Hey I've been brainstorming an idea for a character for whatever campaign I ended up with and I'd like some feedback on how to go about it. I've been wanting to create a Kali/Escrima spellcaster (a short sword and a short staff/rod acting as a kali stick. Basically if Gandalf fought like Nightwing). I thought about a bladesinger wizard but that requires a free hand to properly use and if multiclassing is recommended the bladesinger makes multiclassing moot. Would it make more sense to go as a Weapon Monk or a Melee Ranger for the Martial side of things then multiclass into a wizard or sorcerer. I'm not sure which would be better. What would you suggest and how would I start?
Bladesinger to avoid multiclassing is good. The Multiclass variant I'd recommend would be three levels of Battle Smith Artificer and then the rest in your Wizard of choice, because the Battle Smith can use an infusion to turn any weapon into a magical one, and then use Intelligence for the attack and damage bonus on it instead of Strength or Dexterity. You also get an Infusion to create your own bag of holding, and the Artificer's prepared spells greatly expands how many spells you have available to you at a given time. And the Artificer being a 3/4 caster means you only miss out on one level of spell slot progression for the 3-level dip. Your higher level spells known are delayed by those three levels though.
Bladesinger to avoid multiclassing is good. The Multiclass variant I'd recommend would be three levels of Battle Smith Artificer and then the rest in your Wizard of choice, because the Battle Smith can use an infusion to turn any weapon into a magical one, and then use Intelligence for the attack and damage bonus on it instead of Strength or Dexterity. You also get an Infusion to create your own bag of holding, and the Artificer's prepared spells greatly expands how many spells you have available to you at a given time. And the Artificer being a 3/4 caster means you only miss out on one level of spell slot progression for the 3-level dip. Your higher level spells known are delayed by those three levels though.
The bladesinger is great and all. But don't I have to have an open offhand for it to properly work? Defeats the purpose of it does. I'd like to be able to use the rod as a focus and for melee along with the short sword.
Bladesinger to avoid multiclassing is good. The Multiclass variant I'd recommend would be three levels of Battle Smith Artificer and then the rest in your Wizard of choice, because the Battle Smith can use an infusion to turn any weapon into a magical one, and then use Intelligence for the attack and damage bonus on it instead of Strength or Dexterity. You also get an Infusion to create your own bag of holding, and the Artificer's prepared spells greatly expands how many spells you have available to you at a given time. And the Artificer being a 3/4 caster means you only miss out on one level of spell slot progression for the 3-level dip. Your higher level spells known are delayed by those three levels though.
The bladesinger is great and all. But don't I have to have an open offhand for it to properly work? Defeats the purpose of it does. I'd like to be able to use the rod as a focus and for melee along with the short sword.
The Warcaster feat lets you perform somatic components with your hands occupied. Alternatively, if you can get your hands on a Ruby o'f the War Mage (a common magic item), you can affix it to a weapon, which then allows it to be used as a focus for your spells.
No matter what kind of caster you choose, you’re going to need a free hand at some point. (Probably, the component rules can be a bit tricky) Two weapon fighting and casting do not pair well. And two weapon fighting is really the weaker link there — I’d choose casting over an off hand attack every time. Can you go with a quarterstaff? You can use that as your focus as a wizard, and it can be wielded with one or two hands, so it’s easier to switch between casting and melee.
So, Bladesinger does allow for two-weapon fighting while Bladesinging, I believe. The exact language is if you use "two hands to make anattack with a weapon", which seems to indicate to me it only applies to two-handed or versatile weapons using the two-handed die. That said, Bladesinger itself does not make your weapon a focus, and technically even with a weapon made into a focus, you must have a free hand if a spell has an S component, but no M component.
That said, generally speaking it's not actually that difficult to manage getting a free hand when you need one, as the first time you sheathe or draw a weapon during your turn, it's a free action. Thus, for a TWF build, it could be pretty safely assumed that one weapon is being stowed and drawn as needed, and given every spell that comes to mind for this instance takes a full action to cast, there would only be mechanical implications if both weapons had effects that only apply when drawn or if the player had taken the Dual Wielder feat (the +1 AC when dual wielding).
