Counterspell a counterspell that is countering the spell you are casting+ free hands

[Trandir]

Can you counterspell a spell while you are casting a spell with casting time 1 action?

Answer so far.
Yes by RAW.


Edit
After a weird turn of events the seond half of this thread's post are about the definiton of free hand, how to use a spellcastin focus correctly and other debates.

Have a nice time reading this.

[Yunru]

Yes.
/thread
:P

[PwrHngryTortois]

No, even though counterspell uses your reaction, you can only cast one leveled spell on your turn each turn. If the spell you're casting initially is a cantrip I guess you could do this, but there are only a handful of spell your opponents can cast on your turn so this shouldn't come up too much.

[jas61292]

Yes, but make sure to confirm with your DM. While technically there is nothing preventing it, I have seen DMs say no for narrative/logical reasons (ie " casting counterspell interrupts the opponents casting, so it must be done and finished before the target spell is cast. In order for that to work on counterspell, you would need to cast it while still casting your other spell, and no you cannot cast two spells at once").

There is also possibly a component issue. While a DM just saying you can't cast two spells at once might be without real rules justification, the same logic as above could be more simply used to restric it based on the spell components. If you are casting a spell with a somatic and/or material component, I would consider it fairly justified to rule you cannot also use that hand to do the somatic component of counterspell at the same time. Obviously this can be easily circumvented by having both hands free, but that is often considered suboptimal.

Ultimately though the answer is yes, but, like with most other rulings, ask your DM.

[Crgaston]

No, even though counterspell uses your reaction, you can only cast one leveled spell on your turn each turn. If the spell you're casting initially is a cantrip I guess you could do this, but there are only a handful of spell your opponents can cast on your turn so this shouldn't come up too much.
This is incorrect. If you cast a Bonus Action spell, you can only cast a cantrip on your turn. But casting a spell as an Action does not preclude casing a Reaction spell as well.

[StoicLeaf]

Yes.

The only thing I can think of that might break it running out of hands, i.e. if you're casting a spell with your focus in one hand (has V component) and holding a weapon/lantern/whatever in the other.

[DigitalCharlie]

This is incorrect. If you cast a Bonus Action spell, you can only cast a cantrip on your turn. But casting a spell as an Action does not preclude casing a Reaction spell as well.

It does mean that you can't, say, counterspell an opponent who is counterspelling your casting of healing word or spiritual weapon. But that's just an obnoxious rule, so. Whatever.

[CheddarChampion]

This is incorrect. If you cast a Bonus Action spell, you can only cast a cantrip on your turn. But casting a spell as an Action does not preclude casing a Reaction spell as well.

Isn't it worded like:
'If you cast a spell as a bonus action, any spell you cast as an action must be a cantrip'?
Which would still let you Misty Step, Counterspell, and Firebolt in the same round?

I might be wrong, I don't remember the source of this rule so I can't look it up.

Edit: for the OP, yes

[Grognerd]

I would argue Yes, but you won't like the result.
To whit: you cast a spell, and your opponent reacts by casting a counterspell. This reaction is - by the nature of counterspell - taking place simultaneous to your casting. So to counterspell their counterspell, you would have to stop casting your original spell. Forget casting two spells in a turn; that can be debated. But you can't cast two separate spells at the exact same time. So sure... you can abort your original spell in order to cast your counterspell, ending their counterspell. But since your original spell was aborted, the opponent got their wish anyway.

[Nhorianscum]

Yes you can counter counterspell on your own turn.

[Trandir]

Yes you can counter counterspell on your own turn.

Are you also considering the fact that you should be the one casting the spell that's about to get countered?

[PwrHngryTortois]

This is incorrect. If you cast a Bonus Action spell, you can only cast a cantrip on your turn. But casting a spell as an Action does not preclude casing a Reaction spell as well.

Looks like you're right actually

[Mr Adventurer]

Fighters with Shield Master can bonus action shove in the middle of their multiple attacks on an Attack action, right? Same principle.

[1Pirate]

Yes you can barring a DM house rule. It's literally the example the Sage Compendium uses when addressing reaction spells on your turn.


Can you cast a reaction spell on your turn? You sure can!
Here’s a common way for it to happen: Cornelius the wizard
is casting fireball on his turn, and his foe casts counterspell
on him. Cornelius also has counterspell prepared, so he
uses his reaction to cast it and break his foe’s counterspell
before it can stop fireball.

[Chad.e.clark]

Fighters with Shield Master can bonus action shove in the middle of their multiple attacks on an Attack action, right? Same principle.

I believe Sage Advice has most recently ruled Bonus Action Shield Master Shove can only occur after all attacks from the Action have resolved.

Now, whether or not you want to listen to Sage Advice is an entirely different issue.

[Yunru]

Are you also considering the fact that you should be the one casting the spell that's about to get countered?
And that matters why?


I believe Sage Advice has most recently ruled Bonus Action Shield Master Shove can only occur after all attacks from the Action have resolved.
No no, it ruled you had to have taken the Attack action first.
Which in standard form didn't do anything, except to shift discussion as to whether attacks were part of the Attack action or a result of it.

[Trandir]

And that matters why?


If he/she didn't consider that the answer might be different than if he/she did

[Contrast]

To whit: you cast a spell, and your opponent reacts by casting a counterspell. This reaction is - by the nature of counterspell - taking place simultaneous to your casting. So to counterspell their counterspell, you would have to stop casting your original spell. Forget casting two spells in a turn; that can be debated. But you can't cast two separate spells at the exact same time. So sure... you can abort your original spell in order to cast your counterspell, ending their counterspell. But since your original spell was aborted, the opponent got their wish anyway.

Not really any rules to support that.

You could argue the ready action supports that in that readying a spell requires concentration which can be interrupted so maybe counterspell works similarily (I would disagree) but that would also mean you could never cast any other spell while concentrating on a spell.

To OP: Yes

Bonus: I'm not really sure what the sane DM comment was about but only if the action spell is a cantrip.

Edit -


Isn't it worded like:
'If you cast a spell as a bonus action, any spell you cast as an action must be a cantrip'?
Which would still let you Misty Step, Counterspell, and Firebolt in the same round?

I might be wrong, I don't remember the source of this rule so I can't look it up.

Edit: for the OP, yes

For clarity it says 'You can't cast another spell during the same turn, except for a cantrip with a casting time of 1 action.' so reaction spells during that turn of any kind are out by RAW.

[Trandir]

Bonus: I'm not really sure what the sane DM comment was about but only if the action spell is a cantrip.



As far as my hunderstanding of english goes "You can't cast another spell during the same turn, ..." doesn't means that you can't have already casted a spell in the same turn.
ex. spirit guardians and then spiritual weapon

This clearly is against RAI but by strict RAW it should be allowed, right?

[Yakmala]

Yes. The rules do not prevent you from casting an additional spell as a reaction.

Or, you could just play a Sorcerer, cast the initial spell using Subtle Spell, and avoid having it countered in the first place, saving you an additional 3rd level spell slot.

[sithlordnergal]

Yes, you can cast Counterspell to prevent a Counterspell from countering your spell, even if that spell is a Bonus Action since Counterspell is a Reaction and not an Action.

[BloodSnake'sCha]

The side with more casters wins.
Wizard 1 cast a spell
Wizard 2 counter it
Wizard 1 counter the counter
Wizard 3 counter the counter counter
Wizard 4 counter the counter counter counter
Sorcerer 5 subtle counter the counter counter counter counter and end the chain.

The end result is that wizard 1 spell is countered.

[Witty Username]

counterspell is a reaction cast not a bonus action cast. so there are no restrictions unless you are casting the first spell as a bonus action. So, yes.

[MaxWilson]

Can you counterspell a spell while you are casting a spell?

Only if you're as good as Ivy (the Archive), according to Harry Dresden.

[Trandir]

Yes, you can cast Counterspell to prevent a Counterspell from countering your spell, even if that spell is a Bonus Action since Counterspell is a Reaction and not an Action.


Apparently there is a weird interaction. If you where to cast a spell with bonus action casting time you can't cast anymore spells unless they are cantrips with casting time of 1 action.

This means that if you are casting Divine Word then you won't be able to cast counterspell since it is neither a cantrip nor his castin time is 1 action.

OTOH the BBEG can use PW Kill and counterspell the wizard's counterspell without any problem.
Weird

[Nhorianscum]

Are you also considering the fact that you should be the one casting the spell that's about to get countered?

Yes.

There is no rule interaction preventing this.

[FilthyLucre]

No, even though counterspell uses your reaction, you can only cast one leveled spell on your turn each turn. If the spell you're casting initially is a cantrip I guess you could do this, but there are only a handful of spell your opponents can cast on your turn so this shouldn't come up too much.

That is patently false. The rule on casting two spells a turn specifically applies to bonus action spells. Not reaction spells or even other spells that take an action.

[FilthyLucre]

Can you counterspell a spell while you are casting a spell?

Answers so far.
Yes: 11
No: 1
Yes but you wasted another 3rd level spell slot and your spell is still interrupted: 1


Bonus: by RAW can you cast a 1 action spell and then a bonus action spell?

I say: There is no debate on this, the rules are perfectly clear. HOWEVER, from a "theater of mind"/Roleplaying perspective I have a hard time imagining a word where you can start and stop magical spells and that the very act of casting another would mean you stopped casting the first. BUT... by RAW you definitely can.

[Trandir]

I say: There is no debate on this, the rules are perfectly clear. HOWEVER, from a "theater of mind"/Roleplaying perspective I have a hard time imagining a word where you can start and stop magical spells and that the very act of casting another would mean you stopped casting the first. BUT... by RAW you definitely can.

Well counterspell has only somatic components so as long as you have a free hand you should be able to do that. With
your left hand you are holding a staff (S and M) and speaking your magic formulas (V) and another wizard uses counterspell so you react by doing the same gesture with your right hand. A reaction should take in game about the same time as a blink of an eye.

