Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
How do you interpret the green-flame blade and booming blade somatic component?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Sword of Spirit" data-source="post: 9215162" data-attributes="member: 6677017"><p>For some reason, when these cantrips got changed from a V to S component (accompanying the consistent M that is the weapon itself), I thought that was more about aesthetics and making it so you don't have to speak a magic word every time you use them. I was interpreting the S component as the attack you make with the weapon itself.</p><p></p><p>Which is an odd lapse for me, because it was just today that I realized you need a free hand for S components, and it doesn't seem like the hand you are swinging your sword with is terribly free.</p><p></p><p>So the most obvious rules interpretation is that you need your other hand free. It also wouldn't be a stretch to say you can't use it with two-handed weapons, since the attack is made as part of the casting, and your hand is not free at that time (but the rules are silent about whether you hand needs to be free for every moment of the casting, so that's not necessarily called for).</p><p></p><p>Now I'm wondering if that interpretation is correct and the actual intent was to nerf the spell a bit by, perhaps, limiting it to one-handed weapons and making it so a rogue can't easily switch between casting the cantrip and making an off-hand bonus attack.</p><p></p><p>On the other hand, one could make a weaker case for the somatic component being the weapon attack in this case. There are two components to it. The first part is based on the change in wording of part of the spell, and the second is based on the interpretation of the interaction between S and M components in the spellcasting rules.</p><p></p><p>The original had "As part of the action used to cast this spell, you must make a melee attack", while the newer version has "you brandish the weapon used in the spell's casting and make a melee attack". "Brandishing" could just be flavor text as a minority (I believe) of spells have, or it could indicate the weapon is the somatic component.</p><p></p><p>In addition, the the components section of the PHB says "A spellcaster must have a hand free to access a spell's material components--or to hold a spellcasting focus--but in can be the same hand that he or she uses to perform somatic components." However, that part is under the Material, rather than Somatic section, and requires us to make that rule go both ways, which isn't the obvious context.</p><p></p><p>What do you guys think the intent is supposed to be here?</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Sword of Spirit, post: 9215162, member: 6677017"] For some reason, when these cantrips got changed from a V to S component (accompanying the consistent M that is the weapon itself), I thought that was more about aesthetics and making it so you don't have to speak a magic word every time you use them. I was interpreting the S component as the attack you make with the weapon itself. Which is an odd lapse for me, because it was just today that I realized you need a free hand for S components, and it doesn't seem like the hand you are swinging your sword with is terribly free. So the most obvious rules interpretation is that you need your other hand free. It also wouldn't be a stretch to say you can't use it with two-handed weapons, since the attack is made as part of the casting, and your hand is not free at that time (but the rules are silent about whether you hand needs to be free for every moment of the casting, so that's not necessarily called for). Now I'm wondering if that interpretation is correct and the actual intent was to nerf the spell a bit by, perhaps, limiting it to one-handed weapons and making it so a rogue can't easily switch between casting the cantrip and making an off-hand bonus attack. On the other hand, one could make a weaker case for the somatic component being the weapon attack in this case. There are two components to it. The first part is based on the change in wording of part of the spell, and the second is based on the interpretation of the interaction between S and M components in the spellcasting rules. The original had "As part of the action used to cast this spell, you must make a melee attack", while the newer version has "you brandish the weapon used in the spell's casting and make a melee attack". "Brandishing" could just be flavor text as a minority (I believe) of spells have, or it could indicate the weapon is the somatic component. In addition, the the components section of the PHB says "A spellcaster must have a hand free to access a spell's material components--or to hold a spellcasting focus--but in can be the same hand that he or she uses to perform somatic components." However, that part is under the Material, rather than Somatic section, and requires us to make that rule go both ways, which isn't the obvious context. What do you guys think the intent is supposed to be here? [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
How do you interpret the green-flame blade and booming blade somatic component?
Top