Why bother having any rules that require a free hand if players and DMs are allowed go to hand-wave it away, either by having a weapon dropped on the ground for 1 second, or having whatever is in the hand tucked under the shoulder of the other arm so as to release the hand for spell-casting?
The rule for a free hand while spellcasting has other applications outside of the action economy. A spellcaster that is gagged and has their hands tied behind their back certainly won't be casting any spells as they fail to meet all of the possible component requirements.
It should be noticed now with Artificers the Spellcasting feature has been changed to reflect the tools requirement and the Somatic without Material conundrum, quote:
Tools Required
You produce your artificer spell effects through your tools. You must have a spellcasting focus—specifically thieves' tools or some kind of artisan’s tool—in hand when you cast any spell with this Spellcasting feature (meaning the spell has an ‘M’ component when you cast it). You must be proficient with the tool to use it in this way.
This actually is a bonus to Artificers, because since every spell cast by an artificer now has the Material component, they don't have to put their tools away to cast purely somatic or verbal somatic spells. And with the Armorer Specialization, you get much of the War Caster benefits because your arcane armor acts as a spellcasting focus, meaning you could have shield and sword and still cast.
It should be noticed now with Artificers the Spellcasting feature has been changed to reflect the tools requirement and the Somatic without Material conundrum, quote:
Tools Required
You produce your artificer spell effects through your tools. You must have a spellcasting focus—specifically thieves' tools or some kind of artisan’s tool—in hand when you cast any spell with this Spellcasting feature (meaning the spell has an ‘M’ component when you cast it). You must be proficient with the tool to use it in this way.
This actually is a bonus to Artificers, because since every spell cast by an artificer now has the Material component, they don't have to put their tools away to cast purely somatic or verbal somatic spells. And with the Armorer Specialization, you get much of the War Caster benefits because your arcane armor acts as a spellcasting focus, meaning you could have shield and sword and still cast.
Edit: Fixed a tooltip.
If the armor itself is the focus, I would rule you still need a free hand to interact with it. The free hand portion of the Material component rule does not appear to be overruled by the use of the armor as a focus.
To describe, I imagine either using the armor's gauntlet "iron man" style to blast a spell out, or fiddling with components on the armor itself (with said free hand) to generate the spell effect.
Most of that subclass'es abilities seem to be based on keeping your hands free (for punching/launching the subclass attack abilities), so I don't think that is a problem.
Yeah, I sorry of get what you are saying, especially if somatic isn't just the motion of the hand but also manipulation of fingers. It should be noted, however, that the arcane armor expands to cover the entire body, including the arms and hands, but you do still need a free hand for somatic. The artificer can get around that by infusing a weapon.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Reality is more amazing than we are often led to believe.
This won't clarify much, but I just wanted to add that spell components - verbal, somatic and material - should be seen in the context of the evolution of the spell casting rules as they have been used since the 1st edition. In the earlier editions, in 2e for example, casting a spell was quite demanding: the caster needed to be able to speak, have two hands free and couldn't move while casting the spell. Some spells took more than one round to cast, during which the casting could be interrupted by hitting, muting or grappling the caster. In addition, there have been armor restrictions for casting arcane spells in earlier editions, because casting spells required free and exact movement of the body. Also, in earlier editions some spells had very specific requirements. For example, spider climb spell in 1e required the target to have bare feet and hands to take effect. Or the shield spell in 1e took affect only against attacks from the casters front side - it did not offer any protection against attacks from behind.
The general evolution seems to be in the direction of more streamlined and less complicated use of spells. But to add some flavour to the game, the spell components are still part of the rules. Who knows what exactly was the intention of keeping the components, but they still add some complications to casting spells. Otherwise casting spells would be too easy.
