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.
Do you think only 1 item can be in a hand? Ever. No matter what.
Speaking of realworld understanding and then saying a hand can never hold more than one object at once, in the same comment... idk.
Yesterday I carried my coffee mug, 2 phones, my personal keys as well as my work keys, my lunch's wrapper trash and a hat, all in the same hand. This isn't anything special and I can't help but believe you've been in similar positions to need to carry a bunch of stuff all at once. You can. We all have been there. This is that basic how things in the real world work type stuff.
Holding a sword and pinching something out of the component pouch at your waitbelt seems fairly easy. Especially for someone whose dedicated themselves to mastering it. Ie. Took a feat.
Anywho. To your example. The orchestral conductor wouldn't need to weild the wand correctly while holding the other item. They'd merely need to keep hold ofbit while doing so. See, the warcaster isn't casting his fireball spell while taking the attack action. He's just holding his sword, not swinging it, while casting. So your analogy should reflect that. The conductor can reasonable hold the wand while picking something else up with the same hand. This is a very normal average typical standard level of hand dexterity.
And warcaster has trained to do it!
Anyway, maybe that addresses your concerns for "a basic understanding of how the real world works". Not only does it make perfect sense, given how the real world works, but it just also happens to be what the rules say happens.
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.
Unless of course, the obvious thing: the hand satisfying the S component requirement is full. Because M has a requirement for a free hand. You have not pointed to text saying that M components no longer require a free hand. You are just using weasel words here. Again, maybe this is your genuine point of view, but is wrong if it is genuine and not argued with the intent of coming to the proper rule conclusion.
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.
Unless of course, the obvious thing: the hand satisfying the S component requirement is full.
This isn't a thing.
Because M has a requirement for a free hand.
Unless it is the hand performing the somatic components.
Again, 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.
No. Read. The requirement is FOR a free hand, it just can (read: not must) be the hand that you use for somatic components. Unless, of course, it doesn't meet the M requirements. Again, yours is either a bad or bad faith argument.
A hand that is not free does not meet M's requirements, whether or not it meets S's.
No. Read. The requirement is FOR a free hand, it just can (read: not must) be the hand that you use for somatic components. Unless, of course, it doesn't meet the M requirements. Again, that is either a bad or bad faith argument.
A hand that is not free does not meet M's requirements, whether or not it meets S's.
Normally thats the case. That it requires a free hand. I've said this. You've said this. Everyone here knows that you normally require a free hand for materials.
But.
The exception is that you can use the same hand that does somatic to also do the materials.
It is a specific exception to the more general requirement.
The game carves out exceptions all the time. One rule changes or modifies another rule in all corners of this game. In this case, normally you need a free hand. But, you can use the same hand that does S to do M.
Exception. It says this in black and white. SA agrees.
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 a spell has a somatic component, you can use the hand that performs the somatic component to also handle the material component.
^ This is unambiguous. Direct from SA. Which part of it are you in disagreement with?
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.
Which part says that M no longer requires a free hand again?
you can use the hand that performs the somatic component to also handle the material component.
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 think this is well past the point of reconciliation... again. If this level of banal granularity isn't adequately convincing, then nothing short of a rules overhaul will be. Maybe OneD&D will add some clarity.
nothing short of a rules overhaul will be. Maybe OneD&D will add some clarity.
I don't feel like re-writing the rules will solve the problem here
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)
Which part says that M no longer requires a free hand again?
you can use the hand that performs the somatic component to also handle the material component.
yes, but which part about that changes the requirement for M? You only pointed to a thing that said you can use the hand that preforms the S component, not that the M component had any different requirements.
I don’t really care how other DMs read the PHB & SA, I know how I read it and that isn’t changing. HOWEVER, it is also clear to me that everyone is reading into the RAW statements at least a little of their own personal take on a question that, in fact, is not covered in a clear and consice way Can a warrior/mage wielding a sword and shield caste a material component spell if they have the warcaster feat? ( or - Does the warcaster feat allow you to cast a material component spell if you have no free hands?)
if you really want an answer I suggest you submit one or both of those phrasings to sage advice and table this argument until you get an actual ruling.
