The fact that a hand holding a spellcasting focus cannot perform the somatic component of a spell unless it is also fulfilling a material component required by the spell is something many people find surprising.
Fortunately we are under no obligation to play D&D in any particular way and are free to rule this differently.
It is less surprising and more downright wrong for any not-general scenario.
Also yes ive read the sage advice and while parts are correct the conclusion doesnt make sense and i call them out to be wrong in their sage advice as the spells targeted by that are inconsistent across the board and the reasoning behind is none existend.
And please drop the attitude you have like you would be talking to a new player, thanks.
I am very confused by your reply. It is not "wrong," it is what the rules say happen.
Are the parts of sage advice that are incorrect the parts that reiterate the RAW or the examples that follow that RAW? And which parts of the rules are inconsistent, the parts saying needing to gesture with an empty hand can't be holding an item or the parts saying need to gesture with an item allowing to gesture with an item?
And no part of Fangeye's answer has an attitude or is anything but politely explaining rules. If you don't like having rules explained, maybe don't post on the rules forum. That is the main purpose of this forum...
Sometimes when the rules, as written, don't support people's arguement: They turn to the Sage Advice for backup. And, while Sage Advice is absolutely official, it isn't the rules as they are written. It is instead a clarification of the intention behind the published books.
People need to keep that in mind. If SA is the only thing supporting your argument: Your arguement is a RAI arguement. Not a RAW arguement.
And that's coming from someone who fully believes RAI is the better approach. It is helpful for us all to not mix them up though. When we talk about RAW vs RAI. You should know which is which.
Absolutely incorrect. Both the PHB (for example) and the SAC are WOTC communicating with us in an official way. Anything either says is the rules is the rules, RAW. Anything either says is merely intent is merely intent. While the SAC absolutely does contain some content labeled as RAI (sometimes accompanied by a promise to include it in future PHB errata, although all such SAC promises are lies and no such errata has ever been issued), it also contains assertions about the rules, and there is no basis for arguing that an SAC assertion holds less weight than a PHB (or any other official source) assertion.
As an example of SAC RAW, the only source in all of 5E for the definition of "melee weapon attack" is the SAC. The PHB assumes you know this definition and refers to melee weapon attacks as if you know what they are.
Note that it is both common and typical for RAW sources to contradict each other. An excellent example spread across both the PHB and the SAC is which ability score you use to throw a longsword at someone (the SAC agrees with one of the two mutually exclusive answers given in the PHB). It's fundamentally not weird for the SAC to contradict another RAW source and your DM will have to exercise judgment when that happens. That doesn't stop the SAC from being RAW.
The fact that a hand holding a spellcasting focus cannot perform the somatic component of a spell unless it is also fulfilling a material component required by the spell is something many people find surprising.
Fortunately we are under no obligation to play D&D in any particular way and are free to rule this differently.
It is less surprising and more downright wrong for any not-general scenario.
Also yes ive read the sage advice and while parts are correct the conclusion doesnt make sense and i call them out to be wrong in their sage advice as the spells targeted by that are inconsistent across the board and the reasoning behind is none existend.
And please drop the attitude you have like you would be talking to a new player, thanks.
I apologize if I gave any offense, I was only trying to provide resources I thought you might find helpful and commiserate with your frustration regarding this topic.
Also as a quick aside I do agree with Ravnodaus that the SAC is a RAI source, not a RAW source.
In the spirit of starting fresh I will go through how the text of the PHB leads to the intended outcome as explained in the SAC
"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." - https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/phb/spellcasting#MaterialM
The exception to the Somatic component's free hand requirement is in the Material component rule. So only spells with Material components have the exception described in the Material component rule. - https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/sac/sage-advice-compendium#SA165
And that is really it. A strawman example of this is how the Extra Attack feature only applies to the classes that gain it. A better example would be the rules governing spell casting time. If a spell has a casting time of a Bonus Action then it is governed by the following rule: "You can’t cast another spell during the same turn, except for a cantrip with a casting time of 1 action." - https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/phb/spellcasting#BonusAction
Nowhere in this sentence does it mention that it only applies when casting a spell with a casting time of a Bonus Action, this is assumed to be understood. We also have SAC confirming that the restriction mentioned in the Bonus Actions casting time rules only apply when casting a spell as a Bonus Action - https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/sac/sage-advice-compendium#SA159.
In your first post you gave a few examples you felt were counter-intuitive, I will quickly cover them here:
Paladin wearing a plate glove - Armor/clothing is donned/worn, it does not occupy a hand. What counts as a free hand is not rigorously defined in the rules but if you consider this to be occupied then this is also a problem for wielding weapons, donning shields, etc.
Eldritch Blast - This is a V,S spell and thus requires a free hand to perform the Somatic component.
Guidance - This is a V,S spell and thus requires a free hand to perform the Somatic component.
Artificers - Their Tools Required class feature specifically tells us "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)." - https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/tcoe/artificer#ToolsRequired So all spells they cast have the Material component requirement and thus bring with it the Material component rules. This is a specific exception not found in other class Spellcasting features.
If you disagree that is fine. If you have any specific questions or concerns I would be happy to address them, otherwise I feel I don't have much more to say on the matter. Personally I like the fantasy of a caster channeling their magic through their focus and don't want to have to memorize the component requirements of all the spells my players have access to so I don't actually play it this way in the games I run.
Sometimes when the rules, as written, don't support people's arguement: They turn to the Sage Advice for backup. And, while Sage Advice is absolutely official, it isn't the rules as they are written. It is instead a clarification of the intention behind the published books.
People need to keep that in mind. If SA is the only thing supporting your argument: Your arguement is a RAI arguement. Not a RAW arguement.
