True as well RAW, which is what I said, quarterstaffs don't count. More accurate to say you need to allow foci to count as QSs which is closer to RAW. That's still getting off topic though. I reiterate, druids are one thing, but the cost is still too high. In my opinion this is one of those areas that 5e went a bit too simple. Using multiple objects, particularly when it comes to sheathing and stuff, should be more complicated than "first one's free, next one's your action." It's so limiting, and a feat seems a big cost to overcome it. It probably should use a portion of movement or something, but even that should be more complicated than "half your movement to interact with an object." It is what it is, but the ruling is sketchy.
If a D&D rule has more than one sentence, all the sentences matter if you're interested in what the rule really says. No cherry-picking.
From the Basic Rules: Spellcasting: "If a spell requires a somatic component, the caster must have free use of at least one hand to perform these gestures...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."
You have a sentence in the spellcasting rules that says you need a free hand to do somatic components. You have a sentence in the spellcasting rules that says a hand holding a spellcasting focus can be the same "free" hand used to perform somatic components. They are not in conflict when read together, but are in conflict when cherrypicked and read separate. So don't do that.
A rule in D&D does only what it says it does—nothing more. Beware of creating rules interactions that the rules themselves don't make.
Everyone in this thread's premise: "There's a rule that the somatic components of S and VS spells require a fundamentally different sort of free hand than a VSM or SM spell!" or "there's a rule that you only apply the fifth paragraph of the spellcasting section if a spell calls for material components!" or "there's a rule that logically-related information within different titled sections don't interact!"
The Rules: "......."
There is no rule or sentence that says what you are all agreeing is supposed to be as plain as the nose on my face. You are creating rules interactions that the rules themselves do not make.
The simple rule, and the rule as written, and the fun rule all happen to be the same in this instance (what a relief). Let's read it together, all at once! "If a spell requires a somatic component, the caster must have free use of at least one hand to perform these gestures...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."
1) An entire chapter is not a single rule. Individual rules are separated by various headings. For example, the rules for "bonus actions" don't apply to "actions" if you have not taken a bonus action. Similarly, the rules for the material component do not apply for somatic components unless a material component is involved.
2) You have cherry picked only the part about being able to perform somatic components, but ignored all the parts that say it only applies to spells with material components including the first half of the same sentence.
You are not just guilty of, but actually exemplifying what those 2 sage advices warn against.
And I would say it's appropriate that normal quarterstaves not be usable as foci as they cost 2sp and a focus costs 5gp.
Does the focus appear on DNDB Attack Actions list on the character sheet?
No, but neither do magical staves that are specifically magical quraterstaffs. This is a bug.
The staff of striking shows up just fine. But the staff focus is is just equipment. The implication is that the staff focus would just be an improvised weapon.
1) An entire chapter is not a single rule. Individual rules are separated by various headings. For example, the rules for "bonus actions" don't apply to "actions" if you have not taken a bonus action. Similarly, the rules for the material component do not apply for somatic components unless a material component is involved.
2) You have cherry picked only the part about being able to perform somatic components, but ignored all the parts that say it only applies to spells with material components including the first half of the same sentence.
You are not just guilty of, but actually exemplifying what those 2 sage advices warn against.
Could you, in quotation marks, please provide me the text that says something to the effect of what you're claiming (that sentence 2 of paragraph 5 only applies to spells with material components, or that only some of the paragraphs under the "Components" header apply to casting spells)?
The plain text (the very plain text) of this section says that the hand holding a focus ""can be the same hand that he or she uses to perform somatic components." If I am to believe that there is a more specific rule that overrides that plain text, I am going to want to see something that can be put into quotation marks rather than just a bunch of RAI theorizing that is being passed off as RAW gospel.
1) An entire chapter is not a single rule. Individual rules are separated by various headings. For example, the rules for "bonus actions" don't apply to "actions" if you have not taken a bonus action. Similarly, the rules for the material component do not apply for somatic components unless a material component is involved.
2) You have cherry picked only the part about being able to perform somatic components, but ignored all the parts that say it only applies to spells with material components including the first half of the same sentence.
You are not just guilty of, but actually exemplifying what those 2 sage advices warn against.
Could you, in quotation marks, please provide me the text that says something to the effect of what you're claiming (that sentence 2 of paragraph 5 only applies to spells with material components, or that only some of the paragraphs under the "Components" header apply to casting spells)?