Which part says that M no longer requires a free hand again?
you can use the hand that performs the somatic component to also handle the material component.
yes, but which part about that changes the requirement for M? You only pointed to a thing that said you can use the hand that preforms the S component, not that the M component had any different requirements.
The part where it just directly says you can do it. You can.
You can use the hand that performs the somatic component to also handle the material component.
That is direct. That is clear. It is permissive. It tells us what we can do. What can we do? Use that hand. Which hand? The hand doing S. Use it for what? Also doing M.
It is direct and clear permission. When a rule tells us we can do something. We can do it.
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 don’t really care how other DMs read the PHB & SA, I know how I read it and that isn’t changing. HOWEVER, it is also clear to me that everyone is reading into the RAW statements at least a little of their own personal take on a question that, in fact, is not covered in a clear and consice way Can a warrior/mage wielding a sword and shield caste a material component spell if they have the warcaster feat? ( or - Does the warcaster feat allow you to cast a material component spell if you have no free hands?)
if you really want an answer I suggest you submit one or both of those phrasings to sage advice and table this argument until you get an actual ruling.
Sage Advice already commented on this and this is a quote from their answer.
If a spell has a somatic component, you can use the hand that performs the somatic component to also handle the material component.
The whole point of half the feat is to let you cast spells while holding a shield/weapon. It is not only RAW, but RAI. And is already clarified on SA.
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 part where it just directly says you can do it. You can.
"it can be" actually. If you are going to be persnickety about the wording it does help if you use the correct words.
I mean sure you have a point, it is written in a permissive way but you have to ignore all sorts of context to get one rule that requires a free hand and another rule that requires a free hand to suddenly require no free hand just because it says they can both use the same free hand. It is clearly not intended to be that permissive.
And yes it is poor writing to not consider how other rules (like feats of class features) will interact with the rule you just wrote and it's an even worse design choice to rely on context and that the reader understands you intentions instead of being specific with your words. But that's where we are with natural language and poor editing oversight, one can only hope that the edition they're working on will be an improvement on these parts.
Sage Advice already commented on this and this is a quote from their answer.
If a spell has a somatic component, you can use the hand that performs the somatic component to also handle the material component.
And that is absolutely a true statement. Where you and most of us differ is that you seem to claim it to be an "always true regardless of all other possible considerations" statement while I see it being limited to just what it says, i.e having the hand occupied with an M component does not stop it being "free" enough to perform the S component and vice versa, doing the S component does not stop it being "free" enough to handle the M component. It doesn't however say anything about what happens when something else is making the hand be not "free".
The whole point of half the feat is to let you cast spells while holding a shield/weapon. It is not only RAW, but RAI. And is already clarified on SA.
You need to re-read that SAC entry tbh. It has a very clear example where a Cleric can use his shield as a focus and thus can cast an M and S component spell while having no free hand but he can't cast an S only spell with both hands occupied, for that he is said to need to have the Warcaster feat. Your whole argument is that the Warcaster feat alone solves both situations, if that was true why wouldn't that then have been the answer to both situations? Why specify two different solutions (while saying that one of them only works in one case) when one of them would have worked for both? I mean that's a lot of added words and explanations when a simple "Warcaster will let you do both S and M components while your hands are occupied!" would have been enough.
Come to think of it, if Warcaster was meant to allow the usage of both S and M components while holding shields/weapons why doesn't it say so in the first place? It just says "... somatic components ...", why not have it say 'somatic and material' if that was the intention and instead have us rely on doing a hopscotch through the rules to get to the end of the line?
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.
It's possible that I'm just slow, but I don't see how your statement is more accurate to how the rules are worded than mine. If your statement is closer to the rules, then you've got a point, but you didn't really say much to back it up.
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)
Sage Advice already commented on this and this is a quote from their answer.
If a spell has a somatic component, you can use the hand that performs the somatic component to also handle the material component.
