Having read every single reply, I still believe that this entire debate boils down to my orange chicken example in post #15. Most seem to believe that saying "I don't like chicken, but I always like orange food" means that I don't like orange chicken, whereas Ravnodaus and I are both of the opinion that it means I do like orange chicken. The schism in this case isn't even the definition of the word "but," but rather on how people resolve logical disputes in their head when "but" is involved. Since such a thing is incredibly abstract, neither party is correct or incorrect.
As a reply to DxJxC, it's nobody's fault but your own if you're getting frustrated here. Somebody having a differing opinion than yours about something as inconsequential as a feat in DnD by no means should make you angry. I've never been able to understand why so many people seem to get overly defensive/offensive when they talk with somebody who has different opinions than you. It's a chance to broaden your thinking, yet most people use it as a chance to narrow it instead.
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)
"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.
"If your free hand* performs a somatic component, then you can use the same hand to provide the material component." - Correct
*Then warcaster comes by and redifines that free hand for somatic components means weilding shield/weapon too. - Correct
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. - Wrong, you need EITHER a free hand to use the somatic and material at the same time OR you can have a sword in that hand and use the somatic, THE sword takes up the room in your hand for you material spot.
Think of it like this Normally you hand is only big enough to hold a small item (material) and be able to wave it around for the somatic. Warcaster makes it so you can wave your hand around with your sword but does not give you monkey grip to hold onto the small item for the Material comp of the spell. NOTHING takes away the fact that your hand is too small to hold a sword and a arcane rod/crystal ball/ or arcane staff WITH that same hand and fight with them/cast with them. In the end there is no but, also. warcaster ONLY effects somatic comps it does nothing to give you a free hand to use a material. You don't have a free hand your holding a sword no matter what you still need a free hand to use that material comp.
The schism in this case isn't even the definition of the word "but," but rather on how people resolve logical disputes in their head when "but" is involved. Since such a thing is incredibly abstract, neither party is correct or incorrect.
There's no "logical dispute" here, no "incredibly abstract" parsing of language
As 5e rules go, this one's actually fairly clear. War Caster says nothing about the use of Material components, only Somatic. Material components -- or the focus that replaces them -- require a free hand. Period
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)
"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.
"If your free hand* performs a somatic component, then you can use the same hand to provide the material component." - Correct
*Then warcaster comes by and redifines that free hand for somatic components means weilding shield/weapon too. - Correct
Yes.
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. - Wrong, you need EITHER a free hand to use the somatic and material at the same time OR you can have a sword in that hand and use the somatic, THE sword takes up the room in your hand for you material spot.
No. Because: A spellcaster can access material components with the same hand that he or she uses to perform somatic components.
Think of it like this Normally you hand is only big enough to hold a small item (material) and be able to wave it around for the somatic.
Your hand is not only big enough to hold a small item. IDK where you're getting that from. You can hold items larger than small. Or even tiny, like material components would be.
There is also no restriction on holding only a single item. Again, not sure where you're getting these ideas from but it isn't from the rules.
Warcaster makes it so you can wave your hand around with your sword but does not give you monkey grip to hold onto the small item for the Material comp of the spell.
This does: it can be the same hand that he or she uses to perform somatic components. (also, again, probably is a tiny object at most)
NOTHING takes away the fact that your hand is too small to hold a sword and a arcane rod/crystal ball/ or arcane staff WITH that same hand and fight with them/cast with them.
You don't need to hold any of those. You only need to access the material components, not holdthem.
In the end there is no but, also.
There literally is one though: "but it can be the same hand that he or she uses to perform somatic components."
warcaster ONLY effects somatic comps it does nothing to give you a free hand to use a material.
Default rules do, though. Because: it can be the same hand that he or she uses to perform somatic components.
You don't have a free hand your holding a sword no matter what you still need a free hand to use that material comp.
Nope. Not "no matter what". And not even "in this case".
Your sword-holding-hand can do the somatic components. And the same hand that does somatic components can access the material components.