Now, among basic equipment only staves can be used as weapons as well as foci, I believe, so you would not be able to actually TWF with a sword in one hand and a "short staff" in the other without something like the Ruby of the War Mage or Dual Wielder feat, as staff foci use the quarterstaff weapon stats and thus aren't light. It's certainly doable, but depends either on you taking the feat or you talking with the DM about how you'd get the magic item.
I believe the claim that you can't use your hand that's holding a focus for the somatic components of spells that don't have material components to be inaccurate.
PHB pg203
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.
There is no limitation in the text regarding performing the somatic components with a hand holding an appropriate focus for your class. There's no rule saying that you can only do this if the spell has material components being replaced by the focus. Clearly rules as written, you can perform somatic components while holding a focus, regardless of if the spell in question is making use of the focus to replace material components. You only need a free hand apart from the hand holding the focus if you're casting a spell with costly or expended material components, because those require a free hand that's not occupied with the focus.
Clearly rules as written, you can perform somatic components while holding a focus, regardless of if the spell in question is making use of the focus to replace material components.
No they don't.
The rules say you need one free hand if the spell is S; you need one free hand if the spell is M; and you need one free hand if the spell is M, S (not two free hands).
M, S spells have gestures that include (in fact, require) manipulating material components. S spells don't, so the hand must be free. If a hand is holding a focus then it is not free.
For example, a wizard with a dagger in one hand and a rod in the other hand needs to drop or stow one of them to cast charm person.
Clearly rules as written, you can perform somatic components while holding a focus, regardless of if the spell in question is making use of the focus to replace material components.
No they don't.
The rules say you need one free hand if the spell is S; you need one free hand if the spell is M; and you need one free hand if the spell is M, S (not two free hands).
M, S spells have gestures that include (in fact, require) manipulating material components. S spells don't, so the hand must be free. If a hand is holding a focus then it is not free.
For example, a wizard with a dagger in one hand and a rod in the other hand needs to drop or stow one of them to cast charm person.
I literally copied verbatim the relevant passage. You can't quote the part of the rulebook that supports your argument, because it doesn't exist.
Specific rules trump general rules.
The Somatic Component rule that you need a free hand is a general rule.
The Spellcasting Focus rule that allows you to perform somatic components while holding a focus is a specific rule. It specifies that you need a free hand to hold the focus, and that you can perform Somatic Components while holding the focus. It does not place any requirement on the spell having material components for you to be able to cast the spell using the hand holding the focus to perform the somatic components.
You are making up rules that are not in the book, which would be fine if you were saying it was your house rule for your table, but you're not. You're trying to force that house rule on others. Because of that, you are factually wrong.
When someone else quotes the rulebook, don't just say, "nope, that's not how it is", then make claims that aren't supported by the text of the rulebooks.
The feat you are looking for is Warcaster which will you allow you to cast without a free hand, as well as a reaction attack cantrip which is not to be overlooked as I presume you're planning to use a high dex with that shortsword and booming / green flame blade. That'll stack nicely on War Magic's +2 to AC if you only use a cantrip that round. However. I'm really enjoying playing a sorc with quickened spell as this allows me to booming blade TWICE in a round. I also have crusher to knock em back;) The real question is are you married to wizard or will other spellcasters do, because sorcerer can really up your combat game, also Shillelagh is the all time winner for magical people attacking with sticks and makes for very interesting druid monk ranger and or cleric combos. If you really want extra attacks, don't underestimate sword or glory bard, especially with 2 lvls of pally on em for smites.
Clearly rules as written, you can perform somatic components while holding a focus, regardless of if the spell in question is making use of the focus to replace material components.
No they don't.
The rules say you need one free hand if the spell is S; you need one free hand if the spell is M; and you need one free hand if the spell is M, S (not two free hands).
