In the Sage Advice Compendium, it says this about somatic components and spellcasting foci.
If the same cleric casts cure wounds, she needs to put the mace or the shield away, because that spell doesn’t have a material component but does have a somatic component. She’s going to need a free hand to make the spell’s gestures. If she had the War Caster feat, she could ignore this restriction.
But the player's handbook instead has this to say.
A spellcaster must have a hand free to access a spell's material components — or to hold a spellcasting focus — but it can be the same hand that he or she uses to perform somatic components.
The rule in the handbook states that a spellcasting focus may be held in the same hand used for somatic components, but it doesn't state that this only works if the spellcasting focus itself is being used as a material component for the spell being cast. I've heard that somatic components are theoretically less complex in spells that have material components, but I've never seen anything in the handbook to suggest such a thing.
If a spell doesn't have a material component, the rule you quoted for material components doesn't apply. Therefore you need a free hand, as stated in the rules for somatic components.
Somatic components in spells that have material components generally involve the materials, there's not an actual rule that states this, just the few descriptions in various spells.
This is an often misunderstood rule. InquisitiveCoder pointed it out though - material component rules only apply to spells with material components. Jeremy Crawford recently stated something like this on one of the WotC streams: "D&D rules are not a physics engine where you need to know everything in order to adjudicate anything." You only need to know the rules that apply to a particular situation. In the case of spellcasting, only the rules for the components listed apply. Without feats or special abilities, you need:
A free hand to do somatic components for S (but not M spells) - an occupied hand, even when occupied by a focus, doesn't meet this requirement (without feats).
A free hand to handle components for M (but not S spells) - this hand my be occupied by your focus, which could be a shield, weapon, or instrument depending on class/subclass.
A single free hand to handle both the material and somatic components for S and M spells - a focus occupied hand works here.
The net of all of this is that without warcaster you need to get a hand free to cast S (but not M) spells.
I once got into a very long argument with someone who insisted that the material component rules applied to every spell because he had a focus.
The material component rules (including the part that applies to the somatic component) only apply to spells with the material component and not to spells that don't. The same is true for the other components.
I completely agree. Most rules arguments can be solved by remembering that rules indicate when they apply and say what they do when they apply, only excepting when there is a more specific rule that contradicts it in play at the time. All you have to do to figure out a rule is decide if it applies (material component rules only apply to spells with material components) and decide what it says (M and S components can be manipulated with one hand).
A rule listed for "material components" only applies when you are using material components, and says that you can use one hand to manipulate both M and S components. The implication is that if a spell requires somatic and material components, you perform the spell by doing the somatic components with the material components. Think Catholic communion (V,S,M): It isn't enough that the priest raises up his hand and chants the words, he should be holding the communion wafer while he performs the movements.
Honestly, this seems like really splitting hairs. An arcane focus can take the place of (non-valued, non-consumed) material components. You need a hand free to wield your arcane focus, but it can be the same hand you use to perform somatic components of spells. That leads me to believe that you CAN perform somatic components of any spell while holding your arcane focus.
There's no point to worrying about it further, because players will just start doing the "I drop my arcane focus which doesn't take an action, I cast my spell, and then I use a free 'interact with an object' action to pick up my arcane focus" routine. And that's just annoying, and slows the game down, and the end result is the same anyway, so just let them cast whatever spell with their arcane focus in their hand.
I ignore this rule because the end result of it (spells with both a M & S component are somehow easier to cast than spells with only a S component) is ridiculous.
I ignore this rule because the end result of it (spells with both a M & S component are somehow easier to cast than spells with only a S component) is ridiculous.
I dont think it is ridiculous. SM spells are only easier to cast than S spells when the material or spell focus is already in your hand.
I don't like the idea of ignoring this rule, because it invalidates one of the advantages of taking the warcaster feat.
Furthermore, no where in the rules as written does it say you can drop what you are holding for free, that is a commonly accepted loophole that carried over from previous editions. If players start to abuse it regularly, I'd feel inclined to start punishing it.
