This topic came up in my group. If you were to cut off a wizards hands, would they be able to cast spells that require somatic components? The argument was made that, referencing the Doctor Strange movie, even if you lose a hand you can still cast spells (like Hamir in Doctor Strange). I like the idea as far as flavor, but it got me thinking, would that be possible in D&D, considering the rules on somatic spell casting?

The description of Somatic components in the PHB doesn't really indicate what sort of gestures are required

Somatic (S)

Spellcasting gestures might include a forceful gesticulation or an intricate set of gestures. If a spell requires a somatic component, the caster must have free use of at least one hand to perform these gestures.

I'd see no problem with a wizard who lacked hands or digits being able to cast spells without any sort of liability

Given that there aren't actually any rules for losing limbs, I'd say it's entirely up to the DM.   That said, my expectation would generally be no as that seems most in line with the descriptions given.

My general attitude is that the somatic component of spells isn't universal... as in, not all spellcasters have the exact same motion to their hands for the same spells. But each spellcaster has their own unique somatic motions... so a wizard without hands might have figured out how to perform somatic motions without the use of fingers, but a wizard who had all their fingers the whole time wouldn't be able to perform the exact same motions if their hands were chopped off... perhaps over time they could relearn to compensate for their injury, but if you're trying to disable a villain wizard I think that would work.

Somatic component to spells isn't limited to hands. Even if you look at just the definition "relating to the body, especially as distinct from the mind". I'n my games it's up to the caster if they want to make a certain gesture to go with their spell. I've had players say they do a drop kick, or a hula motion with their hips, and all sorts of other stuff.

To Transmorpher's point though if someone had been saying they make a peace sign as they cast calm emotion, then got their fingers chopped off, I'd think there would be repercussions for that also.

What would be more troubling is can there be mute wizards? What do you do for spells with a verbal component if one can't make sounds?

I'd be surprised if many DMs would say a spellcaster couldn't adapt to a maiming or amputation.  If the caster had been a caster with all limbs and digits and was thus maimed ... RAW such injuries are only, as far as I know, discussed in the DMG "workshop (optional rules)" chapter where lingering injuries are discussed.  For lost arms and hands it only reads "you can no longer hold anything with two hands, and you can hold only a single object a time.  Magic such as the regenerate spell can restore the lost appendage" no affect on spellcasting is mentioned.  So there are no rules.  If a DM thought somatic components absolutely required "handwavium" I suppose they could penalize the PC, but that's dicey when you're stripping class features like that so the DM better have a good game, literally, to back that consequence off with a possible path to adaptation or restoration.

But keep in mind somatic does not mean hand jiving.  The word literally means "having to do with the body."  There's actual a esoteric form of mental health engagement called somatic therapy where a lot of the evaluation looks at how the subject carries their body, it's not palm reading.  In other words "somatic" just means the body is somehow engaged in the casting.  Sure it could be handwavium, but it could also be raised eyebrows, a muscular torso flex, a tiny jump, shimmying, flatulence, etc....  (IIRC some spells do specifiy the somatic component, but there's no reason I could see a DM preventing a PC from developing a more idiosyncratic somatic vocabulary, in fact I'd personally likely reward inspiration for creative/entertaining ideas.

Midnight, sorry I couldn't get the quote function to work right for just a section of what you said, but "I'd be surprised if many DMs would say a spellcaster couldn't adapt to a maiming or amputation.  If the caster had been a caster with all limbs and digits and was thus maimed" Is why I brought up the verbal component. There are mentions of being able to stop a caster by gagging them. So with this reasoning, breaking a casters fingers would stop them also, (or shaving their eyebrows) provided they had been doing that specific hand jive through out the campaign to cast.

I do like the idea of a player coming up with " idiosyncratic somatic vocabulary" and would reward them too for a creative work around.

As a "RAW" you need a free hand, so using the arm missing a hand would not work, RAW. So, anything outside of this is purely DM territory and from there your mileage may vary, as they say. Since this is the DMs forum, here's my take on how I would run it.

