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 separates a stick from a wand is that the wand is a specifically purposed item to be used as an Arcane Focus. A stick is not. This is the very argument you're trying to use to say that the Wand of Magic Missiles is not a wand when in fact it is the very argument saying it is a wand. It also happens to be a stick of wood. But that does not mean every stick is a wand.
I also note that the Immobable Rod does not specify any magical function aside from what is built into it where as the Wand of the War Mage actually specifies a funtion as a Focus.
Or moreso, you could actually use the search function on this site, search for "Rod" have "Arcane Focus" show up and look and see that it's type is Arcane Focus which means that they aren't even the same thing by their Type.
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 separates a stick from a wand is that the wand is a specifically purposed item to be used as an Arcane Focus. A stick is not. This is the very argument you're trying to use to say that the Wand of Magic Missiles is not a wand when in fact it is the very argument saying it is a wand. It also happens to be a stick of wood. But that does not mean every stick is a wand.
As I stated earlier, Arcane Focus items all have the Type: Arcane Focus. None of those items, even though you say otherwise, have the Type: Arcane Focus, nor do they have any text within them stating that they can be used in replacement of such items.
And all items that have the Type: Rod have the properties of Rods which have the Type: Arcane Focus. Specific beats general. An item which is a Rod is also an arcane focus.
And all items that have the Type: Rod have the properties of Rods which have the Type: Arcane Focus. Specific beats general. An item which is a Rod is also an arcane focus.
Except Arcane Focus which don't have the Rod type.
All Arcane Foci are made out of either Wood or Crystals.
Immovable Rods are made of Iron.
Hey guess what! WGTE is a campaign setting and only introduces rules specific for campaigns set in Eberron - it is an update to the core rules - just an optional extra and by design only relevant to Eberron campaigns (but of course, you may use that content in any campaign if the DM allows).
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Click ✨ HERE ✨ For My Youtube Videos featuring Guides, Tips & Tricks for using D&D Beyond. Need help with Homebrew? Check out ✨ thisFAQ/Guide thread ✨ by IamSposta.
And all items that have the Type: Rod have the properties of Rods which have the Type: Arcane Focus. Specific beats general. An item which is a Rod is also an arcane focus.
Except Arcane Focus which don't have the Rod type.
It doesn't work both ways. The Immovable Rod is of the type Rod and therefore inherits all of the properties of a Rod. One of those properties being Type: Arcane Focus. All Rods are Arcane Focuses. Not all Arcane Focuses are Rods. I honestly don't understand why you're having trouble with this.
And that link doesn't say that Arcane Focuses can only be wood or crystal - it only suggests them as possibilities.
Because an Arcane Focus Rod was designed to be an arcane focus not just a chunk of shaped metal. That process cost a few gold.
But you can also argue that part of the cost of an Immovable Rod (price range: 101–500 gp) include the same process. So, not a valid argument for your case.
Note, I've not weighed in for or against here, just noting some flaws in the argument you're making.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Click ✨ HERE ✨ For My Youtube Videos featuring Guides, Tips & Tricks for using D&D Beyond. Need help with Homebrew? Check out ✨ thisFAQ/Guide thread ✨ by IamSposta.
Because an Arcane Focus Rod was designed to be an arcane focus not just a chunk of shaped metal. That process cost a few gold.
But you can also argue that part of the cost of an Immovable Rod (price range: 101–500 gp) include the same process. So, not a valid argument for your case.
Note, I've not weighed in for or against here, just noting some flaws in the argument you're making.
Wood. The rods are made out of wood. And thank you for repeating what I have been saying, that the Arcane Focus is a tool specifically designed for the purpose of being a Arcane Focus. That's why there are other items that are called Rods XYZ that specifically mentions that they fuction as a Spellcasting Focus but not all of them. Even other items that are not in the standard selection of Foci can function as a Spellcasting Focus based on what my researching has found.
The process for making an Immovable Rod is not the same process as making an Arcane Focus, first and foremost because the rod in question is made out of iron while Foci are made out of wood. Especially those made from trees that were magical themselves.
So if the Immovable Rod can be used as a Focus, why doesn't it say as such when there are other Magical Rod-like items would say as much?
Because an Arcane Focus Rod was designed to be an arcane focus not just a chunk of shaped metal. That process cost a few gold.
But you can also argue that part of the cost of an Immovable Rod (price range: 101–500 gp) include the same process. So, not a valid argument for your case.
