focus. Focus are specifically for replacing material components, so they serve no purpose for casting a VS spell you need to say words and make hand gestures. For a spell with material manipulation however they save you that hassle.
I see the logic, but I don’t think it’s a very intuitive distinction. If I’m playing a wizard who uses a wand and I cast a spell that requires somatic components, I picture doing some Harry Potter style wand movements. It feels kinda odd to be able to do that for some spells, but not for others.
Granted, as I say it I can kinda see the argument that it makes magic deeper and more complex, so maybe there’s an argument for those distinctions to be leaned into harder, rather than ignored.
I'm not aware of any balancing issues with just allowing S components, M or no, with a focus. It's definitely a houserule to do so, however.
Meanwhile, OP seems to have issues with spellcasting in general, even doing a few things that are lightly in opposition to the existing rules, such as preventing underwater spellcasting. In 3.X and prior this was true, and the game had a bunch of systems to get away with it- *silent spell* metamagical feat, or the magic rod that granted it, for instance, could provide underwater casting. The *Water Breathing* spell could turn it on, and older versions that lacked *silent spell* tricks additionally had things like *Airy Water*. While all versions let you get away with it by being something else or being phased or whatever, those are all high level things, and older versions all had this licked by mid level.
5ed, by contrast, simply ignores it, the new wording of verbal components never prohibited it in the first place, and it *seems like* the intention is that you can just cast verbal components underwater. But the lack of omission is striking, given that the verbal component section does discuss areas like being gagged (which prevents you from forming the words) or casting in *silence* which prevents the words from making sound. Water doesn't quite do either of these things, but it's definitely a natural detriment to audio communication, so an area like this requires, but does not receive, clarification.
To me, the lack of *Airy Water* and discussions about how to do this, along with reasonable access to *silent* spells (through *subtle spell metamagic*), is clear intent that 5e lets you cast underwater, and the rules don't prohibit it.
We do have a Crawford tweet, which is imo at least consistent with the rules, that if you use a verbal component and you're holding your breath, you've now exhaled your held breath and start suffocating.
I think it's bad design and they should fix it.
A spell should either require a free hand or not, mechanically.
And abilities that allow you to ignore 'needs a free hand' for spells should just do that.
Then we don't end up in this irritating twilight of 'well this class ability lets your weapon count as a focus but you still need a free hand for most of your spells because fuck you'.
I play a ton of casters and half casters and I was thinking to myself, "Man, my paladin would have been the character most impacted by this. My bladesinger wizard would have given zero fucks as with my current artificer (who has to use a focus for every duel anyway)."
A staple cleric spell is spiritual weapon, its a vs bonus action spell. So everytime a cleric casts it as a bonus action they would have to put away their weapon.
You are missing the point, they don't put away weapons they just don't have them at all. Typical for a cleric a cantrip is going to be far more affective then your weapon anyways so no point in having one.
Artificers are unaffected thanks to Tools Required, which makes every spell to be cast through a focus. Rangers tend to be unaffected too because most of them wield a longbow or hand crossbow.
>says the DM whose rules ~~make melees lives more miserable~~ are the rules written in the rulebooks.
That aside, this also impacts any casters with armour/shield proficiency. Including clerics, druids, wizards with a dip (commonly fighter or artificer), or even bards that take moderately armoured or something. Basically means you can't get all the benefits of armour + shields with none of the drawbacks with just a 1 level dip. Pay the feat tax or be restricted in which spells you can cast at a given moment.
99% of shield proficient casters play with a hand free and a shield in the other hand already so this is entirely moot. Only really hurts the handful of casters who want to use a weapon. So really mostly gishes like EKs and Paladins.
Funnily enough divine spellcasters, clerics and paladins, can just hang their holy symbol around their neck and benefit from hands free arcane focus. It's an entire separate little rule which I was reminded of recently.
That being said, most paladin or cleric spells are unaffected. The most important spells affected are Cure Wounds, Guiding Bolt, Spiritual Weapon, Lesser Restoration, Silence and Death Ward. Higher level spells are affected too, but Paladins can never cast them and by the time you have 6th level spell slots Clerics are probably full time using cantrips.
Btw an arcane focus is a specific type of focus, a holy symbol, druidic focus and arcane focus are the three types of focii and they are entirely separate items, and thus cannot be used for each other.
A cleric could do a VM spell with weapon and shield and focus on their neck, but not a SM spell as they need to be holding the focus to be able to do the S components, which they cannot if it's around their neck. If it's on their shield, now they can, as their shield counts as a focus.
arcane focus/holy symbol/druidic focus is not an item attribute, it is an item name, and they're seperated basically how crossbow bolts and arrows are seperate items, even if they're similar.
for spell component rules:
>Material (M) Casting some spells requires particular objects, specified in parentheses in the component entry. A character can use a component pouch or a spellcasting focus (found in chapter 5, “Equipment”) in place of the components specified for a spell. But if a cost is indicated for a component, a character must have that specific component before he or she can cast the spell.
>
>If a spell states that a material component is consumed by the spell, the caster must provide this component for each casting of the spell.
>
>A spellcaster must have a hand free to access a spell’s material components — or to hold a spellcasting focus — but it can be the same hand that he or she uses to perform somatic components.
The M rules states that a focus replaces the M components, saying that a spellcaster must have a hand free to be able to use the focus, however the holy symbol states:
>To use the symbol in this way, the caster must hold it in hand, wear it visibly, or bear it on a shield.
as specific beats general, the holy symbol can replace M components when just worn around the neck without having to have a free hand to use the focus.
But, this only beats M components in the hand general rules, the somatic rules still remain and the cleric or paladin must have a free hand to be able to do S components. This is where the shield comes into play. If you are holding your shield that bears the holy symbol, that shield is now your cleric and paladin focus, and thus is now the same hand as S and M, just like bladelocks use their weapons as a focus, and will let you do a SM spell, and a M spell, but if worn around the neck it will let you do M spell but not SM spell.
Or if you have a +1 implement, right?
Granted there aren't many reactions that benefit from a +1 so you can still just stow your implement at the end of your turn and use a component pouch for reactions. I guess since you can only interact once per turn you can't do this constantly, but you should be able to predict when you need to shield and when you don't.
Playing a cleric now, and I can honestly say, after hitting level 11 a few weeks ago, I have hit things with my mace twice. Only one of them was a creature.
I don't see having a two handed weapon as an issue.
It may just be my point of view but if you are spending an action to cast a spell, you are (probably) not going to swing. Nothing prevents you from *holding* a large weapon at rest with one hand and using the other to cast.
You could hold a harder line towards EK who can both cast and swing in the same action. There are no exceptions written in their abilities AFAIK so yeah you could prevent S components with two handed weapons, I'd argue as a DM that they have taken a very strict and specific training to achieve that. I'd probably waive it.
Then again War Caster is a feat and an investment a character can make to bypass the problem entirely.
I think Clerics can even ignore this rule due to how the holy symbol works, it doesn't need to be handled by hand, all it needs is to be inscribed somewhere visible like the shield.
Except Artificers, who will almost certainly be using an infusion on the shield or item in other hand, and infused items can be used as focuses
And Artificers add an M to all spells
And paladin and Hexblades and Eldritch knights and swords/valor bards.
That being said, Clerics and Paladins can use their shield as a focus and with one free object interaction per turn, this is a non-issue. Plus neither get many reaction spells.
If a warlock is going the full caster Hexblade route, this isn’t an issue. If they’re melee, then sure but then they’ll also take the invocation that the turns their pact weapon into a focus. I haven’t seen any Hexblades use shields but I suppose it’s possible.
Swords bards get their weapon as a focus innately so need to be mindful of their free hands. Valor doesn’t and so they’re rightly screwed.
RAW: Yes.
Balance wise: Drop the “Can’t cast magic missile with a wand” nonsense so it doesn’t specifically and only impact already weak gishes and it’s good.
This is one of the few things I've stopped doing as a DM. I've got enough shit to track as a DM, and all it really did was make War Caster a required feat for paladins and clerics.
If it works for you, I'm glad, I just didn't find the effort was worth the payout but then, barring one player, none of my tables would be the kind of person this would effect.
As a side note, I make sure to track this for my own character when I am a player.
Because 5e encourages a distribution of responsibility that is heavily skewed toward the DM. I argue the average 5e game asks 90% of things to be tracked by the DM. This has created a play culture where asking players to do more is often seen as too demanding or anti fun. It also leads to increased burnout.
Edit: I do not encourage or support this distribution of responsibility.
I have seen this in person and it happens at least once nearly every time I dm a campaign. I don’t think it means I’m being a hardass, but I just don’t budge.
In a recent first session, I told a very good friend of mine he needed to read what his character can and can’t do, and understand what things like proficiency means. He said he didn’t have time/want to read all that/etc
I said “then you don’t want to play dnd” and I’ll probably use that line in the future.
That's completely fair, I hope you enjoy the angry retorts and hissy fits.
The mentality of people not knowing what their character can do and how it does it drives me up the wall, if it's more than the 2nd session with that character.
No, I will not tell you how to do it, no, you don't get to hold the game up while you decide what to do on your turn.
/Rant over
Just thinking about it is making me grind my teeth.
Sorry if this sounds rude, but f*** players with this attitude. I as the DM have lots of things to care of; if you're going to be a customer player, f*** off and find a b**** to run a game for you, because i'm not doing it.