M, S spells have gestures that include (in fact, require) manipulating material components. S spells don't, so the hand must be free. If a hand is holding a focus then it is not free.
For example, a wizard with a dagger in one hand and a rod in the other hand needs to drop or stow one of them to cast charm person.
I literally copied verbatim the relevant passage. You can't quote the part of the rulebook that supports your argument, because it doesn't exist.
Specific rules trump general rules.
The Somatic Component rule that you need a free hand is a general rule.
The Spellcasting Focus rule that allows you to perform somatic components while holding a focus is a specific rule. It specifies that you need a free hand to hold the focus, and that you can perform Somatic Components while holding the focus. It does not place any requirement on the spell having material components for you to be able to cast the spell using the hand holding the focus to perform the somatic components.
You are making up rules that are not in the book, which would be fine if you were saying it was your house rule for your table, but you're not. You're trying to force that house rule on others. Because of that, you are factually wrong.
When someone else quotes the rulebook, don't just say, "nope, that's not how it is", then make claims that aren't supported by the text of the rulebooks.
This is not a house rule, it's the actual rule. The Material Component rule you're citing only comes into play when there is an M component to the spell.
Clearly rules as written, you can perform somatic components while holding a focus, regardless of if the spell in question is making use of the focus to replace material components.
No they don't.
The rules say you need one free hand if the spell is S; you need one free hand if the spell is M; and you need one free hand if the spell is M, S (not two free hands).
M, S spells have gestures that include (in fact, require) manipulating material components. S spells don't, so the hand must be free. If a hand is holding a focus then it is not free.
For example, a wizard with a dagger in one hand and a rod in the other hand needs to drop or stow one of them to cast charm person.
I literally copied verbatim the relevant passage. You can't quote the part of the rulebook that supports your argument, because it doesn't exist.
Specific rules trump general rules.
The Somatic Component rule that you need a free hand is a general rule.
The Spellcasting Focus rule that allows you to perform somatic components while holding a focus is a specific rule. It specifies that you need a free hand to hold the focus, and that you can perform Somatic Components while holding the focus. It does not place any requirement on the spell having material components for you to be able to cast the spell using the hand holding the focus to perform the somatic components.
You are making up rules that are not in the book, which would be fine if you were saying it was your house rule for your table, but you're not. You're trying to force that house rule on others. Because of that, you are factually wrong.
When someone else quotes the rulebook, don't just say, "nope, that's not how it is", then make claims that aren't supported by the text of the rulebooks.
This is not a house rule, it's the actual rule. The Material Component rule you're citing only comes into play when there is an M component to the spell.
Give me the actual rule from the book that says that then. I quoted the book where it says what I'm saying, but I haven't seen anything that supports the alternate position.
The rule explicitly states that you can perform Somatic Components while holding a spellcasting focus. It doesn't say anywhere that you can only do so when a spell has Material Components replaced by the focus.
It's like how the Crossbow Expert feat includes features that don't only apply to crossbows, and WotC confirmed that the RAI match that RAW.
Give me the actual rule from the book that says that then.
You're asking where it says the rules for Material Components only apply to spells with Material Components?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
Hey I've been brainstorming an idea for a character for whatever campaign I ended up with and I'd like some feedback on how to go about it. I've been wanting to create a Kali/Escrima spellcaster (a short sword and a short staff/rod acting as a kali stick. Basically if Gandalf fought like Nightwing). I thought about a bladesinger wizard but that requires a free hand to properly use and if multiclassing is recommended the bladesinger makes multiclassing moot. Would it make more sense to go as a Weapon Monk or a Melee Ranger for the Martial side of things then multiclass into a wizard or sorcerer. I'm not sure which would be better. What would you suggest and how would I start?
I think regardless of what class(es) you go with, the Dual Wielder feat solves pretty much all the issues you might run into from a persnickety DM when it comes to having a hand free for casting, as well as expanding your options for what the escrima stick could be in D&D terms if you want to reskin something a little more potent than a club. The AC boost isn't nothing, either, whether you're going bladesinger and relying on mage armor or MCing with monk
And Ace of Rogues is right -- you can use TWF as a bladesinger, you just can't make an attack with a single weapon using two hands
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
Give me the actual rule from the book that says that then.
