When it comes to shields though, I see it as the shield itself is the holy symbol (assuming it has the holy symbol on it), thus fulfilling the requirements when equipped.
Yes, this is the correct ruling here.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
You are really going to argue that a hand holding a focus does not qualify for "a hand free to hold a focus"?
I think maybe natural language rules systems aren't for you. You have to have a reasonable understanding of how people use natural language to interface with rules like the ones in 5e.
That’s it!! They’re applying M:tG think to a D&D rule!!! Of course!
(Hey, nice new profile pic!)
You could argue that by your hand being "free" means that it costs no money to buy, in which case, everyone should fulfill that requirement for every spell they cast, unless they're a slave or in a meat farm.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Nope, the wand doesn't disappear after being used in the hand or freely go back to being stowed. There in the hand it stays. It is not fluff.
PUKE
Material (M)
Casting some spells requires particular objects, specified in parentheses in the component entry. A character can use a component pouch or a spellcasting focus (found in chapter 5, “Equipment”) in place of the components specified for a spell. But if a cost is indicated for a component, a character must have that specific component before he or she can cast the spell.
If a spell states that a material component is consumed by the spell, the caster must provide this component for each casting of the spell.
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.
Nothing says you need to even draw it. It can stay stowed the whole time. Your hand only needs to be free to be able to hold it. Per RAW.
Edit: For clarity. That requirement is for the capability to do something, not the doing of something. Like if a requirement was for a high enough strength to be able to lift a boulder... that doesn't say you need to be actually lifting one. The same sentence structure exists here. The requirement is that the hand is free to be able to hold the focus... not that it actually needs to do so.
That's just not true. You're reading that statement incorrectly. It says, paraphrased so you can understand, "(You must have a free hand to access material components OR hold a spellcasting focus,) which can be the same hand used to perform somatic components."
It does not say, "You must have a free hand to a) access material components or b) hold a spellcasting focus, either which can be the same hand that performs material components."
You have to have an open hand to access material components, which can be the same hand that can perform somatic components.
OR
You have to hold a spellcasting focus, which can be the same hand to perform somatic components.
Learn how to read rules, man.
I really don't wanna dig at you any more, but you're reading that sentence wrong. You have to swap in the "hold a focus" bit correctly. That sentence gives 2 options for fulfilling a requirement. And, they start with the word "to". I'll parse them for you into two complete statements.
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.
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.
This is the correct grammatical reading of that sentence.
Here, let me demonstrate what you would need to eliminate to get to your incorrect reading:
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.
See there? To come to your incorrect reading you need to delete part of the clause itself. And the very subject of the sentence too.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
You are really going to argue that a hand holding a focus does not qualify for "a hand free to hold a focus"?
I think maybe natural language rules systems aren't for you. You have to have a reasonable understanding of how people use natural language to interface with rules like the ones in 5e.
Rav's trying to distort. And taking his distortion as part of his argument will only exasperate the thread. Simply straighten out the distortion and move on.
I believe he is seeing our arguments as distorted confusion, which implies that his own head is so locked in on his interpretation that he will warp reality to keep his pretty little version of the world safe.
Wow. So, so many comments in such a short time (I can't believe there are 26 pages when the original question was answered in 1). And it seems we have gotten slightly off topic as well. Let me just bump this in case someone gets here looking for the answer to the original topic:
I have decided to stop responding to trolls that make up rulings just to argue and will just post a simplified version of the official RAW for anyone unfortunate enough to find this thread while looking for rules help.
As described in Chapter 10 of the PHB and Basic rules under "casting a spell":
If you are casting a spell that has a Somatic component, but not a Material component: you must have at least 1 hand empty and unbound to perform those components.
You may instead be holding a weapon or shield if you have the war caster feat.
If you are casting a spell with a Material component: You must have at least 1 unbound hand holding the needed material, empty so it can access the material, or holding a spell casting focus.
If the spell also has a Somatic component, you can perform both the Material and Somatic components with the same hand.
There, that is all the relevant rules regarding the titular topic. Clear and simple.
If the topic of whether you can perform somatic components while holding unneeded objects is settled, can we move the discussion on whether you need to draw/equip your focus to use it to another thread?
Nope, the wand doesn't disappear after being used in the hand or freely go back to being stowed. There in the hand it stays. It is not fluff.
PUKE
Material (M)
Casting some spells requires particular objects, specified in parentheses in the component entry. A character can use a component pouch or a spellcasting focus (found in chapter 5, “Equipment”) in place of the components specified for a spell. But if a cost is indicated for a component, a character must have that specific component before he or she can cast the spell.
