Monstrous Compendium Vol. 1: Spelljammer Creatures
Frozen Sick
D&D Beyond Basic Rules
Basic Rules (2014)
Sign in to view your library & saved favorites.
Sign in- Marketplace
Monstrous Compendium Vol. 1: Spelljammer CreaturesFrozen SickD&D Beyond Basic RulesBasic Rules (2014)Sign in to view your library & saved favorites.
Sign in
The written rules actually only allow for that under particular circumstances . . . which does not include sword-and-board fighting.
We begin with the requirement for the Somatic component:
Next, we have the requirement for the Material component:
By default, you generally need a free hand to access the Material component, but that free hand can be currently performing gestures. But no matter what, the gestures must be performed by using at least one hand, as per the first rule above. If a specific rule changes the Material component requirement such that a free hand is no longer needed to access the materials, that doesn't absolve the requirement to use at least one hand to perform gestures -- those are two separate requirements.
The exception for the Material requirement (but not for the Somatic component) is given by:
As it turns out, some of the descriptions do say otherwise, such as the description for the emblem borne on a shield:
Because its "description says otherwise", the Emblem borne on a Shield creates an exception to the requirement for the Material component that that component requires a free hand since it is "borne" instead of "held". But that doesn't change the fact that if the spell also has an "S" component then the gestures must be performed with at least one hand. So, those hands cannot be occupied.
Under a slightly loose but totally reasonable interpretation, a hand could be already occupied and remain occupied with the Material component (and only the Material component) and still be used to perform gestures (as opposed to a more rigid interpretation requiring gesturing with the free hand and then "accessing" the Material component before or after or during the gestures, for example), but such a hand certainly cannot be occupied with something else, such as a sword or a shield. Nothing in the above rules permits that. The shield, of course, is not the spellcasting focus / Material component -- the Emblem itself is what satisfies that requirement. After all, the Shield is being held / wielded, but the emblem is not being held at all -- it is borne.
Likewise, if we were discussing a worn amulet, it would work the same way. The worn amulet satisfies the Material component without needing a free hand to access it -- so the character can wield a sword and a shield while satisfying the Material component for a spell. But such a character would not be able to perform gestures since even under the loose interpretation the fact that the character would be allowed to access the Material component with the "same hand" that is being used to perform gestures doesn't really help anything since we already don't need a free hand for the Material component due to using the worn amulet, but we still need some way to perform the gestures with at least one hand.
It's certainly possible that the intention is that it works as suggested by the SAC example. But the written rules technically do not allow it.
Yeah, the SAC is clarifying how the rules should be interpreted. And I do think the rules support that interpretation.
My hot take is all spells should require a M component so you can disarm mages.
I think the main problem with this rule is that it's just not very fun for the players. It follows a design philosophy of being restrictive instead of empowering. So, a player has an idea and just wants to cast a cool spell. But the rules sort of say that yes, spellcasting is very powerful! So, because of that, you can't do this, and you can't do that, and you can't do this other thing. That's generally not what players want to hear.
In this case, the written rules don't quite get there. They say that S needs a free hand. They say that M needs a free hand. They also say that if you need the free hand for M that it can be the same free hand that is used for S. But the rules do not say that if for some reason you don't need a free hand for M then you also don't need a free hand for S. It just doesn't say that anywhere even though that's a common interpretation.
I was curious about this topic as well but I believe this thread is overcomplicating it a bit. Please refer to this link on holy symbols showing that emblems can be embedded on shields for a shield bearing cleric or worn on an amulet.
www.dndbeyond.com/equipment/514-holy-symbol
additionally for somatic components when weapon using for 2 hand weapons you can hold the weapon in one hand to cast spells temporarily, and if using OH weapon with shield just use free action to sheathe weapon and cast somatic components. Mechanically there is little implication unless using feats like defensive dualist or magic weapons that provide some utility, though once characters start using magic weapons they will likely be able to have taken the Warcaster feat.