I'd favour it much the same as TransmorpherDDS in that the caster may find a new way to provide the somatic component, over time. It might be the alternative is more complicated gesturing or using another limb like a tail if they have one. This can lead to character aspects that are more memorable and flavourful - like a shorter range but permanent Mage Hand which they could use. 

There is the balance issue to consider - what is the purpose of the spell components mechanically speaking? A material component requirement makes it easier to prevent the caster using those spells - just take away the material component from them (or the focus/pouch/etc). The purpose of a somatic component is so you can see the casting and the purpose of the verbal component is so you can hear the casting. The use of the components in this way presents situations where some types of spells are more favourable for certain situations. A spell like Catapult having only an S component makes it great for Stealth since casting it won't break your stealth allowing you to move objects for distraction or to get the drop on an enemy before they know you're there. A spell like Misty Step is great if you're tied up because it only requires a V component, and you then escape your restraints by teleporting out of them. Binding or removing hands disarms the caster of S component spells and a gag or removing the tongue disarms them of V component spells. 

So when coming up with alternatives to these the alternative should still serve the same purpose: grant an opportunity for being detected in certain situations and provide opportunity of being disarmed of providing that component to restrict casting.

If a character has no arms or tail or similar and the idea of casting with feet seems a little too whimsical, consider then that the caster can replace S components with a "Light" component - as they cast a symbol made of magical light appears to clearly provide the visual detection, and have it they must trace the symbol with their eyes so blinding the caster will prevent them making the light and unable to cast the spell. You can also just consider swapping V for S for mute characters : instead of words they must click their fingers so if their hands are bound properly they'll be unable to cast those - or just keep it a V component but instead of words it's a deep hollow growl or haunting groan that requires their mouths to be free and clear to produce. Or maybe they have a tattoo of a musical note or instrument and if not muffled by clothing/bindings can produce sounds/music of clearly magical nature (or a mouth tattoo that can speak the arcane words for you). 

As long the detection/disarming aspects are maintained and something the enemy could easily identify as being such for magic casting then you have no balance issues. 

Quote from BTI_Brian >>

What would be more troubling is can there be mute wizards? What do you do for spells with a verbal component if one can't make sounds?

There's an effectively mute warlock in one of my campaigns. The DM uses a blood hunter-like mechanic called Word Made Flesh to allow her to sub for verbal components on spells

My suggestion would be to give them a spell casting trait like the artificers which gives all spells a material component. If a spell has somatic and material components the same hand can be used for both, however if it has somatic and not material that focus needs to be put away to cast it (https://dnd.wizards.com/articles/sage-advice/rules-spellcasting).  If you give all spells a material component then they can always just wield the focus  with one hand to cast spells and if they have a ruby of the war mage or war caster that focus can also be a weapon; or if they are a divine spell caster it can be a shield. 

Quote from BTI_Brian >>

Midnight, sorry I couldn't get the quote function to work right for just a section of what you said, but "I'd be surprised if many DMs would say a spellcaster couldn't adapt to a maiming or amputation.  If the caster had been a caster with all limbs and digits and was thus maimed" Is why I brought up the verbal component. There are mentions of being able to stop a caster by gagging them. So with this reasoning, breaking a casters fingers would stop them also, (or shaving their eyebrows) provided they had been doing that specific hand jive through out the campaign to cast.

I do like the idea of a player coming up with " idiosyncratic somatic vocabulary" and would reward them too for a creative work around.

Right, I think we're actually more in agreement if I clarify something.  When I said "I'd be surprised if many DMs would say a spellcaster couldn't adapt to a maiming or amputation" I mean adaptation in the long term, not an on the fly compensation that could circumvent the shock/horror of a broken hand or outright dismemberment.  One party I DM'd always bound, gagged and blindfolded with a party member maintaining positive contact whenever possible any spellcaster they captured.  They never went the break their hands route though.  

