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.
This goes to the other question that has come up on the forums recently: you may not have the amount of object interactions need to do everything you want to on a turn. You cannot sheath your wand and draw it again on the same turn. You may not be able to cast a particular bonus action spell and make an attack depending on what you start your turn with in your hands. If you sheath your weapon, you also cannot make opportunity attacks with it in the intervening turns between your round A turn and your round B turn. There are only a few edge cases where it matters, but it does limit your action versatility. Generally, it makes you think about what is in your hands before you cast. If the intent wasn't to make you think about what you were holding before you cast, there wouldn't be rules about what you can hold when you cast.
And yes, apparently you could rules lawyer circles around me, but that still doesn't change your wrong interpretation based on arbitrary laws of how you think you should interpret rules and not based on comprehending the actual text of the rules. I don't understand either you or saga's claim that my interpretation requires different rules for S,M spells other than the actually differentrules that are actually written in the text. You make a very ... long... argument about it, but it ignores too many facts of the text of the rules for it to be persuasive. When a spell has no M component, M rules don't apply. Just like when you don't have advantage, the rules for advantage don't apply.
And you know what? I know this RAI isn't RAF, whether or not it is RAW. But the question here is just a question on how these exceptions work.
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.
This goes to the other question that has come up on the forums recently: you may not have the amount of object interactions need to do everything you want to on a turn. You cannot sheath your wand and draw it again on the same turn. You may not be able to cast a particular bonus action spell and make an attack depending on what you start your turn with in your hands. If you sheath your weapon, you also cannot make opportunity attacks with it in the intervening turns between your round A turn and your round B turn. There are only a few edge cases where it matters, but it does limit your action versatility. Generally, it makes you think about what is in your hands before you cast. If the intent wasn't to make you think about what you were holding before you cast, there wouldn't be rules about what you can hold when you cast.
And yes, apparently you could rules lawyer circles around me, but that still doesn't change your wrong interpretation based on arbitrary laws of how you think you should interpret rules and not based on comprehending the actual text of the rules. I don't understand either you or saga's claim that my interpretation requires different rules for S,M spells other than the actually different rules that are actually written in the text. You make a very ... long... argument about it, but it ignores too many facts of the text of the rules for it to be persuasive. When a spell has no M component, M rules don't apply. Just like when you don't have advantage, the rules for advantage don't apply.
I don't think that I have ignored any text in the PHB, have I? You are ignoring that we are talking about a rule about S, written in a rule about M, when the main rule about S is silent on it. There is nothing actually written about arcane foci or material components in the rule on somatic components, so there are not actually different rules about arcane foci as they apply to somatic components actually written in the rules. You are interpreting the rules as including that prohibition (to be fair to you, so is Jeremy Crawford, sometimes), and then claiming it is crazy to think that the only thing that is written about the interaction between arcane foci/material components and somatic components in the rules applies to all circumstances where those things interact.
I love that centuries-old rules of interpreting written texts and legal rulings of judges are arbitrary. Not directly applicable to the situation, no doubt. But more arbitrary than Jeremy Crawford's inconsistent interpretations of an ambiguous section of the PHB, please. He should try following these interpretive guidelines himself, it seems he could use the help.
There is nothing actually written about arcane foci or material components in the rule on somatic components...
EXACTLY. The rules tell you exactly what they do. The rules for somatic components tell you exactly what you need when you have a spell that has a somatic component. No more, no less. That is my entire point. They don't care about focii because they are unrelated to S components in so far as themselves. You are the one who is trying to add in text from the M rules to spells that don't have M components. I don't know why that makes me the wrong one, still. Say it in simple terms. Why is it that a spell with out the M component should be beholden to M rules?
Why shouldn't I apply advantage rules when I don't have advantage?
I'm very unlikely to stop my game mid-action to ask my casters if they have put away their wand or staff or shield or whatever in order to cast a spell. It's incredible unheroic. I also don't want my players to shout at me "Wait, wait! the shaman didn't drop his totem and dagger before casting that spell!"