You're asking where it says the rules for Material Components only apply to spells with Material Components?
No, I'm asking where there's a rule that contradicts the one under spellcasting focus that allows you to perform somatic components with a hand that's holding the spellcasting focus, the rule people are claiming exists without evidence. Specific rules trump general rules, and I quoted the specific rule relating to this verbatim.
In case you've forgotten... PHB 203
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.
Just like how the feat Crossbow Expert lets you make all ranged attacks against targets within 5ft of you without disadvantage, not just with crossbows, the rules for spellcasting foci allow you to perform somatic components with a hand holding a focus, not just spells that utilize the focus.
No, I'm asking where there's a rule that contradicts the one under spellcasting focus that allows you to perform somatic components with a hand that's holding the spellcasting focus, the rule people are claiming exists without evidence
Here's the entire section you keep quoting from -- the Material Components rules, which applies to spells with Material components
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.
There have been multiple threads arguing this issue already. If that's what you want to talk about, go find one of them. Don't derail this one by trying to turn it into another one
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
No, I'm asking where there's a rule that contradicts the one under spellcasting focus that allows you to perform somatic components with a hand that's holding the spellcasting focus, the rule people are claiming exists without evidence
Here's the entire section you keep quoting from -- the Material Components rules, which applies to spells with Material components
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.
There have been multiple threads arguing this issue already. If that's what you want to talk about, go find one of them. Don't derail this one by trying to turn it into another one
I read all of it, and quoted the relevant part. And no one actually provided any evidence that challenged the evidence I presented, or even addressed it. I'm convinced that the Mandela Effect is in play regarding people's belief that you can't cast a spell without material components under the same circumstances as they could be cast if they did have material components.
Per the rules, you have to have a free hand to perform somatic components.
Per the rules, you can have material components or a spellcasting focus in your hand and still perform somatic components as if that hand were not holding anything.
Per the rules, there are no restrictions that the focus or components you're holding would have to be used in the casting of the spell in question.
If you're holding a ball of bat guano, or a crystal arcane focus, ready to cast the Fireball spell with your next action, and something comes up, resulting in you casting Magic Missile instead, you don't have to drop the guano or crystal to do so, and you don't need a second hand to cast.
The topic of the discussion is how to make a two-weapon-fighting spellcaster, and I've been sharing how to do so, which is relevant to the discussion, and not a derailment. Per the rules, a spellcaster can cast any spell that doesn't require costly or expended material components while holding a weapon in each hand so long as one of the weapons is a spellcasting focus (a staff, a weapon bearing a Ruby of the War Mage, etc). People insisting this can't be done are the ones derailing the discussion by writing off mechanical options that actually work.
What’s the amount of interaction needed to use a spellcasting focus? Does it have to be included in the somatic component?
If a spell has a material component, you need to handle that component when you cast the spell. The same rule applies if you’re using a spellcasting focus as the material component.
If a spell has a somatic component, you can use the hand that performs the somatic component to also handle the material component. For example, a wizard who uses an orb as a spellcasting focus could hold a quarterstaff in one hand and the orb in the other, and he could cast lightning bolt by using the orb as the spell’s material component and the orb hand to perform the spell’s somatic component.
Another example: a cleric’s holy symbol is emblazoned on her shield. She likes to wade into melee combat with a mace in one hand and a shield in the other. She uses the holy symbol as her spellcasting focus, so she needs to have the shield in hand when she casts a cleric spell that has a material component. If the spell, such as aid, also has a somatic component, she can perform that component with the shield hand and keep holding the mace in the other.
If the same cleric casts cure wounds, she needs to put the mace or the shield away, because that spell doesn’t have a material component but does have a somatic component. She’s going to need a free hand to make the spell’s gestures. If she had the War Caster feat, she could ignore this restriction.