For example, the Shield spell has a somatic component which means that a player with two weapons or a weapon and a shield shouldn't be able to cast is as a reaction (in such a scenario the player wouldn't have time to do the 'drop item, pick it up later' trick). This is reasonable, especially in cases of some severly optimised (min-maxed) melee caster builds. So when a heavily armored melee grunt decides to cast shield to increase their AC ridiculously high, the DM could just say that they would need a free hand to do that. Without rules of spell casting, especially spell components, casting spells could easily become overpowered.
From this perspective it seems quite reasonable to me that casting spells is somewhat complicated, difficult and require attention to circumstances (i.e thinking what would happen if the caster started to verbalize the spell in full voice). This also means that spells can fail, casting spells could be interrupted (although this is almost impossible now in the 5th edition) and the caster could be disabled (restrained, grappled, muffled, silenced etc). The componentes may seem frustrating, but it should be kept in mind, that the NPCs also have similar restrictions. This could give the players additional creative ways to disable hostile casters.
The componentes may seem frustrating, but it should be kept in mind, that the NPCs also have similar restrictions.
This is usually false, because 5E doesn't subject PCs and NPCs to the same physics. For example, a drow NPC can cast Darkness without the Material component, but a PC Drow needs it.
The componentes may seem frustrating, but it should be kept in mind, that the NPCs also have similar restrictions.
This is usually false, because 5E doesn't subject PCs and NPCs to the same physics. For example, a drow NPC can cast Darkness without the Material component, but a PC Drow needs it.
True, I forgot about innate spellcasting feature. This doesn't require Material components, but Verbal component is still required - both darkness and faerie fire have verbal components. So there might be some ways to even disable innate casting, I guess.
But I actually meant enemy casters with the ordinary spellcasting features, like Drow Mage or Lizardfolk Shaman, that need to follow the same spellcasting rules as PCs when casting their prepared spells.
I don't know how to create these fancy links. Sorry.
Disclaimer: I am very new to DnD, so please be gentle with this fella.
So I've been reading a lot of the posts here but I can't really get my head around it. I'm planning to play a Rune Knight/Battle Smith that has lost function of his left arm and I'm not quite sure how Spellcasting would go for him. Can I just cast any S spell with my Infused Sword as the focus, because it's declared the M component by the Artificer's Spellcasting feature just like that? What is it then with Spellcasting Foci and M components in general, do I still get to replace M components with the Sword in hand or do I need to physically hold the non-valued/non-consumed items somehow? These rulings really are confusing for a newbie like me, not gonna lie.
Disclaimer: I am very new to DnD, so please be gentle with this fella.
So I've been reading a lot of the posts here but I can't really get my head around it. I'm planning to play a Rune Knight/Battle Smith that has lost function of his left arm and I'm not quite sure how Spellcasting would go for him. Can I just cast any S spell with my Infused Sword as the focus, because it's declared the M component by the Artificer's Spellcasting feature just like that? What is it then with Spellcasting Foci and M components in general, do I still get to replace M components with the Sword in hand or do I need to physically hold the non-valued/non-consumed items somehow? These rulings really are confusing for a newbie like me, not gonna lie.
I'll already thank y'all for the help.
Artificers have a special requirement for their spell casting. They must use a focus (and all of their spells have M components added if they didn't already have them), but any tool or infusion works as a focus. So, If I understand your question then yes, you can just use your infused sword as your focus for everything, including spells with or without M components listed in their descriptions.
Disclaimer: I am very new to DnD, so please be gentle with this fella.
So I've been reading a lot of the posts here but I can't really get my head around it. I'm planning to play a Rune Knight/Battle Smith that has lost function of his left arm and I'm not quite sure how Spellcasting would go for him. Can I just cast any S spell with my Infused Sword as the focus, because it's declared the M component by the Artificer's Spellcasting feature just like that? What is it then with Spellcasting Foci and M components in general, do I still get to replace M components with the Sword in hand or do I need to physically hold the non-valued/non-consumed items somehow? These rulings really are confusing for a newbie like me, not gonna lie.
I'll already thank y'all for the help.
