DnD 2024 Cleric Holy Symbol

Quote from up2ng>>

Quote from TarodNet>>

@up2ng:

Quote from Elgate>>

Heya folk, best to refocus on the actual topic at hand and remember that for the purposes of this forum SAC is to be treated as RAWespecially for resolving debates over readings of the rules.

I disagree vehemently with that sentiment.  The Sage Advice itself tells us exactly what it is and what its role should be in rules discussions:

Official Rulings

Official rulings on how to interpret rules are made here in the Sage Advice Compendium. A Dungeon Master adjudicates the game and determines whether to use an official ruling in play. The DM always has the final say on rules questions.

The Role of Rules

Why even have Sage Advice when a DM can just make a ruling?

Rules are a big part of what makes D&D a game, rather than simply improvised storytelling. The game’s rules are meant to help organize, and even inspire, the action of a D&D campaign. The rules are a tool, and we want our tools to be as effective as possible.

. . .

There are times, though, when the design intent of a rule isn’t clear or when one rule seems to contradict another.

Dealing with those situations is where Sage Advice comes in. It doesn’t replace a DM’s adjudication. Just as the rules do, this FAQ is meant to give DMs, as well as players, tools for tuning the game according to their tastes.

RAW

“Rules as written”—that’s what RAW stands for. When we dwell on the RAW interpretation of a rule, we’re studying what the text says in context, without regard to the designers’ intent. The text is forced to stand on its own.

When we consider a rule, we start with this perspective; it’s important for us to see what you see, not what we wished we’d published or thought we’d published.

So, no.  The SAC rulings should absolutely positively never be treated as RAW, especially for resolving debates over readings of the rules.  The SAC itself tells us not to do that.  Official rulings and RAW are two different things.

The SAC rulings give us insight into the designers' intent of a rule.  It's fine to use those same rulings in your games, just be aware that when the intent differs from the written rules that you would no longer be playing according to the RAW.  When you do this, it's always a good idea to communicate this with your players.

Incorrect.

You have quoted selectively in a manner that misrepresents the nature of Sage Advice. I have also quoted selectively but underlined some important segments that you omitted.

The Role of Rules

Why even have Sage Advice when a DM can just make a ruling?

 

....

We often approach rules questions from one to three different perspectives.

---

RAW

“Rules as written”—that’s what RAW stands for. When we dwell on the RAW interpretation of a rule, we’re studying what the text says in context, without regard to the designers’ intent. The text is forced to stand on its own.

When we consider a rule, we start with this perspective; it’s important for us to see what you see, not what we wished we’d published or thought we’d published.

---

RAI

Some of you are especially interested in knowing the intent behind a rule. That’s where RAI comes in: “rules as intended.” This approach is all about what the designers meant when they wrote something. In a perfect world, RAW and RAI align perfectly, but sometimes the words on the page don’t succeed at communicating the designers’ intent. Or perhaps the words succeed with one group of players but not with another.

When we write about the RAI interpretation of a rule, we pull back the curtain and let you know what the D&D team meant when writing that rule.

---

RAF

Regardless of what’s on the page or what the designers intended, D&D is meant to be fun, and the DM is the ringmaster at each game table. The best DMs shape the game on the fly to bring the most delight to their players. Such DMs aim for RAF, “rules as fun.” We expect DMs to depart from the rules when running a campaign or when seeking the greatest happiness for a certain group of players.

We recommend a mix of RAW, RAI, and RAF!

Combined with the statement from Elegate that Tarodnet quoted, Sage Advice is RAW unless stated otherwise.

Quote from up2ng >>

Quote from SmiteMakesRight_3_5 >>

For example, a Cleric uses an Emblem on a Shield as their Holy Symbol. When in combat, this Cleric likes to wield a Mace in one hand and the emblazoned Shield in the other. This Cleric must have the Shield in hand when casting a Cleric spell that requires a Material component. If the spell, such as Aid, also requires a Somatic component, the Cleric can perform the Somatic component with the hand holding the Shield, allowing the Cleric to keep wielding the Mace. However, if this same Cleric were to later cast Cure Wounds—which has Somatic components but no Material components—they would need to unequip either their Shield or Mace to free a hand for the Somatic components.

