In equipment, at the Holy Symbol entry, it tells you: "The caster must hold it in hand, wear it visibly, or bear it on a shield."
But in Spellcasting, in the Material components section, it tells you: "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."
Then the Holy Symbol can be a spellcasting focus simply by wearing it around the neck (or a tattoo, or whatever). But do you have to hold it with one hand to be able to replace the material components? Does it work just by wearing it visible?
It's a question that has come up in our playgroup because a cleric wears her holy symbol on a tiara. And our DM asks her to put away her weapon, and hold the tiara (or at least, as a trade-off, touch it with her hand) so that it works efficiently as spellcasting focus. That is something that I had never seen, but reading the rules it is not very clear to me. Does anyone know if there is a Sage Advice on this?
I think the idea is that you either hold the symbol, or you hold the shield, which bears the symbol. Either way, you are still effectively holding the symbol.
EDIT: I changed my mind. For a cleric, I think maybe they can cast V,M spells (light, for instance) without needing a free hand to hold the symbol if it is being visibly worn. For a paladin, it's a moot point, since there are no V,M spells, and they will still need a free hand for the somatic component.
A spellcaster must normally have a hand free to hold a spellcasting focus somehow, but a cleric or paladin can use an holy symbol as a spellcasting focus by wearring it visibly as well.
Holy Symbol: A cleric or paladin can use a holy symbol as a spellcasting focus. To use the symbol in this way, the caster must hold it in hand, wear it visibly, or bear it on a shield.
On the other hand, a Sage Advice state that if a spell has a material component, you need to handle that component when you cast the spell and that using a holy symbol on a shield as spellcasting focus needs to have the shield in hand. So simply being worn visibly seems not enought according to official ruling, at least for ones on shield.
What’s the amount of interaction needed to use a spellcasting focus? Does it have to be included in the somatic component? If a spell has a material component, you need to handle that component when you cast the spell (PH, 203). The same rule applies if you’re using a spellcasting focus as the material component. If a spell has a somatic component, you can use the hand that performs the somatic component to also handle the material component. For example, a wizard who uses an orb as a spellcasting focus could hold a quarterstaff in one hand and the orb in the other, and he could cast lightning bolt by using the orb as the spell’s material component and the orb hand to perform the spell’s somatic component. Another example: a cleric’s holy symbol is emblazoned on her shield. She likes to wade into melee combat with a mace in one hand and a shield in the other. She uses the holy symbol as her spellcasting focus, so she needs to have the shield in hand when she casts a cleric spell that has a material component. If the spell, such as aid, also has a somatic component, she can perform that component with the shield hand and keep holding the mace in the other. If the same cleric 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.
Well, then it looks like our DM does it correctly. Although it's a bit of a pain to play like that, really. Although I understand that it is not to give that benefit to clerics and paladins, who could go with two swords, for example, and the symbol simply on clothing (or armor, pendant, whatever). Although now I think that they could also carry the symbol on the hilt of the sword (for example), and they would be respecting the rule. So it's a bit silly.
If it is not in your hand (or on a shield in your hand) you will need a hand free to grasp it for spells with M components.
Having a holy symbol on your weapon is not in the rules, but a DM may allow it (logically, I see no reason it wouldn't work, it would just be a balance thing).
So this is a bit tricky and we likely won't come to a universal consensus on this. However, my opinion on this is that the text explaining Holy Symbols and their use provide a specific exception to the general rules in chapter 10 of the PHB explaining the use of material components and spellcasting focuses.
Even if you feel that the focus still needs to be handled it seems to me that a donned shield that has your holy symbol inlaid on it still satisfies this requirement. You are holding the shield in a hand and it is serving as both a shield and a holy symbol, similar to how a pact of the blade warlock with improved pact weapon can use their weapon as a spellcasting focus.
However holy symbols are not the only way armor can become a spellcasting focus, there is also the armorer artificer. With holy symbols we know that the caster must at least visibly present the holy symbol because of the text describing holy symbols. How exactly an armorer uses their armor however is left up to the reader. Arcane armor does not provide an explicit exception to the handling requirement laid out for spellcasting focuses, but also donned armor (and other worn objects) are generally not considered to be held.