The plain text (the very plain text) of this section says that the hand holding a focus ""can be the same hand that he or she uses to perform somatic components." If I am to believe that there is a more specific rule that overrides that plain text, I am going to want to see something that can be put into quotation marks rather than just a bunch of RAI theorizing that is being passed off as RAW gospel.
You already quoted it, but sure "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." If a spell does not require a material component, then this whole sentence doesn't apply. It should go without saying that all the words in a sentence contribute to the message of that sentence.
I dont know what you mean by the header statement. The rule we are talking about is under the "Material (M)" component header, since these are the rules that apply to spells with that tag. The rules only apply to what it says it applies to, nothing more. Stop creating rules interactions that the rules themselves dont make.
Also, the SA compendium are official rulings. They are not RAI, they are RAW. And they use a specific example where a spellcaster (cleric) has their focus (holy symbol) in their hand , but can't cast a spell that requires a somatic component without a material component (cure wounds).
The plain text (the very plain text) of this section says that the hand holding a focus ""can be the same hand that he or she uses to perform somatic components." If I am to believe that there is a more specific rule that overrides that plain text, I am going to want to see something that can be put into quotation marks rather than just a bunch of RAI theorizing that is being passed off as RAW gospel.
The plain text says that somatic spells require a free hand. It really is that simple. No material components required? Then no material components allowed. If you need more text to clarify it, see the rules example below, from a published rules document - SA compendium.
Another example: a cleric’s holy symbol is emblazoned on her shield. She likes to wade into melee combat with a mace in one hand and a shield in the other. She uses the holy symbol as her spellcasting focus, so she needs to have the shield in hand when she casts a cleric spell that has a material component. If the spell, such as aid, also has a somatic component, she can perform that component with the shield hand and keep holding the mace in the other. If the same cleric casts cure wounds, she needs to put the mace or the shield away, because that spell doesn’t have a material component but does have a somatic component. She’s going to need a free hand to make the spell’s gestures. If she had the War Caster feat, she could ignore this restriction
SA are not rules, although with the “official” tag they are rulINGS. They may be used as a persuasive authority to clarify ambiguous rule text, but they don’t create new rules, and can’t trump the printed text when they are in direct conflict. I don’t concede that this was ever ambiguous: the text says you can use a hand holding a focus to perform somatic components.
There is no sentence saying “no material components required? No material components allowed,” that is an extra restriction you are inviting into the discussion with no textual support.
Nothing in the quoted sentence says that a focus hand can be used for “the somatic components of a spell requiring material components” or “if a spell requires material components, then a focus may be held in the hand performing material and somatic components.” you’re allowing a design decision (the heading that appears over the preceding paragraph 4) to create an unspoken “if and only if...” rule, as well as an unspoken rule that the five paragraphs within the components section are intended to be read divorced from one another.
You are describing how you (faultily) interpret things, and not how the designers wrote them.
Look at other sections of the same chapter if you need to see examples of how rules are grouped in the actual text. There are multiple paragraphs under bolded key words that all refer to the bolded key word. All of those paragraphs are the rules for that bolded word. Take concentration as an example: the 4th paragraph in the duration section IS PART OF THE CONCENTRATION RULE. You cannot skip it because it isn’t the first paragraph under concentration. If you can understand that, then I think you will come to the conclusion that Material has two paragraphs listed under it and those two paragraphs are the rules for material components. If not, that is ok (something tells me that you cannot be convinced) but I do think that you refrain from spreading unsupported interpretations on rules forms.
(Edit: ugh, the format controls are wrecking havoc on this post.... ah well)
Okay, let's try a different tack....
Within the Casting a Spell section of the Basic Rules, there is a section with the header "Duration." Under Duration, there is a sub-heading, "Concentration".
Concentration
Some spells require you to maintain concentration in order to keep their magic active. If you lose concentration, such a spell ends.
If a spell must be maintained with concentration, that fact appears in its Duration entry, and the spell specifies how long you can concentrate on it. You can end concentration at any time (no action required).
Normal activity, such as moving and attacking, doesn't interfere with concentration. The following factors can break concentration:
Casting another spell that requires concentration. You lose concentration on a spell if you cast another spell that requires concentration. You can't concentrate on two spells at once.
