I’m a new DM running a campaign with new players. I have a paladin, Druid, and ranger across the two groups I’m running for. I’ve always found the spellfocus/material components aspect of spellcasting to be tedious for anyone who isn’t a wizard or sorcerer with their staff constantly in hand.
I want to give my players an item that lets them use a weapon as a spellfocus (like the Ruby of the War Mage, but for divine spellcasters).
Is this a major pitfall? I’d like to make their lives more simple and let them do cool stuff without swapping items in and out. But I’m concerned that spellfocus is an intentional means of nerfing hybrid casters and that I will be inadvertently making them too powerful. How risky is it to effectively overwrite the spell focus mechanism for non wizard/sorc characters?
For a paladin, the requirement to use a Holy Symbol is that they must 'hold it, wear it visibly, or bear it on a shield". The latter two are trivial to achieve for a paladin.
For a druid, remember that a druid can use a staff, including a magic staff, as a focus, and if they know shillelagh, probably want to. There's also the moon sickle.
For an archer ranger, remember that you only need to hold a two-handed weapon in two hands when you attack with it, so you can conveniently get at a component pouch without any interference. This is a problem for two-weapon rangers, but unfortunately rangers don't have the ability to use foci at all (I don't think you'll break anything by giving them something equivalent to a ruby of the war mage, though).
You could also just, like, not enforce component requirements. Not every game does and there's no auditing authority that will sanction your game if you don't either.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
For a paladin, the requirement to use a Holy Symbol is that they must 'hold it, wear it visibly, or bear it on a shield". The latter two are trivial to achieve for a paladin.
For a druid, remember that a druid can use a staff, including a magic staff, as a focus, and if they know shillelagh, probably want to. There's also the moon sickle.
For an archer ranger, remember that you only need to hold a two-handed weapon in two hands when you attack with it, so you can conveniently get at a component pouch without any interference. This is a problem for two-weapon rangers, but unfortunately rangers don't have the ability to use foci at all (I don't think you'll break anything by giving them something equivalent to a ruby of the war mage, though).
My interpretation of the rules for Paladins is that they can use a shield as a spell focus, but still need a free hand for material components. Since most spells require both, it doesn’t really solve my problem.
Good point about druids. The downside is no two-weapon attack or shield, so they’re underpowered in melee combat (I admit I don’t really understand the role of a Druid, who seems a little two week for melee, and whose spells seem a little too weak to be a caster).
I agree with you regarding the archer-ranger; I was specifically thinking about dual wielding rangers in close range. Tasha’s Cauldron let’s Rangers use a Druidic focus.
Appreciate the insight regarding my spell focus changes not breaking anything.
You could also just, like, not enforce component requirements. Not every game does and there's no auditing authority that will sanction your game if you don't either.
Yes. I am basically asking if by not enforcing those requirements, my game will break.
My interpretation of the rules for Paladins is that they can use a shield as a spell focus, but still need a free hand for material components. Since most spells require both, it doesn’t really solve my problem.
Good point about druids. The downside is no two-weapon attack or shield, so they’re underpowered in melee combat (I admit I don’t really understand the role of a Druid, who seems a little two week for melee, and whose spells seem a little too weak to be a caster).
A spell focus eliminates the need for non-expensive material components, so in most cases a free hand is not needed.
Druids are generally primary spellcasters. Their spells are not weak, though most of their really nasty stuff is concentration (my go-to spells were moonbeam and conjure animals).
My interpretation of the rules for Paladins is that they can use a shield as a spell focus, but still need a free hand for material components. Since most spells require both, it doesn’t really solve my problem.
Good point about druids. The downside is no two-weapon attack or shield, so they’re underpowered in melee combat (I admit I don’t really understand the role of a Druid, who seems a little two week for melee, and whose spells seem a little too weak to be a caster).
A spell focus eliminates the need for non-expensive material components, so in most cases a free hand is not needed.
Druids are generally primary spellcasters. Their spells are not weak, though most of their really nasty stuff is concentration (my go-to spells were moonbeam and conjure animals).
My mistake - I meant to say that they need a free hand for somatic components. I realize that players can use their hand holding their spellcasting focus for somatic components, but for some reason I thought that a shield would not count here.
I will have to re-review the druid's spell list. Their level 1 spells seem weak, but level 2 are much better.
Druids are extremely powerful spellcasters. Polymorph, and Conjure Animals are 2 of the most overpowered spells in the game. Circle of Stars druids are the best healers in the game and can pump out insane amounts of healing every turn in Chalice form.
A druid can use a staff one handed with a shield, so can still cast spells whilst having a shield equipped.
