Bizarre Sage Advice Ruling Re: Spellcasting Components [Archive]

BurgerBeast

2017-03-22, 03:28 PM

So, in the sage advice (http://dnd.wizards.com/articles/sage-advice/rules-spellcasting) from March 23rd (edit: 2015. Sorry I didn't realize the article was 2 years old, but it's the first time I read it that I can recall), the following can be found:

If a spell has a material component, you need to handle that component when you cast the spell (see page 203 in the Player’s Handbook). 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.

Endquote. Emphasis added.

This is nor an attempt to overrule sage advice. I get it. JC has spoken and I accept and understand the rule.

The problem I have is, it seems inconsistent. If spell components are listed using the S, V, M system, then these are binary considerations.

The idea that there can be an interaction between the S and M components seems to present a new possibility that doesn't fit the system.

It seems to that there should be:

1. spells with no S and no M
2. spells with S but no M
3. spells with no S but M
4. spells with S and M as separate requirements
5. spells with S and M, where the M is used as part of the S

The sage advice ruling presents two problems:

First, it seems to eliminates the possibility of (4) ever occurring, which is fine as a matter of ruling, but may not mesh well with particular spells and doesn't necessarily stand to reason.

Second, it presents a weird disconnect between understanding why a caster can perform somatic components with is shield-hand while holding a shield if the shield is the focus for the spell, but cannot perform somatic components, using the same shield-hand, for a spell that has no material component, while holding the same shield. Totally bizarre.

I haven't combed the PHB for examples, but I noticed shillelagh has three material components (mistletoe, a shamrock leaf, and a
club or quarterstaff), so, RAW, a caster can hold the shamrock, the mistletoe, and a club in one hand while also performing the somatic components. But for a spell such as speak with plants, any one of mistletoe, shamrock, or club would make the same druid unable to perform the somatic components unless he released it.

rooneg

2017-03-22, 03:32 PM

Second, it presents a weird disconnect between understanding why a caster can perform somatic components with is shield-hand while holding a shield if the shield is the focus for the spell, but cannot perform somatic components, using the same shield-hand, for a spell that has no material component, while holding the same shield. Totally bizarre.

It's not bizarre, it just means that a somatic component for a spell that includes a material component is largely just "manipulating the material component", i.e. for a cleric with a holy symbol on a shield the somatic component is just presenting that holy symbol, but a somatic component for a spell that doesn't have a material component is "doing something with your hand that you can't do while you're holding a shield".

Tanarii

2017-03-22, 03:43 PM

Squiddish

2017-03-22, 04:48 PM

This is how it's always worked, and it's been addressed previously, using this exact example (Cure Wounds). So I'm not sure how it's either Bizarre or new.

Edit: Oh, this isn't new is it? This is March 23, 2015.

It's "Bizarre" because contrary to being easier to cast, spells without material components can be harder to cast, especially for divine casters.

Tanarii

2017-03-22, 05:00 PM

It's "Bizarre" because contrary to being easier to cast, spells without material components can be harder to cast, especially for divine casters.This is a side effect of Shields being able to be emblazoned with a Holy Symbol. And you've got it back to front. It's not that spells without material components are harder to cast for Divine Casters, it's that they have a special rule making it easier for them to cast spells with material components.

It doesn't affect non-Holy Symbol casters, because the rule is always that they need a free hand to access their material component / foci, and that same free hand can be the one used to S components. In other words, it's their fault if they are holding the focus in the first place that they don't have a free hand to cast an S-only spell, as that's not necessary.

Strill

2017-03-22, 05:02 PM

This is a side effect of Shields being able to be emblazoned with a Holy Symbol. And you've got it back to front. It's not that spells without material components are harder to cast for Divine Casters, it's that they have a special rule making it easier for them to cast spells with material components.

Same thing.

Steampunkette

2017-03-22, 05:20 PM

Get a benefit at a cost.

+2 AC for a slight hassle for casting a specific set of spells.

Works just fine for me.

Vogonjeltz

2017-03-22, 06:19 PM

This is nor an attempt to overrule sage advice. I get it. JC has spoken and I accept and understand the rule.

The problem I have is, it seems inconsistent. If spell components are listed using the S, V, M system, then these are binary considerations.

The idea that there can be an interaction between the S and M components seems to present a new possibility that doesn't fit the system.

It seems to that there should be:

1. spells with no S and no M
2. spells with S but no M
3. spells with no S but M
4. spells with S and M as separate requirements
5. spells with S and M, where the M is used as part of the S

The sage advice ruling presents two problems:

First, it seems to eliminates the possibility of (4) ever occurring, which is fine as a matter of ruling, but may not mesh well with particular spells and doesn't necessarily stand to reason.

Second, it presents a weird disconnect between understanding why a caster can perform somatic components with is shield-hand while holding a shield if the shield is the focus for the spell, but cannot perform somatic components, using the same shield-hand, for a spell that has no material component, while holding the same shield. Totally bizarre.

I haven't combed the PHB for examples, but I noticed shillelagh has three material components (mistletoe, a shamrock leaf, and a
club or quarterstaff), so, RAW, a caster can hold the shamrock, the mistletoe, and a club in one hand while also performing the somatic components. But for a spell such as speak with plants, any one of mistletoe, shamrock, or club would make the same druid unable to perform the somatic components unless he released it.

Somatic Components alone are like sign language, they require finer control than is possible if the hand is occupied.

Spells with Somatic AND Material components use less refined gestures. (i.e. You can gesture with the Orb or Wand to draw a circle and point, or whatever.)

Tanarii

2017-03-22, 06:24 PM

Somatic Components alone are like sign language, they require finer control than is possible if the hand is occupied.

Spells with Somatic AND Material components use less refined gestures. (i.e. You can gesture with the Orb or Wand to draw a circle and point, or whatever.)Alternately, you typically have a free hand that you use to both handle the material component / focus and also (in a separate part of casting the spell) do the Somatic gesture. Two independent things sequentially (in either order) with the same free hand.

Of course, this is the interpretation that makes Holy Symbols on Shields suddenly seem bizarre. Yours interpretation works better for Holy Symbol V/S/M, V/M or S/M spells. *waves shield slightly*

BurgerBeast

2017-03-22, 06:30 PM

It's not bizarre, it just means that a somatic component for a spell that includes a material component is largely just "manipulating the material component", i.e. for a cleric with a holy symbol on a shield the somatic component is just presenting that holy symbol, but a somatic component for a spell that doesn't have a material component is "doing something with your hand that you can't do while you're holding a shield".

This is my point. There is no room, within the rules, for a spell which has somatic and material components that are not simply manipulating the material. So, if there was a spell that required you to draw circle with chalk and then when wave your hands, this couldn't be enforced by the rules. So long as the spell has an S and an M, then the S is precisely the manipulation of the M. So, this spell could not exist (in any mechanical sense) in D&D.

This is how it's always worked, and it's been addressed previously, using this exact example (Cure Wounds). So I'm not sure how it's either Bizarre or new.

Edit: Oh, this isn't new is it? This is March 23, 2015.

I think you're right. Sorry about that. Regardless, old or new, it's bizarre.

This is a side effect of Shields being able to be emblazoned with a Holy Symbol. And you've got it back to front. It's not that spells without material components are harder to cast for Divine Casters, it's that they have a special rule making it easier for them to cast spells with material components.

Oh. Is this really exclusive to divine casters? So EKs and fighter/wizards and druids can't do this with shields? That seems even more bizarre, to me.

...it's their fault if they are holding the focus in the first place that they don't have a free hand to cast an S-only spell, as that's not necessary.

Well this is what's bizarre. It's bizarre that "fault" comes into it at all. If you can do the S with an orb in your hand, but other times you can't, then that is weird.

Get a benefit at a cost.

+2 AC for a slight hassle for casting a specific set of spells.

Works just fine for me.

Classic on this forum. Completely irrelevant information that everyone already knows and acknowledges.

Tanarii

2017-03-22, 06:42 PM

Well this is what's bizarre. It's bizarre that "fault" comes into it at all. If you can do the S with an orb in your hand, but other times you can't, then that is weird.You can always do it with the orb "in your hand". Because you never actually have the orb in your hand except when it's specifically needed in your hand. The rest of the time it's wherever you keep it (probably stuck in your belt). In other words, if you use a component, component pouch, or non-'Holy Symbol on a shield' foci (including Holy Symbols not on shield) for your spells, you don't actually hold those things in your hand normally, you just keep a free hand, with the item kept handy for when it's needed. (edit: To be clear, the reason this works is it's not an object interaction to access M components, Component Pouches or Foci as part of casting a spell. You just need a free hand to access them.)

The only time it's a weird edge case is Holy Symbols emblazoned on a shield, because that hand isn't free when it's not being used as a Holy Symbol.

sir_argo

2017-03-22, 07:41 PM

Is this really exclusive to divine casters? So EKs and fighter/wizards and druids can't do this with shields?

Not sure if this is what you're looking for, but Sage Advice had this (http://www.sageadvice.eu/2016/07/18/can-cleric-use-holy-symbol-shield-for-a-focus-while-also-holding-a-weapon-in-other-hand/) to say:

Can cleric use holy symbol-shield for a focus while also holding a weapon in other hand?

Mat @_Matafer

"@JeremyECrawford Confused. It says a Cleric can use his holy symbol-shield for a focus & somatic; while also holding a weapon in other hand?"

Jeremy Crawford @JeremyECrawford

"@_Matafer That's correct. Holy symbols are special."

It doesn't say only clerics, but you would need the Spellcasting Focus class feature that allows you to use a holy symbol as a focus for your spells. Even then, it only works for the class spells listed.

PHB 58: "Spellcasting Focus - you can use a holy symbol (found in chapter 5) as a spellcasting focus for your cleric spells."

Druid has similar.

Puh Laden

2017-03-22, 08:03 PM

Not sure if this is what you're looking for, but Sage Advice had this (http://www.sageadvice.eu/2016/07/18/can-cleric-use-holy-symbol-shield-for-a-focus-while-also-holding-a-weapon-in-other-hand/) to say:

Can cleric use holy symbol-shield for a focus while also holding a weapon in other hand?

Mat @_Matafer

"@JeremyECrawford Confused. It says a Cleric can use his holy symbol-shield for a focus & somatic; while also holding a weapon in other hand?"

Jeremy Crawford @JeremyECrawford

"@_Matafer That's correct. Holy symbols are special."

It doesn't say only clerics, but you would need the Spellcasting Focus class feature that allows you to use a holy symbol as a focus for your spells. Even then, it only works for the class spells listed.

PHB 58: "Spellcasting Focus - you can use a holy symbol (found in chapter 5) as a spellcasting focus for your cleric spells."

Druid has similar.

Are you referring to a druid using a yew-quarterstaff as both a focus and a weapon? Because druid's don't get holy symbols as a focus option.

I agree with OP that it is weird. The fact that I can easily justify the weirdness doesn't mean it isn't weird, just like how devil's sight doesn't work in dim light. Honestly following either the RAW/SA or house-ruling it to make it more intuitive in both of those cases doesn't matter much to me since it seems to me to be a rule that wasn't actually all that thought out since neither of those cases are very intuitive nor are clarified in the rules themselves. I wouldn't mind my DM house-ruling it so long as it's consistent.

sir_argo

2017-03-22, 09:00 PM

Are you referring to a druid using a yew-quarterstaff as both a focus and a weapon? Because druid's don't get holy symbols as a focus option.

Yes. Really I was just highlighting that both cleric and druid have the class feature Spellcasting Focus which allows for alternate foci, but yeah, in for a druid it isn't a holy symbol. In the case of a druid, they have the option of a wooden staff. It still plays into the VSM puzzle.

ClearlyTough69

2017-03-23, 08:14 AM

a caster can perform somatic components with is shield-hand while holding a shield if the shield is the focus for the spell, but cannot perform somatic components, using the same shield-hand, for a spell that has no material component, while holding the same shield. Totally bizarre.

I agree. This is completely wack! So much so that I have gone to the bother of house-ruling as follows:

You must have a free hand to hold the material components of a spell; if you are a cleric using a holy symbol emblazoned on your shield, that counts as holding a material component in a free hand.
You must have a free hand to provide the somatic components of a spell
If the spell has both a material and a somatic component, you must have two free hands
The Warcaster feat enables you to cast a spell with one fewer free hands than you would normally need

Rysto

2017-03-23, 08:42 AM

I agree. This is completely wack! So much so that I have gone to the bother of house-ruling as follows:

You must have a free hand to hold the material components of a spell; if you are a cleric using a holy symbol emblazoned on your shield, that counts as holding a material component in a free hand.
You must have a free hand to provide the somatic components of a spell
If the spell has both a material and a somatic component, you must have two free hands
The Warcaster feat enables you to cast a spell with one fewer free hands than you would normally need

You realize that this ruling make melee Clerics and Paladins basically unplayable, right?

RickAllison

2017-03-23, 09:01 AM

You realize that this ruling make melee Clerics and Paladins basically unplayable, right?

Not as bad as you would think. When they need a open hand for casting, they drop their weapon which has no restrictions. Then they cast. Then they use their free object interaction to pick the weapon back up.

BiPolar

2017-03-23, 09:09 AM

Dalebert

2017-03-23, 09:11 AM

When you say it like that it's almost as if the ruling is fluff :D

How dare you? It's critical that we micromanage this. How else will we disrupt the pacing of the game over tedious crap? Frankly, I'm running out of ideas.

BiPolar

2017-03-23, 09:17 AM

How dare you? It's critical that we micromanage this. How else will we disrupt the pacing of the game over tedious crap? Frankly, I'm running out of ideas.

I highly recommend PUI (playing under the influence)

NNescio

2017-03-23, 09:23 AM

This is my point. There is no room, within the rules, for a spell which has somatic and material components that are not simply manipulating the material. So, if there was a spell that required you to draw circle with chalk and then when wave your hands, this couldn't be enforced by the rules. So long as the spell has an S and an M, then the S is precisely the manipulation of the M. So, this spell could not exist (in any mechanical sense) in D&D.

Eh, Subtle Spell Sorcs. Still need to hold a focus or pull out the material components though, but if they're already in hand (literally in the case of certain illusion spells, with fleece gloves) further manipulation becomes unnecessary.

Tanarii

2017-03-23, 09:40 AM

Not as bad as you would think. When they need a open hand for casting, they drop their weapon which has no restrictions. Then they cast. Then they use their free object interaction to pick the weapon back up.
I'm still a little baffled that picking up a weapon from the ground takes the same amount of action economy as drawing it from a sheath. It's not like the 5e devs could possibly have been unaware that weapon-dropping shenanigans to work around the rules were a thing in D&D.

RickAllison

2017-03-23, 09:54 AM

I'm still a little baffled that picking up a weapon from the ground takes the same amount of action economy as drawing it from a sheath. It's not like the 5e devs could possibly have been unaware that weapon-dropping shenanigans to work around the rules were a thing in D&D.

I would actually think that unsheathing it would have a higher action economy, if anything. Admittedly I have only experience from a machete, but picking it up off the ground is much easier than drawing it.

Joe the Rat

2017-03-23, 10:02 AM

I personally find it a bit fussy. But them's the rules. Keep in mind that changing this so your cleric can shield bash someone into health also means Wizards really don't need warcaster ever, since "free hand" is not a problem when you will rarely have your hands full with everything but a spell focus.

Conceptually... It's Naruto vs Harry Potter. Intricate hand seals (S, plus V "declare jutsu name") vs. "Swish and flick" (S, M, plus V "Wingardium LeviOsa")

BW022

2017-03-23, 11:30 AM

First, it seems to eliminates the possibility of (4) ever occurring, which is fine as a matter of ruling, but may not mesh well with particular spells and doesn't necessarily stand to reason.

Second, it presents a weird disconnect between understanding why a caster can perform somatic components with is shield-hand while holding a shield if the shield is the focus for the spell, but cannot perform somatic components, using the same shield-hand, for a spell that has no material component, while holding the same shield. Totally bizarre.

You can eliminate both mental blocks by simply assuming that S means moving an flat (open) hand in the air while S+M means moving an object in the air. Just do it in real life and it becomes clear.

For verbal, say "Alakazam". For a material component, use a marble. For a somatic component, use a figure 8 in the air.

It is obvious the verbal can always be done simultaneously. So, you can ignore it.

* For a S-only, you open your hand (flat) and trace a figure 8 in the air. Your hand must be free since it must be flat.
* For a S+M, you take the marble out of your pocket, put it in your hand, and trace a figure 8 in the air (with the marble still in your hand).

So far... so good. Now, glue the marble on a board (shield) or put it on the end of a stick (wand). Now hold the board or stick in your hand.