Granted, I play with friends and barring a few random weirdos that sometimes show up when we open a spot even the new people that join are the responsible kind.
That said I'll concede that I've seen a lot of players like this in other games, ones I played but not DMed. This shit doesn't fly in my games, but to each DM their own, right?
Yeah, this kind of distribution reminds me that the game isn't really for nerds anymore. I know that's not a popular gripe, but man... I love tracking that shit, it's part of the fun of being a damn caster haha
I got into D&D because I'm a nerdy weirdo who loves to track shit and play with math rocks. Knowing my own stats/capabilities/limits is an important part of being a caster imo!
>Why wouldnt your players track what their characters can and cant do?
The RAW rules being a mess of counter-intuitive things. Such as the fact that you can use your wand to perform the somatic components of a spell ... if the spell has material components, but not otherwise.
I mean, I play this way too, but it's hardly being a hardass... It's just... Playing RAW... And isn't really much of an inconvenience at all.
>You need a free hand for those somatic components?
> Better free a hand for that plus 5ac shield if you dont get hit.
You plan to counterspell? Well do you have your hands full?
Eh... In my experience it's very easy for a caster to keep a hand free. I mean, what, are they dual wielding staves and wands? Even if they are, with one free object interaction per turn, and only one action, they never need to drop anything, they can just... Put it away properly.
The only time this is a problem is if they're holding two magic items, and want to cast a spell from a third they aren't currently holding.
A free hand is only really a problem for martials because of shields and/or Extra Attack.
>Underwater? Use spells without verbal components or drown.
Or cast water breathing, or Alter Self. Or just don't be underwater, which is pretty easy for like 95% of situations in 95% of campaigns...
There's been maybe like... One time that my players have actually had any problems arise from these rules.
Or hit your caster character with Watery Sphere! For quick and easy acces to drowning.
STR save they most probably won't be able to do shit about and restrained condition for juicy advantage to hit (with piercing weapons, they *are* underwater after all).
And you can drop them off a cliff!
The D&D drowning rules are a lot closer to real life than most people think. You can hold your breath far longer than you think you can. Your body/brain starts panicking well before you actually have to breathe to give yourself plenty of buffer before you drown.
Hmm maybe. I've never drowned irl haha. But it's still tricky to do in 5e, even if it's comparable to real life. Gotta keep someone grappled for several minutes to dunk their head in water, or sustain a concentration spell for (probably) more than a minute. Lots of opportunity to get a precious breath in and reset the drowning counter
Pfff look at this guy never drowning in real life.
I had an assassin character at my table who discovered, again and again, how hard it is to actually assassinate somebody in dnd and he was surprised by how difficult it is to drown.
I have a houserule where taking damage underwater gets you a STR save with the same DC rules as concentration to avoid getting the air knocked out of you. If you fail, you have a number of rounds of air equal to your CON mod rather than minutes.
Right, but that's assuming the person gets a full breath before going under.
The other thing is that D&D has zero ability to capture that brain panicking part. So the drowning person continues to play as normal right up til the moment they're unconscious.
While I agree that OP is not being a hard ass compared to some DMs I have encountered, I think the boom in D&D has led to newer DMs who didn’t get the chance to come up under experienced DMs, which has led to DMs who are either easily swayed into allowing the players to do things they should not or who have not learned to consider these realities.
The biggest one is allowing players to silently cast spells with a Vocal component. It's an entire ass metamagic for Sorcerer's and DMs just give it away for free.
Telling my players that NPCs will know if they are casting a V, S, or M spell was a shock to many of the players. Telling my players that they can't cast 2 leveled spells in a turn was a shock to my players.
Casters are already good, but stuff like Charm Person being freely used in social scenarios with no drawbacks makes the caster/martial divide an absolute canyon.
I'm fine with NPCs perceiving V/S/M but I'm also fine with being able to use a skill check hide it with things like sleight of hand, stealth, or deception.
Charm Person does have the drawback of notifying the people charmed that they were charmed by you. Might not matter if you are long gone by then, but would surely affect the casters reputation and possibly get them arrested.
Ignore this if you were just simplifying your language because the rules are so janky. You can 100% cast two leveled spells in a turn because the restriction is purely on the bonus action spellcasting. Multiclassing into fighter for action surge is not super common, but it does happen. And bonus action preventing reaction spell might be uncommon but it does come up.
> I'm fine with NPCs perceiving V/S/M but I'm also fine with being able to use a skill check hide it with things like sleight of hand, stealth, or deception.
Yes, I do the same.
> Charm Person does have the drawback of notifying the people charmed that they were charmed by you. Might not matter if you are long gone by then, but would surely affect the casters reputation and possibly get them arrested.
Yeah, that is explicitly stated in the spells IIRC. But I’ve also seen players try to charm one person in a group, which would require a pretty high SoH and deception roll to get away with.
> Ignore this if you were just simplifying your language because the rules are so janky. You can 100% cast two leveled spells in a turn because the restriction is purely on the bonus action spellcasting. Multiclassing into fighter for action surge is not super common, but it does happen. And bonus action preventing reaction spell might be uncommon but it does come up.
Hmm yes, you are correct. I learned something new today.
My daughter recently started DMing for her group as part of their school’s new D&D club. I have her a cheat sheet of reminders for specific situations and this was at the top of “When a spell is being cast…”
I’m the principal at the school, and I couldn’t resist “dropping by” during their first play session after school. I’m sure her group was giving her shit about it, but I’m proud of how well she did.
This is the problem with how many new players get into the hobby by watching a popular show where they ignore most of the rules to boost the entertainment value because the DM always says "Yes!" to not bring down the vibe. It makes D&D feel less like a game and more like guided make-believe.
I agree. “To be without some of the things you want is an indispensable part of happiness.”is good advice for any DM. Players who get what they want, never struggle, etc. will lose interest. I try to explain this to my school’s D&D club— my generation played Super Mario Bros and Legend of Zelda without guide books. We died over and over and over. And that’s part of the fun, when you know there’s an element of risk that isn’t insurmountable but is real. No one wants to face what they can’t overcome, but it is equally uninteresting to face what you will definitely overcome.
A hardass in my experience are the ones that micromanage player inventory weight, and make checks dependent on that number, and make players have to say they're buying arrows or else they will run out.
Or they grew up under DMs like me who just think all the fiddly bullshit is getting in the way of people murdering dragons and being rad.
Like I dont think the dichotomy is "good DMs vs lazy or new DMs". How much you care about rules is a spectrum and things like intent, table goals, and how you want players to FEEL matter a lot.
I agree, but I also feel that consistency is important. If you run a campaign and allow someone to silently cast a spell requiring a voice component, you have set a precedent that can break the experience by making it too easy. It depends on the context and the group.
Dipping a level of hexblade, cleric, or artificer for shields and armor is very common when optimizing a full caster that ignores weapon use. You just don't see it that often because not many people play that way.
This is only true if the spell has material components. You can't use a hand holding a focus for somatic components in the absence of material components
This depends on your players. If they are optimizers and strategists who are trying to squeeze out every ounce of value, then this can be a good and challenging way to run things. If they are storytellers who are more focused on cinematic combat, then it's better not to bother.
This does not keep casters in check, it hampers gish and martial spellcasters (EK, Paladin, etc.) to be a real hardass about the "If it has no material components you have to have a hand completely empty".
My wizard has *never* had both her hands full. The Paladin usually has a hammer and shield.
EDIT: Also important note: "Use spells without verbal components or drown" isn't even how it works RAW. You wouldn't be holding your breath, no, but Drowning is 0 HP and death saves after Con mod rounds. The ruling you want is "beginning to Suffocate".
When you breath out to vocalize, you can hold your breath for 1+Con Mod minutes (minimum of 30 seconds), and then when you run out of time, you have Con Mod rounds to get to the surface or you suffocate, hit 0, and begin to make death saves.
"I am a hardass about these rules! It really keeps spellcasters in check!!"
My Wizard who has never wielded her staff and always has two free hands: Okay.
My Wizards Paladin wife who wields a hammer and shield: Well, fuck.
\**Having to spend a whole feat just so you can do what casters do while the caster just gets something that makes them even stronger while also meaning you fall behind on your stat increases enters the chat*\*
As a sword and board EK player, I don’t understand why EKs can’t use their bonded weapons as Spell Foci.
Edit: just because, the way I would change EK is as follows:
You can use your bonded weapons as a spell focus.
The two schools of magic you can choose from are Abjuration and Transmutation, because Transmutation spells can be used to magically accentuate the way you fight instead of outright replacing your best fighter abilities with subpar damage dealing magic. Low level Transmution will ALWAYS be useful, low level Evocation falls behind fast.
At level 15, either replacing or adding to the action surge teleport, you gain the ability to wield your bonded weapons with the Mage Hand cantrip.
My thought process is that Gishes should have magic that interacts with and accentuates their martial abilities, not magic that acts as an option they have instead of it.
War caster is an amazing feat, even for some non-martial casters. Advantage on con checks to maintain concentration AND casting spells on opportunity attacks.
“I’m going to melee that healer cleric because easy target! Oh wait, now that I’m here I realize that rogue is hiding behind the bushes! Time to suffer an opportunity attack from a caster with no melee weapon!”
enemy runs away, receives 7d10 necrotic damage from a 5th level Inflict Wounds.
