Quote from Jhfffan >>

Quote from NightskyPirate >>

Hmm... if you say so, but if we go down that rabbit hole, one could argue that holding the shield and not having it equipped means that the holy symbol is being held. After all, it's not two separate objects. Or is it?

The notion is absurd. A holy symbol that is part of a shield makes the shield a holy symbol for all intents and purposes. Unlike other holy symbols, however, it must be equipped to be used. It would be the same if the holy symbol were on robes, armor, or a crown (though I wouldn't say that is RAW).

If we're going to refute that, then we go back to the first line, and rule that a held shield with the symbol constitutes holding a holy symbol.

 The symbol would have to be worn visibly for robes, armor, or a crown. That much is RAW. Whether you could cast without touching that symbol is at least clouded enough to be solely up to the discretion of the DM, though I've usually thought of it as wearing a pendant and reaching up to grasp it while casting. It is intriguing that it must be worn visibly when nothing says anything about the spellcasting focus being less effective if any particular creature is blinded or can't see the symbol. 

 I always assumed that it worked the way a crucifix has to be brandished in some way against a Vampire in common conception. The target’s ability to see it is irrelevant to the deity’s knowledge that their symbol was brandished while invoking their power. 

Quote from Wysperra >>

Quote from IamSposta >>

 I agree. Which is why I have houseruled that a character can perform the S components for any spell while holding a Spellcasting Focus. That being said, I am fully aware that I am using a houserule in direct contradiction to RAW. 

 

Yes, because it's stupid for a wizard to have to put away or drop their wand or staff so they can cast a spell. That is really NOT iconic.

 Agreed. But again, it is a houserule and I know that and admit it. I don’t claim it to be RAW.

Quote from Wysperra >>

Quote from IamSposta >>

 I agree. Which is why I have houseruled that a character can perform the S components for any spell while holding a Spellcasting Focus. That being said, I am fully aware that I am using a houserule in direct contradiction to RAW. 

 

Yes, because it's stupid for a wizard to have to put away or drop their wand or staff so they can cast a spell. That is really NOT iconic.

 This I can agree with. It's definitely something that is more mechanical balance based than epic and images of Harry Potter (generally speaking) and Gandalf (particularly facing off against the Balrog on the Bridge of Khazad-dum in Moria) are in our minds. That's part of the give and take that DMs have to face when going strictly off of RAW, factoring in RAI, and departing for RAF.

Quote from Jhfffan>>

Quote from Ravnodaus>>

That is not at all being implied by what I'm saying. Not even sure how you come to that idea. I've never suggested anything like that.

You may not think that you are implying that, but that's the logical conclusion of your argument.  If components don't matter because they can all be replaced, then Subtle Spell doesn't matter.  You aren't going exactly to that point, true.  You are saying that the Arcane Focus is used to channel the spell, and the material component rules that aren't in force during a non material component spell allow you to do so.  The only way that makes sense is if you are able to replace the components including the somatic components, which would lead to replacing the verbal components and therefore make Subtle Spell irrelevant.

I'm not and never have made this argument. You can't just replace components just cuz. I've never suggested that you can. I've argued that you can perform the S components with the same hand that is holding the focus. Not that it replaces the S components. Especially not the V components, that was never even being talked about. Only that you can do the S components with the hand holding the focus. And, only because that's exactly what the spellcasting rules says you can do that the Arcane Focus specifically points us to.

You can sling a shield over your shoulder or otherwise strap it on you, and then you're both bearing a shield with a symbol on it, and wearing it visibly. You don't need to get your hand involved in this at all with a Holy Symbol. I'm not sure why you don't see the difference. But, there it is.

And nothing in their entry tells us that they can. Really, read it again if you must but nothing at all in the Artificer spellcasting section gives them some special permission to do what you seem to say that they and they alone can do. So if it isn't a default ability that anyone can do, then they can't either. Because again, while they are required to do it in general, nothing actually lets them do it for specifically non M spells.

I'll give you this, and posit that it simply means that they have to be holding their spellcasting focus and nothing else to cast S or VS spells.  It doesn't prevent them from casting those spells, it just means that they have rules that force them to go without more than other spellcasters.

Hmm. You seem to be agreeing with me now. If you're now saying that they, and thus any eligible spellcaster, can indeed have a spellcasting focus in hand even while not actively replacing M components in a spell, then we have an agreement. Agreements are great.