If you have no free hands (and no warcaster feat) then it is a little hard to justify

[Contrast]

As far as my hunderstanding of english goes "You can't cast another spell during the same turn, ..." doesn't means that you can't have already casted a spell in the same turn.
ex. spirit guardians and then spiritual weapon

This clearly is against RAI but by strict RAW it should be allowed, right?

Nope, not RAW.


A spell cast with a bonus action is especially swift. You must use a bonus action on your turn to cast the spell, provided that you haven't already taken a bonus action this turn. You can't cast another spell during the same turn, except for a cantrip with a casting time of 1 action.

If you cast a spell that wasn't a cantrip with a casting time of 1 action already on your turn then you can't comply with the requirement that you can't have cast another spell except a cantrip with a casting time of 1 action and your ability to cast bonus action spells is removed.

Remember you only get to take a bonus action if you meet the requirements to do so. Otherwise you don't have a bonus action to take.

[Keravath]

Yes you can cast counterspell in response to a counterspell against a spell that takes an action that you are casting.

The rule about casting spells states only that if you cast a BONUS action spell then you can only cast cantrips requiring one action if you take the Cast a Spell action. If you aren’t casting a bonus action spell then their are no constraints on any other spells you cast on your turn either as a reaction or an action if you happen to have the action surge ability.

[Kane0]

There's nothing stopping you from using your reaction during your turn (it's just a little unorthodox is all), but Counterspell has a Somatic component you need to account for as well as the spell slot, since you're casting another spell as well and you may run out of hands.

[Composer99]

Yes, you can counterspell a counterspell countering your own spell.

What is more, it seems clear to me that, narratively, you finish casting your first spell, the enemy counterspells it, and you counterspell the counterspell. None of this 'you're still casting the first spell' business, as far as I can see.

[Laserlight]

Yes, you can do it.
You could instead just back up out of Counterspell range (60ft iirc) and cast your Fireball (or whatever) from there.

[LudicSavant]

No, even though counterspell uses your reaction, you can only cast one leveled spell on your turn each turn. If the spell you're casting initially is a cantrip I guess you could do this, but there are only a handful of spell your opponents can cast on your turn so this shouldn't come up too much.

That's not true. You're only prevented from casting multiple leveled spells in a turn if one of them takes a bonus action.

[Ghost Nappa]

Can you counterspell a counterspell against your spell?

No if:

The other caster has something that improves their range that you lack (and thus are out of range).
You needed both hands to cast the first spell (and thus cannot perform the somatic components).
You only have one hand (and thus cannot perform the somatic components).
You don't know Counterspell (but this exercise is kind of silly in that case).
You're out of 3rd or higher level spell slots (and thus lack the energy needed to do so).
You - somehow - already used your reaction on your turn (and lack the window of opportunity).
You cannot see the Counterspeller (and thus cannot react, as you must be capable of seeing the other caster).
Your DM says so (see Rule Zero.)


Otherwise, Yes.

[Keravath]

Can you counterspell a counterspell against your spell?

No if:

The other caster has something that improves their range that you lack (and thus are out of range).
You needed both hands to cast the first spell (and thus cannot perform the somatic components).
You only have one hand (and thus cannot perform the somatic components).
You don't know Counterspell (but this exercise is kind of silly in that case).
You're out of 3rd or higher level spell slots (and thus lack the energy needed to do so).
You - somehow - already used your reaction on your turn (and lack the window of opportunity).
You cannot see the Counterspeller (and thus cannot react, as you must be capable of seeing the other caster).
Your DM says so (see Rule Zero.)


Otherwise, Yes.

There is nothing in the rules that says you can’t use one hand to perform the somatic components of an action spell and a reaction spell. Narratively, it is quite possible to imagine pausing the casting of one spell while you cast counterspell then returning to the somatic components of the original spell. RAW you only need one free hand (not holding something) to perform the somatic components of any spell and there is nothing in the rules that indicates that can’t be the same free hand that was being used to cast the first spell.

[TheUser]

Yes but only if both hands are free to use somatic components; if the spell you are casting has a somatic or material component you would need another free hand to gesticulate the somatic component of your counterspell.

[Kalashak]

I don’t allow it but by RAW I’m not aware of any reason you couldn’t

[ProsecutorGodot]

Yes

Bonus : Yes, as long as it's a cantrip.

Super Bonus : You can't do both of those at the same time on your own turn. Casting a spell as a bonus action on your turn means that you can't use your reaction to cast a spell until your turn has ended.

[NNescio]

Can you counterspell a counterspell against your spell?

No if:

The other caster has something that improves their range that you lack (and thus are out of range).
You needed both hands to cast the first spell (and thus cannot perform the somatic components).
You only have one hand (and thus cannot perform the somatic components).
You don't know Counterspell (but this exercise is kind of silly in that case).
You're out of 3rd or higher level spell slots (and thus lack the energy needed to do so).
You - somehow - already used your reaction on your turn (and lack the window of opportunity).
You cannot see the Counterspeller (and thus cannot react, as you must be capable of seeing the other caster).
Your DM says so (see Rule Zero.)


Otherwise, Yes.


There is nothing in the rules that says you can’t use one hand to perform the somatic components of an action spell and a reaction spell. Narratively, it is quite possible to imagine pausing the casting of one spell while you cast counterspell then returning to the somatic components of the original spell. RAW you only need one free hand (not holding something) to perform the somatic components of any spell and there is nothing in the rules that indicates that can’t be the same free hand that was being used to cast the first spell.

That, and range-extension effects (usually) wouldn't work effectively on Counterspell anyway since virtually none of them has an effect on the trigger condition.


1 reaction, which you take when you see a creature within 60 feet of you casting a spell

So something like Distant Spell would double Counterspell's range, but the trigger condition remains unaltered so it functionally has no effect.

(Well, most of the time. If, say, you have a friend within 60 ft Counterspelling an enemy up to 120 ft away, who then gets counter-Counterspelled by the enemy, then you might be able to Distant counter-counter-Counterspell the enemy, since the wording of the rules doesn't specify that the creature that triggers your reaction necessarily has to be the same as the 'target'. But the timing for the reactions gets a bit wonky by this point.)

[Theodoxus]

Didn't read thread, but here's my answer: No, because casting a spell on your turn requires an action. Counterspell is specifically a Reaction. If you're casting a spell, and an enemy caster uses their reaction to counter your spell, it's still your turn, and you can't cast a reaction spell on your turn, RAW.

Beyond that, casting a spell takes time. You can't cast two spells simultaneously. You're in the process of casting a spell that is being countered. You can't be in the action of casting Fireball, an enemy caster then counterspells it, and then, while still casting fireball, suddenly start casting counterspell on top of it.

So, no.

To reiterate: Counterspell is a reaction, can't cast a reaction spell on your turn, nor can you cast two spells at the same instant on your turn. They have to be serial, not parallel.

/thread.

[NNescio]

Didn't read thread, but here's my answer: No, because casting a spell on your turn requires an action. Counterspell is specifically a Reaction. If you're casting a spell, and an enemy caster uses their reaction to counter your spell, it's still your turn, and you can't cast a reaction spell on your turn, RAW.

Quote that rule.

It's not there, FYI. You're just making it up.


Beyond that, casting a spell takes time. You can't cast two spells simultaneously. You're in the process of casting a spell that is being countered. You can't be in the action of casting Fireball, an enemy caster then counterspells it, and then, while still casting fireball, suddenly start casting counterspell on top of it

So, no..

That rule doesn't exist. Also SAC explicitly disagrees with you.

With the exact same example too, in fact (Counter-Counter-Fireball). Funny, ain't it.




To reiterate: Counterspell is a reaction, can't cast a reaction spell on your turn, nor can you cast two spells at the same instant on your turn. They have to be serial, not parallel.

You're making things up.



/thread.

Hardly.

[ProsecutorGodot]

To reiterate: Counterspell is a reaction, can't cast a reaction spell on your turn, nor can you cast two spells at the same instant on your turn. They have to be serial, not parallel.

/thread.
Spells with a casting time of "reaction" are allowed to be cast whenever their trigger is met, the only exceptions being if you are currently unable to cast the spell. There is no rule that says you can only cast a spell as an action on your turn, the "Cast a Spell" action is exactly what it says, an example of an action. You have a reaction on your turn as well, which actually allows spells explicitly in the PHB.
"Certain special abilities, spells, and situations allow you to take a special action called a reaction. A reaction is an instant response to a trigger of some kind, which can occur on your turn or on someone else's."


Beyond that, casting a spell takes time. You can't cast two spells simultaneously. You're in the process of casting a spell that is being countered. You can't be in the action of casting Fireball, an enemy caster then counterspells it, and then, while still casting fireball, suddenly start casting counterspell on top of it.


Reactions spells are specifically "fractions of a second" so this point is moot as well.

The only limitation is whether you have enough hands to perform the somatic components of your spell of choice and Counterspell. That's assuming you choose to rule that they need multiple free hands for such a thing, there's an argument that the same hand performing the somatic components for your first spell can be used for Counterspell.

[Witty Username]

To reiterate: Counterspell is a reaction, can't cast a reaction spell on your turn, nor can you cast two spells at the same instant on your turn. They have to be serial, not parallel.


To clarify, by that reasoning would a mage be unable to cast shield against an opportunity attack aimed at them since the attack would be happening on their turn?

[BloodSnake'sCha]

For the ones that say you need a free hand.

Reactions in 5e happen after the trigger so if someone counterspelled you you already finish the casting of the spell.

If you had a free hand for the original spell you can use the same hand for the counterspell.

[jas61292]

For the ones that say you need a free hand.

Reactions in 5e happen after the trigger so if someone counterspelled you you already finish the casting of the spell.

