Now for the sentence everyone is debating: "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."(bolded for easier reference)
Finally, as I pointed out earlier using the fact that the hand supplying the material component can also supply the somatic component to assert that a hand supplying the somatic component can also supply the material component is a fallacious argument. For example: dogs are mammals. My cat is a mammal, therefore my cat is a dog. See? The fact that my cat is a mammal is not sufficient to prove it is a dog. It might be required but it is not sufficient. To justify the position that a hand supplying somatic components is always able to also provide material components you need further evidence.
The logic that "A means B does not mean B means A" doesn't seem to really apply here, since the statement doesn't seem to have direction to the statement- more like A and B can coexist, therefore B and A can coexist (which is accurate).
The directionality comes from two facts. First is the structure of the clause after the 'but' itself, the subject of the clause is the hand manipulating the material component and the object of the clause is the somatic component. It is the hand manipulating the material component that is doing the action of performing the somatic component. The second fact that helps inform the reader of the directionality is the order in which the somatic and material component rules were written. The somatic rule is presented first to the reader and lays the foundation that performing a somatic component requires a free hand. Immediately afterwards the material component rule tells us that we need a hand to manipulate the spell's material component and that hand can also perform the somatic component. This follows the specific beats general rule paradigm WotC uses when writing their rules and it is the material component rule that contains the exception to the somatic component rule.
My issue wasn't with the mammal example, I understood that. It was solely with the idea that the rules are directional. If they are directional, then you're completely right; no need to explain it with different terms again.
You might have read the text incorrectly for your first fact. You claim that the subject of the clause is the hand manipulating the material component, which is true, and the object of the clause is the somatic component, which is false. In fact, the object of the clause is the hand performing the somatic component. If the sentence read "but it can also be used as the hand that he or she uses to perform somatic components," then you would be completely right and my argument would fall apart. However, it doesn't read that way, but rather in a way that makes it clear that the M and S hands are merged instead of just the "M hand" performing S as well.
Your second fact doesn't say much of anything in terms of RAW, although maybe RAI (which is pointless since I already admitted that RAI is against me).
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)
I'm saying "empty" isn't the requirement. Free is.
If you need to hold a hammer but your hand is currently busy doing sign language, it isn't free to hold the hammer, but it is empty.
Empty is not free, and free is not empty.
Your hand needs to be available for the task at hand (pun intended) But this availability will depend entirely on what it is needed for.
In your example. One hand is free to hold the hammer, and the other is free to hold a nail. Sure. But, say you want to hold 5 nails, and just line one of the up at a time? Is the nail-holding-hand free to do this? Is my hand free to rest the nail-holding-hand's wrist/palm against the wood to steady it?
If you've ever done carpentry, you know it is, in both cases. It is absolutely free for that. Just like if you're holding a copper piece your hand is absolutely still free to pick up another copper piece.
The limit of course is eventually going to be a DM call. As with many things, ruled on by common sense, DMs have the final word. But we can't be going around making definitive statements about what isn't possible, since we're not the DM for everyone's tables. Those DMs will determine how free your hand is. It could be empty and they could say it isn't free.
It came up in another thread but, eg. If you're casting fireball, and doing the somatic components with your hand, and someone tries to Counterspell you... is your fireball S hand "free" to also do the S component of Counterspell at the same time? No. of course not. it isn't free at all. It is very much in the middle of something.
So, Free isn't asking us if it is empty. Free is asking us if it is available.
And with warcaster in the mix, we know it is available. Because if you're doing S, you can do M. And warcaster is letting us do S while holding a sword. So our hand is absolutely 100% free for this.
There's a difference between a hand that is free to do x and a free hand. A hand that is free to do x, like you said, can be anything. A free hand is, by definition and common usage, a hand that is holding nothing.
If this is how your definition of "free hand" interacts with War Caster, how does it work without? Since (by your logic) nothing in the rules says that a free hand is empty, does this mean that you can hold a material component and a sword in the same hand even without War Caster? Can you perform somatic components with it too, since technically all that requires is a "free hand"?
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)
So the rules conclusion is that “a free hand need not be empty?”
This topic has largely been about a eat called Warcaster. The feat eases restrictions on how you cast spells while stuff is in your hands. That's the purpose of the feat.
Your "free hand" needed for somatic components very literally doesn't need to be empty. As this is what the feat does.
Then the SA is wrong and the requirement for a free hand in any rule is a waste of text. You just said that the requirement means nothing.
No. You my have misunderstood something. For the record: At no point did I say, or suggest, that "that the requirement means nothing."
The thing is, the SA still says you handle the material components, and you need a free hand to do that. Per the M rules. Unless, of course, you have some secret rule you haven’t shared.
