I would probably guess not. Arcane Focus says "An arcane focus is a special item designed to channel the power of arcane spells." I would interpret that to mean that the focus has to be specifically designed to be a focus, or at least altered to be one. An immovable rod is its own thing - it's magically designed to be an immovable rod, not an arcane focus.
By the rules, I would say no. As ftl wrote, an arcane focus is specially made to channel arcane power. However, there's nothing stating that an immovable couldn't have been specially made to channel arcane power. You could easily have a custom made immovable rod that acts like an arcade focus.
I didn't realize there would be so much opposition. My first comment didn't elaborate because I though it was obvious.
An immovable rod is the rod item type. A rod can be an arcane focus. An imovable rod is a rod. Therefore, an immovable rod can be an arcane focus. That is the RAW.
I didn't realize there would be so much opposition. My first comment didn't elaborate because I though it was obvious.
An immovable rod is the rod item type. A rod can be an arcane focus. An imovable rod is a rod. Therefore, an immovable rod can be an arcane focus. That is the RAW.
You're 100% right, otherwise you would be able to use a wand of the warmage as a spellcasting focus, or a staff of swarming insects.
Like, there's little to no benefit to this, having an immovable spellcasting focus doesn't actually affect your spellcasting. In fact, it would prevent you from using the focus if the spell has both material and somatic components; when casting a SM spell, you can use the hand holding the focus used to replace the material component to also make the somatic gesture, but this wouldn't be possible if the foci was immovable.
Then anything that can be understood as a "rod" is a spellcastin focus.This takes away from how key a focus is to magic casters and you are in turn setting your players up to face challenges when they meet other DMs who are goin to look at them like they are foolish
An arcane focus is a special item designed to channel the power of arcane spells. A sorcerer, warlock, or wizard can use such an item as a spellcasting focus, as described in the Spellcasting section.
This is the key point. "A Special Item Designed to channel the power of arcane spells".
You can't pick up a random object and have it be an Arcane Focs. It has to be designed to be an Arcane focus because it's purprose is to replace the matter of collecting and maintenance of reagents. The presence of the item is meant to give players a reagent free option that could then be taken away if they lose the Focus because of how hard they are to replace.
Then anything that can be understood as a "rod" is a spellcastin focus.This takes away from how key a focus is to magic casters and you are in turn setting your players up to face challenges when they meet other DMs who are goin to look at them like they are foolish
An arcane focus is a special item designed to channel the power of arcane spells. A sorcerer, warlock, or wizard can use such an item as a spellcasting focus, as described in the Spellcasting section.
This is the key point. "A Special Item Designed to channel the power of arcane spells".
You can't pick up a random object and have it be an Arcane Focs. It has to be designed to be an Arcane focus because it's purprose is to replace the matter of collecting and maintenance of reagents. The presence of the item is meant to give players a reagent free option that could then be taken away if they lose the Focus because of how hard they are to replace.
You made a bad ruling.
The Immovable Rod is of the item type "Rod, uncommon". Therefore it is a Rod - therefore it can be used as an arcane focus.
It’s not “anything that can be understood to be a rod,” it’s “anything explicitly defined to be a rod in terms of game mechanics.” Or do you think that a Wand of Magic Missiles can’t be used as an arcane focus either?
It’s not “anything that can be understood to be a rod,” it’s “anything explicitly defined to be a rod in terms of game mechanics.” Or do you think that a Wand of Magic Missiles can’t be used as an arcane focus either?
.....No, I don't. Because it's a wand designed to release magic missiles. It is not a wand designed to be a Foci for Magic.
Then anything that can be understood as a "rod" is a spellcastin focus.This takes away from how key a focus is to magic casters and you are in turn setting your players up to face challenges when they meet other DMs who are goin to look at them like they are foolish
An arcane focus is a special item designed to channel the power of arcane spells. A sorcerer, warlock, or wizard can use such an item as a spellcasting focus, as described in the Spellcasting section.
This is the key point. "A Special Item Designed to channel the power of arcane spells".
