Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Pauper" data-source="post: 6811726" data-attributes="member: 17607">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 beingworn 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</blockquote>

Verification