Thread 96465669

Clerics can no longer cast spells while using a shield apparently. This is from the new starter set. WotC REALLY wants to destroy that class fantasy for some reason.

What if a shield is my holy symbol?

>>96465669 (OP)
>equipment card
This is daggerheart isn’t it?

Based. Clerics are too strong and needed this.

>>96465811
No, it's the 2025 starter set that is more of a board game than an RPG. It apes the cards from Daggerheart. The ability to cast with a shield is based on your domain now.

>>96465823
That seems very odd. If they just wanted to limit shield usage by domain, they could have just written that within each domain.
It just seems like a trap option to tell a new player that they can use a shield, but can't cast spells while wearing it. That'll just make people think that a Cleric forgoing spells or only using non-combat and utility spells is a valid option.

And if the Starter set is an effort to simplify, why even include multiple domains that function so differently?

Good thing I don't play dungeons and dog shit

>>96465669 (OP)
>This is from the new starter set.
So, completely irrelevant to me. I don't see the problem.

>>96466202
>>96466234
>Um, why did you make a thread about something I'm not involved in?

>>96466294
Maybe he's not involved in it because they do stuff like this.
It's the oldest, most popular RPG in the world and yet has some of the most bad and confusing design decisions you could ever imagine seeing.

>>96467039

The main bad design decision relating to clerics in D&D has always been the fact that they're too damn powerful. Yes, even back in the first edition they were too strong.

>>96465669 (OP)
It's a simplification of the actual rules because it's a fucking starter set. The actual rule is that you need your fucking hand free to perform material component, which as an exception can be substituted with a spell focus, of which holy symbols as an exception can be borne on a shield or fabric.

>>96467285
except for the fact that they can't use swords and the best magic items in adnd are swords. not to mention a myriad of restrictions. nice try tho

>>96465794
>My religion uses shields as holy symbols!
>Says Lathander on your sheet, mate
I see no reason why a custom god couldn't have a custom holy symbol, but would someone allow that when it is clearly a metagaming request? Might as well skip the middleman and ask if you can cast without a holy symbol, same shit.

>>96465669 (OP)
I don't play d&d though???

>>96467656
Then keep scrolling??

buy an ad

>>96467625
The shield as a holy symbol or a holy symbol on a shield has always been a meta game move. I've always hated it. I've always made clerics at my table have to use their holy symbol to cast spells OR take a few minutes of intense prayer to cast the spell if out of combat and without holy symbol.

>>96465669 (OP)
Play a paladin then.
>Nuh uh I want to have heavy armor and use martial weapons and use shields and heal and buff and nuke and I can't fall!
D&Dogshit and its sacred cows were a mistake

>>96465669 (OP)
>Clerics can no longer
Hah, I'll stick to my 3.5e

>>96471442
true meta move is making holy symbol a tattoo, so that cleric can cast by touching her abdomen

>>96467492
And they couldn't just say "you need a free hand to cast your spells" instead of implementing a weird misleading rule?

>>96467656
You don't play, period.

>>96465669 (OP)
That's nice. I'm not gonna play this shit so not my problem.

>>96465823
>more of a board game than an RPG
I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with adding board game elements to RPGs.

>>96471488
Yes, but it would be out of place in the equipment section of the character sheet. Or character cardboard, I guess.

>>96471671
Wouldn't be any more out of place than the current text.

Casting with 2-handed big bonk is a go?

>>96471504
>"HEY EVERYONE GET MAD ABOUT THING!!!"
>"We don't care, we don't play that game."
>"REEEE YOU DONT PLAY ANYTHING THEN!!!"

>>96471442
I respect and support this decision

>>96466294
Threads outside containment are fair game for criticism.

>>96474730
D&D and Warhammer board. Fuck off, tourist.

My legitimate guess is that they don't want the white male iconic cleric to look good in art and giving him a shield and protecting people would go entirely against that. Instead he has to be cowering or fumbling for his spell components and holy symbol in every picture.

As more and more art comes out for this starter set and the products after it you'll see I'm more and more right. They probably had a dozen focus groups about this.

>>96467285
>even back in the first edition
>when they couldn't even cast spells until 2nd level and were just worse fighters

Mhmm

>>96475600
Based on the box art, it doesn't even seem like that. They've got a Cleric who is just holding a Holy Symbol and has nothing else. No shield, no weapon.
Seems more like they're catering to the people who think Clerics are just robed healbots. Except the only mechanical weight they give to that idea is if the DM asks why a Cleric player isn't using a shield, they can point to how the rules are basically telling them not to use one.

