I'm having a discussion with another player and both of us are pretty certain we are right.
A Fighter/Wizard with the War Caster feat, has a shield in one hand, a weapon in the other, has been casting fireball, hold person, and a few other spells with M components.
Is this allowed by the rules?
There is no ruby of the war mage, no magic weapons that are spellcasting foci, the fighter is level 2 so there's no archetype.
Nope, not allowed. War caster only allows you to perform (read: ignore) the somatic component while your hands are full with weapons/shield. It does not let you ignore material component rules or use weapons as a spellcasting focus.
Technically you actually can, if you have a component pouch. The rules are that you can use a hand holding a weapon to perform somatic components with War Caster, and you can use the same hand that performs somatic components to hold material components if you have a component pouch/raw materials. In this way War Caster + weapon is actually better than spellcasting focuses, since it allows you to perform S without M (or with M being a valued object) which spellcasting focuses technically cannot do.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Look at what you've done. You spoiled it. You have nobody to blame but yourself. Go sit and think about your actions.
Don't be mean. Rudeness is a vicious cycle, and it has to stop somewhere. Exceptions for things that are funny. Go to the current Competition of the Finest 'Brews! It's a cool place where cool people make cool things.
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat Off - Mod Hat Also Off (I'm not a mod)
Technically you actually can, if you have a component pouch. The rules are that you can use a hand holding a weapon to perform somatic components with War Caster, and you can use the same hand that performs somatic components to hold material components if you have a component pouch/raw materials. In this way War Caster + weapon is actually better than spellcasting focuses, since it allows you to perform S without M (or with M being a valued object) which spellcasting focuses technically cannot do.
Uh, nope.
Component Pouch: requires free hand to use, War Caster has no effect on this.
Arcane Focus: requires free hand to use, War Caster has no effect on this.
Somatic Components: requires free hand to perform. War Caster allows you to perform using a non-free hand if the hand is holding a weapon or shield ONLY
Material Components: requires a free hand to handle the materials. War Caster has no effect on this.
If your hand is is holding a sword you cannot also hold a pouch, focus or material component in the same hand. Your sword holding hand is not "free", so it fails to meet the requirements of pouch/focus/material usage.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Click ✨ HERE ✨ For My Youtube Videos featuring Guides, Tips & Tricks for using D&D Beyond. Need help with Homebrew? Check out ✨ thisFAQ/Guide thread ✨ by IamSposta.
You can do this if your weapon or shield replaces your priceless material components (basically if you can use your weapon or shield as a magical focus). Clerics, for example, often do the trick of printing the symbol of their faith on their shield, and use it as a focus. Warlocks, on the other hand, have an eldritch invocation that allows them to turn their pact weapon into their arcane focus. And right now I can't remember if there are other classes/subclasses that allow you to do something similar. But I think you get the idea. On the other hand, you can always make your somatic components with the hand that holds the material component (for example, the arcane focus). For its part, War Caster allows you to make the somatic components even if you have your hands full with weapons and/or shields. But that does not mean that it allows you to ignore the material components. So if your shield or weapon isn't a focus, you need to free one of them in order to get the component (or focus) out. Without knowing your player's entire build, but understanding that neither his shield nor his weapon is a magical focus, what your player intends to do is illegal. There are many DMs who ignore (consciously or not) this part of the rules. But you are right not to allow it. Those rules are there to limit the use of magic on heavily armed characters.
Technically you actually can, if you have a component pouch. The rules are that you can use a hand holding a weapon to perform somatic components with War Caster, and you can use the same hand that performs somatic components to hold material components if you have a component pouch/raw materials. In this way War Caster + weapon is actually better than spellcasting focuses, since it allows you to perform S without M (or with M being a valued object) which spellcasting focuses technically cannot do.
Uh, nope.
Component Pouch: requires free hand to use, War Caster has no effect on this.
Arcane Focus: requires free hand to use, War Caster has no effect on this.
Somatic Components: requires free hand to perform. War Caster allows you to perform using a non-free hand if the hand is holding a weapon or shield ONLY
Material Components: requires a free hand to handle the materials. War Caster has no effect on this.
If your hand is is holding a sword you cannot also hold a pouch, focus or material component in the same hand. Your sword holding hand is not "free", so it fails to meet the requirements of pouch/focus/material usage.
