You're wrong man, including about how to read the rules as well as on how these two rules that are both about use of hands and somatic components of spells, but you dont have to believe me, here is Sage Advice in response to this very question:
You're wrong man, including about how to read the rules as well as on how these two rules that are both about use of hands and somatic components of spells, but you dont have to believe me, here is Sage Advice in response to this very question:
You point to a perfectly valid answer to a question that doesn't cover your precise situation as proof, whereas the exact situation is spelled out in the SAC.
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.
Sorry, the exact question answered by Jeremy Crawford was "Can you perform somatic components of spells with a hand holding an arcane focus?" That was precisely the situation that I am interested in and the question does not make any reference to a spell with somatic and material components, and he answered it by reference to the exact rule that I, and others, have pointed to as evidence against the reading that you cannot. There is, at best, a contradiction between this Jeremy Crawford tweet and that DnD Beyond SAC. I'd say the general rule follows from Crawford's answer to the general question in that case.
Actually, it is a much more direct question going to the very issue than is this,
What’s the amount of interaction needed to use a spellcasting focus? Does it have to be included in the somatic component?
Which is the question that gives rise to the example/answer you rely on. In that case, the answer about a Cleric casting cure wounds that you are relying on is not even directed at the question asked. It goes beyond the question asked and follows the direct answer to the question asked. This would be what's called obiter dictum ("dicta" for short in the States) and is generally treated as not binding when it is part of a legal ruling. Therefore, given that Crawford is asked the exact question in my example, his answer would rule. DnD Beyond probably should add it to their SAC.
Actually, it is a much more direct question going to the very issue than is this,
What’s the amount of interaction needed to use a spellcasting focus? Does it have to be included in the somatic component?
Which is the question that gives rise to the example/answer you rely on. In that case, the answer about a Cleric casting cure wounds that you are relying on is not even directed at the question asked. It goes beyond the question asked and follows the direct answer to the question asked. This would be what's called obiter dictum ("dicta" for short in the States) and is generally treated as not binding when it is part of a legal ruling. Therefore, given that Crawford is asked the exact question in my example, his answer would rule. DnD Beyond probably should add it to their SAC.
It’s not “their SAC.” The SAC is officially published by WotC. Crawford wrote it. Any tweet of his that isn’t included in the SAC is not an official ruling.
Actually, it is a much more direct question going to the very issue than is this,
What’s the amount of interaction needed to use a spellcasting focus? Does it have to be included in the somatic component?
Which is the question that gives rise to the example/answer you rely on. In that case, the answer about a Cleric casting cure wounds that you are relying on is not even directed at the question asked. It goes beyond the question asked and follows the direct answer to the question asked. This would be what's called obiter dictum ("dicta" for short in the States) and is generally treated as not binding when it is part of a legal ruling. Therefore, given that Crawford is asked the exact question in my example, his answer would rule. DnD Beyond probably should add it to their SAC.
It’s not “their SAC.” The SAC is officially published by WotC. Crawford wrote it. Any tweet of his that isn’t included in the SAC is not an official ruling.
Yes, of course, but Crawford's tweets are generally intended as previews of answers that may be found in future SACs (it says so in the SAC, I know it says may and I know this tweet predates the date of this SAC by three years). It's the only time he answered the direct question, as opposed to offering up an example in response to a different question. Here comes the big anyway:
Anyway, an earlier comment rightly pointed out that putting down and picking up an item (or stowing and unstowing an item), are free actions. So under the RAW you can sheathe or stow the item, still have an action and movement, and then, on your next turn, unsheathe/unstow the item, and still have an action and movement, including using that unsheathed or unstowed item. So how could this ever matter? I've never played with a DM who required a cleric to stow their mace in order to cast cure wounds, and thank the gods, because fun and the rule of cool still matter more. And who casts cure wounds in combat? It's not optimal use of the action economy!