And that's coming from someone who fully believes RAI is the better approach. It is helpful for us all to not mix them up though. When we talk about RAW vs RAI. You should know which is which.
Absolutely incorrect. Both the PHB (for example) and the SAC are WOTC communicating with us in an official way. Anything either says is the rules is the rules, RAW. Anything either says is merely intent is merely intent. While the SAC absolutely does contain some content labeled as RAI (sometimes accompanied by a promise to include it in future PHB errata, although all such SAC promises are lies and no such errata has ever been issued), it also contains assertions about the rules, and there is no basis for arguing that an SAC assertion holds less weight than a PHB (or any other official source) assertion.
As an example of SAC RAW, the only source in all of 5E for the definition of "melee weapon attack" is the SAC. The PHB assumes you know this definition and refers to melee weapon attacks as if you know what they are.
Note that it is both common and typical for RAW sources to contradict each other. An excellent example spread across both the PHB and the SAC is which ability score you use to throw a longsword at someone (the SAC agrees with one of the two mutually exclusive answers given in the PHB). It's fundamentally not weird for the SAC to contradict another RAW source and your DM will have to exercise judgment when that happens. That doesn't stop the SAC from being RAW.
Unless they eventually errata their books, that's just not true. If you have the PHB, the DMG and the MM and are playing 5e around a table, there is zero requirement to bring a computer, hop online, and double check if the books are officially the rules or if some secondary website is.
The RAW. Stands for Rules As Written. This refers to what is written in the books.
SAG isn't in your books.
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 really the only part that matters to this entire 32 page (edit: 33 page now) thread. And it is absolutely assumed by the rules. It’s sort of the underlying and required assumption to every rule or law ever written: Rules apply when and only when they apply.
First of sorry, i didnt wanted to sound harshly. Yesterday i read your reply in a way like you were explaining someone the player handbook existed seeing as that wasnt your intention i apologize aswell.
What i think they are inconsistent with is what type of spell requires somatic components, there are quite many spells that are alike in how they work or what they do, how do they decide which needs a material ontop of it and which dont? What made them decide that spells that dont need materials are harder to cast?
Im more trying to understand their reasoning behind this and why they made it specific like that. The Paladin example was more of a: if it requires specific intricate hand movements and your hands are behind thick armor... how that better than having them occupied, the others were more a what wouldnt work
Also thanks for pointing out that if we consider the focus as the material cost rather then a focus for artificer it changes a lot. I hadnt found anything regarding that so i hadnt considered that. Making artificer the only class that can cast shield with both hands occupied without having to take warcaster.
Going by official intention the challenge rating of casting spells would be like: V -> S/M -> V/S/M -> S -> V/S (making the spells with somatic but no material components the most difficult to cast)
Edit: I do can see how having a catalyst would make your spell easier to cast and having only a more basic gesture needed because of that
Sometimes when the rules, as written, don't support people's arguement: They turn to the Sage Advice for backup. And, while Sage Advice is absolutely official, it isn't the rules as they are written. It is instead a clarification of the intention behind the published books.
People need to keep that in mind. If SA is the only thing supporting your argument: Your arguement is a RAI arguement. Not a RAW arguement.
And that's coming from someone who fully believes RAI is the better approach. It is helpful for us all to not mix them up though. When we talk about RAW vs RAI. You should know which is which.
Absolutely incorrect. Both the PHB (for example) and the SAC are WOTC communicating with us in an official way. Anything either says is the rules is the rules, RAW. Anything either says is merely intent is merely intent. While the SAC absolutely does contain some content labeled as RAI (sometimes accompanied by a promise to include it in future PHB errata, although all such SAC promises are lies and no such errata has ever been issued), it also contains assertions about the rules, and there is no basis for arguing that an SAC assertion holds less weight than a PHB (or any other official source) assertion.
As an example of SAC RAW, the only source in all of 5E for the definition of "melee weapon attack" is the SAC. The PHB assumes you know this definition and refers to melee weapon attacks as if you know what they are.
Note that it is both common and typical for RAW sources to contradict each other. An excellent example spread across both the PHB and the SAC is which ability score you use to throw a longsword at someone (the SAC agrees with one of the two mutually exclusive answers given in the PHB). It's fundamentally not weird for the SAC to contradict another RAW source and your DM will have to exercise judgment when that happens. That doesn't stop the SAC from being RAW.
Unless they eventually errata their books, that's just not true. If you have the PHB, the DMG and the MM and are playing 5e around a table, there is zero requirement to bring a computer, hop online, and double check if the books are officially the rules or if some secondary website is.
The RAW. Stands for Rules As Written. This refers to what is written in the books.
SAG isn't in your books.
But if you're using physical books then you are most likely playing an earlier version of D&D, since there are errata which have been included in the dndbeyond rulebooks which won't automatically appear in people's physical copies.
I assume that this forum is working off the latest errata, so RAW considers the physical books, the errata, and the SAC.
I don't know what process WotC goes through before publishing answers to questions in SAC and errata to existing books, but I imagine it goes something like this:
The community repeatedly asks questions about how to adjudicate a given situation.
If the confusion persists WotC may publish an answer to the question in SAC.
If the text in previously published books do not support the SAC answer or contains sufficiently ambiguous language WotC may issue an errata, changing or adding to the text as needed to clarify the confusion and support the SAC answer. Future editions of the book are published with the new text.
