Saying you need a free hand to use a focus that you explicitly do not have to hold is the kind of logic that makes me want to throw out spell component rules altogether.
None of those foci say you no longer need a free hand. Sure, you can wear them, instead of hold them. That's neat and all. But, they don't eliminate the hand requirement.
Makes sense to think it would, totally. You got questions like... well what even is the hand doing then? And that's a great question the rules don't answer for you. It needs be free, but doesn't need hold the foci because the foci is worn. Who knows! You can reach and grab it worn around your neck briefly? You can touch the symbol on your shield with your free hand... really, who knows. Be creative and have fun with it. But you do need that hand free.
Its still an advantage to have it worn vs held though, btw. It is far trickier to be pulling out a wand and trying to resheathe it all the time between spell casts. If you kept trying to switch between a sword and wand oh my, that's going to be too many item interactions to manage very well. It is someone what easier, though still annoying, to switch from a sword to nothing in hand. So, it isn't like you're getting nothing out of it being wearable.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
To be clear again, though, there is no written "hand requirement". There is requirement to have a hand to hold a focus, and ordinarily one must hold a focus to use a focus, but these specific focuses state that they may instead be used when they are worn. "It takes a hand to hold" doesn't quite get us to "it takes a hand to use," when these focuses explicitly do not need to be held.
I do agree that there is still a marginal advantage to worn focuses that you can stop using a hand on without needing to "drop" the focus, so I would agree that they don't become meaningless if a hand is indeed needed to access them. But I really think that the wearable focuses go even further, and let you use them with no hands if they're properly worn.
To be clear again, though, there is no written "hand requirement". There is requirement to have a hand to hold a focus, and ordinarily one must hold a focus to use a focus, but these specific focuses state that they may instead be used when they are worn. "It takes a hand to hold" doesn't quite get us to "it takes a hand to use," when these focuses explicitly do not need to be held.
I do agree that there is still a marginal advantage to worn focuses that you can stop using a hand on without needing to "drop" the focus, so I would agree that they don't become meaningless if a hand is indeed needed to access them. But I really think that the wearable focuses go even further, and let you use them with no hands if they're properly worn.
I would love this to be true I genuinely dislike the clumsiness of focuses and material components, I've never seen it ruled that way ever though.
A holy symbol is a representation of a god or pantheon. A cleric or paladin can use a holy symbol as a spellcasting focus, as described in the Spellcasting section. To use the symbol in this way, the caster must hold it in hand, wear it visibly, or bear it on a shield.
A holy symbol, just generally, should be in that same category though. If wearing it visibly allows them to use it as a spellcasting focus//full stop, then great. But, unfortunately, it then says: As described in the Spellcasting Section. We have 3 listed ways in which we could use it, but must still use it as described in the spellcasting section.
A character can use a component pouch or a spellcasting focus (found in “Equipment”) in place of the components specified for a spell.
and then
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.
You must have a hand free to access the components. If you're using a foci in place of components that then reads:
A spellcaster must have a hand free to access a spellcasting focus but it can be the same hand that he or she uses to perform somatic components.
IDK, I'm never diligent about it when I DM, because I sorta hate it. But I've never seen it not ruled in this way in one manner or another. I'd love to be wrong here.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
However, the worn focus problem (much easier than the implanted prosthetic organ focus problem) is not new - the PHB and the DMG have exactly 0 wearable foci in them, but Xanathar's introduced two: the dark shard amulet and the hat of wizardry. Unfortunately, Xanathar's has no rules in it granting wearable foci an exception to the held rules, and clerics and paladins don't set a useful precedent, as they're holding their shields when they do their trick. I can find no evidence whatsoever that worn foci no longer need to be held.
I guess the question is, do those magic items (and the bloodwell vial) specifying that they can be used as foci while worn override whatever general rule there is about using arcane foci.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
I thought the spellcasting focus simply satisfies the cost-free material components. A somatic component involves having a free hand available to perform the necessary gestures specific to each spell.
I think it’s two of the overarching design philosophies bumping up against each other. Saying it can be worn suggests you might not need a hand to access it. The “plain English” design philosophy. But against that, there’s the idea of powers only do exactly what they say they do. So, since none of these descriptions of worn items say “you no longer need a free hand” then that means you do need a free hand.
I fall in the second option, but I can see the first one making sense.
And beyond that, there’s defining the word “access.”
To me “access” implies an active use (touching or holding) as opposed to a more passive word like “displaying.” This also leans toward needing a free hand.
But, again, since “access” isn’t formally defined, I can see room for other interpretations.
I guess that’s what we signed up for in 5e: Rulings not rules.
