There is no text that says that the hand that holds a focus meets the criteria for accessing the component. Unless, did I miss that somewhere? Or unless you consider that holding the focus is the exception to that requirement: that using the thing the way the game tells you to use it is the way the game expects you to use it.
If the requirement to access components is different from the requirement to hold a focus, then they really must be different requirements. So both are in place. You can't have your cake and eat it too. You can't say they overlap sometimes and are different requirements other times.
You didn't miss it, it is inferred and I will admit that, but it makes no sense that a hand holding something is incapable of freely interacting with said item already.
I mean, i certainly did offer a different, simpler reading: that the way you use a focus replaces the way you use components: you only need to meet the requirement of the focus — hold it unless otherwise stated (and an emblem states that bearing it is enough).
That would make sense, under the 2014 form of material component but there is a lot of things that would make sense and 2024 is full of a lot of things that don't...
Do these distinctions actually matter in practice though?
It seems clear the intention is that a cleric & paladin can cast their spells unimpeded while holding a weapon + a shield, or while holding a weapon + free hand, or while holding a two-handed weapon - except for those spells with material components that cost gold. Though TBH, I have never seen anyone actually make this distinction in-game and demand e.g. that a cleric specifies that they throw down their weapon in order to cast Summon Celestial or Revivify. Has anyone actually played with a DM that requires you to do this?
But that being disarmed & undressed such as went sent to prison / captured, is a significant barrier to cleric & paladin spellcasting.
I'm beginning to think RAW means rules read as absurdly as possible.
RAM (Rules as Malice).
It's like some people infer that anything in SAC must be wrong and RAW always dictates the opposite of clarification. (Because otherwise why would they feel the need to clarify?)
While reading the 2024 SAC, I saw this and it reminded me of this conversation. Just sharing in case it helps the OP, future readers, or folks in the thread:
If a spell requires Material components, the spellcaster must have a hand free to access or hold them, but it can be the same hand used to perform Somatic components, if any. This latter rule holds true for using a Spellcasting Focus, which a spellcaster must hold unless its description says otherwise.
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.
While reading the 2024 SAC, I saw this and it reminded me of this conversation. Just sharing in case it helps the OP, future readers, or folks in the thread:
If a spell requires Material components, the spellcaster must have a hand free to access or hold them, but it can be the same hand used to perform Somatic components, if any. This latter rule holds true for using a Spellcasting Focus, which a spellcaster must hold unless its description says otherwise.
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.
A nice common sense and easy to understand answer... So I would assume the tl;dr is:
you can cast V, M, VM*, SVM* & SM* (*where there is no listed cost of said material) while holding a weapon and shield (with symbol/emblem).
You would not be able to cast any S, SV or spells with a materials with a listed cost.
War Caster Feat, would just reduce it down to Materials with a listed cost.
While reading the 2024 SAC, I saw this and it reminded me of this conversation. Just sharing in case it helps the OP, future readers, or folks in the thread:
If a spell requires Material components, the spellcaster must have a hand free to access or hold them, but it can be the same hand used to perform Somatic components, if any. This latter rule holds true for using a Spellcasting Focus, which a spellcaster must hold unless its description says otherwise.
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.
A nice common sense and easy to understand answer... So I would assume the tl;dr is:
you can cast V, M, VM*, SVM* & SM* (*where there is no listed cost of said material) while holding a weapon and shield (with symbol/emblem).
You would not be able to cast any S, SV or spells with a materials with a listed cost.
War Caster Feat, would just reduce it down to Materials with a listed cost.
I'd say that's right.
And I think it'd be the same for a Cleric with the War Caster feat, wielding two weapons/objects, and with Amulet worn as a Spellcasting Focus. Am I right?
PS. IIRC, there are no spells with only a Material component.
And I think it'd be the same for a Cleric with the War Caster feat, wielding two weapons/objects, and with Amulet worn as a Spellcasting Focus. Am I right?
PS. IIRC, there are no spells with only a Material component.
