@SagaTympana I really appreciate your efforts to convince me, honestly, but for me, the reading is just simpler.
From the description of the Holy Symbol:
A Cleric or Paladin can use a Holy Symbol as a Spellcasting Focus.
So yes, an Emblem on a shield is the Spell Casting Focus for a Cleric or Paladin.
Correct.
Then, according to the Material (M) rules:
The spellcaster must have a hand free to access them [the Materials], but it can be the same hand used to perform Somatic components, if any.
But this goes with the next addition; they are not separate rules, even though we have two paragraphs in the book:
If a spell doesn’t consume its materials and doesn’t specify a cost for them [...] a spellcaster can substitute a Spellcasting Focus if the caster has a feature that allows that substitution. [...] To use a Spellcasting Focus, you must hold it unless its description says otherwise (see chapter 6 for descriptions).
If you hold the shield, you can use it instead of the material component; they are effectively the same.
Incorrect. There is nothing in the book that suggests the shield is the focus. If you can find any actual rules text to support that idea, I'd be delighted to read it. But it's not at all problematic that the shield isn't a focus, but you're missing it because you're continuing to ignore the "unless its description says otherwise" clause. Ignoring half the section's text isn't an argument.
It's difficult for me to progress in the discussion if you don't see the Emblem plus the shield are the Spellcasting Focus, because the book is telling you exactly that:
A Spellcasting Focus is an object that certain creatures can use in place of a spell’s Material components if those materials aren’t consumed by the spell and don’t have a cost specified. Some classes allow its members to use certain types of Spellcasting Focuses. See also chapter 7 (“Casting Spells”).
I'm sorry, I don't see anything relevant in this glossary entry.
Absolutely nothing in that glossary entry says anything at all about shields. Again, engage with the text, not your imagination, and then maybe we can make some progress.
I think I'm on Saga's side here until devs provide clarification. If wearing an amulet is enough to use it as the material component, that doesn't remove the requirement to complete somatic components with a free hand. That is the same with a holy smybol emblazoned on cloth, correct? You could bear your holy symbol on a tabard over your armor, but spells with a somatic component would still require a free hand. A holy symbol not needing to be held only removes the requirement of the free hand from the material part, not the somatic part.
Bearing the symbol on the shield only changes the situation with a couple of assumptions that the devs had made in 2014 that were a bit of a stretch, but have thus far not been presented in 2024: 1) A shield becomes a holy symbol, not the emblem itself. 2) Bearing and holding a shield are the same -- you are still capable of the "forceful gesticulation or an intricate set of gestures" required of the spell.
@SagaTympana I really appreciate your efforts to convince me, honestly, but for me, the reading is just simpler.
From the description of the Holy Symbol:
A Cleric or Paladin can use a Holy Symbol as a Spellcasting Focus.
So yes, an Emblem on a shield is the Spell Casting Focus for a Cleric or Paladin.
Correct.
Then, according to the Material (M) rules:
The spellcaster must have a hand free to access them [the Materials], but it can be the same hand used to perform Somatic components, if any.
But this goes with the next addition; they are not separate rules, even though we have two paragraphs in the book:
If a spell doesn’t consume its materials and doesn’t specify a cost for them [...] a spellcaster can substitute a Spellcasting Focus if the caster has a feature that allows that substitution. [...] To use a Spellcasting Focus, you must hold it unless its description says otherwise (see chapter 6 for descriptions).
If you hold the shield, you can use it instead of the material component; they are effectively the same.
Incorrect. There is nothing in the book that suggests the shield is the focus. If you can find any actual rules text to support that idea, I'd be delighted to read it. But it's not at all problematic that the shield isn't a focus, but you're missing it because you're continuing to ignore the "unless its description says otherwise" clause. Ignoring half the section's text isn't an argument.
It's difficult for me to progress in the discussion if you don't see the Emblem plus the shield are the Spellcasting Focus, because the book is telling you exactly that:
A Spellcasting Focus is an object that certain creatures can use in place of a spell’s Material components if those materials aren’t consumed by the spell and don’t have a cost specified. Some classes allow its members to use certain types of Spellcasting Focuses. See also chapter 7 (“Casting Spells”).
I'm sorry, I don't see anything relevant in this glossary entry.
Absolutely nothing in that glossary entry says anything at all about shields. Again, engage with the text, not your imagination, and then maybe we can make some progress.
If a Holy Symbol is defined as an Emblem (on a Shield), and a Cleric or Paladin can use that Holy Symbol as a Spellcasting Focus, then the Emblem-on-a-Shield is the Spellcasting Focus.
So, the Emblem-on-a-Shield === Material component.
Crystal clear for me.
In fact, the text suggests also that (emphasis mine)
A Holy Symbol takes one of the forms in the Holy Symbol table
A Cleric or Paladin can use a Holy Symbol as a Spellcasting Focus.
The table indicates whether a Holy Symbol needs to be borne on a Shield.
Saga is completely correct on this point. The shield itself is not a spellcasting focus and is not a portion of a spellcasting focus. A cleric can use a Holy Symbol as a spellcasting focus. The text provides a choice of possible Holy Symbols that qualify: Amulet, Emblem, Reliquary. A shield is not on that list.
For each of the three choices for Holy Symbols, a description is given for what is required to actually use that item as a spellcasting focus. In other words, that is what creates the exception to the core rule that a spellcasting focus must be held. In the case of a Holy Symbol, depending on which one you choose, you are required to either hold it, or wear it, or bear it on fabric, or bear it on a shield.
Without doing this, a holy symbol is just a holy symbol. It can only be used as a spellcasting focus by holding it or by wearing it or by bearing it on fabric or by bearing it on a shield. Only holding requires a free hand. Doing any of those other activities does not require a free hand (which creates the exception).
But regardless of any of that, you always need a free hand to perform your S component gestures no matter what. Hooray for weapon juggling!
For Clerics or Paladins, the 2024 description of their Holy Symbols is now better, but the meaning is essentially the same as in 2014:
Holy Symbol. A holy symbol is a representation of a god or pantheon. It might be an amulet depicting a symbol representing a deity, the same symbol carefully engraved or inlaid as an emblem on a shield, or a tiny box holding a fragment of a sacred relic. 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.