Yeah, the hand that is holding the sword is free to do that, to handle the the material components.
To clarify something very basic: No, it is not. The rules make it very clear.
"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."
Yes, it must be free, but the hand that does somatic can also do material. That's what the second half of your quote tells us.
That it may be the hand he uses to perform the somatic components does not imply that the hand may not be free. It implies that you can hold the material component, and do the gestures with the same hand. But if that hand is holding something else (like a weapon or a shield), that hand is not free.
Sure its free to handle material components. Why is it not? Lots of folk asserting it isn't, but ain't no one showed a rule saying so. If it can do somatic, it is free to do material.
With Warcaster you can do the gestures with the hand holding a weapon or a shield, but you couldn't use that hand for the component material because it's not free.
Sure it is.
Think of it this way: would you let a player use the same hand that has a weapon or shield to hold a spell focus that is, say, an orb? I understand that you wouldn't let them do that out of sheer common sense.
Foci need to be held. Material components only need to be accessed. You quoted it, above. You don't need to hold material components, you need to access them. That's why they've been the foci of this topic. (pun intended)
Your logic is very strange. What do you understand by free hand? If to drive a nail, I need a free hand for the hammer, and another to hold the nail, is my left hand free even if I hold the wood?
I think we're getting into a basic common sense problem.
Edit: And it has to be accessible for what? Clearly to catch her. Or is it just to look at her?
I'm saying "empty" isn't the requirement. Free is.
IDK why that is strange.
If you need to hold a hammer but your hand is currently busy doing sign language, it isn't free to hold the hammer, but is is empty.
Empty is not free, and free is not empty.
Your hand needs to be available for the task at hand (pun intended) But this availability will depend entirely on what it is needed for.
In your example. One hand is free to hold the hammer, and the other is free to hold a nail. Sure. But, say you want to hold 5 nails, and just line one of the up at a time? Is the nail-holding-hand free to do this? Is my hand free to rest the nail-holding-hand's wrist/palm against the wood to steady it?
If you've ever done carpentry, you know it is, in both cases. It is absolutely free for that. Just like if you're holding a copper piece your hand is absolutely still free to pick up another copper piece.
The limit of course is eventually going to be a DM call. As with many things, ruled on by common sense, DMs have the final word. But we can't be going around making definitive statements about what isn't possible, since we're not the DM for everyone's tables. Those DMs will determine how free your hand is. It could be empty and they could say it isn't free.
It came up in another thread but, eg. If you're casting fireball, and doing the somatic components with your hand, and someone tries to Counterspell you... is your fireball S hand "free" to also do the S component of Counterspell at the same time? No. of course not. it isn't free at all. It is very much in the middle of something.
So, Free isn't asking us if it is empty. Free is asking us if it is available.
And with warcaster in the mix, we know it is available. Because if you're doing S, you can do M. And warcaster is letting us do S while holding a sword. So our hand is absolutely 100% free for this.
Also I can't load a crossbow with a sword in my hand I need a free hand one that is empty and not bound. Free hand in 5th ed is defined as unbound and empty, not with something in it.
Ammunition. You can use a weapon that has the ammunition property to make a ranged attack only if you have ammunition to fire from the weapon. Each time you attack with the weapon, you expend one piece of ammunition. Drawing the ammunition from a quiver, case, or other container is part of the attack (you need a free hand to load a one-handed weapon). At the end of the battle, you can recover half your expended ammunition by taking a minute to search the battlefield.
Looking at your logic that means I can also wear gloves of missile snaring and catch arrows with a sword in both my hands.
Or lets look at dancing sword
After the hovering sword attacks for the fourth time, it flies up to 30 feet and tries to return to your hand. If you have no hand free, it falls to the ground at your feet. If the sword has no unobstructed path to you, it moves as close to you as it can and then falls to the ground. It also ceases to hover if you grasp it or move more than 30 feet away from it.
But im holding a sword and shield while my dancing sword is out.... are my hands free...... for when it returns? or does it fall to the ground?
So, Free isn't asking us if it is empty. Free is asking us if it is available.
And with warcaster in the mix, we know it is available. Because if you're doing S, you can do M. And warcaster is letting us do S while holding a sword. So our hand is absolutely 100% free for this.
There's a difference between a hand that is free to do x and a free hand. A hand that is free to do x, like you said, can be anything. A free hand is, by definition and common usage, a hand that is holding nothing.
100% disagree. A free hand is by definition and common usage a hand which is available.
No where else does "Free" mean "Empty". They're not synonymous.
If the authors wanted the rules to say an Empty hand, they... would have.