Honestly, this seems like really splitting hairs. An arcane focus can take the place of (non-valued, non-consumed) material components. You need a hand free to wield your arcane focus, but it can be the same hand you use to perform somatic components of spells. That leads me to believe that you CAN perform somatic components of any spell while holding your arcane focus.
No. Again, from a rules perspective, rules only apply when indicated that they apply. Material component spell casting rules don't apply to any spell without material components. From a hand-waving argument, if there were no difference between M and S components, they wouldn't make any distinction in the rules.
There's no point to worrying about it further, because players will just start doing the "I drop my arcane focus which doesn't take an action, I cast my spell, and then I use a free 'interact with an object' action to pick up my arcane focus" routine. And that's just annoying, and slows the game down, and the end result is the same anyway, so just let them cast whatever spell with their arcane focus in their hand.
I mean what is the problem with "I pull out my wand and cast grease" then on the next turn "I put my wand away and cast magic missile?" Nothing. the only problem is when you want to switch between casting and hitting people in the face. And this is likely why the rules were designed in that manner, to give a reason to decide which they might want to be doing at any given time.
I ignore this rule because the end result of it (spells with both a M & S component are somehow easier to cast than spells with only a S component) is ridiculous.
It is ridiculous to think that performing a series of gesticulations with an object in your hand is easier than without.
I ignore this rule because the end result of it (spells with both a M & S component are somehow easier to cast than spells with only a S component) is ridiculous.
It is ridiculous to think that performing a series of gesticulations with an object in your hand is easier than without.
Yeah, it is ridiculous, but that is exactly what this framework dictates. There are no hard-coded descriptions of what actually constitutes a somatic component for a spell, and it's been confirmed that spell descriptions themselves are flavor text that has no impact on casting (a la Burning Hands).
There are no rules which qualify the somatic component of a S/VS spell as being objectively different from the somatic component of an SM/VSM spell. It is logically invalid to assume they are different.
The rule on using a focus does not say a focus-wielding hand cannot be used for somatic components, nor does the rule on somatic components either.
The rule on material components only says that the hand used to handle the material component can be the same hand used for the somatic component. This does not mean a hand holding a focus is incapable of being used for somatic components if the spell does not also have a material component. It only means that you do not need two hands for spells with both somatic and material components.
The argument in support of Crawford is an argument of inversion in search of a premise: a pre-determined conclusion in search of a way to support it. The notion being: since using a focus for both S&M components is mentioned in the material component rule, that must mean that a somatic component is somehow fundamentally different when a material component is involved. It's not. That is a logically invalid premise. It is the same as suggesting that there are actually four distinct spellcasting components: Verbal, Somatic, Somatic* (with focus), and Material. If that were actually true, then the pro-Crawford argument would be valid. It's not.
Does that make me happy, and do I think that's the way things should be? No, it doesn't, and I don't. I do feel that War Caster is diminished regarding that aspect of the feat, but overall it's still an amazing feat even if you're in a game where the DM doesn't pay attention to any types of spell components. That reaction ability, and having advantage on concentration checks is worth it.
I also think most of this boils down to the way they introduced spellcasting foci to the system. Allowing it to also be used for somatic components at all is what steps on War Caster. Whether you agree or disagree about S/VS spells, the fact is that just having a focus negates the main feature of War Caster for the majority of spells (SM/VSM) that people use, so what ought to be a big feature of the feat only really applies to a smaller subset of things than it should.
It feels like there were multiple design directions they could've gone with foci--complete replacement of need for spellcasting components at all, only material components, different components specific to a certain type of focus, etc.--and the final version ended up being the worst middle-ground where really nobody is happy. I think it would've been better to just leave foci as only replacing the material component (still a big boon), and have hands-full somatic casting stay squarely with War Caster.
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
I ignore this rule because the end result of it (spells with both a M & S component are somehow easier to cast than spells with only a S component) is ridiculous.
It is ridiculous to think that performing a series of gesticulations with an object in your hand is easier than without.
Yeah, it is ridiculous, but that is exactly what this framework dictates. There are no hard-coded descriptions of what actually constitutes a somatic component for a spell, and it's been confirmed that spell descriptions themselves are flavor text that has no impact on casting (a la Burning Hands).
