Larian Studios Forums Baldur's Gate III Baldur's Gate III - Suggestions & Feedback Free hand to cast spells?

In dnd 5e to cast spells you need to have a free hand, until you take a warcaster feat. So there's a customisation/build options here if you want to go melee spellcaster.
BG3 now doesn't require a free hand to cast spells. It seems off for me
Is this a problem for you?

Not really.

I mean, the character is getting a shield bonus to AC even when using a bow, assuming a shield is equipped in the melee slot.

this was the same in solasta. it was really annoying for me. but surprising that using bow free hand is not required? it's quite an annoyance i need to frequently swap sword and shield with 2-hander with a paladin.

Not at all ...
It really sounds anoying. :-/

Not for me. This is another homebrew I can agree with. I guess the free hand rule was put there to balance melee casters mostly and to give the impression that your pc is using the free hand for the somatic component of the spell though.

The rules about having a hand free for casting are often misinterpreted, leading people to think that video games are forgetting something, or to video games themselves being overly harsh on the interpretation.

Here's what you need to remember:

Does the spell have a somatic component (s)? If not, then you don't need any hands at all anyway.

Is one of your hands at least nominally free? If so, then you're fine to cast somatic components - this means that someone using a bow, or wielding a two-handed sword is perfectly free to use their action to cast a spell with a somatic component, because two-handed weapons and bows etc., only require you to have both hands on the weapon to use them, not simply to hold them, and taking one hand off the weapon to make your somatic gestures for your action is perfectly within the rules.

The hand that is being used for material components (holding your arcane focus or manipulating your component pouch, etc.) is Also a perfectly acceptable hand to use to make your somatic components simultaneously.

This is still an issue for dual-wielders of course, but outside of that, for the most part and in most cases, this means that most characters interested in casting spells are naturally going to be able to have a hand free to do so... So a video game that disregards book-keeping this isn't really making Toooo much of a rule bend, most of the time.

I agree that this is one of those things people misunderstand and overly complicate.

Ask yourself. What is the reason for the rule? It's purpose is to make it so there are circumstances that can exist that will render a character unable to complete certain spells. For example, if the DM needs to have a mage PC captured, he can bind and gag them so they can't cast spells. Or it is so players can capture wizard enemies and bind and gag them, take their spell focus, etc. The last thing you want is for some character type to be impossible to disable because they can still cast a spell even when captured.

The other point is to prevent players from doing exactly like what BG3 allows with ranged attacks and shields. Switch to bow, shoot, switch back to sword and shield, gain +2 AC. Likewise, put shield away, cast spell, pull shield out, gain +2 AC. No. The somantic rule is made so you are forced to focus on the spell, not gimmick the rule.

Magic with a somantic component is meant to be like sign language. You can't really form an intelligent gesture while holding a hilt or handle.

That all said, I hardly ever bother with imposing somantic, verbal or material restrictions with my players. Each round is 6 seconds. If they prepared the spell and silence was not cast - or something similar - I allow the mage to cast. I don't ask, "Now, you have a quarterstaff in one hand and short sword in the other, Gandalf. How do you plan on casting Dragon's Breath? After all, it requires a Hot Pepper, for you to speak the words, and perform the right gestures.". I just let him cast the spell assuming in 6 seconds he can speak the words while pulling out the hot pepper, popping it in his mouth and making a quick gesture.

But what about no hand being empty? Simple. Before he started chanting, he threw the blade into the dirt, hilt up right in front of him, and now his hand is free. Then he chanted while getting out the pepper and making the gesture. When he was finished, he snatched the sword back up. 3 seconds tops ( Dragon's Breath is a BA). Then he runs forward with both weapons and breathes lightning on enemies. Or... Even simpler... He put the short sword temporarily in his staff hand, holding both in one hand, did the gesture, and took the sword back.

As long as the PC doesn't abuse the system, it should really be an afterthought not something you have to micromanage. Like the hot pepper spell component. Please don't make me have to find hot peppers in the game world in order to cast Dragon's Breath. Let's just pretend I acquired plenty of them from somewhere. Or worse, Fireball. I don't want to have to find sulfur and bat guano to cast a single Fireball spell. That would suck.

But it's the same concept as free hand. Don't make me have to switch a weapon out just to cast a spell if it isn't going to do anything but annoy me. Can I attack with that weapon and cast a spell in the same round? Maybe with haste, but then that makes sense anyway. I'm moving faster. The only time a free hand should be a thing is maybe with a shield and that only because it provides a +2 AC which actually has an effect on gameplay.