They instead choose "free" hand. because the requirement is that the hand not-be-unavialable-because-of-doing-something-else. Not that it be empty.
Again, Free is not synonymous with Empty. In any usage. It is synonymous with being available.
If someone says they're "free to meet about the upcoming project". They're not telling you they're empty. They're telling you they're available.
If this is how your definition of "free hand" interacts with War Caster, how does it work without? Since (by your logic) nothing in the rules says that a free hand is empty,
That isn't "my logic".
The rules themselves do not define "free hand" anywhere. If you think that is "my logic" then please correct me and post the rules quote which defines a free hand as being empty.
Common usage just means it needs to be available.
does this mean that you can hold a material component and a sword in the same hand even without War Caster?
Maybe. "What's the DM say?" would be my response. If he says no, then, no.
Are you asking if I was DMing what my ruling would be? That'll depend on a whole lot of stuff. What the weapon is, what the material component is. What your character is and maybe even the situation. that's really one of the beautiful things about the game, you, as a DM, can make all sorts of calls/rulings, and puzzle through the crazy situations all your players keep putting themselves into.
Generally, this wouldn't ever come up. A couple reasons.
The number of spells with material but not somatic components is very...very low.
It is super rare for PCs to go around finding and carrying the specific components to their spells.
they have a component pouch, then I'd say No. Since the pouch is on their belt, presumably, ready to be accessed. Holding a pouch that contains all your components with the sword hand just ain't going to work.
So lets look at an example, since it helps to think of a specific case. feather fall This spell has a verbal and material component. A small feather.
Would I as a DM rule a player can hold a small feather in the hand that is holding a sword? Yes. 100% yes every time. The addition of "a small feather" is going to be possible basically always.
Can you perform somatic components with it too, since technically all that requires is a "free hand"?
No, the existence of War Caster is more than enough evidence to know that universally you cannot do S while holding weapons in the hand. Why? A feat exists to remove that restriction. So, by definition, there is a restriction to lift. So, we can be certain there is one, in all cases.
That takes it well and truly out of DM-ruling territory, and into DM-can-homebrew-it-otherwise-if-they-please territory.
And with warcaster in the mix, we know it is available. Because if you're doing S, you can do M. And warcaster is letting us do S while holding a sword. So our hand is absolutely 100% free for this.
Also I can't load a crossbow with a sword in my hand I need a free hand one that is empty and not bound.
IDK that I'd agree with this. Can you load a bolt while wearing a glove? Your hand isn't empty then. Can you load it while manacled to a wall with 10ft of chain to your wrist? Probably.
Free hand in 5th ed is defined as unbound and empty, not with something in it.
This is just not true. Please post a rules quote to back this claim.
Free Hand is not a defined 5e term. We need to use common usage, and that means the hand needs to be available. Ie, not busy doing something else.
Ammunition. You can use a weapon that has the ammunition property to make a ranged attack only if you have ammunition to fire from the weapon. Each time you attack with the weapon, you expend one piece of ammunition. Drawing the ammunition from a quiver, case, or other container is part of the attack (you need a free hand to load a one-handed weapon). At the end of the battle, you can recover half your expended ammunition by taking a minute to search the battlefield.
Looking at your logic that means I can also wear gloves of missile snaring and catch arrows with a sword in both my hands.
Looking at your logic you can't even fire a crossbow while wearing gloves because your hand isn't empty.
Or lets look at dancing sword
After the hovering sword attacks for the fourth time, it flies up to 30 feet and tries to return to your hand. If you have no hand free, it falls to the ground at your feet. If the sword has no unobstructed path to you, it moves as close to you as it can and then falls to the ground. It also ceases to hover if you grasp it or move more than 30 feet away from it.
But im holding a sword and shield while my dancing sword is out.... are my hands free...... for when it returns? or does it fall to the ground?
This is a question for you and your DM to answer. I'm confident he'll have one for you. I don't know what the answer will be, of course, because I don't know your character, the situation this is happening in, or even how your DM typically rules things. But he could very well answer it yes, or no, depending on all these factors.
Heck, I don't even know if your character only has two hands. This is a fantasy make believe game. Trying to nail down how I think your DM will rule on an unknown situation is pure baseless speculation.
That aside, were I the DM, and your character a human with normal arm configuration, and this was a typical situation (well, as typical as one where someone had a dancing sword, anyway) So, unless you drop the sword already in-hand, then I'd rule your hands aren't free to grab hold the dancing sword when it returned.
That's be the sort of thing you'd need a feature to help with. Much like how Warcaster helps casters cast spells while holding swords.
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.