>>96475954
This seems kind of familiar. Wonder if it's based on an older book cover.
Because if it isn't, I am shocked that it's not some freakshit party.

>>96475976
I think it might be. Pic related on the left is from some starter-set tie in pack, and seems to be calling back to Keep on the Borderlands pretty directly.
So the box itself being another reference isn't farfetched.

>>96465823
The starter set for D&D? They really chose to nerf the class this hard? Haven't other classes been getting new stuff lately? Why hurt clerics?

So OP is a lying nogames faggot, and anyone who buys into his bullshit are nogames faggot retards. The 2024 PHB reads as follows in the entry for Holy Symbols:
>A holy symbol is a representation of a god or pantheon. It might be an amulet depicting a symbol representing a deity, the same symbol carefully engraved or inlaid as an emblem on a shield, or a tiny box holding a fragment of a sacred relic. A cleric or paladin can use a holy symbol as a spellcasting focus. To use the symbol in this way, the caster must hold it in hand, wear it visibly, or bear it on a shield.

RAW, not only can it be used as a spellcasting focus if it's on your shield, but by "wear it visibly" that could also imply that the holy symbol is etched into/painted all over your armor, so you don't even need to hold it in your hand to use it for casting, though I'd imagine without War Caster you still need a free hand to use Somatic components for your spells that have them RAI.

I swear to god you dumb fucks will just believe anything some nogames dipshit tells you these days. Read the book, man of dark complexion.

>>96476322
Except OP stated it was from the starter set, as opposed to the PHB.

>>96476322
I couldn't have made it clearer I wasn't talking about the PHB you shit eating baboon.

>>96476402
>>96476483
i await the Pathfinder Quest board game to drop so I can call pf2e dogshit because of the choices they made for their board game.

Good thing that heroquest is so good, else i'd have to call all of warhammer fantasy dogshit

>>96476575
So we're not allowed to talk about weird choices made in a starter set because other people can't read what the thread is about?

My last cleric had a lantern as a holy symbol and so never used a shield because he always had that lantern in his off hand.

>>96476673
What about his other hand?

>>96476575
All I'm saying at the end of the day is that it's a very strange decision in a very worthwhile product. If this sells right, millions of people are probably going to be learning D&D 5.5 through this product so I hope they made a healthy decision.

>>96476718
A sword picked up from a heroic and very dead ally.

>>96476575
I'm pretty sure that isn't supposed to be an intro to the actual rpg.

>>96476402
>>96476483
The PHB takes precedence over some dumb gimmick set made for retards like (you) to learn to play D&D.

If you took the layman and told him that yes, he could cast spells with a shield on as a Cleric, but no, he can't cast them if he doesn't have a free hand to perform Somatic Components, he would look at you as if you'd grown a second head.

Also, as has been noted, it's more of a board game than it is an actual RPG. Ergo, it is not reflective of D&D 2024 or its ruleset, and you, OP, are still a lying faggot.

>>96477507
>"Oh hey, remember you can't cast spells unless your character has at least one hand free."
"Oh, okay."
Truly incomprehensible to the layman. Much easier to lie to them about how the rules actually work in the real game and teach them wrong, as a joke.

>>96471485
Or if male, their dick.

>>96465669 (OP)
Let them destroy it.
The people who have the agency to make the kinds of games they like will continue to not be bothered by it.

>>96465669 (OP)
Makes sense. You shouldn't be able to cast spells with somatic component while holding a shield in the first place.

>>96479397
gay and retarded as all somatics

>>96475569
It's /tg/ - Traditional Games, not /tg/ - 40K & D&D, retarded slime.

Didn't most casters always need a free hand or two to cast? If you want to work around that get a piece of gear that doubles as a casting implement.

>>96484142
yeah, but you could go "weapon+empty hand" or "empty hand+shield" to cast, now shield prevents casting even when the other hand is empty

>>96484186
Is there a chance that this is a bad boardgamified raw text and what it actually means that you need both hands free? Does the weapon have the same "Can't cast if wielding something." clause?

>>96465669 (OP)
The fuck? Why are they changing shit for the sake of changing shit?

>>96471442
You're about to catch the back of my holy symbol.

