R3sistance, I disagree. First, the straw man of a flag across the castle isn't relevant because I would read that you must bear the fabric or shield (for it to be borne on that fabric or shield). Just like you must be the one to hold the components listed in the spell if you are using those instead.
Second, a crystal in a pocket must be held also too. If you want to play pocket pool with your crystals and orbs, that's fine, but you gotta hold them. Nothing in the description of a crystal even comes close to overriding "and to use a Spellcasting Focus, you must hold it unless its description says otherwise."
Third, I'd argue that banners such as ones popular to video games borrowed from Japanese culture worn on the back (like Sashimono and other related banners) and battle standards would work as the banners mentioned for fabric to bear a holy symbol emblem, but any of these would be very difficult to hold (the fabric) while casting spells.
It seems like you have it backwards: you are stating that foci with no specific instructions override the general rule. but those that tell you exactly how they work need to behave according to the general rule. I guess I'll respectfully disagree and give up on trying to convince you.
R3sistance, I disagree. First, the straw man of a flag across the castle isn't relevant because I would read that you must bear the fabric or shield (for it to be borne on that fabric or shield). Just like you must be the one to hold the components listed in the spell if you are using those instead.
The borne on part, means that the fabric or shield itself is bearing the emblem. So no, it's not a straw man, it's legitimate point.
Second, a crystal in a pocket must be held also too. If you want to play pocket pool with your crystals and orbs, that's fine, but you gotta hold them. Nothing in the description of a crystal even comes close to overriding "and to use a Spellcasting Focus, you must hold it unless its description says otherwise."
Mmmm, good point. missed that line, yes it needs to be held.
Third, I'd argue that banners such as ones popular to video games borrowed from Japanese culture worn on the back (like Sashimono and other related banners) and battle standards would work as the banners mentioned for fabric to bear a holy symbol emblem, but any of these would be very difficult to hold (the fabric) while casting spells.
This goes back to point one, if this works then a flag on the other side of a castle works, you can home brew this but there is nothing in the rules to support this.
It seems like you have it backwards: you are stating that foci with no specific instructions override the general rule. but those that tell you exactly how they work need to behave according to the general rule. I guess I'll respectfully disagree and give up on trying to convince you.
No, there is no specific instructions overriding the general rule, the parts you are mis-intrepreting to be the specific instruction of how it's used, is in fact further stipulations as to what is a requirement for them to BE valid as holy symbols and at no point in their descriptions do they say that wearing them removes the free hand requirement of a material component.
you are confusing this part:
and to use a Spellcasting Focus, you must hold it unless its description says otherwise (see chapter 6 for descriptions).
with this part
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.
If a spell doesn’t consume its materials and doesn’t specify a cost for them, a spellcaster can use a Component Pouch (see chapter 6) instead of providing the materials specified in the spell, or the spellcaster can substitute a Spellcasting Focus if the caster has a feature that allows that substitution.
You can substitute a spellcasting focus for the material, but you still need a free hand to do this. Else wise, if you believe that the spellcasting focus overrides this section and no free hand is needed then you still need a separate free hand to perform somatic components, which can not be the same hand that holds the spellcasting focus itself if the spellcasting focus is held. Since the part that specifically says it can be the same hand is part of the initial part of the material component.
Personally the way that I read this is that you can substitute a spellcasting focus in the physical place of the material and else wise treat it as you would the material, which means you still need a hand free to access it. Thus in the case of an Amulet, even if you are wearing it, you still need a free hand to access it, but you do not have to hold it or consume any item interactions to access it. I would argue then that the hand used to hold a material or spellcasting focus in the case it is being held, is a hand free to access it.
I think we can all agree, the section should have been much better written since it's not like I can't see how you get to your conclusions, I just fundamentally disagree with them and have decidedly different conclusions on how this text is interpreted.
I actually think that the authors tried in the new rules to clarify that the intent they provided as acceptable for 2014. And I'm actually happy to play that way. But I just don't think that the words that they used are clear enough to actually do that, and had *technically* the opposite effect. If they want the shield to be the focus, then that should have been easy enough to do. The focus is: "A shield emblazoned with the symbol of your deity" rather than the emblem of the deity.
But I also think that as written, a worn amulet is equivalent to a worn or borne fabric, which has the same hand requirements as a held reliquary or amulet, which is to say that none of them allow you to use your shield hand to do the somatic component. I will continue to think the shield fits in the same category without clarification in the rules.
In fact if the intent is that a shield hand can perform somatic components (without feats or magic items or other features), that is rather poor game design since one option is strictly superior to the other options to the point of making them irrelevant.
I actually think that the authors tried in the new rules to clarify that the intent they provided as acceptable for 2014. And I'm actually happy to play that way. But I just don't think that the words that they used are clear enough to actually do that, and had *technically* the opposite effect. If they want the shield to be the focus, then that should have been easy enough to do. The focus is: "A shield emblazoned with the symbol of your deity" rather than the emblem of the deity.
But I also think that as written, a worn amulet is equivalent to a worn or borne fabric, which has the same hand requirements as a held reliquary or amulet, which is to say that none of them allow you to use your shield hand to do the somatic component. I will continue to think the shield fits in the same category without clarification in the rules.
Except it’s not just an option for shields, plus they don’t seem to want overlapping entries in the equipment section. A shield is armor, an emblem is a holy symbol that can be placed on a shield. And while if you turn your head and squint hard enough you can try to force the words to support your interpretation, it simply doesn’t pass the common sense test since there’s no point in having emblems if you still need a completely empty hand for the S component. They literally exist specifically to make casting with sword and board viable for Clerics and Paladins.
The authors (Jeremy Crawford in this case) already clarified that using the hand holding the shield with a holy symbol on it, can be used for performing the somatic component (if that holy symbol is being used to fulfil the material component) for 2014 tho.
