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 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."
This is why there is a protocol for how to apply interacting rules. Specific beats general. It solves a good majority of these hiccups.
So, the rules that you can drive down the street between 8am and 5pm is more general than your specific lack of license. So the fact you're not allowed to drive is the specific that overrides the general driving hours.
Similarly, here, the more general rule is that you need a free hand to handle materials. The very slightly more specific exception is that the hand which does the somatic can do materials too.
And then the much more specific exception, from warcaster, is that you can do somatic components with a weapon in hand.
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 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 guess there is no part where you can show where the rule requiring a free hand for M spells is excepted, Since you still haven't shown it.
...I have. Many times now. I'm not sure why you keep asking me to requote it over and over again.
"- but it can be the same hand that he or she uses to perform somatic components."
PHB. Chapter 10. Spellcasting. Rules for Components.
You can use the hand that does somatic componts as the hand to access material components.
So there is text that you pointed to, without showing, somewhere, that says that M doesn't require a free hand? Where is it? Why don't you just quote 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.
I guess there is no part where you can show where the rule requiring a free hand for M spells is excepted, Since you still haven't shown it.
...I have. Many times now. I'm not sure why you keep asking me to requote it over and over again.
"- but it can be the same hand that he or she uses to perform somatic components."
PHB. Chapter 10. Spellcasting. Rules for Components.
You can use the hand that does somatic componts as the hand to access material components.
So there is text that you pointed to, without showing, somewhere, that says that M doesn't require a free hand? Where is it? Why don't you just quote it?
I am quoting it.
I have no idea what you want. You're asking me to quote a rule I very much am quoting. You even quote my quoting of the rule while asking me to quote it again...
"- but it can be the same hand that he or she uses to perform somatic components."
This is the quote. Directly from the PHB. This is absolutely what you're looking for. It tells you that the hand that provides somatic components can be used for material components. Straight up permission-granting text. Can be.
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.
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."
This is why there is a protocol for how to apply interacting rules. Specific beats general. It solves a good majority of these hiccups.
So, the rules that you can drive down the street between 8am and 5pm is more general than your specific lack of license. So the fact you're not allowed to drive is the specific that overrides the general driving hours.
Similarly, here, the more general rule is that you need a free hand to handle materials. The very slightly more specific exception is that the hand which does the somatic can do materials too.
And then the much more specific exception, from warcaster, is that you can do somatic components with a weapon in hand.
Most people would say that "you can't drive without a license" is the general rule. At best neither one is a specific case of the other.
Anyways, maybe a proper metaphor would help? If you switch out the terms but kept the rules consistent, then the logic should remain the same. Example:
Keeping Griffons
"You must have a land free of horses to keep griffons on it, but it can be the same land you use to conduct business on."
Horse Commercial License Feat
"You can conduct business on your land even if you keep horses on it."
It would be incorrect to conclude that the Feat overrides the restriction of keeping horses in the same land you keep griffons. Now this may seem like an unrelated situation, but legit all I did was change the terms 1:1.
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.
It's not, your orange chicken example was sufficient to demonstrate how you were interpreting the material components rule.
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 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."
This is why there is a protocol for how to apply interacting rules. Specific beats general. It solves a good majority of these hiccups.
So, the rules that you can drive down the street between 8am and 5pm is more general than your specific lack of license. So the fact you're not allowed to drive is the specific that overrides the general driving hours.
Similarly, here, the more general rule is that you need a free hand to handle materials. The very slightly more specific exception is that the hand which does the somatic can do materials too.
And then the much more specific exception, from warcaster, is that you can do somatic components with a weapon in hand.
Most people would say that "you can't drive without a license" is the general rule. At best neither one is a specific case of the other.
Anyways, maybe a proper metaphor would help? If you switch out the terms but kept the rules consistent, then the logic should remain the same. Example:
Keeping Griffons
"You must have a land free of horses to keep griffons on it, but it can be the same land you use to conduct business on."
Horse Commercial License Feat
"You can conduct business on your land even if you keep horses on it."
It would be incorrect to conclude that the Feat overrides the restriction of keeping horses in the same land you keep griffons. Now this may seem like an unrelated situation, but legit all I did was change the terms 1:1.
No, you didn't change terms 1:1. You placed additional terms in. Here is your analogy but with just 1:1 replacements:
A businessman must have some land free to keep griffons on — or to raise unicorns — but it can be the same land that he or she uses to conduct business.
You can conduct business even when you have horses on your lands.
Now if your lands have horses on it, then you can still conduct business on it. And, lands that you conduct business on can be used to raise griffons.
