I'm getting the vibe that some of you are saying that a Wizard can't cast some spells if he has his staff in one hand and his wand in the other. For the sake of my own sanity and game flavor I'm throwing that shit out.
If I tell my players that they can't cast spells with a wand in their hand that will totally blow verisimilitude.
Yeah, well your opinion seems to be common. Some people just house rule it, as you seem apt to do, others argue.
But RAW, you'd have to sheath one of those to cast an S/VS spell (S rules state you need a free hand). But another, bigger question might be why your wizards feels they needs to have both hands occupied with two types of focus.
Yeah, well your opinion seems to be common. Some people just house rule it, as you seem apt to do, others argue.
But RAW, you'd have to sheath one of those to cast an S/VS spell (S rules state you need a free hand). But another, bigger question might be why your wizards feels they needs to have both hands occupied with two types of focus.
An example would be if the caster was holding a Skyblinder Staff for protection in one hand and their Imbued Wood wand in the other.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
Well, then you'd have to make a decision. It is within action economy to put one away and cast a spell on your turn, and again within action economy to draw and cast another spell on the next turn.
Weapon using classes don't generally get the option to take two magic weapon's worth of bonuses on their attacks, so in that sense, having to put one away some of the time only partially balances the situation you described.
Edit: and that is what you'd have to do for a spell with a costly component too anyway?
Weapon using classes don't generally get the option to take two magic weapon's worth of bonuses on their attacks, so in that sense, having to put one away some of the time only partially balances the situation you described.
That's because weapons have + to hit and damage.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
But really, this direction (the game balance decisions between martial and caster classes) is going away from the point. House rule special somatic component rules if you'd like, but the rules in the book are, I think, completely obvious.
But really, this direction (the game balance decisions between martial and caster classes) is going away from the point. House rule special somatic component rules if you'd like, but the rules in the book are, I think, completely obvious.
And just in case they weren't, the official SA clarifies them further.
I'm still in the camp of: you can be pedantic about these rules if you want. But if you do so, your players will say "ugh, fine" and find an exploit meta-gamey way around the restriction to still do exactly what they wanted to do in the first place, but now it will be less cool, and less fun, and have zero impact on the actual gameplay except to fill spellcasting with a lot of accounting-drudgery. That's a losing proposition to me.
Also, in further clarification about these things Mike Mearls has said the rules are there to prevent abuse, not for balance reasons, and to "let it slide" unless it's breaking something.
Yeah, it is ridiculous, but that is exactly what this framework dictates. There are no hard-coded descriptions of what actually constitutes a somatic component for a spell, and it's been confirmed that spell descriptions themselves are flavor text that has no impact on casting (a la Burning Hands).
There's no such thing as flavor text in spells. Anything under the spell's headers is part of a spell's effects unless something in there specifically calls it out as being part of the casting or the components.
There are no rules which qualify the somatic component of a S/VS spell as being objectively different from the somatic component of an SM/VSM spell. It is logically invalid to assume they are different.
The reason to assume they're different is that the rules explicitly say spells with M components work differently with regards to somatic components. That's indisputable.
The simple narrative explanation is that the hand gestures in SM spells incorporate the material component; S-only spells have hand gestures that don't involve holding something.
Just curious. By the rules, only one hand is required to perform the somatic components of a spell. However, if you interpret the spell text as literal rather than flavor and specific rules over-riding general then the Burning Hands spell specifically requires both hands to be free in order to perform the described somatic component that is included as part of the spell text.
"As you hold your hands with thumbs touching and fingers spread, a thin sheet of flames shoots forth from your outstretched fingertips."
So, is it impossible for a wizard to cast burning hands while holding his staff or wearing a shield (assuming multiclass or appropriate armor feat) due to the spell description?
Just curious. By the rules, only one hand is required to perform the somatic components of a spell. However, if you interpret the spell text as literal rather than flavor and specific rules over-riding general then the Burning Hands spell specifically requires both hands to be free in order to perform the described somatic component that is included as part of the spell text.
"As you hold your hands with thumbs touching and fingers spread, a thin sheet of flames shoots forth from your outstretched fingertips."
So, is it impossible for a wizard to cast burning hands while holding his staff or wearing a shield (assuming multiclass or appropriate armor feat) due to the spell description?
According to the thread, that's flavor text that you ignore.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
Just curious. By the rules, only one hand is required to perform the somatic components of a spell. However, if you interpret the spell text as literal rather than flavor and specific rules over-riding general then the Burning Hands spell specifically requires both hands to be free in order to perform the described somatic component that is included as part of the spell text.
