Sage Advice: The Rules of Spellcasting

WotC's Jeremy Crawford takes the role of The Sage again this week, with a Sage Advice column devoted to spellcasting. He answers questions about spells with attack rolls, melee spells and opportunity attacks, spells cast without spell splots, material components, line of sight and concentration, and dismissing spells. "The worlds of Dungeons & Dragons are filled with magic, and many characters and monsters wield that magic in the form of spells. This month’s installment of Sage Advice focuses on rules that govern the casting of those spells. The following questions deal with rules from the Player’s Handbook, especially in chapters 9 and 10. You might want to have the book handy as you read!"

​

You'll find the column right here!

​

 

[FitzTheRuke]

I find it weird that you meet the somatic requirements for M,S, spells with a implement in hand, but you need a completely free hand to meet the somatic requirements for just plain S, spells. I would let you keep your focus in hand for those spells too.

That struck me as strange and counter-intuitive as well.

 

[Riley37]

"If only this spell required material components! Then I could cast it without losing my sword-and-board setup!"

"DM, can I please learn an alternate version of this spell, a version which requires material components?"

When that's the practical response to your rulings, then maybe something's wrong with those rulings.

 

[Klaus]

"If a spell has a somatic component, you can use the hand that performs the somatic component to also handle the material component."

So this makes sense to me. What doesn't make sense is if there is no material component, then you need an empty hand for the somatic component. In other words, of it's S,M you can hold your focus but if it's just S you can't. I can understand this for the sake of not having a weapon in hand, but to say you can't have your spell focus in hand, that doesn't make sense to me. I think I'll be house ruling that one away.

Granted the example here was the cleric using their shield as a spell focus, but I think if you're going to allow that, then you allow it to always act as a spell focus. Saying a mage can't perform somatic gestures with his/her wand hand unless it also requires material components is just silly.

I find it weird that you meet the somatic requirements for M,S, spells with a implement in hand, but you need a completely free hand to meet the somatic requirements for just plain S, spells. I would let you keep your focus in hand for those spells too.

Think of it this way: when you're handling a Material component, that hand counts as already "in the loop" for Somatic components, so they don't interfere with each other. When you're casting a spell with only Somatic components, it means the gestures take on a greater part of the burden of making the spell work. Holding anything (even an unneeded component) interferes.

 

[Reynard]

Think of it this way: when you're handling a Material component, that hand counts as already "in the loop" for Somatic components, so they don't interfere with each other. When you're casting a spell with only Somatic components, it means the gestures take on a greater part of the burden of making the spell work. Holding anything (even an unneeded component) interferes.

Or, more simply, whatever thing you are doing with the material component is part of the somatic component of the spell. When Gandalf casts fire seed up in the tree with goblins and wargs encircling the Company, he has to blow on the pinecone to set it alight -- that is the somatic and material component right there. A spell that does not require any material component still requires precise gestures and weird finger manipulations so halding anything would interfer. it would be like trying to cast a spell with a verbal component with a mouthful of water.

 

[Evenglare]

Wasn't there some kind of exploit with cantrips being level 0 spells. I forget what exactly but it was a big topic. Why did he not address that at all?

 

[jrowland]

Wasn't there some kind of exploit with cantrips being level 0 spells. I forget what exactly but it was a big topic. Why did he not address that at all?

I am trying to remember it too.


Was this it HERE?

I think this Sage Advice answers that any way.

 

[neobolts]

Wasn't there some kind of exploit with cantrips being level 0 spells. I forget what exactly but it was a big topic. Why did he not address that at all?

I believe you mean this thread:
http://www.enworld.org/forum/showth...love-the-optimizing&highlight=warlock+cantrip

The Warlock Eldritch Blast + Polearm Master OA Combo

It was addressed on Twitter, but I really thought the sage was going to tackle it head-on today and was surprised when he didn't.

 

[Jinashi]

I believe you mean this thread:
http://www.enworld.org/forum/showth...love-the-optimizing&highlight=warlock+cantrip

The Warlock Eldritch Blast + Polearm Master OA Combo

It was addressed on Twitter, but I really thought the sage was going to tackle it head-on today and was surprised when he didn't.

Plus this
https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/580139521498480640

 

[Grainger]

Based on the shadows of his hand against the wall, he's almost to it. I would guess the trap only triggers when you attempt to remove the artifact, not when you reach for it.

Wow, I think you're right - to me, the picture makes it look like that's a long corridor - but it's actually not much longer than his arm. I can almost get my eyes to see it the intended way. Now what colour was that dress again?

 

[AyaMayume]

EDIT: Never mind, I found the mention of War Caster in the article, please ignore this post.

I have a question: In the article it mentions how you cannot use a Spell as a Reaction... what about my Wizard with the War Caster Feat?