If you just don't like focuses then you can just do away with them, but I wouldn't recommend it. The drawbacks you've suggested (most of which have been clarified by other posters) are intended drawbacks. It's always possible to drop an item you're carrying (no action), use a components' pouch attached to your belt (no action required, it is considered part of the casting of the spell), cast your spell (1 action) and then use your Interact With Object free action to pick up the dropped weapon. Since this just requires some tedious juggling, you can assume that this is all happening and not require the player to describe it, however note that certain actions, e.g. the Battlemaster Fighter's Disarming Attack can be used to disarm the target of an object it's holding - and that can be a focus. Therefore you can remove a spellcaster's ability to cast spells. Spellcasters can also be stopped from casting spells inside prisons if they require Material components, which is important - otherwise a captured spellcaster is still capable of casting most spells, provided they have one free hand.
Druids are extremely powerful spellcasters. Polymorph, and Conjure Animals are 2 of the most overpowered spells in the game. Circle of Stars druids are the best healers in the game and can pump out insane amounts of healing every turn in Chalice form.
A druid can use a staff one handed with a shield, so can still cast spells whilst having a shield equipped.
If you just don't like focuses then you can just do away with them, but I wouldn't recommend it. The drawbacks you've suggested (most of which have been clarified by other posters) are intended drawbacks. It's always possible to drop an item you're carrying (no action), use a components' pouch attached to your belt (no action required, it is considered part of the casting of the spell), cast your spell (1 action) and then use your Interact With Object free action to pick up the dropped weapon. Since this just requires some tedious juggling, you can assume that this is all happening and not require the player to describe it, however note that certain actions, e.g. the Battlemaster Fighter's Disarming Attack can be used to disarm the target of an object it's holding - and that can be a focus. Therefore you can remove a spellcaster's ability to cast spells. Spellcasters can also be stopped from casting spells inside prisons if they require Material components, which is important - otherwise a captured spellcaster is still capable of casting most spells, provided they have one free hand.
Presumably a ranger with two swords and a M/S spell could sheath one sword (rather than dropping and then picking it back up), cast the spell using the components pouch, and then draw their sword the next round. If it were a bonus action, they could attack, then sheath a sword, and cast the bonus action spell.
So really, following this logic, allowing a Ruby of the War Mage for ranger/paladin magic just seems to make the action a little bit smoother, and allow players to conserve an interaction (since they don't have to sheath or draw a weapon). Am I correct?
The components rules actually do quite allot that people don't notice that can effect balance.
For example the spell absorb elements and shield require a free hand because they are somatic but not material , meaning that players who run with a focus and a shield; or a focus and a weapon, cannot use it unless they put one away in preparation of being hit. People ignoring these rules is how there are so many tank meta builds with wizard multi classes with AC's of functionally 25 or higher by using shield, the shield spell and player. It also means that a cleric often can't have both a weapon out and focus/shield while casting certain spells which means they often don't get attacks of opportunity which are actually pretty good on clerics ( they get bonus damage from divine strike and sometimes also cantrips).
Component pouch's also have an advantage over foci in that they don't take a hand so a free hand can act as both a material and somatic component in all spells. Where as foci can be magic items with bonuses as well as weapons and shields allowing reaction attacks.
You could also just, like, not enforce component requirements. Not every game does and there's no auditing authority that will sanction your game if you don't either.
Yes. I am basically asking if by not enforcing those requirements, my game will break.
Nothing breaks, but it trivialises a choice players have to make.
Want to hit something, you need a weapon in hand. Want to defend, you need a shield in hand. Want to cast a spell, you need componenst in hand. Want to do all three? You can't. Make a choice and accept the consequences.
Removing one consequence makes the choice weaker which cheapens the game. But that's my opinion and my table - your table will find its own balance.
From when I've played at a table where similar rulings were used, I recall it did do one thing - it essentially added +2 AC to every character, because everyone wielded a shield (there was no reason not to).
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I’m a new DM running a campaign with new players. I have a paladin, Druid, and ranger across the two groups I’m running for. I’ve always found the spellfocus/material components aspect of spellcasting to be tedious for anyone who isn’t a wizard or sorcerer with their staff constantly in hand.
I want to give my players an item that lets them use a weapon as a spellfocus (like the Ruby of the War Mage, but for divine spellcasters).
Is this a major pitfall? I’d like to make their lives more simple and let them do cool stuff without swapping items in and out. But I’m concerned that spellfocus is an intentional means of nerfing hybrid casters and that I will be inadvertently making them too powerful. How risky is it to effectively overwrite the spell focus mechanism for non wizard/sorc characters?
I would start by using the actual rules:
For a paladin, the requirement to use a Holy Symbol is that they must 'hold it, wear it visibly, or bear it on a shield". The latter two are trivial to achieve for a paladin.
For a druid, remember that a druid can use a staff, including a magic staff, as a focus, and if they know shillelagh, probably want to. There's also the moon sickle.