How does this framework dictate that? As you admit, there are no rules clarifying. Who knows what somatic components involve? All we do know is what the rules state.
There are no rules which qualify the somatic component of a S/VS spell as being objectively different from the somatic component of an SM/VSM spell. It is logically invalid to assume they are different.
There is a rule that says that say a SM/VSM spell's somatic components can be performed with the hand holding the components or focus. They are different in that regard.
The rule on using a focus does not say a focus-wielding hand cannot be used for somatic components, nor does the rule on somatic components either.
The somatic rules DO say that a free hand is required. A hand with a focus is not a free hand. Applying rules not appropriate to a situation is logically invalid.
The rule on material components only says that the hand used to handle the material component can be the same hand used for the somatic component. This does not mean a hand holding a focus is incapable of being used for somatic components if the spell does not also have a material component. It only means that you do not need two hands for spells with both somatic and material components.
The rule on material components only applies to spells with material components. This means that you cannot apply the sentence allowing a focus in-hand to any spell where that rule doesn't apply.
Rules only can be applied when applicable, and do what they say. This is the point where you and I seem to disagree. Applying M rules to S/VS spells is akin to giving yourself the benefits of a feat that you have not taken.
You can make changes to rules in your games (house rules), but here is how it works RAW (simplified for clarity and brevity):
Spell components exist to set limits for spellcasting.
Verbal means you need to be able to speak and enunciate.
Somatic means you need at least on hand able to move unhindered and not holding anything unrelated to the spell.
Material means you need a specific object or substance, but can be substituted for a focus if the material is free and not consumed. Material components/spell focus needed for the spell do not get in the way of needed somatic components for that spell.
This is not to argue with anyone, just provide answers to anyone with questions.
The rule on using a focus does not say a focus-wielding hand cannot be used for somatic components, nor does the rule on somatic components either.
The rule on material components only says that the hand used to handle the material component can be the same hand used for the somatic component. This does not mean a hand holding a focus is incapable of being used for somatic components if the spell does not also have a material component. It only means that you do not need two hands for spells with both somatic and material components.
I just want to focus on this part. You made a few mistakes here that result in a conclusion opposite the written rules.
First, sage advice (conveniently added to DDB) only touched on it, but still made it clear that spells that have a somatic component and no material component do in fact require you to not be holding anything, even a spellcasting focus. (This is an official explanation of the RAW).
Second, the rule on material components only says that the hand used to handle the material component can be the same hand used for the somatic component of that spell. This does not mean a hand holding a focus is capable of being used for somatic components if that spell does not also have a material component. It only means that you do not need two hands for spells with both somatic and material components.
How does this framework dictate that? As you admit, there are no rules clarifying. Who knows what somatic components involve? All we do know is what the rules state. You can assume all you like, but there isn't any reason to think that they are any different.
The framework as presented by Jeremy Crawford dictates that. My point is that this framework is invalid.
As you admit, there are no rules clarifying. Who knows what somatic components involve? All we do know is what the rules state. You can assume all you like, but there isn't any reason to think that they are any different.
Yes, this is exactly what I mean. There is no reason to assume they are different. The framework presented by Crawford treats them as if they are somehow different, and that's invalid.
There is a rule that says that say a SM/VSM spell's somatic components can be performed with the hand holding the components or focus. They are different in that regard.
They are not different in that regard. This is what I believe people are misunderstanding. It is telling you that you do not need two free hands to cast an SM/VSM spell.
Rules only can be applied when applicable, and do what they say. This is the point where you and I seem to disagree. Applying M rules to S/VS spells is akin to giving yourself the benefits of a feat that you have not taken.
We do not disagree on this point. What we disagree on is that the individual entries on components exist in a vacuum. They do not. They are not a list of mutually-exclusive scenarios (such as duration: Instantaneous vs. Concentration). They are a collection of entries all under "Components". They are not mutually exclusive--this debate wouldn't keep popping up constantly if they were--and they do apply to one another.
