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.
The logic that "A means B does not mean B means A" doesn't seem to really apply here, since the statement doesn't seem to have direction to the statement- more like A and B can coexist, therefore B and A can coexist (which is accurate).
The statements before and after "but" don't have to contradict, it is true, but in this case they do. The example that you provided, "my grandmother is 83, but she swims everyday," has it so that the statements cannot contradict. The sentence in question, however, has the statements capable of contradicting; if you are holding something in your hand while doing S, it contradicts the free hand rule of M. This means that the statements after and before the "but" contradict, just like my orange chicken example, when War Caster is used. This means that it still applies, which means this argument remains fully opinion based.
If you want to be specific about it, imagine it like this; having War Caster and performing the S components with a sword is basically making orange chicken a real thing. Sure, if orange chicken doesn't exist, then saying "I don't like chicken, but I do like orange food" is just a self-contrasting statement rather than a self-contradicting one. But if orange chicken does exist (which for the purposes of this example, I guess it completely ceases to exist half the time), then the statement is self-contradictory. In the same way, the rule in question doesn't contradict in the way that I claim until I perform S with a sword, at which point the statements before and after the "but" do contradict in such a way.
To be clear, I 100% don't believe this is RAI. If it were, the rules wouldn't be so ambiguous and it would say that you can handle M components with a sword in hand as part of the feat.
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)
The real question is : can you hold both a material component and a weapon in the same hand and cast a material component spell? The initial casting rules call for a free hand to hold the material component and a free hand to do the somatic component - so if you have 2 hands holding nothing (free) you have no problems casting a material component spell ( assuming you cast spells). The next part ( the but) doesn’t contradict anything - it extends these two statements and combines them allowing you to cast using the same (free) hand for both the material and somatic components so can cast with one free hand and one filled hand. War caster makes a completely different statement - if you are wielding a weapon you can make the somatic components of a spell with the weapon wielding hand. It says nothing about the material component. So if you have warcaster you can do the somatic component with either the weapon holding hand or the material component holding hand but t doesn’t say you can hold the weapon AND the material component in the same hand and then do the somatic component with that hand. Therefore, normally you have to have a free hand for the material component. Certain other features allow casting foci to be shields for some classes and so those classes could potentially cast material component spells with the warcaster feat doing the somatic component with the weapon and the material with the shield(/focus) ( having expensive single cast components embedded in the shield would allow them to be cast as well). Unless there is a class/subclass feature/feat specifically either allowing a weapon to be a spell focus or allowing the weapon holding hand to not only hold the weapon and do the somatic component but/and hold the material component at the same time - then the answer is (like it or not) no you can’t- at least not by RAW. Was that also RAI? I believe it was. To see why look at the Blade singer - the do not get shield proficiency and do get proficiency with a one handed weapon so they can always have a free hand for the material and somatic components as covered under the second option for material components. If a bladesinger takes war caster then they can choose to do the somatic component with either hand while holding the weapon in one and the material component in the other.
The idea that "it can be the same hand that he or she uses to perform somatic components" contradicts "must have a hand free to access a spell's material components" is very... odd. The only way I can make sense of that is if a hand that's doing somatic components is not a free hand, but I feel like that's misunderstanding what they mean by a free hand. Whenever they say that you need a free hand to do something, they mean it needs to be free prior to doing it. Like how you need a free hand to load ammunition, but while you're loading it, the hand is no longer free.
The reason they have to add the "but" is because a hand that's handling material components is not a free hand, and somatic components generally require a free hand. So there is an exception being made here, but the exception is to the general understanding that a hand can only do one thing at a time (classic exception that proves the rule). Basically what it's saying is that you can do these two specific things with the same hand, I mean that's kind of the literal meaning of "it can be the same hand that he or she uses to perform somatic components". That's not an exception to saying that the hand needs to be free prior to doing those two things, because they can BOTH be true.
Basically, in order to conclude that there is an exception to the need of a free hand prior to handling material components, you would have to infer something that's outside what is literally written. So unless the argument is that "they meant to say that a hand that's doing somatic components doesn't need to free to handle material components, they just worded it oddly", then I just don't see an exception to needing a free hand.
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.
You lost me. Why is it not free? if it only has the sword in it, it sure is free to handle material components. The rules tells us if we do the somatic components that this S hand can also do M. So of course it is free to do M. It was free to so S, and if S then M.
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.
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 be clear, I 100% don't believe this is RAI. If it were, the rules wouldn't be so ambiguous and it would say that you can handle M components with a sword in hand as part of the feat.
I'd say you're putting way too much faith in the writing not being written with ambiguity. If they were always perfect and unambiguous we'd never have erratas, Sage Advice, or now a whole new edition "next generation" coming out. Ambiguity is, in some parts of the rules, even called out as a feature. The Authors talk about how this promotes creativity or empowers DMs to make rulings or whatever. Ambiguity is part of 5e, baked right into its chewy center.
The idea that "it can be the same hand that he or she uses to perform somatic components" contradicts "must have a hand free to access a spell's material components" is very... odd. The only way I can make sense of that is if a hand that's doing somatic components is not a free hand, but I feel like that's misunderstanding what they mean by a free hand. Whenever they say that you need a free hand to do something, they mean it needs to be free prior to doing it. Like how you need a free hand to load ammunition, but while you're loading it, the hand is no longer free.
The reason they have to add the "but" is because a hand that's handling material components is not a free hand, and somatic components generally require a free hand. So there is an exception being made here, but the exception is to the general understanding that a hand can only do one thing at a time (classic exception that proves the rule). Basically what it's saying is that you can do these two specific things with the same hand, I mean that's kind of the literal meaning of "it can be the same hand that he or she uses to perform somatic components". That's not an exception to saying that the hand needs to be free prior to doing those two things, because they can BOTH be true.
Basically, in order to conclude that there is an exception to the need of a free hand prior to handling material components, you would have to infer something that's outside what is literally written. So unless the argument is that "they meant to say that a hand that's doing somatic components doesn't need to free to handle material components, they just worded it oddly", then I just don't see an exception to needing a free hand.