So I think if a character suffered a dramatic lingering injury a la Chapter 9 DMG, I'd say sure in that moment capacity to somatic cast ain't there (might allow for some sort of arcana roll with spell level dependent DC to figure stuff out on the fly, but probably put a level cap on that based on INT or proficiency bonus, just thinking out loud in these parenthesis).  But the PC should be able to school themselves to adapt in a not excessive amount of time.  If we're sort of Dr. Strange wrecked hands drama-going the DM again better have a good game to compensate the feature strip.

Quote from MidnightPlat >>

Quote from BTI_Brian >>

Midnight, sorry I couldn't get the quote function to work right for just a section of what you said, but "I'd be surprised if many DMs would say a spellcaster couldn't adapt to a maiming or amputation.  If the caster had been a caster with all limbs and digits and was thus maimed" Is why I brought up the verbal component. There are mentions of being able to stop a caster by gagging them. So with this reasoning, breaking a casters fingers would stop them also, (or shaving their eyebrows) provided they had been doing that specific hand jive through out the campaign to cast.

I do like the idea of a player coming up with " idiosyncratic somatic vocabulary" and would reward them too for a creative work around.

 

Right, I think we're actually more in agreement if I clarify something.  When I said "I'd be surprised if many DMs would say a spellcaster couldn't adapt to a maiming or amputation" I mean adaptation in the long term, not an on the fly compensation that could circumvent the shock/horror of a broken hand or outright dismemberment.  One party I DM'd always bound, gagged and blindfolded with a party member maintaining positive contact whenever possible any spellcaster they captured.  They never went the break their hands route though.  

So I think if a character suffered a dramatic lingering injury a la Chapter 9 DMG, I'd say sure in that moment capacity to somatic cast ain't there (might allow for some sort of arcana roll with spell level dependent DC to figure stuff out on the fly, but probably put a level cap on that based on INT or proficiency bonus, just thinking out loud in these parenthesis).  But the PC should be able to school themselves to adapt in a not excessive amount of time.  If we're sort of Dr. Strange wrecked hands drama-going the DM again better have a good game to compensate the feature strip.

 For sure. Yeah, I think we're both on the same page. It would be an interesting scenario. I'm not *exactly sure how I'd handle it if it came up in a game. It would really depend on the game and the players.

I'd say use dr.strange (movie) rules, Like in the immediate aftermath no, but with practice you can overcome,

as for the reason handed or as an commenter suggested voiced character in the case of being mute is a that you the laws of magic demand you put in the proper amount of effort, magic's not gonna make you go without, but you gotta do your job to the best of your ability, you can't just not give the spell what it wants cause temporarily you're tied up or you don't want to.

I recall a Drow mage that was chained up removing his boots in order to uses his toes for the somatic component of a spell to help him escape.  Mind you it was in a novel and they take liberties that aren’t backed up by the rules as written and it was in the pre-spell plague era.

Spells with Somatic components require use of one free hand. If that hand has been mangled badly - to the point that the character could not wield a weapon in it - then that's a good guage to judge that it can't be used for somatic components. If you're down to one finger and a thumb then it probably isn't usable.

I agree with Sanvael.  If you can't wield a weapon, you should not be able to use somatic components. 

That said, I can easily see a feat giving someone the ability to cast spells while missing both hands.  Call it interpretive dance. 

I guess i depend on a few things. First of all do you go just by what the rules are and add no logic from the world to that? In the rules it say you need one hand available for somatic components so by that if a spellcaster where to loose both their hands they would be out of luck. Now from most descriptions of spllcasting it is finger and hand motions so by that and according to most novels that is actually  a weakness of spellcasters, if you break their fingers it will severely limit their ability to cast spells. I know Somatic means of the body but in D&D hand and finger movements are generally what is being described. I generally go with this, most somatic gestures are done with hands and fingers and if a spellcaster loose their hands they loose their ability to use Somatic components, this is why in my games most Spellcasters are terrified of hurting their hands. Much abuse of prisones also happens when Spellcasters are taken captive as one sure way to make sure they will not use, most, magic is to break their fingers, remove their hands or bind the fingers tightly together, all of which is painful, add a gag and you have a Spellcaster incapable of doing anything.

