How does war caster work exactly?

[Trandir]

Ok war caster has 3 effects and I have a doubt about all of them:

You have advantage on concentration checks after you take damage.

There is anything else that requires a ST to maintain concentration ?


You can ignore somatic component requirement when youare holding a weapon or shield.

So if a spellcaster's hands are occupied for some other reason (ex. lifting something heavy) you can't ignore the somatic components?


If a creature's movement provokes an attack of opportunity you can cast a spell on that creature instead of attaking. You can cast only spells with casting time 1 action.

Can one cast only spells that target that creature?
Do you get disadvantage if the spell is a ranged attack spell and you attack the enemy while 5ft from you?

Bonus:
This are more about AoO as a whole:
Leaving a creature's reach provokes them so a goblin can run in circles around you without getting an AoO?
There are other ways to provoke AoO?

[AdAstra]

The game mentions certain stresses can also impose concentration checks. The listed example was concentrating on a spell on a ship in a storm. I've never seen a DM use this, but it's absolutely considered valid.

Yeah, seems like it. The war part of War Caster implies that your particular training/skill/magical whatsit, relates to fighting and combat, not carrying boulders. One way to interpret it is that you know how to use your shield hand to perform the somatic components where most cannot.

Pretty sure you missed the last part of the feat right after "1 action", which says "and must target only that creature", so yes, it can only target the one creature.

I see literally no reason why the normal rules on casting spells wouldn't apply here. If it's a ranged spell attack, it has disadvantage if there is a hostile creature within 5 ft of you. One thing many people forget is that this applies even if the creature within 5 ft. isn't your target. Also, AoOs trigger before the enemy actually leaves your reach, so they would be within 5 ft. of you when you cast the spell, unless you had a Reach weapon.

Yes. Unless you get an attack of opportunity from another source, they can circle you freely. The only way I can remember to get an AoO otherwise is Polearm Master. There's a fun combo involved there, but it's very much not in the spirit of the rules.

[Bannan_mantis]

Ok war caster has 3 effects and I have a doubt about all of them:

You have advantage on concentration checks after you take damage.

There is anything else that requires a concentration check?


You can ignore somantic component requirement when youare holding a weapon or shield.

So if a spellcaster's hands are occupied for some other reason (ex. lifting something heavy) you can't ignore the semantic components?


If a creature's movement provokes an attack of opportunity you can cast a spell on that creature instead of attaking. You can cast only spells with casting time 1 action.

Can one cast only spells that target that creature?
Do you get disadvantage if the spell is a ranged attack spell and you attack the enemy while 5ft from you?

Bonus:
This are more about AoO as a whole:
Leaving a creature's reach provokes them so a goblin can run in circles around you without getting an AoO?
There are other ways to provoke AoO?

Ok first thing is war caster:

- You have advantage on concentration checks after you take damage.

There might be a few things like antimagic effects which cause concentration spells but basically 99% of the time it's damage. Idk why it's worded like this but yeah.

- You can ignore somantic component requirement when you are holding a weapon or shield.

I think you're imaging this on a evoker wizard or something which isn't what this is really meant for. This is more for the half martial casters since this lets them wield a sword and arcane focus in each hand and this is even better for clerics since their arcane focus is a shield so they can sword and board without having to put their sword away to cast a spell.

- If a creature's movement provokes an attack of opportunity you can cast a spell on that creature instead of attaking. You can cast only spells with casting time 1 action.The spell must have a casting time of only 1 action and must target only that creature.


The slanted text is for your first question and to provoke a opportunity attack they need to be at least 10 feet away from you since they're leaving your range so that doesn't normally affect it. Only exception is sentinel and for that I think it'd be rolled at disadvantage.