 

In all cases, technically, theoretically, and practically, this works. It is RAW. This is the current Sage Advice & Errata, not an old or inaccurate Sage Advice entry. It has been deliberately carried forward and is current for 2024 explicitly confirming that a Cleric with an Emblem spellcasting focus on their Shield performs the gestures with the hand holding Shield. Your guideline may apply to Paladins and Clerics with Emblems on a Tabard or the +X Reliquary Spellcasting Focus from Tasha's.

If the 2014 Sage Advice is inaccurate and that exact same text "has been deliberately carried forward and is current for 2024" then how in the world can that text all of a sudden be accurate?  Obviously, it cannot be.

Unless, of course, the 2014 Sage Advice was never inaccurate. When the 2024 rules were published, the status of the Sage Advice Compendium was in question because rules were changed it was not clear of the previous Sage Advice still applied or if there were deliberate changes in the new edition. Now that the Sage Advice and Errata has been published it is no longer in question and it is RAW unless stated otherwise. By comparison, look at the entry on Illusory Reality:

Does the level 14 Illusionist ability let you make something real every round, or just once?

Illusory Reality is intended to make one illusory object real per Illusion spell.

Again, emphasis added.

For purposes of discussions on these forums, it is explicitly RAW that a Cleric or Paladin can use the hand holding a shield with a spellcasting focus emblazoned on it to perform any somatic components of a spell with material components that do not have a cost. It is the most common interpretation because it is the RAW compliant one.

 You quoted a large chunk of rules but then you drew the wrong conclusion from the text that you quoted.

When the text says, "We often approach rules questions from one to three different perspectives" and then gives a list that includes RAW, RAI and RAF then the correct conclusion from that is that at least sometimes the Sage Advice is not even attempting to explain the RAW.  That doesn't even mention the fact that sometimes they attempt to interpret the RAW but are wrong.  Furthermore, an interpretation of text literally cannot be the text itself.  Sage Advice provides an interpretation and a subsequent official ruling.  However, by the Sage Advice's own text, which you have now also quoted, the term RAW very explicitly refers to the Rules As Written -- what the text of the rules actually says in context, without regard to the designers’ intent. The text is forced to stand on its own.  The Sage Advice is telling you that its own text is not RAW -- it's telling you what the term means very clearly.

The reason why the Sage Advice interpretation and ruling with regard to the Emblem borne on a Shield is incorrect with respect to what the text of the rules actually says has been explained thoroughly throughout this thread.

Again, it's fine to take the Sage Advice interpretation as the intended way to play and then to go ahead and play it that way.  Just make it clear with your players that that's what you are doing.

Quote from up2ng >>

 You quoted a large chunk of rules but then you drew the wrong conclusion from the text that you quoted.

When the text says, "We often approach rules questions from one to three different perspectives" and then gives a list that includes RAW, RAI and RAF then the correct conclusion from that is that at least sometimes the Sage Advice is not even attempting to explain the RAW.  That doesn't even mention the fact that sometimes they attempt to interpret the RAW but are wrong.  Furthermore, an interpretation of text literally cannot be the text itself.  Sage Advice provides an interpretation and a subsequent official ruling.  However, by the Sage Advice's own text, which you have now also quoted, the term RAW very explicitly refers to the Rules As Written -- what the text of the rules actually says in context, without regard to the designers’ intent. The text is forced to stand on its own.  The Sage Advice is telling you that its own text is not RAW -- it's telling you what the term means very clearly.

The reason why the Sage Advice interpretation and ruling with regard to the Emblem borne on a Shield is incorrect with respect to what the text of the rules actually says has been explained thoroughly throughout this thread.

