The rules aren't clear on how much time it takes to make (S) gestures when casting a spell. That's completely abstract. "A Free Hand" is merely a hand not holding or grasping something else. You can even use the same hand you use to retrieve spell components, so the rules aren't that picky. You can adapt (S) components to use an Arcane Focus, even if it's something like a Staff or a Wand (which suggests that the gestures for a given spell aren't necessarily that precise, or a Staff would be too unwieldy). Similarly War Casters can use a weapon to weave their S components.
So I see no reason to assume that a "free hand" used for one spell is no longer "free" under the current definitions. I imagine it's like something you might see in a film -- the wizard thrusts his arm into the air, conjuring a ball of flame, preparing to hurl it at his foes, when the enemy points at him and clenches his fist, trying to siphon off the wizard's manipulation of the Weave. Our trusty hero yanks his arm down, clutching the nascent fireball to his chest, shielding it from the interference, and then spins and hurls it at the enemy.
You actually can't do some of what you're suggesting. If you're hold a focus and cast a spell that has a S component but no M component, then, your hand is not free. Its busy holding something useless for that spell.
If your hand is busy, it isn't free. That's about as straightforward as it gets.
Busy holding something? Not free. Busy performing gestures? Not free.
Idk why anyone is arguing otherwise it doesn't make any sense.
How is a hand that is busy... free? Like what?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
If you want to counterspell the counterspell which is counterspelling your own cast spell, and it also has a somatic component, you need two free hands. One for the original spell, and one for the counterspell.
Eh, it's not exactly the same thing to say that each S spell needs a free hand (mind spike and counterspell for example) as it is to say you need two free hands. From the context of how I see the phrase used in the spellcasting rules, I interpret "free hand" to mean the hand in my example simply can't be holding anything. You may interpret those same written rules to mean a free hand cannot be holding anything, and it also cannot be in the process of spellcasting.
If it is busy doing somantic components already, it isn't free to simultaneously do different somatic components.
Your hand can simultaneously do two different exacting positions? I bet not. You cannot, for example, play rock paper scissor and throw out the superposition of both rock and paper at the same time.
To throw both signs out simultaneously you would need two hands.
Your argument is entirely logical, but not what the rules actually say. Nowhere in the rules does it say that your hand is not free while casting a spell or that your spellcasting is still in progress at the point when counterspell would be cast. It is a ruling that could easily go either way depending on your DM, as the rules are not specific either way.
You're partially right. Nowhere do the rules say that if your hand is busy doing something it means that it isn't free. But similarly it also doesn't even say that holding something makes it not free either.
It doesn't define what it means by free in any way, to be honest. It sorta just requires a more holistic common sense definition of what it is to be free to perform mystic gestures.
Holding a sword? Pretty sure thats not free. Busy making some other gesture? Similarly, also not free.
The game expects a straightforward understanding of what it is to be free to do it. Being busy doing something else obviously precludes it from being free.
The legalese debate isn't necessary. RAW, there is a sequence of events in which the initial Action spell and the Reaction Counterspell happen at different times, and one doesn't impose limitations on the other. You have a free hand to cast the original spell, that spell is mechanically cast before you counterspell the counterspell, so your hand is free again for the Reaction spell. It's no different than a Bonus Action spell and Action cantrip not interfering with each other.
Original Caster's Action: Casting a spell
Opponent's Reaction: Casting counterspell, taken after the Original Caster's spell is cast.
Original Caster's Reaction: Casting counterspell, taken after the opponent's counterspell is cast.
Your version of the sequence of events is in direct opposition to what the rules say.
Counterspell can only be cast during the casting of the spell it aims to counter. During the casting.
Read the spell. It isn't shy about this fact. counterspell
"In the process"
Not before. Not after. No. At the SAME time as.
The mechanical sequence of events is what I was describing, and it is accurate to the rules. Mechanically, there is a sequence of events, and the use of the action along with expending the spell slot happen before the Counterspell is cast, and that is what I was referring to when I said the spell had been cast, but before it took effect.
No rules exist in the game that would cause an action and a reaction to interfere with each other. No rule exists that causes a somatic component for one spell to make the hand not count as free for the somatic component of a follow-up spell. People are just so stuck on saying "no" to everything that they're making up rules problems to do so. It's nonsensical, and completely unnecessary.