You can't pick up a random object and have it be an Arcane Focs. It has to be designed to be an Arcane focus because it's purprose is to replace the matter of collecting and maintenance of reagents. The presence of the item is meant to give players a reagent free option that could then be taken away if they lose the Focus because of how hard they are to replace.
You made a bad ruling.
The Immovable Rod is of the item type "Rod, uncommon". Therefore it is a Rod - therefore it can be used as an arcane focus.
An Arcane Focus can be shaped like a Rod. A Rod does not become an Arcane Focus by virtue of being a rod. Your logic is flawed here.
If it was so easy for any magic users to pick up an item so long as it is understood by the DM to fulfill the qualifications of being a "Rod" or a "Wand" or anything else, I think one has a "Staff" as one listing, then the existance of the Component Pouch is reduced to just being a roleplay item. It also doesn't put the magic caster at risk of being without their magic if they are without their focus and materials because if they pick up something that can be understood as fulfilling the descriptors applied to the Arcane Focus to regain their magic.
I will, once again, point to the specific description of the Arcane Focus in that it is Specifically Designed for the purpose of being an Arcane Focus. This is a specific tool for a specific job that happens to come in several forms for wizards of various styles.
Imagine the magic Harry Potter would lose if he could pick up any odd stick that is "wand shaped" and casted magic.Or how nonsensical Lord of the Rings would be if Sauron could control anyone wearing a "Ring" because the "Rings of Power" are the Item Type: Ring.
Again you're mistaking the difference between a Rod and 'something that looks like a rod'. An Immovable Rod is a Rod RAW. A stick you pick up is not necessarily a Wand.
If the Immovable Rod wasn't meant to be used as a Rod it wouldn't have that as its item type. It would be something else.
It’s not “anything that can be understood to be a rod,” it’s “anything explicitly defined to be a rod in terms of game mechanics.” Or do you think that a Wand of Magic Missiles can’t be used as an arcane focus either?
.....No, I don't. Because it's a wand designed to release magic missiles. It is not a wand designed to be a Foci for Magic.
Again you're mistaking the difference between a Rod and 'something that looks like a rod'. An Immovable Rod is a Rod RAW. A stick you pick up is not necessarily a Wand.
If the Immovable Rod wasn't meant to be used as a Rod it wouldn't have that as its item type. It would be something else.
The PHB and DMG explicitly define these terms. The actual rule is unambiguous. Your argument is, somehow, that a fighter can’t actually wear Chain Mail, +1 because even though it’s called chain mail and explicitly defined by the game as chain mail, it only LOOKS like chain mail.
Yeah, I changed my mind, I think you can use an immovable rod as an arcane focus. What changed my mind was realizing that "Rod" is actually a defined item (and has the description of an arcane focus) rather than being a generic descriptor of, like, a stick or something. An immovable rod is clearly a type of rod (and in fact says so in its statblock: "rod, uncommon") and a rod is an arcane focus, so an immovable rod is too, just like a wand of the war mage is obviously a wand and can be used as an arcane focus.
It’s not “anything that can be understood to be a rod,” it’s “anything explicitly defined to be a rod in terms of game mechanics.” Or do you think that a Wand of Magic Missiles can’t be used as an arcane focus either?
.....No, I don't. Because it's a wand designed to release magic missiles. It is not a wand designed to be a Foci for Magic.
Again you're mistaking the difference between a Rod and 'something that looks like a rod'. An Immovable Rod is a Rod RAW. A stick you pick up is not necessarily a Wand.
If the Immovable Rod wasn't meant to be used as a Rod it wouldn't have that as its item type. It would be something else.
The PHB and DMG explicitly define these terms. The actual rule is unambiguous. Your argument is, somehow, that a fighter can’t actually wear Chain Mail, +1 because even though it’s called chain mail and explicitly defined by the game as chain mail, it only LOOKS like chain mail.
Your logic is working like this:
A) A Pet can be a Dog B) A Wolf is similar to a Dog C) You can pet a Wolf like a Dog.