Don't tell me people actually care about "you must have hand free for le spells"

>>96471442
to be fair if it was how it worked in-universe you'd expect the shield religion to dominate over time because their clerics would have a massive advantage on the battlefield. They'd win wars against people with shittier holy symbols and people would convert for the better holy symbol. The latter is a pretty significant part of how it worked IRL; primitive religion almost universally promises its adherents supernatural power over the world around them.

>>96465669 (OP)
Is this real, chat?

>>96465669 (OP)
Luckily, my shield comes with a strap so I can wear it and keep both hands free. It's as if the teens writing games today have never seen real armor.

>>96485005
Even OSR grogs who follow Gygax's weapon autism struggle with the concept of a guige.

>>96466294
>umm, honey... where's Tyrone's cum? I can't get hard if I don't see it dripping from your pussy!
>I'm going back to my all queer run in bg3 so I can post screenshots of dead horse memes on my subreddit for updoots
That's you. No, you can't claim projection. That's factually you. No taksie-backsies, no forcefield, no "No U!" Etc. You literally can't use a comeback against me. I'm immune.
>>96465669 (OP)
Wtf is this shit? Dungeons and dogshit?

>>96467528
>>96475902
A few modules advised restricting clerics from them because it made it much easier. Like tomb of the lizard king.

>>96477186
Bearing light into darkness, with the strength and example of those who have gone before. Very apt for a cleric.

Mutt's law confirmed yet again.

>>96485026
I think it's meant to say that you can't grasp the shield (thus enjoying its AC Bonus) in the same time as you're casting. Not that it drops off your person and rolls away like.
So if you Cast this Round, you're not getting the +2 or whatever, but after your Turn you can re-take the hold and get the Bonus again.

That's what I would do if I were forced at gunpoint to run D&Done, anyways.

>>96477553
You overestimate the layman.
>WHAT DOES THAT MEAN I DONT SEE RULES FOR FREE HANDS
>BUT MY SHEET SAYS I CAN USE A FOCUS WITH MY SHIELD
>WHY CAN I USE A SHIELD AND NOT A WEAPON?

>>96487256
Conversely, with the "can't cast spells while holding a shield" wording:
>But I'm holding my holy symbol in my other hand why can't I cast?
>Why can I use a holy symbol and mace but not a shield?
>Does that mean I can cast while holding two maces?

The difference being that one ruling is actually going to be more correct if they ever move on to the actual game.

>>96465669 (OP)
>>96465823
OH DANG, THEY'RE SEPARATING INTO BASIC AND ADVANCED RULES AGAIN!

>>96465979
>It just seems like a trap option to tell a new player that they can use a shield, but can't cast spells while wearing it. That'll just make people think that a Cleric forgoing spells or only using non-combat and utility spells is a valid option.
Monks can use bows, but they lose martial arts when they do.
Or rogues get longswords but can't sneak attack with them.
Or rangers can technically use str or paladins can wear light armor and use dex for bows and rapiers.
Or how every casting class can use class-specific foci even though component pouches are objectively better unless it's a magic item, a holy emblem on a shield (no longer a thing now i guess, it was objectively one of the best options), or you're some kind of gish using the staff as a quarterstaff typically because you're holding a shield in the other hand.
Or how arcane casters can use simple weapons, but why would a wizard ever run into melee with 10AC and a club instead of casting a 1d10 cantrip?
Same thing.

>>96465979
>That'll just make people think that a Cleric forgoing spells or only using non-combat and utility spells is a valid option.

Well they couldn't use combat utilities either. Cure wounds is still casting a spell.

>>96488062
True. But that's sort of the problem, where it might make a new player think that they're meant to function as a mundane warrior in combat, and then only take off the shield after a fight in order to cast Cure Wounds or other spells.

It's just a misleading way to set up the feature that doesn't follow the standard rules, and doesn't make things simpler to play.

>>96487998
Like with these examples, it'd be easier for a starter set to just make it so Monks can't use bows or Rogues can't use longswords, because while that's incorrect to the base rules, it does at least simplify things for a new player.

This would be more akin to the starter set rules saying 'a Paladin wearing light armor can't use the Smite feature' as a way to try and restrict a Paladin from trying to use a bow. There's simply no reason to phrase it that way if the goal is to create a dumbed-down ruleset.

>>96465669 (OP)
No more spells for them since faith also shields them.

>>96471652
I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with you jumping off a cliff.

>>96492204
i don't get it nigga

>>96476065
I still don't get why the elf looks completely different in the new art compared to the old one but the other two heroes look pretty much the same