If you had a free hand for the original spell you can use the same hand for the counterspell.

The rule for reactions is that, reactions happen after the trigger unless specified otherwise. Counterspell specifies otherwise.

"You attempt to interrupt a creature in the process of casting a spell."

You do not attempt to neutralize the magic of an already cast spell. No, you interrupt the casting itself while it is going on. And if you are to do that against someone counter spelling you, you must have a free hands for each spell at the same time.

[Trandir]

For the ones that say you need a free hand.

Reactions in 5e happen after the trigger so if someone counterspelled you you already finish the casting of the spell.

If you had a free hand for the original spell you can use the same hand for the counterspell.


The rule for reactions is that, reactions happen after the trigger unless specified otherwise. Counterspell specifies otherwise.

"You attempt to interrupt a creature in the process of casting a spell."

You do not attempt to neutralize the magic of an already cast spell. No, you interrupt the casting itself while it is going on. And if you are to do that against someone counter spelling you, you must have a free hands for each spell at the same time.


And that's what war caster's for, you get all the free hands

[Tanarii]

No, even though counterspell uses your reaction, you can only cast one leveled spell on your turn each turn. If the spell you're casting initially is a cantrip I guess you could do this, but there are only a handful of spell your opponents can cast on your turn so this shouldn't come up too much.I keep seeing "cast one levels spell on your turn" brought up (across multiple threads), and I have to wonder if this misinformation was quoted by a large blog or something in the early 5e days. It seems weird that it'd have such staying power.


Fighters with Shield Master can bonus action shove in the middle of their multiple attacks on an Attack action, right? Same principle.https://i.imgflip.com/z5tg2.jpg


There's nothing stopping you from using your reaction during your turn (it's just a little unorthodox is all), but Counterspell has a Somatic component you need to account for as well as the spell slot, since you're casting another spell as well and you may run out of hands.



No if:

You needed both hands to cast the first spell (and thus cannot perform the somatic components).
You only have one hand (and thus cannot perform the somatic components).

Why do you think a free hand is no longer free because it's being used to cast another spell?


To reiterate: Counterspell is a reaction, can't cast a reaction spell on your turn, nor can you cast two spells at the same instant on your turn. They have to be serial, not parallel.Neither of these appear in the rules. The parallel thing gets into parsing actions rules, but since counterspell is a reaction and specifically interrupts, it bypasses that argument IMO.

[Spiritchaser]

Can you counterspell a counterspell against your spell?

No if:


You needed both hands to cast the first spell (and thus cannot perform the somatic components).
You only have one hand (and thus cannot perform the somatic components).

You cannot see the Counterspeller (and thus cannot react, as you must be capable of seeing the other caster)


Otherwise, Yes.


A disagreement and a semantic (but perhaps important comment that isn’t directly relevant here)

First off, there’s no rule, or obvious implication that you need an extra free hand for counterspell. You can work this out narratively however you wish, but presuming that you need more isn’t anywhere in the rules.

With regards to seeing the other caster: edit: please ignore

A bit of a subtle point here: counterspell does not require that you see the caster. It does require that you know that they are casting a spell.

When countering a counterspell, which has only a somatic component, it would be quite reasonable to say that you’d almost always have to know they were casting a spell by seeing that somatic component. (Notwithstanding situations involving telepathic links or other oddities which will turn up from time to time in a D&D game but which are still very rare)

But in the general case, you can counterspell a spell with a verbal component by hearing that verbal component.

[NNescio]

(...)

With regards to seeing the other caster:

A bit of a subtle point here: counterspell does not require that you see the caster. It does require that you know that they are casting a spell.

When countering a counterspell, which has only a somatic component, it would be quite reasonable to say that you’d almost always have to know they were casting a spell by seeing that somatic component. (Notwithstanding situations involving telepathic links or other oddities which will turn up from time to time in a D&D game but which are still very rare)

But in the general case, you can counterspell a spell with a verbal component by hearing that verbal component.

The trigger is "...when you see a creature within 60 feet of you casting a spell". Not "when you hear".

[Spiritchaser]

The trigger is "...when you see a creature within 60 feet of you casting a spell". Not "when you hear".

Urk, my bad looks like my reference didn’t include that. I’ll amend

[MadBear]

This ruling seems obvious. Of course you can. Narratively, it might not make the most sense (although I can see someone describing it in such a way that it still works), but the rules seem very clear that it works.

[Keravath]

1) There is no rule saying that you can't use the same free hand to cast counterspell as you are using to cast the first spell. If you believe this is the case then please cite the rule. You do NOT need two hands free to cast counterspell RAW.

"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."

This only indicates you need the free use of at least one hand. No where in the rules does it indicate that a hand being used to execute somatic components for one spell can not also execute the somatic components for another spell.

The rules even indicate that the free hand used for somatic components can also be used to access any material components needed for the spell indicating that the free hand can't be considered "busy" for the entire time while casting a spell since the hand can also fumble around in a component pouch, pull out needed components, cast the spell and put the components back if they aren't consumed. That would tend to indicate that a hand performing somatic components can still do other things. In any case, the rules do NOT say that a hand is considered "not free" for other activities if it is in the midst of casting a 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."

2) If you want to cast counterspell the trigger states specifically "SEE".

"Casting Time: I reaction, which you take when you see a creature within 60 feet of you casting a spell"

3) A reaction spell CAN be taken at ANY time as long as the trigger condition is met.

"REACTIONS
Some spells can be cast as reactions. These spells take a fraction of a second to bring about and are cast in response to some event. If a spell can be cast as a reaction, the spell description tells you exactly when you can do so."

4) The only constraint on casting multiple spells on your turn ONLY applies if you cast a spell as a bonus action.

"BONUS ACTION
A spell east with a bonus action is especially swift. You must use a bonus action on your turn to cast the spell, provided that you haven't already taken a bonus action this turn. You can't cast another spell during the same turn, except for a cantrip with a casting time of 1 action."

This rule ONLY applies when you cast a spell as a bonus action. Casting one as an ACTION does not limit spellcasting on your turn in ANY way.

--------------

Bottom line ... RAW

You can cast counterspell on your turn as a reaction while you are casting another full action spell if it targets another spell being cast within 60' that you can see. You only need the one free hand to do so.

[TheUser]

1) There is no rule saying that you can't use the same free hand to cast counterspell as you are using to cast the first spell.

Uhhm once you are using a hand to cast somatic components it stops being a free hand...the hand is now occupied with the "intricate gestures" of the somatic component of the spell...

[Ghost Nappa]

There is nothing in the rules that says you can’t use one hand to perform the somatic components of an action spell and a reaction spell. Narratively, it is quite possible to imagine pausing the casting of one spell while you cast counterspell then returning to the somatic components of the original spell. RAW you only need one free hand (not holding something) to perform the somatic components of any spell and there is nothing in the rules that indicates that can’t be the same free hand that was being used to cast the first spell.

I imagine Counterspell as sort of similar to how Trap Cards work in Yugioh.


There's a set condition for activation, and a result. Activating the trap creates a Chain, which resolves backwards.

The important thing about Traps is that they use up space on your board. It's not possible to activate more trap cards than there are spots for them on your board.* The "spots on the board" here are your hands.

You cannot cast spells without a free hand.



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.

If you are using your hand to cast the triggering spell, (let's say Fireball) it is not free. If you have a second hand (you should have at least one other hand, but it's probably holding something), this is not an issue.

If you want to use the same hand to Counterspell the Counterspell while still casting the original spell, I can't help but ask how? How are you capable of performing the hand gestures of two different spells simultaneously with one hand? This is different from Action/Bonus Action which are understood to be sequential. This is happening simultaneously. Do you have Schrodinger's Hand?



You could absolutely stop focusing on casting the original spell to counterspell the counterspell but that sequence of events isn't particularly interesting or beneficial.
If you have more hands to invest in, a feat (War Caster), or some other justification to avoid this issue I have no problem with it. (The rules straight up state that you can take your Reaction on your turn, so I have absolutely no problem with you doing all of this on your turn.)


But it does not make sense to me that your one hand can be in two different positions at the same moment of time. If someone wants to take a picture of them using Quantum Physics to bend their hands two different ways at the same time, I'll burn my PHB.



...

My fundamental disagreement with this is as I outlined above, "what constitutes a free hand?"
I have absolutely no other issue with anything in the argument outlined.

I do not believe your hand can be considered free while you are still casting the original spell, because you are being interrupted. You are still providing the somatic components of the original spell at that time, so how can that hand be considered free when you go to Counterspell with it?

If your hand is holding something (a shield), it is not free. It is doing something.
If your hand is casting a spell, it is not free. It is doing something.

I have absolutely no issue with the same hand being used to Counterspell afterwards, or with the player freeing the other hand (dropping a sword) to do so. But using one hand to cast two spells with different gestures at the exact same time sounds wrong.



This is a bit of a specific situation, but definitely one I can see happening at the table. Ask your DM.

* - This isn't completely true but it is 90% of the time and going any further into detail will derail the argument.

[Crgaston]

If you want to use the same hand to Counterspell the Counterspell while still casting the original spell, I can't help but ask how? How are you capable of performing the hand gestures of two different spells simultaneously with one hand? This is different from Action/Bonus Action which are understood to be sequential. This is happening simultaneously. Do you have Schrodinger's Hand?
What if you envision it as the initial caster pressing the Play button, the one Counterspelling pressing the Stop button, which frees the initial caster to press the Play button and finish the spell?

Does that work?

[Tanarii]

A free hand is a free hand. If theres nothing in it, its a free hand, and can be used for somatic gestures to cast a spell.

[Yunru]

A free hand is a free hand. If theres nothing in it, its a free hand, and can be used for somatic gestures to cast a spell.

And a hand occupied with somatic gestures isn't free: it's occupied.