While reading the 2024 SAC, I saw this and it reminded me of this conversation. Just sharing in case it helps the OP, future readers, or folks in the thread:
If a spell requires Material components, the spellcaster must have a hand free to access or hold them, but it can be the same hand used to perform Somatic components, if any. This latter rule holds true for using a Spellcasting Focus, which a spellcaster must hold unless its description says otherwise.
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.
A nice common sense and easy to understand answer... So I would assume the tl;dr is:
you can cast V, M, VM*, SVM* & SM* (*where there is no listed cost of said material) while holding a weapon and shield (with symbol/emblem).
You would not be able to cast any S, SV or spells with a materials with a listed cost.
War Caster Feat, would just reduce it down to Materials with a listed cost.
I'd say that's right.
And I think it'd be the same for a Cleric with the War Caster feat, wielding two weapons/objects, and with Amulet worn as a Spellcasting Focus. Am I right?
PS. IIRC, there are no spells with only a Material component.
While I'd allow it I think why it works normally with the classic cleric concept is the focus is on their shield which is being held. And holding a material component is a requirement. I'd let them bring their sword arm up ad touch the amulet as counting as held. But if I wanted to be pedantic about it, its probably not allowed.
MyDudeicus Interesting. I thought an Amulet worn or an Emblem borne on a tabard were the exceptions for Clerics and Paladins, so they don't need a free hand when casting a spell with a Material component in those cases.
MyDudeicus Interesting. I thought an Amulet worn or an Emblem borne on a tabard were the exceptions for Clerics and Paladins, so they don't need a free hand when casting a spell with a Material component in those cases.
That's how I'm ruling it, at least.
possible under the exception to the rule idea. but i think you are in theory with something like a amulet is reach up and put hands on it as the base material component rules "The spellcaster must have a hand free to access them" requires that. if the borne or worn description bypasses that requirement is unclear imo. like i said I'd allow it. But I think the intent is while wearing the amulet you still need to reach up and access it for a second. You don't have to fully hold it, you just need to access it. Basically this part of M "and to use a Spellcasting Focus, you must hold it unless its description says otherwise" i think bypasses the need to fully hold it, but I think the core rule of needing a hand to access it is still in play.
MyDudeicus Interesting. I thought an Amulet worn or an Emblem borne on a tabard were the exceptions for Clerics and Paladins, so they don't need a free hand when casting a spell with a Material component in those cases.
That's how I'm ruling it, at least.
possible under the exception to the rule idea. but i think you are in theory with something like a amulet is reach up and put hands on it as the base material component rules "The spellcaster must have a hand free to access them" requires that. if the borne or worn description bypasses that requirement is unclear imo. like i said I'd allow it. But I think the intent is while wearing the amulet you still need to reach up and access it for a second. You don't have to fully hold it, you just need to access it. Basically this part of M "and to use a Spellcasting Focus, you must hold it unless its description says otherwise" i think bypasses the need to fully hold it, but I think the core rule of needing a hand to access it is still in play.
I see. Frankly, that's also fair.
I was ruling the same in 2014 due to this:
Holy Symbol. A cleric or paladin can use a holy symbol as a spellcasting focus, as described in chapter 10. To use the symbol in this way, the caster must hold it in hand, wear it visibly, or bear it on a shield.
And now I'm keeping the same ruling, as the Holy Symbols table essentially gives the same information and options:
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.
EDIT: I've just realized that reply #82 has a link discussing this under the 2014 rules.
But I think the intent is while wearing the amulet you still need to reach up and access it for a second. You don't have to fully hold it, you just need to access it.
That does seem to be the most likely intention.
1) If a worn amulet doesn't need a free hand, then carried amulets or reliquaries are, essentially, obsolete. It doesn't really make sense to offer clearly-inferior tactical choices like that. (Hell, a worn amulet is strictly superior to an emblem on a shield, because you can not care about using a two-handed weapon or dropping the shield...) 2) If a worn amulet (or tabard emblem) still requires a free hand, then it's basically the divine equivalent of a component pouch. That's more in line with the rest of the system. Then things like reliquaries feel much better as RP choices.