You make the somatic component for a spell, another character makes their somatic component to counterspell your spell, and because you don't have to hold the somatic component for any specified length of time you can shift your hand to perform the somatic component for your own counterspell. This doesn't introduce any vagueness, nor does it imballance anything, because the character is spending an extra L3+ spell slot to accomplish nothing more than attempting to prevent one means of stopping a different spell.
Your arguement is basically that a hand is always free because there is no rule that says it isn't.
Obviously that's not true.
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.
Your arguement is basically that a hand is always free because there is no rule that says it isn't.
Obviously that's not true.
And your argument is that it's obvious and therefore must be the case. As far as the rules are concerned, there's nothing that explicitly says that you can or can't counter a counterspell on your own spell. Some DMs will decide that in absence of a rule preventing you, you are allowed to do it. Others will decide that it doesn't make sense to them so you can't.
You sure can! Here’s a common way for it to happen: Cornelius the wizard is casting fireball on his turn, and his foe casts counterspell on him. Cornelius also has counterspell prepared, so he uses his reaction to cast it and break his foe’s counterspell before it can stop fireball.
This is literally the example in the official rules clarification. You can counterspell a counterspell against your original spell. Everyone saying you can't, are as far as the official rules are concerned, you are wrong. You can houserule whatever you like at your table (that's actually specified in the rules), but don't be under the delusion that your houserules are in any way official for anyone else.
In that SAC example, you would need two free hands. Fireball requires a free hand for the S,M components and counterspell requires a free hand that isn't holding an M component in order to perform the S component. We know that a cleric with a mace in one hand and a shield in the other that is acting as a spellcasting focus cannot cast S-only spells. That's why I used mind spike and counterspell in my example--both are S-only spells, so nothing needs to be held for the entire process. The game doesn't define the term "free hand," but it does tell us unambiguously through context that holding an object causes a hand to no longer be free for the purposes of S-only casting.
Your arguement is basically that a hand is always free because there is no rule that says it isn't.
Obviously that's not true.
Your argument is that a hand that performed a somatic action for one spell is no longer free for at least the duration of that spell casting making it incapable of casting a reaction spell with somatic components while the other spell is being cast.
Everyone else's argument is that the somatic components of one spell do not interfere with the casting of at least counterspell (The Sage Advice Compendium clearly supports that interpretation) and likely not with any other spell that might be cast coincident with another spell since there is a hand available to perform the somatic components.
The rules do NOT say one way or the other. In both cases, the character has a hand that is empty, not holding anything, that could potentially be used for somatic components. Can that free hand perform somatic components for multiple spells either simultaneously or sequentially based on the rules? I don't know and neither do you.
-----
What exactly does "free" hand mean? Does it mean not holding something else ... i.e. empty?
Or does it mean, not rubbing your nose, adjusting your pants, opening a door? Perhaps a character that opens a door on their turn can't cast a spell with a somatic component because their hand is busy doing something and thus is not free for casting spells? How long does it take? Can a character who lifts a portcullis or picks a lock as their action on their turn cast a bonus action spell with a somatic component? Do these actions mean that the hand is not free for the duration of their turn? How long does it take a character to lift a portcullis? What if they decide to hold it open?
----
Anyway, the bottom line is play how you like. It won't affect my game or how I rule it. But however you decide to interpret it, it is not the "one true way" and never will be.
Your arguement is basically that a hand is always free because there is no rule that says it isn't.
Obviously that's not true.
Your argument is that a hand that performed a somatic action for one spell is no longer free for at least the duration of that spell casting making it incapable of casting a reaction spell with somatic components while the other spell is being cast.
Everyone else's argument is that the somatic components of one spell do not interfere with the casting of at least counterspell (The Sage Advice Compendium clearly supports that interpretation) and likely not with any other spell that might be cast coincident with another spell since there is a hand available to perform the somatic components.
The rules do NOT say one way or the other. In both cases, the character has a hand that is empty, not holding anything, that could potentially be used for somatic components. Can that free hand perform somatic components for multiple spells either simultaneously or sequentially based on the rules? I don't know and neither do you.
-----
What exactly does "free" hand mean? Does it mean not holding something else ... i.e. empty?