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.
Period? Funny thing is that clause doesn't end right there in the rules, with a period. It has a conjunction. But.
but..."it can be the same hand that he or she uses to perform somatic components."
So... not period, after all, huh?
"A spellcaster must have a hand free to *M component* — but it can be the same hand that he or she uses to perform somatic components."
So this is the full quote. Here is what Rav and co think it means:
"A spellcaster must either have a hand free to *M component* — or they can use the hand that they use for somatic components to also handle material components"
Everyone else and the SA agrees that it actually means:
"A spellcaster must have a hand free to *M component* — but both somatic and material components can use the same free hand."
There is nothing much that can be done to convince Rav, but the issue is that the phrase here "but it can be" cannot be replaced with the phase "but not if". This is what people mean when they say that the "but" clause does not create an exception to the clause above. The "but" clause creates an exception to the situation where 'you require a free hand for S components and a free hand for M components' - and it replaces that situation with 'you can user the same free hand for both components'.
I don't think there are many other ways for us to say that someone is wrong because the words they are reading do not mean the things they think it means.
Period? Funny thing is that clause doesn't end right there in the rules, with a period. It has a conjunction. But.
but..."it can be the same hand that he or she uses to perform somatic components."
So... not period, after all, huh?
"A spellcaster must have a hand free to *M component* — but it can be the same hand that he or she uses to perform somatic components."
So this is the full quote. Here is what Rav and co think it means:
"A spellcaster must either have a hand free to *M component* — or they can use the hand that they use for somatic components to also handle material components"
Correct.
Everyone else and the SA agrees that it actually means:
SA disagrees with you. I don't tend to lean on SA to defend a RAW based reading of rules. but, they legit also disagree with you over at SA.
See, big, blue, bolded, underlined, so you can't miss it:
What’s the amount of interaction needed to use a spellcasting focus? Does it have to be included in the somatic component?If a spell has a material component, you need to handle that component when you cast the spell (PH, 203). The same rule applies if you’re using a spellcasting focus as the material component. If a spell has a somatic component, you can use the hand that performs the somatic component to also handle the material component.For example, a wizard who uses an orb as a spellcasting focus could hold a quarterstaff in one hand and the orb in the other, and he could castlightning boltby using the orb as the spell’s material component and the orb hand to perform the spell’s somatic component. Another example: a cleric’s holy symbol is emblazoned on her shield. She likes to wade into melee combat with a mace in one hand and a shield in the other. She uses the holy symbol as her spellcasting focus, so she needs to have the shield in hand when she casts a cleric spell that has a material component. If the spell, such asaid, also has a somatic component, she can perform that component with the shield hand and keep holding the mace in the other. If the same cleric castscure 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 com- ponent. 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.
If a spell has a somatic component, you can use the hand that performs the somatic component to also handle the material component.
^ That's what SA says. Same thing I keep saying.
There is nothing much that can be done to convince Rav, but the issue is that the phrase here "but it can be" cannot be replaced with the phase "but not if". This is what people mean when they say that the "but" clause does not create an exception to the clause above. The "but" clause creates an exception to the situation where 'you require a free hand for S components and a free hand for M components' - and it replaces that situation with 'you can user the same free hand for both components'.
I'm easy to convince that I'm wrong, actually, when I am. And don't think I didn't notice the added red word ^. I said earlier, if they had included the word "free" in that second clause you'd be right. but they didn't. And you sneaking it in there with red doesn't change what's printed in the books. It just says you can use the same hand. Not: the same free hand. That's super inconvenient for your argument, I understand. But let's agree to not do this?
I don't think there are many other ways for us to say that someone is wrong because the words they are reading do not mean the things they think it means.
They do mean what I think. And, I'm not squeezing in words that aren't printed in them to make it seem like they do, either.
Let's review:
Sage Advice:
If a spell has a somatic component, you can use the hand that performs the somatic component to also handle the material component.
Rules:
it can be the same hand that he or she uses to perform somatic components.
