Recently I've tried building paladin character for the new campaign and i was seriously thinking about War Caster feat to be able to cast all spells with weapon and shield equiped. But then i got to know about The Rules of Spellcasting article and it got me really confused. I can understand how holly symbol can be embeded to shield, i can imagine making some gestures for somatic component with shield in same hand but i really don't understand why you can use hand with shiled for Somatic if the spell has Material component but can't use it if it hasn't? I would immagine it to be easier to cast spell without Material component then one with it. Can someone please explain it to me so i could properly roleplay my character casting spells?
A spell focus can be used instead of material components. The only exception is if the material component is consumed or has a cost (gold) associated with it.
A hand holding a spell focus can also perform the somatic part of a spell if it has one, but only if it has a material also associated with it.
The exceptions being the spells which consume a material, or if the material has a specific gold cost mentioned in the spell. With these, you still need the actual material.
I agree that it feels like it should be easier to cast a spell without a material component, than with one. I can't explain why it isn't.
However, one way to roleplay it is to say that the deity your cleric/paladin follows provides the material for you when you use your holy symbol. If it doesn't have a material component, the deity can't provide anything, and so you have to make the gestures yourself.
You're right, this rule is really clunky and bad. But I think you got it right. There is no good way to roleplay that a spell without material components needs a hand free, while spells with a material component don't. I really wish they would have made it so, that a spell focus in a hand can also do the somatic components all the time.
I know this is not an answer. But I really don't like that rule and I needed to vent.
I think the key to making sense of how the rules work as written (meaning that a hand holding a spellcasting focus can be used for somatic components if there are material components being replaced by that spellcasting focus, but not otherwise) is to imagine them not as unrelated things - a specific gesture or set of gestures and also a thing you hold onto - but as being one and the same in the case of spells with M and S components - a gesture or set of gestures made with the component in question.
So instead of weird twisty hand motions and then also a bit of fur and a glass rod are involved somehow, a lightning bolt spell has somatic components of rubbing a bit of fur against a glass rod you hold and aim at your target (which can be replaced by making particular gestures with a wand, or other focus, in hand) - but spells that don't have both material and somatic components require gestures that aren't possible while that hand is still holding something, even if it is a wand.
A spell focus can be used instead of material components. The only exception is if the material component is consumed or has a cost (gold) associated with it.
I think you're incorrect about this line. *Removed because of later post, read VillainTheory's reply.
There was a super long discussion about no gold cost spells that are consumed here: https://www.dndbeyond.com/forums/dungeons-dragons-discussion/rules-game-mechanics/9699-protection-from-good-and-evil-material-component TL;DR: the discussion concludes these mostly edge cases and probably forgotten about in spells creation. Protection from Good and Evil is a great example: Paladins should not be expected need a "component pouch" or spend 25gc on a flask of holy water to keep the non gold costing material component always available. Especially since no matter how many times a Paladin casts the spell the flask doesn't lose value.
as for the rules of Foci, I think the PHB is better then D&D Beyond because I believe the spacing is very important to understanding author intent.
There are 3 paragraphs. (I'm pulling from the Basic Rules so the copy and paste shouldn't violate the posting) Rule 1: "A character can use a component pouch or a spellcasting focus (found in “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." Rule 2: "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." Rule 3: "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."
In this case I believe that as long as 1st rule is satisfied. The material component has a 0 gold cost and so a spellcasting focus can be used. This makes Rule 2 & Rule 2 irrelevant as it's consumed but has no cost.
This is all further reason why I think Chromatic Orb is a junk spell. It costs 100gc to cast AND you can't use an arcane focus so you need Warcaster or a hand free to cast it.
I've now had some time now to look in-depth at this, and I can conclude it's horribly confusing and frustrating. I've edited my original post.
I am right about the holy shield not replacing material components with a cost, or material components that are consumed. It's said in the Basic Rules, and also clarified here. The thread mentioned in the post above has links to Jeremy Crawford explaining that the need for holy water is intentional for Protection from Evil and Good, and expects most DMs to ask a whole flask to be used, although any amount is technically acceptable.
