The logic is sound. However, I gave it one more chance to sway my thinking. I have searched for the rules you stated. And, in my quest for this knowlege... I found that the language you presented does not exist. The rules I stated came straight from the PHB.
Again read the rules, regardless if you are for or against, make your decisions on how you want to run your game, make it cool, and have fun you all!!!
If you are looking for a rule that says that rules only apply when they should, yeah, I agree you probably won't find it. The closest is a section on "specific beats general" which heavily implies that the general rules apply whenever the specific don't. In this case, that would mean that the M rule that excepts the S rule only applies when there is an exception to be made (i.e. S and M components together). The M rule would never apply when the M rule isn’t relevant, such as when no M components are involved.
But think about it logically for just a second. If there is no rule that requires other rules to apply to particular situations, and that means that means all rules apply all the time, then what you're really saying is that you can use any of the rules any of the time. If that were how the rules worked, then somatic components would be the smallest of problems introduced.
The logic is sound. However, I gave it one more chance to sway my thinking. I have searched for the rules you stated. And, in my quest for this knowlege... I found that the language you presented does not exist. The rules I stated came straight from the PHB.
Again read the rules, regardless if you are for or against, make your decisions on how you want to run your game, make it cool, and have fun you all!!!
It’s like you are putting the wrong Em-PHAS-is on the wrong sy-LLA-ble
S- (general rule) you need one free hand for S component. (No matter the other components)
M- (general rule) you need one free hand for M component or spell focus. (Specific that beats general) if the spell also has an S component it can be made with the same hand as the M component.
I hope this is addressed in 2024 since it raises so many questions.
I'm just going to point out that Gloves, Gauntlets and Rings can all be spell casting focuses and still technically count as a free hand. Otherwise anyone who wears armor with gauntlets couldn't wield a weapon. There's also no reason they shouldn't count as a spell casting focus since a weapon or shield can also become a spell casting focus. Now if you want to rule that requires an attunement slot or whatever fine but fact is you CAN have a spell focus in hand and fulfill the S requirement.
I'm just going to point out that Gloves, Gauntlets and Rings can all be spell casting focuses and still technically count as a free hand. Otherwise anyone who wears armor with gauntlets couldn't wield a weapon. There's also no reason they shouldn't count as a spell casting focus since a weapon or shield can also become a spell casting focus. Now if you want to rule that requires an attunement slot or whatever fine but fact is you CAN have a spell focus in hand and fulfill the S requirement.
Maybe I’m wrong but I believe rings, gloves, and gauntlets could only be used as a spell focus for an Artificer who has an infusion on it. And since all Artificer spells have the M component it’s a moot point. As far as weapons or shield go, they can be a focus for classes/subclasses that allow it, but it doesn’t work for everyone. And if you are sword and board and want to cast an S or V,S spell you would have to drop or sheath the sword.
You state: "if the spell also has an S component it can be made with the same hand as the M component. " This is interpretation. PHB Somatic (S) "If a spell requires a somatic component." (This does not say ONLY a.)
The PHB states, verbatum: "A spellcaster must have a hand free to access these components, but it can be the same hand that he or she uses to perform somatic components."
D&D Beyond states: "A spellcaster must have a hand free to access a spell’s material components — or to hold a spellcasting focus — but it can be the same hand that he or she uses to perform somatic components." This is Rules as written. I agree, It is in the Material section of spellcasting. This is where they introduce the rules for the component pouch and focus. However, these quoted lines have their own paragraph separating it from previous information which created additional use rules.
Much different descriprions if you ask me.
It is saying; while holding M (component pouch or a focus) you can also perform S. The ability doesnt require there to be a M component. So you only have to ask the following questions:
Does S have a somatic component? Yes
Does M,S have a somatic component? Yes
Does V,S have a somatic component? Yes
Does any spell with a S have a somatic component? If Yes then you can hold M and perform a somatic component with it.
On the surface it seems that the designers appear to be in 2 camps of thought on the subject. Such as leaving open to interpretation wich way to view the issue. An eratta would be nice especially since we are getting a new edition that will be backwards compatible.