These statement, direct quotes, fully support my argument. This shouldn't even be an argument, I came here originally to help explain how it works. I'm a bit shocked so many of you not only didn't know how it works, but have been given bad info and have entrenched into that as a position.
The hand which does somatic... can do the material. It is genuinely this straight forward. It is not a trick. It is not a ploy. They made this one straightforward and easy to use. The rule says as much. SA says as much.
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.
Of course there are holes in the rules that allow you to bypass this. And exceptions for the rule. But really many times, beyond the warlock's magic weapon, and the trick of painting the symbol of your god, what happens is that people just ignore this rule. And of course, then people come to you saying that the multiclass fighter - wizard is broken, or something like that. But hey, it doesn't matter. What I meant to say is that the intent of those rules is to limit magic while holding a shield and weapon. And that comes from afar, since historically the Gish was one of the most broken multiclasses. But yes, there are ways to do it. And if you as a DM want to give a player a weapon that is their spellfocus, that's up to you. Nothing stops you.
PS: By the way, I smell that this thread is going to go to a gazillion pages. Although the doubt was already solved in the first one.
Period? Funny thing is that clause doesn't end right there in the rules, with a period. It has a conjunction. But.
but..."it can be the same hand that he or she uses to perform somatic components."
So... not period, after all, huh?
"A spellcaster must have a hand free to *M component* — but it can be the same hand that he or she uses to perform somatic components."
So this is the full quote. Here is what Rav and co think it means:
"A spellcaster must either have a hand free to *M component* — or they can use the hand that they use for somatic components to also handle material components"
Correct.
Everyone else and the SA agrees that it actually means:
SA disagrees with you. I don't tend to lean on SA to defend a RAW based reading of rules. but, they legit also disagree with you over at SA.
See, big, blue, bolded, underlined, so you can't miss it:
What’s the amount of interaction needed to use a spellcasting focus? Does it have to be included in the somatic component?If a spell has a material component, you need to handle that component when you cast the spell (PH, 203). The same rule applies if you’re using a spellcasting focus as the material component. If a spell has a somatic component, you can use the hand that performs the somatic component to also handle the material component.For example, a wizard who uses an orb as a spellcasting focus could hold a quarterstaff in one hand and the orb in the other, and he could castlightning boltby using the orb as the spell’s material component and the orb hand to perform the spell’s somatic component. Another example: a cleric’s holy symbol is emblazoned on her shield. She likes to wade into melee combat with a mace in one hand and a shield in the other. She uses the holy symbol as her spellcasting focus, so she needs to have the shield in hand when she casts a cleric spell that has a material component. If the spell, such asaid, also has a somatic component, she can perform that component with the shield hand and keep holding the mace in the other. If the same cleric castscure 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 com- ponent. 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.
If a spell has a somatic component, you can use the hand that performs the somatic component to also handle the material component.
^ That's what SA says. Same thing I keep saying.
There is nothing much that can be done to convince Rav, but the issue is that the phrase here "but it can be" cannot be replaced with the phase "but not if". This is what people mean when they say that the "but" clause does not create an exception to the clause above. The "but" clause creates an exception to the situation where 'you require a free hand for S components and a free hand for M components' - and it replaces that situation with 'you can user the same free hand for both components'.
I'm easy to convince that I'm wrong, actually, when I am. And don't think I didn't notice the added red word ^. I said earlier, if they had included the word "free" in that second clause you'd be right. but they didn't. And you sneaking it in there with red doesn't change what's printed in the books. It just says you can use the same hand. Not: the same free hand. That's super inconvenient for your argument, I understand. But let's agree to not do this?
I don't think there are many other ways for us to say that someone is wrong because the words they are reading do not mean the things they think it means.
They do mean what I think. And, I'm not squeezing in words that aren't printed in them to make it seem like they do, either.
Let's review:
Sage Advice:
If a spell has a somatic component, you can use the hand that performs the somatic component to also handle the material component.
