I feel like it might be a waste of breath to point out that an empty hand that isn't doing something isn't busy. On the other hand (pun intended), a hand holding an unrelated object is busy holding that object.
I think we should all be able to agree. A hand which is busy doing something, is busy. And a hand which is busy doing something, isn't free to do something else.
Not unless a rule gives us a specific exception.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
I think we should all be able to agree. A hand which is busy doing something, is busy. And a hand which is busy doing something, isn't free to do something else.
Actions are discrete in 5e. By the time you are counterspelling the counterspell your hands are no longer busy.
I think the fact that 5e allows taking reactions on your turn is a mistake because it tends to produce results where you are apparently doing two incompatible things at the same time (attack someone adjacent to an enemy with sentinel, they react to hit you, you use defensive duelist to prevent the hit), but there is nothing special about counterspell.
I think we should all be able to agree. A hand which is busy doing something, is busy. And a hand which is busy doing something, isn't free to do something else.
Actions are discrete in 5e. By the time you are counterspelling the counterspell your hands are no longer busy.
This just isn't true in the case of counterspell. Read the first sentence of it.
"You attempt to interrupt a creature in the process of casting a spell."
In the process.
Its right there in the spell description.
I think the fact that 5e allows taking reactions on your turn is a mistake because it tends to produce results where you are apparently doing two incompatible things at the same time (attack someone adjacent to an enemy with sentinel, they react to hit you, you use defensive duelist to prevent the hit), but there is nothing special about counterspell.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
I think we should all be able to agree. A hand which is busy doing something, is busy. And a hand which is busy doing something, isn't free to do something else.
Not unless a rule gives us a specific exception.
In terms of a hand being free for the somatic component of a reaction spell while the same hand is performing the somatic components of an action spell, it appears we do not all agree.
my idea from eldrich whisperer d4 deep dive video: quicken spell dissonant whispers for your bonus action with eldrich blast being cast for your action would then use the enemy's reaction to move out of your range, triggering a warcaster AoT casting of eldrich blast which gets in this nebulous territory of "not on your turn" but also as a process of your turn still finishing up~ its been one of the only interesting perspectives uses of this that I have seen, though it might not necessarily be the most optimal or useful choice at the time~ that just makes me curious about the text ruling for "when are reactions considered to take place" etc~ personally i would say that the players turn ends once the first 2 castings are done and then the reactions playout during an intermediary time in between turns, but that's just my subjective opinion on it. i would love to know if you had a rule in mind for this case.
my idea from eldrich whisperer d4 deep dive video: quicken spell dissonant whispers for your bonus action with eldrich blast being cast for your action would then use the enemy's reaction to move out of your range, triggering a warcaster AoT casting of eldrich blast which gets in this nebulous territory of "not on your turn" but also as a process of your turn still finishing up~ its been one of the only interesting perspectives uses of this that I have seen, though it might not necessarily be the most optimal or useful choice at the time~ that just makes me curious about the text ruling for "when are reactions considered to take place" etc~ personally i would say that the players turn ends once the first 2 castings are done and then the reactions playout during an intermediary time in between turns, but that's just my subjective opinion on it. i would love to know if you had a rule in mind for this case.
The reaction definitely occurs on the caster's turn. There's no such thing as "an intermediary time in between turns." That said, I don't think that would cause any problems. War Caster lets you use your reaction to cast Eldritch Blast, but the spell is still a cantrip with a cast time of one action, so having cast Dissonant Whispers with your bonus action doesn't preclude you from casting it. War Caster also requires a cast time of one action, so if it's valid for War Caster, it's valid for the bonus action rule (with regard to the cast time, anyway). You'd have disadvantage on the attack roll, but that's it.
my idea from eldrich whisperer d4 deep dive video: quicken spell dissonant whispers for your bonus action with eldrich blast being cast for your action would then use the enemy's reaction to move out of your range, triggering a warcaster AoT casting of eldrich blast which gets in this nebulous territory of "not on your turn" but also as a process of your turn still finishing up~ its been one of the only interesting perspectives uses of this that I have seen, though it might not necessarily be the most optimal or useful choice at the time~ that just makes me curious about the text ruling for "when are reactions considered to take place" etc~ personally i would say that the players turn ends once the first 2 castings are done and then the reactions playout during an intermediary time in between turns, but that's just my subjective opinion on it. i would love to know if you had a rule in mind for this case.
The reaction definitely occurs on the caster's turn. There's no such thing as "an intermediary time in between turns." That said, I don't think that would cause any problems. War Caster lets you use your reaction to cast Eldritch Blast, but the spell is still a cantrip with a cast time of one action, so having cast Dissonant Whispers with your bonus action doesn't preclude you from casting it. War Caster also requires a cast time of one action, so if it's valid for War Caster, it's valid for the bonus action rule (with regard to the cast time, anyway). You'd have disadvantage on the attack roll, but that's it.