In my opinion, the way Clerics or Paladins use a shield as a spellcasting focus remains the same. The Sage Advice Compendium already explained this, and I believe it still holds true for 2024.
Neither clerics nor paladins use a shield as a spellcasting focus
This seems to be your fundamental argument but the only way this would make sense is if the emblem is not part of the shield, the emblem is painted or bejewelled on to the shield, it is not a separate item to the shield itself at this point, you can't just remove the paint or jewels and place them on another shield without performing destructive work on the original shield... and paint probably would not transfer easily in this scenario anyway.
This isn't like two dice accessory hanging from a rear view mirror in a car, the emblem is physically made part of the shield and thus the resulting item in the case of an Emblem is the shield itself baring the emblem. The end result is that the shield itself does function as the spellcasting focus.
I would love for you to cite some rules text to support the stuff you're just asserting.
There are no rules to say this isn't the case either, an Emblem is a holy symbol that is bejeweled or painted. In this case the shield is Bejeweled and/or painted with that holy symbol.
Holy Symbol in this case is the imagery, such as for Tyr, this would be balanced scales resting on a warhammer, this however is further complicated by the meaning of the word Emblem, which is also imagery. As such Emblem is not a physical thing like an amulet, which likely explains why Emblems are considered weightless but this emblem is then borne on to a shield or fabric, in other words the shield or fabric has been adorned with with the holy symbol using paint or jewels for the purposes of channelling divine magic.
When reading the descriptions of Amulet and Reliquary, these are specific items which have weight but also note that they are bejewelled or painted holy symbols as well.
You can say it's not supported by the rules but by a reading of the English language, this is how I interpret it, you can disagree with that and are free to do so, but my reading then is decidedly different too yours. In the case, I'd have to re-iterate the point that in Sage Advice for 2014, which also had the same issue with this being poorly defined, it was stated by Jeremy Clawford the way that Emblems and Shields worked in 2014 and I see nothing in 2024 that explicitly changes that. To my reading, the item that the emblem is placed on becomes the emblem, and thus why it has to be borne by that item.
@SagaTympana I really appreciate your efforts to convince me, honestly, but for me, the reading is just simpler.
From the description of the Holy Symbol:
A Cleric or Paladin can use a Holy Symbol as a Spellcasting Focus.
So yes, an Emblem on a shield is the Spell Casting Focus for a Cleric or Paladin.
Correct.
Then, according to the Material (M) rules:
The spellcaster must have a hand free to access them [the Materials], but it can be the same hand used to perform Somatic components, if any.
But this goes with the next addition; they are not separate rules, even though we have two paragraphs in the book:
If a spell doesn’t consume its materials and doesn’t specify a cost for them [...] a spellcaster can substitute a Spellcasting Focus if the caster has a feature that allows that substitution. [...] To use a Spellcasting Focus, you must hold it unless its description says otherwise (see chapter 6 for descriptions).
If you hold the shield, you can use it instead of the material component; they are effectively the same.
Incorrect. There is nothing in the book that suggests the shield is the focus. If you can find any actual rules text to support that idea, I'd be delighted to read it. But it's not at all problematic that the shield isn't a focus, but you're missing it because you're continuing to ignore the "unless its description says otherwise" clause. Ignoring half the section's text isn't an argument.
It's difficult for me to progress in the discussion if you don't see the Emblem plus the shield are the Spellcasting Focus, because the book is telling you exactly that:
A Spellcasting Focus is an object that certain creatures can use in place of a spell’s Material components if those materials aren’t consumed by the spell and don’t have a cost specified. Some classes allow its members to use certain types of Spellcasting Focuses. See also chapter 7 (“Casting Spells”).
I'm sorry, I don't see anything relevant in this glossary entry.
Absolutely nothing in that glossary entry says anything at all about shields. Again, engage with the text, not your imagination, and then maybe we can make some progress.
If a Holy Symbol is defined as an Emblem (on a Shield), and a Cleric or Paladin can use that Holy Symbol as a Spellcasting Focus, then the Emblem-on-a-Shield is the Spellcasting Focus.
So, the Emblem-on-a-Shield === Material component.
Crystal clear for me.
Sure. At no point in any of that have you demonstrated that the shield becomes a focus. You've established that the emblem is a focus and that also the emblem is on a shield. That's never been in contention.
In fact, the text suggests also that (emphasis mine)
A Holy Symbol takes one of the forms in the Holy Symbol table
A Cleric or Paladin can use a Holy Symbol as a Spellcasting Focus.
The table indicates whether a Holy Symbol needs to be borne on a Shield.
That text in no way suggests that. That text indicates that a holy symbol, which is a focus, can be borne on a shield, which, again, has not once been in contention.
For Clerics or Paladins, the 2024 description of their Holy Symbols is now better, but the meaning is essentially the same as in 2014:
Holy Symbol. A holy symbol is a representation of a god or pantheon. It might be an amulet depicting a symbol representing a deity, the same symbol carefully engraved or inlaid as an emblem on a shield, or a tiny box holding a fragment of a sacred relic. 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.
In my opinion, the way Clerics or Paladins use a shield as a spellcasting focus remains the same. The Sage Advice Compendium already explained this, and I believe it still holds true for 2024.
Neither clerics nor paladins use a shield as a spellcasting focus
This seems to be your fundamental argument but the only way this would make sense is if the emblem is not part of the shield, the emblem is painted or bejewelled on to the shield, it is not a separate item to the shield itself at this point, you can't just remove the paint or jewels and place them on another shield without performing destructive work on the original shield... and paint probably would not transfer easily in this scenario anyway.
This isn't like two dice accessory hanging from a rear view mirror in a car, the emblem is physically made part of the shield and thus the resulting item in the case of an Emblem is the shield itself baring the emblem. The end result is that the shield itself does function as the spellcasting focus.
I would love for you to cite some rules text to support the stuff you're just asserting.