I agree and hope the next iteration of the game will clean up issues such as this. Heck, we're 600+ posts in discussing this very annoying issue. It's disruptive to the table at a minimum and as I have said before, it detracts from narration.
You state: "if the spell also has an S component it can be made with the same hand as the M component. " This is interpretation.
The PHB states: "if you have components or a focus in hand, you can also perform Somatics with the same hand." This is Rules as written.
The problem is that the PHB ONLY states that for M component spells. No such statement is made for any spell without M components. If there is such a rule, point to it so that we can finally clear this up after, as you point out, over 600 posts.
Or are you just going to continue to attempt to apply a rule to an unrelated situation?
WolfOfTheBees, I appreciate your responses and I apologize for some confusion. I made some clarifications to my original post. I believe this may clear up my position a bit. Please review.
You state: "if the spell also has an S component it can be made with the same hand as the M component. " This is interpretation.
The PHB states: "if you have components or a focus in hand, you can also perform Somatics with the same hand." This is Rules as written.
The problem is that the PHB ONLY states that for M component spells. No such statement is made for any spell without M components. If there is such a rule, point to it so that we can finally clear this up after, as you point out, over 600 posts.
Or are you just going to continue to attempt to apply a rule to an unrelated situation?
Your argument is premised on the idea that being described beneath the Material components header means that the rule necessarily only applies when a material component is involved, even if the rule doesn't mention material components (as is the case here). That's certainly a defensible position, but it's not an uncontentious one. That's what this entire issue is actually all about, and any other hand-wringing is either context or a red herring.
I am absolutely not going to argue any further for one position or the other, but because I pathologically refuse to unsubscribe from this thread, I wanted to recenter the discussion on the premise that's actually in dispute.
You state: "if the spell also has an S component it can be made with the same hand as the M component. " This is interpretation.
The PHB states: "if you have components or a focus in hand, you can also perform Somatics with the same hand." This is Rules as written.
Much different descriprions if you ask me.
I agree and hope the next iteration of the game will clean up issues such as this. Heck, we're 600+ posts in discussing this very annoying issue. It's disruptive to the table at a minimum and as I have said before, it detracts from narration.
There are other signs that the designers were also in 2 camps of thought. Such as leaving open to interpretation what a focus can be to creating items that are focuses or allow items to become a focus. Quite contradictory. No wonder we have to have long debates cleaning up the game.
Can you provide a citation for your quote?
I found the following under the Material (M) section of the Components rules under the Casting a Spell section of chapter 10 in the Player's Handbook:
"A spellcaster must have a hand free to access a spell’s material components — or to hold a spellcasting focus — but it can be the same hand that he or she uses to perform somatic components." - https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/phb/spellcasting#MaterialM
As WolfOfTheBees pointed out the context in which a rule is written matters. The fact that this sentence is in the Material (M) section rather than the Somatic (S) section is an editorial decision by WotC, as is the fact that the Somatic (S) section appears before the Material (M) section.
You are correct that the importance of context to a rule is not explicitly stated in the Specific Beats General rule in the Player's Handbook (found here: https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/phb/introduction#SpecificBeatsGeneral). However I can give you another example where the context of the rule is important to correctly applying the rule. Consider the following:
"Beginning at 5th level, you can attack twice, instead of once, whenever you take the Attack action on your turn."
Note that nowhere in the text of the rule did it state that it only applies to Barbarians, this is assumed from the context of where this rule is written.
I updated the original post #636 Please review the arguement there.
I removed this below from my earlier post with other additions for the current discussion.
"Such as leaving open to interpretation what a focus can be to creating items that are focuses or allow items to become a focus. Quite contradictory. No wonder we have to have long debates cleaning up the game."
This is a different debate and would be better served in it's own thread.
I doubt that most GMs out there actually keep track of which spells have which exact V, S, M requirements unless the party is in a special situation - shackled, silenced, without any gear, etc.
Otherwise, they just let casters cast. Demanding that casters put away their wand or staff in order to cast a spell without material components wastes time and is very unheroic.