Can you see the flaw here? A Dog and Wolf might both be Canines, but a Dog is specificaly breed to be friendly to humans. A Wolf is a wild animal.
Another way, a Pillop's Head screwdriver an an Allan Wrench are both tools designed to both tighten and release bolts and screws. However, a Pillop's Head would not work on an Allan screw and vice versa.
An Arcane Focus can be made into and/or out of a Rod. A Rod is not an Arcane Focus because of this fact. I will repeat this until I die. An Arcane Focus is specifically stated to be Specifically Designed to be a Focus. It is created for the express purpose of being a Focus. It's entire existance is that it is a Focus. I tserves no other use than to be a Focus.
An Immobable Rod is specifically designed to be an Immobable Rod. It does not have any other purpose outside of being an Immobable Rod. It does not do anything else other than be an Immobable Rod. It can not serve any other function outside of being an Immobable Rod.
It’s not “anything that can be understood to be a rod,” it’s “anything explicitly defined to be a rod in terms of game mechanics.” Or do you think that a Wand of Magic Missiles can’t be used as an arcane focus either?
.....No, I don't. Because it's a wand designed to release magic missiles. It is not a wand designed to be a Foci for Magic.
Again you're mistaking the difference between a Rod and 'something that looks like a rod'. An Immovable Rod is a Rod RAW. A stick you pick up is not necessarily a Wand.
If the Immovable Rod wasn't meant to be used as a Rod it wouldn't have that as its item type. It would be something else.
The PHB and DMG explicitly define these terms. The actual rule is unambiguous. Your argument is, somehow, that a fighter can’t actually wear Chain Mail, +1 because even though it’s called chain mail and explicitly defined by the game as chain mail, it only LOOKS like chain mail.
Your logic is working like this:
A) A Pet can be a Dog B) A Wolf is similar to a Dog C) You can pet a Wolf like a Dog.
Can you see the flaw here? A Dog and Wolf might both be Canines, but a Dog is specificaly breed to be friendly to humans. A Wolf is a wild animal.
Another way, a Pillop's Head screwdriver an an Allan Wrench are both tools designed to both tighten and release bolts and screws. However, a Pillop's Head would not work on an Allan screw and vice versa.
An Arcane Focus can be made into and/or out of a Rod. A Rod is not an Arcane Focus because of this fact. I will repeat this until I die. An Arcane Focus is specifically stated to be Specifically Designed to be a Focus. It is created for the express purpose of being a Focus. It's entire existance is that it is a Focus. I tserves no other use than to be a Focus.
An Immobable Rod is specifically designed to be an Immobable Rod. It does not have any other purpose outside of being an Immobable Rod. It does not do anything else other than be an Immobable Rod. It can not serve any other function outside of being an Immobable Rod.
No, my logic is working like this:
A) The PHB says you can pet a dog.
B) The DMG says a cocker spaniel is a dog.
C) Therefore you can pet a cocker spaniel.
You are treating the Immovable Rod as a wondrous item, which it explicitly is not. It is a rod. It is designed to be a rod and has an additional magic effect on top of the base purpose of a rod, which is to be an arcane casting focus. You can repeat "a rod is not a rod" all you like, but it doesn't change the fact or the rule.
Yeah, I changed my mind, I think you can use an immovable rod as an arcane focus. What changed my mind was realizing that "Rod" is actually a defined item (and has the description of an arcane focus) rather than being a generic descriptor of, like, a stick or something. An immovable rod is clearly a type of rod (and in fact says so in its statblock: "rod, uncommon") and a rod is an arcane focus, so an immovable rod is too, just like a wand of the war mage is obviously a wand and can be used as an arcane focus.
Any game I DM in I will actively refuse this "Sage advice". This will be why:
Jeremy here says that any "Wand" can be a focus without actually specifing what a "Wand" is while at the same time overriding the notes that specifies that an Arcane Focus is specifically designed for the fuction of being an Arcane Focus. At this point, you open up players asking what a "Wand" is then if Arcane Foci are no longer a specifically made tool.