* for a S+M, you can now track a figure 8 with your shield or wand arm. The marble still makes a figure 8.
* for S, you much still point your *flat* hand and trace a figure 8.

Should be clear that you can't do S-only with that hand unless you drop the shield or wand, or use another (free) hand. S-only means free hand because the hand must be flat.

Thus, the first isn't an issue once you realize that most spells need to do something with a component. Thus, few M or V+M spells. The second isn't an issue once you accept that S is moving a hand in a specific configuration in the air, while S+M is moving the component in the air.

Tanarii

2017-03-23, 11:52 AM

I would actually think that unsheathing it would have a higher action economy, if anything. Admittedly I have only experience from a machete, but picking it up off the ground is much easier than drawing it.
In combat, with someone trying to kill you standing right in front of you? To be fair, I was specifically thinking of how idiotic it is for a character with an opponent standing right in front of her to do this. Or a disarmed opponent in the same situation. Not a ranged attack on someone a considerable distance away then picking up your weapon again.

Even so ... yes, I can't see how bending down to pick up a weapon from the ground in a high stress situation of any kind should take less action economy than drawing it.

Off the top of my head, a start for a house-rule would be 1/2 your movement in addition to your object interaction. In other words, equal to standing up from prone. Not sure how that'd work in terms of balance though, because I just came up with it. :smallwink:

Edit: I'll be honest, the action economy bothers me. But the mentality it indicates of someone that would think weapon dropping shenanigans to circumvent a rules interaction is a reasonable thing to do bothers me far more.

RickAllison

2017-03-23, 12:21 PM

In combat, with someone trying to kill you standing right in front of you? To be fair, I was specifically thinking of how idiotic it is for a character with an opponent standing right in front of her to do this. Or a disarmed opponent in the same situation. Not a ranged attack on someone a considerable distance away then picking up your weapon again.

Even so ... yes, I can't see how bending down to pick up a weapon from the ground in a high stress situation of any kind should take less action economy than drawing it.

Off the top of my head, a start for a house-rule would be 1/2 your movement in addition to your object interaction. In other words, equal to standing up from prone. Not sure how that'd work in terms of balance though, because I just came up with it. :smallwink:

Edit: I'll be honest, the action economy bothers me. But the mentality it indicates of someone that would think weapon dropping shenanigans to circumvent a rules interaction is a reasonable thing to do bothers me far more.

When I have to resort to those shenanigans, I tend to fluff my "dropping" as tossing my weapon into the air, doing what I need to, then catching it as it falls and transitioning to the next stance. Works great for someone who is supposed to be a badass martial artist or a performer who is using a weapon.

jas61292

2017-03-23, 12:42 PM

Unless I am mistaken, "weapon dropping shenanigans" are not RAW, despite commonly being assumed to be. A sage advice article once suggested dropping could be free, but no rule in any book backs this up. As such, RAW, it should be up to the DM to determine whether the interaction required is free, an object interaction, or the use an object action. All three are valid RAW rulings.

Personally, while I have no desire to make things super difficult, I do not like people trying to abuse the rules to get around hand restrictions, and so I do not allow those shenanigans by adjusting action cost based in the scenario.

Vogonjeltz

2017-03-23, 07:15 PM

Alternately, you typically have a free hand that you use to both handle the material component / focus and also (in a separate part of casting the spell) do the Somatic gesture. Two independent things sequentially (in either order) with the same free hand.

Of course, this is the interpretation that makes Holy Symbols on Shields suddenly seem bizarre. Yours interpretation works better for Holy Symbol V/S/M, V/M or S/M spells. *waves shield slightly*

Yeah that's pretty much how I imagine it; if it just required a focus there'd be no required motion at all; with both you need to move your focus in a particular way, with just somatic you need finger/hand/arm gestures that aren't going to work out without an unused hand.

If you envision it like that, no problem exists.

Spellbreaker26

2017-03-23, 07:17 PM

Maybe the emblem on the shield is a complex mechanical device that moves when you wave the shield? It would explain why it costs five gold to St. Constantine one chunk of wood.

ClearlyTough69

2017-03-26, 08:06 AM

How dare you? It's critical that we micromanage this. How else will we disrupt the pacing of the game over tedious crap? Frankly, I'm running out of ideas.

Ouch!

And

LOL

BurgerBeast

2017-03-26, 10:46 PM

You can eliminate both mental blocks by simply assuming that S means moving an flat (open) hand in the air while S+M means moving an object in the air. Just do it in real life and it becomes clear.

I know that I can do this. My point is that it doesn't make sense: it's unintuitive, inconsistent, and leads to the inability to communicate some things that are actually possibilities. I know I may not have been very clear, so I'll try to be here:

S means S, V means V, and M means M. These are independent, and the system works fine that way. By this I mean that of the relevant two-component combinations, there is no good reason to make unnecessary assumptions:

S-V: No reason to think that that the words are part of the movement, nor vice-versa.
V-M: no reason to think the words are connected to the material, nor vice-versa.

but then...

S-M: no reason to think the movements are connected to the material, nor vice versa. The movements and the material are inseparably connected.

That's the problem. The default assumption of the system is that there are three independent considerations: is there a verbal component? Is there a somatic component? Is there a material component? Which leads to eight possibilities.

If, as JC claims, SM implies a connection between the verbal and somatic component, this is bizarre. It breaks the trend, but more importantly it rules out the otherwise logical possibilities to have SM spells in which the S and M are independent, and to have VSM spells in which the S and M are independent.

RickAllison

2017-03-27, 12:03 AM

I know that I can do this. My point is that it doesn't make sense: it's unintuitive, inconsistent, and leads to the inability to communicate some things that are actually possibilities. I know I may not have been very clear, so I'll try to be here:

S means S, V means V, and M means M. These are independent, and the system works fine that way. By this I mean that of the relevant two-component combinations, there is no good reason to make unnecessary assumptions:

S-V: No reason to think that that the words are part of the movement, nor vice-versa.
V-M: no reason to think the words are connected to the material, nor vice-versa.

but then...

S-M: no reason to think the movements are connected to the material, nor vice versa. The movements and the material are inseparably connected.

That's the problem. The default assumption of the system is that there are three independent considerations: is there a verbal component? Is there a somatic component? Is there a material component? Which leads to eight possibilities.

If, as JC claims, SM implies a connection between the verbal and somatic component, this is bizarre. It breaks the trend, but more importantly it rules out the otherwise logical possibilities to have SM spells in which the S and M are independent, and to have VSM spells in which the S and M are independent.

The way I think of it is that the Somatic and Material components in a spell do not have to be combined, but that the centuries of study by mages before have learned to shortcut the process by combining the two. You can hold the M component in one hand and gesture with the other (such as having an amulet as your focus and holding it, then pointing your hand with the other), but either trial-and-error or study have taught how to perform them together. I get this from this passage:

A spellcaster must have a hand free to access these
components, but it can be the same hand that he or she
uses to perform somatic components

Not "must be the same hand" but instead "can". Combining the two is entirely optional and may in fact be undesirable. For example, a Wizard who is being asked to use Sending to communicate to a target may slip one hand into his robes to take hold of a vial of bergamot oil and snake tongue to cast Suggestion on the person, then pick up the copper wire with the gesticulating hand to cast Sending. Surely you can't have cast Suggestion if you didn't have the proper material components...

I've actually used this before to conceal spellcasting. The bergamot oil was adding a touch of perfume to an ensemble, the somatic component was making "minor adjustments", and the wizard was singing a song that was really just the verbal components. Someone who knows what goes into a Suggestion spell might be able to figure it out if they were watching closely, but he just looked like he was doing tailor-y things.

So S+M components are independent, it is just that mages have figured out shortcuts that are now in wide use.

Telok

2017-03-27, 01:58 AM

BurgerBeast

2017-03-27, 02:55 AM

Since you have to have a hand free to manipulate material components, and you have to have a hand free to do somatic components, and they can be the same hand, M = S as long as you have a spell component pouch or arcane focus within reach. In fact all occurrences of SM in arcane spell descriptions are equal to just having M there, the SM notation is redundant. So VSM = VM.

Yes this is sort of a good way to sum it up. I considered writing the original post this way.

But I wanted to point out (and probably did so poorly at best) that there should be a place for M spells that are not MS, and for VM spells that are not VMS.

If I'm not mistaken, in previous editions, the assumption for an MS spell was that the M and the S were independent requirements unless otherwise specified in the spell description. This system allowed for all possibilities.

RickAllison

2017-03-27, 03:10 AM

Yes this is sort of a good way to sum it up. I considered writing the original post this way.

But I wanted to point out (and probably did so poorly at best) that there should be a place for M spells that are not MS, and for VM spells that are not VMS.

If I'm not mistaken, in previous editions, the assumption for an MS spell was that the M and the S were independent requirements unless otherwise specified in the spell description. This system allowed for all possibilities.

There theoretically are spells with M and not S components, but WotC has just not deigned to include an official one yet. They have yet to include a lot of spells that could stand to be added into the game. Or that may just be my caster-preference speaking. In any case, page 203 of the PHB rather explicitly points out that while M and S components can be combined, they are not required to be and can function independently. They have to, considering that any MS component spell becomes just an M spell with the right Metamagic.

The original post is confusing the non-existence of a particular combination with the impossibility of the same. Flip a coin three times to try and get all tails and (assuming a random toss rather than trying to get three tails) it is very plausible to go through many trials without having all tails. That doesn't mean the result is impossible, but just that it hasn't occurred in the sample. A DM can create a VM or M component spell and (other than creating the spell itself) it wouldn't be houseruling as the books perfectly account for such combinations. They just don't have any spells that fit the description as of yet. But before VGtM, they didn't have any races with negative ability modifiers, and before SCAG there weren't any spells (not just cantrips) that made an attack with a weapon as part of the spell. These weren't impossible races or spells, but just ones that didn't have any examples yet.

NNescio

2017-03-27, 03:21 AM

Since you have to have a hand free to manipulate material components, and you have to have a hand free to do somatic components, and they can be the same hand, M = S as long as you have a spell component pouch or arcane focus within reach. In fact all occurrences of SM in arcane spell descriptions are equal to just having M there, the SM notation is redundant. So VSM = VM.

Your hand can be holding the component (or spellcasting focus) to fulfill the requirements for M but simultaneously be bound or otherwise restricted in movement so you can't perform the S components. While normally a moot point (because M spells are also accompanied by S components), this is no longer the case for Sorcs with the Subtle spell metamagic. They, can, say, cast SM or VSM spells while being tied and bound if they've managed to palm the material components (such as via a Sleight of Hand check, hiding them in their sleeves), or surreptitiously reach into their pocket for the material component (or focus) to cast such a spell without alerting others via somatic components (useful in social situations or the avoid enemy Counterspells).

BurgerBeast

2017-03-27, 03:37 AM

There theoretically are spells with M and not S components, but WotC has just not deigned to include an official one yet. They have yet to include a lot of spells that could stand to be added into the game. Or that may just be my caster-preference speaking. In any case, page 203 of the PHB rather explicitly points out that while M and S components can be combined, they are not required to be and can function independently. They have to, considering that any MS component spell becomes just an M spell with the right Metamagic.

The original post is confusing the non-existence of a particular combination with the impossibility of the same. Flip a coin three times to try and get all tails and (assuming a random toss rather than trying to get three tails) it is very plausible to go through many trials without having all tails. That doesn't mean the result is impossible, but just that it hasn't occurred in the sample. A DM can create a VM or M component spell and (other than creating the spell itself) it wouldn't be houseruling as the books perfectly account for such combinations. They just don't have any spells that fit the description as of yet. But before VGtM, they didn't have any races with negative ability modifiers, and before SCAG there weren't any spells (not just cantrips) that made an attack with a weapon as part of the spell. These weren't impossible races or spells, but just ones that didn't have any examples yet.

No, you're not understanding what I'm saying. I'm saying that Crawford's explanation (the one quoted in the OP), not the non-existence of such spells, makes it impossible. The fact that you could even confuse this is worrisome.

Your hand can be holding the component (or spellcasting focus) to fulfill the requirements for M but simultaneously be bound or otherwise restricted in movement so you can't perform the S components. While normally a moot point (because M spells are also accompanied by S components), this is no longer the case for Sorcs with the Subtle spell metamagic. They, can, say, cast SM or VSM spells while being tied and bound if they've managed to palm the material components (such as via a Sleight of Hand check, hiding them in their sleeves), or surreptitiously reach into their pocket for the material component (or focus) to cast such a spell without alerting others via somatic components (useful in social situations or the avoid enemy Counterspells).

Yes, thank you. I knew there was a stronger reason for why I did not initially present the concern as it is as recently posed. It was Subtle Spell.

RickAllison

2017-03-27, 09:50 AM

No, you're not understanding what I'm saying. I'm saying that Crawford's explanation (the one quoted in the OP), not the non-existence of such spells, makes it impossible. The fact that you could even confuse this is worrisome.

Yes, thank you. I knew there was a stronger reason for why I did not initially present the concern as it is as recently posed. It was Subtle Spell.

Yeah, I have no idea what your complaint is. Please, articulate it, because I have answered your criticisms on them not being independent with textual evidence and all you have responded with is a Sage Advice quote that doesn't really oppose such an interpretation. So please, state your thesis.

BurgerBeast

2017-03-29, 12:56 AM

Yeah, I have no idea what your complaint is. Please, articulate it, because I have answered your criticisms on them not being independent with textual evidence and all you have responded with is a Sage Advice quote that doesn't really oppose such an interpretation. So please, state your thesis.

I wasn't trying to address you at all, because none of what you have said has any significant bearing on this, at all, in my opinion.

For example, nowhere have you indicated that you understand my point. Additionally, your ability to interpret the text in a way that JC already interpreted it provides nothing new.

[edit: okay then, I'll give it a shot:

Take any spell with SM components that both a Cleric and an EK can cast.

A cleric has a shield, with a holy symbol on it, in his hand. Since the shield is the material component, he can perform the somatic component, using his shield hand, while holding the shield.

Then the cleric hands the same shield to the EK. The EK casts the same spell. He can’t use the shield as a holy symbol, so he sheathes his weapon and holds the material component in his weapon hand. Now, he can’t perform the somatic component with his shield hand, because he’s holding the shield in that hand. It's the exact same shield and the exact same somatic component. (If it isn't, then the somatic component depends, which is my point.)

So, despite the fact that it is the same shield, and the same somatic component, the cleric can do it but the EK can not. So, the somatic component in question is not considered independently of the material component. The ability to perform the exact same somatic component depends on whether the item held is a material component or not (and not, for example, on the physical characteristics of the object). The EK is apparently unable to perform the hand movements, but the cleric is, yet they are holding the same thing.

Note that the fact that the EK could just use his weapon hand (holding the material component at the moment) to perform the somatic component is beside the point. The point is that the somatic component is impossible to perform (using the shield hand) while holding the shield for the EK, but possible for the cleric. So, the somatic component must be different in the two cases. In other words, it depends on the material component.

That’s the problem.]

Zalabim

2017-03-29, 05:21 AM

Blacky the Blackball

2017-03-29, 06:19 AM

There theoretically are spells with M and not S components, but WotC has just not deigned to include an official one yet.

There's no spell with only an M component, but there are lots of VM spells that don't have an S component: Light, Feather Fall, Suggestion, Darkness, Tongues, Teleportation Circle, Mass Suggestion, and Whirlwind.

To add another wrinkle to things, consider the Rod of the Pact Keeper or Wand of the War Mage magic items. Each of them is a focus that gives you a bonus to spell attack rolls. The way foci work is that you use them as a replacement for the M components of a spell. With a VSM spell this isn't an issue - you wave your wand (manipulating the focus instead of the M component of the spell) in the hand that would normally be doing the SM components.

But with a VS spell that doesn't have an M component, as clarified in this Sage Advice, you actively can't hold your focus in the hand that does the S components. You have to put it down if it was normally held in that hand.

So we have the strange situation where a Wizard using a Wand of the War Mage to cast a VS spell (Chill Touch, Fire Bolt, Ray of Sickness, Scorching Ray, etc.) should get a bonus to hit for casting the spell while holding the wand but can't actually hold the wand in the hand that does the spell gestures. Unless their other hand is also free (to hold the wand) they can't use it and don't get its bonus on their spell attack roll.

I don't know any DM who actually enforces that - in my experience every DM simply assumes that you hold the wand in the gesturing hand and get the bonus to your attack with all spells, without looking into detail about what components the spell has.

Tanarii

2017-03-29, 08:29 AM

It's the exact same shield and the exact same somatic component. (If it isn't, then the somatic component depends, which is my point.)
Why do you think that? Or do you not think that, and that's what you mean by its your point?