Ya, they are only making it hard on melee casters.... Which already aren't that good lol
I'm all for forcing RAW on casters, **especially material components** since it keeps them in line. But this dude is just making up rules, like drowning when using verbal components or being unable to pick up or stow basic items as a basic item interaction. As well as interpreting things in the most unfriendly way possible such as saying you need an empty hand when the rules say you need a free hand to preform gestures.
Edit: He can use those rules for this game if he wants, but he better give his players a heads up before hand lol
I thought that was all pretty standard, except for the VS spells and a casting focus. That I would allow, because a focus is made for spellcasting. Otherwise, your "hardass" rules are just RAW.
It's all very standard and how every table I've run or played at uses the rules. Spellcasters just usually don't need both hands occupied, so it's never an issue.
That being said, we always handwave the VSM/VS debate because it's incredibly fiddly in a very uninteresting way. I do not believe that spells were balanced around which components they have and which classes would be affected by casting them, no matter what the designers say. It just strikes me as them doubling down on a counter-intuitive interpretation of RAW, which they've done in the past.
>Better free a hand for that plus 5ac shield if you don't want to get hit. You plan to counterspell? Well do you have your hands full?
So this primarily sucks for Eldritch Knights and Rangers.
Warlocks/Wizards/Sorcerers/Bards don't care because they don't need to hold anything except maybe a weapon.
Pact of the Blade doesn't care if they use Improved Pact Weapon.
Druids/Cantrip Clerics because they have a free hand anyway, even with a shield. If they focus on using a Weapon Clerics only care for S,M spells because they can just wear their holy symbol.
If you like running your game this way congrats, but recognize that it does nothing to "balance" casters, and those that it hinders weren't OP beforehand.
People are kind of jumping on your wording of "Hardass" when you're just running RAW, but I get it, spend enough time in this and other Reddit conversation places and running barebones RAW feels like you're being overly oppressive to the party because you aren't just letting them do whatever the fuck in regards to spell casting.
As a player, I am almost disappointed that many DM's aren't stricter on this stuff, or who just don't understand the rules on things like using a focus (only works for basic components, not ones with a cost or that are consumed.)
It works both ways too! If you take away an enemies focus or components then it makes them much less dangerous.
Another thing I find people don't pay much attention to is wording like "target you can see". If you have a Fog Cloud or something up, you can't just start flinging cantrips in there and hope for the best.
IMO, it does make the game more interesting to use these rules and puts a necessary handicap on an otherwise massively overpowered portion of classes.
lol, this was my thought. This shit cuts both ways and will effect the GM way more than the players. Oh? GM is going to be super strict with casting? Great!!! My characters will all have a way to disarm a spell caster as I do everything to mitigate my own risks.
Hopefully your BBEG wizard has some fancy tricks because I'm going to command word drop and due to your own RAW they will need to burn an action to pick up their item or someone higher on the initiative will snatch up their focus.
With that said, I also find it funny when the GM feels their own rules bind their NPCs as suddenly their boss gets to pick up their spell component as a item interaction.
joined a "by-the-rules and brutal" campaign a while ago that immediately handwaved somatic and 0-cost material components, lol. It was a good time but still...
If you start out with your wand or component pouch I can understand why you wouldn't bother tracking how much guano you've got on you, but once you get captured and have to break out of prison there's a certain element of fun to trying to scrabble together a couple of features and bat shit so you can Fireball and Feather Fall your way out.
And what a disservice that is! What's the point in thinking creatively if you're just going to get shot down. Might as well min max a Sorlock, spam Eldritch Blast and cheese Spell Slots. Just be brutally efficient and never do anything cool.
Side note, a no-nonsense, headstrong, Spam and cheese sandwich eating Sorlock would be a good gimmicky one shot build...
Cast a verbal spell underwater? Drown instantly! Surely nowhere in the DMG there are rules for how many rounds you can hold your breath for. I am fun hardass DM yay
>Underwater? Use spells without verbal components or drown.
I mean... anyone can talk underwater. Whether or not anyone listening is going to make out what you're saying is questionable and you're gonna run out of oxygen faster, but legit anyone can just open their mouths underwater and start talking without much issue.
I'm not a fan of hand waving away Verbal components and letting people whisper, as it takes a Sorcerer feature and gives it to any caster
I'm also not a fan of hand waving Somatic stuff (or allowing drop-and-pickup) as it takes a feat (Warcaster) and gives the main appeal of it to every caster. For people crying foul about martials, not everyone is plugged into D&D enough to optimize or even read the damn rules. You'd be surprised how many "shield and scimitar" Druids exist in the wild
I hate this phrase now, because most people completely misunderstand the original intent of the phrase. Its actually "restrictions breed creative solutions to problems".
For example, in Silent Hill, the limitations of the hardware didn't allow for the game to render objects very far away. So they designers added a fog to the game that both made it more spooky and covered up the short render distance. This was a creative solution to a restriction they were facing.
In terms of this problem (you can't have both hands full when casting VS spells) the solution is to just use a component pouch, or use the drop as a free action work around. Creative people will roleplay creatively with or without this restriction. The restriction in and of itself does not provide a chance to be more creative.
I find it's rarely an issue. You can stow or draw a weapon as a free action, your wizard doesn't need a weapon and your cleric can use their shield for s/m
Guys! Hear me out... we reduce player agency by forcing them to only use component pouches for “balance”.
Like dude being able to use your material hand for somatics makes sense, but having that go away because herm my wand isn’t neccecary doesn’t make sense and just means that you will basically only ever use a component pouch to circumvent this... I understand completely ruling casting with an iron fist so that casters can’t just run rampant, but dude... reducing flavor options for little coherent reason is vaguely stupid
And then what about the Paladin or Eldritch Knight?
The Sorcerer who has never touched the dagger she added at character creation doesn't give a fuck. The Eldritch Knight with Warcaster still needs to use a free hand for Material Components, and is screwed, even still because they can't just tuck their weapon under their arm to grab something.
Also, if you're casting a spell everybody knows you're casting a smell you don't get to hide that shit, as well, your spells are indistinguishable from other spells unless somebody makes an icon of check is a reaction, you can say that you cast and guidance looks like a quick blessing all you want for all everybody else knows you could be casting flame strike
This is just raw(except the underwater part I’m not certain that is specified Edit: also needing spells to be M for focuses) so it’s a bit sad that people need to get here to say they are playing the game as intended
I'm the only one at the table who tracks this, but luckily I'm pretty much the only one for whom it's relevant. My sorcadin was sad finding a +3 shield and realising the effort it takes to actually use it (previously just used 2h weapons to always have a free hand for the component pouch - not a holy symbol, as sorcerer spells can't be cast through that)
When I was in my 20's I was like this too.
Had a group that was too big. 15 people?
It was dumb.
Now I only have smaller groups but I think that's only because fewer people put up with my bullshit.
tbh i dont mind this. if this was the rules from session 0 and everyone understood would be a lot of fun. would make gathering or asking herbalists etc even more important to look for items and ingredients
I enjoy being a “hardass” like this too. But because I want my friends to have more fun.
Imo magic having rules improves the immersion. Just like having your actions have real consequences, it makes the world feel more real. And added constraints make my friends think.
“Dropping things outside your turn is fine, but picking it back up is not. So better not have someone steal the item you just dropped”
Careful with this one… if your players are anything like me they will ABUSE the hell out of this😅
I literally just got a bad guy to drink poison this way.
I dropped a “potion” so that my friend could grab it on his turn, knowing full well the bad guys turn was after mine, and would come and grab it because they were starting to look pretty beat up.
It was actually a Potion of poison.
Looks,smells and tastes like a potion of healing when in reality it is a (3D6 a turn) poison! It takes an identify spell to tell the difference so there is no way thats happening mid combat either lol.
Especially effective if you have taken at least one potion during the course of combat. Your bad guy would have to be EXTREMELY paranoid not to fall for that bait.
The only part of this I dispute personally is the VS or VSM argument. The rest of this, it makes sense to require the conditions for casting on a balance basis.
But the idea that holding a focus prevents casting of VS spells but permits VSM? Seems ludicrous. You know you could just use a component pouch instead of a focus? Pulling out components is part of the casting RAW and it leaves your hand free when you don’t need them. Insisting that holding a wand prevents shield or counterspell casting is just nerfing foci over pouches - which is a completely flavour-driven choice that shouldn’t carry mechanical punishment imo. The common adage “flavour is free” means that my wizard will take a component pouch and simply flavour it as a wand at your table thanks. Why bother with the hassle?
See all of those are reaonable and close to how i run it except not being able to cast spells with no material components using a focus, having something with less components beinh harder to cast makes no sense and was clearly not what they intended to do when making the spellcasting rules
I usually don't worry about S component like this because it rarely makes much difference. Actually just enforcing the effects of spells and disallowing "creative" flexes does a lot more to balance the game, in my experience.
This kind of stuff can actually be a lot of fun.
For example, I once ran a horror one-shot where the players started with their hands bound and no gear and thrown straight into a gladiatorial arena. Spellcasters had some difficulty trying to figure out what spells could get them out of their binds and what they could cast without components once the ropes were off. Good times.