[Crgaston]

And a hand occupied with somatic gestures isn't free: it's occupied.

In one sense, free can mean "otherwise unoccupied." But in the sense that free is used in some other other rules of the game, it simply means "not holding something."... possibly every single other rule including the term "free hand."

But I'm not 100% positive on that position; I just can't think of another example, RAW, where "Free" doesn't equal "Empty."

[Tanarii]

In one sense, free can mean "otherwise unoccupied." But in the sense that free is used in some other other rules of the game, it simply means "not holding something."... possibly every single other rule including the term "free hand."

But I'm not 100% positive on that position; I just can't think of another example, RAW, where "Free" doesn't equal "Empty."
Actually, I looked it up, and it just says "free use of at least one hand". So either interpretation matches the RAW.

Personally I maintain that since the same free hand can be used to access and manipulate material components (or a focus on your belt), the somatic gestures do not occupy the hand for the entire casting process, and can be used for Counterspell. But that's just my argument, if other folks want it the other way go them. Neither appears to be the one true answer.

Of course, if the typical DM suddenly started enforcing a second free hand for Counterspell, I'd probably have to ask ask wtf she wasn't enforcing spell component requirements all the time. Most are happy to let players gloss over them. :smallamused:

[Yunru]

Personally I maintain that since the same free hand can be used to access and manipulate material components (or a focus on your belt), the somatic gestures do not occupy the hand for the entire casting process, and can be used for Counterspell.

But narratively that's not it. You don't reach for the components mid-casting, the components are required to start casting.
All that the rule does is:
allow you to cast a spell with the hand that has the components for that spell.
access the components of a spell as part of casting it, much in the same way the ammunition property allows you to fetch ammo as part of making an attack.

[Mr Adventurer]

https://i.imgflip.com/z5tg2.jpg

My bad, I thought that was where the consensus had ended up. I haven't been on the 5e boards until recently, really.

[Aimeryan]

My bad, I thought that was where the consensus had ended up. I haven't been on the 5e boards until recently, really.

There has never been a consensus with SM - it polarises like none other. Actually, more than two positions, but I don't know the common word for that.

Wait, I've fallen into the derailment! Alright, erm, freehand - I can see both interpretations. There is also the argument that hand is never really free - gravity, air, etc...

[Mr Adventurer]

OK, thanks.

Yes, on topic then:

I think as a DM I'd need a second free hand (or one wielding a focus). I don't know if there is rules support, but my feeling is that the rules are pretty strict about drawing and stowing weapons, which can be problematic for characters who use them, so I don't see a reason to be more lenient with spellcasters.

[Tanarii]

OK, thanks.

Yes, on topic then:

I think as a DM I'd need a second free hand (or one wielding a focus). I don't know if there is rules support, but my feeling is that the rules are pretty strict about drawing and stowing weapons, which can be problematic for characters who use them, so I don't see a reason to be more lenient with spellcasters.
Its more akin to letting go of a 2H weapon with one hand to cast a spell, then grabbing again to attack with. Sequential, not parallel.

[Mr Adventurer]

Is that free? In some games, if the weapon isn't ready, your l need to make the appropriate readying action.

[CapnWildefyr]

OP: Yes

It is always tempting to want to impose reality onto our fantasy, for consistency if nothing else, but the rules don't tie up your hands (pun intended) while casting like that. Think about it as 'can you take a reaction at the same "time" as your action?' The answer is Yes. Most players would not think twice if we were talking about a fighter taking Attack who is then presented with the chance to take an opportunity attack at "the same time."

Not RAW: I would consider that maybe counterspell could be another gesture, like a frown or a raspberry, if that makes it work for you.

[Tanarii]

Is that free? In some games, if the weapon isn't ready, your l need to make the appropriate readying action.
It's generally assumed to ruled that way, at least on these forums. I don't know that it's a sage advice though. Pretty sure it's not a specific rule, so you could treat it as an object interaction.

Regardless, I don't actually view is necessarily sequential. I just think a free hand is a free hand as long as it's not holding something, and doesn't get "occupied" by already using it for components. Viewing it sequentially in that case does make it easier to envision though.

[Keravath]

But narratively that's not it. You don't reach for the components mid-casting, the components are required to start casting.
All that the rule does is:
allow you to cast a spell with the hand that has the components for that spell.
access the components of a spell as part of casting it, much in the same way the ammunition property allows you to fetch ammo as part of making an attack.

Just to point out :)

Narratively, "You don't reach for the components mid-casting" ... you have no idea whether this is true or not since it is NOT spelled out anywhere in the rules.

The rules do NOT say that all somatic gestures for casting a spell need to be contiguous
The rules do NOT say you can't stop and start gestures for casting a spell
The rules do NOT prescribe any sort of order to using material and somatic components when casting a spell
The rules do NOT say you can't cast two spells at the same time
The rules do NOT give any details whatsoever regarding what is required to cast a spell other than having a free hand
The rules do NOT say that a hand being used to cast somatic components of a spell is not "free"

The rules DO say that a hand being used for somatic components of a spell IS available to also access any required material components, which does indicate that a hand performing somatic components may be able to do something else.

The bottom line is that this is entirely up to the DM and how they want to run it in their game. RAW does not impose any of the constraints you choose to use. RAW actually doesn't talk about it at all other than to say that you need a free hand to perform somatic components. That is all the rules say, they don't define when a hand is considered free (though most of the rule book does seem to equate free to not holding something but that isn't clearly defined) ... anything else is up to how the DM choose to run it.

[Yunru]

Just to point out :)

Narratively, "You don't reach for the components mid-casting" ... you have no idea whether this is true or not since it is NOT spelled out anywhere in the rules.

The rules do NOT say that all somatic gestures for casting a spell need to be contiguous
The rules do NOT say you can't stop and start gestures for casting a spell
The rules do NOT prescribe any sort of order to using material and somatic components when casting a spell
The rules do NOT say you can't cast two spells at the same time
The rules do NOT give any details whatsoever regarding what is required to cast a spell other than having a free hand
The rules do NOT say that a hand being used to cast somatic components of a spell is not "free"

The rules DO say that a hand being used for somatic components of a spell IS available to also access any required material components, which does indicate that a hand performing somatic components may be able to do something else.

The bottom line is that this is entirely up to the DM and how they want to run it in their game. RAW does not impose any of the constraints you choose to use. RAW actually doesn't talk about it at all other than to say that you need a free hand to perform somatic components. That is all the rules say, they don't define when a hand is considered free (though most of the rule book does seem to equate free to not holding something but that isn't clearly defined) ... anything else is up to how the DM choose to run it.
Right, and the rules also do NOT say that you need an arrow in your bow to be able to shoot an arrow, but you wouldn't argue you can fire an unnocked bow and then just load an arrow after.

[Aimeryan]

It's generally assumed to ruled that way, at least on these forums. I don't know that it's a sage advice though. Pretty sure it's not a specific rule, so you could treat it as an object interaction.

Regardless, I don't actually view is necessarily sequential. I just think a free hand is a free hand as long as it's not holding something, and doesn't get "occupied" by already using it for components. Viewing it sequentially in that case does make it easier to envision though.

The closest to having it as RAW that I can find is in the grappling section:


...and you can release the target whenever you like (no action required).

There is a very easy argument to make that any item you are holding is an item you are grappling - which makes it RAW to release an item for no action required.

There are also some logical arguments that can be derived to be RAW, such as the one about the Unconscious condition under which you lose the ability to take any actions yet drop items.

[NNescio]

There are also some logical arguments that can be derived to be RAW, such as the one about the Unconscious condition under which you lose the ability to take any actions yet drop items.

You already drop held items automatically when you fall unconscious.

Edit: Unless that's already what you meant to say, in which case I apologize for restating it.

[Contrast]

Right, and the rules also do NOT say that you need an arrow in your bow to be able to shoot an arrow, but you wouldn't argue you can fire an unnocked bow and then just load an arrow after.

Err...*points at ammunition trait*

Am I missing something here?

[Crgaston]

But narratively that's not it. You don't reach for the components mid-casting, the components are required to start casting.


Nothing says I can't start chanting before I reach into my component pouch, or that the instant I flick that ball of guano and sulfur towards an enemy I'm done with casting.

You're trying to impose your personal perception of how you think spellcasting should work onto the mechanical rules, when it should be the other way around.

The rules say you can counterspell a counterspell.

[Aimeryan]

You already drop held items automatically when you fall unconscious.

Edit: Unless that's already what you meant to say, in which case I apologize for restating it.

That is perfectly fine - it helps to confirm if unsure.

I did indeed mean that; it forms part of a logical argument that if you can not take actions, yet you drop items, then dropping items can not require taking an action.

[Tanarii]

Nothing says I can't start chanting before I reach into my component pouch, or that the instant I flick that ball of guano and sulfur towards an enemy I'm done with casting. Right. All they say is you need a free hand to access M components. They do not need to be in hand to start casting.

[TheUser]

A hand performing somatic components isn't free. It's occupied with the task of performing the somatic component of a spell.

The rules also tell us that only handling a material component or focus are permissable with a hand performing a somatic component (weapons or a shield are added with the warcaster feat) this means that anything else which occupies the use of your hands disallows a somatic component from being used...including being occupied with the somatic component for a different spell.


There is no extraneous ruling to indicate that somatic components are the only non-nuclear action with regards to your required hands.


Par-example:
A PC without the warcaster feat is using a two-handed sword to swing at an enemy.
The enemy uses the shield spell.
The PC attempts to use counterspell but is told that they do not have a free hand to perform the somatic component because they are currently using both hands to swing their sword. They could stop executing their swing or drop their sword to free up one hand for the counter spell but in doing so stop their own attack because they now lack the hands required for their action.