Personally, I'd say the rules are still similar enough that it is best to stick to this advice for 2024 until such a time newer advice or an errata is offered in it's place.
Quarterstaff is listed as a druidic focus option for druid, which overlaps with a weapon. It also has the same poor design problem of being strictly superior to the other options.
And again there are spells that have S requirements but no M component, meaning you still need a free hand anyway for certain spells.
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.
Ah. I think that this is the cause for a lot of the confusion in this thread.
When the game is using the term "Holy Symbol", they are talking about a category of actual tangible items or objects although this becomes a bit less obvious in the case of the Emblem. It is the equivalent of the "Arcane Focus" for a Wizard, or a "Druidic Focus" for a Druid. In this context, a "Holy Symbol" is not just a symbol in terms of symbology or hieroglyphics, or an abstract representation of an idea. It's not a written building block of language or a cave painting or whatever -- it's not that meaning of the word "symbol". The Holy Symbol is a physical object that can be used as a spellcasting focus which typically must be held in a hand, with some exceptions. In the case of the Emblem -- in order for that object to maintain its form it must be borne on a banner or a shield. This is the game's way of trying to provide a cleric with an object that doesn't have to be held in order to facilitate fighting with a sword and shield.
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.
All of this is just incorrect.
From the Spells chapter we have the general rule:
To use a Component Pouch, you must have a hand free to reach into it, and to use a Spellcasting Focus, you must hold it unless its description says otherwise
In the description for a Holy Symbol, we have:
A Cleric or Paladin can use a Holy Symbol as a Spellcasting Focus.
and
A Holy Symbol takes one of the forms in the Holy Symbol table
Then we also have this explanation:
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.
This creates the specific exception to the general rule. It is stated as part of the same rule that explains that a Holy Symbol can be used as a Spellcasting Focus. This statement is explaining what the actual requirements are for using it in that way. Depending on the table entry, each type of Holy Symbol has a different requirement for what must be done to use that item as a Spellcasting Focus.
The 2014 version was a bit more explicit about it by saying it like this:
To use the symbol in this way, the caster must hold it in hand, wear it visibly, or bear it on a shield.
But it works the same way in 2024 -- the idea has just been broken up into 2 consecutive sentences instead.
Lastly, we look at the individual description for the particular Holy Symbol in question:
An Emblem is a Holy Symbol that is bejeweled or painted to channel divine magic. A Cleric or Paladin can use this item as a Spellcasting Focus. Emblems must be borne on fabric or a Shield.
Again, this is a specific exception to the general rule. This description is (otherwise) telling you what the requirement is to be allowed to use this item as a Spellcasting Focus. In this case, the requirement is that it "must be borne on fabric or a Shield" (instead of being held in a free hand).
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?
No. That's not how specific exceptions to general rules work in this game. The new rule never has to go out of its way to explicitly state that the old rule doesn't apply. It simply has to say something new that contradicts and overrides the old rule. For the specific case of a Holy Symbol, new specific requirements are given for how these objects must be interacted with in order for them to be used as a Spellcasting Focus. That overrides the free hand requirement for these specific cases.
As for an emblem that is borne on a Shield that is strapped onto your back -- that's probably a DM call, depending on what his interpretation of "borne on a shield" means. It probably has to be more active than simply existing attached to the shield, since the character is attempting to use the item in question in order to use it as a Spellcasting Focus. So, it probably can't be attached to your shield that is sitting on your shelf in your house 100 miles away. Some other Holy Symbols can be "used" simply by wearing them. So, where do you draw the line? Can it be inside your backpack? Sitting on a nearby cart? Strapped to your back? The rules do not specify exactly -- this is a DM call. I would probably rule that the item which bears the Emblem must be actively used in the intended way -- a banner must be carried in hand, a tabard must be worn, a shield must be wielded.
I'm catching up on the various recent posts, so I'll probably have more to say on this.
Quarterstaff is listed as a druidic focus option for druid, which overlaps with a weapon. It also has the same poor design problem of being strictly superior to the other options.
And again there are spells that have S requirements but no M component, meaning you still need a free hand anyway for certain spells.
Have you read the latest description of Sprig of Mistletoe? It allows you to tie it with a ribbon...doesn't say it can't be tied to something else, so can you tie it with a ribbon to your index finger? to some gauntlets? To a weapon? It's another open one for abuse.
If there is no M then the shield hand is not free to perform the S, that matches how 2014 worked, you would need the war caster feat to get around this.
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.
Ah. I think that this is the cause for a lot of the confusion in this thread.
When the game is using the term "Holy Symbol", they are talking about a category of actual tangible items or objects although this becomes a bit less obvious in the case of the Emblem. It is the equivalent of the "Arcane Focus" for a Wizard, or a "Druidic Focus" for a Druid. In this context, a "Holy Symbol" is not just a symbol in terms of symbology or hieroglyphics, or an abstract representation of an idea. It's not a written building block of language or a cave painting or whatever -- it's not that meaning of the word "symbol". The Holy Symbol is a physical object that can be used as a spellcasting focus which typically must be held in a hand, with some exceptions. In the case of the Emblem -- in order for that object to maintain its form it must be borne on a banner or a shield. This is the game's way of trying to provide a cleric with an object that doesn't have to be held in order to facilitate fighting with a sword and shield.
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.
All of this is just incorrect.
From the Spells chapter we have the general rule:
To use a Component Pouch, you must have a hand free to reach into it, and to use a Spellcasting Focus, you must hold it unless its description says otherwise
In the description for a Holy Symbol, we have:
A Cleric or Paladin can use a Holy Symbol as a Spellcasting Focus.
and
A Holy Symbol takes one of the forms in the Holy Symbol table
Then we also have this explanation:
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.
This creates the specific exception to the general rule. It is stated as part of the same rule that explains that a Holy Symbol can be used as a Spellcasting Focus. This statement is explaining what the actual requirements are for using it in that way. Depending on the table entry, each type of Holy Symbol has a different requirement for what must be done to use that item as a Spellcasting Focus.
