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.
This right here from the errata is telling you what the consider a free hand and what is required. It says "she needs to put the mace or the shield away" To do a somatic component, hence you hand needs to be empty not "available" but empty.
Naw. It is busy weilding the mace. Weilding. Holding. These are verbs. Actions. They tell us the hand is busy. ie. not available. Not available because you're using it to weild a weapon.
To do somatic components it cannot be in use of any kind. It absolutely needs to be be available. If unavailable, it isn't free.
A free hand means empty/not in use.
You got me right confused now. Here you are now totally agreeing with me.
But yeah, you're correct. To be free, it needs to not be in use!
You can still use a sword with a glove or gauntlet cause your WEARING THEM.
People are arguing otherwise. They're claiming a hand needs to be entirely empty. I agree with you though. You can use a sword while wearing gloves. Even if they don't.
So, we know being entirely empty isn't the requirement because 1. The rules don't say so. 2. Gloves exist.
This is all RAW all things that can be found in dnd beyond and dnd right now.
That a free use of your hand needs to for you to not already be using it for something else? Yes, that is RAW. If it is busy is isn't free.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
To me free hand both means empty and available to use. For exemple, a spellcaster manacled would not be able to perform somatic components even thought nothing's in hands, because they aren't free to go. Same for empty hands in pockets. Likewise, hands that can move freely but hold something are also not free.
So if you're holding a shield and a sword, you have no free hand to handle material components, even with War Caster. Unless one of them is your spellcasting focus.
Where did the idea come from that a hand with a glove on it is not empty? It is. That's just how hands work. If you're holding something with a hand then it isn't empty, but you don't hold gloves, you wear them.
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)
Where did the idea come from that a hand with a glove on it is not empty? It is. That's just how hands work. If you're holding something with a hand then it isn't empty, but you don't hold gloves, you wear them.
I don't know but if gloves made hands not free anymore they couldn't hold or grab anything. Worn gloves don't occupy hands, they recover them so
If you hold a glove in hand it's not free.
If you wear a glove, your hand is still free since it can hold other things.
This discussion is settled by taking the deductive route of reductio ad absurdum. Suppose it's true that a gloved hand is not a free hand, which doesn't make any sense. But let's suppose. In that case, you couldn't wield a sword with a gloved hand. Not a shield, not anything. Isn't this absurd? So the premise that a gloved hand, or gauntlet, or whatever, is not a "free hand", is false.
A hand is free when it is not occupied (it's a truism). If, for example, you are holding a sword, your hand is occupied and therefore not free. But if you're wearing a gauntlet, your hand isn't busy wearing the gauntlet and is therefore free (unless you're doing something with your hand in addition to wearing the gauntlet). A different case would be if you weren't wearing the gauntlet, if not that you were holding it. In that hand your hand would be busy holding the gauntlet, and therefore not free.
This discussion is settled by taking the deductive route of reductio ad absurdum. Suppose it's true that a gloved hand is not a free hand, which doesn't make any sense. But let's suppose. In that case, you couldn't wield a sword with a gloved hand. Not a shield, not anything. Isn't this absurd? So the premise that a gloved hand, or gauntlet, or whatever, is not a "free hand", is false.
Would this line of reasoning not equally apply to a hand with a small feather in it? If we suppose you cannot hold a sword with also a small feather in it, is that not equally the case?
Or, for that matter, if we suppose that hands can never hold more than one object at a time, ever. How is this not the same?
It is important, I believe, to remember that the free hand requirement isn't for an objectively universally free hand. But it is a free hand "to" do X. To weild. To hold. To access. Etc.
It needs only be free to do something specific, not be free to do anything possible.
Is a hand free to hold both a sword and a small ball of guano? That seems reasonable if the hand can move well enough while holding it. And, 'move well enough while hilding it' is what being able to perform somatic components means.
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.
This discussion is settled by taking the deductive route of reductio ad absurdum. Suppose it's true that a gloved hand is not a free hand, which doesn't make any sense. But let's suppose. In that case, you couldn't wield a sword with a gloved hand. Not a shield, not anything. Isn't this absurd? So the premise that a gloved hand, or gauntlet, or whatever, is not a "free hand", is false.
