D&D 5E Sage Advice: Spellcasting

[I'm A Banana]

Glad to see the Hand Police that suffused late 3e and 4e are alive and well...

My houserule: "It is a free action to change what you are holding in your hands on your turn."

This only interferes with spells cast as a reaction - if you didn't have your doodad in your hands at the end of your last turn, you won't be able to put it back in your hands to cast a spell as a reaction.

 

[Prism]

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.

It probably rarely affects wizards since they typically have a hand free in addition to holding a wand or staff. Clerics and paladins would have their focus on a shield or around their neck so all they would need to do is put their weapon away. Other than that a spell component pouch would work as the best focus since it doesn't go in hand (I assume - personally I'd let this apply to all focus's making them free to take out during casting). Bards probably have the hardest time trying to juggle weapons, instruments and when needed costly components.

Still, I think most problems are solved by using the free interaction to put something away at the start of your round

 

[jodyjohnson]

Seems like a FAQ designed to test the resolve of the "Play RAW or don't play at all" faction.

Jeremy Crawford (in his Jack Nicholson voice): "You want the RAW? You can't handle the RAW!"


I am a little disappointed there wasn't any hint of RAI or RAF in the article.

 

[Forged Fury]

I do find it weird that a spellcasting focus can't stand it for a spell component that is consumed, regardless if it has a cost or not. Granted, I don't think there are a lot of spells like that, but still...

 

[Psikerlord#]

I pretty much forget/ignore the "free hand" requirements. Doesnt seem to impact on the game any. I do enforce gold and obtaining material requirements.

 

[bogmad]

I do find it weird that a spellcasting focus can't stand it for a spell component that is consumed, regardless if it has a cost or not. Granted, I don't think there are a lot of spells like that, but still...

If a spell is designed to have a cost, like a diamond worth 1,000 gp for raise dead, then having a focus replace the component instead totally invalidates the cost that is intended with the spell description. Makes Pretty good sense to me.

 

[Forged Fury]

If a spell is designed to have a cost, like a diamond worth 1,000 gp for raise dead, then having a focus replace the component instead totally invalidates the cost that is intended with the spell description. Makes Pretty good sense to me.

Sorry, I guess that wasn't clear. I think my statement above may say it, but I have no issue with a focus being unable to replace a spell component with a cost. What I am questioning is the extension that a spellcasting focus cannot replace a spell component if it is consumed, even if it doesn't have a cost.

EDIT: For example, Globe of Invulnerability has a 0 cost glass bead that shatters at the end of the spell. A spellcasting focus cannot replace this component.

 

[bogmad]

Sorry, I guess that wasn't clear. I think my statement above may say it, but I have no issue with a focus being unable to replace a spell component with a cost. What I am questioning is the extension that a spellcasting focus cannot replace a spell component if it is consumed, even if it doesn't have a cost.

EDIT: For example, Globe of Invulnerability has a 0 cost glass bead that shatters at the end of the spell. A spellcasting focus cannot replace this component.

Oh, yeah, on looking back over it, that is odd.
I doubt I'd rule that way in a game I ran. Or I might describe the fluff of the mage throwing beads, but rule it as a free action with no mechanical penalty, regardless of whether he has a free hand or not
RAF I guess...

EDIT: Or a cheap component in tandem with the implement. For example, the mage tosses out glass bead, points his wand at it and it expands into a Globe of Invulnerability.

The only reason to be a stickler about it is if you're forcing your wizards to go out and source their cost-less components, and who does that?

 

[sunrisekid]

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

You make a good point. But to me this feels like it slightly invalidates the class needlessly, in that the spells are intended to augment the Eldritch Knight. Why restrict spell-use or weapon/armor choices "downward" (if you get my drift)?

I have an Eldritch Knight in the party and the player was non-plussed that she couldn't use a shield. I don't see much of a problem letting her have both, so I am tempted to waive the somatic component for that class given how few spells they have.

On the other, tactical class trade-offs are interesting in my opinion (not necessarily my player's opinion). However, in the negative scenario indicated, it suggests that it is less of a tactical option and more of an imposition.

 

[Paraxis]

EDIT: For example, Globe of Invulnerability has a 0 cost glass bead that shatters at the end of the spell. A spellcasting focus cannot replace this component.

That is odd. I will continue to ignore that rule, just like I don't have people track ammunition.