Edit: realised after reading AdAstra's post I got this wrong, sorry. But yeah, you roll at disadvantage unless it's a melee spell

Bonus question:
Technically yeah, AoO is more about area control and making anyone who doesn't disengage before leaving range regret their decisions. A goblin technically can run around you without provoking it since they're not leaving melee range so while it's a bit weird it works like that. It's probably since AoO is a "you don't get to run away" style attack, the goblin is running just not away I guess

[Arkhios]

Ok war caster has 3 effects and I have a doubt about all of them:

You have advantage on concentration checks after you take damage.

There is anything else that requires a concentration check?

The following (inside spoilers for clarity) is from Player's Handbook, page 203

Spoiler: Factors that can break Concentration

Show

Concentration
Some spells require you to maintain concentration in order to keep their magic active. If you lose concentration, such a spell ends.

If a spell must be maintained with concentration, that fact appears in its Duration entry, and the spell specifies how long you can concentrate on it. You can end concentration at any time (no action required).

Normal activity, such as moving and attacking, doesn’t interfere with concentration. The following factors can break concentration:

• Casting another spell that requires concentration. You lose concentration on a spell if you cast another spell that requires concentration. You can’t concentrate on two spells at once.
• Taking damage. Whenever you take damage while you are concentrating on a spell, you must make a Constitution saving throw to maintain your concentration. The DC equals 10 or half the damage you take, whichever number is higher. If you take damage from multiple sources, such as an arrow and a dragon’s breath, you make a separate saving throw for each source of damage.
• Being incapacitated or killed. You lose concentration on a spell if you are incapacitated or if you die. The GM might also decide that certain environmental phenomena, such as a wave crashing over you while you’re on a storm-tossed ship, require you to succeed on a DC 10 Constitution saving throw to maintain concentration on a spell.

So, yes. Concentration can be broken by other things than simply taking damage. Two other have been specifically listed in the rules, although only one other requires a check.

You can ignore somantic component requirement when youare holding a weapon or shield.

So if a spellcaster's hands are occupied for some other reason (ex. lifting something heavy) you can't ignore the semantic somatic components?

Well, if you're lifting something heavy, you aren't exactly focused in fighting, are you? The feat's name should provide a clue.
Other than a snarky comment, rules are clear: When you are holding a weapon or shield, you can ignore somatic component. (BTW, Fixed that for you).

If a creature's movement provokes an attack of opportunity you can cast a spell on that creature instead of attaking. You can cast only spells with casting time 1 action.

Can one cast only spells that target that creature?
Do you get disadvantage if the spell is a ranged attack spell and you attack the enemy while 5ft from you?

RAW is that you can cast only spells with casting time 1 action and on that creature. Whether it has to be only that creature or can be a spell that has more than that creature as a target is subject to more interpretation. Ask your GM. (Word of advice: if the answer is not to your liking, don't throw a fit).

Bonus:
This are more about AoO as a whole:
Leaving a creature's reach provokes them so a goblin can run in circles around you without getting an AoO?
There are other ways to provoke AoO?

Again, from Player's Handbook (page 195), in spoilers for clarity:

Spoiler: Opportunity Attacks

Show

Opportunity Attacks
In a fight, everyone is constantly watching for a chance to strike an enemy who is fleeing or passing by. Such a strike is called an opportunity attack.

You can make an opportunity attack when a hostile creature that you can see moves out of your reach. To make the opportunity attack, you use your reaction to make one melee attack against the provoking creature. The attack occurs right before the creature leaves your reach.

You can avoid provoking an opportunity attack by taking the Disengage action. You also don’t provoke an opportunity attack when you teleport or when someone or something moves you without using your movement, action, or reaction. For example, you don’t provoke an opportunity attack if an explosion hurls you out of a foe’s reach or if gravity causes you to fall past an enemy.

The short answer is that you can dance in a pirouette around the target if you want to and not provoke, but as soon as you move away from the target (on your own volition), they're free to make an Opportunity Attack.

Longer answer is that, what's above is the default. Some other rules, class features or feats (such as Polearm Master) might enable Opportunity Attacks in other circumstances as well. Whether they work in tandem with War Caster is another issue entirely.