"As you hold your hands with thumbs touching and fingers spread, a thin sheet of flames shoots forth from your outstretched fingertips."
So, is it impossible for a wizard to cast burning hands while holding his staff or wearing a shield (assuming multiclass or appropriate armor feat) due to the spell description?
According to the thread, that's flavor text that you ignore.
The person they’re directing the question at literally said “there’s no such thing as flavor text in spells.”
This argument needs to be buried 100 feet deep and never see the light of day again.
RAW you can't cast S or VS spells if your hands are full, even with a focus. Of course, that's bogus minutia and as Mike Mearls said in those tweets, unless it's (somehow, god only knows) creating issues among your players, just let them cast their damn spells with their focus. If I was playing my Druid at someones table and they told me I had to put my staff away to cast Cure Wounds on my party member I would be baffled. The only issue this could actually cause - so far as I can tell - is the fact that I'd still be able to make opportunity attacks, which... c'mon, if the stars align and the situation somehow lets me make an opportunity attack that turn, just give me my measly 1d8+4 damage (Shillelagh) and move on with your life.
Holding two weapons or a weapon and shield is a different story, as of course it makes less sense, and there are special abilities/feats that allow you to make somatic gestures while wielding them or make them count as foci...
However, even that I'm personally pretty lax with. For example, I don't tell my Ranger who uses sword & board "Oh, sorry, you can't react with Absorb Elements because you didn't put your shield/weapon away on your turn." You can assume things too. I don't want to be the type of DM who requires their players call out every single action they do. In the above example, the Ranger could easily sheath their sword as a free action during their turn, cast Absorb Elements as a reaction during the rest of the round, and then draw their sword again as a free action at the start of their next turn. Am I going to make my player specify that they do this, and not allow them to cast if they didn't specify? No, I'm not; I'm going to allow them to cast the spell and maybe I'll work it into my description that they sheathed the sword. If instead the chance to make an Opportunity Attack arises am I going to not allow them to because "you probably put your sword away in case you wanted to cast Absorb Elements"? No, that's ridiculous. I'll allow either to happen regardless, and frankly everyone should; don't be a stickler for boring minutia. Now, if the player had done another free Object Interaction on their turn, that's a different story, but typically not a situation that comes up very often.
Of course that's a reaction spell, not one cast on their own turn, but even then I'm not a stickler about it. I think we can all easily imagine that a character can hold their sword in their shield hand for a moment while casting a spell. This is not RAW, this does invalidate part of the War Caster feat, and I don't care. I would rather invalidate part of one Feat (which I am clear with my players about) than slow down game play with the inane minutia of checking components and keeping track of "oh you used your free object interaction to sheath your weapon to cast a Somatic spell so you can't make an opportunity attack this round." Opportunity Attacks are (AFAIK) the only thing actually affected by this, and they're such a rare and (typically) inconsequential thing that it's just not worth it.
In my opinion (want that to be clear) spells that require Material Components should be the only ones that require the finicky minutia of requiring sheathing your weapon, but I'm still lax on them. Being able to put your weapon in your shield hand, or temporarily (albeit awkwardly) hold two Short Swords/Scimitars in one hand, makes sense that it would free up a hand for Somatic components. For Material components, it seems to me it would be extremely hard to find anything in a bag of components with just one hand, and using a focus would mean putting your weapon in your shield hand, drawing and using your focus, then storing it and returning your weapon to your main hand - definitely too much for one turn. However, RAW you would need to sheath your weapon (Free Action), then draw your Focus (action), so you couldn't actually cast until the next turn. That's pretty bogus. You should be able to draw and cast in that turn, then pull your weapon out next turn, and in this all you would lose is your ability to do an Opportunity Attack.
TL;DR:
RAW on this is - in my opinion - super dumb. If your wield 2 weapons/sword and shield, this is the state of RAW: S spells: Sacrifice your ability to make Opportunity Attacks for a round. Total lost: 1 Opp attack M spells: Lose a whole turn to stow weapon(Free) and draw focus(Action). Lose Opp attack for that round. Cast your spell(Action), stow focus(Free). Lose Opp attack for second round. Then (on the 3rd round) draw your weapon again to get back into action. Total lost: One whole turn (besides movement) and Two rounds' of opportunity attacks
How it SHOULD be: S spells: Nothing, you're golden. Hold your weapon in your shield hand/awkwardly hold 2 (light) weapons in 1 hand to make your gestures. Total lost: Nothing M spells: Ignore the inane drawing/stowing of weapons, for the most part. Stow and draw as one free action first turn, losing your opportunity attack. Cast spell on second turn, then stow and draw again. Total lost: One opportunity attack.
