"You must have a free schedule to work nights or weekends."
In the real world, that does mean you must work nights and weekends. Maybe not all nights, or all weekends, but you're gonna work 'em.
That is the implication, but isn't necessarily true. I had the same thing told to me when I started my current occupation but I certainly don't work nights or weekends. Merely having the availability for it if necessary was what was required. it paints a picture of what could, would, should, might happen... yes, yes absolutely. But it doesn't tell you what does happen.
The rule paints the picture of holding it, or pulling stuff out and waving it around. It prompts our imagination to fill in the blank with what comes next. I wholly agree there. Totally. You get the impression that you reach in and pull out your orb or whatever and cast you spell and channel it through it. Great stuff. Fun stuff.
But we are discussing the RAW mechanics of the rules text alone. And from that perspective, the text only requires the availability of the hand to do something, not for it to actually do it.
It is a somewhat important distinction because the actual rules for interacting with objects would overly complicate spellcasting if you had to treat these things as object interactions that you need to resolve.
Take for example Hideous Laughter. It has a material components list of "tiny tarts and a feather that is waved in the air". If you had to actually burn your free object interaction on the tarts, then you'd need to spend your Action on waving around the feather? No. No the requirement is a hand free to access the components, and the actual resolution is not done by object interaction rules. It doesn't even call for us to need to. it only calls for the requirement of being available to do so.
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.
"Holding a wand doesn't prevent you from performing S components. Nothing says it does."
Having a hand free to hold a focus does not mean that the hand is free when holding a focus.
Thus when you're holding a focus in your hand, your hand is not free.
You were JUST arguing that that having a focus in your hand meant it WAS free to hold a focus.
You guys need to decide a few things. Do you think having a focus in your hand means it is free, or no?
Because if a focus in your hand makes it not free, then you can't cast spells that require material components while you have a focus in your hand... because the requirement is for a free hand.
So obviously your hand is free while holding a focus. free for spellcasting purposes, anyway. Everything supports that notion except your mistaken and flip-flopping opinion about what a free hand means.
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.
Spellcasting gestures might include a forceful gesticulation or an intricate set of gestures. If a spell requires a somatic component, the caster must have free use of at least one hand to perform these gestures.
You don't have free use of a hand if there's something in it.
The requirement for material components is a free hand.
A spellcaster must have a hand free
So, if we accept your opinon to heart, it means you can't cast a spell that requires a material component while holding a spellcasting focus.(Because you're saying holding a focus makes your hand not free, ie the only requirement for M components)
That's obviously false.
Your interpretation is false.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
You figure out what we're saying. When you see a cohesive thought, then maybe you are worthy of arguing against. Repeatedly we have responded to your argument without twisting your words and you continuously twist ours.
Actually, I've had enough of my words getting twisted. I'm also going to ignore him now.
My answer to the original post (completely ignoring the 26.9 pages of content since then):
Swish and flick. You can do that with a wand, but not with a mace or shield so easily. From a RAI perspective, I think somatic components can be performed as long as you have at least one hand that can do fine motor control easily.
Quite agreeable ... and seemingly unanimously agreed on, RAI.
Possibility for some touch spells to not agree with it, but that's all I could see. I wouldn't tell the cleric to put his Holy Symbol (as just a holy symbol and not shield) down to cast Cure Wounds.
No, it really does say you must have X to do Y - or Z. You're forgetting the earlier part of this.
No. It does not. You keep trying to change the words on the page.
"must have a hand free to access a spell's material components"
must have
x=hand
free to
Y= access
or
Z= hold
FREE TO
So not: Must have X to Y or Z
But yes to: Must Have X FREE to Y or Z
The words.
ON
THE
PAGE
I can't for the life of me figure out why so many of you guys are actually trying to argue about RAW while IGNORING the actual words on the page. You're doing it now, you keep doing it.
If you cannot stick to the rules as they are written, you're not discussing RAW.
You guys got quotes? That's all my argument is based on, the actual rules text. If you cannot discuss the rules themselves, as they are written, then you are not discussing RAW.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
You are right, it says you need "a hand free to hold a focus" or "a hand free to manipulate components." Therefore, you must hold a focus or manipulate components with one hand. The rules don't tell you that you need that hand free in order for it to do nothing, it has to do the thing that the rules say it needs to do: hold a focus. There is no reasonable person who would think that you aren't required by that sentence to hold the focus or that a hand already doing something isn't free to do that thing.