However, the fact that a spellcasting focus can only replace the somatic component if it also has a material component makes no sense to me whatsoever. It effectively means it's easier to cast spells with material components than without, as long as they are not consumed/don't have a cost. I'm struggling to understand the design philosophy.
Duergar have a racial trait that lets them cast a specific spell without a component. You'd think that was a good thing, but no, not if the duergar is holding a spellcasting focus. Suddenly it's worse.
As it stands, AaronOfBarbaria's interpretation is a good one, and I would go with that. Or just ask your DM to allow somatic gestures with spellcasting foci.
I also believed I didn't think the interpretation of this could get any stupider.
This means every Cleric/Druid/Paladin now needs to buy a Spell Component Pouch because the ONE TIME cost of 25 gold it will supply infinite amounts of zero gold holy water. Gods of the multiverse know what other spells this might apply to.
What drives me nuts is the constant contradiction he has. here. he states the cost isn't important it's merely a narrative device. So, that would incline everyone to believe that the spell isn't supposed to cost anything, because it's narrative not mechanical. here. he says that it SHOULD cost 25gold every time to cast a lvl 1 spell, but a "nice" DM might not. Then here. he makes spellcasting foci just absolutely worse then I thought they were before. Now they ONLY work if you don't have a spell component pouch (which ignore all of this btw), the spell HAS a material component, but the component has 0 gold cost AND it doesn't state the component is consumed.... so I hope everyone is ready the extra small text for both of those keywords.
I think you all might be interpreting these rules and tweets a little strongly. I think holding a focus will *always* replace the need to have a hand free for material components (even if they have a gold cost and are consumed by the spell; the rules in that case just indicate you must have/provide those components, not that you must be holding them). Then, I think the spirit of the rules regarding a holy/icon shield focus is that a cleric/paladin can generically cast spells while armed and holding their shield. If you can't perform somatic components with the shield then the average cleric can't cast Cure Wounds (and many other spells) while holding their holy shield!
The purpose of the component rules is to force the casters to make some choices/sacrifices about their equipment setup, and to define how a caster might be disabled in a capture situation. I choose to simplify/interpret them as follows:
Verbal: Must be able to speak. Cannot cast if silenced or gagged.
Somatic: Must be able to move one hand freely, which is holding either nothing or a valid focus. Cannot cast if hands are tied or both holding non-focus objects.
Material: Must have the source of power in your possession (focus/pouch and/or $Ingredients) and must have one hand empty or holding a focus to access/channel that power. Cannot cast if power source is taken away (focus/pouch/$Ingredients) or both hands holding non-focus objects.
Although, reading that Rules of Spellcasting article, they seem adamant that the dichotomy between carrying a shield and casting Cure Wounds is intentional. Annoying. Ok, new theory: the complexity here arises around the S part of a VSM or SM spell. Simplification: ignore the S for those, all spells are either V, S, M, VS, or VM (SM = M, VSM = VM)
V: Must be able to speak. Cannot cast if silenced or gagged.
S: Must have one empty hand able to move freely. Cannot cast if hands are tied or both holding objects. (Warcaster allows shields and weapons rather than empty hands.)
M: Must have the source of power in your possession (focus/pouch and/or $Ingredients) and must have one hand empty to grab the ingredients or holding a focus to access/channel that power. Cannot cast if power source is taken away (focus/pouch/$Ingredients) or both hands tied or holding non-focus objects.
I think this holds up because there is actually no such thing as a spell with Material components that doesn't have Somatic components as well (there are 13 VM spells, but can anyone explain the functional difference between a VM and a VSM?). So a Cleric/paladin must chose between carrying a shield or casting S spells (they can cast the M spells either way). Other casters it still feels annoying that they would be whipping their wands in and out to alternate between S and M spells (innuendo not completely intended), but it remains a reasonably workable base.
I actually had a discussion about this with someone at a D&D event last weekend. The question came up because characters were holding hellhounds on leashes and thus had one hand occupied, so could they cast spells with both somatic and material components. I pulled this line from the PHB
"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."