Again, it's fine to take the Sage Advice interpretation as the intended way to play and then to go ahead and play it that way.  Just make it clear with your players that that's what you are doing.

You are still drawing the wrong conclusion because not only does Sage Advice state that it includes explanations of the Rules as Written, but a mod has already confirmed that Sage Advice is RAW for the purpose of these discussions. You are free to house rule how you like at your table or make whatever claims you like elsewhere, but here, the Sage Advice Compendium is RAW for the 2014 and the Sage Advice and Errata is RAW for the 2024 rules.

So, an Emblem on a Shield still works theoretically, technically, and practically as a Spellcasting Focus per RAW.

Quote from SmiteMakesRight_3_5 >>

. . . not only does Sage Advice state that it includes explanations of the Rules as Written . . .

By definition, "explanations of the Rules as Written" does not equal "the Rules as Written".  One is a rule, and the other is an explanation.  For example, I've given many explanations in these forums.  Nothing that I've said are the actual rules.  As per Sage Advice, the actual rules are only found within the text of the rule books.

Quote from SmiteMakesRight_3_5 >>

a mod has already confirmed that Sage Advice is RAW for the purpose of these discussions. 

Whether or not a mod has chosen to say such a thing as part of the guidelines for posting in the forums doesn't change the fact that Sage Advice itself clarifies that nothing within its own text are the rules of the game -- they provide interpretations and Official Rulings, not rules.  As per the Sage Advice, the text of the rules is forced to stand on its own.

This is particularly important in the relatively uncommon cases where the Sage Advice is wrong. 

As per the Sage Advice:

Just as the rules do, this FAQ is meant to give DMs, as well as players, tools for tuning the game according to their tastes.

This statement makes it clear that there are two distinct things here:  There are rules and there is "this FAQ".  These are both "tools" for the DMs and players.  These are two different things.  They are not the same thing.  They are two different things.  

Quote from up2ng >>

Whether or not a mod has chosen to say such a thing as part of the guidelines for posting in the forums doesn't change the fact that Sage Advice itself clarifies that nothing within its own text are the rules of the game -- they provide interpretations and Official Rulings, not rules.  As per the Sage Advice, the text of the rules is forced to stand on its own.

This is particularly important in the relatively uncommon cases where the Sage Advice is wrong.

And yet we are not at a table at home, we are on a forum where Sage Advice is to be considered RAW. The Sage Advice is consistent with a natural language reading of the Player's Handbook and correct until such a time as errata is printed reversing the rules, which is unlikely.

How do you perform Somatic gestures with an Emblem emblazoned on a shield? You move the held Shield. How do you perform the Somatic gestures with an Emblem on a Banner? You are probably moving the held staff for the banner. How do you perform the Somatic gestures with an Emblem on a Tabard? I don't know, dancing to Footloose? It's straightforward ... except for the Tabard one.

Quote from SmiteMakesRight_3_5 >>

... How do you perform Somatic gestures with an Emblem emblazoned on a shield? You move the held Shield. How do you perform the Somatic gestures with an Emblem on a Banner? You are probably moving the held staff for the banner. How do you perform the Somatic gestures with an Emblem on a Tabard? I don't know, dancing to Footloose? It's straightforward ... except for the Tabard one.

A worn tabard does not function like an equipped emblazoned shield or a held holy banner. The rule requires that you have a hand that is holding your focus or is free to touch/access your focus or materials. When you hold the emblazoned shield you are actually holding your focus - this has been confirmed by the Sage Advice. When your focus is not held in your hand but is worn about your person (e.g. an amulet, a tabard, a crystal hanging from a belt, etc.) then you must have an empty hand to touch the focus to meet the requirement for casting. 