The 2014 version was a bit more explicit about it by saying it like this:
To use the symbol in this way, the caster must hold it in hand, wear it visibly, or bear it on a shield.
But it works the same way in 2024 -- the idea has just been broken up into 2 consecutive sentences instead.
Lastly, we look at the individual description for the particular Holy Symbol in question:
An Emblem is a Holy Symbol that is bejeweled or painted to channel divine magic. A Cleric or Paladin can use this item as a Spellcasting Focus. Emblems must be borne on fabric or a Shield.
Again, this is a specific exception to the general rule. This description is (otherwise) telling you what the requirement is to be allowed to use this item as a Spellcasting Focus. In this case, the requirement is that it "must be borne on fabric or a Shield" (instead of being held in a free hand).
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?
No. That's not how specific exceptions to general rules work in this game. The new rule never has to go out of its way to explicitly state that the old rule doesn't apply. It simply has to say something new that contradicts and overrides the old rule. For the specific case of a Holy Symbol, new specific requirements are given for how these objects must be interacted with in order for them to be used as a Spellcasting Focus. That overrides the free hand requirement for these specific cases.
As for an emblem that is borne on a Shield that is strapped onto your back -- that's probably a DM call, depending on what his interpretation of "borne on a shield" means. It probably has to be more active than simply existing attached to the shield, since the character is attempting to use the item in question in order to use it as a Spellcasting Focus. So, it probably can't be attached to your shield that is sitting on your shelf in your house 100 miles away. Some other Holy Symbols can be "used" simply by wearing them. So, where do you draw the line? Can it be inside your backpack? Sitting on a nearby cart? Strapped to your back? The rules do not specify exactly -- this is a DM call. I would probably rule that the item which bears the Emblem must be actively used in the intended way -- a banner must be carried in hand, a tabard must be worn, a shield must be wielded.
I'm catching up on the various recent posts, so I'll probably have more to say on this.
This is all dragging on too much now, I'll just re-quote the point I made earlier since it's relevant, you're reading the wrong part of the Material Component, I am talking about the part that requires a free hand, not the part that talks about how a spellcasting focus needs to be held unless otherwise stated.
and to use a Spellcasting Focus, you must hold it unless its description says otherwise (see chapter 6 for descriptions).
with this part
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.
If a spell doesn’t consume its materials and doesn’t specify a cost for them, a spellcaster can use a Component Pouch (see chapter 6) instead of providing the materials specified in the spell, or the spellcaster can substitute a Spellcasting Focus if the caster has a feature that allows that substitution.
You can substitute a spellcasting focus for the material, but you still need a free hand to do this. Else wise, if you believe that the spellcasting focus overrides this section and no free hand is needed then you still need a separate free hand to perform somatic components, which can not be the same hand that holds the spellcasting focus itself if the spellcasting focus is held. Since the part that specifically says it can be the same hand is part of the initial part of the material component.
Personally the way that I read this is that you can substitute a spellcasting focus in the physical place of the material and else wise treat it as you would the material, which means you still need a hand free to access it. Thus in the case of an Amulet, even if you are wearing it, you still need a free hand to access it, but you do not have to hold it or consume any item interactions to access it. I would argue then that the hand used to hold a material or spellcasting focus in the case it is being held, is a hand free to access it.
I think we can all agree, the section should have been much better written since it's not like I can't see how you get to your conclusions, I just fundamentally disagree with them and have decidedly different conclusions on how this text is interpreted.
Sort of off topic, but I read the description of sprig of mistletoe to be telling you the ways it can be adorned or ornamented, not the ways it can be attached.
Sort of off topic, but I read the description of sprig of mistletoe to be telling you the ways it can be adorned or ornamented, not the ways it can be attached.
I'm also ok to agree to disagree.
It still needs to be held, it's just you can tie it to basically anything. Sorry, I realised I didn't specify what I meant by that and edited it. But yea, I think maybe I went too far with what it said there.
A Reliquary held is equivalent to an Emblem on a held Shield.
No, this isn't correct. An emblem on a shield is not held. You don't need a free hand for such an emblem. That's what allows the cleric to use up both free hands by wielding a sword and a shield while still having access to his Spellcasting Focus. This particular Spellcasting Focus doesn't have to be held -- it just has to be borne on a shield. A worn amulet also does not require a free hand. However, a held amulet and a held reliquary does require a free hand -- since you are holding it.
You can substitute a spellcasting focus for the material, but you still need a free hand to do this. Else wise, if you believe that the spellcasting focus overrides this section and no free hand is needed then you still need a separate free hand to perform somatic components, which can not be the same hand that holds the spellcasting focus itself if the spellcasting focus is held. Since the part that specifically says it can be the same hand is part of the initial part of the material component.
Wait, what? Are you suggesting that a V, S, M spell must have one free hand to hold a spellcasting focus and another free hand to perform the somatic gestures? No. That is definitely not what is going on. The free hand that satisfies the Material Component (if one is required) can always be the same hand that is used to perform the somatic gestures.
One thing that I will agree with you on -- you do always need a free hand for the somatic gestures. This has become even more clear in 2024. If the spell has an S component, you're going to need a free hand. If a cleric is dead set on maintaining his grip on his weapon and his shield then he will be limited to casting only (V), (M) or (V, M) spells -- and in order to do this he will have to choose a Holy Symbol which does not need to be held -- such as an Emblem or a worn Amulet.
Again, fortunately in 2024 we have weapon juggling.
but you do not have to hold it or consume any item interactions to access it.
I actually don't see this point being discussed often in spellcasting discussions. But I think that technically this probably SHOULD require your object interaction. To go from a hand that is holding nothing to a hand that is holding a spellcasting focus seems pretty similar to going from a hand that is holding nothing to a hand that is holding a sword.