What seperates a common stick from being a "Wand"? A lenght of wood a Rod, a branch that could support your weight as being a Staff, a bit of jewelry as being an Amulet. What is a Holy Symbol suddenly becomes a question of whether the user considers the icon of it to be "Holy". In fact, why not make a Mace or a Sword a Holy Symble if they consider them to be Holy. Two-Handed Paladins no longer need to worry about using a Foci anymore!
What Jeremy likely did was try and chose an option that is easy for players. Why not use the Wand of [Insert Magic Here] as a focus? It's no problem!
But it is. Now there is no delima about swapping out your focus for the item to make use of the magic within it. A bit of the challenge is taken away. Sure for some they will enjoy the freedom but others will find the concept of a Focus cheapened and part of the world cheapened as well.
You will no longer get to enjoy a bit of story when the Wizard loses his wand and has to suddenly rack his mind about material compnents to cast spells, making a side quest out of finding a new one while making stops with herbalists and alchemists to gather up materials to fill a Component pouch. You would be sure the Wizrard now carries both a Foci and pouches of materials and is no longer troubled at the idea of losing his wand.
It’s not “anything that can be understood to be a rod,” it’s “anything explicitly defined to be a rod in terms of game mechanics.” Or do you think that a Wand of Magic Missiles can’t be used as an arcane focus either?
.....No, I don't. Because it's a wand designed to release magic missiles. It is not a wand designed to be a Foci for Magic.
Again you're mistaking the difference between a Rod and 'something that looks like a rod'. An Immovable Rod is a Rod RAW. A stick you pick up is not necessarily a Wand.
If the Immovable Rod wasn't meant to be used as a Rod it wouldn't have that as its item type. It would be something else.
The PHB and DMG explicitly define these terms. The actual rule is unambiguous. Your argument is, somehow, that a fighter can’t actually wear Chain Mail, +1 because even though it’s called chain mail and explicitly defined by the game as chain mail, it only LOOKS like chain mail.
Your logic is working like this:
A) A Pet can be a Dog B) A Wolf is similar to a Dog C) You can pet a Wolf like a Dog.
Can you see the flaw here? A Dog and Wolf might both be Canines, but a Dog is specificaly breed to be friendly to humans. A Wolf is a wild animal.
Another way, a Pillop's Head screwdriver an an Allan Wrench are both tools designed to both tighten and release bolts and screws. However, a Pillop's Head would not work on an Allan screw and vice versa.
An Arcane Focus can be made into and/or out of a Rod. A Rod is not an Arcane Focus because of this fact. I will repeat this until I die. An Arcane Focus is specifically stated to be Specifically Designed to be a Focus. It is created for the express purpose of being a Focus. It's entire existance is that it is a Focus. I tserves no other use than to be a Focus.
An Immobable Rod is specifically designed to be an Immobable Rod. It does not have any other purpose outside of being an Immobable Rod. It does not do anything else other than be an Immobable Rod. It can not serve any other function outside of being an Immobable Rod.
No, my logic is working like this:
A) The PHB says you can pet a dog.
B) The DMG says a cocker spaniel is a dog.
C) Therefore you can pet a cocker spaniel.
You are treating the Immovable Rod as a wondrous item, which it explicitly is not. It is a rod. It is designed to be a rod and has an additional magic effect on top of the base purpose of a rod, which is to be an arcane casting focus. You can repeat "a rod is not a rod" all you like, but it doesn't change the fact or the rule.
You want to talk about rules? Lets talk about rules.
An arcane focus is a special item designed to channel the power of arcane spells. A sorcerer, warlock, or wizard can use such an item as a spellcasting focus, as described in the Spellcasting section.
I read this, and I imagine that these items are being made with a very specific intention and only one very specific intention. Be it by runes, special reagents, a ritual, infusion of magic or whathaveyou. They are to fulfill that role because that is what they are designed to do. No other item can do this because they are not designed to do so.
A common rod or any other time that happens to fit int he classification of being a "rod" does not become an Arcane Focus just because one of the forms an Arcane Focus can take is as a Rod. For the same reason that any other kind of amulet would not work for a Cleric than an Amulet ment to be their Foci.