It clarifies that for multiclassed characters only their sorcerer spells can trigger Wild Magic Surge. There is also an errata published regarding this feature in the errata PDF here: https://media.wizards.com/2018/dnd/downloads/PH-Errata.pdf
This errata was published in 2018 and this new text is missing from any of the previously issued PHB errata I was able to find here: https://thinkdm.org/5e-errata/
Since SAC is a website it is a bit harder to get historical information on, with errata we could at least theoretically validate what I found online by checking different printing runs of the PHB. However if we trust web.archive.org then from what I found there the SAC answer I linked above first appeared in SAC in 2016: https://web.archive.org/web/20160713171103/https://media.wizards.com/2016/downloads/DND/SA-Compendium.pdf
Regardless, I view SAC as a RAI source mainly because of its Q&A format. Its text provides specific answers to specific questions rather than laying down rules as in our more typical source books. (I guess I shouldn't be surprised but this took longer to write and I had more to say than I initially thought.)
First of sorry, i didnt wanted to sound harshly. Yesterday i read your reply in a way like you were explaining someone the player handbook existed seeing as that wasnt your intention i apologize aswell.
What i think they are inconsistent with is what type of spell requires somatic components, there are quite many spells that are alike in how they work or what they do, how do they decide which needs a material ontop of it and which dont? What made them decide that spells that dont need materials are harder to cast?
Im more trying to understand their reasoning behind this and why they made it specific like that. The Paladin example was more of a: if it requires specific intricate hand movements and your hands are behind thick armor... how that better than having them occupied, the others were more a what wouldnt work
Also thanks for pointing out that if we consider the focus as the material cost rather then a focus for artificer it changes a lot. I hadnt found anything regarding that so i hadnt considered that. Making artificer the only class that can cast shield with both hands occupied without having to take warcaster.
Going by official intention the challenge rating of casting spells would be like: V -> S/M -> V/S/M -> S -> V/S (making the spells with somatic but no material components the most difficult to cast)
Edit: I do can see how having a catalyst would make your spell easier to cast and having only a more basic gesture needed because of that
No worries!
As for why this distinction between S and S/M spells exist, that is much harder to answer. It is at least partially due to historical precedent from previous editions of D&D. For example the spell Burning Hands describes a gesture that requires both hands when mechanically only one is required. The spell Burning Hands has used this gesture for as long as I have been playing D&D going back to at least 2nd edition AD&D.
However I believe this stratification of spell component requirements also exists to give WotC more design space to work with. By having a wider range of requirements WotC has more things they can modify and tweak when writing feats and class features like Warcaster and Improved Pact Weapon. These features can both modify the requirements the player must meet when casting spells without completely overlapping (granted both of these features also do other things as well).
It's really unfortunate that there is so much ambiguity about this topic - at least from a logical perspective. Especially since spells that require S and M, with the rule exemption stated under the Material component, when does it actually matter that a spell with a Material component also has a Somatic component... Why does it actually matter to tack the S component on there, if we are given explicit leeway to ignore it? You need a free hand to grab your material components from a pouch or to hold your Spellcasting Focus, why bother with the Somatic component at all? There's no condition where you could cast a VM spell and not a VSM spell, so for clarity I would rather they remove the Somatic component from spells that have a Material component under the current ruleset.
When I went through the rules on spell casting components in DnDBeyond's basic rules, I read it like a laundry list:
1. You can speak to cover the verbal bit? Check
2. You got a free hand to wave the gestures of the spell? Check
3. You can grab your material components from a pouch or a spell casting focus? Check (I already got a free hand that I USED to gesture the spell, herein lies the exemption)
I would sideline a spell casting focus - like that of a crystal, holy symbol or similar - with a component pouch, either of which you generally don't want to hold in your hand at all times, but is easily accessible on your belt/person. This means you need to have a hand free but "drawing"/using your spell casting focus is sidelined with picking up materials from your pouch, which I seem to have read is not considered an action like "interact with object", much less drawing/stowing an item - like some would like foci-users to do.
This would make any run-of-the-mill spell caster operate pretty much the same as before. You got a hand free? You can use it for both the Somatic and the Material component of the spell. This means that we cannot "cheat" the somatic component of a spell when having a spell casting focus in hand (such as a staff), merely on the basis that the spell in question also has a material component. Like others have reasoned, it doesn't make much sense that a spell that includes multiple components, or more specifically a material component, is easier to cast than a spell that doesn't require a material component. If the rule books cut out the somatic component of the spells with material components, it would make more logical sense why they could be easier to cast, but alas they haven't and thus they shouldn't be easier to cast.
If you want to ignore the somatic component of spells you really should need the War Caster feat. Otherwise it really should be that you need a free hand that can grab your small focus/component pouch while casting.
In every other aspect where there is a significant clash between using hands for sword and board and spell casting with material components and somatic components - looking at you cleric and paladin (and subclass Fighter, Rogue, Ranger and Warlock) - they really should just remove the somatic component of many of their spells that have a material component. Basically if WotC wants you to cast these spells while in combat, just have the rules reflect that in simplicity. Thus when a spell actually has a somatic component it is significant to have that hand free (or the War Caster feat). From a mechanical perspective, nothing is generally lost by this particular change but we do get some more clarity and the possibility to differentiate between spells that needs hand waving and those where you can ignore it. From a flavor perspective, your players are not discouraged from signifying their spell casting by gesticulating any way they want to make it look immersive and in character. This way you are not limited to gesticulating with your symbol inlaid shield if you go sword and board.
There is one wrinkle with this suggestion that I am aware of, the Holy Symbol.
A Holy Symbol like an Amulet can serve as a Spellcasting Focus by wearing it visibly, not just by holding it in your hand. In this case a spell with Somatic and Material components is mechanically distinct from a spell with just Material components.
Yeah, I knew that wrinkle had me confused quite a bit too, because if you can just slap a medallion on a chain and wear it around your neck so it is visible to satisfy the Material requirement, why would a Cleric/Paladin ever worry about the Material components or inlaying their holy symbol on a shield that you could potentially drop?