Play how you want to play. Whether you agree with the a certain interpretation of the rules or not, your table is YOUR table. If you go play at another, then ask how it works there.
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?"
You can hold an infinite number of items in a hand, switching items between hands is a non-action. You can only use one item in a hand, with the exception being a shield which is donned and can always be used, but items held in the shield hand cannot be used. It is VERY easy to have a free hand without dropping, stowing, sheathing, or leaning anything...
For the people questioning why somatic components can be accomplished when a material component is involved but not when a material component is not involved, here is an example of why it could matter: SM component- draw a J on a chalk board with a piece of chalk. The chalk is a material component as is the chalk board. The J motion is the somatic component. S component- perform the Vulcan salute. If you don't know what I'm talking about, google it. Yes it is related to Spock from Star Trek. There is no way that you can perform the Vulcan salute while holding an item.
There is nothing in the rules that state what the somatic components look like, aside from something like Burning Hands potentially. All we have is the rules that say you need a free hand to perform somatic components and then a more specific rule that states that if a material component is required, the hand that holds the material component can perform the somatic component. This is further added to by the rule that a focus may take the place of a material component as long as the component doesn't have a value listed.
Therefore, as far as we know, the examples I have given to start are representative of the types of somatic components that are required for spells. This distinction is only important for a RAW reading. In this case, RAI is that the rules were added to prevent abuse. RAF can go either way. I cast my spells using my wand and that's it. WEEEEEEE! Or, the weave can be interacted with in many ways. However, the difference between holding only my thumb up (gesture meaning "It's good" in the US) and only holding my middle finger up (a very rude gesture in the US, if performed in the right way) causes different effects. WEEEEEE! (Incidentally, those same features can mean very different things in different countries. Perhaps this is why the gestures for somatic components weren't described?)
Can your arcane hand be used as a free hand for magic casting? For example, your wizard has been wrapped in a carpet for transportation but uses his arcane hand to cast the burning hands spell.
Probably not. It's not really your hand, Mage Hand does say that it can't be used to activate magic items which puts a focus into a grey area for some people, and it only has a duration of 1 minute and has a somatic component itself. At best, it's DM discretion.
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.
That makes sense to me. I wouldn't even use the workd "invisibly" as the distinction is there in the rules.
(Ignoring V component) A spell with S component requires one free hand to make magical gestures. A spell with M component requires one hand holding the components or focus or pouch. A spell with M and S components requires one hand holding the components or focus or pouch and making magical gestures.
If the components or focus or pouch are not in the hand at the start of casting then you'll need to retrieve them from wherever they are. This requires an object interaction.
There are of course exceptions. For example, Clerics and paladins can engrave a holy symbol on a shield. For spells with M components and spells with M and S components, the hand holding the shield can be used to cast the spell.
Essentially, if you want to cast while using a shield and a focus you have to take a feat tax with Warcaster.
Foci are supposed to make things easier, not harder. Derp.
Normally, foci do make things easier. Somatic components only, they don't. Component Pouches don't have this problem. Of course, people like to put weapons in their free hand when they aren't using a focus so there isn't much change.
This is what gives Warcaster or something like the Ruby of the War Mage or the Paladin and Cleric being able to emblazon their holy symbols on their shields and use it as a focus since mechanical power. It adds some roleplay opportunities and gives a cue for it. It adds nuance.
That said, many people ignore spellcasting components or simply lose track of the minutiae during the heat of the moment. DMs have plenty to keep track of during combat. You'll likely be able to get away with skirting the specifics on this frequently if not completely.
This is a bullshit rule, TBH. Essentially, if you want to cast while using a shield and a focus you have to take a feat tax with Warcaster.