Its seems odd because you are using a different meaning of free hand than the book is. If you can do the somatic components with your hand it is by definition free to do material components too. That's why it says that you "can" use the hand that does S to also do M. Sage Advice clarifies this succinctly too.
If a spell has a somatic component, you can use the hand that performs the somatic component to also handle the material component.
So, if you can do the S components, your hand is free to do the M components too. The rules tell us it can. So, it is free to.
According to the material components rule yes, I don’t think anyone is actually arguing that a single free hand can’t do both the material and somatic components. What is being argued is that the Warcaster feat’s allowance of somatic components with a hand that is unfree because it is holding a weapon then also allows you to hold a material component in the unfree hand even though that is not stated in the feat. The two rules are not extending each other but are separate. The warcaster feat establishes a specific exception to the freehand rule for somatic components but says nothing about material. The material component rule ends by reminding us that the material component must be in a free hand even if it is a free hand doing somatic components. This doesn’t include an unfree hand holding a weapon and doing a somatic component because of the exception to the free hand rule in warcaster.
The sword carrying hand isn't "unfree". The feat allows you to do somatic components with a sword in hand, the hand is very much free to do somatic components. And the basic rules have the exception you're looking for. if you do S, you can do M.
This is where you are wrong- because it is holding a sword it is no longer a free hand. What warcaster does is create a specific exception to the somatic rule requiring a free hand and only for the somatic component. if it extended that exception to material components it would have said so.
you must have a free hand (ie one not holding and using something else) to do somatic components; exceptions: 1) IF you have a weapon in one hand you may do the somatic component with that unfree hand IF(and only if) you have the Warcaster feat. 2) you may use the same freehand to do both somatic and material components (like having to throw (somatic component) the sulfur and dung pellet ( material component) to cast the fireball spell. If you had a sword in that hand as well you would also be throwing the sword.
You hand is free if it is available. No more, no less.
If your hand is available to do somatic components, it is free to do somatic components. Whether that happens from being empty, or from having a feature that allows it to be free even while holding a sword, is irrelevant. It needs to be free, ie, available.
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.
A glove or a gauntlet is still free hand if you are hold ANYTHING like a sword, staff, broom, tree branch your hand is now not free. If they were considered free then the example in the sage advise here would mean that the cleric would not need to put there weapon down.
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.
Again this is right from them. If that cleric has shield and mace in there hands they need to put one away to do a somatic comp of the spell. NOT they can hold the mace and shield and cast a spell. Also this gives a very defined version of what a free hand is and isnt.
If by what your saying then the cleric would not need to put that mace away and would not need warcaster. But by what Dnd is saying that cleric does not have a free hand TILL the put either the mace or shield away, hence having an empty hand.
Let's hope. But even so, there will always be players who twist the meaning of the rules to gain an advantage. That is unavoidable.
In fact, it does not seem to me that in this case it is badly explained. The rule tells you that you can make the gestures with the same hand that holds a material component, and vice versa (that you can hold the material component with the hand that makes the gestures). That simplifies to saying that you only need one free hand, not both, for the material and somatic components. But there will always be someone who twists and twists the meaning of words so that the rule says what it doesn't say.
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.
(not ... or) In other words, a free hand must both be empty and not currently in use.
Yes. Warcaster modifies that requirement. But yes, normally a hand needs to be entirely available, both empty and not busy.
Exactly, warcaster makes an exception for this allowing you to do somatic components (only) with a hand holding a weapon. Similarly, the materials component rules makes a similar exception to allow somatic components to be done with a hand holding material components. Nowhere is there a written rule allowing you to cast while holding the material component in the same hand that holds a weapon ( or a shield).
Nowhere is there a written rule allowing you to cast while holding the material component in the same hand that holds a weapon ( or a shield).
This point was made in post #2 in this thread, multiple times on page 1, and dozens of times in total over these seven pages
No one has yet offered a Rule As Written that says otherwise
The horse is beyond dead, it's now just a thin paste on the grass
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 don't know what the official policy is, but if having the thread locked by group concensus is permitted, consider this my Vote in Favor of moving on.
Edit: For clarity, I mean "moving on" as literally "locking this thread for the purpose of preventing any additional discussion of the topic", with the added benefit of mitigating the mild, yet sustained headache that it has caused. Edit #2: For clarity, the portion of the previous edit referencing "headaches" is not intended as a qualifying clause to modify the stated meaning of "moving on". Edit #3: Should further clarification be necessary, and I am unavailable for comment, I hereby grant any staff or moderator of DNDBeyond.com representative privileges to unilaterally interpret my intentions and act accordingly, with respect to this post. Edit #4: This is satire. Edit #5: Satire is defined as "the use of humor, irony, exaggeration, or ridicule to expose and criticize people's stupidity or vices, particularly in the context of contemporary politics and other topical issues." Edit #6: Mumble mumble Edit #7: Yada Yada Edit #8: Very small text Edit #9: Why are you reading this? Edit #10: ....... Edit #11: The barn swallow (Hirundo rustica) is the most widespread species of swallow in the world. In fact, it appears to have the largest natural distribution of any of the world's passerines, ranging over 251 million square kilometres globally. It is a distinctive passerine bird with blue upperparts and a long, deeply forked tail. It is found in Europe, Asia, Africa and the Americas. In Anglophone Europe it is just called the swallow; in northern Europe it is the only common species called a "swallow" rather than a "martin".