Its seems odd because you are using a different meaning of free hand than the book is. If you can do the somatic components with your hand it is by definition free to do material components too. That's why it says that you "can" use the hand that does S to also do M. Sage Advice clarifies this succinctly too.
If a spell has a somatic component, you can use the hand that performs the somatic component to also handle the material component.
So, if you can do the S components, your hand is free to do the M components too. The rules tell us it can. So, it is free to.
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 thing is, the SA still says you handle the material components, and you need a free hand to do that. Per the M rules. Unless, of course, you have some secret rule you haven’t shared.
To be clear, I 100% don't believe this is RAI. If it were, the rules wouldn't be so ambiguous and it would say that you can handle M components with a sword in hand as part of the feat.
I... wow. OK. So what you're saying is you don't believe it's RAI, because there's no actual textual evidence supporting your argument
Like, that's what some of us have been trying to point out to you for 4-5 pages now! Only to us, that also means it isn't RAW either, because there is literally no Rule As Written backing you up, only a chain of sketchy interpretations and inferences you're holding onto like a rhetorical Barrel of Monkeys
If you have a specific problem with my logic, I implore you to point it out. Others have, and I'm thankful for it. If you'd rather make vague comments about me being wrong and stubborn, then I'd prefer it if you didn't say anything at all, or at least DM me instead of making this post even longer.
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)
To be clear, I 100% don't believe this is RAI. If it were, the rules wouldn't be so ambiguous and it would say that you can handle M components with a sword in hand as part of the feat.
I'd say you're putting way too much faith in the writing not being written with ambiguity. If they were always perfect and unambiguous we'd never have erratas, Sage Advice, or now a whole new edition "next generation" coming out. Ambiguity is, in some parts of the rules, even called out as a feature. The Authors talk about how this promotes creativity or empowers DMs to make rulings or whatever. Ambiguity is part of 5e, baked right into its chewy center.
The idea that "it can be the same hand that he or she uses to perform somatic components" contradicts "must have a hand free to access a spell's material components" is very... odd. The only way I can make sense of that is if a hand that's doing somatic components is not a free hand, but I feel like that's misunderstanding what they mean by a free hand. Whenever they say that you need a free hand to do something, they mean it needs to be free prior to doing it. Like how you need a free hand to load ammunition, but while you're loading it, the hand is no longer free.
The reason they have to add the "but" is because a hand that's handling material components is not a free hand, and somatic components generally require a free hand. So there is an exception being made here, but the exception is to the general understanding that a hand can only do one thing at a time (classic exception that proves the rule). Basically what it's saying is that you can do these two specific things with the same hand, I mean that's kind of the literal meaning of "it can be the same hand that he or she uses to perform somatic components". That's not an exception to saying that the hand needs to be free prior to doing those two things, because they can BOTH be true.
Basically, in order to conclude that there is an exception to the need of a free hand prior to handling material components, you would have to infer something that's outside what is literally written. So unless the argument is that "they meant to say that a hand that's doing somatic components doesn't need to free to handle material components, they just worded it oddly", then I just don't see an exception to needing a free hand.
Its seems odd because you are using a different meaning of free hand than the book is. If you can do the somatic components with your hand it is by definition free to do material components too. That's why it says that you "can" use the hand that does S to also do M. Sage Advice clarifies this succinctly too.
If a spell has a somatic component, you can use the hand that performs the somatic component to also handle the material component.
So, if you can do the S components, your hand is free to do the M components too. The rules tell us it can. So, it is free to.
Well, at least you agree that it's not an actual contradiction. So that is certainly one interpretation you can make "If S, then F, then M", I'm just saying that you can read it literally and interpret "If F, then S & M" without the need to use any inference, and there's not much of a reason why it should be interpreted your way. Even the SAC you quoted says "you can do this" rather than "you can always do this" leaving it open that this isn't always the case, just like the wording in the rules for M components. But you insist that it is always the case. Anyways, I don't feel like dying on this hill so have a good day.
The thing is, the SA still says you handle the material components, and you need a free hand to do that. Per the M rules. Unless, of course, you have some secret rule you haven’t shared.
Yeah, the hand that is holding the sword is free to do that, to handle the the material components. And I have shared the rules quotes already, several times, each and every time you've asked for them I've shared them ad nauseam. Please you gotta stop suggesting I haven't. I'll share em again now. I don't know how this is possibly helpful but I'll always post quotes when asked, so here they are, again.
PHB, Chapter 10, Spellcasting, Components Section: "- but it can be the same hand that he or she uses to perform somatic components."
Sage Advice: "If a spell has a somatic component, you can use the handthat performs the somatic component to also handle the material component."
These statements are unambiguous. They say what you can do. They make no mention of the hand needing to be free to do what it says you can do here. They say, simply, if you do S, then you can do M. So you can.
Even the SAC you quoted says "you can do this" rather than "you can always do this" leaving it open that this isn't always the case, just like the wording in the rules for M components. But you insist that it is always the case.
Things don't getting written that way in 5e. When they say you can do something, they're giving, granting, permission to do it. If there is a limitation of when or how often, that limitation will be also specified. The issue in this particular case is that this permission they're granting us is coming from the exception clause of the initial restriction. So the exception clause is carving out how the first clause doesn't apply.
There isn't another restriction given other than that first clause. And, the exception clause takes priority over the first.
So, it gives us a restriction first. Then it gives an exception to that restriction.
A spellcaster must have a hand free to access a spell’s material components
but it can be the same hand that he or she uses to perform somatic components.
So everything in clause 1 is true, except if clause 2 says otherwise.
And, unfortunately, clause 2 says you can use the hand that performs S to also do M. So this, being the exception carved out from clause 1, supersedes the restriction laid out in 1. Thus, if you do S, then you can do M also.
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.
Its seems odd because you are using a different meaning of free hand than the book is. If you can do the somatic components with your hand it is by definition free to do material components too. That's why it says that you "can" use the hand that does S to also do M. Sage Advice clarifies this succinctly too.