There are no rules to say this isn't the case either, an Emblem is a holy symbol that is bejeweled or painted. In this case the shield is Bejeweled and/or painted with that holy symbol.
No, the symbol is bejeweled or painted. If you bedazzle your shield in the form of your deity's symbol, then the physical essence of the symbol is the jewels. If you paint it on your shield, it's the paint. There's no text that says the shield becomes a focus, and since the shield becoming a focus is in no way required for anything else to work properly, there's no reason to think it should.
Holy Symbol in this case is the imagery, such as for Tyr, this would be balanced scales resting on a warhammer, this however is further complicated by the meaning of the word Emblem, which is also imagery. As such Emblem is not a physical thing like an amulet, which likely explains why Emblems are considered weightless but this emblem is then borne on to a shield or fabric, in other words the shield or fabric has been adorned with with the holy symbol using paint or jewels for the purposes of channelling divine magic.
When reading the descriptions of Amulet and Reliquary, these are specific items which have weight but also note that they are bejewelled or painted holy symbols as well.
I think this is all fair and reasonable. And none of it does anything to establish that the shield itself becomes a holy symbol or a spellcasting focus. The symbol, which is the focus, is borne on the shield.
You can say it's not supported by the rules but by a reading of the English language, this is how I interpret it, you can disagree with that and are free to do so, but my reading then is decidedly different too yours.
There is no sensible straightforward reading of the English language that would lead to "x being borne on y" meaning that "y becomes x." If I bear a basket in my arms, my arms do not become a basket. If I bear a NASA logo on my shirt, my shirt does not become a NASA logo. That is not how English works.
In the case, I'd have to re-iterate the point that in Sage Advice for 2014, which also had the same issue with this being poorly defined, it was stated by Jeremy Clawford the way that Emblems and Shields worked in 2014 and I see nothing in 2024 that explicitly changes that. To my reading, the item that the emblem is placed on becomes the emblem, and thus why it has to be borne by that item.
Again... the Sage Advice has no bearing on this conversation. The rules text changed. That text just doesn't lead to the conclusion you want it to.
I find it amusing that everyone is debating how they reach their conclusions, but ultimately reach the same conclusion. But you all forgot to fully answer the OP's question.
A cleric or paladin can cast VSM spells, VM spells, SM spells, V spells, and M spells while holding a weapon and shield with an emblem holy symbol, assuming the M is not consumed and has no GP value.
A cleric or paladin holding a weapon and shield/emblem can't cast VS or S spells unless they take the Warcaster feat. As someone above noted, this isn't as big a deal under the new 2024 weapon swapping rules, but does become important for spells with a casting time of a reaction like Shield (VS) and Xanathar's Absorb Elements (S). You either keep your weapon in your hand to threaten opportunity attacks, or you put it away during your turn to enable you to cast those reaction spells outside of your turn.
I find it amusing that everyone is debating how they reach their conclusions, but ultimately reach the same conclusion. But you all forgot to fully answer the OP's question.
A cleric or paladin can cast VSM spells, VM spells, SM spells, V spells, and M spells while holding a weapon and shield with an emblem holy symbol, assuming the M is not consumed and has no GP value.
I answered the question in the first post, and your answer is incorrect. A cleric or paladin using both a shield and a weapon can't cast any spells with a somatic component (assuming they only have two arms). They need a free hand for that. Of course there are some more specific things that could create exceptions like War Caster or a Ruby of the War Mage.
No, the symbol is bejeweled or painted. If you bedazzle your shield in the form of your deity's symbol, then the physical essence of the symbol is the jewels. If you paint it on your shield, it's the paint. There's no text that says the shield becomes a focus, and since the shield becoming a focus is in no way required for anything else to work properly, there's no reason to think it should.
This straight up makes no sense with regards to the Amulet or the Reliquary, neither of these state that you have to touch the part that is bejeweled or Painted, so this is your own interpretation. As I read it, the emblem is something that is bejeweled or painted like the Amulet or the Reliquary, as such I see the item being painted or bejeweled as the emblem, just like the Amulet is painted or bejeweled and the Reliquary is painted or bejeweled and nothing states in any of these that the jewels or paint need to be directly touched.
Holy Symbol in this case is the imagery, such as for Tyr, this would be balanced scales resting on a warhammer, this however is further complicated by the meaning of the word Emblem, which is also imagery. As such Emblem is not a physical thing like an amulet, which likely explains why Emblems are considered weightless but this emblem is then borne on to a shield or fabric, in other words the shield or fabric has been adorned with with the holy symbol using paint or jewels for the purposes of channelling divine magic.
When reading the descriptions of Amulet and Reliquary, these are specific items which have weight but also note that they are bejewelled or painted holy symbols as well.
I think this is all fair and reasonable. And none of it does anything to establish that the shield itself becomes a holy symbol or a spellcasting focus. The symbol, which is the focus, is borne on the shield.
The way I read it, the emblem is that of the holy symbol and that emblem is made on to the shield, the shield is bearing the holy symbol, like the amulet is bearing the holy symbol and like the reliquary is bearing the holy symbol. We can continue to disagree on this but just making my reading of it clear.
You can say it's not supported by the rules but by a reading of the English language, this is how I interpret it, you can disagree with that and are free to do so, but my reading then is decidedly different too yours.
There is no sensible straightforward reading of the English language that would lead to "x being borne on y" meaning that "y becomes x." If I bear a basket in my arms, my arms do not become a basket. If I bear a NASA logo on my shirt, my shirt does not become a NASA logo. That is not how English works.
A basket is a physical object, an emblem is not, If you wore a coat of arms bearing the symbol of House Flagon over your armor, it would be considered a coat of arms of house flagon, so fundamentally I disagree with you.
In the case, I'd have to re-iterate the point that in Sage Advice for 2014, which also had the same issue with this being poorly defined, it was stated by Jeremy Clawford the way that Emblems and Shields worked in 2014 and I see nothing in 2024 that explicitly changes that. To my reading, the item that the emblem is placed on becomes the emblem, and thus why it has to be borne by that item.
Again... the Sage Advice has no bearing on this conversation. The rules text changed. That text just doesn't lead to the conclusion you want it to.