Do we also agree, then, that since a sorcerer, wizard, or warlock can have a spellcasting focus in hand when casting one of their V or VS spells, an object that specifically says they can channel their spells through it, that they could then channel their spells through it? Because if so, I think we have had a major breakthrough here.

I'm going to mostly stay clear of the whole "bear" vs "equip" vs "held" vs "worn" argument, as it's one that's been fought over and over and over and over.... and over...

On that, I will just say, in my understanding, the shield must be actively equipped to be used as a focus, just like armor, necklace, robe, crown, etc, would have to be. Not simply strapped somewhere on the person (and simply visible). Look at it from the PoV of the deity granting power.

Regardless of THAT interpretation, the holy symbol does allow the M and M/S components to be cast without using hands, but not S only. RAW. A spell like cure wounds or vampiric touch being like that makes perfect sense- you need to use your hands on your target. S spells without the material component literally means the caster needs to use their hands to do certain things, be it gestures, touching with a palm, or tapping the thing in the back of your mouth (if that's how you want to play it... its called a uvula, btw.)

I see it as an ego thing for the deity/source of power in question, rather than the symbol being a channel or source of the deity's power. The whole part of it being a focus for a spell: some sort of prominent presentation of the symbol.

REPRESENTING, Tyr's justice. I'm bringin' out a wrathful swing of premonition, you couldn't contain a evil thought with inhibition, no wicked deed's gonna escape my elimination, pucker yourself up as I come at you, the time has come, reckoning at hand, can't look away, here we go, SMITE! (*heavy metal ensues*)

Oh, gods, now I need to play a Bard Paladin.

Where in the text of the arcane focus does it say that it negates the component rules for the spells that wizards, sorcerers, or warlocks cast?

 I wonder if it makes sense that all of these spells require gestures with hands and fingers as opposed to the use of wands, orbs, symbols, oak sticks, component pouches, etc.

Quote from NightskyPirate >>

 

Regardless of THAT interpretation, the holy symbol does allow the M and M/S components to be cast without using hands, but not S only. RAW. A spell like cure wounds or vampiric touch being like that makes perfect sense- you need to use your hands on your target. S spells without the material component literally means the caster needs to use their hands to do certain things, be it gestures, touching with a palm, or tapping the thing in the back of your mouth (if that's how you want to play it... its called a uvula, btw.)

 

 Yeah, this is basically what I see in my head when those spells are being cast too. A good chunk of S components are functional movements you need to make to perform the spell. And, from my view, why you could easily still do all them while whipping a wand around or whatever. It just makes sense. Sorry for the not-RAW comment. Bu I cannot for the life of me fathom the creators would intentionally make the thing that says it channels spell be unable to actually channel spells. The image of a war mage mid-combat limply holding a wand at his side, unused, while shooting a Ray of Frost from the other hand is just... dumb. That can't have been their intent when they created the Arcane Focus that specifically says it is designed to channel your spells.

Quote from WolfOfTheBees >>

Where in the text of the arcane focus does it say that it negates the component rules for the spells that wizards, sorcerers, or warlocks cast?

 It doesn't negate them. In fact, it specifically tells you to use them. Very specifically, it tells you to use the Material Component section of the rules for how a spellcasting focus works.

Quote from Ravnodaus >>

Quote from WolfOfTheBees >>

Where in the text of the arcane focus does it say that it negates the component rules for the spells that wizards, sorcerers, or warlocks cast?

 It doesn't negate them. In fact, it specifically tells you to use them. Very specifically, it tells you to use the Material Component section of the rules for how a spellcasting focus works.

 The component rules tell you that the spell is what dictates the components.

You can use your arcane firearm as a spellcasting focus for your artificer spells. When you cast an artificer spell through the firearm, roll a d8, and you gain bonus to one of the spell's damage rolls equal to the number rolled. If the spell affects multiple creatures, one creature of your choice takes the bonus damage.

Does the Artillerist's L5 ability, Arcane Firearm, ability only work on M spells?

Quote from Ravnodaus >>

Quote from Jhfffan>>

Quote from Ravnodaus>>

That is not at all being implied by what I'm saying. Not even sure how you come to that idea. I've never suggested anything like that.

You may not think that you are implying that, but that's the logical conclusion of your argument.  If components don't matter because they can all be replaced, then Subtle Spell doesn't matter.  You aren't going exactly to that point, true.  You are saying that the Arcane Focus is used to channel the spell, and the material component rules that aren't in force during a non material component spell allow you to do so.  The only way that makes sense is if you are able to replace the components including the somatic components, which would lead to replacing the verbal components and therefore make Subtle Spell irrelevant.