If a spell has a somatic component, you can use the hand that performs the somatic component to also handle the material component.
So, if you can do the S components, your hand is free to do the M components too. The rules tell us it can. So, it is free to.
According to the material components rule yes, I don’t think anyone is actually arguing that a single free hand can’t do both the material and somatic components. What is being argued is that the Warcaster feat’s allowance of somatic components with a hand that is unfree because it is holding a weapon then also allows you to hold a material component in the unfree hand even though that is not stated in the feat. The two rules are not extending each other but are separate. The warcaster feat establishes a specific exception to the freehand rule for somatic components but says nothing about material. The material component rule ends by reminding us that the material component must be in a free hand even if it is a free hand doing somatic components. This doesn’t include an unfree hand holding a weapon and doing a somatic component because of the exception to the free hand rule in warcaster.
Its seems odd because you are using a different meaning of free hand than the book is. If you can do the somatic components with your hand it is by definition free to do material components too. That's why it says that you "can" use the hand that does S to also do M. Sage Advice clarifies this succinctly too.
If a spell has a somatic component, you can use the hand that performs the somatic component to also handle the material component.
So, if you can do the S components, your hand is free to do the M components too. The rules tell us it can. So, it is free to.
According to the material components rule yes, I don’t think anyone is actually arguing that a single free hand can’t do both the material and somatic components. What is being argued is that the Warcaster feat’s allowance of somatic components with a hand that is unfree because it is holding a weapon then also allows you to hold a material component in the unfree hand even though that is not stated in the feat. The two rules are not extending each other but are separate. The warcaster feat establishes a specific exception to the freehand rule for somatic components but says nothing about material. The material component rule ends by reminding us that the material component must be in a free hand even if it is a free hand doing somatic components. This doesn’t include an unfree hand holding a weapon and doing a somatic component because of the exception to the free hand rule in warcaster.
The sword carrying hand isn't "unfree". The feat allows you to do somatic components with a sword in hand, the hand is very much free to do somatic components. And the basic rules have the exception you're looking for. if you do S, you can do M.
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.
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.
The logic that "A means B does not mean B means A" doesn't seem to really apply here, since the statement doesn't seem to have direction to the statement- more like A and B can coexist, therefore B and A can coexist (which is accurate).
The statements before and after "but" don't have to contradict, it is true, but in this case they do. The example that you provided, "my grandmother is 83, but she swims everyday," has it so that the statements cannot contradict. The sentence in question, however, has the statements capable of contradicting; if you are holding something in your hand while doing S, it contradicts the free hand rule of M. This means that the statements after and before the "but" contradict, just like my orange chicken example, when War Caster is used. This means that it still applies, which means this argument remains fully opinion based.
If you want to be specific about it, imagine it like this; having War Caster and performing the S components with a sword is basically making orange chicken a real thing. Sure, if orange chicken doesn't exist, then saying "I don't like chicken, but I do like orange food" is just a self-contrasting statement rather than a self-contradicting one. But if orange chicken does exist (which for the purposes of this example, I guess it completely ceases to exist half the time), then the statement is self-contradictory. In the same way, the rule in question doesn't contradict in the way that I claim until I perform S with a sword, at which point the statements before and after the "but" do contradict in such a way.
To be clear, I 100% don't believe this is RAI. If it were, the rules wouldn't be so ambiguous and it would say that you can handle M components with a sword in hand as part of the feat.
The directionality comes from two facts. First is the structure of the clause after the 'but' itself, the subject of the clause is the hand manipulating the material component and the object of the clause is the somatic component. It is the hand manipulating the material component that is doing the action of performing the somatic component. The second fact that helps inform the reader of the directionality is the order in which the somatic and material component rules were written. The somatic rule is presented first to the reader and lays the foundation that performing a somatic component requires a free hand. Immediately afterwords the material component rule tells us that we need a hand to manipulate the spell's material component and that hand can also perform the somatic component. This follows the specific beats general rule paradigm WotC uses when writting their rules and it is the material component rule that contains the exception to the somatic component rule.
I know my cat-dog-mammal example seems absurd, but that is because we all know what is contained in the set of all cats, the set of all dogs, and the set of all mammals and how they relate. I will give another example and rather than use specific labels like cat, dog, or mammal I will just use capitol letters in alphabetical order. Hopefully this will make it clear what valid conclusions we can make from a given set of facts.
Fact 1: set A contains the element B Fact 2: set C contains the elements B and D Fact 3: set A contains all the elements in set C
Given these 3 facts hopefully it is obvious that both sets A and C contain the elements B and D and that the two sets are the same given the current set of facts. Lets build on this further.
Fact 4: set A contains the elements E and F
Are sets A and C still the same? Well obviously not as both element E and element F are in set A but not in set C. However, this assumes that the facts presented thus far provide a complete description of sets A and C and that each labeled element is distinct from the others.
Likely you already picked up that this example is not an arbitrary one. I will explain it here for clarity, but if you figured it out feel free to skip this paragraph. This example is an abstract representation of the somatic component rule(Fact 1), material component rule(Fact 2 and 3), and war caster feat(Fact 4). Set A is the set of hands that can perform somatic components and set C is the set of hands that can provide material components. Element B is a free hand, element D is a hand holding a spellcasting focus, element E is a hand holding a weapon, and element F is a hand holding a shield. Also elements D,E, and F are not necessarily distinct as there are game mechanics that exist that allow a weapon or shield (or even other objects) to be used as a spellcasting focuses.
Really the point of my cat-dog-mammal example as well as the one above is just to show that when one thing implies another the reverse is not necessarily true. It might be true, but it is not always true.
If we look at the somatic and material component rules just on their own it is clear that any hand that can perform the somatic component can also manipulate the material component. This is because the only kinds of hands that can perform a somatic component are a free hand or a hand manipulating a spellcasting component. But if we now also consider the war caster feet, now hands that are holding weapons or shields can also perform somatic components. Are the set of hands that can perform somatic components and the set of hands that can manipulate spellcasting components still the same? I think it is a perfectly natural assumption to make that they are the same but as I explained before it is a flawed assumption to make.
