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

[Yaarel]

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

--
Pauper

I think the insistence of ‘spell components’ made the game more complex than it needed to be. Unintentional snafus happen.

Errata to the Warcaster feat could fix the wording by simply saying, treat weapons or shields as spellcasting focuses.

Then the feat benefits everyone.

A Paladin, for example, could wield a sword in each hand, and the swords would substitute for the spellcasting focus. He is likewise able to perform any somatic component while holding these focuses.

 

[Jester David]

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.

I imagine the change was for wizards more than clerics, or all classes that use a focus. But the specific word they used ("hold" versus "wield" or "use") is awkward, so the exact literal phrasing does not work well in regards to holy symbols. Especially when very specifically defining "held" as "holding the holy symbol directly" but not "holding the item the holy symbol is on".

Which still gets to the "why?"

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'.

If you want that in your game, then make it so in your game, but define it as a house rule. Don't try and justify the house rule as being RAW. That's needless. You're not playing the game wrong if you customize a little.
C'mon. Just say "in my game, clerics need to touch those they heal with the flat of their hand to deliver the spell." They can either forgo the shield, sheath the weapon, or find another option. Because it requires touching, and kicking or smacking the person you're healing with a weapon seems wrong.

 

[pukunui]

This is so confusing to me.

I also find it curious that this change hasn't been added to the actual PHB errata document. Anyone know if the change in wording appears in the errata'd PHBs?

 

[Prism]

If you want that in your game, then make it so in your game, but define it as a house rule. Don't try and justify the house rule as being RAW. That's needless. You're not playing the game wrong if you customize a little.
C'mon. Just say "in my game, clerics need to touch those they heal with the flat of their hand to deliver the spell." They can either forgo the shield, sheath the weapon, or find another option. Because it requires touching, and kicking or smacking the person you're healing with a weapon seems wrong.

See I would say that technically your interpretation is a house rule, but to be honest it really doesn't matter as both ways are just fine

 

[pukunui]

FWIW: Jeremy Crawford says it's not meant to be a rules change so much as just a reminder that a spellcasting focus can be used in place of material components.

 

[pming]

Hiya!

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.'

-*-*-SNIP-*-*-

Hope that helps explain my interest in rulings.

--
Pauper

No worries. I actually had one player like that a decade or so ago (no longer plays with us) who had the same sort of "leading logic" type of thinking (e.g., "Well, if we agree with A and B, then, logically, we should be able to use C and D...or R and S...or X and Y...right?"). It was just his thing...we worked around it for the most part.

Anyway...the description of "Holy Symbol" on page 151 of the PHB, IMHO, pretty much says "Nope. Held, worn and displayed, or on a shield" as far as being able to use it as a focus. Personally? It'd be fine with me...but it would also be pretty easy to destroy or 'wreck' it ("Oooo....sorry Jim, that 26 points of flame damage you just took from that trap put too many holes in your tabard...your Holy Symbol is ruined"). Of course, if the player is smart, he will have a back up, as well as an actual Holy Symbol necklace, and have it engraved on his shield. He'll learn after the first fireball I suppose...

^_^

Paul L. Ming

 

[Hriston]

The Original Post seems to worry about the shield getting in the way of a somatic component, if a spell requires the somatic component but doesnt require the shield.

That's correct. If the spell doesn't require a material component then you don't have a free hand to perform a somatic component if you're holding a shield.

In this case, the ability to do somatic components while holding the shield, means it is still possible to do somatic components while holding the shield, whether the shield is necessary or not.

No, it doesn't because then your hand isn't accessing a material component.

 

[zaratan]

Well, now my fighter/sorcerer with sword and board can embed his orb in the sword to cast spells.

This will look like this:




I think I'll call The Eye of Thundera. Original name, hum? I bet nobody thought in this name before.

 

[Pauper]

Is your character's name Cheatara?

--
Pauper