Quote from RegentCorreon >>

Quote from SmiteMakesRight_3_5 >>

... How do you perform Somatic gestures with an Emblem emblazoned on a shield? You move the held Shield. How do you perform the Somatic gestures with an Emblem on a Banner? You are probably moving the held staff for the banner. How do you perform the Somatic gestures with an Emblem on a Tabard? I don't know, dancing to Footloose? It's straightforward ... except for the Tabard one.

A worn tabard does not function like an equipped emblazoned shield or a held holy banner. The rule requires that you have a hand that is holding your focus or is free to touch/access your focus or materials. When you hold the emblazoned shield you are actually holding your focus - this has been confirmed by the Sage Advice. When your focus is not held in your hand but is worn about your person (e.g. an amulet, a tabard, a crystal hanging from a belt, etc.) then you must have an empty hand to touch the focus to meet the requirement for casting.

Yes. Exactly. Using a held spell focus is defined. Using a worn focus is less clear. How do I gesture with my t-shirt?

Quote from SmiteMakesRight_3_5 >>

Using a held spell focus is defined. Using a worn focus is less clear. How do I gesture with my t-shirt?

Despite what Sage Advice claims, the actual rules state that there is also a third category in addition to "held" and "worn".  That third category is when the focus is "borne":

The table indicates whether a Holy Symbol needs to be held, worn, or borne on fabric (such as a tabard or banner) or a Shield.

Emblem (borne on fabric or a Shield)

—

5 GP

Remember, the problem here is not that you are unable to use this focus -- you can use certainly use the focus for your M component just fine.  The problem here is that you just don't have a free hand for your S component.  The exception for when you are holding your focus doesn't apply here because this particular focus is not held, it is borne.

This is a case where there probably should be some errata to tweak the actual rules in order to bring the text in line with what is clearly the intent as indicated by Sage Advice.  As currently written, the actual rules are too restrictive.

Quote from up2ng>>

The exception for when you are holding your focus doesn't apply here because this particular focus is not held, it is borne.

The "exception" is never defined to be only "holding." Specifically, "The spellcaster must have a hand free to access them, but it can be the same hand used to perform Somatic components, if any." That covers all kinds of focus access. Held, worn, or borne --- each still requires a hand be dedicated.

Quote from up2ng >>

Remember, the problem here is not that you are unable to use this focus -- you can use certainly use the focus for your M component just fine.  The problem here is that you just don't have a free hand for your S component.  The exception for when you are holding your focus doesn't apply here because this particular focus is not held, it is borne.

This is a case where there probably should be some errata to tweak the actual rules in order to bring the text in line with what is clearly the intent as indicated by Sage Advice.  As currently written, the actual rules are too restrictive.

 The rules don't say the Material component must be held, just to access them;

Material (M)

A Material component is a particular material used in a spell’s casting, as specified in parentheses in the Components entry. These materials aren’t consumed by the spell unless the spell’s description states otherwise. The spellcaster must have a hand free to access them, but it can be the same hand used to perform Somatic components, if any.

In other words, the hand holding the Shield has access to the Emblem Holy Symbol and it it can be the same hand used to perform Somatic components, if any.

Quote from kenclary >>

Quote from up2ng>>

The exception for when you are holding your focus doesn't apply here because this particular focus is not held, it is borne.

The "exception" is never defined to be only "holding." Specifically, "The spellcaster must have a hand free to access them, but it can be the same hand used to perform Somatic components, if any." That covers all kinds of focus access. Held, worn, or borne --- each still requires a hand be dedicated.

The point is that you don't have a hand free for your S component.  You are holding a Shield in one hand and a Mace in the other hand.  If instead you were actually holding your focus in one of those hands, then you could use that exception to declare that hand free for the purpose of the S component.  Sure, it would also work in those other cases where you actually kept a hand free so that you could "access" your focus.

