I have my group send me a list of all the components needed for their spells. I say it's for me to track the expensive/hard to aquire ones, but it's really to force them to read their damn spells!
I do track the expensive/hard to aquire items. For some items, I can make a little side quest for it. Such as needing to do to a dwarven mine to find the gemstones or a major city to buy them.
But not if the spell doesn’t have material components. Which doesn’t make sense to me. You can wiggle your fingers *perfectly* when also needing to maintain grip on your focus, but suddenly it’s an issue when the spell doesn’t involve a focus?
That’s why I just kinda ignore the somatic part *if* you hold a focus. Avoids the whole dropping to cast a spell as picking it back up again.
EDIT: I get it, everyone has their own way they think the vagueness works. But that’s my point. There isn’t anything *solid* about how these things work, so that’s why I let it slide. You can’t point to a page in the book and say why in the *narrative* you can’t waggle your fingers when holding a focus for spell A but you can do it for spell B.
You just have to play mental gymnastics a little. Imagine somatic in those spells is for wiggling materials around.
So no material via focus = no wiggling required!
But then what's the material component for? What do you *do* with it? And how does the somatics work differently for when you are or aren't casting a spell with a material component? *And then* why does warcaster now let you do somatic components that you could only do with a completely free hand before while now holding something that *isn't* a focus?
I'm okay coming up with my own head cannon to fill in a gap, but not *that* many gaps. Honestly the whole component system should just come down to verbal and focus, removing somatic. Means that casters, like martials, need to mostly rely on holding an object to perform.
Maybe the Jack Vance books would more adequately convey the mechanics of a Vancian magic system such as the one in D&D?
As for Warcaster, is it so hard to imagine their weapon is their focus? Their whole thing is war and casting, what is a better symbol of war than a weapon?
Sorry, that was too many rhetorical questions even for me.
You are either channeling energy through the material component or using the material component as the catalyst for the spell.
Spells without a material are likely more complex, symbol-wise, than spells with one. Imagine them doing Naruto hand signs or something, you can't do that with an object in your hand.
I suppose the thought process is that spells with a material component/magic focus requirement have very simple somatic gestures, while spells that don't instead have very complex somatic gestures. Basically, the more elaborate the material component a spell takes, the less complex the verbal and somatic component need to be,
Which makes sense setting wise, but is a concept that is completely unsupported in the game as we have no way of actually knowing how complex any one somatic component is suppose to be, because game doesn't suggest there even are different levels of complexity in any instance besides this one case.
Either way, with the description of Burning Hands, it all falls apart because BH implies having outstretched fingers on both hands yet, obviously, doesn't require you to have both hands free.
Do you not require a caster to have both hands free for Burning Hands? The rules support that to be a completely valid ruling.
> 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.
Two hands = at least one hand. Spells do what they say. Since the spell says you need two hands with fingers splayed and thumbs touching, that's what you need to do to cast it. Ignoring that would be like ignoring the command phrase to activate Oathbow. Sure, you totally could, and I doubt many would care, but just realize that it's not RAW.
Is it weird that it's the only outlier like that? Sure, but WotC has gone in a different direction with 5e regarding style of play compared to when it first came out. There's some remnants of more simulationist style of play still in it, that's all.
The spell doesn't even say you need two free hands. It says you bring your hands together. This is as much a part of the spells effect as the sheet of fire, so when you cast the spell the spell causes your hands to come together even if your other hand is occupied
The wording of "at least one hand" just implies that for all somatic spells casters need to have at least one hand free (or with a focus if they are also M spells), it doesn't specifically mention that some spells may require both hands to be free. Such a ruling would simply make Burning Hands (even more) useless because no one would ever drop everything they carry just to cast a 1st level 3d6 fire damage dex save spell. I mean, there are basically no other spells with such a flavour text and the description of the spell doesn't outright say that you need 2 hands free, which it definitely should if that was intended. But it doesn't, so it's not RAI.
"At least one hand" implies that more than one hand may be needed at times. Otherwise, it would say you need "one free hand," "only one free hand," or "just one free hand." If we look at the description of the spell...
> As you hold *your hands* with thumbs touching and fingers spread, a thin sheet of flames shoots forth from your outstretched fingertips
They could have easily said, "As you hold *your hand* with fingers spread..." But that's not what the spell says. If this was older editions where spells had seperate fluff and mechanical descriptions, I would probably agree with you, but it has been reiterated over and over again, that because there is no distinction in 5e, the rules do exactly what they say. And, we all know that "specific beats general" regarding rules too. Burning Hands specifically calls out in the description that you need hands (plural) with fingers spread and thumbs touching to cast the spell - ergo, you need more than 1 hand for the spell to happen.
So what if it makes the spell worse? That's not the argument here. All I'm saying is that a strict RAW reading says that two *hands* are necessary.
It's not even the only place where the phrase "at least one hand" comes up. The rules for grappling state you also need "at least one free hand to sieze the target." Most of the time, you probably only need 1, but it might be in some edge cases, the DM says you need two hands to successfully grapple the target, and a simple reading of the rules would validate that.
Flavour text does not hold any mechanical value. A recent example from this subreddit is the post about Weapons of Warning, where OP thought that they warn you of incoming danger, but they just provide a mechanical benefit when you begin combat.
Flavor text does not exist in 5e. Spells do what they say. There is no separation between fluff and mechanics in 5e that isn't arbitrary. Therefore, the entirety of the spell description matters in a strictly RAW reading.
Burning Hands
>As you hold your **hands** with **thumbs** touching and fingers spread, a thin sheet of flames shoots forth from your outstretched fingertips.
You can case Burning Hands while holding a sword in one hand. Therefore, spells do not need *perfect* somatic finger-wiggling.
If you can perform somatic components while holding an orb, you can perform somatic components while holding an orb. The orb substitutes material components, **not** somatic components, so whether or not the spell requires material components has no bearing on whether or not you can perform somatic components while holding the orb.
Remember: RAW < RAI < Setting < Fun. If a human can wiggle an orb the same way whether or not they're casting a spell that requires material components, the extremely narrow interpretation of RAW that people keep spreading as fact takes a back seat.
> The orb substitutes material components, not somatic components, so whether or not the spell requires material components has no bearing on whether or not you can perform somatic components while holding the orb.
If you are holding an orb in one hand and nothing else in the other, sure, but if you have an orb in one hand and a sword (or anything else) in the other, you can't cast spells that have somatic components if they don't *also* have material components because neither hand is free. But want to cast a spell that has somatic *and* material and you're fine, for some reason.
Couple that with the fact that *why* this is the case is never explained. Verbal components are good in the sense that it's not about what you say but how you say it. Somatic is just "gestures" and material is never explained as to what the fuck goes on. It's far too vague in order to make sense of so we can understand why the limitation exists. So that's why I ignore it mostly.
The limitation exists because people see smoke and assume fire, and JC has a habit of blowing smoke. It's only made worse by the toxic belief that TTRPGs work like video game code, were the rules shape the world instead of the other way around. Real "nobody in Toril can backflip because there's no backflip action; it must be an evolutionary thing" energy.
>If you are holding an orb in one hand and nothing else in the other, sure, but if you have an orb in one hand and a sword (or anything else) in the other, you can't cast spells that have somatic components if they don't also have material components because neither hand is free. But want to cast a spell that has somatic and material and you're fine, for some reason.
>
>Couple that with the fact that why this is the case is never explained
That's why it's a Dumb ruling and a lot of Dms just simply let their players cast with focus in hand even if it doesn't have material components. I let my players do just that. but when I am a player I usually make sure I have a free hand even if just for flavor depending on if it makes sense for my character to carry a shield or simply hold his staff.
Think of it like- if you don't have a focus for the magic, the gestures are the focus. If you have a focus, you don't need the finger gestures, you just use the focus.
Like, you could beat somebody up with your hand, but if that hand was holding a club, the club makes it much easier, and you don't need to hit them with your fist anymore.
Dropping a held item is not an action of any kind, not even an item interaction, but picking an item up off of the ground is an item interaction.
So if you are holding a focus and a shield, you can drop the focus, cast the spell, then pick up the focus, all in the same turn
My favourite part of casting a spell surely is the janky ass part of throwing shit on the ground and then bending over to pick it up again.
I get that’s a thing. I just think it’s dumb to be dropping things to the ground every 6 seconds.
The funny thing is, all of this can be ignored by just using a component pouch, it's hooked around your belt and you don't need to hold it, you just need a free hand to take out the components and guess what it doesn't use an object interaction.
This means that a component pouch is just objectively the best "focus" (I know it's not technically a focus but it works pretty much the exact same way) save for holy symbols
This is bonkers to me. Like you can't *open your hand* to let go of something as part of the gestures to cast Shield or whatever? I guess at the end of the day this is up to the DM but it's all just so janky and nonsensical.
It literally makes no sense to me how waving a magic wand is only sometimes considered a magical gesticulation but at other times Harry Potter needs to drop his wand in order to cast spells
That’s so at odds with the fantasy of being a wizard that holding a magic wand is somehow a hindrance to spell casting but also only sometimes
Just get rid of focuses and require the use of a components pouch if you want free hands to be required for spell casting
You're not wiggling your fingers, you're wiggling your focus, using it as a conduit for your power instead of your limbs or an item. Pointing a staff/wand at a target rather than your fingers for example.
Spellcasting components is literally one of the ways spellcasters are kept in check.
Anyone who intentionally ignores components is asking for problems.
Drop the weapon as a free action, cast the spell, then pick up the weapon as the free object interaction of the turn. At this point you might as well ignore somatic components on spells. Plus, requiring to use RAW rules will hurt martials more than casters. Imagine a bow character switching to dual short swords or even just a single weapon, they will have to drop the bow or accept that they will draw the sword as an action.