There's nothing that says the somatic components for an EK casting a spell is the same as a Cleric casting a spell. Nothing says the S component is the same when used with a focus as when used with a M component. Nothing says an S component is the same every time a character casts a spell the same way.

It may vary based on if you have an foci, if you want to use the foci to do the S component or use it followed by letting it go again and then doing the S component, if it's an arcane or divine spell, what class you learned it from, you being a unique individual, the spell slot level you cast it out of. Or the variation in range, number of targets, or other spell variables unique to this casting. Same with V components.

Edit: Or it might not. That's ask your DM territory. But this is why I don't find the sage advice ruling weird at all. It's a basic requirement that you need a free hand ... but holy symbols etched on shields change the basic requirement. They specifically make cleric/paladin spells with M components work by changing the way the S component works for those spells with that particular foci.

BurgerBeast

2017-03-29, 06:05 PM

It's not really an interpretation from Sage Advice, nor is it really bizarre. It's just restating what the PHB already says about spell components. I don't know why this would even come up now, instead of any time in the last several years since the PHB came out, or even two years since that Sage Advice answer.

I'm not sure whether it's an intepretation, and it may become semantic anyway if we go down that rabbit-hole, so I think it's fair to say it's irrelevant. It is bizarre, though. Also probably not worth arguing because we are both allowed to have our own opinions about what is and what is not bizarre.

As for its coming up now... well... because I just read it, so the thought just occurred to me. Do you expect the thought to occur to me before I read it? Or, is there some reason (that I am unaware of) that says that if something came up two years ago, then it can't come up now?

And I believe Greenflame Blade and Booming Blade are both V, M for their components. The material is a melee weapon, as I recall.

This is not relevant to the main point.

Do you think the example raised by Blacky the Blackball is relevant or bizarre?

Why do you think that? Or do you not think that, and that's what you mean by its your point?

I think that the components of a spell are consistent, yes.

There's nothing that says the somatic components for an EK casting a spell is the same as a Cleric casting a spell. Nothing says the S component is the same when used with a focus as when used with a M component. Nothing says an S component is the same every time a character casts a spell the same way.

I'm not sure where to go with this. I think they are the same. I would have thought this was the default position, but I may be wrong.

It may vary based on if you have an foci, if you want to use the foci to do the S component or use it followed by letting it go again and then doing the S component, if it's an arcane or divine spell, what class you learned it from, you being a unique individual, the spell slot level you cast it out of. Or the variation in range, number of targets, or other spell variables unique to this casting. Same with V components.

Well, I think this is an example of the inconsistency. If you can do the S and the M together, or do the M and then S, this seems to go against the ruling, which is my point. Both seem reasonable to me, but one is not allowed, so far as I can tell, and at least not in the case of spells that are cast instantaneously.

Edit: Or it might not. That's ask your DM territory. But this is why I don't find the sage advice ruling weird at all. It's a basic requirement that you need a free hand ... but holy symbols etched on shields change the basic requirement. They specifically make cleric/paladin spells with M components work by changing the way the S component works for those spells with that particular foci.

Sure, so let's agree that it's a basic requirement that you need a free hand to perform a somatic component. Here's what's bizarre: you always need a free hand to perform a somatic component, unless the spell requires a material component. That's bizarre. It's bizarre because the general rule is that you need a free hand to perform a somatic component, unless you try to cast a spell and hold a material component at the same time. That doesn't make sense.

In general, it is not easier to perform a hand gesture and hold something than it is to just perform a hand gesture. I am fully aware that you can invent ways to rationalize this, but that doesn't make it more generally plausible. Further attempts to rationalize this, by linking the S and M components, do exactly that - link them, which is to say that you cannot consider them independently.

Anyway, at this point I feel like the conversation is clouded by what appear to be 2-3 different interpretations of the "bizarre" aspect, and I think I might just be repeating myself.

Tanarii

2017-03-29, 06:32 PM

I think that the components of a spell are consistent, yes.

I'm not sure where to go with this. I think they are the same. I would have thought this was the default position, but I may be wrong.Not wrong, because it's left up open to interpretation. I assume that's intentional. But there's no reason to assume it must be consistent. Which is a good thing otherwise you can't have High School wizards from one place in the world casting different from the Ice Witches wizards in another from the self-taught "knots-as-spellbooks" wizards, who each invent their own variant components individually, in a third.

OTOH there's no reason a DM can't say it's always the same free hand motion across the entire multiverse for all Cure Wounds spells either. It's just not required.

Well, I think this is an example of the inconsistency. If you can do the S and the M together, or do the M and then S, this seems to go against the ruling, which is my point. Both seem reasonable to me, but one is not allowed, so far as I can tell, and at least not in the case of spells that are cast instantaneously.Why is this against the ruling? AFAICT it's perfectly in sync with the ruling.

Sure, so let's agree that it's a basic requirement that you need a free hand to perform a somatic component. Here's what's bizarre: you always need a free hand to perform a somatic component, unless the spell requires a material component. That's bizarre. It's bizarre because the general rule is that you need a free hand to perform a somatic component, unless you try to cast a spell and hold a material component at the same time. That doesn't make sense.You've made a mistake. You always need a free hand to perform a somatic component. Full stop. It's just that you can use the SAME free hand to access a material component, component pouch, or foci. Holy Symbols are an exception to this rule because they can be emblazoned on a shield.

Now many people choose to interpret the 'same free hand' rule as you have, that if you have a foci in a hand, it is considered 'free' for S/M spells but not for S-only spells. (Ignoring the V component.) But that's not what the rule actually says. Edit: It is however a fairly workable interpretation, despite that.

Vogonjeltz

2017-03-29, 07:43 PM

I wasn't trying to address you at all, because none of what you have said has any significant bearing on this, at all, in my opinion.

For example, nowhere have you indicated that you understand my point. Additionally, your ability to interpret the text in a way that JC already interpreted it provides nothing new.

[edit: okay then, I'll give it a shot:

Take any spell with SM components that both a Cleric and an EK can cast.

A cleric has a shield, with a holy symbol on it, in his hand. Since the shield is the material component, he can perform the somatic component, using his shield hand, while holding the shield.

Then the cleric hands the same shield to the EK. The EK casts the same spell. He can’t use the shield as a holy symbol, so he sheathes his weapon and holds the material component in his weapon hand. Now, he can’t perform the somatic component with his shield hand, because he’s holding the shield in that hand. It's the exact same shield and the exact same somatic component. (If it isn't, then the somatic component depends, which is my point.)

So, despite the fact that it is the same shield, and the same somatic component, the cleric can do it but the EK can not. So, the somatic component in question is not considered independently of the material component. The ability to perform the exact same somatic component depends on whether the item held is a material component or not (and not, for example, on the physical characteristics of the object). The EK is apparently unable to perform the hand movements, but the cleric is, yet they are holding the same thing.

Note that the fact that the EK could just use his weapon hand (holding the material component at the moment) to perform the somatic component is beside the point. The point is that the somatic component is impossible to perform (using the shield hand) while holding the shield for the EK, but possible for the cleric. So, the somatic component must be different in the two cases. In other words, it depends on the material component.

That’s the problem.]

I have a solution: Different classes (indeed different casters of the exact same class) can cast the same spell in radically different ways.

BurgerBeast

2017-03-29, 09:33 PM

You've made a mistake. You always need a free hand to perform a somatic component. Full stop. It's just that you can use the SAME free hand to access a material component, component pouch, or foci. Holy Symbols are an exception to this rule because they can be emblazoned on a shield.

Where does it say that using a spellcasting focus excuses the need to perform a somatic component?

Holy symbols are an exception to the rule about material components, not somatic components.

Rysto

2017-03-29, 10:17 PM

Where does it say that using a spellcasting focus excuses the need to perform a somatic component?

It doesn't. The rules say that a hand holding a material component for a spell may be used to perform somatic components.

BurgerBeast

2017-03-29, 11:55 PM

It doesn't. The rules say that a hand holding a material component for a spell may be used to perform somatic components.

Yeah. That's been established. We appear to be talking in circles.

Solunaris

2017-03-30, 02:20 AM

I'm just gonna throw my thoughts on this in because I haven't seen it brought up. I wanna go back to the example brought up about a shield with a Holy Symbol emblazoned on it being passed from a Cleric who uses it to cast a specific spell to an Eldritch Knight who can't use it to cast the specific spell.

Perhaps the Eldritch Knight could perform the Somatic component with the shield in hand, but he is unable to channel his Mana (or whatever you want to call magical power) through the Holy Symbol and thus requires an Arcane Focus. Since he can't channel the Mana through the Holy Symbol on the shield, he can't use that hand for the Somatic components of the spell. The fact that there is a specific distinction between Arcane and Divine focuses says to me that there is definitely a distinction between the way arcane and divine casters cast spells.

Coidzor

2017-03-30, 02:45 AM

I must admit, it is strange that they seem to expect Wizards and Warlocks to eventually get +1, +2, or +3 arcane focus items that they would have in their hand as a matter of course, but when actually casting spells, not actually have them in their hands, but instead reach over and touch the arcane focus on their bandolier or belt or what have you as part of casting a spell, and seek to actively punish them for having their magic "weapon" out in a context where they should have it out.

This is my point. There is no room, within the rules, for a spell which has somatic and material components that are not simply manipulating the material. So, if there was a spell that required you to draw circle with chalk and then when wave your hands, this couldn't be enforced by the rules. So long as the spell has an S and an M, then the S is precisely the manipulation of the M. So, this spell could not exist (in any mechanical sense) in D&D.

But they'd totally make it anyway. :smalltongue:

Blacky the Blackball

2017-03-30, 04:52 AM

You always need a free hand to perform a somatic component. Full stop. It's just that you can use the SAME free hand to access a material component, component pouch, or foci.

Now many people choose to interpret the 'same free hand' rule as you have, that if you have a foci in a hand, it is considered 'free' for S/M spells but not for S-only spells. (Ignoring the V component.)

I think this is the crux of the matter.

Let's have a look at the actual wording of the PHB:

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) 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 these components, but it can be the same hand that he or she uses to perform somatic components.

It's that last sentence that's the key. Given the context of the first paragraph in the "Material" section, there's obviously an implied "(or component pouch or focus)" before the comma - because wither of them can be substituted for the specific components of the spell. In other words, the sentence should be read as:

A spellcaster must have a hand free to access these components (or component pouch or focus), but it can be the same hand that he or she uses to perform somatic components.

Which brings us to the question. There's no reason for the caster to have specific components or a component pouch in their hand unless they're casting a spell that requires components. However, there are reasons why they might have a focus in their hand, for example:

1) The focus is a magic item (e.g. Rod of the Pact Keeper, Wand of the War Mage, Staff of Power) that gives them a bonus to spell attacks or save DCs.
2) The focus is a holy symbol on a shield that's in the caster's hand to fight with.
3) The caster is alerted to danger and has drawn ther wand (or whatever) in a similar way to the way a warrior would draw their weapon if alerted.

So the question is - should that last sentence (with its implied additional clause) be interpreted as saying that a hand holding a focus can always be the same hand that performs somatic components; or that a hand holding a focus can only be the same hand that performs somatic components if the focus is actually required to cast the spell.

Given the existence and use of the magic items mentioned above, I would suggest that the former is the intended meaning. This is a change of mind for me, because I'd previously gone with the latter - I know, someone changing their mind on the Internet! Unheard of!

So how does this fit in with the War Caster feat. The relevant part of the feat is:

You can perform the somatic components of spells even when you have weapons or a shield in one or both hands.

This seems pretty straightforward, and doesn't seem to change anything about the use of foci.

The normal rule is that you need a free hand to handle material components (or hold a focus); and you need a free hand to perform somatic components. The hand that is handling material components or holding a focus (whether or not the focus is actually needed for the spell) also counts as being free for purposes of performing somatic components. If you have the feat, you no longer need that hand to be free for somatic components. It says nothing about material components, so you still need a free hand to handle those (or hold your focus in their place) but for spells that don't use material components you can hold a weapon or shield in the hand instead of needing the hand to be free.

Then we get to holy symbols. These are a special case in that a shield with a holy symbol on it counts as a focus as well as a shield. However, this seems completely compatible with all of the above rules. It's a focus, so you can use it in the place of material components; and because it's a focus the hand that holds it still counts as free for the purposes of somatic components. Unlike other foci, you don't need to use the War Caster feat to be able to use a shield, because it is a shield (although the War Caster feat would still expand your options by letting you use a shield that didn't have a holy symbol on it, or use a weapon if you don't fight with a shield).

That all seems to fit together fine, and makes much more sense than the interpretation that means you can hold a focus only if you need it. Unfortunately, the Sage Advice quoted at the start of this thread - saying that a focus (in this case a shield) must be dropped or put away in order to cast a spell that has somatic but not material components - follows the latter interpretation.

I'll be ignoring that Sage Advice (despite the fact that it agrees with the interpretation I used to follow), and I'll be going with the simples, more sensible, and consistent interpretation of the rules from now on.

Beelzebubba

2017-03-30, 05:17 AM

Yeah. That's been established. We appear to be talking in circles.

What circle? The question was completely answered in the first 4-6 posts.

What is still ambiguous at this point?

Tanarii

2017-03-30, 07:53 AM

Where does it say that using a spellcasting focus excuses the need to perform a somatic component?

Holy symbols are an exception to the rule about material components, not somatic components.I didn't say anything like that, so I have no clue what you're talking about.

So the question is - should that last sentence (with its implied additional clause) be interpreted as saying that a hand holding a focus can always be the same hand that performs somatic components; or that a hand holding a focus can only be the same hand that performs somatic components if the focus is actually required to cast the spell.Neither. The free hand use to handle a M component (or substitute) can also be the one to do the S component. Other than a shield with Holy Symbol, you don't hold a focus until you need it for something. Casting a spell or otherwise. Then you use your free hand to access it. This includes buffing a V/S spell with a Rod of the Pact Keeper ... free hand does S component, free hand accesses Rod for bonus. Done and done.

Given the existence and use of the magic items mentioned above, I would suggest that the former is the intended meaning. This is a change of mind for me, because I'd previously gone with the latter - I know, someone changing their mind on the Internet! Unheard of!Sage Advice posted at the very beginning of this thread explicitly contradicts the first interpretation, that a hand already holding a focus can always be used to do S components. So you're saying you choose to disagree with it?
Edit: Or are you choosing to interpret that a hand occupied with a focus can be freed at will for an S-component? That's effectively the same thing as keeping a free hand and accessing the component when needed, for everything except a shield. Except in reverse. So that's reasonable.

xanderh

2017-03-30, 10:01 AM

RickAllison

2017-03-30, 01:44 PM

What I don't understand is what the point of this thread is?
What did you (the original poster) hope to gain by posting this thread? It doesn't look like you need clarification on how the rules work. The developers are very vocal about players and DMs being allowed to change rules so they work better for their group. If this ruling doesn't make sense to you, just change the rule in your own game, or petition your DM to do so.
I just don't see the point in this thread existing.

Based on how he has preferred to antagonize and post vague responses about those in disagreement simply not getting his meaning while refusing to explain, the thread was probably created for a purpose that should have his posts reported. Also not his first rodeo doing that...

Temperjoke

2017-03-30, 02:09 PM

One thing to consider: maybe the gestures for the spell itself are different depending on the circumstances it's being cast with? So a wizard using a wand as a stand in for the materials waves it a certain way, while an eldritch knight using the regular materials does a different gesture designed around having those materials in a hand.

I mean, it's not like the spells describe every single step in the casting process, it's just hand waved, because arguing about details like that is frustratingly pedantic.

BoringInfoGuy

2017-03-30, 02:23 PM

I was also wondering about the point or goal of the thread.

As far as I could tell, the basic complaint from the OP is that the Sage Advice article did not match his expectations on the nature of spell components.

Which is understandable since the magic system only paints with broad strokes. A spell description will say that it has a verbal component, but not what is actually said. Imagination naturally fills in fine details.

As far as I can tell, the OP found a ruling that - while consistent with the RAW, did not match the details he had filled in while ignorant of that ruling.

Nothing above should be seen as a knock against the OP. It is just our nature as thinking beings.

Still, what did the OP want from this thread? Apparently not help in stepping away from his expectations and developing a new viewpoint that included the new (to him) information.

My best guess is that he has already decided to reject the ruling and was hoping that the forum would respond with support for his views.

BurgerBeast

2017-03-30, 06:39 PM

RickAllison

2017-03-30, 06:53 PM

Well, there is your problem. Shields don't prevent somatic components, but they take up the use of your hand just like holding a sword or (in the really weird corner case of spellcasting) an arcane focus. Normally this prevents spellcasting because you don't have an empty hand, but remember that clerics and Paladins have a specific exception where they can make their shields their focus, which works just like an arcane focus held in the hands.