The trouble is with the wording.  It's clear from Sage Advice that the line "to use a Spellcasting Focus, you must hold it unless its description says otherwise" is meant to actually mean that when its description DOES say otherwise (when you do NOT have to hold the focus) then you no longer actually need the free hand for the requirement which states that "The spellcaster must have a hand free to access them, but it can be the same hand used to perform Somatic components, if any" AND the requirement which states that "A spellcaster must use at least one of their hands to perform these [Somatic] movements".  If that was really the intent, then they should have actually said that in the rules.  As written, it doesn't quite get there.

Again, the problem is with the S component requirement.  To illustrate, it might be easier to switch to a case of using a worn amulet as a focus.  Sure, we are "accessing" the M component via this amulet.  The "same hand used to perform Somatic components" rule just doesn't even apply here since we do not even need a free hand to use an amulet.  But the problem is -- while holding a mace and a Shield and wearing the amulet, you just have no way to actually perform the S component. 

It's the same problem when using an Emblem.  The emblem is borne.  The "same hand" rule doesn't apply at all since you can already use the Emblem without a free hand to access the M component.  But since you are holding a mace and a Shield and bearing the emblem, you just have no way to actually perform the S component.

This should be changed.  It's too restrictive.  Playing under the Sage Advice interpretation instead is totally reasonable.

Quote from RegentCorreon >>

Quote from SmiteMakesRight_3_5 >>

... How do you perform Somatic gestures with an Emblem emblazoned on a shield? You move the held Shield. How do you perform the Somatic gestures with an Emblem on a Banner? You are probably moving the held staff for the banner. How do you perform the Somatic gestures with an Emblem on a Tabard? I don't know, dancing to Footloose? It's straightforward ... except for the Tabard one.

A worn tabard does not function like an equipped emblazoned shield or a held holy banner. The rule requires that you have a hand that is holding your focus or is free to touch/access your focus or materials. When you hold the emblazoned shield you are actually holding your focus - this has been confirmed by the Sage Advice. When your focus is not held in your hand but is worn about your person (e.g. an amulet, a tabard, a crystal hanging from a belt, etc.) then you must have an empty hand to touch the focus to meet the requirement for casting. 

 I have a different interpretation, but I already shared it in comment #94.

Quote from up2ng >>

Again, the problem is with the S component requirement.  To illustrate, it might be easier to switch to a case of using a worn amulet as a focus.  Sure, we are "accessing" the M component via this amulet.  The "same hand used to perform Somatic components" rule just doesn't even apply here since we do not even need a free hand to use an amulet.  But the problem is -- while holding a mace and a Shield and wearing the amulet, you just have no way to actually perform the S component. 

It's the same problem when using an Emblem.  The emblem is borne.  The "same hand" rule doesn't apply at all since you can already use the Emblem without a free hand to access the M component.  But since you are holding a mace and a Shield and bearing the emblem, you just have no way to actually perform the S component.

This should be changed.  It's too restrictive.  Playing under the Sage Advice interpretation instead is totally reasonable.

 Nothing needs be changed for 10+ years, nor was it needed during the core rules revision 2024.

It is not the same problem for a  Sword & Board caster wearing an Amulet than one using an Emblem borne on Shield because the hand holding the Shield has access to the Emblem and can be the same hand used to perform Somatic components, while the Amulet caster's hand holding a Shield doesn't have access to it to do both.

Quote from up2ng >>

Quote from kenclary >>

Quote from up2ng>>

The exception for when you are holding your focus doesn't apply here because this particular focus is not held, it is borne.

The "exception" is never defined to be only "holding." Specifically, "The spellcaster must have a hand free to access them, but it can be the same hand used to perform Somatic components, if any." That covers all kinds of focus access. Held, worn, or borne --- each still requires a hand be dedicated.

<snip>
The trouble is with the wording.  It's clear from Sage Advice that the line "to use a Spellcasting Focus, you must hold it unless its description says otherwise" is meant to actually mean that when its description DOES say otherwise (when you do NOT have to hold the focus) then you no longer actually need the free hand for the requirement which states that "The spellcaster must have a hand free to access them, but it can be the same hand used to perform Somatic components, if any" AND the requirement which states that "A spellcaster must use at least one of their hands to perform these [Somatic] movements".  If that was really the intent, then they should have actually said that in the rules.  As written, it doesn't quite get there.

