Agree with Tonio. It’s my understanding that you only need to have a hand free to access your pouch, but nothing says you must hold it (i.e. draw it), or the individual components within it. So for Shillelagh, from empty hands, you have: free interaction to draw club, bonus action to cast spell (one hand holding club, one free to access pouch). If individual components must be drawn, then it would require free interaction to draw club, [Tooltip Not Found] to draw and handle shamrock and mistletoe from pouch (or draw pouch to hold it?), bonus action to cast spell. That seems too much, not a preferred reading if it’s not required.
Where does it say you need to handle the costly component even when using a focus or pouch? If you're not using a pouch or focus, then yes, you need to handle the crushed black pearl. But if you're using a focus or pouch, you handle that instead of the actual material component. But, if the actual component is costly, you need to have it (not "handle" it). It means you can't simply go "oh, I don't need to buy 500gp worth of crushed black pearl, I'm using my focus". You do need to actually have the 500gp worth of crushed black pearl.
And yes, most people find challenging games fun, but there's a difference between "actually following the rules is a challenge" and "the game presents challenges to confront". "Defeating a group of enemies that are closely matched to the party" is a fun challenge; "figuring out how to comply with convoluted spellcasting and action economy rules in order to actually act on my turn" is... well, it can be fun, if that's the focus of the game... but that's not the focus of this game.
I can't make it any more clear than that. A named non-consumable component with a cost attached to it cannot be replaced by an Arcane Focus, period. It must be handled as part of the casting of the spell.
And Mr Crawford agrees. I don't know if this will embed, but this was from a tweet of his June 25, 2016:
A spellcasting focus is no help in any way when you must use costly material components. #DnD
I can't make it any more clear than that. A named non-consumable component with a cost attached to it cannot be replaced by an Arcane Focus, period. It must be handled as part of the casting of the spell.
And Mr Crawford agrees. I don't know if this will embed, but this was from a tweet of his June 25, 2016:
A spellcasting focus is no help in any way when you must use costly material components. #DnD
I know how you could make it more clear.... quote where it says that a costly component must be handled when using a spell focus, please? Because that isn't what the Material Component section says, it just says you have to "have" the costly component while you "hold" the focus.
Material (M)
Casting some spells requires particular objects, specified in parentheses in the component entry. A character can use a component pouch or a spellcasting focus (found in chapter 5, “Equipment”) in place of the components specified for a spell. But if a cost is indicated for a component,a character must have that specific component before he or she can cast the spell.
If a spell states that a material component is consumed by the spell, the caster must provide this component for each casting of the spell.
A spellcaster must have a hand free to access a spell's material components —or to hold a spellcasting focus — but it can be the same hand that he or she uses to perform somatic components.
It isn't RAW, because that's twitter. That's RAT. RAW, is the section I quoted in the PHB.... unless you can find more PHB, DMG, or MM language that contradicts or refines?
The fact that JC gets all self righteous and condescending in that thread, while grossly misquoting the PHB language on 203, pretty much perfectly encapsulates my feelings about using JC as a rules authority. The dude just is not a careful reader, meaning either that (A) he has the True Rules locked in his brain, but despite being the lead of the design team, those rules didn't or couldn't get written down or properly edited the way he always intended but he hasn't noticed or seen fit to issue errata... or (B) he wasn't actually as closely involved in the drafting of individual rules as people commonly assume, it was a team effort that he merely supervised, and he has no particular insight into the function of any specific rule beyond that of anyone else reading the printed language in the PHB. I'm team B, but even if you're team A, that doesn't make his insights RAW, just RAI.
It isn't RAW, because that's twitter. That's RAT. RAW, is the section I quoted in the PHB.... unless you can find more PHB, DMG, or MM language that contradicts or refines?
The fact that JC gets all self righteous and condescending in that thread, while groslly misquoting the PHB language on 203, pretty much perfectly encapsulates my feelings about using JC as a rules authority. The dude just is not a careful reader, meaning either that (A) he has the True Rules locked in his brain, but despite being the lead of the design team, those rules didn't or couldn't get written down or properly edited the way he always intended... or (B) he wasn't actually as closely involved in the drafting of individual rules as people commonly assume, it was a team effort that he merely supervised, and he has no particular insight into the function of any specific rule beyond that of anyone else reading the printed language in the PHB. I'm team B, but even if you're team A, that doesn't make his insights RAW, just RAI.