I don’t know how else to explain to you that a square doesn’t stop being a rectangle just because its sides are of equal length.
Arcane focus is a container category. Within it are wands, rods, orbs, etc. Everything the game calls a rod is an arcane focus because a rod is explicitly a type of arcane focus. That is how the game defines rod.
Anyway, it’s clear at this point that you’re not failing to understand but rather actively refusing to (or pretending not to for the sake of contrarianism), so I’m done.
I don’t know how else to explain to you that a square doesn’t stop being a rectangle just because its sides are of equal length.
Arcane focus is a container category. Within it are wands, rods, orbs, etc. Everything the game calls a rod is an arcane focus because a rod is explicitly a type of arcane focus. That is how the game defines rod.
Anyway, it’s clear at this point that you’re not failing to understand but rather actively refusing to (or pretending not to for the sake of contrarianism), so I’m done.
So why aren't "Rods" a container catagory?
Also, what are you trying to say with that first part? A square is a four sided shape with equal edges, at 90 degree angles and has sides parrallel to the X and Y Axis. A rectangle is a four sided shape with sides that only equal their opposite side with the rest being the same. While both have four sides and both have sides that are equal to two or more sies, they are not the exact same because the Rectangle does not have equal sides on all four of its sides.
And that last remark, you are accusing me of "actively refusing to [understand]" or "pretending not to for the sake of contrarianism". I have to ask why you are immune to such critisms?
Though you then say you are done so I guess you don't have to respond to any of this.
Could an immovable rod serve as a spellcasting focus? I'm going to allow it. Just wondering what the community thinks. Thanks
It is a "rod."
I would probably guess not. Arcane Focus says "An arcane focus is a special item designed to channel the power of arcane spells." I would interpret that to mean that the focus has to be specifically designed to be a focus, or at least altered to be one. An immovable rod is its own thing - it's magically designed to be an immovable rod, not an arcane focus.
By the rules, I would say no. As ftl wrote, an arcane focus is specially made to channel arcane power.
However, there's nothing stating that an immovable couldn't have been specially made to channel arcane power. You could easily have a custom made immovable rod that acts like an arcade focus.
How to add tooltips on dndbeyond
I didn't realize there would be so much opposition. My first comment didn't elaborate because I though it was obvious.
An immovable rod is the rod item type. A rod can be an arcane focus. An imovable rod is a rod. Therefore, an immovable rod can be an arcane focus. That is the RAW.
You're 100% right, otherwise you would be able to use a wand of the warmage as a spellcasting focus, or a staff of swarming insects.
Like, there's little to no benefit to this, having an immovable spellcasting focus doesn't actually affect your spellcasting. In fact, it would prevent you from using the focus if the spell has both material and somatic components; when casting a SM spell, you can use the hand holding the focus used to replace the material component to also make the somatic gesture, but this wouldn't be possible if the foci was immovable.
Find my D&D Beyond articles here
Then anything that can be understood as a "rod" is a spellcastin focus.This takes away from how key a focus is to magic casters and you are in turn setting your players up to face challenges when they meet other DMs who are goin to look at them like they are foolish
This is the key point. "A Special Item Designed to channel the power of arcane spells".
You can't pick up a random object and have it be an Arcane Focs. It has to be designed to be an Arcane focus because it's purprose is to replace the matter of collecting and maintenance of reagents. The presence of the item is meant to give players a reagent free option that could then be taken away if they lose the Focus because of how hard they are to replace.
You made a bad ruling.
The Immovable Rod is of the item type "Rod, uncommon". Therefore it is a Rod - therefore it can be used as an arcane focus.
Mega Yahtzee Thread:
Highest 41: brocker2001 (#11,285).
Yahtzee of 2's: Emmber (#36,161).
Lowest 9: JoeltheWalrus (#312), Emmber (#12,505) and Dertinus (#20,953).
It’s not “anything that can be understood to be a rod,” it’s “anything explicitly defined to be a rod in terms of game mechanics.” Or do you think that a Wand of Magic Missiles can’t be used as an arcane focus either?