In the PHB the material component of spell casting is written as "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 clashes with the description on the Holy Symbol / Amulet. So what is true? The description on the Holy Symbol or the rules governing material components in spell casting? I assumed the Holy Symbol description was a miscommunication and stuck with the requirement that you need to hold your spell casting focus to utilize it instead of a material component.
I would sideline a spell casting focus - like that of a crystal, holy symbol or similar - with a component pouch, either of which you generally don't want to hold in your hand at all times, but is easily accessible on your belt/person. This means you need to have a hand free but "drawing"/using your spell casting focus is sidelined with picking up materials from your pouch, which I seem to have read is not considered an action like "interact with object", much less drawing/stowing an item - like some would like foci-users to do.
This is a really good solution. You are basically just ruling that "drawing" or "stowing" a spellcasting focus is a free action and NOT an object interaction. When you use a component pouch, interacting with that is just part of the spellcasting process -- basically a free action when casting a spell. So treat the spellcasting focus in the same way since they are meant to be interchangeable mechanically. So really, even if the flavor is that you are holding onto your orb all the time, you really just have that hand free most of the time and you are reaching for and briefly touching the orb that you are wearing somehow when you need the M component. I like it. That pretty much solves this entire thread, except for:
This clashes with the description on the Holy Symbol / Amulet.
The way that I am currently interpreting things, the holy symbol is a specific exception to the general spellcasting rules. When it comes to the holy symbol, we have this: "A cleric or paladin can use a holy symbol as a spellcasting focus. To use the symbol in this way, the caster must hold it in hand, wear it visibly, or bear it on a shield." So, in this case you have options. You could hold a holy symbol in a free hand OR you could use it without using a free hand. So, if you go with a sword and board combat style you won't have a free hand for your material component -- but you don't need one. This still satisfies the material component rule if we consider that the phrase "A spellcaster must have a hand free to hold a spellcasting focus, but it can be the same hand that he or she uses to perform somatic components" can be interpreted / rewritten as: "In order to hold a spellcasting focus, a spellcaster must have a hand free . . .". In other words -- you typically need to hold a focus to cast a spell with a material component and in order to do that you need a free hand, BUT if you do NOT need to hold the focus to cast that spell then you obviously don't need a free hand for the focus. Unfortunately, the gotcha with this scenario is the somatic component. If you are holding sword and board and are NOT holding the focus, then you have no hand free for your somatic component. In this case, (S) or (VS) or (SM) or (VSM) are all problematic because you do not have a free hand regardless of the spellcasting focus. So, for sword and board with holy symbol, as annoying as it is the answer is to drop your weapon to cast the spell and then pick it back up -- so basically it will cost you your item interaction to cast any spell with an S component.
This clashes with the description on the Holy Symbol / Amulet.
The way that I am currently interpreting things, the holy symbol is a specific exception to the general spellcasting rules. When it comes to the holy symbol, we have this: "A cleric or paladin can use a holy symbol as a spellcasting focus. To use the symbol in this way, the caster must hold it in hand, wear it visibly, or bear it on a shield." So, in this case you have options. You could hold a holy symbol in a free hand OR you could use it without using a free hand. So, if you go with a sword and board combat style you won't have a free hand for your material component -- but you don't need one. This still satisfies the material component rule if we consider that the phrase "A spellcaster must have a hand free to hold a spellcasting focus, but it can be the same hand that he or she uses to perform somatic components" can be interpreted / rewritten as: "In order to hold a spellcasting focus, a spellcaster must have a hand free . . .". In other words -- you typically need to hold a focus to cast a spell with a material component and in order to do that you need a free hand, BUT if you do NOT need to hold the focus to cast that spell then you obviously don't need a free hand for the focus. Unfortunately, the gotcha with this scenario is the somatic component. If you are holding sword and board and are NOT holding the focus, then you have no hand free for your somatic component. In this case, (S) or (VS) or (SM) or (VSM) are all problematic because you do not have a free hand regardless of the spellcasting focus. So, for sword and board with holy symbol, as annoying as it is the answer is to drop your weapon to cast the spell and then pick it back up -- so basically it will cost you your item interaction to cast any spell with an S component.
From a rules perspective, I find it really dumb that a Cleric with a mace and an emblazoned shield can satisfy the material and somatic component of spells they cast that have specifically both components by using their shield hand, whilst a Paladin with a Holy Symbol dangling from a chain around their neck and a sword and shield, cannot.
The exemption under the material component really should clarify that the exemption means that it doesn't require two free hands to gesture for the Somatic component and grab materials from a pouch, but that you can use the same free hand for both. It reads like it was meant to be a relief to the material component but people are using it to ignore the somatic component. I know there's a quote from Crawford and SAC Q&As that supports that use, but it still feels like an oversight when reading the original PHB.
Basically I'm getting down to; if the somatic component really should have meaning, make it have meaning and remove it from other cases where you generally ignore it through the exemption from the material component's paragraph.
From a rules perspective, I find it really dumb that a Cleric with a mace and an emblazoned shield can satisfy the material and somatic component of spells they cast that have specifically both components by using their shield hand . . .
Actually, I'm not convinced that the rules allow this although I recognize that it's a common interpretation and DM ruling:
Holy Symbol
Item
Cost
Weight
Amulet
5 gp
1 lb.
Emblem
5 gp
-
Reliquary
5 gp
2 lb.
Holy Symbol. . . . It might be an amulet depicting a symbol representing a deity, the same symbol carefully engraved or inlaid as an emblem on a shield, or a tiny box holding a fragment of a sacred relic. A cleric or paladin can use a holy symbol as a spellcasting focus. To use the symbol in this way, the caster must hold it in hand, wear it visibly, orbear it on a shield.
