Bizarre Sage Advice Ruling Re: Spellcasting Components

[ClearlyTough69]

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

Ouch!

And

LOL

[BurgerBeast]

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

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

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

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

but then...

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

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

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

[RickAllison]

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

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

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

but then...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Telok]

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

[BurgerBeast]

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

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

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

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

[RickAllison]

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

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

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

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

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

[NNescio]

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

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

[BurgerBeast]

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

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

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

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

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

[RickAllison]

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



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

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

[BurgerBeast]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That’s the problem.]

[Zalabim]

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

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

[Blacky the Blackball]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Tanarii]

It's the exact same shield and the exact same somatic component. (If it isn't, then the somatic component depends, which is my point.)

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

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

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

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

[BurgerBeast]

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

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

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

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

This is not relevant to the main point.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Tanarii]

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

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

Not wrong, because it's left up open to interpretation. I assume that's intentional. But there's no reason to assume it must be consistent. Which is a good thing otherwise you can't have High School wizards from one place in the world casting different from the Ice Witches wizards in another from the self-taught "knots-as-spellbooks" wizards, who each invent their own variant components individually, in a third.

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

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

Why is this against the ruling? AFAICT it's perfectly in sync with the ruling.

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

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

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

[Vogonjeltz]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That’s the problem.]

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

[BurgerBeast]

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

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

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

[Rysto]

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

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

[BurgerBeast]

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

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

[Solunaris]

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

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

[Coidzor]

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

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

But they'd totally make it anyway.

[Blacky the Blackball]

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

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

I think this is the crux of the matter.

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

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

Material (M)
Casting some spells requires particular objects, specified in parentheses in the component entry. A character can use a component pouch or a spellcasting focus (found in chapter 5) in place of the components specified for a spell. But if a cost is indicated for a component, a character must have that specific component before he or she can cast the spell.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Beelzebubba]

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

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

What is still ambiguous at this point?

[Tanarii]

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

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

I didn't say anything like that, so I have no clue what you're talking about.

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

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

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

Sage Advice posted at the very beginning of this thread explicitly contradicts the first interpretation, that a hand already holding a focus can always be used to do S components. So you're saying you choose to disagree with it?
Edit: Or are you choosing to interpret that a hand occupied with a focus can be freed at will for an S-component? That's effectively the same thing as keeping a free hand and accessing the component when needed, for everything except a shield. Except in reverse. So that's reasonable.

[xanderh]

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

[RickAllison]

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

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

[Temperjoke]

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

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

[BoringInfoGuy]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[BurgerBeast]

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

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

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

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

[RickAllison]

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

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

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