Would this line of reasoning not equally apply to a hand with a small feather in it? If we suppose you cannot hold a sword with also a small feather in it, is that not equally the case?
Or, for that matter, if we suppose that hands can never hold more than one object at a time, ever. How is this not the same?
It is important, I believe, to remember that the free hand requirement isn't for an objectively universally free hand. But it is a free hand "to" do X. To weild. To hold. To access. Etc.
It needs only be free to do something specific, not be free to do anything possible.
Is a hand free to hold both a sword and a small ball of guano? That seems reasonable if the hand can move well enough while holding it. And, 'move well enough while hilding it' is what being able to perform somatic components means.
There is no stated intention that a Component Pouch is meant to be mechanically distinct from a basic Spell Focus other than for flavor purposes. For all intents and purposes, a pouch containing bat guano should act mechanically identical to a 1lb Arcane Crystal, Druidic Sprig of Mistletoe, or Holy Amulet.
If you can make a case that you should be able to utilize a 3lb Arcane Orb, or Gandalf-esque staff, in the same hand that you're wielding a longsword, by all means, tell us.
The game designers leave us with a very clear picture of what they intended by "Free Hand" through the interactions that they treat as interchangeable.
Edit: The alternative is an entirely new meta, and focuses would be rendered obsolete.
This discussion is settled by taking the deductive route of reductio ad absurdum. Suppose it's true that a gloved hand is not a free hand, which doesn't make any sense. But let's suppose. In that case, you couldn't wield a sword with a gloved hand. Not a shield, not anything. Isn't this absurd? So the premise that a gloved hand, or gauntlet, or whatever, is not a "free hand", is false.
Would this line of reasoning not equally apply to a hand with a small feather in it? If we suppose you cannot hold a sword with also a small feather in it, is that not equally the case?
Or, for that matter, if we suppose that hands can never hold more than one object at a time, ever. How is this not the same?
It is important, I believe, to remember that the free hand requirement isn't for an objectively universally free hand. But it is a free hand "to" do X. To weild. To hold. To access. Etc.
It needs only be free to do something specific, not be free to do anything possible.
Is a hand free to hold both a sword and a small ball of guano? That seems reasonable if the hand can move well enough while holding it. And, 'move well enough while hilding it' is what being able to perform somatic components means.
There is no stated intention that a Component Pouch is meant to be mechanically distinct from a basic Spell Focus other than for flavor purposes. For all intents and purposes, a pouch containing bat guano should act mechanically identical to a 1lb Arcane Crystal, Druidic Sprig of Mistletoe, or Holy Amulet.
No. This is incorrect.
A few reasons. You can use the component directly and needn't have a pouch. The different items each have different sizes, shapes, and weights. And, components only need to be "accessed" while foci need to be "held".
If you can make a case that you should be able to utilize a 3lb Arcane Orb, or Gandalf-esque staff, in the same hand that you're wielding a longsword, by all means, tell us.
They are not the same item. I wouldn't treat them as the same item. There is no reason to. Or rule suggesting.
The game designers leave us with a very clear picture of what they intended by "Free Hand" through the interactions that they treat as interchangeable.
Do they?
Would you have a quote of this very clear picture? I really do wish there was one, if I've overlooked a rule that tells us exactly what "free hand to" means, specifically, and not just leaving to normal common English usage. That, that would be wonderful. It'd wrap this whole thing up immediately.
Edit: The alternative is an entirely new meta, and focuses would be rendered obsolete.
A person can hold both a feather and a dagger in the same hand. They can irl. They can in 5e. There is no strict limit in RAW on how many items you can hold in a hand. Again, I mean this genuinely, if you have a rules quote that shows a strict limit please share it. I figure one would have come up by now if there was one, but if you know where one is please do share it.
A half full hand is a hand free to hold more. Just as a half full backpack is a pack free to hold more. And similarly, you can stash a feather in a mostly or maybe even entirely full backpack. But you most certainly cannot shove your 4ft long arcane focus staff in that same backpack.