If a spell states that a material component is consumed by the spell, the caster must provide this component for each casting of the spell.
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.
Nothing says you need to even draw it. It can stay stowed the whole time. Your hand only needs to be free to be able to hold it. Per RAW.
Edit: For clarity. That requirement is for the capability to do something, not the doing of something. Like if a requirement was for a high enough strength to be able to lift a boulder... that doesn't say you need to be actually lifting one. The same sentence structure exists here. The requirement is that the hand is free to be able to hold the focus... not that it actually needs to do so.
That's just not true. You're reading that statement incorrectly. It says, paraphrased so you can understand, "(You must have a free hand to access material components OR hold a spellcasting focus,) which can be the same hand used to perform somatic components."
It does not say, "You must have a free hand to a) access material components or b) hold a spellcasting focus, either which can be the same hand that performs material components."
You have to have an open hand to access material components, which can be the same hand that can perform somatic components.
OR
You have to hold a spellcasting focus, which can be the same hand to perform somatic components.
Learn how to read rules, man.
I really don't wanna dig at you any more, but you're reading that sentence wrong. You have to swap in the "hold a focus" bit correctly. That sentence gives 2 options for fulfilling a requirement. And, they start with the word "to". I'll parse them for you into two complete statements.
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.
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.
This is the correct grammatical reading of that sentence.
Here, let me demonstrate what you would need to eliminate to get to your incorrect reading:
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.
See there? To come to your incorrect reading you need to delete part of the clause itself. And the very subject of the sentence too.
No. That's wrong.
Edit: Bolded clauses for clarity.
In the case that we assume your reading of the text is correct, you still need to hold the spellcasting focus to benefit from using it.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
A spellcaster must have a hand free to hold a spellcasting focus
NOPE. Let me make this more clear:
I chew the corn. I chew the corn with my teeth.
Next Rav is going to argue this is RAW plausible.
Well Acshully.... There is no rule on how many objects one can “hold” in one hand, only on how many you can “wield” with one hand. That answer is one btw.
You are really going to argue that a hand holding a focus does not qualify for "a hand free to hold a focus"?
I think maybe natural language rules systems aren't for you. You have to have a reasonable understanding of how people use natural language to interface with rules like the ones in 5e.
That’s it!! They’re applying M:tG think to a D&D rule!!! Of course!
(Hey, nice new profile pic!)
You could argue that by your hand being "free" means that it costs no money to buy, in which case, everyone should fulfill that requirement for every spell they cast, unless they're a slave or in a meat farm.
Thanks. But seriously, if one applies M:tG logic to D&D, one can understand where Rav is coming from. Their still wrong because D&D=/=M:tG, but their logic at least makes sense when viewed through that lens.
"Well Acshully.... There is no rule on how many objects one can “hold” in one hand, only on how many you can “wield” with one hand. That answer is one btw."
So you're saying I can hold in a single hand, 2 wands and lantern by the handle?
[sarcasm] You could also argue that "free" in this case means loosed from the body, so you need to cut one of your hands off each time you cast a spell with a material component. On the other hand (pun intended), the rule never also clearly specifies that it is your hand, so you could simply collect severed hands from all of the enemies that you destroy with your spells.
As I said about 5 pages ago, arguing over the exact mechanical interpretation of an easy to read and understand sentence where no terms are explicitly defined will get us nowhere. You have to be able to reasonably interpret English to come away with anything useful from "A spellcaster must have a hand free to access a spell's material components -- or to hold a spellcasting focus..."
Barring that, you have to take the interpretation of some other person who is a reasonable English reader. Rav may have me blocked, as my arguments have mainly gone skipped over recently. It may be that my tactic of reading rules and thinking about what they say was too much for this particular brand of argument. Starting from a supposition of how the rule should work, then bending the text to get your interpretation to fit isn't how to argue rules. If you suppose that you don't actually have to hold things (that in this case the rules mention holding) then sure, you can interpret the text the way that you have, but that breaks everything else that relies on having hands available or holding items to achieve tasks. There aren't rules defining holding, wielding, and equipping. Your DM may allow that you can have a shield, dagger, wand, long sword, and great sword in your hands at once and still have a hand free to perform S components, but that will only ever be a DM ruling. There is nothing to base an argument either way on what constitutes the differences between how stuff occupies or does not occupy hands or how much stuff can be in a hand. It takes common sense, which particular people have shown that they do not express while reading rules.
Nope, the wand doesn't disappear after being used in the hand or freely go back to being stowed. There in the hand it stays. It is not fluff.