.....No, I don't. Because it's a wand designed to release magic missiles. It is not a wand designed to be a Foci for Magic.
An Arcane Focus can be shaped like a Rod. A Rod does not become an Arcane Focus by virtue of being a rod. Your logic is flawed here.
If it was so easy for any magic users to pick up an item so long as it is understood by the DM to fulfill the qualifications of being a "Rod" or a "Wand" or anything else, I think one has a "Staff" as one listing, then the existance of the Component Pouch is reduced to just being a roleplay item. It also doesn't put the magic caster at risk of being without their magic if they are without their focus and materials because if they pick up something that can be understood as fulfilling the descriptors applied to the Arcane Focus to regain their magic.
I will, once again, point to the specific description of the Arcane Focus in that it is Specifically Designed for the purpose of being an Arcane Focus. This is a specific tool for a specific job that happens to come in several forms for wizards of various styles.
Imagine the magic Harry Potter would lose if he could pick up any odd stick that is "wand shaped" and casted magic.Or how nonsensical Lord of the Rings would be if Sauron could control anyone wearing a "Ring" because the "Rings of Power" are the Item Type: Ring.
Again you're mistaking the difference between a Rod and 'something that looks like a rod'. An Immovable Rod is a Rod RAW. A stick you pick up is not necessarily a Wand.
If the Immovable Rod wasn't meant to be used as a Rod it wouldn't have that as its item type. It would be something else.
Mega Yahtzee Thread:
Highest 41: brocker2001 (#11,285).
Yahtzee of 2's: Emmber (#36,161).
Lowest 9: JoeltheWalrus (#312), Emmber (#12,505) and Dertinus (#20,953).
And a Wand of Magic Missiles certainly is a Wand and absolutely can be used as such.
The PHB and DMG explicitly define these terms. The actual rule is unambiguous. Your argument is, somehow, that a fighter can’t actually wear Chain Mail, +1 because even though it’s called chain mail and explicitly defined by the game as chain mail, it only LOOKS like chain mail.
Yeah, I changed my mind, I think you can use an immovable rod as an arcane focus. What changed my mind was realizing that "Rod" is actually a defined item (and has the description of an arcane focus) rather than being a generic descriptor of, like, a stick or something. An immovable rod is clearly a type of rod (and in fact says so in its statblock: "rod, uncommon") and a rod is an arcane focus, so an immovable rod is too, just like a wand of the war mage is obviously a wand and can be used as an arcane focus.
It has been clarified in sage advice ( https://www.sageadvice.eu/2016/03/08/can-a-wizard-use-a-magic-wand-as-her-arcane-focus/ https://www.sageadvice.eu/2017/02/09/can-wand-of-the-war-mage-be-an-arcane-focus/ ) that a magic wand like Wand of Magic Missile or any other wand can be an arcane focus, so I think that would extend to rods as well.
Your logic is working like this:
A) A Pet can be a Dog
B) A Wolf is similar to a Dog
C) You can pet a Wolf like a Dog.
Can you see the flaw here? A Dog and Wolf might both be Canines, but a Dog is specificaly breed to be friendly to humans. A Wolf is a wild animal.
Another way, a Pillop's Head screwdriver an an Allan Wrench are both tools designed to both tighten and release bolts and screws. However, a Pillop's Head would not work on an Allan screw and vice versa.
An Arcane Focus can be made into and/or out of a Rod. A Rod is not an Arcane Focus because of this fact. I will repeat this until I die. An Arcane Focus is specifically stated to be Specifically Designed to be a Focus. It is created for the express purpose of being a Focus. It's entire existance is that it is a Focus. I tserves no other use than to be a Focus.
An Immobable Rod is specifically designed to be an Immobable Rod. It does not have any other purpose outside of being an Immobable Rod. It does not do anything else other than be an Immobable Rod. It can not serve any other function outside of being an Immobable Rod.
No, my logic is working like this:
A) The PHB says you can pet a dog.
B) The DMG says a cocker spaniel is a dog.