Seriously, "You shall not...oh wait hold on, let me put down my staff...Pass!!" that's dumb. Yes, I know, clearly that particular spell needed a material component, but the Shield (V,S) used earlier in the scene does not. Yes, D&D rules don't follow movie scenes but players often imagine those scenes when they play.
Dropping material components or foci in order to do S spells breaks immersion and demanding that it be done is just a GM being an ass.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
I doubt that most GMs out there actually keep track of which spells have which exact V, S, M requirements unless the party is in a special situation - shackled, silenced, without any gear, etc.
Agreed, most GMs assume that their players will follow the rules, or at least, will not intentionally break them.
Dropping material components or foci in order to do S spells breaks immersion and demanding that it be done is just a GM being an ass.
In my experience, people that have both hands occupied that want to cast spells that don't work with that are already trying to powergame as much as possible and don't need the extra help of bending the rules to accommodate.
I doubt that most GMs out there actually keep track of which spells have which exact V, S, M requirements unless the party is in a special situation - shackled, silenced, without any gear, etc.
Agreed, most GMs assume that their players will follow the rules, or at least, will not intentionally break them.
Dropping material components or foci in order to do S spells breaks immersion and demanding that it be done is just a GM being an ass.
In my experience, people that have both hands occupied that want to cast spells that don't work with that are already trying to powergame as much as possible and don't need the extra help of bending the rules to accommodate.
I can see your point, but I don't often see the powergamer thing in my players =)
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
Your argument is premised on the idea that being described beneath the Material components header means that the rule necessarily only applies when a material component is involved, even if the rule doesn't mention material components (as is the case here). That's certainly a defensible position, but it's not an uncontentious one. That's what this entire issue is actually all about, and any other hand-wringing is either context or a red herring.
I am absolutely not going to argue any further for one position or the other, but because I pathologically refuse to unsubscribe from this thread, I wanted to recenter the discussion on the premise that's actually in dispute.
I think I'm not sure I understand your point on the rule not mentioning material components. The M rule sentence in question may not mention it's exact context (i.e. if that sentence applies all the time or only when M is involved), but it certainly mentions and clearly involves the M components themselves. Did you specifically mean that it doesn't say in the text that it only applies to M spells? I've already stated my position, so if you don't want to read it again, I've hidden it, but I have explained why I don't think it should be all that contentious.
As Fangeye pointed out (after your post), many rules don't mention their context in the rule themselves (for example, extra attack), only in their heading and placement within the text. It might even be more common that rules don't mention their exact context in their description. 'This rule only applies when context tells us it does, but that other rule isn't hampered by context' is a very difficult position to defend. I could see how one might come to the other conclusion just from reading based on proximity and the broadness of the text AND the lack of contextualizing text, but I don't think that position stands up to any logical scrutiny. If you take a more general outlook, it should not be contentious at all that rules only apply when the books use context (instead of actual text) to tell us their scope.
But there is context that I think is important, which is that components are described as the requirements of spells. The requirements of a V,S spell are what the V and S rules say, and they make no mention of materials at all. If you consider each spell's particular requirements as simply being listed with components shorthand, rather than the components rules as a system in and of themselves to be used on top of spells, I think it becomes more clear when M rules are applicable.
But maybe the most interesting question is what will they do with OneD&D? Will they keep it the same? Will they just put that same text in both S and M and and make things (arguably) more confusing? Will they just add a little text saying that the rule applies only specifically when M and S are both present? Will they totally re-write component rules to reflect how people actually play?
This is by far the wierdest or atleast one of the wierdest discussion ive seen on here yet....
If i can as a fully equiped sorcerer holding a staff and an arcane wand as a focus in one hand cast a V/S/M spell like sunburst without needing to drop anything im holding
but
i cant cast frostbite without dropping my wand because my hand which is holding the focus cant cast the complex somatic component because of the wand....
there are many other items that would invalidate casting if somatic components would be "so difficult" to activate example a paladin would need to take off their plate gloves to cast cure wounds, hexblade warlocks would need to drop their shield to eldritch blast, clerics better drop any weapon they might be wearing of they want to cast guidance.
