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!

​

 

[Ristamar]

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?

Are you referring to Overchannel for Evokers? RAW, you can use it with cantrips and suffer no negative effects since they are 0th level spells, but Mearls and Crawford have suggested using 1d12 necrotic damage as a starting point or not allowing Overchannel with cantrips.

https://twitter.com/mikemearls/status/489177462505353216

https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/514844002500083712

 

[castlewise]

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.

This interpretation works really well for some cases, and less well for others. The article mentions Cure Wounds which is a touch spell. Holding a shield in one hand and a weapon in another definitely seems like it would interfere, and its reasonable you would have to put your weapon away. On the other hand Magic Missile is verbal/somatic with no material component and is very much ranged. Having a rule which might require a one armed/shield bearing/othewise occupied wizard to put away their wand to cast magic missle seems wierd.

 

[Klaus]

This interpretation works really well for some cases, and less well for others. The article mentions Cure Wounds which is a touch spell. Holding a shield in one hand and a weapon in another definitely seems like it would interfere, and its reasonable you would have to put your weapon away. On the other hand Magic Missile is verbal/somatic with no material component and is very much ranged. Having a rule which might require a one armed/shield bearing/othewise occupied wizard to put away their wand to cast magic missle seems wierd.

Re: Cure Wounds: you could deliver the touch with the holy symbol on your shield.

Re: Magic Missile: I agree, that seems a bit off. But I'd let the restriction stand, and point the player to the War Caster feat.

 

[castlewise]

Re: Cure Wounds: you could deliver the touch with the holy symbol on your shield.

Re: Magic Missile: I agree, that seems a bit off. But I'd let the restriction stand, and point the player to the War Caster feat.

Its not actually the stowing/taking out part that I dont like. The action rules are flexible enough that you don't really have to worry about it all that much. Its the idea that you can't cast Magic Missle (or Maze, or Meteor Swarm, or Poison Spray or Ray of Frost, Prestidigitation, etc...) with a wand. Even if I have a wand in one hand I have to cast those spells with my off hand.

 

[jrowland]

Its not actually the stowing/taking out part that I dont like. The action rules are flexible enough that you don't really have to worry about it all that much. Its the idea that you can't cast Magic Missle (or Maze, or Meteor Swarm, or Poison Spray or Ray of Frost, Prestidigitation, etc...) with a wand. Even if I have a wand in one hand I have to cast those spells with my off hand.

I agree, that doesn't feel right. However, I let my players decide whether its material component or focus. My player chose Materials, but I think Focuses vis-a-vis 4E might feel more "right" if they are required for all spells (so even MM requires a focus). I'd have to ask my players, but I don't see it really being a problem.

 

[Tormyr]

This interpretation works really well for some cases, and less well for others. The article mentions Cure Wounds which is a touch spell. Holding a shield in one hand and a weapon in another definitely seems like it would interfere, and its reasonable you would have to put your weapon away. On the other hand Magic Missile is verbal/somatic with no material component and is very much ranged. Having a rule which might require a one armed/shield bearing/othewise occupied wizard to put away their wand to cast magic missle seems wierd.

Applying cure wounds with a weapon or shield sounds a lot like our half-gnoll paladin when he does lay on hands for someone who is unconscious. He slaps them awake ("Wake up! Wake up!"). At first I had to resist giving the healed creature extra damage as a result of the lay on hands.

 

[castlewise]

I agree, that doesn't feel right. However, I let my players decide whether its material component or focus. My player chose Materials, but I think Focuses vis-a-vis 4E might feel more "right" if they are required for all spells (so even MM requires a focus). I'd have to ask my players, but I don't see it really being a problem.

I guess the issue is if casting is like Harry Potter where you need a focus for everything, or Lord of the Rings where a focus can be helpful but not necessary. As written the rules put DnD into the latter camp, but at the end of the day you could houserule it to work either way without causing much trouble.

 

[Prince Atom]

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?

The bloody hand prints all over the walls might help with the perspective.

 

[Rune]

It seems to me that a lot of the confusion about and/or mechanical inconsistencies with spell components would go away if only the spells had brief descriptions of what the somatic components actually are (as they do for material components).

 

[jodyjohnson]

The subsequent Twitter exchange:
https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/580147816669917186


Jeremy Crawford [MENTION=4036]Jeremy[/MENTION]ECrawford
Follow
[MENTION=11365]Alphastream[/MENTION] I hope groups use the rule only if they like the texture it gives spellcasting. If it gets in the way of the action, change it.
6:23 PM - 23 Mar 2015


Jeremy Crawford&#8207 [MENTION=4036]Jeremy[/MENTION]ECrawford·22h22 hours ago
[MENTION=33464]pedr[/MENTION] Components mostly reinforce the in-world feel of classic D&D spellcasting: exotic, esoteric, and sometimes inconvenient.

Pete Griffith&#8207 [MENTION=33464]pedr[/MENTION]·22h22 hours ago
[MENTION=4036]Jeremy[/MENTION]ECrawford That makes sense. It's a good set of rules for that, even if it creates some odd complexities in play

Jeremy Crawford&#8207 [MENTION=4036]Jeremy[/MENTION]ECrawford·22h22 hours ago
[MENTION=96065]Munchkin[/MENTION]en It's, indeed, mostly for players. Many use V, S, M as a tool for describing the weird in and outs of spells.