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

[Pauper]

I've been critical of Jeremy Crawford for what I feel is a confusing ruling regarding magic item foci and satisfying somatic components.

In version 0.1 of the Player's Basic Rules, the rule regarding material components read like this:

"A spellcaster must have a hand free to access these components, but it can be the same hand that he or she uses to perform somatic components." (BRv0.1, p.79)

Part of the confusing aspect of this rule is that nowhere do the rules actually specify what counts as a 'hand free' for this purpose, though there are other rules (such as the text of War Caster) that help determine what situations don't count as having a 'hand free'.

In Sage Advice, Crawford correctly pointed out that the rule allows a caster to access material components with the same hand being used to satisfy somatic components, but then (IMO) utterly reversed the causality in that statement with an example where a cleric holding a shield with a holy symbol emblazoned on it could use that hand to satisfy somatic components because the shield served as the spellcasting focus, and she could thus satisfy the somatic component of the spell with the same hand she held the material component in.

However, with the latest printing of the Basic Rules, that rule has been subtly modified:

"A spellcaster must have a hand free to access these components -- or to hold a spellcasting focus --
but it can be the same hand that he or she uses to perform somatic components." (BRv0.3, p.79)

This change specifically enables a caster to use a focus being held in a hand to perform somatic components, because you can now use a 'hand free' to hold a spellcasting focus. So a wizard holding a wand and using it as an arcane focus can use that same hand to satisfy the somatic components of her spells.

However, I am going to argue that this still does not allow a cleric to use a shield emblazoned with a holy symbol to satisfy the somatic components of her spells, despite Crawford's explicit ruling above.

First, note the text of the modified rule -- a caster must have a 'hand free' either to access material components or hold a spellcasting focus. You can combine these to say that a caster who is using a spellcasting focus but not holding it (such as a druid wearing a totem object) still needs to have a 'hand free' to 'access' that focus.

Next, the rule for holy symbols (BRv0.3, p.49). There are three types of holy symbols listed: an amulet (which would normally be worn, but could be held), a reliquary (defined as a tiny box holding a fragment of a sacred relic, which would generally be held, but also could be worn), or an emblem "engraved or inlaid" on a shield. The rule also notes that "[t]o use the symbol [as a spellcasting focus], the caster must hold it in hand, wear it visibly, or bear it on a shield."

Now a DM could rule that this rule takes precedence over the rule on p.79, and that a holy symbol 'worn visibly' does not need to be handled, which obviates the need for a 'hand free'. However, if the DM rules that the 'hand free' rule takes precedence, then, as noted for that rule, the holy symbol would either need to be held, or the caster would need a 'hand free' to 'access' it during spellcasting while performing somatic components.

Here's the thing: nowhere in the rule on p.49 does it say that the process of emblazoning a shield turns the *shield* into a holy symbol. The holy symbol is on the shield; it is not the shield itself. And while a DM could rule (as Crawford seems to be) that holding the shield is equivalent to holding the symbol, if the DM is already invoking p.79 to say that the caster needs a 'hand free' to access the symbol, the DM can also rule that the shield is not the symbol, and that the caster needs to be able to 'access' the symbol with a hand that is not holding the shield. (If the symbol were emblazoned on the back of the shield, then arguably the shield hand could access it, but then the symbol would not count as being
worn visibly.)

The benefit of such a ruling is that it sidesteps a weird discontinuity in Crawford's ruling where a cleric casting a spell that uses a material component can gesture with her shield hand, but can't if the spell doesn't use a material component. The cleric's healing spells, which are the main category of spell she'd want to cast while holding her shield, are almost all spells that don't require a material component, so the ruling advantages combat clerics over healing clerics. The revised ruling evens the playing field again.

--
Pauper

 

[Yaarel]

If a shield is painted with a design, then the shield itself is the holy symbol. So, the shield can be handled as part of the somatic gestures.

 

[Yaarel]

If a shield is painted with a design, then the shield itself is the holy symbol. So, the shield can be handled as part of the somatic gestures.

The Healing Word spell has a Verbal component only.

The Cure spell has both a Verbal and a Somatic component, but no Material component.

The Cleric can cast the Cure spell while holding the shield, because the shield itself is the holy symbol, and even tho the spell doesnt require it, it is still possible to preform the Somatic requirement while holding the shield.

There is no need to put the shield down.

 

[Jester David]

This is an awkward ruling/exception that has to exist.

Clerics cast spells while holding a shield and weapon. That's a tradition that goes back to the start of the game. So they need to be able to cast in the middle of combat without sheathing their mace or doffing their shield. Ditto the paladin.
And clerics with a holy symbol on their neck or emblazoned on their shield is also common. The rules have never been very specific as to what can or cannot qualify as a holy symbol. Theoretically, it could be a tattoo on you face or dangling from a nipple ring.

