You hold a spell focus, and so the rules on spell focuses are relevant. You read the section on them and what they do, and it says that the hand holding them "can be the same hand that he or she uses to perform somatic components."
Except there are no rules "on spell focuses." Spell foci are part of the material component rules, they apply when material component spells are in play. The first half of the sentence that you say proves your argument sets the context as "spell's material components" (as in for spells that require material components). Other material component rules already said that the purpose of a focus is to replace material components.
The somatic component rules specifically state that you need a free hand, and do not mention focuses at all let alone as an exception. Focuses are mentioned in material components and not anywhere else because that is the only context in which they apply. And that is the only context in which the exception to the somatic rule applies.applies.
Spell focuses are mentioned in many places. They are mentioned within the class descriptions of every spellcasting class under "Spellcasting," and often within other Features as well (see Artificer, Warlock). They are mentioned within the chapter on equipment. They are implicated by the dozens and dozens of rod/wand/staff/etc magic items which provide benefits when being wielded and which a player may be interested in holding as a spell focus. There are a great many reasons one would look up "rules on spellcasting focuses" other than "hmm I see that my spell requires an M component, how can I satisfy that?"
A perfectly reasonable take on this is that “it can be the same hand you use to perform somatic components” is a rule peculiar not to spells with material components, but to holding a focus in your hand. It’s sensible that this information would be found under the material components header because foci are meant to replace material components and not any other kind. Outside of the clarifying Sage Advice, the idea that this feature of foci should be restricted to spells with material components is an assumption unsupported by any actual rule. Section headers are not actually hard scope limiters like curly braces in some programming languages. If something found under one header should, from context, reasonably apply to other situations, it can.
That said, Sage Advice clarifies the design intent pretty unambiguously. The same Sage Advice answer, however, directly contradicts the PHB text re: the cleric’s holy symbol, so I find it a frustrating answer in many ways.
Not sure what contradiction you’re talking about regarding the holy symbol...they’re allowed to be on shields per their entry in the PHB and nothing else in the way the SA describes their use appears to violate RAW either
As a former game designer, Sage Advice infuriates me.
When you design a complex rule system for a game, unless you keep an extensive amount of information - I'm talking encyclopedic - on why you wrote every rule the way you wrote it, you're not going to remember what your justification for creating a particular rule was X years later. You made it while you were designing the entirety of the system, when you had all the rules and how you wanted them to work together fresh in your mind. Many updates to games - tabletop and video alike - are the devs looking things over way later and thinking "Why the heck did we do this? This would work much better." And sometimes, after you make those updates, a bunch of other crap breaks and you think "Ohhh, that's why we did that." Not to mention that your opinion for what would('ve) work(ed) well in your game can easily change over time, both as you experience your creation first hand and inevitably change as a person.
Whenever I see a Sage Advice trying to clarify something from the original print of the rules, I can't help but picture Jeremy Crawford and co. floundering to think up why they made those rules the way they were several years ago, and likely stating the first thing that sounds good to them. I doubt they put a particularly large deal of effort into coming up with the answers, either. If they were, they wouldn't be answering these questions via Twitter of all things.
Maybe I'm completely wrong, but from my own experience and the content of a lot of Sage Advice posts... it really seems that way.
As an attorney, Sage Advice infuriates me as well! D&D is a game, and of course players and DMs are always encouraged to play by the rules that are most fun for their group. But to the extent that this game includes a highly detailed and codified system of rules that people get excited about debating... the system by which those rules are adjudicated leaves a lot to be desired.
Mike Mearls' responses always boil down to "this makes sense to me, and this is why I think it would have a desirable outcome at the table," and are pretty clearly designed to be suggestions. Great, and often persuasive!
Jeremy Crawford's tweets rarely distinguishes between which of his tweets are "this is what the language of the rules says" and "this is what the writers of the rule hoped to accomplish when they wrote the language" and "this is what I personally feel about the what the rule should be." He rarely cites to the text or to previous rulings or opinions, and when two of his tweets ("official" SA tweets or otherwise) are in conflict with each other or with the text, it's left to the reader to figure out which one supersedes the other.