Now all I have said so far has been focused on the somatic component, material component, and war caster feat rules, however they are not the only rules at issue. There is also the concept in 5e of a 'free hand' to deal with. I haven't talked about this before because this is something that is not made explicit in the rules of 5e and instead the writers rely on the readers intuitive understanding of what a free hand is. To me a free hand is hand that is empty and unrestrained, and a hand that is restrained or holding an object is not a free hand. In order for war caster to allow a spellcaster to cast Fireball while wielding a sword and shield there would need to be text explaining that the player can now hold spell components and/or their spellcasting focus in the same hand that is holding a sword or shield. Everywhere in 5e a free hand is presented as a binary state and now suddenly in this one context we need to treat it as a non-binary state. If we are going to make an exception to a general rule we need text creating such an exception.
A free hand doesn't need to be empty, specifically. It just needs to be available for whatever you're needing the free hand for. Sometimes that might mean empty, but other times it means not be spoken for already. Ie not busy doing something else. Especially not doing something else that also requires a free hand. But it only needs to be free for the duration of the -whatever- that needed the free hand.
I've seen that sentiment come up before, that it must be completely and entirely empty. But that isn't in the rules anywhere. And it isn't what the colloquial use of the phrase means either.
Eg, if you pick up one copper piece and are holding it in your hand, is your hand free to pick up a 2nd copper piece? Obviously yes. So being entirely empty isn't what free means.
This is doubly true when you look at spells that have multiple components. How can you hold them all if you can't hold more than a single, solitary item at a time? Does everyone pluck out their thousands of gold to pay a merchant one single coin-in-hand at a time?
Absent any hard rules, we have to defer to common sense. And practical understanding of how things work. Hands can hold more than a single item. So this notion that free means entirely empty is invented somewhere, and its hard to say where. Free just means available.
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 thing is, the SA still says you handle the material components, and you need a free hand to do that. Per the M rules. Unless, of course, you have some secret rule you haven’t shared.
Yeah, the hand that is holding the sword is free to do that, to handle the the material components.
To clarify something very basic: No, it is not. The rules make it very clear.
"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."
That it may be the hand he uses to perform the somatic components does not imply that the hand may not be free. It implies that you can hold the material component, and do the gestures with the same hand. But if that hand is holding something else (like a weapon or a shield), that hand is not free. With Warcaster you can do the gestures with the hand holding a weapon or a shield, but you couldn't use that hand for the component material because it's not free.
Think of it this way: would you let a player use the same hand that has a weapon or shield to hold a spell focus that is, say, an orb? I understand that you wouldn't let them do that out of sheer common sense.
The thing is, the SA still says you handle the material components, and you need a free hand to do that. Per the M rules. Unless, of course, you have some secret rule you haven’t shared.
Yeah, the hand that is holding the sword is free to do that, to handle the the material components.
To clarify something very basic: No, it is not. The rules make it very clear.
"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."
Yes, it must be free, but the hand that does somatic can also do material. That's what the second half of your quote tells us.
That it may be the hand he uses to perform the somatic components does not imply that the hand may not be free. It implies that you can hold the material component, and do the gestures with the same hand. But if that hand is holding something else (like a weapon or a shield), that hand is not free.
Sure its free to handle material components. Why is it not? Lots of folk asserting it isn't, but ain't no one showed a rule saying so. If it can do somatic, it is free to do material.
With Warcaster you can do the gestures with the hand holding a weapon or a shield, but you couldn't use that hand for the component material because it's not free.
Sure it is.
Think of it this way: would you let a player use the same hand that has a weapon or shield to hold a spell focus that is, say, an orb? I understand that you wouldn't let them do that out of sheer common sense.
Foci need to be held. Material components only need to be accessed. You quoted it, above. You don't need to hold material components, you need to access them. That's why they've been the foci of this topic. (pun intended)
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 thing is, the SA still says you handle the material components, and you need a free hand to do that. Per the M rules. Unless, of course, you have some secret rule you haven’t shared.
Yeah, the hand that is holding the sword is free to do that, to handle the the material components.
To clarify something very basic: No, it is not. The rules make it very clear.
"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."
Yes, it must be free, but the hand that does somatic can also do material. That's what the second half of your quote tells us.
That it may be the hand he uses to perform the somatic components does not imply that the hand may not be free. It implies that you can hold the material component, and do the gestures with the same hand. But if that hand is holding something else (like a weapon or a shield), that hand is not free.
Sure its free to handle material components. Why is it not? Lots of folk asserting it isn't, but ain't no one showed a rule saying so. If it can do somatic, it is free to do material.
With Warcaster you can do the gestures with the hand holding a weapon or a shield, but you couldn't use that hand for the component material because it's not free.
Sure it is.
Think of it this way: would you let a player use the same hand that has a weapon or shield to hold a spell focus that is, say, an orb? I understand that you wouldn't let them do that out of sheer common sense.
Foci need to be held. Material components only need to be accessed. You quoted it, above. You don't need to hold material components, you need to access them. That's why they've been the foci of this topic. (pun intended)
Your logic is very strange. What do you understand by free hand? If to drive a nail, I need a free hand for the hammer, and another to hold the nail, is my left hand free even if I hold the wood?
I think we're getting into a basic common sense problem.
Edit: And it has to be accessible for what? Clearly to catch her. Or is it just to look at her?
Its seems odd because you are using a different meaning of free hand than the book is. If you can do the somatic components with your hand it is by definition free to do material components too. That's why it says that you "can" use the hand that does S to also do M. Sage Advice clarifies this succinctly too.
If a spell has a somatic component, you can use the hand that performs the somatic component to also handle the material component.
So, if you can do the S components, your hand is free to do the M components too. The rules tell us it can. So, it is free to.