Note that the shield is not the spellcasting focus -- the emblem is. Generally speaking, the emblem is used by bearing it on a shield, NOT by holding it in hand. Holding in hand would generally apply to the tiny box, wearing visibly would generally apply to an amulet and bearing it on a shield would generally apply to an emblem. In the first case, the free hand is used to hold the focus, in the other two cases a free hand is NOT used -- this is an exception for this particular type of spellcasting focus. So again, technically when you use an emblem that you bear on a shield as your spellcasting focus, you are NOT holding the focus. Instead, you are holding a shield and presumably a weapon while your focus is something that you bear on the shield.
The shield requires a free hand:
Shields. A shield is made from wood or metal and is carried in one hand. Wielding a shield increases your Armor Class by 2
So, when you are wielding a shield you are occupying a hand to carry the shield. While you are carrying the shield you are not holding the spellcasting focus with that hand. Therefore, allowing a caster to use the same hand that carries a shield in order to fulfil somatic components is violating the RAW.
A sword and board character has to drop the weapon to cast the spell and then use an object interaction to pick it back up. Or, if dropping the weapon is problematic then you need two object interactions -- one to stow the weapon on this turn (giving up the chance for opportunity attacks between turns) and then another to draw the weapon on the next turn.
Building on what up2ng is saying, unless they have the war caster feat, a sword and board cleric is still going to run into issues with needing a free hand while casting S-but-not-M cleric spells, of which there are 17 spells level 2 and under, including some of the most common cleric spells.
The requirement listed in the Holy Symbol item text isn't an exception to the normal spellcasting foci rules. It is a separate requirement.
If one general rule requires someone to be medium size to wear say, a medium size suit of armor. And then another rule says that you need a strength of 13 to wear this heavy armor. Those restrictions are BOTH applied.
The existence of a separate requirement for use does not eliminate the general requirements of use.
So, this means that to use a holy symbol, you must BOTH:
"To use the symbol in this way, the caster must hold it in hand, wear it visibly, or bear it on a shield."
AND.
"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."
These instructions are not in conflict. They both apply.
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.
The requirement listed in the Holy Symbol item text isn't an exception to the normal spellcasting foci rules. It is a separate requirement.
Are you suggesting that there is not a general rule that requires a material component to be handled in order for it to be "used" or "provided" for the casting of the spell? Or that this doesn't generally apply to the use of a spellcasting focus? My statement was operating under the assumption that there is such a rule, except for certain Holy Symbols which explicitly state that using one as a spellcasting focus does not require it to be held in a hand.
You don't need a free hand to hold a holy symbol spellcasting focus, you can use it when you wear it visibly, or bear it on a shield as stated in Sage Advice Compendium exemple.
General rules govern each part of the game. For example, the combat rules tell you that melee weapon attacks use Strength and ranged weapon attacks use Dexterity. That’s a general rule, and a general rule is in effect as long as something in the game doesn’t explicitly say otherwise.
The game also includes elements — class features, spells, magic items, monster abilities, and the like — that sometimes contradict a general rule. When an exception and a general rule disagree, the exception wins. For example, if a feature says you can make melee weapon attacks using your Charisma, you can do so, even though that statement disagrees with the general rule.
So we know that unless a specific rule explicitly contradicts a general rule, we should consider both rules to be in effect. Let's start with the general rule from Chapter 10 of the basic rules, which you quoted in part.
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 “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.
This general rule makes no mention of a holy symbol, nor does it need to because it applies to spellcasting in general when one uses a spellcasting focus. The cleric's (and the paladin's) spellcasting feature has a rule allowing you to use a holy symbol.
You can use a holy symbol (see the Adventuring Gear section) as a spellcasting focus for your cleric spells.
So far, nothing here contradicts the general rule for holding a spellcasting focus for material component spells. Let's take a closer look at the description for the holy symbol itself.
Holy Symbol. A holy symbol is a representation of a god or pantheon. It might be an amulet depicting a symbol representing a deity, the same symbol carefully engraved or inlaid as an emblem on a shield, or a tiny box holding a fragment of a sacred relic. A cleric or paladin can use a holy symbol as a spellcasting focus. To use the symbol in this way, the caster must hold it in hand, wear it visibly, or bear it on a shield.
Here is where I see the contradiction and why I believe this specific rule supersedes the general rule. The general rule for material components tells us how spellcasters use a spellcasting focus--they need a free hand to hold it. The Holy symbol tells us how clerics and paladins use the holy symbol as a spellcasting focus--the caster must hold it in hand, wear it visibly, or bear it on a shield.
Is the specific rule explicit? Yes it is. It tells us how the holy symbol can be used by clerics and paladins.
Does it contradict the general rule? I believe it does by offering three ways to use it versus one way in the general rule. This includes the holding it, but provides two other options as well.
The holy symbol does a better job than the hat of wizardry or the dark shard amulet. Both of these items tell you they can be used as a spellcasting focus, and they IMPLY that you don't need to hold them, but as we saw above, that isn't good enough because a specific rule needs to explicitly contradict a general rule to supersede it. With these two magic items, both the general rule and the specific rules for those items apply in harmony. In fact, the only magic item I can think of that explicitly tells you that you don't need to hold it in order to use it as a spellcasting focus would be if you had a wand that was a spellcasting focus, and you placed in a wand sheath, as it also explicitly contradicts the general rule for using a spellcasting focus by holding it.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Not all those who wander are lost"
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I am very confused by your reply. It is not "wrong," it is what the rules say happen.
Are the parts of sage advice that are incorrect the parts that reiterate the RAW or the examples that follow that RAW? And which parts of the rules are inconsistent, the parts saying needing to gesture with an empty hand can't be holding an item or the parts saying need to gesture with an item allowing to gesture with an item?