I thought the spellcasting focus simply satisfies the cost-free material components. A somatic component involves having a free hand available to perform the necessary gestures specific to each spell.
Am I understanding the situation correctly?
You are correct about rules, but you seem to have misunderstood the topic of the thread a little.
The question is whether a spellcasting focus (particularly ones that specifically mention being wearable) require a hand at all when fulfilling material components.
I say, it doesn't really matter, just let the DM decide. There are only 10 spells impacted by the ruling, only 5 will be used in combat (3 are level 5 and higher), and only 1 of those are available to classes that usually have their hands full with something other than a focus and I don't think letting a druid cast whirlwind with totem necklace while their hands are full is going to break the game.
When there are no clear rules, it's totally up to the DM.
Can a shield be a focus? No? Full stop.
Yes? Then the whole shield, including the handles, is a Holy Symbol.
If you are holding a Holy Symbol, can you wave around your weapon for the Somatic component? No? Full stop. Have have a free hand.
Yes? Then you are all set.
I personally will let a Shield be a Holy Symbol and the weapon be good for the Somatic component because I like the image of someone running around bashing the bad guys, speaking a few words, pointing their weapon at someone, and having the symbol on their shield light up a little with Holy Radiance. I can't really tell if that's RAW, but it sure seems like it satisfies the RAI, which the SAC back me up on, and it very much passes the Rule of Fun to me.
When there are no clear rules, it's totally up to the DM.
Can a shield be a focus? No? Full stop.
Yes? Then the whole shield, including the handles, is a Holy Symbol.
If you are holding a Holy Symbol, can you wave around your weapon for the Somatic component? No? Full stop. Have have a free hand.
Yes? Then you are all set.
I personally will let a Shield be a Holy Symbol and the weapon be good for the Somatic component because I like the image of someone running around bashing the bad guys, speaking a few words, pointing their weapon at someone, and having the symbol on their shield light up a little with Holy Radiance. I can't really tell if that's RAW, but it sure seems like it satisfies the RAI, which the SAC back me up on, and it very much passes the Rule of Fun to me.
In my opinion, the whole shield becomes the focus, so the shield hand can be used for M and also any included S components. That's is the hand holding the focus. You can't cast an S spell without an M though. You would need an empty hand for that (or the War Caster feat).
When there are no clear rules, it's totally up to the DM.
Can a shield be a focus? No? Full stop.
Yes? Then the whole shield, including the handles, is a Holy Symbol.
If you are holding a Holy Symbol, can you wave around your weapon for the Somatic component? No? Full stop. Have have a free hand.
Yes? Then you are all set.
I personally will let a Shield be a Holy Symbol and the weapon be good for the Somatic component because I like the image of someone running around bashing the bad guys, speaking a few words, pointing their weapon at someone, and having the symbol on their shield light up a little with Holy Radiance. I can't really tell if that's RAW, but it sure seems like it satisfies the RAI, which the SAC back me up on, and it very much passes the Rule of Fun to me.
I'm very much the same way as a DM. It really comes down to how deep into the RP the party wants to get on their spellcasting.
Right now my party has a lot of players in it very new to the game who have enough to keep track of without worrying too much about VSM stuff, so a lot of it gets glossed over or merely nodded at once in a while.
If, on the other hand, someone wanted to go full Liam O'Brien with their casting and intricately describe their hand gestures, material components and how they wield the unique arcane focus that ties into their backstory, then by all means, let's get into the weeds on it.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
The problem could be easily fix with a PHB errata as follow:
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, but it can be the same hand that he or she uses to hold a spellcasting focus or component pouch.
The problem could be easily fix with a PHB errata as follow:
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, but it can be the same hand that he or she uses to hold a spellcasting focus or component pouch.
All evidence (interviews, sage advice, etc) indicates that it was not intended to work that way, so nothing needs fixed.
That said, I don't see any problem with house ruling to make spellcasting even easier than it already is. I think spellcasters should have something that makes them think almost as hard as martial characters having to decide whether to change weapon, but I understand that level of decision making isn't for everyone.
I think spellcasters should have something that makes them think almost as hard as martial characters having to decide whether to change weapon, but I understand that level of decision making isn't for everyone.
LOL. Is that often a major dilemma for martial characters? Have I stumbled into the "how to role-play a very low ability score" thread by accident?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
The problem could be easily fix with a PHB errata as follow:
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, but it can be the same hand that he or she uses to hold a spellcasting focus or component pouch.
All evidence (interviews, sage advice, etc) indicates that it was not intended to work that way, so nothing needs fixed.
That said, I don't see any problem with house ruling to make spellcasting even easier than it already is. I think spellcasters should have something that makes them think almost as hard as martial characters having to decide whether to change weapon, but I understand that level of decision making isn't for everyone.