According to the material components rule yes, I don’t think anyone is actually arguing that a single free hand can’t do both the material and somatic components. What is being argued is that the Warcaster feat’s allowance of somatic components with a hand that is unfree because it is holding a weapon then also allows you to hold a material component in the unfree hand even though that is not stated in the feat. The two rules are not extending each other but are separate. The warcaster feat establishes a specific exception to the freehand rule for somatic components but says nothing about material. The material component rule ends by reminding us that the material component must be in a free hand even if it is a free hand doing somatic components. This doesn’t include an unfree hand holding a weapon and doing a somatic component because of the exception to the free hand rule in warcaster.
The sword carrying hand isn't "unfree". The feat allows you to do somatic components with a sword in hand, the hand is very much free to do somatic components. And the basic rules have the exception you're looking for. if you do S, you can do M.
This right here
The sword carrying hand isn't "unfree". The feat allows you to do somatic components with a sword in hand, the hand is very much free to do somatic components. And the basic rules have the exception you're looking for. if you do S, you can do M.
The sword in your hand is what make it unfree you carring a sword by the definition in the game make that hand not free. Warcaster ONLY changes somatic NOT material. Material you still need a free hand. A sword in your hand is not free. you cannot hold a sword and reach into your pouch for you material comp. Hell get a broom stick hold that for me and then go to reach into a purse and tell me how easy that really is while dancing to a upbeat song.
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.
So via how that reads you need two things to do a Somatic AND Material comps. a free hand and that same hand doing the Somatic comp. IF the hand is not free it cannot do the material comp of the spell. If you have war caster you can do ONLY THE SOMATIC PART IF YOUR HOLDING A WEAPON/SHIELD. It does not take away the part of material that requires a free hand. NOTHING in warcaster states it changes Material comp requirements. Specific rules beat general here. Specifically it call out somatic comps and not material. and Material rules specifically state that you need a free hand.
Also from the sage advice
If the same cleric casts cure 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 component. 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.
So right here without warcaster they need to make a free hand by putting there mace or shield away.... this would imply those hand are not considered free for the purpose of using material or somatic comp right? So then that would mean if you are wielding your sword your hand is not free. So you cannot still us a material component.
In the paragraph just before that
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 cast lightning bolt by using the orb as the spell’s material component and the orb hand to perform the spell’s somatic component.
Here they explain that the wizard with a staff in one hand and the other is free they can do the somatic and material together cause they have a free hand.
TLDR: Warcaster does not change the requirements for a material comp for a spell ONLY somatic. So you still need a free hand for the material comp. Holding an object or weapon counts that hand as begin occupied or not free.
So the rules conclusion is that “a free hand need not be empty?”
This topic has largely been about a eat called Warcaster. The feat eases restrictions on how you cast spells while stuff is in your hands. That's the purpose of the feat.
Your "free hand" needed for somatic components very literally doesn't need to be empty. As this is what the feat does.
Then the SA is wrong and the requirement for a free hand in any rule is a waste of text. You just said that the requirement means nothing.
No. You my have misunderstood something. For the record: At no point did I say, or suggest, that "that the requirement means nothing."
The thing is, the SA still says you handle the material components, and you need a free hand to do that. Per the M rules. Unless, of course, you have some secret rule you haven’t shared.
Yeah, the hand that is holding the sword is free to do that, to handle the the material components.
To clarify something very basic: No, it is not. The rules make it very clear.
"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."
Yes, it must be free, but the hand that does somatic can also do material. That's what the second half of your quote tells us.
That it may be the hand he uses to perform the somatic components does not imply that the hand may not be free. It implies that you can hold the material component, and do the gestures with the same hand. But if that hand is holding something else (like a weapon or a shield), that hand is not free.
Sure its free to handle material components. Why is it not? Lots of folk asserting it isn't, but ain't no one showed a rule saying so. If it can do somatic, it is free to do material.
With Warcaster you can do the gestures with the hand holding a weapon or a shield, but you couldn't use that hand for the component material because it's not free.
Sure it is.
Think of it this way: would you let a player use the same hand that has a weapon or shield to hold a spell focus that is, say, an orb? I understand that you wouldn't let them do that out of sheer common sense.
Foci need to be held. Material components only need to be accessed. You quoted it, above. You don't need to hold material components, you need to access them. That's why they've been the foci of this topic. (pun intended)
Your logic is very strange. What do you understand by free hand? If to drive a nail, I need a free hand for the hammer, and another to hold the nail, is my left hand free even if I hold the wood?
I think we're getting into a basic common sense problem.
Edit: And it has to be accessible for what? Clearly to catch her. Or is it just to look at her?
I'm saying "empty" isn't the requirement. Free is.
IDK why that is strange.
If you need to hold a hammer but your hand is currently busy doing sign language, it isn't free to hold the hammer, but is is empty.
Empty is not free, and free is not empty.
Your hand needs to be available for the task at hand (pun intended) But this availability will depend entirely on what it is needed for.
In your example. One hand is free to hold the hammer, and the other is free to hold a nail. Sure. But, say you want to hold 5 nails, and just line one of the up at a time? Is the nail-holding-hand free to do this? Is my hand free to rest the nail-holding-hand's wrist/palm against the wood to steady it?
If you've ever done carpentry, you know it is, in both cases. It is absolutely free for that. Just like if you're holding a copper piece your hand is absolutely still free to pick up another copper piece.
The limit of course is eventually going to be a DM call. As with many things, ruled on by common sense, DMs have the final word. But we can't be going around making definitive statements about what isn't possible, since we're not the DM for everyone's tables. Those DMs will determine how free your hand is. It could be empty and they could say it isn't free.
It came up in another thread but, eg. If you're casting fireball, and doing the somatic components with your hand, and someone tries to Counterspell you... is your fireball S hand "free" to also do the S component of Counterspell at the same time? No. of course not. it isn't free at all. It is very much in the middle of something.
So, Free isn't asking us if it is empty. Free is asking us if it is available.
And with warcaster in the mix, we know it is available. Because if you're doing S, you can do M. And warcaster is letting us do S while holding a sword. So our hand is absolutely 100% free for this.