What would make this ruling somewhat nasty is that even with all of the new methods available in 2024 for weapon juggling, you probably cannot draw and stow your spellcasting focus on the same turn if these would both require an object interaction. I think the knee-jerk reaction from most people here will be that this isn't required for . . . some reason.
The authors (Jeremy Crawford in this case) already clarified that using the hand holding the shield with a holy symbol on it, can be used for performing the somatic component (if that holy symbol is being used to fulfil the material component) for 2014 tho.
Yeah, this is one of those examples where Jeremy was just wrong about what the rules actually said, as happened pretty often over the years. This may very well have been what was intended, but RAI is not the same thing as RAW.
----------
-- "I am talking about the part that requires a free hand, not the part that talks about how a spellcasting focus needs to be held unless otherwise stated."
----------
No. This is all one rule, and these things go together.
The chain of logic is that the Material Component is a particular tangible material by default that is used in a spell's casting, and in order to use it, this material must be accessed with a free hand. That's actually two requirements in one -- the material must be accessible (like, not sitting over in a nearby cart or something), and you need to actually access it with a free hand in order to actually use it.
Next, the spellcaster can use a Component Pouch instead. Meaning, if the casting of the spell requires using a tangible material by default, you can use a Component Pouch instead in order to meet your Material Component requirement.
The next option is -- instead of doing any of those things to satisfy the Material Component, "the spellcaster can substitute a Spellcasting Focus".
So how exactly do you use a Component Pouch or a Spellcasting Focus? Well, as it turns out: "To use a Component Pouch, you must have a hand free to reach into it, and to use a Spellcasting Focus, you must hold it unless its description says otherwise".
In other words, having a free hand to access a tangible material is only one of the possible methods for satisfying the M component of a spell. Another method is to use a Spellcasting Focus -- by holding it unless its description says otherwise. So, if a particular Spellcasting Focus doesn't need to be held, then you don't need a free hand to satisfy your M component in that case.
A Reliquary held is equivalent to an Emblem on a held Shield.
No, this isn't correct. An emblem on a shield is not held. You don't need a free hand for such an emblem. That's what allows the cleric to use up both free hands by wielding a sword and a shield while still having access to his Spellcasting Focus. This particular Spellcasting Focus doesn't have to be held -- it just has to be borne on a shield. A worn amulet also does not require a free hand. However, a held amulet and a held reliquary does require a free hand -- since you are holding it.
You can substitute a spellcasting focus for the material, but you still need a free hand to do this. Else wise, if you believe that the spellcasting focus overrides this section and no free hand is needed then you still need a separate free hand to perform somatic components, which can not be the same hand that holds the spellcasting focus itself if the spellcasting focus is held. Since the part that specifically says it can be the same hand is part of the initial part of the material component.
Wait, what? Are you suggesting that a V, S, M spell must have one free hand to hold a spellcasting focus and another free hand to perform the somatic gestures? No. That is definitely not what is going on. The free hand that satisfies the Material Component (if one is required) can always be the same hand that is used to perform the somatic gestures.
One thing that I will agree with you on -- you do always need a free hand for the somatic gestures. This has become even more clear in 2024. If the spell has an S component, you're going to need a free hand. If a cleric is dead set on maintaining his grip on his weapon and his shield then he will be limited to casting only (V), (M) or (V, M) spells -- and in order to do this he will have to choose a Holy Symbol which does not need to be held -- such as an Emblem or a worn Amulet.
Again, fortunately in 2024 we have weapon juggling.
but you do not have to hold it or consume any item interactions to access it.
I actually don't see this point being discussed often in spellcasting discussions. But I think that technically this probably SHOULD require your object interaction. To go from a hand that is holding nothing to a hand that is holding a spellcasting focus seems pretty similar to going from a hand that is holding nothing to a hand that is holding a sword.
What would make this ruling somewhat nasty is that even with all of the new methods available in 2024 for weapon juggling, you probably cannot draw and stow your spellcasting focus on the same turn if these would both require an object interaction. I think the knee-jerk reaction from most people here will be that this isn't required for . . . some reason.
The authors (Jeremy Crawford in this case) already clarified that using the hand holding the shield with a holy symbol on it, can be used for performing the somatic component (if that holy symbol is being used to fulfil the material component) for 2014 tho.
Yeah, this is one of those examples where Jeremy was just wrong about what the rules actually said, as happened pretty often over the years. This may very well have been what was intended, but RAI is not the same thing as RAW.
----------
-- "I am talking about the part that requires a free hand, not the part that talks about how a spellcasting focus needs to be held unless otherwise stated."
----------
No. This is all one rule, and these things go together.
The chain of logic is that the Material Component is a particular tangible material by default that is used in a spell's casting, and in order to use it, this material must be accessed with a free hand. That's actually two requirements in one -- the material must be accessible (like, not sitting over in a nearby cart or something), and you need to actually access it with a free hand in order to actually use it.
Next, the spellcaster can use a Component Pouch instead. Meaning, if the casting of the spell requires using a tangible material by default, you can use a Component Pouch instead in order to meet your Material Component requirement.
The next option is -- instead of doing any of those things to satisfy the Material Component, "the spellcaster can substitute a Spellcasting Focus".
So how exactly do you use a Component Pouch or a Spellcasting Focus? Well, as it turns out: "To use a Component Pouch, you must have a hand free to reach into it, and to use a Spellcasting Focus, you must hold it unless its description says otherwise".
In other words, having a free hand to access a tangible material is only one of the possible methods for satisfying the M component of a spell. Another method is to use a Spellcasting Focus -- by holding it unless its description says otherwise. So, if a particular Spellcasting Focus doesn't need to be held, then you don't need a free hand to satisfy your M component in that case.