And no part of Fangeye's answer has an attitude or is anything but politely explaining rules. If you don't like having rules explained, maybe don't post on the rules forum. That is the main purpose of this forum...
Absolutely incorrect. Both the PHB (for example) and the SAC are WOTC communicating with us in an official way. Anything either says is the rules is the rules, RAW. Anything either says is merely intent is merely intent. While the SAC absolutely does contain some content labeled as RAI (sometimes accompanied by a promise to include it in future PHB errata, although all such SAC promises are lies and no such errata has ever been issued), it also contains assertions about the rules, and there is no basis for arguing that an SAC assertion holds less weight than a PHB (or any other official source) assertion.
As an example of SAC RAW, the only source in all of 5E for the definition of "melee weapon attack" is the SAC. The PHB assumes you know this definition and refers to melee weapon attacks as if you know what they are.
Note that it is both common and typical for RAW sources to contradict each other. An excellent example spread across both the PHB and the SAC is which ability score you use to throw a longsword at someone (the SAC agrees with one of the two mutually exclusive answers given in the PHB). It's fundamentally not weird for the SAC to contradict another RAW source and your DM will have to exercise judgment when that happens. That doesn't stop the SAC from being RAW.
I apologize if I gave any offense, I was only trying to provide resources I thought you might find helpful and commiserate with your frustration regarding this topic.
Also as a quick aside I do agree with Ravnodaus that the SAC is a RAI source, not a RAW source.
In the spirit of starting fresh I will go through how the text of the PHB leads to the intended outcome as explained in the SAC
And that is really it. A strawman example of this is how the Extra Attack feature only applies to the classes that gain it. A better example would be the rules governing spell casting time. If a spell has a casting time of a Bonus Action then it is governed by the following rule: "You can’t cast another spell during the same turn, except for a cantrip with a casting time of 1 action." - https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/phb/spellcasting#BonusAction
Nowhere in this sentence does it mention that it only applies when casting a spell with a casting time of a Bonus Action, this is assumed to be understood. We also have SAC confirming that the restriction mentioned in the Bonus Actions casting time rules only apply when casting a spell as a Bonus Action - https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/sac/sage-advice-compendium#SA159.
In your first post you gave a few examples you felt were counter-intuitive, I will quickly cover them here:
So all spells they cast have the Material component requirement and thus bring with it the Material component rules. This is a specific exception not found in other class Spellcasting features.
If you disagree that is fine. If you have any specific questions or concerns I would be happy to address them, otherwise I feel I don't have much more to say on the matter. Personally I like the fantasy of a caster channeling their magic through their focus and don't want to have to memorize the component requirements of all the spells my players have access to so I don't actually play it this way in the games I run.
Unless they eventually errata their books, that's just not true. If you have the PHB, the DMG and the MM and are playing 5e around a table, there is zero requirement to bring a computer, hop online, and double check if the books are officially the rules or if some secondary website is.
The RAW. Stands for Rules As Written. This refers to what is written in the books.
SAG isn't in your books.
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 really the only part that matters to this entire 32 page (edit: 33 page now) thread. And it is absolutely assumed by the rules. It’s sort of the underlying and required assumption to every rule or law ever written: Rules apply when and only when they apply.
First of sorry, i didnt wanted to sound harshly. Yesterday i read your reply in a way like you were explaining someone the player handbook existed seeing as that wasnt your intention i apologize aswell.
What i think they are inconsistent with is what type of spell requires somatic components, there are quite many spells that are alike in how they work or what they do, how do they decide which needs a material ontop of it and which dont?
What made them decide that spells that dont need materials are harder to cast?
Im more trying to understand their reasoning behind this and why they made it specific like that.
The Paladin example was more of a: if it requires specific intricate hand movements and your hands are behind thick armor... how that better than having them occupied, the others were more a what wouldnt work
Also thanks for pointing out that if we consider the focus as the material cost rather then a focus for artificer it changes a lot. I hadnt found anything regarding that so i hadnt considered that.
Making artificer the only class that can cast shield with both hands occupied without having to take warcaster.
Going by official intention the challenge rating of casting spells would be like: V -> S/M -> V/S/M -> S -> V/S (making the spells with somatic but no material components the most difficult to cast)
Edit: I do can see how having a catalyst would make your spell easier to cast and having only a more basic gesture needed because of that
_______________
Ayu
But if you're using physical books then you are most likely playing an earlier version of D&D, since there are errata which have been included in the dndbeyond rulebooks which won't automatically appear in people's physical copies.
I assume that this forum is working off the latest errata, so RAW considers the physical books, the errata, and the SAC.
I don't know what process WotC goes through before publishing answers to questions in SAC and errata to existing books, but I imagine it goes something like this:
An example I feel that supports this speculated process is a question regarding the Wild Magic Sorcerer's Wild Magic Surge feature addressed in SAC here: https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/sac/sage-advice-compendium#SA080
It clarifies that for multiclassed characters only their sorcerer spells can trigger Wild Magic Surge. There is also an errata published regarding this feature in the errata PDF here: https://media.wizards.com/2018/dnd/downloads/PH-Errata.pdf
This errata was published in 2018 and this new text is missing from any of the previously issued PHB errata I was able to find here: https://thinkdm.org/5e-errata/
Since SAC is a website it is a bit harder to get historical information on, with errata we could at least theoretically validate what I found online by checking different printing runs of the PHB. However if we trust web.archive.org then from what I found there the SAC answer I linked above first appeared in SAC in 2016: https://web.archive.org/web/20160713171103/https://media.wizards.com/2016/downloads/DND/SA-Compendium.pdf
Regardless, I view SAC as a RAI source mainly because of its Q&A format. Its text provides specific answers to specific questions rather than laying down rules as in our more typical source books. (I guess I shouldn't be surprised but this took longer to write and I had more to say than I initially thought.)