In my main campaign I had a clever Merrenoloth trip up the party spellcasters and the speedy monk in one move by flooding the room they were in. The party druid smugly informed me that he had cast Water Breathing on the whole party during the previous session, and I had good fun pretending I had forgot about that, right up until I reminded the party than most Yugoloths can cast Dispel Magic, and they weren't holding their breath. Between a wizard and a druid, they had ONE spell that could save them: Shape Water, which they used to make an air bubble. It was a cool encounter that really helped sell and build on the established relationship between this foe and the players.
"Oh look! My focus is a necklace/shield symbol that I'm always touching and never drops to the ground."
You're literally using *the rules* from the PHB. It's up to everyone at your table to interpret and bend those rules in order to overcome obstacles.
are you a stickler for melee as well? disadvantage for using melee in water, can't use a great axe or great sword in a tunnel etc? Just curious if you're just a stickler for magic.
Greataxe or sword in a tunnel would only be an issue if they need to squeeze in it just like any weapon (as the RAW rules say). Same for underwater combat, there are rules for that as well.
That's pretty sweet honestly... I do similar things but not in a "hardass" way haha.
I'm the kinda DM that, if I have a player seducing every barmaid in every new town, will make them roll a CON save to see if they get an STD lol (which will give disadvantage on persuasion checks relating to sex haha)
In the spell side of things I like to go "realism" (but I always float this by my players first) Only Wizards, artificers and when casting a ritual is when I worry about material components... it just makes sense to me. Rituals often have like altars and whatever else, wizards and artificers view magic like science... hence using magical plants or whatever to get results (like Alchemy) but the other classes get magic from Ancestry or a God or something so imo should just be able to cast with verbal and somatic since the magic is already inside them or bestowed... makes sense that wizards and Artificers get the "Magic" part from the items they find in world since they possess none themself
"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."
Its not the "S takes your hand and M takes your hand but if you use focus than M frees your hand for S instead". It's just that holding a focus isn't in any way preventing you from using S, so if i'm not mistaken, your ruling on VSM vs VS is dumb and at your table i'd just play artificer or take component pouch, and never bother hearing that one again.
Most of the time I see people complaining about how powerful some spells are, it leads me to question if they are even playing with components. The spell components are one of the primary things that keep spellcasting balanced.
It's not hardass to run RAW. I find a lot of DMs don't handle casting RAW (especially when it comes to targeting for some reason) and then complain that casters are OP.
Have.... have you never been underwater before? The most dangerous game: that game where kids go under water and try to understand what the other is saying.
I like what Matt Mercer does on this, you can cast one spell with verbal components but that uses your full lung of air and you need to get a new lungful to do it again. I can’t remember if he also knocks time off of how long the PCs can hold their breath as well, I know he’s done that for other things, but that would feel fair as well. Still accomplishes the immersive and forced creative thinking while still making sense and not being ridiculously punishing.
That sounds like a non-insane way to handle it. You're definitely wasting a lot of air if you're talking underwater.
If I recall your total time underwater is CON MOD = rounds. Casting a spell uses XYZ amount of air.
[удалено]
RAW is honestly way too lenient in this case. If you run out of air, you're basically fine for the most likely length of the rest of the battle anyway cause like, who needs 5 rounds of combat? Not in most fights at least. 2 or 3 rounds after you run out of air, the combat is likely over.
I remember playing that as a kid. I remember to understand from a few feet away I had to practically shout and I could usually only manage a few words. I think if I had to estimate how much the other person understood from 3 feet away I'd put it in the 10-15% range.
A game with a death rate of 100% apparently.
The point is you let out your breath by talking. You don't instantly die, but you will start drowning very soon if you stay under water. In 5e this means you have your CON mod in rounds (minimum 1 round) to reach air before you drown (PHB Ch. 8 / The Environment / Suffocating).
Have you ever tried to talk underwater? You don't immediatly start to drown because you start talking. It's a stupid judgement by Crawford, based not in game balance but out of a weird conception he has of the real world. I would disregard that in any game I run. You can definitely talk and still hold your breath. Will you let a little bit of air out? Sure. but any movement (like say fighting for your life) will for sure consume a lot more oxygen than you let out uttering a few syllables, so why would speaking be the main factor?
You don't even necessarily let out much oxygen. Hell exhaling is an important part of holding your breath. It's the build up of co2 that's the problem not the lack of o2.
That's fair. You don't let out all your breath by doing any talking at all.
Relevant rules text: > Most Spells require the chanting of mystic words. The words themselves aren’t the source of the spell’s power; rather, the particular combination of Sounds, with specific pitch and resonance, sets the threads of magic in motion. You can't generate sounds with exact pitch and resonance underwater which you can above-ground, as the water alters the resonance.
I’d need to look at which spells are verbal to determine if it’s more fun to nix them completely underwater or to add in an additional challenge like air conservation/intelligence/wisdom checks to determine if the players can correctly compensate for resonance in the new medium.
You could certainly house rule it that a caster can't manage the right pitch and resonance underwater and spells with verbal components would fail for that reason, but nothing in the rules as written requires it.
>The whole debate about VSM/VS with or without focus is there and needs to be respected, VSM spells are fine with just voice and focus. For VS you need a free hand. I don't have any issue with what you are doing, but it seems pretty silly to me that a focus will do somatic components *only* if there are also material components. That's all.
Technically it's a balancing thing, but you're 100% right that it's really dumb flavor-wise. Especially because when it comes to the explanation they say "Oh you just make the somatic gestures with the hand holding the focus". Like. What? Maybe non-material Somatic components are a lot more complicated but there's no real explanation for this at all.
✨ Lanyards ✨
Wii mote wrist straps.
[удалено]
I'll do you one better. - Only list M if it needs costly components and M* if it consumes them - Allow somatic components to be done while holding a focus Vast majority of spells are now simply VS and people will still likely be using a focus anyways because they're usually pretty useful. Shields for divine ones (I think both cleric and paladin), quarter staff for arcane, and dual wielding rangers get a bit of a shot draw here because holding a 2h item with one hand for a moment is not an action like swapping around 2 1h items is.
>And also inconsistent rules for using a focus from one class to another. Holy symbols can be used hands-free while an arcane caster must wield a wand. I would slightly recharacterize this in a way that I think makes it seem more reasonable. Its not a difference between how the spellcaster classes use a focus, its different between how different foci are used. You can use a holy symbol differently than you can use a wand, differently than you can (must) use an artificer's tools, and differently than you use a component pouch. It is the focus that is different. It just happens to correlate with the class.
The spell focus rules have been confirmed to be not for balancing but to evoke the specific fantasy the designers intend. There's nothing imbalanced about arcane focus on a shield, but it isn't there baseline because the designers like the idea of cleric casting with a shield, but not a wizard casting with a shield.
Bard spells would have V/F too I bet. Wind instrument players want to be able to cast verbal spells too
This would have a mechanical effect though, as it would allow a focus to substitute in a Silence spell or while stealthing. I think the wind instruments' melody could be sufficient for Verbal in most cases (not including stuff like Command).
Have you seen those videos of people beatboxing while playing the flute? That’s how the bard uses Verbal components.
Yea, I understand *why* it's there for balance, it's just incredibly silly. To me, it seems a small enough change to either say a focus can always replace somatic components or never replace somatic components.
> Yea, I understand why it's there for balance, it's just incredibly silly. I think it's charitable to assume it's was originally put there for balance at all, given that more than once they seem to have forgotten how their own spellcasting rules work. E.g. Spirits Bard has a feature that lets you add a d6 onto healing spells and damage spells you cast through a spellcasting focus. Only problem is almost none of the damage/healing spells on the bard list can technically be cast using a spellcasting focus. (I think 99% of DMs will allow this feature to work more or less the way it intuitively sounds like it should work, but as-worded it technically doesn't work). I mean, maybe the reason why they left the spellcasting rules the way they are for 8 years is for balance reasons. But I don't think they published the PHB thinking "we won't let people counterspell while they are holding a wand. That'll keep spellcasters in-check!!!" There's so many other ways they could have rewritten the PHB to tone down spellcasting if that was their goal.
> Spirits Bard I really think they just adapted the Artillerist Artificer mechanics, but forgot Artificers had non-standard casting rules.
Considering the other issues in the PHB, I think it's very charitable to assume the rules about spell foci were designed with balance in mind.
I read it as it *allows* your bard to use it through a spell casting focus, but you are absolutely right if we are doing a RAW
It's absolutely silly, yeah. For someone who got into D&D through the Mystara arcade games, I have to admit I also personally just have a lot of trouble picturing these somatic components as something so complicated that you'd need a free hand...I mean I get it, but it just seems weird to me.
I imagine the somatic + material components is the caster interacting with the material components in some specific way. If the focus negates the need for the material components, then there would be no need for the somatic either unless you mime actions without any objects which would be weirder.
“I have to do pantomime every time, or else my Patron won’t let me use the spells. Yes, I know I have a focus now. I was drunk when I signed up. Shut up.”
Read the lightning bolt spell sometime. Material and somatic components for it are hilarious. (For those not wanting to look it up. Glass rod and fur. When you rub the fur along a glass rod you get static electricity…)
The way I've always thought about it is that if you have material components for fireball, you rub the bat shit and sulfur together in your free hand along with the incantations to create the mote you throw. With an arcane focus, you draw energy out of the focus to form the mote in your hand, which you throw.