Applying rules not appropriate to the situation is exactly what Crawford is doing. If the individual entries on each specific type of component are meant to be mutually-exclusive descriptions with zero cross-application, then mentioning anything about somatic components in the material component entry is inappropriate & invalid. It would be appropriate to say in the entry for somatic components that a focus-wielding hand can only perform that component if there is also a material component in the spell, but it doesn't, does it? As I said before, what Crawford is suggesting is that there are actually two completely different versions of a somatic component: the existing somatic component (S), and a somatic component involving a focus (S*). We know that there aren't two versions.
Further, there is absolutely no point in talking about somatic components in the material component section if they do not cross-apply! Really! This whole thing could have been avoided by just excluding that line completely. It is already understood that a spell with material components requires a free hand/focus. If we know that the same hand fulfills the somatic component when there's also a material component, then there is no point in mentioning it at all. There would be no point to having a spell say that it has both components. If you could not complete the material component aspect, you would not be able to complete the somatic component anyway, so there is no point in having spells marked as SM/VSM. You would have a spell with either an S or an M component (with or without verbal as that doesn't conflict with anything). The somatic component would be intrinsically fulfilled by the material component. You can either do both of them, or neither of them. There are no circumstances in which a character can fulfill the material component and not the somatic component.
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
We do not disagree on this point. What we disagree on is that the individual entries on components exist in a vacuum. They do not. They are not a list of mutually-exclusive scenarios (such as duration: Instantaneous vs. Concentration). They are a collection of entries all under "Components". They are not mutually exclusive--this debate wouldn't keep popping up constantly if they were--and they do apply to one another.
The individual entries on components are rules to be applied to spells with those components, like other rules that indicate when they are to be applied. You NEVER need to apply rules that aren't in play in D&D 5E. In that sense, all the rules that don't apply to a situation might as well exist in a vacuum. The rest of the rule book doesn't matter when you're not dealing with things that involve it. That is how 5E works.
The rest of your argument is derived from that misunderstanding and so is therefore invalid.
Edit: If you can point to me any other place in 5E where you need to use rules not in play in order to understand a situation at hand, I'll concede that you're interpretation is possible. (Also, remember - since I feel I might need to point this out - the spell you are casting dictates the rules you use, not what is already in your hands.) Without a convincing argument that a spell without a particular rules tag (no M tag) should have that rule (M component rules) applied to it (other than some preconceived notion of how the game should work), then you'll have trouble convincing anyone who has understood RAW on this one.
Yeah, it is ridiculous, but that is exactly what this framework dictates. There are no hard-coded descriptions of what actually constitutes a somatic component for a spell, and it's been confirmed that spell descriptions themselves are flavor text that has no impact on casting (a la Burning Hands).
There's no such thing as flavor text in spells. Anything under the spell's headers is part of a spell's effects unless something in there specifically calls it out as being part of the casting or the components.
There are no rules which qualify the somatic component of a S/VS spell as being objectively different from the somatic component of an SM/VSM spell. It is logically invalid to assume they are different.
The reason to assume they're different is that the rules explicitly say spells with M components work differently with regards to somatic components. That's indisputable.
The simple narrative explanation is that the hand gestures in SM spells incorporate the material component; S-only spells have hand gestures that don't involve holding something.
There are no circumstances in which a character can fulfill the material component andnot the somatic component.
Unusual circumstances: A wizard that is tied up, but has a ball of bat poop and sulfur in his hand cannot cast fireball. A wizard who has sweaty palms and is paralyzed cannot cast ice knife.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
I'm getting the vibe that some of you are saying that a Wizard can't cast some spells if he has his staff in one hand and his wand in the other. For the sake of my own sanity and game flavor I'm throwing that shit out.
If I tell my players that they can't cast spells with a wand in their hand that will totally blow verisimilitude.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
I'm getting the vibe that some of you are saying that a Wizard can't cast some spells if he has his staff in one hand and his wand in the other. For the sake of my own sanity and game flavor I'm throwing that shit out.
If I tell my players that they can't cast spells with a wand in their hand that will totally blow verisimilitude.