Yes, of course, but Crawford's tweets are generally intended as previews of answers that may be found in future SACs (it says so in the SAC, I know it says may and I know this tweet predates the date of this SAC by three years). It's the only time he answered the direct question, as opposed to offering up an example in response to a different question. Here comes the big anyway:
Anyway, an earlier comment rightly pointed out that putting down and picking up an item (or stowing and unstowing an item), are free actions. So under the RAW you can sheathe or stow the item, still have an action and movement, and then, on your next turn, unsheathe/unstow the item, and still have an action and movement, including using that unsheathed or unstowed item. So how could this ever matter? I've never played with a DM who required a cleric to stow their mace in order to cast cure wounds, and thank the gods, because fun and the rule of cool still matter more. And who casts cure wounds in combat? It's not optimal use of the action economy!
The direct question that he answered in your linked tweet made no mention as to whether the spell had material components.
The exact situation is described in that example that I provided and saying that it doesn't apply because it is additional information beyond the answer to a question that has to do with something else is just inventing an excuse to ignore it. You are just yelling "I want hamburgers on Thursday!"
Yes, of course, but Crawford's tweets are generally intended as previews of answers that may be found in future SACs (it says so in the SAC, I know it says may and I know this tweet predates the date of this SAC by three years). It's the only time he answered the direct question, as opposed to offering up an example in response to a different question. Here comes the big anyway:
Anyway, an earlier comment rightly pointed out that putting down and picking up an item (or stowing and unstowing an item), are free actions. So under the RAW you can sheathe or stow the item, still have an action and movement, and then, on your next turn, unsheathe/unstow the item, and still have an action and movement, including using that unsheathed or unstowed item. So how could this ever matter? I've never played with a DM who required a cleric to stow their mace in order to cast cure wounds, and thank the gods, because fun and the rule of cool still matter more. And who casts cure wounds in combat? It's not optimal use of the action economy!
The direct question that he answered made no mention as to whether the spell had material components.
The exact situation is described in that example and saying that it doesn't apply because it is additional information beyond the answer to a question that has to do with something else is just inventing an excuse to ignore it. You are just yelling "I want hamburgers on Thursday!"
Right, the direct question made no mention, and Crawford did not qualify his answer with, "well if you are asking because the spell also requires material components or an arcane focus, as opposed to just asking the question you asked, then here is my answer to that different question". He just answered the question asked. And he answered it the way he did in the tweet. He then gave a different answer when he was asked a completely different question. So maybe they need someone else to do this, but anyway.
Anyway, the obiter dictum rule of interpreting legal judgements is centuries old. It does not mean that the dicta can be disregarded, those statements can be persuasive or influential. But they are not binding. This rule makes sense because experience tells us that people better focus their mind on a specific question when they are faced with it, as opposed to when they riff on things that may relate to that question as part of an answer to a different question. It applies as a sort of rule of interpretation in all common law jurisdictions around the world, and is also influential in civil law/inquisitorial jurisdictions. I definitely did not make it up. It is not a rule of interpreting the PHB or D&D rules, but the logic of it still applies.
More importantly, explain how this dicta, if followed strictly, could matter? In other words, everyone can follow your ruling and still have their cheeseburger on Thursday, so why do you care so much?
This example clearly states that a spell with somatic but without material components can not be completed when both hands are occupied. JC even points to that example when asked more directly about that situation. It all boils back to the fact that the material component rules are the rules that allow you to fulfill both M and S components with one free hand, but that material component rule caveat does not apply when a spell does not have material components.
You may have found an excuse that would allow you to disregard a logical and well formulated interpretation in a court, but this is just reading rules. And in terms of reading rules, you are just making an excuse. (By the way, your excuse is far more circuitous than others, who simply disregard anything outside of the PHB, MM, and DMG -- next time you can use that simpler excuse)
Why is it that on this form the people who seem to profess to know the most about law seem to have the hardest time interpreting rules?
There is nothing "logical" (to the extent logic applies to our beloved make-believe spell casting) about saying you can perform somatic components with your hand while it is holding an arcane focus if the spell requires material components, but you cannot perform somatic components with an arcane focus in your hand if the spell does not require material components. Quite the opposite, in fact.