Artificers have a special requirement for their spell casting. They must use a focus (and all of their spells have M components added if they didn't already have them), but any tool or infusion works as a focus. So, If I understand your question then yes, you can just use your infused sword as your focus for everything, including spells with or without M components listed in their descriptions.
Okay and that also counts for S Component spells, since I don't have a free usable hand?
Disclaimer: I am very new to DnD, so please be gentle with this fella.
So I've been reading a lot of the posts here but I can't really get my head around it. I'm planning to play a Rune Knight/Battle Smith that has lost function of his left arm and I'm not quite sure how Spellcasting would go for him. Can I just cast any S spell with my Infused Sword as the focus, because it's declared the M component by the Artificer's Spellcasting feature just like that? What is it then with Spellcasting Foci and M components in general, do I still get to replace M components with the Sword in hand or do I need to physically hold the non-valued/non-consumed items somehow? These rulings really are confusing for a newbie like me, not gonna lie.
I'll already thank y'all for the help.
Artificers have a special requirement for their spell casting. They must use a focus (and all of their spells have M components added if they didn't already have them), but any tool or infusion works as a focus. So, If I understand your question then yes, you can just use your infused sword as your focus for everything, including spells with or without M components listed in their descriptions.
Okay and that also counts for S Component spells, since I don't have a free usable hand?
The M rules tell you that they can be the same hand, so whatever hand your sword is in can do the S components for your spells (all of your artificer ones, which are all of your spells, since rune knights don't get any).
Ah okay then I don't require the War Caster Feat to actually play the character, that's very cool! I was a bit woried about that. Thanks for the help!
Right. The artificer's tools required trait means that it doesn't actually have any spells without a material component so will never require an empty hand.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Hard agree.
The rule for a free hand while spellcasting has other applications outside of the action economy. A spellcaster that is gagged and has their hands tied behind their back certainly won't be casting any spells as they fail to meet all of the possible component requirements.
It should be noticed now with Artificers the Spellcasting feature has been changed to reflect the tools requirement and the Somatic without Material conundrum, quote:
This actually is a bonus to Artificers, because since every spell cast by an artificer now has the Material component, they don't have to put their tools away to cast purely somatic or verbal somatic spells. And with the Armorer Specialization, you get much of the War Caster benefits because your arcane armor acts as a spellcasting focus, meaning you could have shield and sword and still cast.
Edit: Fixed a tooltip.
Reality is more amazing than we are often led to believe.
|| How to add tooltips || How to use snippet codes ||
If the armor itself is the focus, I would rule you still need a free hand to interact with it. The free hand portion of the Material component rule does not appear to be overruled by the use of the armor as a focus.
To describe, I imagine either using the armor's gauntlet "iron man" style to blast a spell out, or fiddling with components on the armor itself (with said free hand) to generate the spell effect.
Most of that subclass'es abilities seem to be based on keeping your hands free (for punching/launching the subclass attack abilities), so I don't think that is a problem.
Yeah, you would have to be a battle Smith, not armorer.[Edit]Thought using magic weapons as focus was a battle smith thing, but it is actually any infused item and a base artificer thing...
Yeah, I sorry of get what you are saying, especially if somatic isn't just the motion of the hand but also manipulation of fingers. It should be noted, however, that the arcane armor expands to cover the entire body, including the arms and hands, but you do still need a free hand for somatic. The artificer can get around that by infusing a weapon.
Reality is more amazing than we are often led to believe.
|| How to add tooltips || How to use snippet codes ||
Honestly, the component rules are the most nitpicky, annoying-AF part of playing this game. For god's sake I hope 6e just abolishes them altogether.
I don't think abolishing them is a great idea. You don't want wizards to be able to fireball with their hands tied.
They should just let all spells work while holding your focus though.
I agree with that.