"Ahh but the hand is free when you are casting a somatic compo-"

No. It's occupied. Free hand can mean empty hand but in this case it means occupied with a task. You can stop performing that task for free to perform the counterspell but in the case of you trying to stop your own spell from being countered this would be pointless.

If you were playing the piano and wanted to perform a somatic component for a spell could you do as such while both hands continue playing the piano?

If your answer is yes, you are being deliberately obtuse for the sake of trying to be right in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

"A somatic component could be broken up by another-"

No. Spells have an array of rules that indicate they are performed with precision and as a whole without pause or interruption:
Spells with long casting times require your action each round for the entire casting time (no breaks), as such this indicates that their components are present throughout. If for any reason you could not continue performing the somatic component during a casting the spell stops.

Just because counterspell doesn't use your action doesn't mean your somatic component for the spell occupies your hand any less meaningfully than another spell.

The same is true of single acion spells, if for any reason one of your components is interrupted mid cast you cannot resume it later. You must start over.

Ergo. As I said prior, you can counterspell a counterspell, but only if you have a free hand to do it.

[Trandir]

A hand performing somatic components isn't free. It's occupied with the task of performing the somatic component of a spell.

The rules also tell us that only handling a material component or focus are permissable with a hand performing a somatic component (weapons or a shield are added with the warcaster feat) this means that anything else which occupies the use of your hands disallows a somatic component from being used...including being occupied with the somatic component for a different spell.


There is no extraneous ruling to indicate that somatic components are the only non-nuclear action with regards to your required hands.


Par-example:
A PC without the warcaster feat is using a two-handed sword to swing at an enemy.
The enemy uses the shield spell.
The PC attempts to use counterspell but is told that they do not have a free hand to perform the somatic component because they are currently using both hands to swing their sword. They could stop executing their swing or drop their sword to free up one hand for the counter spell but in doing so stop their own attack because they now lack the hands required for their action.

"Ahh but the hand is free when you are casting a somatic compo-"

No. It's occupied. Free hand can mean empty hand but in this case it means occupied with a task. You can stop performing that task for free to perform the counterspell but in the case of you trying to stop your own spell from being countered this would be pointless.

If you were playing the piano and wanted to perform a somatic component for a spell could you do as such while both hands continue playing the piano?

If your answer is yes, you are being deliberately obtuse for the sake of trying to be right in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

"A somatic component could be broken up by another-"

No. Spells have an array of rules that indicate they are performed with precision and as a whole without pause or interruption:
Spells with long casting times require your action each round for the entire casting time (no breaks), as such this indicates that their components are present throughout. If for any reason you could not continue performing the somatic component during a casting the spell stops.

Just because counterspell doesn't use your action doesn't mean your somatic component for the spell occupies your hand any less meaningfully than another spell.

The same is true of single acion spells, if for any reason one of your components is interrupted mid cast you cannot resume it later. You must start over.

Ergo. As I said prior, you can counterspell a counterspell, but only if you have a free hand to do it.

A little bit offtopic:

By RAW a spell focus can be used in place of costless material components. When used in this way the hand holding the spell focus can also provide the somatic components.

So by some weird reason a wizard has to drop his staff to cast Counterspell. Weird.

Also with magic initiate you don't have access to spell focus right?

[NNescio]

A little bit offtopic:

By RAW a spell focus can be used in place of costless material components. When used in this way the hand holding the spell focus can also provide the somatic components.

Only if the mat component isn't consumed by the spell. If it's used up, then you can't sub it with a focus even if it has no listed cost.



So by some weird reason a wizard has to drop his staff to cast Counterspell. Weird.

I believe the 'fluff' pseudo-explanation is that somatic-no-material spells require far more intricate gestures compared to somatic-material spells.




Also with magic initiate you don't have access to spell focus right?

Correct. The ability to use spell foci is a class feature (usually included as part of the Spellcasting feature). Not all spellcasting classes get them, and Magic Initiate doesn't grant it either.

[TheUser]

A little bit offtopic:

By RAW a spell focus can be used in place of costless material components. When used in this way the hand holding the spell focus can also provide the somatic components.

So by some weird reason a wizard has to drop his staff to cast Counterspell. Weird.

Also with magic initiate you don't have access to spell focus right?

Except that a staff can be a focus.


Arcane Focus. An arcane focus is a special item an
orb, a crystal, a rod, a specially constructed staff,
a wand like length of wood, or some similar item designed
to channel the power of arcane spells. A
sorcerer, warlock, or wizard can use such an item as a
spellcasting focus, as described in chapter 10.


And no, apparently Magic Initiate doesn't allow you to use a spell casting focus....

[NNescio]

Except that a staff can be a focus.

The point is that you can't use a hand holding a focus to perform S-only components. You are only allowed to do so for SM components.

[Trandir]

Only if the mat component isn't consumed by the spell. If it's used up, then you can't sub it with a focus even if it has no listed cost.



I believe the 'fluff' pseudo-explanation is that somatic-no-material spells require far more intricate gestures compared to somatic-material spells.




Correct. The ability to use spell foci is a class feature (usually included as part of the Spellcasting feature). Not all spellcasting classes get them, and Magic Initiate doesn't grant it either.

Thanks I missed the part about the consumed M component


Except that a staff can be a focus.


Yep and it's occuping both your hands so no Counterspell unless you drop it since this spell has no M components

[TheUser]

A staff is a 1 handed versatile weapon....

I am not sure about that statement to be honest.

"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."

So you could say that just because they are not required to handle a focus for the spell, there is nothing stopping them from "accessing" the staff egregiously whilst performing a somatic component; which is to say, you can retain a hand on your staff while casting counterspell.

[Trandir]

A staff is a 1 handed versatile weapon....

I am not sure about that statement to be honest.

"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."

So you could say that just because they are not required to handle a focus for the spell, there is nothing stopping them from "accessing" the staff egregiously whilst performing a somatic component; which is to say, you can retain a hand on your staff while casting counterspell.

Ok sorry if no wizard uses a two handed staff than if you have one in each hand, or a weapon and a staff, that was not the point you have to drop one to cast spells with S components but no M components.

By your logic you should be able to cast with a gratsword, glaive or longsword sa long as you are not swinging it around?

[Mr Adventurer]

You can of course hold a 2H weapon in one hand if you are not wielding it.

[NNescio]

(...)
I am not sure about that statement to be honest.

"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."

So you could say that just because they are not required to handle a focus for the spell, there is nothing stopping them from "accessing" the staff egregiously whilst performing a somatic component; which is to say, you can retain a hand on your staff while casting counterspell.

That rule only applies when the spell calls for material components. Without such a requirement, the rule doesn't apply, and we default to the usual rules for somatic components, which explicitly say you need a free hand.


By your logic you should be able to cast with a gratsword, glaive or longsword sa long as you are not swinging it around?

The Versatile and Two-Handed properties only apply when you make a melee attack. Errata'd to be so, in the case of Two-Handed.

Granted, there are some DMs that require using up a free interaction to hold or release or change the grip on a weapon.

(Though personally I disagree with that view.)

[Trandir]

You can of course hold a 2H weapon in one hand if you are not wielding it.

What's the difference between holding and wielding here?

[Tanarii]

A little bit offtopic:

By RAW a spell focus can be used in place of costless material components. When used in this way the hand holding the spell focus can also provide the somatic components.
That is not correct. Your same free hand is used for somatic components can be used to hold the focus. That does not mean that holding a focus counts as a free hand.

Edit: what that means is like an M component or Component Pouch, if you start with a free hand, you can use it for S component and to hold the focus when it is needed for casting a spell.

[Trandir]

That is not correct. Your same free hand is used for somatic components can be used to hold the focus. That does not mean that holding a focus counts as a free hand.

Edit: what that means is like an M component or Component Pouch, if you start with a free hand, you can use it for S component and to hold the focus when it is needed for casting a spell.


Pardon me where did I sayed that holding a focus is considered having a free hand?

[Contrast]

What's the difference between holding and wielding here?


Two-Handed. This weapon requires two hands when you attack with it. This property is relevant only when you attack with the weapon, not when you simply hold it.

So you can for example be holding a glaive in one hand and wielding a shield - you just couldn't attack with it.

Alternatively you can attack with a weapon but when not actively in the process of attacking you are free to take the second hand off the weapon and use it for whatever - such as spell casting (or interacting with objects or drinking a healing potion or whatever else you may want to use a free hand for).

[BloodSnake'sCha]

That is not correct. Your same free hand is used for somatic components can be used to hold the focus. That does not mean that holding a focus counts as a free hand.

Edit: what that means is like an M component or Component Pouch, if you start with a free hand, you can use it for S component and to hold the focus when it is needed for casting a spell.

A focus don't need to be in you hand


A holy symbol is a representation of a god or pantheon. A cleric or paladin can use a holy symbol as a spellcasting focus, as described in the Spellcasting section. To use the symbol in this way, the caster must hold it in hand, wear it visibly, or bear it on a shield.

[ProsecutorGodot]

A focus don't need to be in you hand

Regardless of whether the focus is held in your hand while you're not casting a spell, it does require you have a free hand while casting a 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 rules line up with the typical fantasy trope where a Paladin/Cleric wears their gods symbol on a necklace and grasps it firmly with conviction while chanting for their spells.

[BloodSnake'sCha]

Regardless of whether the focus is held in your hand while you're not casting a spell, it does require you have a free hand while casting a spell.



The rules line up with the typical fantasy trope where a Paladin/Cleric wears their gods symbol on a necklace and grasps it firmly with conviction while chanting for their spells.

It was in response to the statement that if you have a focus your hand is not free for somatic components.

Because you can have the focus available and cast a somatic only spell at the same time.

[Keravath]

A hand performing somatic components isn't free. It's occupied with the task of performing the somatic component of a spell.