And you should be able to cast whatever you want with a focus in hand because seriously.
Also sorry for the rant and sorry if I am making no sense or forgetting things, I've got a wicked flu right now.
Skipped to the end, I've had this same argument with these same posters before, but I'm on OP's side.
Headings and section titles aren't rules, they're just informational bookmarks that help you direct your attention while reading rules. OP is correct, the text of the rules explicitly states that you can perform somatic components while holding a focus, and that is in fact the correct and proper way to play it.
Skipped to the end, I've had this same argument with these same posters before, but I'm on OP's side.
Headings and section titles aren't rules, they're just informational bookmarks that help you direct your attention while reading rules. OP is correct, the text of the rules explicitly states that you can perform somatic components while holding a focus, and that is in fact the correct and proper way to play it.
I think overall, I agree with Jaysburn's opinion on the topic. Even though it isn't how the rules are written, I probably expect the game to behave more like the way he describes it. With that being said, What you've said, Chicken_Champ, is completely wrong.
I think it's reasonable to adjust the rules to allow for somatic components while holding a focus. I'm rather surprised at the suggestion that you should be able to do somatic components while holding two weapons/sword and shield. There's a feat that specifically allows that, if someone wants to build a character that can do that, they can take the feat.
That's true and I mentioned the feat, I just don't like the feat. Let me try to explain why. As far as I'm aware, nowhere is it RAW that a quarterstaff actually counts as a druid focus. "Staff" is mentioned as a focus, as a hewn staff from particular kinds of trees, but a quarterstaff is never called a suitable replacement.
This means that unless you homebrew to allow a quarterstaff to be a focus for them, the staple "staff and shield" Druid has to waste an entire turn and then some to go between casting many of their spells and actually using their melee weapon, unless they take a feat that they can't typically get until level 4. Perhaps that really is the intention of the game, but I personally find that crazy. The fact that they can equip armor and a shield means they aren't meant to be pure casters, but if they actually want to cast they have to act like they are?
There's also the Ruby of the War Mage that can bypass all this. I just think that having to take a feat or attunement slot is a huge cost to be able to wield a weapon and reliably cast M spells.
I'm not entirely happy with what I wrote before though, there should perhaps be more cost. Druids are one thing, but quarterstaffs not officially couting as a focus is another argument, and a player going from sword and shield to wand and shield should lose a little something and one opportunity attack might be a bit light. I just think the current cost is way too high; an entire turn (less movement) and multiple opportunity attacks to change gear and cast is so much.
This has yet to be an issue in my game, since the only one with the capabilities to do so is the Druid (the Ranger has no M spells) and I allow the quarterstaff to count as a focus, but if and when I do have to deal with it I'll likely find some middle ground instead of requiring the feat. Maybe - just for the focus - drawing or sheathing it can take their Movement.
Not conclusive since it's specific to magical ones, but the DMG on magical staves states that unless the description says otherwise, a staff can be used as a quarterstaff. I would say based on the costs, any staff focus could be used as a quarterstaff as well, though not all quarterstaves would be usable as foci. If nothing else, the improvised weapon rules say to treat something similar to a weapon as that weapon.
That's a lot of extrapolating downwards, but true. That's still saying that RAW normal quarterstaffs cannot be used - foci at the very least must be. Again though, this is a whole different argument.
Yeah, well your opinion seems to be common. Some people just house rule it, as you seem apt to do, others argue.
But RAW, you'd have to sheath one of those to cast an S/VS spell (S rules state you need a free hand). But another, bigger question might be why your wizards feels they needs to have both hands occupied with two types of focus.
An example would be if the caster was holding a Skyblinder Staff for protection in one hand and their Imbued Wood wand in the other.
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
-Ilyara Thundertale
Well, then you'd have to make a decision. It is within action economy to put one away and cast a spell on your turn, and again within action economy to draw and cast another spell on the next turn.
Weapon using classes don't generally get the option to take two magic weapon's worth of bonuses on their attacks, so in that sense, having to put one away some of the time only partially balances the situation you described.
Edit: and that is what you'd have to do for a spell with a costly component too anyway?
That's because weapons have + to hit and damage.
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
-Ilyara Thundertale
Two items that give bonus to hit greatly outweigh one that give a bonus to hit and damage.