Unless they use a reach weapon. Super handy if you prefer ranged attack spells for your warcaster OP Attacks.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
as i said in the beginning... RAW the game is weird because WotC couldn'T find a great way to convey their thoughts... thats why playing RAW is weird and probably not the way to play. at my table to avoid such shnanigans, we try to play as logical as one can be. so in my game, you cannot cast a second spell, reguardless of what ruling says unless that second spell is a cantrip. so basically, its always 1 spell and 1 cantrip or inversely 1 cantrip and 1 spell. otherwise we get easy game breaking by just playing as written and getting sorcerers just completely ignore the written rule by always casting the action first and then the bonus action. which by RAW is always possible, but if you do it just makes the ruling completely voided and useless.
its the same reason that forced us to remove the concentration part on paladin smite spells... it makes no sense for them to have concentration to begin with as they literally say "the next hit you do" they already buffer themselves making concentration just a big nerf without any reasons. and i think thats the same reason why they removed them and made them reactions on a hit instead. that actually makes more sense in one d&d playtest.
there are ways to abuse the system still... but by RAW. if you are playing RAW only... yes, a single free hand, as in... nothing in it. not busy or anything... a free hand is simply a hand with nothing in it. you can cast 2 spells in 1 round if you got abilities that allow it to be.
as for spell scrolls... magical items have their own action. its called Magic Item Action. so no use an object on it ! Actions you have in the game... - Attack (which triggers extra attacks), yes it can be used as a ready action and since you triggered the ATTACK action, you do get your extra attack. what you guys meant to say was, AoO do not trigger extra attacks as they are not attack action. Haste specify that extra attack doesn't trigger without it by saying 1 single attack.
- Use an object (which literally means any objects that aren't magical) this is a grey area for potions and this doesn't make sense in itself. but this action is barely ever used in game as players tends to either cast a spell or attack as doing anything else seems like a big waste of an action. which they are right to think so.
- Disengage (which makes no sense whatsoever since everyone has the same speed or faster speed, which makes this a big waste of an action even for those about to be killed, though one rare occurence is, the healer is gonna heal you and move to protect you on his turn right after yours. but the placement option really is too situationnal to be any real good)
- dash action (literally only gives you extra movement speed) thi one is only good in chases and breaks the game in itself...
- Ready action (barely ever use cause of the problems mentionned earlier that can be caused by it... but great against any opponents that can hide during a fight. or against spell casters as they are literally a free counterspell for any people without them) of course the instant spells cannot be stopped by this... but hey concentration spells broken as they are cast are uber powerfull. its important to know this though... movement is not an action. the movement part of the game for characters is voluntarily left out as not an action because it being an action would trigger the "1 action only" per turn. which would make your movement be i move or attack, but not both. so movement is not action you can take within the ready action, as movement is not an action by RAW. even takingthe dash action wouldn'T allow you to move during an opponent turn as the dash action only boost your movement speed when you are moving. so again, movement is not an action in this game. so there is no dashing or moving during opponent turn onless you got an ability that specify movement like the battle master maneuvers does. all that said, the ready action is much more powerfull then people give it credit for. including players 1 shotting by over killing a beholder at level 13 after a paladin uses hypnotic pattern on it. biggest focus fire i ever seen. and no legendary actions in between either since they are all firing at once at the same time on reaction to one another.
- Use a Magic Item (yes scrolls, potions, rods, staves, ring, etc... all use this action) this is stupid since the use an object action exists... more onto that one later...
- Use an Object (useless since nobody ever uses common objects. but this includes alchemist fire, thieves tools or musical instrument that have no magical properties.)
for a list of actions that can be taken, they are all in the PHB under the section, Actions during gameplay !
You're free as a DM to rule that way, but I see nothing in the rules supporting your assertion. Chase your bliss
You don't see anything to support it in the rules because there is nothing to support your interpretation either. The rules do confound us like that sometimes. They just are silent on something when they probably should define it. Here they remain silent on what it means to be a "free hand". I'm of the mind that means it can't be busy. You're not, which, you know, is a position.
But you are indeed correct that DMs do make this ruling. I don't make the ruling for other tables, nor do you. Each DM will make the right call for their table.
you are wrong, there is a description in the book... in the player handbook within the spell section...
Components
A spell’s components are the physical requirements you must meet in order to cast it. Each spell’s description indicates whether it requires verbal (V), somatic (S), or material (M) components. If you can’t provide one or more of a spell’s components, you are unable to cast the spell.
Verbal (V)
Most spells require the chanting of mystic words. The words themselves aren’t the source of the spell’s power; rather, the particular combination of sounds, with specific pitch and resonance, sets the threads of magic in motion. Thus, a character who is gagged or in an area of silence, such as one created by the silence spell, can’t cast a spell with a verbal component.
Somatic (S)
Spellcasting gestures might include a forceful gesticulation or an intricate set of gestures. If a spell requires a somatic component, the caster must have free use of at least one hand to perform these gestures.
Material (M)
Casting some spells requires particular objects, specified in parentheses in the component entry. A character can use a component pouch or a spellcasting focus (found in chapter 5, “Equipment”) in place of the components specified for a spell. But if a cost is indicated for a component, a character must have that specific component before he or she can cast the spell.
If a spell states that a material component is consumed by the spell, the caster must provide this component for each casting of the spell.
A spellcaster must have a hand free to access a spell’s material components — or to hold a spellcasting focus — but it can be the same hand that he or she uses to perform somatic components.
both the somatic descriiption and the material descption explains what it is to be a free hand. the somatic section explains that a free hand is a hand that is not doing, or holding anything. it must completely free to be used for the somatic section. now the material section pushes this further and says, the free hand for somatic can also be used for materials, making spells a single hand thing. so basically... the same hand does everything... this means counterspell can easily be cast with this hand too even if it is a reaction to another counterspell or you casting a spell, because by the time you already cast the spell, your somatic hand is already free for the materials, its easy to make the assumption that material and somatic component can be intermixed.
i will agree to this much... it makes no sense whatsoever in any of the contexts... thats why i always tell my casters to have a free hand and preferably both free hands.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
DM of two gaming groups. Likes to create stuff. Check out my homebrew --> Monsters --> Magical Items --> Races --> Subclasses If you like --> Upvote, If you wanna comment --> Comment
Play by Post Games --> One Shot Adventure - House of Artwood (DM) (Completed)
You've asserted as much but what you quoted that supposedly defines a free hand lacks... a definition of a free hand. Did you provide the wrong quote?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
thats why playing RAW is weird and probably not the way to play. at my table to avoid such shnanigans, we try to play as logical as one can be. so in my game, you cannot cast a second spell, reguardless of what ruling says unless that second spell is a cantrip. so basically, its always 1 spell and 1 cantrip or inversely 1 cantrip and 1 spell. otherwise we get easy game breaking by just playing as written and getting sorcerers just completely ignore the written rule by always casting the action first and then the bonus action. which by RAW is always possible, but if you do it just makes the ruling completely voided and useless.
All rules apply to your full turn though, order doesn't matter.
"You can’t cast another spell during the same turn, except for a cantrip with a casting time of 1 action."
"During the same turn", not "after casting". Pretty clear.
its the same reason that forced us to remove the concentration part on paladin smite spells... it makes no sense for them to have concentration to begin with as they literally say "the next hit you do" they already buffer themselves making concentration just a big nerf without any reasons. and i think thats the same reason why they removed them and made them reactions on a hit instead. that actually makes more sense in one d&d playtest.
They gave them concentration so you can't stack them all - same reason that the reaction change for OneD&D works too.
there are ways to abuse the system still... but by RAW. if you are playing RAW only... yes, a single free hand, as in... nothing in it. not busy or anything... a free hand is simply a hand with nothing in it.
Not sure what this means?...
- Attack (which triggers extra attacks), yes it can be used as a ready action and since you triggered the ATTACK action, you do get your extra attack. what you guys meant to say was, AoO do not trigger extra attacks as they are not attack action. Haste specify that extra attack doesn't trigger without it by saying 1 single attack.
I'm not really sure why you start listing types of actions. But extra attack specifies "on your turn", so no.
Overall not really sure why you came back to a thread that had been dead for 5 months. :<
Overall not really sure why you came back to a thread that had been dead for 5 months. :<
To be fair, the entire post is over 2 years old *shrug*
But you're correct. RAW there are no shenanigans that can be pulled by casting a levelled spell before casting the cantrip on your turn. If someone casts the levelled spell as an action then they've completely exempted themselves from casting a spell as a bonus action that turn. And, of course, "Extra Attack" is restricted by it's own wording of "on your turn".
Paladin concentration is right, it prevents them stacking smites or smite with other concentration spells they might be using. One DnD rules outright restrict it to a single attack but allow it to stack with other concentration spells a Paladin might already have cast and be maintaining.
I missed the whole "Free Hand" discussion on here but I think its interesting enough to deserve it's own thread. I think Ravnodaus actually has a good point and am inclined to believe that the RAW when read with English definitions are more in support of it than against it.
thats why playing RAW is weird and probably not the way to play. at my table to avoid such shnanigans, we try to play as logical as one can be. so in my game, you cannot cast a second spell, reguardless of what ruling says unless that second spell is a cantrip. so basically, its always 1 spell and 1 cantrip or inversely 1 cantrip and 1 spell. otherwise we get easy game breaking by just playing as written and getting sorcerers just completely ignore the written rule by always casting the action first and then the bonus action. which by RAW is always possible, but if you do it just makes the ruling completely voided and useless.
All rules apply to your full turn though, order doesn't matter.
"You can’t cast another spell during the same turn, except for a cantrip with a casting time of 1 action."
"During the same turn", not "after casting". Pretty clear.
its the same reason that forced us to remove the concentration part on paladin smite spells... it makes no sense for them to have concentration to begin with as they literally say "the next hit you do" they already buffer themselves making concentration just a big nerf without any reasons. and i think thats the same reason why they removed them and made them reactions on a hit instead. that actually makes more sense in one d&d playtest.
They gave them concentration so you can't stack them all - same reason that the reaction change for OneD&D works too.
there are ways to abuse the system still... but by RAW. if you are playing RAW only... yes, a single free hand, as in... nothing in it. not busy or anything... a free hand is simply a hand with nothing in it.
Not sure what this means?...
- Attack (which triggers extra attacks), yes it can be used as a ready action and since you triggered the ATTACK action, you do get your extra attack. what you guys meant to say was, AoO do not trigger extra attacks as they are not attack action. Haste specify that extra attack doesn't trigger without it by saying 1 single attack.
I'm not really sure why you start listing types of actions. But extra attack specifies "on your turn", so no.
Overall not really sure why you came back to a thread that had been dead for 5 months. :<
the ruling you showed up is in the "CAST A BONUS ACTION" meaning that ruling doesn'T apply until you cast a spell as a bonus action... meaning that you can cast a spell as an action and then cast another spell as a bonus action. and this was already said to be an oversight from the dev by jeremy crawford himself. RAW you can do it, RAI it was meant to be like you said.
so much stuff you are not doing right if you think you can stack smite spells to one another... they already are limited to a bonus action, by default you can only cast 1 single bonus action spell per turn, that means they are already limited and cannot be stacked... now everything the paladin can do that is worth using concentration on, literally stops the paladin from ever smiting ever again. talk to me about limitation... you either deal a ton of damage, or do support but not both ? at this point the argument is void by itself. smites already have built in limitation by being bonus actions and the next hit... oh sure... you could just wait a few turns, stack them all and then 5 turns later throw a big one... why would you stop that, the paladin just did nothign for 5 turn ?
if you read the other posts, you would of understood why i listed all actions...
as for replying to an old thread... i wasn't... i was answering th elast guy who posted in an old thread about 30 minutes before me.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
DM of two gaming groups. Likes to create stuff. Check out my homebrew --> Monsters --> Magical Items --> Races --> Subclasses If you like --> Upvote, If you wanna comment --> Comment
Play by Post Games --> One Shot Adventure - House of Artwood (DM) (Completed)
"If a spell requires a somatic component, the caster must have free use of at least one hand to perform these gestures [for that one spell]." (p.203)
I added the part in bold to show that RAW does not say it. How many somatic gestures can one hand freely perform? I say one hand can perform as many gestures as are necessary for all the spellcasting you can muster. You can say the rule is ambiguous if you like, but you cannot show that RAW requires the free use of two hands for counterspelling the counterspell of a spell you are casting unless you can produce a rule that says so.
EDIT: As for DnDPaladin's argument that the bonus action casting rule doesn't apply until after you cast the bonus action spell, well here's what RAW says about it. This is from the intro to Xanathar's Guide.
Bonus Action Spells
If you want to cast a spell that has a casting time of 1 bonus action, remember that you can’t cast any other spells before or after it on the same turn, except for cantrips with a casting time of 1 action.
the ruling you showed up is in the "CAST A BONUS ACTION" meaning that ruling doesn'T apply until you cast a spell as a bonus action... meaning that you can cast a spell as an action and then cast another spell as a bonus action. and this was already said to be an oversight from the dev by jeremy crawford himself. RAW you can do it, RAI it was meant to be like you said.
so much stuff you are not doing right if you think you can stack smite spells to one another... they already are limited to a bonus action, by default you can only cast 1 single bonus action spell per turn, that means they are already limited and cannot be stacked... now everything the paladin can do that is worth using concentration on, literally stops the paladin from ever smiting ever again. talk to me about limitation... you either deal a ton of damage, or do support but not both ? at this point the argument is void by itself. smites already have built in limitation by being bonus actions and the next hit... oh sure... you could just wait a few turns, stack them all and then 5 turns later throw a big one... why would you stop that, the paladin just did nothign for 5 turn ?
if you read the other posts, you would of understood why i listed all actions...
as for replying to an old thread... i wasn't... i was answering th elast guy who posted in an old thread about 30 minutes before me.
To others - It's worth nothing that the comment is listed as #118 and the comment before it is listed as #116 so whoever revived the thread has deleted their comment, or there's some crazy restriction preventing the rest of us from seeing Comment #117
Got a link to the video, tweet or comment from Jeremy that the Bonus Action Spell rule has an oversight? I tried searching but just couldn't find anything out there. But with the Bonus Action cast ruling as "You can’t cast another spell during the same turn, except for a cantrip with a casting time of 1 action." I see what you're trying to say but this excludes the bonus action casting after any spell they have cast in their turn which isn't a cantrip with a casting time of 1 action. Otherwise the player would need to explain how they maintain the restriction against casting another spell "during the same turn" which encompasses the entirety of the turn from start to finish. Since a player would be incapable of maintaining the restriction if they cast a Bonus Action, then they're prevented from casting it.
Also, Smite spells have a duration of 1 minute in the current 5e. So if you DO remove "concentration" as a requirement from the Paladin's spells, then what is preventing a paladin from casting different smite spells, for 5-6 turns then hitting once and having all those smite spells apply together on the one target? There's also various effects from the smite which last for the duration of concentration. So you can't hit a creature one turn with Blinding Smite then set them on fire with Searing smite and running around BOTH on fire and blinded. Nor can you have one creature on fire from Searing Smite and another blinded from Blinding Smite.
The purpose of applying concentration is entirely to prevent them stacking either multiple smites cast over several turns into a single hit or applying multiple smite effects to one or more creatures. It's intentional.
EDIT to Texas Devin's post that came in while I was posting.
"If a spell requires a somatic component, the caster must have free use of at least one hand to perform these gestures [for that one spell]." (p.203)
I added the part in bold to show that RAW does not say it. How many somatic gestures can one hand freely perform? I say one hand can perform as many gestures as are necessary for all the spellcasting you can muster. You can say the rule is ambiguous if you like, but you cannot show that RAW requires the free use of two hands for counterspelling the counterspell of a spell you are casting unless you can produce a rule that says so.
Part of what Ravnodaus is saying is that counterspell is "interrupting" the casting of a spell, so the spell is still in the process of being cast.
Since DnD has not put in a specific definition for "Free Hand" then we must use definitions from the English Language. Checking a dictionary for the word "Free" the best definition to apply is likely "not occupied or in use; available:" .
Fireball is relatively easy because it also has a Material component, to either the hand is also occupied with the material, or a focus and other SAGE advice confirms that if the spell has a Somatic component with no Material component, then it must be free, even of a focus.
Then we consider the idea of another, entirely Somatic spell and see the part of the definition for free requiring the hand to not be "in use". The argument then is that since the spell is being "interrupted" then the free hand is still in use for the spell and if you require a free hand to cast a return "counterspell" then you'd require another hand to be free for this.
************
Maybe a better consideration for all of this would be a spell with a somatic component that requires multiple rounds to cast (casting time of 1 minute, for instance). Then we'd be wondering when the casting hand for that can stop to cast Absorb Elements, Counterspell, Shield, Soul Cage, Hellish Rebuke and any other reaction spells with Somatic Components. Or if it should be regarded as "in use" for the duration and require the caster to use a different hand.
I dread to think what it could mean for spells taking multiple rounds to cast with a vocal component and suddenly trying to cast a reaction feather fall in the middle of spilling out another set of magical words.
Side: Personally I don't want to think of any shenanigans that could be created by players suddenly cutting off the hands of opponents and hanging them around their necks on string to claim they have plenty of "free hands" because the DnD rules don't define a "Free Hand"
I follow you. So when you are counterspelling the counterspell of your spell, you are effectively casting one spell in the middle of the other one. I'm with you and Ravnodaus on that part. And you can claim ambiguity because the rules don't come out and say one way or the other. But if holding a component pouch doesn't prevent the "free use of at least one hand" for making the somatic gestures to cast a SM spell, the rules don't give us any reason to believe that the act of making the somatic gestures for a spell prevents the free use of that same hand for making the somatic gestures of a counterspell. Maybe it does. Maybe it doesn't. Maybe fireball wants you to wiggle your fingers and counterspell wants you to stick out your thumb. Or maybe they don't. Or maybe in the process of interrupting your casting, which counterspell explicitly does, you simply transition briefly to the counterspell somatic movements before seamlessly resuming the somatic gestures of the original spell. In that case, you would never be casting more than one spell at a time. Or maybe you're casting both at once. Maybe. Maybe. Maybe.
I'm going to keep using one hand until a SAC entry or a rule tells me that one hand is not adequate.
EDIT: You know what, you have convinced me. Holding the components for fireball means that hand is not free for casting the S-only counterspell.
In reality, this is getting into some of the most nit picking of rules details I can think of and is right in line with the revelation that XGtE gave us that you technically don't know what spell someone is casting when you go to counter it, which then led to the lovely situation that you could use your reaction to work out what spell an enemy spellcaster is casting but then you won't have your reaction to cast counterspell.
So in that crazy scenario, you go to cast a spell, suddenly an opponent is casting a spell as a reaction and you simply have to guess that they're casting counterspell and perform your own counterspell.
...Yeah... All that leads to a fair majority (not all) DMs simply ignoring the rule that you don't know what another caster is casting and telling the players what is being cast so they can counter it or ignore it with that knowledge, then asking the players what they are casting so the DM can decide if their spell caster will counter it.
Whatever we work out here, and even if there was a Dev Tweet, Sage Advice, Errata or even a supplemental book that confirmed somatic reaction spells cast during another somatic spell require a second free hand or vocal spells are impossible in the same situation... I'd dare say the VAST majority of DMs will completely ignore that technicality.
If they don't ignore it then I guess the Sorcerer's Subtle Spell meta-magic will just look that much more attractive.
Yeah, it's wild too because a spellcasting focus is something you hold, so that is definitely out. A component pouch is not the same thing as a spellcasting focus, but we are led to believe it operates the same as one, so do you need to hold it? And what if you are doing none of that and working directly with the M component itself? The rule says you need a hand free to access the component, but it doesn't specify that you need to be holding the actual component when you cast the spell. But if not, then why do you need a free hand for it in the first place? The timing and sequence of counterspell in the middle of casting another is already chaotic enough, but now this adds an extra layer of complexity.
I can think of four situations that can address this conflict:
Having two hands free for spellcasting
The warcaster feat
A two-handed spellcasting focus, like a staff, where you can let go with one hand when needed
Having a wand as a spellcasting focus and carrying it in a wand sheath
The additional detail from SAC that specifies "If a spell has a material component, you need to handle that component when you cast the spell. The same rule applies if you’re using a spellcasting focus as the material component."
That seems to clear it up if the same rule applies regardless of spellcasting focus or material component.
5th condition is the sorcerer meta-magic for subtle spell. But just as it would become more valuable if people start following these rules, the warcaster feat also becomes more valuable since there would be very few (if any) conditions that you could ever face this problem.
I remember an older debate around spells that require two material components, when one has a gold cost (such as Imprisonment) that came to the conclusion you would need two free hands for that one spell because one would hold one component while the other hand would need to hold either the other component, or a focus. And thats a casting time of 1 minute. So for 1 minute (6 rounds) both your hands would need to be available for the spell and occupied by the material requirements, presumably also performing the Somatic gestures with them.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I feel like it might be a waste of breath to point out that an empty hand that isn't doing something isn't busy. On the other hand (pun intended), a hand holding an unrelated object is busy holding that object.
I think we should all be able to agree. A hand which is busy doing something, is busy. And a hand which is busy doing something, isn't free to do something else.
Not unless a rule gives us a specific exception.
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
Actions are discrete in 5e. By the time you are counterspelling the counterspell your hands are no longer busy.
I think the fact that 5e allows taking reactions on your turn is a mistake because it tends to produce results where you are apparently doing two incompatible things at the same time (attack someone adjacent to an enemy with sentinel, they react to hit you, you use defensive duelist to prevent the hit), but there is nothing special about counterspell.
This just isn't true in the case of counterspell. Read the first sentence of it.
"You attempt to interrupt a creature in the process of casting a spell."