Rules:
it can be the same hand that he or she uses to perform somatic components.
These statement, direct quotes, fully support my argument. This shouldn't even be an argument, I came here originally to help explain how it works. I'm a bit shocked so many of you not only didn't know how it works, but have been given bad info and have entrenched into that as a position.
The hand which does somatic... can do the material. It is genuinely this straight forward. It is not a trick. It is not a ploy. They made this one straightforward and easy to use. The rule says as much. SA says as much.
It would sure be helpful if we could parse more than one sentence at a time. The thing that I highlighted in text YOU quoted here TELLS you that you need to handle the material component. No rule text or official ruling changes that. Stuff like this is why I got a post deleted the other day: your argument isn't good faith.
The thing that I highlighted in text YOU quoted here TELLS you that you need to handle the material component. No rule text or official ruling changes that.
I mean, there's already plenty of ways in the actual rules to get around this. Paladins can do it, warlocks can do it... heck, go get yourself some sorcery points and make the spells Subtle, then you don't need to worry about S/M components at all
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)
Everyone else and the SA agrees that it actually means:
SA disagrees with you. I don't tend to lean on SA to defend a RAW based reading of rules. but, they legit also disagree with you over at SA.
See, big, blue, bolded, underlined, so you can't miss it:
What’s the amount of interaction needed to use a spellcasting focus? Does it have to be included in the somatic component?If a spell has a material component, you need to handle that component when you cast the spell (PH, 203). The same rule applies if you’re using a spellcasting focus as the material component. If a spell has a somatic component, you can use the hand that performs the somatic component to also handle the material component.For example, a wizard who uses an orb as a spellcasting focus could hold a quarterstaff in one hand and the orb in the other, and he could castlightning boltby using the orb as the spell’s material component and the orb hand to perform the spell’s somatic component. Another example: a cleric’s holy symbol is emblazoned on her shield. She likes to wade into melee combat with a mace in one hand and a shield in the other. She uses the holy symbol as her spellcasting focus, so she needs to have the shield in hand when she casts a cleric spell that has a material component. If the spell, such asaid, also has a somatic component, she can perform that component with the shield hand and keep holding the mace in the other. If the same cleric castscure 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 com- ponent. 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.
If a spell has a somatic component, you can use the hand that performs the somatic component to also handle the material component.
^ That's what SA says. Same thing I keep saying.'.
But that SA quote does not at all support your position. The first line of the answer is "If a spell has a material component, you need to handle that component when you cast the spell (PH, 203)". The answer then goes on to explain ways you could be handling the material component - and then also use the hand which is handling the material to perform the somatic component. In every case the material component is handled - because the rules state that a material component must always be handled.
Warcaster allows you to perform somatic components while your hands are full of weapons - but it does not allow you to handle a material component while your hands are full of weapons. You need a hand to handle the materials. *You* firmly believe that a hand capable of performing somatic components is by definition capable of handling materials as well - but we are reading the exact same sentences as you and we are telling you that you are wrong and that the sentences do not say that. No sentence anywhere in the rules or SA you have quoted negates the need for a hand to handle a material component, nor allows a hand which is wielding a weapon to also handle a material component.
If your hand is handling a material component for a spell, then that hand can also perform somatic components. Not the other way around.
The thing that I highlighted in text YOU quoted here TELLS you that you need to handle the material component. No rule text or official ruling changes that.
I mean, there's already plenty of ways in the actual rules to get around this. Paladins can do it, warlocks can do it... heck, go get yourself some sorcery points and make the spells Subtle, then you don't need to worry about S/M components at all
And let’s not forget a common magic item. The one that has the name of the thing that you’re trying to build your character into: war mage.
If your hand is handling a material component for a spell, then that hand can also perform somatic components. Not the other way around.
It very much is the other way around. See the PHB and SA. I won't keep requoting it, its like a couple posts up. In big giant blue bolded font.
Tldr. Both the PHB and SA tell us that if you do Somatic with that hand, it can also do Material. So, very litterally you have it backwards.