 

I'm not and never have made this argument. You can't just replace components just cuz. I've never suggested that you can. I've argued that you can perform the S components with the same hand that is holding the focus. Not that it replaces the S components. Especially not the V components, that was never even being talked about. Only that you can do the S components with the hand holding the focus. And, only because that's exactly what the spellcasting rules says you can do that the Arcane Focus specifically points us to.

 

"An Arcane Focus isn't the same as a Holy Symbol!"

then the shield effectively becomes a spellcasting focus.

No to that bolded bit. That's just not true. Having a holy symbol on something doesn't make that thing a spellcasting focus, and nothing says that it does. This is another weird invention. The text there clearly says that the holy symbol itself is the spellcasting focus. This obsession with shields in this thread is so weird.

And where is the Holy Symbol?  It's emblazoned on the shield. See merriam-webster here. If the symbol is emblazoned on the shield, then it is on the shield.  If it's on the shield, then you can't hold it unless you are holding the shield.  Your refusal to recognize this fact is as tiring for us as I'm sure you would be with your perception that we are refusing to see reason by just telling you that the sky is in fact normally purple if we were discussing the color of the sky.

 

You can sling a shield over your shoulder or otherwise strap it on you, and then you're both bearing a shield with a symbol on it, and wearing it visibly. You don't need to get your hand involved in this at all with a Holy Symbol. I'm not sure why you don't see the difference. But, there it is.

And nothing in their entry tells us that they can. Really, read it again if you must but nothing at all in the Artificer spellcasting section gives them some special permission to do what you seem to say that they and they alone can do. So if it isn't a default ability that anyone can do, then they can't either. Because again, while they are required to do it in general, nothing actually lets them do it for specifically non M spells.

I'll give you this, and posit that it simply means that they have to be holding their spellcasting focus and nothing else to cast S or VS spells.  It doesn't prevent them from casting those spells, it just means that they have rules that force them to go without more than other spellcasters.

 

Hmm. You seem to be agreeing with me now. If you're now saying that they, and thus any eligible spellcaster, can indeed have a spellcasting focus in hand even while not actively replacing M components in a spell, then we have an agreement. Agreements are great.

Do we also agree, then, that since a sorcerer, wizard, or warlock can have a spellcasting focus in hand when casting one of their V or VS spells, an object that specifically says they can channel their spells through it, that they could then channel their spells through it? Because if so, I think we have had a major breakthrough here.

 

 

 The example with these shield specifically says that Mace and Shield are in hand. That means that they have no free hands. The cleric can cast Aid but not Cure Wounds with a mace and a shield in hand.

As for the Artificer, I'm not saying that you can cast S and V, S spells with a weapon in one hand and their tools in the other. I'm saying that they would have to put away the weapon (and because they are proficient with shields and its plausible that they might want to use one, a shield could go there, too) to cast those spells. Thus thieves' tools in the left hand nothing in the right. Tinker's tools in the right hand and nothing in the left. Or vice versa for either scenario and swapping any other artisan's tools in. A fifth level Artillerist could (and should) even use their Arcane Firearm.

Alas, I hate to disappoint you, but I don't agree that the wizard can hold a staff in one hand, a wand in the other, and cast Ray of Frost. But they could cast Dancing Lights because it has an M component, meaning that the Arcane Focus is acting as the M component, which invokes the rules that the hand holding the M component or the Arcane Focus can perform the Somatic components. 

Ray of Light is the same as Cure Wounds in the example (Component-wise). Dancing Lights is the parallel to Aid. The staff is the equivalent of the mace (weapon in one hand) and the wand is the same as the shield emblazoned with the holy symbol (spell casting focus held in the other).

If that is something that you can't agree with, can we at least agree to disagree and move along? If you can't agree with that statement, you aren't likely to agree with anything else that is presented. 

You've clearly grasped that the hang up that we have is the M component. You tried to state it just before I rejoined the conversation. We argue that the presence of an M component are relevant and t you argue that relying on the presence of the M component is not necessary. Your insistence on that hasn't convinced anyone that says that it's relevant otherwise. You haven't introduced anything to make us think otherwise (the Artificer rules don't, even as an exception. That doesn't mean that the Artificer can't cast those spells via our argument, just that they can't do so while holding a weapon, even with the Arcane Firearm which isn't a weapon since it has no attack stats. It can simply act as an Artificer spellcasting focus on place of the normally required tools.) Thus, let your current arguments lend the sway that they will and agree to disagree. Otherwise, we'll continue you rehash the same 250 words or whatever the actual number is that has been rehashed because there is nothing new to add to the discussion (apparently).