With respect to the Sage Advice Plaguescarred quoted I don't think it is necessarily applicable to the OP's question. The sage advice addresses the question of "can a hand holding a spellcasting focus be used to perform the somatic component of a spell that does not also require a material component?" to which they answer "No, in order to use a hand holding a spellcasting focus to perform the somatic component of a spell the spell must also require a material component the spellcasting focus is able to provide." In the cleric example the cleric's holy symbol is on the shield, not the armor, and the reason the cleric needs to free up a hand to cast cure wounds is to provide the somatic component.
With respect to armor as spellcasting focuses I don't think there is necessarily a good RAW way of handling them, particularly in the armorer's case. Personally I would allow the armor to serve as a spellcasting focus that the caster needs to touch with a free hand, similar to how a caster uses a free hand to access the material components in a component pouch. The caster would always need a free hand to perform a somatic component but it can also be the hand they use to touch their armor. But this is just how I would handle it.
If it is not in your hand (or on a shield in your hand) you will need a hand free to grasp it for spells with M components.
Having a holy symbol on your weapon is not in the rules, but a DM may allow it (logically, I see no reason it wouldn't work, it would just be a balance thing).
Carrying the symbol on the weapon is not something that specifically appears in the rules, as painting it on a shield does, but it is something that can be implicitly understood. Let me explain: In holy symbol it tells you that for a cleric or paladin to use a holy symbol as a spellcasting focus he must hold it in his hand, wear it visible, or bear it on a shield. Thus, if your holy symbol is on your weapon (for example a hammer with the symbol of your god engraved on it), you would be fulfilling at least one of these conditions (wear it visible). And, in addition, it would comply with the rule of holding it so that it could replace the component materials. It would basically be the same situation as with the shield.
I also don't see why it would unbalance anything to carry it on the weapon, just like you carry it on the shield. Actually it is exactly the same. What does unbalance a bit is being able to wear it hanging around the neck, or in tattoos, or silk-screened on the forehead, and things like that. But it's not like it breaks anything.
If it is not in your hand (or on a shield in your hand) you will need a hand free to grasp it for spells with M components.
Having a holy symbol on your weapon is not in the rules, but a DM may allow it (logically, I see no reason it wouldn't work, it would just be a balance thing).
Carrying the symbol on the weapon is not something that specifically appears in the rules, as painting it on a shield does, but it is something that can be implicitly understood. Let me explain: In holy symbol it tells you that for a cleric or paladin to use a holy symbol as a spellcasting focus he must hold it in his hand, wear it visible, or bear it on a shield. Thus, if your holy symbol is on your weapon (for example a hammer with the symbol of your god engraved on it), you would be fulfilling at least one of these conditions (wear it visible). And, in addition, it would comply with the rule of holding it so that it could replace the component materials. It would basically be the same situation as with the shield.
Even the shield doesn't comply with the rule of holding it; there's zero rules text that suggests the shield becomes a holy symbol; rather, you can use a holy symbol as a focus without holding it if it's emblazoned on your shield. Likewise, wearing it prominently also lets you use it as a focus without holding it, but I don't think putting it on a weapon counts as wearing it. I agree that it wouldn't create significant balance issues, though.
Thor's hammer for one. Cuthberts mace for another.
With the possible infinite amount of holy symbols in D&D the only way someone knows what each holy symbol is, is if they have some reason to even know the existence of that particular religion. Prominently displayed would have to be an important aspect of using a holy symbol for magic casting.
As for a spell casting focus. I can see no reason a focus can not be installed onto a weapon or shield or even an item like a staff, rod, wand or a ring. As long as its in the hand doing the casting. A focus is a concentration focus not the originating point of the spell. For example look at the description of the spell Burning Hands. It needs BOTH hands to be free. Plus other new spells and skills are even getting around the old focus in hand problem.