One final thing I'll say, though. Spell Focus. This should at least be required in BG3 especially for clerics. They should have to possess some sort of holy symbol somewhere on their person. A necklace, CIRCLET, ring, gauntlet, shield... Something. And mages should need a wand or crystal ball or ring or gauntlet or quarterstaff spell focus. Why is this important? Pickpocket and disarm. Also, it forces clerics and mages to use some sort of item slot for their focus.

Battle master faces wizard with spell focus quarterstaff. Disarm maneuver. Disarms quarterstaff. Mage can't cast. Same with wand, etc. Adds strategy. Or thief sees mage. Sneaks up. Steals wand. Attacks mage. Mage reaches for wand. Gone. Mage is helpless.

Shadowheart has a circlet holy symbol spell focus. Unless she finds another symbol of Shar, she must equip her symbol on her head. Thus, she can't equip a helmet. My MC is a cleric of Tyr. His holy symbol is on his shield. This now restricts him a bit to using a shield. Even if he finds a super cool two handed weapon, he needs his shield to use his spells. This can have a huge impact on gameplay and the choices players have to make.

Ngl I played Solasta recently, got to level 10 so far. And based on what i've seen on their implementation(You can swap weapons once per turn and you need 1 free hand to cast a spell. You can't "free" your weapon hand it has to be the shield) : It just nerfs the cleric.

In BG3 I had my custom cleric on the frontline with the shield while throwing spells. Played on release so I don't remember the name of the specialization but it got to a point where I had some bonuses to blocking with the shield so really hitting him was close to impossible despite his possible spell bursts.

In Solasta I have to choose If my spell is worth the risk of getting cut in half. On higher levels my cleric is effectively a spell caster ( and playing accordingly) until the later phase of combat where he just finishes people off with the mace.

Personally I liked the idea of having to choose instead of having both. Isn't turn combat all about choices, positioning and weighting risk? Especially for spell casters?
You take choices away you flatten the combat in my opinion.

Interesting point of view from GM4 above too. Like if anything just limit shield swapping.
I think that limitation could be cool just because clerics in my opinion can do just waaay too much in D&D video games I've played ^^ BG3 included.

Not really something I miss - in Solasta (I don't know if it was homebrewed or 5e) you could get around that - like putting god's symbol on the shield or something like that. Being able to cast with two hands equipped was a matter of progression, rather then tactical mechanic.

I am more annoyed by shield bonus being applied even if it is not currently equipped. It just doesn't feel right.

Just a small note that might help the rationality of things to keep in mind - this for GM4Him, since it seemed to be something on your mind - a spellcasting focus is relevant only for spells with material components, because it is what we use to replace those; if you don't want to keep track of how many tentacles you're keeping in your pocket, or how many handfuls of bat poop you have left, and you'd rather not think about that at all - that is precisely what a spellcasting focus is for; it specifically replaces the need for worrying about material components and acts as the 'stand in' for all of them, with exception of cost-listed components.

This also means that stealing your enemy's casting focus doesn't disable them other than blocking the specific spells that have material components which they don't otherwise have to hand - so even if you steal the wizard's staff, they can still cast time stop or prismatic wall, or power word kill, incendiary cloud, finger of death, prismatic spray, or any number of the dozens and dozens of other spells that don't have a material component - which it might surprise a lot of folks to know is actually over 40% of all spells currently in 5e (43.5% - 241 out of 554 have no material requirement; and that's not accounting for the ones whose 'material component' is 'a pinch of dirt' or 'a twig' or 'a bit of fluff'; the majority of ranger spells with material components have incredibly simple components like that, for example) ^.^

Where does the shield go if it's not equipped? Usually, it hangs on the character's back, or it should. Now, in most video games, that shield that's supposed to be there isn't shown, but it should be.

Yes. I love the way you worded all this.

I wasn't really clear, so thanks for clearing it up. I just meant that with spell components, I don't sit there and force players to find or buy specific spell components. They have a spell focus. If that's a bag of spell components, it is assumed they have all they need. Always. Whenever they go to a city, it is assumed they restock what they need in spades so it's a non-issue.

But yes. You're right. Many spells can still be cast without material components. Still, stealing a focus disables some fairly powerful ones like fireball, lightning bolt, etc. It's a good way to cripple a mage and limit their power. But, you're right. It doesn't disable them.