In the process.
Its right there in the spell description.
True this.
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
In terms of a hand being free for the somatic component of a reaction spell while the same hand is performing the somatic components of an action spell, it appears we do not all agree.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
All this talk of free hands and busy hands is starting to make me a bit uncomfortable...
my idea from eldrich whisperer d4 deep dive video: quicken spell dissonant whispers for your bonus action with eldrich blast being cast for your action would then use the enemy's reaction to move out of your range, triggering a warcaster AoT casting of eldrich blast which gets in this nebulous territory of "not on your turn" but also as a process of your turn still finishing up~ its been one of the only interesting perspectives uses of this that I have seen, though it might not necessarily be the most optimal or useful choice at the time~ that just makes me curious about the text ruling for "when are reactions considered to take place" etc~ personally i would say that the players turn ends once the first 2 castings are done and then the reactions playout during an intermediary time in between turns, but that's just my subjective opinion on it. i would love to know if you had a rule in mind for this case.
The reaction definitely occurs on the caster's turn. There's no such thing as "an intermediary time in between turns." That said, I don't think that would cause any problems. War Caster lets you use your reaction to cast Eldritch Blast, but the spell is still a cantrip with a cast time of one action, so having cast Dissonant Whispers with your bonus action doesn't preclude you from casting it. War Caster also requires a cast time of one action, so if it's valid for War Caster, it's valid for the bonus action rule (with regard to the cast time, anyway). You'd have disadvantage on the attack roll, but that's it.
Unless they use a reach weapon. Super handy if you prefer ranged attack spells for your warcaster OP Attacks.
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
as i said in the beginning... RAW the game is weird because WotC couldn'T find a great way to convey their thoughts...
thats why playing RAW is weird and probably not the way to play. at my table to avoid such shnanigans, we try to play as logical as one can be.
so in my game, you cannot cast a second spell, reguardless of what ruling says unless that second spell is a cantrip. so basically, its always 1 spell and 1 cantrip or inversely 1 cantrip and 1 spell. otherwise we get easy game breaking by just playing as written and getting sorcerers just completely ignore the written rule by always casting the action first and then the bonus action. which by RAW is always possible, but if you do it just makes the ruling completely voided and useless.
its the same reason that forced us to remove the concentration part on paladin smite spells... it makes no sense for them to have concentration to begin with as they literally say "the next hit you do" they already buffer themselves making concentration just a big nerf without any reasons. and i think thats the same reason why they removed them and made them reactions on a hit instead. that actually makes more sense in one d&d playtest.
there are ways to abuse the system still...
but by RAW. if you are playing RAW only...
yes, a single free hand, as in... nothing in it. not busy or anything... a free hand is simply a hand with nothing in it.
you can cast 2 spells in 1 round if you got abilities that allow it to be.
as for spell scrolls... magical items have their own action. its called Magic Item Action. so no use an object on it !
Actions you have in the game...
- Attack (which triggers extra attacks), yes it can be used as a ready action and since you triggered the ATTACK action, you do get your extra attack. what you guys meant to say was, AoO do not trigger extra attacks as they are not attack action. Haste specify that extra attack doesn't trigger without it by saying 1 single attack.
- Use an object (which literally means any objects that aren't magical) this is a grey area for potions and this doesn't make sense in itself. but this action is barely ever used in game as players tends to either cast a spell or attack as doing anything else seems like a big waste of an action. which they are right to think so.
- Disengage (which makes no sense whatsoever since everyone has the same speed or faster speed, which makes this a big waste of an action even for those about to be killed, though one rare occurence is, the healer is gonna heal you and move to protect you on his turn right after yours. but the placement option really is too situationnal to be any real good)
- dash action (literally only gives you extra movement speed) thi one is only good in chases and breaks the game in itself...
- Ready action (barely ever use cause of the problems mentionned earlier that can be caused by it... but great against any opponents that can hide during a fight. or against spell casters as they are literally a free counterspell for any people without them) of course the instant spells cannot be stopped by this... but hey concentration spells broken as they are cast are uber powerfull. its important to know this though... movement is not an action. the movement part of the game for characters is voluntarily left out as not an action because it being an action would trigger the "1 action only" per turn. which would make your movement be i move or attack, but not both. so movement is not action you can take within the ready action, as movement is not an action by RAW. even takingthe dash action wouldn'T allow you to move during an opponent turn as the dash action only boost your movement speed when you are moving. so again, movement is not an action in this game. so there is no dashing or moving during opponent turn onless you got an ability that specify movement like the battle master maneuvers does. all that said, the ready action is much more powerfull then people give it credit for. including players 1 shotting by over killing a beholder at level 13 after a paladin uses hypnotic pattern on it. biggest focus fire i ever seen. and no legendary actions in between either since they are all firing at once at the same time on reaction to one another.
- Use a Magic Item (yes scrolls, potions, rods, staves, ring, etc... all use this action) this is stupid since the use an object action exists... more onto that one later...
- Use an Object (useless since nobody ever uses common objects. but this includes alchemist fire, thieves tools or musical instrument that have no magical properties.)
for a list of actions that can be taken, they are all in the PHB under the section, Actions during gameplay !
you are wrong, there is a description in the book... in the player handbook within the spell section...
both the somatic descriiption and the material descption explains what it is to be a free hand.
the somatic section explains that a free hand is a hand that is not doing, or holding anything. it must completely free to be used for the somatic section. now the material section pushes this further and says, the free hand for somatic can also be used for materials, making spells a single hand thing. so basically... the same hand does everything... this means counterspell can easily be cast with this hand too even if it is a reaction to another counterspell or you casting a spell, because by the time you already cast the spell, your somatic hand is already free for the materials, its easy to make the assumption that material and somatic component can be intermixed.
i will agree to this much... it makes no sense whatsoever in any of the contexts... thats why i always tell my casters to have a free hand and preferably both free hands.