This is the amount of spells you're all arguing a Paladin or a Cleric should get from using an Emblem on a Shield. If it doesn't make sense, it's because your stance doesn't make sense.
I can continue to refute each and every argument that anybody makes but seriously, look at what you're arguing for before you continue to debate this. You basically want Emblem on a shield to basically be entirely useless and pointless. I am not going to waste me time sitting here trying to refute the obviously incorrect positions when people keep focusing on the fact that a spellcasting focus needs to be held, nothing changes the fact that a free hand is needed to interact with a spellcasting focus, if it's held or not.
Just because something was intended to work a certain way, and a developer makes a comment that it's intended to work a certain way doesn't actually change what's written.
You need a free hand to perform gestures. If you also need to hold the material component, then you can do that with the same hand as you were gesturing with. But the rules do not get all the way to the point where if you are not holding a material component then you do not need a free hand for the gestures. In fact, you always need a free hand for the gestures, otherwise, you cannot gesture.
A Reliquary held is equivalent to an Emblem on a held Shield.
No, this isn't correct. An emblem on a shield is not held. You don't need a free hand for such an emblem. That's what allows the cleric to use up both free hands by wielding a sword and a shield while still having access to his Spellcasting Focus. This particular Spellcasting Focus doesn't have to be held -- it just has to be borne on a shield. A worn amulet also does not require a free hand. However, a held amulet and a held reliquary does require a free hand -- since you are holding it.
Sorry, I don't get your reasoning or what you're saying. Your sentences don't make sense to me.
I can continue to refute each and every argument that anybody makes but seriously, look at what you're arguing for before you continue to debate this. You basically want Emblem on a shield to basically be entirely useless and pointless. I am not going to waste me time sitting here trying to refute the obviously incorrect positions when people keep focusing on the fact that a spellcasting focus needs to be held, nothing changes the fact that a free hand is needed to interact with a spellcasting focus, if it's held or not.
You haven't made a single argument from the text. Your refutations are based on vibes. Your attitude here is bewildering, and it's become abundantly clear that you just decided how you wanted it to work before you actually read the rules, and in order to avoid admitting you're wrong, you now have to ignore those rules. If you want to pretend the extremely straightforward text establishing that certain spellcasting foci do not need to be touched in order to be used, play however you want. And if you're going to do that, instead of engaging with other people's arguments by using the rules as they actually are, then you're right, we're all wasting our time. But the text says what it says, and those who are capable of letting it do what it says it does, instead of presupposing conclusions it contradicts, can elect not to nerf clerics and paladins by forcing them to free up a hand the text says they don't need.
A Reliquary held is equivalent to an Emblem on a held Shield.
No, this isn't correct. An emblem on a shield is not held. You don't need a free hand for such an emblem. That's what allows the cleric to use up both free hands by wielding a sword and a shield while still having access to his Spellcasting Focus. This particular Spellcasting Focus doesn't have to be held -- it just has to be borne on a shield. A worn amulet also does not require a free hand. However, a held amulet and a held reliquary does require a free hand -- since you are holding it.
Sorry, I don't get your reasoning or what you're saying. Your sentences don't make sense to me.
I'll be honest, I'm not sure up2ng really understood what you were saying (I'm not 100% sure I understood either, but I'm going to try), because I don't really see their post as contradicting anything you've said. All of these holy symbols are equivalent to each other insofar as concerns their ability to fulfill a spell's non-valued, non-consumed material components. An amulet worn is equivalent to an amulet held in your hand is equivalent to an emblem borne on fabric is equivalent to an emblem borne on a shield is equivalent to a reliquary held in your hand. That's what the table makes very clear, since it treats all these options in exactly the same fashion. So I'd agree with each of your bullet points, with the addition that each bullet point is equivalent to all the others.
The one nuance is that I don't really see any specific text that requires that the shield be held, but as a matter of common sense I think we can all agree that there's an implicit requirement that the shield or fabric be somehow "equipped," just as we can assume an implicit requirement that the creature casting the spell be the one who must wear the amulet or hold the reliquary, despite there being no text that explicitly says as much.
@SagaTympana I understand your point of view on how to rule the Holy Symbols, more specifically, the Emblem. I really empathize with your arguments.
As I mentioned before, maybe an updated SAC or a clarification via errata in the rules would help us with this issue.
But for now, I'll stick with the current SAC entry, even for the 2024 PHB. In the end, it helps players if we rule it like this. And it's not just good for them—it's also great to use a shield to channel their god's power that way, especially for Paladins or Clerics when roleplaying.
BTW, I liked your joke from before 😅
On the contrary; they've changed materially (he he he), though perhaps unintentionally, as I'll address in a bit.
I can continue to refute each and every argument that anybody makes but seriously, look at what you're arguing for before you continue to debate this. You basically want Emblem on a shield to basically be entirely useless and pointless. I am not going to waste me time sitting here trying to refute the obviously incorrect positions when people keep focusing on the fact that a spellcasting focus needs to be held, nothing changes the fact that a free hand is needed to interact with a spellcasting focus, if it's held or not.
You haven't made a single argument from the text. Your refutations are based on vibes. Your attitude here is bewildering, and it's become abundantly clear that you just decided how you wanted it to work before you actually read the rules, and in order to avoid admitting you're wrong, you now have to ignore those rules. If you want to pretend the extremely straightforward text establishing that certain spellcasting foci do not need to be touched in order to be used, play however you want. And if you're going to do that, instead of engaging with other people's arguments by using the rules as they actually are, then you're right, we're all wasting our time. But the text says what it says, and those who are capable of letting it do what it says it does, instead of presupposing conclusions it contradicts, can elect not to nerf clerics and paladins by forcing them to free up a hand the text says they don't need.
I have made the arguments, you not accepting them doesn't mean I didn't make them, I have admitted I am wrong on two occasions which is decided more than you have. You have decided to interpret several things in ways that represent your argument and are not even willing to admit that perhaps your reading could be flawed. Personally, I do not think you have made any meaningful or even correct points, so we are at an impasse, which means we both might as well stop.