Would you prefer you always need one free hand for material and another free hand for somatic? Or would you prefer you never needed a free hand for somatic? Because without these specific exceptions, you're either all in or all out.
I think the whole spell focus and holy symbol is pretty iffy at best. At least the part were it MUST be held in a hand. I think simply displaying it is enough. Your crystal spell focus can then simply be on a visible piece of jewelry. You holy symbol can be on anything visible, your shield, armor, helmet, robes, jewelry as long as it large enough to be seen.
Then you can hold that rope and cast at the same time. Without some special rule.
Define Somatic Gestures. How many fingers do you need for somatic gestures? You only need one to evoke a reaction in some people.
I don't think we need to worry about those details. The rules say you need a free hand to perform them, so anything you can do without needing to free up your hand is excluded by definition.
If it is not in your hand (or on a shield in your hand) you will need a hand free to grasp it for spells with M components.
Having a holy symbol on your weapon is not in the rules, but a DM may allow it (logically, I see no reason it wouldn't work, it would just be a balance thing).
Carrying the symbol on the weapon is not something that specifically appears in the rules, as painting it on a shield does, but it is something that can be implicitly understood. Let me explain: In holy symbol it tells you that for a cleric or paladin to use a holy symbol as a spellcasting focus he must hold it in his hand, wear it visible, or bear it on a shield. Thus, if your holy symbol is on your weapon (for example a hammer with the symbol of your god engraved on it), you would be fulfilling at least one of these conditions (wear it visible). And, in addition, it would comply with the rule of holding it so that it could replace the component materials. It would basically be the same situation as with the shield.
Even the shield doesn't comply with the rule of holding it; there's zero rules text that suggests the shield becomes a holy symbol; rather, you can use a holy symbol as a focus without holding it if it's emblazoned on your shield. Likewise, wearing it prominently also lets you use it as a focus without holding it, but I don't think putting it on a weapon counts as wearing it. I agree that it wouldn't create significant balance issues, though.
I ask honestly. Don't you think it's implied that the shield becomes your holy symbol? Because it seems to me that the intention of the rule is that. Otherwise, I think it unnecessarily complicates the game, as it creates an exception to the rule of needing to hold spelcasting focus in order to use it (at least according to SA's clarification). What if my religious symbol is painting on a banner? Do I have to hold the fabric?
Obviously all of this is simplified in practice, as I don't think any DM would stop you from using the supposed banner as a spellcasting focus if you're holding it by the handle. But it seems to me that it is explained in a bit strange way and, if not for SA's clarification, I would have said that showing the symbol is enough. In the case of the banner, for example, carry it on your back.
If it is not in your hand (or on a shield in your hand) you will need a hand free to grasp it for spells with M components.
Having a holy symbol on your weapon is not in the rules, but a DM may allow it (logically, I see no reason it wouldn't work, it would just be a balance thing).
Carrying the symbol on the weapon is not something that specifically appears in the rules, as painting it on a shield does, but it is something that can be implicitly understood. Let me explain: In holy symbol it tells you that for a cleric or paladin to use a holy symbol as a spellcasting focus he must hold it in his hand, wear it visible, or bear it on a shield. Thus, if your holy symbol is on your weapon (for example a hammer with the symbol of your god engraved on it), you would be fulfilling at least one of these conditions (wear it visible). And, in addition, it would comply with the rule of holding it so that it could replace the component materials. It would basically be the same situation as with the shield.
Even the shield doesn't comply with the rule of holding it; there's zero rules text that suggests the shield becomes a holy symbol; rather, you can use a holy symbol as a focus without holding it if it's emblazoned on your shield. Likewise, wearing it prominently also lets you use it as a focus without holding it, but I don't think putting it on a weapon counts as wearing it. I agree that it wouldn't create significant balance issues, though.
I ask honestly. Don't you think it's implied that the shield becomes your holy symbol? Because it seems to me that the intention of the rule is that. Otherwise, I think it unnecessarily complicates the game, as it creates an exception to the rule of needing to hold spelcasting focus in order to use it (at least according to SA's clarification). What if my religious symbol is painting on a banner? Do I have to hold the fabric?
