Say a character has two different magic items that say: "If you use this item as your spell focus you get +x to your spell attacks". In my mind it sounds like said character would have to chose between the two foci to get an effect vs. getting the benefit from two foci for the same spell. How do I rule on this gms?
Yeah, like you don't get to use two swords in the same attack and get both of their benefits, you can't use two focuses with one spell to get both their bonuses at once.
"Focus" is basically defined as a singular point of concentration. The idea of using two focuses simultaneously in this context is essentially gibberish.
The complexities of spell splitting and recombination is conveniently called "Metamagic", and fortunately, there is already a system in place for that.
Say a character has two different magic items that say: "If you use this item as your spell focus you get +x to your spell attacks". In my mind it sounds like said character would have to chose between the two foci to get an effect vs. getting the benefit from two foci for the same spell. How do I rule on this gms?
Is this a homebrew item? All of the items that work like this that I know of *don't* attempt to force you to use them - they always require being held and being attuned, but that's it. A ranger with a moon sickle can hold the sickle and a second druidic focus and cast with either one and get the moon sickle's benefits, for example.
Effects from multiple sources don't stack if they are from the same type of source; and you can only use one focus at a time anyway.
If the ring of protection and cloak of protection don't stack in your games, you can play it that way. I prefer to play by the written rule of "effects with the same name don't stack," and let similar effects with different names stack as intended.
That said, the "can only use 1 focus" part, is supported by the rules.
A ring and a cloak are not the same type of source. Thus, a PC can wear one ring, one cloak and stack the benefits of each. On the other hand, a focus is a type of source, so you cannot get the benefit from two sources, even if you COULD use them to cast one spell (a spell is cast using only one focus).
Anyone have a rule quote that supports the claim that a spell can only use one focus?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
I guess it comes down to english grammar. The core rules and official ruling always refer to a spellcasting focus in singular term. Plurial would indicate spellcasting focuses.
Material: A character can use a component pouch or a spellcasting focus (found in “Equipment”) in place of the components specified for a spell.
If a spell’s material components are consumed, can a spellcasting focus still be used in place of the consumed component? No. A spellcasting focus can be used in place of a material component only if that component has no cost noted in the spell’s description and if that component isn’t consumed.
What’s the amount of interaction needed to use a spellcasting focus? Does it have to be included in the somatic component? If a spell has a material component, you need to handle that component when you cast the spell (PH, 203). The same rule applies if you’re using a spellcasting focus as the material component. If a spell has a somatic component, you can use the hand that performs the somatic component to also handle the material component. For example, a wizard who uses an orb as a spellcasting focus could hold a quarterstaff in one hand and the orb in the other, and he could cast lightning bolt by using the orb as the spell’s material component and the orb hand to perform the spell’s somatic component.
I guess it comes down to english grammar. The core rules and official ruling always refer to a spellcasting focus in singular term. Plurial would indicate spellcasting focuses.
Material: A character can use a component pouch or a spellcasting focus (found in “Equipment”) in place of the components specified for a spell.
If a spell’s material components are consumed, can a spellcasting focus still be used in place of the consumed component? No. A spellcasting focus can be used in place of a material component only if that component has no cost noted in the spell’s description and if that component isn’t consumed.
What’s the amount of interaction needed to use a spellcasting focus? Does it have to be included in the somatic component? If a spell has a material component, you need to handle that component when you cast the spell (PH, 203). The same rule applies if you’re using a spellcasting focus as the material component. If a spell has a somatic component, you can use the hand that performs the somatic component to also handle the material component. For example, a wizard who uses an orb as a spellcasting focus could hold a quarterstaff in one hand and the orb in the other, and he could cast lightning bolt by using the orb as the spell’s material component and the orb hand to perform the spell’s somatic component.
So nothing stops it then, gotcha.
You could use both like a wand of the war mage plus a rod of the pact keeper at the same time, for example.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
it does, grammatically speaking. DM can stops using more then one focus or weapon during an attack, which similarly rely on singular term.
Melee Attacks: A melee attack typically uses a handheld weapon such as a sword, a warhammer, or an axe.
I'm not sure you're on topic here. Whether or not someone can attack with two weapons has nothing to do with using these magic items.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
For most (all) magic items whether you can "use" two foci simultaniously doesn't matter.