What’s the amount of interaction needed to use a spellcasting focus? Does it have to be included in the somatic component?
If a spell has a material component, you need to handle that component when you cast the spell. The same rule applies if you’re using a spellcasting focus as the material component.
If a spell has a somatic component, you can use the hand that performs the somatic component to also handle the material component. For example, a wizard who uses an orb as a spellcasting focus could hold a quarterstaff in one hand and the orb in the other, and he could cast lightning bolt by using the orb as the spell’s material component and the orb hand to perform the spell’s somatic component.
Another example: a cleric’s holy symbol is emblazoned on her shield. She likes to wade into melee combat with a mace in one hand and a shield in the other. She uses the holy symbol as her spellcasting focus, so she needs to have the shield in hand when she casts a cleric spell that has a material component. If the spell, such as aid, also has a somatic component, she can perform that component with the shield hand and keep holding the mace in the other.
If the same cleric casts cure wounds, she needs to put the mace or the shield away, because that spell doesn’t have a material component but does have a somatic component. She’s going to need a free hand to make the spell’s gestures. If she had the War Caster feat, she could ignore this restriction.
You've made a fair point. I'm content that someone finally gave a source for their argument (if someone had posted that 20 hours ago, this would have been over then). That's sufficient for me to stop arguing, even as I continue to believe that it is a poor ruling that isn't in the rulebook itself, and instead comes from an online article that includes other bad rulings, even though they're technically "official".
Example:
Can a monk use Stunning Strike with an unarmed strike, even though unarmed strikes aren’t weapons?
Yes. Stunning Strike works with melee weapon attacks,and an unarmed strike is a special type of melee weapon attack.
The game often makes exceptions to general rules, and this is an important exception: that unarmed strikes count as melee weapon attacks despite not being weapons.
Can a paladin use Divine Smite when they hit using an unarmed strike?
No. Divine Smite isn’t intended to work with unarmed strikes.
Divine Smite does work with a melee weapon attack, and an unarmed strike can be used to make such an attack. But the text of Divine Smite also refers to the “weapon’s damage,” and an unarmed strike isn’t a weapon.
If a DM decides to override this rule, no imbalance is created. Tying Divine Smite to weapons was a thematic choice on our part—paladins being traditionally associated with weapons. It was not a game balance choice.
Merely a page apart, the Sage Advice Compendium says that unarmed Strikes are, and are not weapons. Their rules lack consistency of interpretation.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Hey I've been brainstorming an idea for a character for whatever campaign I ended up with and I'd like some feedback on how to go about it. I've been wanting to create a Kali/Escrima spellcaster (a short sword and a short staff/rod acting as a kali stick. Basically if Gandalf fought like Nightwing). I thought about a bladesinger wizard but that requires a free hand to properly use and if multiclassing is recommended the bladesinger makes multiclassing moot. Would it make more sense to go as a Weapon Monk or a Melee Ranger for the Martial side of things then multiclass into a wizard or sorcerer. I'm not sure which would be better. What would you suggest and how would I start?
Bladesinger to avoid multiclassing is good. The Multiclass variant I'd recommend would be three levels of Battle Smith Artificer and then the rest in your Wizard of choice, because the Battle Smith can use an infusion to turn any weapon into a magical one, and then use Intelligence for the attack and damage bonus on it instead of Strength or Dexterity. You also get an Infusion to create your own bag of holding, and the Artificer's prepared spells greatly expands how many spells you have available to you at a given time. And the Artificer being a 3/4 caster means you only miss out on one level of spell slot progression for the 3-level dip. Your higher level spells known are delayed by those three levels though.
The bladesinger is great and all. But don't I have to have an open offhand for it to properly work? Defeats the purpose of it does. I'd like to be able to use the rod as a focus and for melee along with the short sword.
The Warcaster feat lets you perform somatic components with your hands occupied. Alternatively, if you can get your hands on a Ruby o'f the War Mage (a common magic item), you can affix it to a weapon, which then allows it to be used as a focus for your spells.