EDIT: to make it clear, you still never showed how the holy symbols meaningfully changed since 2014 that makes in any way, any difference to previous rulings and advice. 2014, a holy symbol had to be held, worn visible or had to be borne on to a shield, all the rules in 2024 do is make it clearer which is which but the Sage Advice that has been mentioned specifically is about a bejewelled shield, which is clearly referring to emblem and there is literally no difference here to how emblem is used in 2024. There is no reason to see why anything would change here in 2024 for how a shield bearing an emblem has changed. If you're only seeing vibes, it is because I am responding to your own claims which are definitely far more vibe based than my own. Your arguments are not based on comparing 2024 to 2014, it's ignoring 2014 to repeat an issue that existed in 2014 and was clarified in 2014 to reiterate an already answered problem from 2014 in 2024.
I was wondering which focus does tell you that it doesn’t need to be held? If the position some people have is that nothing contradicts the general rule about holding a focus in the description of emblem, even though the general rule states exceptions exist, I wonder what you think those exceptions that the general rule mentions are?
The more I read the table, the clearer I see the intent behind how the Holy Symbols are used:
R3sistance, I disagree. First, the straw man of a flag across the castle isn't relevant because I would read that you must bear the fabric or shield (for it to be borne on that fabric or shield). Just like you must be the one to hold the components listed in the spell if you are using those instead.
Second, a crystal in a pocket must be held also too. If you want to play pocket pool with your crystals and orbs, that's fine, but you gotta hold them. Nothing in the description of a crystal even comes close to overriding "and to use a Spellcasting Focus, you must hold it unless its description says otherwise."
Third, I'd argue that banners such as ones popular to video games borrowed from Japanese culture worn on the back (like Sashimono and other related banners) and battle standards would work as the banners mentioned for fabric to bear a holy symbol emblem, but any of these would be very difficult to hold (the fabric) while casting spells.
It seems like you have it backwards: you are stating that foci with no specific instructions override the general rule. but those that tell you exactly how they work need to behave according to the general rule. I guess I'll respectfully disagree and give up on trying to convince you.
The borne on part, means that the fabric or shield itself is bearing the emblem. So no, it's not a straw man, it's legitimate point.
Mmmm, good point. missed that line, yes it needs to be held.
This goes back to point one, if this works then a flag on the other side of a castle works, you can home brew this but there is nothing in the rules to support this.
No, there is no specific instructions overriding the general rule, the parts you are mis-intrepreting to be the specific instruction of how it's used, is in fact further stipulations as to what is a requirement for them to BE valid as holy symbols and at no point in their descriptions do they say that wearing them removes the free hand requirement of a material component.
you are confusing this part:
with this part
You can substitute a spellcasting focus for the material, but you still need a free hand to do this. Else wise, if you believe that the spellcasting focus overrides this section and no free hand is needed then you still need a separate free hand to perform somatic components, which can not be the same hand that holds the spellcasting focus itself if the spellcasting focus is held. Since the part that specifically says it can be the same hand is part of the initial part of the material component.
Personally the way that I read this is that you can substitute a spellcasting focus in the physical place of the material and else wise treat it as you would the material, which means you still need a hand free to access it. Thus in the case of an Amulet, even if you are wearing it, you still need a free hand to access it, but you do not have to hold it or consume any item interactions to access it. I would argue then that the hand used to hold a material or spellcasting focus in the case it is being held, is a hand free to access it.
I think we can all agree, the section should have been much better written since it's not like I can't see how you get to your conclusions, I just fundamentally disagree with them and have decidedly different conclusions on how this text is interpreted.
I actually think that the authors tried in the new rules to clarify that the intent they provided as acceptable for 2014. And I'm actually happy to play that way. But I just don't think that the words that they used are clear enough to actually do that, and had *technically* the opposite effect. If they want the shield to be the focus, then that should have been easy enough to do. The focus is: "A shield emblazoned with the symbol of your deity" rather than the emblem of the deity.
But I also think that as written, a worn amulet is equivalent to a worn or borne fabric, which has the same hand requirements as a held reliquary or amulet, which is to say that none of them allow you to use your shield hand to do the somatic component. I will continue to think the shield fits in the same category without clarification in the rules.
In fact if the intent is that a shield hand can perform somatic components (without feats or magic items or other features), that is rather poor game design since one option is strictly superior to the other options to the point of making them irrelevant.
Except it’s not just an option for shields, plus they don’t seem to want overlapping entries in the equipment section. A shield is armor, an emblem is a holy symbol that can be placed on a shield. And while if you turn your head and squint hard enough you can try to force the words to support your interpretation, it simply doesn’t pass the common sense test since there’s no point in having emblems if you still need a completely empty hand for the S component. They literally exist specifically to make casting with sword and board viable for Clerics and Paladins.
The authors (Jeremy Crawford in this case) already clarified that using the hand holding the shield with a holy symbol on it, can be used for performing the somatic component (if that holy symbol is being used to fulfil the material component) for 2014 tho.
https://www.sageadvice.eu/holy-symbol-replace-somatic-components/
Personally, I'd say the rules are still similar enough that it is best to stick to this advice for 2024 until such a time newer advice or an errata is offered in it's place.
Quarterstaff is listed as a druidic focus option for druid, which overlaps with a weapon. It also has the same poor design problem of being strictly superior to the other options.
And again there are spells that have S requirements but no M component, meaning you still need a free hand anyway for certain spells.
Ah. I think that this is the cause for a lot of the confusion in this thread.