A fave: You produce your artificer spell effects through your tools. Meaning an artificer will always have a tool in hand and cast their spells with the hand the tool is holding (somatic components, mind you V/S not V/S/M)
The way i see it we are given two rules RAW regarding hands and focus: - You dont need 2 free hands to cast M/S if you are holding/having any focus [1 hand is enough] - A hand holding a focus can also cast somatic components
Its written in the same place and the last point that follows the listings before it, yes i know somatic components are wierd because they are never clearly defined and leave room to interpretation as how they are carried out (so are verbal components btw) but see it like this: V: the words that give the spell power or call the effect forth S: the channeling of the power, into other bodies, spell circles or patterns that form the effect (like how you would move a wand or draw a transmutation circle in the air) M: the catalyst for the spell thats consumed in the casting
If anyone has a sound argument against this im eager to be convinced otherwise
Edit: also yes warcasters "You can perform the somatic components of spells even when you have weapons or a shield in one or both hands." exists i know, for anyone about to make that argument: Any class that cant turn their weapon or shield into an arcane focus needs a free hand, holding a focus or the warcaster feat otherwise they are unable to cast somatic components of their spells (honorable mentoin: see how warcaster only talks about weapons and shields - not wands, tools or holding a cat)
Source: This is the listing in the basic rules Chapter 10: Spellcasting -> Components ==================
A spell's components are the physical requirements you must meet in order to cast it. Each spell's description indicates whether it requires verbal (V), somatic (S), or material (M) components. If you can't provide one or more of a spell's components, you are unable to cast the spell.
Verbal (V)
Most spells require the chanting of mystic words. The words themselves aren't the source of the spell's power; rather, the particular combination of sounds, with specific pitch and resonance, sets the threads of magic in motion. Thus, a character who is gagged or in an area of silence, such as one created by the silence spell, can't cast a spell with a verbal component.
Somatic (S)
Spellcasting gestures might include a forceful gesticulation or an intricate set of gestures. If a spell requires a somatic component, the caster must have free use of at least one hand to perform these gestures.
Material (M)
Casting some spells requires particular objects, specified in parentheses in the component entry. A character can use a component pouch or a spellcasting focus (found in “Equipment”) in place of the components specified for a spell. But if a cost is indicated for a component, a character must have that specific component before he or she can cast the spell.
If a spell states that a material component is consumed by the spell, the caster must provide this component for each casting of the spell. A spellcaster must have a hand free to access a spell's material components -- or to hold a spellcasting focus -- but it can be the same hand that he or she uses to perform somatic components.
The fact that a hand holding a spellcasting focus cannot perform the somatic component of a spell unless it is also fulfilling a material component required by the spell is something many people find surprising.
Sometimes when the rules, as written, don't support people's arguement: They turn to the Sage Advice for backup. And, while Sage Advice is absolutely official, it isn't the rules as they are written. It is instead a clarification of the intention behind the published books.
People need to keep that in mind. If SA is the only thing supporting your argument: Your arguement is a RAI arguement. Not a RAW arguement.
And that's coming from someone who fully believes RAI is the better approach. It is helpful for us all to not mix them up though. When we talk about RAW vs RAI. You should know which is which.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
The problem with your logic is that rules that say they apply in a specific circumstance should only apply to that specific circumstance.
The logic is sound. However, I gave it one more chance to sway my thinking. I have searched for the rules you stated. And, in my quest for this knowlege... I found that the language you presented does not exist. The rules I stated came straight from the PHB.
Again read the rules, regardless if you are for or against, make your decisions on how you want to run your game, make it cool, and have fun you all!!!
If you are looking for a rule that says that rules only apply when they should, yeah, I agree you probably won't find it. The closest is a section on "specific beats general" which heavily implies that the general rules apply whenever the specific don't. In this case, that would mean that the M rule that excepts the S rule only applies when there is an exception to be made (i.e. S and M components together). The M rule would never apply when the M rule isn’t relevant, such as when no M components are involved.