The only difference between holding a shield and holding a different focus is that the shield gives an AC boost. Otherwise it follows normal focus rules because those classes are specifically allowed to have them as the focus.

RAW, holding a yew wand prevents somatic components in the same way if you aren't a Druid. So does holding a crystal ball for a cleric or even an EK (since they can only use component pouches). This isn't a shield problem if the mechanic is your hand-up, it is a focus problem. All foci behave this way.

BurgerBeast

2017-03-30, 07:22 PM

Well, there is your problem. Shields don't prevent somatic components, but they take up the use of your hand just like holding a sword or (in the really weird corner case of spellcasting) an arcane focus. Normally this prevents spellcasting because you don't have an empty hand, but remember that clerics and Paladins have a specific exception where they can make their shields their focus, which works just like an arcane focus held in the hands.

Edited in the interest of clarity:

So far as I can tell, you are wrong here. If your hand is not free, you cannot perform somatic components, and whether your shield is emblazoned doesn't change this. A hand that is holding a shield is not a free hand.

The only thing that having an emblazoned shield does, RAW, is allow you to cast without material components. It does not make an unfree hand into a free hand.

A hand that is holding a shield is not free. A hand that is not free cannot be used to perform somatic components.

RickAllison

2017-03-30, 07:52 PM

Edited in the interest of clarity:

So far as I can tell, you are wrong here. If your hand is not free, you cannot perform somatic components, and whether your shield is emblazoned doesn't change this. A hand that is holding a shield is not a free hand.

The only thing that having an emblazoned shield does, RAW, is allow you to cast without material components. It does not make an unfree hand into a free hand.

A hand that is holding a shield is not free. A hand that is not free cannot be used to perform somatic components.

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.

The hand is holding the spellcasting focus, and the text specifically states that the same hand can be used for somatic components. A hand is just as much "free" when holding a shield as it is "free" when holding another type of focus. In either case, you have a hand holding the item also used for somatic components. If you see a discrepancy for shields, the same discrepancy exists for wands or staves.

BurgerBeast

2017-03-30, 08:15 PM

This is a misreading of the text.

RAW, the hand must be free in order to perform somatic components. If it's not free, it can't be used.

The fact that it can also be used to handle the material component does not eliminate the requirement that it must be free.

Edit: RAW, a hand that is holding a focus is not free. The focus does not make your hand free. The focus eliminates the need to use a material component.

xanderh

2017-03-30, 08:53 PM

I still don't see the point of this thread. BurgerBeast, what was the purpose in creating this thread? It doesn't look like you're asking for clarification on what the RAW or the ruling says, and it doesn't really look like you're looking for advice on what a houserule would do to your game.
I really can't think of a purpose for this thread that would be productive, based on your posts.
The only stuff that springs to mind is inciting discussions/arguments because you're bored, or looking for validation of your opinions on the competency of the developers.
Maybe if you shared your reasoning for creating this thread, the rest of the community could help you fulfill the purpose of it?

Solunaris

2017-03-30, 09:14 PM

Looking at the actual text, I am no longer sure that you can actually perform the Somatic Components of a spell with the same hand holding a shield that has a Holy Symbol on it. Here, let's first take a look at the Spell Casting Focus entry from Paladin.

You can use a holy symbol (found in chapter 5) as a spellcasting focus for your paladin spells.

Ok, nothing out of the ordinary so lets look at what a Holy Symbol is. Most of the description is fluff, so we'll only look at the mechanical aspect.

A cleric or paladin can use a holy symbol as a spellcasting focus, as described in chapter 10. To use the symbol in this way, the caster must hold it in hand, wear it visibly,or bear it on a shield

Ok, so it can be held in a hand, worn, or emblazoned on a shield. It does not, however, turn the shield into the Holy Focus. Instead the shield has the focus on it, and allows the focus to be used while on the shield. The hand is not accessing the Holy Focus, but holding the shield. Lastly, let's look at the part on casting with a spell with a Somatic and Material component.

If a spell requires a somatic component, the caster must have free use of at least one hand to perform these gestures.

A spellcaster must have a hand free to access these components, but it can be the same hand that he or she uses to perform somatic components.

No where in the rules does it say that you don't need a free hand to preform Somatic Components, only that the free hand used to preform the Somatic Components can also be the hand that accesses the focus/materials. Even the specific text about Holy Symbols being emblazoned on a shield never mentions Somatic components. As such, it would seem that in order for a Divine Caster to cast a spell with both Somatic and Material Components when their Holy Symbol is emblazoned on their shield they'd need a free hand not holding the shield. The hand holding the shield is indeed accessing the Spellcasting Focus, but it is not free to preform the Somatic Components.

Edit: Re-reading my post to check for grammatical errors, I think the rules don't even allow for the hand holding the shield to be used to access the Focus since the shield isn't the focus, but just what the focus is attached to. Huh...

BurgerBeast

2017-03-30, 09:17 PM

BurgerBeast

2017-03-30, 09:20 PM

No where in the rules does it say that you don't need a free hand to preform Somatic Components, only that the free hand used to preform the Somatic Components can also be the hand that accesses the focus/materials. Even the specific text about Holy Symbols being emblazoned on a shield never mentions Somatic components. As such, it would seem that in order for a Divine Caster to cast a spell with both Somatic and Material Components when their Holy Symbol is emblazoned on their shield they'd need a free hand not holding the shield. The hand holding the shield is indeed accessing the Spellcasting Focus, but it is not free to preform the Somatic Components.

Thank you!

This is my point. I would like to move the conversation forward, in terms of what happened in the Sage Advice, and in terms of how this ought to affect (or not affect) the game.

But if there is anyone out there, who does see the point in the thread, and thinks that you and I are wrong, I'd like to hear it first.

BoringInfoGuy

2017-03-30, 10:14 PM

I am going to try to be as straightforward as possible here, to avoid any confusion so that this doesn’t get convoluted (edit: these are in the absence of feats):

1. RAW, holding a shield prevents you from performing somatic components.

2. RAW, holding a focus cannot grant you the ability to perform somatic components.

JC made the misapplied the RAW, in the case of (2).

Neither statement is exactly RAW.

RAW, quoted from the SRD:

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. Appendix PH-*‐‑B "Fantasy-*‐‑Historical Pantheons" lists the symbols commonly associated with many gods in the multiverse. 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.

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 “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.

The RAW is that you can only have something in the hand preforming the somatic components that is ALSO a material component or spellcasting focus for the spell.

The why and how of this is not being explained in the RAW. Just what works or does not, but not why.

However, the assumption that has been made is that holding something in your hand prevents the hand from being able to make the needed movements to cast the spell. However, the fact that the same hand making the somatic gestures can also hold the material component indicates that this reasoning is flawed.

Holding anything other than a material component, be it a spell focus or other material component is what prevents the hand being free for somatic casting.

For example a Cleric, holding a shield with a holy symbol inlaid upon it can use that hand for the somatic component as long as the spell is using that shield as the material component of the spell. If the same cleric was holding another shield, identical except for the lack of a holy symbol, he would no longer be able to use the shield hand to cast the somatic components of a VSM spell.

In both cases, the shield would have the same interference with physical hand movements. But in one case, the cleric can cast somatic components with the shield hand, and in the second, he can not. Again, the RAW does not say WHY this is so, merely that it is the case.

We can safely conclude however, that physical interference is not the reason that the Somatic hand must be free. If not physical, then what is left?

I would instead conclude that in universe, the problem is magical interference. Trying to hold something unrelated to the spell interferes with the subtle plucking of the invisible strands of raw magic suffusing the world. Just as some spells require some physical item to be held to correctly channel the magical energy into the desired effect, holding an unrelated item in the somatic hand prevents that energy from channeling correctly. Subtle Spell and Warcaster both create situations where the caster is able to compensate for that interference. This explanation is not RAW. As I said, RAW does not deal with why, so any explanation is outside RAW.

Tanarii

2017-03-30, 10:32 PM

Puh Laden

2017-03-30, 11:01 PM

Interestingly, that's my interpretation of a literal reading of RAW too. Now I see what you were getting at in your response to me earlier. It is not explicitly stated anywhere that engraving a holy symbol on a shield allows it to be used for S components as well as M components. And the general component rule, as I said up-thread, says you the same free hand for a M component (or substitute) can be used for an S component, not that a hand holding a M component substitute can be used for an S component.

IMO it's somewhat implied holy symbol shields are intended to allow S components without the hand being free, because otherwise it's pretty much pointless. And it's clearly RAI, since JC's job in sage advice is to tell us what the developer RAI is.

For most other foci it doesn't matter, because if one is in your hand you just stop using it in the hand when you need the hand free, per the S with M component rules (just starting with the free hand using the M component). In reverse, so to speak.

The rule says that the focus can be held during the somatic component. If you have the actual material components, they are "accessed" or "handled" but foci specifically can be held and it can be the same hand used for somatic components. And while I prefer intuitive simplicity, there's a chance that the distinction was meant for stowing or retrieving a focus was to cost an object interaction while normal components were not. Though I think the distinction is more likely for the aesthetic.

BurgerBeast

2017-03-30, 11:05 PM

Tanarii

2017-03-30, 11:06 PM

The rule says that the focus can be held during the somatic component.It does not. It's been quoted several times in this thread, and nowhere is this stated.

ClearlyTough69

2017-03-31, 12:55 AM

It does not. It's been quoted several times in this thread, and nowhere is this stated.

It depends on whether you treat Sage Advice (the sub-site of the official Wizards D&D site) as RAW. If you do, here's the relevant text:

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 (PH, 203). 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.

Puh Laden

2017-03-31, 01:11 AM

It does not. It's been quoted several times in this thread, and nowhere is this stated.

It says that you must have a hand free to "hold" a spell casting focus. If you want to be pedantic the rule doesn't say you need a free or empty hand for the somatic component but "free use" of at least one hand. But the language for material components is specifically that you "must have a hand free to access a spell's material components - or to hold a spellcasting focus." This implies they are not used in the same way or else it would be "spellcasters need a hand free to access a spell's material components or spellcasting focus." My reading is that a spell's material components are accessed for part of the casting but the focus is held for the entirety of the casting or else why use different verbs? That's my reading, and admittedly when I misremembered the "hold" as "holding" it was a lot clearer to me.

BurgerBeast

2017-03-31, 01:12 AM

It depends on whether you treat Sage Advice (the sub-site of the official Wizards D&D site) as RAW.

No, it doesn't, because Sage Advice is not RAW. Sage Advice does not treat Sage Advice as RAW. Sage Advice defines RAW on page 1 of the Sage Advice Compendium.

RAW. “Rules as written”—that’s what RAW stands for. When I dwell on the RAW interpretation of a rule, I’m studying what the text says in context, without regard to the designers’ intent. The text is forced to stand on its own.
Whenever I consider a rule, I start with this perspective; it’s important for me to see what you see, not what I wished we’d published or thought we published.

(Sage Advice Compendium (https://media.wizards.com/2015/downloads/dnd/SA_Compendium_1.0.pdf), page 1)

If you do, here's the relevant text:

This is the exact same text quoted in the OP.

Blacky the Blackball

2017-03-31, 02:59 AM

It's that last sentence that's the key. Given the context of the first paragraph in the "Material" section, there's obviously an implied "(or component pouch or focus)" before the comma - because wither of them can be substituted for the specific components of the spell. In other words, the sentence should be read as:

A spellcaster must have a hand free to access these components (or component pouch or focus), but it can be the same hand that he or she uses to perform somatic components.

Which brings us to the question. There's no reason for the caster to have specific components or a component pouch in their hand unless they're casting a spell that requires components. However, there are reasons why they might have a focus in their hand, for example:

1) The focus is a magic item (e.g. Rod of the Pact Keeper, Wand of the War Mage, Staff of Power) that gives them a bonus to spell attacks or save DCs.
2) The focus is a holy symbol on a shield that's in the caster's hand to fight with.
3) The caster is alerted to danger and has drawn ther wand (or whatever) in a similar way to the way a warrior would draw their weapon if alerted.

So the question is - should that last sentence (with its implied additional clause) be interpreted as saying that a hand holding a focus can always be the same hand that performs somatic components; or that a hand holding a focus can only be the same hand that performs somatic components if the focus is actually required to cast the spell.

Neither. The free hand use to handle a M component (or substitute) can also be the one to do the S component. Other than a shield with Holy Symbol, you don't hold a focus until you need it for something. Casting a spell or otherwise. Then you use your free hand to access it. This includes buffing a V/S spell with a Rod of the Pact Keeper ... free hand does S component, free hand accesses Rod for bonus. Done and done.

Sorry, can you clarify that a bit? The two possibilities I gave were that: 1) a hand holding a focus can always be the same hand that performs somatic components, or 2) a hand holding a focus can only be the same hand that performs somatic components if the focus is actually required to cast the spell.

Your response was that "neither" possibility was correct, but your description seems to agree with my first option - you say that you can use the same free hand to perform an S component and access a Rod of the Pact Keeper (which isn't needed to cast the spell) to get a bonus. So how is that different from what I said? I'm failing to get what the distinction is.

Sage Advice posted at the very beginning of this thread explicitly contradicts the first interpretation, that a hand already holding a focus can always be used to do S components. So you're saying you choose to disagree with it?

Well, philosophical questions about whether agreeing or disagreeing with something is a "choice" aside, yes I disagree with it. I didn't when this thread started, but re-reading the rules in the light of the discussion here has convinced me that the Sage Advice is wrong (it certainly wouldn't be the first time that's happened).

Edit: Or are you choosing to interpret that a hand occupied with a focus can be freed at will for an S-component? That's effectively the same thing as keeping a free hand and accessing the component when needed, for everything except a shield. Except in reverse. So that's reasonable.

I'm saying that by my reading a hand occupied with a focus already counts as free for an S component. Whether or not the focus is a shield doesn't change that - shields aren't a special case.

By my reading of the rules (as detailed in the post you quoted) is:

You need a "free" hand to manipulate M components or hold a focus.
You need a "free" hand to perform S components.
"Free" does not necessarily mean empty. A hand manipulating M components or holding a focus still counts as "free", so you can still use it to perform S components.
The above applies whether or not you need to hold the focus to cast the spell. So you can hold a magical focus that gives you a bonus (or simply hold a normal focus because you had it in your hand already and it's easier than putting it away and getting it back out again) while casting a spell that has no M components and the hand still counts as being "free".
A shield that is a focus for you is no different from any other focus in this respect, so you can still perform S components if you have one in your hand.
The difference between a shield that is a focus and a shield that isn't is like the difference between a wand and a stick. A wizard can perform S components with a wand, but not with a stick. A cleric can perform S components with a holy symbol emblazoned shield but not with a plain shield.
The War Caster feat lets you count a hand containing a normal weapon or normal shield as "free" for the purposes of S components.
But the War Caster feat doesn't let you count a hand containing a normal weapon or normal shield as "free" for the purposes of M components.

Edit: The bit that I've highlighted in red above is the contentious bit, I think. The PHB is ambiguous on the subject: it doesn't explicitly say that you can only hold a focus if you need it for the spell, but it doesn't explicitly say that you can always hold a focus either. Looking at the context - the former interpretation means that you run into complications with clerics using shields and wizards and warlocks using certain magic items, and the latter interpretation is simpler and doesn't produce these complications - my gut feeling is that the latter is the more sensible interpretation and is probably the one that was intended at the time of writing, and it's therefore the one I find convincing. It's clear that the person answering the Sage Advice is going with the former interpretation, and I can see why (it's how I interpreted the rules until recently) but I think it's mistaken. The latter to me seems much more sensible.

ThePolarBear

2017-03-31, 09:39 AM

Neither statement is exactly RAW.

RAW, quoted from the SRD:

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.

I would like to point out that without the shield, for example on a staff, the Holy Symbol would not be a spellcasting focus, unless the symbol itself is hold into the hand. Edit: It would not be a Holy Symbol at all RAW, so not even holding it would help.

The shield is an integral part of what makes the Holy Symbol a focus. Therefore, holding the shield IS holding the focus, as would be holding the clothes you are wearing if those emblazoned with the symbol.

If the Holy symbol of a religion is a sword, wielding the weapon would be enough to qualify as making the symbol both a Spellcasting Focus and a weapon to be used for the sake of attacking. Edit: It would not be a Holy Symbol at all RAW, so nope even here.

RAW, you are holding a Spellcasting Focus by holding the shield.

BurgerBeast

2017-03-31, 10:34 AM

I hesistate to bring in examples that will clarify, because they often (and inevitably, it seems) lead to misunderstandings, misapplications, and in some cases false accusations about my sincerity. But there is a distinction to be made, so I am going to make it.