Martial characters have to make constant trade-offs between damage, AC, access to special attacks like grappling, and range. A fighter with a longsword and shield doesn't have a ranged attack or grapple. Holding the longsword two-handed they lose some AC, can grapple and still attack, and get a small damage increase but not as much as a proper two-handed weapon. With a javelin and shield they gain a short ranged attack, but they lose some damage compared to the sword and need to have another weapon handy. With a greatsword they deal the most damage but lose AC and don't have an effective attack if they grapple. With a halberd they get more reach but lose some damage. With a longbow they have a powerful long ranged attack, but no melee attack.
Meanwhile an empty-handed spellcaster has access to both powerful magical melee and ranged attacks (most cantrips have no M component) and almost half of their spell list. Holding a focus in one hand gets them access to the rest. Considering the amazing range of abilities that spellcasting enables, I don't think it's too much to ask that spellcasters occasionally worry about what's in their hand.
That said, I think they could've made the rules more intuitive if S and M were mutually exclusive; a spell has one or the other but not both. It wouldn't change anything in practice but it'd stop players from feeling like they've been tricked by the rules.
This is a bullshit rule, TBH. Essentially, if you want to cast while using a shield and a focus you have to take a feat tax with Warcaster.
Martial characters have to make constant trade-offs between damage, AC, access to special attacks like grappling, and range. A fighter with a longsword and shield doesn't have a ranged attack or grapple. Holding the longsword two-handed they lose some AC, can grapple and still attack, and get a small damage increase but not as much as a proper two-handed weapon. With a javelin and shield they gain a short ranged attack, but they lose some damage compared to the sword and need to have another weapon handy. With a greatsword they deal the most damage but lose AC and don't have an effective attack if they grapple. With a halberd they get more reach but lose some damage. With a longbow they have a powerful long ranged attack, but no melee attack.
Meanwhile an empty-handed spellcaster has access to both powerful magical melee and ranged attacks (most cantrips have no M component) and almost half of their spell list. Holding a focus in one hand gets them access to the rest. Considering the amazing range of abilities that spellcasting enables, I don't think it's too much to ask that spellcasters occasionally worry about what's in their hand.
That said, I think they could've made the rules more intuitive if S and M were mutually exclusive; a spell has one or the other but not both. It wouldn't change anything in practice but it'd stop players from feeling like they've been tricked by the rules.
Good points, good points.
I'm just salty because I'm building an artificer, and the rules "penalize" artificers for actually using their infusions (Repulsion shield and the beefed up focus infusion). This combo does not really work without warcaster.
Wait, I don't think you can use the enhanced arcane focus infusion as the artificer anyway. You are specifically required to use artisans of thieves' tools as a focus as an artificer for every spell that you cast, and that infusion specifically doesn't make tools.
Wait, I don't think you can use the enhanced arcane focus infusion as the artificer anyway. You are specifically required to use artisans tools as a focus as an artificer for every spell that you cast, and that infusion specifically doesn't make tools.
From the artificer's Spellcasting feature description: "After you gain the Infuse Item feature at 2nd level, you can also use any item bearing one of your infusions as a spellcasting focus."
This is particularly annoying with items such as a Wand of the War Mage, as they do count as arcane foci, but must be held, and thus if you want to use it to boost a ranged attack spell without a material component (e.g. Ray of Frost) you need two free hands.
Wait, I don't think you can use the enhanced arcane focus infusion as the artificer anyway. You are specifically required to use artisans tools as a focus as an artificer for every spell that you cast, and that infusion specifically doesn't make tools.
Firstly, Huh, good point. Secondly, I think there's a way around this. At level 5 artillerist get "arcane firearms," which are wands/staves/rods. That's what I had in mind but I failed to be precise
This begs the question, can an artillerist stack an infused wand with the arcane firearm ability? I believe RAW says yes.
Arcane Firearm
At 5th level, you know how to turn a wand, staff, or rod into an arcane firearm, a conduit for your destructive spells. When you finish a long rest, you can use woodcarver’s tools to carve special sigils into a wand, staff, or rod and thereby turn it into your arcane firearm. The sigils disappear from the object if you later carve them on a different item. The sigils otherwise last indefinitely.