And that is absolutely a true statement. Where you and most of us differ is that you seem to claim it to be an "always true regardless of all other possible considerations" statement while I see it being limited to just what it says, i.e having the hand occupied with an M component does not stop it being "free" enough to perform the S component and vice versa, doing the S component does not stop it being "free" enough to handle the M component. It doesn't however say anything about what happens when something else is making the hand be not "free".
The whole point of half the feat is to let you cast spells while holding a shield/weapon. It is not only RAW, but RAI. And is already clarified on SA.
You need to re-read that SAC entry tbh. It has a very clear example where a Cleric can use his shield as a focus and thus can cast an M and S component spell while having no free hand but he can't cast an S only spell with both hands occupied, for that he is said to need to have the Warcaster feat. Your whole argument is that the Warcaster feat alone solves both situations, if that was true why wouldn't that then have been the answer to both situations? Why specify two different solutions (while saying that one of them only works in one case) when one of them would have worked for both? I mean that's a lot of added words and explanations when a simple "Warcaster will let you do both S and M components while your hands are occupied!" would have been enough.
Because you have it backwards again.
If S then M ok.
Not: If M then S ok.
So thats exactly what we see explained in the SA.
Come to think of it, if Warcaster was meant to allow the usage of both S and M components while holding shields/weapons why doesn't it say so in the first place? It just says "... somatic components ...", why not have it say 'somatic and material' if that was the intention and instead have us rely on doing a hopscotch through the rules to get to the end of the line?
Why? Because you can always do M with the same hand as S. Thats why. Its in the PHB. It is core rules.
They dont repeat all of every core rules every time a feat modifies a small part of them.
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 post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Do you think only 1 item can be in a hand? Ever. No matter what.
Speaking of realworld understanding and then saying a hand can never hold more than one object at once, in the same comment... idk.
Yesterday I carried my coffee mug, 2 phones, my personal keys as well as my work keys, my lunch's wrapper trash and a hat, all in the same hand. This isn't anything special and I can't help but believe you've been in similar positions to need to carry a bunch of stuff all at once. You can. We all have been there. This is that basic how things in the real world work type stuff.
Holding a sword and pinching something out of the component pouch at your waitbelt seems fairly easy. Especially for someone whose dedicated themselves to mastering it. Ie. Took a feat.
Anywho. To your example. The orchestral conductor wouldn't need to weild the wand correctly while holding the other item. They'd merely need to keep hold ofbit while doing so. See, the warcaster isn't casting his fireball spell while taking the attack action. He's just holding his sword, not swinging it, while casting. So your analogy should reflect that. The conductor can reasonable hold the wand while picking something else up with the same hand. This is a very normal average typical standard level of hand dexterity.
And warcaster has trained to do it!
Anyway, maybe that addresses your concerns for "a basic understanding of how the real world works". Not only does it make perfect sense, given how the real world works, but it just also happens to be what the rules say happens.
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.
Unless of course, the obvious thing: the hand satisfying the S component requirement is full. Because M has a requirement for a free hand. You have not pointed to text saying that M components no longer require a free hand. You are just using weasel words here. Again, maybe this is your genuine point of view, but is wrong if it is genuine and not argued with the intent of coming to the proper rule conclusion.
This isn't a thing.
Unless it is the hand performing the somatic components.
Again, 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.
No. Read. The requirement is FOR a free hand, it just can (read: not must) be the hand that you use for somatic components. Unless, of course, it doesn't meet the M requirements. Again, yours is either a bad or bad faith argument.
A hand that is not free does not meet M's requirements, whether or not it meets S's.
Normally thats the case. That it requires a free hand. I've said this. You've said this. Everyone here knows that you normally require a free hand for materials.
But.
The exception is that you can use the same hand that does somatic to also do the materials.
It is a specific exception to the more general requirement.
The game carves out exceptions all the time. One rule changes or modifies another rule in all corners of this game. In this case, normally you need a free hand. But, you can use the same hand that does S to do M.
Exception. It says this in black and white. SA agrees.
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 unambiguous. Direct from SA. Which part of it are you in disagreement with?
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.
Which part says that M no longer requires a free hand again?
you can use the hand that performs the somatic component to also handle the material component.
