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.
There's no "regional grammar problem" here.
Somatic (S)
Spellcasting gestures might include a forceful gesticulation or an intricate set of gestures. If a spell requires a somatic component, the caster must have free use of at least one hand to perform these gestures.
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.
War Caster
You can perform the somatic components of spells even when you have weapons or a shield in one or both hands.
The "but" you're so hung up on in the M description doesn't erase the first part of that sentence. The spellcaster must have a free hand for the focus or M components. The spellcaster can use that same hand to perform the S components.
War Caster says nothing about M components. If there's no hand free for the M, War Caster is irrelevant.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
The "but" you're so hung up on in the M description doesn't erase the first part of that sentence.
It doesn't erase it. It creates an exception clause.
That's what the word "but" does.
Two clauses. First clause establishes something. The second clause that follows the "but" is an exception from the first clause.
This is basic grammar.
So we follow the first clause. Except for if we satisfy the second clause.
That second clause is:
it can be the same hand that he or she uses to perform somatic components.
You guys would be correct if this second clause repeated the word "free". It does not though. It simply says that the same hand that completes somatic can complete material.
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.
But you are right not to allow it. Those rules are there to limit the use of magic on heavily armed characters.
Rule parsing aside, there are several loopholes in the game that allow magic on heavily armed characters. It's not so much a restriction as it is a resource tax.
Part of the discussion of Rules and Mechanics is identifying when the stated rules are arbitrary, obtuse, or contradictory. The minutiae of all the various rules and feature interactions regarding spell components fits all three of these for me, and I'd pose that your game is better off with a few overriding rulings.
Or just give your Fighter/Wizard a staff to swing around and call it good.
From an entirely different standpoint, I'd have major beef with a DM I played with trying to hamstring a character this way. The player clearly wants to play a gish character and have spent a feat making the logistics of it work. They've put in the requisite resources for this magic swordsman archetype to be playable. Stomping on their fun in that way is a travesty imo.
Especially since it is a wrong reading of the rule.
This character has intentionally and with intent multiclasssed his caster into a fighter class. He's 100% legit weaker. Already. And on top of that is now spending a feat, possibly his only or one of his only, just to let the two classes sorta work together.
What's worse, is he could have just cheesed the system and dropped/free pickup his sword every round instead of spending a whole feat to do it properly.
Idk. The rule is clear that warcaster lets you do this, in my mind. And as a chronic DM I can't understand the motivation for wanting to stop it from working, either.
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.
The "but" you're so hung up on in the M description doesn't erase the first part of that sentence.
It doesn't erase it. It creates an exception clause.
That's what the word "but" does.
Two clauses. First clause establishes something. The second clause that follows the "but" is an exception from the first clause.
This is basic grammar.
So we follow the first clause. Except for if we satisfy the second clause.
That second clause is:
it can be the same hand that he or she uses to perform somatic components.
You guys would be correct if this second clause repeated the word "free". It does not though. It simply says that the same hand that completes somatic can complete material.
You keep leaving off the part that says that it has to be a free hand. If your S hand isn’t free, it doesn’t EVEN qualify for the base M exception, not the other way around.
You have to get through the first part of the sentence before you can jump to the ‘but’.
The "but" you're so hung up on in the M description doesn't erase the first part of that sentence.
It doesn't erase it. It creates an exception clause.
That's what the word "but" does.
Two clauses. First clause establishes something. The second clause that follows the "but" is an exception from the first clause.
This is basic grammar.
So we follow the first clause. Except for if we satisfy the second clause.
That second clause is:
it can be the same hand that he or she uses to perform somatic components.
You guys would be correct if this second clause repeated the word "free". It does not though. It simply says that the same hand that completes somatic can complete material.
You keep leaving off the part that says that it has to be a free hand. If your S hand isn’t free, it doesn’t EVEN qualify for the base M exception, not the other way around.
You have to get through the first part of the sentence before you can jump to the ‘but’.
False. This is just an assertion, and is a false one.
I'm not leaving anything off. You do need a free hand to get material. Normally. With one exception.
The hand that completes somatic components can also complete material components.
Simple.
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.
The "but" you're so hung up on in the M description doesn't erase the first part of that sentence.
It doesn't erase it. It creates an exception clause.
That's what the word "but" does.
Two clauses. First clause establishes something. The second clause that follows the "but" is an exception from the first clause.
This is basic grammar.
So we follow the first clause. Except for if we satisfy the second clause.
That second clause is:
it can be the same hand that he or she uses to perform somatic components.
You guys would be correct if this second clause repeated the word "free". It does not though. It simply says that the same hand that completes somatic can complete material.
