D&D 5E Sage Advice: Spellcasting

[TerraDave]

Its up:

http://dnd.wizards.com/articles/features/rules-spellcasting

One thing that stands out is his take on free hands and spell-casting.

I am expecting some comments on it.

 

[TwoSix]

Its up:

http://dnd.wizards.com/articles/features/rules-spellcasting

One thing that stands out is his take on free hands and spell-casting.

I am expecting some comments on it.

Yea, that isn't how I would have expected that to be ruled.

What it's pretty much saying is that for S,M spells (ignoring V for the moment, as it doesn't matter), the act of holding the material component (or replacement spell focus) IS the somatic component of the spell. So if you have a way of circumventing the material component (such as the holy symbol on the shield), then S,M spells are actually easier to cast than S only spells. Interesting.

I don't hate the ruling or anything, or even really disagree with it, but it's not how I expected it to be ruled.

 

[Prism]

I'm pretty good with those answers as that's how we have been playing it.

Specifically for the free hand requirement my cleric puts his weapon away if he wants to cast a somatic spell and gets it back out next round if he wants to attack. Seems easy enough. The gesturing with a shield might look a bit weird but seems ok. I prefer a holy symbol to avoid such weirdness

We have had it come up where a player with both hands full wanted to cast shield on their reaction but couldn't. I guess they could have dropped their weapon but chose not too

 

[S_Dalsgaard]

That all seems to make sense.

I would probably allow the shield hand in the cleric example to be used for the somatic component, even if the spell doesn't need the shield as a focus/material component., That would make it a bit simpler in-game, but I can see the point of doing it like suggested in the article.

 

[sunrisekid]

What about the Eldritch Knight? Most of the spells permitted have a somatic component, which implies that a shield would not be permitted - is this the case?

 

[Ristamar]

I wish he would have specifically addressed casting while holding a two-handed weapon in this article so all of the basic options would have been covered in a single official source.

 

[Sword of Spirit]

To rephrase:

You can only provide a somatic component with a hand that is holding a spellcasting focus if the spell also has a material component. (And that component is neither costly nor expended.)

Which is weird as all get out. I see where it's coming from, but I'm not at all sure I like it.

If that were the original intent of the rules, they did a poor job of defining things in the books. That rule essentially means that there are two different kinds of somatic components. You have your free-hand only somatic components, and then you have your somatic components that take place when you cast a spell with a material component.

Since there are two types of somatic components, they should have just rolled one into the M component and straight up described M and S components as mutually exclusive. No spell could have both. Then they say that you can use a spellcasting focus to substitute for non-costly, non-expended M components.

That's exactly how Sage Advice is effectively saying that the rules work, which means either the rules were written extremely poorly or he is wrong about design intent. (Or he is only answering RAW as he reads it and ignoring intent.)

These rules also make it a liability to use a spellcasting focus unless the only spells you ever cast require material components (but not costly nor consumed ones), because you now will have to worry about switching that focus in and out of your hand all the time, which is a headache for both players and DMs to keep track of.

Honestly, it is a heck of a lot easier to just allow you to produce somatic components with a spellcasting focus in hand period.

 

[Sunseeker]

I think some of this could have been clarified with somewhat more universal wording, such as:
You have the choice of one "Action" per turn. You may use this to take the "Attack Action" or the "Cast Action" thus clarifying that Cast is a type of Action that can be taken. Then when Extra Attack explains how it modifies the "Attack Action" it would be clearer that the "Cast Action" alternative is unaffected.

I am fully in support of the "free hands" requirement of spells provided that the spell itsself explains why you need to use your hands to cast it (such as Burning Hands, which you can't cast without making the correct hand gestures). I don't agree with the default assumption that every spell needs to be cast from the hands.

 

[Ristamar]

I never expected Somatic casting to be the "grapple rules" of 5e. It almost feels like they're actively trolling the person who came up with the idea of a spellcasting focus.

 

[Prism]

What about the Eldritch Knight? Most of the spells permitted have a somatic component, which implies that a shield would not be permitted - is this the case?

Need to sheath your weapon before casting a spell. No particular problem except you won't be able to make opportunity attacks until you get your weapon out again. Probably best not to use a hand held focus as you won't be able to get it out - use a component pouch. I guess using a shield or two weapons as an eldritch knight is a bit difficult