This won't clarify much, but I just wanted to add that spell components - verbal, somatic and material - should be seen in the context of the evolution of the spell casting rules as they have been used since the 1st edition. In the earlier editions, in 2e for example, casting a spell was quite demanding: the caster needed to be able to speak, have two hands free and couldn't move while casting the spell. Some spells took more than one round to cast, during which the casting could be interrupted by hitting, muting or grappling the caster. In addition, there have been armor restrictions for casting arcane spells in earlier editions, because casting spells required free and exact movement of the body. Also, in earlier editions some spells had very specific requirements. For example, spider climb spell in 1e required the target to have bare feet and hands to take effect. Or the shield spell in 1e took affect only against attacks from the casters front side - it did not offer any protection against attacks from behind.
The general evolution seems to be in the direction of more streamlined and less complicated use of spells. But to add some flavour to the game, the spell components are still part of the rules. Who knows what exactly was the intention of keeping the components, but they still add some complications to casting spells. Otherwise casting spells would be too easy.
For example, the Shield spell has a somatic component which means that a player with two weapons or a weapon and a shield shouldn't be able to cast is as a reaction (in such a scenario the player wouldn't have time to do the 'drop item, pick it up later' trick). This is reasonable, especially in cases of some severly optimised (min-maxed) melee caster builds. So when a heavily armored melee grunt decides to cast shield to increase their AC ridiculously high, the DM could just say that they would need a free hand to do that. Without rules of spell casting, especially spell components, casting spells could easily become overpowered.
From this perspective it seems quite reasonable to me that casting spells is somewhat complicated, difficult and require attention to circumstances (i.e thinking what would happen if the caster started to verbalize the spell in full voice). This also means that spells can fail, casting spells could be interrupted (although this is almost impossible now in the 5th edition) and the caster could be disabled (restrained, grappled, muffled, silenced etc). The componentes may seem frustrating, but it should be kept in mind, that the NPCs also have similar restrictions. This could give the players additional creative ways to disable hostile casters.
This is usually false, because 5E doesn't subject PCs and NPCs to the same physics. For example, a drow NPC can cast Darkness without the Material component, but a PC Drow needs it.
True, I forgot about innate spellcasting feature. This doesn't require Material components, but Verbal component is still required - both darkness and faerie fire have verbal components. So there might be some ways to even disable innate casting, I guess.
But I actually meant enemy casters with the ordinary spellcasting features, like Drow Mage or Lizardfolk Shaman, that need to follow the same spellcasting rules as PCs when casting their prepared spells.
I don't know how to create these fancy links. Sorry.
Edited: changed links to tags. Thanks!
I had to look it up when I started posting on DnDBeyond. Here is a description of the tag system this forum has: https://www.dndbeyond.com/forums/dungeons-dragons-discussion/homebrew-house-rules/9811-how-to-add-tooltips
Disclaimer: I am very new to DnD, so please be gentle with this fella.
So I've been reading a lot of the posts here but I can't really get my head around it. I'm planning to play a Rune Knight/Battle Smith that has lost function of his left arm and I'm not quite sure how Spellcasting would go for him. Can I just cast any S spell with my Infused Sword as the focus, because it's declared the M component by the Artificer's Spellcasting feature just like that? What is it then with Spellcasting Foci and M components in general, do I still get to replace M components with the Sword in hand or do I need to physically hold the non-valued/non-consumed items somehow? These rulings really are confusing for a newbie like me, not gonna lie.
I'll already thank y'all for the help.
Artificers have a special requirement for their spell casting. They must use a focus (and all of their spells have M components added if they didn't already have them), but any tool or infusion works as a focus. So, If I understand your question then yes, you can just use your infused sword as your focus for everything, including spells with or without M components listed in their descriptions.
Okay and that also counts for S Component spells, since I don't have a free usable hand?
The M rules tell you that they can be the same hand, so whatever hand your sword is in can do the S components for your spells (all of your artificer ones, which are all of your spells, since rune knights don't get any).
Ah okay then I don't require the War Caster Feat to actually play the character, that's very cool! I was a bit woried about that. Thanks for the help!
Right. The artificer's tools required trait means that it doesn't actually have any spells without a material component so will never require an empty hand.