Now that being said a Spellcaster with one hand can still cast, and missing fingers can be compensated for, after all nto all creatures in D&D have the same number of fingers so several set of gestures that will get you into contact witht hhe Weave would exist for each spell.

Also there are creatures who do not have hands that cast spells, Beholder mages, Nagas and so on who seam to use body movements as the Somatic components, one novel have a Kraken use his arms for Somatic components and another have a giant spider creature use her legs. I would say that it would be possible for a Spellcaster to learn ways to cast magic that do not use their hands, but it would involve re learning their spells so a captured spellcaster who have their hands taken out of the equation are pretty much helpless. But that is off course only how I see it based on novels and descriptions of magic cast, it is not a hard and fast rule.

It was in the first book of War of te Spider Queen and Pharaun where said to have unusually log toes, and he spent hours trying to move them into a simple somatic gesture to create a simple spell. I would allow this in game. Basically what the fluff say is that there are some movements that when combines with a connection to th Weave will play it's strads and prrovide the right resonance to get a spesific result, if you have desterous enough toes to do the same motions as you would wit your fingers there is no reason why it should not work.

Quote from Sanvael >>

Spells with Somatic components require use of one free hand. If that hand has been mangled badly - to the point that the character could not wield a weapon in it - then that's a good guage to judge that it can't be used for somatic components. If you're down to one finger and a thumb then it probably isn't usable.

Quote from Hagazussa82 >>

It was in the first book of War of te Spider Queen and Pharaun where said to have unusually log toes, and he spent hours trying to move them into a simple somatic gesture to create a simple spell. I would allow this in game. Basically what the fluff say is that there are some movements that when combines with a connection to th Weave will play it's strads and prrovide the right resonance to get a spesific result, if you have desterous enough toes to do the same motions as you would wit your fingers there is no reason why it should not work.

Yes, the RAW on spell casting says somatic requires the "free use of at least one hand".  But mangled hands aren't RAW so I'd actually say introducing lingering injuries without creating accomodations within spellcasting is short sighted (especially with the trend in TTRPG inclusive practices to better represent and accommodate these sort of situations).  Lingering injuries are an option presented in the DMG, and the DMG doesn't really specify or provide any rules about being magically disabled on account of lingering injuries.  I see this as a conflict between RAW failing to recognize the full and more accurate meanings of the words they employ in their so-called "natural language" expression and challenges presented in the DM's workshop which allows for solutions to said challenges by recognizing what words actually means.

Regardless, I think everyone seems to see it fit to impose some sort of sanction on a maimed spellcaster until they can find a lesser restoration? greater restoration? actually regenerate seems to be the one that does the trick here if we're adhering to strict RAW, or high functioning prosthesis.  Maybe it's "nope, your spellless till you get some serious and possibly resource draining help".  I prefer to reward ingenuity and engagement with spell descriptions.

Let's recognize that these aren't always all that specific, many spells specify "touching" which can be easily done without the use of a hand if pressed or the spell caster can ask to be touched so we don't go into frotterage space if that's on someone's safety form.  Fireball talks about the spellcaster needing to point, there's many ways to index besides the finger, gesturally speaking.  Hell, a player can invoke "phantom limb syndrome" and describe coming into touch with the sympathetic movements of the rest of their body in conjunction with the CNS embodied memory of the hand movements.  Mechanically I'd probably call for Arcana checks to see how well the spellcaster is schooled in the biomechanics of their casting practices (much as some athletes are more studied in the physics of their physiques while others "just do it"), again setting DCs probably related to spell levels and have a level cap for "on the fly" adaptations as opposed to taking a period of studied down time to "rewire" their somatics.  