The rules also tell us that only handling a material component or focus are permissable with a hand performing a somatic component (weapons or a shield are added with the warcaster feat) this means that anything else which occupies the use of your hands disallows a somatic component from being used...including being occupied with the somatic component for a different spell.


There is no extraneous ruling to indicate that somatic components are the only non-nuclear action with regards to your required hands.


Par-example:
A PC without the warcaster feat is using a two-handed sword to swing at an enemy.
The enemy uses the shield spell.
The PC attempts to use counterspell but is told that they do not have a free hand to perform the somatic component because they are currently using both hands to swing their sword. They could stop executing their swing or drop their sword to free up one hand for the counter spell but in doing so stop their own attack because they now lack the hands required for their action.

"Ahh but the hand is free when you are casting a somatic compo-"

No. It's occupied. Free hand can mean empty hand but in this case it means occupied with a task. You can stop performing that task for free to perform the counterspell but in the case of you trying to stop your own spell from being countered this would be pointless.

If you were playing the piano and wanted to perform a somatic component for a spell could you do as such while both hands continue playing the piano?

If your answer is yes, you are being deliberately obtuse for the sake of trying to be right in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

"A somatic component could be broken up by another-"

No. Spells have an array of rules that indicate they are performed with precision and as a whole without pause or interruption:
Spells with long casting times require your action each round for the entire casting time (no breaks), as such this indicates that their components are present throughout. If for any reason you could not continue performing the somatic component during a casting the spell stops.

Just because counterspell doesn't use your action doesn't mean your somatic component for the spell occupies your hand any less meaningfully than another spell.

The same is true of single acion spells, if for any reason one of your components is interrupted mid cast you cannot resume it later. You must start over.

Ergo. As I said prior, you can counterspell a counterspell, but only if you have a free hand to do it.



Your entire statement above is based on the home brewed rule:

"A hand performing somatic components isn't free. It's occupied with the task of performing the somatic component of a spell."

This is an assumption. You made this up. It isn't RAW. It isn't stated anywhere in any rule book that an empty hand isn't free for the purposes of casting a spell even if the fingers may be doing something else (waving, snapping your fingers, face-palming, or any other gesture including somatic components for a spell :) ). You are welcome to play this way if you like but making up home brewed rules and trying to say that is how the game should be played is incorrect.

You only need one "free" hand to cast a spell. There is nothing in the rules that says this free hand can't also cast other spells. There is nothing that defines how much, how long, the timing, or anything else related to somatic components of spells other than needing a hand to do so.

However, "free" hand is not clearly defined in the rules. The example for two handed weapons indicates that the second hand is in use when swinging the weapon but is otherwise free. This indicates that holding something does prevent a hand from being "free" but there are no other cases defined in the rules where a hand that is doing something on its own, including casting a spell is not also free to cast a second spell.

Perhaps the somatic component for counterspell or any other reaction spell is so swift and subtle that it can be inserted into the somatic components of any other spell without disrupting that spell? There are an unlimited number of fluff reasons why you might be able to use the somatic components of multiple spell with one hand. There are no rules that prevent it and only the definition of "free" that you choose to use.

[Tanarii]

A focus don't need to be in you hand
That's a specific exemption for a Holy Symbol focus for Clerics and Paladins. But worth noting.


Pardon me where did I sayed that holding a focus is considered having a free hand?

Right here:


When used in this way the hand holding the spell focus can also provide the somatic components.

That is not correct. A free hand can be used to provide somatic components, and then also to hold a focus (as needed).

That is not the same as a focus holding hand being also being free to provide the somatic components. If you are already holding a focus, your hand is not free for other components.

[Trandir]

Right here:

QUOTE

That is not correct. A free hand can be used to provide somatic components, and then also to hold a focus (as needed).

That is not the same as a focus holding hand being also being free to provide the somatic components. If you are already holding a focus, your hand is not free for other components.


I sayed that a spellcasting focus can be used in place of any M component that lacks a cost (and thing I forgot: and that isn't consumed by the spell). And when used in that way that way the hand holding the spellcasting focus can also provide the S components. I never even mentioned a free hand.

If you have a shield and a wand (and don't have warcaster) you have no free hands. So you can't cast:
Spells with M components with a cost, that are consumed or both;
Spells with S components that do not require M components without a cost and that are not consumed.

Without dropping something that is.

[Tanarii]

I sayed that a spellcasting focus can be used in place of any M component that lacks a cost (and thing I forgot: and that isn't consumed by the spell). And when used in that way that way the hand holding the spellcasting focus can also provide the S components. I never even mentioned a free hand.

If you have a shield and a wand (and don't have warcaster) you have no free hands. So you can't cast:
Spells with M components with a cost, that are consumed or both;
Spells with S components that do not require M components without a cost and that are not consumed.

Without dropping something that is.You also cannot technically cast a spell with an S component and the wand as a focus, because you're not starting with a free hand.

I know it's commonplace to assume holding a focus allows you to also use it for S components, but that's not the actual written rule.

[TheUser]

Your entire statement above is based on the home brewed rule:

"A hand performing somatic components isn't free. It's occupied with the task of performing the somatic component of a spell."

This is an assumption. You made this up. It isn't RAW. It isn't stated anywhere in any rule book that an empty hand isn't free for the purposes of casting a spell even if the fingers may be doing something else (waving, snapping your fingers, face-palming, or any other gesture including somatic components for a spell :) ). You are welcome to play this way if you like but making up home brewed rules and trying to say that is how the game should be played is incorrect.

You only need one "free" hand to cast a spell. There is nothing in the rules that says this free hand can't also cast other spells. There is nothing that defines how much, how long, the timing, or anything else related to somatic components of spells other than needing a hand to do so.

However, "free" hand is not clearly defined in the rules. The example for two handed weapons indicates that the second hand is in use when swinging the weapon but is otherwise free. This indicates that holding something does prevent a hand from being "free" but there are no other cases defined in the rules where a hand that is doing something on its own, including casting a spell is not also free to cast a second spell.



Oh boy...here I go killing defining words (https://www.dictionary.com/browse/not) again.



8. Not occupied or in use


And just so we are both clear on how English works, it doesn't mean one or the other. Because you are listing exclusions, the word "or" indicates that neither of them are present.
"Is there cheese or bread in the salad?"
"The salad does not have cheese or bread."

I'm not making up rules; I'm using the term "free hand" as it is defined in common English.
A hand is no longer a free hand if it is occupied or in use.
The fact that performing somatic components requires a free hand indicates that the somatic components use that hand to be performed. Ergo, the hand is occupied.



Perhaps the somatic component for counterspell or any other reaction spell is so swift and subtle that it can be inserted into the somatic components of any other spell without disrupting that spell? There are an unlimited number of fluff reasons why you might be able to use the somatic components of multiple spell with one hand. There are no rules that prevent it and only the definition of "free" that you choose to use.

Because there is no caveat or delineating clause which dictates that the components for a spell are non-nuclear (meaning not required throughout the entire casting of the spell), then they are required throughout the entire action; meaning you cannot interrupt the use of that hand with a second task (just like swinging your two-handed sword during an attack action and trying to interrupt it with a counterspell).

I am not the one making up rules. I'm using English and the same logic that pertains to enacting any other action.

You are the one making up rules that somehow a hand which is already occupied is somehow -not-

[Trandir]

You also cannot technically cast a spell with an S component and the wand as a focus, because you're not starting with a free hand.

I know it's commonplace to assume holding a focus allows you to also use it for S components, but that's not the actual written rule.

Yep as I sayed, one can't cast:
Spells with S components that do not require M components without a cost and that are not consumed.

[TheUser]

You also cannot technically cast a spell with an S component and the wand as a focus, because you're not starting with a free hand.

I know it's commonplace to assume holding a focus allows you to also use it for S components, but that's not the actual written rule.

Nothing is stopping you from "accessing" the focus needlessly during an S only spell.

[Keravath]

Oh boy...here I go killing defining words (https://www.dictionary.com/browse/not) again.



And just so we are both clear on how English works, it doesn't mean one or the other. Because you are listing exclusions, the word "or" indicates that neither of them are present.
"Is there cheese or bread in the salad?"
"The salad does not have cheese or bread."

I'm not making up rules; I'm using the term "free hand" as it is defined in common English.
A hand is no longer a free hand if it is occupied or in use.
The fact that performing somatic components requires a free hand indicates that the somatic components use that hand to be performed. Ergo, the hand is occupied.



Because there is no caveat or delineating clause which dictates that the components for a spell are non-nuclear (meaning not required throughout the entire casting of the spell), then they are required throughout the entire action; meaning you cannot interrupt the use of that hand with a second task (just like swinging your two-handed sword during an attack action and trying to interrupt it with a counterspell).

I am not the one making up rules. I'm using English and the same logic that pertains to enacting any other action.

You are the one making up rules that somehow a hand which is already occupied is somehow -not-


Lol. You miss the point.

Free
8. Not occupied or in use

I completely agree.

Your homebrew assumption does not have to do with the definition of free. It has to do with the assumption that a hand performing somatic components for one spell can not also be used to perform somatic components for another spell. The assumption you are making is that a hand used for somatic components is completely busy doing something, is occupied and in use, for the entire duration of that spellcasting. Do you see what I mean? I am not arguing the definition of free. I am arguing that a hand used for somatic component does NOT spend the entire duration of casting that spell involved in making somatic motions related to the casting of that one spell. SOME of the time it will be used for somatic components ... the rules specifically call out that the SAME hand used for somatic components can ALSO access and manipulate any required material components. You seem to think that the hand movements required to open the component pouch and fumble around for a component, or the movements required to find and access the spellcasting focus are also specific somatic components of the spell since if they were not then clearly the hand that is "busy" casting the spell can''t do these other things since it is performing somatic components for the entire duration of the spellcasting. On the other hand, if the hand does NOT perform somatic components for a spell for the entire duration then I don't see why it can't also be used to perform a somatic component for a different spell since it is NOT being used 100% of the time during the casting of the first spell for somatic components.