I dont think anyone has made that argument specifically. But it would be true per the rules if the spell required a somatic component, but not a material component.
As for believability, that is easy if you just apply your imagination a bit. Spellcasting with a somatic component follows the same general premise as sign language. You can't do that while holding something, why is casting a spell so unbelievable? Somatic with material is the same premise as having to draw a picture, so you use a pen (focus). And they aren't 2 different types of somatic components, they both require you to be using your hand only for casting.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
In the Sage Advice Compendium, it says this about somatic components and spellcasting foci.
If the same cleric casts cure wounds, she needs to put the mace or the shield away, because that spell doesn’t have a material component but does have a somatic component. She’s going to need a free hand to make the spell’s gestures. If she had the War Caster feat, she could ignore this restriction.
But the player's handbook instead has this to say.
A spellcaster must have a hand free to access a spell's material components — or to hold a spellcasting focus — but it can be the same hand that he or she uses to perform somatic components.
The rule in the handbook states that a spellcasting focus may be held in the same hand used for somatic components, but it doesn't state that this only works if the spellcasting focus itself is being used as a material component for the spell being cast. I've heard that somatic components are theoretically less complex in spells that have material components, but I've never seen anything in the handbook to suggest such a thing.
If a spell doesn't have a material component, the rule you quoted for material components doesn't apply. Therefore you need a free hand, as stated in the rules for somatic components.
The Forum Infestation (TM)
Somatic components in spells that have material components generally involve the materials, there's not an actual rule that states this, just the few descriptions in various spells.
This is an often misunderstood rule. InquisitiveCoder pointed it out though - material component rules only apply to spells with material components. Jeremy Crawford recently stated something like this on one of the WotC streams: "D&D rules are not a physics engine where you need to know everything in order to adjudicate anything." You only need to know the rules that apply to a particular situation. In the case of spellcasting, only the rules for the components listed apply. Without feats or special abilities, you need:
The net of all of this is that without warcaster you need to get a hand free to cast S (but not M) spells.
I once got into a very long argument with someone who insisted that the material component rules applied to every spell because he had a focus.
The material component rules (including the part that applies to the somatic component) only apply to spells with the material component and not to spells that don't. The same is true for the other components.
I completely agree. Most rules arguments can be solved by remembering that rules indicate when they apply and say what they do when they apply, only excepting when there is a more specific rule that contradicts it in play at the time. All you have to do to figure out a rule is decide if it applies (material component rules only apply to spells with material components) and decide what it says (M and S components can be manipulated with one hand).
A rule listed for "material components" only applies when you are using material components, and says that you can use one hand to manipulate both M and S components. The implication is that if a spell requires somatic and material components, you perform the spell by doing the somatic components with the material components. Think Catholic communion (V,S,M): It isn't enough that the priest raises up his hand and chants the words, he should be holding the communion wafer while he performs the movements.
Honestly, this seems like really splitting hairs. An arcane focus can take the place of (non-valued, non-consumed) material components. You need a hand free to wield your arcane focus, but it can be the same hand you use to perform somatic components of spells. That leads me to believe that you CAN perform somatic components of any spell while holding your arcane focus.
There's no point to worrying about it further, because players will just start doing the "I drop my arcane focus which doesn't take an action, I cast my spell, and then I use a free 'interact with an object' action to pick up my arcane focus" routine. And that's just annoying, and slows the game down, and the end result is the same anyway, so just let them cast whatever spell with their arcane focus in their hand.
I ignore this rule because the end result of it (spells with both a M & S component are somehow easier to cast than spells with only a S component) is ridiculous.
I dont think it is ridiculous. SM spells are only easier to cast than S spells when the material or spell focus is already in your hand.
I don't like the idea of ignoring this rule, because it invalidates one of the advantages of taking the warcaster feat.
Furthermore, no where in the rules as written does it say you can drop what you are holding for free, that is a commonly accepted loophole that carried over from previous editions. If players start to abuse it regularly, I'd feel inclined to start punishing it.