C) Therefore you can pet a cocker spaniel.
You are treating the Immovable Rod as a wondrous item, which it explicitly is not. It is a rod. It is designed to be a rod and has an additional magic effect on top of the base purpose of a rod, which is to be an arcane casting focus. You can repeat "a rod is not a rod" all you like, but it doesn't change the fact or the rule.
Any game I DM in I will actively refuse this "Sage advice". This will be why:
Jeremy here says that any "Wand" can be a focus without actually specifing what a "Wand" is while at the same time overriding the notes that specifies that an Arcane Focus is specifically designed for the fuction of being an Arcane Focus. At this point, you open up players asking what a "Wand" is then if Arcane Foci are no longer a specifically made tool.
What seperates a common stick from being a "Wand"? A lenght of wood a Rod, a branch that could support your weight as being a Staff, a bit of jewelry as being an Amulet. What is a Holy Symbol suddenly becomes a question of whether the user considers the icon of it to be "Holy". In fact, why not make a Mace or a Sword a Holy Symble if they consider them to be Holy. Two-Handed Paladins no longer need to worry about using a Foci anymore!
What Jeremy likely did was try and chose an option that is easy for players. Why not use the Wand of [Insert Magic Here] as a focus? It's no problem!
But it is. Now there is no delima about swapping out your focus for the item to make use of the magic within it. A bit of the challenge is taken away. Sure for some they will enjoy the freedom but others will find the concept of a Focus cheapened and part of the world cheapened as well.
You will no longer get to enjoy a bit of story when the Wizard loses his wand and has to suddenly rack his mind about material compnents to cast spells, making a side quest out of finding a new one while making stops with herbalists and alchemists to gather up materials to fill a Component pouch. You would be sure the Wizrard now carries both a Foci and pouches of materials and is no longer troubled at the idea of losing his wand.
You want to talk about rules? Lets talk about rules.
https://www.dndbeyond.com/equipment/arcane-focus
I read this, and I imagine that these items are being made with a very specific intention and only one very specific intention. Be it by runes, special reagents, a ritual, infusion of magic or whathaveyou. They are to fulfill that role because that is what they are designed to do. No other item can do this because they are not designed to do so.
A common rod or any other time that happens to fit int he classification of being a "rod" does not become an Arcane Focus just because one of the forms an Arcane Focus can take is as a Rod. For the same reason that any other kind of amulet would not work for a Cleric than an Amulet ment to be their Foci.
I don’t know how else to explain to you that a square doesn’t stop being a rectangle just because its sides are of equal length.
Arcane focus is a container category. Within it are wands, rods, orbs, etc. Everything the game calls a rod is an arcane focus because a rod is explicitly a type of arcane focus. That is how the game defines rod.
Anyway, it’s clear at this point that you’re not failing to understand but rather actively refusing to (or pretending not to for the sake of contrarianism), so I’m done.
So why aren't "Rods" a container catagory?
Also, what are you trying to say with that first part? A square is a four sided shape with equal edges, at 90 degree angles and has sides parrallel to the X and Y Axis. A rectangle is a four sided shape with sides that only equal their opposite side with the rest being the same. While both have four sides and both have sides that are equal to two or more sies, they are not the exact same because the Rectangle does not have equal sides on all four of its sides.
And that last remark, you are accusing me of "actively refusing to [understand]" or "pretending not to for the sake of contrarianism". I have to ask why you are immune to such critisms?
Though you then say you are done so I guess you don't have to respond to any of this.
Here is the entry for Wand of the Warmage, see how it says it's a 'wand' class item with variable rarity?
It is an item of the Wand type that means, in addition to it's bonuses, it has the properties of a wand
Now here's immovable rod:
It is a rod type item, which means that in addition to its properties, it's a rod
Unless you're saying that the type/rarity/attunement information means one thing for every item and a different thing for immovable rods.
Looks, it's in the category of rods in the magic item listing, right there between Blast Scepter and Rod of Absorption. Unlike Chime of Opening which is a rod shaped item that is not a rod
Find my D&D Beyond articles here