Taking damage. Whenever you take damage while you are concentrating on a spell, you must make a Constitution saving throw to maintain your concentration. The DC equals 10 or half the damage you take, whichever number is higher. If you take damage from multiple sources, such as an arrow and a dragon's breath, you make a separate saving throw for each source of damage.
Being incapacitated or killed. You lose concentration on a spell if you are incapacitated or if you die.
The DM might also decide that certain environmental phenomena, such as a wave crashing over you while you're on a storm-tossed ship, require you to succeed on a DC 10 Constitution saving throw to maintain concentration on a spell.
Much earlier in the "Casting a Spell" section, there is an entirely different section titled "Casting Time," with a subheading called "Longer Casting Times."
Longer Casting Times
Certain spells (including spells cast as rituals) require more time to cast: minutes or even hours. When you cast a spell with a casting time longer than a single action or reaction, you must spend your action each turn casting the spell, and you must maintain your concentration while you do so. If your concentration is broken, the spell fails, but you don't expend a spell slot. If you want to try casting the spell again, you must start over.
----PARAGRAPH BREAK UGH---
So these two sections.... logically they should be read together, yes? Despite appearing on different pages, in different sections, with different titles, the rules about "what requires concentration?" require reading multiple sections together with the proper context. There is no cannon of text interpretation that rules must be found self-contained within a single section without reference to other sections that are logically related, in fact, quite the opposite.
----PARAGRAPH BREAK UGH---
Or, let's turn to the question of what even is this "Spellcasting Focus" that we're getting so excited about? The term is referenced on in Chapter 10, Casting a Spell, Components. It points you to Chapter 5, Equipment. There is no section or category of goods titled "Spellcasting Focus," but the term does appear within the description of several items (Arcane Focus, Druidic Focus, Holy Symbol, Musical Instrument). Turning to Holy Symbol in particular, the desription says "To use the symbol in this way, the caster must hold it in hand, wear it visibly, or bear it on a shield." Whoa! But Chapter 10 suggests that a caster must "have a hand free ... to hold a spellcasting focus"! To understand how a Spellcasting Focus (Holy Symbol) works, it appears that one needs to read at least two different sections to get the whole story, the rules are plainly not able to be encapsulated within a single section!
----PARAGRAPH BREAK UGH---
Or, let's turn to the cleric's Class Features, where we can read about how they cast spells. Under their "Spellcasting" feature are many sub-headings, including one titled "Ritual Casting."
Ritual Casting
You can cast a cleric spell as a ritual if that spell has the ritual tag and you have the spell prepared.
Self contained section, must mean we can stop reading there and just cast things as rituals if the spell has the tag and we have it prepared! Wait... you're telling me that I still need to understand concentration, components, targeting rules, etc etc etc for ritual spells even though they're all in different sections that aren't explicitly referenced in this one short sentence? Get out of town!!!!
----PARAGRAPH BREAK UGH---
Rules are not intended to be read in a vacuum. "All the sentences matter" when you're understanding a rule or concept, no matter where you find them. "No cherry picking."
A perfectly reasonable take on this is that “it can be the same hand you use to perform somatic components” is a rule peculiar not to spells with material components, but to holding a focus in your hand. It’s sensible that this information would be found under the material components header because foci are meant to replace material components and not any other kind. Outside of the clarifying Sage Advice, the idea that this feature of foci should be restricted to spells with material components is an assumption unsupported by any actual rule. Section headers are not actually hard scope limiters like curly braces in some programming languages. If something found under one header should, from context, reasonably apply to other situations, it can.
That said, Sage Advice clarifies the design intent pretty unambiguously. The same Sage Advice answer, however, directly contradicts the PHB text re: the cleric’s holy symbol, so I find it a frustrating answer in many ways.
You are working backwards from your preconceived notion to make your interpretation work. 5E has many rules that refer to other rules, but only rules at play are important. In this sense, they may as well be in a vacuum.
Your example of concentration and longer cast times is a perfect example. You cast a 10 minute cast time spell, so you read the “longer cast time” section to see the rules for that. They refer you to rules on concentration. You are not required to know all the rules, only the ones needed.
This is how 5E works. You use the rules at play. You in fact do not need to know any other rules than what is in play at any given time.
You hold a spell focus, and so the rules on spell focuses are relevant. You read the section on them and what they do, and it says that the hand holding them "can be the same hand that he or she uses to perform somatic components."