I do not see any fundamental change to the rules, any fluff text changes I do not see have made anything different here between 2014 and 2024.
2014
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.
versus 2024
The spellcaster must have a hand free to access them, but it can be the same hand used to perform Somatic components, if any.
Where in this is there any meaningful difference? Or are you pointing to a different part of 2024 Material component being different to 2014? There is no meaningful rule change that I can see.
No, the symbol is bejeweled or painted. If you bedazzle your shield in the form of your deity's symbol, then the physical essence of the symbol is the jewels. If you paint it on your shield, it's the paint. There's no text that says the shield becomes a focus, and since the shield becoming a focus is in no way required for anything else to work properly, there's no reason to think it should.
This straight up makes no sense with regards to the Amulet or the Reliquary, neither of these state that you have to touch the part that is bejeweled or Painted, so this is your own interpretation. As I read it, the emblem is something that is bejeweled or painted like the Amulet or the Reliquary, as such I see the item being painted or bejeweled as the emblem, just like the Amulet is painted or bejeweled and the Reliquary is painted or bejeweled and nothing states in any of these that the jewels or paint need to be directly touched.
I'm sorry, what? Why are you talking about touching things? I'm not sure what you think my "interpretation" here is, so you may need to explain further. If you imagine the emblem as being an object that is painted or bejeweled, then I'm happy because that's my starting position. But you very clearly said you weren't imaging the emblem as a physical object, so I was trying to meet you on your terms. Again, I didn't say anything about touching. The text is clear that you do not have to touch an emblem. But if you want to talk about amulets or reliquaries, then yes, the reliquary must be held in your hand, which would require that you touch it, and you have the option of holding an amulet in your hand, though you could wear it instead. Again, not sure why you're bringing that up, but if you want to clarify, I'm all ears.
Holy Symbol in this case is the imagery, such as for Tyr, this would be balanced scales resting on a warhammer, this however is further complicated by the meaning of the word Emblem, which is also imagery. As such Emblem is not a physical thing like an amulet, which likely explains why Emblems are considered weightless but this emblem is then borne on to a shield or fabric, in other words the shield or fabric has been adorned with with the holy symbol using paint or jewels for the purposes of channelling divine magic.
When reading the descriptions of Amulet and Reliquary, these are specific items which have weight but also note that they are bejewelled or painted holy symbols as well.
I think this is all fair and reasonable. And none of it does anything to establish that the shield itself becomes a holy symbol or a spellcasting focus. The symbol, which is the focus, is borne on the shield.
The way I read it, the emblem is that of the holy symbol and that emblem is made on to the shield, the shield is bearing the holy symbol, like the amulet is bearing the holy symbol and like the reliquary is bearing the holy symbol. We can continue to disagree on this but just making my reading of it clear.
And again, there is no text to support that reading. Amulets and reliquaries do not bear holy symbols. Amulets and reliquaries are holy symbols, on even ground with emblems. This is obvious, because they're all listed as such in the table. You're welcome to take the position that the text doesn't matter and you can just make up whatever you want, but I'm not gonna take that seriously.
You can say it's not supported by the rules but by a reading of the English language, this is how I interpret it, you can disagree with that and are free to do so, but my reading then is decidedly different too yours.
There is no sensible straightforward reading of the English language that would lead to "x being borne on y" meaning that "y becomes x." If I bear a basket in my arms, my arms do not become a basket. If I bear a NASA logo on my shirt, my shirt does not become a NASA logo. That is not how English works.
A basket is a physical object, an emblem is not,
But just above, you said "the emblem is something that is bejeweled or painted like the Amulet or the Reliquary." You can't bejewel or paint something that isn't a physical object. Can you clarify your position, because currently you're just contradicting yourself, which makes it difficult to engage with.
If you wore a coat of arms bearing the symbol of House Flagon over your armor, it would be considered a coat of arms of house flagon, so fundamentally I disagree with you.
If you know of some niche heraldry meaning of coat of arms that makes what you're saying true in that context, then I'd be genuinely thrilled to learn, because I love learning new things. But as a matter of common English, no, if you're wearing a coat of arms bearing the symbol of House Flagon over your armor, no one (colloquial generalization) would consider the armor itself to be a coat of arms.
In the case, I'd have to re-iterate the point that in Sage Advice for 2014, which also had the same issue with this being poorly defined, it was stated by Jeremy Clawford the way that Emblems and Shields worked in 2014 and I see nothing in 2024 that explicitly changes that. To my reading, the item that the emblem is placed on becomes the emblem, and thus why it has to be borne by that item.
Again... the Sage Advice has no bearing on this conversation. The rules text changed. That text just doesn't lead to the conclusion you want it to.
I do not see any fundamental change to the rules, any fluff text changes I do not see have made anything different here between 2014 and 2024.
2014
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.
versus 2024
The spellcaster must have a hand free to access them, but it can be the same hand used to perform Somatic components, if any.
Where in this is there any meaningful difference? Or are you pointing to a different part of 2024 Material component being different to 2014? There is no meaningful rule change that I can see.
I've pointed it out so many times that I feel like we must be looking at different books and you must be not reading my posts:
[T]o use a Spellcasting Focus, you must hold it unless its description says otherwise.
The description for an Emblem holy symbol says it's borne on a shield instead of being held. Since it explicitly doesn't need to be held, there's no reason to invent text that doesn't exist to turn a shield into a focus so you can hold it.
No, the symbol is bejeweled or painted. If you bedazzle your shield in the form of your deity's symbol, then the physical essence of the symbol is the jewels. If you paint it on your shield, it's the paint. There's no text that says the shield becomes a focus, and since the shield becoming a focus is in no way required for anything else to work properly, there's no reason to think it should.
This straight up makes no sense with regards to the Amulet or the Reliquary, neither of these state that you have to touch the part that is bejeweled or Painted, so this is your own interpretation. As I read it, the emblem is something that is bejeweled or painted like the Amulet or the Reliquary, as such I see the item being painted or bejeweled as the emblem, just like the Amulet is painted or bejeweled and the Reliquary is painted or bejeweled and nothing states in any of these that the jewels or paint need to be directly touched.