PUKE
Material (M)
Casting some spells requires particular objects, specified in parentheses in the component entry. A character can use a component pouch or a spellcasting focus (found in chapter 5, “Equipment”) in place of the components specified for a spell. But if a cost is indicated for a component, a character must have that specific component before he or she can cast the spell.
If a spell states that a material component is consumed by the spell, the caster must provide this component for each casting of the spell.
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.
Nothing says you need to even draw it. It can stay stowed the whole time. Your hand only needs to be free to be able to hold it. Per RAW.
Edit: For clarity. That requirement is for the capability to do something, not the doing of something. Like if a requirement was for a high enough strength to be able to lift a boulder... that doesn't say you need to be actually lifting one. The same sentence structure exists here. The requirement is that the hand is free to be able to hold the focus... not that it actually needs to do so.
That's just not true. You're reading that statement incorrectly. It says, paraphrased so you can understand, "(You must have a free hand to access material components OR hold a spellcasting focus,) which can be the same hand used to perform somatic components."
It does not say, "You must have a free hand to a) access material components or b) hold a spellcasting focus, either which can be the same hand that performs material components."
You have to have an open hand to access material components, which can be the same hand that can perform somatic components.
OR
You have to hold a spellcasting focus, which can be the same hand to perform somatic components.
Learn how to read rules, man.
I really don't wanna dig at you any more, but you're reading that sentence wrong. You have to swap in the "hold a focus" bit correctly. That sentence gives 2 options for fulfilling a requirement. And, they start with the word "to". I'll parse them for you into two complete statements.
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.
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.
This is the correct grammatical reading of that sentence.
Here, let me demonstrate what you would need to eliminate to get to your incorrect reading:
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.
See there? To come to your incorrect reading you need to delete part of the clause itself. And the very subject of the sentence too.
No. That's wrong.
Edit: Bolded clauses for clarity.
In the case that we assume your reading of the text is correct, you still need to hold the spellcasting focus to benefit from using it.
It is correct. And, the subject of the sentence is still "hand". The hand is what needs to be free. Free to be able to access or hold. You are only required to have a free hand, not to have a held object.
If you all cannot concede this point, you're just being belligerent or stubborn. The sentence is clear. You get to decide if you will read what it says or if you will just ignore the RAW and make up what you want it to say for yourself. But... if you do, it isn't RAW.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
"Well Acshully.... There is no rule on how many objects one can “hold” in one hand, only on how many you can “wield” with one hand. That answer is one btw."
So you're saying I can hold in a single hand, 2 wands and lantern by the handle?
Where the rules end it is always up to the DM to adjudicate interactions that one might encounter. It wouldn't be unreasonable to hold multiple objects in a single hand, I'm sure you've done so in real life before. It also wouldn't be unreasonable for a DM to call for a check or even just to say no if it gets absurd. That's why the DM is there.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
You are twisting English. Having a hand free to hold a spellcasting focus means that you have to hold it. You can have many different interpretations of what "free" or even "hand" means! The correct reading of this text obviously means that you have to hold the spellcasting focus. You could argue that this could be the hand of a clock! You could argue that the hand has to be free, so you can't sell it for money, or were given it for free!
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
A spellcaster must have a hand free to hold a spellcasting focus
NOPE.
It is like I said before:
"Are you free for a meeting this afternoon?" "Yep."
"Are you still free for that meeting this afternoon?" "Nope, I have a meeting scheduled now."
That is not how people speak or write or think.
It really isn't my fault you guys can't identify the subject of a sentence, nor have the comprehension to know what it is asking for. I've explained it thoroughly, refusal to acknowledge what the words on the pages actual says is just refusal to follow RAW. That's a choice you can make, totally. Just know that is what you're doing.
The requirement is for a free hand, not a held object. Banter. Joke. Chide. None of these things change the words on the page.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
This is deliberate. The only way he could be remotely be considered correct in that interpretation is if it said "a free hand AND hold". Even then, that's are more strict version, because then there are TWO requirements.
But... nope...
Rav, you're wrong.
You must chew on the corn You must have teeth to chew on the corn You must have teeth and chew on the corn
You are twisting English. Having a hand free to hold a spellcasting focus means that you have to hold it. You can have many different interpretations of what "free" or even "hand" means! The correct reading of this text obviously means that you have to hold the spellcasting focus. You could argue that this could be the hand of a clock! You could argue that the hand has to be free, so you can't sell it for money, or were given it for free!
No I'm not. I'm reading English.
If you are required to have a free schedule to work nights and weekends...
Are you required to work nights and weekends... or are you required to have a free schedule?
You might have a hard time reading this line for whatever reason, but it says what it means. The requirement is only a free hand.