You can use your arcane firearm as a spellcasting focus for your artificer spells. When you cast an artificer spell through the firearm, roll a d8, and you gain a bonus to one of the spell’s damage rolls equal to the number rolled.
Note that nowhere in this rule does it require a non-magical wand, staff, or rod, and also that the Arcane Firearm is not an infusion.
Wait, I don't think you can use the enhanced arcane focus infusion as the artificer anyway. You are specifically required to use artisans tools as a focus as an artificer for every spell that you cast, and that infusion specifically doesn't make tools.
From the artificer's Spellcasting feature description: "After you gain the Infuse Item feature at 2nd level, you can also use any item bearing one of your infusions as a spellcasting focus."
Ok. Does that change the part that their spells all require a focus? (meaning that if you are able to cast any spells, you can cast all of your spells?)
In fact, the artificer seems to have the easiest spell casting of any class due to their reliance on focii: they just need an infusion on them or tools in hand and they can cast anything.
I'm not sure what any of that has to do with my comment. You said: "You are specifically required to use artisans tools as a focus as an artificer for every spell that you cast" to suggest that the artificer couldn't benefit from their own enhanced arcane focus. I was just pointing out that an artificer can benefit from enhanced arcane focus, because they can use anything they've infused as a focus, not just artisan's tools.
I'm not sure what any of that has to do with my comment. You said: "You are specifically required to use artisans tools as a focus as an artificer for every spell that you cast" to suggest that the artificer couldn't benefit from their own enhanced arcane focus. I was just pointing out that an artificer can benefit from enhanced arcane focus, because they can use anything they've infused as a focus, not just artisan's tools.
Apparently nothing because your comment was just to nitpick my error, not to add to the conversation. These crazy S,M interactions have no bearing on the artificer class.
This goes to the other question that has come up on the forums recently: you may not have the amount of object interactions need to do everything you want to on a turn. You cannot sheath your wand and draw it again on the same turn. You may not be able to cast a particular bonus action spell and make an attack depending on what you start your turn with in your hands. If you sheath your weapon, you also cannot make opportunity attacks with it in the intervening turns between your round A turn and your round B turn. There are only a few edge cases where it matters, but it does limit your action versatility. Generally, it makes you think about what is in your hands before you cast. If the intent wasn't to make you think about what you were holding before you cast, there wouldn't be rules about what you can hold when you cast.
And yes, apparently you could rules lawyer circles around me, but that still doesn't change your wrong interpretation based on arbitrary laws of how you think you should interpret rules and not based on comprehending the actual text of the rules. I don't understand either you or saga's claim that my interpretation requires different rules for S,M spells other than the actually different rules that are actually written in the text. You make a very ... long... argument about it, but it ignores too many facts of the text of the rules for it to be persuasive. When a spell has no M component, M rules don't apply. Just like when you don't have advantage, the rules for advantage don't apply.
And you know what? I know this RAI isn't RAF, whether or not it is RAW. But the question here is just a question on how these exceptions work.
I don't think that I have ignored any text in the PHB, have I? You are ignoring that we are talking about a rule about S, written in a rule about M, when the main rule about S is silent on it. There is nothing actually written about arcane foci or material components in the rule on somatic components, so there are not actually different rules about arcane foci as they apply to somatic components actually written in the rules. You are interpreting the rules as including that prohibition (to be fair to you, so is Jeremy Crawford, sometimes), and then claiming it is crazy to think that the only thing that is written about the interaction between arcane foci/material components and somatic components in the rules applies to all circumstances where those things interact.
I love that centuries-old rules of interpreting written texts and legal rulings of judges are arbitrary. Not directly applicable to the situation, no doubt. But more arbitrary than Jeremy Crawford's inconsistent interpretations of an ambiguous section of the PHB, please. He should try following these interpretive guidelines himself, it seems he could use the help.