The Sage Advice Compendium itself has something of an identity crisis, committing only to "collect[ing] questions and answers" about rules, but holding itself separate from the "official rulebooks" (PHB, MM, DMG) and their errata. It is a collection of "official answers," but do official answers = actual rules? These "official answers" are also referred to as "official rulings on how to interpret rules," and distinguishes these official answers/rulings from mere "advice," but then the Sage Advice Compendium stops short of describing whether an official answer/ruling can create new rules which are not found in the official rulebooks (as in this thread), or whether rulebooks or rulings control when the two are found to be in direct conflict. If you think I'm splitting hairs and that official answers/rulings obviously are intended to be read as rules, that premise is pretty much undercut by the "why even have a column like Sage Advice...?" section, which provides that these official answer/rulings can be based upon any combination of RAW, RAI, or RAF. We're left with one of two conclusions: either 1) Sage Advice is nothing other than "official" advice, and carries no rule weight, or 2) Sage Advice rulings require no specific textual support or authority, and can be based merely on what Jeremy Crawford thinks is fun at the time.
From my understanding of Warcaster. Without this feat you can't cast a spell with somatic components while holding ''non-spell focus'' item(s) with both hands. So the feat still has the benefit of letting you cast somatic components while holding a 2-handed warhammer for example or a shortsword+dagger which would be a good for a Valor Bard: being able to hold 2 weapons which are not spell focus and still be able to cast some spells normally requiring a free hand.
The way I play in my games anyways, if you are holding a spell focus, you can cast any spell not requiring components with a cost. I think this matches RAW.
I'm done arguing why material component rules including the use of foci only apply to spells with material component. Even though the first sentence of the rule says it will only apply to "some spells" that specify it in the component entry. Or that it says a character can only use "a spellcasting focus in place of the components specified for a spell."
I dont like arguing. I only came here to help people understand the rules, not argue with people who dont want to be helped.
I will also not be arguing why a monk, pole arm master, or crossbow expert can apply their modifiers to the damage of their bonus action attack even though the rules specifically say "You don't add your ability modifier to the damage of the bonus attack, unless that modifier is negative."
Nor will I argue why a multiclasses spellcaster/fighter can use action surge to cast 2 leveled spells even though the rules specifically say "You can't cast another spell during the same turn, except for a cantrip with a casting time of 1 action."
Because I have already said that rule context matters. If all rules apply all the time, these are the unnessessary interactions you create which lead to incorrect conclusions.
The way I play in my games anyways, if you are holding a spell focus, you can cast any spell not requiring components with a cost. I think this matches RAW.
There is nothing wrong with playing that way. Honestly, it is better than PCs having to drop their focus to cast a spell without it, then picking it back up for free, but it is not what the RAW says. It should be, but it isn't.
I dont like arguing. I only came here to help people understand the rules, not argue with people who dont want to be helped.
I will also not be arguing why a monk, pole arm master, or crossbow expert can apply their modifiers to the damage of their bonus action attack even though the rules specifically say "You don't add your ability modifier to the damage of the bonus attack, unless that modifier is negative."
Nor will I argue why a multiclasses spellcaster/fighter can use action surge to cast 2 leveled spells even though the rules specifically say "You can't cast another spell during the same turn, except for a cantrip with a casting time of 1 action."
...
I realize that your examples are completely irrelevant to the current thread. (And I agree with your opinion regarding the use of a spell focus and somatic spell components)
However, just to help avoid confusion if someone reads your post and thinks the rules actually say what you have quoted.
1) "You don't add your ability modifier to the damage of the bonus attack, unless that modifier is negative."
This is referring to two weapon fighting which does not apply to monk bonus action attacks, PAM attacks or crossbow expert attacks ... none of these involve making a two weapon fighting attack.
2) "You can't cast another spell during the same turn, except for a cantrip with a casting time of 1 action."
You didn't actually cite the entire rule ... you need to add "If you cast a spell as a bonus action".
The action surging caster can cast two leveled spells with no problem. However, if they cast a bonus action spell on the same turn they are limited to casting only cantrips no matter how many actions they have.
You didn't actually cite the entire rule ... you need to add "If you cast a spell as a bonus action".
Thanks for clarifying for any new players who read that.
And I actually did cite the entire sentence from the bonus action spellcasting rules (and I didn't even have to ignore any parts of the sentence to make the argument).