There intentions (at least for holy symbol's emblazoned shield) seems to be that way.
Can a cleric holding a holy symbol in one hand and a mace in the other be able to cast spells? If so, what's the difference between a cleric doing so than a wizard holding a wand in one hand and a torch in the other?
I'm sure I'll get an eye roll or scoffed at but what would the opinion be if the focus is tied to the back of the spellcaster's hand? Is the energy is coming out is specific to the palm or the hand.
The problem could be easily fix with a PHB errata as follow:
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, but it can be the same hand that he or she uses to hold a spellcasting focus or component pouch.
All evidence (interviews, sage advice, etc) indicates that it was not intended to work that way, so nothing needs fixed.
That said, I don't see any problem with house ruling to make spellcasting even easier than it already is. I think spellcasters should have something that makes them think almost as hard as martial characters having to decide whether to change weapon, but I understand that level of decision making isn't for everyone.
There intentions (at least for holy symbol's emblazoned shield) seems to be that way.
Can a cleric holding a holy symbol in one hand and a mace in the other be able to cast spells? If so, what's the difference between a cleric doing so than a wizard holding a wand in one hand and a torch in the other?
Maybe you didn't write what you think you wrote. You said that somatic components can be performed with a hand occupied by a focus or component pouch. That is only true (by writing and intention) if the spell requires that focus/pouch for its casting (which is why it is written in the Material component rules).
So the answer to your questions are: yes if the spell has a costless material component; and, same applies to wizard.
And here is a quote from SAC that make it clear that the errata you suggested is opposite from intention (specifically paragraph 2):
Another example: a cleric’s holy symbol is emblazoned on her shield. She likes to wade into melee combat with a mace in one hand and a shield in the other. She uses the holy symbol as her spellcasting focus, so she needs to have the shield in hand when she casts a cleric spell that has a material component. If the spell, such as aid, also has a somatic component, she can perform that component with the shield hand and keep holding the mace in the other.
If the same cleric casts cure wounds, she needs to put the mace or the shield away, because that spell doesn’t have a material component but does have a somatic component. She’s going to need a free hand to make the spell’s gestures. If she had the War Caster feat, she could ignore this restriction.
I'm sure I'll get an eye roll or scoffed at but what would the opinion be if the focus is tied to the back of the spellcaster's hand? Is the energy is coming out is specific to the palm or the hand.
I'd say ask your DM.
My rule (whether it is RAW or not, because there is some gray area) is that if you need a hand that is either holding a focus or empty to interact with one to cast spells that need M components.
Well, actually that grey area really starts to matter once war caster is involved. You know what, forget I said anything.
None of those foci say you no longer need a free hand. Sure, you can wear them, instead of hold them. That's neat and all. But, they don't eliminate the hand requirement.
Makes sense to think it would, totally. You got questions like... well what even is the hand doing then? And that's a great question the rules don't answer for you. It needs be free, but doesn't need hold the foci because the foci is worn. Who knows! You can reach and grab it worn around your neck briefly? You can touch the symbol on your shield with your free hand... really, who knows. Be creative and have fun with it. But you do need that hand free.
Its still an advantage to have it worn vs held though, btw. It is far trickier to be pulling out a wand and trying to resheathe it all the time between spell casts. If you kept trying to switch between a sword and wand oh my, that's going to be too many item interactions to manage very well. It is someone what easier, though still annoying, to switch from a sword to nothing in hand. So, it isn't like you're getting nothing out of it being wearable.
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
To be clear again, though, there is no written "hand requirement". There is requirement to have a hand to hold a focus, and ordinarily one must hold a focus to use a focus, but these specific focuses state that they may instead be used when they are worn. "It takes a hand to hold" doesn't quite get us to "it takes a hand to use," when these focuses explicitly do not need to be held.
I do agree that there is still a marginal advantage to worn focuses that you can stop using a hand on without needing to "drop" the focus, so I would agree that they don't become meaningless if a hand is indeed needed to access them. But I really think that the wearable focuses go even further, and let you use them with no hands if they're properly worn.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
I would love this to be true I genuinely dislike the clumsiness of focuses and material components, I've never seen it ruled that way ever though.
A holy symbol, just generally, should be in that same category though. If wearing it visibly allows them to use it as a spellcasting focus//full stop, then great. But, unfortunately, it then says: As described in the Spellcasting Section. We have 3 listed ways in which we could use it, but must still use it as described in the spellcasting section.
and then
You must have a hand free to access the components. If you're using a foci in place of components that then reads:
IDK, I'm never diligent about it when I DM, because I sorta hate it. But I've never seen it not ruled in this way in one manner or another. I'd love to be wrong here.