I can't even begin to debate such stuff. His answers are correct. You can scream all you like how this is not RAW. You would be incorrect.
It isn't RAW, because that's twitter. That's RAT. RAW, is the section I quoted in the PHB.... unless you can find more PHB, DMG, or MM language that contradicts or refines?
The fact that JC gets all self righteous and condescending in that thread, while groslly misquoting the PHB language on 203, pretty much perfectly encapsulates my feelings about using JC as a rules authority. The dude just is not a careful reader, meaning either that (A) he has the True Rules locked in his brain, but despite being the lead of the design team, those rules didn't or couldn't get written down or properly edited the way he always intended... or (B) he wasn't actually as closely involved in the drafting of individual rules as people commonly assume, it was a team effort that he merely supervised, and he has no particular insight into the function of any specific rule beyond that of anyone else reading the printed language in the PHB. I'm team B, but even if you're team A, that doesn't make his insights RAW, just RAI.
I can't even begin to debate such stuff. His answers are correct. You can scream all you like how this is not RAW. You would be incorrect.
While I don't hold the negative opinion many do of Jeremy Crawford (or his tweets regarding the rules), they are explicitly not "RAW", with the exception of those that make it into SAC, and in this particular case, I do believe he's wrong, because: a) he's misquoting or misrepresenting the actual text of the book, and b) his answer could lead to impossible situations, like being unable to cast Soul Cage unless you use your Action to fetch the silver cage from backpack or wherever, hoping some humanoid dies before your next turn comes up.
Consider, also, Leomund's Secret Chest, whose description specifically calls out the need to actually touch both costly material components. If this were the default requirement, it would not need calling out in this particular spell.
Reaction spells having Material Components is a pretty slam dunk argument that "accessing" them isn't intended to be a free object interaction (or a [Tooltip Not Found] action), because free object interactions only happen on your own turn. Yup.
Reaction spells having Material Components is a pretty slam dunk argument that "accessing" them isn't intended to be a free object interaction (or a Use an Object action), because free object interactions only happen on your own turn. Yup.
That is pretty telling. "Got shoved off a cliff while not holding my focus or a feather? Guess I'll die."
It isn't RAW, because that's twitter. That's RAT. RAW, is the section I quoted in the PHB.... unless you can find more PHB, DMG, or MM language that contradicts or refines?
The fact that JC gets all self righteous and condescending in that thread, while groslly misquoting the PHB language on 203, pretty much perfectly encapsulates my feelings about using JC as a rules authority. The dude just is not a careful reader, meaning either that (A) he has the True Rules locked in his brain, but despite being the lead of the design team, those rules didn't or couldn't get written down or properly edited the way he always intended... or (B) he wasn't actually as closely involved in the drafting of individual rules as people commonly assume, it was a team effort that he merely supervised, and he has no particular insight into the function of any specific rule beyond that of anyone else reading the printed language in the PHB. I'm team B, but even if you're team A, that doesn't make his insights RAW, just RAI.
I can't even begin to debate such stuff. His answers are correct. You can scream all you like how this is not RAW. You would be incorrect.
While I don't hold the negative opinion many do of Jeremy Crawford (or his tweets regarding the rules), they are explicitly not "RAW", with the exception of those that make it into SAC, and in this particular case, I do believe he's wrong, because: a) he's misquoting or misrepresenting the actual text of the book, and b) his answer could lead to impossible situations, like being unable to cast Soul Cage unless you use your Action to fetch the silver cage from backpack or wherever, hoping some humanoid dies before your next turn comes up.
Consider, also, Leomund's Secret Chest, whose description specifically calls out the need to actually touch both costly material components. If this were the default requirement, it would not need calling out in this particular spell.
And yes, your description of Soul Cage is correct. You DO have to have to the silver cage in your hand, expecting some creature to die on that turn. It is an extremely powerful spell, and one that is used as described. It is not an impossible situation, merely inconvenient. You have to plan to use the spell. It is not spur of the moment.
WRT Leomund's, the best way to describe it is you touch both simultaneously, if you want to go that route.