I also hesitate to offer a complete explanation of the opposing argument and where is falls apart, for exactly the same reason. But I do feel that I have a grasp on the other side of the argument, I have considered it very seriously, and at times I have been confused about who is right about this. But I am confident in my view, and I am confident in my reasons. (Doubtless for some this will come across as condescending.)

There are examples that can clarify this, but to present them would be to do so at risk, because such examples, despite being logical, often lead to accusations of my being a charlatan or rhetorician, or someone who gets off on arguing. (In fact I will probably be accused of it just for writing this.)

It’s particularly sad that this happens, because there is a lot to be gained by a deeper examination of these things, and people who aren’t interested can simly choose to ignore the thread rather than incessantly try to discredit it.

The fact that you can do A and B at the same time is a stand-alone fact. It does not mean that, at any given time, you are able to do A and you are able to do B.

If you are, under any specific set of conditions, going to be able to do both A and B, then you must be able to do A and you must be able to do B under those specific conditions.

Some people (whether intended or not, and JC is included in this category) are interpreting the rules in such a way that the ability to do B bestows the ability to do A, and there is no justification for that.

-----

On a separate note, consider the case of a cleric who wears a holy symbol around his neck. If he is wearing the symbol, then he does not need to use material components. However, if he wishes to cast a SM spell, he will need a free hand for the S component. This is because we ask the question “can he perform a somatic component?” indepentendly of the question “does he need to use a material component?”

I see no reason, RAW, why it is not exactly the same for a cleric with a holy symbol on his shield. I do see JC's ruling is different.

Tanarii

2017-03-31, 11:53 AM

On a separate note, consider the case of a cleric who wears a holy symbol around his neck. If he is wearing the symbol, then he does not need to use material components. However, if he wishes to cast a SM spell, he will need a free hand for the S component. This is because we ask the question “can he perform a somatic component?” indepentendly of the question “does he need to use a material component?”He does not need to use material components, but he still needs a free hand to access the Holy Symbol divine focus that is hanging around his neck to cast a spell that normally has a material component. But he can use that same free hand to do the Somatic components.

That's not to dispute your point that you believe it to be an independent question. But the point is, you can answer 'do I have a free hand for the M component / focus' as Yes, and 'do I have a free hand for the S component' as Yes, when you have just a single free hand.

BurgerBeast

2017-03-31, 12:44 PM

He does not need to use material components, but he still needs a free hand to access the Holy Symbol divine focus that is hanging around his neck to cast a spell that normally has a material component. But he can use that same free hand to do the Somatic components.

That's not to dispute your point that you believe it to be an independent question. But the point is, you can answer 'do I have a free hand for the M component / focus' as Yes, and 'do I have a free hand for the S component' as Yes, when you have just a single free hand.

I understand that you are not disputing my point, but I want to say that I think you are mistaken on the question of whether he needs a free hand to manipulate the focus. It is a focus. It is not a material component. It is therefore not subject to rules about material components.

I think that using a focus (properly) negates the need for material components. The proper use of a focus may or may not require that you handle it, but the fact that you must handle material components has no bearing on foci. This may not be the direct RAW, but there is enough evidence in the RAW to deduce this. The sentence that tells us that foci work when emblazoned on shields or when hanging around your neck provides the evidence. I think it is clear that the person who wrote the rule did not intend for a cleric to have to handle the emblazoned holy symbol.

In other words, if you choose to use a focus, you must use it properly. You do not need to use it as if it is a material component.

And this is the problem with the other side of the argument - they think a focus replaces a material component in the sense that it is a different kind of direct substitute for a material component. I do not think this is the case. I think that the proper use of a focus eliminates the need to use material components at all but does not substitute as one.

So having a focus and using it in the way that it is allowed to be used negates the need to use a material component. The fact that you do not need to use a material component means that you do not need to follow of the rules about how material components are used.

Tanarii

2017-03-31, 01:06 PM

I understand that you are not disputing my point, but I want to say that I think you are mistaken on the question of whether he needs a free hand to manipulate the focus. It is a focus. It is not a material component. It is therefore not subject to rules about material components.You may think that, but the RAW is clear. You need a free hand to access a material component, component pouch, or focus. That is the rule on material components. It explicitly includes component pouches and foci as well.

A character can use a component pouch or a spellcasting focus (found in chapter 5) in place of the components specified for a spell.
&
A spellcaster must have a hand free to access these components—or to hold a spellcasting focus—but it can
be the same hand that he or she uses to perform somatic components.

Edit: I am mistaken. Also we're both mistaken about shields. Holy Symbols (only) are a specific exception to the focus rules, and it IS explicit. From the PHB, Equipment Chapter, Holy Symbol.

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. The Player’s Handbook lists many gods in the multiverse and their typical symbols. A cleric or paladin can use a holy symbol as a spellcasting focus, as described in chapter 10. To use the symbol in this way, the caster must hold it in hand, wear it visibly, or bear it on a shield.

BurgerBeast

2017-03-31, 01:22 PM

You may think that, but the RAW is clear. You need a free hand to access a material component, component pouch, or focus. That is the rule on material components. It explicitly includes component pouches and foci as well.

A character can use a component pouch or a spellcasting focus (found in chapter 5) in place of the components specified for a spell.
&
A spellcaster must have a hand free to access these components—or to hold a spellcasting focus—but it can
be the same hand that he or she uses to perform somatic components.

Edit: I am mistaken. Also we're both mistaken about shields. Holy Symbols (only) are a specific exception to the focus rules, and it IS explicit. From the PHB, Equipment Chapter, Holy Symbol.

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. The Player’s Handbook lists many gods in the multiverse and their typical symbols. A cleric or paladin can use a holy symbol as a spellcasting focus, as described in chapter 10. To use the symbol in this way, the caster must hold it in hand, wear it visibly, or bear it on a shield.

Okay, good. So this is progress. (The quote above is the quote I was thinking of, but couldn't remember where the thought came from.)

General: A character must have a free hand to access a focus.

Specific: A character does not need a free hand to use a holy symbol (and only a holy symbol) as a spell casting focus if it is worn visibly or born on a shield.

So, the point still remains:

The fact that a holy symbol can be used as a spell focus when worn visibly or born on a shield does not, in any way, imply that your hand is free while holding a shield. So, there is still no way to perform somatic components using a hand that is holding a shield.

Do you agree with all of this?

JBPuffin

2017-03-31, 01:35 PM

Tanarii

2017-03-31, 01:39 PM

The fact that a holy symbol can be used as a spell focus when worn visibly or born on a shield does not, in any way, imply that your hand is free while holding a shield. So, there is still no way to perform somatic components using a hand that is holding a shield.

Do you agree with all of this?
I agree it is a strict interpretation of the language. However, I also think that it's not surprising nor particularly unreasonable that people end up thinking of 'holding' a focus already, then look at the free hand rule for M components and think something like 'oh okay, if I'm holding it I can also use the same hand for an s component'.

Hang on a second here - this is Sage Advice, right? Does it actually matter what their ruling is, or are their rulings considered more canonical than the 3.5 ones? Frankly I'd houserule this anyway and just let everyone do their hand-shenanigans - in other words, everyone gets Quick Draw when I'm at the helm.
People opinions on SA are divided, but I'll give you mine: 5e SA is a different beast from any previous SA. Jeremy Crawford makes a concerted effort to be clear when he's talking about what he thinks RAW is vs RAI, and has distinguished between the 'officialness' of the Sage Advice column and his personal tweets, and he tries to avoid "here's my personal houserule but I'm going to talk about it like it's RAW". IN my opinion, that last part alone makes him a breath of fresh air as far as the usefulness and relevance of Sage Advice goes. Instead of being completely worthless, it now has value.

But in terms of 'canonical', Sage Advice gives us developer RAI. How important that is depends on your DM. For Adventurer's League, which is effectively the only places where 'Canonical' really matters, I believe DMs are not required to use Sage Advice.

RickAllison

2017-03-31, 02:28 PM

Hang on a second here - this is Sage Advice, right? Does it actually matter what their ruling is, or are their rulings considered more canonical than the 3.5 ones? Frankly I'd houserule this anyway and just let everyone do their hand-shenanigans - in other words, everyone gets Quick Draw when I'm at the helm.

The Sage Advice ruling only matters insofar as it is the definitive Rules as Intended. Experienced DMs who care will make the ruling as they think best and with confidence, while Sage Advice is useful for newer DMs who don't necessarily have a handle on the impact of their rulings. It gives them a safe fallback until they can fully understand and make an independent ruling on analysis while allowing the action to continue.

Additionally, it forms a good benchmark from which to compare other rulings. If you know the effects from the official ruling, you have a semi-objective zero point to compare DMs' rulings.

toapat

2017-03-31, 02:53 PM

You realize that this ruling make melee Clerics and Paladins basically unplayable, right?

regardless of whether you are or are not using the Ruling, Spellcasting in 5E ****s both paladin and cleric over. because it never says having an Emblazoned shield counts as "Holding a holy symbol" in the rules.

it fulfills DF requirements either way since i doubt someone is going to use "Combat Tarps" vs a Paladin/Cleric to prevent them from Displaying the holy symbol

Not as bad as you would think. When they need a open hand for casting, they drop their weapon which has no restrictions. Then they cast. Then they use their free object interaction to pick the weapon back up.

pretty sure not being armed ****s you over in combat

BoringInfoGuy

2017-03-31, 03:24 PM

The basic argument is then that a shield with a holy symbol is not free to use for somatic components.

However, we need to pay attention that material components ALSO requires a free hand to access or hold an item.

A hand MUST be free to access material components or hold a spell focus needed in the casting of a spell.

When using a spell casting focus, that item is what the free hand is holding as required by the material component rules. The rules also state that the free hand holding material components for a spell can also be the same free hand casting the somatic gestures for that spell.

Nothing in the written rules says that a shield with a holy symbol acts any differently than any other spell casting focus. What Raw basis is there to say that a H. shield spell focus prevents the hand holding the focus from making the somatic gestures on a VSM spell any more than a wizard holding a staff in one hand and an Orb spellcasting focus in the other?

RickAllison

2017-03-31, 03:26 PM

pretty sure not being armed ****s you over in combat

The only way that happens is if an enemy has readied an action to pick up your weapon. Which would be amazing, actually. Burning their entire turn just to have a chance at picking up your weapon? I'll take that. I guess if an enemy gets in your face and just stands there without actually doing anything with their turn, you should probably anticipate something is up. But there won't be a repeat attempt, as casters who are engaged in melee probably aren't the ones casting every turn and instead focusing on pre-casts and a concentration spell.

I mean I guess the DM can open up a fissure in the earth for your weapon to fall through on your turn, but in that case the DM will foil literally anything you try to do.

toapat

2017-03-31, 03:55 PM

Nothing in the written rules says that a shield with a holy symbol acts any differently than any other spell casting focus. What Raw basis is there to say that a H. shield spell focus prevents the hand holding the focus from making the somatic gestures on a VSM spell any more than a wizard holding a staff in one hand and an Orb spellcasting focus in the other?

youre reading that backwards. Shields occupy the hand they are held with, and the spell focus rules say you just have to present the Holy symbol. youre already presenting it anyway on the shield.

no where in the rules does it say that a cleric or paladin can treat the shield as a held focus.

Tanarii

2017-03-31, 04:04 PM

regardless of whether you are or are not using the Ruling, Spellcasting in 5E ****s both paladin and cleric over. because it never says having an Emblazoned shield counts as "Holding a holy symbol" in the rules.

no where in the rules does it say that a cleric or paladin can treat the shield as a held focus.

Actually, I just found the quote that says an Emblazoned Shield, or Worn Holy Symbol, is usable as a Spellcasting Focus by Clerics and Paladins. It's in the Equipment section.

What it doesn't say is that doing so allows you to also use a Worn Holy Symbol or one Emblazoned on a shield to count as a free hand for S components. That's especially important for the Shield of course.

And depending on interpretation, neither do the standard S & M component rules. The common interpretation is "held focus can also be used for S components" but that's not what the RAW actually says.

Temperjoke

2017-03-31, 04:12 PM

Wouldn't it depend on how you are wearing/holding the shield? If it's strapped to your arm, then technically couldn't you use your hand to either hold the weapon while you cast the spell with your other hand, since your shield is still prominently displayed?

toapat

2017-03-31, 04:31 PM

Actually, I just found the quote that says an Emblazoned Shield, or Worn Holy Symbol, is usable as a Spellcasting Focus by Clerics and Paladins. It's in the Equipment section.

What it doesn't say is that doing so allows you to also use a Worn Holy Symbol or one Emblazoned on a shield to count as a free hand for S components. That's especially important for the Shield of course.

And depending on interpretation, neither do the standard S & M component rules. The common interpretation is "held focus can also be used for S components" but that's not what the RAW actually says.

hence why i said it doesnt matter how you treat it, paladins Specifically and clerics occationally are screwed.

I thought however it did cover under either Spellcasting focus or Material components that holding a spell focus doesnt interfere with S components, excluding shields since emblazoned shields are still attached to your arm and thats whats holding the Holy symbol.

Wouldn't it depend on how you are wearing/holding the shield? If it's strapped to your arm, then technically couldn't you use your hand to either hold the weapon while you cast the spell with your other hand, since your shield is still prominently displayed?

in 5E, theres basically only Kiteshields in gear, as you dont have a generic shield with the Interdicting trait like the 3.5 Tower or a shield which is small enough to either be wielded or strapped to the arm in the buckler.

Coidzor

2017-03-31, 04:42 PM

in 5E, theres basically only Kiteshields in gear, as you dont have a generic shield with the Interdicting trait like the 3.5 Tower or a shield which is small enough to either be wielded or strapped to the arm in the buckler.

IIRC, the two main sections of rules text are contradictory and give you a schrodinger's shield which is simultaneously strapped to the arm and actually held in the hand until such time as a given DM opens the box and declares it to be one way or the other.

toapat

2017-03-31, 05:02 PM

IIRC, the two main sections of rules text are contradictory and give you a schrodinger's shield which is simultaneously strapped to the arm and actually held in the hand until such time as a given DM opens the box and declares it to be one way or the other.

only bucklers have a single strap/handle, larger shields typically have a forearm strap and a handhold to give control and stability

Coidzor

2017-03-31, 05:08 PM

only bucklers have a single strap/handle, larger shields typically have a forearm strap and a handhold to give control and stability

I did write contradictory, not that it has text that comes together to paint the whole picture.

BurgerBeast

2017-03-31, 05:29 PM

I agree it is a strict interpretation of the language. However, I also think that it's not surprising nor particularly unreasonable that people end up thinking of 'holding' a focus already, then look at the free hand rule for M components and think something like 'oh okay, if I'm holding it I can also use the same hand for an s component'.

I do think it is unreasonable. But I might have overly strict standards. I am not surprised by it at all, because I see this sort of thing essentially every day, but in my opinion it is not reasonable.

regardless of whether you are or are not using the Ruling, Spellcasting in 5E ****s both paladin and cleric over. because it never says having an Emblazoned shield counts as "Holding a holy symbol" in the rules.

It does say that you can use a holy symbol emblazoned on your shield to meet the M requirement.

The basic argument is then that a shield with a holy symbol is not free to use for somatic components.

However, we need to pay attention that material components ALSO requires a free hand to access or hold an item.

A hand MUST be free to access material components or hold a spell focus needed in the casting of a spell.

When using a spell casting focus, that item is what the free hand is holding as required by the material component rules. The rules also state that the free hand holding material components for a spell can also be the same free hand casting the somatic gestures for that spell.

I would say that, by a strict reading of RAW, a hand that is holding a focus is not a free hand. If you hold the focus, you need to have another free hand in order to perform the S component.

I know people will disagree, but it's what RAW say.

Nothing in the written rules says that a shield with a holy symbol acts any differently than any other spell casting focus. What Raw basis is there to say that a H. shield spell focus prevents the hand holding the focus from making the somatic gestures on a VSM spell any more than a wizard holding a staff in one hand and an Orb spellcasting focus in the other?

This is why this thread originated.

By a strict reading of RAW, a wizard holding a staff and an orb does not have a free hand. So this wizard meets the M requirement but does not meet the S requirement.

Although I haven't verified this, I think it is true that, by strict RAW, a wizard with a staff and a free hand can perform an S component and an M component, where the M component is satisfied specifically by handling the orb as part of the casting. (The part I'm not sure about is whether drawing and stowing an orb follows the same rules as drawing and stowing material components.)

What is strange about all of this is that, with careful attention to spell design, the RAW provide more possibilities for interesting interactions than the JC clarification provides.

For example, if you want clerics to be able to cast bless without having to drop their shield, just make it a VM spell. If you also want cure light wounds to require a free hand, just make it S, VS, or VSM.