I'm sorry, what? Why are you talking about touching things? I'm not sure what you think my "interpretation" here is, so you may need to explain further. If you imagine the emblem as being an object that is painted or bejeweled, then I'm happy because that's my starting position. But you very clearly said you weren't imaging the emblem as a physical object, so I was trying to meet you on your terms. Again, I didn't say anything about touching. The text is clear that you do not have to touch an emblem. But if you want to talk about amulets or reliquaries, then yes, the reliquary must be held in your hand, which would require that you touch it, and you have the option of holding an amulet in your hand, though you could wear it instead. Again, not sure why you're bringing that up, but if you want to clarify, I'm all ears.
Your argument is that the Emblem, not the shield is the spellcasting focus, thus you have to touch the emblem which is merely a depiction on the shield which is made with paint or jewels. If this isn't your argument then you're gunna have to explain how you think this works, since if you don't think the shield if the spellcasting focus and doesn't function as one, your only other argument has to be that you have to be using the emblem. After all, by the links you supplied, the spellcasting focus has to be held
and to use a Spellcasting Focus, you must hold it unless its description says otherwise (see chapter 6 for descriptions).
Nothing in the Emblem description says otherwise, there is also no difference to the 2014 description in terms of function, except for the 2014 version was a common description used by Amulet, Reliquary and Emblem. The only difference here really is a change from bears to borne on, which is a change of tense.
And again, there is no text to support that reading. Amulets and reliquaries do not bear holy symbols. Amulets and reliquaries are holy symbols, on even ground with emblems. This is obvious, because they're all listed as such in the table. You're welcome to take the position that the text doesn't matter and you can just make up whatever you want, but I'm not gonna take that seriously.
And again, there is no text that refutes that reading either. Amulets and Reliquaries BOTH are Bejeweled or Painted physical objects. There is madness in arguing that decorating an Amulet or a Reliquary makes them a holy symbol but that decorating a Shield or Tabard doesn't. And before you argue that, that isn't the case:
A Holy Symbol takes one of the forms in the Holy Symbol table and is bejeweled or painted to channel divine magic
It is the act of decorating the object with Jewels or Paint that makes them a holy symbol.
But just above, you said "the emblem is something that is bejeweled or painted like the Amulet or the Reliquary." You can't bejewel or paint something that isn't a physical object. Can you clarify your position, because currently you're just contradicting yourself, which makes it difficult to engage with.
The position is easy, the Emblem is the depiction placed on to the Shield or Tabard and thus is part of the Shield or Tabard, it makes no sense in any other context, an Emblem is imagery and that imagery appears on the Amulet, on the Reliquary, on the Shield or on the Tabard. The reason the Shield is not listed is because the Emblem can go on any type of Shield or Tabard, be that an Animated Shield, a +1 Shield, it's easier to simply list the emblem that is placed on to them either in the form of painting them or bejeweling them.
If you know of some niche heraldry meaning of coat of arms that makes what you're saying true in that context, then I'd be genuinely thrilled to learn, because I love learning new things. But as a matter of common English, no, if you're wearing a coat of arms bearing the symbol of House Flagon over your armor, no one (colloquial generalization) would consider the armor itself to be a coat of arms.
This is straight up a strawman and doesn't address the point at all, seriously. Everybody would still consider it to be a coat of arms of house flagon, again here it is about the imagery that the coat of arms bear which is literally identical to what is going on with the shield and the emblem. It is not about declaring the coat of arms as part of the armor and nobody has claimed that at any point.
I've pointed it out so many times that I feel like we must be looking at different books and you must be not reading my posts:
[T]o use a Spellcasting Focus, you must hold it unless its description says otherwise.
The description for an Emblem holy symbol says it's borne on a shield instead of being held. Since it explicitly doesn't need to be held, there's no reason to invent text that doesn't exist to turn a shield into a focus so you can hold it.
The description does not say otherwise, nor does the amulet state you can cast with it without touching it, the amulet is stating that the focus can be held or worn, not that it functions without holding it. Similarly the Emblem focus is saying it's valid for shields and tabards that bear it, but nothing in the description says you do not need to be holding that Shield or Tabard. You have to touch them with a free hand, in the case of the Shield, this is simple since you are already holding it, in the case of the Tabard or Amulet, you can still be wearing them when you hold them and only need to do so with one hand.
I'm only going to point out the first problem that I see, R3sistance. These posts are getting rather long and impenetrable.
You keep mentioning touching an emblem. No. The table says emblems can be borne on fabric or shields. Bearing them is enough to allow them to apply as the material component. No touching required. The is because the relevant rule is "and to use a Spellcasting Focus, you must hold it unless its description says otherwise" and the actual description of an emblem on the table SAYS OTHERWISE. "Emblem (borne on fabric or a Shield)". A cloth banner bearing your emblem need not be touched to count as the material component. The shield must be the same.
So, you don't need to touch the emblem. But then what you do need is a hand for somatic components.
I'm only going to point out the first problem that I see, R3sistance. These posts are getting rather long and impenetrable.
You keep mentioning touching an emblem. No. The table says emblems can be borne on fabric or shields. Bearing them is enough to allow them to apply as the material component. No touching required. The is because the relevant rule is "and to use a Spellcasting Focus, you must hold it unless its description says otherwise" and the actual description of an emblem on the table SAYS OTHERWISE. "Emblem (borne on fabric or a Shield)". A cloth banner bearing your emblem need not be touched to count as the material component. The shield must be the same.
So, you don't need to touch the emblem. But then what you do need is a hand for somatic components.
This is the simple part of it and I disagree, the table says where the holy symbol must be to be valid but nowhere in the description does it remove the one hand requirement, else wise wearing a shield on your back that bears an emblem would be a functional spellcasting focus, and I think we can all agree that is not the case. Unless you really want to argue that a shield that is worn on the back is functional as a spellcasting focus while still on the back?
If that isn't being argued then clearly, it is the shield that is being used as the spellcasting focus, not the emblem (which is the depiction that turns the shield into a holy symbol) and that means the hand holding the shield fulfills the Somantic component on spells where the shield fulfils the material component part.
