9 more fifth-edition D&D rules questions answered by the designers
Wow. So that just blew my mind.
I really don't understand how a cleric can hold a weapon and shield and still do somatic gestures to cast.
I guess they just get to hand-wave it! 
oh, right. Other entire thread. No need to start this up here too.
Wuzzard wrote:
Thank_Dog wrote:
Ashrym wrote:
Thank_Dog wrote:
I really like the tone of that Rodney Rule of Three that is referenced in the article. I hope that still holds true (I have the feeling it does).
the tl;dr for this article: RTFM.
Ramzour wrote:
Ramzour wrote:
2Chlorobutanal wrote:
First question: If these are nine more questions the devs have answered, where are the first lot?
Second question: If clerics and wizards can cast spells with their hands full, what is the point of the War Caster feat's benefit that states more or less the same thing? Is that just there for all the other casters, who presumably can't cast with their hands full? Perhaps they should have stuck with the playtest wording that said you needed to have a free arm in order to do somatic spell components, rather than a free hand.
pukunui wrote:
Ramzour wrote:
Ramzour wrote:
JRutterbush wrote:
Ramzour wrote:
seti wrote:
The only two that really provokes any thought from me are:
- The MM one; and that thought is which other multi-strike spells (if any) are intended / assumed to be in that bucket. I need to read the spells for the specific wording again around simultaneous / etc.
- The druid casting "limitation" is quirky. I note other casters aren't mentioned ...
I really don't get why the Druid needs to hold a sprig of mistletoe. IMO, implements shouldn't be required to cast any spell for any class. Implements should help you (usually with a bonus to a spell's attack roll or a penalty to the target's save) and/or remove the need for material components. Implements were optional for any caster in 4e, the edition that made them a thing, IIRC.
Why is it so hard to believe that a PC can move past an ally, attack, then move back without a movement penalty? That's just ridiculous. That's also what rogues DO.
MC characters are already punished enough by never being as powerful in a class as PC's with just that one class. They should get ability increases/feat choices every 4 TOTAL levels just like anyone else. A fighter/rogue 2/2 is a 4th level PC.
Whatever. 5e is rapidly becoming the edition that needs more house rules than official rules to be enjoyable for me and the people I play with. It also wouldn't surprise me if it eventually had more errata than 4e had.
Please don't reply with "well, just play another game then!'. I already know that's an option. Thank you.
thespaceinvader wrote:
seti wrote:
seti wrote:
Bullet point number two effectively constitutes a very confusing and counter-intuitive errata. There aint no way to read the rules as written and come to the conclusion that wizards and druids have different rules for holding their focus. The answer is also woefully incomplete since it does not in any way mention somatic components.
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
This article is a guy on the internet saying he talked to a guy who wrote the rules.
There's some good stuff in that article. But it isn't anything official until it is posted by Wizards as FAQ or Errata.
The answers not coming directly from WOTC is probably the only saving grace for the supposed answers provided for focuses and magic missile. If they are correct, welcome back to a multitude of sub-systems that have their own special rules.
Uchawi wrote:
kalil wrote:
The rules are not clear in many ways as it seems like they tried to avoid using specific things from 3rd and 4th ed that would have solved this. They were to busy reinventing the same damage thing like bonus actions, interrupts as reations and short rests instead of encounter powers.
We also had to puzzle over the Rogues bonus action at one point it seemed like they got a free action under 3rd/4E riules. We thoguht they could move, attack, then get a bonus disengage/dash action and keep going. That the somatic thing and a few other bits and pieces have been WTF along with a few layout issues in the PHB like having to cross reference spells all the friggin time.
Ramzour wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
seti wrote:
I disagree with their stance on shield + holy symbol. A spellcaster must normally have a free hand for either the somatic or material components but if the spell has both components, he can use the same hand though. If the spell foci is a holy symbol, it doesn't need a free hand for his trivial material component but he still needs a free hand for somatic component otherwse. In other words, not having to use a free hand for your material component doesn't remove the need to have one for your somatic components.
I'm also disagreeing on their stance for magic missile being a single source of damage! While the darts all strike simultaneously, each dart deals 1d4 + 1 damage to its target, so they should be seperate instance of damage each possibly being resisted or striking death saves IMO. We interpret the rules differently i guess... That explains why Mike Mearls was saying Empowered Evocation only benefit once per target of magic missile though!