No matter what kind of caster you choose, you’re going to need a free hand at some point. (Probably, the component rules can be a bit tricky) Two weapon fighting and casting do not pair well. And two weapon fighting is really the weaker link there — I’d choose casting over an off hand attack every time.
Can you go with a quarterstaff? You can use that as your focus as a wizard, and it can be wielded with one or two hands, so it’s easier to switch between casting and melee.
So, Bladesinger does allow for two-weapon fighting while Bladesinging, I believe. The exact language is if you use "two hands to make an attack with a weapon", which seems to indicate to me it only applies to two-handed or versatile weapons using the two-handed die. That said, Bladesinger itself does not make your weapon a focus, and technically even with a weapon made into a focus, you must have a free hand if a spell has an S component, but no M component.
That said, generally speaking it's not actually that difficult to manage getting a free hand when you need one, as the first time you sheathe or draw a weapon during your turn, it's a free action. Thus, for a TWF build, it could be pretty safely assumed that one weapon is being stowed and drawn as needed, and given every spell that comes to mind for this instance takes a full action to cast, there would only be mechanical implications if both weapons had effects that only apply when drawn or if the player had taken the Dual Wielder feat (the +1 AC when dual wielding).
Now, among basic equipment only staves can be used as weapons as well as foci, I believe, so you would not be able to actually TWF with a sword in one hand and a "short staff" in the other without something like the Ruby of the War Mage or Dual Wielder feat, as staff foci use the quarterstaff weapon stats and thus aren't light. It's certainly doable, but depends either on you taking the feat or you talking with the DM about how you'd get the magic item.
I believe the claim that you can't use your hand that's holding a focus for the somatic components of spells that don't have material components to be inaccurate.
PHB pg203
There is no limitation in the text regarding performing the somatic components with a hand holding an appropriate focus for your class. There's no rule saying that you can only do this if the spell has material components being replaced by the focus. Clearly rules as written, you can perform somatic components while holding a focus, regardless of if the spell in question is making use of the focus to replace material components. You only need a free hand apart from the hand holding the focus if you're casting a spell with costly or expended material components, because those require a free hand that's not occupied with the focus.
No they don't.
The rules say you need one free hand if the spell is S; you need one free hand if the spell is M; and you need one free hand if the spell is M, S (not two free hands).
M, S spells have gestures that include (in fact, require) manipulating material components. S spells don't, so the hand must be free. If a hand is holding a focus then it is not free.
For example, a wizard with a dagger in one hand and a rod in the other hand needs to drop or stow one of them to cast charm person.
I literally copied verbatim the relevant passage. You can't quote the part of the rulebook that supports your argument, because it doesn't exist.
Specific rules trump general rules.
The Somatic Component rule that you need a free hand is a general rule.
The Spellcasting Focus rule that allows you to perform somatic components while holding a focus is a specific rule. It specifies that you need a free hand to hold the focus, and that you can perform Somatic Components while holding the focus. It does not place any requirement on the spell having material components for you to be able to cast the spell using the hand holding the focus to perform the somatic components.
You are making up rules that are not in the book, which would be fine if you were saying it was your house rule for your table, but you're not. You're trying to force that house rule on others. Because of that, you are factually wrong.
When someone else quotes the rulebook, don't just say, "nope, that's not how it is", then make claims that aren't supported by the text of the rulebooks.
The feat you are looking for is Warcaster which will you allow you to cast without a free hand, as well as a reaction attack cantrip which is not to be overlooked as I presume you're planning to use a high dex with that shortsword and booming / green flame blade. That'll stack nicely on War Magic's +2 to AC if you only use a cantrip that round. However. I'm really enjoying playing a sorc with quickened spell as this allows me to booming blade TWICE in a round. I also have crusher to knock em back;) The real question is are you married to wizard or will other spellcasters do, because sorcerer can really up your combat game, also Shillelagh is the all time winner for magical people attacking with sticks and makes for very interesting druid monk ranger and or cleric combos. If you really want extra attacks, don't underestimate sword or glory bard, especially with 2 lvls of pally on em for smites.