When the game is using the term "Holy Symbol", they are talking about a category of actual tangible items or objects although this becomes a bit less obvious in the case of the Emblem. It is the equivalent of the "Arcane Focus" for a Wizard, or a "Druidic Focus" for a Druid. In this context, a "Holy Symbol" is not just a symbol in terms of symbology or hieroglyphics, or an abstract representation of an idea. It's not a written building block of language or a cave painting or whatever -- it's not that meaning of the word "symbol". The Holy Symbol is a physical object that can be used as a spellcasting focus which typically must be held in a hand, with some exceptions. In the case of the Emblem -- in order for that object to maintain its form it must be borne on a banner or a shield. This is the game's way of trying to provide a cleric with an object that doesn't have to be held in order to facilitate fighting with a sword and shield.
All of this is just incorrect.
From the Spells chapter we have the general rule:
In the description for a Holy Symbol, we have:
and
Then we also have this explanation:
This creates the specific exception to the general rule. It is stated as part of the same rule that explains that a Holy Symbol can be used as a Spellcasting Focus. This statement is explaining what the actual requirements are for using it in that way. Depending on the table entry, each type of Holy Symbol has a different requirement for what must be done to use that item as a Spellcasting Focus.
The 2014 version was a bit more explicit about it by saying it like this:
But it works the same way in 2024 -- the idea has just been broken up into 2 consecutive sentences instead.
Lastly, we look at the individual description for the particular Holy Symbol in question:
Again, this is a specific exception to the general rule. This description is (otherwise) telling you what the requirement is to be allowed to use this item as a Spellcasting Focus. In this case, the requirement is that it "must be borne on fabric or a Shield" (instead of being held in a free hand).
No. That's not how specific exceptions to general rules work in this game. The new rule never has to go out of its way to explicitly state that the old rule doesn't apply. It simply has to say something new that contradicts and overrides the old rule. For the specific case of a Holy Symbol, new specific requirements are given for how these objects must be interacted with in order for them to be used as a Spellcasting Focus. That overrides the free hand requirement for these specific cases.
As for an emblem that is borne on a Shield that is strapped onto your back -- that's probably a DM call, depending on what his interpretation of "borne on a shield" means. It probably has to be more active than simply existing attached to the shield, since the character is attempting to use the item in question in order to use it as a Spellcasting Focus. So, it probably can't be attached to your shield that is sitting on your shelf in your house 100 miles away. Some other Holy Symbols can be "used" simply by wearing them. So, where do you draw the line? Can it be inside your backpack? Sitting on a nearby cart? Strapped to your back? The rules do not specify exactly -- this is a DM call. I would probably rule that the item which bears the Emblem must be actively used in the intended way -- a banner must be carried in hand, a tabard must be worn, a shield must be wielded.
I'm catching up on the various recent posts, so I'll probably have more to say on this.
Have you read the latest description of Sprig of Mistletoe? It allows you to tie it with a ribbon...doesn't say it can't be tied to something else, so can you tie it with a ribbon to your index finger? to some gauntlets? To a weapon? It's another open one for abuse.
If there is no M then the shield hand is not free to perform the S, that matches how 2014 worked, you would need the war caster feat to get around this.
This is all dragging on too much now, I'll just re-quote the point I made earlier since it's relevant, you're reading the wrong part of the Material Component, I am talking about the part that requires a free hand, not the part that talks about how a spellcasting focus needs to be held unless otherwise stated.
Sort of off topic, but I read the description of sprig of mistletoe to be telling you the ways it can be adorned or ornamented, not the ways it can be attached.
I'm also ok to agree to disagree.
It still needs to be held, it's just you can tie it to basically anything. Sorry, I realised I didn't specify what I meant by that and edited it. But yea, I think maybe I went too far with what it said there.
No, this isn't correct. An emblem on a shield is not held. You don't need a free hand for such an emblem. That's what allows the cleric to use up both free hands by wielding a sword and a shield while still having access to his Spellcasting Focus. This particular Spellcasting Focus doesn't have to be held -- it just has to be borne on a shield. A worn amulet also does not require a free hand. However, a held amulet and a held reliquary does require a free hand -- since you are holding it.
Wait, what? Are you suggesting that a V, S, M spell must have one free hand to hold a spellcasting focus and another free hand to perform the somatic gestures? No. That is definitely not what is going on. The free hand that satisfies the Material Component (if one is required) can always be the same hand that is used to perform the somatic gestures.
One thing that I will agree with you on -- you do always need a free hand for the somatic gestures. This has become even more clear in 2024. If the spell has an S component, you're going to need a free hand. If a cleric is dead set on maintaining his grip on his weapon and his shield then he will be limited to casting only (V), (M) or (V, M) spells -- and in order to do this he will have to choose a Holy Symbol which does not need to be held -- such as an Emblem or a worn Amulet.
Again, fortunately in 2024 we have weapon juggling.
I actually don't see this point being discussed often in spellcasting discussions. But I think that technically this probably SHOULD require your object interaction. To go from a hand that is holding nothing to a hand that is holding a spellcasting focus seems pretty similar to going from a hand that is holding nothing to a hand that is holding a sword.
What would make this ruling somewhat nasty is that even with all of the new methods available in 2024 for weapon juggling, you probably cannot draw and stow your spellcasting focus on the same turn if these would both require an object interaction. I think the knee-jerk reaction from most people here will be that this isn't required for . . . some reason.
Yeah, this is one of those examples where Jeremy was just wrong about what the rules actually said, as happened pretty often over the years. This may very well have been what was intended, but RAI is not the same thing as RAW.
----------
-- "I am talking about the part that requires a free hand, not the part that talks about how a spellcasting focus needs to be held unless otherwise stated."
----------
No. This is all one rule, and these things go together.
The chain of logic is that the Material Component is a particular tangible material by default that is used in a spell's casting, and in order to use it, this material must be accessed with a free hand. That's actually two requirements in one -- the material must be accessible (like, not sitting over in a nearby cart or something), and you need to actually access it with a free hand in order to actually use it.