[JackPhoenix]

Sleet Storm can break concentration without any damage involved.

Yes, there are other ways to provoke OAs. Polearm Master feat and cavalier fighter's Hold the Line, for example.

[Expected]

You have advantage on concentration checks after you take damage.

There is anything else that requires a concentration check

Concentration checks are used to determine whether or not a spellcaster currently concentrating on a spell marked as concentration, can continue to concentrate on said spell. The DC for the check is either 10 or half of the damage taken. War Caster allows for advantage, while proficiency in Constitution saves allows your proficiency bonus to be added to the d20 roll. As far as I know, concentration checks are only asked for when damage is taken, otherwise, at least in the case of unconsciousness or death, the spell is lost.

You can ignore somantic component requirement when youare holding a weapon or shield.

So if a spellcaster's hands are occupied for some other reason (ex. lifting something heavy) you can't ignore the semantic components?

Yes, if you have the War Caster feat you can ignore the requirement of having a free hand to cast the somatic element of any spell (it will say S in the spell description). For example, if I have a shield and quarterstaff equipped, I cannot cast spells without either having War Caster or first dropping my staff (the shield takes time to doff so it is undesirable to do so).

If a creature's movement provokes an attack of opportunity you can cast a spell on that creature instead of attaking. You can cast only spells with casting time 1 action.

Can one cast only spells that target that creature?
Do you get disadvantage if the spell is a ranged attack spell and you attack the enemy while 5ft from you?

The spell you cast can ONLY target the creature that provoked an attack of opportunity. Yes, you will have disadvantage casting a spell if they are threatening you with melee within 5ft, unless you have the Crossbow Expert feat.

Bonus:
This are more about AoO as a whole:
Leaving a creature's reach provokes them so a goblin can run in circles around you without getting an AoO?
There are other ways to provoke AoO?

Yes, you can avoid an AoO by running around the enemies reach without leaving it, but be careful--there are a few instances where this is not safe. For example, if the enemy has Sentinel, they can attack you if you move more than 5ft within their reach. Also with Sentinel, if you attack an ally adjacent to them and they have that feat, they will get an AoO. Polearm Master allows for an AoO once an enemy enters your reach (either 5ft-10ft, but maybe more for a Bugbear).

[AdAstra]

I will point out that Sentinel’s reaction attack is explicitly not an Attack of Opportunity, and that the Bugbear’s long limbed trait only applies when you actually make the melee attack. Thus a foe would have to enter your normal unextended reach, since you haven’t actually attacked yet. Not critical to the thread, but worth clarifying

[JackPhoenix]

For example, if the enemy has Sentinel, they can attack you if you move more than 5ft within their reach. Also with Sentinel, if you attack an ally adjacent to them and they have that feat, they will get an AoO. .

No, they can't. Sentinel stops an enemy you hit with an OA, it allows you to ignore Disengage. It doesn't give you new ways to trigger OAs. And the reaction attack is *not* OA.

[Bjarkmundur]

Spoiler: offtopic warning

Show

Each one of these threads just serves as a reminder to how much of a mess the feats are 5e, and why it is widely recommended to play without them. In any given group I'd open the discussion of getting personal 5th level magic items at 4th level instead of having to deal with feats, hands down.

Hat of Disguise, Ring of Protection, Elven Chain, Wand of the War Mage, Wand of Secrets are much cleaner and more flavorful power boosts, in my opinion...

Heck, as a barbarian I'd be more happy with getting a big'ol Necklace of Fireballs than GWM or Sentinel.

[Chronos]

First of all, there's no such thing as a concentration check. If you take damage (or certain other things happen) while you're concentrating on a spell, then what you have to roll is a constitution save. And there are lots and lots of other things that require a constitution save. War Caster won't help you make a constitution save against poison, or the Finger of Death spell, or a disease.

The distinction between a check and a save is important, because different things will boost them. If you're concentrating on a spell, and there's a friendly paladin nearby, or you're under a Bless spell, those will both help you maintain concentration, because they both boost saves (but not checks). If someone casts Guidance on you, that won't help you maintain concentration, because that boosts checks (but not saves).

[Contrast]

Each one of these threads just serves as a reminder to how much of a mess the feats are 5e, and why it is widely recommended to play without them.

I feel like 'widely recommended' is overstating things dramatically. Personally I've never actually played in or heard of a game in my local gaming circles that didn't allow feats. But that's kind of off topic to the point of the thread so I'll leave it there.

[ShikomeKidoMi]

Ok war caster has 3 effects and I have a doubt about all of them:
You have advantage on concentration checks after you take damage.
There is anything else that requires a ST to maintain concentration ?

Yep, they're rare, but I've seen a few. But mostly I think they want to be sure you're not applying it to the wrong constitution saving throws (like against diseases or what not) so they were very specific.

You can ignore somatic component requirement when youare holding a weapon or shield.So if a spellcaster's hands are occupied for some other reason (ex. lifting something heavy) you can't ignore the somatic components?

Yes. This is for people who want to cast spells while hitting someone with their sword, so they learned to gesture with their sword, not for people who want to cast spells while hauling large boxes.

If a creature's movement provokes an attack of opportunity you can cast a spell on that creature instead of attaking. You can cast only spells with casting time 1 action.
Can one cast only spells that target that creature? Do you get disadvantage if the spell is a ranged attack spell and you attack the enemy while 5ft from you?

It explicitly says you can only cast spells that target just one creature and that you have to cast it on that creature. And yes, this doesn't make disadvantage rules go away.

Bonus:This are more about AoO as a whole:
Leaving a creature's reach provokes them so a goblin can run in circles around you without getting an AoO?
There are other ways to provoke AoO?

Sure, a goblin can run circles around you. Think of it this way-- In a fight, if someone circles around towards your side while staying close, that's actually threatening. You have to keep an eye on them and watch for being stabbed in the side or back. If they turn around and run away, that's when you can smack them and they can't defend or hit back.

Other ways to provoke attacks of opportunity exist but they're rare (the most common example is entering the reach of a polearm master).

[MaxWilson]

I thought this thread was going to be a thread about "how is it exactly that I've learned to cast Polymorph so quickly that I can cast it in an instant on a Mind Flayer who turns its back on me for a split second, to turn it into a T-Rex, but I cannot turn my buddy the fighter into a T-Rex unless I devote my attention to Polymorph for a full six seconds?"

[JackPhoenix]

I thought this thread was going to be a thread about "how is it exactly that I've learned to cast Polymorph so quickly that I can cast it in an instant on a Mind Flayer who turns its back on me for a split second, to turn it into a T-Rex, but I cannot turn my buddy the fighter into a T-Rex unless I devote my attention to Polymorph for a full six seconds?"

Well, you can if your buddy leaves your reach and provokes OA. You (or him, preferably both just to be sure) just need to declare you consider the other hostile at the moment.

[Tanarii]

Ok
This is more for the half martial casters since this lets them wield a sword and arcane focus in each hand

Which is a silly way to fight. If you have a hand occupied by a focus, you need war caster to cast S component spells. If you instead have a weapon and free hand, you can use the free hand to cast S component spells and also use it to access your material component / component pouch / focus without needing to use an object interaction.

That bullet point is designed for dual wielders or sword and boarders, who have both hands occupied with weapons or weapon and shield.

Yes, if you have the War Caster feat you can ignore the requirement of having a free hand to cast the somatic element of any spell (it will say S in the spell description). For example, if I have a shield and quarterstaff equipped, I cannot cast spells without either having War Caster or first dropping my staff (the shield takes time to doff so it is undesirable to do so).

Or that. A lot of people mistakenly think a staff occupying your hand lets you cast a spell. It doesn't. The hand must be free before you use it to cast the S component and access your material component / component pouch / focus.

[Petrocorus]

The following (inside spoilers for clarity) is from Player's Handbook, page 203
So, yes. Concentration can be broken by other things than simply taking damage.

Indeed. As JackPhoenix pointed out, Sleet Storm explicitly forces a concentration check (ie a Con saves).
As said in your quote, DM are also perfectly allowed to ask for a concentration check in difficult environmental conditions, and some spells can create difficult environmental situation, without doing damages, like Stinking Cloud. It would be possible for a DM to ask a Con saves for keeping his spell up to a caster who fails his first Con saves for avoiding the effect of the Cloud.

RAW is that you can cast only spells with casting time 1 action and on that creature. Whether it has to be only that creature or can be a spell that has more than that creature as a target is subject to more interpretation. Ask your GM. (Word of advice: if the answer is not to your liking, don't throw a fit).

There was a Sage Advice saying that yes, you can only target the creature triggering the OA with the spell even if the spell normally allows more than one target.

It makes sense to me, but of course, given the resume of Sage Advice on some rulings...

[MaxWilson]

Well, you can if your buddy leaves your reach and provokes OA. You (or him, preferably both just to be sure) just need to declare you consider the other hostile at the moment.

"I hate you!" screamed Anakin at Obi-Wan, and then charged the battle droids. So Obi-Wan turned him into a T-Rex.

"Thanks!" roared the T-Rex, and then smashed two droids to bits.

"Anytime," replied Obi-Wan.

[Petrocorus]

I think you're imaging this on a evoker wizard or something which isn't what this is really meant for. This is more for the half martial casters since this lets them wield a sword and arcane focus in each hand and this is even better for clerics since their arcane focus is a shield so they can sword and board without having to put their sword away to cast a spell.

If you're a Cleric with a holy symbol on your shield, you don't need Warcaster to cast spells with both somatic and materiel components. At least, that the common interpretation of the focus rules.

You still need Warcaster or dropping your weapon to cast spells with a somatic component but without a material one.

In my experience, there are DM that allow to do both without the feat or forbid both without the feat, for simplicity reasons.

Trandir, it would be safer to check on your DM beforehand on this matter.

[Trandir]

In my experience, there are DM that allow to do both without the feat or forbid both without the feat, for simplicity reasons.

Trandir, it would be safer to check on your DM beforehand on this matter.

I did it (for the casting part) before creating the thread but I wanted to know the "correct" ruling of this feat. He allows to cast spells with somatic both with or without material components.

[Lord Vukodlak]

Each one of these threads just serves as a reminder to how much of a mess the feats are 5e, and why it is widely recommended to play without them. In any given group.

There are a ton of threads about people asking basic questions about the rules. By your logic we shouldn’t use “surprise” any spell that involves creating darkness; fog or blocks line of sight without also including a physical barrier. And a ton of other basic rules because people lost threads about them.

[Verble]

If you have a hand occupied by a focus, you need war caster to cast S component spells.

I doubt that's the RAI, and we don't play that way. It makes sense by default that you can gesture(Somatic) with your arcane focus. Requiring a feat to do that obviously doesn't make sense. The rules say you can perform Somatic components with the same hand you're using to hold material components.

The warcaster feat let's you do the same gesturing but with a weapon or shield. Which is cinematic and fits with the feat name.

[Contrast]

If you have a hand occupied by a focus, you need war caster to cast S component spells. If you instead have a weapon and free hand, you can use the free hand to cast S component spells and also use it to access your material component / component pouch / focus without needing to use an object interaction.

...

A lot of people mistakenly think a staff occupying your hand lets you cast a spell. It doesn't. The hand must be free before you use it to cast the S component and access your material component / component pouch / 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.

You can be holding a sword and focus or staff and shield and cast a spell requiring somatic and material components without letting go of anything or needing War Caster. You must have a hand free to [access material component/be holding focus] which can be the same hand used for somatic components.

[MaxWilson]

Or that. A lot of people mistakenly think a staff occupying your hand lets you cast a spell. It doesn't. The hand must be free before you use it to cast the S component and access your material component / component pouch / focus.

What player, with or without having read the rules for arcane focus + material component interaction, would assume that you can cast SM spells with a wand in your hand but not S spells? Even if your interpretation is logically correct, is it ever not surprising to the player?

The whole value of hewing to the Rules As Written is simply for the Principle of Least Surprise: you're trying to make sure the players know as much as possible about the rules so you don't have to stop and explain them in the middle of the game. Every time you add a house rule, it adds yet another thing you have to communicate to them--but if the players never knew the RAW technicality in the first place, why not just go with the natural, intuitive rule that WotC should have written in the first place?

[Chronos]

Quoth Tanarii:

Or that. A lot of people mistakenly think a staff occupying your hand lets you cast a spell. It doesn't. The hand must be free before you use it to cast the S component and access your material component / component pouch / focus.

Presumably, the people thinking that are using the staff itself as their focus. Which means they're not mistaken at all.

[Tanarii]

The rules say you can perform Somatic components with the same hand you're using to hold material components.

Nope. As was quoted above, you use the same free hand to access and hold a focus.

If you're already holding a focus, you don't have a "same free hand" to do that with. It needs be empty, or possible to empty, to begin with.

[ThePolarBear]

I doubt that's the RAI

There is official Sage Advice on it.

What player, with or without having read the rules for arcane focus + material component interaction, would assume that you can cast SM spells with a wand in your hand but not S spells?

Without: i say that everyone should. A hand with a focus in it is not a free hand. Without reading the material component section but having read the rest to have at least an idea, one should conclude that you need a free hand to cast spells with S. If the spell requires M too, and those things were to require to be in hand, it would need to be the other hand: the one that is not required to be free. Unknown if there are restrictions on that hand, too.

Without rules at all... i have no idea. Each player has their own imagination (is this the correct gender-neutral form?).

With: approaching with the above and having read the section where general and specific rules and their hierarchy, i say they would conclude that the rule under "Material" is something for spells with material components.

Even if your interpretation is logically correct, is it ever not surprising to the player?

Yes, it can be not surprising. If something is a rule for B, one shouldn't assume it applies necessarily to A too. You can cast spells with material components with a focus in hand. If the spell doesn't have material components it doesn't follow the rules for spells with material components.

The whole value of hewing to the Rules As Written is simply for the Principle of Least Surprise: you're trying to make sure the players know as much as possible about the rules so you don't have to stop and explain them in the middle of the game. Every time you add a house rule, it adds yet another thing you have to communicate to them

We COULD apply a rule for software design here. However that principle doesn't mean that you need to bow to the expectations of your audience if you want things to work a certain way - just that you need to present them in a way that is intuitive for that function.

The principle here is respected: expectations are placed early and the presentation follows that expectation: you should apply rules only when those rules are applicable. A spell without material components doesn't follow the rules for material components.

I would expect that the rule enabling me to cast a spell with a somatic component with hands full but occupied by at least one focus i would find them under "Somatic" if it applies to each of such spells in general, not under "Material". Or in the general presentation for spellcasting. Or in the Arcane / foci section.

but if the players never knew the RAW technicality in the first place, why not just go with the natural, intuitive rule that WotC should have written in the first place?

Just because you assume the result it doesn't mean that was the intention. Just because a/many/most users would expect a function to return a value and instead the value is not what is expected doesn't necessarily follow under the principle. That's only if the problem is one of presentation and accessibility.
Just because people expect X to be equal to 10 it doesn't meant the function has to calculate it differently if 10 would be the correct result. The problem only exists if instead of 10 you would expect a "true", because the function looks like a boolean, sounds like a boolean, behaves like a boolean but arbritrarily returns either 10 or -1143 instead of something more intuitive. Or if it is called "ShoppingList" and outputs the whole Hamlet.