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.
You must be able to handle the material component. True.
I'm not arguing that you don't. It is very clwar to all of us here that you need to handle the material component.
What I'm saying, which is backed up by literal quotes from PHB and SA both, is that the hand that performs the somatic component --Can-- also handle the material component.
So if you have Warcaster. You have tarined in being able to hold your weapon in such a way as you can perform the somatic components of spells while doing so. Thats some cool hand agility. And, since your hand is able to perform the somatic component. Despite holding a weapon, at the same time. Then this means it also --can-- handle the material component.
Is picturing a trained fighter/mage with this feat holding his sword while also pinching a bit of sand from his component pouch too far? The magic spell he cast is reasonable to imagine but holding a sword and getting a index and thumb free for a split second jumps the shark?
The SA is very clear. You need to handle the component, but, the hand that does somatic components --can-- handle them.
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.
Having read every single reply, I still believe that this entire debate boils down to my orange chicken example in post #15. Most seem to believe that saying "I don't like chicken, but I always like orange food" means that I don't like orange chicken, whereas Ravnodaus and I are both of the opinion that it means I do like orange chicken. The schism in this case isn't even the definition of the word "but," but rather on how people resolve logical disputes in their head when "but" is involved. Since such a thing is incredibly abstract, neither party is correct or incorrect.
The difference here is that by saying "I don't like chicken" you're only really saying one thing. Imagine if instead you said "I don't like chicken or going to restaurants, but I always like orange food" it wouldn't logically follow that you like going to restaurants that have orange food. It might be true, but it would require further clarification from you.
The good news is they did provide additional clarification.
If a spell has a somatic component, you can use the hand that performs the somatic component to also handle the material component.
So, since the sword hand is doing somatic, it can also handle the 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.
The good news is they did provide additional clarification.
If a spell has a somatic component, you can use the hand that performs the somatic component to also handle the material component.
So, since the sword hand is doing somatic, it can also handle the material.
It should be readily apparent that this includes the assumption that it is otherwise physically possible.
An orchestral conductor can wave their hand.
An orchestral conductor can wave their hand while wielding a wand.
An orchestral conductor can not rationally wave their hand while correctly wielding a wand, while also holding a baseball sized toad.
Either the toad or wand can be a material component, but *permission* doesn't imply *capacity*.
The basis for D&D is Common Language. The core of 5e game design is that everything is built upon a basic understanding of how the real world works in principle.
Tldr. Both the PHB and SA tell us that if you do Somatic with that hand, it can also do Material. So, very litterally you have it backwards.
I get that Ned Starks quote of "nothing before the but counts" (yea I paraphrased it) became popular but this really is taking it to the extreme tbh.
This isn't the first time that the designer's choice of using natural language coupled with some rather sloppy writing leaves unintended openings.
What gets me though is that if your argument is that the second part overrides the requirement to have a freehand to access a material component, doesn't is also override the requirement to have a freehand to hold a spellcasting focus? i.e that you, with Warcaster, should be able to hold a focus and a weapon in the same hand?
Is picturing a trained fighter/mage with this feat holding his sword while also pinching a bit of sand from his component pouch too far? The magic spell he cast is reasonable to imagine but holding a sword and getting a index and thumb free for a split second jumps the shark?
It isn't so much about being able to get the fingers free for a split second, it is more about having the manual dexterity to be able to reach into pockets/component pouch and pull out the required material while holding a sword.
Warcaster clearly says: The spell must have a casting time of 1 action and must target only that creature.
As fireball targets 'a point you choose within range' it clearly does not target 'a single creature'. One can argue (and have) that if the fireball only targets one creature that this meets the requirements. Yes... but... what if there is an invisible creature in the AoE you don't see. Does the fireball work? Does it not cast? Do they take damage even though the Warcaster feat is clear? So as a DM I would clearly rule 'No, you can't'. It really looks like its designed for a cantrip or other single target spell.