Or does it mean, not rubbing your nose, adjusting your pants, opening a door? Perhaps a character that opens a door on their turn can't cast a spell with a somatic component because their hand is busy doing something and thus is not free for casting spells? How long does it take? Can a character who lifts a portcullis or picks a lock as their action on their turn cast a bonus action spell with a somatic component? Do these actions mean that the hand is not free for the duration of their turn? How long does it take a character to lift a portcullis? What if they decide to hold it open?
----
Anyway, the bottom line is play how you like. It won't affect my game or how I rule it. But however you decide to interpret it, it is not the "one true way" and never will be.
Correct. A single hand cannot perform two distinctly different gestures at the same time. If it is busy doing one, it isn't free to simultaneously do the other.
If you disagree, I really do suggest trying to throw out rock and scissors at the same time with one 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 sure can! Here’s a common way for it to happen: Cornelius the wizard is casting fireball on his turn, and his foe casts counterspell on him. Cornelius also has counterspell prepared, so he uses his reaction to cast it and break his foe’s counterspell before it can stop fireball.
This is literally the example in the official rules clarification. You can counterspell a counterspell against your original spell. Everyone saying you can't, are as far as the official rules are concerned, you are wrong. You can houserule whatever you like at your table (that's actually specified in the rules), but don't be under the delusion that your houserules are in any way official for anyone else.
Of course you can do this. Most people have two hands...
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.
Your arguement is basically that a hand is always free because there is no rule that says it isn't.
Obviously that's not true.
And your argument is that it's obvious and therefore must be the case. As far as the rules are concerned, there's nothing that explicitly says that you can or can't counter a counterspell on your own spell. Some DMs will decide that in absence of a rule preventing you, you are allowed to do it. Others will decide that it doesn't make sense to them so you can't.
It is obvious.
The rules ask you to have a free hand. Therefore the rules expect you to have a free hand.
The lack of definition for a free hand doesn't remove the requirement.
That is obvious.
Why?
Because they would not ask for you to have a free hand if you didn't need to have a free hand.
Whether you know what it means or not, the requirement remains.
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 problem with arguing this from realism is that spellcasting is strictly a fantastic element. There's no, "Well, real wizards can't pause their spellcasting to counterspell." Maybe wizards can! Or perhaps counterspell uses a unique set of motions that allows you to do both. They studied for this stuff, you know - it might be hard to do, but so is juggling.
You can justify any result realistically without much trouble.
The RAW seem pretty clear: Your original spell needs a free hand during your action only (and not your reaction). Counterspell requires a free hand during your reaction only.
Personally I think RAW yields the better gameplay result, since you won't have to worry about different results from spells without somatic components, characters with both hands free or extra limbs, or weird timing issues ("Oh, sorry, you can't cast fireball - when you shielded earlier, the attack was on the same initiative result, so your hand isn't free.").
The problem with arguing this from realism is that spellcasting is strictly a fantastic element. There's no, "Well, real wizards can't pause their spellcasting to counterspell." Maybe wizards can! Or perhaps counterspell uses a unique set of motions that allows you to do both. They studied for this stuff, you know - it might be hard to do, but so is juggling.
You can justify any result realistically without much trouble.
The RAW seem pretty clear: Your original spell needs a free hand during your action only (and not your reaction). Counterspell requires a free hand during your reaction only.
Personally I think RAW yields the better gameplay result, since you won't have to worry about different results from spells without somatic components, characters with both hands free or extra limbs, or weird timing issues ("Oh, sorry, you can't cast fireball - when you shielded earlier, the attack was on the same initiative result, so your hand isn't free.").
RAW if you're counterspelling a counterspell that is counterspelling your spell... it all happens at exactly the same moment. Yall are welcome to homebrew a different sequence of events. But counterspell tells us directly that it happens while the other spell is being cast.
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 rules aren't clear on how much time it takes to make (S) gestures when casting a spell. That's completely abstract. "A Free Hand" is merely a hand not holding or grasping something else. You can even use the same hand you use to retrieve spell components, so the rules aren't that picky. You can adapt (S) components to use an Arcane Focus, even if it's something like a Staff or a Wand (which suggests that the gestures for a given spell aren't necessarily that precise, or a Staff would be too unwieldy). Similarly War Casters can use a weapon to weave their S components.