The Material component for a spell is usually defined so its easy to imagine the physics of casting with the spell component.
If the Somatic was defined with the picture of a hand/finger gesture or finger configuration specific to that spell, then it would make much more sense for the visualization mechanic of a spell requiring the somatic. Some somatics are defined like Hellish Rebuke (pointing finger at ) but not all spells with somatics are defined. Burning hands explains the somatic component dramatically, "hold your hands with thumbs touching and fingers spread, a thin sheet of flames shoots forth from your outstretched fingertips." I never see anyone perform this gesture when casting burning hands. It's really not hard to do.
The verbal should be defined as well to add to the fun of casting. The language (elvish, dwarvish, celestial etc.) of each spell based upon its origin to include phonetic pronunciations and the written words would add to the dramatic effect of casting instead of saying, "my wizard casts a fireball at the monster". The PC could say in the language of its race or the race of spell origin the spell. Roleplaying would be taken to the next level and caster PC's would be given a new dimension for the feel of their character.
The Material component for a spell is usually defined so its easy to imagine the physics of casting with the spell component.
If the Somatic was defined with the picture of a hand/finger gesture or finger configuration specific to that spell, then it would make much more sense for the visualization mechanic of a spell requiring the somatic. Some somatics are defined like Hellish Rebuke (pointing finger at ) but not all spells with somatics are defined. Burning hands explains the somatic component dramatically, "hold your hands with thumbs touching and fingers spread, a thin sheet of flames shoots forth from your outstretched fingertips." I never see anyone perform this gesture when casting burning hands. It's really not hard to do.\
I have read that even though burning hands is one of the few spells that specifies its somatic component, the requirement that the spell only requires one free hand to perform that component still holds.
The verbal should be defined as well to add to the fun of casting. The language (elvish, dwarvish, celestial etc.) of each spell based upon its origin to include phonetic pronunciations and the written words would add to the dramatic effect of casting instead of saying, "my wizard casts a fireball at the monster". The PC could say in the language of its race or the race of spell origin the spell. Roleplaying would be taken to the next level and caster PC's would be given a new dimension for the feel of their character.
I think that the reason that somatic and verbal components aren't defined in the spells is that is an area of creativity for the players. Though if the component rules were rewritten today, I'm sure that they'd have included more text indicating that flexibility, as they've been doing in more recent UA documents.
I agree an considered it was left to our creative license to build our own home brew somatic and verbal elements for role-playing fun. Home brewing these components of spell casting will be great fun among our normal tabletop D&D playing teams but it becomes a problem when and if we choose to play with new groups while traveling. If there isn't a common ground provided by the D&D organization for somatic and verbal and all a person knows is home brew spell casting, then playing with new PC's could be awkward and possibly disruptive if other players do not agree with the creative license interpretations of each spell. Maybe in the spirit of things it would be welcome for role playing enhancement but you have to admit it will take alot of chuztpah to pull it off in a new crowd. I guess the challenge could be very exhilarating.
Wow, this makes no sense. A free hand = a single free hand because English. So, according to this, you cannot do the somatic component of an S spell with a focus occupied hand, but you can do the the material AND somatic components of an S,M spell with a focus occupied hand. That does not exactly leap off the page from any of the rule books, and is a misreading of the PHB. What the Rules actually say is you have to have a free hand to perform somatic gestures. You also have to have a free hand to access material components or to hold a spellcasting focus, "but it can be the same hand that he or she uses to perform somatic components." What this means, when you read the S rule and the M rule together, is that the same hand that you use to perform somatic components can be the hand that you use for your spellcasting focus. So contrary to your reading, a spell focus occupied hand can be the hand used for somatic components in S spells without a feat.
Wow, this makes no sense. A free hand = a single free hand because English. So, according to this, you cannot do the somatic component of an S spell with a focus occupied hand, but you can do the the material AND somatic components of an S,M spell with a focus occupied hand. That does not exactly leap off the page from any of the rule books, and is a misreading of the PHB. What the Rules actually say is you have to have a free hand to perform somatic gestures. You also have to have a free hand to access material components or to hold a spellcasting focus, "but it can be the same hand that he or she uses to perform somatic components." What this means, when you read the S rule and the M rule together, is that the same hand that you use to perform somatic components can be the hand that you use for your spellcasting focus. So contrary to your reading, a spell focus occupied hand can be the hand used for somatic components in S spells without a feat.