EXACTLY. The rules tell you exactly what they do. The rules for somatic components tell you exactly what you need when you have a spell that has a somatic component. No more, no less. That is my entire point. They don't care about focii because they are unrelated to S components in so far as themselves. You are the one who is trying to add in text from the M rules to spells that don't have M components. I don't know why that makes me the wrong one, still. Say it in simple terms. Why is it that a spell with out the M component should be beholden to M rules?
Why shouldn't I apply advantage rules when I don't have advantage?
I'm very unlikely to stop my game mid-action to ask my casters if they have put away their wand or staff or shield or whatever in order to cast a spell. It's incredible unheroic. I also don't want my players to shout at me "Wait, wait! the shaman didn't drop his totem and dagger before casting that spell!"
Play how you want to play. Whether you agree with the a certain interpretation of the rules or not, your table is YOUR table. If you go play at another, then ask how it works there.
"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
You can hold an infinite number of items in a hand, switching items between hands is a non-action. You can only use one item in a hand, with the exception being a shield which is donned and can always be used, but items held in the shield hand cannot be used. It is VERY easy to have a free hand without dropping, stowing, sheathing, or leaning anything...
For the people questioning why somatic components can be accomplished when a material component is involved but not when a material component is not involved, here is an example of why it could matter: SM component- draw a J on a chalk board with a piece of chalk. The chalk is a material component as is the chalk board. The J motion is the somatic component. S component- perform the Vulcan salute. If you don't know what I'm talking about, google it. Yes it is related to Spock from Star Trek. There is no way that you can perform the Vulcan salute while holding an item.
There is nothing in the rules that state what the somatic components look like, aside from something like Burning Hands potentially. All we have is the rules that say you need a free hand to perform somatic components and then a more specific rule that states that if a material component is required, the hand that holds the material component can perform the somatic component. This is further added to by the rule that a focus may take the place of a material component as long as the component doesn't have a value listed.
Therefore, as far as we know, the examples I have given to start are representative of the types of somatic components that are required for spells. This distinction is only important for a RAW reading. In this case, RAI is that the rules were added to prevent abuse. RAF can go either way. I cast my spells using my wand and that's it. WEEEEEEE! Or, the weave can be interacted with in many ways. However, the difference between holding only my thumb up (gesture meaning "It's good" in the US) and only holding my middle finger up (a very rude gesture in the US, if performed in the right way) causes different effects. WEEEEEE! (Incidentally, those same features can mean very different things in different countries. Perhaps this is why the gestures for somatic components weren't described?)
Can your arcane hand be used as a free hand for magic casting? For example, your wizard has been wrapped in a carpet for transportation but uses his arcane hand to cast the burning hands spell.
Probably not. It's not really your hand, Mage Hand does say that it can't be used to activate magic items which puts a focus into a grey area for some people, and it only has a duration of 1 minute and has a somatic component itself. At best, it's DM discretion.
That makes sense to me. I wouldn't even use the workd "invisibly" as the distinction is there in the rules.
(Ignoring V component)
A spell with S component requires one free hand to make magical gestures.
A spell with M component requires one hand holding the components or focus or pouch.
A spell with M and S components requires one hand holding the components or focus or pouch and making magical gestures.
If the components or focus or pouch are not in the hand at the start of casting then you'll need to retrieve them from wherever they are. This requires an object interaction.
There are of course exceptions. For example, Clerics and paladins can engrave a holy symbol on a shield. For spells with M components and spells with M and S components, the hand holding the shield can be used to cast the spell.
This is a bullshit rule, TBH.
Essentially, if you want to cast while using a shield and a focus you have to take a feat tax with Warcaster.
Foci are supposed to make things easier, not harder. Derp.
Normally, foci do make things easier. Somatic components only, they don't. Component Pouches don't have this problem. Of course, people like to put weapons in their free hand when they aren't using a focus so there isn't much change.
This is what gives Warcaster or something like the Ruby of the War Mage or the Paladin and Cleric being able to emblazon their holy symbols on their shields and use it as a focus since mechanical power. It adds some roleplay opportunities and gives a cue for it. It adds nuance.