It is not even a little bit implied, and yes, it does explicitly create an exception to the rule of needing to hold a spellcasting focus in order to use it. That's why the holy symbol text adds two additional modes of use that are not holding it:
To use the symbol in this way, the caster must hold it in hand, wear it visibly, or bear it on a shield.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
In equipment, at the Holy Symbol entry, it tells you:
"The caster must hold it in hand, wear it visibly, or bear it on a shield."
But in Spellcasting, in the Material components section, it tells you:
"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."
Then the Holy Symbol can be a spellcasting focus simply by wearing it around the neck (or a tattoo, or whatever). But do you have to hold it with one hand to be able to replace the material components? Does it work just by wearing it visible?
It's a question that has come up in our playgroup because a cleric wears her holy symbol on a tiara. And our DM asks her to put away her weapon, and hold the tiara (or at least, as a trade-off, touch it with her hand) so that it works efficiently as spellcasting focus. That is something that I had never seen, but reading the rules it is not very clear to me. Does anyone know if there is a Sage Advice on this?
I think the idea is that you either hold the symbol, or you hold the shield, which bears the symbol. Either way, you are still effectively holding the symbol.EDIT: I changed my mind. For a cleric, I think maybe they can cast V,M spells (light, for instance) without needing a free hand to hold the symbol if it is being visibly worn. For a paladin, it's a moot point, since there are no V,M spells, and they will still need a free hand for the somatic component.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
A spellcaster must normally have a hand free to hold a spellcasting focus somehow, but a cleric or paladin can use an holy symbol as a spellcasting focus by wearring it visibly as well.
On the other hand, a Sage Advice state that if a spell has a material component, you need to handle that component when you cast the spell and that using a holy symbol on a shield as spellcasting focus needs to have the shield in hand. So simply being worn visibly seems not enought according to official ruling, at least for ones on shield.
Well, then it looks like our DM does it correctly. Although it's a bit of a pain to play like that, really. Although I understand that it is not to give that benefit to clerics and paladins, who could go with two swords, for example, and the symbol simply on clothing (or armor, pendant, whatever). Although now I think that they could also carry the symbol on the hilt of the sword (for example), and they would be respecting the rule. So it's a bit silly.
If it is not in your hand (or on a shield in your hand) you will need a hand free to grasp it for spells with M components.
Having a holy symbol on your weapon is not in the rules, but a DM may allow it (logically, I see no reason it wouldn't work, it would just be a balance thing).
So this is a bit tricky and we likely won't come to a universal consensus on this. However, my opinion on this is that the text explaining Holy Symbols and their use provide a specific exception to the general rules in chapter 10 of the PHB explaining the use of material components and spellcasting focuses.
Even if you feel that the focus still needs to be handled it seems to me that a donned shield that has your holy symbol inlaid on it still satisfies this requirement. You are holding the shield in a hand and it is serving as both a shield and a holy symbol, similar to how a pact of the blade warlock with improved pact weapon can use their weapon as a spellcasting focus.
However holy symbols are not the only way armor can become a spellcasting focus, there is also the armorer artificer. With holy symbols we know that the caster must at least visibly present the holy symbol because of the text describing holy symbols. How exactly an armorer uses their armor however is left up to the reader. Arcane armor does not provide an explicit exception to the handling requirement laid out for spellcasting focuses, but also donned armor (and other worn objects) are generally not considered to be held.
With respect to the Sage Advice Plaguescarred quoted I don't think it is necessarily applicable to the OP's question. The sage advice addresses the question of "can a hand holding a spellcasting focus be used to perform the somatic component of a spell that does not also require a material component?" to which they answer "No, in order to use a hand holding a spellcasting focus to perform the somatic component of a spell the spell must also require a material component the spellcasting focus is able to provide." In the cleric example the cleric's holy symbol is on the shield, not the armor, and the reason the cleric needs to free up a hand to cast cure wounds is to provide the somatic component.