Ramzour wrote:
Plaguescarred wrote:
arderkrag wrote:
If by the rules you can interact with an object for free, then you can certainly tuck your weapon away for a moment and cast a spell with material components.
seti wrote:
The strangeness comes into play when you compare a holy symbol on a shield vs. a holy symbol being worn around the neck.
Holy Symbol around Neck: If you have a shield and weapon you can not cast a spell because you have a shield in your hand.
Holy Symbol on Shield: If you have a shield and weapon you can cast a spell even though you have a shield in your hand.
In both cases you are not bothering to do anything different with your hands. But somehow the shield becomes a not-shield when a holy symbol is painted on it.
It violates RAW and is inconsistent.
Mistwell wrote:
Timborama wrote:
dmgorgon wrote:
Re: The Magic Missile "ruling"
If your wizard has "Empowered Evocation" and hits one target with three missiles, clearly you only add your intelligence mod once. It is treated as one attack doing 3d4+3+mod, not 3 separate attacks of 1d4+1+mod
BUT...
If you hit three different targets with one missile each, does each of those targets take 1d4+1+mod?
(This also applies to Warlocks with eldritch blast and the Evocation that boosts their EB damage.)
...
Text of Empowered Evocation for reference:
"Beginning at 10th level, you can add your Intelligence modifier to the damage roll of any wizard evocation spell you cast."
FFSAA wrote:
Timborama wrote:
DemoMonkey wrote:
XunValDorl_of_HouseKilsek wrote:
Ramzour wrote:
Mistwell wrote:
autolycus wrote:
spelley wrote:
Well, before we go with shunning or reporting we COULD just try a polite request.
Dear FFSA
Could you try to dial down the negativity a little here on the 5E boards? It's possible to point out individual flaws and offer possible solutions without making sweeping condemnations.
I'm sure it would be appreciated.
Thank you.
DemoMonkey wrote:
DemoMonkey wrote:
Ramzour wrote:
Ramzour
I think the point was (from the original link) that three darts striking one target is resolved as a single roll, not 3 rolls. It may be multiple dice, but it's a single roll.
I agree with your interperetation on Melfs Acid Arrow; however I think Scorching Ray, much like Magic Missile, would get the bonus once on each separate target, just like MM. So if you hit 3 different targets you would overall be doing more damage than focusing 3 rays on 1 target.
One more reasons Wizards are master of multiple target effectiveness.
DemoMonkey wrote:
thehobb wrote:
dmgorgon wrote:
Thank_Dog wrote:
Mistwell wrote:
DemoMonkey wrote:
autolycus wrote:
One year of playtest, and still cant write down cleary if a cleric can cast with a shield and weapon.
And Customer support will tell us that is on DM discretion.
Good job!
frbelanger wrote:
They simply throw away the garbage of endless debate into this forum and in our game night.
There is endless debate on the forums. That's what forums are for.
There's no debate on game night. That's what DMs are for.
frbelanger wrote:
kalil wrote:
thehobb wrote:
Ramzour wrote:
autolycus wrote:
Those threads are only as long as they are because you and others are being deliberately obtuse. The rules have been explained by several in here but that is not good enough. If you keep coming back and do not get the answers you want you deem it purposely unclear. You are approaching a definition of insanity. The devs are not coming in here and expounding on the rules. They havent so far and there is no reason to believe they are on the verge of doing so.
The rules read perfectly clear to some of us when we take the time to actually read them ALL. I myself made a wrong judgment call about somethign until someone pointed me to the rule that had the correct answer already in the book for me. I am still only unclear on stealth and hiding, but that is not because it was purposely written unclear, rather it is because it can be a tricky monster to get your mind around depending on the circumstances.
kalil wrote:
autolycus wrote:
Mistwell wrote:
Mistwell wrote:
Ramzour wrote:
Thank_Dog wrote:
Ashrym wrote:
Thank_Dog wrote:
arderkrag wrote:
arderkrag wrote:
The intent of the rules is clear. It's one of the few places I don't like the rules in this edition - it makes arcane gishes really weird and clunky to play effectively - but it's clear.
The hand with a focus can be used for somatic components. You can put a cleric's holy symbol on their shield, which makes their shield hand the hand holding the focus, so they can do somatic components with a shield that has a holy symbol on it. It's extremely straightforward.
We’ve removed content from this thread because of a violation of the Code of Conduct.
You can review the Code here: http://company.wizards.com/conduct
Please keep your posts polite, on-topic, and refrain from making personal attacks. You are welcome to disagree with one another but please do so respectfully and constructively.