Note, I've not weighed in for or against here, just noting some flaws in the argument you're making.
Wood. The rods are made out of wood. And thank you for repeating what I have been saying, that the Arcane Focus is a tool specifically designed for the purpose of being a Arcane Focus. That's why there are other items that are called Rods XYZ that specifically mentions that they fuction as a Spellcasting Focus but not all of them. Even other items that are not in the standard selection of Foci can function as a Spellcasting Focus based on what my researching has found.
The process for making an Immovable Rod is not the same process as making an Arcane Focus, first and foremost because the rod in question is made out of iron while Foci are made out of wood. Especially those made from trees that were magical themselves.
So if the Immovable Rod can be used as a Focus, why doesn't it say as such when there are other Magical Rod-like items would say as much?
There is nothing in the official rules that says arcane focus rods are made of wood. Or metal. Or anything. They can be made of any material. You cannot use WGTE as a source of anything official - which is why it specifically states:
"The game mechanics are usable in your campaign, but at this time they aren’t officially part of the game and aren’t permitted in D&D Adventurers League events."
It's not happenstance that magic items are listed by the same categories as arcane foci. Arcane Foci have Staff, Wand, Rod and Orb - and oh look, so do Magic Items while other similar items are just put as Wonderous Items - including spheres (orbs), rod-like items and so on - yet are wonderous items instead of being categorised as orbs or rods or whatever.
It has been clarified by the rules designer that magic wands function as an arcane focus - because that's why they're categorised wands. So there is a precedent here. You may disagree with JC but he is the one who gets to say what is or is not official, so in terms of discussing an "official" ruling, your agreement or disagreement is utterly irrelevant. The official rules designer has officially declared that by the intended official rules any magic item categorised as wand can be used as an arcane focus. There is no reason to think Rods would be diffierent.
Now, you're free to rule things in your game however you want to, but unfortunately you are not in the position to go "I disagree with the rules designer so I say this is how it works officially" - rules as written and the official rules designer himself have decided this. Your disagreement and interpretation is interesting - and something I am in favour of - but is not official, sorry.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Click ✨ HERE ✨ For My Youtube Videos featuring Guides, Tips & Tricks for using D&D Beyond. Need help with Homebrew? Check out ✨ thisFAQ/Guide thread ✨ by IamSposta.
Because an Arcane Focus Rod was designed to be an arcane focus not just a chunk of shaped metal. That process cost a few gold.
But you can also argue that part of the cost of an Immovable Rod (price range: 101–500 gp) include the same process. So, not a valid argument for your case.
Note, I've not weighed in for or against here, just noting some flaws in the argument you're making.
Wood. The rods are made out of wood. And thank you for repeating what I have been saying, that the Arcane Focus is a tool specifically designed for the purpose of being a Arcane Focus. That's why there are other items that are called Rods XYZ that specifically mentions that they fuction as a Spellcasting Focus but not all of them. Even other items that are not in the standard selection of Foci can function as a Spellcasting Focus based on what my researching has found.
The process for making an Immovable Rod is not the same process as making an Arcane Focus, first and foremost because the rod in question is made out of iron while Foci are made out of wood. Especially those made from trees that were magical themselves.
So if the Immovable Rod can be used as a Focus, why doesn't it say as such when there are other Magical Rod-like items would say as much?
Here are some rods that are clearly not made out of wood, as evident from the artwork;
Because an Arcane Focus Rod was designed to be an arcane focus not just a chunk of shaped metal. That process cost a few gold.
But you can also argue that part of the cost of an Immovable Rod (price range: 101–500 gp) include the same process. So, not a valid argument for your case.
Note, I've not weighed in for or against here, just noting some flaws in the argument you're making.
Wood. The rods are made out of wood. And thank you for repeating what I have been saying, that the Arcane Focus is a tool specifically designed for the purpose of being a Arcane Focus. That's why there are other items that are called Rods XYZ that specifically mentions that they fuction as a Spellcasting Focus but not all of them. Even other items that are not in the standard selection of Foci can function as a Spellcasting Focus based on what my researching has found.
The process for making an Immovable Rod is not the same process as making an Arcane Focus, first and foremost because the rod in question is made out of iron while Foci are made out of wood. Especially those made from trees that were magical themselves.
So if the Immovable Rod can be used as a Focus, why doesn't it say as such when there are other Magical Rod-like items would say as much?