Now for the sentence everyone is debating: "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."(bolded for easier reference)
Finally, as I pointed out earlier using the fact that the hand supplying the material component can also supply the somatic component to assert that a hand supplying the somatic component can also supply the material component is a fallacious argument. For example: dogs are mammals. My cat is a mammal, therefore my cat is a dog. See? The fact that my cat is a mammal is not sufficient to prove it is a dog. It might be required but it is not sufficient. To justify the position that a hand supplying somatic components is always able to also provide material components you need further evidence.
The logic that "A means B does not mean B means A" doesn't seem to really apply here, since the statement doesn't seem to have direction to the statement- more like A and B can coexist, therefore B and A can coexist (which is accurate).
The directionality comes from two facts. First is the structure of the clause after the 'but' itself, the subject of the clause is the hand manipulating the material component and the object of the clause is the somatic component. It is the hand manipulating the material component that is doing the action of performing the somatic component. The second fact that helps inform the reader of the directionality is the order in which the somatic and material component rules were written. The somatic rule is presented first to the reader and lays the foundation that performing a somatic component requires a free hand. Immediately afterwards the material component rule tells us that we need a hand to manipulate the spell's material component and that hand can also perform the somatic component. This follows the specific beats general rule paradigm WotC uses when writing their rules and it is the material component rule that contains the exception to the somatic component rule.
My issue wasn't with the mammal example, I understood that. It was solely with the idea that the rules are directional. If they are directional, then you're completely right; no need to explain it with different terms again.
You might have read the text incorrectly for your first fact. You claim that the subject of the clause is the hand manipulating the material component, which is true, and the object of the clause is the somatic component, which is false. In fact, the object of the clause is the hand performing the somatic component. If the sentence read "but it can also be used as the hand that he or she uses to perform somatic components," then you would be completely right and my argument would fall apart. However, it doesn't read that way, but rather in a way that makes it clear that the M and S hands are merged instead of just the "M hand" performing S as well.
Your second fact doesn't say much of anything in terms of RAW, although maybe RAI (which is pointless since I already admitted that RAI is against me).
Since this thread is active again I'll post my response.
Fair enough, I apologize for making a redundant argument. I just wanted to make sure I was communicating my perspective clearly. As for the original clause "but it can be the same hand that he or she uses to perform somatic components" compared to your suggested clause "but it can also be used as the hand that he or she uses to perform somatic components" I agree that would a better way to write it if the directionality was intended. My opinion was that the written rules are sufficiently clear to communicate the intended result to any reasonable reader. However, the fact that we can still disagree about this is evidence enough that I was wrong in my opinion.
Thank you for taking the time to discuss this with me.
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)
(not ... or) In other words, a free hand must both be empty and not currently in use.
Yes. Warcaster modifies that requirement. But yes, normally a hand needs to be entirely available, both empty and not busy.
Exactly, warcaster makes an exception for this allowing you to do somatic components (only) with a hand holding a weapon. Similarly, the materials component rules makes a similar exception to allow somatic components to be done with a hand holding material components. Nowhere is there a written rule allowing you to cast while holding the material component in the same hand that holds a weapon ( or a shield).
If we wanna get super technical, Warcaster doesn't actually let you perform Somatic components with the hand holding a sword if you use the definition of Free Hand that is quoted above.
Warcaster says: You can perform the somatic components of spells even when you have weapons or a shield in one or both hands.
But... you already could.
There is no requirement that to cast spell you cannot be holding a shield. Nor one that you cannot be holding a sword. You could already cast spells with somatic components while holding shields or swords. You can even hold one of each and still cast S spell. If. If you had a free hand.
But war caster doesn't specifically remove the need for a free hand. So, presumably you still need one.
And if your definition of free is not occupied, then you have no* free hands while holding both a shield and a sword. (*Unless you're 3+ handed, of course)
By the definition of free hand that I am arguing for, which is actually the one Merriam calls 6a/b (a couple before the one quoted above), the hand basically just needs to be available for it to be considered free. By that definition, the sword or shield hand are both free to do S components because Warcaster says they can.