Remember, a community is a joint effort of all those involved, and while we want intelligent meaningful and productive banter to ensue we also need it to be polite and considerate of others.
Thank you for your time and support as we continue to try and make a great community for everyone.
TiaNadiezja wrote:
TiaNadiezja wrote:
2Chlorobutanal wrote:
2Chlorobutanal wrote:
We’ve removed content from this thread because of a violation of the Code of Conduct.
You can review the Code here: http://company.wizards.com/conduct
Please keep your posts polite, on-topic, and refrain from making personal attacks. You are welcome to disagree with one another but please do so respectfully and constructively.
Remember, a community is a joint effort of all those involved, and while we want intelligent meaningful and productive banter to ensue we also need it to be polite and considerate of others.
Thank you for your time and support as we continue to try and make a great community for everyone.
Mistwell wrote:
Pyromantic wrote:
I do not have access to the boolk atm, so please correct me if I remember it incorrectly.. But the section about somatic components doesnt mention focuses at all, does it? It just talks about "the hand you use to retrieve material components" or somesuch, right? So where does the notion that you can hold a focus and use that same hand for somatic components stem from? The focus just removes the need for material components, correct? It isnt a material component in itself, nor is it retrieved. Just held. Making that hand "not free".
Or is there some rule I have missed/misread?
2Chlorobutanal wrote:
kalil wrote:
Thank_Dog wrote:
kalil wrote:
TiaNadiezja wrote:
kalil wrote:
TiaNadiezja wrote:
TiaNadiezja wrote:
2Chlorobutanal wrote:
Thank_Dog wrote:
Thank_Dog wrote:
2Chlorobutanal wrote:
Thank_Dog wrote:
kalil wrote:
2Chlorobutanal wrote:
Thank_Dog wrote:
2Chlorobutanal wrote:
Thank_Dog wrote:
Thank_Dog wrote:
TiaNadiezja wrote:
If a rule is written in such a way that multiple different people, having read it carefully and with no other agenda, can in good faith come to different conclusions about how it works, then that rule is not well written and should be errata'd.
At the table, it's not a problem. The DM rules on it, after the game the ruling is discussed, the DM makes a final ruling. It's organized play that is probably going to be the driver for the errata document.
But in either case - why are we insulting each other for disagreeing on it?
Here's my opinion on it:
Foci replace M components in all cases where the M doesn't have a specific cost. I'm looking at you, "bat guano".
So a wizard has a wand instead of bat ****. He doesn't have to do anything "bat shitty" with the wand, he just gives it the old "swish and flick" like you do with wands. That hand now has the F(M) and S components of the spell handled,
Now the shield. Same damn thing. The quote from above:
"A spellcaster must have a hand free to access these (material/focus) components, but it can be the same hand that he or she uses to perform somatic components." -PHB, page 203
So the shield hand lifts the shield all defiant-like and it has the F(M) and S components of the spell.
It's not trig, people.
Grifford wrote:
autolycus wrote:
2Chlorobutanal wrote:
Grifford wrote:
Wow. I'm so glad I don't play with some of you.
Thalion94518 wrote:
"The Anonymous Strawmen" would be a pretty awesome band name. Just sayin'.
Mistwell wrote:
autolycus wrote:
DemoMonkey wrote:
The Dueling ruling makes zero sense to me. To me, on my reading of the PH there was a clear focus, from a combat style perspective, on benefits of your off-hand
Off-hand empty - use Dueling and get +2 on damage
Off-hand has a weapon - use Two Weapon Fighting and get a bonus attack with full bonuses
Off-hand has a Shield - get +2 to Armor Class and potentially help with Protection
Off-hand is also holding your weapon - get to re-roll 1s and 2s with Great Weapon Fighting
With this ruling, it completely throws that seemingly balanced approach out the window.
Off-hand empty - doesn't make sense to do this anymore. Having a shield in off-hand grants same benefits plus better armor class
Off-hand has a weapon - use Two Weapon Fighting and get a bonus attack with full bonuses NO CHANGE
Off-hand has a Shield - get +2 to Armor Class and potentially help with Protection OR use Dueling and get +2 to damage
Off-hand is also holding your weapon - get to re-roll 1s and 2s with Great Weapon Fighting NO CHANGE
All this ruling does it water down the viable role-playing option and will result in 80% of fighters fighting with weapon and shield. +2 to AC and damage is pretty tough to turn down...
andypalmer wrote:
I don't think the rules are BAD per se, I just think they're poorly written in a few areas. I mean, if you go by the rules, Bards basically get free doublecasts of most spells once they get their 2nd level spell slots due to how Target rules work.
