Would you consider everything in the spell description a rule? Specifically, Burning Hands seems to require two hands to cast. Can a one-armed wizard ever hope to cast this spell?
I've heard that some rule that text like this is just flavour to help visualise the somatic component, but how would one differentiate? For example Speak with Dead specifically requires the corpse to have a mouth and not be undead, much in the same way that Burning Hands requires the casters thumbs to be touching, and their fingers spread.
But then this seems to be the only example of a spell that I can find requiring the use of two hands. How would you rule this?
Spell descriptions contain both ruling and flavour. But ultimately you interpret as you need. Personally, I say the two-hands thing is fluff text for visualising the spell. I'd allow the spell to be used one-handed, like all other spells in D&D 5e. Then again, I use magic a little differently for my characters and games. It's a useful spell but not some super powerful one and you do not gain any mechanical benefits over other spells by using this one with one hand.
Fluff text like this I always ignore. Two people should be able to cast the same spell and have it appear differently if they want. The idea of a powerful wizard holding hands out like they're waiting for a manicure is ridiculous to me so not a single character I have ever played follows that first sentence of the spell. Sometimes they use it one-handed, sometimes two-handed in a hadouken pose and sometimes it's actually channelled through the breath - my character Embers, draconic sorcerer, would trace symbols in the air (somatic component) which were then inhaled and he then exhaled the spell's effect like a breath-attack. Mechanically identical, but no visuals of holding fingers out like he's at a salon getting his nails done.
Each spell description begins with a block of information, including the spell's name, level, school of magic, casting time, range, components, and duration. The rest of a spell entry describes the spell's effect.
Every part of a spell's description is rules text. The text at the bottom of the spell description is what happens after you successfully cast it.
Some DMs find certain aspects of some spells like Burning Hands unimportant and allow some of the spell's requirements to be waived. The game allows the DM to break or bend the rules in the name of fun. But officially, there's no distinction between "flavor text" and "rules text" in a spell. You're meant to read the entry as a whole.
That's what I've always thought; it's just interesting that Burning Hands is the only spell that specifically requires not only having two hands to cast, but also not holding anything in either in order to make a specific gesture.
I'd probably rule it as it's written, unless there was a creative way around it.
Truth be told, I'd say the answer depends on the situation. Say the characters cut off one hand of a wizard specifically because they've seen the wizard cast Burning Hands and want to stop him from doing so. Same goes for the talk with dead; the enemy has killed his own minion because he was a fool, then rips off his lower jaw so the minion can't blab about his master's evil plans.
Unless it specifically comes up, I don't really bother when my players cast spells. One of my players is a Tiefling Rogue. She is a swashbuckler and therefore uses both hands to wield weapons. Whenever she is attacked and wants to use hellish rebuke, I don't really bother with the technicality that both her hands are full. I mean, she could technically unequip her off hand weapon every turn and then re-equip it again in her next turn (for her free item interaction/draw weapon with the same action used to attack once per turn) but that really slows the game down and doesn't add to the fun of it.
Same goes for components; they only really come up when something actively shuts things down. Your hands are tied? Well, your spell has a somatic component so too bad. You've been robbed of your spell focus and have not been able to replace it yet? Better hope you can actually provide the component specified in the spell description then
I suppose it really is situational - I like your examples of making it make sense to the narrative; such as cutting off the hands of a spell caster to prevent them casting spells.
As a DM, I generally go into the minutiae of spell casting as far as the player wants to. I've had a wizard in the group that never tracked components or cared, and that was fine (unless it was a consumable component with a cost, as per the rules). By the same token, I've had a player that loved to track what was in her component pouch, and I provided ample opportunities for her to find obscure bits of moss, spider webs and bat dung, because that was a major aspect she enjoyed about her character, and it helped her connect.
In this instance, if the player cared about the thumbs touching, then I'd weave it in. If they didn't, I wouldn't enforce it.
Spell descriptions contain both ruling and flavour. But ultimately you interpret as you need. Personally, I say the two-hands thing is fluff text for visualising the spell. I'd allow the spell to be used one-handed, like all other spells in D&D 5e. Then again, I use magic a little differently for my characters and games. It's a useful spell but not some super powerful one and you do not gain any mechanical benefits over other spells by using this one with one hand.
Fluff text like this I always ignore. Two people should be able to cast the same spell and have it appear differently if they want. The idea of a powerful wizard holding hands out like they're waiting for a manicure is ridiculous to me so not a single character I have ever played follows that first sentence of the spell. Sometimes they use it one-handed, sometimes two-handed in a hadouken pose and sometimes it's actually channelled through the breath - my character Embers, draconic sorcerer, would trace symbols in the air (somatic component) which were then inhaled and he then exhaled the spell's effect like a breath-attack. Mechanically identical, but no visuals of holding fingers out like he's at a salon getting his nails done.
For what it's worth, when I read Burning Hands's description of the somatic component, I imagine it with the wrists cocked and the palms facing out - something more like a cross between the hadouken and the Wu Tang Clan hand symbol. Which is certainly more appropriate to the spell, I think!
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"We're the perfect combination of expendable and unkillable!"
Personally I believe the spell description sections contain three things, two of them optional: 1) mandatory sentences describing the mechanical operation of the spell, its targets, conditions requirements and effects. 2) some spells include a summary or description of the purpose of the spell overall, useful information (consider the first sentence of Aid which serves no mechanical purpose). 3) some spells include flavour text about how the spell looks or how the casting of it appears. These flavors need not be binding where they don't override the components of the spell or the mechanics of its casting. So the two hands of burning hands, to me, is clearly not a binding rule, but more a description of the way it looks when the quintessential wizard casts it. If you provide the components (Verbal and Somatic) then you can achieve the burning hands fire damage cone effect however you like. Thematically you want your fire to be blue? No problem. Another example, the first sentence of Summon Greater Demon "you utter foul words" need not apply exactly (you could utter whatever you like within reason), while the text further down about a circle of blood are not really optional as they affect the mechanics.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Would you consider everything in the spell description a rule? Specifically, Burning Hands seems to require two hands to cast. Can a one-armed wizard ever hope to cast this spell?
