By RAW a character needs an empty hand in order to cast most spells. Clerics who favor shields therefore have some hard choices to make.

How can a cleric carrying a shield get around being unable to threat if the character insists on having an empty hand for spellcasting?

Personally I have four suggestions:
1 - Declare you are not using your shield for AC but for shield bashing in stead. Keep the other hand free.
2 - Take the Improved Shield Bash feat - thus becoming able to have your cake and eat it (gain shield AC bonus AND be able to shield bash at the same time.
3 - Wear a spiked gauntlet. It is a simple weapon and does not prevent you from using the hand for spellcasting
4 - Carry a light shield or buckler and switch your weapon to your shieldhand as a free action, then cast your spell, then switch your weapon back to your free hand as another free action.

Does anyone have other methods by which the shield cleric can cast spells and still threaten outside his turn?

Does anyone see a problem with regard to threatening or spellcasting in the four methods described above?

You can cast a spell while wearing a buckler or light shield. So, no problem there.

You can cast a spell while wearing a buckler or light shield. So, no problem there.

You can cast a spell with somatic components using your shield arm, but
you lose the buckler’s AC bonus until your next turn. You can’t make a shield bash with a buckler.

It's the not loosing AC problem we want to get around. Also one cannot bash with a buckler.

A light shield’s

weight lets you carry other items in that hand, although
you cannot use weapons with it.

For light shields you still need to have the other hand free in order to cast spells - unless you switch hands with the weapon (see method 4).

As far as I can see your inclined to go with method 4 on both cases. Is that correct?

You can wield a weapon and light shield at the same time and cast spells with S components and you don't need to make any switcheroos in order to cast spells without letting go of your weapon.

I think that is something they never noticed, since it does not make sense to be able hold something, but not cast a spell. Either I can use my fingers or I can't, IMHO. I will mention it in the errata thread later on.

See THIS THREAD for a detailed breakdown of the issue.

See THIS THREAD for a detailed breakdown of the issue.

Being able to hold something in your hand and that hand being "free" is not the same thing. It might appear so in a logical sense, but in game mechanics your shield hand slot is taken up by the shield, even if you are actually able to hold (but ONLY hold, not use) something in that hand.

Shield, Light; Wooden or Steel: You strap a shield to your forearm and grip it with your hand. A light shield’s weight lets you carry other items in that hand, although you cannot use weapons with it.

At any rate my interpretaion of the rules on light shields is the one we are going with at my game. The question at hand was:

How can a cleric carrying a shield get around being unable to threat if the character insists on having an empty hand for spellcasting?

The 3.5 FAQ on the issue clearly states that you can cast spells in the shield hand. Of course, it depends if you are in the "3.5 FAQs apply to PF" camp :)

At any rate my interpretaion of the rules on light shields is the one we are going with at my game. The question at hand was:

The Grandfather wrote:

How can a cleric carrying a shield get around being unable to threat if the character insists on having an empty hand for spellcasting?

Why on Earth would somebody want to carry a shield and have a free hand for spellcasting when you can carry a weapon in one hand, a shield in the other and still be able to cast spells ?

Why on Earth would somebody want to carry a shield and have a free hand for spellcasting when you can carry a weapon in one hand, a shield in the other and still be able to cast spells ?

Because you cannot carry a shield and benefit from its AC when casting spells.

If you are of a different impression that is fine too, but it is not what this threat is about: for my reasoning read Lord oKOyA's post here, with which I agree and this topics sets off from.

If you are of a different impression that is fine too, but it is not what this threat is about: for my reasoning read Lord oKOyA's post here, with which I agree and this topics sets off from.

I'm not sure which Lord oKOya post you are referring to, but to help others the likely ones are

This one.

This one.

Or this one.

The 3.5 FAQ on the issue clearly states that you can cast spells in the shield hand. Of course, it depends if you are in the "3.5 FAQs apply to PF" camp :)

We have 3 cases:

Heavy/Tower Shield - no cast with the hand on which the shield is strapped (shield hand).

Light Shield - No casting with the shield hand itself. However, you can switch your weapon from your other hand to the shield hand and back. This lets you switch weapon to shield hand -> cast with the now empty weapon hand -> and switch weapon back to weapon hand. 3.5 FAQ ruled that it's a move action to switch a weapon from one hand to another. So it's 2 move actions to cast a spell and go back to the original configuration. James Jacobs ruled that it's a free action to make the same switch in PF.

Buckler - Can cast with shield hand as long as it is otherwise empty.

James Jacobs ruled that it's a free action to make the same switch in PF.

Thanks I did not know that. I have house ruled it like that for years, but it is good to know it is official.

Actually, after actually looking up the old thread, it appears it's less than even a free action -- it's effectively filed under the "no action" action category (:

linkified source