You keep pointing at the rules, then selecting words from them rather than reading the sentences and thinking about them. Maybe you aren't really intentionally misunderstanding the rules, but your arguments sure aren't designed to convince anyone. You only write to infuriate, and that is just not constructive. The more unreasonable your arguments get the harder it seems for you to see how unreasonable they are.
You are right, it says you need "a hand free to hold a focus" or "a hand free to manipulate components." Therefore, you must hold a focus or manipulate components with one hand. The rules don't tell you that you need that hand free in order for it to do nothing, it has to do the thing that the rules say it needs to do: hold a focus. There is no reasonable person who would think that you aren't required by that sentence to hold the focus or that a hand already doing something isn't free to do that thing.
You keep pointing at the rules, then selecting words from them rather than reading the sentences and thinking about them. Maybe you aren't really intentionally misunderstanding the rules, but your arguments sure aren't designed to convince anyone. You only write to infuriate, and that is just not constructive. The more unreasonable your arguments get the harder it seems for you to see how unreasonable they are.
RAW is rules as written. The actual words on the actual pages. It is very clinical. RAI is the more intuitive "what's this supposed to be/do/mean?" but RAW is "what does this technically say?" RAW is inherently a silly thing to hammer out, except in the case where you must for some reason stick to strict RAW for whatever reason. It is a good baseline to understand so that you can more intentionally deviate to reach RAF.
I am merely acting as someone executing the script of the page. You get mad at me because you don't like the end result of that program. But it is not me at fault, it is the program not aligning to your expected result. The RAW is not what you thought it is.
The sentence in question demands, technically, a free hand. It does not demand a held focus. Again, this is purely a technical sterile reading of the sentence, as one must do in RAW.
There is an implication there that the focus will need to be held, yes, but not a requirement to actually do so. Not having that be an actual requirement frees us from also having to tap the Interact with Object rules into our spellcasting rules. You really don't want these two rules interacting, it just clogs down the flow of things and produces weird aberrant results.
Think about what you're claiming here for a sec. You're saying that a cleric must reach up and hold his Holy Symbol necklace while casting a spell but that uses his one free object interaction. He then has the symbol held in hand. Only on some subsequent turn can he then let go of the Holy Symbol, As an Action, since he cannot really release it as part of another action.
It is truly absurd, and no one reads this to function that way, even RAW. And yet... if you demand that it must actually be held, and that we use the Interact with Object rules... that is indeed the only RAW end result you come to.
Thankfully, the rule doesn't require us to actually hold it, only the requirement that we be capable of doing so. Because of that, the Interact with Object rules never actually get involved here, and that's a good thing.
The game mechanics are not a reality simulator, and they do not aim to act as one. The narrative description we give over and above the strict mechanical rules is part of what makes the game fun. This is just one of those cases where the narrative fluff is that the object is held, as implied by the requirement of having a hand free to do so. Mechanically, that doesn't need to happen. This really is an instance where fluff takes off after the mechanics end. So if we are discussing the RAW rules, we leave the fluff out of it.
Whether you hold it, how you hold, how you describe the casting process for your character, that's all narrative fluff. It is fun stuff, but it doesn't really have any place in a RAW rules topic.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
You have to be able to comprehend the sentences before you can determine what RAW is. If you cannot read a sentence and come away with a meaning from it, you cannot "be the script that interprets the rule." An interpreter has to be able to understand the syntax of the language and the context of its current instruction. You, over the last 21 pages, have shown that you cannot.
It says you need a free hand to do one of several things, sure. The rules aren't trying to trick you. Having a hand free to hold a focus means that holding the focus must be important to that rule.
You have to be able to comprehend the sentences before you can determine what RAW is. If you cannot read a sentence and come away with a meaning from it, you cannot "be the script that interprets the rule." An interpreter has to be able to understand the syntax of the language and the context of its current instruction. You, over the last 21 pages, have shown that you cannot.
I have broken that sentence down into its constituent parts. I've demonstrated I understand it in its entirety.
It says you need a free hand to do one of several things, sure.
Well, technically, it says you need a hand free to do one of a couple things. The placement of the words in the sentence actually changes the meaning of the sentence. You seem eager to change the order of the words in this sentence whenever you say it. That's actually a pretty strong clue that you're reading it incorrectly, if you have to constantly reword it in a different way when retelling it.