You hold a spell focus, and so the rules on spell focuses are relevant. You read the section on them and what they do, and it says that the hand holding them "can be the same hand that he or she uses to perform somatic components."
Except there are no rules "on spell focuses." Spell foci are part of the material component rules, they apply when material component spells are in play. The first half of the sentence that you say proves your argument sets the context as "spell's material components" (as in for spells that require material components). Other material component rules already said that the purpose of a focus is to replace material components.
The somatic component rules specifically state that you need a free hand, and do not mention focuses at all let alone as an exception. Focuses are mentioned in material components and not anywhere else because that is the only context in which they apply. And that is the only context in which the exception to the somatic rule applies.applies.
That said, Sage Advice clarifies the design intent pretty unambiguously. The same Sage Advice answer, however, directly contradicts the PHB text re: the cleric’s holy symbol, so I find it a frustrating answer in many ways.
I dont know to what contradiction you are refering here.
"A spellcastermust 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." (Emphasis mine)
This sentence is all that should matter, and it clearly states you can hold a focus/access materials with the same hand you use to cast somatic components. However, people always argue that this sentence only applies to spells that require material components, and it should be ignored for spells that don't. How they're extrapolating that I still don't fully understand, but I've gotten my fill of headaches by arguing that in particular with the folks in this thread.
As you say, there are many things throughout the books that require you to have knowledge of/reference other sections such as your example on concentration and cleric foci. You're not supposed to ignore them, but in this case you are supposed to ignore a bullet point that's in the same section?
Woosh.
You hold a spell focus, and so the rules on spell focuses are relevant. You read the section on them and what they do, and it says that the hand holding them "can be the same hand that he or she uses to perform somatic components."
^ This. They say "that part of the rule isn't relevant because the spell doesn't have M components." Well, I say it is relevant because I am holding a focus. If I'm holding a focus and casting a spell that requires just S or VS, and I want to know what I have to do with that focus, there's only one sentence in the book you can really reference, and hopefully by this point we all know what it is.
You have to have a hand free to cast somatic components. You have to have a hand free to access materials. They can be the same hand. That really should be the end of it, and I don't get how it ever caused confusion.
True as well RAW, which is what I said, quarterstaffs don't count. More accurate to say you need to allow foci to count as QSs which is closer to RAW. That's still getting off topic though. I reiterate, druids are one thing, but the cost is still too high. In my opinion this is one of those areas that 5e went a bit too simple. Using multiple objects, particularly when it comes to sheathing and stuff, should be more complicated than "first one's free, next one's your action." It's so limiting, and a feat seems a big cost to overcome it. It probably should use a portion of movement or something, but even that should be more complicated than "half your movement to interact with an object." It is what it is, but the ruling is sketchy.
Does the focus appear on DNDB Attack Actions list on the character sheet?
"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
No, but neither do magical staves that are specifically magical quraterstaffs. This is a bug.
Have we all come to these same conclusions?:
Rude, and incorrect :)
From October 26 Sage Advice on rules interpretation:
From the Basic Rules: Spellcasting: "If a spell requires a somatic component, the caster must have free use of at least one hand to perform these gestures...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."
You have a sentence in the spellcasting rules that says you need a free hand to do somatic components. You have a sentence in the spellcasting rules that says a hand holding a spellcasting focus can be the same "free" hand used to perform somatic components. They are not in conflict when read together, but are in conflict when cherrypicked and read separate. So don't do that.
Everyone in this thread's premise: "There's a rule that the somatic components of S and VS spells require a fundamentally different sort of free hand than a VSM or SM spell!" or "there's a rule that you only apply the fifth paragraph of the spellcasting section if a spell calls for material components!" or "there's a rule that logically-related information within different titled sections don't interact!"
The Rules: "......."
There is no rule or sentence that says what you are all agreeing is supposed to be as plain as the nose on my face. You are creating rules interactions that the rules themselves do not make.
The simple rule, and the rule as written, and the fun rule all happen to be the same in this instance (what a relief). Let's read it together, all at once! "If a spell requires a somatic component, the caster must have free use of at least one hand to perform these gestures...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."
Amen :)
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
Couple of things.
1) An entire chapter is not a single rule. Individual rules are separated by various headings. For example, the rules for "bonus actions" don't apply to "actions" if you have not taken a bonus action. Similarly, the rules for the material component do not apply for somatic components unless a material component is involved.
