I think there have been some good posts already going over the Cleric Semantic Component question and whether the Cleric needs a "free hand" to cast certain spells. So far, how I understand it is,
A. The Cleric has selected their shield/weapon as their "Holy Symbol" B. The Cleric is casting a spell with VSM requirements C. The Cleric is casting a spell with VS requirements
If A&B then the spellcaster does not need a "free hand." Per the PHB, the hand holding the Holy Symbol (sword/board) is the "free hand":
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.
However, if A&C then the spellcaster does need a "free hand":
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.
Most of what I seen tends to circle around dropping a weapon as a part of movement then "drawing the weapon as part of the same action you use to attack":
You can also interact with one object or feature of the environment for free, during either your move or your action. For example, you could open a door during your move as you stride toward a foe, or you could draw your weapon as part of the same action you use to attack.
If you want to interact with a second object, you need to use your action. Some magic items and other special objects always require an action to use, as stated in their descriptions.
I suppose some could argue that dropping and picking up your weapon is a pretty cavalier reading of the rules here and it could potentially just come down to the DM in question. However this does bring into consideration the Warcaster feat and whether or not a cleric's Holy Symbol sword/board creates a redundancy for the popular feat. Do you believe that Warcaster's ability to allow for spells to not require a free hand are wasted on Cleric Spellcasting? Or is the dropped weapon enough tedium to pick up Warcaster? Or do you believe the dropping/picking-up of your weapon is in itself a redundancy that has no place in a long-term campaign?
Edit: Added some wording for clarity and a probing question into the dropping/recovering weapon interpretation at the end.
First off, if you have to (regularly) resort to dropping/picking up items in order to accomplish something else, that's a pretty good indication that you just shouldn't do it.
Second, you're never going to find consensus on whether Clerics/Paladins need Warcaster to actually freely cast while using 1H & Shield (Holy Symbol) or not. There are essentially two views:
hands holding/wielding a spellcasting focus can be used to perform somatic components only when the spell has a material component
hands holding/wielding a spellcasting focus can be used to perform somatic components regardless of the presence of a material component
I believe #1 is BS that amounts to a feat tax which trivializes the entire point of Clerics/Paladins having spellcasting foci on their shields as a class feature.
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
Agree with Sigred. #2 requires only reading the text that is printed in the PHB: "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." "It" (the hand holding a focus) "can be the same hand that he or she uses to perform somatic components." Cut and dry.
#1 reads that same sentence, and sees that it is under the "Material (M)" header, and imputes some unwritten rules that that sentence is NOT true for any spell which doesn't have a material component. There's arguments for and against reading headings with that level of significance, but I also think it results in an undesirable result which cuts against the character of the classes. Paladins and clerics have shield and weapon proficiencies, and special rules that are explicitly designed to allow them to use those shields as focuses, and are thematically shield+weapon users that cast spells in combat... to resolve an ambiguity in a way which requires a Cleric or Paladin to be level 4 and have selected a specific feat before that feature is able to be effectively used is poor design, not fun, and doesn't feel RAI.
Clerics don’t need a free hand to use a holy symbol in spellcasting, period. An important point here is that nothing turns a shield into a holy symbol. The holy symbol is emblazoned on the shield. The shield isn’t the spellcasting focus, the holy symbol emblazoned on it is. There is zero textual support for the shield being the holy symbol.
Here’s what the rules for holy symbols say: “To use the symbol in this way, the caster must hold it in hand, wear it visibly, or bear it on a shield.” Holding it in hand is the normal method that other spellcasting classes who use foci employ. But clerics and paladins get two additional options that don’t require a free hand: emblazoning it on a shield (discussed above) and simply wearing it prominently.
As to the question of redundancy with the War Caster feat, clerics do still need a free hand to perform somatic components. The rules state that this can be the same hand used to hold a spellcasting focus, but since there is no rule that turns a shield into a spellcasting focus, the hand holding a shield that has a spellcasting focus emblazoned on it is not free for these purposes.
Now that the actual rules text is out of the way, there is a Sage Advice response related to this that directly contradicts what the PHB says, so you know, choose your own adventure. Nothing matters.