But I think the intent is while wearing the amulet you still need to reach up and access it for a second. You don't have to fully hold it, you just need to access it.
That does seem to be the most likely intention.
Unfortunately it isn't, a worn Amulet or Emblem is a superior option among all spellcasting foci (an Emblem on a shield is also better than most but not as good). @Tarodnet is correct in his ruling from the 2014 rules. The 2024 rules are technically the same, just more clearly spelled out.
I hate that the rules are such that a Cleric/Paladin have a clear advantage just based on the workings of foci, but it is. IMO it would have been a lot better if they had just gotten a class feature that allowed them to sword and board while still casting some spells unhindered.
As a side note I think it is even more stupid that a spellcaster can do his S component unhindered while holding a foci if the spell has an M component but then forgets the ability to move his arm around if the spell hasn't got an M component, one of my top choices for stupidest rule in the book.
As a side note I think it is even more stupid that a spellcaster can do his S component unhindered while holding a foci if the spell has an M component but then forgets the ability to move his arm around if the spell hasn't got an M component, one of my top choices for stupidest rule in the book.
Yes, this is incredibly silly, and while it does appear to be RAW I've never been convinced it was a deliberate design choice. I've never enforced this in any D&D game I've DMed.
If you want the Watsonian explanation, MS spells specifically involve waving the object around in some way, while S spells involve shaping your hand into particular patterns.
If you want the Watsonian explanation, MS spells specifically involve waving the object around in some way, while S spells involve shaping your hand into particular patterns.
So it's like the difference between Harry Potter moving and waving a wand in Harry Potter to Naruto making Hand Gestures in Naruto to cast Ninjutsu?
If you want the Watsonian explanation, MS spells specifically involve waving the object around in some way, while S spells involve shaping your hand into particular patterns.
The system would be better if there were no MS spells, only M or S - then the rule could be you either need an empty hand to do the hand symbols (S), or you need a hand to touch and manipulate the components/focus (M).
Personally I find it easier to actually do the conversion when working out the casting requirements. Treat a VSM as VM and a SM as M. Basically, if there is an M then the S is irrelevant so please ignore it. It is then much easier to assess the requirement for empty hands and access to components/focuses
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
That would make sense, under the 2014 form of material component but there is a lot of things that would make sense and 2024 is full of a lot of things that don't...
Just a quick search to confirm this debate is older than the Sun 😅
Cleric with shield and mace - holy symbol? - Cleric - Class Forums - D&D Beyond Forums - D&D Beyond (dndbeyond.com)
Does a holy symbol have to be held in order to use it as a spellcasting focus? - Rules & Game Mechanics - Dungeons & Dragons Discussion - D&D Beyond Forums - D&D Beyond (dndbeyond.com)
Can a character with the war caster feat cast fireball? - Rules & Game Mechanics - Dungeons & Dragons Discussion - D&D Beyond Forums - D&D Beyond (dndbeyond.com)
I'm beginning to think RAW means rules read as absurdly as possible.
Do these distinctions actually matter in practice though?
It seems clear the intention is that a cleric & paladin can cast their spells unimpeded while holding a weapon + a shield, or while holding a weapon + free hand, or while holding a two-handed weapon - except for those spells with material components that cost gold. Though TBH, I have never seen anyone actually make this distinction in-game and demand e.g. that a cleric specifies that they throw down their weapon in order to cast Summon Celestial or Revivify. Has anyone actually played with a DM that requires you to do this?
But that being disarmed & undressed such as went sent to prison / captured, is a significant barrier to cleric & paladin spellcasting.
RAM (Rules as Malice).
It's like some people infer that anything in SAC must be wrong and RAW always dictates the opposite of clarification. (Because otherwise why would they feel the need to clarify?)
While reading the 2024 SAC, I saw this and it reminded me of this conversation. Just sharing in case it helps the OP, future readers, or folks in the thread:
@TarodNet I admire your patience! 😂 thanks for the entertainment :)
A nice common sense and easy to understand answer... So I would assume the tl;dr is:
you can cast V, M, VM*, SVM* & SM* (*where there is no listed cost of said material) while holding a weapon and shield (with symbol/emblem).