You keep leaving off the part that says that it has to be a free hand. If your S hand isn’t free, it doesn’t EVEN qualify for the base M exception, not the other way around.
You have to get through the first part of the sentence before you can jump to the ‘but’.
False. This is just an assertion, and is a false one.
I'm not leaving anything off. You do need a free hand to get material. Normally. With one exception.
The hand that completes somatic components can also complete material components.
Simple.
That’s not an exception. Again, for it to be an exception, it would been to contradict the base case.
Right, we've been over that. If you read a sentence that says "one but not two" and think that means zero, you are wrong. Simple.
No one is claiming they dont need hands.
The one not two rule is from the basic component rule. Yes.
The same one as the weapon one rule is from warcaster.
So you still need one hand. It just happens to be the same as the weapon hand, which is the same as the S/M hand.
Gotta have that hand though. No unarmed* spellcasting needed, not with warcaster.
*this is a pun about having no arms.
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.
I'm not leaving anything off. You do need a free hand to get material. Normally. With one exception.
The hand that completes somatic components can also complete material components.
Simple.
That’s not an exception. Again, for it to be an exception, it would been to contradict the base case.
It does. Normally you need a free hand. But you don't if it is the hand that completes the somatic components. That is an exception.
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.
Oh I didnt invent the text. It comes directly from the PHB. Chapter 10, Spellcasting. Components.
it can be the same hand that he or she uses to perform somatic components.
That's a direct rules quote.
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.
Oh I didnt invent the text. It comes directly from the PHB. Chapter 10, Spellcasting. Components.
it can be the same hand that he or she uses to perform somatic components.
That's a direct rules quote.
But it doesn't mean you no longer need a free hand for the material component. And Warcaster doesn't mean you no longer need a free hand for a material component.
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.
Warcaster takes away the need for a free hand for S but says nothing about taking away the need for a free hand for M. So yes I could cast things just a S,V and use a sword and shield. The moment I want to cast something with a S,V, and M I need a free hand cause I can't reach into a pouch while holding a sword and a trying to move my hand in precise magic incantations. So yes for anything with a M component I need a free hand still, If its just V and/or S then im good I can keep the sword in my hand draw the rune or wave my hand to cast the spell. To reach into my pouch I cant do that holding both a sword and a focus while trying to draw magic runes.
Rav will never change his mind and anyone else looking for ways to ignore restrictive rules probably won't either as long as someone else is supporting the idea. The only thing continuing this discussion will do is frustrate you.
Oh I didnt invent the text. It comes directly from the PHB. Chapter 10, Spellcasting. Components.
it can be the same hand that he or she uses to perform somatic components.
That's a direct rules quote.
But it doesn't mean you no longer need a free hand for the material component. And Warcaster doesn't mean you no longer need a free hand for a material component.
Sure it does. The hand you perform Somatic components with can be used for material components. Period. That absolutely takes away the need for a free hand. So long as the hand is doing the somatic components it can be used for material also.
Youd be right if it said:
it can be the same FREE hand that he or she uses to perform somatic components.
But is says:
it can be the same hand that he or she uses to perform somatic components.
That simple distinction makes all the difference. And I appreciate how subtle that is and totally understand why people get it wrong.
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.
Oh I didnt invent the text. It comes directly from the PHB. Chapter 10, Spellcasting. Components.
it can be the same hand that he or she uses to perform somatic components.
That's a direct rules quote.
But it doesn't mean you no longer need a free hand for the material component. And Warcaster doesn't mean you no longer need a free hand for a material component.
Sure it does. The hand you perform Somatic components with can be used for material components. Period. That absolutely takes away the need for a free hand. So long as the hand is doing the somatic components it can be used for material also.
Youd be right if it said:
it can be the same FREE hand that he or she uses to perform somatic components.
But is says:
it can be the same hand that he or she uses to perform somatic components.
That simple distinction makes all the difference. And I appreciate how subtle that is and totally understand why people get it wrong.
Affirming the Consequent: This is a formally invalid argument of the form “If A, then B; B; therefore A.” It confuses the idea that A can only be true when B is true for the idea that B can only be true if A is true
You're the one getting it wrong dude. It doesn't remove other requirements, you still need a free hand. You're making shit up in your head about what you read, applying extra meanings not provided by the actual words, to suit your bias of how you want it to work. I mean, I get it, I agree it's a silly technicality and as a DM I wouldn't bother - if it doesn't have a cost I don't care about the material components anyway - with component, without, I don't care. Makes no difference to the balance. But this is the Rules forum not the DM forum.