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.
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."
This is why there is a protocol for how to apply interacting rules. Specific beats general. It solves a good majority of these hiccups.
So, the rules that you can drive down the street between 8am and 5pm is more general than your specific lack of license. So the fact you're not allowed to drive is the specific that overrides the general driving hours.
Similarly, here, the more general rule is that you need a free hand to handle materials. The very slightly more specific exception is that the hand which does the somatic can do materials too.
And then the much more specific exception, from warcaster, is that you can do somatic components with a weapon in hand.
Most people would say that "you can't drive without a license" is the general rule. At best neither one is a specific case of the other.
Anyways, maybe a proper metaphor would help? If you switch out the terms but kept the rules consistent, then the logic should remain the same. Example:
Keeping Griffons
"You must have a land free of horses to keep griffons on it, but it can be the same land you use to conduct business on."
Horse Commercial License Feat
"You can conduct business on your land even if you keep horses on it."
It would be incorrect to conclude that the Feat overrides the restriction of keeping horses in the same land you keep griffons. Now this may seem like an unrelated situation, but legit all I did was change the terms 1:1.
No, you didn't change terms 1:1. You placed additional terms in. Here is your analogy but with just 1:1 replacements:
A businessman must have some land free to keep griffons on — or to raise unicorns — but it can be the same land that he or she uses to conduct business.
You can conduct business even when you have horses on your lands.
Now if your lands have horses on it, then you can still conduct business on it. And, lands that you conduct business on can be used to raise griffons.
The intention was that "a land free from horses" is the equivalent of "a free hand" and that "keeping horses" is the equivalent of "a weapon or a shield in one or both hands". I know that both terms use the word "horses", so admittedly that was a confusing choice of words. Anyways, your analogy doesn't help your case. See, your stance is that this:
"You can perform the somatic components of spells even when you have weapons or a shield in one or both hands."
Overrides this:
"A spellcaster must have a hand free to access a spell's material components"
Now lets look at the equivalents in your analogy:
"You can conduct business even when you have horses on your lands."
"A businessman must have some land free to keep griffons on"
By the looks of it, you still need free lands to keep griffons on, so it looks like your proving the opposite of what your trying to prove.
Accidentally hit post while I was writing >,<. The issue with the "I don't like chicken but I do like orange food" that I see is that the clause after the 'but' directly contradicts the clause before the 'but'. This is because chicken is a subset of food. Material components however are not a subset of somatic components.
Also, the word 'but' when used as a conjunction joins two contrasting statements. The statements do not necessarily contradict each other. Consider the following example: "My grandmother is 83, but she swims everyday." The fact that she exercises regularly might be surprising to some, but it does not mean she is not 83 years old.
Now for the sentence everyone is debating: "A spellcaster must have a hand free to access a spell’s material components — or to hold a spellcasting focus — but it can be the same hand that he or she uses to perform somatic components."
As SagaTympana explained in post #20 the clause after the 'but' does not contradict anything laid out in the clause before the 'but'. It contradicts the free have requirement of somatic components. The second clause also uses the pronoun 'it' to refer to the hand supplying the material components because it is not necessarily free, it is either holding a spellcasting focus or manipulating spellcasting components.
Finally, as I pointed out earlier using the fact that the hand supplying the material component can also supply the somatic component to assert that a hand supplying the somatic component can also supply the material component is a fallacious argument. For example: dogs are mammals. My cat is a mammal, therefore my cat is a dog. See? The fact that my cat is a mammal is not sufficient to prove it is a dog. It might be required but it is not sufficient. To justify the position that a hand supplying somatic components is always able to also provide material components you need further evidence.
If S then M ok. Not: If M then S ok. So thats exactly what we see explained in the SA.
No, their explanation is.
* If both hands are occupied and the spell have both S and M components then a focus will let you cast it.
* If both hands are occupied but the spell have only an S component then a focus will not work, you need the Warcaster feat.
But your argument is that the Warcaster feat solves both situations. If so why wouldn't they say that? Why specify two different solutions when one works for both? I mean sure giving alternatives is good but you'd really need to be intentionally misleading to not mention the fact that one solution solves both issues.
Sorry didn’t read whole thread, at work on break so not much time.
Fireball requires bat guano and sulfur. If you have a sword in one hand and a shield in the other. What hand is holding the bat guano and sulfur? Once you figure out what hand those are in you can now use that hand to also perform the S component of the spell.