One gives a +1 to hit, the other, a +1 to damage...
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
-Ilyara Thundertale
But really, this direction (the game balance decisions between martial and caster classes) is going away from the point. House rule special somatic component rules if you'd like, but the rules in the book are, I think, completely obvious.
And just in case they weren't, the official SA clarifies them further.
I'm still in the camp of: you can be pedantic about these rules if you want. But if you do so, your players will say "ugh, fine" and find an exploit meta-gamey way around the restriction to still do exactly what they wanted to do in the first place, but now it will be less cool, and less fun, and have zero impact on the actual gameplay except to fill spellcasting with a lot of accounting-drudgery. That's a losing proposition to me.
Also, in further clarification about these things Mike Mearls has said the rules are there to prevent abuse, not for balance reasons, and to "let it slide" unless it's breaking something.
https://twitter.com/mikemearls/status/504001681689169920
Just curious. By the rules, only one hand is required to perform the somatic components of a spell. However, if you interpret the spell text as literal rather than flavor and specific rules over-riding general then the Burning Hands spell specifically requires both hands to be free in order to perform the described somatic component that is included as part of the spell text.
"As you hold your hands with thumbs touching and fingers spread, a thin sheet of flames shoots forth from your outstretched fingertips."
So, is it impossible for a wizard to cast burning hands while holding his staff or wearing a shield (assuming multiclass or appropriate armor feat) due to the spell description?
According to the thread, that's flavor text that you ignore.
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
-Ilyara Thundertale
The person they’re directing the question at literally said “there’s no such thing as flavor text in spells.”
This argument needs to be buried 100 feet deep and never see the light of day again.
RAW you can't cast S or VS spells if your hands are full, even with a focus. Of course, that's bogus minutia and as Mike Mearls said in those tweets, unless it's (somehow, god only knows) creating issues among your players, just let them cast their damn spells with their focus. If I was playing my Druid at someones table and they told me I had to put my staff away to cast Cure Wounds on my party member I would be baffled. The only issue this could actually cause - so far as I can tell - is the fact that I'd still be able to make opportunity attacks, which... c'mon, if the stars align and the situation somehow lets me make an opportunity attack that turn, just give me my measly 1d8+4 damage (Shillelagh) and move on with your life.
Holding two weapons or a weapon and shield is a different story, as of course it makes less sense, and there are special abilities/feats that allow you to make somatic gestures while wielding them or make them count as foci...
However, even that I'm personally pretty lax with. For example, I don't tell my Ranger who uses sword & board "Oh, sorry, you can't react with Absorb Elements because you didn't put your shield/weapon away on your turn." You can assume things too. I don't want to be the type of DM who requires their players call out every single action they do. In the above example, the Ranger could easily sheath their sword as a free action during their turn, cast Absorb Elements as a reaction during the rest of the round, and then draw their sword again as a free action at the start of their next turn. Am I going to make my player specify that they do this, and not allow them to cast if they didn't specify? No, I'm not; I'm going to allow them to cast the spell and maybe I'll work it into my description that they sheathed the sword. If instead the chance to make an Opportunity Attack arises am I going to not allow them to because "you probably put your sword away in case you wanted to cast Absorb Elements"? No, that's ridiculous. I'll allow either to happen regardless, and frankly everyone should; don't be a stickler for boring minutia. Now, if the player had done another free Object Interaction on their turn, that's a different story, but typically not a situation that comes up very often.
Of course that's a reaction spell, not one cast on their own turn, but even then I'm not a stickler about it. I think we can all easily imagine that a character can hold their sword in their shield hand for a moment while casting a spell. This is not RAW, this does invalidate part of the War Caster feat, and I don't care. I would rather invalidate part of one Feat (which I am clear with my players about) than slow down game play with the inane minutia of checking components and keeping track of "oh you used your free object interaction to sheath your weapon to cast a Somatic spell so you can't make an opportunity attack this round." Opportunity Attacks are (AFAIK) the only thing actually affected by this, and they're such a rare and (typically) inconsequential thing that it's just not worth it.
In my opinion (want that to be clear) spells that require Material Components should be the only ones that require the finicky minutia of requiring sheathing your weapon, but I'm still lax on them. Being able to put your weapon in your shield hand, or temporarily (albeit awkwardly) hold two Short Swords/Scimitars in one hand, makes sense that it would free up a hand for Somatic components. For Material components, it seems to me it would be extremely hard to find anything in a bag of components with just one hand, and using a focus would mean putting your weapon in your shield hand, drawing and using your focus, then storing it and returning your weapon to your main hand - definitely too much for one turn. However, RAW you would need to sheath your weapon (Free Action), then draw your Focus (action), so you couldn't actually cast until the next turn. That's pretty bogus. You should be able to draw and cast in that turn, then pull your weapon out next turn, and in this all you would lose is your ability to do an Opportunity Attack.