I've said my piece. You've said yours. We disagree. It doesn't matter who is right or not.
I'm exiting from this circle before the walls drive me crazy.
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.
Sure it does. The hand you perform Somatic components with can be used for material components. Period. That absolutely takes away the need for a free hand. So long as the hand is doing the somatic components it can be used for material also.
Youd be right if it said:
it can be the same FREE hand that he or she uses to perform somatic components.
But is says:
it can be the same hand that he or she uses to perform somatic components.
That simple distinction makes all the difference. And I appreciate how subtle that is and totally understand why people get it wrong.
Affirming the Consequent: This is a formally invalid argument of the form “If A, then B; B; therefore A.” It confuses the idea that A can only be true when B is true for the idea that B can only be true if A is true
Naw I didn't even use an "if, then" statement.
If it was one, then it would read:
"If your free hand* performs a somatic component, then you can use the same hand to provide the material component."
*Then warcaster comes by and redifines that free hand for somatic components means weilding shield/weapon too.
Thus, if you use the hand holding a sword to perform the somatic component of a spell, then you can use the same hand to provide the material component.
That's how you would phrase it as an if, then. Though, I hadn't earlier since the rules don't, and rephrasing can murky the waters. Because... if the authors wanted to write it as an if/then statement, then they would have.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
To caste a spell with V, S, & M components you start off needing 2 free hands, 1 for the somatic and one for the material. The material rule allows you to caste with a single hand handling the material VIA A FOCUS and the somatic so that something else can be in the other hand. The warcaster feat allows you to do the somatic components with a sword or shield instead of a free hand. Where is the class ability/feat/whatever that is making the sword a spell casting focus? Clerics are allowed to use their shield as a focus so I could see a cleric/warrior or cleric/mage casting something like fireball while wielding both a shield and mace but not a warrior. Unless there is a feature somewhere that turns a sword into a focus you would need to have 3 hands - sword hand, shield hand, and focus/somatic hand. Remember that you can do the material+somatic in one hand with a focus only not the component itself so unless either the sword or the shield is the focus you can’t cast material component spells when wielding a sword and shield.
There's no "regional grammar problem" here.
The "but" you're so hung up on in the M description doesn't erase the first part of that sentence. The spellcaster must have a free hand for the focus or M components. The spellcaster can use that same hand to perform the S components.
War Caster says nothing about M components. If there's no hand free for the M, War Caster is irrelevant.
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)
Certainly if you interpret a sentence that functionally says “at least one but not necessarily two” to mean zero, you probably are in the minority.
It doesn't erase it. It creates an exception clause.
That's what the word "but" does.
Two clauses. First clause establishes something. The second clause that follows the "but" is an exception from the first clause.
This is basic grammar.
So we follow the first clause. Except for if we satisfy the second clause.
That second clause is:
You guys would be correct if this second clause repeated the word "free". It does not though. It simply says that the same hand that completes somatic can complete material.
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.
Rule parsing aside, there are several loopholes in the game that allow magic on heavily armed characters. It's not so much a restriction as it is a resource tax.
Part of the discussion of Rules and Mechanics is identifying when the stated rules are arbitrary, obtuse, or contradictory. The minutiae of all the various rules and feature interactions regarding spell components fits all three of these for me, and I'd pose that your game is better off with a few overriding rulings.
Or just give your Fighter/Wizard a staff to swing around and call it good.
My homebrew subclasses (full list here)
(Artificer) Swordmage | Glasswright | (Barbarian) Path of the Savage Embrace
(Bard) College of Dance | (Fighter) Warlord | Cannoneer
(Monk) Way of the Elements | (Ranger) Blade Dancer
(Rogue) DaggerMaster | Inquisitor | (Sorcerer) Riftwalker | Spellfist
(Warlock) The Swarm
From an entirely different standpoint, I'd have major beef with a DM I played with trying to hamstring a character this way. The player clearly wants to play a gish character and have spent a feat making the logistics of it work. They've put in the requisite resources for this magic swordsman archetype to be playable. Stomping on their fun in that way is a travesty imo.
Especially since it is a wrong reading of the rule.
This character has intentionally and with intent multiclasssed his caster into a fighter class. He's 100% legit weaker. Already. And on top of that is now spending a feat, possibly his only or one of his only, just to let the two classes sorta work together.
What's worse, is he could have just cheesed the system and dropped/free pickup his sword every round instead of spending a whole feat to do it properly.
Idk. The rule is clear that warcaster lets you do this, in my mind. And as a chronic DM I can't understand the motivation for wanting to stop it from working, either.