^This is the misreading. You do not apply M component rules to a spell without M components listed. The S rules say that you need a free hand - that is ALL they say. They do not say that it can be a free hand holding a focus. It is that simple and has been reiterated hundreds of times in this thread.
WHAT’S THE AMOUNT OF INTERACTION NEEDED TO USE A SPELLCASTING FOCUS? DOES IT HAVE TO BE INCLUDED IN THE SOMATIC COMPONENT?
If a spell has a material component, you need to handle that component when you cast the spell (see page 203 in the Player’s Handbook). The same rule applies if you’re using a spellcasting focus as the material component.
If a spell has a somatic component, you can use the hand that performs the somatic component to also handle the material component. For example, a wizard who uses an orb as a spellcasting focus could hold a quarterstaff in one hand and the orb in the other, and he could cast lightning bolt by using the orb as the spell’s material component and the orb hand to perform the spell’s somatic component.
Another example: a cleric’s holy symbol is emblazoned on her shield. She likes to wade into melee combat with a mace in one hand and a shield in the other. She uses the holy symbol as her spellcasting focus, so she needs to have the shield in hand when she casts a cleric spell that has a material component. If the spell, such as aid, also has a somatic component, she can perform that component with the shield hand and keep holding the mace in the other.
If the same cleric casts cure wounds, she needs to put the mace or the shield away, because that spell doesn’t have a material component but does have a somatic component. She’s going to need a free hand to make the spell’s gestures. If she had the War Caster feat, she could ignore this restriction.
The rules are not meant to be read entirely separately from one another, because that is not how any set of rules is meant to be read ever. Sounds like the guy who takes warcaster to use his focus with a shield wants to feel like that was not a totally unnecessary decision.
The rules are not meant to be read entirely separately from one another, because that is not how any set of rules is meant to be read ever. Sounds like the guy who takes warcaster to use his focus with a shield wants to feel like that was not a totally unnecessary decision.
Again, this is patently false. 5e has no concept of rules that apply when they're not in use. Sure, there is a complete rules system, but each rule has a situation where it applies and does not apply outside of that situation, whether you've read it or not.
Spell focuses are mentioned in many places. They are mentioned within the class descriptions of every spellcasting class under "Spellcasting," and often within other Features as well (see Artificer, Warlock). They are mentioned within the chapter on equipment. They are implicated by the dozens and dozens of rod/wand/staff/etc magic items which provide benefits when being wielded and which a player may be interested in holding as a spell focus. There are a great many reasons one would look up "rules on spellcasting focuses" other than "hmm I see that my spell requires an M component, how can I satisfy that?"
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
Not sure what contradiction you’re talking about regarding the holy symbol...they’re allowed to be on shields per their entry in the PHB and nothing else in the way the SA describes their use appears to violate RAW either
As a former game designer, Sage Advice infuriates me.
When you design a complex rule system for a game, unless you keep an extensive amount of information - I'm talking encyclopedic - on why you wrote every rule the way you wrote it, you're not going to remember what your justification for creating a particular rule was X years later. You made it while you were designing the entirety of the system, when you had all the rules and how you wanted them to work together fresh in your mind. Many updates to games - tabletop and video alike - are the devs looking things over way later and thinking "Why the heck did we do this? This would work much better." And sometimes, after you make those updates, a bunch of other crap breaks and you think "Ohhh, that's why we did that." Not to mention that your opinion for what would('ve) work(ed) well in your game can easily change over time, both as you experience your creation first hand and inevitably change as a person.
Whenever I see a Sage Advice trying to clarify something from the original print of the rules, I can't help but picture Jeremy Crawford and co. floundering to think up why they made those rules the way they were several years ago, and likely stating the first thing that sounds good to them. I doubt they put a particularly large deal of effort into coming up with the answers, either. If they were, they wouldn't be answering these questions via Twitter of all things.
Maybe I'm completely wrong, but from my own experience and the content of a lot of Sage Advice posts... it really seems that way.