Logical would be either: 1) you can always perform somatic components with an arcane focus in your hand (arcane focus exempt from free hand requirement, basically);
or 2) you can never do so (free hand always means truly free hand).
Then there would be a logic, in the form of consistency, to performing somatic components whenever they are required actually written into the rules.
The RAW are not well-formulated on this issue, because the rule on somatic components is silent on the issue of arcane foci/material components. This is poor drafting, because they are a huge part of casting. But sure, if there was no mention of being able to perform somatic components with the same hand that holds your arcane focus/material components written anywhere in the rules, then perhaps free hand would just mean free hand (the logic of example 2, above). Unfortunately, we don't need to read much further to learn that free hand does not seem to mean free hand when it comes to material components and arcane foci. A few sentences later, the rules mention that you can perform a somatic component with the same hand holding your material components/arcane focus when you cast a spell that requires material components or your arcane focus. So the only time the rules directly address the question of whether it is possible to perform somatic components with an arcane focus in one's hand, the answer is yes. You see that as also including (implictly, I guess) a logical and well-formulated rule to the contrary when an arcane focus/material component is not required. But you are reading in a meta-rule that players can only do what the rules say they can do when the rules say they can do it, and otherwise it is prohibited. But that's not how you should read any set of rules, unless the rules expressly say so. They don't. They do say specific beats general. But that can support either of our interpretations (its a specific rule that applies only to S,M spells or it's a specific rule that applies to the meaning of free hand when applied to arcane foci/material components), so it does not resolve this issue.
Sure one can imagine that spells with somatic components but no material components require much more complex movements than do spells that have both somatic and material components or that the somatic component deliberately works with the material component or arcane focus when the spell requires both, but that is just making shit up to explain the SAC.
The only interpretation of the rules that actually treats arcane foci/material components as they relate to the meaning of free hand consistently, and therefore "logically", is the opposite of your interpretation. It is not surprising that this was Crawford's initial reaction to the question.
So a rule with a clear statement and then a following rule with an exception to that clear statement combine to yield a general rule that is contrary to the original direct statement in an exception based rules system?
A hand occupied with the object that you need the free hand to manipulate in the first place is free to manipulate that object.
Only one free hand is required when a spell requires both a free hand for material and a free hand for somatic components.
ok let me rephrase it. An empty hand is a free hand, but if that same hand reaches for a material component for a spell, it doesn’t stop being “free”
I’m still trying to make sense of the distinction of why holding an arcane focus in your hand is fine for SM spells, but problematic for S spells.
It doesn't make sense insofar as the rules are meant to be symbolic of actual things within the fictional world. But the SAC says that that's what the rule's intent is. Sometimes rules are to be understood in the context of the game as a game rather than the game as a means of narrating a story with internal consistency and verisimilitude.
That said, the actual text of the PHB doesn't unambiguously support the SAC interpretation, which is why it's in the SAC and why we have so many threads about it.
It doesn't make sense insofar as the rules are meant to be symbolic of actual things within the fictional world. But the SAC says that that's what the rule's intent is. Sometimes rules are to be understood in the context of the game as a game rather than the game as a means of narrating a story with internal consistency and verisimilitude.
That said, the actual text of the PHB doesn't unambiguously support the SAC interpretation, which is why it's in the SAC and why we have so many threads about it.
I respect that perspective. But it’s still important to me because rules that don’t make sense are rules that get ignored at our table. And I don’t want to ignore a meaningful rule just because I don’t understand it properly.
It doesn't make sense insofar as the rules are meant to be symbolic of actual things within the fictional world. But the SAC says that that's what the rule's intent is. Sometimes rules are to be understood in the context of the game as a game rather than the game as a means of narrating a story with internal consistency and verisimilitude.
That said, the actual text of the PHB doesn't unambiguously support the SAC interpretation, which is why it's in the SAC and why we have so many threads about it.
I respect that perspective. But it’s still important to me because rules that don’t make sense are rules that get ignored at our table. And I don’t want to ignore a meaningful rule just because I don’t understand it properly.