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.
The logic that "A means B does not mean B means A" doesn't seem to really apply here, since the statement doesn't seem to have direction to the statement- more like A and B can coexist, therefore B and A can coexist (which is accurate).
The statements before and after "but" don't have to contradict, it is true, but in this case they do. The example that you provided, "my grandmother is 83, but she swims everyday," has it so that the statements cannot contradict. The sentence in question, however, has the statements capable of contradicting; if you are holding something in your hand while doing S, it contradicts the free hand rule of M. This means that the statements after and before the "but" contradict, just like my orange chicken example, when War Caster is used. This means that it still applies, which means this argument remains fully opinion based.
If you want to be specific about it, imagine it like this; having War Caster and performing the S components with a sword is basically making orange chicken a real thing. Sure, if orange chicken doesn't exist, then saying "I don't like chicken, but I do like orange food" is just a self-contrasting statement rather than a self-contradicting one. But if orange chicken does exist (which for the purposes of this example, I guess it completely ceases to exist half the time), then the statement is self-contradictory. In the same way, the rule in question doesn't contradict in the way that I claim until I perform S with a sword, at which point the statements before and after the "but" do contradict in such a way.
To be clear, I 100% don't believe this is RAI. If it were, the rules wouldn't be so ambiguous and it would say that you can handle M components with a sword in hand as part of the feat.
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)
The real question is : can you hold both a material component and a weapon in the same hand and cast a material component spell? The initial casting rules call for a free hand to hold the material component and a free hand to do the somatic component - so if you have 2 hands holding nothing (free) you have no problems casting a material component spell ( assuming you cast spells). The next part ( the but) doesn’t contradict anything - it extends these two statements and combines them allowing you to cast using the same (free) hand for both the material and somatic components so can cast with one free hand and one filled hand. War caster makes a completely different statement - if you are wielding a weapon you can make the somatic components of a spell with the weapon wielding hand. It says nothing about the material component. So if you have warcaster you can do the somatic component with either the weapon holding hand or the material component holding hand but t doesn’t say you can hold the weapon AND the material component in the same hand and then do the somatic component with that hand. Therefore, normally you have to have a free hand for the material component. Certain other features allow casting foci to be shields for some classes and so those classes could potentially cast material component spells with the warcaster feat doing the somatic component with the weapon and the material with the shield(/focus) ( having expensive single cast components embedded in the shield would allow them to be cast as well). Unless there is a class/subclass feature/feat specifically either allowing a weapon to be a spell focus or allowing the weapon holding hand to not only hold the weapon and do the somatic component but/and hold the material component at the same time - then the answer is (like it or not) no you can’t- at least not by RAW. Was that also RAI? I believe it was. To see why look at the Blade singer - the do not get shield proficiency and do get proficiency with a one handed weapon so they can always have a free hand for the material and somatic components as covered under the second option for material components. If a bladesinger takes war caster then they can choose to do the somatic component with either hand while holding the weapon in one and the material component in the other.
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
The idea that "it can be the same hand that he or she uses to perform somatic components" contradicts "must have a hand free to access a spell's material components" is very... odd. The only way I can make sense of that is if a hand that's doing somatic components is not a free hand, but I feel like that's misunderstanding what they mean by a free hand. Whenever they say that you need a free hand to do something, they mean it needs to be free prior to doing it. Like how you need a free hand to load ammunition, but while you're loading it, the hand is no longer free.
The reason they have to add the "but" is because a hand that's handling material components is not a free hand, and somatic components generally require a free hand. So there is an exception being made here, but the exception is to the general understanding that a hand can only do one thing at a time (classic exception that proves the rule). Basically what it's saying is that you can do these two specific things with the same hand, I mean that's kind of the literal meaning of "it can be the same hand that he or she uses to perform somatic components". That's not an exception to saying that the hand needs to be free prior to doing those two things, because they can BOTH be true.
Basically, in order to conclude that there is an exception to the need of a free hand prior to handling material components, you would have to infer something that's outside what is literally written. So unless the argument is that "they meant to say that a hand that's doing somatic components doesn't need to free to handle material components, they just worded it oddly", then I just don't see an exception to needing a free hand.
You lost me. Why is it not free? if it only has the sword in it, it sure is free to handle material components. The rules tells us if we do the somatic components that this S hand can also do M. So of course it is free to do M. It was free to so S, and if S then M.
The rules literally say the same hand does both.
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 you did find somewhere a rule that makes an explicit exception to the M requirements for a free hand?
Because that is how “specific beats general” works in this game: Explicit exception.
I'd say you're putting way too much faith in the writing not being written with ambiguity. If they were always perfect and unambiguous we'd never have erratas, Sage Advice, or now a
whole new edition"next generation" coming out. Ambiguity is, in some parts of the rules, even called out as a feature. The Authors talk about how this promotes creativity or empowers DMs to make rulings or whatever. Ambiguity is part of 5e, baked right into its chewy center.Its seems odd because you are using a different meaning of free hand than the book is. If you can do the somatic components with your hand it is by definition free to do material components too. That's why it says that you "can" use the hand that does S to also do M. Sage Advice clarifies this succinctly too.
If a spell has a somatic component, you can use the hand
that performs the somatic component to also handle the
material component.
So, if you can do the S components, your hand is free to do the M components too. The rules tell us it can. So, it is free to.
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 thing is, the SA still says you handle the material components, and you need a free hand to do that. Per the M rules. Unless, of course, you have some secret rule you haven’t shared.
If you have a specific problem with my logic, I implore you to point it out. Others have, and I'm thankful for it. If you'd rather make vague comments about me being wrong and stubborn, then I'd prefer it if you didn't say anything at all, or at least DM me instead of making this post even longer.