And I agree, focusing solely on this point would be better than dragging out every other nitpick.
So, you read that, say, a cleric using holy symbol emblazoned on a standard has to climb up the pole to hold the fabric to use that as a material component? You disagree that wearing an amulet is enough, you have to also hold it? Yes, then, we do fundamentally disagree.
I would argue that an emblem on fabric on your back is a functional holy symbol, according to the table. Why would an emblem on a shield be different again?
So, you read that, say, a cleric using holy symbol emblazoned on a standard has to climb up the pole to hold the fabric to use that as a material component?
Does this fit under Amulet, Reliquary, Tabard bearing an Emblem or Shield bearing a Emblem? I don't see that it does, so even with this, that wouldn't be valid from the table to begin with.
You disagree that wearing an amulet is enough, you have to also hold it? Yes, then, we do fundamentally disagree.
The way I see it, it's valid to wear the amulet but you would still need a free hand to use it as a spellcasting focus, it does not remove the requirement and nothing in the description states that it removes the requirement. The Amulet for example say that it must be worn of held, the way that I read this, is that if you are not wearing it then you must hold it in hand, which means that you can not just have it in your pocket and use a free hand to access it, it must be held in hand specifically to function as a spellcasting focus. If you are wearing it then you can use a free hand to access it without having to essentially equip it in hand.
I am quiet happy to agree to disagree on this point, I am stating how I read it.
EDIT: the same would go for your second post, you still need a free hand to interact with the holy symbol. The fabric on your back is not enough, unless it's part of a tabard and if it is a tabard, you have access to that holy symbol (the tabard itself) on your front but I'd say it's against the spirit of what is meant by it, it is not against RAW to do it in this fashion. If you take this further for a shield, you don't even need to have the shield on your person, it just has to be a shield with the holy symbol to function as a spellcasting focus, to the point that does it not even need the shield to be on hand, it doesn't even need to be in the same room. Clearly it gets to a point of ridiculousness and obviously not RAI. The same also applies to the Tabard, I'd say having a tabard folded up in your pocket, isn't a valid spellcasting focus.
You listed some options there that are not exhaustive; you should doublecheck the table/emblem description. "Emblems must be borne on fabric or a Shield." That is all. No requirement of them to be a tabard. A standard would be fabric and fit for an option to place an emblem.
You listed some options there that are not exhaustive; you should doublecheck the table/emblem description. "Emblems must be borne on fabric or a Shield." That is all. No requirement of them to be a tabard. A standard would be fabric and fit for an option to place an emblem.
Right, you're right, I misread this bit:
fabric (such as a tabard or banner)
My apologies for that, that is my mistake, however I would still say yes, you need to physically be able to touch said fabric, you can't have it on the end of a pole, out of reach. Going down this rabbit hole literally leads to the question, does a shield/flag/banner on the other side of a castle functionally constitute a spellcasting focus, because it only needs for that shield or fabric to bear the image (in a painted or bejeweled fashion) and nothing says it even needs to be something you're equipping, holding or else wise have in your inventory.
But as I've already stated, nothing in the description removes the free hand requirement, the points you are reading instead refer to when it is valid as a holy symbol. An Amulet in the pocket is not valid as a holy symbol while it remains in pocket, but a crystal is a valid arcane focus in the pocket of a sorcerer to be used as a spellcasting focus.
Absolutely nothing in that glossary entry says anything at all about shields. Again, engage with the text, not your imagination, and then maybe we can make some progress.
I think I'm on Saga's side here until devs provide clarification. If wearing an amulet is enough to use it as the material component, that doesn't remove the requirement to complete somatic components with a free hand. That is the same with a holy smybol emblazoned on cloth, correct? You could bear your holy symbol on a tabard over your armor, but spells with a somatic component would still require a free hand. A holy symbol not needing to be held only removes the requirement of the free hand from the material part, not the somatic part.
Bearing the symbol on the shield only changes the situation with a couple of assumptions that the devs had made in 2014 that were a bit of a stretch, but have thus far not been presented in 2024: 1) A shield becomes a holy symbol, not the emblem itself. 2) Bearing and holding a shield are the same -- you are still capable of the "forceful gesticulation or an intricate set of gestures" required of the spell.
If a Holy Symbol is defined as an Emblem (on a Shield), and a Cleric or Paladin can use that Holy Symbol as a Spellcasting Focus, then the Emblem-on-a-Shield is the Spellcasting Focus.
So, the Emblem-on-a-Shield === Material component.
Crystal clear for me.
In fact, the text suggests also that (emphasis mine)
Saga is completely correct on this point. The shield itself is not a spellcasting focus and is not a portion of a spellcasting focus. A cleric can use a Holy Symbol as a spellcasting focus. The text provides a choice of possible Holy Symbols that qualify: Amulet, Emblem, Reliquary. A shield is not on that list.
For each of the three choices for Holy Symbols, a description is given for what is required to actually use that item as a spellcasting focus. In other words, that is what creates the exception to the core rule that a spellcasting focus must be held. In the case of a Holy Symbol, depending on which one you choose, you are required to either hold it, or wear it, or bear it on fabric, or bear it on a shield.
Without doing this, a holy symbol is just a holy symbol. It can only be used as a spellcasting focus by holding it or by wearing it or by bearing it on fabric or by bearing it on a shield. Only holding requires a free hand. Doing any of those other activities does not require a free hand (which creates the exception).
But regardless of any of that, you always need a free hand to perform your S component gestures no matter what. Hooray for weapon juggling!
There are no rules to say this isn't the case either, an Emblem is a holy symbol that is bejeweled or painted. In this case the shield is Bejeweled and/or painted with that holy symbol.
Holy Symbol in this case is the imagery, such as for Tyr, this would be balanced scales resting on a warhammer, this however is further complicated by the meaning of the word Emblem, which is also imagery. As such Emblem is not a physical thing like an amulet, which likely explains why Emblems are considered weightless but this emblem is then borne on to a shield or fabric, in other words the shield or fabric has been adorned with with the holy symbol using paint or jewels for the purposes of channelling divine magic.