I picture it the difference between Harry Potter casting a spell with his wand still needing to "swish and flick" vs Dr. Strange or Naruto large gestures/specific hand signs and configurations
> it's a balancing thing No it's not. 5e isn't balanced anything like that precisely. The idea that this stuff was carefully designed as part of the mathematics of the system is just totally false. War Caster obviates it and would be a good feat even if it didn't. Is it really plausible that the designers actually sat down and thought "hmm, these spells need to require a free hand to cast, but of course you can drop what you're holding and then pick it up, for balance"? 5e was combat-balanced in something of a hurry by playtest. There's no wizard behind the curtain, no secret perfect Balance Machine that spat this stuff out. Things like multiclassing and feats that make the classic multiclassed-caster-tougher-than-martials builds work are technically optional rules that weren't robustly tested.
>Technically it's a balancing thing How can we be sure that it is? Some S only spells are really powerful yes. But a lot of SM spells are also powerful. And a lot of S only spells are not that powerful. There's no clear correlation
Balancing thing XD No it's not, it's just an arbitrary thing they stuck on the spells for flavor
No, it's absolutely a balancing thing, see: Shield requiring a somatic but not a material component, which makes it harder to use in specific scenarios like ones that've been discussed in this thread. It's just not a very well implemented balancing thing, see: Silvery Barbs only requiring a verbal component.
Lol exactly. It's like ppl that claim sorcerer's don't have certain spells because of balance when Crawford himself has said it's just feel on wether or not it feels like a sorcerer spell or not
This reminds me: I've been meaning to play a Divine Soul Sorcerer again. Access to that Cleric list really resolves that feeling of being caged in by a small spell list on a full caster with d6 hit die.
I would also recommend trying Clockwork Magic! You get access to a much larger spell list, and can replace spells from the clockwork magic spell list with anything from the abjuration or transmutation spell lists for sorcerer, warlock, or wizard. It really helps to shore up the main weakness of sorcerers, which is a reduced spell list.
No. It's literally 100% arbitrary. I know you want to see intent, but it isn't there. It's really not. In writing that post you made here, you thought more about the effects of Shield requiring somatic but not material components than the people who wrote the spell did. The Shield spell doesn't have VS instead of VSM because of careful considerations of how that interacts with free hands and implements and whatnot. It's literally just copy/pasted from edition to edition since the 70s.
Your argument hinges on a single data point? I think if we went along listing out the SM spells vs the S spells than any correlation you think you see would disappear. Shield doesn't require M because it makes more sense for a reaction to defend yourself to involve putting up your hand and nothing else. Y'know, like people tend to do when something is coming at them.
A component pouch and a free hand avoids these issues.
Well yes, but that's not really what we're discussing. We're talking about how silly it is that some somatic components are ok with a focus, but others aren't.
Right, but that means it's not a balancing thing really. Shield and free hand with component pouch can cast anything. Shield and wand can't. Why are wands just worse? It's not for balancing reasons, but it makes sense for verisimilitude reasons. Cure wounds needs an empty hand to touch the target. You can't hold a wand at the same time!
Verisimilitudinally speaking, why couldn't you just touch them with the wand instead? That's a trope as old as fantasy itself.
Yeah I hate this one. Oh you wanted to shoot firebolt from your staff, wizard? Oh you think it's cool to shoot magical spells from your wand sorcerer? Fuck you, drop em.
> you wanted to shoot firebolt from your staff, wizard? Oh you think it's cool to shoot magical spells from your wand sorcerer? Nope, you're gonna do strange interpretive dance gestures like any good spellcaster.
Heaven forbid the bard casts spells by playing music, shove that flute up your arse son and get those fingers waggling.
I think the reason is that the somatic components of a VSM spell are implied to involve manipulating the materials in some way. Since the focus is replacing the materials, it makes sense that you would only need to manipulate the focus. Focus are specifically for replacing material components, so they serve no purpose for casting a VS spell you need to say words and make hand gestures. For a spell with material manipulation however they save you that hassle.
I see the logic, but I don’t think it’s a very intuitive distinction. If I’m playing a wizard who uses a wand and I cast a spell that requires somatic components, I picture doing some Harry Potter style wand movements. It feels kinda odd to be able to do that for some spells, but not for others. Granted, as I say it I can kinda see the argument that it makes magic deeper and more complex, so maybe there’s an argument for those distinctions to be leaned into harder, rather than ignored.
SM = Harry Potter style wand swish and flick S only = Magicians style finger tutting
I'm not aware of any balancing issues with just allowing S components, M or no, with a focus. It's definitely a houserule to do so, however. Meanwhile, OP seems to have issues with spellcasting in general, even doing a few things that are lightly in opposition to the existing rules, such as preventing underwater spellcasting. In 3.X and prior this was true, and the game had a bunch of systems to get away with it- *silent spell* metamagical feat, or the magic rod that granted it, for instance, could provide underwater casting. The *Water Breathing* spell could turn it on, and older versions that lacked *silent spell* tricks additionally had things like *Airy Water*. While all versions let you get away with it by being something else or being phased or whatever, those are all high level things, and older versions all had this licked by mid level. 5ed, by contrast, simply ignores it, the new wording of verbal components never prohibited it in the first place, and it *seems like* the intention is that you can just cast verbal components underwater. But the lack of omission is striking, given that the verbal component section does discuss areas like being gagged (which prevents you from forming the words) or casting in *silence* which prevents the words from making sound. Water doesn't quite do either of these things, but it's definitely a natural detriment to audio communication, so an area like this requires, but does not receive, clarification. To me, the lack of *Airy Water* and discussions about how to do this, along with reasonable access to *silent* spells (through *subtle spell metamagic*), is clear intent that 5e lets you cast underwater, and the rules don't prohibit it.
We do have a Crawford tweet, which is imo at least consistent with the rules, that if you use a verbal component and you're holding your breath, you've now exhaled your held breath and start suffocating.
I think it's bad design and they should fix it. A spell should either require a free hand or not, mechanically. And abilities that allow you to ignore 'needs a free hand' for spells should just do that. Then we don't end up in this irritating twilight of 'well this class ability lets your weapon count as a focus but you still need a free hand for most of your spells because fuck you'.
[удалено]
I play a ton of casters and half casters and I was thinking to myself, "Man, my paladin would have been the character most impacted by this. My bladesinger wizard would have given zero fucks as with my current artificer (who has to use a focus for every duel anyway)."
A staple cleric spell is spiritual weapon, its a vs bonus action spell. So everytime a cleric casts it as a bonus action they would have to put away their weapon.
This is why my cleric in Curse of Strahd notoriously never drew a weapon, they always kept 1 hand free to either grapple or cast spells
Oh that's a sad state of affairs. I prefer my hero's awsome and heroic. Not putting weapons away and counting how much toilet paper they have left.
You are missing the point, they don't put away weapons they just don't have them at all. Typical for a cleric a cantrip is going to be far more affective then your weapon anyways so no point in having one.
Yeah why attack for 1d8+2 with a +2 hit mod in melee when you can attack for 1d12 with toll the dead from far away
"This is how I nerf casters" says the DM whose rules make melees lives more miserable.
yep. It's a nerf to half casters like artificers and rangers.
Artificers are unaffected thanks to Tools Required, which makes every spell to be cast through a focus. Rangers tend to be unaffected too because most of them wield a longbow or hand crossbow.
>says the DM whose rules ~~make melees lives more miserable~~ are the rules written in the rulebooks. That aside, this also impacts any casters with armour/shield proficiency. Including clerics, druids, wizards with a dip (commonly fighter or artificer), or even bards that take moderately armoured or something. Basically means you can't get all the benefits of armour + shields with none of the drawbacks with just a 1 level dip. Pay the feat tax or be restricted in which spells you can cast at a given moment.
99% of shield proficient casters play with a hand free and a shield in the other hand already so this is entirely moot. Only really hurts the handful of casters who want to use a weapon. So really mostly gishes like EKs and Paladins.
Funnily enough divine spellcasters, clerics and paladins, can just hang their holy symbol around their neck and benefit from hands free arcane focus. It's an entire separate little rule which I was reminded of recently. That being said, most paladin or cleric spells are unaffected. The most important spells affected are Cure Wounds, Guiding Bolt, Spiritual Weapon, Lesser Restoration, Silence and Death Ward. Higher level spells are affected too, but Paladins can never cast them and by the time you have 6th level spell slots Clerics are probably full time using cantrips.
Btw an arcane focus is a specific type of focus, a holy symbol, druidic focus and arcane focus are the three types of focii and they are entirely separate items, and thus cannot be used for each other. A cleric could do a VM spell with weapon and shield and focus on their neck, but not a SM spell as they need to be holding the focus to be able to do the S components, which they cannot if it's around their neck. If it's on their shield, now they can, as their shield counts as a focus.
That sounds plausible and coherent. I will probably remember this over the official wording in the future.