Grifford wrote:
thehobb
"This means a cleric (bearing a holy symbol in some outwardly manner) can cast any spell that does not have somatic components while wielding a weapon and a shield."
There are no cleric spells that require material components (or a holy symbol in lieu of them) that do not also require somatic components. The situation you believe is applicable is one that cannot arise.
Let's step back and try another approach. Here's a scenaio: Lets say the cleric is casting a Hold Person. The material component is a small straight piece of iron - a nail basically.
In your opinion, can a cleric holding a weapon in one hand and a nail in the other, cast that Hold Person?
arderkrag wrote:
thehobb wrote:
- To use the symbol in this way, the caster must hold it in hand, wear it visibly, or bear it on a shield.
- If a spell requires a somatic component, the caster must have free use of at least one hand to perform these gestures.
- 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.
1. If a holy symbol is held in hand, does a free hand is required to access it to use it? Yes
2. If a holy symbol is worn visibly, does a free hand is required to access it to use it? No
3. If a holy symbol is bear on a shield, does a free hand is required to access it to use it? No
If no hand is required to access a holy symbol, then it cannot be the same hand used to perform somatic component.
Grifford wrote:
2Chlorobutanal wrote:
Mistwell wrote:
dmgorgon wrote:
Not because a shield bears a holy symbol that the shield becomes the holy symbol, just like not because a ring bears a gem that the ring becomes the gem. Its two seperate things and extrapolate a bit much from sentences basically saying:
It might be a symbol carefully engraved or inlaid as an emblem on a shield . To use the symbol in this way, the caster must bear it on a shield.
So, if I have a holy symbol, made of steel, 4 'high and 3' wide, and then bend it in a slight curve and glue a leather handhold to the back of it, does it somehow stop being a holy symbol?
autolycus wrote:
Grifford wrote:
"At some other point during the casting, that hand can also be used to manipulate the material components/focus, but that in no way contradicts that an empty hand is needed when the somatics are being performed".
You are arbitrarily breaking the casting of a spell into two distinct portions - part done while hand is empty, part done while hand is "accessing components". There is no justification for those two things to be true (I'm sure there's a fallacy name after such an sassumption, someone feel free to fill it in) for those two things to be separate or that spellcasting is anything other than one continuous activity.
How would you have written the sentence "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." to be less ambiguous?
DemoMonkey wrote:
DemoMonkey wrote:
Unit_39 wrote:
It's not unambiguous Unit 39, because multiple people have different opinions on what the sentences in question mean. That's pretty much the definition of ambiguous.
We disagree on what the sentence "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.". I understand the difference. You conclude the meaning is "You can use the hand for x, and then for y". I conclude the sentence means "You can use the hand for X while also using it for y". You have added an element of sequencing to it.
I'm not even saying your conclusion is illogical. Only that it is a) certainly NOT the only possible conclusion from a reading of the text and b) per the blog linked at the start of this thread, not the one intended.
Even leaving the "RAI" element out of it entirely, I disagree with your reading of RAW.
Now, before this goes further, what are we ACTUALLY arguing about? "This is how the rules work" or "Do you think this rule could have been written more clearly?/'. Because if it's actually the latter, I will 100% agree with you on that.
Edit because speeling is herd.
Plaguescarred wrote:
When you wield a shield and a weapon, which hand is free of use to perform someatic components that can be the same hand used to access material component? None.
DemoMonkey wrote:
Mistwell wrote:
Plaguescarred wrote:
Grifford wrote:
Grifford wrote:
thehobb
Both you and Unit 39 have made the same underlying assumption - that making somatic gestures, and accessing material components, are discrete separate actions. "Do x then do y. You can use the same hand.".
I don't see any support for that being a more valid interperetation than "Do x and y at once. The same hand can do both."
thehobb wrote:
Unit_39 wrote:
What a nightmare, this is obviously the biggest piece of errata they need to release (to clarify), pronto.
Brock_Landers wrote:
Grifford wrote:
I believe only 1 hand is required if a spell has more than one components requiring at least one free hand. So
If a spell has V component, you must have at least 0 hand free.
DemoMonkey wrote:
Unit_39 wrote:
Maybe it's just me, but this thread, a bit more than others, has taken on a vibe of political punditry, specifically typical "liberal vs. conservative" style debates on American news networks.