However, they cannot make holding a shield equal to having your hand free. That cannot be in the rules for other reasons (archery, two weapon fighting, etc). Shields are heavy and you cannot hold anything in your hand while using it and you are choosing to use that hand for defense & AC rather than offence.

Ideally, there should have been some text in the cleric and/or paladin that clarifies that they can cast while wearing a shield. But that's very specific and could also have ramifications via multiclassing, so it's easier to just dance around making it explicit and trust DMs to just make an appropriate call. After all, somatic components are really just flavour. They're they're to add a minor flavour limit on spellcasting and extra dimension to the game.

 

[DEFCON 1]

I think the intention behind the whole process is meant to be this:

Spells which have somatic components but no material components are meant to be spells which require intricate hand movement. "Waggling fingers" or "drawing runes in the air" or whatnot. Because they don't have any material components, the spell's "important parts" are the hand movements of the caster, which is why the hand has to be completely empty. The movement part of these spells are really detailed and intricate to generate the magic.

However, for the spells which have both somatic components and material components, the "important parts" of the spell are the materials. The hand movements necessary for these spells might just be as small and unimportant as grabbing your holy symbol medallion and presenting it to the enemy, or aiming your wand at the enemy and shaking it, or pushing forward your shield with the symbol emblazoned on it, or actually reaching down to the belt and removing the items from the component pouch. All of these are non-intricate, large movements that can be done while having things strapped to the arm (like a shield). Spells with both S,M components do not require intricate hand movement necessitating absolutely nothing being in hand or on the arm, whereas S components-only actually do.

Does it "make sense"? Well... eh? I mean as much sense as components themselves do I guess. Having some spells just asking you to hold something or point your wand or orb at something, whereas some spells require you to draw patterns in the air (let alone the spells that only ask you to speak a couple words) all make for (theoretically) more interesting and differentiating component use. And if you actually ARE caring about and using components to begin with... having the different methods for their use I would assume makes for a more compelling action.

I mean, that always seemed to me to be the whole reason for including them in the first place. WotC knew that most people probably didn't use them, or only casually used them (which explains why they added things like the component pouch or spellcasting focus to begin with)... but that some players actually went all-in on them. So they went the extra yard in actually detailing the individual material components items for every spell, and which spells need intricate finger movements as opposed to grand gestures (and which require you to stow items you hold before you cast.)

And like all players when spell components are concerned... we each have our own individual limit to what we're willing to give over to the system before we say "All right, this is stupid, I don't want to use this." And once that limit occurs, each of us will come up with our own methodology to get around or ignore the parts that seem more trouble than they're worth.

 

[Yaarel]

For me, I view the ruling as somewhat straightforward.

The spellcasting focus - in this case a shield - can become part of the somatic dance.

When the spellcasting focus is a wand, I think of Harry Potter:
‘Swish and flick. Swish and flick. ...’

 

[Prism]

This is an awkward ruling/exception that has to exist.



Clerics cast spells while holding a shield and weapon. That's a tradition that goes back to the start of the game. So they need to be able to cast in the middle of combat without sheathing their mace or doffing their shield. Ditto the paladin.

I dont agree they need to. I have played a mace wielding cleric to 10th level in 5e and its no problem at all putting your weapon away to cast a spell. You dont even need the symbol on a shield. Round the neck will do

 

[Jester David]

The benefit of such a ruling is that it sidesteps a weird discontinuity in Crawford's ruling where a cleric casting a spell that uses a material component can gesture with her shield hand, but can't if the spell doesn't use a material component. The cleric's healing spells, which are the main category of spell she'd want to cast while holding her shield, are almost all spells that don't require a material component, so the ruling advantages combat clerics over healing clerics. The revised ruling evens the playing field again.

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?

There's weirder things in the rules. Such as horses taking up 10-feet width, so five riders covers fifty feet horizontally.
A better fix would be clarifying that any time you are using your implement you don't need spell components, tweaking things from held to just being used. But I don't lose too much sleep over the RAW being just slightly inaccurate.

 

[Jester David]

I dont agree they need to. I have played a mace wielding cleric to 10th level in 5e and its no problem at all putting your weapon away to cast a spell.

So long as you don't mind your mace being sheathed until your next turn when you can draw it again, and are unable to make opportunity attacks if needed.

 

[Prism]

So long as you don't mind your mace being sheathed until your next turn when you can draw it again, and are unable to make opportunity attacks if needed.

No generally not an issue. Opportunity attacks don't seem that common in 5e. Just pointing out that for those worried about using a shield to make somatic gestures the alternative isn't so bad. We don't allow it in our game as drawing a symbol on a shield doesn't turn it into a holy symbol as far as we are concerned.