Items are different sizes, shapes, weights. How much of each you can carry and how easily is a judgement call between you and your DM.
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.
Component pouches are mechanically distinct from spell focuses, and they always have been. Holy Symbols can be put on shields, to allow for greater accessibility/hand economy. Components don't require [Tooltip Not Found] to equip. Component pouches work much better with versatile and two-handed weapons. When you're holding something in one of your hands already, focuses can only be used to cast S spells if they have M, whereas a hand that is empty and ready to grab components can cast S spells with or without M.
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)
Component pouches are mechanically distinct from spell focuses, and they always have been. Holy Symbols can be put on shields, to allow for greater accessibility/hand economy. Components don't require Use an Object to equip. Component pouches work much better with versatile and two-handed weapons. When you're holding something in one of your hands already, focuses can only be used to cast S spells if they have M, whereas a hand that is empty and ready to grab components can cast S spells with or without M.
I repeat myself: What then is the point of Spell Focuses?
A wizard's second choice in character creation is between an item with essentially no restrictions, and a category of substitutes that are subject to tons of restrictions with no benefits. Why would that even be presented as an option? Even if a character wanted a staff for the aesthetics, they would just use material components for casting spells instead.
Your interpretation completely neuters a deliberate, fundamental design choice.
I repeat myself: What then is the point of Spell Focuses?
A wizard's second choice in character creation is between an item with essentially no restrictions, and a category of substitutes that are subject to tons of restrictions with no benefits. Why would that even be presented as an option? Even if a character wanted a staff for the aesthetics, they would just use material components for casting spells instead.
Your interpretation completely neuters a deliberate, fundamental design choice.
I fail to see how this is relevant to the original topic of this thread. The mechanical differences between spellcasting focuses and spell component pouches has no bearing on how the War Caster feat interacts with the Material Component rules.
If this is a topic you want to discuss then I would recommend creating a new thread.
I repeat myself: What then is the point of Spell Focuses?
A wizard's second choice in character creation is between an item with essentially no restrictions, and a category of substitutes that are subject to tons of restrictions with no benefits. Why would that even be presented as an option? Even if a character wanted a staff for the aesthetics, they would just use material components for casting spells instead.
Your interpretation completely neuters a deliberate, fundamental design choice.
I fail to see how this is relevant to the original topic of this thread. The mechanical differences between spellcasting focuses and spell component pouches has no bearing on how the War Caster feat interacts with the Material Component rules.
If this is a topic you want to discuss then I would recommend creating a new thread.
"To make an apple pie from scratch, you must first create the universe."
If you have been following the conversation, the connection should be evident. When RAW is contested, RAI is the next step. When RAI is unclear, we have to look at the fundamental rules interactions that form the basis of rational gameplay.
If we assume the game designers are reasonable, Component pouches will not be vastly superior to spell focuses. If they are comparable, then they will have equivalent restrictions. If they have equivalent restrictions, then one can not cast spells with material components while their hands are busy wielding weapons.
Ergo, a Fighter/Wizard with the warcaster feat would not be able to cast Fireball while wielding a sword and shield.
If we assume the game designers are reasonable, Component pouches will not be vastly superior to spell focuses.
Better to not make assumptions. There is no reason to think one should or should not be better than the other. Not everything is built on balance. Sometimes one option is just strictly better than another. You'll find this throughout the rules.
If they are comparable, then they will have equivalent restrictions.
Naw. Two things can be comparable without being identical. Comparable means similar, not a duplicate.
If they have equivalent restrictions, then one can not cast spells with material components while their hands are busy wielding weapons.
They don't, and never have been the same. Even the different spellcasting foci have their own unique differences from one another, let alone from component pouches or just the components individually. For one, they're all different costs. They're useable by different classes. They have different weights, descriptions. Like, a sprig of mistletoe only costs 1g and has no weight. Yet an orb is 20g and weighs 3lbs. If they're identical in function in every way, why is one heavier and more expensive?
And, why is the component pouch even more expensive still than even that? At a price of 25g and coming in at 2lbs. Why would anyone ever pick a pouch if they can save 24g and 2lbs.