TL;DR:
RAW on this is - in my opinion - super dumb. If your wield 2 weapons/sword and shield, this is the state of RAW:
S spells: Sacrifice your ability to make Opportunity Attacks for a round. Total lost: 1 Opp attack
M spells: Lose a whole turn to stow weapon(Free) and draw focus(Action). Lose Opp attack for that round. Cast your spell(Action), stow focus(Free). Lose Opp attack for second round. Then (on the 3rd round) draw your weapon again to get back into action. Total lost: One whole turn (besides movement) and Two rounds' of opportunity attacks
How it SHOULD be:
S spells: Nothing, you're golden. Hold your weapon in your shield hand/awkwardly hold 2 (light) weapons in 1 hand to make your gestures. Total lost: Nothing
M spells: Ignore the inane drawing/stowing of weapons, for the most part. Stow and draw as one free action first turn, losing your opportunity attack. Cast spell on second turn, then stow and draw again. Total lost: One opportunity attack.
And you should be able to cast whatever you want with a focus in hand because seriously.
Also sorry for the rant and sorry if I am making no sense or forgetting things, I've got a wicked flu right now.
Skipped to the end, I've had this same argument with these same posters before, but I'm on OP's side.
Headings and section titles aren't rules, they're just informational bookmarks that help you direct your attention while reading rules. OP is correct, the text of the rules explicitly states that you can perform somatic components while holding a focus, and that is in fact the correct and proper way to play it.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
I think overall, I agree with Jaysburn's opinion on the topic. Even though it isn't how the rules are written, I probably expect the game to behave more like the way he describes it. With that being said, What you've said, Chicken_Champ, is completely wrong.
I think it's reasonable to adjust the rules to allow for somatic components while holding a focus. I'm rather surprised at the suggestion that you should be able to do somatic components while holding two weapons/sword and shield. There's a feat that specifically allows that, if someone wants to build a character that can do that, they can take the feat.
That's true and I mentioned the feat, I just don't like the feat. Let me try to explain why. As far as I'm aware, nowhere is it RAW that a quarterstaff actually counts as a druid focus. "Staff" is mentioned as a focus, as a hewn staff from particular kinds of trees, but a quarterstaff is never called a suitable replacement.
This means that unless you homebrew to allow a quarterstaff to be a focus for them, the staple "staff and shield" Druid has to waste an entire turn and then some to go between casting many of their spells and actually using their melee weapon, unless they take a feat that they can't typically get until level 4. Perhaps that really is the intention of the game, but I personally find that crazy. The fact that they can equip armor and a shield means they aren't meant to be pure casters, but if they actually want to cast they have to act like they are?
There's also the Ruby of the War Mage that can bypass all this. I just think that having to take a feat or attunement slot is a huge cost to be able to wield a weapon and reliably cast M spells.
I'm not entirely happy with what I wrote before though, there should perhaps be more cost. Druids are one thing, but quarterstaffs not officially couting as a focus is another argument, and a player going from sword and shield to wand and shield should lose a little something and one opportunity attack might be a bit light. I just think the current cost is way too high; an entire turn (less movement) and multiple opportunity attacks to change gear and cast is so much.
This has yet to be an issue in my game, since the only one with the capabilities to do so is the Druid (the Ranger has no M spells) and I allow the quarterstaff to count as a focus, but if and when I do have to deal with it I'll likely find some middle ground instead of requiring the feat. Maybe - just for the focus - drawing or sheathing it can take their Movement.
Not conclusive since it's specific to magical ones, but the DMG on magical staves states that unless the description says otherwise, a staff can be used as a quarterstaff. I would say based on the costs, any staff focus could be used as a quarterstaff as well, though not all quarterstaves would be usable as foci. If nothing else, the improvised weapon rules say to treat something similar to a weapon as that weapon.
That's a lot of extrapolating downwards, but true. That's still saying that RAW normal quarterstaffs cannot be used - foci at the very least must be. Again though, this is a whole different argument.
And I would say it's appropriate that normal quarterstaves not be usable as foci as they cost 2sp and a focus costs 5gp.