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.
You keep leaving off the part that says that it has to be a free hand. If your S hand isn’t free, it doesn’t EVEN qualify for the base M exception, not the other way around.
You have to get through the first part of the sentence before you can jump to the ‘but’.
False. This is just an assertion, and is a false one.
I'm not leaving anything off. You do need a free hand to get material. Normally. With one exception.
The hand that completes somatic components can also complete material components.
Simple.
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.
That’s not an exception. Again, for it to be an exception, it would been to contradict the base case.
Right, we've been over that. If you read a sentence that says "one but not two" and think that means zero, you are wrong. Simple.
No one is claiming they dont need hands.
The one not two rule is from the basic component rule. Yes.
The same one as the weapon one rule is from warcaster.
So you still need one hand. It just happens to be the same as the weapon hand, which is the same as the S/M hand.
Gotta have that hand though. No unarmed* spellcasting needed, not with warcaster.
*this is a pun about having no arms.
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. Normally you need a free hand. But you don't if it is the hand that completes the somatic components. That is an exception.
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.
Oh I didnt invent the text. It comes directly from the PHB. Chapter 10, Spellcasting. Components.
That's a direct rules quote.
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.
But it doesn't mean you no longer need a free hand for the material component. And Warcaster doesn't mean you no longer need a free hand for a material component.
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.
Warcaster takes away the need for a free hand for S but says nothing about taking away the need for a free hand for M. So yes I could cast things just a S,V and use a sword and shield. The moment I want to cast something with a S,V, and M I need a free hand cause I can't reach into a pouch while holding a sword and a trying to move my hand in precise magic incantations. So yes for anything with a M component I need a free hand still, If its just V and/or S then im good I can keep the sword in my hand draw the rune or wave my hand to cast the spell. To reach into my pouch I cant do that holding both a sword and a focus while trying to draw magic runes.
I warned this would happen...
Rav will never change his mind and anyone else looking for ways to ignore restrictive rules probably won't either as long as someone else is supporting the idea. The only thing continuing this discussion will do is frustrate you.
Sure it does. The hand you perform Somatic components with can be used for material components. Period. That absolutely takes away the need for a free hand. So long as the hand is doing the somatic components it can be used for material also.
Youd be right if it said:
it can be the same FREE hand that he or she uses to perform somatic components.
But is says:
it can be the same hand that he or she uses to perform somatic components.
That simple distinction makes all the difference. And I appreciate how subtle that is and totally understand why people get it wrong.
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.
Affirming the Consequent: This is a formally invalid argument of the form “If A, then B; B; therefore A.” It confuses the idea that A can only be true when B is true for the idea that B can only be true if A is true
You're the one getting it wrong dude. It doesn't remove other requirements, you still need a free hand. You're making shit up in your head about what you read, applying extra meanings not provided by the actual words, to suit your bias of how you want it to work. I mean, I get it, I agree it's a silly technicality and as a DM I wouldn't bother - if it doesn't have a cost I don't care about the material components anyway - with component, without, I don't care. Makes no difference to the balance. But this is the Rules forum not the DM forum.
I've said my piece. You've said yours. We disagree. It doesn't matter who is right or not.
I'm exiting from this circle before the walls drive me crazy.
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.
Naw I didn't even use an "if, then" statement.
If it was one, then it would read:
"If your free hand* performs a somatic component, then you can use the same hand to provide the material component."
*Then warcaster comes by and redifines that free hand for somatic components means weilding shield/weapon too.
Thus, if you use the hand holding a sword to perform the somatic component of a spell, then you can use the same hand to provide the material component.
That's how you would phrase it as an if, then. Though, I hadn't earlier since the rules don't, and rephrasing can murky the waters. Because... if the authors wanted to write it as an if/then statement, then they would have.
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
To caste a spell with V, S, & M components you start off needing 2 free hands, 1 for the somatic and one for the material. The material rule allows you to caste with a single hand handling the material VIA A FOCUS and the somatic so that something else can be in the other hand. The warcaster feat allows you to do the somatic components with a sword or shield instead of a free hand. Where is the class ability/feat/whatever that is making the sword a spell casting focus? Clerics are allowed to use their shield as a focus so I could see a cleric/warrior or cleric/mage casting something like fireball while wielding both a shield and mace but not a warrior. Unless there is a feature somewhere that turns a sword into a focus you would need to have 3 hands - sword hand, shield hand, and focus/somatic hand. Remember that you can do the material+somatic in one hand with a focus only not the component itself so unless either the sword or the shield is the focus you can’t cast material component spells when wielding a sword and shield.
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.