1. You can achieve the same effects.
2. You keep the ability to treat S and M independently.
3. you don't contradict RAW

Tanarii

2017-03-31, 05:30 PM

RickAllison

2017-03-31, 05:39 PM

lol works for me

I think what he means is that instead of a shield with a holy symbol, they should be large cats used for defense and owned by a certain theoretical scientist. Or maybe that is because the idea of carrying around a cat as a shield entertains me.

BurgerBeast

2017-03-31, 05:43 PM

I think what he means is that instead of a shield with a holy symbol, they should be large cats used for defense and owned by a certain theoretical scientist. Or maybe that is because the idea of carrying around a cat as a shield entertains me.

Lol. But you'll never really know whether it is a cat or not a cat until the moment it is impacted by a weapon. Only then will it be a cat or not a cat.

But seriously:

I just rule that a shield requires a hand. I don't care what explanations a player wants to cook up under particular circumstances. If you want the +2 to AC, you require a hand to get it. It's simple and clean.

BoringInfoGuy

2017-04-01, 08:19 PM

Edit: Re-reading my post to check for grammatical errors, I think the rules don't even allow for the hand holding the shield to be used to access the Focus since the shield isn't the focus, but just what the focus is attached to. Huh...
In following this interpretation of RAW, a cleric with a holy symbol on their shield would need their non shield hand free hand to hold onto their spellcasting focus.

I would say that, by a strict reading of RAW, a hand that is holding a focus is not a free hand. If you hold the focus, you need to have another free hand in order to perform the S component.

I know people will disagree, but it's what RAW say.
And continuing on the same vein, a "strict" interpretation of RAW means that the non shield hand that is wrapping around to hold the holy symbol can't be doing the somatic components, because holding the focus means it is not free.

So that part of the book that says a holy symbol on a shield can be used as a spellcasting focus can't really be part of the actual rules. Nor can you use the same hand holding your spellcasting focus be the same hand doing the somatic gestures. Not when read strictly and taking into account the implied system.

::sigh::

Simple and clean is not actually a reason to ignore actual RAW. Not that long ago, people had a simple and clean idea that the Earth was the center of all, and the sun and moon both circled around the earth in perfectly circular orbits. As an idea and theory, it worked. Until people started learning how to track those orbits, and started realizing that observation did not match theory. Increasingly convoluted theories were proposed, but could not match observation.

The contradiction remained until the basic assumption of the theory was questioned. Remove the paired assumptions that the Earth had to be at the center and orbits had to be circular, and suddenly there could be a theory that matched observation.

Still, once that theory was presented, there was much opposition. Even though the new (at the time) sun center theory cleared up all the issues between expected orbits and observation, it required people to let go of long held beliefs, biases, and assumptions. That is hard to do. For some reason, our brains are wired to accept data that matches our current beliefs, and reject or marginalized data that would cause us to question those beliefs. We want to stick with something simple and clean, regardless of new facts.

And that is what I see happening here. BurgerBeast had an idea in his head regarding the nature and relationship between somatic and material components. Then Sage Advice demonstrated how it actually worked and that did not match BurgerBeast's headcannon. So that leaves a choice. Accept the new data and re-evaluate your beliefs, or to simply reject the data.

Obviously, BB choose the latter route. This thread is - at its core - BurgerBeast doing mental gymnastics to make RAW support his headcannon. So we end up with the rule book saying that Clerics can use a Holy Symbol on a shield as a spiritual focus, but then being told that the same rule book is really showing that it won't actually work. Likewise, the book may say that the hand holding the spiritual focus can be the same hand used for somatic gestures, but not really, because the rules show it won't work.

My reasoning can be summed up like this:

If your interpretation of RAW is causing you to say that the rules as written are self conflicting, and someone presents an alternate interpretation that removes those conflicts, then it is time to seriously consider that the problem is you, and not the book.

mgshamster

2017-04-01, 08:48 PM

I haven't paid attention to this thread for a while, and I've skipped most of it to make this post.

I've thought of another way to understand how raw works.

Back when I was a soldier, I carried an M16 (https://previews.123rf.com/images/snak/snak1407/snak140700020/29715845-M16-rifle-with-an-M203-grenade-launcher-Stock-Photo.jpg) (assault rifle) Let's call that my Arcane Focus.

Occasionally, I'd need to use the M203 attached to my M16 (http://www.inetres.com/gp/military/infantry/grenade/M203/M16A1_M203_01.jpg). The M203 (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/fd/M203_1.jpg/300px-M203_1.jpg) (different pic) is the grenade launcher attachment to the M16 rifle. That's my Arcane Focus while casting a S/M spell. It allows me to launch a grenade (requiring S and M) while holding my arcane focus.

But occasionally, I'd also need to throw an M34 (http://www.modernforces.com/img/new_site/m34_grenade_450.jpg) (phosphorus grenade). That an S spell without the M. So no arcane focus.

In order to throw the M34 grenade (S only), I'd have to let go of the M16 (Arcane Focus). This is despite the fact that I could easily use my M203 grenade launcher (S and M) while holding onto my M16 (Arcane Focus).

If you were in the military, you probably understand that. If not, well, I only hope it helps.

BurgerBeast

2017-04-02, 01:46 AM

In following this interpretation of RAW, a cleric with a holy symbol on their shield would need their non shield hand free hand to hold onto their spellcasting focus.

No, he would not. The RAW say that a holy symbol can be put on a shield and does not need to held. You are aware that a holy symbol is a focus, right? So, you don't need to hold a focus if you are already using one.

And continuing on the same vein, a "strict" interpretation of RAW means that the non shield hand that is wrapping around to hold the holy symbol can't be doing the somatic components, because holding the focus means it is not free.

I'm not sure what to tell you here. This situation would never arise. Have you read the thread?

So that part of the book that says a holy symbol on a shield can be used as a spellcasting focus can't really be part of the actual rules. Nor can you use the same hand holding your spellcasting focus be the same hand doing the somatic gestures. Not when read strictly and taking into account the implied system.

::sigh::

Wrong. You evidently do not understand what I am saying, yet you: first, claim to understand what I am saying; second, offer an example that is not equivalent to what I have said nor to RAW, and then equating them as if they are the same. It's a classic straw man. At least you haven't claimed to read my mind...

Simple and clean is not actually a reason to ignore actual RAW. Not that long ago, people had a simple and clean idea that the Earth was the center of all, and the sun and moon both circled around the earth in perfectly circular orbits. As an idea and theory, it worked. Until people started learning how to track those orbits, and started realizing that observation did not match theory. Increasingly convoluted theories were proposed, but could not match observation.

Yeah... so, besides the fact that this analogy is not in any way analogous and is factually incorrect (geocentricism didn't work as a theory), you've missed my entire point. I am not trying to ignore RAW. In fact, I am trying to say that the RAW were fine to begin with. My view is that JC's interpretation and the changes that followed were unnecessary because the RAW worked just fine. So, it turns out that your argument is actually in favour of me, not JC.

...

(More nonsense about the history of science that is in no way related)

...

And that is what I see happening here. BurgerBeast had an idea in his head regarding the nature and relationship between somatic and material components. Then Sage Advice demonstrated how it actually worked and that did not match BurgerBeast's headcannon. So that leaves a choice. Accept the new data and re-evaluate your beliefs, or to simply reject the data.

What you see happening here is not what is happening here. You have the right to be wrong, but I'd suggest reading and trying to understand before making statements that are so blatantly wrong.

Obviously, BB choose the latter route. This thread is - at its core - BurgerBeast doing mental gymnastics to make RAW support his head cannon.

Oops... I spoke too soon. Here we go with the mind-reading. What is my "headcannon" (by which you surely must mean head canon since cannon does not fit here)?

So we end up with the rule book saying that Clerics can use a Holy Symbol on a shield as a spiritual focus, but then being told that the same rule book is really showing that it won't actually work.

Nobody has said that it won't work, which is why it is clear that you don't know what you're talking about.

Likewise, the book may say that the hand holding the spiritual focus can be the same hand used for somatic gestures, but not really, because the rules show it won't work.

Again, no one has said this, which is why it is clear that you don't know what you are talking about.

My reasoning can be summed up like this:

If your interpretation of RAW is causing you to say that the rules as written are self conflicting, and someone presents an alternate interpretation that removes those conflicts, then it is time to seriously consider that the problem is you, and not the book.

And this has no bearing on the discussion whatsoever. I am the one defending the book. I say the book is fine. JC's interpretation conflicts with the book, which has always been my point. So, this puts you in the odd position of having just defended me while thinking you were arguing against me, and arguing against JC while you thought you were defending him. And this is why I advise caution. You should try to understand what you're talking about before you talk about it.

Edit:

My point, poorly articulated in places, I admit, is that:

1. The RAW worked just fine and didn't need a fix
2. JC proposed a fix via Sage Advice (I say "fix" because it is different than RAW)
3. JC's fix makes less sense than the RAW
4. JC's fix introduces new problems that the RAW did not have

This is why I suspect that JC erringly saw a problem that wasn't there, and the measures he took to correct it led to more problems than would have arisen if he hadn't written the Sage Advice at all.

toapat

2017-04-02, 02:34 PM

My point, poorly articulated in places, I admit, is that:

1. The RAW worked just fine and didn't need a fix
2. JC proposed a fix via Sage Advice (I say "fix" because it is different than RAW)
3. JC's fix makes less sense than the RAW
4. JC's fix introduces new problems that the RAW did not have

This is why I suspect that JC erringly saw a problem that wasn't there, and the measures he took to correct it led to more problems than would have arisen if he hadn't written the Sage Advice at all.

1: the RAW is a horrible problem which most DMs wont force onto paladins and may ignore for clerics. Even if we assume he also is making the mistake that Spell focuses are said to not interfere with Somatic Components, which Tanarii pointed out and i refferenced as being a houserule.
2: the Proposed Fix is again the common houserule.
3: the Fix makes exactly the same sense as the RAW since the RAW is poorly Legalesed
4: No new problem is created. The problem already existed. Read the PHB.

Now, there are mistakes, like shields occupying the hand by RAW and Holy Symbols not needing to be physically manipulated to fulfill the Divine Focus requirements, unlike Arcane Focus which must be manipulated directly. a Holy Symbol needs to be visible to qualify, which is where my comments about Battle Tarps.

Focus items fulfill one requirement: that the spell have M components. V need the user to speak, S need the user to have a free hand. No where in the PHB does it say that if you have a Focus, can you ignore having no free hand.

What this does is conflict with previous Sage advice from Mike Mearls, where 2H weapons occupy both hands when held, when all man-portable weapons can be held in one hand at least but not wielded necessarily without both, and a bow requires 1 hand to hold and one to draw.

Conflicting with the literal worst Sage advice stated doesnt count

BurgerBeast

2017-04-02, 03:41 PM

1: the RAW is a horrible problem which most DMs wont force onto paladins and may ignore for clerics. Even if we assume he also is making the mistake that Spell focuses are said to not interfere with Somatic Components, which Tanarii pointed out and i refferenced as being a houserule.

It's really not a problem. It has been misread and the misreading poses a problem. If there is a problem with the RAW, please state it.

2: the Proposed Fix is again the common houserule.

Nothing to do with the point. The common house rule is not necessary, and never was. People thought it was necessary because they misunderstood the RAW.

Now, there are mistakes, like shields occupying the hand by RAW and Holy Symbols not needing to be physically manipulated to fulfill the Divine Focus requirements, unlike Arcane Focus which must be manipulated directly. a Holy Symbol needs to be visible to qualify, which is where my comments about Battle Tarps.

Shields are supposed to occupy a hand, so no mistake there. Holy symbols do need to be held, but symbols born on the shield or worn around your neck are exceptions, so no mistake there. Holy symbols do not, generally, need to be visible - a holy symbol worn around the neck needs to be visible.

All of this works, with the small exception that holy symbols worn around the neck should be required to be worn outside the clothing, not visibly, but that is very minor.

Focus items fulfill one requirement: that the spell have M components. V need the user to speak, S need the user to have a free hand.

Precisely, and all provided in the RAW.

No where in the PHB does it say that if you have a Focus, can you ignore having no free hand.

Why would it? You can't.

What this does is conflict with previous Sage advice from Mike Mearls, where 2H weapons occupy both hands when held, when all man-portable weapons can be held in one hand at least but not wielded necessarily without both, and a bow requires 1 hand to hold and one to draw.

Conflicting with the literal worst Sage advice stated doesnt count

None of this has entered into the conversation, nor does it appear to have any bearing.

toapat

2017-04-02, 05:27 PM

It's really not a problem.

Strictly RAW, Paladins are unplayable

RAI ignoring the paladin's RAI itself, Paladin is unplayable.

The only way to make paladin viable is either completely ignore VSM conflicts from their own equipment or to take warcaster.

BurgerBeast

2017-04-02, 05:38 PM

Strictly RAW, Paladins are unplayable

This hasn't provided any clarity. What do you mean?

RAI ignoring the paladin's RAI itself, Paladin is unplayable.

I have no idea what this is supposed to mean.

The only way to make paladin viable is either completely ignore VSM conflicts from their own equipment or to take warcaster.

Can you give examples? I just don't see it. And, as I suspect some examples will arise that demonstrate your position, I suspect (but we've never gotten that far, yet) that there is a much simpler fix, which involves changing the required components on a few, select spells.

toapat

2017-04-02, 05:48 PM

This hasn't provided any clarity. What do you mean?

Paladin combat styles expect the class to use 2H weapon or Sword and Shield. It also expects paladin to be in melee combat.

by RAW, 2H weapons occupy both hands, Sword and shield occupies both hands.

you get 1 free item interaction per round. Including dropping or drawing a single weapon. Anything beyond that takes your action.

Most paladin spells, being taken from general spell lists as opposed to being paladin specific, have the V, S components.

only 5 spells in the base paladin have M components.

the Specific reason taking RAI for paladin doesnt work is paladin is balanced to assumptions that are taken beyond just more Lenient reading but actually ignoring that a paladin doesnt have 3-4 arms.

BurgerBeast

2017-04-02, 05:50 PM

BurgerBeast

2017-04-02, 06:33 PM

Paladin combat styles expect the class to use 2H weapon or Sword and Shield. It also expects paladin to be in melee combat.

by RAW, 2H weapons occupy both hands, Sword and shield occupies both hands.

you get 1 free item interaction per round. Including dropping or drawing a single weapon. Anything beyond that takes your action.

Most paladin spells, being taken from general spell lists as opposed to being paladin specific, have the V, S components.

Good. So, I don't think this is a problem for a 2H paladin. He can hold a 2H in one hand, giving him a free hand to perform an S component. For a S&B paladin, this means he will have to sheathe his weapon.

I think it is fine for some spells to require a S&B paladin to sheathe his weapon. If there are some spells for which the intent was that a paladin should not have to sheathe his weapon, there is a much simpler fix: change the spell.

The Sage Advice or errata could have simply changed paladin spells which are meant to be castable while holding a S&B. Just eliminate the S component from those spells. Problem solved.

only 5 spells in the base paladin have M components.

I count 12, using donjon. These 12 spells are RAW castable while holding a S&B or a 2H weapon.

Edit: These spells are not castable while holding a S&B, but that is not because of the M component. It is because of the S component. If you wish for them to be castable while holding a S&B, just eliminate the S component. Simple fix.

M spells, however, are not where you should be looking. You should be looking at S spells, because these are the spells that present the problem of having to sheathe your weapon. Taking a brief look on Donjon, bless, divine favor, elemental weapon, and magic weapon are the only spells I'd say should be changed.

That's a pretty simple fix - just errata four spells by removing the S component. If you want to be friendlier, you could also change add banishment, death ward, dispel evil and good, heroism, lesser restoration, protection from evil and good, and shield of faith to the list of spells that should be castable while holding S&B.

I still maintain that, even without these changes, the paladin is fine. The cleric probably requires more spell changes.

the Specific reason taking RAI for paladin doesnt work is paladin is balanced to assumptions that are taken beyond just more Lenient reading but actually ignoring that a paladin doesnt have 3-4 arms.

Not sure what you mean, here.

sir_argo

2017-04-02, 07:40 PM

Hmmmm... could a spellcasting Giant Ape hang from a tree and use his feet to perform the somatic components of a spell?

Sorry, the thought just occurred to me.

toapat

2017-04-02, 07:48 PM

*No*

1: Ignoring that i called it the single stupidest Sage Advice ever made, Mike Mearls is technically correct for melee 2H weapons, and you cannot hold them 1H and cast. hes also correct for bows and crossbows which brings into the existance of arms #3+4 again since somehow archers/snipers can draw arrows/bolts with no free hands.

2: again you always will encounter the fact that the defined rules have no parameters for item interactions.you cant just switch between Hand/no hand

3: 5 is in the PHB. theres more books than that i just dont have the complete paladin spell list AND im not counting spells like Moonbeams for ancients.