From page 203 of PHB (sorry I haven't got a link, I only have physical) in Chapter 10 under Material (M).
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.
Upon rereading it, it is more ambiguous than I remember, but it can (and IMO should) still be interpreted as Warcaster being able to hold material components, since that is the hand that they use to perform somatic components which is (probably) a specific exemption from the free hand rule. I suppose it can be interpreted either way though; depends on how much power you place in the "but" of the sentence.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Look at what you've done. You spoiled it. You have nobody to blame but yourself. Go sit and think about your actions.
Don't be mean. Rudeness is a vicious cycle, and it has to stop somewhere. Exceptions for things that are funny. Go to the current Competition of the Finest 'Brews! It's a cool place where cool people make cool things.
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat Off - Mod Hat Also Off (I'm not a mod)
They need a hand for M components, BUT, it can be the hand they use for S components. Warcaster lets them use the hand holding a sword for S components.
So if the spell is S/M, then warcaster lets them cast while holding sword/shield. because the hand they're holding the sword can do S components, and that hand can fulfill the M component while doing so.
They need a hand for M components, BUT, it can be the hand they use for S components. Warcaster lets them use the hand holding a sword for S components.
So if the spell is S/M, then warcaster lets them cast while holding sword/shield. because the hand they're holding the sword can do S components, and that hand can fulfill the M component while doing so.
No. The hand being used for material components still needs to be free.
They need a hand for M components, BUT, it can be the hand they use for S components. Warcaster lets them use the hand holding a sword for S components.
So if the spell is S/M, then warcaster lets them cast while holding sword/shield. because the hand they're holding the sword can do S components, and that hand can fulfill the M component while doing so.
No. The hand being used for material components still needs to be free.
Sure, normally. "butit can be the same hand that he or she uses to perform somatic components."
They need a hand for M components, BUT, it can be the hand they use for S components. Warcaster lets them use the hand holding a sword for S components.
So if the spell is S/M, then warcaster lets them cast while holding sword/shield. because the hand they're holding the sword can do S components, and that hand can fulfill the M component while doing so.
No. The hand being used for material components still needs to be free.
Sure, normally. but it can be the same hand that he or she uses to perform somatic components.
Doesn't say anything about it no longer needing to be free.
Because you're holding a sword the hand is no longer free for somatic or material components or a focus or a component. They all require a free hand and a hand with a sword is not free. Warcaster does not remove the requirements for everything, it only lets you use S components while holding a sword. The M component/focus/pouch still requires a free hand and so cannot be used by the sword wielding hand in any capacity because there's a sword in the way.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Click ✨ HERE ✨ For My Youtube Videos featuring Guides, Tips & Tricks for using D&D Beyond. Need help with Homebrew? Check out ✨ thisFAQ/Guide thread ✨ by IamSposta.
Let's not start this again. People who argue that they can do stuff that is against the the rules because a rule that doesn't apply says something about the rule they are trying to break never change back down and I don't want to see this thread become 20+ pages over this.
Let's not start this again. People who argue that they can do stuff that is against the the rules because a rule that doesn't apply says something about the rule they are trying to break never change back down(?) and I don't want to see this thread become 20+ pages over this.
How does this rule not apply? I can understand an interpretation that says that the "but" in the sentence in question only provides clarification to the rule instead of exemption. I can also understand a completely different view that says that the "but" is an exemption to the prior rule of a free hand, and therefore allows those with War Caster to hold a weapon and material components in the same hand, as Ravnodaus and I have argued.
I might be somewhat biased since I am firm in the position that the whole "more components makes some spells easier to cast" thing (which is related to this) is ridiculous, but I still believe that my interpretation is completely valid/correct RAW. If you can give a genuine argument why the "but" is objectively a clarification to the rule instead of an exemption, then I will believe you are right, but as of right now I see no such argument. As such, the rule can completely support my argument.
Look at what you've done. You spoiled it. You have nobody to blame but yourself. Go sit and think about your actions.
Don't be mean. Rudeness is a vicious cycle, and it has to stop somewhere. Exceptions for things that are funny. Go to the current Competition of the Finest 'Brews! It's a cool place where cool people make cool things.
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat Off - Mod Hat Also Off (I'm not a mod)
Let's not start this again. People who argue that they can do stuff that is against the the rules because a rule that doesn't apply says something about the rule they are trying to break never change back down(?) and I don't want to see this thread become 20+ pages over this.