Let's also always look at the start of chapter nine when we start discussing things addressed in chapter 9

Before you add a new rule to your campaign, ask yourself two questions:

• Will the rule improve the game?
• Will my players like it?

If you’re confident that the answer to both questions is yes, then you have nothing to lose by giving it a try. Urge your players to provide feedback. If the rule or game element isn’t functioning as intended or isn’t adding much to your game, you can refine it or ditch it. No matter what a rule’s source, a rule serves you, not the other way around.

I don't see spell stripping from maiming improving my game.  Maybe in a grittier game where we want players to not just linger but dwell on their injuries, hard stops to spell casting because of injuries to their default somatic mechanisms are in order.  That sort of hard no isn't the game any of my present players signed up for so hard no is going to fail criteria two.  Is the more adaptive S component I'm offering a means to greater exploration of the game and creativity?  I think it meets the test on both counts.  

DMing is a mix of challenging and facilitating.  Maiming or lingering injury impositions I think needs to strike the right balance and the sort of strict "RAW no" to something the RAW doesn't fully take account of in their writing just seems to err to hard on the challenge side of things.  

Let's also think about precedent setting.  If the game now knows in its universe of ruling facts that a spell caster can be disspelled so to speak via breaking fingers or bleaker torturous acts, do we really want the game now to open up to finger breaking and spike driving tactics (and needing a called shot system)?  So, let these injuries hinder and complicate, but let's not make them full proof anti magic mechanisms.

Quote from MidnightPlat >>

Quote from Sanvael >>

Spells with Somatic components require use of one free hand. If that hand has been mangled badly - to the point that the character could not wield a weapon in it - then that's a good guage to judge that it can't be used for somatic components. If you're down to one finger and a thumb then it probably isn't usable.

 

Quote from Hagazussa82 >>

It was in the first book of War of te Spider Queen and Pharaun where said to have unusually log toes, and he spent hours trying to move them into a simple somatic gesture to create a simple spell. I would allow this in game. Basically what the fluff say is that there are some movements that when combines with a connection to th Weave will play it's strads and prrovide the right resonance to get a spesific result, if you have desterous enough toes to do the same motions as you would wit your fingers there is no reason why it should not work.

 

Yes, the RAW on spell casting says somatic requires the "free use of at least one hand".  But mangled hands aren't RAW so I'd actually say introducing lingering injuries without creating accomodations within spellcasting is short sighted (especially with the trend in TTRPG inclusive practices to better represent and accommodate these sort of situations).  Lingering injuries are an option presented in the DMG, and the DMG doesn't really specify or provide any rules about being magically disabled on account of lingering injuries.  I see this as a conflict between RAW failing to recognize the full and more accurate meanings of the words they employ in their so-called "natural language" expression and challenges presented in the DM's workshop which allows for solutions to said challenges by recognizing what words actually means.

 

 No, mangled hands are not RAW. But the OP specifically refers to cutting off a spellcaster's hands, so it's sensible to assume that in whatever game they are playing there is the possibility of losing a hand, or fingers.

If you have a Lingering Injury that means you cannot use your hand, then that does then impact RAW rulings on somatic components, in exactly the same way that you need two hands to wield a greataxe or shoot a longbow.

The rules are explicit and clear that you need a free hand to perform the somatic components of a spell. The guidance in the DMG says "Spellcasting gestures might include a forceful gesticulation or an intricate set of gestures."  So if the spellcaster has no free hands, or no hands, or cannot move their hands because they are tied, or they are all bound up in bandages, or they lack key components like bones, or fingers, then they cannot do the somatic components of the spell. Reasonable interpretation allows for no other conclusion.

If you allow a spellcaster to cast Somatic component spells without using hands, then you should apply the same logic to shooting a longbow and allow the bowman to use his elbows or some such, which is obviously daft.