While you can possibly place multiple things in hand, i believe that for item interaction purposes, a hand is not free when holding anything, be it a feather, a coin or a sword.
I recognize a lot of people believe that. But the actual text of the rules don't back it up.
They don't ever require a "free hand"
They do require a "hand free to"
The common belief seems to be that they require a free hand for components, entirely and completely devoid of anything in it whatsoever and forever. Yet, not only is that not written, what is written is actually different.
The term "Free Hand" only comes up in the PHB a few times.
These things do require your hand to be entirely empty. The hand needs be universally available for anything:
Using at least one free hand, you try to seize the target by making a grapple check instead of an attack roll:
You evoke a fiery blade in your free hand.
you need a free hand to load a one-handed weapon
And... That's it. That's all three times "Free hand" appears in the PHB.
But wait? Where are spell components?
Here the book asks for the free use of a hand or for the hand to be free to do something. These are asking if it is free enough to do something specific. This is a narrow application of availability. It isn't a universally free requirement.
If a spell requires a somatic component, the caster must have free use of at least one hand to perform these gestures.
A spellcaster must have a hand free to access a spell’s material components.
As you can see, the spell component rules are not written the same way as the other ones above.
It is easy to mix these things up. But here is an example to help keep them sorted. If someone says they just lost their job so now have a free schedule, they're telling you they can do anything at any time. But if they ask if your schedule is free to meet for lunch tomorrow... they only wanna know about if your schedule being free enough to meet. They're not the same ask.
It is easy to simplify them all and just decree that they all have the same universal requirement. Streamlining the rules is fine and good, but it is important to know when you're doing it. The rules text doesn't streamline it for us, it uses several distinctly different requirements. So if we wanna streamline it into one requirement for all these situations we'll need to homebrew it to be simplified in that way.
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.
While you can possibly place multiple things in hand, i believe that for item interaction purposes, a hand is not free when holding anything, be it a feather, a coin or a sword.
I recognize a lot of people believe that. But the actual text of the rules don't back it up.
They don't ever require a "free hand"
They do require a "hand free to"
The term ''free hand'' is referred to the official ruling in Sage Advice;
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.
While you can possibly place multiple things in hand, i believe that for item interaction purposes, a hand is not free when holding anything, be it a feather, a coin or a sword.
I recognize a lot of people believe that. But the actual text of the rules don't back it up.
They don't ever require a "free hand"
They do require a "hand free to"
The term ''free hand'' is referred to the official ruling in Sage Advice;
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.
That references to the original text in the PHB of:
If a spell requires a somatic component, the caster must have free use of at least one hand to perform these gestures.
The use of the hand needs to be free to perform gestures.
Warcaster doesn't even remove this restriction. It just redefines what "free use" to perform means.
You can perform the somatic components of spells even when you have weapons or a shield in one or both hands.
As you can see, it doesn't remove a "free hand" requirement. It doesn't mention a free hand at all. Instead, it tells us what we can do, we can make the somatic components with a sword or shield in one or both hands.
So when we then ask ourselves, while holding a sword and shield.... do I have free use of at least one hand to perform these gestures? The answer is yes.
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.
First of all, you've got to admit that RAI is not on your side. There's no way in hell anybody would say "to perform somatic components you need to have a hand that can perform somatic components" and then not define what kinds of hands can perform somatic components (besides it can be the same undefined hand that performs material components). That's basically the situation you're suggesting. As I've said before, your argument supports the idea that you can perform somatic components with swords even without War Caster.
Second of all, your analysis of this sentence is just wrong; "If a spell requires a somatic component, the caster must have free use of at least one hand to perform these gestures." It requires free use of at least one hand. Free use means it has to be empty. The 'to' afterwards does not say that the hand only has to be free enough to perform the gestures, but rather that it has to be free so that it can perform the gestures. If you would think that "a hand has to be free so that it can perform these gestures," which is basically synonymous to the rules in question, still means that a hand doesn't have to be empty, then I don't know what to tell you.
Third of all, you've latched onto about 4 different arguments during the course of this post. It doesn't necessarily mean that you're wrong, it just... sews doubt as to the validity of your arguments.
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)
I recognize a lot of people believe that. But the actual text of the rules don't back it up.
The common belief seems to be that they require a free hand for components, entirely and completely devoid of anything in it whatsoever and forever. Yet, not only is that not written, what is written is actually different.
The term "Free Hand" only comes up in the PHB a few times.
These things do require your hand to be entirely empty. The hand needs be universally available for anything:
And... That's it. That's all three times "Free hand" appears in the PHB.
But wait? Where are spell components?
Here the book asks for the free use of a hand or for the hand to be free to do something. These are asking if it is free enough to do something specific. This is a narrow application of availability. It isn't a universally free requirement.
As you can see, the spell component rules are not written the same way as the other ones above.
It is easy to mix these things up. But here is an example to help keep them sorted. If someone says they just lost their job so now have a free schedule, they're telling you they can do anything at any time. But if they ask if your schedule is free to meet for lunch tomorrow... they only wanna know about if your schedule being free enough to meet. They're not the same ask.
It is easy to simplify them all and just decree that they all have the same universal requirement. Streamlining the rules is fine and good, but it is important to know when you're doing it. The rules text doesn't streamline it for us, it uses several distinctly different requirements. So if we wanna streamline it into one requirement for all these situations we'll need to homebrew it to be simplified in that way.
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.
The term ''free hand'' is referred to the official ruling in Sage Advice;
That references to the original text in the PHB of:
The use of the hand needs to be free to perform gestures.
Warcaster doesn't even remove this restriction. It just redefines what "free use" to perform means.
As you can see, it doesn't remove a "free hand" requirement. It doesn't mention a free hand at all. Instead, it tells us what we can do, we can make the somatic components with a sword or shield in one or both hands.
So when we then ask ourselves, while holding a sword and shield.... do I have free use of at least one hand to perform these gestures? The answer is yes.
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.
First of all, you've got to admit that RAI is not on your side. There's no way in hell anybody would say "to perform somatic components you need to have a hand that can perform somatic components" and then not define what kinds of hands can perform somatic components (besides it can be the same undefined hand that performs material components). That's basically the situation you're suggesting. As I've said before, your argument supports the idea that you can perform somatic components with swords even without War Caster.
Second of all, your analysis of this sentence is just wrong; "If a spell requires a somatic component, the caster must have free use of at least one hand to perform these gestures." It requires free use of at least one hand. Free use means it has to be empty. The 'to' afterwards does not say that the hand only has to be free enough to perform the gestures, but rather that it has to be free so that it can perform the gestures. If you would think that "a hand has to be free so that it can perform these gestures," which is basically synonymous to the rules in question, still means that a hand doesn't have to be empty, then I don't know what to tell you.
Third of all, you've latched onto about 4 different arguments during the course of this post. It doesn't necessarily mean that you're wrong, it just... sews doubt as to the validity of your arguments.
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 wouldn't worry about convincing everyone in this thread, some people just enjoy playing the devil's advocate.