With respect to armor as spellcasting focuses I don't think there is necessarily a good RAW way of handling them, particularly in the armorer's case. Personally I would allow the armor to serve as a spellcasting focus that the caster needs to touch with a free hand, similar to how a caster uses a free hand to access the material components in a component pouch. The caster would always need a free hand to perform a somatic component but it can also be the hand they use to touch their armor. But this is just how I would handle it.
Carrying the symbol on the weapon is not something that specifically appears in the rules, as painting it on a shield does, but it is something that can be implicitly understood. Let me explain: In holy symbol it tells you that for a cleric or paladin to use a holy symbol as a spellcasting focus he must hold it in his hand, wear it visible, or bear it on a shield. Thus, if your holy symbol is on your weapon (for example a hammer with the symbol of your god engraved on it), you would be fulfilling at least one of these conditions (wear it visible). And, in addition, it would comply with the rule of holding it so that it could replace the component materials. It would basically be the same situation as with the shield.
I also don't see why it would unbalance anything to carry it on the weapon, just like you carry it on the shield. Actually it is exactly the same. What does unbalance a bit is being able to wear it hanging around the neck, or in tattoos, or silk-screened on the forehead, and things like that. But it's not like it breaks anything.
Even the shield doesn't comply with the rule of holding it; there's zero rules text that suggests the shield becomes a holy symbol; rather, you can use a holy symbol as a focus without holding it if it's emblazoned on your shield. Likewise, wearing it prominently also lets you use it as a focus without holding it, but I don't think putting it on a weapon counts as wearing it. I agree that it wouldn't create significant balance issues, though.
What if the weapon was the holy symbol?
Thor's hammer for one. Cuthberts mace for another.
With the possible infinite amount of holy symbols in D&D the only way someone knows what each holy symbol is, is if they have some reason to even know the existence of that particular religion. Prominently displayed would have to be an important aspect of using a holy symbol for magic casting.
As for a spell casting focus.
I can see no reason a focus can not be installed onto a weapon or shield or even an item like a staff, rod, wand or a ring. As long as its in the hand doing the casting.
A focus is a concentration focus not the originating point of the spell. For example look at the description of the spell Burning Hands. It needs BOTH hands to be free.
Plus other new spells and skills are even getting around the old focus in hand problem.
Would you prefer you always need one free hand for material and another free hand for somatic? Or would you prefer you never needed a free hand for somatic? Because without these specific exceptions, you're either all in or all out.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
I think the whole spell focus and holy symbol is pretty iffy at best.
At least the part were it MUST be held in a hand.
I think simply displaying it is enough. Your crystal spell focus can then simply be on a visible piece of jewelry.
You holy symbol can be on anything visible, your shield, armor, helmet, robes, jewelry as long as it large enough to be seen.
Then you can hold that rope and cast at the same time. Without some special rule.
Define Somatic Gestures. How many fingers do you need for somatic gestures? You only need one to evoke a reaction in some people.
playing since 1986
I don't think we need to worry about those details. The rules say you need a free hand to perform them, so anything you can do without needing to free up your hand is excluded by definition.
I ask honestly. Don't you think it's implied that the shield becomes your holy symbol? Because it seems to me that the intention of the rule is that. Otherwise, I think it unnecessarily complicates the game, as it creates an exception to the rule of needing to hold spelcasting focus in order to use it (at least according to SA's clarification). What if my religious symbol is painting on a banner? Do I have to hold the fabric?
Obviously all of this is simplified in practice, as I don't think any DM would stop you from using the supposed banner as a spellcasting focus if you're holding it by the handle. But it seems to me that it is explained in a bit strange way and, if not for SA's clarification, I would have said that showing the symbol is enough. In the case of the banner, for example, carry it on your back.
It is not even a little bit implied, and yes, it does explicitly create an exception to the rule of needing to hold a spellcasting focus in order to use it. That's why the holy symbol text adds two additional modes of use that are not holding it: