This. BUT. Coming to an agreement with your DM that dropping a weapon, casting, and then picking it back up with your object interaction is gucci and that you don't have to say it every time would be good, but that has implications that a handwaving solution doesn't. First and foremost, doing this uses your free object interaction, so you wouldn't be able to interact with another object on the same turn. That could be important. Second, I can think of situations where a spellcast -- while a weapon is on the ground -- invokes a reaction that pushes the caster away, such that they're unable to pick up their weapon without moving. That could also be important.
This. BUT. Coming to an agreement with your DM that dropping a weapon, casting, and then picking it back up with your object interaction is gucci and that you don't have to say it every time would be good, but that has implications that a handwaving solution doesn't. First and foremost, doing this uses your free object interaction, so you wouldn't be able to interact with another object on the same turn. That could be important. Second, I can think of situations where a spellcast -- while a weapon is on the ground -- invokes a reaction that pushes the caster away, such that they're unable to pick up their weapon without moving. That could also be important.
Not exactly sure who you are responding to, but this doesn’t apply to Celia’s question that was the last one posted in May of 2022. There shouldn’t be a need for an artificer to drop their weapon (if they have an infusion on it and is their spellcasting focus).
Since this topic was bumped since I no longer feel bad about throwing in my three cents. First two cents are a repeat of earlier arguments I agree with on how arcane focus and staff combo is fine, but I haven't really seen the third one (though I skipped some of the pages around the middle of the thread's length).
First cent, the rule stating that the hand used to mess around with materials/spellcasting foci is not only free but that it can also be the same (also free) hand used to perform the somatic part. Rules don't exist in a vacuum and if you can deduce from one rule what constitutes a free hand as far as a focus goes, there's no reason it would suddenly stop mattering when you go to the rule about somatic spells in specific. The whole idea is beyond suspect, because it's by no means the only aspect of the game that requires analysis of different rules (and usually it's not even the rules from the same part of the book like is the case here).
Second cent, SM and VSM aren't their own separate types of spells, they are spells with S AND M (and V) components. The interpretation that you can't cast somatic spells with a focus in hand if you have a staff in the other conjures up a new kind of S+ component that behaves differently from the S component in SM/VSM spells. And that's kinda bogus.
Before I go to my third cent, a quick detour to address the Sage Advice proponents of the opposite interpretation cling to. First of all, Sage Advice is just advice, it's not binding and it openly admits it's not binding. Also, this whole thing also shows selective attitude towards JC's answers, because when he was asked a general question about foci and somatic spells on Twitter back in 2016, his answer was positive.
Onto cent number three then. The proponents of the opposite interpretation say that the War Caster feat is there is you want to cast spells with a focus in one hand and a staff in the other. And that doing things differently would cheapen the feat. I'll address the second part first. War Caster has quite a lot going for it as it is. It grants proficiency with CON saving throws to casters that don't have it, which is already pretty massive. It grants you the ability to cast spells as attacks of opportunity. And it still allows casting while dual-wielding and casting of sword-and-board and casting. All around it's still beyond juicy as a feat even with interpretation in favor of arcane focus/staff combo being fine for somatic spells.
As for the first part of this argument, there are two things of note. To make a detour into RAI, let's address what kind of an archetype the feat in question is supposed to enable in the first place. It's kinda in the name. A war caster. You know, a warrior/caster combo. I.e. a person diving head-first into melee combat with weapons and possibly shields, while also slinging spells. So, depending on the setting, things like battlemages, eldritch knights and what have you. A Warlock/Sorcerer/Wizard holding a staff in one hand and a spellcasting focus in the other does not fit that archetype. It fits the archetype of a normal caster utilizing arcane tools to cast their spells.
Then there's the mechanic aspect. Because what does War Caster do that's relevant in context? It allows you to perform the somatic components of spells even when you have weapons or a shield in one or both hands. And an arcane focus is neither a weapon or a shield. Unlike what the Sage Advice example was actually about, which was a shield that just so happened to have a holy symbol on it (which doesn't make it stop counting as a shield). What about improvised weapons, one may ask? In that case, why does it mention shields separately at all? Bashing someone in the face with a shield is a textbook example of an improvised weapon. So either the wording of the feat is redundant or it refers to actual weapons from the weapons table. And since I'm willing to give the authors the benefit of the doubt, I'm picking the latter.
Besides your opinions on your first two points being, well frankly, wrong in context of the rules (remember, components are requirements of spells, meaning if one is missing, that requirement, and all the rules associated with it is missing); you've made an error in your analysis of War Caster.
War Caster says that you can perform somatic components even when you have weapons or a shield in one or both hands. That means as long as one of your hands is holding a weapon or shield, that other hand can absolutely be holding whatever you want, including a focus that is not a requirement of a particular spell you're trying to cast (or a lump of dung or whatever else you want to put in one hand), and the feat still provides that perk of being able to perform somatic components.
A quick correction, war caster does not give proficiency with CON saves, it gives advantage on con saves for concentration checks caused by damage. Concentration saves not caused by damage or any other CON saves that are not for concentration, you get nothing.
That’s not to say it’s better or worse, or changes your argument, just a clarification
Besides your opinions on your first two points being, well frankly, wrong in context of the rules (remember, components are requirements of spells, meaning if one is missing, that requirement, and all the rules associated with it is missing)...
While I agree that a strict interpretation of the rules yields your stance, that same interpretation defies common sense. The strict interpretation simultaneously holds that:
1) a spell requiring both S and M can have both components satisfied by a hand that is holding a focus, and 2) a spell that requires only S cannot have that component satisfied by a hand that is holding a focus.
This is the same point that has been made before, I believe. The strict interpretation says that a spell that has more requirements (S and M) can be satisfied more conveniently than a spell that has fewer requirements (S only). Only if one believes that it is the general nature of spells such that those requiring both S and M require less complex/rigorous/precise hand movements than those that require S but not M can one overcome this logical inconsistency that is baked into the strict interpretation. (This harkens back to the argument of an "S+" sub-type of component, except I've reversed it to an "S-" sub-type, whereby SM spells are actually "S-"M spells because you can do the S part with a hand holding a focus, while S spells are just that, and you cannot do the S part with a hand holding a focus.) Since none of that is written anywhere, you have two options:
1) Adopt the strict interpretation and accept that it carries with it a logical inconsistency, or 2) Adopt an interpretation with a broader context that resolves that logical inconsistency (and be happy that it streamlines gameplay).
Besides your opinions on your first two points being, well frankly, wrong in context of the rules (remember, components are requirements of spells, meaning if one is missing, that requirement, and all the rules associated with it is missing)...
While I agree that a strict interpretation of the rules yields your stance, that same interpretation defies common sense. The strict interpretation simultaneously holds that:
1) a spell requiring both S and M can have both components satisfied by a hand that is holding a focus, and 2) a spell that requires only S cannot have that component satisfied by a hand that is holding a focus. …
1) Adopt the strict interpretation and accept that it carries with it a logical inconsistency, or
I'm not seeing any inconsistency.
An S spell requires you to make gestures with one hand. Holding anything in that hand meakes it impossible to make the gestures.
An M, S spell requires you to hold an item in one hand and make gestures with that hand. Not holding the item, or holding a different item, makes it impossible to make the gestures.
Nothing says that either of these is more or less complex or rigorous or precise or convenient. They are just different requirements.
Besides your opinions on your first two points being, well frankly, wrong in context of the rules (remember, components are requirements of spells, meaning if one is missing, that requirement, and all the rules associated with it is missing)...
While I agree that a strict interpretation of the rules yields your stance, that same interpretation defies common sense. The strict interpretation simultaneously holds that:
1) a spell requiring both S and M can have both components satisfied by a hand that is holding a focus, and 2) a spell that requires only S cannot have that component satisfied by a hand that is holding a focus. …
1) Adopt the strict interpretation and accept that it carries with it a logical inconsistency, or
I'm not seeing any inconsistency.
An S spell requires you to make gestures with one hand. Holding anything in that hand meakes it impossible to make the gestures.
An M, S spell requires you to hold an item in one hand and make gestures with that hand. Not holding the item, or holding a different item, makes it impossible to make the gestures.
Nothing says that either of these is more or less complex or rigorous or precise or convenient. They are just different requirements.
The inconsistency is the difference in one's ability to satisfy a spell's somatic component, when there is (probably) no difference in what constitutes a somatic component between S-only (or V,S) spells and S,M (or V,S,M) spells. In other words, the S part of an S spell and the S part of a S,M spell are the same thing, but the strict interpretation holds that those same things cannot be satisfied in the same way. That's a logical inconsistency.
You (or probably more technically, the rules, or this interpretation of them) have introduced different kinds of S components - one kind that can only be done with a free hand, and one kind that can be done holding something. No matter how you duck and weave, the fact of the matter is that with this interpretation, what exists as a single type of spell requirement -- a somatic requirement -- is able to be satisfied in fundamentally different ways depending on whether or not a spell has a material component.
The inconsistency is the difference in one's ability to satisfy a spell's somatic component, when there is (probably) no difference in what constitutes a somatic component between S-only (or V,S) spells and S,M (or V,S,M) spells. In other words, the S part of an S spell and the S part of a S,M spell are the same thing, but the strict interpretation holds that those same things cannot be satisfied in the same way. That's a logical inconsistency.
You (or probably more technically, the rules, or this interpretation of them) have introduced different kinds of S components - one kind that can only be done with a free hand, and one kind that can be done holding something. No matter how you duck and weave, the fact of the matter is that with this interpretation, what exists as a single type of spell requirement -- a somatic requirement -- is able to be satisfied in fundamentally different ways depending on whether or not a spell has a material component.
And that is a problem? If that description satisfies how the rules are written (it does), there isn't a rules issue. The only issue is... people disliking it.
Narratively it could be seen as, with a wizard, for example, when they find a spell and have to interpret and make their own notes.spells without an M can be deciphered in a way that having the focus and S component requirements met in one way. But non-M spells get deciphered in a way that having your hands full cannot e done because the features are much more intricate than spells with M
Copying a Spell into the Book. When you find a wizard spell of 1st level or higher, you can add it to your spellbook if it is of a spell level you can prepare and if you can spare the time to decipher and copy it.
Copying that spell into your spellbook involves reproducing the basic form of the spell, then deciphering the unique system of notation used by the wizard who wrote it. You must practice the spell until you understand the sounds or gestures required, then transcribe it into your spellbook using your own notation.
This is one area I think they should address in 2024 since so many questions come up on these things.
The inconsistency is the difference in one's ability to satisfy a spell's somatic component, when there is (probably) no difference in what constitutes a somatic component between S-only (or V,S) spells and S,M (or V,S,M) spells. In other words, the S part of an S spell and the S part of a S,M spell are the same thing, but the strict interpretation holds that those same things cannot be satisfied in the same way. That's a logical inconsistency.
No it isn't. A logical inconsistency would require a fundamental violation of the laws of logic, which is not present here. You're conflating a violation of your intuition with a violation of logic itself, which isn't how logic works. Your argument could also be used, with the nouns swapped, to argue that it's logically inconsistent for a bicycle not to fall over while the wheels are turning.
You (or probably more technically, the rules, or this interpretation of them) have introduced different kinds of S components - one kind that can only be done with a free hand, and one kind that can be done holding something.
That's your assumption. This is magic. The components themselves could be absolutely identical and the Goddess of Magic could be watching you every time you cast a spell and only letting the spell happen if you satisfy her demands for the right way to do it. There are infinitely many more possible explanations, because the rules don't explain the physics behind them, they just are.
No matter how you duck and weave, the fact of the matter is that with this interpretation, what exists as a single type of spell requirement -- a somatic requirement -- is able to be satisfied in fundamentally different ways depending on whether or not a spell has a material component.
Yes, that's true. The same thing is true of satisfying the answer to the question "what number multiplied by zero gets you zero?". There's absolutely nothing wrong with a question having multiple correct answers just like there's nothing wrong with a question having exactly one correct answer.
The inconsistency is the difference in one's ability to satisfy a spell's somatic component, when there is (probably) no difference in what constitutes a somatic component between S-only (or V,S) spells and S,M (or V,S,M) spells. In other words, the S part of an S spell and the S part of a S,M spell are the same thing, but the strict interpretation holds that those same things cannot be satisfied in the same way. That's a logical inconsistency.
You (or probably more technically, the rules, or this interpretation of them) have introduced different kinds of S components - one kind that can only be done with a free hand, and one kind that can be done holding something. No matter how you duck and weave, the fact of the matter is that with this interpretation, what exists as a single type of spell requirement -- a somatic requirement -- is able to be satisfied in fundamentally different ways depending on whether or not a spell has a material component.
And that is a problem? If that description satisfies how the rules are written (it does), there isn't a rules issue. The only issue is... people disliking it.
Is it a problem that a particular interpretation of the rules introduces a logical inconsistency? Yeah, I tend to think that's a problem, probably more with the interpretation than with the rules themselves. I mean you're free to add additional context (e.g. there are different flavors of S requirements for different spells) to erase the inconsistency; it's similar to a way out of this mess that others have suggested: evaluating individual spell rules in the context of all spell rules. Either way, something additional to the rules as written is required in order for the rules, as a system, to make logical sense. Which flavor you pick should lean toward whichever one yields the most fun and least awkwardness (and potential for arguments) for your group.
Logical or gut feeling inconsistency? You keep calling it logically inconsistent, yet it isn't logic that is the problem here. Logic tells you that there are different sets of requirements for spells (S and SM are different), and NOTHING about the rules is inconsistent with that. You just don't like that conclusion.
The abstraction into play as to how some spells behave differently than others is a narrative one that is up to you to describe as a result of rules that clearly indicate that the spells do indeed behave differently. Did you know that some spells don't even require verbal components? Is it inconsistent that others do? I guess on the same level that SM is different than only S or only M.
The inconsistency is the difference in one's ability to satisfy a spell's somatic component, when there is (probably) no difference in what constitutes a somatic component between S-only (or V,S) spells and S,M (or V,S,M) spells. In other words, the S part of an S spell and the S part of a S,M spell are the same thing, but the strict interpretation holds that those same things cannot be satisfied in the same way. That's a logical inconsistency.
No it isn't. A logical inconsistency would require a fundamental violation of the laws of logic, which is not present here. You're conflating a violation of your intuition with a violation of logic itself, which isn't how logic works. Your argument could also be used, with the nouns swapped, to argue that it's logically inconsistent for a bicycle not to fall over while the wheels are turning.
You (or probably more technically, the rules, or this interpretation of them) have introduced different kinds of S components - one kind that can only be done with a free hand, and one kind that can be done holding something.
That's your assumption. This is magic. The components themselves could be absolutely identical and the Goddess of Magic could be watching you every time you cast a spell and only letting the spell happen if you satisfy her demands for the right way to do it. There are infinitely many more possible explanations, because the rules don't explain the physics behind them, they just are.
No matter how you duck and weave, the fact of the matter is that with this interpretation, what exists as a single type of spell requirement -- a somatic requirement -- is able to be satisfied in fundamentally different ways depending on whether or not a spell has a material component.
Yes, that's true. The same thing is true of satisfying the answer to the question "what number multiplied by zero gets you zero?". There's absolutely nothing wrong with a question having multiple correct answers just like there's nothing wrong with a question having exactly one correct answer.
The logical inconsistency I see is:
You can satisfy the S component of a spell with a hand holding a focus. (A) You cannot satisfy the S component of a spell with a hand holding a focus. (not A)
A and not A cannot both be true.
You could modify my construction to:
You can satisfy the S component of a spell that requires material components with a hand holding a focus. You cannot satisfy the S component of a spell that does not require material components with a hand holding a focus.
In that case, both statements can be true, and this is the strict interpretation of the rules. But, logically, it means there must be a difference in the S component of each of the cases, either internal to the component itself, or imposed on it by the presence or lack of a material component requirement. The hand holding the focus is held constant; what changed is the presence of a material component requirement. So it must be the case that either a) the material component requirement somehow changes the S component requirement, or b) there are different kinds of S components that must be satisfied in different ways.
The strict interpretation would hold that there are differences in the ways the S component must be satisfied. This necessarily means that, for all intents and purposes, there are multiple types of S components. But the rules don't state that there are multiple types, so this is an interpretation. But here's my new hot take...
Since I'm a fan of evaluating individual rules in the context of the whole system, what I see in this thread are two opposing views that both take a larger context into account:
Interpretation 1: Because a rule states that the S component of a spell that also has an M component can be satisfied with a hand holding a focus, it stands to reason that the S component of any spell can be satisfied with a hand holding a focus because an S component is an S component is an S component.
Interpretation 2: Because a rule states that the S component of a spell that also has an M component can be satisfied with a hand holding a focus, and because a different rule states that the S component of a spell can be satisfied only with a free hand, it stands to reason that there must be differences in the ways the S component of different spell types can be satisfied (implying the existence of different types of S components).
I can see both sides now. Interpretation 1 fervently holds that there are no differences in S components from one spell to the next and that, given this, the only thing that makes sense is that any S component can be satisfied the same way. Since a rule says it can be satisfied with a hand holding a focus, any S component can be satisfied this way. Interpretation 2 holds that the rule about S,M spells -- when read in the context of the 'free hand' rule for S components -- strongly implies variation among S components -- or at least the conditions needed to satisfy them -- from one spell to the next. Opponents of this interpretation would say that's injecting stuff into the rules, but having thought about it more, spell descriptions already provide a pretty solid backing for the take that there are different kinds of somatic components -- touch, hold, brandish, reach out, extend hand, etc. -- but on the other hand, these are all within the single-spell context, not the context of grouping spells by their component requirements.
Since no rule explicitly states that there aren't multiple types of S components, but a rule does explicitly state that a spell with an S component needs a free hand, I'm leaning toward favoring interpretation 2. I still believe it's dumb that, given the existence of foci, it's easier to cast a spell that has more requirements than it is to cast one with fewer. It just defies common sense unless, again, there's a clear difference in the S component of S-not-M spells and S,M spells. But reading through spell descriptions, that's just not the case.
If you are not holding something else in your spell focus wielding hand, same hand can be used for somatic components.
Eg: your spell focus is a small chain with beads on it which you put around your hand and wrist, if you hold a something other than another spell focus, like a dagger perhaps your hand is not considered free for somatic components.
If you have a staff that can double as a spell focus(specially made for the purpose) then you can use that hand also for somatic components, not logical? think of it like instead of weaving the spell with tour hand, you are waving your spell focus in a pattern(like a mini magic circle perhaps....)
If you have a ruby ıf the warmage attached to a shortword or longsword and playing an elven wizard, you can use sword for somatic components, you cut through the air and draw the patters, than raise it high and the ruby in the pummel shines from within while it draws the components(substitute) from your material puch or god knows how/where...
If your DM approves using Shield Training feat, like a cleric(with a holy symbol on his shield), you can use your shield as a focus, think of it having a multi purpose magic circle on it(i am not talking about the spell magic circle) which acts as a catalyst for spells. You might even consider embedding priced diamons, pearls etc on your spell focus both for cosmetics (and you need them for spells anyway, identify, chromatic orb etc)
Quote from EpicName>> Since no rule explicitly states that there aren't multiple types of S components, but a rule does explicitly state that a spell with an S component needs a free hand, I'm leaning toward favoring interpretation 2. I still believe it's dumb that, given the existence of foci, it's easier to cast a spell that has more requirements than it is to cast one with fewer. It just defies common sense unless, again, there's a clear difference in the S component of S-not-M spells and S,M spells. But reading through spell descriptions, that's just not the case.
I just wanted add that Your interpretation 2 makes a lot of sense to me. As a disclaimer, this is merely an interpretation and has nothing to do with rules, but there is always the question, where does the magical effect of the spell originate from. In the instance of foci or materials with magical properties, the caster channels the magical powers that reside within those objects. Therefore, at least some of the magic comes from the M component. In the case of spells without the M component, the magical effects need to be conjured solely by the verbal and somatic prowess of the caster. Therefore, it could be seen as more difficult, since the caster cannot lean on additional materials and items with inherent magical properties and needs to create magic as if "out of thin air". The idea that items and materials make casting spells easier is also inherent in magical items with spell charges, e.g. Staff of Defense. When casting spells from such items, no components are required, which makes casting even easier.
Also, the difference between S and S, M is not merely in technical complexity of casting the spells (which in terms of rules is expressed by the "free hand" requirement), but also the general requirements of what is needed for the spell, which in turn can be used for story-telling elements. For instance, if the evil wizard sent a familiar to steal the focus of the PC, it could disable all the spells with M component from being cast, unless the PC had the materials at hand. If some guards were to confiscate the foci and other materials, the caster would be unable to cast spells with S and M components but could still cast spells with S component.
In addition, the components sometimes represent inherent specifics of casting a specific spell (a touch is needed, not merely a free hand). For instance, Cure Wounds requires touching the target and has the S component – this hints that the touch is the somatic component. I also checked that almost all touch spells currently have the S component, except a few spells like Light or Tongues. (The missing S in those touch spells might be an error or, at the least, shows that there might be some inconsistencies within the spell casting rules and components.) In such cases, the touch is necessary to deliver the magical effect – the caster could touch the target with a bare hand (only S) or with a focus (S,M) or even with materials in hand. For instance, True Seeing has “ointment for the eyes” as the M component, therefore the V, S, M indicates that the caster is spreading the ointment on the eyes of the target while speaking the magical words (or whatever the V stands for).
You also need to consider that many spellcasting related mechanics have been streamlined or simplified for the 5 edition – for instance, touch used to be a specific type of attack with its own mechanics. At the same time, they seem to have kept some aspects of the well-known spells, for instance Vampiric Touch is still a touch spell even though there are no longer touch attacks – the touch now matters only in terms of the S component.
To sum it up, the components are merely abstractions that inform the players of some inherent limitations of the spell. They are not discrete, specific requirements. Just like the “M” of material components can actually indicate a large variety of materials from powders and liquids to wearable objects, so too can “S” signify a variety of movements. Your interpretation 2 makes a lot of sense in this regard and seems the only reasonable way to deal with the variety of spell descriptions.
You can satisfy the S component of a spell that requires material components with a hand holding a focus. You cannot satisfy the S component of a spell that does not require material components with a hand holding a focus.
In that case, both statements can be true, and this is the strict interpretation of the rules.
That's not a "strict interpretation of the rules"; that is the rules.
As you say, there is a difference between S spells and M spells and MS spells.
The inconsistency is the difference in one's ability to satisfy a spell's somatic component, when there is (probably) no difference in what constitutes a somatic component between S-only (or V,S) spells and S,M (or V,S,M) spells. In other words, the S part of an S spell and the S part of a S,M spell are the same thing, but the strict interpretation holds that those same things cannot be satisfied in the same way. That's a logical inconsistency.
I can definitely imagine two different "somatic" spell types.
No spell component. Imagine dexterous finger gymnastics requiring all 5 fingers of a hand in carefully orchestrated motion which pulls more and more energy from the weave
Here you probably can't hold another object in the somatic component hand
With a spell component. Imagine the spell component is a crow feather. The somatic component can be done just by the index finger and a thumb, holding the feather and performing a short pattern with the feather in the air.
Here you can probably hold something in your hand while you're also waving a crow feather in a specific pattern.
Warcaster, I imagine, is when a caster has practiced and finetuned spells to be cast with less complex somatic movement, allowing the spells to be cast with less fingers and less complex movements. All spells, and all casters can learn to do this, as all spells can be optimized in this way, just like all spells are notated differently for each Wizard for example. The Warcaster feat is just the game mechanic for when a caster has taken the time and dedication to figure out a way to optimize spell casting in this way.
The inconsistency is the difference in one's ability to satisfy a spell's somatic component, when there is (probably) no difference in what constitutes a somatic component between S-only (or V,S) spells and S,M (or V,S,M) spells. In other words, the S part of an S spell and the S part of a S,M spell are the same thing, but the strict interpretation holds that those same things cannot be satisfied in the same way. That's a logical inconsistency.
I can definitely imagine two different "somatic" spell types.
No spell component. Imagine dexterous finger gymnastics requiring all 5 fingers of a hand in carefully orchestrated motion which pulls more and more energy from the weave
Here you probably can't hold another object in the somatic component hand
With a spell component. Imagine the spell component is a crow feather. The somatic component can be done just by the index finger and a thumb, holding the feather and performing a short pattern with the feather in the air.
Here you can probably hold something in your hand while you're also waving a crow feather in a specific pattern.
Warcaster, I imagine, is when a caster has practiced and finetuned spells to be cast with less complex somatic movement, allowing the spells to be cast with less fingers and less complex movements. All spells, and all casters can learn to do this, as all spells can be optimized in this way, just like all spells are notated differently for each Wizard for example. The Warcaster feat is just the game mechanic for when a caster has taken the time and dedication to figure out a way to optimize spell casting in this way.
I would argue that each spell has a "different" somatic component (some are even described in the spell in question), and those with material components integrate the material with the somatic (the rules just confirming that only one hand is needed for both) just as you say. The "logic" in EpicNames argument seems to hinge on all somatic components being the exact same thing (same motion) for all spells, but the rules only say that somatic components are movements of the hand. Given that there are near infinite movements of the hand, that is actually a very large set of possible movements. In fact, the set of movements might be large enough that each individual caster might have their own somatic movements for each spell (this actually would fit well with class differences in spellcasting (imagine a wizards highly practiced technical hand movements vs. a sorcerers untrained but natural movements achieving the same effect), as well as the warcaster ability.
I have a player who demonstrates this quite well in RP; his alchemist artificer spellcasts by mixing potions on the fly; the V component is him reciting the recipe, and the S/M component is the mixing tools, material, and mixing motions he uses to create the spell "potion". Rules-wise it meets the criteria for his class and spells, but in game the somatic component would look extremely different from the groups sorcerer and bard.
I have heard many statements for both sides of the argument and many have very logical answers to their points. I have read through many posts and maybe this is something I havn't read that I would like to add to this long discussion. If it has been brought up before i apologize in advance.
We all know that the spellcasting section of the PHB contains the Somatic, Material, and Verbal descriptions.
The Somatic (S) section states If a spell requires a somatic component, the caster must have free use of at least one hand to perform these gestures.
The Material (M) section states A character can use a component pouch or a spellcasting focus (found in chapter 5) in place of the components specified for a spell. A spellcaster must have a hand free to access these components (components or a spellcasting focus), but it can be the same hand that he or she uses to perform somatic components.
We all know that specific trumps general.
First we have a general rule where the rules state we have to have a free use of at least one hand to perform gestures of a spell.
Second, we get a rule that modifies a general rule to state that if you have components or a focus in hand, you can also perform Somatics with the same hand.
You can still perform Somatic components while holding spell components or holding a focus. Simple english, specific trumps general. It does not say it has to be a material spell. However, it does add a caveat to the previous rule.
How is this not clear?
Some say game balance for the shield spell. If you feel that way, don't allow it to stack with shields. Maybe have the shield spell override shield bonuses.
Some say it dilutes the Warcaster feat. It slightly does. However, take this into consideration. Full casters and some half casters have access to a Spellcasting Focus as a class ability. Classes that have access to a slower spell progression such as the fighter Eldritch Knight, racial spells, feats that grant spell casting, or other spell abilities do not. The Warcaster feat fills a need for those cases and as already mentioned, has other meaningful abilities.
Some say you have to touch someone for touch spells. You still do. Use your focus or components to deliver the spell. You're still touching your target. This opens up so much roleplaying and it's cool!
Also mentioned. Having to drop things as a free action to then again pick them up as a free interact with an object is... clunky at best and is a detractor to narration. How it this rule of cool?
High AC can be an issue. I do see an issue with certain multiclass builds or characters with specific feat sleections where the shield spell could be difficult to deal with. As a DM, we have infinite options to deal with things that are problematic within our worlds. But, Rules As Written (RAW) there is no arguement that one can use a focus or components to perform somatic spells.
Simple english, specific trumps general.
Make your own decision, Make it cool, and most of all Have fun!!!
This. BUT. Coming to an agreement with your DM that dropping a weapon, casting, and then picking it back up with your object interaction is gucci and that you don't have to say it every time would be good, but that has implications that a handwaving solution doesn't. First and foremost, doing this uses your free object interaction, so you wouldn't be able to interact with another object on the same turn. That could be important. Second, I can think of situations where a spellcast -- while a weapon is on the ground -- invokes a reaction that pushes the caster away, such that they're unable to pick up their weapon without moving. That could also be important.
Not exactly sure who you are responding to, but this doesn’t apply to Celia’s question that was the last one posted in May of 2022. There shouldn’t be a need for an artificer to drop their weapon (if they have an infusion on it and is their spellcasting focus).
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?
Since this topic was bumped since I no longer feel bad about throwing in my three cents. First two cents are a repeat of earlier arguments I agree with on how arcane focus and staff combo is fine, but I haven't really seen the third one (though I skipped some of the pages around the middle of the thread's length).
First cent, the rule stating that the hand used to mess around with materials/spellcasting foci is not only free but that it can also be the same (also free) hand used to perform the somatic part. Rules don't exist in a vacuum and if you can deduce from one rule what constitutes a free hand as far as a focus goes, there's no reason it would suddenly stop mattering when you go to the rule about somatic spells in specific. The whole idea is beyond suspect, because it's by no means the only aspect of the game that requires analysis of different rules (and usually it's not even the rules from the same part of the book like is the case here).
Second cent, SM and VSM aren't their own separate types of spells, they are spells with S AND M (and V) components. The interpretation that you can't cast somatic spells with a focus in hand if you have a staff in the other conjures up a new kind of S+ component that behaves differently from the S component in SM/VSM spells. And that's kinda bogus.
Before I go to my third cent, a quick detour to address the Sage Advice proponents of the opposite interpretation cling to. First of all, Sage Advice is just advice, it's not binding and it openly admits it's not binding. Also, this whole thing also shows selective attitude towards JC's answers, because when he was asked a general question about foci and somatic spells on Twitter back in 2016, his answer was positive.
Onto cent number three then. The proponents of the opposite interpretation say that the War Caster feat is there is you want to cast spells with a focus in one hand and a staff in the other. And that doing things differently would cheapen the feat. I'll address the second part first. War Caster has quite a lot going for it as it is. It grants proficiency with CON saving throws to casters that don't have it, which is already pretty massive. It grants you the ability to cast spells as attacks of opportunity. And it still allows casting while dual-wielding and casting of sword-and-board and casting. All around it's still beyond juicy as a feat even with interpretation in favor of arcane focus/staff combo being fine for somatic spells.
As for the first part of this argument, there are two things of note. To make a detour into RAI, let's address what kind of an archetype the feat in question is supposed to enable in the first place. It's kinda in the name. A war caster. You know, a warrior/caster combo. I.e. a person diving head-first into melee combat with weapons and possibly shields, while also slinging spells. So, depending on the setting, things like battlemages, eldritch knights and what have you. A Warlock/Sorcerer/Wizard holding a staff in one hand and a spellcasting focus in the other does not fit that archetype. It fits the archetype of a normal caster utilizing arcane tools to cast their spells.
Then there's the mechanic aspect. Because what does War Caster do that's relevant in context? It allows you to perform the somatic components of spells even when you have weapons or a shield in one or both hands. And an arcane focus is neither a weapon or a shield. Unlike what the Sage Advice example was actually about, which was a shield that just so happened to have a holy symbol on it (which doesn't make it stop counting as a shield). What about improvised weapons, one may ask? In that case, why does it mention shields separately at all? Bashing someone in the face with a shield is a textbook example of an improvised weapon. So either the wording of the feat is redundant or it refers to actual weapons from the weapons table. And since I'm willing to give the authors the benefit of the doubt, I'm picking the latter.
Besides your opinions on your first two points being, well frankly, wrong in context of the rules (remember, components are requirements of spells, meaning if one is missing, that requirement, and all the rules associated with it is missing); you've made an error in your analysis of War Caster.
War Caster says that you can perform somatic components even when you have weapons or a shield in one or both hands. That means as long as one of your hands is holding a weapon or shield, that other hand can absolutely be holding whatever you want, including a focus that is not a requirement of a particular spell you're trying to cast (or a lump of dung or whatever else you want to put in one hand), and the feat still provides that perk of being able to perform somatic components.
A quick correction, war caster does not give proficiency with CON saves, it gives advantage on con saves for concentration checks caused by damage. Concentration saves not caused by damage or any other CON saves that are not for concentration, you get nothing.
That’s not to say it’s better or worse, or changes your argument, just a clarification
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?
While I agree that a strict interpretation of the rules yields your stance, that same interpretation defies common sense. The strict interpretation simultaneously holds that:
1) a spell requiring both S and M can have both components satisfied by a hand that is holding a focus, and
2) a spell that requires only S cannot have that component satisfied by a hand that is holding a focus.
This is the same point that has been made before, I believe. The strict interpretation says that a spell that has more requirements (S and M) can be satisfied more conveniently than a spell that has fewer requirements (S only). Only if one believes that it is the general nature of spells such that those requiring both S and M require less complex/rigorous/precise hand movements than those that require S but not M can one overcome this logical inconsistency that is baked into the strict interpretation. (This harkens back to the argument of an "S+" sub-type of component, except I've reversed it to an "S-" sub-type, whereby SM spells are actually "S-"M spells because you can do the S part with a hand holding a focus, while S spells are just that, and you cannot do the S part with a hand holding a focus.) Since none of that is written anywhere, you have two options:
1) Adopt the strict interpretation and accept that it carries with it a logical inconsistency, or
2) Adopt an interpretation with a broader context that resolves that logical inconsistency (and be happy that it streamlines gameplay).
I'm not seeing any inconsistency.
An S spell requires you to make gestures with one hand. Holding anything in that hand meakes it impossible to make the gestures.
An M, S spell requires you to hold an item in one hand and make gestures with that hand. Not holding the item, or holding a different item, makes it impossible to make the gestures.
Nothing says that either of these is more or less complex or rigorous or precise or convenient. They are just different requirements.
The inconsistency is the difference in one's ability to satisfy a spell's somatic component, when there is (probably) no difference in what constitutes a somatic component between S-only (or V,S) spells and S,M (or V,S,M) spells. In other words, the S part of an S spell and the S part of a S,M spell are the same thing, but the strict interpretation holds that those same things cannot be satisfied in the same way. That's a logical inconsistency.
You (or probably more technically, the rules, or this interpretation of them) have introduced different kinds of S components - one kind that can only be done with a free hand, and one kind that can be done holding something. No matter how you duck and weave, the fact of the matter is that with this interpretation, what exists as a single type of spell requirement -- a somatic requirement -- is able to be satisfied in fundamentally different ways depending on whether or not a spell has a material component.
And that is a problem? If that description satisfies how the rules are written (it does), there isn't a rules issue. The only issue is... people disliking it.
Narratively it could be seen as, with a wizard, for example, when they find a spell and have to interpret and make their own notes.spells without an M can be deciphered in a way that having the focus and S component requirements met in one way. But non-M spells get deciphered in a way that having your hands full cannot e done because the features are much more intricate than spells with M
This is one area I think they should address in 2024 since so many questions come up on these things.
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?
No it isn't. A logical inconsistency would require a fundamental violation of the laws of logic, which is not present here. You're conflating a violation of your intuition with a violation of logic itself, which isn't how logic works. Your argument could also be used, with the nouns swapped, to argue that it's logically inconsistent for a bicycle not to fall over while the wheels are turning.