So I see no reason to assume that a "free hand" used for one spell is no longer "free" under the current definitions. I imagine it's like something you might see in a film -- the wizard thrusts his arm into the air, conjuring a ball of flame, preparing to hurl it at his foes, when the enemy points at him and clenches his fist, trying to siphon off the wizard's manipulation of the Weave. Our trusty hero yanks his arm down, clutching the nascent fireball to his chest, shielding it from the interference, and then spins and hurls it at the enemy.
You actually can't do some of what you're suggesting. If you're hold a focus and cast a spell that has a S component but no M component, then, your hand is not free. Its busy holding something useless for that spell.
If your hand is busy, it isn't free. That's about as straightforward as it gets.
Busy holding something? Not free. Busy performing gestures? Not free.
Idk why anyone is arguing otherwise it doesn't make any sense.
How is a hand that is busy... free? Like what?
You are taking the examples I gave for the kinds of things that rules support as direct evidence. They are exemplar, but not exclusive.
You're absolutely right that a hand that is not otherwise free because it's holding a focus cannot be used in a spell that doesn't require a material component. Isn't that strange to you? To me that's an example of a very strange ruling and something that is counter to "realism".
If I, as a wizard am capable of using a wand to trace somatic components so long as the spell requires bat guano, why am I not able to do so, if the spell doesn't need bat guano? The rules on components are often nonsensical in terms of "realism".
The section on Somatic Components in the PHB simply says "the caster must have free use of at least one hand". It's not clear that these gestures take the entire action to perform, or that they cannot be interrupted and resumed (or otherwise, someone could ready an action to "disrupt" the spellcasting simply by knocking a caster prone for example -- something that used to be a thing in the early editions, when casting could take multiple "segments"). 5e is a lot more abstract about this.
I mean, sure if you're the DM, you can make that ruling, but I don't think it's so cut and dried as you believe.
Wow. We got back on the two hands argument for counterspelling a counterspell?
The rules don't necessarily mention that weapons are occupying hands for the duration either. Maybe the wielder is throwing it in the air for a few twirls here and there.
"Free Hand" isn't defined so does that mean we can cut off the hands of our opponents, string them around our neck and claim they're all free hands?
Since DnD has not put in a specific definition for "Free Hand" then we must use definitions from the English Language. Checking a dictionary for the word "Free" the best definition to apply is likely "not occupied or in use; available:" .
------------
First thing to understand is that there are reactions which "interrupt" actions and Counterspell is one of them. This is described in the DMG noting that such reactions "interrupt" their triggers rather than take place after the trigger. So RAW, if you cast Fireball and someone casts Counterspell the Action to cast Fireball is "interrupted" and incomplete. Effectively the action is still taking place and is yet to finish.
Compare this to the Mage Slayer feat to attack a caster who cast's a spell. This reaction does NOT specify that it interrupts the spell, so the full spell casting takes place with all spell effects becoming active and THEN the caster can be attacked with the Mage Slayer feat's reaction. If a caster uses "Misty Step" to teleport out of reach, then the Mage Slayer feat's reaction would even be impossible.
Consider also, spells that take multiple turns to cast, such as a druid casting Druid Grove with the consumed Mistletoe over a period of 10 minutes, the caster using their action each turn to continue the casting and being incapable of casting a bonus action spell in the same turn, are we to imagine that the Mistletoe was consumed at the very beginning, or the Somatic components of the Druid Grove spell performed only in the first round, leaving them with the hand they were using to cast it as a "free hand" for any other times to cast reaction spells or perform object interactions?
Consider also a mage using a shield and weapon, hitting another mage with the hand held weapon. One hand is occupied by the shield and the other is occupied by the weapon which is attacking. Now imagine the target casts the "Shield" spell, which also "Interrupts" the trigger, which is the attack in this case. Now, imagine that the attacking mage wants to use their own reaction to "Counterspell" the shield spell. Where do they get a "free hand" to perform this? Since we are now in the attacking mage's reaction phase do we presume they can let go of their weapon, mid-swing, cast "Counterspell" then somehow continue their attack with the weapon? No, we would regard the hand as occupied and if the caster wished to let go of their weapon to cast "Counterspell" they would loose the attack (Which is something they might actually want to do since "Shield" would continue through other possible attacks for the round if not countered). Or are we to presume that weapons do not occupy the hand wielding them for the duration of the attack?
The best interpretation is that the hand is "occupied" and "in use" for the casting's duration. If a spell's casting time is "1 Action" and that action is "Interrupted" then we are still in the duration of it's casting.