The ruling goes that if a spell is ONLY somatic you need a free hand. A very reasonable explanation of this is that the gestures involved are far more complex than can be accomplished while holding something in your hand. For example something that has material and somatic you may just be making relatively simple gestures (think of the traditional Catholic waving of the hand in the sign of the cross) versus a much more complicated gesture (more like the kinds of crazy hand movements they discuss in the Magicians books/tv show).
That's one of the overall purposes of the warcaster feat. For a higher level character who mixes spellcasting with melee combat it basically suggests you've become practiced enough at casting while holding something that you can pull off the right hand movements.
Except there is absolutely zero reference to the somatic component of one spell being fundamentally different, regardless of any other components, than the somatic component of another spell.
Shoehorning in an explanation of 'relative complexity' after the fact (of Crawford's polarizing meddling) is molding the facts to fit a narrative, not constructing a narrative which fits the facts. Waving your arm around is the same whether the spell is S, VS, SM, or VSM. Crawford has essentially created a 4th distinct type of spellcasting component (which doesn't actually exist) as the basis for his rulings: "Somatic with Material", or S*.
I.e., the entire basis of his logic is that the Somatic component of an SM/VSM spell isn't really an S; it's an S* (which doesn't exist).
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
Oh no, not this again. There is no rules argument to be made on relative complexity. You can role play as you see fit, and that is where arguments on the relative complexity of different somatic components belong - role play discussions.
In terms of rules, S,M spells ARE DIFFERENT from S spells and from M spells in that they require both S and M rules to be fulfilled.
I'm not really sure you can claim that one of the lead designers of the game is "meddling" when they issue errata on how the rules of the game work. I don't really know if I agree that it's molding facts to fit a narrative. I didn't write the rules, I'm just pointing out why in a potential realistic manner it could make sense. There are things that are relatively easy to do with your hands even while holding something: open a car door, flip a light switch. However try and communicate via sign language while holding onto a baseball bat and you're not going to be successful.
If they released an actual errata it wouldn't be an issue. But they haven't; they've only released their opinions. Opinions which have changed over time, contradicted themselves, and contradicted the rules.
Unagiman, I don't mean to jump on you or anything. This is just a specific issue that has been argued to death for years. Trust me when I say that your view is nothing new, nor is it an unreasonable assumption for individuals to make and go about their lives. You do you. 👍
The problem we collectively (regardless of individual positions on the end results) have is that there is zero factual evidence of that being true; it is not supported by any rules, and it is not a valid premise to construct an argument from. It's a literal circular reasoning fallacy as the premise presented is in need of as much (if not more) proofing as the conclusion it attempts to support. Bottom line: relative complexity is not a thing.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
We have been around the world on this over and over again. What actually comprises a somatic component is not described anywhere, it is a roleplay element. Because of that, you can roleplay however you'd like. As Sigred rightly points out, there is no factual evidence for any flavor elements of the game. You just have to follow the rules provided for the mechanics that go along with spellcasting, which it looks like you grasp Unagiman.
Okay, so apparently it's not official errata despite being published by one of the lead game designers and hosted on the wizards of the coast official website? So I guess their approach is "we're not going to officially clarify any rules to avoid annoying people"?
Okay, so apparently it's not official errata despite being published by one of the lead game designers and hosted on the wizards of the coast official website? So I guess their approach is "we're not going to officially clarify any rules to avoid annoying people"?
Yes, that is correct. These are "official rulings" per their text, official errata appears in a different document (and by the way, is usually included into the text of D&D Beyond, so can't be found as a separate document here).
What is the functional difference between a rule, errata, and a ruling? It depends on the person. I tend to believe that an official ruling carries the weight of a rule (whereas public offerings other than sage advice compendium don't have that same weight of 'official rulings'). Others seem to be under the impression that anything not in the core rulebooks (PHB, DMG, MM) is opinion, and doesn't interact with the game rules at all -- which certainly has its own weird rules implications. There is a whole thread about it where people who don't like Jeremy Crawford's style go on to expound on this opinion. But the most important caveat to however you read SAC is that your DM has final discretion.
Has nothing to do with not liking Crawford. He says SA isn’t rules, SA says it isn’t rules, the core rule books say it isn’t rules. SA isn’t rules, and this S* vs SM nonsense isn’t a rule, it’s a (problematic) suggestion that DMs are free to use or ignore because it is not RAW :)
but agreed, this is argued to death in that other thread last month, not sure there is any new info to add to the perspectives at this time worth launching into it again.