2) You have cherry picked only the part about being able to perform somatic components, but ignored all the parts that say it only applies to spells with material components including the first half of the same sentence.
You are not just guilty of, but actually exemplifying what those 2 sage advices warn against.
The staff of striking shows up just fine. But the staff focus is is just equipment. The implication is that the staff focus would just be an improvised weapon.
"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
Could you, in quotation marks, please provide me the text that says something to the effect of what you're claiming (that sentence 2 of paragraph 5 only applies to spells with material components, or that only some of the paragraphs under the "Components" header apply to casting spells)?
The plain text (the very plain text) of this section says that the hand holding a focus ""can be the same hand that he or she uses to perform somatic components." If I am to believe that there is a more specific rule that overrides that plain text, I am going to want to see something that can be put into quotation marks rather than just a bunch of RAI theorizing that is being passed off as RAW gospel.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
You already quoted it, but sure "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." If a spell does not require a material component, then this whole sentence doesn't apply. It should go without saying that all the words in a sentence contribute to the message of that sentence.
I dont know what you mean by the header statement. The rule we are talking about is under the "Material (M)" component header, since these are the rules that apply to spells with that tag. The rules only apply to what it says it applies to, nothing more. Stop creating rules interactions that the rules themselves dont make.
Also, the SA compendium are official rulings. They are not RAI, they are RAW. And they use a specific example where a spellcaster (cleric) has their focus (holy symbol) in their hand , but can't cast a spell that requires a somatic component without a material component (cure wounds).
The plain text says that somatic spells require a free hand. It really is that simple. No material components required? Then no material components allowed. If you need more text to clarify it, see the rules example below, from a published rules document - SA compendium.
SA are not rules, although with the “official” tag they are rulINGS. They may be used as a persuasive authority to clarify ambiguous rule text, but they don’t create new rules, and can’t trump the printed text when they are in direct conflict. I don’t concede that this was ever ambiguous: the text says you can use a hand holding a focus to perform somatic components.
There is no sentence saying “no material components required? No material components allowed,” that is an extra restriction you are inviting into the discussion with no textual support.
Nothing in the quoted sentence says that a focus hand can be used for “the somatic components of a spell requiring material components” or “if a spell requires material components, then a focus may be held in the hand performing material and somatic components.” you’re allowing a design decision (the heading that appears over the preceding paragraph 4) to create an unspoken “if and only if...” rule, as well as an unspoken rule that the five paragraphs within the components section are intended to be read divorced from one another.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
You are describing how you (faultily) interpret things, and not how the designers wrote them.
Look at other sections of the same chapter if you need to see examples of how rules are grouped in the actual text. There are multiple paragraphs under bolded key words that all refer to the bolded key word. All of those paragraphs are the rules for that bolded word. Take concentration as an example: the 4th paragraph in the duration section IS PART OF THE CONCENTRATION RULE. You cannot skip it because it isn’t the first paragraph under concentration. If you can understand that, then I think you will come to the conclusion that Material has two paragraphs listed under it and those two paragraphs are the rules for material components. If not, that is ok (something tells me that you cannot be convinced) but I do think that you refrain from spreading unsupported interpretations on rules forms.
(Edit: ugh, the format controls are wrecking havoc on this post.... ah well)
Okay, let's try a different tack....
Within the Casting a Spell section of the Basic Rules, there is a section with the header "Duration." Under Duration, there is a sub-heading, "Concentration".
Much earlier in the "Casting a Spell" section, there is an entirely different section titled "Casting Time," with a subheading called "Longer Casting Times."
----PARAGRAPH BREAK UGH---
So these two sections.... logically they should be read together, yes? Despite appearing on different pages, in different sections, with different titles, the rules about "what requires concentration?" require reading multiple sections together with the proper context. There is no cannon of text interpretation that rules must be found self-contained within a single section without reference to other sections that are logically related, in fact, quite the opposite.