As an attorney, Sage Advice infuriates me as well! D&D is a game, and of course players and DMs are always encouraged to play by the rules that are most fun for their group. But to the extent that this game includes a highly detailed and codified system of rules that people get excited about debating... the system by which those rules are adjudicated leaves a lot to be desired.
Mike Mearls' responses always boil down to "this makes sense to me, and this is why I think it would have a desirable outcome at the table," and are pretty clearly designed to be suggestions. Great, and often persuasive!
Jeremy Crawford's tweets rarely distinguishes between which of his tweets are "this is what the language of the rules says" and "this is what the writers of the rule hoped to accomplish when they wrote the language" and "this is what I personally feel about the what the rule should be." He rarely cites to the text or to previous rulings or opinions, and when two of his tweets ("official" SA tweets or otherwise) are in conflict with each other or with the text, it's left to the reader to figure out which one supersedes the other.
The Sage Advice Compendium itself has something of an identity crisis, committing only to "collect[ing] questions and answers" about rules, but holding itself separate from the "official rulebooks" (PHB, MM, DMG) and their errata. It is a collection of "official answers," but do official answers = actual rules? These "official answers" are also referred to as "official rulings on how to interpret rules," and distinguishes these official answers/rulings from mere "advice," but then the Sage Advice Compendium stops short of describing whether an official answer/ruling can create new rules which are not found in the official rulebooks (as in this thread), or whether rulebooks or rulings control when the two are found to be in direct conflict. If you think I'm splitting hairs and that official answers/rulings obviously are intended to be read as rules, that premise is pretty much undercut by the "why even have a column like Sage Advice...?" section, which provides that these official answer/rulings can be based upon any combination of RAW, RAI, or RAF. We're left with one of two conclusions: either 1) Sage Advice is nothing other than "official" advice, and carries no rule weight, or 2) Sage Advice rulings require no specific textual support or authority, and can be based merely on what Jeremy Crawford thinks is fun at the time.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
I see why you love arguing, and also there is a hint as to why you got the rule wrong.
In the legal system, laws always apply whether or not you know they do. That is not how 5e works.
From my understanding of Warcaster. Without this feat you can't cast a spell with somatic components while holding ''non-spell focus'' item(s) with both hands. So the feat still has the benefit of letting you cast somatic components while holding a 2-handed warhammer for example or a shortsword+dagger which would be a good for a Valor Bard: being able to hold 2 weapons which are not spell focus and still be able to cast some spells normally requiring a free hand.
The way I play in my games anyways, if you are holding a spell focus, you can cast any spell not requiring components with a cost. I think this matches RAW.
I'm done arguing why material component rules including the use of foci only apply to spells with material component. Even though the first sentence of the rule says it will only apply to "some spells" that specify it in the component entry. Or that it says a character can only use "a spellcasting focus in place of the components specified for a spell."
I dont like arguing. I only came here to help people understand the rules, not argue with people who dont want to be helped.
I will also not be arguing why a monk, pole arm master, or crossbow expert can apply their modifiers to the damage of their bonus action attack even though the rules specifically say "You don't add your ability modifier to the damage of the bonus attack, unless that modifier is negative."
Nor will I argue why a multiclasses spellcaster/fighter can use action surge to cast 2 leveled spells even though the rules specifically say "You can't cast another spell during the same turn, except for a cantrip with a casting time of 1 action."
Because I have already said that rule context matters. If all rules apply all the time, these are the unnessessary interactions you create which lead to incorrect conclusions.
There is nothing wrong with playing that way. Honestly, it is better than PCs having to drop their focus to cast a spell without it, then picking it back up for free, but it is not what the RAW says. It should be, but it isn't.
This is why I put wrist straps on all my wands.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
I realize that your examples are completely irrelevant to the current thread. (And I agree with your opinion regarding the use of a spell focus and somatic spell components)
However, just to help avoid confusion if someone reads your post and thinks the rules actually say what you have quoted.
1) "You don't add your ability modifier to the damage of the bonus attack, unless that modifier is negative."
This is referring to two weapon fighting which does not apply to monk bonus action attacks, PAM attacks or crossbow expert attacks ... none of these involve making a two weapon fighting attack.