Here are some rods that are clearly not made out of wood, as evident from the artwork;
Your point about rods needing to be made out of wood is incorrect and a misdirection. If an item is classed as a rod, it is a rod. Rods are focuses.
The only one which actually states it can function as a Spellcasting Tool to some degree is the Rod of Absorption and that's only when it has magic stored within it.
There are rods that can be used as Spellcasting Tools, why not show them?
The only one which actually states it can function as a Spellcasting Tool to some degree is the Rod of Absorption and that's only when it has magic stored within it.
There are rods that can be used as Spellcasting Tools, why not show them?
Like I said in my previous post - they don't need to say they can act as a Focus because they are of the Type: Rod and that explicitly means they can be a Focus because they inherit that property from the standard Rod. If they didn't they would have been made the Type: Wondrous Item.
The only one which actually states it can function as a Spellcasting Tool to some degree is the Rod of Absorption and that's only when it has magic stored within it.
There are rods that can be used as Spellcasting Tools, why not show them?
Like I said in my previous post - they don't need to say they can act as a Focus because they are of the Type: Rod and that explicitly means they can be a Focus because they inherit that property from the standard Rod. If they didn't they would have been made the Type: Wondrous Item.
You are making a few assumptions here. Rod is a type in reference to how large these items are and how they are to be handled. The Rod as an item always points back to being a Spellcasting Focus.
There is also the question of why a Rod then costs 10gp if any Rod can be used as an Arcane Focus in contradiction to how the text explains it.
If these Rods don't need to specify that they can be used for Spellcasting, why do some specify and some do not? Why does the Rod of Absorption say that it can be used for Spellcasting ONLY when it has charges in it? Why do some require Attunement by a Wizard or Warlock and others require it for different classes or none at all? Why can a Druid use one Rod in paticular as a Spellcasting Focus but not any of the other rods?
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.
An immovable rod isnt immovable all the time. That argument seemed kind of desperate.
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.
An immovable rod is not a "common rod" it is specifically the rules definition of rod which allows it to be a focus. Moreover it is a magic item. It is a rod that has been treated with runes, special reagents, a ritual, infusion of magic or whathaveyou to contain and channel magic.
Certainly any common stick, stone, or crystal could not be used as a focus, because they have noy been turned into a orb, rod, staff, or wand. But a magic rod, staff, or wand is not a common stick, they rods, staffs, and wands with extra magic.
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.
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.
That is not the definition of rectangle. A rectangle is a quadrilateral with 4 right angles. A square is a quadrilateral with equal sides and equal angles. This means that a square is also a rectangle. It is a pretty common example of one way category overlap in middle school math classes.
All Arcane Foci are made out of either Wood or Crystals.
Immovable Rods are made of Iron.
These are specific examples of what foci can be made of to get additional properties no where in these rules does it state that these are the only materials foci can be made of.
The only one which actually states it can function as a Spellcasting Tool to some degree is the Rod of Absorption and that's only when it has magic stored within it.
There are rods that can be used as Spellcasting Tools, why not show them?
The rod of absorption does not say that it can be used as a spellcasting focus (because it is implied). No magic rod, staff, or wand says it can be used as a spellcasting focus, even the ones that specifically apply to spellcasting, because they are already implied to be a focus. Wonderous items that can be used as foci all specifically state they can be because wonderous item is not already a type of focus.
Rod is a type in reference to how large these items are and how they are to be handled. The Rod as an item always points back to being a Spellcasting Focus.
There is also the question of why a Rod then costs 10gp if any Rod can be used as an Arcane Focus in contradiction to how the text explains it.
If these Rods don't need to specify that they can be used for Spellcasting, why do some specify and some do not? Why does the Rod of Absorption say that it can be used for Spellcasting ONLY when it has charges in it? Why do some require Attunement by a Wizard or Warlock and others require it for different classes or none at all? Why can a Druid use one Rod in paticular as a Spellcasting Focus but not any of the other rods?
The rules make no mention rod being a term to describe size. The argument is in fact that rod items are arcane foci, you have been arguing that they are not.
A non-magic rod costs 10 GP, a magic rod costs no less than 50 GP. No one has been arguing that "any rod" can be used as an arcane focus, that is your straw man, they have been arguing that a magic rod can be used as a focus.
No magic rod, staff, or wand specifies it can be a focus, because it already is one. A rod of absorption does not say it can be used for spellcasting "only" when it has charges, it does not say it can be used for spellcating at all. Attunement is not part of the argument.