Unless it was narratively cool. In which case I'd totally allow it.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Remember there are Rules as Written (RAW), Rules as Intended (RAI), and Rules as Fun (RAF). There's some great RAW, RAI, and RAF here... please check in with your DM to determine how they want to adjudicate the RAW/RAI/RAF for your game.
Warcaster clearly says: The spell must have a casting time of 1 action and must target only that creature.
As fireball targets 'a point you choose within range' it clearly does not target 'a single creature'. One can argue (and have) that if the fireball only targets one creature that this meets the requirements. Yes... but... what if there is an invisible creature in the AoE you don't see. Does the fireball work? Does it not cast? Do they take damage even though the Warcaster feat is clear? So as a DM I would clearly rule 'No, you can't'. It really looks like its designed for a cantrip or other single target spell.
Unless it was narratively cool. In which case I'd totally allow it.
Even if only one creature is in the AoE, the spell still also targets the point in space; fireball will never meet the requirements for War Caster's reaction cast for that reason; that said, the reaction cast is not what OP's question is about.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Having read every single reply, I still believe that this entire debate boils down to my orange chicken example in post #15. Most seem to believe that saying "I don't like chicken, but I always like orange food" means that I don't like orange chicken, whereas Ravnodaus and I are both of the opinion that it means I do like orange chicken. The schism in this case isn't even the definition of the word "but," but rather on how people resolve logical disputes in their head when "but" is involved. Since such a thing is incredibly abstract, neither party is correct or incorrect.
As a reply to DxJxC, it's nobody's fault but your own if you're getting frustrated here. Somebody having a differing opinion than yours about something as inconsequential as a feat in DnD by no means should make you angry. I've never been able to understand why so many people seem to get overly defensive/offensive when they talk with somebody who has different opinions than you. It's a chance to broaden your thinking, yet most people use it as a chance to narrow it instead.
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 your free hand* performs a somatic component, then you can use the same hand to provide the material component." - Correct
*Then warcaster comes by and redifines that free hand for somatic components means weilding shield/weapon too. - Correct
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. - Wrong, you need EITHER a free hand to use the somatic and material at the same time OR you can have a sword in that hand and use the somatic, THE sword takes up the room in your hand for you material spot.
Think of it like this Normally you hand is only big enough to hold a small item (material) and be able to wave it around for the somatic. Warcaster makes it so you can wave your hand around with your sword but does not give you monkey grip to hold onto the small item for the Material comp of the spell. NOTHING takes away the fact that your hand is too small to hold a sword and a arcane rod/crystal ball/ or arcane staff WITH that same hand and fight with them/cast with them. In the end there is no but, also. warcaster ONLY effects somatic comps it does nothing to give you a free hand to use a material. You don't have a free hand your holding a sword no matter what you still need a free hand to use that material comp.
There's no "logical dispute" here, no "incredibly abstract" parsing of language
As 5e rules go, this one's actually fairly clear. War Caster says nothing about the use of Material components, only Somatic. Material components -- or the focus that replaces them -- require a free hand. Period
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)
Yes.
No. Because: A spellcaster can access material components with the same hand that he or she uses to perform somatic components.
Your hand is not only big enough to hold a small item. IDK where you're getting that from. You can hold items larger than small. Or even tiny, like material components would be.
There is also no restriction on holding only a single item. Again, not sure where you're getting these ideas from but it isn't from the rules.
This does: it can be the same hand that he or she uses to perform somatic components. (also, again, probably is a tiny object at most)
You don't need to hold any of those. You only need to access the material components, not hold them.
There literally is one though: "but it can be the same hand that he or she uses to perform somatic components."
Default rules do, though. Because: it can be the same hand that he or she uses to perform somatic components.
Nope. Not "no matter what". And not even "in this case".
Your sword-holding-hand can do the somatic components. And the same hand that does somatic components can access the material components.
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 spellcaster must have a hand free to *M component* — but it can be the same hand that he or she uses to perform somatic components."