This is not a house rule, it's the actual rule. The Material Component rule you're citing only comes into play when there is an M component to the spell.
Give me the actual rule from the book that says that then. I quoted the book where it says what I'm saying, but I haven't seen anything that supports the alternate position.
The rule explicitly states that you can perform Somatic Components while holding a spellcasting focus. It doesn't say anywhere that you can only do so when a spell has Material Components replaced by the focus.
It's like how the Crossbow Expert feat includes features that don't only apply to crossbows, and WotC confirmed that the RAI match that RAW.
Or like Gandalf, you could be a fake Wizard. Gandalf is actually a Custom Lineage Fighter with Dual Wielder, TWF and Magic Initiate feat.
You're asking where it says the rules for Material Components only apply to spells with Material Components?
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
I think regardless of what class(es) you go with, the Dual Wielder feat solves pretty much all the issues you might run into from a persnickety DM when it comes to having a hand free for casting, as well as expanding your options for what the escrima stick could be in D&D terms if you want to reskin something a little more potent than a club. The AC boost isn't nothing, either, whether you're going bladesinger and relying on mage armor or MCing with monk
And Ace of Rogues is right -- you can use TWF as a bladesinger, you just can't make an attack with a single weapon using two hands
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
No, I'm asking where there's a rule that contradicts the one under spellcasting focus that allows you to perform somatic components with a hand that's holding the spellcasting focus, the rule people are claiming exists without evidence. Specific rules trump general rules, and I quoted the specific rule relating to this verbatim.
In case you've forgotten... PHB 203
Just like how the feat Crossbow Expert lets you make all ranged attacks against targets within 5ft of you without disadvantage, not just with crossbows, the rules for spellcasting foci allow you to perform somatic components with a hand holding a focus, not just spells that utilize the focus.
Here's the entire section you keep quoting from -- the Material Components rules, which applies to spells with Material components
There have been multiple threads arguing this issue already. If that's what you want to talk about, go find one of them. Don't derail this one by trying to turn it into another one
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
I read all of it, and quoted the relevant part. And no one actually provided any evidence that challenged the evidence I presented, or even addressed it. I'm convinced that the Mandela Effect is in play regarding people's belief that you can't cast a spell without material components under the same circumstances as they could be cast if they did have material components.
Per the rules, you have to have a free hand to perform somatic components.
Per the rules, you can have material components or a spellcasting focus in your hand and still perform somatic components as if that hand were not holding anything.
Per the rules, there are no restrictions that the focus or components you're holding would have to be used in the casting of the spell in question.
If you're holding a ball of bat guano, or a crystal arcane focus, ready to cast the Fireball spell with your next action, and something comes up, resulting in you casting Magic Missile instead, you don't have to drop the guano or crystal to do so, and you don't need a second hand to cast.
The topic of the discussion is how to make a two-weapon-fighting spellcaster, and I've been sharing how to do so, which is relevant to the discussion, and not a derailment. Per the rules, a spellcaster can cast any spell that doesn't require costly or expended material components while holding a weapon in each hand so long as one of the weapons is a spellcasting focus (a staff, a weapon bearing a Ruby of the War Mage, etc). People insisting this can't be done are the ones derailing the discussion by writing off mechanical options that actually work.
From the Sage Advice Compendium on this site:
https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/sac/sage-advice-compendium#Spellcasting
You've made a fair point. I'm content that someone finally gave a source for their argument (if someone had posted that 20 hours ago, this would have been over then). That's sufficient for me to stop arguing, even as I continue to believe that it is a poor ruling that isn't in the rulebook itself, and instead comes from an online article that includes other bad rulings, even though they're technically "official".
Example:
Merely a page apart, the Sage Advice Compendium says that unarmed Strikes are, and are not weapons. Their rules lack consistency of interpretation.