"You're not holding a focus, you're holding a shield that is bearing a focus" is certainly a uniquely hair-splitty way to land at the wrong conclusion #1, I haven't heard that approach before :)
"You're not holding a focus, you're holding a shield that is bearing a focus" is certainly a uniquely hair-splitty way to land at the wrong conclusion #1, I haven't heard that approach before :)
I’m 100% on board with conclusion #2, but that’s an entirely different question (one I have zero interest in re-litigating; though it’s worth pointing out that the Sage Advice clarifying that Crawford goes with conclusion #1 is the same response with the contradictions I mentioned in my first post, which is another reason I put zero stock in it).
To support #2, except for Paladins/Clerics (the classes who most enshrine #2 as a core assumption of their kit) based on a technicality... feels bad man. Just let them brandish their shield to cast spells already!
An important point here is that nothing turns a shield into a holy symbol. The holy symbol is emblazoned on the shield. The shield isn’t the spellcasting focus, the holy symbol emblazoned on it is. There is zero textual support for the shield being the holy symbol.
Genuinely shocked to read that from you... emblazoning a shield with a holy symbol absolutely turns that shield into a Cleric/Paladin spellcasting focus. It's a matter of fact, and an inseparable process.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
An important point here is that nothing turns a shield into a holy symbol. The holy symbol is emblazoned on the shield. The shield isn’t the spellcasting focus, the holy symbol emblazoned on it is. There is zero textual support for the shield being the holy symbol.
Genuinely shocked to read that from you... emblazoning a shield with a holy symbol absolutely turns that shield into a Cleric/Paladin spellcasting focus. It's a matter of fact, and an inseparable process.
There is absolutely no rules text to support that assumption. The holy symbol description makes it abundantly clear that you don’t need to use your hand to use it as a spellcasting focus, so the shield doesn’t need to become one for the spellcasting rules to work as we expect they ought to.
I don't think there's any rules text to support the assumption that it isn't a spellcasting focus. Emblazoning an emblem onto a shield is an irreversible process. You're either painting an emblem, or welding a symbol to it. It can't be removed intact; the whole shield is a spellcasting focus when you do this.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
This is a long discussed topic, and I have made my opinion known that the sentence "A spell's components are the physical requirements you must meet in order to cast it." has meaning. Specifically, it makes the particular set of components listed for an individual spell give that spell a set of requirements that must be met in order to cast that spell. The requirements that you need to meet for a spell with S components but no M components is "the caster must have free use of at least one hand to perform these gestures" and that is all. If you cannot meet this requirement of the spell you cannot cast it.
Holy Symbol. A holy symbol is a representation of a god or pantheon. It might be an amulet depicting a symbol representing a deity, the same symbol carefully engraved or inlaid as an emblem on a shield, or a tiny box holding a fragment of a sacred relic. A cleric or paladin can use a holy symbol as a spellcasting focus. To use the symbol in this way, the caster must hold it in hand, wear it visibly, or bear it on a shield.
"Bear it on a shield" is presented as an OR, distinct from "hold it in a hand." Absent that wording, I don't know that it would be reasonable or helpful to interpret a "symbol carefully engraved or inlaid as an emblem on a shield" as being different from the shield itself, but the last sentence certainly does prod us in that direction.
But 5E sucks at using precise/intentional language, and that reading sucks for players. It creates the interpretation that a Cleric with a holy symbol engraved on their shield can't hold their focus in their hand even if they choose to, because the focus doesn't exist as an object at all, only a design. This, despite the fact that "Holy Symbol" appears in the equipment section as an item. I just don't believe that in reality an author sat down and said "okay, i'm going to intentionally write this section in a way that preserves a distinction between holding a focus and "bearing" it on a shield, a term which is not used or alluded to anywhere else in the entirety of the PHB." Its just imprecise language, and I think its a mistake to punish your cleric or paladin by reading it strictly.
I don't think there's any rules text to support the assumption that it isn't a spellcasting focus. Emblazoning an emblem onto a shield is an irreversible process. You're either painting an emblem, or welding a symbol to it. It can't be removed intact; the whole shield is a spellcasting focus when you do this.
I don't think that's true at all. Putting your holy symbol on a chain and hanging it from a peg on your shield is not at all irreversible but is bearing it on a shield. Your position here is premised on assumptions that aren't supported by the text. Would I, as a DM, allow a cleric to have a holy symbol that is a shield in the same way that a wizard or druid can have a staff that is a quarterstaff? Almost certainly, especially if it's been made by an irreversible process like your example. But that's a specific thing, and I want to clearly establish that I'm talking about the rule for any arbitrary holy symbol.
There doesn't need to be rules text to support my position that the shield isn't the focus. Rules do what they say they do, not what they don't, a line all of us have used many times on this particular board. What the rule says is that you can use a holy symbol as a spellcasting focus if you bear it on a shield. It does not say you can use a shield as a spellcasting focus if you bear your holy symbol on it. For this reason, although I say I'd almost certainly allow it as DM in the case I mentioned above, I'm not sure I'd agree that it's RAW. That said, my perception of it is grey enough that I don't really have any interest in arguing that it's not.
Holy Symbol. A holy symbol is a representation of a god or pantheon. It might be an amulet depicting a symbol representing a deity, the same symbol carefully engraved or inlaid as an emblem on a shield, or a tiny box holding a fragment of a sacred relic. A cleric or paladin can use a holy symbol as a spellcasting focus. To use the symbol in this way, the caster must hold it in hand, wear it visibly, or bear it on a shield.
"Bear it on a shield" is presented as an OR, distinct from "hold it in a hand." Absent that wording, I don't know that it would be reasonable or helpful to interpret a "symbol carefully engraved or inlaid as an emblem on a shield" as being different from the shield itself, but the last sentence certainly does prod us in that direction.
But 5E sucks at using precise/intentional language, and that reading sucks for players. It creates the interpretation that a Cleric with a holy symbol engraved on their shield can't hold their focus in their hand even if they choose to, because the focus doesn't exist as an object at all, only a design. This, despite the fact that "Holy Symbol" appears in the equipment section as an item. I just don't believe that in reality an author sat down and said "okay, i'm going to intentionally write this section in a way that preserves a distinction between holding a focus and "bearing" it on a shield, a term which is not used or alluded to anywhere else in the entirety of the PHB." Its just imprecise language, and I think its a mistake to punish your cleric or paladin by reading it strictly.
And in response to this, what I'll say first is that (as I kind of alluded to in my response to Sigred) there are a great many instances where how I actually play the game differs from what the rules say. But we all know this isn't the forum for how I play the game, it's the forum for what the rules say :P But beyond that, I don't really think it's much of a punishment. First of all, clerics and paladins don't need a free hand to fulfill material components; they just need to wear their holy symbol visibly. That alone is a massive boon. But reading this strictly does mean the caster would have to put away a weapon to cast spells that have somatic components.
So the question is: is that much of a punishment? First of all, since the cleric or paladin can still cast spells with material components, it's still strictly better than a druid wielding a scimitar and shield. For the next bit, I want to establish that I don't have a lot of experience with melee clerics, and it would take more effort than I'm willing to put into making a case I probably wouldn't even actually run with at my table to figure out whether or not melee clerics are prevented from using a lot of spells they reasonably would be using. But paladins are easier. I looked at all the paladin spells that have somatic components, and most of them are either out-of-combat utility spells or pre-combat buff spells that it would be extremely reasonable to cast on the first turn prior to drawing a weapon. There are a few, like Dispel Magic or Banishment, that a paladin may want to cast in the middle of a melee. But the only cost there is their free object interaction and the ability to use their weapon for attacks of opportunity. I really don't think that's that big a deal for only a couple spells that aren't going to be used that often anyway.
"You're not holding a focus, you're holding a shield that is bearing a focus" is certainly a uniquely hair-splitty way to land at the wrong conclusion #1, I haven't heard that approach before :)
Just a quick comment.
I could just as easily say wrong conclusion #2.
The point of this discussion is that the rules can be read multiple ways. Personally, I see the text under material components and think it applies to material components while you think the description of somatic components in the section discussing material components applies to all somatic components. I play using #1 and it is arrogant, impolite and incorrect to claim it is the "wrong" way to play since there is clearly a difference of opinion and multiple ways to interpret the rules.
So the question is: is that much of a punishment? First of all, since the cleric or paladin can still cast spells with material components, it's still strictly better than a druid wielding a scimitar and shield. For the next bit, I want to establish that I don't have a lot of experience with melee clerics, and it would take more effort than I'm willing to put into making a case I probably wouldn't even actually run with at my table to figure out whether or not melee clerics are prevented from using a lot of spells they reasonably would be using. But paladins are easier. I looked at all the paladin spells that have material components, and most of them are either out-of-combat utility spells or pre-combat buff spells that it would be extremely reasonable to cast on the first turn prior to drawing a weapon. There are a few, like Dispel Magic or Banishment, that a paladin may want to cast in the middle of a melee. But the only cost there is their free object interaction and the ability to use their weapon for attacks of opportunity. I really don't think that's that big a deal for only a couple spells that aren't going to be used that often anyway.
Either you typo'd, or you did the wrong search. M/VM/SM/VSM spells are not in question, what's at stake are the cleric/paladin's ability to cast S or VS spells while holding a weapon and a shield. And there are quite a few that you're not going to want to have to spend an action to sheathe and redraw your weapon for. On the Paladin list: Cure Wounds, Divine Favor, Heroism, Magic Weapon... all sorts of mid-combat spells right at low levels, which it will be very awkward and unintneded to tell a sword-n-board Paladin that they can't cast without sheathing their sword until they've taken Warcaster.
But yes, I agree that RAW is one thing, though best practice for how to play the game can sometimes be another. I just feel that in this particular instance, the rules leave at least some ambiguity whether a holy-symbol-engraved-shield is one item you can hold that is both a shield and a focus, or somehow two items (or one and a half?) like you seem to be suggesting. I choose to resolve that ambiguity in favor of a holy-symbol-engraved-shield being one item that is a spell focus, not one item that bears a focus but is not itself a focus.
"You're not holding a focus, you're holding a shield that is bearing a focus" is certainly a uniquely hair-splitty way to land at the wrong conclusion #1, I haven't heard that approach before :)
Just a quick comment.
I could just as easily say wrong conclusion #2.
The point of this discussion is that the rules can be read multiple ways. Personally, I see the text under material components and think it applies to material components while you think the description of somatic components in the section discussing material components applies to all somatic components. I play using #1 and it is arrogant, impolite and incorrect to claim it is the "wrong" way to play since there is clearly a difference of opinion and multiple ways to interpret the rules.
Sorry David, not trying to be impolite, just being tongue-in-cheek. #1 is a very common interpretation to take, and one which I believe Jeremy Crawford himself agrees with. I think it's both textually unsupported and bad for the game, but reasonable minds differ. I just don't normally see people try to justify landing on #1 for clerics/paladins in the way Saga has in this thread (especially since they say they're generally a #2 adherent), that's all I was trying to get across.
Huh? Is the somatic component for Magic Weapon the gesture described in the spell? In that case, would you not allow the hand already holding the weapon be the hand that touches the weapon?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I think there have been some good posts already going over the Cleric Semantic Component question and whether the Cleric needs a "free hand" to cast certain spells. So far, how I understand it is,
A. The Cleric has selected their shield/weapon as their "Holy Symbol"
B. The Cleric is casting a spell with VSM requirements
C. The Cleric is casting a spell with VS requirements
If A&B then the spellcaster does not need a "free hand." Per the PHB, the hand holding the Holy Symbol (sword/board) is the "free hand":
However, if A&C then the spellcaster does need a "free hand":
Most of what I seen tends to circle around dropping a weapon as a part of movement then "drawing the weapon as part of the same action you use to attack":
I suppose some could argue that dropping and picking up your weapon is a pretty cavalier reading of the rules here and it could potentially just come down to the DM in question. However this does bring into consideration the Warcaster feat and whether or not a cleric's Holy Symbol sword/board creates a redundancy for the popular feat. Do you believe that Warcaster's ability to allow for spells to not require a free hand are wasted on Cleric Spellcasting? Or is the dropped weapon enough tedium to pick up Warcaster? Or do you believe the dropping/picking-up of your weapon is in itself a redundancy that has no place in a long-term campaign?
Edit: Added some wording for clarity and a probing question into the dropping/recovering weapon interpretation at the end.
First off, if you have to (regularly) resort to dropping/picking up items in order to accomplish something else, that's a pretty good indication that you just shouldn't do it.
Second, you're never going to find consensus on whether Clerics/Paladins need Warcaster to actually freely cast while using 1H & Shield (Holy Symbol) or not. There are essentially two views:
I believe #1 is BS that amounts to a feat tax which trivializes the entire point of Clerics/Paladins having spellcasting foci on their shields as a class feature.
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
Agree with Sigred. #2 requires only reading the text that is printed in the PHB: "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." "It" (the hand holding a focus) "can be the same hand that he or she uses to perform somatic components." Cut and dry.
#1 reads that same sentence, and sees that it is under the "Material (M)" header, and imputes some unwritten rules that that sentence is NOT true for any spell which doesn't have a material component. There's arguments for and against reading headings with that level of significance, but I also think it results in an undesirable result which cuts against the character of the classes. Paladins and clerics have shield and weapon proficiencies, and special rules that are explicitly designed to allow them to use those shields as focuses, and are thematically shield+weapon users that cast spells in combat... to resolve an ambiguity in a way which requires a Cleric or Paladin to be level 4 and have selected a specific feat before that feature is able to be effectively used is poor design, not fun, and doesn't feel RAI.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
Clerics don’t need a free hand to use a holy symbol in spellcasting, period. An important point here is that nothing turns a shield into a holy symbol. The holy symbol is emblazoned on the shield. The shield isn’t the spellcasting focus, the holy symbol emblazoned on it is. There is zero textual support for the shield being the holy symbol.
Here’s what the rules for holy symbols say: “To use the symbol in this way, the caster must hold it in hand, wear it visibly, or bear it on a shield.” Holding it in hand is the normal method that other spellcasting classes who use foci employ. But clerics and paladins get two additional options that don’t require a free hand: emblazoning it on a shield (discussed above) and simply wearing it prominently.
As to the question of redundancy with the War Caster feat, clerics do still need a free hand to perform somatic components. The rules state that this can be the same hand used to hold a spellcasting focus, but since there is no rule that turns a shield into a spellcasting focus, the hand holding a shield that has a spellcasting focus emblazoned on it is not free for these purposes.
Now that the actual rules text is out of the way, there is a Sage Advice response related to this that directly contradicts what the PHB says, so you know, choose your own adventure. Nothing matters.
"You're not holding a focus, you're holding a shield that is bearing a focus" is certainly a uniquely hair-splitty way to land at the wrong conclusion #1, I haven't heard that approach before :)
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
I’m 100% on board with conclusion #2, but that’s an entirely different question (one I have zero interest in re-litigating; though it’s worth pointing out that the Sage Advice clarifying that Crawford goes with conclusion #1 is the same response with the contradictions I mentioned in my first post, which is another reason I put zero stock in it).
To support #2, except for Paladins/Clerics (the classes who most enshrine #2 as a core assumption of their kit) based on a technicality... feels bad man. Just let them brandish their shield to cast spells already!
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
Genuinely shocked to read that from you... emblazoning a shield with a holy symbol absolutely turns that shield into a Cleric/Paladin spellcasting focus. It's a matter of fact, and an inseparable process.
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
There is absolutely no rules text to support that assumption. The holy symbol description makes it abundantly clear that you don’t need to use your hand to use it as a spellcasting focus, so the shield doesn’t need to become one for the spellcasting rules to work as we expect they ought to.
I don't think there's any rules text to support the assumption that it isn't a spellcasting focus. Emblazoning an emblem onto a shield is an irreversible process. You're either painting an emblem, or welding a symbol to it. It can't be removed intact; the whole shield is a spellcasting focus when you do this.
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
This is a long discussed topic, and I have made my opinion known that the sentence "A spell's components are the physical requirements you must meet in order to cast it." has meaning. Specifically, it makes the particular set of components listed for an individual spell give that spell a set of requirements that must be met in order to cast that spell. The requirements that you need to meet for a spell with S components but no M components is "the caster must have free use of at least one hand to perform these gestures" and that is all. If you cannot meet this requirement of the spell you cannot cast it.
It has in fact already been debated as nauseam:
https://www.dndbeyond.com/forums/dungeons-dragons-discussion/rules-game-mechanics/49286-spellcasting-focus-prevents-somatic-components
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
I see your point Saga.
"Bear it on a shield" is presented as an OR, distinct from "hold it in a hand." Absent that wording, I don't know that it would be reasonable or helpful to interpret a "symbol carefully engraved or inlaid as an emblem on a shield" as being different from the shield itself, but the last sentence certainly does prod us in that direction.
But 5E sucks at using precise/intentional language, and that reading sucks for players. It creates the interpretation that a Cleric with a holy symbol engraved on their shield can't hold their focus in their hand even if they choose to, because the focus doesn't exist as an object at all, only a design. This, despite the fact that "Holy Symbol" appears in the equipment section as an item. I just don't believe that in reality an author sat down and said "okay, i'm going to intentionally write this section in a way that preserves a distinction between holding a focus and "bearing" it on a shield, a term which is not used or alluded to anywhere else in the entirety of the PHB." Its just imprecise language, and I think its a mistake to punish your cleric or paladin by reading it strictly.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
I don't think that's true at all. Putting your holy symbol on a chain and hanging it from a peg on your shield is not at all irreversible but is bearing it on a shield. Your position here is premised on assumptions that aren't supported by the text. Would I, as a DM, allow a cleric to have a holy symbol that is a shield in the same way that a wizard or druid can have a staff that is a quarterstaff? Almost certainly, especially if it's been made by an irreversible process like your example. But that's a specific thing, and I want to clearly establish that I'm talking about the rule for any arbitrary holy symbol.