Fireball requires bat guano and sulfur. If you have a sword in one hand and a shield in the other. What hand is holding the bat guano and sulfur? Once you figure out what hand those are in you can now use that hand to also perform the S component of the spell.
That argument's kind of just an invitation to find ways to circumvent/ignore the rules. "I always have bat guano and sulfer smeared on the back of my hand/my face/wherever", that sort of thing
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
I put that link on page 1, but there are people too entertaining talking about chickens or whatever.
What really happens is that there are people who refuse to admit that they were wrong. That one thing was thought to work in one way, but it works in another. And so we have a thread of 5 pages, and counting, when this was solved on page 1.
To clarify: - If a spell needs a component material, you have to hold it in one hand. That is, if you have your hands full with something else, you cannot hold the material component. So you can't cast a spell that needs material components. - A spell focus replaces the material components. - You can make your somatic components with the hand that holds material components. And obviously the other way around. You can hold a material component with the hand that makes the somatic components (it does not matter to say it one way or another, it is the same thing). But you need a free hand to hold a material component, that's obvious. - Warcaster allows you to make the somatic components with a hand that is holding a weapon or a shield. But it doesn't allow you to bypass the material components in any way.
There is no need to continue turning things around, or twisting the rules so that they say what they do not say. There are no buts, orange chickens, or castles in the air.
Warcaster still does not change material comp requirements away. You still need a free hand, that free hand can ALSO be doing the somatic comp. Warcaster makes it so you can use somatic with the weapon in hand. This hand is not a free hand it is holding a weapon so it does not meet the requirements for a material comp. Nothing changes the fact you needed a free hand to use a material comp. NOTHING that you have stated shows where it changes that you don't need a free hand for Material comps nothing. And holding a weapon does not count as a free hand.
So either I can hold the M and perform the S of the spell with one hand OR i can hold a sword and do the somatic not both.
Seeing as you only intend to argue I'm done.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
This is why there is a protocol for how to apply interacting rules. Specific beats general. It solves a good majority of these hiccups.
So, the rules that you can drive down the street between 8am and 5pm is more general than your specific lack of license. So the fact you're not allowed to drive is the specific that overrides the general driving hours.
Similarly, here, the more general rule is that you need a free hand to handle materials. The very slightly more specific exception is that the hand which does the somatic can do materials too.
And then the much more specific exception, from warcaster, is that you can do somatic components with a weapon in hand.
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 guess there is no part where you can show where the rule requiring a free hand for M spells is excepted, Since you still haven't shown it.
...I have. Many times now. I'm not sure why you keep asking me to requote it over and over again.
"- but it can be the same hand that he or she uses to perform somatic components."
PHB. Chapter 10. Spellcasting. Rules for Components.
You can use the hand that does somatic componts as the hand to access 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.
So there is text that you pointed to, without showing, somewhere, that says that M doesn't require a free hand? Where is it? Why don't you just quote it?
Saga, again my game, my call.
Totally up to each DM. Read all my text. /hugs
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.
I am quoting it.
I have no idea what you want. You're asking me to quote a rule I very much am quoting. You even quote my quoting of the rule while asking me to quote it again...
"- but it can be the same hand that he or she uses to perform somatic components."
This is the quote. Directly from the PHB. This is absolutely what you're looking for. It tells you that the hand that provides somatic components can be used for material components. Straight up permission-granting text. Can be.
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 want you to point to actual text that says what you say. For once, in this specific rules argument.
Most people would say that "you can't drive without a license" is the general rule. At best neither one is a specific case of the other.
Anyways, maybe a proper metaphor would help? If you switch out the terms but kept the rules consistent, then the logic should remain the same. Example:
Keeping Griffons
"You must have a land free of horses to keep griffons on it, but it can be the same land you use to conduct business on."
Horse Commercial License Feat
"You can conduct business on your land even if you keep horses on it."
It would be incorrect to conclude that the Feat overrides the restriction of keeping horses in the same land you keep griffons. Now this may seem like an unrelated situation, but legit all I did was change the terms 1:1.
It's not, your orange chicken example was sufficient to demonstrate how you were interpreting the material components rule.
No, you didn't change terms 1:1. You placed additional terms in. Here is your analogy but with just 1:1 replacements:
Now if your lands have horses on it, then you can still conduct business on it. And, lands that you conduct business on can be used to raise griffons.
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.
Huh? How is it up the DM what question the OP was asking?
The intention was that "a land free from horses" is the equivalent of "a free hand" and that "keeping horses" is the equivalent of "a weapon or a shield in one or both hands". I know that both terms use the word "horses", so admittedly that was a confusing choice of words. Anyways, your analogy doesn't help your case. See, your stance is that this:
"You can perform the somatic components of spells even when you have weapons or a shield in one or both hands."