No worries!
As for why this distinction between S and S/M spells exist, that is much harder to answer. It is at least partially due to historical precedent from previous editions of D&D. For example the spell Burning Hands describes a gesture that requires both hands when mechanically only one is required. The spell Burning Hands has used this gesture for as long as I have been playing D&D going back to at least 2nd edition AD&D.
However I believe this stratification of spell component requirements also exists to give WotC more design space to work with. By having a wider range of requirements WotC has more things they can modify and tweak when writing feats and class features like Warcaster and Improved Pact Weapon. These features can both modify the requirements the player must meet when casting spells without completely overlapping (granted both of these features also do other things as well).
It's really unfortunate that there is so much ambiguity about this topic - at least from a logical perspective. Especially since spells that require S and M, with the rule exemption stated under the Material component, when does it actually matter that a spell with a Material component also has a Somatic component... Why does it actually matter to tack the S component on there, if we are given explicit leeway to ignore it? You need a free hand to grab your material components from a pouch or to hold your Spellcasting Focus, why bother with the Somatic component at all? There's no condition where you could cast a VM spell and not a VSM spell, so for clarity I would rather they remove the Somatic component from spells that have a Material component under the current ruleset.
When I went through the rules on spell casting components in DnDBeyond's basic rules, I read it like a laundry list:
1. You can speak to cover the verbal bit? Check
2. You got a free hand to wave the gestures of the spell? Check
3. You can grab your material components from a pouch or a spell casting focus? Check (I already got a free hand that I USED to gesture the spell, herein lies the exemption)
I would sideline a spell casting focus - like that of a crystal, holy symbol or similar - with a component pouch, either of which you generally don't want to hold in your hand at all times, but is easily accessible on your belt/person. This means you need to have a hand free but "drawing"/using your spell casting focus is sidelined with picking up materials from your pouch, which I seem to have read is not considered an action like "interact with object", much less drawing/stowing an item - like some would like foci-users to do.
This would make any run-of-the-mill spell caster operate pretty much the same as before. You got a hand free? You can use it for both the Somatic and the Material component of the spell. This means that we cannot "cheat" the somatic component of a spell when having a spell casting focus in hand (such as a staff), merely on the basis that the spell in question also has a material component. Like others have reasoned, it doesn't make much sense that a spell that includes multiple components, or more specifically a material component, is easier to cast than a spell that doesn't require a material component. If the rule books cut out the somatic component of the spells with material components, it would make more logical sense why they could be easier to cast, but alas they haven't and thus they shouldn't be easier to cast.
If you want to ignore the somatic component of spells you really should need the War Caster feat. Otherwise it really should be that you need a free hand that can grab your small focus/component pouch while casting.
In every other aspect where there is a significant clash between using hands for sword and board and spell casting with material components and somatic components - looking at you cleric and paladin (and subclass Fighter, Rogue, Ranger and Warlock) - they really should just remove the somatic component of many of their spells that have a material component. Basically if WotC wants you to cast these spells while in combat, just have the rules reflect that in simplicity. Thus when a spell actually has a somatic component it is significant to have that hand free (or the War Caster feat). From a mechanical perspective, nothing is generally lost by this particular change but we do get some more clarity and the possibility to differentiate between spells that needs hand waving and those where you can ignore it. From a flavor perspective, your players are not discouraged from signifying their spell casting by gesticulating any way they want to make it look immersive and in character. This way you are not limited to gesticulating with your symbol inlaid shield if you go sword and board.
There is one wrinkle with this suggestion that I am aware of, the Holy Symbol.
A Holy Symbol like an Amulet can serve as a Spellcasting Focus by wearing it visibly, not just by holding it in your hand. In this case a spell with Somatic and Material components is mechanically distinct from a spell with just Material components.
Yeah, I knew that wrinkle had me confused quite a bit too, because if you can just slap a medallion on a chain and wear it around your neck so it is visible to satisfy the Material requirement, why would a Cleric/Paladin ever worry about the Material components or inlaying their holy symbol on a shield that you could potentially drop?
In the PHB the material component of spell casting is written as "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 clashes with the description on the Holy Symbol / Amulet. So what is true? The description on the Holy Symbol or the rules governing material components in spell casting? I assumed the Holy Symbol description was a miscommunication and stuck with the requirement that you need to hold your spell casting focus to utilize it instead of a material component.
This is a really good solution. You are basically just ruling that "drawing" or "stowing" a spellcasting focus is a free action and NOT an object interaction. When you use a component pouch, interacting with that is just part of the spellcasting process -- basically a free action when casting a spell. So treat the spellcasting focus in the same way since they are meant to be interchangeable mechanically. So really, even if the flavor is that you are holding onto your orb all the time, you really just have that hand free most of the time and you are reaching for and briefly touching the orb that you are wearing somehow when you need the M component. I like it. That pretty much solves this entire thread, except for:
The way that I am currently interpreting things, the holy symbol is a specific exception to the general spellcasting rules. When it comes to the holy symbol, we have this: "A cleric or paladin can use a holy symbol as a spellcasting focus. To use the symbol in this way, the caster must hold it in hand, wear it visibly, or bear it on a shield." So, in this case you have options. You could hold a holy symbol in a free hand OR you could use it without using a free hand. So, if you go with a sword and board combat style you won't have a free hand for your material component -- but you don't need one. This still satisfies the material component rule if we consider that the phrase "A spellcaster must have a hand free to hold a spellcasting focus, but it can be the same hand that he or she uses to perform somatic components" can be interpreted / rewritten as: "In order to hold a spellcasting focus, a spellcaster must have a hand free . . .". In other words -- you typically need to hold a focus to cast a spell with a material component and in order to do that you need a free hand, BUT if you do NOT need to hold the focus to cast that spell then you obviously don't need a free hand for the focus. Unfortunately, the gotcha with this scenario is the somatic component. If you are holding sword and board and are NOT holding the focus, then you have no hand free for your somatic component. In this case, (S) or (VS) or (SM) or (VSM) are all problematic because you do not have a free hand regardless of the spellcasting focus. So, for sword and board with holy symbol, as annoying as it is the answer is to drop your weapon to cast the spell and then pick it back up -- so basically it will cost you your item interaction to cast any spell with an S component.