That's your assumption. This is magic. The components themselves could be absolutely identical and the Goddess of Magic could be watching you every time you cast a spell and only letting the spell happen if you satisfy her demands for the right way to do it. There are infinitely many more possible explanations, because the rules don't explain the physics behind them, they just are.
Yes, that's true. The same thing is true of satisfying the answer to the question "what number multiplied by zero gets you zero?". There's absolutely nothing wrong with a question having multiple correct answers just like there's nothing wrong with a question having exactly one correct answer.
Is it a problem that a particular interpretation of the rules introduces a logical inconsistency? Yeah, I tend to think that's a problem, probably more with the interpretation than with the rules themselves. I mean you're free to add additional context (e.g. there are different flavors of S requirements for different spells) to erase the inconsistency; it's similar to a way out of this mess that others have suggested: evaluating individual spell rules in the context of all spell rules. Either way, something additional to the rules as written is required in order for the rules, as a system, to make logical sense. Which flavor you pick should lean toward whichever one yields the most fun and least awkwardness (and potential for arguments) for your group.
Logical or gut feeling inconsistency? You keep calling it logically inconsistent, yet it isn't logic that is the problem here. Logic tells you that there are different sets of requirements for spells (S and SM are different), and NOTHING about the rules is inconsistent with that. You just don't like that conclusion.
The abstraction into play as to how some spells behave differently than others is a narrative one that is up to you to describe as a result of rules that clearly indicate that the spells do indeed behave differently. Did you know that some spells don't even require verbal components? Is it inconsistent that others do? I guess on the same level that SM is different than only S or only M.
The logical inconsistency I see is:
You can satisfy the S component of a spell with a hand holding a focus. (A)
You cannot satisfy the S component of a spell with a hand holding a focus. (not A)
A and not A cannot both be true.
You could modify my construction to:
You can satisfy the S component of a spell that requires material components with a hand holding a focus.
You cannot satisfy the S component of a spell that does not require material components with a hand holding a focus.
In that case, both statements can be true, and this is the strict interpretation of the rules. But, logically, it means there must be a difference in the S component of each of the cases, either internal to the component itself, or imposed on it by the presence or lack of a material component requirement. The hand holding the focus is held constant; what changed is the presence of a material component requirement. So it must be the case that either a) the material component requirement somehow changes the S component requirement, or b) there are different kinds of S components that must be satisfied in different ways.
The strict interpretation would hold that there are differences in the ways the S component must be satisfied. This necessarily means that, for all intents and purposes, there are multiple types of S components. But the rules don't state that there are multiple types, so this is an interpretation. But here's my new hot take...
Since I'm a fan of evaluating individual rules in the context of the whole system, what I see in this thread are two opposing views that both take a larger context into account:
Interpretation 1: Because a rule states that the S component of a spell that also has an M component can be satisfied with a hand holding a focus, it stands to reason that the S component of any spell can be satisfied with a hand holding a focus because an S component is an S component is an S component.
Interpretation 2: Because a rule states that the S component of a spell that also has an M component can be satisfied with a hand holding a focus, and because a different rule states that the S component of a spell can be satisfied only with a free hand, it stands to reason that there must be differences in the ways the S component of different spell types can be satisfied (implying the existence of different types of S components).
I can see both sides now. Interpretation 1 fervently holds that there are no differences in S components from one spell to the next and that, given this, the only thing that makes sense is that any S component can be satisfied the same way. Since a rule says it can be satisfied with a hand holding a focus, any S component can be satisfied this way. Interpretation 2 holds that the rule about S,M spells -- when read in the context of the 'free hand' rule for S components -- strongly implies variation among S components -- or at least the conditions needed to satisfy them -- from one spell to the next. Opponents of this interpretation would say that's injecting stuff into the rules, but having thought about it more, spell descriptions already provide a pretty solid backing for the take that there are different kinds of somatic components -- touch, hold, brandish, reach out, extend hand, etc. -- but on the other hand, these are all within the single-spell context, not the context of grouping spells by their component requirements.
Since no rule explicitly states that there aren't multiple types of S components, but a rule does explicitly state that a spell with an S component needs a free hand, I'm leaning toward favoring interpretation 2. I still believe it's dumb that, given the existence of foci, it's easier to cast a spell that has more requirements than it is to cast one with fewer. It just defies common sense unless, again, there's a clear difference in the S component of S-not-M spells and S,M spells. But reading through spell descriptions, that's just not the case.
If you are not holding something else in your spell focus wielding hand, same hand can be used for somatic components.
Eg: your spell focus is a small chain with beads on it which you put around your hand and wrist, if you hold a something other than another spell focus, like a dagger perhaps your hand is not considered free for somatic components.
If you have a staff that can double as a spell focus(specially made for the purpose) then you can use that hand also for somatic components, not logical? think of it like instead of weaving the spell with tour hand, you are waving your spell focus in a pattern(like a mini magic circle perhaps....)
If you have a ruby ıf the warmage attached to a shortword or longsword and playing an elven wizard, you can use sword for somatic components, you cut through the air and draw the patters, than raise it high and the ruby in the pummel shines from within while it draws the components(substitute) from your material puch or god knows how/where...
If your DM approves using Shield Training feat, like a cleric(with a holy symbol on his shield), you can use your shield as a focus, think of it having a multi purpose magic circle on it(i am not talking about the spell magic circle) which acts as a catalyst for spells. You might even consider embedding priced diamons, pearls etc on your spell focus both for cosmetics (and you need them for spells anyway, identify, chromatic orb etc)
I just wanted add that Your interpretation 2 makes a lot of sense to me. As a disclaimer, this is merely an interpretation and has nothing to do with rules, but there is always the question, where does the magical effect of the spell originate from. In the instance of foci or materials with magical properties, the caster channels the magical powers that reside within those objects. Therefore, at least some of the magic comes from the M component. In the case of spells without the M component, the magical effects need to be conjured solely by the verbal and somatic prowess of the caster. Therefore, it could be seen as more difficult, since the caster cannot lean on additional materials and items with inherent magical properties and needs to create magic as if "out of thin air". The idea that items and materials make casting spells easier is also inherent in magical items with spell charges, e.g. Staff of Defense. When casting spells from such items, no components are required, which makes casting even easier.