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.
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.
This right here from the errata is telling you what the consider a free hand and what is required. It says "she needs to put the mace or the shield away" To do a somatic component, hence you hand needs to be empty not "available" but empty. A free hand means empty/not in use. You can still use a sword with a glove or gauntlet cause your WEARING THEM. We have given you more examples from the book and sage advices that prove you wrong or many levels. [REDACTED]
Free hand = nothing in it like a sword or shield/not in use/not bound Warcaster feat = ONLY affects somatic it says nothing about material gen vs specific means this do not change material comps in anyway you need a free hand to use a material comp. Somatic comp = you need a free hand as showing the example FROM THE BOOK above UNLESS you have war caster then you don't need to get rid of anything. Material comp = You need a free hand - cause there is nothing in the game that takes material comps away from a caster. You cant handle you arcane staff and use your sword at the same time and make magic swirlies in the air.
This is all RAW all things that can be found in dnd beyond and dnd right now.
My issue wasn't with the mammal example, I understood that. It was solely with the idea that the rules are directional. If they are directional, then you're completely right; no need to explain it with different terms again.
You might have read the text incorrectly for your first fact. You claim that the subject of the clause is the hand manipulating the material component, which is true, and the object of the clause is the somatic component, which is false. In fact, the object of the clause is the hand performing the somatic component. If the sentence read "but it can also be used as the hand that he or she uses to perform somatic components," then you would be completely right and my argument would fall apart. However, it doesn't read that way, but rather in a way that makes it clear that the M and S hands are merged instead of just the "M hand" performing S as well.
Your second fact doesn't say much of anything in terms of RAW, although maybe RAI (which is pointless since I already admitted that RAI is against me).
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)
There's a difference between a hand that is free to do x and a free hand. A hand that is free to do x, like you said, can be anything. A free hand is, by definition and common usage, a hand that is holding nothing.
If this is how your definition of "free hand" interacts with War Caster, how does it work without? Since (by your logic) nothing in the rules says that a free hand is empty, does this mean that you can hold a material component and a sword in the same hand even without War Caster? Can you perform somatic components with it too, since technically all that requires is a "free hand"?
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)
Also I can't load a crossbow with a sword in my hand I need a free hand one that is empty and not bound. Free hand in 5th ed is defined as unbound and empty, not with something in it.
Ammunition. You can use a weapon that has the ammunition property to make a ranged attack only if you have ammunition to fire from the weapon. Each time you attack with the weapon, you expend one piece of ammunition. Drawing the ammunition from a quiver, case, or other container is part of the attack (you need a free hand to load a one-handed weapon). At the end of the battle, you can recover half your expended ammunition by taking a minute to search the battlefield.
Looking at your logic that means I can also wear gloves of missile snaring and catch arrows with a sword in both my hands.
Or lets look at dancing sword
After the hovering sword attacks for the fourth time, it flies up to 30 feet and tries to return to your hand. If you have no hand free, it falls to the ground at your feet. If the sword has no unobstructed path to you, it moves as close to you as it can and then falls to the ground. It also ceases to hover if you grasp it or move more than 30 feet away from it.
But im holding a sword and shield while my dancing sword is out.... are my hands free...... for when it returns? or does it fall to the ground?
100% disagree. A free hand is by definition and common usage a hand which is available.
No where else does "Free" mean "Empty". They're not synonymous.
If the authors wanted the rules to say an Empty hand, they... would have.
They instead choose "free" hand. because the requirement is that the hand not-be-unavialable-because-of-doing-something-else. Not that it be empty.
Again, Free is not synonymous with Empty. In any usage. It is synonymous with being available.
If someone says they're "free to meet about the upcoming project". They're not telling you they're empty. They're telling you they're available.
That isn't "my logic".
The rules themselves do not define "free hand" anywhere. If you think that is "my logic" then please correct me and post the rules quote which defines a free hand as being empty.
Common usage just means it needs to be available.
Maybe. "What's the DM say?" would be my response. If he says no, then, no.
Are you asking if I was DMing what my ruling would be? That'll depend on a whole lot of stuff. What the weapon is, what the material component is. What your character is and maybe even the situation. that's really one of the beautiful things about the game, you, as a DM, can make all sorts of calls/rulings, and puzzle through the crazy situations all your players keep putting themselves into.
Generally, this wouldn't ever come up. A couple reasons.
they have a component pouch, then I'd say No. Since the pouch is on their belt, presumably, ready to be accessed. Holding a pouch that contains all your components with the sword hand just ain't going to work.