When reading the descriptions of Amulet and Reliquary, these are specific items which have weight but also note that they are bejewelled or painted holy symbols as well.
You can say it's not supported by the rules but by a reading of the English language, this is how I interpret it, you can disagree with that and are free to do so, but my reading then is decidedly different too yours. In the case, I'd have to re-iterate the point that in Sage Advice for 2014, which also had the same issue with this being poorly defined, it was stated by Jeremy Clawford the way that Emblems and Shields worked in 2014 and I see nothing in 2024 that explicitly changes that. To my reading, the item that the emblem is placed on becomes the emblem, and thus why it has to be borne by that item.
Sure. At no point in any of that have you demonstrated that the shield becomes a focus. You've established that the emblem is a focus and that also the emblem is on a shield. That's never been in contention.
That text in no way suggests that. That text indicates that a holy symbol, which is a focus, can be borne on a shield, which, again, has not once been in contention.
@SagaTympana Unfortunately, I can't find more arguments to convince you. Maybe an updated Sage Advice Compendium could clear all this up.
No, the symbol is bejeweled or painted. If you bedazzle your shield in the form of your deity's symbol, then the physical essence of the symbol is the jewels. If you paint it on your shield, it's the paint. There's no text that says the shield becomes a focus, and since the shield becoming a focus is in no way required for anything else to work properly, there's no reason to think it should.
I think this is all fair and reasonable. And none of it does anything to establish that the shield itself becomes a holy symbol or a spellcasting focus. The symbol, which is the focus, is borne on the shield.
There is no sensible straightforward reading of the English language that would lead to "x being borne on y" meaning that "y becomes x." If I bear a basket in my arms, my arms do not become a basket. If I bear a NASA logo on my shirt, my shirt does not become a NASA logo. That is not how English works.
Again... the Sage Advice has no bearing on this conversation. The rules text changed. That text just doesn't lead to the conclusion you want it to.
I find it amusing that everyone is debating how they reach their conclusions, but ultimately reach the same conclusion. But you all forgot to fully answer the OP's question.
A cleric or paladin can cast VSM spells, VM spells, SM spells, V spells, and M spells while holding a weapon and shield with an emblem holy symbol, assuming the M is not consumed and has no GP value.
A cleric or paladin holding a weapon and shield/emblem can't cast VS or S spells unless they take the Warcaster feat. As someone above noted, this isn't as big a deal under the new 2024 weapon swapping rules, but does become important for spells with a casting time of a reaction like Shield (VS) and Xanathar's Absorb Elements (S). You either keep your weapon in your hand to threaten opportunity attacks, or you put it away during your turn to enable you to cast those reaction spells outside of your turn.
I answered the question in the first post, and your answer is incorrect. A cleric or paladin using both a shield and a weapon can't cast any spells with a somatic component (assuming they only have two arms). They need a free hand for that. Of course there are some more specific things that could create exceptions like War Caster or a Ruby of the War Mage.
This straight up makes no sense with regards to the Amulet or the Reliquary, neither of these state that you have to touch the part that is bejeweled or Painted, so this is your own interpretation. As I read it, the emblem is something that is bejeweled or painted like the Amulet or the Reliquary, as such I see the item being painted or bejeweled as the emblem, just like the Amulet is painted or bejeweled and the Reliquary is painted or bejeweled and nothing states in any of these that the jewels or paint need to be directly touched.
The way I read it, the emblem is that of the holy symbol and that emblem is made on to the shield, the shield is bearing the holy symbol, like the amulet is bearing the holy symbol and like the reliquary is bearing the holy symbol. We can continue to disagree on this but just making my reading of it clear.
A basket is a physical object, an emblem is not, If you wore a coat of arms bearing the symbol of House Flagon over your armor, it would be considered a coat of arms of house flagon, so fundamentally I disagree with you.
I do not see any fundamental change to the rules, any fluff text changes I do not see have made anything different here between 2014 and 2024.
2014
versus 2024
Where in this is there any meaningful difference? Or are you pointing to a different part of 2024 Material component being different to 2014? There is no meaningful rule change that I can see.
I'm sorry, what? Why are you talking about touching things? I'm not sure what you think my "interpretation" here is, so you may need to explain further. If you imagine the emblem as being an object that is painted or bejeweled, then I'm happy because that's my starting position. But you very clearly said you weren't imaging the emblem as a physical object, so I was trying to meet you on your terms. Again, I didn't say anything about touching. The text is clear that you do not have to touch an emblem. But if you want to talk about amulets or reliquaries, then yes, the reliquary must be held in your hand, which would require that you touch it, and you have the option of holding an amulet in your hand, though you could wear it instead. Again, not sure why you're bringing that up, but if you want to clarify, I'm all ears.
And again, there is no text to support that reading. Amulets and reliquaries do not bear holy symbols. Amulets and reliquaries are holy symbols, on even ground with emblems. This is obvious, because they're all listed as such in the table. You're welcome to take the position that the text doesn't matter and you can just make up whatever you want, but I'm not gonna take that seriously.
But just above, you said "the emblem is something that is bejeweled or painted like the Amulet or the Reliquary." You can't bejewel or paint something that isn't a physical object. Can you clarify your position, because currently you're just contradicting yourself, which makes it difficult to engage with.
If you know of some niche heraldry meaning of coat of arms that makes what you're saying true in that context, then I'd be genuinely thrilled to learn, because I love learning new things. But as a matter of common English, no, if you're wearing a coat of arms bearing the symbol of House Flagon over your armor, no one (colloquial generalization) would consider the armor itself to be a coat of arms.
I've pointed it out so many times that I feel like we must be looking at different books and you must be not reading my posts:
The description for an Emblem holy symbol says it's borne on a shield instead of being held. Since it explicitly doesn't need to be held, there's no reason to invent text that doesn't exist to turn a shield into a focus so you can hold it.