For an archer ranger, remember that you only need to hold a two-handed weapon in two hands when you attack with it, so you can conveniently get at a component pouch without any interference. This is a problem for two-weapon rangers, but unfortunately rangers don't have the ability to use foci at all (I don't think you'll break anything by giving them something equivalent to a ruby of the war mage, though).
You could also just, like, not enforce component requirements. Not every game does and there's no auditing authority that will sanction your game if you don't either.
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
My interpretation of the rules for Paladins is that they can use a shield as a spell focus, but still need a free hand for material components. Since most spells require both, it doesn’t really solve my problem.
Good point about druids. The downside is no two-weapon attack or shield, so they’re underpowered in melee combat (I admit I don’t really understand the role of a Druid, who seems a little two week for melee, and whose spells seem a little too weak to be a caster).
I agree with you regarding the archer-ranger; I was specifically thinking about dual wielding rangers in close range. Tasha’s Cauldron let’s Rangers use a Druidic focus.
Appreciate the insight regarding my spell focus changes not breaking anything.
Yes. I am basically asking if by not enforcing those requirements, my game will break.
Paladin: Spell focus in hand or on shield.
Druid/Ranger: Spell focus in hand.
Use in combat:
1 hand weapon no shield: Can use focus at will and do attack of opportunity with weapon.
1 hand weapon and shield: Can use focus at will but do no attack of opportunity with weapon for the round spell cast.
2 hand weapon: Can use focus, does not unequip 2 hand weapon, however no attack of opportunity with weapon for the round spell cast.
A spell focus eliminates the need for non-expensive material components, so in most cases a free hand is not needed.
Druids are generally primary spellcasters. Their spells are not weak, though most of their really nasty stuff is concentration (my go-to spells were moonbeam and conjure animals).
My mistake - I meant to say that they need a free hand for somatic components. I realize that players can use their hand holding their spellcasting focus for somatic components, but for some reason I thought that a shield would not count here.
I will have to re-review the druid's spell list. Their level 1 spells seem weak, but level 2 are much better.
Druid's first level spells are mostly support -- goodberry and healing word are excellent.
Druids are extremely powerful spellcasters. Polymorph, and Conjure Animals are 2 of the most overpowered spells in the game. Circle of Stars druids are the best healers in the game and can pump out insane amounts of healing every turn in Chalice form.
A druid can use a staff one handed with a shield, so can still cast spells whilst having a shield equipped.
If you just don't like focuses then you can just do away with them, but I wouldn't recommend it. The drawbacks you've suggested (most of which have been clarified by other posters) are intended drawbacks. It's always possible to drop an item you're carrying (no action), use a components' pouch attached to your belt (no action required, it is considered part of the casting of the spell), cast your spell (1 action) and then use your Interact With Object free action to pick up the dropped weapon. Since this just requires some tedious juggling, you can assume that this is all happening and not require the player to describe it, however note that certain actions, e.g. the Battlemaster Fighter's Disarming Attack can be used to disarm the target of an object it's holding - and that can be a focus. Therefore you can remove a spellcaster's ability to cast spells. Spellcasters can also be stopped from casting spells inside prisons if they require Material components, which is important - otherwise a captured spellcaster is still capable of casting most spells, provided they have one free hand.
Presumably a ranger with two swords and a M/S spell could sheath one sword (rather than dropping and then picking it back up), cast the spell using the components pouch, and then draw their sword the next round. If it were a bonus action, they could attack, then sheath a sword, and cast the bonus action spell.
So really, following this logic, allowing a Ruby of the War Mage for ranger/paladin magic just seems to make the action a little bit smoother, and allow players to conserve an interaction (since they don't have to sheath or draw a weapon). Am I correct?
The components rules actually do quite allot that people don't notice that can effect balance.
For example the spell absorb elements and shield require a free hand because they are somatic but not material , meaning that players who run with a focus and a shield; or a focus and a weapon, cannot use it unless they put one away in preparation of being hit. People ignoring these rules is how there are so many tank meta builds with wizard multi classes with AC's of functionally 25 or higher by using shield, the shield spell and player. It also means that a cleric often can't have both a weapon out and focus/shield while casting certain spells which means they often don't get attacks of opportunity which are actually pretty good on clerics ( they get bonus damage from divine strike and sometimes also cantrips).
Component pouch's also have an advantage over foci in that they don't take a hand so a free hand can act as both a material and somatic component in all spells. Where as foci can be magic items with bonuses as well as weapons and shields allowing reaction attacks.
Nothing breaks, but it trivialises a choice players have to make.
Want to hit something, you need a weapon in hand. Want to defend, you need a shield in hand. Want to cast a spell, you need componenst in hand. Want to do all three? You can't. Make a choice and accept the consequences.
Removing one consequence makes the choice weaker which cheapens the game. But that's my opinion and my table - your table will find its own balance.
From when I've played at a table where similar rulings were used, I recall it did do one thing - it essentially added +2 AC to every character, because everyone wielded a shield (there was no reason not to).