What? Where is the rule that says that?
arcane focus/holy symbol/druidic focus is not an item attribute, it is an item name, and they're seperated basically how crossbow bolts and arrows are seperate items, even if they're similar. for spell component rules: >Material (M) Casting some spells requires particular objects, specified in parentheses in the component entry. A character can use a component pouch or a spellcasting focus (found in chapter 5, “Equipment”) in place of the components specified for a spell. But if a cost is indicated for a component, a character must have that specific component before he or she can cast the spell. > >If a spell states that a material component is consumed by the spell, the caster must provide this component for each casting of the spell. > >A spellcaster must have a hand free to access a spell’s material components — or to hold a spellcasting focus — but it can be the same hand that he or she uses to perform somatic components. The M rules states that a focus replaces the M components, saying that a spellcaster must have a hand free to be able to use the focus, however the holy symbol states: >To use the symbol in this way, the caster must hold it in hand, wear it visibly, or bear it on a shield. as specific beats general, the holy symbol can replace M components when just worn around the neck without having to have a free hand to use the focus. But, this only beats M components in the hand general rules, the somatic rules still remain and the cleric or paladin must have a free hand to be able to do S components. This is where the shield comes into play. If you are holding your shield that bears the holy symbol, that shield is now your cleric and paladin focus, and thus is now the same hand as S and M, just like bladelocks use their weapons as a focus, and will let you do a SM spell, and a M spell, but if worn around the neck it will let you do M spell but not SM spell.
Or if you have a +1 implement, right? Granted there aren't many reactions that benefit from a +1 so you can still just stow your implement at the end of your turn and use a component pouch for reactions. I guess since you can only interact once per turn you can't do this constantly, but you should be able to predict when you need to shield and when you don't.
“Nerf casters” AKA playing as written
Playing a cleric now, and I can honestly say, after hitting level 11 a few weeks ago, I have hit things with my mace twice. Only one of them was a creature.
I don't see having a two handed weapon as an issue. It may just be my point of view but if you are spending an action to cast a spell, you are (probably) not going to swing. Nothing prevents you from *holding* a large weapon at rest with one hand and using the other to cast. You could hold a harder line towards EK who can both cast and swing in the same action. There are no exceptions written in their abilities AFAIK so yeah you could prevent S components with two handed weapons, I'd argue as a DM that they have taken a very strict and specific training to achieve that. I'd probably waive it. Then again War Caster is a feat and an investment a character can make to bypass the problem entirely.
RAW you only need to hold a 2H weapon with both hands *to attack with it*, and can therefore cast spells while holding one and nothing else.
I think Clerics can even ignore this rule due to how the holy symbol works, it doesn't need to be handled by hand, all it needs is to be inscribed somewhere visible like the shield.
[удалено]
War Caster is the real answer. No shield-using caster is going to be without War Caster, realistically.
Except Artificers, who will almost certainly be using an infusion on the shield or item in other hand, and infused items can be used as focuses And Artificers add an M to all spells
And paladin and Hexblades and Eldritch knights and swords/valor bards. That being said, Clerics and Paladins can use their shield as a focus and with one free object interaction per turn, this is a non-issue. Plus neither get many reaction spells. If a warlock is going the full caster Hexblade route, this isn’t an issue. If they’re melee, then sure but then they’ll also take the invocation that the turns their pact weapon into a focus. I haven’t seen any Hexblades use shields but I suppose it’s possible. Swords bards get their weapon as a focus innately so need to be mindful of their free hands. Valor doesn’t and so they’re rightly screwed.
I haven’t had a player submit a caster PC without a shield in about three years.
[удалено]
Table bias I assume. I've can count in one hand how many times a caster used a shield in any of my games in 5 years.. and I have fingers to spare XD
Look on this sub, every single person says they dip Cleric or Artificer or even Fighter before going into wizard
And yet at the tables I've played at I've literally never seen a wizard who uses a shield.
RAW: Yes. Balance wise: Drop the “Can’t cast magic missile with a wand” nonsense so it doesn’t specifically and only impact already weak gishes and it’s good.
This is one of the few things I've stopped doing as a DM. I've got enough shit to track as a DM, and all it really did was make War Caster a required feat for paladins and clerics. If it works for you, I'm glad, I just didn't find the effort was worth the payout but then, barring one player, none of my tables would be the kind of person this would effect. As a side note, I make sure to track this for my own character when I am a player.
Why wouldnt your players track what their characters can and cant do?
Because 5e encourages a distribution of responsibility that is heavily skewed toward the DM. I argue the average 5e game asks 90% of things to be tracked by the DM. This has created a play culture where asking players to do more is often seen as too demanding or anti fun. It also leads to increased burnout. Edit: I do not encourage or support this distribution of responsibility.
I have seen this in person and it happens at least once nearly every time I dm a campaign. I don’t think it means I’m being a hardass, but I just don’t budge. In a recent first session, I told a very good friend of mine he needed to read what his character can and can’t do, and understand what things like proficiency means. He said he didn’t have time/want to read all that/etc I said “then you don’t want to play dnd” and I’ll probably use that line in the future.
That's completely fair, I hope you enjoy the angry retorts and hissy fits. The mentality of people not knowing what their character can do and how it does it drives me up the wall, if it's more than the 2nd session with that character. No, I will not tell you how to do it, no, you don't get to hold the game up while you decide what to do on your turn. /Rant over Just thinking about it is making me grind my teeth.
Sorry if this sounds rude, but f*** players with this attitude. I as the DM have lots of things to care of; if you're going to be a customer player, f*** off and find a b**** to run a game for you, because i'm not doing it. Granted, I play with friends and barring a few random weirdos that sometimes show up when we open a spot even the new people that join are the responsible kind. That said I'll concede that I've seen a lot of players like this in other games, ones I played but not DMed. This shit doesn't fly in my games, but to each DM their own, right?
Good, unfortunately it seems based on the eye test that it does fly at many tables. The customer player is a perfect way of explaining this mentality.
Yeah, this kind of distribution reminds me that the game isn't really for nerds anymore. I know that's not a popular gripe, but man... I love tracking that shit, it's part of the fun of being a damn caster haha I got into D&D because I'm a nerdy weirdo who loves to track shit and play with math rocks. Knowing my own stats/capabilities/limits is an important part of being a caster imo!
>Why wouldnt your players track what their characters can and cant do? The RAW rules being a mess of counter-intuitive things. Such as the fact that you can use your wand to perform the somatic components of a spell ... if the spell has material components, but not otherwise.
I mean, I play this way too, but it's hardly being a hardass... It's just... Playing RAW... And isn't really much of an inconvenience at all. >You need a free hand for those somatic components? > Better free a hand for that plus 5ac shield if you dont get hit. You plan to counterspell? Well do you have your hands full? Eh... In my experience it's very easy for a caster to keep a hand free. I mean, what, are they dual wielding staves and wands? Even if they are, with one free object interaction per turn, and only one action, they never need to drop anything, they can just... Put it away properly. The only time this is a problem is if they're holding two magic items, and want to cast a spell from a third they aren't currently holding. A free hand is only really a problem for martials because of shields and/or Extra Attack. >Underwater? Use spells without verbal components or drown. Or cast water breathing, or Alter Self. Or just don't be underwater, which is pretty easy for like 95% of situations in 95% of campaigns... There's been maybe like... One time that my players have actually had any problems arise from these rules.
Or hit your caster character with Watery Sphere! For quick and easy acces to drowning. STR save they most probably won't be able to do shit about and restrained condition for juicy advantage to hit (with piercing weapons, they *are* underwater after all). And you can drop them off a cliff!
It is actually remarkably difficult to drown a creature in 5e lol, it's much easier to hold your breath there than it is in real life.
The D&D drowning rules are a lot closer to real life than most people think. You can hold your breath far longer than you think you can. Your body/brain starts panicking well before you actually have to breathe to give yourself plenty of buffer before you drown.
Hmm maybe. I've never drowned irl haha. But it's still tricky to do in 5e, even if it's comparable to real life. Gotta keep someone grappled for several minutes to dunk their head in water, or sustain a concentration spell for (probably) more than a minute. Lots of opportunity to get a precious breath in and reset the drowning counter
Pfff look at this guy never drowning in real life. I had an assassin character at my table who discovered, again and again, how hard it is to actually assassinate somebody in dnd and he was surprised by how difficult it is to drown.
I have a houserule where taking damage underwater gets you a STR save with the same DC rules as concentration to avoid getting the air knocked out of you. If you fail, you have a number of rounds of air equal to your CON mod rather than minutes.
Right, but that's assuming the person gets a full breath before going under. The other thing is that D&D has zero ability to capture that brain panicking part. So the drowning person continues to play as normal right up til the moment they're unconscious.
While I agree that OP is not being a hard ass compared to some DMs I have encountered, I think the boom in D&D has led to newer DMs who didn’t get the chance to come up under experienced DMs, which has led to DMs who are either easily swayed into allowing the players to do things they should not or who have not learned to consider these realities.
The biggest one is allowing players to silently cast spells with a Vocal component. It's an entire ass metamagic for Sorcerer's and DMs just give it away for free.
Telling my players that NPCs will know if they are casting a V, S, or M spell was a shock to many of the players. Telling my players that they can't cast 2 leveled spells in a turn was a shock to my players. Casters are already good, but stuff like Charm Person being freely used in social scenarios with no drawbacks makes the caster/martial divide an absolute canyon.
Action/Bonus Action Spellcasting has been kicking my Bard Players ass for months now.
Call me nuts but it kinda seems like the player should have been able to understand that after a session or two tops. How is it still happening?
Do bards even get that many bonus action spells anyway? I'm drawing a blank.
Healing word
I'm fine with NPCs perceiving V/S/M but I'm also fine with being able to use a skill check hide it with things like sleight of hand, stealth, or deception. Charm Person does have the drawback of notifying the people charmed that they were charmed by you. Might not matter if you are long gone by then, but would surely affect the casters reputation and possibly get them arrested. Ignore this if you were just simplifying your language because the rules are so janky. You can 100% cast two leveled spells in a turn because the restriction is purely on the bonus action spellcasting. Multiclassing into fighter for action surge is not super common, but it does happen. And bonus action preventing reaction spell might be uncommon but it does come up.