The problem is NOT the definition of the word FREE but rather your assumption that while casting a spell with a somatic component, the hand being used for that component is used for the ENTIRE duration of that spell casting and CAN NOT do anything else during that time and any other movements the hand makes (including accessing material components) must also be considered part of the somatic component for that spell. I disagree with that viewpoint since it is not described anywhere in the rules. I see no problem or inconsistency if a hand performs the somatic component required for one spell then the somatic component for another while the first spell is still being cast. The hand is NOT in use for the entire duration of the spell casting. That is the point we differ on. All the rules say is that a free hand is needed for a somatic component, and I consider a hand already being used in casting a spell to STILL have the ability to perform motions unrelated to that spell casting (see accessing material components) and as such should be able to perform somatic components related to casting a different spell.

The rules don't say a hand casting a spell is busy or in use for the entire period of casting a spell. You play that it is ... that's fine. I play that it isn't ... that is also fine.

RAW, the rules just say you need a free hand, they also say that a hand being used for somatic components can do other things at the same time (access material components), the rules do not say that a hand already being used for somatic components is used for the entire duration of the spell ... the fact that the hand can be used for other things like accessing material components could be used to support that idea. So, personally, I'd say it is more likely that a hand being used for somatic components of one spell is still available to perform somatic components of another spell. That is just my take on the available rules ... you can play however you like.

P.S.

"Because there is no caveat or delineating clause which dictates that the components for a spell are non-nuclear (meaning not required throughout the entire casting of the spell), then they are required throughout the entire action"

This is your house rule right here. There is NO statement one way or another as to the "nuclear" nature of any spellcasting component or their application in spells. Can you cast a spell using a V,S,M component consecutively? Say V, perform S, handle M ... spell goes off? Do you have to perform the V,S,M components simultaneously ... doing them all at the same time? Do you perform a V component at the beginning and end plus an S component to with handling the M component twice in the middle?

There is nothing in any rulebook that specifies the details of spellcasting to that level. There is nothing that indicates that ANY of the components are nuclear, that you can start a spell with a verbal component, talk to someone else, and then finish a spell.

Here is the rule on other things you can do during your turn:

"You can communicate however you are able, through brief utterances and gestures, as you take your turn. You can also interact with one object or feature of the environment for free, during either your move or your action."

Your action includes casting a spell ... you can have a free interaction or talk and make gestures while you perform your action INCLUDING casting a spell. If your hand was busy for somatic components or your mouth for verbal components you could not talk or interact during your "cast a spell" action and yet the rules clearly spell out that you can do so.

[Yunru]

Lol. You miss the point.

Free
8. Not occupied or in use

I completely agree.

Your homebrew assumption does not have to do with the definition of free. It has to do with the assumption that a hand performing somatic components for one spell can not also be used to perform somatic components for another spell. The assumption you are making is that a hand used for somatic components is completely busy doing something, is occupied and in use, for the entire duration of that spellcasting. Do you see what I mean? I am not arguing the definition of free. I am arguing that a hand used for somatic component does NOT spend the entire duration of casting that spell involved in making somatic motions related to the casting of that one spell. SOME of the time it will be used for somatic components ... the rules specifically call out that the SAME hand used for somatic components can ALSO access and manipulate any required material components. You seem to think that the hand movements required to open the component pouch and fumble around for a component, or the movements required to find and access the spellcasting focus are also specific somatic components of the spell since if they were not then clearly the hand that is "busy" casting the spell can''t do these other things since it is performing somatic components for the entire duration of the spellcasting. On the other hand, if the hand does NOT perform somatic components for a spell for the entire duration then I don't see why it can't also be used to perform a somatic component for a different spell since it is NOT being used 100% of the time during the casting of the first spell for somatic components.

The problem is NOT the definition of the word FREE but rather your assumption that while casting a spell with a somatic component, the hand being used for that component is used for the ENTIRE duration of that spell casting and CAN NOT do anything else during that time and any other movements the hand makes (including accessing material components) must also be considered part of the somatic component for that spell. I disagree with that viewpoint since it is not described anywhere in the rules. I see no problem or inconsistency if a hand performs the somatic component required for one spell then the somatic component for another while the first spell is still being cast. The hand is NOT in use for the entire duration of the spell casting. That is the point we differ on. All the rules say is that a free hand is needed for a somatic component, and I consider a hand already being used in casting a spell to STILL have the ability to perform motions unrelated to that spell casting (see accessing material components) and as such should be able to perform somatic components related to casting a different spell.

The rules don't say a hand casting a spell is busy or in use for the entire period of casting a spell. You play that it is ... that's fine. I play that it isn't ... that is also fine.

RAW, the rules just say you need a free hand, they also say that a hand being used for somatic components can do other things at the same time (access material components), the rules do not say that a hand already being used for somatic components is used for the entire duration of the spell ... the fact that the hand can be used for other things like accessing material components could be used to support that idea. So, personally, I'd say it is more likely that a hand being used for somatic components of one spell is still available to perform somatic components of another spell. That is just my take on the available rules ... you can play however you like.Ummm... It's not a homebrew to rule that a hand being used for something is... Being used for something. That's just logic.

Your's is the homebrew, where you add the term "completely" and use it to then justify everything.

[Keravath]

Ummm... It's not a homebrew to rule that a hand being used for something is... Being used for something. That's just logic.

Your's is the homebrew, where you add the term "completely" and use it to then justify everything.

"You can communicate however you are able, through brief utterances and gestures, as you take your turn. You can also interact with one object or feature of the environment for free, during either your move or your action."

During your turn you can interact with objects or talk while performing your action, including casting a spell, if your mouth or hand was "busy" for the entire time during your action while casting a spell then you would be unable to talk or gesture while casting a spell as an action ... the rules clearly state that you CAN do these things during your action including while casting a spell so I would say no, your hand and mouth are not busy and in use to the exclusion of doing other things while casting a spell.

[TheUser]

"You can communicate however you are able, through brief utterances and gestures, as you take your turn. You can also interact with one object or feature of the environment for free, during either your move or your action."

During your turn you can interact with objects or talk while performing your action, including casting a spell, if your mouth or hand was "busy" for the entire time during your action while casting a spell then you would be unable to talk or gesture while casting a spell as an action ... the rules clearly state that you CAN do these things during your action including while casting a spell so I would say no, your hand and mouth are not busy and in use to the exclusion of doing other things while casting a spell.
My first reply didn't adequately address this so I deleted it and made sure to go more in depth into this obscure attempt at trying to argue your side.


None of these rules afford extra hands or mouths. If a PC wanted to open a door latch with their free object interaction, but attempts to do so while wielding a sword and shield, nothing about this rule affords them the ability to open the latch while they lack the available appendages. They would have to sheathe their sword as their free object interaction or drop it and then undo the latch. A somatic component is no different during the cast a spell action; throughout the action it is busy doing somatic components; it can only interact with that object for free after it stops performing somatic components. The only interaction that can ignore this "free hand" requirement is reaching for a material component/focus or if they have warcaster. None of these exceptions explicitly allow for another somatic component for a different spell be derived from a hand already engaged in a somatic component.

Have you looked at the list of examples of frew actions btw? (None of the free action options given are "perform the somatic components for other spells")

Even the "brief utterances and gestures" part is road blocked by two caveats, 1) it must be used for communication (not spells) and 2) it is only "however you are able" if your hands/mouth are already in use...you are not able.

I get it. Your scrambling for rules to back up your perception of how actions work. But a hand in use...is not a free hand.

[Contrast]

I get it. Your scrambling for rules to back up your perception of how actions work.

Think you can make your points without the snark.


But a hand in use...is not a free hand.

I can cast Arcane Weapon as a bonus action and then attack with a two-handed weapon. A hand in use is not always in use for the entire turn.

The rules are unclear on the matter of how long the hand is 'in use' for in the case of somatic components and (as a reminder) casting a counterspell to a counterspell of a spell you are in the middle of casting is listed as a 'common way' to take a reaction on your own turn in the offical Sage Advice Compendium. So the RAI is clearly that it is brief (or at the very least that the somatic gestures involved with reaction based spells can be incorporated into those of other spells as part of their design).

Honestly strict RAW arguments only really matter for AL purposes and for that purpose the official advice is clear - counterspelling in the middle of casting another spell is OK.

[Yunru]

So the RAI is clearly that it is brief (or at the very least that the somatic gestures involved with reaction based spells can be incorporated into those of other spells as part of their design).

What?
"You can cast this spell while casting another spell" suddenly means "you can combine the gestures needed" now?
No. The entire point of this thread's length is that there is no clear RAI on whether you can do exactly that.

[TheUser]

Think you can make your points without the snark.



I can cast Arcane Weapon as a bonus action and then attack with a two-handed weapon. A hand in use is not always in use for the entire turn.

The rules are unclear on the matter of how long the hand is 'in use' for in the case of somatic components and (as a reminder) casting a counterspell to a counterspell of a spell you are in the middle of casting is listed as a 'common way' to take a reaction on your own turn in the offical Sage Advice Compendium. So the RAI is clearly that it is brief (or at the very least that the somatic gestures involved with reaction based spells can be incorporated into those of other spells as part of their design).

Honestly strict RAW arguments only really matter for AL purposes and for that purpose the official advice is clear - counterspelling in the middle of casting another spell is OK.

That sage advice is answering whether or not counterspell can target counterspell and doesn't mention free hands at all (https://twitter.com/jeremyecrawford/status/846866527022280704?lang=en). That is not what we are discussing.

The circumstance dealing with bonus actions you outlined is not the same either; I am saying the hand is in use for the entire ACTION not TURN. The somatic component of a bonus action spell stops occupying the hand after the bonus action has been spent. That set of circumstances your are trying to bring up actually respects the bonus action for using the somatic component hand for the entire length of the spell casting; the bonus action.