2) "You can't cast another spell during the same turn, except for a cantrip with a casting time of 1 action."
You didn't actually cite the entire rule ... you need to add "If you cast a spell as a bonus action".
The action surging caster can cast two leveled spells with no problem. However, if they cast a bonus action spell on the same turn they are limited to casting only cantrips no matter how many actions they have.
Thanks for clarifying for any new players who read that.
And I actually did cite the entire sentence from the bonus action spellcasting rules (and I didn't even have to ignore any parts of the sentence to make the argument).
The Material component for a spell is usually defined so its easy to imagine the physics of casting with the spell component.
If the Somatic was defined with the picture of a hand/finger gesture or finger configuration specific to that spell, then it would make much more sense for the visualization mechanic of a spell requiring the somatic. Some somatics are defined like Hellish Rebuke (pointing finger at ) but not all spells with somatics are defined. Burning hands explains the somatic component dramatically, "hold your hands with thumbs touching and fingers spread, a thin sheet of flames shoots forth from your outstretched fingertips." I never see anyone perform this gesture when casting burning hands. It's really not hard to do.
The verbal should be defined as well to add to the fun of casting. The language (elvish, dwarvish, celestial etc.) of each spell based upon its origin to include phonetic pronunciations and the written words would add to the dramatic effect of casting instead of saying, "my wizard casts a fireball at the monster". The PC could say in the language of its race or the race of spell origin the spell. Roleplaying would be taken to the next level and caster PC's would be given a new dimension for the feel of their character.
I have read that even though burning hands is one of the few spells that specifies its somatic component, the requirement that the spell only requires one free hand to perform that component still holds.
I think that the reason that somatic and verbal components aren't defined in the spells is that is an area of creativity for the players. Though if the component rules were rewritten today, I'm sure that they'd have included more text indicating that flexibility, as they've been doing in more recent UA documents.
I agree an considered it was left to our creative license to build our own home brew somatic and verbal elements for role-playing fun. Home brewing these components of spell casting will be great fun among our normal tabletop D&D playing teams but it becomes a problem when and if we choose to play with new groups while traveling. If there isn't a common ground provided by the D&D organization for somatic and verbal and all a person knows is home brew spell casting, then playing with new PC's could be awkward and possibly disruptive if other players do not agree with the creative license interpretations of each spell. Maybe in the spirit of things it would be welcome for role playing enhancement but you have to admit it will take alot of chuztpah to pull it off in a new crowd. I guess the challenge could be very exhilarating.
Wow, this makes no sense. A free hand = a single free hand because English. So, according to this, you cannot do the somatic component of an S spell with a focus occupied hand, but you can do the the material AND somatic components of an S,M spell with a focus occupied hand. That does not exactly leap off the page from any of the rule books, and is a misreading of the PHB. What the Rules actually say is you have to have a free hand to perform somatic gestures. You also have to have a free hand to access material components or to hold a spellcasting focus, "but it can be the same hand that he or she uses to perform somatic components." What this means, when you read the S rule and the M rule together, is that the same hand that you use to perform somatic components can be the hand that you use for your spellcasting focus. So contrary to your reading, a spell focus occupied hand can be the hand used for somatic components in S spells without a feat.
^This is the misreading. You do not apply M component rules to a spell without M components listed. The S rules say that you need a free hand - that is ALL they say. They do not say that it can be a free hand holding a focus. It is that simple and has been reiterated hundreds of times in this thread.
Does a free hand mean an empty hand? Or does a free hand mean a hand that isn't busy doing something unrelated to casting?
EDIT: Asked and answered
"Not all those who wander are lost"
The component spellcasting rules are set up something akin to this:
And people just keep screaming at the top of their lungs "I WANT HAMBURGERS ON THURSDAY!!!" and re-write the rules as needed to make it that way.
The rules are not meant to be read entirely separately from one another, because that is not how any set of rules is meant to be read ever. Sounds like the guy who takes warcaster to use his focus with a shield wants to feel like that was not a totally unnecessary decision.
Again, this is patently false. 5e has no concept of rules that apply when they're not in use. Sure, there is a complete rules system, but each rule has a situation where it applies and does not apply outside of that situation, whether you've read it or not.
I WANT HAMBURGERS ON THURSDAY!!!