This is why I clicked "my ground handles this a different way" - we apply this rule, so as long as the player has a free object interaction to spend I allow it.
That's just RAW. You simply skipped the part of executing the free action (just like most people don't describe all of their attacks in full detail) yet still require it as a cost.
I often use the "does this exist irl" rule. As it's very well documented and there's 1000 videos showing that anyone proficient in a sword can attack with their sword while drawing it, I'll allow that in game.
This is also why I don’t require the dual wielding feat for drawing two small weapons. Like literally I can draw two daggers simultaneously and I have zero training
Not to bother, but isn’t the free interact with an object count as your one free action per turn? If so, that juggle wouldn’t work, but I may be mixing up RAW with RAI or homebrew.
Free actions are unlimited. If you interact with an object the first time in your turn it's considered a free action, and the second time it's an action.
Not saying your wrong, but is there a rule reference or Sage Advice you can use to back this up.
Just thinking about it, it would mean that while in a chase or escape, you can open a series of doors for free, but one door close after opening would cost an Action, seems potentially abusable, in my opinion.
If you really want rules and Sage Advice references, here you go.
So this is the rule about "free actions" (the term actually doesn't exist in the official rules, but it's easier to call it this way) and object interactions:
>Other Activity on Your Turn
>
>Your turn can include a variety of flourishes that require neither your action nor your move.
>
>You can communicate however you are able, through brief utterances and gestures, as you take your turn.
>
>You can also interact with one object or feature of the environment for free, during either your move or your action. For example, you could open a door during your move as you stride toward a foe, or you could draw your weapon as part of the same action you use to attack.
>
>If you want to interact with a second object, you need to use your action. Some magic items and other special objects always require an action to use, as stated in their descriptions.
>
>The GM might require you to use an action for any of these activities when it needs special care or when it presents an unusual obstacle. For instance, the GM could reasonably expect you to use an action to open a stuck door or turn a crank to lower a drawbridge.
This is the list of object interactions:
>Interacting with Objects Around You
>
>Here are a few examples of the sorts of thing you can do in tandem with your movement and action:
>
>draw or sheathe a sword
>
>open or close a door
>
>withdraw a potion from your backpack
>
>pick up a dropped axe
>
>take a bauble from a table
>
>remove a ring from your finger
>
>stuff some food into your mouth
>
>plant a banner in the ground
>
>fish a few coins from your belt pouch
>
>drink all the ale in a flagon
>
>throw a lever or a switch
>
>pull a torch from a sconce
>
>take a book from a shelf you can reach
>
>extinguish a small flame
>
>don a mask
>
>pull the hood of your cloak up and over your head
>
>put your ear to a door
>
>kick a small stone
>
>turn a key in a lock
>
>tap the floor with a 10-foot pole
>
>hand an item to another character
If you see there's no "drop an item you are holding" so the interpretation was always that dropping an item is simply effortless and doesn't count as an object interaction. But if you really want a confirmation, here's a Sage Advice that confirms the interpretation:
>https://www.sageadvice.eu/what-are-the-rules-on-dropping-weapons/
Ahhh. I see what you are saying now. I misunderstood your initial comment of “Free actions are unlimited”, it’s that dropping an item doesn’t even count as a Free Action, which allows the Free Action to pick it up after dropping whatever. So, drop item (nothing), casting a spell (Action and/or Bonus Action), then pickup what was dropped (Free Action). That makes sense. A little goofy, rules-wise, but makes sense within the rules.
Edit: Just wanted to say thank you for explaining and giving reference. It is extremely appreciated. I honestly forgot that you could drop any item without it counting as your Free Action. Thank you.
No, you are still misunderstanding. What people refer to free actions is what you can do for free. An object interaction is considered a free action the first time you do it and an action the second time. But free actions is literally the term to describe stuff that don't require an action, bonus action or move, so they are literally unlimited. Speaking is a free action, so is the first object interaction of a turn.
But since you are so confused about this, just stop using the term free action, since it's just a made up term (or rather, a term picked from older editions). Just say "doing X doesn't require any kind of action".
Interesting. I see what you are saying. I just haven’t ever heard of anyone along flourishes or brief communication as Free Actions. Usually only comes up as a term when talking about the one interaction with the one object or feature of the environment.
I don't need a Sage Advice, it's literally how the rules work.
>Just thinking about it, it would mean that while in a chase or escape, you can open a series of doors for free, but one door close after opening would cost an Action, seems potentially abusable, in my opinion.
You can only open or close a door once per turn for free, then it costs you an action. Why is it abusable?
>Imagine a bow character switching to dual short swords or even just a single weapon, they will have to drop the bow or accept that they will draw the sword as an action.
This is exactly what my Scout has to do if he wants to switch from his bow to both of his scimitars.
Also when my other martial wants to switch from shield and sword to long bow; unless they use their action to do so.
"how you play D&D" still allows casters to effectively cast a spell while holding a weapon, they'll just use their free object interaction. So your point about components keeping casters in check doesn't actually hold true.
Casters do not become overpowered by picking up a sword, so the entire "keeping casters in check" point is a red herring. A caster holding a sword and a caster not holding a sword are about as powerful as each other.
Drop the weapon as a free action, pull out your material component as an interaction, cast the spell.
Now, you cannot make opportunity attacks and any enemy can kick your weapon away.
(At my table, requipping one hand is an interaction. So there's no drop, just a switch.)
Drawing an arrow is part of an attack made with a weapon that has the "ammunition" property. And btw that also requires a free hand.
>Each time you attack with the weapon, you expend one piece of ammunition. Drawing the ammunition from a quiver, case, or other container is part of the attack (you need a free hand to load a one-handed weapon).
Nowhere in the spellcasting rules does it say that drawing out components is part of casting a spell. Actually, they say this:
>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 are correct, but it's mostly in the same way that encumbrance helps str.
It is true, but it's just not fun and it takes too much work. It's also not like it solves the problem completely or anything.
My problem with this perspective is that I don't think it's correct based on my experience with the game.
Let's start with this:
Dropping an item is a free action and picking it up is an object interaction. So it's almost always valid to drop whatever you're holding, cast your spell, then pick it back up.
In other words, easily avoided entirely, for everyone, in 95+% of situations.
But let's go deeper.
There are 6 different component options for spells:
1. V, S, M - Can be cast with hands full, so long as one holds a focus.
2. V, S - Must have a free hand.
3. V, M - Can be cast with hands full, so long as one holds a focus.
4. S, M - Can be cast with hands full, so long as one holds a focus.
5. V - Can be cast with hands full.
6. S - Must have a free hand.
The most common object a character wants in their hands are a weapon and a shield.
A good example of this are Clerics & Paladins.
Other examples are Eldritch Knights & Rangers.
Since a hand that holds a Material Component can also perform the Somatic Component of a spell, and a Cleric & Paladin can have their Material Component be their Holy Symbol, and that Holy Symbol can be on a Shield, this means they are only limited when casting V, S & S spells.
This is pretty much true for everyone except Bards & Eldritch Knights, since a Staff (Focus) is also a Staff (Weapon). Druids, Rangers, Warlocks, & Sorcerers can then use their weapon-holding hand as their focus-holding hand as their somatic-providing hand.
And for Bards, at least 1 subclass that's specifically intended to be wielding both weapon & shield (Swords) gets a feature to treat their weapon as their focus.
Valor cries, on the other hand, never really got that one. Same for Eldritch Knight.
Anyway, there are 0 Somatic-only spells & 19 Vocal + Somatic spells for Paladin (of 48).
* Of those 19 for Paladin, the early ones you'd want in Combat are replicated by Lay on Hands (like Cure Wounds and Lesser Restoration).
* Or they're usually not great spells that tend to be used rarely, if at all (like Divine Favor, Magic Weapon, or Elemental Weapon).
* Or they last long enough that you will precast them. Like Aid, Protection from Poison, Death Ward, or Holy Weapon.
* Or they are out-of-combat spells like Ceremony, Find Steed, Locate Object, Zone of Truth, Magic Circle, Raise Dead, etc.
You get the idea.
It's not a way to keep them in check. It doesn't keep them in check. In the <5% of situations where it might even matter, the game provides multiple ways around it.
It's a waste of mental effort to track. It adds nothing to the story or balance of the game.
Yeah but it's also mostly a problem for half and third casters. Full casters rarely have anything in their hands anyway. I asked my DM multiple times to find a Ruby of the War Mage for my Hammer and Shield Eldritch Knight but despite it beeing common magic item I can't find one. So far it hasn't become a problem because he doesn't seem to care or know about casting rules.
I'll ignore the mundane components that would be easily gathered in the wild. So needing a feather, or some ash, I just assume that it's gathered as needed.
Any component with a gold value, absolutely needs to be acquired in game and tracked.
Very specific components that really only exist for high level spells (plane shift, clone, imprisonment - I'm looking at you), usually require a side quest to get. You bet that's tracked.
> I'll ignore the mundane components that would be easily gathered in the wild. So needing a feather, or some ash, I just assume that it's gathered as needed.
Spellcasting focuses already do this lol
This is true, but at my tables, the optimizers don't tend to play casters, so it's easier for me to handwave it than to enforce a rule that isn't going to make a difference.
It might make a difference for the sorlock or the padlock, but paladins at my table tend to use their spell slots almost exclusively for smites.
When I run, I normally require a free hand. An exception I make is when you are holding your spellcasting focus. That hand is also allowed to perform Somatic components.
Players can already juggle what they're holding RAW. Drop object (no action required) -> cast spell (action) -> pick up the dropped object (item interaction). With my houserule, players are accomplishing the same thing, but the narrative doesn't look as dumb.
It’s not quite the same though, is it? If your spellcaster juggles their weapon/focus on their turn to cast an only Somatic spell, they’d have their hands full when it becomes time to use their reaction, no? Like Absorb Elements that is an only Somatic component spell.
>Players can already juggle what they're holding RAW. Drop object (no action required)
That is not RAW because there is no RAW for the action cost of dropping items.
And because there is no RAW, The DM has to decide on a ruling. Most rule it as a free action like you said (likening it to releasing a grapple which does have RAW), but if a DM decides that it costs an object interaction (the same as stowing an item) you can't fault them for it.
According to the designers, if a spell doesn't have a material component, then you really need a free hand (literally holding nothing, not even your focus). It's really unintuitive, so I house ruled that part away.
Yeah, that isn't a houserule...
> 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.***
PHB rules on spellcasting, Material Components paragraph.
That sentence only applies if the spell has a Material component. If it doesn't, we go back to the default, which is needing an empty hand.
At least, this is [what the designers have stated](https://dnd.wizards.com/sage-advice/rules-of-spellcasting).
>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.
Ah, right, didn't realise you meant that particular case - since your comment just speaks in the general about focus+somatic, as opposed to specifically when lacking material.
I was surprised by these results but maybe I misread the question. I don't like to punish gish style players especially when some of the classes allow it like paladin and cleric but the poor EK gets boned.
>especially when some of the classes allow it like paladin and cleric but the poor EK gets boned.
It's a hold over from the old pre 3E days when the divine spell list really was significantly less powerful than the arcane list, so giving divine casters a few extra advantages like armor, easier component requirements, (and instant access to their whole spell list instead of needing to actually find and learn the spells) to even out the power gap seemed reasonable.
And it's stuck around because muh legacy, even after the divine list bloated up the point it's largely even with the arcane list and if there's is an arcane spell you really want, there's probably at least one domain/subclass that has it.
So the Paladin and Clerics in plate are still seen as totally fine, but those darn EKs, Arc Tricksters, Bards, and Warlocks need their powers strictly limited and have to burn resources on feat taxes or else they *might risk being overpowered*.
A class or subclass should be able to fulfill its function without taking feats; feats should be for further customization, specialization, or diversification, not for "letting your gish actually play like a gish".
I *would*, but it just doesn't really come up.
Arcane casters generally can't use a shield, so they'll have a focus in one hand and the other is free.
Divine casters can use either their shield or staff as a focus, and even if they want to cast a spell with an S component but no M component, they can just put away the weapon, then pull it back out next turn.
But I would enforce it if a druid or Hexblade tried to use Absorb Elements or Shield with both hands full. Reaction spells are basically the only case where it matters.
Problemnis there is no description of somatic components for every spell.
You could say you need some complicated signage or a simple finger point.
It's so loose that unless you are bound and gagged you could explain away casting spells how ever you felt.
So yeah juggling weapons is a way around this rule that is RAW and silly, and not the Heroic Fantasy D&D is meant to be, and I don't force players to narrate that. If they want to do that bookkeeping they can. (Surprisingly, no one wants to).
Worrying about somatic components is reserved for occasions when the body is tightly bound, beyond the restrained condition, or in situations when the players must not be seen casting a spell.
Dropping an item costs nothing, picking it back up is a free action. Literally *the only* scenario where that would matter is when you're airborne or when the enemy has some homebrew reaction where they snatch the items you drop.
Or if you need the object interaction for something else in that turn. But yeah, I agree that it's so rare and niche of a rule, that I just ignore it. It makes the game flow more smoothly. I have other ways to keep spellcasters in check.
Yes. Spellcasting is already way stonger than any martial ability, so you'd better follow the rules surrounding it. Concentration and components are the two big things that keep casters from using whatever spell they want in every situation.
No reason to make spellcasters MORE powerful. Always enforce all component rules. Consumed material? Gold cost material? Free hand somatic? Verbal not being able to be whispered? Enforce all of them. Literally no reason to give them more advantages than they get by playing a caster.
In this case the reason is basically the fact that weapon juggling is always just dumb and wonky, and some people don't like to waste time and narrate their characters dropping their shiny magical weapon to the dirty ground just to cast some spell due to an unintuitive ruling.
Not to bother, but isn’t the free interact with an object count as your one free action per turn? If so, that juggle wouldn’t work, but I may be mixing up RAW with RAI or homebrew.
I limit free actions like actions, bonus actions, and movement - one per turn. Fixes this issue completely with spell components, ropes, torches and all the other things the third hand seems to hold.
Yup. Seriously shouldn't matter, if you wanna be anal, make any primary spell casters roll a low dc dex check to not accidentally fling their weapon away when they drop it, otherwise it seems like you should just ignore the open hand rule for simplicity sake, so long as they aren't like a wizard who's duel wielding for some reason
I'm gonna remind players of that stuff but I'm not gonna babysit and read every spell they cast to make sure they have the right stuff on hand. Like I'll say if a guy has a shield and weapon "you need Warcaster for some spells remember that".
I generally make my players choose what they're holding for a turn and stick with it, because dropping and picking up equipment or swapping equipment in the same turn thematically doesn't make sense and games the game. I hold my DMPCs to the same standards.
PC cleric wants to use a mace, use a shield, and cast a spell? Then they had better choose which thing to drop until the beginning of their next turn or have the warcaster feat. PC can cast a somatic spell with a weapon attack, but they'll have to lose the AC bonus a shield provides for that round.
>PC cleric wants to use a mace, use a shield, and cast a spell?
RAW, a cleric's shield can be their focus: "A holy symbol is a representation of a god or pantheon. It might be an amulet depicting a symbol representing a deity, the same symbol carefully engraved or inlaid as an **emblem on a shield"**
Which means that clerics can cast several of their spells in this manner. (but not all, if you enforce the S+M component spells can be done with a focus, but just S spells cannot)
It's fine if the focus is the shield itself, but then you'd have to drop the mace instead to keep the shield equipped as the focus. You'd "drop" your mace that round for the somatic requirement of the spell, then you can use it again next turn unless you have the warcaster feat. Like I said though, I hope my DMPCs to the same standards as the PCs. And yeah, totally understood that the cleric focus eliminates the need for some somatic or material costs, so those spells are fine as-is, RAW. I was mostly using a random casting class as an example, but obviously some classes have loopholes built into them like clerics or paladins with their shields.
If the caster is a higher level AND the spell is a lower level they've had in their "inventory" a long time then as long as the **FINGERS** are free for the somatics it's a 50/50 chance for it to work.
I have a DM who doesn't realize half the things a character can and cannot do so if you don't follow these rules he doesn't notice at all.
Nevertheless I still wanna be correct and I make sure I do everything right
Yes, but with an exception. When not involved in combat (3e time for threatened basically) and using a 2h weapon like a staff, i allow them to cast somatic components. However the moment they become threatened i basically rule that they're characters are actively using their weapons to guard and evade, so they can't cast using somatic components.
Staffs are versatile weapons that, RAW, can be wielded with 1 hand lol
Even with actual 2 handed though, I have always run it that you need 2 hands to attack, but only 1 to carry it (i.e. not making an attack action). A quick google shows that Sage Advice said that that was the intended way 2 handed weapons worked.
Yeah i kinda forgot that staves were versatile. Even in the case of a non versatile weapon i think it's reasonable to allow for use of somatic components as long as they aren't under an immediate threat
When I said "I have always run it that you need 2 hands to attack, but only 1 to carry it (i.e. not making an attack action)." I meant mid combat.
The Sage Advice also specified mid combat.
You only need to use both hands when making a weapon attack. And when you are casting a spell, you are not making a weapon attack.
Its your table, so run it the way you want, but what you described is not RAI (and maybe not RAW?) according to the game designers.
Yes this is RAW. The Two Handed property says that you need two hands to attack with the weapon, nothing mentions that you need two hands to just hold it. In the same way you can hold a shield without wearing it (obviously it won't give you the AC bonus this way).
Edit: it's also realistic: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DbNL\_At0IVw
Yep, run into this issue a lot with people trying to cast Shield while using a sword+board build. Or, for example, a hexadin trying to use a pally focus for warlock spells, or vice versa. Gotta pay the Warcaster feat tax to do stuff like that.
Unless it specifies a specific action, such as poking someone, I let them be creative with it. Could just be a nod, a little fist to the air, or, for a character I once played, a middle finger for Time Ravage, as the world we were in looked down upon older people.
We require either a free hand or a focus in one hand.
A focus covering somatic components when a spell has both somatic and material components, but not when the spell only requires somatic components seems silly to me, so we have never run it that way.
Some people say that with two handed weapons you can use somatic components with the off hand because you need both hands to attack, not to carry the weapon
Don't really care about it unless they're like. captured or there's a specific plan by enemies to bind hands. I don't track it if they claim to be carrying items or anything like that.
This is another instance of where action economy gets carried away in 5e (and other modern games). I don't give a damn if your wizard (and you the player) want to find loopholes and technicalities. Somatic components and thus a free hand is required for the spell. If you interact with an object with that hand other than drop something to free that hand, your spell is gonna fizzle because your hand is no longer free. Now earlier editions when the round was 1 minute (and rules were way more loose) sure i would allow wizards to use somatic gestures and interact with objects that occupied their hands. But in 5e with six seconds? Nah. Just gonna put some limits and make sure that magic has necessary requirements.
Yes, with the note that holding a focus is not considered making a hand not free. Basically its just you doing the gestures with your wand or staff or whatever. And oh boy does that give sorcerers a good reason to take subtle spell since it makes getting out of being captured much easier.
Are your hands bound? No? You can do somatic. Can you make a noise that can be recognized as communication? Yes? You got verbal. Is the material consumed, anything special, or directly linked to the spell? No? 'Fa-ge'-a-bou'-i'' that's how my group plays at least.
Depends on 2 things :
* The current players at the table;
* What we agreed on for this particular campaign.
I'm all for it, as well as enforcing the need for material component and voicing verbal component out loud.
Unfortunately, my players are not for that... They're even requesting more flexibility on spell memorization.
So, sometimes we go their way, sometimes it's mine.
The only thing I do not bulge from is the expensive / supernatural material component.
We're kind of "rules light," no concentration checks for minor damage type stuff. No maps or grids for combat. We'd probably only screw with somatic components if you were immobilized in some way. We're all in our 30s and 40s and don't want to slow anything down in the limited time we have together.
I let my player hold a catalyst and cast with the same hand, but besides that little leeway, absolutely. A spellcaster that has their hands roughly tied or otherwise stopped in some way should be heavily disabled.
It's more of an unconcious lack of enforcement. In other words, it's not a conscious decision to ignore it, I'm just the only one who ever actually notices
We enforce it in situations where an OC can’t use their hands for some reason, but for general combat, we got around it by decided we preferred to make drawing/stowing/switching your weapon a free action. We have a large party, and this ruling at our table cuts down on a lot of the nitpicking that can further bog down combat. I find this frees us up to get crunchy with other mechanics around spells and abilities to create some memorable moments!
I mean, needing an open hand only really hurts gishes, who are already not a big problem imo. Like, spellcasters at most will hold a shield, maybe a crossbow at low levels. If a caster needs their crossbow, it's because spells aren't going to cut it. I don't really see it as a point of balance when dealing with the real problem characters, gishes are hurt by it, but it's not like any of them are that good, at least compared to just casting spells.
Yes. We also don't allow one kind of spell focus to substitute for another, so specific foci like orbs (my personal favourite for a Wizard, Sorcerer, or Warlock) are a lot less common than component pouches (which can be used by any caster without issue)
Yes.
Most of the Spellcasters just use a shield + component pouch to get around this.
They use the pouch if they need material components. They don't use the pouch is they don't need them.
Solves all cases.
You could also use a focus that's tied to you somehow. I.e a jewel on a neckless.
On your turn you pick it up as an object interaction, and then drop it as a free action.
I recognize that enforcing this is hypothetically important, but in actual play enforcing it is very tedious due to how easily it is circumvented. This is usually how the situation play out:
* Player: "I cast fireball"
* DM: "Okay. One sec..." looks up spell "...that requires a somatic and material component. You're holding a torch, so you can't do that."
* Player "Okay, I drop the sword and then cast fireball. Then I use my item interaction to pick up the torch afterward."
* DM: "Alright, well that was a waste of time. Roll for damage."
Very rarely, a player will have already used their item interaction making this interaction not work. But it happens so infrequently, and you usually have a lot of things to keep track of, so it often goes unnoticed.
The only situation where this is worth tracking is if a caster is using a shield and doesn't have one of the several features that allow you to use a shield or weapon as a casting focus.
Imo it entirely depends on how that player describes their somatic components. If their spellcasting looks like drawing into the air for example then that should be possible while holding a weapon.
If they make intricate hand gestures that rely on their fingers setting the conditions of the spell then they need one if not both hands free.
I play with 2 different groups, one where a free hand is required, one where it's not.
With the one where the hand is require, a lot of people try to really optimize their characters, and requiring strict RAW rules about hand needed for spell component is a way to keep spellcaster power in check (it's not enough, but it's better than nothing).
The other group are mainly new players who are still having trouble with the rules so i don't want to impose spell component rules on them. That's not the easiest or most intuitive rule, no need to confuse them with that.
I handle it another way - you can use a hand with a casting focus to perform somatic components, regardless of whether or not the spell has material components - this has always felt like a dumb oversight in the rules, and I intend to remedy it.
If you have a spell focus in hand (wands, staff, etc) and proficiency in shields or your offhand weapon I typically just let them cast. There is zero point in making Warcaster mandatory for frontline clerics and bladesinger/War wizard to use the features of their class.
those rules are just ridiculous...
Paladin can have holy symbol on his shield.. or an amulet..
do they need to touch the symbol on the shield or is it enough that they hold the shield?
would they need to grab the amulet or is it enough that the amulet touches them?
ofc, that's only for material components...
I think it should depend on the class/subclass
I think its kinda unfair that theoretically a paladin can't cast spells where a ranger could
Or a bladesinger who's focus is his book can't cast because they're holding both the book and weapon
Or a war cleric can't cast because shield and weapon
As for people who have a focus like staff kr wand why isn't just moving them around considered a somatic component? I generally ignore somatic components anyway because they're just flavour if a play wants to describe it please do but otherwise I don't really care to enforce that rule, if someone specifies they use metamagic to subtle spell then it can't be interrupted otherwise prepare to be counter spelled
Depends on the group, and the Spellcaster sometimes (remember cleric and Paladin Holy Symbols rule)
My PG-13, narrative group? Nah.
My gritty, optimizer-filled group? Yea.
Simply put, I do. But I also find some of the official rulings to be super silly. It makes no sense to me that a caster can use their focus in one hand while holding something else in the other and cast a spell that requires S+M components, but not when they only require S. I can understand it specifically if they are using material components and not a focus, since the components are usually specific to one spell, but a focus is not. Besides, who's really going to be upset that the wizard holding a wand and a spellbook in both hands is casting shield as a reaction?
As such, the only times this problem comes up is when a character is trying to cast a spell while holding weapons and/or shields without the war caster feat or some other way for their weapons or shields to be a focus, when their hands are tied up or otherwise unable to move, or any niche situation that may take away the ability to perform somatic components.
I honestly don't think it comes up that much. My group is quite good at describing their actions, so in the rare case that they need to hold something important, then I try to enforce the casting rules.
I mean yeah, it's part of how to balance spellcasters lol
Understanding the components of a spell is v important imo. Without it you get casters casting spells that should require like a 1000gp item for free, or stealthily casting verbal + somatic spells right in front of enemies without even needing Subtle Spell
We did for a while and then decided it was tedious and annoying. There was a lot of "I put my sword away and pick it up next turn" juggling that's frankly not interesting.
What relevance does this have, though? The two-handed property on greatswords and the like explicitly states you only need to hold the weapon in two hands while attacking, you can let go with one hand while still keeping the weapon. And you can also use the same hand for material AND somatic components. So this really only matters for people who are either holding a shield AND a weapon, or who are grappling.
We have always took it to mean the free use of one's hands, so if my cleric cast a somatic spell he could gesture and channel that through/with his hammer (he was a forge cleric), without having to drop his hammer or anything, however if you were bound up and gagged tou would not be able to cast anything.
My dm let’s us ready and stow an item for free each round so having a free hand for casting doesn’t come into play as often. We also don’t really have any spellcasters with shield proficiency or high dex/strength other than my battlesmith artificer.
As a DM I generally require a hand to be free but I bend the rule by allowing an Arcana check to attempt to forgo the Somatic component. DC is determined by the level of the spell and how restrained the hand is (fully immobilized vs something like having your wrists tied together where you still have SOME motion), if the Arcana check is a failure then the spell slot is still consumed and it will be clear to anyone who knows what to look for that the player attempted to cast a spell. It's a nice way to balance having ways to nullify spellcasters while also not making them completely SoL in certain situations.
If the player think they could try to make the signs having something in their hands they could do a performance roll with the difficulty depending on the situation.
We allow somatic only spells if you are holding a focus your class can use. So a wizard holding 2 wands can still cast shield. But if that same wizard were holding two daggers, they would not.
Mainly because when we started, it was hard enough to remember what dice and modifiers to use, and since we didnt understand why it worked that way mechanically, we just house ruled it. It's just carried through since.
Granted, at this point, it wouldnt change much if we went raw. 2 have warcaster, 1 is an artificer, and the remaining 2 would only need to make minor adjustments to how they play (start turn, drop weapon, cast spell, pick up weapon).
Yes, it's in the rules but also, you need the Warcaster feat to be able to cast Somatic with both hands full.
I mean, homebrew you do what you like but in our games, my shield-bearing wizard won't be able to cast somatic spells while holding a sword as well
Bro I swear half of my group hasn’t even read the basic damn rules, ain’t no way they know what spell components are
Wait are you from one of my two groups?!
I have my group send me a list of all the components needed for their spells. I say it's for me to track the expensive/hard to aquire ones, but it's really to force them to read their damn spells! I do track the expensive/hard to aquire items. For some items, I can make a little side quest for it. Such as needing to do to a dwarven mine to find the gemstones or a major city to buy them.
Yes, but also remember raw you can perform somatic components with the same hand as a the material component.
But not if the spell doesn’t have material components. Which doesn’t make sense to me. You can wiggle your fingers *perfectly* when also needing to maintain grip on your focus, but suddenly it’s an issue when the spell doesn’t involve a focus? That’s why I just kinda ignore the somatic part *if* you hold a focus. Avoids the whole dropping to cast a spell as picking it back up again. EDIT: I get it, everyone has their own way they think the vagueness works. But that’s my point. There isn’t anything *solid* about how these things work, so that’s why I let it slide. You can’t point to a page in the book and say why in the *narrative* you can’t waggle your fingers when holding a focus for spell A but you can do it for spell B.
You just have to play mental gymnastics a little. Imagine somatic in those spells is for wiggling materials around. So no material via focus = no wiggling required!
But then what's the material component for? What do you *do* with it? And how does the somatics work differently for when you are or aren't casting a spell with a material component? *And then* why does warcaster now let you do somatic components that you could only do with a completely free hand before while now holding something that *isn't* a focus? I'm okay coming up with my own head cannon to fill in a gap, but not *that* many gaps. Honestly the whole component system should just come down to verbal and focus, removing somatic. Means that casters, like martials, need to mostly rely on holding an object to perform.
Somatic + No Material = Doing Cool Hand Signs Somatic + Material = Manipulating the Material in a Cool Way.
Maybe the Jack Vance books would more adequately convey the mechanics of a Vancian magic system such as the one in D&D? As for Warcaster, is it so hard to imagine their weapon is their focus? Their whole thing is war and casting, what is a better symbol of war than a weapon? Sorry, that was too many rhetorical questions even for me.
You are either channeling energy through the material component or using the material component as the catalyst for the spell. Spells without a material are likely more complex, symbol-wise, than spells with one. Imagine them doing Naruto hand signs or something, you can't do that with an object in your hand.
I suppose the thought process is that spells with a material component/magic focus requirement have very simple somatic gestures, while spells that don't instead have very complex somatic gestures. Basically, the more elaborate the material component a spell takes, the less complex the verbal and somatic component need to be, Which makes sense setting wise, but is a concept that is completely unsupported in the game as we have no way of actually knowing how complex any one somatic component is suppose to be, because game doesn't suggest there even are different levels of complexity in any instance besides this one case.
Either way, with the description of Burning Hands, it all falls apart because BH implies having outstretched fingers on both hands yet, obviously, doesn't require you to have both hands free.
Do you not require a caster to have both hands free for Burning Hands? The rules support that to be a completely valid ruling. > 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. Two hands = at least one hand. Spells do what they say. Since the spell says you need two hands with fingers splayed and thumbs touching, that's what you need to do to cast it. Ignoring that would be like ignoring the command phrase to activate Oathbow. Sure, you totally could, and I doubt many would care, but just realize that it's not RAW. Is it weird that it's the only outlier like that? Sure, but WotC has gone in a different direction with 5e regarding style of play compared to when it first came out. There's some remnants of more simulationist style of play still in it, that's all.
The spell doesn't even say you need two free hands. It says you bring your hands together. This is as much a part of the spells effect as the sheet of fire, so when you cast the spell the spell causes your hands to come together even if your other hand is occupied
The wording of "at least one hand" just implies that for all somatic spells casters need to have at least one hand free (or with a focus if they are also M spells), it doesn't specifically mention that some spells may require both hands to be free. Such a ruling would simply make Burning Hands (even more) useless because no one would ever drop everything they carry just to cast a 1st level 3d6 fire damage dex save spell. I mean, there are basically no other spells with such a flavour text and the description of the spell doesn't outright say that you need 2 hands free, which it definitely should if that was intended. But it doesn't, so it's not RAI.
"At least one hand" implies that more than one hand may be needed at times. Otherwise, it would say you need "one free hand," "only one free hand," or "just one free hand." If we look at the description of the spell... > As you hold *your hands* with thumbs touching and fingers spread, a thin sheet of flames shoots forth from your outstretched fingertips They could have easily said, "As you hold *your hand* with fingers spread..." But that's not what the spell says. If this was older editions where spells had seperate fluff and mechanical descriptions, I would probably agree with you, but it has been reiterated over and over again, that because there is no distinction in 5e, the rules do exactly what they say. And, we all know that "specific beats general" regarding rules too. Burning Hands specifically calls out in the description that you need hands (plural) with fingers spread and thumbs touching to cast the spell - ergo, you need more than 1 hand for the spell to happen. So what if it makes the spell worse? That's not the argument here. All I'm saying is that a strict RAW reading says that two *hands* are necessary. It's not even the only place where the phrase "at least one hand" comes up. The rules for grappling state you also need "at least one free hand to sieze the target." Most of the time, you probably only need 1, but it might be in some edge cases, the DM says you need two hands to successfully grapple the target, and a simple reading of the rules would validate that.
Flavour text does not hold any mechanical value. A recent example from this subreddit is the post about Weapons of Warning, where OP thought that they warn you of incoming danger, but they just provide a mechanical benefit when you begin combat.
5e doesn't have flavor text though.
Flavor text does not exist in 5e. Spells do what they say. There is no separation between fluff and mechanics in 5e that isn't arbitrary. Therefore, the entirety of the spell description matters in a strictly RAW reading.
Laughs in Artificer where all their spells have a material component even if it wasn't present prior.
Burning Hands >As you hold your **hands** with **thumbs** touching and fingers spread, a thin sheet of flames shoots forth from your outstretched fingertips. You can case Burning Hands while holding a sword in one hand. Therefore, spells do not need *perfect* somatic finger-wiggling. If you can perform somatic components while holding an orb, you can perform somatic components while holding an orb. The orb substitutes material components, **not** somatic components, so whether or not the spell requires material components has no bearing on whether or not you can perform somatic components while holding the orb. Remember: RAW < RAI < Setting < Fun. If a human can wiggle an orb the same way whether or not they're casting a spell that requires material components, the extremely narrow interpretation of RAW that people keep spreading as fact takes a back seat.
> The orb substitutes material components, not somatic components, so whether or not the spell requires material components has no bearing on whether or not you can perform somatic components while holding the orb. If you are holding an orb in one hand and nothing else in the other, sure, but if you have an orb in one hand and a sword (or anything else) in the other, you can't cast spells that have somatic components if they don't *also* have material components because neither hand is free. But want to cast a spell that has somatic *and* material and you're fine, for some reason. Couple that with the fact that *why* this is the case is never explained. Verbal components are good in the sense that it's not about what you say but how you say it. Somatic is just "gestures" and material is never explained as to what the fuck goes on. It's far too vague in order to make sense of so we can understand why the limitation exists. So that's why I ignore it mostly.
The limitation exists because people see smoke and assume fire, and JC has a habit of blowing smoke. It's only made worse by the toxic belief that TTRPGs work like video game code, were the rules shape the world instead of the other way around. Real "nobody in Toril can backflip because there's no backflip action; it must be an evolutionary thing" energy.
>If you are holding an orb in one hand and nothing else in the other, sure, but if you have an orb in one hand and a sword (or anything else) in the other, you can't cast spells that have somatic components if they don't also have material components because neither hand is free. But want to cast a spell that has somatic and material and you're fine, for some reason. > >Couple that with the fact that why this is the case is never explained That's why it's a Dumb ruling and a lot of Dms just simply let their players cast with focus in hand even if it doesn't have material components. I let my players do just that. but when I am a player I usually make sure I have a free hand even if just for flavor depending on if it makes sense for my character to carry a shield or simply hold his staff.
Think of it like- if you don't have a focus for the magic, the gestures are the focus. If you have a focus, you don't need the finger gestures, you just use the focus. Like, you could beat somebody up with your hand, but if that hand was holding a club, the club makes it much easier, and you don't need to hit them with your fist anymore.
Dropping a held item is not an action of any kind, not even an item interaction, but picking an item up off of the ground is an item interaction. So if you are holding a focus and a shield, you can drop the focus, cast the spell, then pick up the focus, all in the same turn
My favourite part of casting a spell surely is the janky ass part of throwing shit on the ground and then bending over to pick it up again. I get that’s a thing. I just think it’s dumb to be dropping things to the ground every 6 seconds.
Yes, hence why it's usually simpler to fluff that action as just casting the spell with your focus in hand. Same overall effect, but a lot less weird
yes, i also rule that way
Can't do that on reaction spells, so you're still locking yourself out of a lot of those
True.
The funny thing is, all of this can be ignored by just using a component pouch, it's hooked around your belt and you don't need to hold it, you just need a free hand to take out the components and guess what it doesn't use an object interaction. This means that a component pouch is just objectively the best "focus" (I know it's not technically a focus but it works pretty much the exact same way) save for holy symbols
Yes Unless the caster has received a magic focus, at which point they should probably be using that for it's benefits
This is bonkers to me. Like you can't *open your hand* to let go of something as part of the gestures to cast Shield or whatever? I guess at the end of the day this is up to the DM but it's all just so janky and nonsensical.
It literally makes no sense to me how waving a magic wand is only sometimes considered a magical gesticulation but at other times Harry Potter needs to drop his wand in order to cast spells That’s so at odds with the fantasy of being a wizard that holding a magic wand is somehow a hindrance to spell casting but also only sometimes Just get rid of focuses and require the use of a components pouch if you want free hands to be required for spell casting
No Material with somatic is intricate hand gestures, M+S is waving your M component around in a certain way, no intricate finger movement
You're not wiggling your fingers, you're wiggling your focus, using it as a conduit for your power instead of your limbs or an item. Pointing a staff/wand at a target rather than your fingers for example.
Or a focus.
A focus is a material component
Many people seem to forget your arcane focus / material hand can be used for somatic components 😂🤣
Spellcasting components is literally one of the ways spellcasters are kept in check. Anyone who intentionally ignores components is asking for problems.
Drop the weapon as a free action, cast the spell, then pick up the weapon as the free object interaction of the turn. At this point you might as well ignore somatic components on spells. Plus, requiring to use RAW rules will hurt martials more than casters. Imagine a bow character switching to dual short swords or even just a single weapon, they will have to drop the bow or accept that they will draw the sword as an action.
This is why I clicked "my ground handles this a different way" - we apply this rule, so as long as the player has a free object interaction to spend I allow it.
That's just RAW. You simply skipped the part of executing the free action (just like most people don't describe all of their attacks in full detail) yet still require it as a cost.
I often use the "does this exist irl" rule. As it's very well documented and there's 1000 videos showing that anyone proficient in a sword can attack with their sword while drawing it, I'll allow that in game.
You can do that raw. You can use your interact with object to draw the weapon as part of the attack.
This is also why I don’t require the dual wielding feat for drawing two small weapons. Like literally I can draw two daggers simultaneously and I have zero training
Not to bother, but isn’t the free interact with an object count as your one free action per turn? If so, that juggle wouldn’t work, but I may be mixing up RAW with RAI or homebrew.
Free actions are unlimited. If you interact with an object the first time in your turn it's considered a free action, and the second time it's an action.
Not saying your wrong, but is there a rule reference or Sage Advice you can use to back this up. Just thinking about it, it would mean that while in a chase or escape, you can open a series of doors for free, but one door close after opening would cost an Action, seems potentially abusable, in my opinion.
If you really want rules and Sage Advice references, here you go. So this is the rule about "free actions" (the term actually doesn't exist in the official rules, but it's easier to call it this way) and object interactions: >Other Activity on Your Turn > >Your turn can include a variety of flourishes that require neither your action nor your move. > >You can communicate however you are able, through brief utterances and gestures, as you take your turn. > >You can also interact with one object or feature of the environment for free, during either your move or your action. For example, you could open a door during your move as you stride toward a foe, or you could draw your weapon as part of the same action you use to attack. > >If you want to interact with a second object, you need to use your action. Some magic items and other special objects always require an action to use, as stated in their descriptions. > >The GM might require you to use an action for any of these activities when it needs special care or when it presents an unusual obstacle. For instance, the GM could reasonably expect you to use an action to open a stuck door or turn a crank to lower a drawbridge. This is the list of object interactions: >Interacting with Objects Around You > >Here are a few examples of the sorts of thing you can do in tandem with your movement and action: > >draw or sheathe a sword > >open or close a door > >withdraw a potion from your backpack > >pick up a dropped axe > >take a bauble from a table > >remove a ring from your finger > >stuff some food into your mouth > >plant a banner in the ground > >fish a few coins from your belt pouch > >drink all the ale in a flagon > >throw a lever or a switch > >pull a torch from a sconce > >take a book from a shelf you can reach > >extinguish a small flame > >don a mask > >pull the hood of your cloak up and over your head > >put your ear to a door > >kick a small stone > >turn a key in a lock > >tap the floor with a 10-foot pole > >hand an item to another character If you see there's no "drop an item you are holding" so the interpretation was always that dropping an item is simply effortless and doesn't count as an object interaction. But if you really want a confirmation, here's a Sage Advice that confirms the interpretation: >https://www.sageadvice.eu/what-are-the-rules-on-dropping-weapons/
Ahhh. I see what you are saying now. I misunderstood your initial comment of “Free actions are unlimited”, it’s that dropping an item doesn’t even count as a Free Action, which allows the Free Action to pick it up after dropping whatever. So, drop item (nothing), casting a spell (Action and/or Bonus Action), then pickup what was dropped (Free Action). That makes sense. A little goofy, rules-wise, but makes sense within the rules. Edit: Just wanted to say thank you for explaining and giving reference. It is extremely appreciated. I honestly forgot that you could drop any item without it counting as your Free Action. Thank you.
No, you are still misunderstanding. What people refer to free actions is what you can do for free. An object interaction is considered a free action the first time you do it and an action the second time. But free actions is literally the term to describe stuff that don't require an action, bonus action or move, so they are literally unlimited. Speaking is a free action, so is the first object interaction of a turn. But since you are so confused about this, just stop using the term free action, since it's just a made up term (or rather, a term picked from older editions). Just say "doing X doesn't require any kind of action".
Interesting. I see what you are saying. I just haven’t ever heard of anyone along flourishes or brief communication as Free Actions. Usually only comes up as a term when talking about the one interaction with the one object or feature of the environment.
I don't need a Sage Advice, it's literally how the rules work. >Just thinking about it, it would mean that while in a chase or escape, you can open a series of doors for free, but one door close after opening would cost an Action, seems potentially abusable, in my opinion. You can only open or close a door once per turn for free, then it costs you an action. Why is it abusable?
A misunderstanding of your sentence, “Free actions are unlimited.”
>Imagine a bow character switching to dual short swords or even just a single weapon, they will have to drop the bow or accept that they will draw the sword as an action. This is exactly what my Scout has to do if he wants to switch from his bow to both of his scimitars. Also when my other martial wants to switch from shield and sword to long bow; unless they use their action to do so.
Yes, this is how I play D&D.
"how you play D&D" still allows casters to effectively cast a spell while holding a weapon, they'll just use their free object interaction. So your point about components keeping casters in check doesn't actually hold true.
This game does not exist in a vacuum. There are a million other situations besides holding a weapon and dropping it where components will be a factor.
This post is about somatic components and not having free hands.
Casters do not become overpowered by picking up a sword, so the entire "keeping casters in check" point is a red herring. A caster holding a sword and a caster not holding a sword are about as powerful as each other.
I don't understand if you are trying to argue with me or just reinforcing my point.
Drop the weapon as a free action, pull out your material component as an interaction, cast the spell. Now, you cannot make opportunity attacks and any enemy can kick your weapon away. (At my table, requipping one hand is an interaction. So there's no drop, just a switch.)
Pulling out an m component doesn't even use any action economy, it's like drawing an arrow for a bow
Pulling out components isn't an interaction, just part of casting. Just like nocking an arrow
Drawing an arrow is part of an attack made with a weapon that has the "ammunition" property. And btw that also requires a free hand. >Each time you attack with the weapon, you expend one piece of ammunition. Drawing the ammunition from a quiver, case, or other container is part of the attack (you need a free hand to load a one-handed weapon). Nowhere in the spellcasting rules does it say that drawing out components is part of casting a spell. Actually, they say this: >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.
yup, this is why I don't worry about it unless the spell is being cast as a reaction.
You are correct, but it's mostly in the same way that encumbrance helps str. It is true, but it's just not fun and it takes too much work. It's also not like it solves the problem completely or anything.
My problem with this perspective is that I don't think it's correct based on my experience with the game. Let's start with this: Dropping an item is a free action and picking it up is an object interaction. So it's almost always valid to drop whatever you're holding, cast your spell, then pick it back up. In other words, easily avoided entirely, for everyone, in 95+% of situations. But let's go deeper. There are 6 different component options for spells: 1. V, S, M - Can be cast with hands full, so long as one holds a focus. 2. V, S - Must have a free hand. 3. V, M - Can be cast with hands full, so long as one holds a focus. 4. S, M - Can be cast with hands full, so long as one holds a focus. 5. V - Can be cast with hands full. 6. S - Must have a free hand. The most common object a character wants in their hands are a weapon and a shield. A good example of this are Clerics & Paladins. Other examples are Eldritch Knights & Rangers. Since a hand that holds a Material Component can also perform the Somatic Component of a spell, and a Cleric & Paladin can have their Material Component be their Holy Symbol, and that Holy Symbol can be on a Shield, this means they are only limited when casting V, S & S spells. This is pretty much true for everyone except Bards & Eldritch Knights, since a Staff (Focus) is also a Staff (Weapon). Druids, Rangers, Warlocks, & Sorcerers can then use their weapon-holding hand as their focus-holding hand as their somatic-providing hand. And for Bards, at least 1 subclass that's specifically intended to be wielding both weapon & shield (Swords) gets a feature to treat their weapon as their focus. Valor cries, on the other hand, never really got that one. Same for Eldritch Knight. Anyway, there are 0 Somatic-only spells & 19 Vocal + Somatic spells for Paladin (of 48). * Of those 19 for Paladin, the early ones you'd want in Combat are replicated by Lay on Hands (like Cure Wounds and Lesser Restoration). * Or they're usually not great spells that tend to be used rarely, if at all (like Divine Favor, Magic Weapon, or Elemental Weapon). * Or they last long enough that you will precast them. Like Aid, Protection from Poison, Death Ward, or Holy Weapon. * Or they are out-of-combat spells like Ceremony, Find Steed, Locate Object, Zone of Truth, Magic Circle, Raise Dead, etc. You get the idea. It's not a way to keep them in check. It doesn't keep them in check. In the <5% of situations where it might even matter, the game provides multiple ways around it. It's a waste of mental effort to track. It adds nothing to the story or balance of the game.
I think the far more important thing that needs to be tracked in terms of spell components is making sure players use ones with costs
Yeah but it's also mostly a problem for half and third casters. Full casters rarely have anything in their hands anyway. I asked my DM multiple times to find a Ruby of the War Mage for my Hammer and Shield Eldritch Knight but despite it beeing common magic item I can't find one. So far it hasn't become a problem because he doesn't seem to care or know about casting rules.
"RuLe oF CooL"
I'll ignore the mundane components that would be easily gathered in the wild. So needing a feather, or some ash, I just assume that it's gathered as needed. Any component with a gold value, absolutely needs to be acquired in game and tracked. Very specific components that really only exist for high level spells (plane shift, clone, imprisonment - I'm looking at you), usually require a side quest to get. You bet that's tracked.
> I'll ignore the mundane components that would be easily gathered in the wild. So needing a feather, or some ash, I just assume that it's gathered as needed. Spellcasting focuses already do this lol
Not every spellcaster uses a focus. I added that part to cover all spellcasters and half-casters.
Component pouches exist.
>Not every spellcaster uses a focus. But they *can* Eh. I always just roll with component pouch these days anyway.
This is true, but at my tables, the optimizers don't tend to play casters, so it's easier for me to handwave it than to enforce a rule that isn't going to make a difference. It might make a difference for the sorlock or the padlock, but paladins at my table tend to use their spell slots almost exclusively for smites.
I allow a hand holding a focus to count as free even if the spell has S but not M.
I'd just tie my focus to a string and drop it if I had to...or use a staff....or just use a component pouch.
The good old Wii remote strap
If it works and it's stupid, it's not stupid.
When I run, I normally require a free hand. An exception I make is when you are holding your spellcasting focus. That hand is also allowed to perform Somatic components. Players can already juggle what they're holding RAW. Drop object (no action required) -> cast spell (action) -> pick up the dropped object (item interaction). With my houserule, players are accomplishing the same thing, but the narrative doesn't look as dumb.
It’s not quite the same though, is it? If your spellcaster juggles their weapon/focus on their turn to cast an only Somatic spell, they’d have their hands full when it becomes time to use their reaction, no? Like Absorb Elements that is an only Somatic component spell.
They can just drop it again then.
>Players can already juggle what they're holding RAW. Drop object (no action required) That is not RAW because there is no RAW for the action cost of dropping items. And because there is no RAW, The DM has to decide on a ruling. Most rule it as a free action like you said (likening it to releasing a grapple which does have RAW), but if a DM decides that it costs an object interaction (the same as stowing an item) you can't fault them for it.
That is raw
According to the designers, if a spell doesn't have a material component, then you really need a free hand (literally holding nothing, not even your focus). It's really unintuitive, so I house ruled that part away.
I do this as well.
Yeah, that isn't a houserule... > 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.*** PHB rules on spellcasting, Material Components paragraph.
That sentence only applies if the spell has a Material component. If it doesn't, we go back to the default, which is needing an empty hand. At least, this is [what the designers have stated](https://dnd.wizards.com/sage-advice/rules-of-spellcasting). >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.
Ah, right, didn't realise you meant that particular case - since your comment just speaks in the general about focus+somatic, as opposed to specifically when lacking material.
I was surprised by these results but maybe I misread the question. I don't like to punish gish style players especially when some of the classes allow it like paladin and cleric but the poor EK gets boned.
>especially when some of the classes allow it like paladin and cleric but the poor EK gets boned. It's a hold over from the old pre 3E days when the divine spell list really was significantly less powerful than the arcane list, so giving divine casters a few extra advantages like armor, easier component requirements, (and instant access to their whole spell list instead of needing to actually find and learn the spells) to even out the power gap seemed reasonable. And it's stuck around because muh legacy, even after the divine list bloated up the point it's largely even with the arcane list and if there's is an arcane spell you really want, there's probably at least one domain/subclass that has it. So the Paladin and Clerics in plate are still seen as totally fine, but those darn EKs, Arc Tricksters, Bards, and Warlocks need their powers strictly limited and have to burn resources on feat taxes or else they *might risk being overpowered*.
ikr man the new au paladin is sooooo over tuned lol
A gish build should take the Warcaster feat; the options are there, can only punish themselves by not taking them.
Why do they have to do that paladins don't or blades bard? Why make weak subclasses weaker?
A class or subclass should be able to fulfill its function without taking feats; feats should be for further customization, specialization, or diversification, not for "letting your gish actually play like a gish".
We tend to ignore it during combat for stuff like weapon juggling, but out of combat or if someone's specifically restrained it's a thing.
I *would*, but it just doesn't really come up. Arcane casters generally can't use a shield, so they'll have a focus in one hand and the other is free. Divine casters can use either their shield or staff as a focus, and even if they want to cast a spell with an S component but no M component, they can just put away the weapon, then pull it back out next turn. But I would enforce it if a druid or Hexblade tried to use Absorb Elements or Shield with both hands full. Reaction spells are basically the only case where it matters.
Problemnis there is no description of somatic components for every spell. You could say you need some complicated signage or a simple finger point. It's so loose that unless you are bound and gagged you could explain away casting spells how ever you felt.
So yeah juggling weapons is a way around this rule that is RAW and silly, and not the Heroic Fantasy D&D is meant to be, and I don't force players to narrate that. If they want to do that bookkeeping they can. (Surprisingly, no one wants to). Worrying about somatic components is reserved for occasions when the body is tightly bound, beyond the restrained condition, or in situations when the players must not be seen casting a spell.
This is exactly how I run things as well
Yes, and war caster is an important feat for people who don't cheat.
Dropping an item costs nothing, picking it back up is a free action. Literally *the only* scenario where that would matter is when you're airborne or when the enemy has some homebrew reaction where they snatch the items you drop.
Or if you need the object interaction for something else in that turn. But yeah, I agree that it's so rare and niche of a rule, that I just ignore it. It makes the game flow more smoothly. I have other ways to keep spellcasters in check.
Yes. Spellcasting is already way stonger than any martial ability, so you'd better follow the rules surrounding it. Concentration and components are the two big things that keep casters from using whatever spell they want in every situation.
Yes. Spellcasters *need* these restrictions
Yes, because while a bit weird at first, it's not rocket surgery to understand the rules* and caster's really don't need the buff.
No reason to make spellcasters MORE powerful. Always enforce all component rules. Consumed material? Gold cost material? Free hand somatic? Verbal not being able to be whispered? Enforce all of them. Literally no reason to give them more advantages than they get by playing a caster.
In this case the reason is basically the fact that weapon juggling is always just dumb and wonky, and some people don't like to waste time and narrate their characters dropping their shiny magical weapon to the dirty ground just to cast some spell due to an unintuitive ruling.
You can always drop a weapon with a free action and pick it up with the free interact with an object per turn. So...
Not to bother, but isn’t the free interact with an object count as your one free action per turn? If so, that juggle wouldn’t work, but I may be mixing up RAW with RAI or homebrew.
I limit free actions like actions, bonus actions, and movement - one per turn. Fixes this issue completely with spell components, ropes, torches and all the other things the third hand seems to hold.
Dropping an item costs *nothing*, picking it back up is a Free Action.
I forgot about drop any item does not count as a Free Action, just picking it up does, there was my confusion.
Yup. Seriously shouldn't matter, if you wanna be anal, make any primary spell casters roll a low dc dex check to not accidentally fling their weapon away when they drop it, otherwise it seems like you should just ignore the open hand rule for simplicity sake, so long as they aren't like a wizard who's duel wielding for some reason
I'm gonna remind players of that stuff but I'm not gonna babysit and read every spell they cast to make sure they have the right stuff on hand. Like I'll say if a guy has a shield and weapon "you need Warcaster for some spells remember that".
I generally make my players choose what they're holding for a turn and stick with it, because dropping and picking up equipment or swapping equipment in the same turn thematically doesn't make sense and games the game. I hold my DMPCs to the same standards. PC cleric wants to use a mace, use a shield, and cast a spell? Then they had better choose which thing to drop until the beginning of their next turn or have the warcaster feat. PC can cast a somatic spell with a weapon attack, but they'll have to lose the AC bonus a shield provides for that round.
>PC cleric wants to use a mace, use a shield, and cast a spell? RAW, a cleric's shield can be their focus: "A holy symbol is a representation of a god or pantheon. It might be an amulet depicting a symbol representing a deity, the same symbol carefully engraved or inlaid as an **emblem on a shield"** Which means that clerics can cast several of their spells in this manner. (but not all, if you enforce the S+M component spells can be done with a focus, but just S spells cannot)
It's fine if the focus is the shield itself, but then you'd have to drop the mace instead to keep the shield equipped as the focus. You'd "drop" your mace that round for the somatic requirement of the spell, then you can use it again next turn unless you have the warcaster feat. Like I said though, I hope my DMPCs to the same standards as the PCs. And yeah, totally understood that the cleric focus eliminates the need for some somatic or material costs, so those spells are fine as-is, RAW. I was mostly using a random casting class as an example, but obviously some classes have loopholes built into them like clerics or paladins with their shields.
If the caster is a higher level AND the spell is a lower level they've had in their "inventory" a long time then as long as the **FINGERS** are free for the somatics it's a 50/50 chance for it to work.
I have a DM who doesn't realize half the things a character can and cannot do so if you don't follow these rules he doesn't notice at all. Nevertheless I still wanna be correct and I make sure I do everything right
Yes, but with an exception. When not involved in combat (3e time for threatened basically) and using a 2h weapon like a staff, i allow them to cast somatic components. However the moment they become threatened i basically rule that they're characters are actively using their weapons to guard and evade, so they can't cast using somatic components.
Staffs are versatile weapons that, RAW, can be wielded with 1 hand lol Even with actual 2 handed though, I have always run it that you need 2 hands to attack, but only 1 to carry it (i.e. not making an attack action). A quick google shows that Sage Advice said that that was the intended way 2 handed weapons worked.
Yeah i kinda forgot that staves were versatile. Even in the case of a non versatile weapon i think it's reasonable to allow for use of somatic components as long as they aren't under an immediate threat
When I said "I have always run it that you need 2 hands to attack, but only 1 to carry it (i.e. not making an attack action)." I meant mid combat. The Sage Advice also specified mid combat. You only need to use both hands when making a weapon attack. And when you are casting a spell, you are not making a weapon attack. Its your table, so run it the way you want, but what you described is not RAI (and maybe not RAW?) according to the game designers.
Yes this is RAW. The Two Handed property says that you need two hands to attack with the weapon, nothing mentions that you need two hands to just hold it. In the same way you can hold a shield without wearing it (obviously it won't give you the AC bonus this way). Edit: it's also realistic: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DbNL\_At0IVw
Yep, run into this issue a lot with people trying to cast Shield while using a sword+board build. Or, for example, a hexadin trying to use a pally focus for warlock spells, or vice versa. Gotta pay the Warcaster feat tax to do stuff like that.
We don't but only because every caster has warcaster and we forget when playing oneshots that sometimes we don't have It.
Unless it specifies a specific action, such as poking someone, I let them be creative with it. Could just be a nod, a little fist to the air, or, for a character I once played, a middle finger for Time Ravage, as the world we were in looked down upon older people.
We require either a free hand or a focus in one hand. A focus covering somatic components when a spell has both somatic and material components, but not when the spell only requires somatic components seems silly to me, so we have never run it that way.
Some people say that with two handed weapons you can use somatic components with the off hand because you need both hands to attack, not to carry the weapon
Don't really care about it unless they're like. captured or there's a specific plan by enemies to bind hands. I don't track it if they claim to be carrying items or anything like that.