Your tangents of what could be argued are just silly, though, btw. We read the words on the page as they are. That is what RAW is. Arguing about clocks or selling stuff is irrelevant to the text of the rule as it is written. So we don't argue that. Really is that simple. What's in the book? What are the words used? And what do those words mean? That is what RAW is.
Anything else is your own shtick. Which you are totally free to do. But it isn't RAW.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
"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."
Shall we take this to the greater world of the internet and ask the English experts what this means? Oh, wait, I'm already a native speaker.
"A spellcaster must..." - A thing or person called a spellcaster has to ...
"...have a hand free..." - ...possess an end part of a person's arm beyond the wrist, including the palm, fingers, and thumb, not busy...
"...to access a spell's material components..." - ...in order to reach a 'spell's material components' ... I hope we don't have to define that...
"...— or to hold a spellcasting focus —..." ...or in lieu of accessing a spell's material components, to possess in hand a 'spellcasting focus'...
"...but it can be the same hand that he or she uses to perform somatic components." ...and the end part of a person's arm beyond the wrist, including the palm, fingers, and thumb which is used to perform either of the preceding parts of this statement can also make the action necessary to do the associated 'somatic components'.
LETS GO A STEP FURTHER: Hold. Verb. To grasp, carry, or support with one's arms or hands.
By referencing a free hand, it is established that it is the hand that must be performing said actions.
Yes, this is the correct ruling here.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
(Hey, nice new profile pic!)
You could argue that by your hand being "free" means that it costs no money to buy, in which case, everyone should fulfill that requirement for every spell they cast, unless they're a slave or in a meat farm.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
I really don't wanna dig at you any more, but you're reading that sentence wrong. You have to swap in the "hold a focus" bit correctly. That sentence gives 2 options for fulfilling a requirement. And, they start with the word "to". I'll parse them for you into two complete statements.
— or to hold a spellcasting focus —but it can be the same hand that he or she uses to perform somatic components.to access a spell's material components —orto hold a spellcasting focus but it can be the same hand that he or she uses to perform somatic components.This is the correct grammatical reading of that sentence.
Here, let me demonstrate what you would need to eliminate to get to your incorrect reading:
A spellcaster must
have a hand free to access a spell's material components — or tohold a spellcasting focus — but it can be the same hand that he or she uses to perform somatic components.See there? To come to your incorrect reading you need to delete part of the clause itself. And the very subject of the sentence too.
No. That's wrong.
Edit: Bolded clauses for clarity.
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
Rav's trying to distort. And taking his distortion as part of his argument will only exasperate the thread. Simply straighten out the distortion and move on.
I believe he is seeing our arguments as distorted confusion, which implies that his own head is so locked in on his interpretation that he will warp reality to keep his pretty little version of the world safe.
LOL- Is there any difference between
A spellcaster must hold a spellcasting focus
A spellcaster must have a hand free to hold a spellcasting focus
NOPE. Let me make this more clear:
I chew the corn.
I chew the corn with my teeth.
Next Rav is going to argue this is RAW plausible.

It is like I said before:
"Are you free for a meeting this afternoon?" "Yep."
"Are you still free for that meeting this afternoon?" "Nope, I have a meeting scheduled now."
That is not how people speak or write or think.
Wow. So, so many comments in such a short time (I can't believe there are 26 pages when the original question was answered in 1). And it seems we have gotten slightly off topic as well. Let me just bump this in case someone gets here looking for the answer to the original topic:
If the topic of whether you can perform somatic components while holding unneeded objects is settled, can we move the discussion on whether you need to draw/equip your focus to use it to another thread?
Is it really a discussion? ... Uh huh? ...
Does that mean the thread can be closed?
In the case that we assume your reading of the text is correct, you still need to hold the spellcasting focus to benefit from using it.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
Well Acshully.... There is no rule on how many objects one can “hold” in one hand, only on how many you can “wield” with one hand. That answer is one btw.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Thanks. But seriously, if one applies M:tG logic to D&D, one can understand where Rav is coming from. Their still wrong because D&D=/=M:tG, but their logic at least makes sense when viewed through that lens.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Hmm... *suspiciously looks around*
"Well Acshully.... There is no rule on how many objects one can “hold” in one hand, only on how many you can “wield” with one hand. That answer is one btw."
So you're saying I can hold in a single hand, 2 wands and lantern by the handle?
[sarcasm] You could also argue that "free" in this case means loosed from the body, so you need to cut one of your hands off each time you cast a spell with a material component. On the other hand (pun intended), the rule never also clearly specifies that it is your hand, so you could simply collect severed hands from all of the enemies that you destroy with your spells.