Your hand is no longer occupied after the bonus action has occurred - However, if someone wanted to counterspell your bonus action spell your hand cannot simultaneously cast the bonus action spell and cast counterspell; it's in use casting your bonus action spell.

The same is true if you attack with a two handed weapon -during that action- you cannot cast counterspell as your hands are occupied.

At no point in time do the rules say that an action only requires the use of a hand or hands for less than the entire length of the action/bonus action/reaction. The implication is that if an action requires any number of hands, those requirements persist until the action has been enacted.

[Keravath]

At no point in time do the rules say that an action only requires the use of a hand or hands for less than the entire length of the action/bonus action/reaction. The implication is that if an action requires any number of hands, those requirements persist until the action has been enacted.


At no point in time do the rules say that an action requires the use of a hand or hands for the entire length of the action/bonus action/reaction. The implication is that if an action requires any number of hands, those requirements are met as long as the hand is available for any portion of the action unless specifically noted otherwise.

Neither your version nor mine is stated in RAW and as a result, as always, a DM is welcome to run it as they choose.

[Yunru]

The implication is that if an action requires any number of hands, those requirements are met as long as the hand is available for any portion of the action unless specifically noted otherwise.

No such implication exists.

[Keravath]

No such implication exists.

"The implication is that if an action requires any number of hands, those requirements persist until the action has been enacted."

No such implication exists.

[ProsecutorGodot]

"The implication is that if an action requires any number of hands, those requirements persist until the action has been enacted."

No such implication exists.

Such an implication does exist, our good friend Two-Handed (you may have seen it mentioned once or twice down thread) requires that both your hands are free (as in not occupied with something other than the weapon) while attacking with it. This not only tells you that you need both hands to attack, but that for the duration of however long it takes to resolve that attack (a long and arduous debate in itself) that both your hands are occupied with grasping that weapon.

Now to play both sides a bit, just because this implication exists for one things doesn't mean that it carries over to all things. Spellcasting is notorious, by its own account in the rules, as creating exceptions to general rules. As far as spellcasting specifically is concerned, we don't have an implication (beyond making assumptions, at least that I'm aware of) that your somatic components require the spell to be completed before your hand is considered free once more. To know for absolutely certain we would need a more detailed breakdown of exactly where each step in casting a spell begins and ends and something tells me that this edition will never see such a thing.

For what it's worth, I would rule that they do need a free hand beyond the one they're already casting with although I would be open to playing with either ruling.

[Keravath]

Such an implication does exist, our good friend Two-Handed (you may have seen it mentioned once or twice down thread) requires that both your hands are free (as in not occupied with something other than the weapon) while attacking with it. This not only tells you that you need both hands to attack, but that for the duration of however long it takes to resolve that attack (a long and arduous debate in itself) that both your hands are occupied with grasping that weapon.

Now to play both sides a bit, just because this implication exists for one things doesn't mean that it carries over to all things. Spellcasting is notorious, by its own account in the rules, as creating exceptions to general rules. As far as spellcasting specifically is concerned, we don't have an implication (beyond making assumptions, at least that I'm aware of) that your somatic components require the spell to be completed before your hand is considered free once more. To know for absolutely certain we would need a more detailed breakdown of exactly where each step in casting a spell begins and ends and something tells me that this edition will never see such a thing.

For what it's worth, I would rule that they do need a free hand beyond the one they're already casting with although I would be open to playing with either ruling.

Yes. A two handed sword requires both hands to be on it when you attack with it. "Two-Handed (p. 147). This sentence has been changed to “This weapon requires two hands when you attack with it.”

This says that you need two hands on the blade when you make an attack. However, it does not say that you need both hands on the blade for the entire duration of performing the "Attack action".

Some classes have the ability to make extra attacks when making the Attack action.

"Beginning at 5th level, you can attack twice, instead of once, whenever you take the Attack action on your turn."

You can move between these attacks. You can take bonus actions between these attacks and you don't need to keep both hands on the sword between these attacks. This all makes quite clear that, at least for the attack action, the entire time taken during the attack action does not need both hands on sword since this is only required when you make an attack with it.

One could look at the Cast a Spell action in a similar way. I am not saying that this is correct, right or RAW but as far as RAW goes it is just as valid an interpretation as any other since RAW does not, anywhere, indicate that actions are nuclear and that other things can not be done while taking an action. In fact, many rules indicate that things can be done simultaneously with actions. Nothing indicates that a hand used for somatic components as part of a Cast a Spell action can not, in fact, also do something else during that action. The hand is only required to perform some sort of somatic component, at some point in time, while performing the Cast a Spell action.

The Attack action can include doing many other things. The Dash, Dodge, and Hide actions also allow for other things to be done while taking these actions. Why would the Cast a Spell action be unique in preventing characters from doing anything else except using their hands/voice etc to ONLY cast a spell during the Cast a Spell action?

The rules don't say that anywhere.

On the other hand, the rules don't say they aren't needed for the whole duration. As a result, this is a judgement call up to the individual DM in terms of how they want to run it. Neither of these is RAW since RAW doesn't address it directly.

Personally, I'd go with having one hand available is adequate for both casting a spell and casting counterspell. Sage Advice sort of suggests this by not mentioning that you would need an extra hand free to cast a counterspell in their example:

"Can you cast a reaction spell on your turn? You sure can! Here’s a common way for it to happen: Cornelius the wizard is casting fireball on his turn, and his foe casts counterspell on him. Cornelius also has counterspell prepared, so he uses his reaction to cast it and break his foe’s counterspell before it can stop fireball."


This example makes no assumptions about what the wizard is holding or wearing. It just says that if they are casting fireball they can cast a counterspell at the same time to counter an opposing counterspell. Since it is quite possible that the wizard only has one hand free (if they were holding a shield/staff/wand or some non-spell focus object), then this example should be conditional on having a second hand free if this was actually how it was meant to be played.

The only thing that can be assumed with this example is that the wizard was legally casting a fireball which means that they had at least one hand free. Yet the example makes no mention of additional hands needed. So I would tend to interpret this, RAI, that an extra free hand is not needed to cast counterspell. However, the example is not explicit in stating this (but if the example is to be ALWAYS correct then the only way it can work is if a second free hand is not required).

[JackPhoenix]

Here is the rule on other things you can do during your turn:

"You can communicate however you are able, through brief utterances and gestures, as you take your turn. You can also interact with one object or feature of the environment for free, during either your move or your action."

How about if the emphasis goes this way, instead: "You can communicate however you are able, through brief utterances and gestures, as you take your turn. You can also interact with one object or feature of the environment for free, during either your move or your action."?

If you're gagged, you can still move or take your action, but you're unable to communicate verbally. If your hands are both occupied, you still can take actions and move, but you can't communicate through gestures (well, gestures include more than just hand movement, so you can still make *some* gestures even when your hands are occupied, but that's besides the point).

[Crgaston]

Yes. A two handed sword requires both hands to be on it when you attack with it. "Two-Handed (p. 147). This sentence has been changed to “This weapon requires two hands when you attack with it.”

This says that you need two hands on the blade when you make an attack. However, it does not say that you need both hands on the blade for the entire duration of performing the "Attack action".

Some classes have the ability to make extra attacks when making the Attack action.

"Beginning at 5th level, you can attack twice, instead of once, whenever you take the Attack action on your turn."

You can move between these attacks. You can take bonus actions between these attacks and you don't need to keep both hands on the sword between these attacks. This all makes quite clear that, at least for the attack action, the entire time taken during the attack action does not need both hands on sword since this is only required when you make an attack with it.

One could look at the Cast a Spell action in a similar way. I am not saying that this is correct, right or RAW but as far as RAW goes it is just as valid an interpretation as any other since RAW does not, anywhere, indicate that actions are nuclear and that other things can not be done while taking an action. In fact, many rules indicate that things can be done simultaneously with actions. Nothing indicates that a hand used for somatic components as part of a Cast a Spell action can not, in fact, also do something else during that action. The hand is only required to perform some sort of somatic component, at some point in time, while performing the Cast a Spell action.

The Attack action can include doing many other things. The Dash, Dodge, and Hide actions also allow for other things to be done while taking these actions. Why would the Cast a Spell action be unique in preventing characters from doing anything else except using their hands/voice etc to ONLY cast a spell during the Cast a Spell action?

The rules don't say that anywhere.

On the other hand, the rules don't say they aren't needed for the whole duration. As a result, this is a judgement call up to the individual DM in terms of how they want to run it. Neither of these is RAW since RAW doesn't address it directly.

Personally, I'd go with having one hand available is adequate for both casting a spell and casting counterspell. Sage Advice sort of suggests this by not mentioning that you would need an extra hand free to cast a counterspell in their example:

"Can you cast a reaction spell on your turn? You sure can! Here’s a common way for it to happen: Cornelius the wizard is casting fireball on his turn, and his foe casts counterspell on him. Cornelius also has counterspell prepared, so he uses his reaction to cast it and break his foe’s counterspell before it can stop fireball."


This example makes no assumptions about what the wizard is holding or wearing. It just says that if they are casting fireball they can cast a counterspell at the same time to counter an opposing counterspell. Since it is quite possible that the wizard only has one hand free (if they were holding a shield/staff/wand or some non-spell focus object), then this example should be conditional on having a second hand free if this was actually how it was meant to be played.

The only thing that can be assumed with this example is that the wizard was legally casting a fireball which means that they had at least one hand free. Yet the example makes no mention of additional hands needed. So I would tend to interpret this, RAI, that an extra free hand is not needed to cast counterspell. However, the example is not explicit in stating this (but if the example is to be ALWAYS correct then the only way it can work is if a second free hand is not required).

Dude you nailed it.