So this is the full quote. Here is what Rav and co think it means:
"A spellcaster must either have a hand free to *M component* — or they can use the hand that they use for somatic components to also handle material components"
Everyone else and the SA agrees that it actually means:
"A spellcaster must have a hand free to *M component* — but both somatic and material components can use the same free hand."
There is nothing much that can be done to convince Rav, but the issue is that the phrase here "but it can be" cannot be replaced with the phase "but not if". This is what people mean when they say that the "but" clause does not create an exception to the clause above. The "but" clause creates an exception to the situation where 'you require a free hand for S components and a free hand for M components' - and it replaces that situation with 'you can user the same free hand for both components'.
I don't think there are many other ways for us to say that someone is wrong because the words they are reading do not mean the things they think it means.
Correct.
SA disagrees with you. I don't tend to lean on SA to defend a RAW based reading of rules. but, they legit also disagree with you over at SA.
See, big, blue, bolded, underlined, so you can't miss it:
If a spell has a somatic component, you can use the hand that performs the somatic component to also handle the material component.
^ That's what SA says. Same thing I keep saying.
I'm easy to convince that I'm wrong, actually, when I am. And don't think I didn't notice the added red word ^. I said earlier, if they had included the word "free" in that second clause you'd be right. but they didn't. And you sneaking it in there with red doesn't change what's printed in the books. It just says you can use the same hand. Not: the same free hand. That's super inconvenient for your argument, I understand. But let's agree to not do this?
They do mean what I think. And, I'm not squeezing in words that aren't printed in them to make it seem like they do, either.
Let's review:
Sage Advice:
Rules:
These statement, direct quotes, fully support my argument. This shouldn't even be an argument, I came here originally to help explain how it works. I'm a bit shocked so many of you not only didn't know how it works, but have been given bad info and have entrenched into that as a position.
The hand which does somatic... can do the material. It is genuinely this straight forward. It is not a trick. It is not a ploy. They made this one straightforward and easy to use. The rule says as much. SA says as much.
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.
Of course there are holes in the rules that allow you to bypass this. And exceptions for the rule.
But really many times, beyond the warlock's magic weapon, and the trick of painting the symbol of your god, what happens is that people just ignore this rule. And of course, then people come to you saying that the multiclass fighter - wizard is broken, or something like that.
But hey, it doesn't matter. What I meant to say is that the intent of those rules is to limit magic while holding a shield and weapon. And that comes from afar, since historically the Gish was one of the most broken multiclasses.
But yes, there are ways to do it. And if you as a DM want to give a player a weapon that is their spellfocus, that's up to you. Nothing stops you.
PS: By the way, I smell that this thread is going to go to a gazillion pages. Although the doubt was already solved in the first one.
It would sure be helpful if we could parse more than one sentence at a time. The thing that I highlighted in text YOU quoted here TELLS you that you need to handle the material component. No rule text or official ruling changes that. Stuff like this is why I got a post deleted the other day: your argument isn't good faith.
I mean, there's already plenty of ways in the actual rules to get around this. Paladins can do it, warlocks can do it... heck, go get yourself some sorcery points and make the spells Subtle, then you don't need to worry about S/M components at all
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)
But that SA quote does not at all support your position. The first line of the answer is "If a spell has a material component, you need to handle that component when you cast the spell (PH, 203)". The answer then goes on to explain ways you could be handling the material component - and then also use the hand which is handling the material to perform the somatic component. In every case the material component is handled - because the rules state that a material component must always be handled.
Warcaster allows you to perform somatic components while your hands are full of weapons - but it does not allow you to handle a material component while your hands are full of weapons. You need a hand to handle the materials. *You* firmly believe that a hand capable of performing somatic components is by definition capable of handling materials as well - but we are reading the exact same sentences as you and we are telling you that you are wrong and that the sentences do not say that. No sentence anywhere in the rules or SA you have quoted negates the need for a hand to handle a material component, nor allows a hand which is wielding a weapon to also handle a material component.