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 think this is well past the point of reconciliation... again. If this level of banal granularity isn't adequately convincing, then nothing short of a rules overhaul will be. Maybe OneD&D will add some clarity.
I don't feel like re-writing the rules will solve the problem here
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, but which part about that changes the requirement for M? You only pointed to a thing that said you can use the hand that preforms the S component, not that the M component had any different requirements.
I don’t really care how other DMs read the PHB & SA, I know how I read it and that isn’t changing. HOWEVER, it is also clear to me that everyone is reading into the RAW statements at least a little of their own personal take on a question that, in fact, is not covered in a clear and consice way Can a warrior/mage wielding a sword and shield caste a material component spell if they have the warcaster feat? ( or - Does the warcaster feat allow you to cast a material component spell if you have no free hands?)
if you really want an answer I suggest you submit one or both of those phrasings to sage advice and table this argument until you get an actual ruling.
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
The part where it just directly says you can do it. You can.
You can use the hand that performs the somatic component to also handle the material component.
That is direct. That is clear. It is permissive. It tells us what we can do. What can we do? Use that hand. Which hand? The hand doing S. Use it for what? Also doing M.
It is direct and clear permission. When a rule tells us we can do something. We can do it.
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.
No, you dodged the question. Where are the M rules different?
If you can't answer, just admit it and move on.
Sage Advice already commented on this and this is a quote from their answer.
The whole point of half the feat is to let you cast spells while holding a shield/weapon. It is not only RAW, but RAI. And is already clarified on SA.
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 can't help but feel like, when you use this logic on anything else it sounds wrong.
"You can drive down this road between 8am and 5pm."
"Oh, so even if I don't have a license I can drive down this road. Cool."
"it can be" actually. If you are going to be persnickety about the wording it does help if you use the correct words.
I mean sure you have a point, it is written in a permissive way but you have to ignore all sorts of context to get one rule that requires a free hand and another rule that requires a free hand to suddenly require no free hand just because it says they can both use the same free hand. It is clearly not intended to be that permissive.
And yes it is poor writing to not consider how other rules (like feats of class features) will interact with the rule you just wrote and it's an even worse design choice to rely on context and that the reader understands you intentions instead of being specific with your words. But that's where we are with natural language and poor editing oversight, one can only hope that the edition they're working on will be an improvement on these parts.
And that is absolutely a true statement. Where you and most of us differ is that you seem to claim it to be an "always true regardless of all other possible considerations" statement while I see it being limited to just what it says, i.e having the hand occupied with an M component does not stop it being "free" enough to perform the S component and vice versa, doing the S component does not stop it being "free" enough to handle the M component. It doesn't however say anything about what happens when something else is making the hand be not "free".
You need to re-read that SAC entry tbh. It has a very clear example where a Cleric can use his shield as a focus and thus can cast an M and S component spell while having no free hand but he can't cast an S only spell with both hands occupied, for that he is said to need to have the Warcaster feat.
Your whole argument is that the Warcaster feat alone solves both situations, if that was true why wouldn't that then have been the answer to both situations? Why specify two different solutions (while saying that one of them only works in one case) when one of them would have worked for both? I mean that's a lot of added words and explanations when a simple "Warcaster will let you do both S and M components while your hands are occupied!" would have been enough.
Come to think of it, if Warcaster was meant to allow the usage of both S and M components while holding shields/weapons why doesn't it say so in the first place? It just says "... somatic components ...", why not have it say 'somatic and material' if that was the intention and instead have us rely on doing a hopscotch through the rules to get to the end of the line?
It's possible that I'm just slow, but I don't see how your statement is more accurate to how the rules are worded than mine. If your statement is closer to the rules, then you've got a point, but you didn't really say much to back it up.
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)
You're reversing them again.
You can do M with any hand doing S.
Not the other way around.
Because you have it backwards again.
If S then M ok.
Not: If M then S ok.
So thats exactly what we see explained in the SA.
Why? Because you can always do M with the same hand as S. Thats why. Its in the PHB. It is core rules.
They dont repeat all of every core rules every time a feat modifies a small part of 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.