So lets look at an example, since it helps to think of a specific case. feather fall This spell has a verbal and material component. A small feather.
Would I as a DM rule a player can hold a small feather in the hand that is holding a sword? Yes. 100% yes every time. The addition of "a small feather" is going to be possible basically always.
No, the existence of War Caster is more than enough evidence to know that universally you cannot do S while holding weapons in the hand. Why? A feat exists to remove that restriction. So, by definition, there is a restriction to lift. So, we can be certain there is one, in all cases.
That takes it well and truly out of DM-ruling territory, and into DM-can-homebrew-it-otherwise-if-they-please territory.
IDK that I'd agree with this. Can you load a bolt while wearing a glove? Your hand isn't empty then. Can you load it while manacled to a wall with 10ft of chain to your wrist? Probably.
This is just not true. Please post a rules quote to back this claim.
Free Hand is not a defined 5e term. We need to use common usage, and that means the hand needs to be available. Ie, not busy doing something else.
Looking at your logic you can't even fire a crossbow while wearing gloves because your hand isn't empty.
This is a question for you and your DM to answer. I'm confident he'll have one for you. I don't know what the answer will be, of course, because I don't know your character, the situation this is happening in, or even how your DM typically rules things. But he could very well answer it yes, or no, depending on all these factors.
Heck, I don't even know if your character only has two hands. This is a fantasy make believe game. Trying to nail down how I think your DM will rule on an unknown situation is pure baseless speculation.
That aside, were I the DM, and your character a human with normal arm configuration, and this was a typical situation (well, as typical as one where someone had a dancing sword, anyway) So, unless you drop the sword already in-hand, then I'd rule your hands aren't free to grab hold the dancing sword when it returned.
That's be the sort of thing you'd need a feature to help with. Much like how Warcaster helps casters cast spells while holding swords.
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.
This is where you are wrong- because it is holding a sword it is no longer a free hand. What warcaster does is create a specific exception to the somatic rule requiring a free hand and only for the somatic component. if it extended that exception to material components it would have said so.
you must have a free hand (ie one not holding and using something else) to do somatic components; exceptions: 1) IF you have a weapon in one hand you may do the somatic component with that unfree hand IF(and only if) you have the Warcaster feat. 2) you may use the same freehand to do both somatic and material components (like having to throw (somatic component) the sulfur and dung pellet ( material component) to cast the fireball spell. If you had a sword in that hand as well you would also be throwing the sword.
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
Let’s hope 2024 fixes the issue once and for all.
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?
You hand is free if it is available. No more, no less.
If your hand is available to do somatic components, it is free to do somatic components. Whether that happens from being empty, or from having a feature that allows it to be free even while holding a sword, is irrelevant. It needs to be free, ie, available.
For reals. Some of their clarifications are pretty good, even in just the test material. Not all of it is, obviously, but I've got high hopes.
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.
A glove or a gauntlet is still free hand if you are hold ANYTHING like a sword, staff, broom, tree branch your hand is now not free. If they were considered free then the example in the sage advise here would mean that the cleric would not need to put there weapon down.
From the sage advice errata in dnd beyond https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/sac/sage-advice-compendium#SA165
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.
Again this is right from them. If that cleric has shield and mace in there hands they need to put one away to do a somatic comp of the spell. NOT they can hold the mace and shield and cast a spell. Also this gives a very defined version of what a free hand is and isnt.
If by what your saying then the cleric would not need to put that mace away and would not need warcaster. But by what Dnd is saying that cleric does not have a free hand TILL the put either the mace or shield away, hence having an empty hand.
Also found this...... Both are the same thing the first link shows the question since the original tweet was deleted.
https://www.sageadvice.eu/war-caster-free-hand/
https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/580184885567991808
Let's hope. But even so, there will always be players who twist the meaning of the rules to gain an advantage. That is unavoidable.
In fact, it does not seem to me that in this case it is badly explained. The rule tells you that you can make the gestures with the same hand that holds a material component, and vice versa (that you can hold the material component with the hand that makes the gestures). That simplifies to saying that you only need one free hand, not both, for the material and somatic components. But there will always be someone who twists and twists the meaning of words so that the rule says what it doesn't say.
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
ModeratorThe Merriam Webster dictionary actually defines what a "free hand" means.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/free
See definition 8b.
(not ... or) In other words, a free hand must both be empty and not currently in use.
Homebrew Rules || Homebrew FAQ || Snippet Codes || Tooltips
DDB Guides & FAQs, Class Guides, Character Builds, Game Guides, Useful Websites, and WOTC Resources
Yes. Warcaster modifies that requirement. But yes, normally a hand needs to be entirely available, both empty and not busy.
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.