Brock_Landers wrote:
2Chlorobutanal wrote:
I’ve removed content from this thread because trolling/baiting is a violation of the Code of Conduct.
You can review the Code of Conduct here: http://company.wizards.com/conduct
Please keep your posts polite, on-topic, and refrain from making personal attacks.You are welcome to disagree with one another but please do so respectfully and constructively.
If you wish to report a post for Code of Conduct violation, click on the “Report Post” button above the post and this will submit your report to the moderators on duty.
Grifford wrote:
thehobb wrote:
Guys, let it go. You are making this much more complicated than it has to be (though to be fair, that's pretty standard around here). Clerics and other spellcasters have been casting spells in D&D for 40+ years. It's not a problem.
2Chlorobutanal wrote:
I think most (if not all) debates in these forums take on a conservative vs. liberal/old vs. new feel.
After reading through most of this, I'm just not going to require components, or implements/spell foci/holy symbols, LOL. I never usually did anyway...Aside for rituals.
I might say casters have to have a hand free to cast, though. Unless they are psionic. 
And I was going to leave this alone, but I came up with another way to try to explain things, and I promise this is my last word on the subject for a while.
Suppose that to win a bet, you need to taste some ice cream and affix a postage stamp to an envelope (in any order or both at once, it doesn't matter). You're required to use your tongue to taste the ice cream. If you're using a stamp you have to lick, it's okay to use your tongue to lick the stamp if even if it also will lick/has licked/is now licking ice cream.
But you have a self-adhesive stamp, so you don't need to lick it to affix it to an envelope. Can you use that stamp to taste ice cream?
This situation has precisely the same logical structure as the spellcasting rules: win a bet = cast a spell with both somatic and material components, taste ice cream = perform somatic gestures, affix postage stamp to envelope = access material components, tongue = free hand, and self-adhesive stamp = holy symbol.
Just as being able to both taste ice cream and lick stamps is something special about tongues, being able to satisfy both somatic and material requirements is something special about free hands.
The problem I see isn't whether or not a shield can be a holy symbol. It's the seeming contradiction of how you get a "free hand".
Case 1: Holy Symbol on Shield
Hand with weapon + hand with shield = shield hand is free to use somatic components
Case 2: Holy symbol worn around neck
Hand with weapon + hand with shield = shield hand is NOT free to use somatic components.
In both cases
- The cleric has no need to manipulate his holy symbol with his hands.
- The cleric has both hands occupied with weapon and shield.
However, somehow he is unable to cast a spell in case 2.
This seems flawed to me.
So I've been lurking around and following this thread for a while, and decided to tweet Jeremy Crawford.
@JeremyECrawford can a Cleric or Paladin cast spells requiring somatic components when wielding weapon + shield emblazoned with holy symbol?
Devilbass wrote:
Unit_39 wrote:
Devilbass wrote:
Grifford wrote:
I hope everyone's been having a good weekend. Here's one more try at stating my case.
Consider this sentence:
"A dark elf gets a +1 to charisma, but he or she has sunlight sensitivity."
Does this give wood elves sunlight sensitivity? Of course not; an elf can be a dark elf or a wood elf, but one elf can't be both. Grammatically, the antecedent of "he or she" is "dark elf," not just "elf"; this sentence says nothing about elves who are not drow, so a reading that implies anything about wood elves is grammatically incorrect.
Now consider this sentence, which is an exact grammatical parallel:
"A spellcaster must have a free hand to access these components, but it can be the same hand that he or she uses to peform somatic components."
Does this give an occupied hand the ability to satisfy both material and somatic requirements? Of course not; a hand can be free or occupied, but one hand can't be both. Grammatically, the antecedent of "it" is "free hand," not just "hand"; this sentence says nothing about hands that are not free, so a reading that implies anything about a hand holding a material component or spellcasting focus (a particular kind of occupied hand) is grammatically incorrect.
Plain English.
As an added bonus, my interpretation doesn't conflict with any other written rule in the game.
So, since my interpretation (you need a free hand to access material components, but if you're using a free hand to make the spell's somatic gestures, you can also use that free somatic-gesturing hand to access your components) is both gramatically correct and consistent with the other rules of the game, while the rival interpretation (that in addition to everything my interpretation claims, an occupied hand meeting material requirements automatically satisfies somatic requirements, despite the rule stating that a free hand is required to make somatic gestures) fails on both counts, mine is the correct one.