But think about it logically for just a second. If there is no rule that requires other rules to apply to particular situations, and that means that means all rules apply all the time, then what you're really saying is that you can use any of the rules any of the time. If that were how the rules worked, then somatic components would be the smallest of problems introduced.
It’s like you are putting the wrong Em-PHAS-is on the wrong sy-LLA-ble
S- (general rule) you need one free hand for S component. (No matter the other components)
M- (general rule) you need one free hand for M component or spell focus. (Specific that beats general) if the spell also has an S component it can be made with the same hand as the M component.
I hope this is addressed in 2024 since it raises so many questions.
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?
I'm just going to point out that Gloves, Gauntlets and Rings can all be spell casting focuses and still technically count as a free hand. Otherwise anyone who wears armor with gauntlets couldn't wield a weapon. There's also no reason they shouldn't count as a spell casting focus since a weapon or shield can also become a spell casting focus. Now if you want to rule that requires an attunement slot or whatever fine but fact is you CAN have a spell focus in hand and fulfill the S requirement.
Maybe I’m wrong but I believe rings, gloves, and gauntlets could only be used as a spell focus for an Artificer who has an infusion on it. And since all Artificer spells have the M component it’s a moot point. As far as weapons or shield go, they can be a focus for classes/subclasses that allow it, but it doesn’t work for everyone. And if you are sword and board and want to cast an S or V,S spell you would have to drop or sheath the sword.
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?
The wording you used is not the language RAW.
You state: "if the spell also has an S component it can be made with the same hand as the M component. " This is interpretation. PHB Somatic (S) "If a spell requires a somatic component." (This does not say ONLY a.)
The PHB states, verbatum: "A spellcaster must have a hand free to access these components, but it can be the same hand that he or she uses to perform somatic components."
D&D Beyond states: "A spellcaster must have a hand free to access a spell’s material components — or to hold a spellcasting focus — but it can be the same hand that he or she uses to perform somatic components." This is Rules as written. I agree, It is in the Material section of spellcasting. This is where they introduce the rules for the component pouch and focus. However, these quoted lines have their own paragraph separating it from previous information which created additional use rules.
Much different descriprions if you ask me.
It is saying; while holding M (component pouch or a focus) you can also perform S. The ability doesnt require there to be a M component. So you only have to ask the following questions:
Does S have a somatic component? Yes
Does M,S have a somatic component? Yes
Does V,S have a somatic component? Yes
Does any spell with a S have a somatic component? If Yes then you can hold M and perform a somatic component with it.
On the surface it seems that the designers appear to be in 2 camps of thought on the subject. Such as leaving open to interpretation wich way to view the issue. An eratta would be nice especially since we are getting a new edition that will be backwards compatible.
I agree and hope the next iteration of the game will clean up issues such as this. Heck, we're 600+ posts in discussing this very annoying issue. It's disruptive to the table at a minimum and as I have said before, it detracts from narration.
The problem is that the PHB ONLY states that for M component spells. No such statement is made for any spell without M components. If there is such a rule, point to it so that we can finally clear this up after, as you point out, over 600 posts.
Or are you just going to continue to attempt to apply a rule to an unrelated situation?
WolfOfTheBees, I appreciate your responses and I apologize for some confusion. I made some clarifications to my original post. I believe this may clear up my position a bit. Please review.
Your argument is premised on the idea that being described beneath the Material components header means that the rule necessarily only applies when a material component is involved, even if the rule doesn't mention material components (as is the case here). That's certainly a defensible position, but it's not an uncontentious one. That's what this entire issue is actually all about, and any other hand-wringing is either context or a red herring.
I am absolutely not going to argue any further for one position or the other, but because I pathologically refuse to unsubscribe from this thread, I wanted to recenter the discussion on the premise that's actually in dispute.
Can you provide a citation for your quote?
I found the following under the Material (M) section of the Components rules under the Casting a Spell section of chapter 10 in the Player's Handbook:
"A spellcaster must have a hand free to access a spell’s material components — or to hold a spellcasting focus — but it can be the same hand that he or she uses to perform somatic components." - https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/phb/spellcasting#MaterialM
As WolfOfTheBees pointed out the context in which a rule is written matters. The fact that this sentence is in the Material (M) section rather than the Somatic (S) section is an editorial decision by WotC, as is the fact that the Somatic (S) section appears before the Material (M) section.