How does this rule not apply? I can understand an interpretation that says that the "but" in the sentence in question only provides clarification to the rule instead of exemption. I can also understand a completely different view that says that the "but" is an exemption to the prior rule of a free hand, and therefore allows those with War Caster to hold a weapon and material components in the same hand, as Ravnodaus and I have argued.
I might be somewhat biased since I am firm in the position that the whole "more components makes some spells easier to cast" thing (which is related to this) is ridiculous, but I still believe that my interpretation is completely valid/correct RAW. If you can give a genuine argument why the "but" is objectively a clarification to the rule instead of an exemption, then I will believe you are right, but as of right now I see no such argument. As such, the rule can completely support my argument.
It is an exception. It's just not an exception to the rule of needing a free hand, because performing somatic components with your hand does not make that hand not-free. What it's an exception to is the rule that performing somatic components requires a free hand. The rule states that, although you need a free hand to hold a focus or a component pouch and you also need a free hand to perform somatic components, it can be the same free hand. It still needs to be a free hand.
It objectively does not let you ignore the free hand requirement because the text does not say that it does. The rule does not support your argument at all, because your argument relies on text that does not exist.
Saying that it isn't an exception because performing somatic components with a sword doesn't leave your hand free is ridiculous; that's what makes it an exception. You said that it isn't an exception in that way, yet provided absolutely no logic behind that statement besides "hands with swords aren't free." If I were saying that hands with swords were free, then I wouldn't really need any exceptions to say that my logic works, would I? If you can give me grammatical logic to how the word "but" in the sentence does not provide an exception to the rule of requiring a free hand in the way that I say it does, then I will admit defeat. Giving a different rule that it also applies to (or even is intended to apply to exclusively) doesn't make my argument invalid; it just means that a single statement applies to two different rules, which is perfectly reasonable.
If I said, "I don't like chicken, but I do like orange chicken," then the assumption would be that the latter statement of liking orange chicken would be an exemption to the former rule of not liking chicken. The same logic applies here, even when there is another meaning that the statement has. For example: "I don't like chicken, but I always like food that's orange." I am in no way going to argue that such a statement doesn't mean that I like oranges- of course it does, that's part of the statement, just like somatic components being performed with materials/focuses in hand is part of the statement. But I also think it is unreasonable to say that such a statement means that I don't like orange chicken, as you are trying to argue. The "but" of the sentence makes the latter rule an exemption to the former rule, just as the "but" being discussed provides an exception to material components needing free hands to use.
If you actually do think that the statement, "I don't like chicken, but I always like food that's orange," is saying that I don't like orange chicken, then I hereby declare this argument resolved as a regional-grammar problem. At least in the English-speaking location where I live, that definitely means I like orange chicken, but I suppose it might not in yours, so the rules are different for you. If you have a different dispute with my logic, this argument goes unresolved.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Look at what you've done. You spoiled it. You have nobody to blame but yourself. Go sit and think about your actions.
Don't be mean. Rudeness is a vicious cycle, and it has to stop somewhere. Exceptions for things that are funny. Go to the current Competition of the Finest 'Brews! It's a cool place where cool people make cool things.
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat Off - Mod Hat Also Off (I'm not a mod)
Warcaster in no case tells you that you can hold the material components with the hands that you have occupied with weapons or shields. Warcaster tells you that you can perform the somatic components with your hands occupied by weapons or shields. On the other hand, that rule that you're invoking says that you can use the hand that you make somatic components with to hold material components. But you still need to have a free hand. You can't hold and use more than one thing per hand. Think of someone who would like to hold a shield and a sword in the same hand, and use both. Would you let him?
I'm having a discussion with another player and both of us are pretty certain we are right.
A Fighter/Wizard with the War Caster feat, has a shield in one hand, a weapon in the other, has been casting fireball, hold person, and a few other spells with M components.
Is this allowed by the rules?
It would be unable to cast Fireball because it's V,S,M and has no free hand to handle the material component, War Caster would be of no help. It could cast spells without material component this way though.