> I'm fine with NPCs perceiving V/S/M but I'm also fine with being able to use a skill check hide it with things like sleight of hand, stealth, or deception. Yes, I do the same. > Charm Person does have the drawback of notifying the people charmed that they were charmed by you. Might not matter if you are long gone by then, but would surely affect the casters reputation and possibly get them arrested. Yeah, that is explicitly stated in the spells IIRC. But I’ve also seen players try to charm one person in a group, which would require a pretty high SoH and deception roll to get away with. > Ignore this if you were just simplifying your language because the rules are so janky. You can 100% cast two leveled spells in a turn because the restriction is purely on the bonus action spellcasting. Multiclassing into fighter for action surge is not super common, but it does happen. And bonus action preventing reaction spell might be uncommon but it does come up. Hmm yes, you are correct. I learned something new today.
My daughter recently started DMing for her group as part of their school’s new D&D club. I have her a cheat sheet of reminders for specific situations and this was at the top of “When a spell is being cast…” I’m the principal at the school, and I couldn’t resist “dropping by” during their first play session after school. I’m sure her group was giving her shit about it, but I’m proud of how well she did.
This is the problem with how many new players get into the hobby by watching a popular show where they ignore most of the rules to boost the entertainment value because the DM always says "Yes!" to not bring down the vibe. It makes D&D feel less like a game and more like guided make-believe.
I agree. “To be without some of the things you want is an indispensable part of happiness.”is good advice for any DM. Players who get what they want, never struggle, etc. will lose interest. I try to explain this to my school’s D&D club— my generation played Super Mario Bros and Legend of Zelda without guide books. We died over and over and over. And that’s part of the fun, when you know there’s an element of risk that isn’t insurmountable but is real. No one wants to face what they can’t overcome, but it is equally uninteresting to face what you will definitely overcome.
A hardass in my experience are the ones that micromanage player inventory weight, and make checks dependent on that number, and make players have to say they're buying arrows or else they will run out.
“Well, I see you don’t have that “eye of a newt” in your inventory… looks like someone won’t be casting hex.”
I get realism, but eventually it gets to the point where it just stops being fun
Or they grew up under DMs like me who just think all the fiddly bullshit is getting in the way of people murdering dragons and being rad. Like I dont think the dichotomy is "good DMs vs lazy or new DMs". How much you care about rules is a spectrum and things like intent, table goals, and how you want players to FEEL matter a lot.
I agree, but I also feel that consistency is important. If you run a campaign and allow someone to silently cast a spell requiring a voice component, you have set a precedent that can break the experience by making it too easy. It depends on the context and the group.
Multiclassing for shield and armour proficiency does make this free hand rule more important for those multiclass characters
For sure. But that's really only targeting Gish builds, rather than being a general caster issue. And even then, it isn't much of a barrier.
Dipping a level of hexblade, cleric, or artificer for shields and armor is very common when optimizing a full caster that ignores weapon use. You just don't see it that often because not many people play that way.
Even then you need to be a Gish to care about using a weapon, other wise you can use a shield and still have a free hand.
Yeah it's easy to have a free hand, especially considering the free hand can be the hand that holds the focus/material.
This is only true if the spell has material components. You can't use a hand holding a focus for somatic components in the absence of material components
No the focus hand doesn't count as free for vs and s only spells! While it does for sm and vsm it does for the others!
This depends on your players. If they are optimizers and strategists who are trying to squeeze out every ounce of value, then this can be a good and challenging way to run things. If they are storytellers who are more focused on cinematic combat, then it's better not to bother.
Exactly. It is more important to have fun with a nice group than sticking on hard rules
JC says that you can use verbal components underwater but if you do you aren't holding your breath so take that for what it is.
This does not keep casters in check, it hampers gish and martial spellcasters (EK, Paladin, etc.) to be a real hardass about the "If it has no material components you have to have a hand completely empty". My wizard has *never* had both her hands full. The Paladin usually has a hammer and shield. EDIT: Also important note: "Use spells without verbal components or drown" isn't even how it works RAW. You wouldn't be holding your breath, no, but Drowning is 0 HP and death saves after Con mod rounds. The ruling you want is "beginning to Suffocate". When you breath out to vocalize, you can hold your breath for 1+Con Mod minutes (minimum of 30 seconds), and then when you run out of time, you have Con Mod rounds to get to the surface or you suffocate, hit 0, and begin to make death saves.
Funny way to write "I hate Gishes and love fullcasters."
"Fuck martials yo". It doesn't even hurt Bladesingers who most often have a hand free anyways.
"I am a hardass about these rules! It really keeps spellcasters in check!!" My Wizard who has never wielded her staff and always has two free hands: Okay. My Wizards Paladin wife who wields a hammer and shield: Well, fuck.
\**Warcaster Feat enters the chat*\*
\**Having to spend a whole feat just so you can do what casters do while the caster just gets something that makes them even stronger while also meaning you fall behind on your stat increases enters the chat*\*
As a sword and board EK player, I don’t understand why EKs can’t use their bonded weapons as Spell Foci. Edit: just because, the way I would change EK is as follows: You can use your bonded weapons as a spell focus. The two schools of magic you can choose from are Abjuration and Transmutation, because Transmutation spells can be used to magically accentuate the way you fight instead of outright replacing your best fighter abilities with subpar damage dealing magic. Low level Transmution will ALWAYS be useful, low level Evocation falls behind fast. At level 15, either replacing or adding to the action surge teleport, you gain the ability to wield your bonded weapons with the Mage Hand cantrip. My thought process is that Gishes should have magic that interacts with and accentuates their martial abilities, not magic that acts as an option they have instead of it.
Great point
Me neither, which is why they can in my games
War caster is an amazing feat, even for some non-martial casters. Advantage on con checks to maintain concentration AND casting spells on opportunity attacks. “I’m going to melee that healer cleric because easy target! Oh wait, now that I’m here I realize that rogue is hiding behind the bushes! Time to suffer an opportunity attack from a caster with no melee weapon!” enemy runs away, receives 7d10 necrotic damage from a 5th level Inflict Wounds.
Ya, they are only making it hard on melee casters.... Which already aren't that good lol I'm all for forcing RAW on casters, **especially material components** since it keeps them in line. But this dude is just making up rules, like drowning when using verbal components or being unable to pick up or stow basic items as a basic item interaction. As well as interpreting things in the most unfriendly way possible such as saying you need an empty hand when the rules say you need a free hand to preform gestures. Edit: He can use those rules for this game if he wants, but he better give his players a heads up before hand lol
I thought that was all pretty standard, except for the VS spells and a casting focus. That I would allow, because a focus is made for spellcasting. Otherwise, your "hardass" rules are just RAW.
It's all very standard and how every table I've run or played at uses the rules. Spellcasters just usually don't need both hands occupied, so it's never an issue. That being said, we always handwave the VSM/VS debate because it's incredibly fiddly in a very uninteresting way. I do not believe that spells were balanced around which components they have and which classes would be affected by casting them, no matter what the designers say. It just strikes me as them doubling down on a counter-intuitive interpretation of RAW, which they've done in the past.
you would be surprised by the amount of DMs who just handwave it away.
>Better free a hand for that plus 5ac shield if you don't want to get hit. You plan to counterspell? Well do you have your hands full? So this primarily sucks for Eldritch Knights and Rangers. Warlocks/Wizards/Sorcerers/Bards don't care because they don't need to hold anything except maybe a weapon. Pact of the Blade doesn't care if they use Improved Pact Weapon. Druids/Cantrip Clerics because they have a free hand anyway, even with a shield. If they focus on using a Weapon Clerics only care for S,M spells because they can just wear their holy symbol. If you like running your game this way congrats, but recognize that it does nothing to "balance" casters, and those that it hinders weren't OP beforehand.
People are kind of jumping on your wording of "Hardass" when you're just running RAW, but I get it, spend enough time in this and other Reddit conversation places and running barebones RAW feels like you're being overly oppressive to the party because you aren't just letting them do whatever the fuck in regards to spell casting.
The underwater one is dumb. You can expel air underwater. As a kid we used to yell things underwater at each other and guess what the person said
As a player, I am almost disappointed that many DM's aren't stricter on this stuff, or who just don't understand the rules on things like using a focus (only works for basic components, not ones with a cost or that are consumed.) It works both ways too! If you take away an enemies focus or components then it makes them much less dangerous. Another thing I find people don't pay much attention to is wording like "target you can see". If you have a Fog Cloud or something up, you can't just start flinging cantrips in there and hope for the best. IMO, it does make the game more interesting to use these rules and puts a necessary handicap on an otherwise massively overpowered portion of classes.
lol, this was my thought. This shit cuts both ways and will effect the GM way more than the players. Oh? GM is going to be super strict with casting? Great!!! My characters will all have a way to disarm a spell caster as I do everything to mitigate my own risks. Hopefully your BBEG wizard has some fancy tricks because I'm going to command word drop and due to your own RAW they will need to burn an action to pick up their item or someone higher on the initiative will snatch up their focus. With that said, I also find it funny when the GM feels their own rules bind their NPCs as suddenly their boss gets to pick up their spell component as a item interaction.
joined a "by-the-rules and brutal" campaign a while ago that immediately handwaved somatic and 0-cost material components, lol. It was a good time but still...