You are correct that the importance of context to a rule is not explicitly stated in the Specific Beats General rule in the Player's Handbook (found here: https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/phb/introduction#SpecificBeatsGeneral). However I can give you another example where the context of the rule is important to correctly applying the rule. Consider the following:
"Beginning at 5th level, you can attack twice, instead of once, whenever you take the Attack action on your turn."
This text is a direct quote of the Barbarian's Extra Attack class feature found here: https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/phb/barbarian#BarbarianExtraAttack
Note that nowhere in the text of the rule did it state that it only applies to Barbarians, this is assumed from the context of where this rule is written.
I updated the original post #636 Please review the arguement there.
I removed this below from my earlier post with other additions for the current discussion.
"Such as leaving open to interpretation what a focus can be to creating items that are focuses or allow items to become a focus. Quite contradictory. No wonder we have to have long debates cleaning up the game."
This is a different debate and would be better served in it's own thread.
I doubt that most GMs out there actually keep track of which spells have which exact V, S, M requirements unless the party is in a special situation - shackled, silenced, without any gear, etc.
Otherwise, they just let casters cast. Demanding that casters put away their wand or staff in order to cast a spell without material components wastes time and is very unheroic.
Seriously, "You shall not...oh wait hold on, let me put down my staff...Pass!!" that's dumb. Yes, I know, clearly that particular spell needed a material component, but the Shield (V,S) used earlier in the scene does not. Yes, D&D rules don't follow movie scenes but players often imagine those scenes when they play.
Dropping material components or foci in order to do S spells breaks immersion and demanding that it be done is just a GM being an ass.
"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
Agreed, most GMs assume that their players will follow the rules, or at least, will not intentionally break them.
In my experience, people that have both hands occupied that want to cast spells that don't work with that are already trying to powergame as much as possible and don't need the extra help of bending the rules to accommodate.
I can see your point, but I don't often see the powergamer thing in my players =)
"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
I think I'm not sure I understand your point on the rule not mentioning material components. The M rule sentence in question may not mention it's exact context (i.e. if that sentence applies all the time or only when M is involved), but it certainly mentions and clearly involves the M components themselves. Did you specifically mean that it doesn't say in the text that it only applies to M spells? I've already stated my position, so if you don't want to read it again, I've hidden it, but I have explained why I don't think it should be all that contentious.
As Fangeye pointed out (after your post), many rules don't mention their context in the rule themselves (for example, extra attack), only in their heading and placement within the text. It might even be more common that rules don't mention their exact context in their description. 'This rule only applies when context tells us it does, but that other rule isn't hampered by context' is a very difficult position to defend. I could see how one might come to the other conclusion just from reading based on proximity and the broadness of the text AND the lack of contextualizing text, but I don't think that position stands up to any logical scrutiny. If you take a more general outlook, it should not be contentious at all that rules only apply when the books use context (instead of actual text) to tell us their scope.
But there is context that I think is important, which is that components are described as the requirements of spells. The requirements of a V,S spell are what the V and S rules say, and they make no mention of materials at all. If you consider each spell's particular requirements as simply being listed with components shorthand, rather than the components rules as a system in and of themselves to be used on top of spells, I think it becomes more clear when M rules are applicable.
But maybe the most interesting question is what will they do with OneD&D? Will they keep it the same? Will they just put that same text in both S and M and and make things (arguably) more confusing? Will they just add a little text saying that the rule applies only specifically when M and S are both present? Will they totally re-write component rules to reflect how people actually play?
I relate so much to this statement :)
"Not all those who wander are lost"
This is by far the wierdest or atleast one of the wierdest discussion ive seen on here yet....