DM of two gaming groups.
Likes to create stuff.
Check out my homebrew --> Monsters --> Magical Items --> Races --> Subclasses
If you like --> Upvote, If you wanna comment --> Comment
Play by Post Games
--> One Shot Adventure - House of Artwood (DM) (Completed)
You've asserted as much but what you quoted that supposedly defines a free hand lacks... a definition of a free hand. Did you provide the wrong quote?
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
All rules apply to your full turn though, order doesn't matter.
"You can’t cast another spell during the same turn, except for a cantrip with a casting time of 1 action."
"During the same turn", not "after casting". Pretty clear.
They gave them concentration so you can't stack them all - same reason that the reaction change for OneD&D works too.
Not sure what this means?...
I'm not really sure why you start listing types of actions. But extra attack specifies "on your turn", so no.
Overall not really sure why you came back to a thread that had been dead for 5 months. :<
To be fair, the entire post is over 2 years old *shrug*
But you're correct. RAW there are no shenanigans that can be pulled by casting a levelled spell before casting the cantrip on your turn. If someone casts the levelled spell as an action then they've completely exempted themselves from casting a spell as a bonus action that turn. And, of course, "Extra Attack" is restricted by it's own wording of "on your turn".
Paladin concentration is right, it prevents them stacking smites or smite with other concentration spells they might be using. One DnD rules outright restrict it to a single attack but allow it to stack with other concentration spells a Paladin might already have cast and be maintaining.
I missed the whole "Free Hand" discussion on here but I think its interesting enough to deserve it's own thread. I think Ravnodaus actually has a good point and am inclined to believe that the RAW when read with English definitions are more in support of it than against it.
the ruling you showed up is in the "CAST A BONUS ACTION"
meaning that ruling doesn'T apply until you cast a spell as a bonus action... meaning that you can cast a spell as an action and then cast another spell as a bonus action. and this was already said to be an oversight from the dev by jeremy crawford himself. RAW you can do it, RAI it was meant to be like you said.
so much stuff you are not doing right if you think you can stack smite spells to one another...
they already are limited to a bonus action, by default you can only cast 1 single bonus action spell per turn, that means they are already limited and cannot be stacked... now everything the paladin can do that is worth using concentration on, literally stops the paladin from ever smiting ever again. talk to me about limitation... you either deal a ton of damage, or do support but not both ? at this point the argument is void by itself. smites already have built in limitation by being bonus actions and the next hit... oh sure... you could just wait a few turns, stack them all and then 5 turns later throw a big one... why would you stop that, the paladin just did nothign for 5 turn ?
if you read the other posts, you would of understood why i listed all actions...
as for replying to an old thread...
i wasn't... i was answering th elast guy who posted in an old thread about 30 minutes before me.
DM of two gaming groups.
Likes to create stuff.
Check out my homebrew --> Monsters --> Magical Items --> Races --> Subclasses
If you like --> Upvote, If you wanna comment --> Comment
Play by Post Games
--> One Shot Adventure - House of Artwood (DM) (Completed)
"If a spell requires a somatic component, the caster must have free use of at least one hand to perform these gestures [for that one spell]." (p.203)
I added the part in bold to show that RAW does not say it. How many somatic gestures can one hand freely perform? I say one hand can perform as many gestures as are necessary for all the spellcasting you can muster. You can say the rule is ambiguous if you like, but you cannot show that RAW requires the free use of two hands for counterspelling the counterspell of a spell you are casting unless you can produce a rule that says so.
EDIT: As for DnDPaladin's argument that the bonus action casting rule doesn't apply until after you cast the bonus action spell, well here's what RAW says about it. This is from the intro to Xanathar's Guide.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
To others - It's worth nothing that the comment is listed as #118 and the comment before it is listed as #116 so whoever revived the thread has deleted their comment, or there's some crazy restriction preventing the rest of us from seeing Comment #117
Got a link to the video, tweet or comment from Jeremy that the Bonus Action Spell rule has an oversight? I tried searching but just couldn't find anything out there. But with the Bonus Action cast ruling as "You can’t cast another spell during the same turn, except for a cantrip with a casting time of 1 action." I see what you're trying to say but this excludes the bonus action casting after any spell they have cast in their turn which isn't a cantrip with a casting time of 1 action. Otherwise the player would need to explain how they maintain the restriction against casting another spell "during the same turn" which encompasses the entirety of the turn from start to finish. Since a player would be incapable of maintaining the restriction if they cast a Bonus Action, then they're prevented from casting it.
Also, Smite spells have a duration of 1 minute in the current 5e. So if you DO remove "concentration" as a requirement from the Paladin's spells, then what is preventing a paladin from casting different smite spells, for 5-6 turns then hitting once and having all those smite spells apply together on the one target? There's also various effects from the smite which last for the duration of concentration. So you can't hit a creature one turn with Blinding Smite then set them on fire with Searing smite and running around BOTH on fire and blinded. Nor can you have one creature on fire from Searing Smite and another blinded from Blinding Smite.
