D&D 5E Subtle change to component/focus rules

[Pauper]

What's your intent?
Yes, it fixes an odd wart in the rules. But why? Other than making the rules precise, what benefit is there in play? Why is it advantageous to complicate to imply clerics cannot cast many spells while holding a shield? Where is the benefit at the table?

Well, the rule was clearly important enough to the designers to warrant errata -- a physical change to the text of the rule.

If the idea was to change the rule to support the ruling about clerics and emblazoned holy symbols, then the text was partially successful. Now instead of being obviously wrong, it is only arguably wrong, depending on your interpretation of the related rules and which rule you feel takes precedence.

As you point out in another post, though, the implementation of this ruling has ramifications for other rulings, based on the use of the term 'hand free' in more than just the spellcasting rules.

I won't deny that the interpretation I favor is the one where, if a cleric wants to heal, she puts away her weapon. That just seems thematically appropriate to me. Others are welcome to disagree and prioritize ease-of-play or relative balance between classes if they choose. I just felt it was worth pointing out the chain of argument for those who wanted to justify, solely out of the existing rules, maintaining that thematic element of 'healing means no weapon'.

--
Pauper

 

[Jester David]

Here's my problem with that interpretation -- it makes one of the benefits of the War Caster feat largely irrelevant.

If you're OK with that (for example, if you don't use feats in your game), feel free to go with that ruling.

--
Pauper

It makes *that* aspect of the feat less useful for clerics and paladins. It's still useful for eldritch knights, wizards with a dip, rangers and others. Not all aspects of a feat have to be completely useful to all characters who take the feat.
It's also a useless benefit for wizards not dual wielding and not proficient with shields.

Clerics and paladins might still get a lot of use out of the feat, being more likely to be in melee than wizards and thus hit more often.

 

[Rune]

A lot of this confusion could have been cleared up if only spells had listed specific somatic components in the same way that they list specific material components. Then you could just look to the narrative to determine whether or not you had to free up a hand to cast the spell. Maybe someone should come up with such a list for the DM's Guild.

 

[Yaarel]

Here's my problem with that interpretation -- it makes one of the benefits of the War Caster feat largely irrelevant.

If you're OK with that (for example, if you don't use feats in your game), feel free to go with that ruling.

--
Pauper

One of the benefits of the Warcaster feat says: ‘You can perform the somatic components of spells even when you have weapons or a shield in one or both hands.’

However, the feat never actually says, the weapons or shield, are treated as a ‘spellcasting focus’. So the benefit is worthless for any spell that requires a material component (a focus). This feat benefit is mainly unusable by every class.

 

[Yaarel]

A lot of this confusion could have been cleared up if only spells had listed specific somatic components in the same way that they list specific material components. Then you could just look to the narrative to determine whether or not you had to free up a hand to cast the spell. Maybe someone should come up with such a list for the DM's Guild.

Better yet, all rules for components should have been nonstandard options, in a separate sidebar. Then they would be specifically under the discretion of the DM. And there would be no confusion.

 

[Pauper]

Obviously this is important to the OP...but for me and my group this sort of "rules niggling" would never come up for more than about 11 seconds. It's just not that important to us.

That's cool -- diff'rent strokes and all that. Let me give you an idea why it's important to me and my group.

My group tends to be pretty analytical, and they use my rulings as precedents for deciding what other things they might be able to try (I'd say 'get away with', but my players know better than that!) Here's an actual example from play:

One of my players asked if he could have his holy symbol embroidered onto a tabard and worn openly. It's not listed as an option in the PH, but there's plenty of fantasy art that shows clerics wearing tabards with holy symbols on them, so it seemed reasonable to say 'yes, that's OK.'

If you allow a shield with a holy symbol on it to serve as a divine focus because it is 'openly displayed', then the same should work for the tabard. If, however, you rule that the holy symbol on the shield is the focus and not the shield itself, then requiring a character to put his weapon away to 'access' the holy symbol on the shield means he should also put his weapon away to 'access' the holy symbol on the tabard.

On the flip side of the coin, if I want the 'holy symbol on the tabard' to work differently mechanically from 'holy symbol on the shield', I need to have an explanation as to why it works differently, because my players will expect the rulings to be consistent. I often wish I had a more pliant group of players who just decided 'hey, whatever the DM says, that's cool', but we game with the groups we have, not with the groups we wish we had. ; )

Hope that helps explain my interest in rulings.

--
Pauper

 

[Pauper]

One of the benefits of the Warcaster feat says: ‘You can perform the somatic components of spells even when you have weapons or a shield in one or both hands.’

However, the feat never actually says, the weapons or shield, are treated as a ‘spellcasting focus’. So the benefit is worthless for any spell that requires a material component (a focus). This feat benefit is mainly unusable by every class.

Ah, but you're missing the text in the material component rule that says 'the hand that accesses material components can be the same hand that performs somatic components'. If you can perform somatic components with a hand with a weapon in it, due to possessing the War Caster feat, you can also access material components with that hand, via that rule.

--
Pauper

 

[Pauper]

It's also a useless benefit for wizards not dual wielding and not proficient with shields.

I wouldn't say that -- it works great for my Rage Mage (multiclass barbarian/wizard) who grapples with one hand while wielding a battleaxe in the other!

--
Pauper

 

[Yaarel]

Ah, but you're missing the text in the material component rule that says 'the hand that accesses material components can be the same hand that performs somatic components'. If you can perform somatic components with a hand with a weapon in it, due to possessing the War Caster feat, you can also access material components with that hand, via that rule.

--
Pauper

With the Warcaster benefit, you can perform the somatic component with a weapon or shield.

However, that hand is now occupied by the weapon or shield, and is now unfree.

It cannot access a material component, neither a spellpouch as a focus, nor hold any other kind of spellcasting focus.

 

[Pauper]

With the Warcaster benefit, you can perform the somatic component with a weapon or shield.

However, that hand is now occupied by the weapon or shield, and is now unfree.

It cannot access a material component, neither a spellpouch as a focus, nor hold any other kind of spellcasting focus.

Clearly, a rules interpretation that makes having a feat less useful than not having the feat is not a well-formed rules interpretation.

--
Pauper