I agree with that you said.
For that quoted part, one drawback is you can't use your weapon for an Opportunity Attack, but the upside is that your hand is free and ready for any Reaction spell.
Weapon juggling devalued war caster a bit
Has it significantly? I feel like weapon spell casters will primarily be using spells with material components (and a Ruby of the War Mage) or no somatic components and War Caster is relatively low value for them. Advantage on Constitution Saves to maintain Concentration may have increased in value with the recent Circle Magic rules though.
For casters, weapons are generally low value compared to their spells and War Caster has other benefits that outweigh the Somatic Components feature, particularly now that Reactive Spell no longer requires a hostile creature. Your injured character is going to leave my side? Just let me cast Cure Wounds as a Reaction please.
How to add Tooltips.
My houserulings.
All clerics are going to use Spirit Guardians, tho, so War Caster is still very useful.
Spirit Guardians has material and somatic components so a Holy Symbol on a shield will allow it to be cast without a free hand and without war caster. Spirit Guardians is a poor reason to pick up War Caster unless I am misunderstanding your point.
War Caster helps you cast spells with Somatic components and no material components. War Caster allows you to perform somatic components with a weapon or shield in hand. You will still need a free hand if you are casting a spell with components and no spellcasting focus or a spell with costly material components.
When casting a spell with material components (that do not have a cost) and somatic components, such as Spirit Guardians, you can use a spellcasting focus, such as a Holy Symbol emblazoned on a shield, and perform the somatic components with the spellcasting focus. You don't need a feat for it. If the spell has somatic and no material components or the material components have a cost, a spellcasting focus cannot help.
How to add Tooltips.
My houserulings.
Primarily ones with M components maybe, but there is still a decent chunk of spells that are just V, S out there that they may want to use. And depending on the caster how much they want to use a weapon will vary. But lets say level 6 valor bard for example, they can with weapon juggling sheathe weapon cast spell, draw weapon with 2nd attack. Before that level 6 feature was not as functional with a sword and board valor bard. And most if not all attack cantrips are just V, S. Same for eldritch knight fighters. And I'm sure there are cleric specs that hit people with weapons. I'd say warlock but they are not proficient in shields so it requires more feats or multi classing to matter for this. Not sure a reaction heal from moving out of your area is enough of a buff to counter that. Especially since I suspect that will be up in the air at many tables, even the designers were split on that.
It looks like you've missed the majority of the discussion that took place over several pages of this thread a while back. Technically this doesn't actually work, although it is the most common interpretation -- likely because of the old inaccurate Sage Advice entry. It may or may not be the intended way to play it.
The best way to remember how it actually works is that you start with the fact that you always need a hand to perform gestures. Then, if you also need a hand to access or hold your M component (actual materials or component pouch or a held spellcasting focus) then you can use the same hand for that as you are already using to perform gestures.
The last bit of trivia for why the above scenario doesn't technically work is because a Shield is not a focus. The Emblem is the focus, but an Emblem is not held, it is borne. So, because of that, you are back to needing a separate free hand for the S component.
I'm reasonably certain there was an SA confirming that the point of emblems is to make something like a shield functionally a focus, because otherwise it be at least counterintuitive if not actively worse.
You are not current on the 2024 Sage Advice and are mistaken.
Holy Symbol
In all cases, technically, theoretically, and practically, this works. It is RAW. This is the current Sage Advice & Errata, not an old or inaccurate Sage Advice entry. It has been deliberately carried forward and is current for 2024 explicitly confirming that a Cleric with an Emblem spellcasting focus on their Shield performs the gestures with the hand holding Shield. Your guideline may apply to Paladins and Clerics with Emblems on a Tabard or the +X Reliquary Spellcasting Focus from Tasha's.
How to add Tooltips.
My houserulings.
@up2ng:
Both the rules as written and the official ruling from Sage Advice allow a spellcaster to use the same hand to both perform Somatic and Material components, including with an Emblem on a Shield as their Holy Symbol.