Also, the difference between S and S, M is not merely in technical complexity of casting the spells (which in terms of rules is expressed by the "free hand" requirement), but also the general requirements of what is needed for the spell, which in turn can be used for story-telling elements. For instance, if the evil wizard sent a familiar to steal the focus of the PC, it could disable all the spells with M component from being cast, unless the PC had the materials at hand. If some guards were to confiscate the foci and other materials, the caster would be unable to cast spells with S and M components but could still cast spells with S component.
In addition, the components sometimes represent inherent specifics of casting a specific spell (a touch is needed, not merely a free hand). For instance, Cure Wounds requires touching the target and has the S component – this hints that the touch is the somatic component. I also checked that almost all touch spells currently have the S component, except a few spells like Light or Tongues. (The missing S in those touch spells might be an error or, at the least, shows that there might be some inconsistencies within the spell casting rules and components.) In such cases, the touch is necessary to deliver the magical effect – the caster could touch the target with a bare hand (only S) or with a focus (S,M) or even with materials in hand. For instance, True Seeing has “ointment for the eyes” as the M component, therefore the V, S, M indicates that the caster is spreading the ointment on the eyes of the target while speaking the magical words (or whatever the V stands for).
You also need to consider that many spellcasting related mechanics have been streamlined or simplified for the 5 edition – for instance, touch used to be a specific type of attack with its own mechanics. At the same time, they seem to have kept some aspects of the well-known spells, for instance Vampiric Touch is still a touch spell even though there are no longer touch attacks – the touch now matters only in terms of the S component.
To sum it up, the components are merely abstractions that inform the players of some inherent limitations of the spell. They are not discrete, specific requirements. Just like the “M” of material components can actually indicate a large variety of materials from powders and liquids to wearable objects, so too can “S” signify a variety of movements. Your interpretation 2 makes a lot of sense in this regard and seems the only reasonable way to deal with the variety of spell descriptions.
That's not a "strict interpretation of the rules"; that is the rules.
As you say, there is a difference between S spells and M spells and MS spells.
I can definitely imagine two different "somatic" spell types.
Warcaster, I imagine, is when a caster has practiced and finetuned spells to be cast with less complex somatic movement, allowing the spells to be cast with less fingers and less complex movements. All spells, and all casters can learn to do this, as all spells can be optimized in this way, just like all spells are notated differently for each Wizard for example. The Warcaster feat is just the game mechanic for when a caster has taken the time and dedication to figure out a way to optimize spell casting in this way.
Altrazin Aghanes - Wizard/Fighter
Varpulis Windhowl - Fighter
Skolson Demjon - Cleric/Fighter
I would argue that each spell has a "different" somatic component (some are even described in the spell in question), and those with material components integrate the material with the somatic (the rules just confirming that only one hand is needed for both) just as you say. The "logic" in EpicNames argument seems to hinge on all somatic components being the exact same thing (same motion) for all spells, but the rules only say that somatic components are movements of the hand. Given that there are near infinite movements of the hand, that is actually a very large set of possible movements. In fact, the set of movements might be large enough that each individual caster might have their own somatic movements for each spell (this actually would fit well with class differences in spellcasting (imagine a wizards highly practiced technical hand movements vs. a sorcerers untrained but natural movements achieving the same effect), as well as the warcaster ability.
I have a player who demonstrates this quite well in RP; his alchemist artificer spellcasts by mixing potions on the fly; the V component is him reciting the recipe, and the S/M component is the mixing tools, material, and mixing motions he uses to create the spell "potion". Rules-wise it meets the criteria for his class and spells, but in game the somatic component would look extremely different from the groups sorcerer and bard.
I have heard many statements for both sides of the argument and many have very logical answers to their points. I have read through many posts and maybe this is something I havn't read that I would like to add to this long discussion. If it has been brought up before i apologize in advance.
We all know that the spellcasting section of the PHB contains the Somatic, Material, and Verbal descriptions.
The Somatic (S) section states If a spell requires a somatic component, the caster must have free use of at least one hand to perform these gestures.
The Material (M) section states A character can use a component pouch or a spellcasting focus (found in chapter 5) in place of the components specified for a spell. A spellcaster must have a hand free to access these components (components or a spellcasting focus), but it can be the same hand that he or she uses to perform somatic components.
We all know that specific trumps general.
First we have a general rule where the rules state we have to have a free use of at least one hand to perform gestures of a spell.
Second, we get a rule that modifies a general rule to state that if you have components or a focus in hand, you can also perform Somatics with the same hand.
You can still perform Somatic components while holding spell components or holding a focus. Simple english, specific trumps general. It does not say it has to be a material spell. However, it does add a caveat to the previous rule.
How is this not clear?
Some say game balance for the shield spell. If you feel that way, don't allow it to stack with shields. Maybe have the shield spell override shield bonuses.
Some say it dilutes the Warcaster feat. It slightly does. However, take this into consideration. Full casters and some half casters have access to a Spellcasting Focus as a class ability. Classes that have access to a slower spell progression such as the fighter Eldritch Knight, racial spells, feats that grant spell casting, or other spell abilities do not. The Warcaster feat fills a need for those cases and as already mentioned, has other meaningful abilities.
Some say you have to touch someone for touch spells. You still do. Use your focus or components to deliver the spell. You're still touching your target. This opens up so much roleplaying and it's cool!
Also mentioned. Having to drop things as a free action to then again pick them up as a free interact with an object is... clunky at best and is a detractor to narration. How it this rule of cool?
High AC can be an issue. I do see an issue with certain multiclass builds or characters with specific feat sleections where the shield spell could be difficult to deal with. As a DM, we have infinite options to deal with things that are problematic within our worlds. But, Rules As Written (RAW) there is no arguement that one can use a focus or components to perform somatic spells.
Simple english, specific trumps general.
Make your own decision, Make it cool, and most of all Have fun!!!