---- Then we have all the SACs around this:
1. SAC: "The easiest way to stop a spell is to cast counterspell on its caster while it’s being cast. If successful, counterspell interrupts the other spell’s casting"
2. SAC: Notes that a caster can counterspell another counterspell used against their own spell. BUT it makes no rulings about use of hands. If "Cornelius" (The wizard casting "fireball" and "counterspell" together, has two free hands then it's perfectly possible for this to happen. Nothing about this SAC allows the hand performing Somatic components of one spell to be used for Somatic components of a second spell at the same time.
3. SAC: "If a spell has a material component, you need to handle that component when you cast the spell. 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." ---"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."
------- Note the phrasing "Same rule applies". Effectively, casting with materials or a focus work the same way. A hand holding materials or a focus for casting cannot be used to cast a spell that has only Somatic components and no Material components.
----- Spells cast as a Ready Action also have a special little niche where they are fully cast but then held. This could be interpreted, RAW, that the hand becomes free unless the spell requires a touch or attack with a weapon. RAW also say that such a spell could be counterspelled while it was being readied but not counterspelled when it's released, since its already cast and has been confirmed as RAI by Jeremy: https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/893272974601502720
Note there is also a rule in Xanathar's Guide to Everything that allows you to use your reaction to determine what spell is being cast while it is being cast. The problem people noted is that if you need to use your reaction to work out what spell is being cast, then you wouldn't have a reaction left to cast "Counterspell. Jeremy has confirmed RAW and RAI that you might see a spell being cast and decide to counter it, but you don't actually know what they're casting unless you use reaction to make an arcana check and then you don't have a reaction to counter it. So if the DM (and players) are playing this way, any casting should first note that its being cast and ask if anyone wants to react to the casting (which could be the arcana test to assess the spell or counter spell), once it's confirmed that no reaction is used, then the player or DM should say what spell is being cast: https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/928766415263252480
HOWEVER, the majority of tables out there don't use those rules and everyone is simply presumed to know what spell is being cast and can determine if they take a reaction to that specific spell. While I believe it's also RAW that you need two free hands to cast fireball and counterspell a counterspell to it. the majority of tables out there are also likely to ignore that. But majority does not make RAW.
On the off chance that this ever becomes an issue though, it certainly make both the War Caster feat and Sorcerer's Subtle Spell meta magic a little bit more useful.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
You actually can't do some of what you're suggesting. If you're hold a focus and cast a spell that has a S component but no M component, then, your hand is not free. Its busy holding something useless for that spell.
If your hand is busy, it isn't free. That's about as straightforward as it gets.
Busy holding something? Not free. Busy performing gestures? Not free.
Idk why anyone is arguing otherwise it doesn't make any sense.
How is a hand that is busy... free? Like what?
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.
Your arguement is basically that a hand is always free because there is no rule that says it isn't.
Obviously that's not true.
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.
And your argument is that it's obvious and therefore must be the case. As far as the rules are concerned, there's nothing that explicitly says that you can or can't counter a counterspell on your own spell. Some DMs will decide that in absence of a rule preventing you, you are allowed to do it. Others will decide that it doesn't make sense to them so you can't.
Sage Advice Compendium, pg 15
This is literally the example in the official rules clarification. You can counterspell a counterspell against your original spell. Everyone saying you can't, are as far as the official rules are concerned, you are wrong. You can houserule whatever you like at your table (that's actually specified in the rules), but don't be under the delusion that your houserules are in any way official for anyone else.
In that SAC example, you would need two free hands. Fireball requires a free hand for the S,M components and counterspell requires a free hand that isn't holding an M component in order to perform the S component. We know that a cleric with a mace in one hand and a shield in the other that is acting as a spellcasting focus cannot cast S-only spells. That's why I used mind spike and counterspell in my example--both are S-only spells, so nothing needs to be held for the entire process. The game doesn't define the term "free hand," but it does tell us unambiguously through context that holding an object causes a hand to no longer be free for the purposes of S-only casting.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
Your argument is that a hand that performed a somatic action for one spell is no longer free for at least the duration of that spell casting making it incapable of casting a reaction spell with somatic components while the other spell is being cast.