Lol, okay Vince. There are only three Reaction spells which require an M component (Feather Fall, Gift of Gab, and Soul Cage), so it's not outside the realm of possibility that they were poorly edited in a way that contradicts RAI, or just plain suck unless you anticipate them and pre-draw their component the round before. But considering how "classic" and ubiquitous Feather Fall is, I find that unlikely. If you needed to pre-draw your feather on your turn to protect against (instantly, according to Xanathar's) plummeting to your death on the enemy's turn, we'd probably have heard about it by now.
Agree with Tonio. It’s my understanding that you only need to have a hand free to access your pouch, but nothing says you must hold it (i.e. draw it), or the individual components within it. So for Shillelagh, from empty hands, you have: free interaction to draw club, bonus action to cast spell (one hand holding club, one free to access pouch). If individual components must be drawn, then it would require free interaction to draw club, [Tooltip Not Found] to draw and handle shamrock and mistletoe from pouch (or draw pouch to hold it?), bonus action to cast spell. That seems too much, not a preferred reading if it’s not required.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
I can't make it any more clear than that. A named non-consumable component with a cost attached to it cannot be replaced by an Arcane Focus, period. It must be handled as part of the casting of the spell.
And Mr Crawford agrees. I don't know if this will embed, but this was from a tweet of his June 25, 2016:
I know how you could make it more clear.... quote where it says that a costly component must be handled when using a spell focus, please? Because that isn't what the Material Component section says, it just says you have to "have" the costly component while you "hold" the focus.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
If you need more proof, the entire tweet chain can be found buried in this link, on page 2, halfway down.
The words are explicit. There is zero ambiguity. You can choose to ignore it, but it is RAW.
https://www.sageadvice.eu/2016/07/23/do-you-have-to-manipulate-cost-components-if-you-have-a-focus/
It isn't RAW, because that's twitter. That's RAT. RAW, is the section I quoted in the PHB.... unless you can find more PHB, DMG, or MM language that contradicts or refines?
The fact that JC gets all self righteous and condescending in that thread, while grossly misquoting the PHB language on 203, pretty much perfectly encapsulates my feelings about using JC as a rules authority. The dude just is not a careful reader, meaning either that (A) he has the True Rules locked in his brain, but despite being the lead of the design team, those rules didn't or couldn't get written down or properly edited the way he always intended but he hasn't noticed or seen fit to issue errata... or (B) he wasn't actually as closely involved in the drafting of individual rules as people commonly assume, it was a team effort that he merely supervised, and he has no particular insight into the function of any specific rule beyond that of anyone else reading the printed language in the PHB. I'm team B, but even if you're team A, that doesn't make his insights RAW, just RAI.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
I can't even begin to debate such stuff. His answers are correct. You can scream all you like how this is not RAW. You would be incorrect.
While I don't hold the negative opinion many do of Jeremy Crawford (or his tweets regarding the rules), they are explicitly not "RAW", with the exception of those that make it into SAC, and in this particular case, I do believe he's wrong, because: a) he's misquoting or misrepresenting the actual text of the book, and b) his answer could lead to impossible situations, like being unable to cast Soul Cage unless you use your Action to fetch the silver cage from backpack or wherever, hoping some humanoid dies before your next turn comes up.
Consider, also, Leomund's Secret Chest, whose description specifically calls out the need to actually touch both costly material components. If this were the default requirement, it would not need calling out in this particular spell.
Reaction spells having Material Components is a pretty slam dunk argument that "accessing" them isn't intended to be a free object interaction (or a [Tooltip Not Found] action), because free object interactions only happen on your own turn. Yup.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
That is pretty telling. "Got shoved off a cliff while not holding my focus or a feather? Guess I'll die."
And yes, your description of Soul Cage is correct. You DO have to have to the silver cage in your hand, expecting some creature to die on that turn. It is an extremely powerful spell, and one that is used as described. It is not an impossible situation, merely inconvenient. You have to plan to use the spell. It is not spur of the moment.
WRT Leomund's, the best way to describe it is you touch both simultaneously, if you want to go that route.
Lol, okay Vince. There are only three Reaction spells which require an M component (Feather Fall, Gift of Gab, and Soul Cage), so it's not outside the realm of possibility that they were poorly edited in a way that contradicts RAI, or just plain suck unless you anticipate them and pre-draw their component the round before. But considering how "classic" and ubiquitous Feather Fall is, I find that unlikely. If you needed to pre-draw your feather on your turn to protect against (instantly, according to Xanathar's) plummeting to your death on the enemy's turn, we'd probably have heard about it by now.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.