There’s enough ambiguity in the RAW that this one is probably up to each DM to decide the answer at their game. To me this is minor enough that I’d let any magical wand, staff, or rod work as a focus. The impact to the game of ruling that it won’t work is so minor that I’d say yes and let it work.
What separates a stick from a wand is that the wand is a specifically purposed item to be used as an Arcane Focus. A stick is not. This is the very argument you're trying to use to say that the Wand of Magic Missiles is not a wand when in fact it is the very argument saying it is a wand. It also happens to be a stick of wood. But that does not mean every stick is a wand.
Wand of Magic Missiles - Type: Wand - Type: Arcane Focus.
Immovable Rod - Type: Rod - Type: 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).
I also note that the Immobable Rod does not specify any magical function aside from what is built into it where as the Wand of the War Mage actually specifies a funtion as a Focus.
Compare with Rod of the Pact Keeper (https://www.dndbeyond.com/magic-items/rod-of-the-pact-keeper) which specifically states to function as a buff to spellcasting, thereby making it an improved Magical Focus.
Or moreso, you could actually use the search function on this site, search for "Rod" have "Arcane Focus" show up and look and see that it's type is Arcane Focus which means that they aren't even the same thing by their Type.
As I stated earlier, Arcane Focus items all have the Type: Arcane Focus. None of those items, even though you say otherwise, have the Type: Arcane Focus, nor do they have any text within them stating that they can be used in replacement of such items.
And all items that have the Type: Rod have the properties of Rods which have the Type: Arcane Focus. Specific beats general. An item which is a Rod is also 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).
Except Arcane Focus which don't have the Rod type.
Hey, look what I found!
https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/wgte/magic-items#ArcaneFocuses
All Arcane Foci are made out of either Wood or Crystals.
Immovable Rods are made of Iron.
Hey guess what! WGTE is a campaign setting and only introduces rules specific for campaigns set in Eberron - it is an update to the core rules - just an optional extra and by design only relevant to Eberron campaigns (but of course, you may use that content in any campaign if the DM allows).
Click ✨ HERE ✨ For My Youtube Videos featuring Guides, Tips & Tricks for using D&D Beyond.
Need help with Homebrew? Check out ✨ this FAQ/Guide thread ✨ by IamSposta.
Alright.
Explain how a rod costs 10GP?
It doesn't work both ways. The Immovable Rod is of the type Rod and therefore inherits all of the properties of a Rod. One of those properties being Type: Arcane Focus.
All Rods are Arcane Focuses. Not all Arcane Focuses are Rods. I honestly don't understand why you're having trouble with this.
And that link doesn't say that Arcane Focuses can only be wood or crystal - it only suggests them as possibilities.
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).
This is awesome. Thank you all for the lively discussion.
Because an Arcane Focus Rod was designed to be an arcane focus not just a chunk of shaped metal. That process cost a few gold.
But you can also argue that part of the cost of an Immovable Rod (price range: 101–500 gp) include the same process. So, not a valid argument for your case.
Note, I've not weighed in for or against here, just noting some flaws in the argument you're making.
Click ✨ HERE ✨ For My Youtube Videos featuring Guides, Tips & Tricks for using D&D Beyond.
Need help with Homebrew? Check out ✨ this FAQ/Guide thread ✨ by IamSposta.
Wood. The rods are made out of wood. And thank you for repeating what I have been saying, that the Arcane Focus is a tool specifically designed for the purpose of being a Arcane Focus. That's why there are other items that are called Rods XYZ that specifically mentions that they fuction as a Spellcasting Focus but not all of them. Even other items that are not in the standard selection of Foci can function as a Spellcasting Focus based on what my researching has found.
The process for making an Immovable Rod is not the same process as making an Arcane Focus, first and foremost because the rod in question is made out of iron while Foci are made out of wood. Especially those made from trees that were magical themselves.
So if the Immovable Rod can be used as a Focus, why doesn't it say as such when there are other Magical Rod-like items would say as much?
There is nothing in the official rules that says arcane focus rods are made of wood. Or metal. Or anything. They can be made of any material. You cannot use WGTE as a source of anything official - which is why it specifically states:
It's not happenstance that magic items are listed by the same categories as arcane foci. Arcane Foci have Staff, Wand, Rod and Orb - and oh look, so do Magic Items while other similar items are just put as Wonderous Items - including spheres (orbs), rod-like items and so on - yet are wonderous items instead of being categorised as orbs or rods or whatever.