Recently I've tried building paladin character for the new campaign and i was seriously thinking about War Caster feat to be able to cast all spells with weapon and shield equiped. But then i got to know about The Rules of Spellcasting article and it got me really confused. I can understand how holly symbol can be embeded to shield, i can imagine making some gestures for somatic component with shield in same hand but i really don't understand why you can use hand with shiled for Somatic if the spell has Material component but can't use it if it hasn't? I would immagine it to be easier to cast spell without Material component then one with it.
Can someone please explain it to me so i could properly roleplay my character casting spells?
Hi Templar,
The rules on spellcasting can be very difficult.
A spell focus can be used instead of material components. The only exception is if the material component is consumed or has a cost (gold) associated with it.
A hand holding a spell focus can also perform the somatic part of a spell if it has one, but only if it has a material also associated with it.
The exceptions being the spells which consume a material, or if the material has a specific gold cost mentioned in the spell. With these, you still need the actual material.
I agree that it feels like it should be easier to cast a spell without a material component, than with one. I can't explain why it isn't.
However, one way to roleplay it is to say that the deity your cleric/paladin follows provides the material for you when you use your holy symbol. If it doesn't have a material component, the deity can't provide anything, and so you have to make the gestures yourself.
Site Rules & Guidelines - Please feel free to message a moderator if you have any concerns.
My homebrew: [Subclasses] [Races] [Feats] [Discussion Thread]
You're right, this rule is really clunky and bad. But I think you got it right. There is no good way to roleplay that a spell without material components needs a hand free, while spells with a material component don't. I really wish they would have made it so, that a spell focus in a hand can also do the somatic components all the time.
I know this is not an answer. But I really don't like that rule and I needed to vent.
I think the key to making sense of how the rules work as written (meaning that a hand holding a spellcasting focus can be used for somatic components if there are material components being replaced by that spellcasting focus, but not otherwise) is to imagine them not as unrelated things - a specific gesture or set of gestures and also a thing you hold onto - but as being one and the same in the case of spells with M and S components - a gesture or set of gestures made with the component in question.
So instead of weird twisty hand motions and then also a bit of fur and a glass rod are involved somehow, a lightning bolt spell has somatic components of rubbing a bit of fur against a glass rod you hold and aim at your target (which can be replaced by making particular gestures with a wand, or other focus, in hand) - but spells that don't have both material and somatic components require gestures that aren't possible while that hand is still holding something, even if it is a wand.
I think you're incorrect about this line.*Removed because of later post, read VillainTheory's reply.TL;DR: the discussion concludes these mostly edge cases and probably forgotten about in spells creation. Protection from Good and Evil is a great example:
Paladins should not be expected need a "component pouch" or spend 25gc on a flask of holy water to keep the non gold costing material component always available. Especially since no matter how many times a Paladin casts the spell the flask doesn't lose value.
as for the rules of Foci, I think the PHB is better then D&D Beyond because I believe the spacing is very important to understanding author intent.
Rule 1: "A character can use a component pouch or a spellcasting focus (found in “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."
Rule 2: "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."
Rule 3: "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."
This is all further reason why I think Chromatic Orb is a junk spell. It costs 100gc to cast AND you can't use an arcane focus so you need Warcaster or a hand free to cast it.
I am right about the holy shield not replacing material components with a cost, or material components that are consumed. It's said in the Basic Rules, and also clarified here. The thread mentioned in the post above has links to Jeremy Crawford explaining that the need for holy water is intentional for Protection from Evil and Good, and expects most DMs to ask a whole flask to be used, although any amount is technically acceptable.
However, the fact that a spellcasting focus can only replace the somatic component if it also has a material component makes no sense to me whatsoever. It effectively means it's easier to cast spells with material components than without, as long as they are not consumed/don't have a cost. I'm struggling to understand the design philosophy.
Duergar have a racial trait that lets them cast a specific spell without a component. You'd think that was a good thing, but no, not if the duergar is holding a spellcasting focus. Suddenly it's worse.