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)
Well, at least you agree that it's not an actual contradiction. So that is certainly one interpretation you can make "If S, then F, then M", I'm just saying that you can read it literally and interpret "If F, then S & M" without the need to use any inference, and there's not much of a reason why it should be interpreted your way. Even the SAC you quoted says "you can do this" rather than "you can always do this" leaving it open that this isn't always the case, just like the wording in the rules for M components. But you insist that it is always the case. Anyways, I don't feel like dying on this hill so have a good day.
Yeah, the hand that is holding the sword is free to do that, to handle the the material components. And I have shared the rules quotes already, several times, each and every time you've asked for them I've shared them ad nauseam. Please you gotta stop suggesting I haven't. I'll share em again now. I don't know how this is possibly helpful but I'll always post quotes when asked, so here they are, again.
These statements are unambiguous. They say what you can do. They make no mention of the hand needing to be free to do what it says you can do here. They say, simply, if you do S, then you can do M. So you can.
Things don't getting written that way in 5e. When they say you can do something, they're giving, granting, permission to do it. If there is a limitation of when or how often, that limitation will be also specified. The issue in this particular case is that this permission they're granting us is coming from the exception clause of the initial restriction. So the exception clause is carving out how the first clause doesn't apply.
There isn't another restriction given other than that first clause. And, the exception clause takes priority over the first.
So, it gives us a restriction first. Then it gives an exception to that restriction.
So everything in clause 1 is true, except if clause 2 says otherwise.
And, unfortunately, clause 2 says you can use the hand that performs S to also do M. So this, being the exception carved out from clause 1, supersedes the restriction laid out in 1. Thus, if you do S, then you can do M also.
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.
According to the material components rule yes, I don’t think anyone is actually arguing that a single free hand can’t do both the material and somatic components. What is being argued is that the Warcaster feat’s allowance of somatic components with a hand that is unfree because it is holding a weapon then also allows you to hold a material component in the unfree hand even though that is not stated in the feat. The two rules are not extending each other but are separate. The warcaster feat establishes a specific exception to the freehand rule for somatic components but says nothing about material. The material component rule ends by reminding us that the material component must be in a free hand even if it is a free hand doing somatic components. This doesn’t include an unfree hand holding a weapon and doing a somatic component because of the exception to the free hand rule in warcaster.
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
The sword carrying hand isn't "unfree". The feat allows you to do somatic components with a sword in hand, the hand is very much free to do somatic components. And the basic rules have the exception you're looking for. if you do S, you can do M.
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 directionality comes from two facts. First is the structure of the clause after the 'but' itself, the subject of the clause is the hand manipulating the material component and the object of the clause is the somatic component. It is the hand manipulating the material component that is doing the action of performing the somatic component. The second fact that helps inform the reader of the directionality is the order in which the somatic and material component rules were written. The somatic rule is presented first to the reader and lays the foundation that performing a somatic component requires a free hand. Immediately afterwords the material component rule tells us that we need a hand to manipulate the spell's material component and that hand can also perform the somatic component. This follows the specific beats general rule paradigm WotC uses when writting their rules and it is the material component rule that contains the exception to the somatic component rule.
I know my cat-dog-mammal example seems absurd, but that is because we all know what is contained in the set of all cats, the set of all dogs, and the set of all mammals and how they relate. I will give another example and rather than use specific labels like cat, dog, or mammal I will just use capitol letters in alphabetical order. Hopefully this will make it clear what valid conclusions we can make from a given set of facts.
Fact 1: set A contains the element B
Fact 2: set C contains the elements B and D
Fact 3: set A contains all the elements in set C
Given these 3 facts hopefully it is obvious that both sets A and C contain the elements B and D and that the two sets are the same given the current set of facts. Lets build on this further.
Fact 4: set A contains the elements E and F
Are sets A and C still the same? Well obviously not as both element E and element F are in set A but not in set C. However, this assumes that the facts presented thus far provide a complete description of sets A and C and that each labeled element is distinct from the others.
Likely you already picked up that this example is not an arbitrary one. I will explain it here for clarity, but if you figured it out feel free to skip this paragraph. This example is an abstract representation of the somatic component rule(Fact 1), material component rule(Fact 2 and 3), and war caster feat(Fact 4). Set A is the set of hands that can perform somatic components and set C is the set of hands that can provide material components. Element B is a free hand, element D is a hand holding a spellcasting focus, element E is a hand holding a weapon, and element F is a hand holding a shield. Also elements D,E, and F are not necessarily distinct as there are game mechanics that exist that allow a weapon or shield (or even other objects) to be used as a spellcasting focuses.
Really the point of my cat-dog-mammal example as well as the one above is just to show that when one thing implies another the reverse is not necessarily true. It might be true, but it is not always true.
If we look at the somatic and material component rules just on their own it is clear that any hand that can perform the somatic component can also manipulate the material component. This is because the only kinds of hands that can perform a somatic component are a free hand or a hand manipulating a spellcasting component. But if we now also consider the war caster feet, now hands that are holding weapons or shields can also perform somatic components. Are the set of hands that can perform somatic components and the set of hands that can manipulate spellcasting components still the same? I think it is a perfectly natural assumption to make that they are the same but as I explained before it is a flawed assumption to make.
Now all I have said so far has been focused on the somatic component, material component, and war caster feat rules, however they are not the only rules at issue. There is also the concept in 5e of a 'free hand' to deal with. I haven't talked about this before because this is something that is not made explicit in the rules of 5e and instead the writers rely on the readers intuitive understanding of what a free hand is. To me a free hand is hand that is empty and unrestrained, and a hand that is restrained or holding an object is not a free hand. In order for war caster to allow a spellcaster to cast Fireball while wielding a sword and shield there would need to be text explaining that the player can now hold spell components and/or their spellcasting focus in the same hand that is holding a sword or shield. Everywhere in 5e a free hand is presented as a binary state and now suddenly in this one context we need to treat it as a non-binary state. If we are going to make an exception to a general rule we need text creating such an exception.
A free hand doesn't need to be empty, specifically. It just needs to be available for whatever you're needing the free hand for. Sometimes that might mean empty, but other times it means not be spoken for already. Ie not busy doing something else. Especially not doing something else that also requires a free hand. But it only needs to be free for the duration of the -whatever- that needed the free hand.