It has been clarified by the rules designer that magic wands function as an arcane focus - because that's why they're categorised wands. So there is a precedent here. You may disagree with JC but he is the one who gets to say what is or is not official, so in terms of discussing an "official" ruling, your agreement or disagreement is utterly irrelevant. The official rules designer has officially declared that by the intended official rules any magic item categorised as wand can be used as an arcane focus. There is no reason to think Rods would be diffierent.
Now, you're free to rule things in your game however you want to, but unfortunately you are not in the position to go "I disagree with the rules designer so I say this is how it works officially" - rules as written and the official rules designer himself have decided this. Your disagreement and interpretation is interesting - and something I am in favour of - but is not official, sorry.
Click ✨ HERE ✨ For My Youtube Videos featuring Guides, Tips & Tricks for using D&D Beyond.
Need help with Homebrew? Check out ✨ this FAQ/Guide thread ✨ by IamSposta.
Here are some rods that are clearly not made out of wood, as evident from the artwork;
Your point about rods needing to be made out of wood is incorrect and a misdirection. If an item is classed as a rod, it is a rod. Rods are focuses.
Find my D&D Beyond articles here
The only one which actually states it can function as a Spellcasting Tool to some degree is the Rod of Absorption and that's only when it has magic stored within it.
There are rods that can be used as Spellcasting Tools, why not show them?
Like I said in my previous post - they don't need to say they can act as a Focus because they are of the Type: Rod and that explicitly means they can be a Focus because they inherit that property from the standard Rod.
If they didn't they would have been made the Type: Wondrous Item.
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).
You are making a few assumptions here. Rod is a type in reference to how large these items are and how they are to be handled. The Rod as an item always points back to being a Spellcasting Focus.
There is also the question of why a Rod then costs 10gp if any Rod can be used as an Arcane Focus in contradiction to how the text explains it.
If these Rods don't need to specify that they can be used for Spellcasting, why do some specify and some do not? Why does the Rod of Absorption say that it can be used for Spellcasting ONLY when it has charges in it? Why do some require Attunement by a Wizard or Warlock and others require it for different classes or none at all? Why can a Druid use one Rod in paticular as a Spellcasting Focus but not any of the other rods?
I did not realize what a discussion would be sparked from pointing out that rule. I just want to comment on a couple of highlights:
An immovable rod isnt immovable all the time. That argument seemed kind of desperate.
An immovable rod is not a "common rod" it is specifically the rules definition of rod which allows it to be a focus. Moreover it is a magic item. It is a rod that has been treated with runes, special reagents, a ritual, infusion of magic or whathaveyou to contain and channel magic.
Certainly any common stick, stone, or crystal could not be used as a focus, because they have noy been turned into a orb, rod, staff, or wand. But a magic rod, staff, or wand is not a common stick, they rods, staffs, and wands with extra magic.
That is not the definition of rectangle. A rectangle is a quadrilateral with 4 right angles. A square is a quadrilateral with equal sides and equal angles. This means that a square is also a rectangle. It is a pretty common example of one way category overlap in middle school math classes.
These are specific examples of what foci can be made of to get additional properties no where in these rules does it state that these are the only materials foci can be made of.
The rod of absorption does not say that it can be used as a spellcasting focus (because it is implied). No magic rod, staff, or wand says it can be used as a spellcasting focus, even the ones that specifically apply to spellcasting, because they are already implied to be a focus. Wonderous items that can be used as foci all specifically state they can be because wonderous item is not already a type of focus.
The rules make no mention rod being a term to describe size. The argument is in fact that rod items are arcane foci, you have been arguing that they are not.
A non-magic rod costs 10 GP, a magic rod costs no less than 50 GP. No one has been arguing that "any rod" can be used as an arcane focus, that is your straw man, they have been arguing that a magic rod can be used as a focus.
No magic rod, staff, or wand specifies it can be a focus, because it already is one. A rod of absorption does not say it can be used for spellcasting "only" when it has charges, it does not say it can be used for spellcating at all. Attunement is not part of the argument.
There’s enough ambiguity in the RAW that this one is probably up to each DM to decide the answer at their game. To me this is minor enough that I’d let any magical wand, staff, or rod work as a focus. The impact to the game of ruling that it won’t work is so minor that I’d say yes and let it work.
Professional computer geek