No. Again, from a rules perspective, rules only apply when indicated that they apply. Material component spell casting rules don't apply to any spell without material components. From a hand-waving argument, if there were no difference between M and S components, they wouldn't make any distinction in the rules.
I mean what is the problem with "I pull out my wand and cast grease" then on the next turn "I put my wand away and cast magic missile?" Nothing. the only problem is when you want to switch between casting and hitting people in the face. And this is likely why the rules were designed in that manner, to give a reason to decide which they might want to be doing at any given time.
It is ridiculous to think that performing a series of gesticulations with an object in your hand is easier than without.
Yeah, it is ridiculous, but that is exactly what this framework dictates. There are no hard-coded descriptions of what actually constitutes a somatic component for a spell, and it's been confirmed that spell descriptions themselves are flavor text that has no impact on casting (a la Burning Hands).
There are no rules which qualify the somatic component of a S/VS spell as being objectively different from the somatic component of an SM/VSM spell. It is logically invalid to assume they are different.
The rule on using a focus does not say a focus-wielding hand cannot be used for somatic components, nor does the rule on somatic components either.
The rule on material components only says that the hand used to handle the material component can be the same hand used for the somatic component. This does not mean a hand holding a focus is incapable of being used for somatic components if the spell does not also have a material component. It only means that you do not need two hands for spells with both somatic and material components.
The argument in support of Crawford is an argument of inversion in search of a premise: a pre-determined conclusion in search of a way to support it. The notion being: since using a focus for both S&M components is mentioned in the material component rule, that must mean that a somatic component is somehow fundamentally different when a material component is involved. It's not. That is a logically invalid premise. It is the same as suggesting that there are actually four distinct spellcasting components: Verbal, Somatic, Somatic* (with focus), and Material. If that were actually true, then the pro-Crawford argument would be valid. It's not.
Does that make me happy, and do I think that's the way things should be? No, it doesn't, and I don't. I do feel that War Caster is diminished regarding that aspect of the feat, but overall it's still an amazing feat even if you're in a game where the DM doesn't pay attention to any types of spell components. That reaction ability, and having advantage on concentration checks is worth it.
I also think most of this boils down to the way they introduced spellcasting foci to the system. Allowing it to also be used for somatic components at all is what steps on War Caster. Whether you agree or disagree about S/VS spells, the fact is that just having a focus negates the main feature of War Caster for the majority of spells (SM/VSM) that people use, so what ought to be a big feature of the feat only really applies to a smaller subset of things than it should.
It feels like there were multiple design directions they could've gone with foci--complete replacement of need for spellcasting components at all, only material components, different components specific to a certain type of focus, etc.--and the final version ended up being the worst middle-ground where really nobody is happy. I think it would've been better to just leave foci as only replacing the material component (still a big boon), and have hands-full somatic casting stay squarely with War Caster.
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
How does this framework dictate that? As you admit, there are no rules clarifying. Who knows what somatic components involve? All we do know is what the rules state.
There is a rule that says that say a SM/VSM spell's somatic components can be performed with the hand holding the components or focus. They are different in that regard.
The somatic rules DO say that a free hand is required. A hand with a focus is not a free hand. Applying rules not appropriate to a situation is logically invalid.
The rule on material components only applies to spells with material components. This means that you cannot apply the sentence allowing a focus in-hand to any spell where that rule doesn't apply.
Rules only can be applied when applicable, and do what they say. This is the point where you and I seem to disagree. Applying M rules to S/VS spells is akin to giving yourself the benefits of a feat that you have not taken.
You can make changes to rules in your games (house rules), but here is how it works RAW (simplified for clarity and brevity):
Spell components exist to set limits for spellcasting.
This is not to argue with anyone, just provide answers to anyone with questions.
I just want to focus on this part. You made a few mistakes here that result in a conclusion opposite the written rules.
First, sage advice (conveniently added to DDB) only touched on it, but still made it clear that spells that have a somatic component and no material component do in fact require you to not be holding anything, even a spellcasting focus. (This is an official explanation of the RAW).
Second, the rule on material components only says that the hand used to handle the material component can be the same hand used for the somatic component of that spell. This does not mean a hand holding a focus is capable of being used for somatic components if that spell does not also have a material component. It only means that you do not need two hands for spells with both somatic and material components.