Next, the spellcaster can use a Component Pouch instead. Meaning, if the casting of the spell requires using a tangible material by default, you can use a Component Pouch instead in order to meet your Material Component requirement.
The next option is -- instead of doing any of those things to satisfy the Material Component, "the spellcaster can substitute a Spellcasting Focus".
So how exactly do you use a Component Pouch or a Spellcasting Focus? Well, as it turns out: "To use a Component Pouch, you must have a hand free to reach into it, and to use a Spellcasting Focus, you must hold it unless its description says otherwise".
In other words, having a free hand to access a tangible material is only one of the possible methods for satisfying the M component of a spell. Another method is to use a Spellcasting Focus -- by holding it unless its description says otherwise. So, if a particular Spellcasting Focus doesn't need to be held, then you don't need a free hand to satisfy your M component in that case.
Look reasons why you're clearly wrong
Paladin spells with a Material component without a Somatic component: https://www.dndbeyond.com/spells?filter-class=2190881&filter-search=&filter-verbal=&filter-somatic=f&filter-material=t&filter-concentration=&filter-ritual=&filter-partnered-content=f
Cleric spells with a Material component without a Somatic component: https://www.dndbeyond.com/spells?filter-class=2190877&filter-search=&filter-verbal=&filter-somatic=f&filter-material=t&filter-concentration=&filter-ritual=&filter-partnered-content=f
This is the amount of spells you're all arguing a Paladin or a Cleric should get from using an Emblem on a Shield. If it doesn't make sense, it's because your stance doesn't make sense.
I can continue to refute each and every argument that anybody makes but seriously, look at what you're arguing for before you continue to debate this. You basically want Emblem on a shield to basically be entirely useless and pointless. I am not going to waste me time sitting here trying to refute the obviously incorrect positions when people keep focusing on the fact that a spellcasting focus needs to be held, nothing changes the fact that a free hand is needed to interact with a spellcasting focus, if it's held or not.
Just because something was intended to work a certain way, and a developer makes a comment that it's intended to work a certain way doesn't actually change what's written.
You need a free hand to perform gestures. If you also need to hold the material component, then you can do that with the same hand as you were gesturing with. But the rules do not get all the way to the point where if you are not holding a material component then you do not need a free hand for the gestures. In fact, you always need a free hand for the gestures, otherwise, you cannot gesture.
Sorry, I don't get your reasoning or what you're saying. Your sentences don't make sense to me.
You haven't made a single argument from the text. Your refutations are based on vibes. Your attitude here is bewildering, and it's become abundantly clear that you just decided how you wanted it to work before you actually read the rules, and in order to avoid admitting you're wrong, you now have to ignore those rules. If you want to pretend the extremely straightforward text establishing that certain spellcasting foci do not need to be touched in order to be used, play however you want. And if you're going to do that, instead of engaging with other people's arguments by using the rules as they actually are, then you're right, we're all wasting our time. But the text says what it says, and those who are capable of letting it do what it says it does, instead of presupposing conclusions it contradicts, can elect not to nerf clerics and paladins by forcing them to free up a hand the text says they don't need.
I'll be honest, I'm not sure up2ng really understood what you were saying (I'm not 100% sure I understood either, but I'm going to try), because I don't really see their post as contradicting anything you've said. All of these holy symbols are equivalent to each other insofar as concerns their ability to fulfill a spell's non-valued, non-consumed material components. An amulet worn is equivalent to an amulet held in your hand is equivalent to an emblem borne on fabric is equivalent to an emblem borne on a shield is equivalent to a reliquary held in your hand. That's what the table makes very clear, since it treats all these options in exactly the same fashion. So I'd agree with each of your bullet points, with the addition that each bullet point is equivalent to all the others.
The one nuance is that I don't really see any specific text that requires that the shield be held, but as a matter of common sense I think we can all agree that there's an implicit requirement that the shield or fabric be somehow "equipped," just as we can assume an implicit requirement that the creature casting the spell be the one who must wear the amulet or hold the reliquary, despite there being no text that explicitly says as much.
@SagaTympana I understand your point of view on how to rule the Holy Symbols, more specifically, the Emblem. I really empathize with your arguments.
As I mentioned before, maybe an updated SAC or a clarification via errata in the rules would help us with this issue.
But for now, I'll stick with the current SAC entry, even for the 2024 PHB. In the end, it helps players if we rule it like this. And it's not just good for them—it's also great to use a shield to channel their god's power that way, especially for Paladins or Clerics when roleplaying.
BTW, I liked your joke from before 😅
I have made the arguments, you not accepting them doesn't mean I didn't make them, I have admitted I am wrong on two occasions which is decided more than you have. You have decided to interpret several things in ways that represent your argument and are not even willing to admit that perhaps your reading could be flawed. Personally, I do not think you have made any meaningful or even correct points, so we are at an impasse, which means we both might as well stop.
EDIT: to make it clear, you still never showed how the holy symbols meaningfully changed since 2014 that makes in any way, any difference to previous rulings and advice. 2014, a holy symbol had to be held, worn visible or had to be borne on to a shield, all the rules in 2024 do is make it clearer which is which but the Sage Advice that has been mentioned specifically is about a bejewelled shield, which is clearly referring to emblem and there is literally no difference here to how emblem is used in 2024. There is no reason to see why anything would change here in 2024 for how a shield bearing an emblem has changed. If you're only seeing vibes, it is because I am responding to your own claims which are definitely far more vibe based than my own. Your arguments are not based on comparing 2024 to 2014, it's ignoring 2014 to repeat an issue that existed in 2014 and was clarified in 2014 to reiterate an already answered problem from 2014 in 2024.
I was wondering which focus does tell you that it doesn’t need to be held? If the position some people have is that nothing contradicts the general rule about holding a focus in the description of emblem, even though the general rule states exceptions exist, I wonder what you think those exceptions that the general rule mentions are?