FYI There's also an official ruling in Sage Advice related to this;
What’s the amount of interaction needed to use a spellcasting focus? Does it have to be included in the somatic component? If a spell has a material component, you need to handle that component when you cast the spell (PH, 203). The same rule applies if you’re using a spellcasting focus as the material component. If a spell has a somatic component, you can use the hand that performs the somatic component to also handle the material component. For example, a wizard who uses an orb as a spellcasting focus could hold a quarterstaff in one hand and the orb in the other, and he could cast lightning bolt by using the orb as the spell’s material component and the orb hand to perform the spell’s somatic component. 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.
They need a hand for M components, BUT, it can be the hand they use for S components. Warcaster lets them use the hand holding a sword for S components.
So if the spell is S/M, then warcaster lets them cast while holding sword/shield. because the hand they're holding the sword can do S components, and that hand can fulfill the M component while doing so.
There's no logic chain like this without direct support from words from the books. It's a bad take.
M says it requires a free hand (or focus), just not a different free hand from S. Warcaster does not change that. There is absolutely zero textual support for M no longer requiring a free hand. If S is being fulfilled by an occupied hand, freaking great. M still requires a free hand.
M always needs as a free (or focus) hand, the only thing that can change is what counts as a focus.
They need a hand for M components, BUT, it can be the hand they use for S components. Warcaster lets them use the hand holding a sword for S components.
So if the spell is S/M, then warcaster lets them cast while holding sword/shield. because the hand they're holding the sword can do S components, and that hand can fulfill the M component while doing so.
There's no logic chain like this without direct support from words from the books. It's a bad take.
M says it requires a free hand (or focus), just not a different free hand from S. Warcaster does not change that. There is absolutely zero textual support for M no longer requiring a free hand. If S is being fulfilled by an occupied hand, freaking great. M still requires a free hand.
M always needs as a free (or focus) hand, the only thing that can change is what counts as a focus.
But there istextual support. The "but" in the sentence in question (which I don't want to repeat here since it's been said twice already) makes the latter rule (M can be held by S hand) an exemption to the former rule (S has to be free), even when they contradict each other (that's what makes it an exemption). Even if that's not the intended effect, a way of reading it says that a hand that performs S components doesn't have to be free to hold material components. I've already explained it in the best way I'll ever be able to in post #15, so if you still disagree, read/respond to that.
At this point, I'm starting to believe this is just a regional grammar problem, which isn't something that you can really solve. The only real part of my argument that you can disagree on is the grammar. Not even grammar, really, just interpretation of how disagreeing statements interact with the word "but." If that really is what people disagree with (and I don't know what other parts it's possible to disagree with), then this argument will never find a solution on account of not having a solution.
Look at what you've done. You spoiled it. You have nobody to blame but yourself. Go sit and think about your actions.
Don't be mean. Rudeness is a vicious cycle, and it has to stop somewhere. Exceptions for things that are funny. Go to the current Competition of the Finest 'Brews! It's a cool place where cool people make cool things.
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat Off - Mod Hat Also Off (I'm not a mod)
They need a hand for M components, BUT, it can be the hand they use for S components. Warcaster lets them use the hand holding a sword for S components.
So if the spell is S/M, then warcaster lets them cast while holding sword/shield. because the hand they're holding the sword can do S components, and that hand can fulfill the M component while doing so.
There's no logic chain like this without direct support from words from the books. It's a bad take.
M says it requires a free hand (or focus), just not a different free hand from S. Warcaster does not change that. There is absolutely zero textual support for M no longer requiring a free hand. If S is being fulfilled by an occupied hand, freaking great. M still requires a free hand.
M always needs as a free (or focus) hand, the only thing that can change is what counts as a focus.
But there istextual support. The "but" in the sentence in question (which I don't want to repeat here since it's been said twice already) makes the latter rule (M can be held by S hand) an exemption to the former rule (S has to be free), even when they contradict each other (that's what makes it an exemption).
This is where your confusion lies. The latter is not an exception to the former precisely because they don't contradict each other. You can't be an exception to something you don't actually contradict.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I'm having a discussion with another player and both of us are pretty certain we are right.
A Fighter/Wizard with the War Caster feat, has a shield in one hand, a weapon in the other, has been casting fireball, hold person, and a few other spells with M components.
Is this allowed by the rules?
There is no ruby of the war mage, no magic weapons that are spellcasting foci, the fighter is level 2 so there's no archetype.