There doesn't need to be rules text to support my position that the shield isn't the focus. Rules do what they say they do, not what they don't, a line all of us have used many times on this particular board. What the rule says is that you can use a holy symbol as a spellcasting focus if you bear it on a shield. It does not say you can use a shield as a spellcasting focus if you bear your holy symbol on it. For this reason, although I say I'd almost certainly allow it as DM in the case I mentioned above, I'm not sure I'd agree that it's RAW. That said, my perception of it is grey enough that I don't really have any interest in arguing that it's not.
And in response to this, what I'll say first is that (as I kind of alluded to in my response to Sigred) there are a great many instances where how I actually play the game differs from what the rules say. But we all know this isn't the forum for how I play the game, it's the forum for what the rules say :P But beyond that, I don't really think it's much of a punishment. First of all, clerics and paladins don't need a free hand to fulfill material components; they just need to wear their holy symbol visibly. That alone is a massive boon. But reading this strictly does mean the caster would have to put away a weapon to cast spells that have somatic components.
So the question is: is that much of a punishment? First of all, since the cleric or paladin can still cast spells with material components, it's still strictly better than a druid wielding a scimitar and shield. For the next bit, I want to establish that I don't have a lot of experience with melee clerics, and it would take more effort than I'm willing to put into making a case I probably wouldn't even actually run with at my table to figure out whether or not melee clerics are prevented from using a lot of spells they reasonably would be using. But paladins are easier. I looked at all the paladin spells that have somatic components, and most of them are either out-of-combat utility spells or pre-combat buff spells that it would be extremely reasonable to cast on the first turn prior to drawing a weapon. There are a few, like Dispel Magic or Banishment, that a paladin may want to cast in the middle of a melee. But the only cost there is their free object interaction and the ability to use their weapon for attacks of opportunity. I really don't think that's that big a deal for only a couple spells that aren't going to be used that often anyway.
Just a quick comment.
I could just as easily say wrong conclusion #2.
The point of this discussion is that the rules can be read multiple ways. Personally, I see the text under material components and think it applies to material components while you think the description of somatic components in the section discussing material components applies to all somatic components. I play using #1 and it is arrogant, impolite and incorrect to claim it is the "wrong" way to play since there is clearly a difference of opinion and multiple ways to interpret the rules.
Either you typo'd, or you did the wrong search. M/VM/SM/VSM spells are not in question, what's at stake are the cleric/paladin's ability to cast S or VS spells while holding a weapon and a shield. And there are quite a few that you're not going to want to have to spend an action to sheathe and redraw your weapon for. On the Paladin list: Cure Wounds, Divine Favor, Heroism, Magic Weapon... all sorts of mid-combat spells right at low levels, which it will be very awkward and unintneded to tell a sword-n-board Paladin that they can't cast without sheathing their sword until they've taken Warcaster.
But yes, I agree that RAW is one thing, though best practice for how to play the game can sometimes be another. I just feel that in this particular instance, the rules leave at least some ambiguity whether a holy-symbol-engraved-shield is one item you can hold that is both a shield and a focus, or somehow two items (or one and a half?) like you seem to be suggesting. I choose to resolve that ambiguity in favor of a holy-symbol-engraved-shield being one item that is a spell focus, not one item that bears a focus but is not itself a focus.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
I typoed, I went back and edited, haha XD
Sorry David, not trying to be impolite, just being tongue-in-cheek. #1 is a very common interpretation to take, and one which I believe Jeremy Crawford himself agrees with. I think it's both textually unsupported and bad for the game, but reasonable minds differ. I just don't normally see people try to justify landing on #1 for clerics/paladins in the way Saga has in this thread (especially since they say they're generally a #2 adherent), that's all I was trying to get across.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
Huh? Is the somatic component for Magic Weapon the gesture described in the spell? In that case, would you not allow the hand already holding the weapon be the hand that touches the weapon?