4: Clerics dont need a weapon to fight, paladins do. Clerics have cantrips so can just Shield + Guiding bolt about all day. There are domains that want to use melee weapons but domains dont count as class wide playstyle just as oath spells dont count as paladin spells EXCEPT for Sanctuary

5: Paladin RAI clearly doesnt give a **** about the VSM factor of being a caster. they have the largest single list of V-exclusive spells of any caster.

BurgerBeast

2017-04-02, 08:03 PM

1: Ignoring that i called it the single stupidest Sage Advice ever made, Mike Mearls is technically correct for melee 2H weapons, and you cannot hold them 1H and cast. hes also correct for bows and crossbows which brings into the existance of arms #3+4 again since somehow archers/snipers can draw arrows/bolts with no free hands.

This is not true, RAW.

2: again you always will encounter the fact that the defined rules have no parameters for item interactions.you cant just switch between Hand/no hand

Of course they do. You can switch in defined ways. You can handle material components for free as part of casting. If you are wearing a holy symbol, you don't need a free hand for M components.

3: 5 is in the PHB. theres more books than that i just dont have the complete paladin spell list AND im not counting spells like Moonbeams for ancients.

I'm still not sure why you think M spells are relevant. You seem to be misunderstanding this. M spells cannot be the problem. S spells are the problem.

4: Clerics dont need a weapon to fight, paladins do. Clerics have cantrips so can just Shield + Guiding bolt about all day. There are domains that want to use melee weapons but domains dont count as class wide playstyle just as oath spells dont count as paladin spells EXCEPT for Sanctuary

What does this have to do with anything we are talking about?

5: Paladin RAI clearly doesnt give a **** about the VSM factor of being a caster. they have the largest single list of V-exclusive spells of any caster.

You don't appear to be actually having a conversation with me. You're just ignoring my points and complaining.

Hmmmm... could a spellcasting Giant Ape hang from a tree and use his feet to perform the somatic components of a spell?

Sorry, the thought just occurred to me.

No. He would need a free hand. He could hang by his feet, or by a foot and a hand, and cast, though.

mgshamster

2017-04-02, 09:15 PM

This is not analogous, if I am understanding it properly. The problem is that the M203 is not analogous to a spell focus, because a spell focus can only replace the M component, not the S.

No, you misread. That's ok, though. It doesn't translate well outside of the military. Let's just ignore it.

The Shadowdove

2017-04-02, 10:27 PM

Pay a blacksmith to affix an arcane focus as your weapon's pummel/etc.

BurgerBeast

2017-04-03, 12:32 AM

Pay a blacksmith to affix an arcane focus as your weapon's pummel/etc.

I don't think this lets you use your sword as a focus any more than affixing a shield to your sword lets it function as a shield. That is to say: it doesn't.

BoringInfoGuy

2017-04-05, 01:32 AM

No, he would not. The RAW say that a holy symbol can be put on a shield and does not need to held. You are aware that a holy symbol is a focus, right? So, you don't need to hold a focus if you are already using one.

Actually, I am aware that a holy symbol can be inlaid into a shield. I am also aware that the spellcasting focus needs to be held when used, as per the spellcasting focus rules on page 203.

I can see four ways to adress this discrepancy.
1) You still need to use a free hand to wrap around and hold the focus, as per the rules on page 203. That would make it fairly pointless, so it is easy to rule out.

2) Putting it onto the shield means the focus does not need to be held. If this is true, then it should not matter if you are holding the shield or not. Propped up against a wall next to you should work just as well.

3) Inlaying a holy symbol onto a shield makes it part of the shield, a single item. This single item acts as a spellcasting focus. As such, the shield IS the spellcasting focus, and follows the normal rules for using a focus. (i.e. It must be held to be used). This matches both the rules on page 203 and the Sage Advice example without requiring any special exceptions.

4) The rules are badly made, make no sense, and there is no point in trying to discuss them.

I'm not sure what to tell you here. This situation would never arise. Have you read the thread?

I have read the thread. I also read through the rules of the forum. Out of curiosity, have you read them?

Wrong. You evidently do not understand what I am saying, yet you: first, claim to understand what I am saying; second, offer an example that is not equivalent to what I have said nor to RAW, and then equating them as if they are the same. It's a classic straw man. At least you haven't claimed to read my mind...

In your first post, you describe "binary considerations" and the problem that the Sage Advice does not allow all the considerations that your binary model should allow. Where is it written that such considerations are required? In your own words, you "felt" like the rules should work a certain way. You wrote 5 situations that you felt should be there, and complained that your situation #4 would not be possible according to the Sage Advice ruling.

A long time ago, people felt that the obits of everything should be circular. What both have in common is a basis on how someone feels a thing should being used as an argument why new, verifiable better data should be refuted.

Yeah... so, besides the fact that this analogy is not in any way analogous and is factually incorrect (geocentricism didn't work as a theory),

Well, I already covered how the analogy is analogous, however, I did misspeak. That was an early model of the universe, not a theory. As a model, it worked because it explained the observed data and made predictions that could be tested. Those predictions turned out to be wrong, but that does not detract from the point I was making, which is based on how people think and process data that conflict with previously held beliefs.

Since you want to quibble over whether something is factual or not, perhaps now would be a good time to point out that your binary considerations were not binary.
Binary allows only two conditions. 0 or 1. That can mean low or high, false or true, no or yes, missing or present. Any two discrete states. You can have multiple elements, each of which can only have two distinct states. The number of possible combinations is 2 to the power of [the number of elements, commonly called bits.] For three elements, that is 8 combinations (2x2x2)

So for spell casting we can create a binary table as follows:
M S V
0 0 0
0 0 1
0 1 0
0 1 1
1 0 0
1 0 1
1 1 0
1 1 1
Where 1 represents the spell requiring the component, and 0 represents the spell not requiring the component.

That gives 8 possible combinations that could be present based on an actual binary system. That is not the same as saying that all combinations must be used. Just that the potential exists. If they want to require all spells to have a V component, for example, then they give themselves only 4 variations of spell components. V, VS, VM, and VSM.

In a binary view, a spell may require both S and M components, but there is no room to create a distinction between M + S both needed as a separate requirement vs M + S where M is used as part of S.

Now, do you see where I find a "orbits must be circular because circles are perfect" statement in your opening post?

you've missed my entire point. I am not trying to ignore RAW. In fact, I am trying to say that the RAW were fine to begin with. My view is that JC's interpretation and the changes that followed were unnecessary because the RAW worked just fine. So, it turns out that your argument is actually in favour of me, not JC.

It is not that you are ignoring RAW. You are interpreting it through the lense of what you believe should be there. Which includes, for example, a misunderstanding of how binary systems work. And you are treating the validity of new data by how well it fits your current beliefs.

What you see happening here is not what is happening here. You have the right to be wrong, but I'd suggest reading and trying to understand before making statements that are so blatantly wrong.

On what grounds should I accept this? On your word? In the first post you make a statement on understanding and accepting the Sage Advice. Everything past that statement is you explaining why you do NOT accept it. So not by your word.

By your belief that you have a better understanding of RAW than found on Sage Advice? With comments like the one above, you are not showing an ability to follow the rules of the forum. If you don't know, understand OR be bothered to follow the rules of the forum you are posting on, why should I believe that you have any special insight on the 5e RAW?

Oops... I spoke too soon. Here we go with the mind-reading. What is my "headcannon" (by which you surely must mean head canon since cannon does not fit here)?

No mind reading required. Just simple reading and a basic understand of humanity. But yes, I did mean head canon. You caught a typo.

Nobody has said that it won't work, which is why it is clear that you don't know what you're talking about.

Again, no one has said this, which is why it is clear that you don't know what you are talking about.

So you are saying that I misinterpreted your statements? Well, you have admitted that you have been having trouble articulating your point.

Since you authored the post, perhaps I should consider that you may know what you said.

Or I could just go to lengths to argue that only the way that the words you wrote can be correctly read is the way I interpreted them, and anything to the contrary is you trying to trying to "change" what you wrote.

And this has no bearing on the discussion whatsoever. I am the one defending the book. I say the book is fine. JC's interpretation conflicts with the book, which has always been my point. So, this puts you in the odd position of having just defended me while thinking you were arguing against me, and arguing against JC while you thought you were defending him. And this is why I advise caution. You should try to understand what you're talking about before you talk about it.
Except it is not the actual RAW you are defending, only your interpretation of it. Do you understand how those two things can be different?

Edit:

My point, poorly articulated in places, I admit, is that:

1. The RAW worked just fine and didn't need a fix
2. JC proposed a fix via Sage Advice (I say "fix" because it is different than RAW)
3. JC's fix makes less sense than the RAW
4. JC's fix introduces new problems that the RAW did not have

This is why I suspect that JC erringly saw a problem that wasn't there, and the measures he took to correct it led to more problems than would have arisen if he hadn't written the Sage Advice at all.
And here we have the mental gymnastics I mentioned earlier.

Let us look at the difference between errata and Sage Advice.

Errata
 In June of 2015, a modest number of corrections were issued for the first two printings of the Player’s Handbook and can be downloaded here:  http://dnd.wizards.com/articles/features/ph_errata  The corrections have been incorporated into more recent printings of the book, as well as into the Basic Rules. A corrected version of the book includes the following text toward the bottom of its credits page:  This printing includes corrections to the first printing.

 Official Rulings  
Official rulings on how to interpret unclear rules are made in Sage Advice. The public statements of the D&D team, or anyone else at Wizards of the Coast, are not official rulings; they are advice. One exception: the game’s rules manager, Jeremy Crawford (@JeremyECrawford), can make official rulings and usually does so in Sage Advice

Changes to the rules are found in the Errata. Explanations on the correct interpretation of the rules are in Sage Advice.

Jeremy Crawford is the only one with the authority to make official game rulings.

Since JC's ruling did not match the interpretation that BurgerBeast held, then BB did the mental backflip to change a Sage Advice from a clarification of RAW into a rules change.  
So, to correct the 4 points above:

1. It is impossible for RAW to be written in such a way that every player will interpret everything correctly.
2. JC clarified RAW via Sage Advice (which being different than what BB expected, meant BB had misread the RAW)
3. The actual RAW does not fit with what BB believes sensible.
4. BurgerBeast is unwilling to accept that his model of how spellcasting works is based on a false assumption of what should be there mixed with a misreading of the rules. So he sees the correct reading of RAW as a problem inducing change.

If BurgerBeast was actually understanding and accepting the rule, then the choice for him would be to either use the ruling in his game or houserule that he would use his original interpretation because he likes it better.

Instead, despite claiming that this thread is not an attempt to overrule Sage Advice, he is claiming that his reading of the rules is the correct one, and JC, the co-author of 5e (and the one person with the authority to make official rulings on the correct interpretation of RAW) saw a nonexistent problem and changed RAW. A mistake that BB asserts will cause more problems than what he believes are the original rules.

(Yet somehow, despite that ruling being over 2 years old now, has not caused any problems requiring a retraction.)

TL;DR
BurgerBeast is effectively claiming that his reading and understanding of RAW is superior to that of Jeremy Crawford. Where Sage Advice does not match BurgerBeast's interpretation of RAW, then Sage Advice must not be following RAW.

Instead, I assert that JC, being the co-lead during 5e development and the one person authorized to make Official Rulings, would have an incredibly thorough and detailed understanding of RAW.

Therefore, the most likely conclusion in any case where you disagree with a ruling JC makes is that JC is right and you are not.

BoringInfoGuy

2017-04-05, 01:42 AM

BurgerBeast

2017-04-07, 01:55 AM

Actually, I am aware that a holy symbol can be inlaid into a shield. I am also aware that the spellcasting focus needs to be held when used, as per the spellcasting focus rules on page 203.

Holy symbols do not need to be held. See the description of holy symbols in the equipment chapter.

I can see four ways to adress this discrepancy.

The discrepancy does not exist. The RAW are clear.

(irrelevant explanations of possible resolutions to a nonexistent discrepancy)...

I have read the thread. I also read through the rules of the forum. Out of curiosity, have you read them?

Well, if you've read the thread, then I don't know how you missed the observation that the RAW state that holy symbols do not need to be held. It's sort of central to my point.

In your first post, you describe "binary considerations" and the problem that the Sage Advice does not allow all the considerations that your binary model should allow. Where is it written that such considerations are required? In your own words, you "felt" like the rules should work a certain way. You wrote 5 situations that you felt should be there, and complained that your situation #4 would not be possible according to the Sage Advice ruling.

No. It's not my model. It's the VSM model described by the rules. The considerations are consequences of the model, and the model works. Until Sage Advice ruined it.

(Irrelevant science history lesson)...

Since you want to quibble over whether something is factual or not, perhaps now would be a good time to point out that your binary considerations were not binary.
Binary allows only two conditions. 0 or 1. That can mean low or high, false or true, no or yes, missing or present. Any two discrete states. You can have multiple elements, each of which can only have two distinct states. The number of possible combinations is 2 to the power of [the number of elements, commonly called bits.] For three elements, that is 8 combinations (2x2x2)

So for spell casting we can create a binary table as follows:
M S V
0 0 0
0 0 1
0 1 0
0 1 1
1 0 0
1 0 1
1 1 0
1 1 1
Where 1 represents the spell requiring the component, and 0 represents the spell not requiring the component.

That gives 8 possible combinations that could be present based on an actual binary system.

This is exactly what I have been talking about all along, which is why I described it the way I did, and why you were able to reproduce it based on my description. This is the model as presented in the RAW.

That is not the same as saying that all combinations must be used. Just that the potential exists. If they want to require all spells to have a V component, for example, then they give themselves only 4 variations of spell components. V, VS, VM, and VSM.

Bingo.

In a binary view, a spell may require both S and M components, but there is no room to create a distinction between M + S both needed as a separate requirement vs M + S where M is used as part of S.

Yes! Exactly. Which is why it is so odd that JC connected M and S via Sage Advice, screwing up an already adequate system (the binary system you described above). And this is why I made the original post. Because the binary system works as-is, but the Sage Advice ruins it.

[edit: I see that I haven't been clear here with regard to the "S & M where M is part of S," so here's what I meant: By default, according to the VSM system laid out in the RAW, V S and M are considered independently (as you laid out above). However, since the spell description is an instance of specific rules, there is room to include a description that specifically states that the M component is part of the S. This has historical precedent, and works without violating the VSM system nor the RAW because RAW accounts for the possibility via the specific beats general guideline.]

Now, do you see where I find a "orbits must be circular because circles are perfect" statement in your opening post?

Nope.

It is not that you are ignoring RAW. You are interpreting it through the lense of what you believe should be there. Which includes, for example, a misunderstanding of how binary systems work. And you are treating the validity of new data by how well it fits your current beliefs.

I hope it's clear to you now that you've just described what I was talking about. Feel free to go back and verify it for yourself.

On what grounds should I accept this? On your word? In the first post you make a statement on understanding and accepting the Sage Advice. Everything past that statement is you explaining why you do NOT accept it. So not by your word.

I think you misunderstood me. I accept JC's ruling. I can accept it while thinking it is inconsistent.

By your belief that you have a better understanding of RAW than found on Sage Advice? With comments like the one above, you are not showing an ability to follow the rules of the forum. If you don't know, understand OR be bothered to follow the rules of the forum you are posting on, why should I believe that you have any special insight on the 5e RAW?

I think most everyone has a better understanding of RAW in this particular case, because I think JC made a mistake. I don't expect you to take my word for it. I'm pointing to evidence. I expect you to weigh the evidence.

So you are saying that I misinterpreted your statements? Well, you have admitted that you have been having trouble articulating your point.

You have very clearly misinterpreted my statements. See the binary model above, which you think is news to me, but is the model I've been talking about all along. It's not my model. It's the model given by the RAW.

Since you authored the post, perhaps I should consider that you may know what you said.

Perhaps.

Or I could just go to lengths to argue that only the way that the words you wrote can be correctly read is the way I interpreted them, and anything to the contrary is you trying to trying to "change" what you wrote.

The words are still there for all to see. I'm not going to change them.

Except it is not the actual RAW you are defending, only your interpretation of it. Do you understand how those two things can be different?

I can only hope this provides some clarity.

Since JC's ruling did not match the interpretation that BurgerBeast held, then BB did the mental backflip to change a Sage Advice from a clarification of RAW into a rules change.

I hope it's clearer now. It was never my model. It was always the RAW model. The same model you describe above, a VSM model in which each is a binary consideration.

4. BurgerBeast is unwilling to accept that his model of how spellcasting works is based on a false assumption of what should be there mixed with a misreading of the rules. So he sees the correct reading of RAW as a problem inducing change.