As I said about 5 pages ago, arguing over the exact mechanical interpretation of an easy to read and understand sentence where no terms are explicitly defined will get us nowhere. You have to be able to reasonably interpret English to come away with anything useful from "A spellcaster must have a hand free to access a spell's material components -- or to hold a spellcasting focus..."
Barring that, you have to take the interpretation of some other person who is a reasonable English reader. Rav may have me blocked, as my arguments have mainly gone skipped over recently. It may be that my tactic of reading rules and thinking about what they say was too much for this particular brand of argument. Starting from a supposition of how the rule should work, then bending the text to get your interpretation to fit isn't how to argue rules. If you suppose that you don't actually have to hold things (that in this case the rules mention holding) then sure, you can interpret the text the way that you have, but that breaks everything else that relies on having hands available or holding items to achieve tasks. There aren't rules defining holding, wielding, and equipping. Your DM may allow that you can have a shield, dagger, wand, long sword, and great sword in your hands at once and still have a hand free to perform S components, but that will only ever be a DM ruling. There is nothing to base an argument either way on what constitutes the differences between how stuff occupies or does not occupy hands or how much stuff can be in a hand. It takes common sense, which particular people have shown that they do not express while reading rules.
It is correct. And, the subject of the sentence is still "hand". The hand is what needs to be free. Free to be able to access or hold. You are only required to have a free hand, not to have a held object.
If you all cannot concede this point, you're just being belligerent or stubborn. The sentence is clear. You get to decide if you will read what it says or if you will just ignore the RAW and make up what you want it to say for yourself. But... if you do, it isn't RAW.
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
Where the rules end it is always up to the DM to adjudicate interactions that one might encounter. It wouldn't be unreasonable to hold multiple objects in a single hand, I'm sure you've done so in real life before. It also wouldn't be unreasonable for a DM to call for a check or even just to say no if it gets absurd. That's why the DM is there.
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
You are twisting English. Having a hand free to hold a spellcasting focus means that you have to hold it. You can have many different interpretations of what "free" or even "hand" means! The correct reading of this text obviously means that you have to hold the spellcasting focus. You could argue that this could be the hand of a clock! You could argue that the hand has to be free, so you can't sell it for money, or were given it for free!
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
It really isn't my fault you guys can't identify the subject of a sentence, nor have the comprehension to know what it is asking for. I've explained it thoroughly, refusal to acknowledge what the words on the pages actual says is just refusal to follow RAW. That's a choice you can make, totally. Just know that is what you're doing.
The requirement is for a free hand, not a held object. Banter. Joke. Chide. None of these things change the words on the page.
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
This is deliberate. The only way he could be remotely be considered correct in that interpretation is if it said "a free hand AND hold". Even then, that's are more strict version, because then there are TWO requirements.
But... nope...
Rav, you're wrong.
You must chew on the corn
You must have teeth to chew on the corn
You must have teeth and chew on the corn
No I'm not. I'm reading English.
If you are required to have a free schedule to work nights and weekends...
Are you required to work nights and weekends... or are you required to have a free schedule?
You might have a hard time reading this line for whatever reason, but it says what it means. The requirement is only a free hand.
Your tangents of what could be argued are just silly, though, btw. We read the words on the page as they are. That is what RAW is. Arguing about clocks or selling stuff is irrelevant to the text of the rule as it is written. So we don't argue that. Really is that simple. What's in the book? What are the words used? And what do those words mean? That is what RAW is.
Anything else is your own shtick. Which you are totally free to do. But it isn't RAW.
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
"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."
Shall we take this to the greater world of the internet and ask the English experts what this means? Oh, wait, I'm already a native speaker.
"A spellcaster must..." - A thing or person called a spellcaster has to ...
"...have a hand free..." - ...possess an end part of a person's arm beyond the wrist, including the palm, fingers, and thumb, not busy...
"...to access a spell's material components..." - ...in order to reach a 'spell's material components' ... I hope we don't have to define that...
"...— or to hold a spellcasting focus —..." ...or in lieu of accessing a spell's material components, to possess in hand a 'spellcasting focus'...
"...but it can be the same hand that he or she uses to perform somatic components." ...and the end part of a person's arm beyond the wrist, including the palm, fingers, and thumb which is used to perform either of the preceding parts of this statement can also make the action necessary to do the associated 'somatic components'.
LETS GO A STEP FURTHER:
Hold. Verb. To grasp, carry, or support with one's arms or hands.
By referencing a free hand, it is established that it is the hand that must be performing said actions.