The only way to make sense of it then is to accept that there are, invisibly, two distinct kinds of somatic component, one of which only exists when the spell also has a material component. WolfOfTheBees's hamburger metaphor is cute, but it ignores the actual problem people have.
For what it's worth, the requirement that we accept this new fourth kind of spell component that is never explicitly mentioned is the reason I personally reject the SAC interpretation. To me, it's far less problematic to say that a sentence under the Material Component header that is explicitly about somatic components can apply even when there isn't a material component to the spell.
So a rule with a clear statement and then a following rule with an exception to that clear statement combine to yield a general rule that is contrary to the original direct statement in an exception based rules system?
I have already answered that, but here I go again. As I mentioned, it really depends on how you define the exception/specific rule. As you see it, the exception/specific rule is, free hand does not mean free hand when it comes to S,M spells, it means free hand plus material component/arcane foci, but it does mean free hand for S spells. On your reading, free hand means something different depending on the spell's component requirements. I see it as, free hand always means the same thing throughout the rules, and the specific rule is that you still are considered as having a free hand for somatic components even if that hand has a material component or arcane foci in it. My reading is consistent with another popular rule for interpreting texts, which is that the same word or phrase (free hand) should be given the same meaning in the same text unless there is some other clear indication in the rules or the drafting history that would suggest that the same word or phrase is intended to be interpreted differently in different parts of the same text. Following this interpretation rule, an interpreter would generally avoid giving the same phrase, "free hand", a different interpretation on the basis of something implicit. And proximity within the text would actually be a factor in favor of interpreting "free hand" consistently. Anyway, I can lawyer you all night as to why I think my interpretation is better, but I think we've both read enough. And you have the most recent interpretation from the SAC, so by all means use it. I actually think the more fun interpretation is more consistent with the RAW. And I'm not trying to gain anything, certainly not a hamburger, because as you have implicitly conceded by avoiding answering my question, a player loses nothing but the time it takes to say, I sheathe/put away/stow my focus or weapon in round A, and I unsheathe/take out that thing in round B.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
You're wrong man, including about how to read the rules as well as on how these two rules that are both about use of hands and somatic components of spells, but you dont have to believe me, here is Sage Advice in response to this very question:
https://www.sageadvice.eu/2016/01/25/can-you-perform-somatic-components-of-spells-with-a-hand-holding-an-arcane-focus/
I WANT HAMBURGERS!!!
You point to a perfectly valid answer to a question that doesn't cover your precise situation as proof, whereas the exact situation is spelled out in the SAC.
Sorry, the exact question answered by Jeremy Crawford was "Can you perform somatic components of spells with a hand holding an arcane focus?" That was precisely the situation that I am interested in and the question does not make any reference to a spell with somatic and material components, and he answered it by reference to the exact rule that I, and others, have pointed to as evidence against the reading that you cannot. There is, at best, a contradiction between this Jeremy Crawford tweet and that DnD Beyond SAC. I'd say the general rule follows from Crawford's answer to the general question in that case.
There is no contradiction because his answer assumes the spell has a material component.
Look at the official example.
Actually, it is a much more direct question going to the very issue than is this,
What’s the amount of interaction needed to use a spellcasting focus? Does it have to be included in the somatic component?
Which is the question that gives rise to the example/answer you rely on. In that case, the answer about a Cleric casting cure wounds that you are relying on is not even directed at the question asked. It goes beyond the question asked and follows the direct answer to the question asked. This would be what's called obiter dictum ("dicta" for short in the States) and is generally treated as not binding when it is part of a legal ruling. Therefore, given that Crawford is asked the exact question in my example, his answer would rule. DnD Beyond probably should add it to their SAC.
I really don't see a problem or a contradiction with both examples. When it comes to somatic components, you need a free hand for spellcasting.
Am I incorrectly oversimplifying things?
"Not all those who wander are lost"
It’s not “their SAC.” The SAC is officially published by WotC. Crawford wrote it. Any tweet of his that isn’t included in the SAC is not an official ruling.