So, recognizing that it is not my model, but rather it is the RAW model, I hope the problem is clearer. JC made a ruling which doesn't fit the RAW model.

(a bunch of posturing)...

TL;DR
BurgerBeast is effectively claiming that his reading and understanding of RAW is superior to that of Jeremy Crawford. Where Sage Advice does not match BurgerBeast's interpretation of RAW, then Sage Advice must not be following RAW.

Instead, I assert that JC, being the co-lead during 5e development and the one person authorized to make Official Rulings, would have an incredibly thorough and detailed understanding of RAW.

Therefore, the most likely conclusion in any case where you disagree with a ruling JC makes is that JC is right and you are not.

The problem has nothing to do with my interpretation. The problem is that the Sage Advice changes the VSM system presented in the RAW in a way that makes it worse.

Alsi, JC is not infallible. So, despite the fact that it is always more likely that the mistake is on the part of the other party, we can always look at the evidence (the written words) to better inform ourselves. So... yeah..,

BoringInfoGuy

2017-04-10, 01:08 AM

Holy symbols do not need to be held. See the description of holy symbols in the equipment chapter.

The discrepancy does not exist. The RAW are clear.

Well, if you've read the thread, then I don't know how you missed the observation that the RAW state that holy symbols do not need to be held. It's sort of central to my point.

You have made the assertion that Holy Symbols do not need to be held. That is not actually stated in RAW.

What is said in RAW is that Holy is that "A Cleric or Paladin can use a Holy Symbol as a spellcasting focus, as described in chapter 10.

To use the symbol in this way, the caster must hold it in hand, wear it visibly, or bear it on a shield."

The RAW for using a spellcasting focus in chapter 10 is "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."

You are interpreting the "wear it visibly or put it on a shield" part of the Holy Symbol description to mean that Clerics and paladins can say "look ma, no hands!", which contradicts the requirement that a focus needs to be held.

Instead, there is a different way to interpret the same written rules.

1. Hold in hand:
The typical way to use a focus. While the symbol is held, it acts as a focus, and follows the normal focus rules.

2. Wear visibly:
While worn visibly, the symbol is readily available to be held with a free hand.

As I pointed out earlier, current printings of the book and the errata changed the RAW so that two handed weapons only require two hands when attacking with the weapon, not when simply holding it. (Also note in the explanation of the errata, the purpose of the errata is to fix mistakes in the RAW, as opposed to changing the RAI).

Therefore, this would be the preferred method for Paladins or Clerics who want to wield Two Handed weapons and STILL follows the normal focus rules. No need to infer a non existent rule that Holy Symbols don't require to be held.

3. Inlaid on a shield.
I already explained this once, but will repeat it for completeness. Instead of thinking this removes the need to hold the symbol, inlaying the symbol onto the shield makes it part of the shield. As such, in holding the shield, the symbol is held as well. Which, once again, STILL follows the normal focus rules. Again, no need to infer a nonexistent rule.

For further support, this also fits the example from Sage Advice, which says "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."

Note that this is an interpretation of the same RAW you are looking at, but WITHOUT the need to create an exception to the spellcasting focus rules for Holy Symbols.

You should also note that this model explains why there are multiple ways to use a Holy Symbol as a focus; Clerics and Paladins are melee classes. The holy symbol usage variations created a way for both two weapon wielders and sword and board users to fulfill the free hand needed requirement to access materials or hold a focus requirement.

Instead, if the correct intent and reading is that Holy symbols do not need to be held, then anything besides the worn visibly version is redundant / unnecessary. Why bother including the hold in hand or shield variant at all if simply wearing a Holy Symbol provides hands free M component replacement?

It makes more sense for there to be two variations from the norm because there are two reasons for those variations.

A Two Handed Weapon wielder can't hold a Holy Symbol and use their Weapon to attack. But they can easily switch to holding that Weapon one handed and hold a worn Symbol.

A sword and board wielder does not have a hand free to hold a standard Holy Symbol, or to take advantage of a worn Symbol. But they do have the option to turn a shield into a spellcasting focus by inlaying a Holy Symbol into it.

So yes, I am aware of your assertion that Holy Symbols do not need to be held. And that you have been using it to support your spellcasting model. I just do not accept the validity of your interpretation.

It is a basically using a misinterpretation of RAW to justify another misinterpretation of RAW.

No. It's not my model. It's the VSM model described by the rules.

The considerations are consequences of the model, and the model works. Until Sage Advice ruined it.

You provide zero support for your assertion here. A declaration without support is not a good counter argument.

This is exactly what I have been talking about all along, which is why I described it the way I did, and why you were able to reproduce it based on my description. This is the model as presented in the RAW.

You are mistaken, I did not use your description to create the binary table. It would not be possible, because you are trying to include a non binary consideration into the mix. Just as an FYI, I work in the electronics field. Understanding Binary is part of the required skill set. That is what I drew from to create that simple table.

You did notice that you claimed there should be 5 possible combinations, but my table only showed 4?

A table with your 5 posiibilities would have required two lines for VSM all true:
V S M
1 1c 1c
1 1s 1s
Where c is combined and s is separate. This is what you described.

Bingo.

Yes! Exactly. Which is why it is so odd that JC connected M and S via Sage Advice, screwing up an already adequate system (the binary system you described above). And this is why I made the original post. Because the binary system works as-is, but the Sage Advice ruins it.

As I said before, a binary system has only two potential states per each element. Nothing more.

The table I provided only lists possible combinations of the various components. It makes no predictions besides a potential for spells that have no components, only Somatic components, only Material components, or Somatic and Material components without Verbal.

Nothing more can be said to be required or denied by the table.

Verbal could be chanting of rhyming verse, supplication to a deity, fake Latin, song, or seemingly meaningless syllables.

Somatic means of the body, so it could mean dance, specific poses, as well as hand motions.

Material components could be either mundane or fantastic. Such as a captured ray of the crescent moon or a bottle containing the first breeze of spring.

My binary table just has spots for Verbal, Somatic, and Material. Complaining that the explanation of RAW violates what the a binary consideration of VSM indicates should be there is as meaningless as saying D&D should allow Somatic Dance casting.

As I believe I've said before, there is no reason for game developers to stick to a binary system. The fact that only 4 of the 8 binary combinations are used, as well as all the variations of material components used indicates they did not.

So, if you understand binary, then you would understand that a Binary VSM table cannot be used as support for the claim that JC made a mistake.

Nope.

An assertion that I was wrong without any supporting argument is without merit.

I hope it's clear to you now that you've just described what I was talking about. Feel free to go back and verify it for yourself.

As I've shown again, what you described does not match the table I created, nor can it be used to draw the conclusions you want it to.

What is clear is that you read the book and misinterpreted parts of the rules. No insult is intended, we all make mistakes. That is why Sage Advice exists.

You have used one misinterpretation as the framework to support another misinterpretation.

I think you misunderstood me. I accept JC's ruling. I can accept it while thinking it is inconsistent.

I said accept and understand, just as you did in your first post. You may claim acceptance - which I find inconsistent everything else you've written, but true understanding has obviously eluded you, since you continue to assert that the mistake is on JC's part, not your own.

I think most everyone has a better understanding of RAW in this particular case, because I think JC made a mistake. I don't expect you to take my word for it. I'm pointing to evidence. I expect you to weigh the evidence.

"Most everyone" is a easily refutable argument. Have you met most of everyone? Of course not. This type of statement can almost always be dismissed as "The people I talked with who agree with me, having already discounted dissenting opinions as irrelevant."

You have very clearly misinterpreted my statements. See the binary model above, which you think is news to me, but is the model I've been talking about all along. It's not my model. It's the model given by the RAW.

No, I'm not misinterpretation you.
You claimed that a binary model should make a statement that it cannot. You also believe that because VSM can be written up in a binary table means that it must be a binary system. This is also not true.

This seems pretty typical of your basic argument. Take something that is not part of RAW, such as a binary table, and use that as justification to reinterpret RAW.

Perhaps.

Then perhaps you should take the words of JC, accept that he is the one who actually knows what he is talking about, and reread RAW with the understanding that you have misinterpreted parts of RAW.

The words are still there for all to see. I'm not going to change them.

I can only hope this provides some clarity.

One of the biggest hurdles in any intellectual advancement is learning to let go of old beliefs when contradicted by new data. The desire is ALWAYS to judge data by current belief, instead of reconsidering beliefs due to new data. Einstein is famous for disproving long held understandings on the nature of light, space, and time.

I hope it's clearer now. It was never my model. It was always the RAW model. The same model you describe above, a VSM model in which each is a binary consideration.

As I have explained, you are misinterpreting what a binary VSM model does or does not suggest.

So, recognizing that it is not my model, but rather it is the RAW model, I hope the problem is clearer. JC made a ruling which doesn't fit the RAW model.

Nor is JC required to follow a binary VSM model, it is not part of the RAW.

The problem has nothing to do with my interpretation. The problem is that the Sage Advice changes the VSM system presented in the RAW in a way that makes it worse.

I've already shown an alternate way to interpret RAW that matches both the words in the book, and still matches the Sage Advice rules clarification.

But how about that assertion that the Sage Advice is worse than your model?

The net result of the allowing one hand to fulfill both the Somatic and Material requirements of a spell is that a player can always be holding something in the non casting hand. Have your focus in hand already? Then that hand can keep holding the focus, and the same hand can make the Somatic gestures. Can't use your focus on a VSM spell? Then you'll need to free up one hand, but never two.

In what quantifiable way can you claim that your interpretation is better? All you are doing is rejecting rules that make it easier for casters to fulfill VSM requirements.

Alsi, JC is not infallible. So, despite the fact that it is always more likely that the mistake is on the part of the other party, we can always look at the evidence (the written words) to better inform ourselves. So... yeah..,
Yes, we can look at the book. We can look at Sage Advice. And we can look at the words of other posters.

Having done so, I still find JC's ruling to match the book, and your arguments otherwise to be flawed and unconvincing.

BurgerBeast

2017-04-10, 03:13 AM

You have made the assertion that Holy Symbols do not need to be held. That is not actually stated in RAW.

What is said in RAW is that Holy is that "A Cleric or Paladin can use a Holy Symbol as a spellcasting focus, as described in chapter 10.

To use the symbol in this way, the caster must hold it in hand, wear it visibly, or bear it on a shield."

To use the symbol in this way. To use the symbol in this way.

You are interpreting the "wear it visibly or put it on a shield" part of the Holy Symbol description to mean that Clerics and paladins can say "look ma, no hands!", which contradicts the requirement that a focus needs to be held.

Exactly. See how easy that is? It's already RAW and it solves all of the problems.

Instead, there is a different way to interpret the same written rules.

Why bother. The problem is solved. Instead you contort and perform word acrobatics to reach the same conclusion. It's entirely unnecessary. Holy symbols make you hands-free (for M components), RAW.

You should also note that this model explains why there are multiple ways to use a Holy Symbol as a focus; Clerics and Paladins are melee classes. The holy symbol usage variations created a way for both two weapon wielders and sword and board users to fulfill the free hand needed requirement to access materials or hold a focus requirement.

Already taken care of. Your contortions were not required.

It makes more sense for there to be two variations from the norm because there are two reasons for those variations.

There are two.

A Two Handed Weapon wielder can't hold a Holy Symbol and use their Weapon to attack. But they can easily switch to holding that Weapon one handed and hold a worn Symbol.

All of this contorting is precisely my point. Believe me, I know exactly what you are saying. I fully understand your point. You are correct to say that you are saying exactly what JC said. But here's the thing: the RAW already say you can use a holy symbol hands-free. That's what it says.

So yes, I am aware of your assertion that Holy Symbols do not need to be held. And that you have been using it to support your spellcasting model. I just do not accept the validity of your interpretation.

Of course not. You're reasoning back to front. You start with the assumption that JC did not make a mistake, contort your way through all manner of unnecessary reasoning, and in the end you read a sentence incorrectly because if you read it correctly it makes all of that effort a waste of time.

But just read the sentence. Try your best to eliminate all of your biases and read the sentence for what it is. Start reasoning from the front.

"To use the symbol in this way, the caster must hold it in hand, wear it visibly, or bear it on a shield."

The meaning is clear. The "or" is exclusive. Clerics and Paladins are hands-free.

Sage Advice was not written to clear up M concerns. It was written to clear up S concerns. This is because hands-free clerics and hands-free paladins still have the problem of needing a free hand for S components. The easy fix is to just change the components on a select few spells. Instead they tried to MacGuyver the rules.

It is a basically using a misinterpretation of RAW to justify another misinterpretation of RAW.

Back to front.

You provide zero support for your assertion here. A declaration without support is not a good counter argument.

It's your assertion. I'm agreeing with it.

You are mistaken, I did not use your description to create the binary table. It would not be possible, because you are trying to include a non binary consideration into the mix. Just as an FYI, I work in the electronics field. Understanding Binary is part of the required skill set. That is what I drew from to create that simple table.

I'm telling you that it is the exact model I was referring to. I've never tried to include non-binary considerations in the model. I said that the RAW already handle non-binary considerations through the spell text. Not through the VSM system.

Binary numbers are not rocket science, my friend.

You did notice that you claimed there should be 5 possible combinations, but my table only showed 4?

The correct table shows 8. 2^3. Out of which the 0 0 0 option can be ignored, so there are 7 possibilities. My table was not a table of the model. My table was a table to show what the Sage Advice Model would require. That is where you confused my meaning.

My binary table just has spots for Verbal, Somatic, and Material. Complaining that the explanation of RAW violates what the a binary consideration of VSM indicates should be there is as meaningless as saying D&D should allow Somatic Dance casting.

That's not what I complained about. I complained that JCs explanation creates a dependence between S & M components that would necessesitate the abandonment of the binary model. And, since the binary model does not allow for such dependence, I made the table you are referring to in order to show that it is not compatible with the binary model. So, pretty much the exact opposite of what you are claiming.

As I believe I've said before, there is no reason for game developers to stick to a binary system. The fact that only 4 of the 8 binary combinations are used, as well as all the variations of material components used indicates they did not.

There is plenty of reason. Also, 7 of the 8 are used, with the obvious exclusion being the 0 0 0 case.

So, if you understand binary, then you would understand that a Binary VSM table cannot be used as support for the claim that JC made a mistake.

You really do think binary is a complicated thing, don't you? It's really not.

An assertion that I was wrong without any supporting argument is without merit.

And yet here you are again, falsely accusing me at every turn. You are plainly wrong. But I'm not sure what I can possibly say. I tell you what I meant when I wrote something, and you tell me I'm wrong. How can you possibly know what I meant when I wrote it? And the words are still there. It's not like they're ambiguous.

What is clear is that you read the book and misinterpreted parts of the rules. No insult is intended, we all make mistakes. That is why Sage Advice exists.

It's not why Sage Advice exists, actually.

You have used one misinterpretation as the framework to support another misinterpretation.

You can't know this. You've failed to articulate my side of the argument repeatedly. So much so that it's worth questioning whether you're even trying to understand what I'm saying, in fact.

I said accept and understand, just as you did in your first post. You may claim acceptance - which I find inconsistent everything else you've written, but true understanding has obviously eluded you, since you continue to assert that the mistake is on JC's part, not your own.

This appears to be semantic. I am using accept here in the same way that an athlete accepts a coach's decision to not play him. I disagree with the decision but I accept the authority of the coach.

No, I'm not misinterpretation you.

Yes, you are. Repeatedly. I should know. I know what I think.

For someone who purports to care about reasoning honestly, this is a counterproductive display. I am trying to tell you what I meant, and you keep denying it. This is not the behaviour of someone who cares about the truth. This is the behaviour of someone who refuses to engage.

As I have explained, you are misinterpreting what a binary VSM model does or does not suggest.

And I'm telling you I understand binary models. They are not complicated.

Nor is JC required to follow a binary VSM model, it is not part of the RAW.

Are you telling me that it is not the case that every spell in the PHB has V or no V, S or no S, and M or no M?

It does. This is the system of spell component classification. I didn't make it.

But how about that assertion that the Sage Advice is worse than your model?

Not my model. The VSM model.

The Sage Advice couples S & M components, which makes it incompatible with the model. That makes it a bad solution.

In what quantifiable way can you claim that your interpretation is better? All you are doing is rejecting rules that make it easier for casters to fulfill VSM requirements.

Simple: I reject the new rules because they do not make it easier. The RAW are just as easy. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

Having done so, I still find JC's ruling to match the book, and your arguments otherwise to be flawed and unconvincing.

Well, my limited experience in dealing with you has shown you to repeat yourself excessively, fail to understand my position, pronounce that you understand my position better than I, and imagine that something as simple as the binary number system is somehow complex enough to present troubles in understanding it. I'm sorry if I'm not overly confident in your judgment.