If your interpretation is different, it is faulty.
I disagree vehemently with that sentiment. The Sage Advice itself tells us exactly what it is and what its role should be in rules discussions:
So, no. The SAC rulings should absolutely positively never be treated as RAW, especially for resolving debates over readings of the rules. The SAC itself tells us not to do that. Official rulings and RAW are two different things.
The SAC rulings give us insight into the designers' intent of a rule. It's fine to use those same rulings in your games, just be aware that when the intent differs from the written rules that you would no longer be playing according to the RAW. When you do this, it's always a good idea to communicate this with your players.
If the 2014 Sage Advice is inaccurate and that exact same text "has been deliberately carried forward and is current for 2024" then how in the world can that text all of a sudden be accurate? Obviously, it cannot be.
This Sage Advice example still does not accurately reflect what is actually written in the rule books. It might accurately reflect the designers' intent, but that's not the same thing.
What is actually written in the rule books and how that text should be interpreted was correctly explained all the way back on Post #2 of this thread by another forum poster. There has been a lot of discussion since then probably because the correct answer does not align with the Sage Advice and does not align with how most people play it. I'm not even saying that I play it that way -- I am just confirming what the rules actually say and what they mean.
Incorrect.
You have quoted selectively in a manner that misrepresents the nature of Sage Advice. I have also quoted selectively but underlined some important segments that you omitted.
Combined with the statement from Elegate that Tarodnet quoted, Sage Advice is RAW unless stated otherwise.
Unless, of course, the 2014 Sage Advice was never inaccurate. When the 2024 rules were published, the status of the Sage Advice Compendium was in question because rules were changed it was not clear of the previous Sage Advice still applied or if there were deliberate changes in the new edition. Now that the Sage Advice and Errata has been published it is no longer in question and it is RAW unless stated otherwise. By comparison, look at the entry on Illusory Reality:
Again, emphasis added.
For purposes of discussions on these forums, it is explicitly RAW that a Cleric or Paladin can use the hand holding a shield with a spellcasting focus emblazoned on it to perform any somatic components of a spell with material components that do not have a cost. It is the most common interpretation because it is the RAW compliant one.
How to add Tooltips.
My houserulings.
You quoted a large chunk of rules but then you drew the wrong conclusion from the text that you quoted.
When the text says, "We often approach rules questions from one to three different perspectives" and then gives a list that includes RAW, RAI and RAF then the correct conclusion from that is that at least sometimes the Sage Advice is not even attempting to explain the RAW. That doesn't even mention the fact that sometimes they attempt to interpret the RAW but are wrong. Furthermore, an interpretation of text literally cannot be the text itself. Sage Advice provides an interpretation and a subsequent official ruling. However, by the Sage Advice's own text, which you have now also quoted, the term RAW very explicitly refers to the Rules As Written -- what the text of the rules actually says in context, without regard to the designers’ intent. The text is forced to stand on its own. The Sage Advice is telling you that its own text is not RAW -- it's telling you what the term means very clearly.
The reason why the Sage Advice interpretation and ruling with regard to the Emblem borne on a Shield is incorrect with respect to what the text of the rules actually says has been explained thoroughly throughout this thread.
Again, it's fine to take the Sage Advice interpretation as the intended way to play and then to go ahead and play it that way. Just make it clear with your players that that's what you are doing.
You are still drawing the wrong conclusion because not only does Sage Advice state that it includes explanations of the Rules as Written, but a mod has already confirmed that Sage Advice is RAW for the purpose of these discussions. You are free to house rule how you like at your table or make whatever claims you like elsewhere, but here, the Sage Advice Compendium is RAW for the 2014 and the Sage Advice and Errata is RAW for the 2024 rules.
So, an Emblem on a Shield still works theoretically, technically, and practically as a Spellcasting Focus per RAW.
How to add Tooltips.
My houserulings.