Nope, not allowed. War caster only allows you to perform (read: ignore) the somatic component while your hands are full with weapons/shield. It does not let you ignore material component rules or use weapons as a spellcasting focus.
Technically you actually can, if you have a component pouch. The rules are that you can use a hand holding a weapon to perform somatic components with War Caster, and you can use the same hand that performs somatic components to hold material components if you have a component pouch/raw materials. In this way War Caster + weapon is actually better than spellcasting focuses, since it allows you to perform S without M (or with M being a valued object) which spellcasting focuses technically cannot do.
Look at what you've done. You spoiled it. You have nobody to blame but yourself. Go sit and think about your actions.
Don't be mean. Rudeness is a vicious cycle, and it has to stop somewhere. Exceptions for things that are funny.
Go to the current Competition of the Finest 'Brews! It's a cool place where cool people make cool things.
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat Off - Mod Hat Also Off (I'm not a mod)
Uh, nope.
Component Pouch: requires free hand to use, War Caster has no effect on this.
Arcane Focus: requires free hand to use, War Caster has no effect on this.
Somatic Components: requires free hand to perform. War Caster allows you to perform using a non-free hand if the hand is holding a weapon or shield ONLY
Material Components: requires a free hand to handle the materials. War Caster has no effect on this.
If your hand is is holding a sword you cannot also hold a pouch, focus or material component in the same hand. Your sword holding hand is not "free", so it fails to meet the requirements of pouch/focus/material usage.
Click ✨ HERE ✨ For My Youtube Videos featuring Guides, Tips & Tricks for using D&D Beyond.
Need help with Homebrew? Check out ✨ this FAQ/Guide thread ✨ by IamSposta.
You can do this if your weapon or shield replaces your priceless material components (basically if you can use your weapon or shield as a magical focus). Clerics, for example, often do the trick of printing the symbol of their faith on their shield, and use it as a focus. Warlocks, on the other hand, have an eldritch invocation that allows them to turn their pact weapon into their arcane focus. And right now I can't remember if there are other classes/subclasses that allow you to do something similar. But I think you get the idea.
On the other hand, you can always make your somatic components with the hand that holds the material component (for example, the arcane focus).
For its part, War Caster allows you to make the somatic components even if you have your hands full with weapons and/or shields. But that does not mean that it allows you to ignore the material components. So if your shield or weapon isn't a focus, you need to free one of them in order to get the component (or focus) out.
Without knowing your player's entire build, but understanding that neither his shield nor his weapon is a magical focus, what your player intends to do is illegal. There are many DMs who ignore (consciously or not) this part of the rules. But you are right not to allow it. Those rules are there to limit the use of magic on heavily armed characters.
From page 203 of PHB (sorry I haven't got a link, I only have physical) in Chapter 10 under Material (M).
Look at what you've done. You spoiled it. You have nobody to blame but yourself. Go sit and think about your actions.
Don't be mean. Rudeness is a vicious cycle, and it has to stop somewhere. Exceptions for things that are funny.
Go to the current Competition of the Finest 'Brews! It's a cool place where cool people make cool things.
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat Off - Mod Hat Also Off (I'm not a mod)
They need a hand for M components, BUT, it can be the hand they use for S components. Warcaster lets them use the hand holding a sword for S components.
So if the spell is S/M, then warcaster lets them cast while holding sword/shield. because the hand they're holding the sword can do S components, and that hand can fulfill the M component while doing so.
I got quotes!
No. The hand being used for material components still needs to be free.
Sure, normally. "but it can be the same hand that he or she uses to perform somatic components."
I got quotes!
Doesn't say anything about it no longer needing to be free.
Because you're holding a sword the hand is no longer free for somatic or material components or a focus or a component. They all require a free hand and a hand with a sword is not free. Warcaster does not remove the requirements for everything, it only lets you use S components while holding a sword. The M component/focus/pouch still requires a free hand and so cannot be used by the sword wielding hand in any capacity because there's a sword in the way.
Click ✨ HERE ✨ For My Youtube Videos featuring Guides, Tips & Tricks for using D&D Beyond.
Need help with Homebrew? Check out ✨ this FAQ/Guide thread ✨ by IamSposta.
Let's not start this again. People who argue that they can do stuff that is against the the rules because a rule that doesn't apply says something about the rule they are trying to break never change back down and I don't want to see this thread become 20+ pages over this.