Moreover, the Emblem, another foci, can be plastered onto a shield. If all the foci are functionally identical are you arguing that you still somehow need a freehand to hold the emblem in addition to the hand for the shield? Or are you arguing that a shield hand can hold the emblem as well as any other foci? If they're all identical, it'll be one or the other.
Ergo, a Fighter/Wizard with the warcaster feat would not be able to cast Fireball while wielding a sword and shield.
Unless you treat all foci identical, and they hold their orb in their shield hand like they could have held the emblem in their shield hand.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
You as DM, do you think the player should be allowed to do it? (regardless of what the rules say). Whatever was stated on the previous 7 pages, do you want the player to be able to do it? If the answer to both is yes, then ignore all the rule-mongers and allow the player to do it. You have the final say in what rules do or do not apply and what you want to allow. I would allow it if a player made the investment of a feat, I would let them do it as it is quite cool. Whatever you decide, you will not be in the wrong.
Component pouches are mechanically distinct from spell focuses, and they always have been. Holy Symbols can be put on shields, to allow for greater accessibility/hand economy. Components don't require Use an Object to equip. Component pouches work much better with versatile and two-handed weapons. When you're holding something in one of your hands already, focuses can only be used to cast S spells if they have M, whereas a hand that is empty and ready to grab components can cast S spells with or without M.
I repeat myself: What then is the point of Spell Focuses?
A wizard's second choice in character creation is between an item with essentially no restrictions, and a category of substitutes that are subject to tons of restrictions with no benefits. Why would that even be presented as an option? Even if a character wanted a staff for the aesthetics, they would just use material components for casting spells instead.
Your interpretation completely neuters a deliberate, fundamental design choice.
What is my "interpretation" here exactly? What did I say that isn't outright stated in the rules? I would write more, but I'm genuinely just confused as to what your point is. Where in the rules does it say that focuses and components are 100% equal in every way and one of them will never have any advantages over the other at all never ever forever.
I will also point out that you can bonk with staffs, providing a way that focuses can be more versatile than components in some situations.
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)
Component pouches are mechanically distinct from spell focuses, and they always have been. Holy Symbols can be put on shields, to allow for greater accessibility/hand economy. Components don't require Use an Object to equip. Component pouches work much better with versatile and two-handed weapons. When you're holding something in one of your hands already, focuses can only be used to cast S spells if they have M, whereas a hand that is empty and ready to grab components can cast S spells with or without M.
I repeat myself: What then is the point of Spell Focuses?
A wizard's second choice in character creation is between an item with essentially no restrictions, and a category of substitutes that are subject to tons of restrictions with no benefits. Why would that even be presented as an option? Even if a character wanted a staff for the aesthetics, they would just use material components for casting spells instead.
Your interpretation completely neuters a deliberate, fundamental design choice.
What is my "interpretation" here exactly? What did I say that isn't outright stated in the rules? I would write more, but I'm genuinely just confused as to what your point is. Where in the rules does it say that focuses and components are 100% equal in every way and one of them will never have any advantages over the other at all never ever forever.
I will also point out that you can bonk with staffs, providing a way that focuses can be more versatile than components in some situations.
This thread has gotten too long and I lost track of who had been saying what.
You are entirely correct that Component Pouches are mechanically distinct from Spell Focuses, and after doing more reading, it's remarkable just how bad standard arcane focuses are.
As long as we agree that having a "hand free" to handle material components means an "empty hand", then we're back on the same page. And on that subject, I'll just toss in this other piece of Sageadvice to add to the clarity of how "Free Hand" is meant to be interpreted:
Is the Dueling fighting style intended to support a shield?
Yes. A character with the Dueling option usually pairs a one-handed weapon with a shield, a spellcasting focus, or a free hand.
I was debating responding to Rav, but accidentally hit "Ignore User" instead, so I can no longer see their posts. I'm not certain how to reverse it, but at this point, I think I'll leave it as is. (Edit: I figured it out. Still gonna leave it as is.)
“A person can hold both a feather and a dagger in the same hand. They can irl. They can in 5e. There is no strict limit in RAW on how many items you can hold in a hand. Again, I mean this genuinely, if you have a rules quote that shows a strict limit please share it. I figure one would have come up by now if there was one, but if you know where one is please do share it.
A half full hand is a hand free to hold more. Just as a half full backpack is a pack free to hold more. And similarly, you can stash a feather in a mostly or maybe even entirely full backpack. But you most certainly cannot shove your 4ft long arcane focus staff in that same backpack.
Items are different sizes, shapes, weights. How much of each you can carry and how easily is a judgement call between you and your DM”
this is an example of the “ anything not specifically prohibited is allowed” idea. The free (empty) hand rule is the reverse - “anything not specifically allowed is prohibited” . Because the hand must be free enough to make the casting gestures ( somatic component) or hold the anything from the feather or bat guano pellet to a 3# orb or 6’ by 1” dia. Staff (material component) it has to be empty. Then there are the specific exceptions - it can be used to both hold the component/focus and do the somatic component or it can ( with the warcaster feat) hold a one handed weapon and do the somatic component. Notice, both exceptions deal with doing the somatic component in a nonempty hand but neither exception has the material component in a hand holding something else. Obviously, if Ravnodus wants to run his games his way he will but I ( at least) believe he is misreading the rules as explained above. From reading the majority of posts in this thread a think most others agree with me on how he question should be answered.
While you can possibly place multiple things in hand, i believe that for item interaction purposes, a hand is not free when holding anything, be it a feather, a coin or a sword.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Naw. It is busy weilding the mace. Weilding. Holding. These are verbs. Actions. They tell us the hand is busy. ie. not available. Not available because you're using it to weild a weapon.
To do somatic components it cannot be in use of any kind. It absolutely needs to be be available. If unavailable, it isn't free.
You got me right confused now. Here you are now totally agreeing with me.
But yeah, you're correct. To be free, it needs to not be in use!
People are arguing otherwise. They're claiming a hand needs to be entirely empty. I agree with you though. You can use a sword while wearing gloves. Even if they don't.
So, we know being entirely empty isn't the requirement because 1. The rules don't say so. 2. Gloves exist.
That a free use of your hand needs to for you to not already be using it for something else? Yes, that is RAW. If it is busy is isn't free.
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 me free hand both means empty and available to use. For exemple, a spellcaster manacled would not be able to perform somatic components even thought nothing's in hands, because they aren't free to go. Same for empty hands in pockets. Likewise, hands that can move freely but hold something are also not free.
So if you're holding a shield and a sword, you have no free hand to handle material components, even with War Caster. Unless one of them is your spellcasting focus.
Exactly
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
Where did the idea come from that a hand with a glove on it is not empty? It is. That's just how hands work. If you're holding something with a hand then it isn't empty, but you don't hold gloves, you wear them.
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)
I don't know but if gloves made hands not free anymore they couldn't hold or grab anything. Worn gloves don't occupy hands, they recover them so
If you hold a glove in hand it's not free.
If you wear a glove, your hand is still free since it can hold other things.
This discussion is settled by taking the deductive route of reductio ad absurdum. Suppose it's true that a gloved hand is not a free hand, which doesn't make any sense. But let's suppose. In that case, you couldn't wield a sword with a gloved hand. Not a shield, not anything. Isn't this absurd? So the premise that a gloved hand, or gauntlet, or whatever, is not a "free hand", is false.
A hand is free when it is not occupied (it's a truism). If, for example, you are holding a sword, your hand is occupied and therefore not free. But if you're wearing a gauntlet, your hand isn't busy wearing the gauntlet and is therefore free (unless you're doing something with your hand in addition to wearing the gauntlet). A different case would be if you weren't wearing the gauntlet, if not that you were holding it. In that hand your hand would be busy holding the gauntlet, and therefore not free.
Would this line of reasoning not equally apply to a hand with a small feather in it? If we suppose you cannot hold a sword with also a small feather in it, is that not equally the case?
Or, for that matter, if we suppose that hands can never hold more than one object at a time, ever. How is this not the same?
It is important, I believe, to remember that the free hand requirement isn't for an objectively universally free hand. But it is a free hand "to" do X. To weild. To hold. To access. Etc.
It needs only be free to do something specific, not be free to do anything possible.
Is a hand free to hold both a sword and a small ball of guano? That seems reasonable if the hand can move well enough while holding it. And, 'move well enough while hilding it' is what being able to perform somatic components means.
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.
There is no stated intention that a Component Pouch is meant to be mechanically distinct from a basic Spell Focus other than for flavor purposes. For all intents and purposes, a pouch containing bat guano should act mechanically identical to a 1lb Arcane Crystal, Druidic Sprig of Mistletoe, or Holy Amulet.
If you can make a case that you should be able to utilize a 3lb Arcane Orb, or Gandalf-esque staff, in the same hand that you're wielding a longsword, by all means, tell us.
The game designers leave us with a very clear picture of what they intended by "Free Hand" through the interactions that they treat as interchangeable.
Edit: The alternative is an entirely new meta, and focuses would be rendered obsolete.
No. This is incorrect.
A few reasons. You can use the component directly and needn't have a pouch. The different items each have different sizes, shapes, and weights. And, components only need to be "accessed" while foci need to be "held".
They are not the same item. I wouldn't treat them as the same item. There is no reason to. Or rule suggesting.
Do they?
Would you have a quote of this very clear picture? I really do wish there was one, if I've overlooked a rule that tells us exactly what "free hand to" means, specifically, and not just leaving to normal common English usage. That, that would be wonderful. It'd wrap this whole thing up immediately.
A person can hold both a feather and a dagger in the same hand. They can irl. They can in 5e. There is no strict limit in RAW on how many items you can hold in a hand. Again, I mean this genuinely, if you have a rules quote that shows a strict limit please share it. I figure one would have come up by now if there was one, but if you know where one is please do share it.
A half full hand is a hand free to hold more. Just as a half full backpack is a pack free to hold more. And similarly, you can stash a feather in a mostly or maybe even entirely full backpack. But you most certainly cannot shove your 4ft long arcane focus staff in that same backpack.
Items are different sizes, shapes, weights. How much of each you can carry and how easily is a judgement call between you and your DM.
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.
Then what is the point of Spell Focuses, if they are substantially worse in every possible way?
Component pouches are mechanically distinct from spell focuses, and they always have been. Holy Symbols can be put on shields, to allow for greater accessibility/hand economy. Components don't require [Tooltip Not Found] to equip. Component pouches work much better with versatile and two-handed weapons. When you're holding something in one of your hands already, focuses can only be used to cast S spells if they have M, whereas a hand that is empty and ready to grab components can cast S spells with or without M.
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)
I repeat myself: What then is the point of Spell Focuses?
A wizard's second choice in character creation is between an item with essentially no restrictions, and a category of substitutes that are subject to tons of restrictions with no benefits. Why would that even be presented as an option? Even if a character wanted a staff for the aesthetics, they would just use material components for casting spells instead.
Your interpretation completely neuters a deliberate, fundamental design choice.
I fail to see how this is relevant to the original topic of this thread. The mechanical differences between spellcasting focuses and spell component pouches has no bearing on how the War Caster feat interacts with the Material Component rules.
If this is a topic you want to discuss then I would recommend creating a new thread.
"To make an apple pie from scratch, you must first create the universe."
If you have been following the conversation, the connection should be evident. When RAW is contested, RAI is the next step. When RAI is unclear, we have to look at the fundamental rules interactions that form the basis of rational gameplay.
If we assume the game designers are reasonable, Component pouches will not be vastly superior to spell focuses. If they are comparable, then they will have equivalent restrictions. If they have equivalent restrictions, then one can not cast spells with material components while their hands are busy wielding weapons.
Ergo, a Fighter/Wizard with the warcaster feat would not be able to cast Fireball while wielding a sword and shield.
Better to not make assumptions. There is no reason to think one should or should not be better than the other. Not everything is built on balance. Sometimes one option is just strictly better than another. You'll find this throughout the rules.