There is nothing here like that. Rules clearly take inspiration both from media and past editions of the same brand. And there will be nods (many). However this is not D&D 3e just like it isn't Harry Potter, even if it is D&D and it has Wizards. It is a different edition of D&D with rule changes and that take inspiration from various figures of wizards and magic like figures - it is incorrect to expect something else, or behaving like that expectation HAS to be followed.

[MaxWilson]

Without: i say that everyone should. A hand with a focus in it is not a free hand. Without reading the material component section but having read the rest to have at least an idea, one should conclude that you need a free hand to cast spells with S. If the spell requires M too, and those things were to require to be in hand, it would need to be the other hand: the one that is not required to be free. Unknown if there are restrictions on that hand, too.

First you said "everyone" but then you elaborated and it looks like you mean "no one." Without reading the rules for arcane focus + material component interaction, you say, no one should assume that SM magic is allowed but S magic is not--they should just assume S magic is disallowed.

Then when they read the rules, players will naturally (in most cases) take that to mean "arcane focuses don't count as full hands when it comes to S components--I guess you gesture with your wand instead of your fingers."

Without rules at all... i have no idea. Each player has their own imagination (is this the correct gender-neutral form?).

Yes. "They" has a five-century long pedigree as English's gender-neutral singular pronoun. It fell briefly into disfavor during the twentieth century, in favor of "he", but is making a resurgence. "They" is still correct.

We COULD apply a rule for software design here. However that principle doesn't mean that you need to bow to the expectations of your audience if you want things to work a certain way - just that you need to present them in a way that is intuitive for that function.

It's a user-experience design principle, not a software-specific principle, and DMs are responsible for designing an experience for their players.

But if you have a *reason* to do something surprising, go right ahead. It's an extra complexity cost but you wouldn't do it if you weren't getting a worthwhile benefit. That's fine. Are you making a general point or do you specifically have reason to disallow S spells but not SM ones? What's the benefit of this technical reading, in your eyes?

Or is this debate *strictly* over how "most" players are likely to read it? In that case I say, just poll your players and go with what they assumed when they read it. No one cares what random people on the Internet assume--only the players matter (including the DM).

[Contrast]

There is official Sage Advice on it.

I'm super confused guys.

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.

You're saying someone holding a staff and orb couldn't cast a spell because he doesn't technically have the free hand you're saying the spell casting rules require? That contradicts (in my opinion) the text and also the official sage advice.

Am I missing something here?

[ThePolarBear]

First you said "everyone" but then you elaborated and it looks like you mean "no one."

Yep. Missed a "n't" when writing around another mistake. And to clarify: it is not that the conclusion should be that it is disallowed casting with a wand at all in case of "S no M" spells. Only if the wand is in one hand and the other is used up, too. And there would be confusion on how to tread M spells, at all. No indication on "how" would have been given, so the DM would need to improvise everything about them. If those M just need to be on a person or not, to start and for example.

Then when they read the rules, players will naturally (in most cases)

I don't agree.
In my experience that's not the natural flow.
It also is not what you are expected to do following the rules: you do not apply a specific to a generic - that's why you end up "surprised".
I don't think it's a good argument at all anyway, because it is unsupported by numbers or data when the core of the argument is that [X happens frequently].

Yes. "They" has a five-century long pedigree as English's gender-neutral singular pronoun. It fell briefly into disfavor during the twentieth century, in favor of "he", but is making a resurgence. "They" is still correct.

It still "sounds" strange to me, but i have no idea why. I was sure it was some form of "they-them-their", but that particular phrase still doesn't sound 100% "fine" to me.

But if you have a *reason* to do something surprising, go right ahead.

Creative freedom is one of such reasons. It is not about something that can be presently experienced as "real life". Those are rules about "Fantastic" elements that are more or less made up. We have no real common ground here, with the exception of different forms and style of various media (that have changed over the years, even in just 4 is many).

Think about vampires. A young person playing as a vampire that only had access to "Twilight" media would see things very differently from a person that only read Stoker.

It's an extra complexity cost but you wouldn't do it if you weren't getting a worthwhile benefit. That's fine. Are you making a general point or do you specifically have reason to disallow S spells but not SM ones? What's the benefit of this technical reading, in your eyes?

What is the mechanical benefit of allowing it, when there are people that thought that the rules were working the other way around?

This not a very "fair" question, don't you think? One reading is more restrictive, surely. If i wanted to make the phrase "beautiful", i would say that "it imposes an extra level of strategic and tactical decision making when creating a character, in the choice of spells and equipment. It also deepens the consequences of choices made on the battlefield". But i find it a bit pointless, really, when continuing on a "reply" thread that pretty much contains only "Do/do not" without a real explanation on why it is/is not be that way in the rules.

Or is this debate *strictly* over how "most" players are likely to read it?

It is, in part. Not strictly only. It is in general an attempt at showing why your argument doesn't hold for the reasons you provided, and why.

"What player," - Me, for example. Is that surprising?

"is it ever not surprising?" is, with the most respect and just because i can't find another and better word, "bait". Even following Pola, it isn't necessary that "ever" is realized. It should be an attempt to - and that has been made for reasons i provided.

"Every time you add a house rule, [...] why not just go with the natural, intuitive rule that WotC should have written in the first place?" So, changing what is there increases complexity, so to remove that complexity a DM created on their own WotC should have written the rule as the DM wanted? It is not a house rule to clear a misconception. And if it is a misconception there's nothing to change from WotC. Don't you think?

We might be just starting from two different assumptions.

In that case I say, just poll your players and go with what they assumed when they read it. No one cares what random people on the Internet assume--only the players matter (including the DM).

In a game, i agree. Fun >. There might be a bit of a problem when there are however two different players coming from two different "directions" on how to do things.

You're saying someone holding a staff and orb couldn't cast a spell because he doesn't technically have the free hand you're saying the spell casting rules require? That contradicts (in my opinion) the text and also the official sage advice.

Am I missing something here?

About half of the answer:

"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 ges-tures. If she had the War Caster feat, she could ignore this restriction."

If you are holding a staff and an orb, you COULD be able to cast a spell: it depends on the spell. You could not cast a spell that has an expensive material component: foci do not count for that, and are using both your hands - you have none to interact with the material component. You could not cast a spell that consume the material component - same as before.

You could cast a spell that only has verbal components: you do not follow the rules for Somatic or Material components at all - the spell doesn't have any.
You could cast a spell that has both S and M (V too), as long as the Material components are not of the previous kinds: you need a "free" hand (Somatic rules and my language, not text one) but you ALSO follow the rules for Material, which allow you to use the same hand to hold a focus. You are holding a focus, so that's good.

You could NOT cast a spell with just S (or just S and V) without putting away at least one of the foci because you would not use the rules for Material components in a spell that doesn't have Material components, so there's no exception made.

[Tanarii]

I'm super confused guys.



You're saying someone holding a staff and orb couldn't cast a spell because he doesn't technically have the free hand you're saying the spell casting rules require? That contradicts (in my opinion) the text and also the official sage advice.

Am I missing something here?

That's what I'm saying. I can't speak for anyone else.

That sage advice either contradicts the RAW, or has the assumption that the Orb can be released as needed. The wording of the SAC entry does not require the latter not be the case, it's very carefully worded in that regard. It doesn't say you use the orb to perform the S component, or it still has the orb at every moment while doing so.

The RAW is pretty clear you need a free hand, and that same free hand is used for Somantic components, and as needed to access Material components (or component pouch) or to hold your focus. The RAW does not say that a hand currently holding a focus can be used to do those Somatic gestures at the same time, which is how some people wish to interpret it.

Of course, if your DM is playing that strictly, for most foci you just store them on your belt or around your neck and keep your hand free. It's only the staff also being used as a weapon in one hand that tends to present a problem. And even then I've know some DMs rule you just lean it against yourself when you need to gesture. So it's not necessarily a problem for a player.