Quote from Ravnodaus >>

You can use your arcane firearm as a spellcasting focus for your artificer spells. When you cast an artificer spell through the firearm, roll a d8, and you gain bonus to one of the spell's damage rolls equal to the number rolled. If the spell affects multiple creatures, one creature of your choice takes the bonus damage.

Does the Artillerist's L5 ability, Arcane Firearm, ability only work on M spells?

 I think Jhfffan put it better than I could, but again, does anything in the artificer say that artificers don't have to follow the rest of the rules for spellcasting? They have to hold a focus for every spell and all of their spells are produced through their focus. Their spellcasting feature literally says that.

"Does the Artillerist's L5 ability, Arcane Firearm, ability only work on M spells?"

VERY strictly RAW, yes. Logically speaking, every artificer spell has a M component, because every Artificer spell requires a focus. They just didn't word it as "every artificer spell requires a material component." However, they are linking to spells that other classes use as well, and they aren't going to reprint every artificer spell separately so that it has the M component listed. Instead, they very clearly say are stating that every artificer spell is cast with a focus. So, yes, VERY NARROW MINDED STRICT RAW (grunting @ some), there are non-M spells in the artificer spell list.

I hardly see a need to quote this, but whatev's. From Artificer.

Spellcasting

You have studied the workings of magic, how to channel it through objects, and how to awaken it within them. As a result, you have gained a limited ability to cast spells. To observers, you don’t appear to be casting spells in a conventional way; you look as if you’re producing wonders through various items.

Tools Required

You produce your artificer spell effects through your tools. You must have a spellcasting focus – specifically tinker’ tools or some kind of artisan’s tool – in hand when you cast any spell with this Spellcasting feature. You must be proficient with the tool to use it in this way.

HOWEVER, that does not mean that you can cast S spells without a M component while holding a wand and something in the other hand. This is RAW, and I believe it is also RAI. Example spells put above in post #327 and full list in #329. Your argument including the artificer is under the premise that they actually have ANY non-M spells, which only a daft RAW ONLY BUFFOON would say is the case.

Only a few spells that can be used with a focus don't require any gestures; Suggestion, Word of Radiance, Light, Tongues, Feather Fall, Darkness, Teleportation Circle are most of them. All other M spells require gestures (excluding with Holy Symbols), which we are in full agreement on. The deviation is pretty clear; just as a dull stick-in-the-mud would say not all artificer spells have a M component when cast by an artificer, component pouches and focuses don't allow for somatic gestures that are exclusive of anything being held in the hand. ANY. THING. AT. ALL. Wand, orb, oaken twig, a scrap of paper, doesn't matter. The hand must be free of any material components or focus. It's the same for Holy Symbols. Only by including a material component (as every artificer spell must be by using derivative logic), can the spell be done with something in hand- and quite literally involves that thing being held. Throwing bat dung. Twirl of a wand (as opposed to twirl of a finger).

That's RAW. Straightforward.

Quote from Ravnodaus >>

You can use your arcane firearm as a spellcasting focus for your artificer spells. When you cast an artificer spell through the firearm, roll a d8, and you gain bonus to one of the spell's damage rolls equal to the number rolled. If the spell affects multiple creatures, one creature of your choice takes the bonus damage.

Does the Artillerist's L5 ability, Arcane Firearm, ability only work on M spells?

 Yes. Is this dumb? Yes.

Quote from Ravnodaus >>

A good chunk of S components are functional movements you need to make to perform the spell. And, from my view, why you could easily still do all them while whipping a wand around or whatever. 

 I feel like this is a big hang up for you. Maybe a couple of examples could change your mind. Perform the Vulcan greeting while holding a wand and a dagger.

Or better, watch a baseball coach give signs to a baserunner. Think that you want to do something like that with a dagger in one hand and a wand in the other? (At best, Ron saying Oi, Troll boogers, but yours instead at worst...)

The baseball coach comparison actually makes more sense when Warcaster is brought into the mix. Feats:

A feat represents a talent or an area of expertise that gives a character special capabilities. It embodies training, experience, and abilities beyond what a class provides.

Thus, you've practiced performing those somatic components so much that you don't break your wand or stab yourself in these gut. 