I've seen that sentiment come up before, that it must be completely and entirely empty. But that isn't in the rules anywhere. And it isn't what the colloquial use of the phrase means either.
Eg, if you pick up one copper piece and are holding it in your hand, is your hand free to pick up a 2nd copper piece? Obviously yes. So being entirely empty isn't what free means.
This is doubly true when you look at spells that have multiple components. How can you hold them all if you can't hold more than a single, solitary item at a time? Does everyone pluck out their thousands of gold to pay a merchant one single coin-in-hand at a time?
Absent any hard rules, we have to defer to common sense. And practical understanding of how things work. Hands can hold more than a single item. So this notion that free means entirely empty is invented somewhere, and its hard to say where. Free just means available.
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
To clarify something very basic: No, it is not. The rules make it very clear.
"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."
That it may be the hand he uses to perform the somatic components does not imply that the hand may not be free. It implies that you can hold the material component, and do the gestures with the same hand. But if that hand is holding something else (like a weapon or a shield), that hand is not free. With Warcaster you can do the gestures with the hand holding a weapon or a shield, but you couldn't use that hand for the component material because it's not free.
Think of it this way: would you let a player use the same hand that has a weapon or shield to hold a spell focus that is, say, an orb? I understand that you wouldn't let them do that out of sheer common sense.
Yes, it must be free, but the hand that does somatic can also do material. That's what the second half of your quote tells us.
Sure its free to handle material components. Why is it not? Lots of folk asserting it isn't, but ain't no one showed a rule saying so. If it can do somatic, it is free to do material.
Sure it is.
Foci need to be held. Material components only need to be accessed. You quoted it, above. You don't need to hold material components, you need to access them. That's why they've been the foci of this topic. (pun intended)
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 the rules conclusion is that “a free hand need not be empty?”
Then the SA is wrong and the requirement for a free hand in any rule is a waste of text. You just said that the requirement means nothing.
That is a conclusion about a rule that probably won’t convince anyone in this forum.
Your logic is very strange. What do you understand by free hand?
If to drive a nail, I need a free hand for the hammer, and another to hold the nail, is my left hand free even if I hold the wood?
I think we're getting into a basic common sense problem.
Edit: And it has to be accessible for what? Clearly to catch her. Or is it just to look at her?
This right here
The sword carrying hand isn't "unfree". The feat allows you to do somatic components with a sword in hand, the hand is very much free to do somatic components. And the basic rules have the exception you're looking for. if you do S, you can do M.
The sword in your hand is what make it unfree you carring a sword by the definition in the game make that hand not free. Warcaster ONLY changes somatic NOT material. Material you still need a free hand. A sword in your hand is not free. you cannot hold a sword and reach into your pouch for you material comp. Hell get a broom stick hold that for me and then go to reach into a purse and tell me how easy that really is while dancing to a upbeat song.
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.
So via how that reads you need two things to do a Somatic AND Material comps. a free hand and that same hand doing the Somatic comp. IF the hand is not free it cannot do the material comp of the spell. If you have war caster you can do ONLY THE SOMATIC PART IF YOUR HOLDING A WEAPON/SHIELD. It does not take away the part of material that requires a free hand. NOTHING in warcaster states it changes Material comp requirements. Specific rules beat general here. Specifically it call out somatic comps and not material. and Material rules specifically state that you need a free hand.
Also from the sage advice
If the same cleric casts cure 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 component. 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.
So right here without warcaster they need to make a free hand by putting there mace or shield away.... this would imply those hand are not considered free for the purpose of using material or somatic comp right? So then that would mean if you are wielding your sword your hand is not free. So you cannot still us a material component.
In the paragraph just before that
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 cast lightning bolt by using the orb as the spell’s material component and the orb hand to perform the spell’s somatic component.
Here they explain that the wizard with a staff in one hand and the other is free they can do the somatic and material together cause they have a free hand.
TLDR: Warcaster does not change the requirements for a material comp for a spell ONLY somatic. So you still need a free hand for the material comp. Holding an object or weapon counts that hand as begin occupied or not free.
This topic has largely been about a eat called Warcaster. The feat eases restrictions on how you cast spells while stuff is in your hands. That's the purpose of the feat.
Your "free hand" needed for somatic components very literally doesn't need to be empty. As this is what the feat does.
No. You my have misunderstood something. For the record: At no point did I say, or suggest, that "that the requirement means nothing."
I'm saying "empty" isn't the requirement. Free is.
IDK why that is strange.
If you need to hold a hammer but your hand is currently busy doing sign language, it isn't free to hold the hammer, but is is empty.
Empty is not free, and free is not empty.
Your hand needs to be available for the task at hand (pun intended) But this availability will depend entirely on what it is needed for.
In your example. One hand is free to hold the hammer, and the other is free to hold a nail. Sure. But, say you want to hold 5 nails, and just line one of the up at a time? Is the nail-holding-hand free to do this? Is my hand free to rest the nail-holding-hand's wrist/palm against the wood to steady it?
If you've ever done carpentry, you know it is, in both cases. It is absolutely free for that. Just like if you're holding a copper piece your hand is absolutely still free to pick up another copper piece.
The limit of course is eventually going to be a DM call. As with many things, ruled on by common sense, DMs have the final word. But we can't be going around making definitive statements about what isn't possible, since we're not the DM for everyone's tables. Those DMs will determine how free your hand is. It could be empty and they could say it isn't free.
It came up in another thread but, eg. If you're casting fireball, and doing the somatic components with your hand, and someone tries to Counterspell you... is your fireball S hand "free" to also do the S component of Counterspell at the same time? No. of course not. it isn't free at all. It is very much in the middle of something.
So, Free isn't asking us if it is empty. Free is asking us if it is available.
And with warcaster in the mix, we know it is available. Because if you're doing S, you can do M. And warcaster is letting us do S while holding a sword. So our hand is absolutely 100% free for this.
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.