There's no special exception needed here. If you have material components, you can access them with your somatic hand. Under the right conditions (no costly/consumed material components), you can use a Component Pouch and access it with that hand. Under further conditions (a feature allowing it) you can use a focus with that hand. The focus is either held, worn, or borne, and any of those three can be done with the somatic hand, as per the more general rule.

The equivalent to a caster holding a Mace & Shield's Emblem in each hand is

A caster holding a Mace & Amulet in each hand.

Quote from kenclary >>

There's no special exception needed here. If you have material components, you can access them with your somatic hand. Under the right conditions (no costly/consumed material components), you can use a Component Pouch and access it with that hand. Under further conditions (a feature allowing it) you can use a focus with that hand. The focus is either held, worn, or borne, and any of those three can be done with the somatic hand, as per the more general rule.

You keep missing that in the scenario being discussed there is no "somatic hand".  Both hands are occupied.  One is holding a mace and the other is holding a Shield.  If you are wearing an amulet, yes, you can "access" the amulet with the Somatic hand if you want (even though you don't have to), but you currently don't have such a hand free.  You currently cannot perform the S component.  You have to start with being able to perform the S component.  Then, if you also have to meet an M component you can do that with the same hand.  It's not the other way around.  The lack of the need to physically hold the M component does not erase the requirement of having to physically perform the S component with a free hand.

Quote from Plaguescarred >>

. . . because the hand holding the Shield has access to the Emblem . . .

But where is the text from the rules that supports this claim?  Not Sage Advice, rules text.  From what I can see, the only text in the rules that addresses this subject makes it clear that an Emblem is borne, NOT held.  Why would a hand holding a shield be able to access an Emblem but not an Amulet when neither of those are held objects?

The entire point of the officially hosted Sage Advice on Beyond is to clarify rule ambiguities like this. If it’s not how you want to rule it, that’s your prerogative, but please stop trying to discredit an official “this is what we meant by this rule” source hosted in the same place as the rules.

Quote from The_Ace_of_Rogues >>

The entire point of the officially hosted Sage Advice on Beyond is to clarify rule ambiguities like this. If it’s not how you want to rule it, that’s your prerogative, but please stop trying to discredit an official “this is what we meant by this rule” source hosted in the same place as the rules.

With all due respect, what is the ambiguity here?

I have already acknowledged several times that Sage Advice is clearly telling us what was meant by this rule.  That's helpful information and it's a better way to run a game than what actually appears in the text.  How is that discrediting anything?  I agree that the Sage Advice for this rule has value.  It's a solid RAI and if we run our games according to RAI, we should just be sure that our players are aware of what we are doing.

This would be sort of like if Sage Advice came out and said that the Invisible Condition causes you to become Unseen -- and maybe they already have, I'm not sure.  That would certainly be a better way to run it than what actually appears in the text.  It's not as good as just issuing errata to fix the rule, but it's better than nothing.

Quote from up2ng >>

You keep missing that in the scenario being discussed there is no "somatic hand".  Both hands are occupied.  One is holding a mace and the other is holding a Shield.  If you are wearing an amulet, yes, you can "access" the amulet with the Somatic hand if you want (even though you don't have to), but you currently don't have such a hand free.  You currently cannot perform the S component.  You have to start with being able to perform the S component.  Then, if you also have to meet an M component you can do that with the same hand.  It's not the other way around.  The lack of the need to physically hold the M component does not erase the requirement of having to physically perform the S component with a free hand. [emphasis added]

There is no "order" to this, only identity. The "somatic hand" is merely the hand being used to perform Somatic components. It is allowed to be the same hand as the one accessing/holding/bearing/wielding the material components, component pouch, or focus. That's all there is to it.