The rules aren't trying to trick you.
Oh the rules aren't. No, they're pretty clear.
Having a hand free to hold a focus means that holding the focus must be important to that rule.
This is entirely your own creation, it is not found in the text of the book in any way. It is implied, but not required. And, again, if it were actually required the rules for Interact with Object would get involved in spellcasting and it'd be a bit of a mess.
Thankfully that isn't the case.
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.
How do you reconcile the sentence that you continuously quote and is in your signature with your new stance?
You can cast a spell if you have a free hand. S and M components can both be done with that hand. Pretty simple really.
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.
Understanding the meaning of a sentence is more than diagraming it. You have demonstrated that you can regurgitate the definition of each of the words, but you haven’t demonstrated that you can actually comprehend meanings of sentences.
A hand with a material component, including a spellcasting focus, can perform somatic components (PH, 203) ~ Jeremy Crawford
Yep, this exactly.
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.
Understanding the meaning of a sentence is more than diagraming it. You have demonstrated that you can regurgitate the definition of each of the words, but you haven’t demonstrated that you can actually comprehend meanings of sentences.
A person who is casting a spell must have a hand that is not busy and is instead available to access the components, or available to hold a focus, but the good news is you only need that there one hand for both that and for doing S components. In short, you only need one hand to cast a spell... got a hand for spellcasting? Good, you got S and M covered then.
That's what it means.
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.
That actually seems to be the most correct statement you've said, except you left out how holding things affects spells. If you are holding a focus and your spell doesn’t have an M component requirement, you have to put it away; but you are certainly free to cast a spell that has material component requirements with a focus that you're already holding.
I skimmed through a lot of this, as it's very long and repetitive, but I'd appreciate some clarification on how I interpret this RAW when combined with the Artificer's Spellcasting feature.
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.
(Boldface added for emphasis)
The key part of this for me is that Spellcasting is impossible for an artificer unless they're holding a focus. The class goes on to basically give them the option to make anything a focus, including weaponry, which means they're not constantly switching back and forth, but here's my query: if they're required to hold the focus to cast a spell without material components, do they also need a free hand to perform the somantic actions required?
There is no similar requirement for any other spellcasting class (I've checked Wizard, Warlock, Sorcerer, Paladin, Druid, Cleric; they all have a variation on the text quoted below. The Arcane Trickster, Ranger, and Eldrich Knight have no mention of spellcasting focuses.)
You can use an arcane/druidic focus/holy symbol/musical instrument (see the Adventuring Gear section) as a spellcasting focus for your [class] spells.
In short: can an Artificer wielding a staff (Arcane Firearm, so spellcasting focus) and a shield, cast spells such as Create Bonfire, Absorb Elements, or Catapult?
The other interpretation suggests there isn't even such a thing as a spellcasting focus if you're not casting M component spells, and is nonsensical regarding Artificers required use of a spellcasting focus.
The only place a spellcasting focus is rules-defined is in the material components section of Spellcasting rules, and so it must be applicable while using a focus. And since it must be applicable, you can perform S components with the same hand holding a focus, because that is what the rules for spellcasting focus says to do.
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.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
That is the implication, but isn't necessarily true. I had the same thing told to me when I started my current occupation but I certainly don't work nights or weekends. Merely having the availability for it if necessary was what was required. it paints a picture of what could, would, should, might happen... yes, yes absolutely. But it doesn't tell you what does happen.
The rule paints the picture of holding it, or pulling stuff out and waving it around. It prompts our imagination to fill in the blank with what comes next. I wholly agree there. Totally. You get the impression that you reach in and pull out your orb or whatever and cast you spell and channel it through it. Great stuff. Fun stuff.
But we are discussing the RAW mechanics of the rules text alone. And from that perspective, the text only requires the availability of the hand to do something, not for it to actually do it.
It is a somewhat important distinction because the actual rules for interacting with objects would overly complicate spellcasting if you had to treat these things as object interactions that you need to resolve.
Take for example Hideous Laughter. It has a material components list of "tiny tarts and a feather that is waved in the air". If you had to actually burn your free object interaction on the tarts, then you'd need to spend your Action on waving around the feather? No. No the requirement is a hand free to access the components, and the actual resolution is not done by object interaction rules. It doesn't even call for us to need to. it only calls for the requirement of being available to do so.
