2
\$\begingroup\$

Reading the War Caster feat again, I'm having a doubt about the following sentence:

You can perform the somatic components of spells even when you have weapons or a shield in one or both hands.

I'm trying to figure out the implications of this feat when using a hand to grapple an opponent. It looks like wielding a shield would be enough to perform somatic components, but wielding a single weapon would not - the plural suggesting you must hold 2 weapons (potentially, in one hand...) to do so.

Am I reading this correctly, or am I paying my lack of involvement during english lessons ?

More context: I'm considering spells such as Primal Savagery, Shocking Grasp, Inflict Wounds, Vampiric Touch to deal reasonable damage to a grappled, prone opponent, while wearing a shield. Double-checking RAW here, and adding the "weapons" issue for the sake of completeness.

| improve this question | |
\$\endgroup\$
6
\$\begingroup\$

To cast a spell with somatic components you need at least one hand free:

If a spell requires a somatic component, the caster must have free use of at least one hand to perform these gestures.

Warcaster amends this rule::

You can perform the somatic components of spells even when you have weapons or a shield in one or both hands.

If you have a weapon or shield in one or both hands, you can still use somatic components. You can parse the sentence as: (weapon or shield) in (one or both) hands. The sentence is a bit funky because it says plural "weapons" and singular "a shield". This leads to a bit of a weird situation:

Weapon in one hand? Fine.

Shield in one hand? Fine.

Weapon and shield? Fine.

2 weapons? Fine.

2 handing a weapon? Fine, and perhaps useful because you don't have to let go of the weapon.

2 shields? Not fine, since it says "a shield"

1 shield held in two hands? Fine but weird.

Grappling uses at least one hand:

Using at least one free hand, you try to seize the target by making a grapple check instead of an attack roll ...

If you are grappling with one hand, and holding a weapon or shield with the other, then since you "have a weapon or a shield in one or both hands" you can still use War Caster to perform somatic components.

| improve this answer | |
\$\endgroup\$
  • \$\begingroup\$ Genuinely never noticed that you couldn't do this if you wield two shields, though that would rarely ever come up, good to know. \$\endgroup\$ – Medix2 Dec 24 '19 at 13:35
  • 3
    \$\begingroup\$ @Medix2 honestly, the intent is probably that you could do it with a shield in each hand, but the rules always assume that you don't wield two shields at once - all the rules are written as if you'll never hold more than one shield, but this being DnD, a dual-shield subclass is bound to come out soon.... \$\endgroup\$ – gatherer818 Dec 24 '19 at 13:53
  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ @gatherer818 i agree. Also one the reasons it says shield in the singular is may be because multiple shields do not stack in the AC, therefore they didn't mention the possibility. \$\endgroup\$ – Bruno Souza Dec 24 '19 at 14:53
  • \$\begingroup\$ That plural really puzzles me. If you have 2 shields in 2 hands, you also have 1 shield in 1 hand, don't you? I don't get how it doesn't qualify... \$\endgroup\$ – Bash Dec 24 '19 at 18:10
  • \$\begingroup\$ @Bash It's a ridiculous situation. YMMV, your DM has to decide whether dual wielding shields is "a shield in one hand" (qualified), or "two shields in both hands" (not qualified). I think this is a rare case of terrible wording. Your DM would need to be quite petty to deny that you can cast while dual wielding shields. \$\endgroup\$ – gszavae Dec 25 '19 at 10:06

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.