The framework as presented by Jeremy Crawford dictates that. My point is that this framework is invalid.
We do not disagree on this point. What we disagree on is that the individual entries on components exist in a vacuum. They do not. They are not a list of mutually-exclusive scenarios (such as duration: Instantaneous vs. Concentration). They are a collection of entries all under "Components". They are not mutually exclusive--this debate wouldn't keep popping up constantly if they were--and they do apply to one another.
Applying rules not appropriate to the situation is exactly what Crawford is doing. If the individual entries on each specific type of component are meant to be mutually-exclusive descriptions with zero cross-application, then mentioning anything about somatic components in the material component entry is inappropriate & invalid. It would be appropriate to say in the entry for somatic components that a focus-wielding hand can only perform that component if there is also a material component in the spell, but it doesn't, does it? As I said before, what Crawford is suggesting is that there are actually two completely different versions of a somatic component: the existing somatic component (S), and a somatic component involving a focus (S*). We know that there aren't two versions.
Further, there is absolutely no point in talking about somatic components in the material component section if they do not cross-apply! Really! This whole thing could have been avoided by just excluding that line completely. It is already understood that a spell with material components requires a free hand/focus. If we know that the same hand fulfills the somatic component when there's also a material component, then there is no point in mentioning it at all. There would be no point to having a spell say that it has both components. If you could not complete the material component aspect, you would not be able to complete the somatic component anyway, so there is no point in having spells marked as SM/VSM. You would have a spell with either an S or an M component (with or without verbal as that doesn't conflict with anything). The somatic component would be intrinsically fulfilled by the material component. You can either do both of them, or neither of them. There are no circumstances in which a character can fulfill the material component and not the somatic component.
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
The individual entries on components are rules to be applied to spells with those components, like other rules that indicate when they are to be applied. You NEVER need to apply rules that aren't in play in D&D 5E. In that sense, all the rules that don't apply to a situation might as well exist in a vacuum. The rest of the rule book doesn't matter when you're not dealing with things that involve it. That is how 5E works.
The rest of your argument is derived from that misunderstanding and so is therefore invalid.
Edit: If you can point to me any other place in 5E where you need to use rules not in play in order to understand a situation at hand, I'll concede that you're interpretation is possible. (Also, remember - since I feel I might need to point this out - the spell you are casting dictates the rules you use, not what is already in your hands.) Without a convincing argument that a spell without a particular rules tag (no M tag) should have that rule (M component rules) applied to it (other than some preconceived notion of how the game should work), then you'll have trouble convincing anyone who has understood RAW on this one.
There's no such thing as flavor text in spells. Anything under the spell's headers is part of a spell's effects unless something in there specifically calls it out as being part of the casting or the components.
The reason to assume they're different is that the rules explicitly say spells with M components work differently with regards to somatic components. That's indisputable.
The simple narrative explanation is that the hand gestures in SM spells incorporate the material component; S-only spells have hand gestures that don't involve holding something.
The Forum Infestation (TM)
Unusual circumstances: A wizard that is tied up, but has a ball of bat poop and sulfur in his hand cannot cast fireball. A wizard who has sweaty palms and is paralyzed cannot cast ice knife.
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
-Ilyara Thundertale
I'm getting the vibe that some of you are saying that a Wizard can't cast some spells if he has his staff in one hand and his wand in the other. For the sake of my own sanity and game flavor I'm throwing that shit out.
If I tell my players that they can't cast spells with a wand in their hand that will totally blow verisimilitude.
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
-Ilyara Thundertale
I dont think anyone has made that argument specifically. But it would be true per the rules if the spell required a somatic component, but not a material component.
As for believability, that is easy if you just apply your imagination a bit. Spellcasting with a somatic component follows the same general premise as sign language. You can't do that while holding something, why is casting a spell so unbelievable? Somatic with material is the same premise as having to draw a picture, so you use a pen (focus). And they aren't 2 different types of somatic components, they both require you to be using your hand only for casting.