how was it - focus and somatic (only) components?

[Waazraath]

I remember some rules discussion some time ago about using a focus to cast a spell (and so providing material components), and that some people thought it was possible to cast a spell with somatic and material components with full hands including a focus (and the hand holding the focus providing the somatic components as well), but not spells with only somatic components (cause you can't use the focus due to the lack of material components). Do I remember this correctly, and is this really RAW?

[DwarfDM]

U need one free hand for Somatic or material components. If a spell has both you can use the same hand (PHB 203) under material components

[Lunali]

U need one free hand for Somatic or material components. If a spell has both you can use the same hand (PHB 203) under material components

If a spell has both, you can use the same hand. If it does not use both, the hand holding your focus is not free for somatic components.

[Millstone85]

This is correct, as confirmed in the Sage Advice Compendium.

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.

[Waazraath]

Thanks for the replies, so it is as I remembered/feared. Bloody terrible rule if you ask me, I'd say that a hand holding a focus could either make somatic components, or not, but good to know the RAW.

What irks me: this requires a player (and a DM, as arbiter) to know from each and every spell what the components are. Normally, a caster can just have a free hand and a compoments pouch, and unless there are specific circumstances you can always use all your spells, having to look up if there are any v/s/m compoments is only needed when bounded in ropes, or in a silenced area, whatever. But a caster with a shield and a weapon (one of them being the spell focus) is different in this respect, and this asks for a big investment in bookkeeping or memorizing all components for all relevant spells. Yuck.

[Greywander]

Something to remember is that a spell focus or material component doesn't need to be held. You need to touch it with a free hand, and you can be holding it, but you aren't required to hold it. Since many spell foci take the form of staves and wands, this often gets overlooked, but something like a ring or amulet can also be used (one character concept I had used a navel piercing as an arcane focus). A component pouch also isn't held, you just need a free hand to access it.

For a spell with somatic components, you also need a free hand. There's a specific exception that allows you to use a hand holding a spell focus, but only if that spell also has a material component. Most likely this is to lock certain spells out of being used with a weapon (staff) and shield (holy symbol) for balance reasons. Warcaster lets you bypass this restriction.

[HappyDaze]

Thanks for the replies, so it is as I remembered/feared. Bloody terrible rule if you ask me, I'd say that a hand holding a focus could either make somatic components, or not, but good to know the RAW.

What irks me: this requires a player (and a DM, as arbiter) to know from each and every spell what the components are. Normally, a caster can just have a free hand and a compoments pouch, and unless there are specific circumstances you can always use all your spells, having to look up if there are any v/s/m compoments is only needed when bounded in ropes, or in a silenced area, whatever. But a caster with a shield and a weapon (one of them being the spell focus) is different in this respect, and this asks for a big investment in bookkeeping or memorizing all components for all relevant spells. Yuck.

It's not like they don't take the time to list the components for each spell in its description. All the player has to do on the sheet is jot down V/S/M for each spell and then mark out any that do not apply. This is far easier that knowing what each spell does which often requires at least a sentence or two.

[LudicSavant]

Thanks for the replies, so it is as I remembered/feared. Bloody terrible rule if you ask me

Yeah. It's needlessly confusing to new players, annoying to veterans, and does nothing of particular value for the game IMHO. I suggest murdering the rule with an axe. If you don't own an axe, a hammer will suffice.

What irks me: this requires a player (and a DM, as arbiter) to know from each and every spell what the components are.

Yep. When enforced this rule, on its own, is why people basically need to write every single component down next to every spell they have prepared (and the DM needs a list too) so that you don't have to flip through books mid-game. Isn't that smooth and streamlined game design? Isn't it "fun"?

[Millstone85]

I suggest murdering the rule with an axe. If you don't own an axe, a hammer will suffice.

I agree.

Come on, it is a magic wand, or at least a wand for magic. You should be able to wave it whenever that S shows up.

... Erm, that sounded dirtier than I meant.

[Chronos]

I agree that it's a bad rule. A spell with more components should be harder to cast than one with fewer components.

[Wizard_Lizard]

I rule it that the focus can be used in replacement of the components. THat includes if there are ZERO components. It may not be RAW but it makes more sense as to how I view it.

[Eriol]

I can't certify that it won't happen, but I've never seen this enforced at an Adventurer's League table either. And I'd never enforce it in any game I ran too. If you encounter a DM who will force this issue, just know that it's rare.

As above, just go with "if they have a focus, they can do "S" even if there's no "M" to it." Or you can be "That Guy." (or Gal) Ultimately, up to the DM.

[greenstone]

I'd say that a hand holding a focus could either make somatic components, or not, but good to know the RAW.

I guess they are worried about slippery slope. If I can cast a spell with both hands occupied with a focus, then why can't I do it with a sword or a shield or a whatever?

Don't overthink the rules.
Does the spell have S component? If so, you need a hand free.
Does the spell have M component? If so, you need a hand free.
If the spell has both S and M component then you only need one hand free, not two.

[Lunali]

To look at it from a less rules oriented perspective:
If you're casting a spell with both components, the material component/focus is used to make the gestures necessary for the somatic component.

If you're casting a spell with somatic but no material component, you need a free hand (or special training) to make complicated gestures.

If you're casting a spell with material but no somatic component, you just need to touch the material to use the spell.

[Chronos]

That's the rules-oriented perspective. What's the less rules oriented perspective?

If I can make complicated gestures with a wand, why can't I always make complicated gestures with a wand?

If I have a shield in one hand and a wand in the other, can I cast spells or not?

[LudicSavant]

Just to drive home exactly how god-awful the rule is:

All I need to know for adjudicating stealth components is
26 spells have no Verbal component, and I don't even need to remember all of them because some give you away anyways (like Thunderclap or Primal Savagery). The main ones to remember are just the Shape Element cantrips, Minor Illusion, Catapult, Hypnotic Pattern, Counterspell, and Mind Spike. That's not hard to remember.

And all I need to know for adjudicating people being bound but not gagged is:
57 spells have no Somatic or Material component, the most relevant ones being "basically all the teleports." And frankly this is almost never relevant in combat and is a pretty niche thing so checking a book in an edge case is at least tolerable, if still offensive to my standards as a DM.

But for this stupid rule...
239 spells have S and M
174 spells have S, but no M
There does not seem to be any discernible pattern to determine which are which without actually checking.

I can memorize a lot but damn. This is impossible. Who thought this rule was a good idea? Did they just want to make 5e the most needlessly complex edition? I can memorize pretty much everything in 3.5e but not this.

[Waazraath]

Just to drive home exactly how god-awful the rule is:

All I need to know for adjudicating stealth components is
26 spells have no Verbal component, and I don't even need to remember all of them because some give you away anyways (like Thunderclap or Primal Savagery). The main ones to remember are just the Shape Element cantrips, Minor Illusion, Catapult, Hypnotic Pattern, Counterspell, and Mind Spike. That's not hard to remember.

And all I need to know for adjudicating people being bound but not gagged is:
57 spells have no Somatic or Material component, the most relevant ones being "basically all the teleports." And frankly this is almost never relevant in combat and is a pretty niche thing so checking a book in an edge case is at least tolerable, if still offensive to my standards as a DM.

But for this stupid rule...
239 spells have S and M
174 spells have S, but no M
There does not seem to be any discernible pattern to determine which are which without actually checking.

I can memorize a lot but damn. This is impossible. Who thought this rule was a good idea? Did they just want to make 5e the most needlessly complex edition? I can memorize pretty much everything in 3.5e but not this.

Amen, and some extra letters.

[DrKerosene]

IIRC, Mearls made an unofficial Sage Advice tweet at some point to further devalue the third feature of War Caster.

Any advice on handling Clerics/druids with shields and spell casting? They seem disadvantaged without a hand free for S/M comps.
just stow that weapon in the shield hand for a moment and you're good - the rule isn't there to restrict, but to clarify. -M

If you’re into loose games where fun is important, doing this should be fine.

If you’re into super technically correct RAW games, I suppose emphasizing the Material/Somatic divide might help with Counterspellers not knowing the exact spell being cast without meta-gaming or an ally Identifying the spell first.

It amuses me that there isn’t a single Cleric/Paladin spell that doesn’t require Verbal components (only Smite and some Channel Divinity features).

[Chronos]

I think the idea there is that requiring verbal components is the default, but that means that a Silence spell can absolutely completely shut down a caster. Clerics and paladins still have heavy armor and at least half-decent weapons, so they can fall back on those when they can't speak, but wizards don't have either, so they need at least a few spells they can still use when all other spells fail.

[Lunali]

That's the rules-oriented perspective. What's the less rules oriented perspective?

If I can make complicated gestures with a wand, why can't I always make complicated gestures with a wand?

If I have a shield in one hand and a wand in the other, can I cast spells or not?

You can't ever make complicated gestures with a wand. You can make simple gestures that channel magic in certain ways. Other ways of using magic require more complicated gestures that would require special training (warcaster) to be able to do with something in your hand. For example, a S/M spell might require you to swish and flick with your wand where a spell with just S might require you to use sign language to spell out the name of the spell.

[BurgerBeast]

It seems to me that the rules were fine before the devs came along and interpreted them stupidly.

There’s no good reason for the S spell to be more difficult than the SM spell. They should have left it alone. The implication would be that clerics and paladins wouldn’t need the feat to gain this particular benefit, but other casters would. That fits, in my opinion.

Alternatively, since bizarrely there are no M-but-not-S spells in the game, they could have included them, and got rid of the rule about M and S being performed with the same hand. Then, any spell you want any S&B caster to be able to cast could be not-M and not-S. Any spell you want a feat-less cleric or pally (but no one else) to be able to cast could be M-only. Any spell you wanted to require the feat could be MS. Done.

[RickAsWritten]

There’s no good reason for the S spell to be more difficult than the SM spell. They should have left it alone. The implication would be that clerics and paladins wouldn’t need the feat to gain this particular benefit, but other casters would. That fits, in my opinion.

This is what I thought the actual rule was and have always seen it adjudicated this way. The divine casters can plaster that holy symbol right on their shield, and thus cast with the hand holding the shield or weapon; and Arcane casters have to take Warcaster to be able to do so, because they didn't get them some of those good, good god-powers.