As it stands, AaronOfBarbaria's interpretation is a good one, and I would go with that. Or just ask your DM to allow somatic gestures with spellcasting foci.
Site Rules & Guidelines - Please feel free to message a moderator if you have any concerns.
My homebrew: [Subclasses] [Races] [Feats] [Discussion Thread]
VillainTheory, I believe you are correct.
I also believed I didn't think the interpretation of this could get any stupider.
This means every Cleric/Druid/Paladin now needs to buy a Spell Component Pouch because the ONE TIME cost of 25 gold it will supply infinite amounts of zero gold holy water. Gods of the multiverse know what other spells this might apply to.
What drives me nuts is the constant contradiction he has. here. he states the cost isn't important it's merely a narrative device. So, that would incline everyone to believe that the spell isn't supposed to cost anything, because it's narrative not mechanical. here. he says that it SHOULD cost 25gold every time to cast a lvl 1 spell, but a "nice" DM might not. Then here. he makes spellcasting foci just absolutely worse then I thought they were before.
Now they ONLY work if you don't have a spell component pouch (which ignore all of this btw), the spell HAS a material component, but the component has 0 gold cost AND it doesn't state the component is consumed.... so I hope everyone is ready the extra small text for both of those keywords.
I think you all might be interpreting these rules and tweets a little strongly. I think holding a focus will *always* replace the need to have a hand free for material components (even if they have a gold cost and are consumed by the spell; the rules in that case just indicate you must have/provide those components, not that you must be holding them). Then, I think the spirit of the rules regarding a holy/icon shield focus is that a cleric/paladin can generically cast spells while armed and holding their shield. If you can't perform somatic components with the shield then the average cleric can't cast Cure Wounds (and many other spells) while holding their holy shield!
The purpose of the component rules is to force the casters to make some choices/sacrifices about their equipment setup, and to define how a caster might be disabled in a capture situation. I choose to simplify/interpret them as follows:
Verbal: Must be able to speak. Cannot cast if silenced or gagged.
Somatic: Must be able to move one hand freely, which is holding either nothing or a valid focus. Cannot cast if hands are tied or both holding non-focus objects.
Material: Must have the source of power in your possession (focus/pouch and/or $Ingredients) and must have one hand empty or holding a focus to access/channel that power. Cannot cast if power source is taken away (focus/pouch/$Ingredients) or both hands holding non-focus objects.
Although, reading that Rules of Spellcasting article, they seem adamant that the dichotomy between carrying a shield and casting Cure Wounds is intentional. Annoying. Ok, new theory: the complexity here arises around the S part of a VSM or SM spell. Simplification: ignore the S for those, all spells are either V, S, M, VS, or VM (SM = M, VSM = VM)
V: Must be able to speak. Cannot cast if silenced or gagged.
S: Must have one empty hand able to move freely. Cannot cast if hands are tied or both holding objects. (Warcaster allows shields and weapons rather than empty hands.)
M: Must have the source of power in your possession (focus/pouch and/or $Ingredients) and must have one hand empty to grab the ingredients or holding a focus to access/channel that power. Cannot cast if power source is taken away (focus/pouch/$Ingredients) or both hands tied or holding non-focus objects.
I think this holds up because there is actually no such thing as a spell with Material components that doesn't have Somatic components as well (there are 13 VM spells, but can anyone explain the functional difference between a VM and a VSM?). So a Cleric/paladin must chose between carrying a shield or casting S spells (they can cast the M spells either way). Other casters it still feels annoying that they would be whipping their wands in and out to alternate between S and M spells (innuendo not completely intended), but it remains a reasonably workable base.
I actually had a discussion about this with someone at a D&D event last weekend. The question came up because characters were holding hellhounds on leashes and thus had one hand occupied, so could they cast spells with both somatic and material components. I pulled this line from the PHB
"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."
The ruling goes that if a spell is ONLY somatic you need a free hand. A very reasonable explanation of this is that the gestures involved are far more complex than can be accomplished while holding something in your hand. For example something that has material and somatic you may just be making relatively simple gestures (think of the traditional Catholic waving of the hand in the sign of the cross) versus a much more complicated gesture (more like the kinds of crazy hand movements they discuss in the Magicians books/tv show).