That said, many people ignore spellcasting components or simply lose track of the minutiae during the heat of the moment. DMs have plenty to keep track of during combat. You'll likely be able to get away with skirting the specifics on this frequently if not completely.
Martial characters have to make constant trade-offs between damage, AC, access to special attacks like grappling, and range. A fighter with a longsword and shield doesn't have a ranged attack or grapple. Holding the longsword two-handed they lose some AC, can grapple and still attack, and get a small damage increase but not as much as a proper two-handed weapon. With a javelin and shield they gain a short ranged attack, but they lose some damage compared to the sword and need to have another weapon handy. With a greatsword they deal the most damage but lose AC and don't have an effective attack if they grapple. With a halberd they get more reach but lose some damage. With a longbow they have a powerful long ranged attack, but no melee attack.
Meanwhile an empty-handed spellcaster has access to both powerful magical melee and ranged attacks (most cantrips have no M component) and almost half of their spell list. Holding a focus in one hand gets them access to the rest. Considering the amazing range of abilities that spellcasting enables, I don't think it's too much to ask that spellcasters occasionally worry about what's in their hand.
That said, I think they could've made the rules more intuitive if S and M were mutually exclusive; a spell has one or the other but not both. It wouldn't change anything in practice but it'd stop players from feeling like they've been tricked by the rules.
The Forum Infestation (TM)
Good points, good points.
I'm just salty because I'm building an artificer, and the rules "penalize" artificers for actually using their infusions (Repulsion shield and the beefed up focus infusion). This combo does not really work without warcaster.
I'll get over it.
Wait, I don't think you can use the enhanced arcane focus infusion as the artificer anyway. You are specifically required to use artisans of thieves' tools as a focus as an artificer for every spell that you cast, and that infusion specifically doesn't make tools.From the artificer's Spellcasting feature description: "After you gain the Infuse Item feature at 2nd level, you can also use any item bearing one of your infusions as a spellcasting focus."
This is particularly annoying with items such as a Wand of the War Mage, as they do count as arcane foci, but must be held, and thus if you want to use it to boost a ranged attack spell without a material component (e.g. Ray of Frost) you need two free hands.
Firstly, Huh, good point. Secondly, I think there's a way around this. At level 5 artillerist get "arcane firearms," which are wands/staves/rods. That's what I had in mind but I failed to be precise
This begs the question, can an artillerist stack an infused wand with the arcane firearm ability? I believe RAW says yes.
Arcane Firearm
At 5th level, you know how to turn a wand, staff, or rod into an arcane firearm, a conduit for your destructive spells. When you finish a long rest, you can use woodcarver’s tools to carve special sigils into a wand, staff, or rod and thereby turn it into your arcane firearm. The sigils disappear from the object if you later carve them on a different item. The sigils otherwise last indefinitely.
You can use your arcane firearm as a spellcasting focus for your artificer spells. When you cast an artificer spell through the firearm, roll a d8, and you gain a bonus to one of the spell’s damage rolls equal to the number rolled.
Note that nowhere in this rule does it require a non-magical wand, staff, or rod, and also that the Arcane Firearm is not an infusion.
Ok. Does that change the part that their spells all require a focus? (meaning that if you are able to cast any spells, you can cast all of your spells?)
In fact, the artificer seems to have the easiest spell casting of any class due to their reliance on focii: they just need an infusion on them or tools in hand and they can cast anything.
I'm not sure what any of that has to do with my comment. You said: "You are specifically required to use artisans tools as a focus as an artificer for every spell that you cast" to suggest that the artificer couldn't benefit from their own enhanced arcane focus. I was just pointing out that an artificer can benefit from enhanced arcane focus, because they can use anything they've infused as a focus, not just artisan's tools.
Apparently nothing because your comment was just to nitpick my error, not to add to the conversation. These crazy S,M interactions have no bearing on the artificer class.