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
I guess the question is, do those magic items (and the bloodwell vial) specifying that they can be used as foci while worn override whatever general rule there is about using arcane foci.
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
I thought the spellcasting focus simply satisfies the cost-free material components. A somatic component involves having a free hand available to perform the necessary gestures specific to each spell.
Am I understanding the situation correctly?
I think it’s two of the overarching design philosophies bumping up against each other. Saying it can be worn suggests you might not need a hand to access it. The “plain English” design philosophy.
But against that, there’s the idea of powers only do exactly what they say they do. So, since none of these descriptions of worn items say “you no longer need a free hand” then that means you do need a free hand.
I fall in the second option, but I can see the first one making sense.
And beyond that, there’s defining the word “access.”
To me “access” implies an active use (touching or holding) as opposed to a more passive word like “displaying.” This also leans toward needing a free hand.
But, again, since “access” isn’t formally defined, I can see room for other interpretations.
I guess that’s what we signed up for in 5e: Rulings not rules.
You are correct about rules, but you seem to have misunderstood the topic of the thread a little.
The question is whether a spellcasting focus (particularly ones that specifically mention being wearable) require a hand at all when fulfilling material components.
I say, it doesn't really matter, just let the DM decide. There are only 10 spells impacted by the ruling, only 5 will be used in combat (3 are level 5 and higher), and only 1 of those are available to classes that usually have their hands full with something other than a focus and I don't think letting a druid cast whirlwind with totem necklace while their hands are full is going to break the game.
Sounds like RAW, any focus specifically deemed “wearable” does not need an interaction to use. If not, the focus requires interaction.
Straightforward enough to me.
When there are no clear rules, it's totally up to the DM.
I personally will let a Shield be a Holy Symbol and the weapon be good for the Somatic component because I like the image of someone running around bashing the bad guys, speaking a few words, pointing their weapon at someone, and having the symbol on their shield light up a little with Holy Radiance. I can't really tell if that's RAW, but it sure seems like it satisfies the RAI, which the SAC back me up on, and it very much passes the Rule of Fun to me.
<Insert clever signature here>
In my opinion, the whole shield becomes the focus, so the shield hand can be used for M and also any included S components. That's is the hand holding the focus. You can't cast an S spell without an M though. You would need an empty hand for that (or the War Caster feat).
That works just perfectly for me. Thanks for pointing it out. :-)
<Insert clever signature here>
I'm very much the same way as a DM. It really comes down to how deep into the RP the party wants to get on their spellcasting.
Right now my party has a lot of players in it very new to the game who have enough to keep track of without worrying too much about VSM stuff, so a lot of it gets glossed over or merely nodded at once in a while.
If, on the other hand, someone wanted to go full Liam O'Brien with their casting and intricately describe their hand gestures, material components and how they wield the unique arcane focus that ties into their backstory, then by all means, let's get into the weeds on it.
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
The problem could be easily fix with a PHB errata as follow:
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, but it can be the same hand that he or she uses to hold a spellcasting focus or component pouch.
All evidence (interviews, sage advice, etc) indicates that it was not intended to work that way, so nothing needs fixed.
That said, I don't see any problem with house ruling to make spellcasting even easier than it already is. I think spellcasters should have something that makes them think almost as hard as martial characters having to decide whether to change weapon, but I understand that level of decision making isn't for everyone.
LOL. Is that often a major dilemma for martial characters? Have I stumbled into the "how to role-play a very low ability score" thread by accident?
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
There intentions (at least for holy symbol's emblazoned shield) seems to be that way.
Can a cleric holding a holy symbol in one hand and a mace in the other be able to cast spells? If so, what's the difference between a cleric doing so than a wizard holding a wand in one hand and a torch in the other?
I'm sure I'll get an eye roll or scoffed at but what would the opinion be if the focus is tied to the back of the spellcaster's hand? Is the energy is coming out is specific to the palm or the hand.
Maybe you didn't write what you think you wrote. You said that somatic components can be performed with a hand occupied by a focus or component pouch. That is only true (by writing and intention) if the spell requires that focus/pouch for its casting (which is why it is written in the Material component rules).
So the answer to your questions are: yes if the spell has a costless material component; and, same applies to wizard.
And here is a quote from SAC that make it clear that the errata you suggested is opposite from intention (specifically paragraph 2):
I'd say ask your DM.
My rule (whether it is RAW or not, because there is some gray area) is that if you need a hand that is either holding a focus or empty to interact with one to cast spells that need M components.
Well, actually that grey area really starts to matter once war caster is involved. You know what, forget I said anything.