That's one of the overall purposes of the warcaster feat. For a higher level character who mixes spellcasting with melee combat it basically suggests you've become practiced enough at casting while holding something that you can pull off the right hand movements.
Except there is absolutely zero reference to the somatic component of one spell being fundamentally different, regardless of any other components, than the somatic component of another spell.
Shoehorning in an explanation of 'relative complexity' after the fact (of Crawford's polarizing meddling) is molding the facts to fit a narrative, not constructing a narrative which fits the facts. Waving your arm around is the same whether the spell is S, VS, SM, or VSM. Crawford has essentially created a 4th distinct type of spellcasting component (which doesn't actually exist) as the basis for his rulings: "Somatic with Material", or S*.
I.e., the entire basis of his logic is that the Somatic component of an SM/VSM spell isn't really an S; it's an S* (which doesn't exist).
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
Oh no, not this again. There is no rules argument to be made on relative complexity. You can role play as you see fit, and that is where arguments on the relative complexity of different somatic components belong - role play discussions.
In terms of rules, S,M spells ARE DIFFERENT from S spells and from M spells in that they require both S and M rules to be fulfilled.
I'm not really sure you can claim that one of the lead designers of the game is "meddling" when they issue errata on how the rules of the game work. I don't really know if I agree that it's molding facts to fit a narrative. I didn't write the rules, I'm just pointing out why in a potential realistic manner it could make sense. There are things that are relatively easy to do with your hands even while holding something: open a car door, flip a light switch. However try and communicate via sign language while holding onto a baseball bat and you're not going to be successful.
If they released an actual errata it wouldn't be an issue. But they haven't; they've only released their opinions. Opinions which have changed over time, contradicted themselves, and contradicted the rules.
Unagiman, I don't mean to jump on you or anything. This is just a specific issue that has been argued to death for years. Trust me when I say that your view is nothing new, nor is it an unreasonable assumption for individuals to make and go about their lives. You do you. 👍
The problem we collectively (regardless of individual positions on the end results) have is that there is zero factual evidence of that being true; it is not supported by any rules, and it is not a valid premise to construct an argument from. It's a literal circular reasoning fallacy as the premise presented is in need of as much (if not more) proofing as the conclusion it attempts to support. Bottom line: relative complexity is not a thing.
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
We have been around the world on this over and over again. What actually comprises a somatic component is not described anywhere, it is a roleplay element. Because of that, you can roleplay however you'd like. As Sigred rightly points out, there is no factual evidence for any flavor elements of the game. You just have to follow the rules provided for the mechanics that go along with spellcasting, which it looks like you grasp Unagiman.
https://media.wizards.com/2019/dnd/downloads/SA-Compendium.pdf
I'm not sure how this isn't considered "official errata".
Update: Post edited to include most recent version of the link.
Okay, so apparently it's not official errata despite being published by one of the lead game designers and hosted on the wizards of the coast official website? So I guess their approach is "we're not going to officially clarify any rules to avoid annoying people"?
Yes, that is correct. These are "official rulings" per their text, official errata appears in a different document (and by the way, is usually included into the text of D&D Beyond, so can't be found as a separate document here).
What is the functional difference between a rule, errata, and a ruling? It depends on the person. I tend to believe that an official ruling carries the weight of a rule (whereas public offerings other than sage advice compendium don't have that same weight of 'official rulings'). Others seem to be under the impression that anything not in the core rulebooks (PHB, DMG, MM) is opinion, and doesn't interact with the game rules at all -- which certainly has its own weird rules implications. There is a whole thread about it where people who don't like Jeremy Crawford's style go on to expound on this opinion. But the most important caveat to however you read SAC is that your DM has final discretion.
Has nothing to do with not liking Crawford. He says SA isn’t rules, SA says it isn’t rules, the core rule books say it isn’t rules. SA isn’t rules, and this S* vs SM nonsense isn’t a rule, it’s a (problematic) suggestion that DMs are free to use or ignore because it is not RAW :)
but agreed, this is argued to death in that other thread last month, not sure there is any new info to add to the perspectives at this time worth launching into it again.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.