Overrides this:
"A spellcaster must have a hand free to access a spell's material components"
Now lets look at the equivalents in your analogy:
"You can conduct business even when you have horses on your lands."
"A businessman must have some land free to keep griffons on"
By the looks of it, you still need free lands to keep griffons on, so it looks like your proving the opposite of what your trying to prove.
Accidentally hit post while I was writing >,<. The issue with the "I don't like chicken but I do like orange food" that I see is that the clause after the 'but' directly contradicts the clause before the 'but'. This is because chicken is a subset of food. Material components however are not a subset of somatic components.
Also, the word 'but' when used as a conjunction joins two contrasting statements. The statements do not necessarily contradict each other. Consider the following example: "My grandmother is 83, but she swims everyday." The fact that she exercises regularly might be surprising to some, but it does not mean she is not 83 years old.
Now for the sentence everyone is debating: "A spellcaster must have a hand free to access a spell’s material components — or to hold a spellcasting focus — but it can be the same hand that he or she uses to perform somatic components."
As SagaTympana explained in post #20 the clause after the 'but' does not contradict anything laid out in the clause before the 'but'. It contradicts the free have requirement of somatic components. The second clause also uses the pronoun 'it' to refer to the hand supplying the material components because it is not necessarily free, it is either holding a spellcasting focus or manipulating spellcasting components.
Finally, as I pointed out earlier using the fact that the hand supplying the material component can also supply the somatic component to assert that a hand supplying the somatic component can also supply the material component is a fallacious argument. For example: dogs are mammals. My cat is a mammal, therefore my cat is a dog. See? The fact that my cat is a mammal is not sufficient to prove it is a dog. It might be required but it is not sufficient. To justify the position that a hand supplying somatic components is always able to also provide material components you need further evidence.
This discussion has devolved from a rules discussion into bickering and sniping. If this conduct continues, the thread will be locked.
All users are expected to treat each other with respect
Find my D&D Beyond articles here
No, their explanation is.
* If both hands are occupied and the spell have both S and M components then a focus will let you cast it.
* If both hands are occupied but the spell have only an S component then a focus will not work, you need the Warcaster feat.
But your argument is that the Warcaster feat solves both situations. If so why wouldn't they say that? Why specify two different solutions when one works for both?
I mean sure giving alternatives is good but you'd really need to be intentionally misleading to not mention the fact that one solution solves both issues.
Sorry didn’t read whole thread, at work on break so not much time.
Fireball requires bat guano and sulfur. If you have a sword in one hand and a shield in the other. What hand is holding the bat guano and sulfur? Once you figure out what hand those are in you can now use that hand to also perform the S component of the spell.
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?
That argument's kind of just an invitation to find ways to circumvent/ignore the rules. "I always have bat guano and sulfer smeared on the back of my hand/my face/wherever", that sort of thing
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
I put that link on page 1, but there are people too entertaining talking about chickens or whatever.
What really happens is that there are people who refuse to admit that they were wrong. That one thing was thought to work in one way, but it works in another. And so we have a thread of 5 pages, and counting, when this was solved on page 1.
To clarify:
- If a spell needs a component material, you have to hold it in one hand. That is, if you have your hands full with something else, you cannot hold the material component. So you can't cast a spell that needs material components.
- A spell focus replaces the material components.
- You can make your somatic components with the hand that holds material components. And obviously the other way around. You can hold a material component with the hand that makes the somatic components (it does not matter to say it one way or another, it is the same thing). But you need a free hand to hold a material component, that's obvious.
- Warcaster allows you to make the somatic components with a hand that is holding a weapon or a shield. But it doesn't allow you to bypass the material components in any way.
There is no need to continue turning things around, or twisting the rules so that they say what they do not say. There are no buts, orange chickens, or castles in the air.
This is a great example of needlessly complex rules.
Warcaster still does not change material comp requirements away. You still need a free hand, that free hand can ALSO be doing the somatic comp. Warcaster makes it so you can use somatic with the weapon in hand. This hand is not a free hand it is holding a weapon so it does not meet the requirements for a material comp. Nothing changes the fact you needed a free hand to use a material comp. NOTHING that you have stated shows where it changes that you don't need a free hand for Material comps nothing. And holding a weapon does not count as a free hand.
So either I can hold the M and perform the S of the spell with one hand OR i can hold a sword and do the somatic not both.
Seeing as you only intend to argue I'm done.