Your argument is that the Emblem, not the shield is the spellcasting focus, thus you have to touch the emblem which is merely a depiction on the shield which is made with paint or jewels. If this isn't your argument then you're gunna have to explain how you think this works, since if you don't think the shield if the spellcasting focus and doesn't function as one, your only other argument has to be that you have to be using the emblem. After all, by the links you supplied, the spellcasting focus has to be held
Nothing in the Emblem description says otherwise, there is also no difference to the 2014 description in terms of function, except for the 2014 version was a common description used by Amulet, Reliquary and Emblem. The only difference here really is a change from bears to borne on, which is a change of tense.
And again, there is no text that refutes that reading either. Amulets and Reliquaries BOTH are Bejeweled or Painted physical objects. There is madness in arguing that decorating an Amulet or a Reliquary makes them a holy symbol but that decorating a Shield or Tabard doesn't. And before you argue that, that isn't the case:
It is the act of decorating the object with Jewels or Paint that makes them a holy symbol.
The position is easy, the Emblem is the depiction placed on to the Shield or Tabard and thus is part of the Shield or Tabard, it makes no sense in any other context, an Emblem is imagery and that imagery appears on the Amulet, on the Reliquary, on the Shield or on the Tabard. The reason the Shield is not listed is because the Emblem can go on any type of Shield or Tabard, be that an Animated Shield, a +1 Shield, it's easier to simply list the emblem that is placed on to them either in the form of painting them or bejeweling them.
This is straight up a strawman and doesn't address the point at all, seriously. Everybody would still consider it to be a coat of arms of house flagon, again here it is about the imagery that the coat of arms bear which is literally identical to what is going on with the shield and the emblem. It is not about declaring the coat of arms as part of the armor and nobody has claimed that at any point.
The description does not say otherwise, nor does the amulet state you can cast with it without touching it, the amulet is stating that the focus can be held or worn, not that it functions without holding it. Similarly the Emblem focus is saying it's valid for shields and tabards that bear it, but nothing in the description says you do not need to be holding that Shield or Tabard. You have to touch them with a free hand, in the case of the Shield, this is simple since you are already holding it, in the case of the Tabard or Amulet, you can still be wearing them when you hold them and only need to do so with one hand.
I'm only going to point out the first problem that I see, R3sistance. These posts are getting rather long and impenetrable.
You keep mentioning touching an emblem. No. The table says emblems can be borne on fabric or shields. Bearing them is enough to allow them to apply as the material component. No touching required. The is because the relevant rule is "and to use a Spellcasting Focus, you must hold it unless its description says otherwise" and the actual description of an emblem on the table SAYS OTHERWISE. "Emblem (borne on fabric or a Shield)". A cloth banner bearing your emblem need not be touched to count as the material component. The shield must be the same.
So, you don't need to touch the emblem. But then what you do need is a hand for somatic components.
This is the simple part of it and I disagree, the table says where the holy symbol must be to be valid but nowhere in the description does it remove the one hand requirement, else wise wearing a shield on your back that bears an emblem would be a functional spellcasting focus, and I think we can all agree that is not the case. Unless you really want to argue that a shield that is worn on the back is functional as a spellcasting focus while still on the back?
If that isn't being argued then clearly, it is the shield that is being used as the spellcasting focus, not the emblem (which is the depiction that turns the shield into a holy symbol) and that means the hand holding the shield fulfills the Somantic component on spells where the shield fulfils the material component part.
And I agree, focusing solely on this point would be better than dragging out every other nitpick.
So, you read that, say, a cleric using holy symbol emblazoned on a standard has to climb up the pole to hold the fabric to use that as a material component? You disagree that wearing an amulet is enough, you have to also hold it? Yes, then, we do fundamentally disagree.
I would argue that an emblem on fabric on your back is a functional holy symbol, according to the table. Why would an emblem on a shield be different again?
Does this fit under Amulet, Reliquary, Tabard bearing an Emblem or Shield bearing a Emblem? I don't see that it does, so even with this, that wouldn't be valid from the table to begin with.
The way I see it, it's valid to wear the amulet but you would still need a free hand to use it as a spellcasting focus, it does not remove the requirement and nothing in the description states that it removes the requirement. The Amulet for example say that it must be worn of held, the way that I read this, is that if you are not wearing it then you must hold it in hand, which means that you can not just have it in your pocket and use a free hand to access it, it must be held in hand specifically to function as a spellcasting focus. If you are wearing it then you can use a free hand to access it without having to essentially equip it in hand.
I am quiet happy to agree to disagree on this point, I am stating how I read it.
EDIT: the same would go for your second post, you still need a free hand to interact with the holy symbol. The fabric on your back is not enough, unless it's part of a tabard and if it is a tabard, you have access to that holy symbol (the tabard itself) on your front but I'd say it's against the spirit of what is meant by it, it is not against RAW to do it in this fashion. If you take this further for a shield, you don't even need to have the shield on your person, it just has to be a shield with the holy symbol to function as a spellcasting focus, to the point that does it not even need the shield to be on hand, it doesn't even need to be in the same room. Clearly it gets to a point of ridiculousness and obviously not RAI. The same also applies to the Tabard, I'd say having a tabard folded up in your pocket, isn't a valid spellcasting focus.
You listed some options there that are not exhaustive; you should doublecheck the table/emblem description. "Emblems must be borne on fabric or a Shield." That is all. No requirement of them to be a tabard. A standard would be fabric and fit for an option to place an emblem.
Right, you're right, I misread this bit:
My apologies for that, that is my mistake, however I would still say yes, you need to physically be able to touch said fabric, you can't have it on the end of a pole, out of reach. Going down this rabbit hole literally leads to the question, does a shield/flag/banner on the other side of a castle functionally constitute a spellcasting focus, because it only needs for that shield or fabric to bear the image (in a painted or bejeweled fashion) and nothing says it even needs to be something you're equipping, holding or else wise have in your inventory.
But as I've already stated, nothing in the description removes the free hand requirement, the points you are reading instead refer to when it is valid as a holy symbol. An Amulet in the pocket is not valid as a holy symbol while it remains in pocket, but a crystal is a valid arcane focus in the pocket of a sorcerer to be used as a spellcasting focus.