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
You were JUST arguing that that having a focus in your hand meant it WAS free to hold a focus.
You guys need to decide a few things. Do you think having a focus in your hand means it is free, or no?
Because if a focus in your hand makes it not free, then you can't cast spells that require material components while you have a focus in your hand... because the requirement is for a free hand.
So obviously your hand is free while holding a focus. free for spellcasting purposes, anyway. Everything supports that notion except your mistaken and flip-flopping opinion about what a free hand means.
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 for material components is a free hand.
So, if we accept your opinon to heart, it means you can't cast a spell that requires a material component while holding a spellcasting focus.(Because you're saying holding a focus makes your hand not free, ie the only requirement for M components)
That's obviously false.
Your interpretation is false.
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.
BZZZT, TRY AGAIN.
You figure out what we're saying. When you see a cohesive thought, then maybe you are worthy of arguing against. Repeatedly we have responded to your argument without twisting your words and you continuously twist ours.
Actually, I've had enough of my words getting twisted. I'm also going to ignore him now.
Quite agreeable ... and seemingly unanimously agreed on, RAI.
Possibility for some touch spells to not agree with it, but that's all I could see. I wouldn't tell the cleric to put his Holy Symbol (as just a holy symbol and not shield) down to cast Cure Wounds.
Ah a comedian.
No. It does not. You keep trying to change the words on the page.
"must have a hand free to access a spell's material components"
must have
x=hand
free to
Y= access
or
Z= hold
FREE TO
So not: Must have X to Y or Z
But yes to: Must Have X FREE to Y or Z
The words.
ON
THE
PAGE
I can't for the life of me figure out why so many of you guys are actually trying to argue about RAW while IGNORING the actual words on the page. You're doing it now, you keep doing it.
If you cannot stick to the rules as they are written, you're not discussing RAW.
You guys got quotes? That's all my argument is based on, the actual rules text. If you cannot discuss the rules themselves, as they are written, then you are not discussing RAW.
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
You are right, it says you need "a hand free to hold a focus" or "a hand free to manipulate components." Therefore, you must hold a focus or manipulate components with one hand. The rules don't tell you that you need that hand free in order for it to do nothing, it has to do the thing that the rules say it needs to do: hold a focus. There is no reasonable person who would think that you aren't required by that sentence to hold the focus or that a hand already doing something isn't free to do that thing.
You keep pointing at the rules, then selecting words from them rather than reading the sentences and thinking about them. Maybe you aren't really intentionally misunderstanding the rules, but your arguments sure aren't designed to convince anyone. You only write to infuriate, and that is just not constructive. The more unreasonable your arguments get the harder it seems for you to see how unreasonable they are.
RAW is rules as written. The actual words on the actual pages. It is very clinical. RAI is the more intuitive "what's this supposed to be/do/mean?" but RAW is "what does this technically say?" RAW is inherently a silly thing to hammer out, except in the case where you must for some reason stick to strict RAW for whatever reason. It is a good baseline to understand so that you can more intentionally deviate to reach RAF.
I am merely acting as someone executing the script of the page. You get mad at me because you don't like the end result of that program. But it is not me at fault, it is the program not aligning to your expected result. The RAW is not what you thought it is.
The sentence in question demands, technically, a free hand. It does not demand a held focus. Again, this is purely a technical sterile reading of the sentence, as one must do in RAW.
There is an implication there that the focus will need to be held, yes, but not a requirement to actually do so. Not having that be an actual requirement frees us from also having to tap the Interact with Object rules into our spellcasting rules. You really don't want these two rules interacting, it just clogs down the flow of things and produces weird aberrant results.
Think about what you're claiming here for a sec. You're saying that a cleric must reach up and hold his Holy Symbol necklace while casting a spell but that uses his one free object interaction. He then has the symbol held in hand. Only on some subsequent turn can he then let go of the Holy Symbol, As an Action, since he cannot really release it as part of another action.
It is truly absurd, and no one reads this to function that way, even RAW. And yet... if you demand that it must actually be held, and that we use the Interact with Object rules... that is indeed the only RAW end result you come to.
Thankfully, the rule doesn't require us to actually hold it, only the requirement that we be capable of doing so. Because of that, the Interact with Object rules never actually get involved here, and that's a good thing.