I've heard that some rule that text like this is just flavour to help visualise the somatic component, but how would one differentiate? For example Speak with Dead specifically requires the corpse to have a mouth and not be undead, much in the same way that Burning Hands requires the casters thumbs to be touching, and their fingers spread.
But then this seems to be the only example of a spell that I can find requiring the use of two hands. How would you rule this?
Spell descriptions contain both ruling and flavour. But ultimately you interpret as you need. Personally, I say the two-hands thing is fluff text for visualising the spell. I'd allow the spell to be used one-handed, like all other spells in D&D 5e. Then again, I use magic a little differently for my characters and games. It's a useful spell but not some super powerful one and you do not gain any mechanical benefits over other spells by using this one with one hand.
Fluff text like this I always ignore. Two people should be able to cast the same spell and have it appear differently if they want. The idea of a powerful wizard holding hands out like they're waiting for a manicure is ridiculous to me so not a single character I have ever played follows that first sentence of the spell. Sometimes they use it one-handed, sometimes two-handed in a hadouken pose and sometimes it's actually channelled through the breath - my character Embers, draconic sorcerer, would trace symbols in the air (somatic component) which were then inhaled and he then exhaled the spell's effect like a breath-attack. Mechanically identical, but no visuals of holding fingers out like he's at a salon getting his nails done.
My Homebrew: Races | Subclasses | Backgrounds | Spells | Magic Items | Feats
Need help with Homebrew? Check out this FAQ/Guide thread by IamSposta
See My Youtube Videos for Tips & Tricks using D&D Beyond
Here's what the rules say:
Every part of a spell's description is rules text. The text at the bottom of the spell description is what happens after you successfully cast it.
Some DMs find certain aspects of some spells like Burning Hands unimportant and allow some of the spell's requirements to be waived. The game allows the DM to break or bend the rules in the name of fun. But officially, there's no distinction between "flavor text" and "rules text" in a spell. You're meant to read the entry as a whole.
That's what I've always thought; it's just interesting that Burning Hands is the only spell that specifically requires not only having two hands to cast, but also not holding anything in either in order to make a specific gesture.
I'd probably rule it as it's written, unless there was a creative way around it.
Truth be told, I'd say the answer depends on the situation. Say the characters cut off one hand of a wizard specifically because they've seen the wizard cast Burning Hands and want to stop him from doing so. Same goes for the talk with dead; the enemy has killed his own minion because he was a fool, then rips off his lower jaw so the minion can't blab about his master's evil plans.
Unless it specifically comes up, I don't really bother when my players cast spells. One of my players is a Tiefling Rogue. She is a swashbuckler and therefore uses both hands to wield weapons. Whenever she is attacked and wants to use hellish rebuke, I don't really bother with the technicality that both her hands are full. I mean, she could technically unequip her off hand weapon every turn and then re-equip it again in her next turn (for her free item interaction/draw weapon with the same action used to attack once per turn) but that really slows the game down and doesn't add to the fun of it.
Same goes for components; they only really come up when something actively shuts things down. Your hands are tied? Well, your spell has a somatic component so too bad. You've been robbed of your spell focus and have not been able to replace it yet? Better hope you can actually provide the component specified in the spell description then
Subclass: Dwarven Defender - Dragonborn Paragon
Feats: Artificer Apprentice
Monsters: Sheep - Spellbreaker Warforged Titan
Magic Items: Whipier - Ring of Secret Storage - Collar of the Guardian
Monster template: Skeletal Creature
I suppose it really is situational - I like your examples of making it make sense to the narrative; such as cutting off the hands of a spell caster to prevent them casting spells.
As a DM, I generally go into the minutiae of spell casting as far as the player wants to. I've had a wizard in the group that never tracked components or cared, and that was fine (unless it was a consumable component with a cost, as per the rules). By the same token, I've had a player that loved to track what was in her component pouch, and I provided ample opportunities for her to find obscure bits of moss, spider webs and bat dung, because that was a major aspect she enjoyed about her character, and it helped her connect.
In this instance, if the player cared about the thumbs touching, then I'd weave it in. If they didn't, I wouldn't enforce it.
For what it's worth, when I read Burning Hands's description of the somatic component, I imagine it with the wrists cocked and the palms facing out - something more like a cross between the hadouken and the Wu Tang Clan hand symbol. Which is certainly more appropriate to the spell, I think!
"We're the perfect combination of expendable and unkillable!"
Personally I believe the spell description sections contain three things, two of them optional: 1) mandatory sentences describing the mechanical operation of the spell, its targets, conditions requirements and effects. 2) some spells include a summary or description of the purpose of the spell overall, useful information (consider the first sentence of Aid which serves no mechanical purpose). 3) some spells include flavour text about how the spell looks or how the casting of it appears. These flavors need not be binding where they don't override the components of the spell or the mechanics of its casting. So the two hands of burning hands, to me, is clearly not a binding rule, but more a description of the way it looks when the quintessential wizard casts it. If you provide the components (Verbal and Somatic) then you can achieve the burning hands fire damage cone effect however you like. Thematically you want your fire to be blue? No problem. Another example, the first sentence of Summon Greater Demon "you utter foul words" need not apply exactly (you could utter whatever you like within reason), while the text further down about a circle of blood are not really optional as they affect the mechanics.