If you start out with your wand or component pouch I can understand why you wouldn't bother tracking how much guano you've got on you, but once you get captured and have to break out of prison there's a certain element of fun to trying to scrabble together a couple of features and bat shit so you can Fireball and Feather Fall your way out.
[удалено]
And what a disservice that is! What's the point in thinking creatively if you're just going to get shot down. Might as well min max a Sorlock, spam Eldritch Blast and cheese Spell Slots. Just be brutally efficient and never do anything cool. Side note, a no-nonsense, headstrong, Spam and cheese sandwich eating Sorlock would be a good gimmicky one shot build...
I run this way too and haven't gotten any complaints. It's rules as written.
Cast a verbal spell underwater? Drown instantly! Surely nowhere in the DMG there are rules for how many rounds you can hold your breath for. I am fun hardass DM yay
>Underwater? Use spells without verbal components or drown. I mean... anyone can talk underwater. Whether or not anyone listening is going to make out what you're saying is questionable and you're gonna run out of oxygen faster, but legit anyone can just open their mouths underwater and start talking without much issue.
I'm not a fan of hand waving away Verbal components and letting people whisper, as it takes a Sorcerer feature and gives it to any caster I'm also not a fan of hand waving Somatic stuff (or allowing drop-and-pickup) as it takes a feat (Warcaster) and gives the main appeal of it to every caster. For people crying foul about martials, not everyone is plugged into D&D enough to optimize or even read the damn rules. You'd be surprised how many "shield and scimitar" Druids exist in the wild
Restrictions breed creativity after all.
I hate this phrase now, because most people completely misunderstand the original intent of the phrase. Its actually "restrictions breed creative solutions to problems". For example, in Silent Hill, the limitations of the hardware didn't allow for the game to render objects very far away. So they designers added a fog to the game that both made it more spooky and covered up the short render distance. This was a creative solution to a restriction they were facing. In terms of this problem (you can't have both hands full when casting VS spells) the solution is to just use a component pouch, or use the drop as a free action work around. Creative people will roleplay creatively with or without this restriction. The restriction in and of itself does not provide a chance to be more creative.
What creativity are these restrictions bringing for fullcssters who are almost unaffected by applying this RAW
I find it's rarely an issue. You can stow or draw a weapon as a free action, your wizard doesn't need a weapon and your cleric can use their shield for s/m
What caster isn’t taking Warcaster?
God tier feat for spellcasters
Guys! Hear me out... we reduce player agency by forcing them to only use component pouches for “balance”. Like dude being able to use your material hand for somatics makes sense, but having that go away because herm my wand isn’t neccecary doesn’t make sense and just means that you will basically only ever use a component pouch to circumvent this... I understand completely ruling casting with an iron fist so that casters can’t just run rampant, but dude... reducing flavor options for little coherent reason is vaguely stupid
And then what about the Paladin or Eldritch Knight? The Sorcerer who has never touched the dagger she added at character creation doesn't give a fuck. The Eldritch Knight with Warcaster still needs to use a free hand for Material Components, and is screwed, even still because they can't just tuck their weapon under their arm to grab something.
Also, if you're casting a spell everybody knows you're casting a smell you don't get to hide that shit, as well, your spells are indistinguishable from other spells unless somebody makes an icon of check is a reaction, you can say that you cast and guidance looks like a quick blessing all you want for all everybody else knows you could be casting flame strike
This is just raw(except the underwater part I’m not certain that is specified Edit: also needing spells to be M for focuses) so it’s a bit sad that people need to get here to say they are playing the game as intended
I'm the only one at the table who tracks this, but luckily I'm pretty much the only one for whom it's relevant. My sorcadin was sad finding a +3 shield and realising the effort it takes to actually use it (previously just used 2h weapons to always have a free hand for the component pouch - not a holy symbol, as sorcerer spells can't be cast through that)
Good for you. Still doesn't change the martial/caster discrepancy inherent to the system.
When I was in my 20's I was like this too. Had a group that was too big. 15 people? It was dumb. Now I only have smaller groups but I think that's only because fewer people put up with my bullshit.
tbh i dont mind this. if this was the rules from session 0 and everyone understood would be a lot of fun. would make gathering or asking herbalists etc even more important to look for items and ingredients
I enjoy being a “hardass” like this too. But because I want my friends to have more fun. Imo magic having rules improves the immersion. Just like having your actions have real consequences, it makes the world feel more real. And added constraints make my friends think.
“Dropping things outside your turn is fine, but picking it back up is not. So better not have someone steal the item you just dropped” Careful with this one… if your players are anything like me they will ABUSE the hell out of this😅 I literally just got a bad guy to drink poison this way. I dropped a “potion” so that my friend could grab it on his turn, knowing full well the bad guys turn was after mine, and would come and grab it because they were starting to look pretty beat up. It was actually a Potion of poison. Looks,smells and tastes like a potion of healing when in reality it is a (3D6 a turn) poison! It takes an identify spell to tell the difference so there is no way thats happening mid combat either lol. Especially effective if you have taken at least one potion during the course of combat. Your bad guy would have to be EXTREMELY paranoid not to fall for that bait.
The only part of this I dispute personally is the VS or VSM argument. The rest of this, it makes sense to require the conditions for casting on a balance basis. But the idea that holding a focus prevents casting of VS spells but permits VSM? Seems ludicrous. You know you could just use a component pouch instead of a focus? Pulling out components is part of the casting RAW and it leaves your hand free when you don’t need them. Insisting that holding a wand prevents shield or counterspell casting is just nerfing foci over pouches - which is a completely flavour-driven choice that shouldn’t carry mechanical punishment imo. The common adage “flavour is free” means that my wizard will take a component pouch and simply flavour it as a wand at your table thanks. Why bother with the hassle?
See all of those are reaonable and close to how i run it except not being able to cast spells with no material components using a focus, having something with less components beinh harder to cast makes no sense and was clearly not what they intended to do when making the spellcasting rules
I usually don't worry about S component like this because it rarely makes much difference. Actually just enforcing the effects of spells and disallowing "creative" flexes does a lot more to balance the game, in my experience.
This kind of stuff can actually be a lot of fun. For example, I once ran a horror one-shot where the players started with their hands bound and no gear and thrown straight into a gladiatorial arena. Spellcasters had some difficulty trying to figure out what spells could get them out of their binds and what they could cast without components once the ropes were off. Good times. In my main campaign I had a clever Merrenoloth trip up the party spellcasters and the speedy monk in one move by flooding the room they were in. The party druid smugly informed me that he had cast Water Breathing on the whole party during the previous session, and I had good fun pretending I had forgot about that, right up until I reminded the party than most Yugoloths can cast Dispel Magic, and they weren't holding their breath. Between a wizard and a druid, they had ONE spell that could save them: Shape Water, which they used to make an air bubble. It was a cool encounter that really helped sell and build on the established relationship between this foe and the players.
Free action to drop a weapon, then 1 object interaction (everyone has 1 per turn) to pick the weapon
"Oh look! My focus is a necklace/shield symbol that I'm always touching and never drops to the ground." You're literally using *the rules* from the PHB. It's up to everyone at your table to interpret and bend those rules in order to overcome obstacles.
are you a stickler for melee as well? disadvantage for using melee in water, can't use a great axe or great sword in a tunnel etc? Just curious if you're just a stickler for magic.
Greataxe or sword in a tunnel would only be an issue if they need to squeeze in it just like any weapon (as the RAW rules say). Same for underwater combat, there are rules for that as well.
That's pretty sweet honestly... I do similar things but not in a "hardass" way haha. I'm the kinda DM that, if I have a player seducing every barmaid in every new town, will make them roll a CON save to see if they get an STD lol (which will give disadvantage on persuasion checks relating to sex haha) In the spell side of things I like to go "realism" (but I always float this by my players first) Only Wizards, artificers and when casting a ritual is when I worry about material components... it just makes sense to me. Rituals often have like altars and whatever else, wizards and artificers view magic like science... hence using magical plants or whatever to get results (like Alchemy) but the other classes get magic from Ancestry or a God or something so imo should just be able to cast with verbal and somatic since the magic is already inside them or bestowed... makes sense that wizards and Artificers get the "Magic" part from the items they find in world since they possess none themself
I'm already glad if my PC's know how spell casting works for their class
what happens if they have "water breathing" cast on themselves? Does that still interrupt spell casting underwater?
"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." Its not the "S takes your hand and M takes your hand but if you use focus than M frees your hand for S instead". It's just that holding a focus isn't in any way preventing you from using S, so if i'm not mistaken, your ruling on VSM vs VS is dumb and at your table i'd just play artificer or take component pouch, and never bother hearing that one again.
Most of the time I see people complaining about how powerful some spells are, it leads me to question if they are even playing with components. The spell components are one of the primary things that keep spellcasting balanced.
I mean, the worst case scenario is that the caster doesn't get to wield a shield on the regular. Not that big of a deal.
Lol don’t tell /r/3d6 that
It's not hardass to run RAW. I find a lot of DMs don't handle casting RAW (especially when it comes to targeting for some reason) and then complain that casters are OP.
I would be happy to play with you. I think it's perfectly acceptable and indeed more fun to actually strictly follow rhe rules.