It does? Neither my copy of the book nor D&DBeyond mentions material components in the text of war caster at all.
Exactly, warcaster makes an exception for this allowing you to do somatic components (only) with a hand holding a weapon. Similarly, the materials component rules makes a similar exception to allow somatic components to be done with a hand holding material components. Nowhere is there a written rule allowing you to cast while holding the material component in the same hand that holds a weapon ( or a shield).
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
This point was made in post #2 in this thread, multiple times on page 1, and dozens of times in total over these seven pages
No one has yet offered a Rule As Written that says otherwise
The horse is beyond dead, it's now just a thin paste on the grass
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)
Mmmm.... horse paste.
I don't know what the official policy is, but if having the thread locked by group concensus is permitted, consider this my Vote in Favor of moving on.
Edit: For clarity, I mean "moving on" as literally "locking this thread for the purpose of preventing any additional discussion of the topic", with the added benefit of mitigating the mild, yet sustained headache that it has caused.
Edit #2: For clarity, the portion of the previous edit referencing "headaches" is not intended as a qualifying clause to modify the stated meaning of "moving on".
Edit #3: Should further clarification be necessary, and I am unavailable for comment, I hereby grant any staff or moderator of DNDBeyond.com representative privileges to unilaterally interpret my intentions and act accordingly, with respect to this post.
Edit #4: This is satire.
Edit #5: Satire is defined as "the use of humor, irony, exaggeration, or ridicule to expose and criticize people's stupidity or vices, particularly in the context of contemporary politics and other topical issues."
Edit #6: Mumble mumble
Edit #7: Yada Yada
Edit #8: Very small text
Edit #9: Why are you reading this?
Edit #10: .......
Edit #11: The barn swallow (Hirundo rustica) is the most widespread species of swallow in the world. In fact, it appears to have the largest natural distribution of any of the world's passerines, ranging over 251 million square kilometres globally. It is a distinctive passerine bird with blue upperparts and a long, deeply forked tail. It is found in Europe, Asia, Africa and the Americas. In Anglophone Europe it is just called the swallow; in northern Europe it is the only common species called a "swallow" rather than a "martin".
Since this thread is active again I'll post my response.
Fair enough, I apologize for making a redundant argument. I just wanted to make sure I was communicating my perspective clearly. As for the original clause "but it can be the same hand that he or she uses to perform somatic components" compared to your suggested clause "but it can also be used as the hand that he or she uses to perform somatic components" I agree that would a better way to write it if the directionality was intended. My opinion was that the written rules are sufficiently clear to communicate the intended result to any reasonable reader. However, the fact that we can still disagree about this is evidence enough that I was wrong in my opinion.
Thank you for taking the time to discuss this with me.
And on that day, his faith in humanity grew three sizes...
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)
If we wanna get super technical, Warcaster doesn't actually let you perform Somatic components with the hand holding a sword if you use the definition of Free Hand that is quoted above.
Warcaster says: You can perform the somatic components of spells even when you have weapons or a shield in one or both hands.
But... you already could.
There is no requirement that to cast spell you cannot be holding a shield. Nor one that you cannot be holding a sword. You could already cast spells with somatic components while holding shields or swords. You can even hold one of each and still cast S spell. If. If you had a free hand.
But war caster doesn't specifically remove the need for a free hand. So, presumably you still need one.
And if your definition of free is not occupied, then you have no* free hands while holding both a shield and a sword. (*Unless you're 3+ handed, of course)
By the definition of free hand that I am arguing for, which is actually the one Merriam calls 6a/b (a couple before the one quoted above), the hand basically just needs to be available for it to be considered free. By that definition, the sword or shield hand are both free to do S components because Warcaster says they can.
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.
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.
This right here from the errata is telling you what the consider a free hand and what is required. It says "she needs to put the mace or the shield away" To do a somatic component, hence you hand needs to be empty not "available" but empty. A free hand means empty/not in use. You can still use a sword with a glove or gauntlet cause your WEARING THEM. We have given you more examples from the book and sage advices that prove you wrong or many levels. [REDACTED]
Free hand = nothing in it like a sword or shield/not in use/not bound
Warcaster feat = ONLY affects somatic it says nothing about material gen vs specific means this do not change material comps in anyway you need a free hand to use a material comp.
Somatic comp = you need a free hand as showing the example FROM THE BOOK above UNLESS you have war caster then you don't need to get rid of anything.
Material comp = You need a free hand - cause there is nothing in the game that takes material comps away from a caster. You cant handle you arcane staff and use your sword at the same time and make magic swirlies in the air.
This is all RAW all things that can be found in dnd beyond and dnd right now.
My apologies this post got spicier then I wanted.