How does this rule not apply? I can understand an interpretation that says that the "but" in the sentence in question only provides clarification to the rule instead of exemption. I can also understand a completely different view that says that the "but" is an exemption to the prior rule of a free hand, and therefore allows those with War Caster to hold a weapon and material components in the same hand, as Ravnodaus and I have argued.
I might be somewhat biased since I am firm in the position that the whole "more components makes some spells easier to cast" thing (which is related to this) is ridiculous, but I still believe that my interpretation is completely valid/correct RAW. If you can give a genuine argument why the "but" is objectively a clarification to the rule instead of an exemption, then I will believe you are right, but as of right now I see no such argument. As such, the rule can completely support my argument.
Look at what you've done. You spoiled it. You have nobody to blame but yourself. Go sit and think about your actions.
Don't be mean. Rudeness is a vicious cycle, and it has to stop somewhere. Exceptions for things that are funny.
Go to the current Competition of the Finest 'Brews! It's a cool place where cool people make cool things.
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat Off - Mod Hat Also Off (I'm not a mod)
It is an exception. It's just not an exception to the rule of needing a free hand, because performing somatic components with your hand does not make that hand not-free. What it's an exception to is the rule that performing somatic components requires a free hand. The rule states that, although you need a free hand to hold a focus or a component pouch and you also need a free hand to perform somatic components, it can be the same free hand. It still needs to be a free hand.
It objectively does not let you ignore the free hand requirement because the text does not say that it does. The rule does not support your argument at all, because your argument relies on text that does not exist.
Look at what you've done. You spoiled it. You have nobody to blame but yourself. Go sit and think about your actions.
Don't be mean. Rudeness is a vicious cycle, and it has to stop somewhere. Exceptions for things that are funny.
Go to the current Competition of the Finest 'Brews! It's a cool place where cool people make cool things.
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat Off - Mod Hat Also Off (I'm not a mod)
Warcaster in no case tells you that you can hold the material components with the hands that you have occupied with weapons or shields.
Warcaster tells you that you can perform the somatic components with your hands occupied by weapons or shields.
On the other hand, that rule that you're invoking says that you can use the hand that you make somatic components with to hold material components. But you still need to have a free hand. You can't hold and use more than one thing per hand. Think of someone who would like to hold a shield and a sword in the same hand, and use both. Would you let him?
Take a look at this:
https://www.sageadvice.eu/war-caster-free-hand/
It would be unable to cast Fireball because it's V,S,M and has no free hand to handle the material component, War Caster would be of no help. It could cast spells without material component this way though.
FYI There's also an official ruling in Sage Advice related to this;
There's no logic chain like this without direct support from words from the books. It's a bad take.
M says it requires a free hand (or focus), just not a different free hand from S. Warcaster does not change that. There is absolutely zero textual support for M no longer requiring a free hand. If S is being fulfilled by an occupied hand, freaking great. M still requires a free hand.
M always needs as a free (or focus) hand, the only thing that can change is what counts as a focus.
But there is textual support. The "but" in the sentence in question (which I don't want to repeat here since it's been said twice already) makes the latter rule (M can be held by S hand) an exemption to the former rule (S has to be free), even when they contradict each other (that's what makes it an exemption). Even if that's not the intended effect, a way of reading it says that a hand that performs S components doesn't have to be free to hold material components. I've already explained it in the best way I'll ever be able to in post #15, so if you still disagree, read/respond to that.
At this point, I'm starting to believe this is just a regional grammar problem, which isn't something that you can really solve. The only real part of my argument that you can disagree on is the grammar. Not even grammar, really, just interpretation of how disagreeing statements interact with the word "but." If that really is what people disagree with (and I don't know what other parts it's possible to disagree with), then this argument will never find a solution on account of not having a solution.
Look at what you've done. You spoiled it. You have nobody to blame but yourself. Go sit and think about your actions.
Don't be mean. Rudeness is a vicious cycle, and it has to stop somewhere. Exceptions for things that are funny.
Go to the current Competition of the Finest 'Brews! It's a cool place where cool people make cool things.
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat Off - Mod Hat Also Off (I'm not a mod)
This is where your confusion lies. The latter is not an exception to the former precisely because they don't contradict each other. You can't be an exception to something you don't actually contradict.