I would say so.
Yes, of course, but Crawford's tweets are generally intended as previews of answers that may be found in future SACs (it says so in the SAC, I know it says may and I know this tweet predates the date of this SAC by three years). It's the only time he answered the direct question, as opposed to offering up an example in response to a different question. Here comes the big anyway:
Anyway, an earlier comment rightly pointed out that putting down and picking up an item (or stowing and unstowing an item), are free actions. So under the RAW you can sheathe or stow the item, still have an action and movement, and then, on your next turn, unsheathe/unstow the item, and still have an action and movement, including using that unsheathed or unstowed item. So how could this ever matter? I've never played with a DM who required a cleric to stow their mace in order to cast cure wounds, and thank the gods, because fun and the rule of cool still matter more. And who casts cure wounds in combat? It's not optimal use of the action economy!
The direct question that he answered in your linked tweet made no mention as to whether the spell had material components.
The exact situation is described in that example that I provided and saying that it doesn't apply because it is additional information beyond the answer to a question that has to do with something else is just inventing an excuse to ignore it. You are just yelling "I want hamburgers on Thursday!"
Right, the direct question made no mention, and Crawford did not qualify his answer with, "well if you are asking because the spell also requires material components or an arcane focus, as opposed to just asking the question you asked, then here is my answer to that different question". He just answered the question asked. And he answered it the way he did in the tweet. He then gave a different answer when he was asked a completely different question. So maybe they need someone else to do this, but anyway.
Anyway, the obiter dictum rule of interpreting legal judgements is centuries old. It does not mean that the dicta can be disregarded, those statements can be persuasive or influential. But they are not binding. This rule makes sense because experience tells us that people better focus their mind on a specific question when they are faced with it, as opposed to when they riff on things that may relate to that question as part of an answer to a different question. It applies as a sort of rule of interpretation in all common law jurisdictions around the world, and is also influential in civil law/inquisitorial jurisdictions. I definitely did not make it up. It is not a rule of interpreting the PHB or D&D rules, but the logic of it still applies.
More importantly, explain how this dicta, if followed strictly, could matter? In other words, everyone can follow your ruling and still have their cheeseburger on Thursday, so why do you care so much?
This example clearly states that a spell with somatic but without material components can not be completed when both hands are occupied. JC even points to that example when asked more directly about that situation. It all boils back to the fact that the material component rules are the rules that allow you to fulfill both M and S components with one free hand, but that material component rule caveat does not apply when a spell does not have material components.
You may have found an excuse that would allow you to disregard a logical and well formulated interpretation in a court, but this is just reading rules. And in terms of reading rules, you are just making an excuse. (By the way, your excuse is far more circuitous than others, who simply disregard anything outside of the PHB, MM, and DMG -- next time you can use that simpler excuse)
Why is it that on this form the people who seem to profess to know the most about law seem to have the hardest time interpreting rules?
More examples.
There is nothing "logical" (to the extent logic applies to our beloved make-believe spell casting) about saying you can perform somatic components with your hand while it is holding an arcane focus if the spell requires material components, but you cannot perform somatic components with an arcane focus in your hand if the spell does not require material components. Quite the opposite, in fact.
Logical would be either:
1) you can always perform somatic components with an arcane focus in your hand (arcane focus exempt from free hand requirement, basically);
or 2) you can never do so (free hand always means truly free hand).
Then there would be a logic, in the form of consistency, to performing somatic components whenever they are required actually written into the rules.