The purpose of applying concentration is entirely to prevent them stacking either multiple smites cast over several turns into a single hit or applying multiple smite effects to one or more creatures. It's intentional.
EDIT to Texas Devin's post that came in while I was posting.
Part of what Ravnodaus is saying is that counterspell is "interrupting" the casting of a spell, so the spell is still in the process of being cast.
Since DnD has not put in a specific definition for "Free Hand" then we must use definitions from the English Language. Checking a dictionary for the word "Free" the best definition to apply is likely "not occupied or in use; available:" .
Fireball is relatively easy because it also has a Material component, to either the hand is also occupied with the material, or a focus and other SAGE advice confirms that if the spell has a Somatic component with no Material component, then it must be free, even of a focus.
Then we consider the idea of another, entirely Somatic spell and see the part of the definition for free requiring the hand to not be "in use". The argument then is that since the spell is being "interrupted" then the free hand is still in use for the spell and if you require a free hand to cast a return "counterspell" then you'd require another hand to be free for this.
************
Maybe a better consideration for all of this would be a spell with a somatic component that requires multiple rounds to cast (casting time of 1 minute, for instance). Then we'd be wondering when the casting hand for that can stop to cast Absorb Elements, Counterspell, Shield, Soul Cage, Hellish Rebuke and any other reaction spells with Somatic Components. Or if it should be regarded as "in use" for the duration and require the caster to use a different hand.
I dread to think what it could mean for spells taking multiple rounds to cast with a vocal component and suddenly trying to cast a reaction feather fall in the middle of spilling out another set of magical words.
Side: Personally I don't want to think of any shenanigans that could be created by players suddenly cutting off the hands of opponents and hanging them around their necks on string to claim they have plenty of "free hands" because the DnD rules don't define a "Free Hand"
I follow you. So when you are counterspelling the counterspell of your spell, you are effectively casting one spell in the middle of the other one. I'm with you and Ravnodaus on that part. And you can claim ambiguity because the rules don't come out and say one way or the other. But if holding a component pouch doesn't prevent the "free use of at least one hand" for making the somatic gestures to cast a SM spell, the rules don't give us any reason to believe that the act of making the somatic gestures for a spell prevents the free use of that same hand for making the somatic gestures of a counterspell. Maybe it does. Maybe it doesn't. Maybe fireball wants you to wiggle your fingers and counterspell wants you to stick out your thumb. Or maybe they don't. Or maybe in the process of interrupting your casting, which counterspell explicitly does, you simply transition briefly to the counterspell somatic movements before seamlessly resuming the somatic gestures of the original spell. In that case, you would never be casting more than one spell at a time. Or maybe you're casting both at once. Maybe. Maybe. Maybe.I'm going to keep using one hand until a SAC entry or a rule tells me that one hand is not adequate.EDIT: You know what, you have convinced me. Holding the components for fireball means that hand is not free for casting the S-only counterspell."Not all those who wander are lost"
In reality, this is getting into some of the most nit picking of rules details I can think of and is right in line with the revelation that XGtE gave us that you technically don't know what spell someone is casting when you go to counter it, which then led to the lovely situation that you could use your reaction to work out what spell an enemy spellcaster is casting but then you won't have your reaction to cast counterspell.
So in that crazy scenario, you go to cast a spell, suddenly an opponent is casting a spell as a reaction and you simply have to guess that they're casting counterspell and perform your own counterspell.
...Yeah... All that leads to a fair majority (not all) DMs simply ignoring the rule that you don't know what another caster is casting and telling the players what is being cast so they can counter it or ignore it with that knowledge, then asking the players what they are casting so the DM can decide if their spell caster will counter it.
Whatever we work out here, and even if there was a Dev Tweet, Sage Advice, Errata or even a supplemental book that confirmed somatic reaction spells cast during another somatic spell require a second free hand or vocal spells are impossible in the same situation... I'd dare say the VAST majority of DMs will completely ignore that technicality.
If they don't ignore it then I guess the Sorcerer's Subtle Spell meta-magic will just look that much more attractive.
Yeah, it's wild too because a spellcasting focus is something you hold, so that is definitely out. A component pouch is not the same thing as a spellcasting focus, but we are led to believe it operates the same as one, so do you need to hold it? And what if you are doing none of that and working directly with the M component itself? The rule says you need a hand free to access the component, but it doesn't specify that you need to be holding the actual component when you cast the spell. But if not, then why do you need a free hand for it in the first place? The timing and sequence of counterspell in the middle of casting another is already chaotic enough, but now this adds an extra layer of complexity.
I can think of four situations that can address this conflict:
"Not all those who wander are lost"
The additional detail from SAC that specifies "If a spell has a material component, you need to handle that component when you cast the spell. The same rule applies if you’re using a spellcasting focus as the material component."
That seems to clear it up if the same rule applies regardless of spellcasting focus or material component.
5th condition is the sorcerer meta-magic for subtle spell. But just as it would become more valuable if people start following these rules, the warcaster feat also becomes more valuable since there would be very few (if any) conditions that you could ever face this problem.
I remember an older debate around spells that require two material components, when one has a gold cost (such as Imprisonment) that came to the conclusion you would need two free hands for that one spell because one would hold one component while the other hand would need to hold either the other component, or a focus. And thats a casting time of 1 minute. So for 1 minute (6 rounds) both your hands would need to be available for the spell and occupied by the material requirements, presumably also performing the Somatic gestures with them.