If your hand is handling a material component for a spell, then that hand can also perform somatic components. Not the other way around.
And let’s not forget a common magic item. The one that has the name of the thing that you’re trying to build your character into: war mage.
It very much is the other way around. See the PHB and SA. I won't keep requoting it, its like a couple posts up. In big giant blue bolded font.
Tldr. Both the PHB and SA tell us that if you do Somatic with that hand, it can also do Material. So, very litterally you have it backwards.
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 must be able to handle the material component. True.
I'm not arguing that you don't. It is very clwar to all of us here that you need to handle the material component.
What I'm saying, which is backed up by literal quotes from PHB and SA both, is that the hand that performs the somatic component --Can-- also handle the material component.
So if you have Warcaster. You have tarined in being able to hold your weapon in such a way as you can perform the somatic components of spells while doing so. Thats some cool hand agility. And, since your hand is able to perform the somatic component. Despite holding a weapon, at the same time. Then this means it also --can-- handle the material component.
Is picturing a trained fighter/mage with this feat holding his sword while also pinching a bit of sand from his component pouch too far? The magic spell he cast is reasonable to imagine but holding a sword and getting a index and thumb free for a split second jumps the shark?
The SA is very clear. You need to handle the component, but, the hand that does somatic components --can-- handle them.
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.
Did I miss someone referencing this piece of SageAdvice?
The obvious RAI is that War Caster does not negate the free hand requirements for material components.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.sageadvice.eu/war-caster-free-hand/amp/
The difference here is that by saying "I don't like chicken" you're only really saying one thing. Imagine if instead you said "I don't like chicken or going to restaurants, but I always like orange food" it wouldn't logically follow that you like going to restaurants that have orange food. It might be true, but it would require further clarification from you.
The good news is they did provide additional clarification.
So, since the sword hand is doing somatic, it can also handle the 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.
It should be readily apparent that this includes the assumption that it is otherwise physically possible.
An orchestral conductor can wave their hand.
An orchestral conductor can wave their hand while wielding a wand.
An orchestral conductor can not rationally wave their hand while correctly wielding a wand, while also holding a baseball sized toad.
Either the toad or wand can be a material component, but *permission* doesn't imply *capacity*.
The basis for D&D is Common Language. The core of 5e game design is that everything is built upon a basic understanding of how the real world works in principle.
I get that Ned Starks quote of "nothing before the but counts" (yea I paraphrased it) became popular but this really is taking it to the extreme tbh.
This isn't the first time that the designer's choice of using natural language coupled with some rather sloppy writing leaves unintended openings.
What gets me though is that if your argument is that the second part overrides the requirement to have a freehand to access a material component, doesn't is also override the requirement to have a freehand to hold a spellcasting focus? i.e that you, with Warcaster, should be able to hold a focus and a weapon in the same hand?
It isn't so much about being able to get the fingers free for a split second, it is more about having the manual dexterity to be able to reach into pockets/component pouch and pull out the required material while holding a sword.
As a DM I'd rule this way:
Warcaster clearly says: The spell must have a casting time of 1 action and must target only that creature.
As fireball targets 'a point you choose within range' it clearly does not target 'a single creature'. One can argue (and have) that if the fireball only targets one creature that this meets the requirements. Yes... but... what if there is an invisible creature in the AoE you don't see. Does the fireball work? Does it not cast? Do they take damage even though the Warcaster feat is clear? So as a DM I would clearly rule 'No, you can't'. It really looks like its designed for a cantrip or other single target spell.
Unless it was narratively cool. In which case I'd totally allow it.
Remember there are Rules as Written (RAW), Rules as Intended (RAI), and Rules as Fun (RAF). There's some great RAW, RAI, and RAF here... please check in with your DM to determine how they want to adjudicate the RAW/RAI/RAF for your game.
Even if only one creature is in the AoE, the spell still also targets the point in space; fireball will never meet the requirements for War Caster's reaction cast for that reason; that said, the reaction cast is not what OP's question is about.