* * * * *
POSTSCRIPT
Based on the prior discussion, I foresee the following objections to this plain English reading of the rule.
Objection 1: Your interpretation does conflict with a rule, the rule that says that a material component or focus doesn't count in determining whether a hand is free for somatic gesturing.
The only rule anyone's pointed to in support of that objection is this very rule under consideration. Using a rule interpretation to prove itself is circular; all this objection amounts to is that my interpretation of the rule is wrong because it conflicts with another interpreation of this same rule.
Also, my interpretation of this rule wouldn't conflict with such a rule if it did exist. In my interpretation, this rule has nothing to say about whether a hand is free. If that alleged rule did exist (separately from this rule we're discussing), then a cleric could then cast a spell while holding a weapon and a shield, but this rule would not be involved in that determination; the casting would succeed because of the existing rule about wielding a holy symbol-bearing shield satisfying the material requirement, the additional rule about that holy symbol-bearing shield-wielding hand being considered free for somatics, and the existing rule allowing a free hand to be used for somatic gestures. (Unless you believe that although the shield bears the holy symbol, the bulk of the shield, which the cleric is also holding, is not a holy symbol; I haven't thought about that controversy because in the absence of a rule allowing somatic gesturing with a focus, it's moot.)
Objection 2: It doesn't matter that my interpretation (that this rule allows somatic gestures with occupied hands) contradicts the rule that a free hand is required for somatic gestures; the contradiction merely creates an exception.
If one interpretation of a rule contradicts another rule, but another (grammatically correct) interpretation doesn't contradict any other rule, the former interpretation doesn't create an exception, it's just wrong.
Objection 3: Saying you have to determine whether or not a hand is free before you apply this rule to determine whether or not spellcasting requirements are met introduces an arbitrary and unjustified sequence.
No, that's how evaluating logical propositions works: First you determine whether each element in the proposition is satisfied, then you decide about the proposition as a whole. Whether a hand is free influences what spellcasting components it can satisfy, because having a free hand is mentioned as a way to meet the conditions for satisfying certain spell components. What spellcasting components a hand can satisfy doesn't influence whether it is free, because the rules don't specify any conditions or definitions concerning whether a hand is free. (No phrase even remotely like "a free hand is" or "a hand is considered free if" appears anywhere in the rules.)
Objection 4: If a hand performing somatic components has to be a free hand, why doesn't the end of this sentence read, "the same FREE hand that he or she uses to perform somatic components"?
Because explicitly writing "free" would be redundant -- in fact, it would be doubly redundant in this particular sentence. Gramatically, if "it can be the same hand" where "it" refers to a free hand, the "same hand" must also be a free one (because a free hand can't be the same hand as an occupied one; a hand can be free or occupied but not both). And there's a rule stating that only a free hand can be used for somatics, so the hand used for somatics must be free.
Objection 5: You're creating a false dichotomy between free hands and occupied hands.
I agree that free/occupied is not a dichotomy, since a hand that's empty but bound is also not free. The relationship is that a hand being unoccupied is necessary but not sufficient for that hand to be free; a hand still can't be both free and occupied (though it can be neither), and everything above holds.
But since the term "free hand" is nowhere defined in the rules (it only appears as a requirement for things like grappling and spellcasting), I grant that I'm relying on what I understand the idiom to mean in the English language: a hand that is not impeded by holding something or being restrained. (Obviously, I'm not talking about the restrained game condition here, just the regular English word for things like being handcuffed, tied up, or in a straitjacket.) I think the term is clear, but if there's a case to be made for the rules being ambiguous, the clarity of this term is the only thing I can imagine it resting on.
I also don't buy that the freeness of a hand depends on what you're trying to do; I don't see any ambiguity in the plain English meaning of "free hand," and since the rules use the term in the requirements for multiple actions (such as grappling and spellcasting), they don't seem to support this idea either.
I apologize if this has already been addressed, but I have some questions and perhaps issues about the Magic Missile ruling. Specifically, the wording of the spell is very similar to that in Scorching Ray and Eldritch Blast. Ruling these spells to be only one source of damage causes all kinds of issues since they use multiple attack/damage rolls and stack attack/damage riders accordingly. Is this ruling only to apply to MM, is it buffing multiple attack/damage spells, or is it intending to nerf them (by forcing their damage riders to only be applied once)?
Chakravant wrote:
Ashrym wrote:
Are these verified?
UnknownMourner wrote:
Unit_39 wrote: