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.
If it's only needed to be implied, why do two rod items say they can be used as an Arcane Focus? Blast Scepter and Rod of the Pact Keeper?
And we have Rods, Staffs and Wands that require Attunment by Clerics, Paladins and Druids, does that mean they can use those as a Focus when their Spellcasting rules say they normally can't?
For wands, these have a vast number that require Attunement by Spellcasters. This includes, again; Clerics, Paladins, Druids, and also Rangers and some varients of Rogues and Fighters. So can they all use the wand as a Spellcasting Focus? This really break the rules of each different source of magic having their own selection of Spellcasting Focus.
Now, there are plenty of wands that are designed to give bonuses for when you cast spells. Those being used as Foci are no issue to me, they are meant to be used for the express purpose of improving spell attacks so it makes sense. But plenty of others can be used by Joe Smoe and his buddies without even Attunement. That these can also have the power to command magic without the need of Reagents really screws with some of the structure of the magic.
If it's only needed to be implied, why do two rod items say they can be used as an Arcane Focus? Blast Scepter and Rod of the Pact Keeper?
Neither of them actually say they can be used as an Arcane Focus, at least not on the Beyond database.
The first sentence on the DnD Beyond listing says that Blast Scepter can be used as an arcane focus. The Rod of the Pact Keeper, my mistake here, actually falls into the same catagory as the various wands that grant bonuses that are key for spellcasters. Allbeit for a Warlock only.
If it's only needed to be implied, why do two rod items say they can be used as an Arcane Focus? Blast Scepter and Rod of the Pact Keeper?
Neither of them actually say they can be used as an Arcane Focus, at least not on the Beyond database.
The first sentence on the DnD Beyond listing says that Blast Scepter can be used as an arcane focus. The Rod of the Pact Keeper, my mistake here, actually falls into the same catagory as the various wands that grant bonuses that are key for spellcasters. Allbeit for a Warlock only.
I did 30 seconds of digging and solved the blast scepter mystery. The blast scepter does not have an item description in any book. In fact, in WD:DotMM, its source book it is only described in part of a monster description:
Halaster wields a blast scepter (a very rare magic item that requires attunement). It can be used as an arcane focus. Whoever is attuned to the blast scepter gains resistance to fire and lightning damage and can, as an action, use it to cast thunderwave as a 4th-level spell (save DC 16) without expending a spell slot.
Notice it does not say it is a rod in this description. Making it a rod must have been a decision made by DDB staff (perhaps with input from WotC). So the books are still consistent, with not a single rod, staff, or wand (labeled as such) being specified as an arcane focus.
I remember seeing the monster sheet. But to that end, what does it matter?
Why did the book authors feel the need to specify that it can be used as a focus?
Although, if they felt it needed to because the name said Sceptor and not Rod, in which case it goes back to the idea that Rod magic items universally work as Arcane Foci.
Which if true would mean that all Rods, Wands and Staffs all function as Arcane Foci.
Which for me just brings up the issue as to why there aren't any Magic Items based on the Foci for other spellcasters which is just a major oversight on the developers part.
There are foci for other classes (that can use them). For example, there's the Instrument of the Bards (which is actually a group of 7 different items) and the Holy Symbol of Ravenkind for clerics and paladins.
Also, remember that holy symbols can be displayed on any shield, suite of armor or any other piece of clothing, meaning that every +1 Shield, Armor of Resistance or Cloak of the Bat can be a foci for a cleric or paladin
Also, remember that holy symbols can be displayed on any shield, suite of armor or any other piece of clothing, meaning that every +1 Shield, Armor of Resistance or Cloak of the Bat can be a foci for a cleric or paladin
^Emphasis on can.
A shield (or piece of armour/clothing) can only act as an arcane focus if it bears your god's holy symbol. A +1 magic shield you find in a dungeon is unlikely to have your specific god's symbol on it. It's possible, but the location it was found in (or the creature that used it) needs to be considered when determining if it would have a symbol. On the other hand, a custom magic shield can easily be made to have your god's symbol.
You can easily paint your symbol upon a +1 shield or hang a tabard on it. The same is true for armour or other items, there's no special process required
You can easily paint your symbol upon a +1 shield or hang a tabard on it. The same is true for armour or other items, there's no special process required
I require the special process of an hour of work with smithing tools or 5gp at a Smith (1gp if emblem is provided). Just paint is like using a stick as a wand.
Yeah, that's a fair house rule. Nothing in the rules specifies the time or cost required to apply a symbol and nothing says it's not something that can be applied to any piece of appropriate gear. My point is that any suitable piece of gear can be a cleric or paladin symbol.
You can easily paint your symbol upon a +1 shield or hang a tabard on it. The same is true for armour or other items, there's no special process required
So from what I'm reading, whether or not you can do this seems to be largely down to DM opinion/table ruling. I can see plenty of merits in both directions, and it seems like something that would have to be decided on a game-by-game basis.
However, should you use it as one? I mean, probably not. If you're using it as your focus, you aren't benefiting from it's intended, crafted, specifically-enchanted purpose (i.e. click the button and it stays fixed in place). If you do use it for it's enchanted properties, then you usually let go of it. In which case, you won't be able to cast spells because you don't have your focus.
Like, I get the argument in favor of using it as a focus, but it just seems ill-advised to me when you can get a purpose-built rod for 10gp.
TL:DR Can you? Maybe. Should you? I wouldn't.
Of course, all of this is just my opinion. if you disagree that's totally okay - you do you, and run your game your way.
So from what I'm reading, whether or not you can do this seems to be largely down to DM opinion/table ruling. I can see plenty of merits in both directions, and it seems like something that would have to be decided on a game-by-game basis.
No, whether or not you can RAW is a yes. Immovable Rod is a Rod type item, all Rod type items are spellcasting focus. A DM can override this, but that's not unique to this item, it's simply the case for every facet of the game.
However, should you use it as one? I mean, probably not. If you're using it as your focus, you aren't benefiting from it's intended, crafted, specifically-enchanted purpose (i.e. click the button and it stays fixed in place). If you do use it for it's enchanted properties, then you usually let go of it. In which case, you won't be able to cast spells because you don't have your focus.
I mean, there's little downside to being able to cast spells at a push using it. Plus always having the rod on hand without giving up a hand for spellcasting is nice. Sure, you can't use it's feature and use it as a focus at the same time for certain spells.
I am quite surprised that folks are arguing against using Magical rods/wands/staffs/whatever as foci.
All magic items reference their base item type, and use the rules of that base item type in addition to their extra features. If they don't use a base item type, then they will be typed as a "wondrous item."
An Orb of Gonging's type is Wondrous Item; it cannot be used as an Orb.
An Immovable Rod's type is Rod; therefore it uses the rules of the Rod. Saying it can't is - as has been stated - the equivalent to saying that an item like Elven Chain doesn't count as an Armor(Chain Shirt).
Look at Dagger of Venom. It doesn't specify the rules of using a dagger anywhere in its description, yet no one would argue against it indeed being a dagger and using the rules of one. A magic foci like the Immovable Rod may not specify the rules of how to use a Rod in its description, but it still is one.
However, should you use it as one? I mean, probably not. If you're using it as your focus, you aren't benefiting from it's intended, crafted, specifically-enchanted purpose (i.e. click the button and it stays fixed in place). If you do use it for it's enchanted properties, then you usually let go of it. In which case, you won't be able to cast spells because you don't have your focus.
I mean, there's little downside to being able to cast spells at a push using it. Plus always having the rod on hand without giving up a hand for spellcasting is nice. Sure, you can't use it's feature and use it as a focus at the same time for certain spells.
That's not quite what I'm getting at - I wasn't suggesting the focus requires you to push a button to cast spells (which is how it seems you've interpreted this). If you use the rod as intended, it is fixed in place, yes? So you're either standing there in one spot with your spellcasting focus, or you let go of the focus once it's fixed in place. If you don't have your focus, then you're SOL for any spell with a material component. Unless you do have the material components - which obviates the need for a focus in the first place.
So sure, RAW you can use it that way, but I don't really see the benefit. Especially when item interaction (like drawing/sheathing a weapon or removing something from your pack) is a free action anyway.
However, should you use it as one? I mean, probably not. If you're using it as your focus, you aren't benefiting from it's intended, crafted, specifically-enchanted purpose (i.e. click the button and it stays fixed in place). If you do use it for it's enchanted properties, then you usually let go of it. In which case, you won't be able to cast spells because you don't have your focus.
I mean, there's little downside to being able to cast spells at a push using it. Plus always having the rod on hand without giving up a hand for spellcasting is nice. Sure, you can't use it's feature and use it as a focus at the same time for certain spells.
That's not quite what I'm getting at - I wasn't suggesting the focus requires you to push a button to cast spells (which is how it seems you've interpreted this). If you use the rod as intended, it is fixed in place, yes? So you're either standing there in one spot with your spellcasting focus, or you let go of the focus once it's fixed in place. If you don't have your focus, then you're SOL for any spell with a material component. Unless you do have the material components - which obviates the need for a focus in the first place.
So sure, RAW you can use it that way, but I don't really see the benefit. Especially when item interaction (like drawing/sheathing a weapon or removing something from your pack) is a free action anyway.
Here's a simple solution: Keep a backup focus. Using an immovable rod as a focus is fine but if you plan to fix it in place then have an extra focus to use afterwards. Besides, how often are you going to fix the rod somewhere in combat? I don't think it'd be enough of an issue that you couldn't rely on a secondary focus, which every spell casting class starts with anyway.
If it's only needed to be implied, why do two rod items say they can be used as an Arcane Focus? Blast Scepter and Rod of the Pact Keeper?
And we have Rods, Staffs and Wands that require Attunment by Clerics, Paladins and Druids, does that mean they can use those as a Focus when their Spellcasting rules say they normally can't?
For wands, these have a vast number that require Attunement by Spellcasters. This includes, again; Clerics, Paladins, Druids, and also Rangers and some varients of Rogues and Fighters. So can they all use the wand as a Spellcasting Focus? This really break the rules of each different source of magic having their own selection of Spellcasting Focus.
Now, there are plenty of wands that are designed to give bonuses for when you cast spells. Those being used as Foci are no issue to me, they are meant to be used for the express purpose of improving spell attacks so it makes sense. But plenty of others can be used by Joe Smoe and his buddies without even Attunement. That these can also have the power to command magic without the need of Reagents really screws with some of the structure of the magic.
Neither of them actually say they can be used as an Arcane Focus, at least not on the Beyond database.
Canto alla vita
alla sua bellezza
ad ogni sua ferita
ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty
To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me
The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
The first sentence on the DnD Beyond listing says that Blast Scepter can be used as an arcane focus. The Rod of the Pact Keeper, my mistake here, actually falls into the same catagory as the various wands that grant bonuses that are key for spellcasters. Allbeit for a Warlock only.
I did 30 seconds of digging and solved the blast scepter mystery. The blast scepter does not have an item description in any book. In fact, in WD:DotMM, its source book it is only described in part of a monster description:
Notice it does not say it is a rod in this description. Making it a rod must have been a decision made by DDB staff (perhaps with input from WotC). So the books are still consistent, with not a single rod, staff, or wand (labeled as such) being specified as an arcane focus.
I remember seeing the monster sheet. But to that end, what does it matter?
Why did the book authors feel the need to specify that it can be used as a focus?
Although, if they felt it needed to because the name said Sceptor and not Rod, in which case it goes back to the idea that Rod magic items universally work as Arcane Foci.
Which if true would mean that all Rods, Wands and Staffs all function as Arcane Foci.
Which for me just brings up the issue as to why there aren't any Magic Items based on the Foci for other spellcasters which is just a major oversight on the developers part.
There are foci for other classes (that can use them). For example, there's the Instrument of the Bards (which is actually a group of 7 different items) and the Holy Symbol of Ravenkind for clerics and paladins.
Also, remember that holy symbols can be displayed on any shield, suite of armor or any other piece of clothing, meaning that every +1 Shield, Armor of Resistance or Cloak of the Bat can be a foci for a cleric or paladin
Find my D&D Beyond articles here
^Emphasis on can.
A shield (or piece of armour/clothing) can only act as an arcane focus if it bears your god's holy symbol. A +1 magic shield you find in a dungeon is unlikely to have your specific god's symbol on it. It's possible, but the location it was found in (or the creature that used it) needs to be considered when determining if it would have a symbol.
On the other hand, a custom magic shield can easily be made to have your god's symbol.
How to add tooltips on dndbeyond
You can easily paint your symbol upon a +1 shield or hang a tabard on it. The same is true for armour or other items, there's no special process required
Find my D&D Beyond articles here
I require the special process of an hour of work with smithing tools or 5gp at a Smith (1gp if emblem is provided). Just paint is like using a stick as a wand.
Yeah, that's a fair house rule. Nothing in the rules specifies the time or cost required to apply a symbol and nothing says it's not something that can be applied to any piece of appropriate gear. My point is that any suitable piece of gear can be a cleric or paladin symbol.
Find my D&D Beyond articles here
I guess that would make sense.
How to add tooltips on dndbeyond
So from what I'm reading, whether or not you can do this seems to be largely down to DM opinion/table ruling. I can see plenty of merits in both directions, and it seems like something that would have to be decided on a game-by-game basis.
However, should you use it as one? I mean, probably not. If you're using it as your focus, you aren't benefiting from it's intended, crafted, specifically-enchanted purpose (i.e. click the button and it stays fixed in place). If you do use it for it's enchanted properties, then you usually let go of it. In which case, you won't be able to cast spells because you don't have your focus.
Like, I get the argument in favor of using it as a focus, but it just seems ill-advised to me when you can get a purpose-built rod for 10gp.
TL:DR
Can you? Maybe.
Should you? I wouldn't.
Of course, all of this is just my opinion. if you disagree that's totally okay - you do you, and run your game your way.
No, whether or not you can RAW is a yes. Immovable Rod is a Rod type item, all Rod type items are spellcasting focus. A DM can override this, but that's not unique to this item, it's simply the case for every facet of the game.
I mean, there's little downside to being able to cast spells at a push using it. Plus always having the rod on hand without giving up a hand for spellcasting is nice. Sure, you can't use it's feature and use it as a focus at the same time for certain spells.
Find my D&D Beyond articles here
If you think it's funny then yes.
[Suggestion]: Add some difficulties like "it needs to be turned on while using as a focus" :D
I am quite surprised that folks are arguing against using Magical rods/wands/staffs/whatever as foci.
All magic items reference their base item type, and use the rules of that base item type in addition to their extra features. If they don't use a base item type, then they will be typed as a "wondrous item."
An Orb of Gonging's type is Wondrous Item; it cannot be used as an Orb.
An Immovable Rod's type is Rod; therefore it uses the rules of the Rod. Saying it can't is - as has been stated - the equivalent to saying that an item like Elven Chain doesn't count as an Armor(Chain Shirt).
Look at Dagger of Venom. It doesn't specify the rules of using a dagger anywhere in its description, yet no one would argue against it indeed being a dagger and using the rules of one. A magic foci like the Immovable Rod may not specify the rules of how to use a Rod in its description, but it still is one.
That's not quite what I'm getting at - I wasn't suggesting the focus requires you to push a button to cast spells (which is how it seems you've interpreted this). If you use the rod as intended, it is fixed in place, yes? So you're either standing there in one spot with your spellcasting focus, or you let go of the focus once it's fixed in place. If you don't have your focus, then you're SOL for any spell with a material component. Unless you do have the material components - which obviates the need for a focus in the first place.
So sure, RAW you can use it that way, but I don't really see the benefit. Especially when item interaction (like drawing/sheathing a weapon or removing something from your pack) is a free action anyway.
Here's a simple solution: Keep a backup focus. Using an immovable rod as a focus is fine but if you plan to fix it in place then have an extra focus to use afterwards. Besides, how often are you going to fix the rod somewhere in combat? I don't think it'd be enough of an issue that you couldn't rely on a secondary focus, which every spell casting class starts with anyway.
How to add tooltips on dndbeyond