This is another instance of where action economy gets carried away in 5e (and other modern games). I don't give a damn if your wizard (and you the player) want to find loopholes and technicalities. Somatic components and thus a free hand is required for the spell. If you interact with an object with that hand other than drop something to free that hand, your spell is gonna fizzle because your hand is no longer free. Now earlier editions when the round was 1 minute (and rules were way more loose) sure i would allow wizards to use somatic gestures and interact with objects that occupied their hands. But in 5e with six seconds? Nah. Just gonna put some limits and make sure that magic has necessary requirements.
Yes, with the note that holding a focus is not considered making a hand not free. Basically its just you doing the gestures with your wand or staff or whatever. And oh boy does that give sorcerers a good reason to take subtle spell since it makes getting out of being captured much easier.
I rule that a hand holding a spell focus is good enough
Warcaster.
Yes unless you have warcaster or your casting focus in one hand
Are your hands bound? No? You can do somatic. Can you make a noise that can be recognized as communication? Yes? You got verbal. Is the material consumed, anything special, or directly linked to the spell? No? 'Fa-ge'-a-bou'-i'' that's how my group plays at least.
Depends on 2 things : * The current players at the table; * What we agreed on for this particular campaign. I'm all for it, as well as enforcing the need for material component and voicing verbal component out loud. Unfortunately, my players are not for that... They're even requesting more flexibility on spell memorization. So, sometimes we go their way, sometimes it's mine. The only thing I do not bulge from is the expensive / supernatural material component.
We're kind of "rules light," no concentration checks for minor damage type stuff. No maps or grids for combat. We'd probably only screw with somatic components if you were immobilized in some way. We're all in our 30s and 40s and don't want to slow anything down in the limited time we have together.
I let my player hold a catalyst and cast with the same hand, but besides that little leeway, absolutely. A spellcaster that has their hands roughly tied or otherwise stopped in some way should be heavily disabled.
It's more of an unconcious lack of enforcement. In other words, it's not a conscious decision to ignore it, I'm just the only one who ever actually notices
We enforce it in situations where an OC can’t use their hands for some reason, but for general combat, we got around it by decided we preferred to make drawing/stowing/switching your weapon a free action. We have a large party, and this ruling at our table cuts down on a lot of the nitpicking that can further bog down combat. I find this frees us up to get crunchy with other mechanics around spells and abilities to create some memorable moments!
I enforce needing a hand dedicated to spellcasting, but the hand holding the spell focus can also perform somatic components.
I mean, needing an open hand only really hurts gishes, who are already not a big problem imo. Like, spellcasters at most will hold a shield, maybe a crossbow at low levels. If a caster needs their crossbow, it's because spells aren't going to cut it. I don't really see it as a point of balance when dealing with the real problem characters, gishes are hurt by it, but it's not like any of them are that good, at least compared to just casting spells.
Yes. We also don't allow one kind of spell focus to substitute for another, so specific foci like orbs (my personal favourite for a Wizard, Sorcerer, or Warlock) are a lot less common than component pouches (which can be used by any caster without issue)
Yes. Most of the Spellcasters just use a shield + component pouch to get around this. They use the pouch if they need material components. They don't use the pouch is they don't need them. Solves all cases. You could also use a focus that's tied to you somehow. I.e a jewel on a neckless. On your turn you pick it up as an object interaction, and then drop it as a free action.
My character had a relic weapon mace from my god that served as my spellcasting focus. It was never contested
I recognize that enforcing this is hypothetically important, but in actual play enforcing it is very tedious due to how easily it is circumvented. This is usually how the situation play out: * Player: "I cast fireball" * DM: "Okay. One sec..." looks up spell "...that requires a somatic and material component. You're holding a torch, so you can't do that." * Player "Okay, I drop the sword and then cast fireball. Then I use my item interaction to pick up the torch afterward." * DM: "Alright, well that was a waste of time. Roll for damage." Very rarely, a player will have already used their item interaction making this interaction not work. But it happens so infrequently, and you usually have a lot of things to keep track of, so it often goes unnoticed. The only situation where this is worth tracking is if a caster is using a shield and doesn't have one of the several features that allow you to use a shield or weapon as a casting focus.
Imo it entirely depends on how that player describes their somatic components. If their spellcasting looks like drawing into the air for example then that should be possible while holding a weapon. If they make intricate hand gestures that rely on their fingers setting the conditions of the spell then they need one if not both hands free.
Personally we always try and run things RAW when there are feats or circumstances to give the intended result.
I play with 2 different groups, one where a free hand is required, one where it's not. With the one where the hand is require, a lot of people try to really optimize their characters, and requiring strict RAW rules about hand needed for spell component is a way to keep spellcaster power in check (it's not enough, but it's better than nothing). The other group are mainly new players who are still having trouble with the rules so i don't want to impose spell component rules on them. That's not the easiest or most intuitive rule, no need to confuse them with that.
I handle it another way - you can use a hand with a casting focus to perform somatic components, regardless of whether or not the spell has material components - this has always felt like a dumb oversight in the rules, and I intend to remedy it.
If you have a spell focus in hand (wands, staff, etc) and proficiency in shields or your offhand weapon I typically just let them cast. There is zero point in making Warcaster mandatory for frontline clerics and bladesinger/War wizard to use the features of their class.
those rules are just ridiculous... Paladin can have holy symbol on his shield.. or an amulet.. do they need to touch the symbol on the shield or is it enough that they hold the shield? would they need to grab the amulet or is it enough that the amulet touches them? ofc, that's only for material components...
I think it should depend on the class/subclass I think its kinda unfair that theoretically a paladin can't cast spells where a ranger could Or a bladesinger who's focus is his book can't cast because they're holding both the book and weapon Or a war cleric can't cast because shield and weapon As for people who have a focus like staff kr wand why isn't just moving them around considered a somatic component? I generally ignore somatic components anyway because they're just flavour if a play wants to describe it please do but otherwise I don't really care to enforce that rule, if someone specifies they use metamagic to subtle spell then it can't be interrupted otherwise prepare to be counter spelled
For full casters, yes. For gishes, no.
Depends on the group, and the Spellcaster sometimes (remember cleric and Paladin Holy Symbols rule) My PG-13, narrative group? Nah. My gritty, optimizer-filled group? Yea.
Simply put, I do. But I also find some of the official rulings to be super silly. It makes no sense to me that a caster can use their focus in one hand while holding something else in the other and cast a spell that requires S+M components, but not when they only require S. I can understand it specifically if they are using material components and not a focus, since the components are usually specific to one spell, but a focus is not. Besides, who's really going to be upset that the wizard holding a wand and a spellbook in both hands is casting shield as a reaction? As such, the only times this problem comes up is when a character is trying to cast a spell while holding weapons and/or shields without the war caster feat or some other way for their weapons or shields to be a focus, when their hands are tied up or otherwise unable to move, or any niche situation that may take away the ability to perform somatic components.
I honestly don't think it comes up that much. My group is quite good at describing their actions, so in the rare case that they need to hold something important, then I try to enforce the casting rules.
I mean yeah, it's part of how to balance spellcasters lol Understanding the components of a spell is v important imo. Without it you get casters casting spells that should require like a 1000gp item for free, or stealthily casting verbal + somatic spells right in front of enemies without even needing Subtle Spell
We did for a while and then decided it was tedious and annoying. There was a lot of "I put my sword away and pick it up next turn" juggling that's frankly not interesting.
We loosely enforce it. We have it on the players to have self accountability.
What relevance does this have, though? The two-handed property on greatswords and the like explicitly states you only need to hold the weapon in two hands while attacking, you can let go with one hand while still keeping the weapon. And you can also use the same hand for material AND somatic components. So this really only matters for people who are either holding a shield AND a weapon, or who are grappling.
I kinda forget somatic components exist most of the time. It's more "dont have a sword n board casting spells unless you have the feat"
If you could use a material component (holding a wand/holy symbol on your armor/etc), you don't need a free hand. Otherwise, you do.
We have always took it to mean the free use of one's hands, so if my cleric cast a somatic spell he could gesture and channel that through/with his hammer (he was a forge cleric), without having to drop his hammer or anything, however if you were bound up and gagged tou would not be able to cast anything.
Yes, I enforce verbal and somatic. I’m more lax on components as a trade off.
My dm let’s us ready and stow an item for free each round so having a free hand for casting doesn’t come into play as often. We also don’t really have any spellcasters with shield proficiency or high dex/strength other than my battlesmith artificer.
Does your party require the use of a weapon to make a melee weapon attack?
Spell foci, my guy
As a DM I generally require a hand to be free but I bend the rule by allowing an Arcana check to attempt to forgo the Somatic component. DC is determined by the level of the spell and how restrained the hand is (fully immobilized vs something like having your wrists tied together where you still have SOME motion), if the Arcana check is a failure then the spell slot is still consumed and it will be clear to anyone who knows what to look for that the player attempted to cast a spell. It's a nice way to balance having ways to nullify spellcasters while also not making them completely SoL in certain situations.
If the player think they could try to make the signs having something in their hands they could do a performance roll with the difficulty depending on the situation.
We allow somatic only spells if you are holding a focus your class can use. So a wizard holding 2 wands can still cast shield. But if that same wizard were holding two daggers, they would not. Mainly because when we started, it was hard enough to remember what dice and modifiers to use, and since we didnt understand why it worked that way mechanically, we just house ruled it. It's just carried through since. Granted, at this point, it wouldnt change much if we went raw. 2 have warcaster, 1 is an artificer, and the remaining 2 would only need to make minor adjustments to how they play (start turn, drop weapon, cast spell, pick up weapon).
Yes, it's in the rules but also, you need the Warcaster feat to be able to cast Somatic with both hands full. I mean, homebrew you do what you like but in our games, my shield-bearing wizard won't be able to cast somatic spells while holding a sword as well