Naw. Two things can be comparable without being identical. Comparable means similar, not a duplicate.
They don't, and never have been the same. Even the different spellcasting foci have their own unique differences from one another, let alone from component pouches or just the components individually. For one, they're all different costs. They're useable by different classes. They have different weights, descriptions. Like, a sprig of mistletoe only costs 1g and has no weight. Yet an orb is 20g and weighs 3lbs. If they're identical in function in every way, why is one heavier and more expensive?
And, why is the component pouch even more expensive still than even that? At a price of 25g and coming in at 2lbs. Why would anyone ever pick a pouch if they can save 24g and 2lbs.
Moreover, the Emblem, another foci, can be plastered onto a shield. If all the foci are functionally identical are you arguing that you still somehow need a freehand to hold the emblem in addition to the hand for the shield? Or are you arguing that a shield hand can hold the emblem as well as any other foci? If they're all identical, it'll be one or the other.
Unless you treat all foci identical, and they hold their orb in their shield hand like they could have held the emblem in their shield 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.
You as DM, do you think the player should be allowed to do it? (regardless of what the rules say). Whatever was stated on the previous 7 pages, do you want the player to be able to do it? If the answer to both is yes, then ignore all the rule-mongers and allow the player to do it. You have the final say in what rules do or do not apply and what you want to allow. I would allow it if a player made the investment of a feat, I would let them do it as it is quite cool. Whatever you decide, you will not be in the wrong.
What is my "interpretation" here exactly? What did I say that isn't outright stated in the rules? I would write more, but I'm genuinely just confused as to what your point is. Where in the rules does it say that focuses and components are 100% equal in every way and one of them will never have any advantages over the other at all never ever forever.
I will also point out that you can bonk with staffs, providing a way that focuses can be more versatile than components in some situations.
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)
This thread has gotten too long and I lost track of who had been saying what.
You are entirely correct that Component Pouches are mechanically distinct from Spell Focuses, and after doing more reading, it's remarkable just how bad standard arcane focuses are.
As long as we agree that having a "hand free" to handle material components means an "empty hand", then we're back on the same page. And on that subject, I'll just toss in this other piece of Sageadvice to add to the clarity of how "Free Hand" is meant to be interpreted:
I was debating responding to Rav, but accidentally hit "Ignore User" instead, so I can no longer see their posts. I'm not certain how to reverse it, but at this point, I think I'll leave it as is. (Edit: I figured it out. Still gonna leave it as is.)
“A person can hold both a feather and a dagger in the same hand. They can irl. They can in 5e. There is no strict limit in RAW on how many items you can hold in a hand. Again, I mean this genuinely, if you have a rules quote that shows a strict limit please share it. I figure one would have come up by now if there was one, but if you know where one is please do share it.
A half full hand is a hand free to hold more. Just as a half full backpack is a pack free to hold more. And similarly, you can stash a feather in a mostly or maybe even entirely full backpack. But you most certainly cannot shove your 4ft long arcane focus staff in that same backpack.
Items are different sizes, shapes, weights. How much of each you can carry and how easily is a judgement call between you and your DM”
this is an example of the “ anything not specifically prohibited is allowed” idea. The free (empty) hand rule is the reverse - “anything not specifically allowed is prohibited” . Because the hand must be free enough to make the casting gestures ( somatic component) or hold the anything from the feather or bat guano pellet to a 3# orb or 6’ by 1” dia. Staff (material component) it has to be empty. Then there are the specific exceptions - it can be used to both hold the component/focus and do the somatic component or it can ( with the warcaster feat) hold a one handed weapon and do the somatic component. Notice, both exceptions deal with doing the somatic component in a nonempty hand but neither exception has the material component in a hand holding something else. Obviously, if Ravnodus wants to run his games his way he will but I ( at least) believe he is misreading the rules as explained above. From reading the majority of posts in this thread a think most others agree with me on how he question should be answered.
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
While you can possibly place multiple things in hand, i believe that for item interaction purposes, a hand is not free when holding anything, be it a feather, a coin or a sword.