Grand total 3d8+1 magical bludgeoning damage, plus 2d6 acid damage. Trade out the Acid for alchemist fire as necessary. and just for some lovely flavor... it's a staff of adornment, so the acid and such are floating around the head waiting to be launched.
Quite right, sorry. forgot that. but at least it allows you to ignore partial cover, which is nice. still 4d8+2d6 for a first level spell slot and 13gp is not a bad deal (making the acid, this will get reduced to 7 when you get your Savant feature. I just love the idea of using the staff of adornment for this since the items are always at the ready on top of it (and yeah, a flask of alchemist fire and vial of acid only weigh 1lb so they can float there). I wonder if my DM would allow me to make poisoned caltrops?
To clarify, the Staff of Adornment can be your Arcane Firearm, but not your Enhanced Arcane Focus, as infusions specify a non-magic item. Now, have a mundane/enchanced/firearm, in one hand, and the Staff of Adornment in the other? Yep, have at it.
I'll check with my DM, because... i mean... what rod/staff/wand is NOT magical already?! That is a little... eehhhh... plus like I said, a staff of adornment. it's a common item.
There is an entire line of arcane focus/holy symbol/druidic symbol/etc that are not magic. They are a focus, they are not magic in themselves.
That being said, magic wands/rods/staves CAN be used as an arcane focus, but as a magic item, are not valid targets for enchanced arcane focus. Though your DM mileage my vary, removing the "non magic item" restriction could open up some shenanigans.
Acutally, given the only spell I have that does damage is a save or suck... i don't really need the enhanced arcane focus! I can use that to give someone else something... YAY!
Grand total 3d8+1 magical bludgeoning damage, plus 2d6 acid damage. Trade out the Acid for alchemist fire as necessary. and just for some lovely flavor... it's a staff of adornment, so the acid and such are floating around the head waiting to be launched.
I'm not sure it works that way. The arcane focus only applies to fill in for material components without a gold cost. Catapult is somatic only, so the wand is superfluous (and in fact cannot be used).
But it would apply with spells like Heat Metal (oddly enough).
Respectfully, no. The artificer's spellcasting feature does not explicitly state that all artificer spells have a material component cost. It only states that a focus must be "In hand when you cast any spells using this Spellcasting feature." That could be interpreted as you say, but it doesn't necessarily mean that. Because it doesn't directly amend the PHB with regards to casting a spell with a somatic component and no material one.
There's a difference between requiring the focus to be held and casting through the focus. At least, that's how I read it.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Can Arcane Firearm be added to an existing magical wand ,staff or rod?
Yep. Arcane firearm doesnt specify a non-magic item, so additionally, you can make your Enhanced Enhanced Arcane Focus your Arcane Firearm.
Oh... I plan to... MWAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Ahem: Arcane Fire arm +d8
Enhanced Arcane Focus +1
Catapult spell level 1 3d8
1 vial of acid to be launched 2d6
Grand total 3d8+1 magical bludgeoning damage, plus 2d6 acid damage. Trade out the Acid for alchemist fire as necessary. and just for some lovely flavor... it's a staff of adornment, so the acid and such are floating around the head waiting to be launched.
well done.
Quite right, sorry. forgot that. but at least it allows you to ignore partial cover, which is nice. still 4d8+2d6 for a first level spell slot and 13gp is not a bad deal (making the acid, this will get reduced to 7 when you get your Savant feature. I just love the idea of using the staff of adornment for this since the items are always at the ready on top of it (and yeah, a flask of alchemist fire and vial of acid only weigh 1lb so they can float there). I wonder if my DM would allow me to make poisoned caltrops?
To clarify, the Staff of Adornment can be your Arcane Firearm, but not your Enhanced Arcane Focus, as infusions specify a non-magic item. Now, have a mundane/enchanced/firearm, in one hand, and the Staff of Adornment in the other? Yep, have at it.
I'll check with my DM, because... i mean... what rod/staff/wand is NOT magical already?! That is a little... eehhhh... plus like I said, a staff of adornment. it's a common item.
There is an entire line of arcane focus/holy symbol/druidic symbol/etc that are not magic. They are a focus, they are not magic in themselves.
That being said, magic wands/rods/staves CAN be used as an arcane focus, but as a magic item, are not valid targets for enchanced arcane focus. Though your DM mileage my vary, removing the "non magic item" restriction could open up some shenanigans.
Again, I'm wanting one exception for a common item. Though, your meaning is noted and I will understand if he says no.
Acutally, given the only spell I have that does damage is a save or suck... i don't really need the enhanced arcane focus! I can use that to give someone else something... YAY!
Has anyone found out a way to make the Arcane Firearm in the builder and apply it to a wand?
I just added it the notes in the Staff i'm using on my artificer.
Does it have to be a wand, rod or staff, or can you for example make an arcane lute?
The Arcane Firearm feature does specify a Wand, staff, or Rod.
I wish it gave you the box to check for the arcane firearm
I'm not sure it works that way. The arcane focus only applies to fill in for material components without a gold cost. Catapult is somatic only, so the wand is superfluous (and in fact cannot be used).
But it would apply with spells like Heat Metal (oddly enough).
Respectfully, no. The artificer's spellcasting feature does not explicitly state that all artificer spells have a material component cost. It only states that a focus must be "In hand when you cast any spells using this Spellcasting feature." That could be interpreted as you say, but it doesn't necessarily mean that. Because it doesn't directly amend the PHB with regards to casting a spell with a somatic component and no material one.
There's a difference between requiring the focus to be held and casting through the focus. At least, that's how I read it.