Pre-Tasha's Errata Docs

[rooneg]

WotC has released errata docs for SCAG (https://media.wizards.com/2020/dnd/downloads/SCAG-Errata.pdf) and ERftLW (https://media.wizards.com/2020/dnd/downloads/ERftLW-Errata.pdf) today, including various changes to the Bladesinger (and associated spells) and Artificer in advance of them showing up in Tasha's Cauldron of Everything. I think most of this was already out in the world, but in case anyone wants the exact wording there it is.

[CMCC]

Damn not updated on dnd beyond yet

[Dork_Forge]

Well that is a huge update for the Artificer!

-Every spell now officially has a M component for them, making them the best Sword and Board/TWF Gishs in terms of casting

-The Steel Defender and Homunculus can now take any action like the Drake UA

-The Homunculus no longer needs Artificer 6 to use (big bump)

Does anyone know why the shift in SCAG to everyhting being Self now?

[Gtdead]

I have to say that I feel the Bladesinger got destroyed. I hoped that we would get both versions so I could continue using the old one. It was my favorite subclass and now I don't really want to play it anymore.

By the way, can someone make a good case why you can't swap both attacks with cantrips with this wording?
It only says that you swap one attack for one cantrip. Not that you are limited in how many times you can do it.

" “Moreover, you can cast one of
your cantrips in place of one of those attacks.”"

I'd feel better if I can cast two firebolts with it.

[MaxWilson]

WotC has released errata docs for SCAG (https://media.wizards.com/2020/dnd/downloads/SCAG-Errata.pdf) and ERftLW (https://media.wizards.com/2020/dnd/downloads/ERftLW-Errata.pdf) today, including various changes to the Bladesinger (and associated spells) and Artificer in advance of them showing up in Tasha's Cauldron of Everything. I think most of this was already out in the world, but in case anyone wants the exact wording there it is.

It's interesting that the SCAG Swashbuckler is still better than the Xanathar's Swashbuckler (able to sneak attack at range), and wasn't errata'ed to match Xanathar's.

Why oh why couldn't they have used this errata to rephrase "booming energy" to something that actually makes sense? What is "booming energy" supposed to mean?


Does anyone know why the shift in SCAG to everyhting being Self now?

Beats me but it should make Paladorcs happy, and any other Find Steed users. Now Booming Blade is a self-buff which lets your steed make an attack with the weapon you used to cast the spell, if only you can find a way to use the same weapon your steed will be using. (Maybe impossible.)

[ThatoneGuy84]

I have to say that I feel the Bladesinger got destroyed. I hoped that we would get both versions so I could continue using the old one. It was my favorite subclass and now I don't really want to play it anymore.

By the way, can someone make a good case why you can't swap both attacks with cantrips with this wording?
It only says that you swap one attack for one cantrip. Not that you are limited in how many times you can do it.

" “Moreover, you can cast one of
your cantrips in place of one of those attacks.”"

I'd feel better if I can cast two firebolts with it.

I its 50% destroyed.
I do like swapping 1 attack for a cantrip. But I do wish it was "both"
On the bright side, u can attack/cantrip and since u cast a cantrip if you pick up illusionists bracers cantrip again as a bonos action.

[CMCC]

Does anyone know why the shift in SCAG to everyhting being Self now?

so you can't OA cast BB anymore (with war caster) and can't use it with spell sniper. I suspect both were considerations.


I have to say that I feel the Bladesinger got destroyed. I hoped that we would get both versions so I could continue using the old one. It was my favorite subclass and now I don't really want to play it anymore.

By the way, can someone make a good case why you can't swap both attacks with cantrips with this wording?
It only says that you swap one attack for one cantrip. Not that you are limited in how many times you can do it.

" “Moreover, you can cast one of
your cantrips in place of one of those attacks.”"

I'd feel better if I can cast two firebolts with it.

because that would be swapping two attacks, not one. I think you're reading it as "you may swap An attack for A cantrip. It's one for one. The moment you try to sub out a second attack, it becomes two - and that is beyond the ability's numeric cap.

[Amechra]

By the way, can someone make a good case why you can't swap both attacks with cantrips with this wording?
It only says that you swap one attack for one cantrip. Not that you are limited in how many times you can do it.

" “Moreover, you can cast one of
your cantrips in place of one of those attacks.”"

This is a general "English grammar" thing - it's kinda hard to articulate, since it seems blindingly obvious to me that this is a one-time exchange, and I kinda have to do some mental gymnastics to read it in a way that would permit multiple cantrips. I'm not sure if that's just my dialect, though.

[Dork_Forge]

Beats me but it should make Paladorcs happy, and any other Find Steed users. Now Booming Blade is a self-buff which lets your steed make an attack with the weapon you used to cast the spell, if only you can find a way to use the same weapon your steed will be using. (Maybe impossible.)

Because of the weird targeting rules I don't think that works, like how Smite spells target the caster yet aren't eligible for the Find Steed connection (which is utterly ridiculous, what was the point of that clause if Paladins can barely use it for anything).



so you can't OA cast BB anymore (with war caster) and can't use it with spell sniper. I suspect both were considerations.


Ahh that makes more sense, I never personally encountered those exploits, but shutting them down would certainly reign in the power of the SCAGtrips.

[ATHATH]

Because of the weird targeting rules I don't think that works, like how Smite spells target the caster yet aren't eligible for the Find Steed connection (which is utterly ridiculous, what was the point of that clause if Paladins can barely use it for anything).




Ahh that makes more sense, I never personally encountered those exploits, but shutting them down would certainly reign in the power of the SCAGtrips.
Tbh, the War Caster + Booming Blade combo seemed like an intentional usage of the BB spell to me... until it got shut down by this errata, anyway.

[Makorel]

I've dug out my Eberron book to compare the original Steel Defender's numbers to the errata and now that everything's based off fully off of PB I'm starting to see where they got those numbers from in the first place, which is neat.

...But that just makes me even more confused as to why the Defender's to-hit is based solely off of your spell casting mod. Why wouldn't they just make it the same as a normal attack?

[Gtdead]

because that would be swapping two attacks, not one. I think you're reading it as "you may swap An attack for A cantrip. It's one for one. The moment you try to sub out a second attack, it becomes two - and that is beyond the ability's numeric cap.

I'm not so sure about this. To showcase what I mean:

Let's alter it a bit
"you may swap one attack for two cantrips".

Does your reading apply to this sentence as well? Would you just assume that this is once per turn too?

Disclaimer: I'm not saying that I want it to work like I advocate, but the wording is crap as usual.

[Gignere]

I have to say that I feel the Bladesinger got destroyed. I hoped that we would get both versions so I could continue using the old one. It was my favorite subclass and now I don't really want to play it anymore.

By the way, can someone make a good case why you can't swap both attacks with cantrips with this wording?
It only says that you swap one attack for one cantrip. Not that you are limited in how many times you can do it.

" “Moreover, you can cast one of
your cantrips in place of one of those attacks.”"

I'd feel better if I can cast two firebolts with it.

I don’t see why you think Bladesinger got destroyed. I actually like the changes makes this subclass more strategic instead of I Bladesong every encounter whether you need it or not.

At higher levels you’ll generally have the same exact number of bladesongs as the recover on short rest version.

The change to extra attack is a big buff so I like it. I plan to multiclass into the new BS with my current rogue.

[cutlery]

I assume twinned booming blade was something they wanted to stop, too.

[Millstone85]

Oh my sweet Lord Kelemvor! :smallsmile:


[NEW] The Afterlife (p. 20). In the second paragraph, the last sentence has been deleted.

The truly false and faithless are mortared into the Wall of the Faithless, the great barrier that bounds the City of the Dead, where their souls slowly dissolve and begin to become part of the stuff of the Wall itself.They deleted the Wall! They errata'd it down! :smallcool:

[Amechra]

I'm not so sure about this. To showcase what I mean:

Let's alter it a bit
"you may swap one attack for two cantrips".

Does your reading apply to this sentence as well? Would you just assume that this is once per turn too?

Disclaimer: I'm not saying that I want it to work like I advocate, but the wording is crap as usual.

That would imply, to me at least, that you can cast two cantrips in place of one of the two attacks you can make as part of your attack action. It'd have to be something like "You may forgo one or more of those attacks to cast an equal number of cantrips" or something similar to get the effect you seem to want.

[cutlery]

Oh, and apparently you can't use a SCAGtrip with shadow blade any longer - the melee weapon must be worth at least 1 sp.

You can use a SCAGtrip with an offhand weapon, but not with Shadow Blade.

Which, interestingly, kicks Spirit Shroud back to the fore for the bladesinger.

That should keep some of the bladesinger damage in check - not much, but some...

Though a dual-wielding bladesinger will catch up eventually if they really upcast Spirit Shroud.

[Gtdead]

I don’t see why you think Bladesinger got destroyed. I actually like the changes makes this subclass more strategic instead of I Bladesong every encounter whether you need it or not.

At higher levels you’ll generally have the same exact number of bladesongs as the recover on short rest version.

The change to extra attack is a big buff so I like it. I plan to multiclass into the new BS with my current rogue.

I don't care about high levels. All wizards are strong at T3 and T4. Bladesinger is just the best shapechange user. Nothing more than that. The niche of the subclass was melee performance and concentration saves. He could haste/shadowblade himself and go to town 4 to 6 times per day which is a very efficient style for a gish type.

Now he will be able to do that PB/day, perhaps a bit better, but all the other time his extra feature will go to waste because a 16 AC wizard should never be anywhere close to the frontlines. Best case scenario is to use a Bow and minor illusion for cover. But illusions are DM dependent and it will get old really fast like most tricks get.


That would imply, to me at least, that you can cast two cantrips in place of one of the two attacks you can make as part of your attack action. It'd have to be something like "You may forgo one or more of those attacks to cast an equal number of cantrips" or something similar to get the effect you seem to want.

Sounds fairly counter intuitive to me especially when this edition has gotten us used to "once per turn" and I have bit of trouble mostly because of that. Even in my mother tongue, the grammatical phenomenon you mentioned holds true, but I still read it the way I explained. The only reason I'm sure it doesn't work like that is because I've played the edition enough to understand that it would be imbalanced, but stranger things have happened (nuclear/evocation wizard for example).

[TheMango55]

so you can't OA cast BB anymore (with war caster) and can't use it with spell sniper. I suspect both were considerations.




I don’t see why you can’t use it with war caster OA anymore. Even with a range of self (5ft radius) It’s still a cantrip that targets a single creature other than the caster, which is all the war caster OA requires.

[Silpharon]

Well that is a huge update for the Artificer!

-Every spell now officially has a M component for them, making them the best Sword and Board/TWF Gishs in terms of casting

-The Steel Defender and Homunculus can now take any action like the Drake UA

-The Homunculus no longer needs Artificer 6 to use (big bump)


Yep, I was wondering if they were going to fix homunculus servant (and steel defender). As it was, it couldn't take the Use an Object action, so it couldn't use a Spell Storing Item. That's now fixed! The level requirement drop is surprising, and helps multiclass builds a lot.

The defender is incredibly tanky... That's potentially more hit points than a PC would have at the same level.

[Gignere]

I don't care about high levels. All wizards are strong at T3 and T4. Bladesinger is just the best shapechange user. Nothing more than that. The niche of the subclass was melee performance and concentration saves. He could haste/shadowblade himself and go to town 4 to 6 times per day which is a very efficient style for a gish type.

Now he will be able to do that PB/day, perhaps a bit better, but all the other time his extra feature will go to waste because a 16 AC wizard should never be anywhere close to the frontlines. Best case scenario is to use a Bow and minor illusion for cover. But illusions are DM dependent and it will get old really fast like most tricks get.

I don’t know warlocks, rogues and monks at low level have to deal with lower AC and not much more hps. They make it work. At least BS have Bladesong to fall back on for the tougher battles, i mean you just have to be more selective when to use Bladesong, Mobile feat is now worth a lot more for BS.

[MaxWilson]

Because of the weird targeting rules I don't think that works, like how Smite spells target the caster yet aren't eligible for the Find Steed connection (which is utterly ridiculous, what was the point of that clause if Paladins can barely use it for anything).

You might be right. I can't think of any way to let the steed share a weapon with a paladin anyway so maybe it wouldn't work anyway.

https://media.wizards.com/2020/dnd/downloads/SA-Compendium.pdf

[NEW] Can I cast animate dead on the humanoid-shaped
corpse of an undead creature such as a zombie or a
ghast? When animate dead targets a corpse, the body must
have belonged to a creature of the humanoid creature type.
If the spell targets a pile of bones, there is no creature
type restriction; the bones become a skeleton.

All I have to say about this one is [rolls eyes].

[Gtdead]

I don’t know warlocks, rogues and monks at low level have to deal with lower AC and not much more hps. They make it work. At least BS have Bladesong to fall back on for the tougher battles, i mean you just have to be more selective when to use Bladesong, Mobile feat is now worth a lot more for BS.

Yes but these classes have other goodies as well. Warlocks have easy advantage generation, rogues have cunning:dash so they can literally get out of melee threat range with mobile feat. Monks can do it too and they are way better at dealing with ranged attacks.

Bladesinger will have to grab mobile and still use spells like expeditious retreat to do stuff like that (already having spend a slot for mage armor). So why not just attack from range where it's safe? An extra d8 isn't worth the trouble.
You could say that you perform better for as long as Bladesong is active, but I can't see it as a good thing overall. Also I'd never ever pick mobile over alert but that's just me.

[cutlery]

You do have to be careful in levels 1-2 as a bladesinger; this was true before the errata, really. Especially with the sort of con you'd have with pointbuy.

Once you can get mirror image or blur things open up a little bit, but you're still squishier than you think you are for a while.

[jaappleton]

A bit upset there’s now only the one, Tasha’s version of Bladesinger. The SCAG version now matches the Tasha’s one.

[CMCC]

I'm not so sure about this. To showcase what I mean:

Let's alter it a bit
"you may swap one attack for two cantrips".

Does your reading apply to this sentence as well? Would you just assume that this is once per turn too?

Disclaimer: I'm not saying that I want it to work like I advocate, but the wording is crap as usual.

Absolutely. The moment you try and sub 2 attacks for 4 cantrips you’ve gone beyond the alotted limit of 1 for 2.

In order for your reading to be accurate it would require a less general article (a) to make it ambiguous, or for the word “any” to be included to make it something like:

“you may swap any number of attacks for two cantrips per attack”.

Let me propose this question to you: how would you word this to make it clear that only one attack can be subbed for one cantrip?

[Amechra]

A bit upset there’s now only the one, Tasha’s version of Bladesinger. The SCAG version now matches the Tasha’s one.

There has always been only one version. Your memories are playing tricks on you, Citizen. Accept the truth that Big Wizard tells you.

[Gtdead]

Absolutely. The moment you try and sub 2 attacks for 4 cantrips you’ve gone beyond the alotted limit of 1 for 2.

In order for your reading to be accurate it would require a less general article (a) to make it ambiguous, or for the word “any” to be included to make it something like:

“you may swap any number of attacks for two cantrips per attack”.

Let me propose this question to you: how would you word this to make it clear that only one attack can be subbed for one cantrip?

"Once per turn, you can swap one attack for one cantrip", and if I wanted it to work with action surge
"When using this feature, you can swap a single attack for a cantrip"

Edit: Although now that I reread this, the "single attack" still sounds like my previous point.

It's quite hard to find precise language, let's try this instead:

"Whenever you use this feature, you can swap an attack for a cantrip once."

[MaxWilson]

Absolutely. The moment you try and sub 2 attacks for 4 cantrips you’ve gone beyond the alotted limit of 1 for 2.

In order for your reading to be accurate it would require a less general article (a) to make it ambiguous, or for the word “any” to be included to make it something like:

“you may swap any number of attacks for two cantrips per attack”.

Let me propose this question to you: how would you word this to make it clear that only one attack can be subbed for one cantrip?

Let's take a real example, like grappling: "When you want to grab a creature or wrestle with it, you can use the Attack action to make a special melee attack, a grapple. If you’re able to make multiple attacks with the Attack action, this attack replaces one of them." Would you say that you can only attempt one grapple per turn? What stops you from replacing an attack with a grapple twice during a turn?

[Dork_Forge]

You might be right. I can't think of any way to let the steed share a weapon with a paladin anyway so maybe it wouldn't work anyway.

https://media.wizards.com/2020/dnd/downloads/SA-Compendium.pdf

[NEW] Can I cast animate dead on the humanoid-shaped
corpse of an undead creature such as a zombie or a
ghast? When animate dead targets a corpse, the body must
have belonged to a creature of the humanoid creature type.
If the spell targets a pile of bones, there is no creature
type restriction; the bones become a skeleton.

All I have to say about this one is [rolls eyes].

Soooo you can just reanimate the same couple skeletons endlessly, that... Will not be making it into my games.


Also noticed that they took away +3 Cha from the Changeling, an odd move in light of the lineage options coming.

[Gignere]

Yes but these classes have other goodies as well. Warlocks have easy advantage generation, rogues have cunning:dash so they can literally get out of melee threat range with mobile feat. Monks can do it too and they are way better at dealing with ranged attacks.

Bladesinger will have to grab mobile and still use spells like expeditious retreat to do stuff like that (already having spend a slot for mage armor). So why not just attack from range where it's safe? An extra d8 isn't worth the trouble.
You could say that you perform better for as long as Bladesong is active, but I can't see it as a good thing overall. Also I'd never ever pick mobile over alert but that's just me.

Wizards also has easy advantage generation, I mean wizard base class also has goodies too. Besides the rogue its not like the other low AC melee doesn’t need to blow resources to do their jobs.

[Gtdead]

Wizards also has easy advantage generation, I mean wizard base class also has goodies too. Besides the rogue its not like the other low AC melee doesn’t need to blow resources to do their jobs.

You probably mean the familiar, cause I don't really know any other persistent way except Greater Invisibility. This falls under the "trick" thing like my minor illusion archer idea. It gets old. Also lock generates both offensive and defensive advantage.
Rogues don't have to spend any resources and warlocks get them all back in a short rest like bladesinger did. Also both of these classes perform at their best both in melee and ranged early. Although to be fair, I don't think that this is a good playstyle for the warlock. However he is a stronger skirmisher at lvl 3 compared to the wizard. Lots of staying power and is good with GWM.
Monk is a bit more nuanced because there is a good chance he won't have enough Ki early, so instead he should take a hint and go ranged for this.

But in any case, the comparison is old vs new Bladesinger. Bladesong is a strong multipurpose ability. It makes him a good kiter through speed increase, amazing at holding concentration and very sturdy in melee compared to the base chassis (although criticals are fatal, so he should be careful). Can he do it without it? Probably. Should he do it? Probably not.

[phlidwsn]

But that just makes me even more confused as to why the Defender's to-hit is based solely off of your spell casting mod. Why wouldn't they just make it the same as a normal attack?

Probably to match it to the Artillerist bonus action to-hit. If they both use the same value, its a bit simpler to balance on the back end. It also starts a point higher assuming you have +3 INT at 3rd level.

For in-game logic, think of it not as how strong the defender is, but how skilled you are at commanding it properly(INT + Prof)

[Gignere]

But in any case, the comparison is old vs new Bladesinger. Bladesong is a strong multipurpose ability. It makes him a good kiter through speed increase, amazing at holding concentration and very sturdy in melee compared to the base chassis (although criticals are fatal, so he should be careful). Can he do it without it? Probably. Should he do it? Probably not.

Shrug, hmm for a kiting BS with Tasha’s race rules maybe play a Bugbear BS. Hit from 10ft and with expeditious retreat you can get out of melee range whenever you can’t use Bladesong.

You can use this tactic for two or three fights then use Bladesong for the two hard fights should be fine for low levels.

[Wasp]

They have changed the Changeling so they cannot get +3 to CHA anymore (even though they originally said the wording was intended to allow +3 CHA). :smalleek:

I liked this quirk of the Changeling. I am sad now.

[LudicSavant]

I don’t see why you can’t use it with war caster OA anymore. Even with a range of self (5ft radius) It’s still a cantrip that targets a single creature other than the caster, which is all the war caster OA requires.

I'm wondering the same thing. Twin and War Caster have different wordings, which is why, for instance, Sage Advice has previously said that you can Warcaster Eldritch Blast, but not Twin Eldritch Blast.

Things with a range of Self (parenthetical) don't necessarily actually target yourself. For example, Lightning Bolt doesn't target yourself, though it has a range of Self (100 foot line).

[PhoenixPhyre]

Oh my sweet Lord Kelemvor! :smallsmile:

They deleted the Wall! They errata'd it down! :smallcool:

Can't say I dislike that. The Wall never bugged me as much as it obviously bugs other people, but still.

One less reason to dislike FR. Which brings the total to...let me see...INT_OVERFLOW. Oh dear.

[CMCC]

I don’t see why you can’t use it with war caster OA anymore. Even with a range of self (5ft radius) It’s still a cantrip that targets a single creature other than the caster, which is all the war caster OA requires.

Yeah that’s weird. With a range of self - it seems clear that you are the target of the spell - yet immediately after the spell uses “target” to identify the attacked creature.

Somehow they made it more confusing with this rewording.




Things with a range of Self (parenthetical) don't necessarily actually target yourself. For example, Lightning Bolt doesn't target yourself, though it has a range of Self (100 foot line).

Aaaand now I’m thoroughly confused.

[Amechra]

Soooo you can just reanimate the same couple skeletons endlessly, that... Will not be making it into my games.

To be fair, "you killed the skeletons and then the necromancer made them get back up" is pretty on-theme.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I'm wondering the same thing. Twin and War Caster have different wordings, which is why, for instance, Sage Advice has previously said that you can Warcaster Eldritch Blast, but not Twin Eldritch Blast.

Things with a range of Self (parenthetical) don't necessarily actually target yourself. For example, Lightning Bolt doesn't target yourself, though it has a range of Self (100 foot line).

My guess--this is entirely an update for wording consistency. Self buffs are always Range: self. As are lines and cones. And this is clearly a self-buff spell--you cast it on your weapon and (as part of the cast) attack. It shouldn't affect Warcaster at all, but would affect spell sniper.

As far as "targeting"--I think people often get confused because earlier editions had a "target" line in the summary. 5e doesn't. In 5e, any creature that (in plain, non-formal language) could be said to be directly affected by the energies of the spell is a target. So Booming Blade targets both you (because your weapon gets buffed) and the person you swing at.

Twin (unlike Warcaster) has a "can only target one person" specifier. So (above level 5), eldritch blast can target more than one person, so it can't be twinned. Warcaster has no such line, so you can warcaster it (as long as you actually only target one person with this instance of the spell). Twin cares about the spell in the abstract; warcaster only cares about this particular instance of the spell as cast. In legal terms, it's the difference between a facial challenge (this law is invalid in all cases) and an as applied challenge (this law is invalid as it applies to me, but not necessarily someone else).

[McSkrag]

Oh, and apparently you can't use a SCAGtrip with shadow blade any longer - the melee weapon must be worth at least 1 sp.


Well that completely borks my Arcane Trickster/Bladesinger's core SB + BB combo attack. Is level 16 too late to rebuild :/ ?

But overall the new Bladesinger seems fine. I don't see the bladesong based on proficiency as much of an issue in most campaigns. And I like the substitute a cantrip for an attack.

The changes to BB help make extra attack and martials in general more valuable.

[x3n0n]

As far as "targeting"--I think people often get confused because earlier editions had a "target" line in the summary. 5e doesn't. In 5e, any creature that (in plain, non-formal language) could be said to be directly affected by the energies of the spell is a target.

Agreeing with your first point: I came from Magic: the Gathering, where "target" is (by necessity) a very clear mechanical concept woven deeply into the rules, and its specific definition affects a large proportion of games.

Having come from that background, it's frustrating to have the concept of "target" be relatively nebulous *and* simultaneously relevant to the mechanics. (If it weren't relevant, then I wouldn't care.)


And this is clearly a self-buff spell--you cast it on your weapon and (as part of the cast) attack. It shouldn't affect Warcaster at all, but would affect spell sniper.

[...]

So Booming Blade targets both you (because your weapon gets buffed) and the person you swing at.

From War Caster: "When a hostile creature's movement provokes an opportunity attack from you, you can use your reaction to cast a spell at the creature, rather than making an opportunity attack. The spell must have a casting time of 1 action and must target only that creature."

So if both self and victim are "targets", it shouldn't be eligible. I happen to think that isn't exactly a self-buff, and would argue that the victim is the only "target", making it eligible. (Contrast, say, Vampiric Touch.) The fact that it's reasonably debatable is frustrating.

[MaxWilson]

To be fair, "you killed the skeletons and then the necromancer made them get back up" is pretty on-theme.

And each time they generate new shortbows and tattered armored for the necromancer to scavenge. (Eyeroll. At WotC, not at Amechra.)

[Dork_Forge]

To be fair, "you killed the skeletons and then the necromancer made them get back up" is pretty on-theme.

The same set of bones taking sufficient damage to 'kill' the skeleton and be in useable condition again afterwards completely breaks verisimilitude for me, never mind it making it easier for necromancers when it wasn't particularly hard to acquire bones/corpses to begin with. Doesn't this type of wording also permit the creation of skeletons from misc. monster bones? Kill a Dire Wolf, get a humanoid skeleton minion and so on.

Some things need clarity, they certainly don't need changing, this feels more like a throwaway tweet answer typed into a pdf than anything else.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Agreeing with your first point: I came from Magic: the Gathering, where "target" is (by necessity) a very clear mechanical concept woven deeply into the rules, and its specific definition affects a large proportion of games.

Having come from that background, it's frustrating to have the concept of "target" be relatively nebulous *and* simultaneously relevant to the mechanics. (If it weren't relevant, then I wouldn't care.)



From War Caster: "When a hostile creature's movement provokes an opportunity attack from you, you can use your reaction to cast a spell at the creature, rather than making an opportunity attack. The spell must have a casting time of 1 action and must target only that creature."

So if both self and victim are "targets", it shouldn't be eligible. I happen to think that isn't exactly a self-buff, and would argue that the victim is the only "target", making it eligible. (Contrast, say, Vampiric Touch.) The fact that it's reasonably debatable is frustrating.

Ah, I'd misremembered that line from warcaster. So yeah. Not eligible as a self buff, wording change or not IMO. Because I can't read it as anything else but a self-buff. I should mention I'm coming from the other side--my basis is in free-form. So aesthetics and fiction are my initial touchpoints for understanding rules, not precise wording. I do care about wording, but only as a check. And I've always disliked the "close parsing" style of legalistic rules (including MtG and other such games).

[McSkrag]

The updated BB should still work for OA's with Warcaster.

"You brandish the weapon used in the spell’s casting and make a
melee attack with it against one creature within 5 feet of you. On
a hit, the target suffers the weapon attack’s normal effects and
then becomes sheathed in booming energy until the start of your
next turn.

It's very clear that the spell would only target the creature provoking the OA, which is the Warcaster requirement.

[Gignere]

Oh, and apparently you can't use a SCAGtrip with shadow blade any longer - the melee weapon must be worth at least 1 sp.


I guess this would also prevent a Pact of the Blade warlock from using the SCAGtrip with a summoned Pact Weapon.

[Luccan]

I guess this would also prevent a Pact of the Blade warlock from using the SCAGtrip with a summoned Pact Weapon.

Do Pact Weapons lose their monetary value? Regardless, this puts me in mind of a Bladelock whose pact weapon always looks worn and in bad repair. Maybe an old Hexblade with a chipped and rusted longsword.

[Gignere]

Do Pact Weapons lose their monetary value? Regardless, this puts me in mind of a Bladelock whose pact weapon always looks worn and in bad repair. Maybe an old Hexblade with a chipped and rusted longsword.

Why would a summon pact weapon have a value that disappears when it leaves your hand?

[Luccan]

Why would a summon pact weapon have a value that disappears when it leaves your hand?

I guess I read your post wrong. I read your post as saying pact weapons wouldn't work. Looking back I suppose you were saying that they and shadowblades are similar enough that both should function with the SCAG blade cantrips. I'm not sure I agree with that, but is that what you meant to imply?

[LudicSavant]

As far as "targeting"--I think people often get confused because earlier editions had a "target" line in the summary. 5e doesn't. In 5e, any creature that (in plain, non-formal language) could be said to be directly affected by the energies of the spell is a target. Yep, pretty much.


And this is clearly a self-buff spell--you cast it on your weapon and (as part of the cast) attack.

I'm not sure about that. It describes the Range in similar terms to things like Lightning Bolt, and it describes the use of the weapon in similar terms to the original Booming Blade (as a material component you have to brandish and make a melee attack with), except for the fact that the component must cost at least 1sp (which sucks if you have a feature that manifests a weapon...)

[DarknessEternal]

-Every spell now officially has a M component for them, making them the best Sword and Board/TWF Gishs in terms of casting


How do you figure they're able to ignore both M and S components?

[JackPhoenix]

Beats me but it should make Paladorcs happy, and any other Find Steed users. Now Booming Blade is a self-buff which lets your steed make an attack with the weapon you used to cast the spell, if only you can find a way to use the same weapon your steed will be using. (Maybe impossible.)

It doesn't, because you still target another creature with it. Find Steed doesn't care about the spell's range, only what you target, and the range line doesn't tell you what the spell targets, the description does... and that clearly states that the target is whatever you attack.


Because of the weird targeting rules I don't think that works, like how Smite spells target the caster yet aren't eligible for the Find Steed connection (which is utterly ridiculous, what was the point of that clause if Paladins can barely use it for anything).

They don't. All x Smite spells refer to the creature attacked as the target, and at no point it claims the caster is a target.


Tbh, the War Caster + Booming Blade combo seemed like an intentional usage of the BB spell to me... until it got shut down by this errata, anyway.

It doesn't work with Spell Sniper, but War Caster is fine.


How do you figure they're able to ignore both M and S components?

You can perform the S component with the same hand that holds the M component. And when you use an infusion on your weapon, it serves as arcane focus.

[AttilatheYeon]

It doesn't, because you still target another creature with it. Find Steed doesn't care about the spell's range, only what you target, and the range line doesn't tell you what the spell targets, the description does... and that clearly states that the target is whatever you attack.



They don't. All x Smite spells refer to the creature attacked as the target, and at no point it claims the caster is a target.



It doesn't work with Spell Sniper and Twinned spell metamagic, but War Caster is fine.

I'm inclined to agree that warcaster should work with it still. Course, this now falls firmly in DM discretion territory.

[Dork_Forge]

How do you figure they're able to ignore both M and S components?

Infused Items are foci for Artificers, infuse a weapon or shield and have at it.



They don't. All x Smite spells refer to the creature attacked as the target, and at no point it claims the caster is a target.


Ahh you're right, still a remarkably stupid part of the rules.

[JackPhoenix]

Ahh you're right, still a remarkably stupid part of the rules.

Yeah. If spells had target line like they used to have in previous editions, a lot of confusion would disappear.

[DarknessEternal]

Infused Items are foci for Artificers, infuse a weapon or shield and have at it.


That only handles M.

[Dork_Forge]

That only handles M.

The component rules state that you can use the same hand that holds the M component (or a foci) for somatic components, since the Artificer gives everything a M component, they can use an infused weapon/shield to handle both M and S components.

This basically makes that part of Warcaster redundant for Artificers, it's a really nice low key buff the class brings.

[Gignere]

I guess I read your post wrong. I read your post as saying pact weapons wouldn't work. Looking back I suppose you were saying that they and shadowblades are similar enough that both should function with the SCAG blade cantrips. I'm not sure I agree with that, but is that what you meant to imply?

There are two types of pact weapons, one type is a magic weapon you find and you make a pact with it. A second type is one that you just summon up out of nothing, it can look and be like anything except for range weapons. I’m saying given the new material component in BB and GFB blade locks now can’t use them when they create their pact weapons.

[HappyDaze]

A bit upset there’s now only the one, Tasha’s version of Bladesinger. The SCAG version now matches the Tasha’s one.

I applaud anything that makes SCAG less desirable. I'll only be happy when I never see that book in use again.

[Sception]

The same set of bones taking sufficient damage to 'kill' the skeleton and be in useable condition again afterwards completely breaks verisimilitude for me

I don't know why it would. Why would you assume 'killing' the skeletons involved smashing the bones to dust instead of simply knocking them apart?
Also, most corpses and bone piles necromancers animate come from corpses of enemies previously killed violently. Do you also rule those corpses 'too damaged' to animate?

The balancing limitation on animate dead is spell slot use, not corpse access. Necromancers really don't need extra arbitrary nerfs to animate dead. That spell is near about all they have going for them in 5e, and while it's quite good, for a while at least, it isn't so good that it desperately needs reigning in.

[Dork_Forge]

I don't know why it would. Why would you assume 'killing' the skeletons involved smashing the bones to dust instead of simply knocking them apart?
Also, most corpses and bone piles necromancers animate come from corpses of enemies previously killed violently. Do you also rule those corpses 'too damaged' to animate?

The balancing limitation on animate dead is spell slot use, not corpse access. Necromancers really don't need extra arbitrary nerfs to animate dead. That spell is near about all they have going for them in 5e, and while it's quite good, for a while at least, it isn't so good that it desperately needs reigning in.

I didn't assume that killing a skeleton meant grinding the bones to dust, but by the point you're reanimating a skeleton it's already gone through initial creature death and then skeleton death. It doesn't have to be dust but I'm unconvinced that smashing a skeleton in any fashion wouldn't cause structural damage, even if you can reanimate it the second time, what's to say it's all in useable condition? It could have one arm damaged too severely, the skull could be shattered etc. It makes no in world sense to me and that is a large part of why I dont' like it, as for a point of balance, you're tlaking as if necromancers get a raw deal in 5e. I don't know what they're like in other editions, but generating a personal cadre of minions can really tip the scales on action economy alone, I don't exactly feel bad for saying to a necromancer player "hey, source some fresh components" especially when a pile of bones isn't exactly a difficult thing to transport to begin with. (nor would I call it reigning in really, it barely has an impact for the most part).

Do you think that they're a particulary weak school or something?

[MaxWilson]

You can perform the S component with the same hand that holds the M component. And when you use an infusion on your weapon, it serves as arcane focus.

That's backwards actually. You can perform M components with the hand that is performing S components, or you can perform them with a hand holding your infused weapon--but nothing in the rules authorizes you to perform S components with a hand holding a weapon, infused or otherwise. So you probably want to infuse a shield instead while you temporarily drop your weapon to cast.


The component rules state that you can use the same hand that holds the M component (or a foci) for somatic components...

It's the other way around. The hand that does S may also do M.

"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."

Therefore adding an M component doesn't make the spell require TWO free hands to cast it, only one.

[Rara1212]

That's backwards actually. You can perform M components with the hand that is performing S components, or you can perform them with a hand holding your infused weapon--but nothing in the rules authorizes you to perform S components with a hand holding a weapon, infused or otherwise. So you probably want to infuse a shield instead while you temporarily drop your weapon to cast.



It's the other way around. The hand that does S may also do M.

"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."

Therefore adding an M component doesn't make the spell require TWO free hands to cast it, only one.

Well, if your weapon/shield is infused, it is a spellcasting focus for you. So it lets you perform M while holding it.
Before, if both your hands were occupied(one with an infused item) you couldn't cast S(but you could cast SM) spells, as you needed a free hand for that. Now that you need M for all the spells, you don't ever need a free hand, if you are holding your infused item(spellcasting focus)

[MaxWilson]

Well, if your weapon/shield is infused, it is a spellcasting focus for you. So it lets you perform M while holding it.
Before, if both your hands were occupied(one with an infused item) you couldn't cast S(but you could cast SM) spells, as you needed a free hand for that. Now that you need M for all the spells, you don't ever need a free hand, if you are holding your infused item(spellcasting focus)

"A spellcaster must have a hand free to access a spell's material components -- or to hold a spellcasting focus -- but it can be the same hand that he or she uses to perform somatic components."

It was never and is still not the case that you can cast SM spells without a free hand. Sage Advice may claim so but the rules text (quoted above) says the opposite: you don't need an EXTRA free hand for M if you've already got a free hand for S. But S requires a free hand even if you've got another way to do M.

I'm not going to argue this further, just pointing people to the correct rules.

[cutlery]

I guess this would also prevent a Pact of the Blade warlock from using the SCAGtrip with a summoned Pact Weapon.

Unless it was a magic weapon they made their pact weapon (and or their hex weapon, blargh!), I think so.


I can't say this seems like that bad of a change, really - shadow blade is still quite strong, there's a nudge for bladesingers of a certain sort to consider something else for concentration (spirit shroud, perhaps), while still letting the SCAGtrips do some medium to heavy lifting for single-attack classes and Eldritch Knights of a certain level range (or multiclassed eldritch knights).

There are already threads where people are trying to loophole their way to using an offhand weapon to attack twice with shadow blade and once with booming blade - I suspect there will need to be a Sage Advice ruling about which hand the bonus action attack must be if they take a regular, non-cantrip swing with shadow blade and a booming blade "swing" with an offhand weapon.

[Gignere]

Unless it was a magic weapon they made their pact weapon (and or their hex weapon, blargh!), I think so.


I can't say this seems like that bad of a change, really - shadow blade is still quite strong, there's a nudge for bladesingers of a certain sort to consider something else for concentration (spirit shroud, perhaps), while still letting the SCAGtrips do some medium to heavy lifting for single-attack classes and Eldritch Knights of a certain level range (or multiclassed eldritch knights).

There are already threads where people are trying to loophole their way to using an offhand weapon to attack twice with shadow blade and once with booming blade - I suspect there will need to be a Sage Advice ruling about which hand the bonus action attack must be if they take a regular, non-cantrip swing with shadow blade and a booming blade "swing" with an offhand weapon.

Does Spirit Shroud provide advantage like Shadowblade does? If it doesn’t I can totally see if you have team mates that can generate advantage for you easily SS if not cast SB.

It’s already ruled that you can extra attack with different weapons held in different hands so I don’t see why you can’t attack with Shadowblade and use BB with offhand weapon.

[cutlery]

Does Spirit Shroud provide advantage like Shadowblade does? If it doesn’t I can totally see if you have team mates that can generate advantage for you easily SS if not cast SB.

It’s already ruled that you can extra attack with different weapons held in different hands so I don’t see why you can’t attack with Shadowblade and use BB with offhand weapon.


What they are trying to do is take the level 6 bladesinger attack action and:

(1) Swing with Shadow Blade

(2) Cast Booming Blade with an offhand weapon

(3) Take a bonus action attack with Shadow Blade


And they justify #3 because they "attacked" with their shortsword hand.

[Xetheral]

"A spellcaster must have a hand free to access a spell's material components -- or to hold a spellcasting focus -- but it can be the same hand that he or she uses to perform somatic components."

It was never and is still not the case that you can cast SM spells without a free hand. Sage Advice may claim so but the rules text (quoted above) says the opposite: you don't need an EXTRA free hand for M if you've already got a free hand for S. But S requires a free hand even if you've got another way to do M.

I'm not going to argue this further, just pointing people to the correct rules.

You are pointing to the correct rules, but a held focus appears to satisfy those rules for SM spells. The hand is free (meaning "available") to hold the focus by evidence of the fact that it already holds the focus. Ruling that you have to put a focus away so that you have a free (meaning "empty") hand with which to then redraw that focus does not appear to be a reasonable contextual reading of the rule.

[Gignere]

What they are trying to do is take the level 6 bladesinger attack action and:

(1) Swing with Shadow Blade

(2) Cast Booming Blade with an offhand weapon

(3) Take a bonus action attack with Shadow Blade


And they justify #3 because they "attacked" with their shortsword hand.

Doesn’t work because of the new language in BB and GFB saids the attack must be with the weapon used to cast the spell.

Edit: Unless you are talking about TWF with the SB than it works.

[CMCC]

So, how long does it take for Dndbeyond to incorporate errata changes?



The updated BB should still work for OA's with Warcaster.

"You brandish the weapon used in the spell’s casting and make a
melee attack with it against one creature within 5 feet of you. On
a hit, the target suffers the weapon attack’s normal effects and
then becomes sheathed in booming energy until the start of your
next turn.

It's very clear that the spell would only target the creature provoking the OA, which is the Warcaster requirement.

you're ignoring the range of self portion, which is key to the argument. Are there other range of self spells that allow for an OA from warcaster?

[MaxWilson]

You are pointing to the correct rules, but a held focus appears to satisfy those rules for SM spells. The hand is free (meaning "available") to hold the focus by evidence of the fact that it already holds the focus. Ruling that you have to put a focus away so that you have a free (meaning "empty") hand with which to then redraw that focus does not appear to be a reasonable contextual reading of the rule.

For a conventional focus like a magic wand I'd agree (even though strict RAW would require you to put down the focus first--but that's dumb), but a hand that is busy e.g. wielding a shield is not available for Somatic components, even if the shield is infused and therefore an arcane focus for the Artificer in question.

[Xetheral]

For a conventional focus like a magic wand I'd agree (even though strict RAW would require you to put down the focus first--but that's dumb), but a hand that is busy e.g. wielding a shield is not available for Somatic components, even if the shield is infused and therefore an arcane focus for the Artificer in question.

I disagree. If a hand holding a focus can be the same hand used to perform somatic components, then in my opinion it doesn't matter what that focus is. If you want to discuss further I can explain in more depth why I think my reading is the better reading, but if you want to drop the topic I'm fine with that too.

[MaxWilson]

I disagree. If a hand holding a focus can be the same hand used to perform somatic components, then in my opinion it doesn't matter what that focus is. If you want to discuss further I can explain in more depth why I think my reading is the better reading, but if you want to drop the topic I'm fine with that too.

Okay, go ahead and explain why SM with a shield is just as easy as SM with a wand, and why that's different from just M.

[AdAstra]

Okay, go ahead and explain why SM with a shield is just as easy as SM with a wand, and why that's different from just M.

I'm not Xetheral, so I don't speak for them, but I can give it a go.

A sword is essentially just a big wand in terms of structure. It's bigger, but not so big that you couldn't do wand-motions with it. Instead of waving your magic wand, you wave your sword around and the magic comes out.

As for shields, most designs are strapped to the wrist, leaving the hand free, if somewhat restricted.

Somatic components aren't necessarily the same for every caster or focus, so some adjustment makes sense.

[Doug Lampert]

Can't say I dislike that. The Wall never bugged me as much as it obviously bugs other people, but still.

One less reason to dislike FR. Which brings the total to...let me see...INT_OVERFLOW. Oh dear.

Use an unsigned 64 bit integer, that's up to over 16 quintillion, which if you come up with a reason a dozen reasons a seconds would still have you covered if you had started coming up with reasons at the big bang.


My guess--this is entirely an update for wording consistency. Self buffs are always Range: self. As are lines and cones. And this is clearly a self-buff spell--you cast it on your weapon and (as part of the cast) attack. It shouldn't affect Warcaster at all, but would affect spell sniper.

As far as "targeting"--I think people often get confused because earlier editions had a "target" line in the summary. 5e doesn't. In 5e, any creature that (in plain, non-formal language) could be said to be directly affected by the energies of the spell is a target. So Booming Blade targets both you (because your weapon gets buffed) and the person you swing at.

Twin (unlike Warcaster) has a "can only target one person" specifier. So (above level 5), eldritch blast can target more than one person, so it can't be twinned. Warcaster has no such line, so you can warcaster it (as long as you actually only target one person with this instance of the spell). Twin cares about the spell in the abstract; warcaster only cares about this particular instance of the spell as cast. In legal terms, it's the difference between a facial challenge (this law is invalid in all cases) and an as applied challenge (this law is invalid as it applies to me, but not necessarily someone else).

Pet peeve: Twin doesn't work with eldritch blast even if the "can only target one person" were completely removed.

Twin let's a spell target two characters, that's the entire and only effect. Eldritch blast at level 5+ can already target two characters, so if you could apply the metamagic, all it would do is spend sorcery points to let you do something you could already do.

They emphasized single target spells only to try to make this clear, and people STILL argued for years that they could get extra rays from the metamagic on eldritch blast or scorching ray or magic missile by having all the rays target one creature and then having the rays also at the same time target another creature treating the metamagic as some sort of echo spell that casts the spell again. But that's not what it does, it lets the spell target two creatures, which you could already do.

[x3n0n]

So, how long does it take for Dndbeyond to incorporate errata changes?

Typically within a week. I'm guessing they'll go live no later than Tuesday with TCoE.

[cutlery]

Doesn’t work because of the new language in BB and GFB saids the attack must be with the weapon used to cast the spell.

Edit: Unless you are talking about TWF with the SB than it works.

I am talking about TWF, but they are not making an attack (as part of the attack action) with the offhand sword - they are casting a spell with it. An attack is part of that spell, but it isn't a regular attack.


As the rules go:


When you take the Attack action and attack with a light melee weapon that you're holding in one hand, you can use a bonus action to attack with a different light melee weapon that you're holding in the other hand.

You are not attacking with a light melee weapon (shortsword); you have attacked with a light melee weapon (shadow blade). You are casting a spell that contains an attack as part of the spellcast, but is that the same thing? I'd argue no - you're casting a spell with that shortsword.

[Sception]

I didn't assume that killing a skeleton meant grinding the bones to dust, but by the point you're reanimating a skeleton it's already gone through initial creature death and then skeleton death. It doesn't have to be dust but I'm unconvinced that smashing a skeleton in any fashion wouldn't cause structural damage, even if you can reanimate it the second time, what's to say it's all in useable condition? It could have one arm damaged too severely, the skull could be shattered etc. It makes no in world sense to me and that is a large part of why I dont' like it, as for a point of balance, you're tlaking as if necromancers get a raw deal in 5e. I don't know what they're like in other editions, but generating a personal cadre of minions can really tip the scales on action economy alone, I don't exactly feel bad for saying to a necromancer player "hey, source some fresh components" especially when a pile of bones isn't exactly a difficult thing to transport to begin with. (nor would I call it reigning in really, it barely has an impact for the most part).

The spell itself doesn't even require an entire intact skeleton, just a 'pile of bones' that the spell then shapes into a vaguely humanoid bone monster held together and animated by evil magic. If the skull or pelvis or femer are shattered, that shouldn't really matter. The entire skeleton is held together not by its own physical body - which would demand the presence of muscles and tendons and suchnot that simply aren't there - but rather by the magic animating it, and there's no reason why that magic would have a harder time holding say the pieces of a broken pelvis together than it has attaching the thigh bones to that pelvis.

Assuming there is even a pelvis in the fist place and it isn't just jurry rigging one out of a spare skull & some unsorted ribs & shoulder blades, because again the spell doesn't even require an intact skeleton, just a pile of bones. you could make a whole skeleton out of just a big pile of skulls and have a cool vaguely human-shaped shambling skull pile that holds its weapons in its bitey bitey hands.

Doesn't even have to be human bones. You can cast animate dead on a pile of horse and pig bones, and the spell will assemble a vaguely humanlike skeleton out of whatever boney pieces it has to work with, snapping some into shards if it needs smaller pieces for fingers & toes.


Do you think that they're a particulary weak school or something?

Necromancy is a weak school of magic, with the fewest spells, and even within that very limited number they're not even on average particularly good. As a subclass, the second level feature only works with the weakest necromancy spells, and as a result is mostly a trap. If a player casts spells like ray of sickness or ray of enfeeblement to try and use their subclass feature instead of better spells then they're actively making their character worse.

Necromancy isn't completely void of strong and useful spells, including blindness, animate dead, and magic jar, but apart from animate dead necromancer specialists aren't actually any better at using those spells than any other wizard, and in some cases are actively worse (again, a diviner is way more effective with blindness or magic jar than a necromancer)

They are good at casting animate dead, which is a good spell for a good long time, and apart from that they're still wizards which are arguably the strongest class past low levels, so I'm not saying necromancers are bad or week or need a buff, but I don't see any need to reign in the one thing they're actually good at doing.

Again, if your necromancer is animating the same skeletons 'over and over' in the same day then they're eating into their higher level spell slots just to keep some skeletons around, when they were already burning slots just to create or maintain control in the first place. Considering everything else those slots could be used for, this is hardly an 'exploit' to worry about.

[Wizard_Lizard]

Can't wait to look, sadly school wifi is a pain. I swear this doesn't count as a gaming website.

[Xetheral]

Okay, go ahead and explain why SM with a shield is just as easy as SM with a wand, and why that's different from just M.

From my standpoint, for SM spells the rule you quoted permits a hand holding a focus to be the same hand used to perform somatic components. In other words, if the hand wasn't occupied with the focus, it would qualify as a free hand. Ergo, as long as the focus is the only thing in that hand, that hand can be the same hand used to be perform somatic components.

Your reading appears to introduce a sequential requirement that for SM spells there must first be a free hand available to perform somatic components, and then if there is, that hand can also be the hand that holds a focus.

For your reading to be the better one, I think the rule quoted would need to include additional text making the sequential nature of the requirements clear. For example, if the rule instead said:


"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 if he or she already had a free hand with which to do so."

...then I would agree that your reading would be the better reading. But I don't see that (or similar) extra language as implicit in the existing text, so I think my reading is superior.

[Gignere]

I am talking about TWF, but they are not making an attack (as part of the attack action) with the offhand sword - they are casting a spell with it. An attack is part of that spell, but it isn't a regular attack.


As the rules go:



You are not attacking with a light melee weapon (shortsword); you have attacked with a light melee weapon (shadow blade). You are casting a spell that contains an attack as part of the spellcast, but is that the same thing? I'd argue no - you're casting a spell with that shortsword.

I think the new BS feature can be argued like this: you took attack action, now changing one attack to a cantrip, the BB cantrip allows you to make an attack with that weapon, now you qualify to make a bonus action attack with the weapon in the other hand which is the SB.

[MaxWilson]

From my standpoint, for SM spells the rule you quoted permits a hand holding a focus to be the same hand used to perform somatic components. In other words, if the hand wasn't occupied with the focus, it would qualify as a free hand. Ergo, as long as the focus is the only thing in that hand, that hand can be the same hand used to be perform somatic components.

Your reading appears to introduce a sequential requirement that for SM spells there must first be a free hand available to perform somatic components, and then if there is, that hand can also be the hand that holds a focus.

For your reading to be the better one, I think the rule quoted would need to include additional text making the sequential nature of the requirements clear. For example, if the rule instead said:


"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 if he or she already had a free hand with which to do so."

...then I would agree that your reading would be the better reading. But I don't see that (or similar) extra language as implicit in the existing text, so I think my reading is superior.

It's not a sequential requirement, it's a requirement for somatic components, period.

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.

In my reading, the difference between a VM spell and a VSM spell is that VM doesn't require a free hand (as long as you have some other way to access the material components or a spell focus, e.g. an Artificer wielding his infused shield), but a VSM spell does. I think in your reading a VM spell is indistinguishable from a VSM spell, isn't it?

From my perspective, in order for your reading to be the correct one, there would have to be at least one rule saying "a hand holding a spell focus counts as a free hand" or "you don't need a free hand for somatic components if the spell has material components."

[x3n0n]

From my perspective, in order for your reading to be the correct one, there would have to be at least one rule saying "a hand holding a spell focus counts as a free hand" or "you don't need a free hand for somatic components if the spell has material components."

For example, War Caster's second clause is "You can perform the somatic components of spells even when you have weapons or a shield in one or both hands." I think it preserves the essence of that clause to say that "a hand containing a weapon or shield counts as a free hand for the purposes of somatic spell components."

(That is, that clause of War Caster actually does something, even if the character in question wields a weapon or shield that counts as a spell focus and exclusively uses spells with material components.)

[Millstone85]

There has long been a SAC entry on SM versus S components.


What’s the amount of interaction needed to use a spellcasting focus? Does it have to be included in the somatic component?

If a spell has a material component, you need to handle that component when you cast the spell (PH, 203). The same rule applies if you’re using a spellcasting focus as the material component.

If a spell has a somatic component, you can use the hand that performs the somatic component to also handle the material component. For example, a wizard who uses an orb as a spellcasting focus could hold a quarterstaff in one hand and the orb in the other, and he could cast lightning bolt by using the orb as the spell’s material component and the orb hand to perform the spell’s somatic component.

Another example: a cleric’s holy symbol is emblazoned on her shield. She likes to wade into melee combat with a mace in one hand and a shield in the other. She uses the holy symbol as her spellcasting focus, so she needs to have the shield in hand when she casts a cleric spell that has a material component. If the spell, such as aid, also has a somatic component, she can perform that component with the shield hand and keep holding the mace in the other.

If the same cleric casts cure wounds, she needs to put the mace or the shield away, because that spell doesn’t have a material component but does have a somatic component. She’s going to need a free hand to make the spell’s gestures. If she had the War Caster feat, she could ignore this restriction.

[MaxWilson]

For example, War Caster's second clause is "You can perform the somatic components of spells even when you have weapons or a shield in one or both hands." I think it preserves the essence of that clause to say that "a hand containing a weapon or shield counts as a free hand for the purposes of somatic spell components."

(That is, that clause of War Caster actually does something, even if the character in question wields a weapon or shield that counts as a spell focus and exclusively uses spells with material components.)

Yeah, if you have Warcaster that changes things dramatically, w/rt somatic components. You still need your holy symbol/spell focus embedded into your weapon or shield to supply Material components (if the spell has any), but Warcaster + shield focus working together get the job done.


There has long been a SAC entry on SM versus S components.

Yes, we're all aware of that Sage Advice entry. The controversy is whether the PHB rules match the Sage Advice ruling, specifically the cleric example. (The wizard orb example is clearly fine.)

[x3n0n]

Yes, we're all aware of that Sage Advice entry. The controversy is whether the PHB rules match the Sage Advice ruling, specifically the cleric example.

So it is fair to say that the erratum puts the focus-wielding Artificer in exactly the same position as the Bless-casting hands-full Cleric, and I would expect any DM to rule the same way on both.

[MaxWilson]

So it is fair to say that the erratum puts the focus-wielding Artificer in exactly the same position as the Bless-casting hands-full Cleric, and I would expect any DM to rule the same way on both.

Yes, absolutely. There's no difference between them.

[Dark.Revenant]

Sage Advice, in this case, is not RAW; it's RAI.

MaxWilson is well within his rights to rule on ambiguity within the RAW, and in this case it's clearly ambiguous. Both readings are semantically correct; I certainly couldn't say a GM would be "wrong" to rule the way he does.

Personally, I don't really care for quirks of the game that require me to keep track of what each of my players' individual freakin' limbs are doing at any given moment. I can't possibly keep track of the game state consistently enough to make it fair, with the "strict interpretation". Even the Sage Advice version is troublesome to keep track of as a DM; I usually just rid myself of the problem by saying that a spell with fewer components can be optionally cast with additional components, should the caster wish to do so (i.e. VS -> VSM if you have a focus in hand).

[Dork_Forge]

That's backwards actually. You can perform M components with the hand that is performing S components, or you can perform them with a hand holding your infused weapon--but nothing in the rules authorizes you to perform S components with a hand holding a weapon, infused or otherwise. So you probably want to infuse a shield instead while you temporarily drop your weapon to cast.


It's the other way around. The hand that does S may also do M.

"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."

Therefore adding an M component doesn't make the spell require TWO free hands to cast it, only one.

Ahh I think I see where we disagree, my interpretation (and everyone I've seen or know's) is that you can use a foci in hand to perform the S component, not start with a free hand, perform S then draw and use M like I think you interpret it as?

Realistically I don't think it makes a difference, tehcnically as long as you have your object interaction you can drop and pick up your weapon to facilitate it.

[Xetheral]

It's not a sequential requirement, it's a requirement for somatic components, period.

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.

In my reading, the difference between a VM spell and a VSM spell is that VM doesn't require a free hand (as long as you have some other way to access the material components or a spell focus, e.g. an Artificer wielding his infused shield), but a VSM spell does. I think in your reading a VM spell is indistinguishable from a VSM spell, isn't it?

From my perspective, in order for your reading to be the correct one, there would have to be at least one rule saying "a hand holding a spell focus counts as a free hand" or "you don't need a free hand for somatic components if the spell has material components."

In my reading the difference between a VM spell and VSM spell is that the focus/material component needs to be moved a lot more in a VSM spell. So a VM spell could be cast if the character was tied up but had a spell focus in hand, but a VSM spell could not be, because the hand holding the focus must be free to move to perform the somatic component.

And from my standpoint the last clause in the rule you originally quoted: "[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" (emphasis added) is the rule permitting the same hand that holds the focus to be used to perform somatic components. I don't see a need for any additional text beyond that to support my reading.

[DarknessEternal]

So everyone who thinks you need no hands free to cast spells. Why does War Caster exist in your universe? You think they made a whole feat feature that does nothing just to fill up some word count?

[Xetheral]

So everyone who thinks you need no hands free to cast spells. Why does War Caster exist in your universe? You think they made a whole feat feature that does nothing just to fill up some word count?

That feature is useful for characters who have both hands full, and neither hand is holding a focus. In particular, arcane casters who use TWF or (non-staff) weapon+shield find War Caster pretty much essential.

[ff7hero]

So everyone who thinks you need no hands free to cast spells. Why does War Caster exist in your universe? You think they made a whole feat feature that does nothing just to fill up some word count?

A) Pretty sure you're attacking a Straw Man, as I haven't seen anyone argue no spells ever require free hands to cast.

B) War Caster has 3 benefits, with hands-full casting being likely the least impactful of them. Check out Grappler for an example of a feat with a "benefit" that doesn't actually do anything (it's been errata'd, but still...).

[Sception]

That feature is useful for characters who have both hands full, and neither hand is holding a focus. In particular, arcane casters who use TWF or (non-staff) weapon+shield find War Caster pretty much essential.

Also for if a spell has somatic but no material components, as you can't use a hand holding a focus for somatic components is the spell doesnt use material components in the first place.

[MoiMagnus]

Also for if a spell has somatic but no material components, as you can't use a hand holding a focus for somatic components is the spell doesnt use material components in the first place.

Indeed, this is the correct RAW, but it is IMO one of the worst RAW rule of 5e.

My personal house-rule is "if you have a foci, you're fine", or more precisely:

M -> Need a free hand to access the component. Alternatively, you need to hold a foci.
S -> Need a free hand and to be able to move it around unconstrained. Alternatively, you need to hold a foci and to be able to move it around unconstrained.
SM -> Need a free hand to access and move around the components and to be able to move it unconstrained. Alternatively, you need to hold a foci and to be able to move it around unconstrained.

[jojosskul]

The spell itself doesn't even require an entire intact skeleton, just a 'pile of bones' that the spell then shapes into a vaguely humanoid bone monster held together and animated by evil magic. If the skull or pelvis or femer are shattered, that shouldn't really matter. The entire skeleton is held together not by its own physical body - which would demand the presence of muscles and tendons and suchnot that simply aren't there - but rather by the magic animating it, and there's no reason why that magic would have a harder time holding say the pieces of a broken pelvis together than it has attaching the thigh bones to that pelvis.

Assuming there is even a pelvis in the fist place and it isn't just jurry rigging one out of a spare skull & some unsorted ribs & shoulder blades, because again the spell doesn't even require an intact skeleton, just a pile of bones. you could make a whole skeleton out of just a big pile of skulls and have a cool vaguely human-shaped shambling skull pile that holds its weapons in its bitey bitey hands.

Doesn't even have to be human bones. You can cast animate dead on a pile of horse and pig bones, and the spell will assemble a vaguely humanlike skeleton out of whatever boney pieces it has to work with, snapping some into shards if it needs smaller pieces for fingers & toes.

The spell animate dead states "Choose a pile of bones or a corpse of a Medium or Small humanoid within range." So it doesn't need to HUMAN bones, but it does need to be humanoid bones. Also, you can't re-animate a dead skeleton. A skeleton doesn't have the humanoid creature type. It has the undead creature type. Those are no longer the bones of a person, they're the bones of an undead creature.

[MaxWilson]

Indeed, this is the correct RAW

Again, RAW says the exact opposite: M adds a requirement for a free hand (but not a second free hand if you already have one hand free for S components). Spell focii relax the M requirement, but not the S requirement.

Sage Advice's cleric example supports your ruling but RAW does not. Sage Advice is not an official rules source, even in AL. It's just an advice column.

[Necrosnoop110]

I don't care about high levels. All wizards are strong at T3 and T4. Bladesinger is just the best shapechange user. Nothing more than that.
Can someone help me with the shapechange bit I don't follow.

[MaxWilson]

Can someone help me with the shapechange bit I don't follow.

The idea is that a normal wizard shapechanges into e.g. an Adult Silver Shadow Dragon with AC 19 who bites at +13 for 2d10+8, claws at +13 for 2d6+8, has movement 40'/80' fly, etc. A Bladesinger gets bonuses on top of that while bladesinging so can be AC 24, biting at +13 for 2d10+13, clawing at +13 for 2d6+13, moving 50'/90' fly, etc.

This is particularly impactful for forms that have lots of attacks so you can get the Song of Victory bonus on each attack, e.g. a shapechanged Bladesinger in Hydra form can spend a few minutes growing extra heads (with some help from his party mates, cutting off heads and healing damage), and then e.g. attack with three dozen heads at +8 doing d10+10 (15.5) damage per hit instead of the usual d10+5 (10.5) per hit, with AC 20 instead of 15.

Honestly it's not a huge difference IMO (just better numbers, not a qualitative advantage) but it is a slight edge to Bladesinger when shapechanging.

[Sception]

The spell animate dead states "Choose a pile of bones or a corpse of a Medium or Small humanoid within range." So it doesn't need to HUMAN bones, but it does need to be humanoid bones. Also, you can't re-animate a dead skeleton. A skeleton doesn't have the humanoid creature type. It has the undead creature type. Those are no longer the bones of a person, they're the bones of an undead creature.

Hrm. I always read that as "a pile of bones" - or - "a corpse of a medium or small humanoid", not "a pile of bones of a medium or small humanoid" - or - "the corpse of a medium or small humanoid".

I suppose it is ambiguous and the later is a valid interpretation, although I do still feel it's the less natural reading since you don't really talk about 'a pile of bones' of a particular creature, you'd talk about the skeleton of that creature. Once you're describing something as 'a pile', you're generally not employing that much specificity.


The interpretation that you can't re-animate skeletons using the same bones still feels like an arbitrary and unnecessary nerf pointlessly targeted at what is already the weakest wizard subclass specialized in the worst wizard magic school, but frankly that feeling applies equally to the ruling that the corpse left behind by a dead zombie humanoid is somehow no longer a humanoid corpse, so it's not a /uniquely/ bad take or one without precedent.

It would probably stop me from playing necromancers in your games, but then again I haven't played or seen played many necromancers in 5e anyway. Necromancy in general hasn't been particularly engaging since the end of 3.5 and the loss of animate-able template undead.

[MaxWilson]

Hrm. I always read that as "a pile of bones" - or - "a corpse of a medium or small humanoid", not "a pile of bones of a medium or small humanoid" - or - "the corpse of a medium or small humanoid".

I suppose it is ambiguous and the later is a valid interpretation

Grammatically it's unambiguous: (a pile of bones) or (a corpse (of a medium or small humanoid)).

It's unambiguous because (a pile of bones or a corpse) (of a medium or small humanoid) is incorrect English, because (a pile of bones of a medium or humanoid) is bad grammar. "Pile of bones from" would be correct, but "pile of bones of" is wrong.

[Thunderous Mojo]

Honestly it's not a huge difference IMO (just better numbers, not a qualitative advantage) but it is a slight edge to Bladesinger when shapechanging.

I agree.

What really makes a difference is when the group cooperates
to make Super-Hydras.

An infestation of Player Characters working in concert is hard to impede;
DMs should expect some turbulence for an hour.

[jojosskul]

Grammatically it's unambiguous: (a pile of bones) or (a corpse (of a medium or small humanoid)).

It's unambiguous because (a pile of bones or a corpse) (of a medium or small humanoid) is incorrect English, because (a pile of bones of a medium or humanoid) is bad grammar. "Pile of bones from" would be correct, but "pile of bones of" is wrong.

Well that's what I get for being engrossed in the bladesinger conversation while reading the thread and then picking up on this bit later. Just saw your original comment with Sage Advice clarifying that bones are bones are bones. And I could see that narratively somewhat working, cast animate dead on a dragon skeleton and just enough of it's bones animate to form standard skeleton, shaped by the spell and the evil shadowfell force animating it.

So how many regular skeletons can you get out of a dragon skeleton? And yeah they'd be reusable, and with it only working SPECIFICALLY with skeletons and no other undead I think that works just fine. I stand corrected. But they really need to word that better.

[MoiMagnus]

Again, RAW says the exact opposite: M adds a requirement for a free hand (but not a second free hand if you already have one hand free for S components). Spell focii relax the M requirement, but not the S requirement.

Sage Advice's cleric example supports your ruling but RAW does not. Sage Advice is not an official rules source, even in AL. It's just an advice column.

I disagree with your interpretation. This is not RAW (or at least, this is not the only RAW). The rule clearly state that the free hand you used to hold a focus can be used for both M and S.

The rule says that a "spellcaster must have a hand free [...] to hold a spellcasting focus, but it can be the same hand that he or she uses to perform somatic components"

You are assuming "free hand" is here some sort of keyword that prevent your hand the hand that hold the focus to qualify, but I don't think that's what the text mean, from a pure English point of view.

[MaxWilson]

The rule says that a "spellcaster must have a hand free [...] to hold a spellcasting focus, but it can be the same hand that he or she uses to perform somatic components"

You are assuming "free hand" is here some sort of keyword that prevent your hand the hand that hold the focus to qualify, but I don't think that's what the text mean, from a pure English point of view.

No, I'm not assuming that at all. You're ignoring the rules for S components, which require a free hand. Nothing about the rule you quoted above removes that requirement, it only prevents imposing an additional requirement.

Consider the plain English of a hypothetical rule:

In order to get a driver's license, you must bring proof of identity and photo identification. Proof of identity may be a birth certificate or passport or a parent's driver's license. Photo identification must be a document with have your name and picture on it, but it may be the same document as your proof of address. If you are invisible, you do not need photo identification.

Would an invisible man be correct in thinking he can get a driver's license without proof of identity? No. The plain English says one document CAN fulfill both requirements, but fulfilling one requirement through an exception does not fulfill both.

[N7Paladin]

As a mostly lurker, I almost never get to jump into these kinds of discussions, because by the time I catch the thread, it's pretty much dead or the matter has been settled. Being an editor for academic and fictional works, this is kind of exciting.

So, re: the wording of Animate Dead...
The text is clear and, like MaxWilson said, unambiguous. The absence of a comma *anywhere* in that sentence, automatically makes "humanoid" a necessary qualifier for the bones/corpse.

We can argue how great or poor the grammar in the questioned sentence is, but its interpretation isn't open.

[MoiMagnus]

No, I'm not assuming that at all. You're ignoring the rules for S components, which require a free hand. Nothing about the rule you quoted above removes that requirement, it only prevents imposing an additional requirement.

Oh, ok, I see. I'm reading this paragraph as replacing the restriction from S, rather than just "not adding anything more" as you do, but that's quite arguable. You're most likely right.

[Xetheral]

No, I'm not assuming that at all. You're ignoring the rules for S components, which require a free hand. Nothing about the rule you quoted above removes that requirement, it only prevents imposing an additional requirement.

S component spells require a free hand to perform the somatic component. SM component spells (which are a subset of S component spells) can explicitly use the same hand to hold the focus and perform the somatic component. I see three ways this can be interpreted:

"Free" in this case means "available", and the hand holding the focus is available to perform the somatic component of SM spells. (This is my interpretation.) "Free" in this case means "empty", and the hand that will hold the focus must therefore be empty at the time the somatic component is performed. (I think this is your interpretation.) "Free" in this case means "empty", but the specific rule for SM spells creates an exception to the general rule for S spells so that the hand performing the somatic component of SM spells can be holding the focus rather than being empty. (I think this is MoiMagnus's interpretation.)
I don't see any way to unambiguously resolve which of these three interpretations is correct from the text alone. In context, I think 1 is the best reading, although 3 is identical in practice. 2 I think is a less natural way of reading the rule. As I mentioned before, I think for 3 to be the best reading there would have had to be extra text making it explicit.

Going beyond the text, we know that either 1 or 3 was intended, thanks to Crawford's tweets.

[MaxWilson]

S component spells require a free hand to perform the somatic component. SM component spells (which are a subset of S component spells) can explicitly use the same hand to hold the focus and perform the somatic component. I see three ways this can be interpreted:

"Free" in this case means "available", and the hand holding the focus is available to perform the somatic component of SM spells. (This is my interpretation.) "Free" in this case means "empty", and the hand that will hold the focus must therefore be empty at the time the somatic component is performed. (I think this is your interpretation.) "Free" in this case means "empty", but the specific rule for SM spells creates an exception to the general rule for S spells so that the hand performing the somatic component of SM spells can be holding the focus rather than being empty. (I think this is MoiMagnus's interpretation.)
I don't see any way to unambiguously resolve which of these three interpretations is correct from the text alone. In context, I think 1 is the best reading, although 3 is identical in practice. 2 I think is a less natural way of reading the rule. As I mentioned before, I think for 3 to be the best reading there would have had to be extra text making it explicit.

Going beyond the text, we know that either 1 or 3 was intended, thanks to Crawford's tweets.

A key point: the RAW does not and never did say "the hand holding the focus is available to perform the somatic component of SM spells". It says the hand performing Somatic components is still available to handle Material components. It is not a relaxation of the Somatic requirements, it's avoiding adding an additional requirement on top of that.

With this in mind I'd go for (1a) "available", as in empty or doing nothing except holding a component pouch or focus item--as distinct from wielding a weapon, tool, or shield which might or might not be a focus item. A real-life magician can wave a magic wand while palming a coin, so I'm okay letting a hand gesture while merely holding a lightweight item, but 5E's rules make it clear that e.g. wielding a shield is something else entirely. (E.g. you cannot load a crossbow with a hand that is wielding a shield, so you definitely can't gesture freely.) Technically by strict RAW the hand has to be entirely empty but I'll treat that similarly to the technicality that nothing ever says you have to actually have to touch the wand at all, you just need to have a hand available to touch it--instead of making you jump through pointless hoops for the same result I'll just say you do the thing that they obviously meant for you to be doing, gesturing with your wand.

I think the difference between us is that you adopt interpretation (1b), "available" = "not wielding a non-focus item". That is, I think you read these words:


Components
A spell’s components are the physical requirements you must meet in order to cast it. Each spell’s description indicates whether it requires verbal (V), somatic (S), or material (M) components. If you can’t provide one or more of a spell’s components, you are unable to cast the spell.

Verbal (V)
Most spells require the chanting of mystic words. The words themselves aren’t the source of the spell’s power; rather, the particular combination of sounds, with specific pitch and resonance, sets the threads of magic in motion. Thus, a character who is gagged or in an area of silence, such as one created by the silence spell, can’t cast a spell with a verbal component.

Somatic (S)
Spellcasting gestures might include a forceful gesticulation or an intricate set of gestures. If a spell requires a somatic component, the caster must have free use of at least one hand to perform these gestures.

Material (M)
Casting some spells requires particular objects, specified in parentheses in the component entry. A character can use a component pouch or a spellcasting focus (found in “Equipment”) in place of the components specified for a spell. But if a cost is indicated for a component, a character must have that specific component before he or she can cast the spell.

If a spell states that a material component is consumed by the spell, the caster must provide this component for each casting of the spell.

A spellcaster must have a hand free to access a spell’s material components—or to hold a spellcasting focus—but it can be the same hand that he or she uses to perform somatic components.

“[Artificer] After you gain the Infuse Item feature at 2nd level, you can also use any item bearing one of your infusions as a spellcasting focus.”

and

"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."

and conclude that a holy symbol worn visibly around the neck or born on a shield makes the requirement that "the caster must have free use of at least one hand to perform these gestures" go away somehow, as if the caster is waggling his neck or his shield instead of making gestures with his hands. (Maybe you wouldn't allow the neck thing, but you do seem to allow the shield thing.)

Not only does this ruling seemingly contradict RAW, but it also leads to strange places where spells with VS components are actually harder to cast than spells with VSM components, because you're treating M as a negative component which relaxes restrictions on S. In your defense I'd say that Sage Advice did it first, but why they chose to adopt this convoluted perspective I'll never understand (not for the first time--I'll never understand why they chose to adopt the lawyerly perspective about getting magical bonuses from non-wielded shields either).

[Hael]

Crawford has been busy tweeting and is quite effectively making the recent Errata completely incoherent. Sigh.

At this point I am thoroughly confused about what the rules are supposed to be.

[Witty Username]

I don’t see why you can’t use it with war caster OA anymore. Even with a range of self (5ft radius) It’s still a cantrip that targets a single creature other than the caster, which is all the war caster OA requires.

Self range spells always target the caster, even if they target a single other creature they are invalid for that reason. Stupid? Yes, but that is the rules in sage advice land.

[x3n0n]

Crawford has been busy tweeting and is quite effectively making the recent Errata completely incoherent. Sigh.

At this point I am thoroughly confused about what the rules are supposed to be.

For those not following at home, this is what he's said so far on Twitter:

Neither GFB nor BB considers you to be a target, and ...
Since the damage rider on GFB is optional now, it can have a single target, so ...
Both are eligible for War Caster opportunity attacks.
(He sounded very confident about this, to the point that I would be surprised if it got reversed.)

The BB/GFB material component issue is kind of a muddle, and I'm not confident that it will stick.
I think he explicitly OKed pact weapons.
I can't tell what he means about Shadow Blade, except a qualified "if I were your DM, I would OK it."

[Xetheral]

A key point: the RAW does not and never did say "the hand holding the focus is available to perform the somatic component of SM spells". It says the hand performing Somatic components is still available to handle Material components. It is not a relaxation of the Somatic requirements, it's avoiding adding an additional requirement on top of that.

You're reading directionality into the rule that I don't see. From my standpoint, the rule says that "the hand holding the focus" and the "hand performing the somatic components" can be the same hand. By my reading it's one hand doing two things simultaneously, not a "hand performing somatic components that is allowed to also hold a focus" (as you're claiming) or "a hand holding a focus that is allowed to also perform somatic components" (that you appear to believe I'm claiming). Based on the phrasing of the rule I can sort of see how you're making the distinction, but I don't understand why you're reading it that way--to me it seems overly complicated and less natural.


With this in mind I'd go for (1a) "available", as in empty or doing nothing except holding a component pouch or focus item--as distinct from wielding a weapon, tool, or shield which might or might not be a focus item. A real-life magician can wave a magic wand while palming a coin, so I'm okay letting a hand gesture while merely holding a lightweight item, but 5E's rules make it clear that e.g. wielding a shield is something else entirely. (E.g. you cannot load a crossbow with a hand that is wielding a shield, so you definitely can't gesture freely.) Technically by strict RAW the hand has to be entirely empty but I'll treat that similarly to the technicality that nothing ever says you have to actually have to touch the wand at all, you just need to have a hand available to touch it--instead of making you jump through pointless hoops for the same result I'll just say you do the thing that they obviously meant for you to be doing, gesturing with your wand.

I think the difference between us is that you adopt interpretation (1b), "available" = "not wielding a non-focus item". That is, I think you read these words:


Components
A spell’s components are the physical requirements you must meet in order to cast it. Each spell’s description indicates whether it requires verbal (V), somatic (S), or material (M) components. If you can’t provide one or more of a spell’s components, you are unable to cast the spell.

Verbal (V)
Most spells require the chanting of mystic words. The words themselves aren’t the source of the spell’s power; rather, the particular combination of sounds, with specific pitch and resonance, sets the threads of magic in motion. Thus, a character who is gagged or in an area of silence, such as one created by the silence spell, can’t cast a spell with a verbal component.

Somatic (S)
Spellcasting gestures might include a forceful gesticulation or an intricate set of gestures. If a spell requires a somatic component, the caster must have free use of at least one hand to perform these gestures.

Material (M)
Casting some spells requires particular objects, specified in parentheses in the component entry. A character can use a component pouch or a spellcasting focus (found in “Equipment”) in place of the components specified for a spell. But if a cost is indicated for a component, a character must have that specific component before he or she can cast the spell.

If a spell states that a material component is consumed by the spell, the caster must provide this component for each casting of the spell.

A spellcaster must have a hand free to access a spell’s material components—or to hold a spellcasting focus—but it can be the same hand that he or she uses to perform somatic components.

“[Artificer] After you gain the Infuse Item feature at 2nd level, you can also use any item bearing one of your infusions as a spellcasting focus.”

and

"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."

and conclude that a holy symbol worn visibly around the neck or born on a shield makes the requirement that "the caster must have free use of at least one hand to perform these gestures" go away somehow, as if the caster is waggling his neck or his shield instead of making gestures with his hands. (Maybe you wouldn't allow the neck thing, but you do seem to allow the shield thing.)

Correct. But it's not that I think the requirement goes away, it's that I see the requirement for a free ("available") hand as met by the hand holding the focus (whatever that focus might be), based on the rule that the same hand can be used to both hold a focus and perform somatic components. So yes, the character is performing the somatic components by moving the focus. (I would indeed still require a hand to hold a focus that was worn around the neck.) That seems perfectly reasonable to me both as a reading of the rules and as expressed in the fiction. In the case of a shield, I personally interpret the "intricate gestures" as tracing glyphs in the air with the shield, but there are many possible visualizations.


Not only does this ruling seemingly contradict RAW, but it also leads to strange places where spells with VS components are actually harder to cast than spells with VSM components, because you're treating M as a negative component which relaxes restrictions on S. In your defense I'd say that Sage Advice did it first, but why they chose to adopt this convoluted perspective I'll never understand (not for the first time--I'll never understand why they chose to adopt the lawyerly perspective about getting magical bonuses from non-wielded shields either).

Under my reading VSM components are only "easier" to cast if you have an ability that makes you want to hold your focus for some purpose other than casting spells. Then the VSM spell happens to be more convenient than the VS spell because you don't need an additional hand beyond the one you're already using to hold that focus. If the focus is only useful for spellcasting, then VS and VSM spells are identically inconvenient--they both require one hand to hold the focus and perform the somatic components for VSM spells, or to perform the somatic components for VS spells. I agree that it's a silly outcome that for characters with a multipurpose focus VS spells are more inconvenient than VSM spells, but I think it's merely one of many (potentially unintended) quirks in the rules, so I don't think it weighs against my reading. By contrast, ruling that the hand used to hold the focus must be empty at the time the somatic component is performed requires holding the focus and performing the somatic component sequentially. Nothing actually says that the components are performed simultaneously, but that's always been my interpretation of D&D spellcasting, so I'm probably less inclined to adopt a reading that leads to sequential components.

[Witty Username]

No, I'm not assuming that at all. You're ignoring the rules for S components, which require a free hand. Nothing about the rule you quoted above removes that requirement, it only prevents imposing an additional requirement.

Consider the plain English of a hypothetical rule:

In order to get a driver's license, you must bring proof of identity and photo identification. Proof of identity may be a birth certificate or passport or a parent's driver's license. Photo identification must be a document with have your name and picture on it, but it may be the same document as your proof of address. If you are invisible, you do not need photo identification.

Would an invisible man be correct in thinking he can get a driver's license without proof of identity? No. The plain English says one document CAN fulfill both requirements, but fulfilling one requirement through an exception does not fulfill both.

To Clarify, say my caster has a free hand for somatic components and a shield they can use as a spell casting focus. By your claim I cannot cast spells unless my hand is empty but I can use that hand to draw my shield, use it as my spell casting focus and then stow my shield. Meanwhile, if I have my shield out, I cannot cast the same spell without stowing my shield, which leads to me stowing my shield, drawing my shield as part of the spell casting and then stowing it again. Is this correct?

[Hytheter]

Yes, we're all aware of that Sage Advice entry. The controversy is whether the PHB rules match the Sage Advice ruling, specifically the cleric example. (The wizard orb example is clearly fine.)

Huh? Either you can use a hand holding a component/focus to perform somatic components or you can't. Insisting that a crystal ball is fine but a holy symbol on a shield isn't is drawing an arbitrary line unsupported by the rules. You don't have a free hand if you're holding a crystal ball - per your logic, that means no somatic components.

[CMCC]

Self range spells always target the caster, even if they target a single other creature they are invalid for that reason. Stupid? Yes, but that is the rules in sage advice land.

Range of self () indicates a point of origin NOT a target.

[Witty Username]

Range of self () indicates a point of origin NOT a target.

Oh, I goofed. sorry about that. I was going off the discussion not the pdf.
5ft radius? on self? that is a really weird way to word that, does that only effect spell sniper?

Sidenote: worth at least 1 sp? Were too many people trying to cast booming blade with an arcane focus? Or was shadow blade actually abusive?

[Xetheral]

Oh, I goofed. sorry about that. I was going off the discussion not the pdf.
5ft radius? on self? that is a really weird way to word that, does that only effect spell sniper?

They do the "Self (5 ft radius)" thing because all targets of a spell have to be within the range of the spell.

[Witty Username]

They do the "Self (5 ft radius)" thing because all targets of a spell have to be within the range of the spell.

so green flame blade can only hit targets within 5ft of the caster? I suppose that makes sense, but why on booming blade? it only targets one creature, does the secondary damage only apply if you stay within 5ft or something?

[MaxWilson]

To Clarify, say my caster has a free hand for somatic components and a shield they can use as a spell casting focus. By your claim I cannot cast spells unless my hand is empty but I can use that hand to draw my shield, use it as my spell casting focus and then stow my shield. Meanwhile, if I have my shield out, I cannot cast the same spell without stowing my shield, which leads to me stowing my shield, drawing my shield as part of the spell casting and then stowing it again. Is this correct?

Technically RAW doesn't require you to do anything with your focus at all, merely to have it available. So no, technically you stow your shield (action to doff and then item interaction to stow) and then cast your spell, and that's it.

But that's dumb, obviously in "reality" you're diegetically using the focus in casting, so as I said upthread in practice I'd overrule that and let it work without the juggling as long as the shield has been doffed--but note that merely holding your shield (as a focus) is not the same as donning/doffing it--if you want the AC bonus you need to spend an action donning it, which makes that hand no longer free to perform S components unless you have Warcaster.

You can have a shield bonus or a free hand for S components/grappling/climbing/loading ammunition/etc., but not both from the same hand (unless you have Warcaster).

[Witty Username]

Then what is the point of having a shield that is also a focus, in comparison to any other focus?

[JackPhoenix]

Then what is the point of having a shield that is also a focus, in comparison to any other focus?

One less line on your character sheet, apparently.

[Aimeryan]

MaxWilson is correct in the techical order of the requirements for the components, depending on your definition of free hand. On the other hand (heh), in plain English such order of operation tends to be undefined and is presumed to be whatever works for the statement being made - and since we know a plain English reading is the default for RAW I would see this to superseed the technical reading.

To put MaxWilson's assertment into perhaps an easier format, the text basically boils down to this:



Somatic requires free hand.
Material requires free hand or Somatic hand.

If the hand is not free, then Somatic components cannot be performed. Thus, to get both Somatic and Material components the order must be free hand --> Somatic hand --> Somatic & Material hand.

Once more though, plain English would just say you can use one for the other, and escrew even bothering with order. As one of my major criticisms of 5e is the reliance on ambiguous plain English instead of precisely constructed rules, I am hardly going to advocate that this is anything but plain English once more causing problems.

[PhoenixPhyre]

All of this VSM stuff is way more than I care to bother with in game. I'm not going to police it, except in a few specific cases:

If it has components and you don't use Subtle Spell, anyone who could reasonably notice the cast will notice it.
You can't cast S or M spells if your hands are occupied and you can't shift things around[1].
If you don't have warcaster and aren't a cleric or paladin (or artificer now), you can't have a shield in one hand and a weapon in the other and cast anything with S or M components. This is a specialization of the one above.


It's part of my basic "I'm not going to worry about action economy for juggling items unless you're flagrantly abusing it" policy. I simply don't have the time or mental energy while DM'ing to care. And that goes doubly now that I'm playing remotely. And I want to err on the side of player freedom.

And what is flagrant abuse? I'll know it when I see it (to quote a famous US Supreme Court opinion).

[1] ie your hands are chained/tied, or you're climbing something that requires both hands (doesn't come up much) or you are unwilling/unable to drop at least one of the things in your hands.

[MaxWilson]

Then what is the point of having a shield that is also a focus, in comparison to any other focus?

Not being disarmed, for one thing. Also, getting to cast VM spells without a free hand.



Once more though, plain English would just say you can use one for the other, and escrew even bothering with order. As one of my major criticisms of 5e is the reliance on ambiguous plain English instead of precisely constructed rules, I am hardly going to advocate that this is anything but plain English once more causing problems.

That's not how English works, plain or otherwise.

Consider the plain English of a hypothetical rule:

In order to get a driver's license, you must bring proof of identity and photo identification. Proof of identity may be a birth certificate or passport or a parent's driver's license. Photo identification must be a document with have your name and picture on it, but it may be the same document as your proof of address. If you are invisible, you do not need photo identification.

Would an invisible man be correct in thinking he can get a driver's license without proof of identity? No. The plain English says one document CAN fulfill both requirements, but fulfilling one requirement through an exception does not fulfill both.

Even if we flip the order around:

Material requires free hand or Somatic hand.
Somatic requires free hand.

Plain English still says you need a free hand for S, full stop. Nothing in rules for M relaxes that requirement.

[Witty Username]

Not being disarmed, for one thing. Also, getting to cast VM spells without a free hand.



That's not how English works, plain or otherwise.

Consider the plain English of a hypothetical rule:

In order to get a driver's license, you must bring proof of identity and photo identification. Proof of identity may be a birth certificate or passport or a parent's driver's license. Photo identification must be a document with have your name and picture on it, but it may be the same document as your proof of address. If you are invisible, you do not need photo identification.

Would an invisible man be correct in thinking he can get a driver's license without proof of identity? No. The plain English says one document CAN fulfill both requirements, but fulfilling one requirement through an exception does not fulfill both.

Even if we flip the order around:

Material requires free hand or Somatic hand.
Somatic requires free hand.

Plain English still says you need a free hand for S, full stop. Nothing in rules for M relaxes that requirement.

If a somatic component requires a free hand. Then it doesn't matter if a material component can use a somatic hand, the act of accessing the material component would invalidate it as a free hand rendering it unable to use somatic components. Meaning you would need one free hand for somatic, and one free hand for material because it would interfere with the somatic component otherwise.

[MaxWilson]

If a somatic component requires a free hand. Then it doesn't matter if a material component can use a somatic hand, the act of accessing the material component would invalidate it as a free hand rendering it unable to use somatic components. Meaning you would need one free hand for somatic, and one free hand for material because it would interfere with the somatic component otherwise.

If you're trying to say that RAW is stupid, I agree but it's not stupid in this particular way, since RAW only requires you to have a free hand with which to handle M, it doesn't require you to actually pick up the focus/components. So the hand remains free.

As mentioned repeatedly upthread, as DM I wouldn't make you spend your object interaction to put down your focus before casting, I'd just let you refluff it aa casting with your wand/orb/whatnot still in hand, as long as an object interaction _would_ have been enough. But shields require an action to doff, not just an object interaction, so I won't let you refluff that action requirement out of existence, even though Sage Advice's authors would.

[MrCharlie]

I do wish they had clarified if you could use the same known infusion multiple times-the text remains ambiguous due to how they defined their terminology.

The booming blade change seems to nerf booming blade sorcerers into oblivion-no booming shadow blade, no twinned booming blade, no more fun for you. It wasn't a particularly good build, but it was interesting and helped give the class more flavor, so I view it as a straight negative to kill it.

Of course, I'd like to see them revisit twinned spell and fix it so it worked in a way that wasn't rules finnicky and allowed actual fun without being insanely powerful in general, so maybe the entire mechanic needs a rework.

Bladesinger nerf/buff is welcome, in my eyes. Less "I can bladesong whenever" and more "My class features actually let me Gish", which should be a change added to EK as well.

[Witty Username]

If you're trying to say that RAW is stupid, I agree but it's not stupid in this particular way, since RAW only requires you to have a free hand with which to handle M, it doesn't require you to actually pick up the focus/components. So the hand remains free.

As mentioned repeatedly upthread, as DM I wouldn't make you spend your object interaction to put down your focus before casting, I'd just let you refluff it aa casting with your wand/orb/whatnot still in hand, as long as an object interaction _would_ have been enough. But shields require an action to doff, not just an object interaction, so I won't let you refluff that action requirement out of existence, even though Sage Advice's authors would.
I think we may read "to hold a spellcasting focus" differently.
At least to me it reads as a hand performing somatic components can also hold a spellcasting focus ergo a hand holding a spellcasting focus must me able to perform somatic components or the first statement would be false.

[MaxWilson]

I think we may read "to hold a spellcasting focus" differently.
At least to me it reads as a hand performing somatic components can also hold a spellcasting focus ergo a hand holding a spellcasting focus must me able to perform somatic components or the first statement would be false.

This might be a "hold vs. wield" disagreement, like the one over whether unequipped magic shields should (RAI) grant you an AC boost.

[Witty Username]

This might be a "hold vs. wield" disagreement, like the one over whether unequipped magic shields should (RAI) grant you an AC boost.

That's fair, I would still have some arguments like why their are several ribbon abilities to allow weapons as foci but there is no mechanical benefit to a foci being a weapon, but I will agree to ambiguity.

[Milmoor]

What they are trying to do is take the level 6 bladesinger attack action and:

(1) Swing with Shadow Blade

(2) Cast Booming Blade with an offhand weapon

(3) Take a bonus action attack with Shadow Blade

And they justify #3 because they "attacked" with their shortsword hand.

Would you mind pointing me to that discussion? I'm an interested party ;).

[edit]
Found at least part of the discussion on Reddit by doing a search on "bladesinger extra attack booming blade TWF" via Google.

[Gignere]

Would you mind pointing me to that discussion? I'm an interested party ;).

[edit]
Found at least part of the discussion on Reddit by doing a search on "bladesinger extra attack booming blade TWF" via Google.

RAW it should work, for TWF all you need to satisfy are three conditions:

1. You took the attack action, which you do as BS extra attack.
2. Made a weapon attack in the opposite hand as part of the attack action. Which the new BS Extra attack convert to cantrip does satisfy if you use a melee cantrip. Melee cantrip even specifically calls out you make a melee attack as part of the cantrip.
3. The two weapons are light unless you have dual wielder feat.

Now you can bonus action attack with a weapon in your opposite hand.

[Milmoor]

RAW it should work, for TWF all you need to satisfy are three conditions:

1. You took the attack action, which you do as BS extra attack.
2. Made a weapon attack in the opposite hand as part of the attack action. Which the new BS Extra attack convert to cantrip does satisfy if you use a melee cantrip. Melee cantrip even specifically calls out you make a melee attack as part of the cantrip.
3. The two weapons are light unless you have dual wielder feat.

Now you can bonus action attack with a weapon in your opposite hand.

For the multi classers: top it off with a Smite and/or a Sneak Attack and you will be rolling lots of dice. What more could one add to this?

[Aimeryan]

That's not how English works, plain or otherwise.

Consider the plain English of a hypothetical rule:

In order to get a driver's license, you must bring proof of identity and photo identification. Proof of identity may be a birth certificate or passport or a parent's driver's license. Photo identification must be a document with have your name and picture on it, but it may be the same document as your proof of address. If you are invisible, you do not need photo identification.

Would an invisible man be correct in thinking he can get a driver's license without proof of identity? No. The plain English says one document CAN fulfill both requirements, but fulfilling one requirement through an exception does not fulfill both.

Even if we flip the order around:

Material requires free hand or Somatic hand.
Somatic requires free hand.

Plain English still says you need a free hand for S, full stop. Nothing in rules for M relaxes that requirement.

One issue with your hypothetical is there is an explicit (the last sentence) that rules out using plain English as the arbiter.

To clear up some confusion, the plain English being implied with the components here would be thus:



Somatic requires free hand or Material hand.
Material requires free hand or Somatic hand.

Bolded for the added implication.

This is because in plain English when issues arise from order or other such awkwards it is implied to be whatever is necessary unless explicitly spelled out otherwise - essentially, it becomes opt in for such restrictions rather than opt out. The reason for this is that if plain English required opt out it would become much more time consuming and awkward to use as a communication medium - you need to list all the restrictions that are not in play, rather than list just the ones that are. A plain English user would respond to such attempts to do it in a way that would cause issues with something akin to 'duh, of course the other way around also applies as otherwise it wouldn't work! I shouldn't need to spell that out!'

Again, just to be clear, I am very much opposed to using plain English for rule setting - lessening the need for interpretation should be the goal, not increasing it.

[MaxWilson]

Bolded for the added implication.

No such implication exists.

[Xetheral]

No such implication exists.

You may not think reading it with such an implication is the best reading, but multiple posters have said they read it that way. I think that's enough to prove that the rule can indeed be read that way, even though you don't.

From a textual analysis standpoint, I still don't understand why you interpret the rule:


"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."

as only permitting performing material components with a "somatic hand" (to use Aimeryan's phrasing) rather that just saying that one can hold a focus and perform somatic components with the same hand. The latter reading seems to me to be a much more straightforward and plausible reading of the text.

[MaxWilson]

You may not think reading it with such an implication is the best reading, but multiple posters have said they read it that way. I think that's enough to prove that the rule can indeed be read that way, even though you don't.

From a textual analysis standpoint, I still don't understand why you interpret the rule:


"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."

as only permitting performing material components with a "somatic hand" (to use Aimeryan's phrasing) rather that just saying that one can hold a focus and perform somatic components with the same hand. The latter reading seems to me to be a much more straightforward and plausible reading of the text.

What about that reading makes it straightforward or plausible? I don't understand where you're coming from here. I know you're not deliberately twisting words, but I honestly can't see understand how we're reading the same English so differently.

How can you read "You must have photo identification. You must have proof of residency but it can be the same as your photo identification" to mean that a proof of residency (e.g. utility bill) satisfies the need for photo identification?

There are three relevant rules, if you count clerics/paladins and artificers separately:

1.) 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.

2.) 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.

3a.) 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.

3b.) You must have a spellcasting focus – specifically thieves’ tools or some kind of artisan’s tool – in hand when you cast any spell with this Spellcasting feature. You must be proficient with the tool to use it in this way... After you gain the Infuse Item feature at 2nd level, you can also use any item bearing one of your infusions as a spellcasting focus.

Why can you cast VM spells while wielding a sword and shield when your shield is a spell focus? Because you've already got your shield "in hand" as a precondition to wielding it, satisyfing the M requirement via rule #3b*, and there are no somatic components so you don't need to gesture. Why can you not cast a VSM spell? Because you don't have a free hand with which to gesture. How is this implausible or not a straightforward reading of the three relevant rules (only one of which is the one you quoted)?

* Note that wearing your holy symbol prominently around your neck apparently works too, per rule #3a, if you're a cleric or paladin. This more-specific rule is an exception to rule #2.

[Tanarii]

If you're trying to say that RAW is stupid, I agree but it's not stupid in this particular way, since RAW only requires you to have a free hand with which to handle M, it doesn't require you to actually pick up the focus/components. So the hand remains free.

As mentioned repeatedly upthread, as DM I wouldn't make you spend your object interaction to put down your focus before casting, I'd just let you refluff it aa casting with your wand/orb/whatnot still in hand, as long as an object interaction _would_ have been enough. But shields require an action to doff, not just an object interaction, so I won't let you refluff that action requirement out of existence, even though Sage Advice's authors would.I don't think it's particularly stupid, and do require a hand be free in order to use both a somatic and a material (or substitute component pouch or substitute focus), per the rule. You use it to access and hold, but you also need it free for the somatic. It doesn't say anything about waving around the focus when you hold it during the casting. There's no particular reason to assume you don't use the free hand to do the somatic and then use the same free hand to access and hold the focus during the casting. Or vice versa. Except for players wanting to be able to cast in some specific otherwise problematic builds.

[Dork_Forge]

I don't think it's particularly stupid, and do require a hand be free in order to use both a somatic and a material (or substitute component pouch or substitute focus), per the rule. You use it to access and hold, but you also need it free for the somatic. It doesn't say anything about waving around the focus when you hold it during the casting. There's no particular reason to assume you don't use the free hand to do the somatic and then use the same free hand to access and hold the focus during the casting. Or vice versa. Except for players wanting to be able to cast in some specific otherwise problematic builds.

There's no real mechanical benefit to having a weapon as a focus if that is indeed the case, as there's at least three class features and one magic item that make weapons foci that seems like a lot of wasted space if it isn't allowing you to do both S and M with it in hand.

[MaxWilson]

There's no real mechanical benefit to having a weapon as a focus if that is indeed the case, as there's at least three class features and one magic item that make weapons foci that seems like a lot of wasted space if it isn't allowing you to do both S and M with it in hand.

You can cast VM spells like Suggestion and Booming Blade. Just how much advantage do you expect to get out of a Common magic item anyway?

[Dork_Forge]

You can cast VM spells like Suggestion and Booming Blade. Just how much advantage do you expect to get out of a Common magic item anyway?

I also mentioned multiple class abilties, though if you want to talk about how useful common items should be, fairly (the Clockwork Amulet is a very nice item).

There is no benefit to Booming Blade, its component is a weapon, your reading of the rules reduces reduces the usefulness of several abilties to near pointlessness.

Case in point you can just drop your weapon, access your material/foci and cast then use your object interaction to pick your weapon back up. The only thing ruling it the other way does is reduce a lot of awkward rules compliance to cast your spells.

[MaxWilson]

Case in point you can just drop your weapon, access your material/foci and cast then use your object interaction to pick your weapon back up. The only thing ruling it the other way does is reduce a lot of awkward rules compliance to cast your spells.

That sometimes works, but is problematic if you're airborne or mounted, if your spell will cause movement (esp. Storm Sorcs), if you're Polymorphing yourself (weapon doesn't transform, vulnerable to theft or destruction), or if an enemy notices and exploits the pattern.

Would I temporarily drop a regular rapier? Sure! Would I temporarily drop Shieldbreaker or a Holy Avenger? Not likely. But there are plenty of good spells without S components and I'd cast one of them, or sheath Shieldbreaker.

I wonder what kind of awkwardness you're imagining.

[Xetheral]

What about that reading makes it straightforward or plausible? I don't understand where you're coming from here. I know you're not deliberately twisting words, but I honestly can't see understand how we're reading the same English so differently.

How can you read "You must have photo identification. You must have proof of residency but it can be the same as your photo identification" to mean that a proof of residency (e.g. utility bill) satisfies the need for photo identification?

I wouldn't read the rules about photo ID and proof of residency as meaning any proof of residency satisfies the requirement for photo identification. But I don't see that example as capturing the same relationship as the somatic/material rules, so it makes sense to me that I get a different result. In particular, the requirement to provide photo ID is a rule regarding the type of documentation that must be provided. The rule requiring proof of residency is a rule regarding the type of information that must be documented. The final clause simply clarifies that if the required type of documentation (the photo ID) also documents the required information (proof of residency), no additional documentation beyond the required photo ID is necessary.

By contrast, generally speaking, a hand is a hand. If one can use the same hand used to do X to also do Y, then it necessarily follows that one can use the same hand used to do Y to also do X. With that in mind, I'll try to walk you through my reading of the relevant rule. Here's the original text:


"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."

To highlight the structure of the rule, I'm going to take out some the language that doesn't affect that structure:


"A spellcaster must have a hand free to [A]—or to [B]—but it can be the same hand that he or she uses to [C]."

Based on this structure, a spellcaster that wants to take advantage of the ability to use the same hand to meet both S and M requirements has two options: (1) they can use the same hand used to [C] to also [A], or (2) they can use the same hand used to [C] to also [B]. At least one of those two must be possible (or else the rule about using the same hand would have no function), but nothing in the structure of the rule privileges [A] over [B] (or vice versa), so I think the simplest and most natural reading is that both options are possible.

From my standpoint, you're imposing a separate restriction that a hand holding a focus is insufficiently free to perform somatic components, and then using that restriction to interpret the rule as only permitting using the same hand used to [C] to also [A], and forbidding using the same hand used to [C] to also [B]. I don't think such a restriction necessarily follows from the other rules of the game, and if such a restriction existed, I would expect it to be expressed primarily right here in this rule. Since it isn't, I conclude that both of the possible options created by the structure of the rule are valid, and thus that a spellcaster can use the same free hand used to perform somatic components to also hold a spellcasting focus when casting SM spells.

Does that help explain why I read the rule the way I do?

(Edit: it looks like you significantly expanded your post after I started my reply. If you'd like me to separately address the additional material you added, please let me know.)

[MaxWilson]

Does that help explain why I read the rule the way I do?

(Edit: it looks like you significantly expanded your post after I started my reply. If you'd like me to separately address the additional material you added, please let me know.)

Please do, that would be helpful. In particular let's connect the dots to the cleric/paladin and Artificer rules and talk about why you read them as applying to M, both from a rules perspective and a diegetic/fictional perspective.

Again, this isn't primarily about whether B and C are forbidden, it is more about whether equipped shield focii are authorized under rule #2 (M components, which you've quoted repeatedly) or rule #3a/b (special M exception for artificers), and whether that permission propagates backwards through rule #2 (M components) to rule #1 (S components).

[Dork_Forge]

That sometimes works, but is problematic if you're airborne or mounted, if your spell will cause movement (esp. Storm Sorcs), if you're Polymorphing yourself (weapon doesn't transform, vulnerable to theft or destruction), or if an enemy notices and exploits the pattern.

Would I temporarily drop a regular rapier? Sure! Would I temporarily drop Shieldbreaker or a Holy Avenger? Not likely. But there are plenty of good spells without S components and I'd cast one of them, or sheath Shieldbreaker.

I wonder what kind of awkwardness you're imagining.

Not only are all of these 'problems' incredibly niche, they aren't even totally applicable:

-If you are airborne or mounted (a minority situation in my entire D&D experience and exposure) then if you were following these rules you'd either just not drop it or use a sling/lanyard like military forces in real life did.

-Storm Sorcerers get no inherent ability to do this anyway, but I'm not seeing anywhere that you have to move before you can pick it up. It requires a bonus action to trigger and the movement can even be before you cast if you're getting into position.

-Polymorph only effects Bards and Trickery Clerics- clerics can use shields and if you're polymorphing you don't need to keep your weapon in hand anyway. Sheath it, cast the spell, transform.

-Sure an enemy could notice, are you really suggesting that an enemy would spend an entire turn standing within 5ft of at least one character to do nothing but ready an action? Even if they grab it, they can't run away with it and it's probably minion level creatures doing this, so they'd die in short order (if we're shifting into a tactical mentality, there is no reason anyone wouldn't carry at least a single back up dagger if not more expansive options).

Please provide any spells that have M but not S that apply to classes that get a feature like this that you deem are good enough to justify the existance of the feature.

Separately, do you actually think the intent of those abilities is to be so niche and incredibly narrow in scope?

[Witty Username]

As an aside how many spells are there that require a replaceable material component and no somatic component? I am looking at the cleric and paladin list and count 2 cleric cantrips.

edit:using d&d beyond I count six spells that qualify. Light, Word of Radiance, Tongues, Suggestion, Mass Suggestion, and Feather Fall

[MaxWilson]

As an aside how many spells are there that require a replaceable material component and no somatic component? I am looking at the cleric and paladin list and count 2 cleric cantrips.

edit:using d&d beyond I count six spells that qualify. Light, Word of Radiance, Tongues, Suggestion, Mass Suggestion, and Feather Fall

Also Darkness, Maddening Darkness, Whirlwind, and Negative Energy Flood.

So it's a fairly small list, and the cleric/paladin ability in particular to cast VM without a free hand is mostly just a ribbon (not surprising since it's not even called out as a class feature, it's just mentioned in passing in the Equipment section), but it's still applicable to about as many decent spells as e.g. Elemental Affinity (Acid)'s is. Word of Radiance is cool, Light is sometimes useful, Suggestion is useful to Knowledge clerics. Mostly though it's a fluff thing: you can cast your Speak With Dead spell by gesturing with your hands while holy light gleams on your holy symbol around your neck, without needing to wave your holy symbol around like a wizard with a magic wand. No wonder it's not called out as a class feature.

BTW it's very interesting that Teleportation Circle requires 50 gp worth of rare chalks and inks and 1 minute to cast, but has no Somatic components. Do you have to do anything with the chalks and inks or not?

[ff7hero]

Also Darkness, Maddening Darkness, Whirlwind, and Negative Energy Flood.

So it's a fairly small list, and the cleric/paladin ability in particular to cast VM without a free hand is mostly just a ribbon (not surprising since it's not even called out as a class feature, it's just mentioned in passing in the Equipment section), but it's still applicable to about as many decent spells as e.g. Elemental Affinity (Acid)'s is. Word of Radiance is cool, Light is sometimes useful, Suggestion is useful to Knowledge clerics. Mostly though it's a fluff thing: you can cast your Speak With Dead spell by gesturing with your hands while holy light gleams on your holy symbol around your neck, without needing to wave your holy symbol around like a wizard with a magic wand. No wonder it's not called out as a class feature.

BTW it's very interesting that Teleportation requires 50 gp worth of rare chalks and inks and 1 minute to cast, but has no Somatic components. Do you have to do anything with the chalks and inks or not?

Nah, just toss 'em on the ground and the magic takes care of the rest.

[stoutstien]

The change for the SD/homunculus attack modifiers to be based on the artificer's spell attack is an interesting shift. It's a pretty noticable boost in the damage they can put out with there attacks no longer lagging.

No changes to alchemist is *sad trombone* other than allowing the homunculus to come online sooner.

[Tanarii]

BTW it's very interesting that Teleportation Circle requires 50 gp worth of rare chalks and inks and 1 minute to cast, but has no Somatic components. Do you have to do anything with the chalks and inks or not?
Manipulating the Material component (accessing / holding it) requires a free hand. That's doing something with it.

Somatic components are just done with the free hand, independently of the M component (or replacement). Not having an S but having an M component doesn't mean the free hand doesn't move or do something. It just means it isn't used for non-M arcane gestures.

This is a common mistake people make when discussing Subtle spell, for example.

[MrCharlie]

They do the "Self (5 ft radius)" thing because all targets of a spell have to be within the range of the spell.
Actually, no, not at all. Fireball has a range of 150 feet and then affects all targets within 20 feet of that point. Range only determines where the spell can originate from, and greenflame blade originates from a 5 foot sphere centered around you, but can still bounce outside of that radius.

So if an enemy has a buddy standing 5 feet behind him, you can peg that buddy with greenflame blade.

[MaxWilson]

Manipulating the Material component (accessing / holding it) requires a free hand. That's doing something with it.

Somatic components are just done with the free hand, independently of the M component (or replacement). Not having an S but having an M component doesn't mean the free hand doesn't move or do something. It just means it isn't used for non-M arcane gestures.

This is a common mistake people make when discussing Subtle spell, for example.

[thinks] Yeah, that's plausible. So I guess you're drawing with the chalks, but not making funny gestures while you do so.

[Tanarii]

[thinks] Yeah, that's plausible. So I guess you're drawing with the chalks, but not making funny gestures while you do so.
Ya. When folks go with conclusion that they seem to arrive at after adopting the Sage advice compendium on components, that the S component with an M component (or held focus) is waving the component / focus around, then they often arrive at the opposite view that if there is no S component, there's no special manipulation of the M component or focus.

But even with that view it doesn't necessarily follow. Without it, it definitely doesn't follow.

[Xetheral]

What about that reading makes it straightforward or plausible? I don't understand where you're coming from here. I know you're not deliberately twisting words, but I honestly can't see understand how we're reading the same English so differently.

How can you read "You must have photo identification. You must have proof of residency but it can be the same as your photo identification" to mean that a proof of residency (e.g. utility bill) satisfies the need for photo identification?

There are three relevant rules, if you count clerics/paladins and artificers separately:

1.) 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.

2.) 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.

3a.) 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.

3b.) You must have a spellcasting focus – specifically thieves’ tools or some kind of artisan’s tool – in hand when you cast any spell with this Spellcasting feature. You must be proficient with the tool to use it in this way... After you gain the Infuse Item feature at 2nd level, you can also use any item bearing one of your infusions as a spellcasting focus.

Why can you cast VM spells while wielding a sword and shield when your shield is a spell focus? Because you've already got your shield "in hand" as a precondition to wielding it, satisyfing the M requirement via rule #3b*, and there are no somatic components so you don't need to gesture. Why can you not cast a VSM spell? Because you don't have a free hand with which to gesture. How is this implausible or not a straightforward reading of the three relevant rules (only one of which is the one you quoted)?

* Note that wearing your holy symbol prominently around your neck apparently works too, per rule #3a, if you're a cleric or paladin. This more-specific rule is an exception to rule #2.

I wouldn't read the rules about photo ID and proof of residency as meaning any proof of residency satisfies the requirement for photo identification. But I don't see that example as capturing the same relationship as the somatic/material rules, so it makes sense to me that I get a different result. In particular, the requirement to provide photo ID is a rule regarding the type of documentation that must be provided. The rule requiring proof of residency is a rule regarding the type of information that must be documented. The final clause simply clarifies that if the required type of documentation (the photo ID) also documents the required information (proof of residency), no additional documentation beyond the required photo ID is necessary.

By contrast, generally speaking, a hand is a hand. If one can use the same hand used to do X to also do Y, then it necessarily follows that one can use the same hand used to do Y to also do X. With that in mind, I'll try to walk you through my reading of the relevant rule. Here's the original text:


"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."

To highlight the structure of the rule, I'm going to take out some the language that doesn't affect that structure:


"A spellcaster must have a hand free to [A]—or to [B]—but it can be the same hand that he or she uses to [C]."

Based on this structure, a spellcaster that wants to take advantage of the ability to use the same hand to meet both S and M requirements has two options: (1) they can use the same hand used to [C] to also [A], or (2) they can use the same hand used to [C] to also [B]. At least one of those two must be possible (or else the rule about using the same hand would have no function), but nothing in the structure of the rule privileges [A] over [B] (or vice versa), so I think the simplest and most natural reading is that both options are possible.

From my standpoint, you're imposing a separate restriction that a hand holding a focus is insufficiently free to perform somatic components, and then using that restriction to interpret the rule as only permitting using the same hand used to [C] to also [A], and forbidding using the same hand used to [C] to also [B]. I don't think such a restriction necessarily follows from the other rules of the game, and if such a restriction existed, I would expect it to be expressed primarily right here in this rule. Since it isn't, I conclude that both of the possible options created by the structure of the rule are valid, and thus that a spellcaster can use the same free hand used to perform somatic components to also hold a spellcasting focus when casting SM spells.

Does that help explain why I read the rule the way I do?

(Edit: it looks like you significantly expanded your post after I started my reply. If you'd like me to separately address the additional material you added, please let me know.)

Please do, that would be helpful. In particular let's connect the dots to the cleric/paladin and Artificer rules and talk about why you read them as applying to M, both from a rules perspective and a diegetic/fictional perspective.

Again, this isn't primarily about whether B and C are forbidden, it is more about whether equipped shield focii are authorized under rule #2 (M components, which you've quoted repeatedly) or rule #3a/b (special M exception for artificers), and whether that permission propagates backwards through rule #2 (M components) to rule #1 (S components).

Ok, so as I explained in my last post, I think rule #2 permits using the same hand to both hold a focus and perform somatic components when performing an SM spell. Rules 3a and 3b just change what counts as a focus for particular characters, and I don't see why held vs equipped should make any difference at all, as long as the focus is equipped in a hand. So, for a cleric/paladin (or an artificer with an infused shield), rule #3a/b lets them use a shield as a focus, rule #2 lets them use the same hand that is holding the shield to also perform somatic components, which satisfies #1 in exactly the same way that #1 would be satisfied if the hand holding the shield was instead holding the M component.

From the perspective of the fiction, whether you're holding an M component or a focus (of any type), the S component would involving moving the M component or the focus, using either forceful gesticulations or intricate gestures. Personally I envision it as tracing out arcane sigils in the air with the M or F component, but there are many possible visualizations, and it's also fine to have the visualization change from spell to spell (or focus to focus).

(For reference, my repeated quotes of #2 are merely to make each post as stand-alone as possible to minimize the amount of cross-referencing required to understand each post. I know you're familiar with the language of the rule.)

Are my explanations helping you make sense of my reading of #2 and how that fits together with the other rules?

[CMCC]

Can someone summarize this debate for me in about 4 sentences or less?

[MaxWilson]

Can someone summarize this debate for me in about 4 sentences or less?

Please no, let's just let it die.

[rooneg]

Can someone summarize this debate for me in about 4 sentences or less?

A bunch of people are pointlessly relitigating something that you can find already answered with full citations from the rulebooks on numerous websites because basically nothing of consequence about this has actually changed since the PHB was published.

[DarknessEternal]

Can someone summarize this debate for me in about 4 sentences or less?

RAW says you need a free hand to cast spells with S and/or M components.

Some people think RAW doesn't matter and that you need no free hands to cast any spell.

[Dork_Forge]

RAW says you need a free hand to cast spells with S and/or M components.

Some people think RAW doesn't matter and that you need no free hands to cast any spell.

That's not at all an accurate summary of the permitting side of the argument.

[MoiMagnus]

Can someone summarize this debate for me in about 4 sentences or less?

Everybody's agree it is possible by RAW:
+ The hand that hold to focus can be used for the M component.
+ The same hand can be used for M component and S component.

Contention point on RAW:
+ Can the hand that hold a focus, used for M components, also be used for S component in spells that have both S and M?

Everybody's agree it is impossible by RAW, though some peoples think it should be possible:
+ The hand that hold a focus can always be used for S component.

[broodax]

I think here's the actual disagreement:

Side A: You can use the same had to perform material and somatic components. This does not change the rule that the hand you use to perform somatic components must be "free". If you are holding a weapon or shield, that hand is not "free", even if that weapon or shield is a material component (or focus).

Side B: If you are performing material components (or holding a focus) with a hand, it is not "free". You, generally, require a free hand to perform somatic components. You can use the same hand to perform somatic and material components. This rule works in both directions due to plain English. The rule then must be a specific case, trumping the general case that a hand performing somatic components must be free, otherwise the rule would do nothing.

I think that Side A requires a pretty nuanced understanding of material component use based on fantasy realism that isn't supported in the rules anywhere (not that it's wrong, the rules just don't make these distinctions). It requires that holding a weapon-focus or shield-focus makes your hand "not-free" but that accessing a spell component pouch or fiddling with a focus leaves your hand "free".

Side B requires understanding a "free" hand as a resource that is used up by any ability that requires a "free" hand. It requires also reading all of the different ways that the rules specify this (e.g. "free use of" and "free") to be the same. This is consistent with the rest of the rules, i.e. if you use a hand to wield a weapon, it is not free any longer. If you use it to perform somatic components, not free. If you use it to plain-english use the hand to say, hold a rope, not free, etc.

Side B is also, of course, supported by Sage Advice, etc.

[MaxWilson]

I think that Side A requires a pretty nuanced understanding of material component use based on fantasy realism that isn't supported in the rules anywhere (not that it's wrong, the rules just don't make these distinctions). It requires that holding a weapon-focus or shield-focus makes your hand "not-free" but that accessing a spell component pouch or fiddling with a focus leaves your hand "free".

Note though that the RAW doesn't require you to access your spell component pouch or fiddle with a focus, just to have a hand free with which to do so.

By strict RAW your hand does in fact remain free the whole time. Holding the wand or component pouch occurs only in the fluff.

[Sception]

holding specifically is mentioned in the rules:


A spellcaster must have a hand free to access a spell's material components -- or to hold a spellcasting focus (emphasis added) -- but it can be the same hand that he or she uses to perform somatic components.

I share the reading of those who say that a hand holding an appropriate spell casting focus can thus also supply the somatic components of a S,M or V,S,M spell, because otherwise you're going with a reading where a hand holding a focus isn't free to hold the focus it's holding, a reading I won't discount as obviously technically incorrect but that is so gratuitously tortured as to merit a content warning

And it's an interpretation that results in equally torturous gameplay situations, where to cast a spell with a wand a wizard doesn't actually wave the wand, but instead makes some hand signs before /touching/ a wand hanging at their belt that they very specifically are not allowed to hold while casting that same spell.

[broodax]

Note though that the RAW doesn't require you to access your spell component pouch or fiddle with a focus, just to have a hand free with which to do so.

By strict RAW your hand does in fact remain free the whole time. Holding the wand or component pouch occurs only in the fluff.

Does RAW require you to perform the somatic components with the free hand? I don't see a difference between:

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

and

"A spellcaster must have a hand free to access these components"

I am one that often tends to read rules with an exacting, legalistic precision. However, that's just not how 5e is written. Both somatic and material components require a free hand, and both tell you that you have to use that hand to do something.

It's the B-side argument that that "something" makes the hand no longer free in the general case. This reading is consistent with the rest of the rules. The grapple rules don't say "and this hand is no longer free". It is assumed that using the free hand to grapple makes it no longer free; it is "consumed" by the grapple use. The same is even true of wielding weapons and the language used there.

[MaxWilson]

Does RAW require you to perform the somatic components with the free hand?

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


I don't see a difference between:

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

and

"A spellcaster must have a hand free to access these components"

I am one that often tends to read rules with an exacting, legalistic precision. However, that's just not how 5e is written. Both somatic and material components require a free hand, and both tell you that you have to use that hand to do something.

I'm responding to an argument that <<I think that Side A requires a pretty nuanced understanding of material component use based on fantasy realism that isn't supported in the rules anywhere (not that it's wrong, the rules just don't make these distinctions). It requires that holding a weapon-focus or shield-focus makes your hand "not-free" but that accessing a spell component pouch or fiddling with a focus leaves your hand "free".>>

I'm just pointing out that from a rules standpoint, you have to have a free hand, but nothing in the rules ever makes that hand not-free. Actually picking up and using the material component is part of that "fantasy realism" which is being criticized as not being in the rules. Some people call this "fluff" (although I don't believe in a fluff/crunch distinction in the first place, even if WotC clearly does).

The exact same fantasy realism which requires you to gesture for Somatic components also requires that you pick up and use Material components (e.g. the chalks for Teleportation Circle), even though the rules don't mention it. If you had a Magic Mouth set to say "chalk!" whenever someone near you touch a piece of chalk, and then someone casts Teleportation Circle, as DM I'd rule that the Magic Mouth says "chalk!", which illustrates why there's no distinction between fluff and crunch since everything in a TTRPG is crunch.

[broodax]

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



I'm responding to an argument that <<I think that Side A requires a pretty nuanced understanding of material component use based on fantasy realism that isn't supported in the rules anywhere (not that it's wrong, the rules just don't make these distinctions). It requires that holding a weapon-focus or shield-focus makes your hand "not-free" but that accessing a spell component pouch or fiddling with a focus leaves your hand "free".>>

I'm just pointing out that from a rules standpoint, you have to have a free hand, but nothing in the rules ever makes that hand not-free. Actually picking up and using the material component is part of that "fantasy realism" which is being criticized as not being in the rules. Some people call this "fluff" (although I don't believe in a fluff/crunch distinction in the first place, even if WotC clearly does).

The exact same fantasy realism which requires you to gesture for Somatic components also requires that you pick up and use Material components (e.g. the chalks for Teleportation Circle), even though the rules don't mention it. If you had a Magic Mouth set to say "chalk!" whenever someone near you touch a piece of chalk, and then someone casts Teleportation Circle, as DM I'd rule that the Magic Mouth says "chalk!", which illustrates why there's no distinction between fluff and crunch since everything in a TTRPG is crunch.

It sounds to me like you're actually agreeing with me, that both the somatic and material rules require you to have a free hand, but then that hand normally becomes not-free once you're using it for that component.

[MaxWilson]

It sounds to me like you're actually agreeing with me, that both the somatic and material rules require you to have a free hand, but then that hand normally becomes not-free once you're using it for that component.

We're definitely disagreeing about somatic components. I would say a hand dedicated to somatic components at no time becomes not-free.

About material components... it's harder for me to tell. Are we talking about RAW here or about how sane DMs run it?

In RAW, I would say neither hand technically becomes not-free even if you're using material components, nor do you spend an object interaction to have the hand temporarily become not-free. (This is not a compliment to RAW, just an acknowledgement.) RAW just handwaves this whole issue as "fluff."

In terms of how sane DMs run it (I won't call it "fluff"), I would say the hands starts out either free or as-good-as-free (may be holding a spell focus but could become free with an object interaction), and that sane DMs will not require you to spend an object interaction to empty the hand simply to put you back in a position to technically-not-pick-up-the-focus-except-in-fluff. But this wouldn't apply to things like shields that take an action to doff, because that's not just a technicality. Handwaving technicalities for the sake of a saner diegesis (game fiction) is not the same as handwaving actual requirements with balance implications.

[CMCC]

**** what did I do?!


We're definitely disagreeing about somatic components. I would say a hand dedicated to somatic components at no time becomes not-free.


So you’re in camp A?

[MaxWilson]

**** what did I do?!

So you’re in camp A?

If that's a reference to "Side A" from post #163, then yes, I think I am, unless I've misunderstood something about post #163.

Edit: actually, on review, I'm not in camp A, because I would treat weapons and other simple objects differently from shields, since you can sheathe and then re-draw a weapon with an object interaction (therefore ignoring weapons is okay, just "fluff" although I hate that term), but you cannot doff and re-don a shield without spending two actions (therefore ignoring shields is not okay, has balance implications). Post #163 says Side A treats them as the same, therefore I'm not part of Side A, if there is a Side A.

[Sception]

You cannot sheath and re-draw a weapon with 'an item interaction'. That is two item interactions over two turns. By the same account, you cannot both draw and stow a wand on the same turn either.

You can /drop/ and /pick up/ an item in the same turn, since picking up is an item interaction but dropping is free. Which is the kind of anti-narrative nonsense gameplay that results from this interpretations, with wizard duals turning into a fumblitis routine.

I suppose it's already been mentioned that sage advice said a hand holding a focus can still provide somatic components? Not that sage advice is 'official' outside of AL so I'm not implying that it negates the debate at all.

Though I still feel it's flatly ridiculous to rule that a hand holding a focus is not 'free to hold a focus'.

[dreast]

Q: A wizard has lost his arm in a war. He has a material component pouch on his belt. Can he still cast S, M spells?

A: Yes. The same arm is used for both the M and S components, but it must be “free” before he casts the spell in order to access the pouch.

Q: That same wizard has a wand in his hand instead. Can he still cast S, M spells if the M has no cost?

A: Yes. The use of a focus replaces the M requirement, but it must be held to do so. The wizard only requires a free hand or a hand holding a focus in order to perform the S components.

Q: The wizard is a multiclass wizard/cleric, and his one arm is holding a shield that is also a cleric focus, and he has a wizardÂ’s hat on that counts as a wizard focus. Can he still cast S, M spells?

A: Yes, but only S,M cleric spells, as the shield is only his cleric focus. He cannot cast wizard spells that require S at all, as he has no free hand to do it. However, cleric S actions can be performed by “brandishing” the holy symbol ( in this case, his shield).

Q: The wizard has two arms, but one holds a mace and the other the above shield. He has the warcaster feat. Can he etc.?

A: Yes, in this case, his S requirements are satisfied by the feat. However, the M component of his hat still requires a free hand to use, so he would have to stow his mace or doff his shield to cast an S,M wizard spell (this may be overturned by a lenient DM, but is RAW). He does not have to take off his hat, however.

Q: Artificer nonsense from above.

A: Yes, so long as one of the things in her hands are infused, and the spell has an M component, the artificer can “brandish” the infused item to satisfy the S component. This will thematically probably resemble an inspector-gadget-extending-nozzle-or-whatever style effect, but that’s up to the player. If the spell has no M component, this does not apply without warcaster; but the artificer has a class ability specifically designed to get around this, which, paired with their infusions, removes the need for that aspect of the warcaster feat. I’m not sure why this is even an argument.

[Tanarii]

In terms of how sane DMs run it (I won't call it "fluff"), I would say the hands starts out either free or as-good-as-free (may be holding a spell focus but could become free with an object interaction), and that sane DMs will not require you to spend an object interaction to empty the hand simply to put you back in a position to technically-not-pick-up-the-focus-except-in-fluff.
Sweet. Apparently I'm insane, :smallamused:

I require the hand be empty to start casting a spell with a S or M component. Thems the rules, and as far as I'm concerned they're working as intended.

[Xetheral]

Sweet. Apparently I'm insane, :smallamused:

I require the hand be empty to start casting a spell with a S or M component. Thems the rules, and as far as I'm concerned they're working as intended.

So, just to be clear, if a character wielding a sword and shield wants to cast Booming Blade (a VM spell with a weapon as material component), you rule that because the hand holding the weapon is not empty, it is not free to hold the weapon? So at your table, such a character would need to sheathe their sword before they could start casting Booming Blade, and as part of the casting they would be required to draw and attack with their sword?

Why do you think your interpretation is the rules working as intended? What is the intended purpose of requiring someone to sheathe a sword just so they can draw it again a moment later?

[Sception]

Sweet. Apparently I'm insane, :smallamused:

I require the hand be empty to start casting a spell with a S or M component. Thems the rules, and as far as I'm concerned they're working as intended.

Whether "them's the rules" or not, and honestly that's pretty dubious, when it comes to what was "intended", Sage Advice says otherwise.

One can argue that Sage Advice isn't technically an official FAQ (even though for all intents and purposes it's an official FAQ), and thus technically isn't RAW, but there's really no arguing that it isn't the /intended/ rules. So if your rules aren't working according to Sage Advice rulings at your table, that doesn't mean they're working wrong - DM is the final arbiter and all that - but you cannot claim that they're working "as intended".

[Aimeryan]

You cannot sheath and re-draw a weapon with 'an item interaction'. That is two item interactions over two turns. By the same account, you cannot both draw and stow a wand on the same turn either.

You can /drop/ and /pick up/ an item in the same turn, since picking up is an item interaction but dropping is free. Which is the kind of anti-narrative nonsense gameplay that results from this interpretations, with wizard duals turning into a fumblitis routine.

I suppose it's already been mentioned that sage advice said a hand holding a focus can still provide somatic components? Not that sage advice is 'official' outside of AL so I'm not implying that it negates the debate at all.

Though I still feel it's flatly ridiculous to rule that a hand holding a focus is not 'free to hold a focus'.

To note, I am in camp B; I see any focus (weapon, shield, whatever) as supported by RAW as being applicable for the Material component and therefore applicable for the 'share that hand with Somatic' rule - using plain English to note that it must go both ways in order to function at all since they are simultaneous requirements.

That said, I do support the 'sheath & redraw' with one object interaction; the rule for this is as follows:


You can also interact with one object or feature of the environment for free, during either your move or your action.

It places no requirement on duration within a move or action, nor on the frequency - the only restriction is the number of objects (one). Interacting with a weapon remains interacting with one object no matter how many times you touch it. In order to place a requirement of frequency it would need text something along these lines:


You can also make a single interacteration with one object or feature of the environment for free, during either your move or your action.

[MaxWilson]

Sweet. Apparently I'm insane, :smallamused:

I require the hand be empty to start casting a spell with a S or M component. Thems the rules, and as far as I'm concerned they're working as intended.

I apologize for the unintended insult, but I don't understand your ruling at all, especially for VM-only spells like Suggestion.

[CMCC]

That said, I do support the 'sheath & redraw' with one object interaction; the rule for this is as follows:



It places no requirement on duration within a move or action, nor on the frequency - the only restriction is the number of objects (one). Interacting with a weapon remains interacting with one object no matter how many times you touch it. In order to place a requirement of frequency it would need text something along these lines:

The examples given in the rules (there are 20 given) illustrate ONE specific action. It makes no sense to allow someone to do several actions with a single interact with object "free" action. By that logic you could open/close a door until the end of time because it's one object.

[Tanarii]

I apologize for the unintended insult,
No apology required I found it hilarious

[Aimeryan]

The examples given in the rules (there are 20 given) illustrate ONE specific action.

Examples are not exhaustive.


It makes no sense to allow someone to do several actions with a single interact with object "free" action.

Not actions, interactions.


By that logic you could open/close a door until the end of time because it's one object.

If the end of time occurs at the end of your move or action then sure.

[Dark.Revenant]

I’ve tried to compile the viewpoints in this thread into a series of charts:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/10P4yqhOigtZ5_WHSty7HDTldpYA-JrLAlVvk21FiA0k/edit

Let me know if I’ve made a mistake here. For reference, Tanarii’s viewpoint is “RAW Strict”, MaxWilson’s viewpoint is “RAW Permissive”, and the RAI/common viewpoint is “Sage Advice”.

[Sception]

Looks like an accurate summary if the viewpoints to me. I like the color coding that calls attention to the absurdity of an interpretation that would say you cannot cast a spell with a material component using a hand that is holding that material component.

Not sure I agree with the labels, though. {Scrubbed}

[MaxWilson]

I’ve tried to compile the viewpoints in this thread into a series of charts:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/10P4yqhOigtZ5_WHSty7HDTldpYA-JrLAlVvk21FiA0k/edit

Let me know if I’ve made a mistake here. For reference, Tanarii’s viewpoint is “RAW Strict”, MaxWilson’s viewpoint is “RAW Permissive”, and the RAI/common viewpoint is “Sage Advice”.

If "RAW Permissive" supposed to be me (as in, how I run it, not what I think RAW says) then I think row "S&M" column "Material Hand" should say "Yes" instead of "No." Isn't that column for hands holding a spell component pouch/gems/newt's eyes/etc.? I would allow that instead of making you put it down, pick it up and put it back down, and possibly pick it up again (as object interaction + implied Cast A Spell fluff).

[CMCC]

Examples are not exhaustive.

Why would you expect them to be? They illustrate the rule. If the rule indicates one thing and that is supported by a large amount of examples, then you’re going to have to make an incredibly strong case to the contrary.

[Aimeryan]

Why would you expect them to be? They illustrate the rule. If the rule indicates one thing and that is supported by a large amount of examples, then you’re going to have to make an incredibly strong case to the contrary.

I only have to make the case of what the rule says, examples are not exhaustive.

[MaxWilson]

Why would you expect them to be? They illustrate the rule. If the rule indicates one thing and that is supported by a large amount of examples, then you’re going to have to make an incredibly strong case to the contrary.

"Hand an item to another character" is one of those examples, and involves TWO characters interacting with the same object on your turn, thus showing that object interactions are not strict. "Tap the floor with a ten foot pole" may be intended as more than just a single tap but it's hard to tell.

More importantly though, we have an explicit rule, not just examples:

"You can also interact with one object or feature of The Environment for free, during either your move or your action. For example, you could open a door during your move as you stride toward a foe, or you could draw your weapon as part of the same action you use to Attack. If you want to interact with a second object, you need to use your action."

Is drawing and sheathing a weapon interacting with a second object? Nope. Is it more physically complex than examples like" withdraw a potion from your Backpack"? Also nope. Is it more complex than taking out your component pouch, removing an eye of newt, then (after casting Hex) putting the eye back in the pouch and the pouch back on your belt? Nope.