Everyone else's argument is that the somatic components of one spell do not interfere with the casting of at least counterspell (The Sage Advice Compendium clearly supports that interpretation) and likely not with any other spell that might be cast coincident with another spell since there is a hand available to perform the somatic components.
The rules do NOT say one way or the other. In both cases, the character has a hand that is empty, not holding anything, that could potentially be used for somatic components. Can that free hand perform somatic components for multiple spells either simultaneously or sequentially based on the rules? I don't know and neither do you.
-----
What exactly does "free" hand mean? Does it mean not holding something else ... i.e. empty?
Or does it mean, not rubbing your nose, adjusting your pants, opening a door? Perhaps a character that opens a door on their turn can't cast a spell with a somatic component because their hand is busy doing something and thus is not free for casting spells? How long does it take? Can a character who lifts a portcullis or picks a lock as their action on their turn cast a bonus action spell with a somatic component? Do these actions mean that the hand is not free for the duration of their turn? How long does it take a character to lift a portcullis? What if they decide to hold it open?
----
Anyway, the bottom line is play how you like. It won't affect my game or how I rule it. But however you decide to interpret it, it is not the "one true way" and never will be.
Correct. A single hand cannot perform two distinctly different gestures at the same time. If it is busy doing one, it isn't free to simultaneously do the other.
If you disagree, I really do suggest trying to throw out rock and scissors at the same time with one 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.
Of course you can do this. Most people have two hands...
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.
It is obvious.
The rules ask you to have a free hand. Therefore the rules expect you to have a free hand.
The lack of definition for a free hand doesn't remove the requirement.
That is obvious.
Why?
Because they would not ask for you to have a free hand if you didn't need to have a free hand.
Whether you know what it means or not, the requirement remains.
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 problem with arguing this from realism is that spellcasting is strictly a fantastic element. There's no, "Well, real wizards can't pause their spellcasting to counterspell." Maybe wizards can! Or perhaps counterspell uses a unique set of motions that allows you to do both. They studied for this stuff, you know - it might be hard to do, but so is juggling.
You can justify any result realistically without much trouble.
The RAW seem pretty clear: Your original spell needs a free hand during your action only (and not your reaction). Counterspell requires a free hand during your reaction only.
Personally I think RAW yields the better gameplay result, since you won't have to worry about different results from spells without somatic components, characters with both hands free or extra limbs, or weird timing issues ("Oh, sorry, you can't cast fireball - when you shielded earlier, the attack was on the same initiative result, so your hand isn't free.").
RAW if you're counterspelling a counterspell that is counterspelling your spell... it all happens at exactly the same moment. Yall are welcome to homebrew a different sequence of events. But counterspell tells us directly that it happens while the other spell is being cast.
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 are taking the examples I gave for the kinds of things that rules support as direct evidence. They are exemplar, but not exclusive.
You're absolutely right that a hand that is not otherwise free because it's holding a focus cannot be used in a spell that doesn't require a material component. Isn't that strange to you? To me that's an example of a very strange ruling and something that is counter to "realism".
If I, as a wizard am capable of using a wand to trace somatic components so long as the spell requires bat guano, why am I not able to do so, if the spell doesn't need bat guano? The rules on components are often nonsensical in terms of "realism".
The section on Somatic Components in the PHB simply says "the caster must have free use of at least one hand". It's not clear that these gestures take the entire action to perform, or that they cannot be interrupted and resumed (or otherwise, someone could ready an action to "disrupt" the spellcasting simply by knocking a caster prone for example -- something that used to be a thing in the early editions, when casting could take multiple "segments"). 5e is a lot more abstract about this.
I mean, sure if you're the DM, you can make that ruling, but I don't think it's so cut and dried as you believe.
Wow. We got back on the two hands argument for counterspelling a counterspell?
The rules don't necessarily mention that weapons are occupying hands for the duration either. Maybe the wielder is throwing it in the air for a few twirls here and there.
"Free Hand" isn't defined so does that mean we can cut off the hands of our opponents, string them around our neck and claim they're all free hands?
Since DnD has not put in a specific definition for "Free Hand" then we must use definitions from the English Language. Checking a dictionary for the word "Free" the best definition to apply is likely "not occupied or in use; available:" .
------------
First thing to understand is that there are reactions which "interrupt" actions and Counterspell is one of them. This is described in the DMG noting that such reactions "interrupt" their triggers rather than take place after the trigger. So RAW, if you cast Fireball and someone casts Counterspell the Action to cast Fireball is "interrupted" and incomplete. Effectively the action is still taking place and is yet to finish.