From a rules perspective, I find it really dumb that a Cleric with a mace and an emblazoned shield can satisfy the material and somatic component of spells they cast that have specifically both components by using their shield hand, whilst a Paladin with a Holy Symbol dangling from a chain around their neck and a sword and shield, cannot.
The exemption under the material component really should clarify that the exemption means that it doesn't require two free hands to gesture for the Somatic component and grab materials from a pouch, but that you can use the same free hand for both. It reads like it was meant to be a relief to the material component but people are using it to ignore the somatic component. I know there's a quote from Crawford and SAC Q&As that supports that use, but it still feels like an oversight when reading the original PHB.
Basically I'm getting down to; if the somatic component really should have meaning, make it have meaning and remove it from other cases where you generally ignore it through the exemption from the material component's paragraph.
Actually, I'm not convinced that the rules allow this although I recognize that it's a common interpretation and DM ruling:
Note that the shield is not the spellcasting focus -- the emblem is. Generally speaking, the emblem is used by bearing it on a shield, NOT by holding it in hand. Holding in hand would generally apply to the tiny box, wearing visibly would generally apply to an amulet and bearing it on a shield would generally apply to an emblem. In the first case, the free hand is used to hold the focus, in the other two cases a free hand is NOT used -- this is an exception for this particular type of spellcasting focus. So again, technically when you use an emblem that you bear on a shield as your spellcasting focus, you are NOT holding the focus. Instead, you are holding a shield and presumably a weapon while your focus is something that you bear on the shield.
The shield requires a free hand:
So, when you are wielding a shield you are occupying a hand to carry the shield. While you are carrying the shield you are not holding the spellcasting focus with that hand. Therefore, allowing a caster to use the same hand that carries a shield in order to fulfil somatic components is violating the RAW.
A sword and board character has to drop the weapon to cast the spell and then use an object interaction to pick it back up. Or, if dropping the weapon is problematic then you need two object interactions -- one to stow the weapon on this turn (giving up the chance for opportunity attacks between turns) and then another to draw the weapon on the next turn.
Building on what up2ng is saying, unless they have the war caster feat, a sword and board cleric is still going to run into issues with needing a free hand while casting S-but-not-M cleric spells, of which there are 17 spells level 2 and under, including some of the most common cleric spells.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
The requirement listed in the Holy Symbol item text isn't an exception to the normal spellcasting foci rules. It is a separate requirement.
If one general rule requires someone to be medium size to wear say, a medium size suit of armor. And then another rule says that you need a strength of 13 to wear this heavy armor. Those restrictions are BOTH applied.
The existence of a separate requirement for use does not eliminate the general requirements of use.
So, this means that to use a holy symbol, you must BOTH:
"To use the symbol in this way, the caster must hold it in hand, wear it visibly, or bear it on a shield."
AND.
"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."
These instructions are not in conflict. They both apply.
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.
Are you suggesting that there is not a general rule that requires a material component to be handled in order for it to be "used" or "provided" for the casting of the spell? Or that this doesn't generally apply to the use of a spellcasting focus? My statement was operating under the assumption that there is such a rule, except for certain Holy Symbols which explicitly state that using one as a spellcasting focus does not require it to be held in a hand.
You don't need a free hand to hold a holy symbol spellcasting focus, you can use it when you wear it visibly, or bear it on a shield as stated in Sage Advice Compendium exemple.
I think I understand what you are saying, but I disagree with your assessment that there is no contradiction and therefore both rules apply. Xanathar's Guide introduction tells us exactly what is required for a specific rule to win over a general rule.
So we know that unless a specific rule explicitly contradicts a general rule, we should consider both rules to be in effect. Let's start with the general rule from Chapter 10 of the basic rules, which you quoted in part.
This general rule makes no mention of a holy symbol, nor does it need to because it applies to spellcasting in general when one uses a spellcasting focus. The cleric's (and the paladin's) spellcasting feature has a rule allowing you to use a holy symbol.
So far, nothing here contradicts the general rule for holding a spellcasting focus for material component spells. Let's take a closer look at the description for the holy symbol itself.
Here is where I see the contradiction and why I believe this specific rule supersedes the general rule. The general rule for material components tells us how spellcasters use a spellcasting focus--they need a free hand to hold it. The Holy symbol tells us how clerics and paladins use the holy symbol as a spellcasting focus--the caster must hold it in hand, wear it visibly, or bear it on a shield.
The holy symbol does a better job than the hat of wizardry or the dark shard amulet. Both of these items tell you they can be used as a spellcasting focus, and they IMPLY that you don't need to hold them, but as we saw above, that isn't good enough because a specific rule needs to explicitly contradict a general rule to supersede it. With these two magic items, both the general rule and the specific rules for those items apply in harmony. In fact, the only magic item I can think of that explicitly tells you that you don't need to hold it in order to use it as a spellcasting focus would be if you had a wand that was a spellcasting focus, and you placed in a wand sheath, as it also explicitly contradicts the general rule for using a spellcasting focus by holding it.
"Not all those who wander are lost"