Clearly, there aren't any rules that state what the somatic components of spells are. It would add unnecessary pages to books and up costs. Additionally, Warcaster wouldn't help with the Vulcan greeting and the baseball coach is a might convoluted for a spell, but somewhere in the middle?

Quote from Ravnodaus >>

Quote from DxJxC>>

I'm done arguing why material component rules including the use of foci only apply to spells with material component. Even though the first sentence of the rule says it will only apply to "some spells" that specify it in the component entry. Or that it says a character can only use "a spellcasting focus in place of the components specified for a spell." 

This is supposedly the be-all answer to this whole thing and yet it is wrong. That bolded line is a lie.

It does say that a character CAN use it in place of a material component. It does NOT say ONLY.

That is your own invention. Fabrication.

The rule gives us permission to do so but doesn't in any way even hint that we MUST have a material component to replace in order to use a spellcasting focus with our spell. That is a whole invention of yalls. Someone round here is a illusionist cause yall been played.

Because I have already said that rule context matters. If all rules apply all the time, these are the unnessessary interactions you create which lead to incorrect conclusions.

 Yeah, context matters. If an item says to reference a section of the rules, then that section is relevant when you use that item. Obviously.

So when we cast a Ray of Frost through a Wand then we do what the arcane focus rules says to do and reference the material component section.

 You're right the rules don't use the word "only." That is why it was not in quotes. But there is only one rule about when you can use a focus (which is when casting a material component spell). I already explained why material component rules only apply when a material component is needed and you have not refuted that argument.

When checking the description of the focus item, it says to reference spellcasting rules. Spellcasting rules are quite clear when a spell requires your hand to be empty and when it allows you to be holding something. If a spell requires a somatic component, your hand must be empty. These rules are only specifically changed by material component rules. Material component rules of spell casting only apply if the spell you are casting has a material component. Again, as proven by my previous argument which you have not refuted.

Discussion still settled.

Requoting the relevant rule seems appropriate. Note the lack of inclusion of the material component rules! (mad cackle)

Somatic (S)

Spellcasting gestures might include a forceful gesticulation or an intricate set of gestures. If a spell requires a somatic component, the caster must have free use of at least one hand to perform these gestures.

Hm. I realize I've actually misread slightly the focus rules, but in a way that makes it less coherent if anything. There actually isn't an exemption for holding a focus, it's just that holding a focus may not cause a hand to be non-free. The relevant rules are:

• If a spell requires a somatic component, the caster must have free use of at least one hand to perform these gestures.
• 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.
  

Both of those specifically do require a free hand, it's just that apparently accessing material components, or holding a focus, does not make a hand non-free. This sort of makes sense for a component pouch (it actually isn't even held in your hand, you just reach into it for a component, so for a lot of the time it really is empty), but I have no idea how it's supposed to make sense for foci that actually have to be held in-hand. Which is then problematic in the case of foci that most certainly do not leave a hand free (debatable for wands and the like, but clearly not true for a shield or staff weapon).

On the topic of a holy symbol, this argues that having a holy symbol worn or emblazoned on a shield still forces you to have a free hand, perhaps you have to interact with it (in the same way you'd interact with a component pouch that you're wearing on your belt).

Quote from Pantagruel666 >>

Hm. I realize I've actually misread slightly the focus rules, but in a way that makes it less coherent if anything. There actually isn't an exemption for holding a focus, it's just that holding a focus may not cause a hand to be non-free. The relevant rules are:

• If a spell requires a somatic component, the caster must have free use of at least one hand to perform these gestures.
• 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.
  

Both of those specifically do require a free hand, it's just that apparently accessing material components, or holding a focus, does not make a hand non-free. This sort of makes sense for a component pouch (it actually isn't even held in your hand, you just reach into it for a component, so for a lot of the time it really is empty), but I have no idea how it's supposed to make sense for foci that actually have to be held in-hand. Which is then problematic in the case of foci that most certainly do not leave a hand free (debatable for wands and the like, but clearly not true for a shield or staff weapon).

On the topic of a holy symbol, this argues that having a holy symbol worn or emblazoned on a shield still forces you to have a free hand, perhaps you have to interact with it (in the same way you'd interact with a component pouch that you're wearing on your belt).

 I'm not sure if you are saying that having a hand free to hold or manipulate components means that if you hold a component, the hand is still free. It is not.

And again, if you can tell me that you can separate the focus from the shield when the focus is a symbol engraved into the shield, then we can consider the shield separate from the focus. But otherwise yes, you need a free hand to hold or manipulate the focus.