Compare this to the Mage Slayer feat to attack a caster who cast's a spell. This reaction does NOT specify that it interrupts the spell, so the full spell casting takes place with all spell effects becoming active and THEN the caster can be attacked with the Mage Slayer feat's reaction. If a caster uses "Misty Step" to teleport out of reach, then the Mage Slayer feat's reaction would even be impossible.
Consider also, spells that take multiple turns to cast, such as a druid casting Druid Grove with the consumed Mistletoe over a period of 10 minutes, the caster using their action each turn to continue the casting and being incapable of casting a bonus action spell in the same turn, are we to imagine that the Mistletoe was consumed at the very beginning, or the Somatic components of the Druid Grove spell performed only in the first round, leaving them with the hand they were using to cast it as a "free hand" for any other times to cast reaction spells or perform object interactions?
Consider also a mage using a shield and weapon, hitting another mage with the hand held weapon. One hand is occupied by the shield and the other is occupied by the weapon which is attacking. Now imagine the target casts the "Shield" spell, which also "Interrupts" the trigger, which is the attack in this case. Now, imagine that the attacking mage wants to use their own reaction to "Counterspell" the shield spell. Where do they get a "free hand" to perform this? Since we are now in the attacking mage's reaction phase do we presume they can let go of their weapon, mid-swing, cast "Counterspell" then somehow continue their attack with the weapon? No, we would regard the hand as occupied and if the caster wished to let go of their weapon to cast "Counterspell" they would loose the attack (Which is something they might actually want to do since "Shield" would continue through other possible attacks for the round if not countered). Or are we to presume that weapons do not occupy the hand wielding them for the duration of the attack?
The best interpretation is that the hand is "occupied" and "in use" for the casting's duration.
If a spell's casting time is "1 Action" and that action is "Interrupted" then we are still in the duration of it's casting.
----
Then we have all the SACs around this:
1. SAC: "The easiest way to stop a spell is to cast counterspell on its caster while it’s being cast. If successful, counterspell interrupts the other spell’s casting"
2. SAC: Notes that a caster can counterspell another counterspell used against their own spell. BUT it makes no rulings about use of hands. If "Cornelius" (The wizard casting "fireball" and "counterspell" together, has two free hands then it's perfectly possible for this to happen. Nothing about this SAC allows the hand performing Somatic components of one spell to be used for Somatic components of a second spell at the same time.
3. SAC: "If a spell has a material component, you need to handle that component when you cast the spell. 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."
---"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."
-------
Note the phrasing "Same rule applies". Effectively, casting with materials or a focus work the same way. A hand holding materials or a focus for casting cannot be used to cast a spell that has only Somatic components and no Material components.
-----
Spells cast as a Ready Action also have a special little niche where they are fully cast but then held. This could be interpreted, RAW, that the hand becomes free unless the spell requires a touch or attack with a weapon. RAW also say that such a spell could be counterspelled while it was being readied but not counterspelled when it's released, since its already cast and has been confirmed as RAI by Jeremy: https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/893272974601502720
Note there is also a rule in Xanathar's Guide to Everything that allows you to use your reaction to determine what spell is being cast while it is being cast. The problem people noted is that if you need to use your reaction to work out what spell is being cast, then you wouldn't have a reaction left to cast "Counterspell. Jeremy has confirmed RAW and RAI that you might see a spell being cast and decide to counter it, but you don't actually know what they're casting unless you use reaction to make an arcana check and then you don't have a reaction to counter it. So if the DM (and players) are playing this way, any casting should first note that its being cast and ask if anyone wants to react to the casting (which could be the arcana test to assess the spell or counter spell), once it's confirmed that no reaction is used, then the player or DM should say what spell is being cast: https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/928766415263252480
HOWEVER, the majority of tables out there don't use those rules and everyone is simply presumed to know what spell is being cast and can determine if they take a reaction to that specific spell. While I believe it's also RAW that you need two free hands to cast fireball and counterspell a counterspell to it. the majority of tables out there are also likely to ignore that. But majority does not make RAW.
On the off chance that this ever becomes an issue though, it certainly make both the War Caster feat and Sorcerer's Subtle Spell meta magic a little bit more useful.