The RAW are not well-formulated on this issue, because the rule on somatic components is silent on the issue of arcane foci/material components. This is poor drafting, because they are a huge part of casting. But sure, if there was no mention of being able to perform somatic components with the same hand that holds your arcane focus/material components written anywhere in the rules, then perhaps free hand would just mean free hand (the logic of example 2, above). Unfortunately, we don't need to read much further to learn that free hand does not seem to mean free hand when it comes to material components and arcane foci. A few sentences later, the rules mention that you can perform a somatic component with the same hand holding your material components/arcane focus when you cast a spell that requires material components or your arcane focus. So the only time the rules directly address the question of whether it is possible to perform somatic components with an arcane focus in one's hand, the answer is yes. You see that as also including (implictly, I guess) a logical and well-formulated rule to the contrary when an arcane focus/material component is not required. But you are reading in a meta-rule that players can only do what the rules say they can do when the rules say they can do it, and otherwise it is prohibited. But that's not how you should read any set of rules, unless the rules expressly say so. They don't. They do say specific beats general. But that can support either of our interpretations (its a specific rule that applies only to S,M spells or it's a specific rule that applies to the meaning of free hand when applied to arcane foci/material components), so it does not resolve this issue.
Sure one can imagine that spells with somatic components but no material components require much more complex movements than do spells that have both somatic and material components or that the somatic component deliberately works with the material component or arcane focus when the spell requires both, but that is just making shit up to explain the SAC.
The only interpretation of the rules that actually treats arcane foci/material components as they relate to the meaning of free hand consistently, and therefore "logically", is the opposite of your interpretation. It is not surprising that this was Crawford's initial reaction to the question.
So a rule with a clear statement and then a following rule with an exception to that clear statement combine to yield a general rule that is contrary to the original direct statement in an exception based rules system?
ok let me rephrase it. An empty hand is a free hand, but if that same hand reaches for a material component for a spell, it doesn’t stop being “free”
I’m still trying to make sense of the distinction of why holding an arcane focus in your hand is fine for SM spells, but problematic for S spells.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
It doesn't make sense insofar as the rules are meant to be symbolic of actual things within the fictional world. But the SAC says that that's what the rule's intent is. Sometimes rules are to be understood in the context of the game as a game rather than the game as a means of narrating a story with internal consistency and verisimilitude.
That said, the actual text of the PHB doesn't unambiguously support the SAC interpretation, which is why it's in the SAC and why we have so many threads about it.
I respect that perspective. But it’s still important to me because rules that don’t make sense are rules that get ignored at our table. And I don’t want to ignore a meaningful rule just because I don’t understand it properly.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
The only way to make sense of it then is to accept that there are, invisibly, two distinct kinds of somatic component, one of which only exists when the spell also has a material component. WolfOfTheBees's hamburger metaphor is cute, but it ignores the actual problem people have.
For what it's worth, the requirement that we accept this new fourth kind of spell component that is never explicitly mentioned is the reason I personally reject the SAC interpretation. To me, it's far less problematic to say that a sentence under the Material Component header that is explicitly about somatic components can apply even when there isn't a material component to the spell.
I have already answered that, but here I go again. As I mentioned, it really depends on how you define the exception/specific rule. As you see it, the exception/specific rule is, free hand does not mean free hand when it comes to S,M spells, it means free hand plus material component/arcane foci, but it does mean free hand for S spells. On your reading, free hand means something different depending on the spell's component requirements. I see it as, free hand always means the same thing throughout the rules, and the specific rule is that you still are considered as having a free hand for somatic components even if that hand has a material component or arcane foci in it. My reading is consistent with another popular rule for interpreting texts, which is that the same word or phrase (free hand) should be given the same meaning in the same text unless there is some other clear indication in the rules or the drafting history that would suggest that the same word or phrase is intended to be interpreted differently in different parts of the same text. Following this interpretation rule, an interpreter would generally avoid giving the same phrase, "free hand", a different interpretation on the basis of something implicit. And proximity within the text would actually be a factor in favor of interpreting "free hand" consistently. Anyway, I can lawyer you all night as to why I think my interpretation is better, but I think we've both read enough. And you have the most recent interpretation from the SAC, so by all means use it. I actually think the more fun interpretation is more consistent with the RAW. And I'm not trying to gain anything, certainly not a hamburger, because as you have implicitly conceded by avoiding answering my question, a player loses nothing but the time it takes to say, I sheathe/put away/stow my focus or weapon in round A, and I unsheathe/take out that thing in round B.