If i can as a fully equiped sorcerer holding a staff and an arcane wand as a focus in one hand cast a V/S/M spell like sunburst without needing to drop anything im holding
but
i cant cast frostbite without dropping my wand because my hand which is holding the focus cant cast the complex somatic component because of the wand....
there are many other items that would invalidate casting if somatic components would be "so difficult" to activate
example a paladin would need to take off their plate gloves to cast cure wounds, hexblade warlocks would need to drop their shield to eldritch blast, clerics better drop any weapon they might be wearing of they want to cast guidance.
A fave: You produce your artificer spell effects through your tools. Meaning an artificer will always have a tool in hand and cast their spells with the hand the tool is holding (somatic components, mind you V/S not V/S/M)
The way i see it we are given two rules RAW regarding hands and focus:
- You dont need 2 free hands to cast M/S if you are holding/having any focus [1 hand is enough]
- A hand holding a focus can also cast somatic components
Its written in the same place and the last point that follows the listings before it, yes i know somatic components are wierd because they are never clearly defined and leave room to interpretation as how they are carried out (so are verbal components btw) but see it like this:
V: the words that give the spell power or call the effect forth
S: the channeling of the power, into other bodies, spell circles or patterns that form the effect (like how you would move a wand or draw a transmutation circle in the air)
M: the catalyst for the spell thats consumed in the casting
If anyone has a sound argument against this im eager to be convinced otherwise
Edit: also yes warcasters "You can perform the somatic components of spells even when you have weapons or a shield in one or both hands."
exists i know, for anyone about to make that argument: Any class that cant turn their weapon or shield into an arcane focus needs a free hand, holding a focus or the warcaster feat otherwise they are unable to cast somatic components of their spells
(honorable mentoin: see how warcaster only talks about weapons and shields - not wands, tools or holding a cat)
Source:
This is the listing in the basic rules Chapter 10: Spellcasting -> Components
==================
A spell's components are the physical requirements you must meet in order to cast it. Each spell's description indicates whether it requires verbal (V), somatic (S), or material (M) components. If you can't provide one or more of a spell's components, you are unable to cast the spell.
Verbal (V)
Most spells require the chanting of mystic words. The words themselves aren't the source of the spell's power; rather, the particular combination of sounds, with specific pitch and resonance, sets the threads of magic in motion. Thus, a character who is gagged or in an area of silence, such as one created by the silence spell, can't cast a spell with a verbal component.
Somatic (S)
Spellcasting gestures might include a forceful gesticulation or an intricate set of gestures. If a spell requires a somatic component, the caster must have free use of at least one hand to perform these gestures.
Material (M)
Casting some spells requires particular objects, specified in parentheses in the component entry. A character can use a component pouch or a spellcasting focus (found in “Equipment”) in place of the components specified for a spell. But if a cost is indicated for a component, a character must have that specific component before he or she can cast the spell.
If a spell states that a material component is consumed by the spell, the caster must provide this component for each casting of the spell. A spellcaster must have a hand free to access a spell's material components -- or to hold a spellcasting focus -- but it can be the same hand that he or she uses to perform somatic components.
_______________
Ayu
The fact that a hand holding a spellcasting focus cannot perform the somatic component of a spell unless it is also fulfilling a material component required by the spell is something many people find surprising.
However, this is something that has been specifically addressed by Wizard's if the Coast in Sage Advice here: https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/sac/sage-advice-compendium#SA165
If you want to understand how the written rules lead to this explicitly stated intended outcome there are numerous posts in this thread some that explain it, like this one: https://www.dndbeyond.com/forums/dungeons-dragons-discussion/rules-game-mechanics/49286-spellcasting-focus-prevents-somatic-components?comment=4
Fortunately we are under no obligation to play D&D in any particular way and are free to rule this differently.
Sometimes when the rules, as written, don't support people's arguement: They turn to the Sage Advice for backup. And, while Sage Advice is absolutely official, it isn't the rules as they are written. It is instead a clarification of the intention behind the published books.
People need to keep that in mind. If SA is the only thing supporting your argument: Your arguement is a RAI arguement. Not a RAW arguement.
And that's coming from someone who fully believes RAI is the better approach. It is helpful for us all to not mix them up though. When we talk about RAW vs RAI. You should know which is which.
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.