----PARAGRAPH BREAK UGH---
Or, let's turn to the question of what even is this "Spellcasting Focus" that we're getting so excited about? The term is referenced on in Chapter 10, Casting a Spell, Components. It points you to Chapter 5, Equipment. There is no section or category of goods titled "Spellcasting Focus," but the term does appear within the description of several items (Arcane Focus, Druidic Focus, Holy Symbol, Musical Instrument). Turning to Holy Symbol in particular, the desription says "To use the symbol in this way, the caster must hold it in hand, wear it visibly, or bear it on a shield." Whoa! But Chapter 10 suggests that a caster must "have a hand free ... to hold a spellcasting focus"! To understand how a Spellcasting Focus (Holy Symbol) works, it appears that one needs to read at least two different sections to get the whole story, the rules are plainly not able to be encapsulated within a single section!
----PARAGRAPH BREAK UGH---
Or, let's turn to the cleric's Class Features, where we can read about how they cast spells. Under their "Spellcasting" feature are many sub-headings, including one titled "Ritual Casting."
Self contained section, must mean we can stop reading there and just cast things as rituals if the spell has the tag and we have it prepared! Wait... you're telling me that I still need to understand concentration, components, targeting rules, etc etc etc for ritual spells even though they're all in different sections that aren't explicitly referenced in this one short sentence? Get out of town!!!!
----PARAGRAPH BREAK UGH---
Rules are not intended to be read in a vacuum. "All the sentences matter" when you're understanding a rule or concept, no matter where you find them. "No cherry picking."
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
A perfectly reasonable take on this is that “it can be the same hand you use to perform somatic components” is a rule peculiar not to spells with material components, but to holding a focus in your hand. It’s sensible that this information would be found under the material components header because foci are meant to replace material components and not any other kind. Outside of the clarifying Sage Advice, the idea that this feature of foci should be restricted to spells with material components is an assumption unsupported by any actual rule. Section headers are not actually hard scope limiters like curly braces in some programming languages. If something found under one header should, from context, reasonably apply to other situations, it can.
That said, Sage Advice clarifies the design intent pretty unambiguously. The same Sage Advice answer, however, directly contradicts the PHB text re: the cleric’s holy symbol, so I find it a frustrating answer in many ways.
See, she gets it :)
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
You are working backwards from your preconceived notion to make your interpretation work. 5E has many rules that refer to other rules, but only rules at play are important. In this sense, they may as well be in a vacuum.
Your example of concentration and longer cast times is a perfect example. You cast a 10 minute cast time spell, so you read the “longer cast time” section to see the rules for that. They refer you to rules on concentration. You are not required to know all the rules, only the ones needed.
This is how 5E works. You use the rules at play. You in fact do not need to know any other rules than what is in play at any given time.
You hold a spell focus, and so the rules on spell focuses are relevant. You read the section on them and what they do, and it says that the hand holding them "can be the same hand that he or she uses to perform somatic components."
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
No. You cast a spell. So then the text and tags of that spell are relevant.
Interpreting it any other way is cherry-picking.
Except there are no rules "on spell focuses." Spell foci are part of the material component rules, they apply when material component spells are in play. The first half of the sentence that you say proves your argument sets the context as "spell's material components" (as in for spells that require material components). Other material component rules already said that the purpose of a focus is to replace material components.
The somatic component rules specifically state that you need a free hand, and do not mention focuses at all let alone as an exception. Focuses are mentioned in material components and not anywhere else because that is the only context in which they apply. And that is the only context in which the exception to the somatic rule applies.applies.
I dont know to what contradiction you are refering here.
@Chicken_Camp I agree wholeheartedly.
"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." (Emphasis mine)
This sentence is all that should matter, and it clearly states you can hold a focus/access materials with the same hand you use to cast somatic components. However, people always argue that this sentence only applies to spells that require material components, and it should be ignored for spells that don't. How they're extrapolating that I still don't fully understand, but I've gotten my fill of headaches by arguing that in particular with the folks in this thread.
As you say, there are many things throughout the books that require you to have knowledge of/reference other sections such as your example on concentration and cleric foci. You're not supposed to ignore them, but in this case you are supposed to ignore a bullet point that's in the same section?
Woosh.
^ This. They say "that part of the rule isn't relevant because the spell doesn't have M components." Well, I say it is relevant because I am holding a focus. If I'm holding a focus and casting a spell that requires just S or VS, and I want to know what I have to do with that focus, there's only one sentence in the book you can really reference, and hopefully by this point we all know what it is.
You have to have a hand free to cast somatic components. You have to have a hand free to access materials. They can be the same hand. That really should be the end of it, and I don't get how it ever caused confusion.