You would not be able to cast any S, SV or spells with a materials with a listed cost.
War Caster Feat, would just reduce it down to Materials with a listed cost.
Thanks mate! 😅
I'd say that's right.
And I think it'd be the same for a Cleric with the War Caster feat, wielding two weapons/objects, and with Amulet worn as a Spellcasting Focus. Am I right?
PS. IIRC, there are no spells with only a Material component.
There isn't but worth noting for home brew.
While I'd allow it I think why it works normally with the classic cleric concept is the focus is on their shield which is being held. And holding a material component is a requirement. I'd let them bring their sword arm up ad touch the amulet as counting as held. But if I wanted to be pedantic about it, its probably not allowed.
MyDudeicus Interesting. I thought an Amulet worn or an Emblem borne on a tabard were the exceptions for Clerics and Paladins, so they don't need a free hand when casting a spell with a Material component in those cases.
That's how I'm ruling it, at least.
possible under the exception to the rule idea. but i think you are in theory with something like a amulet is reach up and put hands on it as the base material component rules "The spellcaster must have a hand free to access them" requires that. if the borne or worn description bypasses that requirement is unclear imo. like i said I'd allow it. But I think the intent is while wearing the amulet you still need to reach up and access it for a second. You don't have to fully hold it, you just need to access it. Basically this part of M "and to use a Spellcasting Focus, you must hold it unless its description says otherwise" i think bypasses the need to fully hold it, but I think the core rule of needing a hand to access it is still in play.
I see. Frankly, that's also fair.
I was ruling the same in 2014 due to this:
And now I'm keeping the same ruling, as the Holy Symbols table essentially gives the same information and options:
EDIT: I've just realized that reply #82 has a link discussing this under the 2014 rules.
That does seem to be the most likely intention.
1) If a worn amulet doesn't need a free hand, then carried amulets or reliquaries are, essentially, obsolete. It doesn't really make sense to offer clearly-inferior tactical choices like that. (Hell, a worn amulet is strictly superior to an emblem on a shield, because you can not care about using a two-handed weapon or dropping the shield...)
2) If a worn amulet (or tabard emblem) still requires a free hand, then it's basically the divine equivalent of a component pouch. That's more in line with the rest of the system. Then things like reliquaries feel much better as RP choices.
Unfortunately it isn't, a worn Amulet or Emblem is a superior option among all spellcasting foci (an Emblem on a shield is also better than most but not as good). @Tarodnet is correct in his ruling from the 2014 rules. The 2024 rules are technically the same, just more clearly spelled out.
I hate that the rules are such that a Cleric/Paladin have a clear advantage just based on the workings of foci, but it is. IMO it would have been a lot better if they had just gotten a class feature that allowed them to sword and board while still casting some spells unhindered.
As a side note I think it is even more stupid that a spellcaster can do his S component unhindered while holding a foci if the spell has an M component but then forgets the ability to move his arm around if the spell hasn't got an M component, one of my top choices for stupidest rule in the book.
Yes, this is incredibly silly, and while it does appear to be RAW I've never been convinced it was a deliberate design choice. I've never enforced this in any D&D game I've DMed.
pronouns: he/she/they
If you want the Watsonian explanation, MS spells specifically involve waving the object around in some way, while S spells involve shaping your hand into particular patterns.
So it's like the difference between Harry Potter moving and waving a wand in Harry Potter to Naruto making Hand Gestures in Naruto to cast Ninjutsu?
The system would be better if there were no MS spells, only M or S - then the rule could be you either need an empty hand to do the hand symbols (S), or you need a hand to touch and manipulate the components/focus (M).
Personally I find it easier to actually do the conversion when working out the casting requirements. Treat a VSM as VM and a SM as M. Basically, if there is an M then the S is irrelevant so please ignore it. It is then much easier to assess the requirement for empty hands and access to components/focuses