Anyway, I feel the free hand element is like spell components. It is only important in some cases. If you have a primary weapon and shield, you need to pick one to put away to use a spell with somantic tag. Put away shield lowers AC by 2 for 1 round. Put away weapon keeps shield up but means your AOO is with your fist. Considerably less potential than with a weapon.

And again, it's meant to be like ranged weapon. If you pull out a bow, and shoot, you can't then pull out a melee and shield. Likewise, if you cast a spell, either the weapon or shield is put away for 1 round. Simple as that.

So? Having a heavy wooden object hanging of your back doesn’t exactly help you - if anything it should add negative AC. By the same token an unequipped weapon might do damage to an attacker cause “hey, you turn around and the mace smacks an enemy in the balls by accident”.

If you don’t have something equipped, it should not be a factor in combat. Switching weapons should be limited. I would prefer an ability for more loadouts, rather then forcing one ranged and one melee.

So a shield only works if it's on your arm? There is a big difference between having a wall on your back, and a weapon on your hip, but I suspect that you know this already, right? I mean, I can see a shield providing protection in real life, even if it's just on your back. Flanking attacks will have to deal with that being there, after all, and here, we're discussing a fantasy game, where that shield might have magical properties that could apply, to a greater or lesser extent. This is, however, why I believe it should always have been shown to be on a character's back. That way we don't have this "but when I unequip it, it goes into this magical space where it might as well be in camp" mentality.

Explain to me how this is supposed to work for you.
If you have a solid piece of wood or metal on your back, how does that not protect you?
What you say is completely illogical.

Enemy comes at you head on. He takes a jab at you with a spear. You have no shield in hand because it's on your back. Shield does not provide ANY protection. Spear jabs you in chest more easily because there is no big, metal object in the way at all.

Or are you suggesting that you would suddenly spin around and drop to the ground like a turtle to protect yourself?

Enemy comes from behind. Shield is immobile on your back. Legs are exposed. Easy to jab you in the legs without you having any ability to shift the shield to block it. Arms are also exposed from behind. Head is also exposed. No ability to shift the shield round to counter the jab.

It's not a perfect system, but the point is it is simple. Equip shield. Protection enabled. Don't equip it. Protection disabled. Equip weapon. Attack bonus and damage bonus enabled. Unequip weapon, only able to use fists. Like someone else said, there is no ability to spin around and cause your hammer on your back to flail outwards and strike an enemy. That's a bit overcomplicating the combat system.

Depends on shield and fastening.
The shield on your back should significantly limit the opponent's room for maneuver.
Even if it was only supposed to protect you from shooting, it would still be quite an upgrade than if you had nothing at all. Attacks from behind should be the most lethal as you are unable to observe the area behind you. Of course, we are talking about logic, not implementation, but assuming that the shield on the back does not protect in any way is a bit extraordinary.

So, you're a GM, what's the hit roll on that attack at the exposed legs from behind? What size shield are you talking about, a buckler? Even a medium shield will cover the arms and head, along with all of the torso. Let alone a tower shield, which would mean your "easy target" would be the ankles? So, here's what I want you to try:

Get a piece of 4x8 plywood, and cut a foot off of the width, so it's 3x8, then cut about 1 1/2 feet off the height. Strap it to someone's back and check out how much target you really have. Maybe an actual visual of what this actually looks like will help you understand what's being presented. As someone who has participated in Live Steel, sword fighting at Ren Faires, I can tell you, you're going to be in for a big surprise. Depending on the height of the person wearing your makeshift tower shield, you may have a couple of inches at the bottom, and you won't see their head, at all. With someone that's really tall, you'll have more of a target below the bottom of that shield, but you still won't see their torso, head or arms. Good luck getting a favorable angle on hitting anything below the shield, instead of hitting the ground behind them. Unless you're going to run up behind them and lay down?

The key point is that you're likely wearing other armor. E.g., "Having a heavy wooden object hanging off of your back [while you're wearing plate armor] doesn't exactly help you."

It probably helps more for characters wearing lighter armor, but on the other hand having a large object on your back will negatively impact your mobility, roughly canceling out.

Again, man, it's about simplicity. Based on the logic of, "I have a shield on my back, therefore, I should get +2 AC," we would also be including EVERY item we're carrying as part of our AC. Backpack also protects our back as does the spoons I put in my pockets, or the money bag I have dangling by my hip, plus the scabbards and so on and so forth.

You have to draw the line somewhere. It's simpler to say, unequipped shield, no AC +2, assuming that the +2 is because you are allowed to move it about to deflect enemy attacks wherever that enemy is attempting to hit you.