The game mechanics are not a reality simulator, and they do not aim to act as one. The narrative description we give over and above the strict mechanical rules is part of what makes the game fun. This is just one of those cases where the narrative fluff is that the object is held, as implied by the requirement of having a hand free to do so. Mechanically, that doesn't need to happen. This really is an instance where fluff takes off after the mechanics end. So if we are discussing the RAW rules, we leave the fluff out of it.
Whether you hold it, how you hold, how you describe the casting process for your character, that's all narrative fluff. It is fun stuff, but it doesn't really have any place in a RAW rules topic.
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
You have to be able to comprehend the sentences before you can determine what RAW is. If you cannot read a sentence and come away with a meaning from it, you cannot "be the script that interprets the rule." An interpreter has to be able to understand the syntax of the language and the context of its current instruction. You, over the last 21 pages, have shown that you cannot.
It says you need a free hand to do one of several things, sure. The rules aren't trying to trick you. Having a hand free to hold a focus means that holding the focus must be important to that rule.
I have broken that sentence down into its constituent parts. I've demonstrated I understand it in its entirety.
Well, technically, it says you need a hand free to do one of a couple things. The placement of the words in the sentence actually changes the meaning of the sentence. You seem eager to change the order of the words in this sentence whenever you say it. That's actually a pretty strong clue that you're reading it incorrectly, if you have to constantly reword it in a different way when retelling it.
Oh the rules aren't. No, they're pretty clear.
This is entirely your own creation, it is not found in the text of the book in any way. It is implied, but not required. And, again, if it were actually required the rules for Interact with Object would get involved in spellcasting and it'd be a bit of a mess.
Thankfully that isn't the case.
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.
How do you reconcile the sentence that you continuously quote and is in your signature with your new stance?
You can cast a spell if you have a free hand. S and M components can both be done with that hand. Pretty simple really.
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
A hand with a material component, including a spellcasting focus, can perform somatic components (PH, 203) ~ Jeremy Crawford
Understanding the meaning of a sentence is more than diagraming it. You have demonstrated that you can regurgitate the definition of each of the words, but you haven’t demonstrated that you can actually comprehend meanings of sentences.
Yep, this exactly.
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
A person who is casting a spell must have a hand that is not busy and is instead available to access the components, or available to hold a focus, but the good news is you only need that there one hand for both that and for doing S components. In short, you only need one hand to cast a spell... got a hand for spellcasting? Good, you got S and M covered then.
That's what it means.
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.
That actually seems to be the most correct statement you've said, except you left out how holding things affects spells. If you are holding a focus and your spell doesn’t have an M component requirement, you have to put it away; but you are certainly free to cast a spell that has material component requirements with a focus that you're already holding.
Remember, there is a line between expressing one's own opinion and attempting to beat down others into believing the same.
Express your opinion and move on. Arguing/debating for the sake of calling others wrong serves naught.
I skimmed through a lot of this, as it's very long and repetitive, but I'd appreciate some clarification on how I interpret this RAW when combined with the Artificer's Spellcasting feature.
(Boldface added for emphasis)
The key part of this for me is that Spellcasting is impossible for an artificer unless they're holding a focus. The class goes on to basically give them the option to make anything a focus, including weaponry, which means they're not constantly switching back and forth, but here's my query: if they're required to hold the focus to cast a spell without material components, do they also need a free hand to perform the somantic actions required?
There is no similar requirement for any other spellcasting class (I've checked Wizard, Warlock, Sorcerer, Paladin, Druid, Cleric; they all have a variation on the text quoted below. The Arcane Trickster, Ranger, and Eldrich Knight have no mention of spellcasting focuses.)
In short: can an Artificer wielding a staff (Arcane Firearm, so spellcasting focus) and a shield, cast spells such as Create Bonfire, Absorb Elements, or Catapult?
Thanks!
I made a Wrist Dagger, people seem to like it.
I'd say yes.
The other interpretation suggests there isn't even such a thing as a spellcasting focus if you're not casting M component spells, and is nonsensical regarding Artificers required use of a spellcasting focus.
The only place a spellcasting focus is rules-defined is in the material components section of Spellcasting rules, and so it must be applicable while using a focus. And since it must be applicable, you can perform S components with the same hand holding a focus, because that is what the rules for spellcasting focus says to do.
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.