A moon sickle was mentioned, the text for the moon sickle is "While holding this magic weapon, you gain a bonus to attack and damage rolls made with it, and you gain a bonus to spell attack rolls and the saving throw DCs of your druid and ranger spells". The only requirement is to hold the moon Sickle (and be attuned to it as stated elsewhere). If this was not the case then a moon sickle would not be able ot boost the DC of a spell like Faerie Fire because all a focus does is replace the material component so a spell that does not require a material componant does not need a focus.
Clearly having two moon sickles does not work as the same effect does not stack but I see no reason RAW why you can not benefit from two different items. Interestingly if a Druid /Cleric multiclass attuned and holding a moon sickle and wearing an amulet of the devout the effects would stack for druid spells (as the amulet works for any spell) but not for cleric spells (as the moon sickle only works for druid/ranger spells).
Clearly if you are holding two foci you would not be able to cast a spell with a somantic component but no material component as you do not have the required free hand. So for example a stars druid can not cast guiding bolt while holding a moon sickle as they only know the spell when also holding their star map and that would mean they have no free hand for the somantic component (though a LOT of tables homebrew that they can)
While holding a Wand of the War Mage and a Rod of the Pact Keeper, you should gain a bonus to spell attack rolls your warlock spells. Those two specific magic items can stack but may not be both used as a spellcasting focus during the same spell though.
Both magic items can be held to gain the attack bonus even when you're not making use of a spellcasting focus, in the case of a spell without material component for exemple.
The Wand of the War Mage can even be used without being one of your spellcasting focus or without even casting a spell, in the case of abilities letting you make melee or ranged spell attack for exemple, such as a Vampirate Mage's Ray of Cold action.
Anyone have a rule quote that supports the claim that a spell can only use one focus?
We don't need to provide rule text which proves you can't do something. Rule text never does that. If you are arguing that the rules allow a character to use two or more focuses then you need to provide rule text to support that.
All text that allows casting a spell or using a focus says that you can use "a spellcasting focus". "A" is singular. The rules allow you to use one. I can find no text that specifically allows more than one.
The language allowing the use of a spellcasting focus to cast a spell in these rules is very similar to the rule text allowing the use of a weapon to make an attack. Rule allow one. You get bonuses associated with the one you are using.
Anyone have a rule quote that supports the claim that a spell can only use one focus?
We don't need to provide rule text which proves you can't do something. Rule text never does that. If you are arguing that the rules allow a character to use two or more focuses then you need to provide rule text to support that.
All text that allows casting a spell or using a focus says that you can use "a spellcasting focus". "A" is singular. The rules allow you to use one. I can find no text that specifically allows more than one.
The language allowing the use of a spellcasting focus to cast a spell in these rules is very similar to the rule text allowing the use of a weapon to make an attack. Rule allow one. You get bonuses associated with the one you are using.
I agree with everything except the last sentence. To get the bonus you need to do what the item says. For most if not all spell foci that provide bonuses you need to be wearing it or holding it not "using it" (which as I pointed out would prevent you gaining a bonus for spells without a material components (or a component the focus can not replace)
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Say a character has two different magic items that say: "If you use this item as your spell focus you get +x to your spell attacks". In my mind it sounds like said character would have to chose between the two foci to get an effect vs. getting the benefit from two foci for the same spell. How do I rule on this gms?
I'd say you can only use one focus per casting of a spell, and can't benefit from both.
Come participate in the Competition of the Finest Brews, Edition XXVIII?
My homebrew stuff:
Spells, Monsters, Magic Items, Feats, Subclasses.
I am an Archfey, but nobody seems to notice.
Extended Signature
Effects from multiple sources don't stack if they are from the same type of source; and you can only use one focus at a time anyway.
Yeah, like you don't get to use two swords in the same attack and get both of their benefits, you can't use two focuses with one spell to get both their bonuses at once.
Did a player actually bring this up asking if this is a valid method of play?
"Focus" is basically defined as a singular point of concentration. The idea of using two focuses simultaneously in this context is essentially gibberish.
The complexities of spell splitting and recombination is conveniently called "Metamagic", and fortunately, there is already a system in place for that.
Is this a homebrew item? All of the items that work like this that I know of *don't* attempt to force you to use them - they always require being held and being attuned, but that's it. A ranger with a moon sickle can hold the sickle and a second druidic focus and cast with either one and get the moon sickle's benefits, for example.
You can hold two arcane focus and cast a spell but you only get the benefits of one focus because one of them is "used" to cast the spell.
If the ring of protection and cloak of protection don't stack in your games, you can play it that way. I prefer to play by the written rule of "effects with the same name don't stack," and let similar effects with different names stack as intended.
That said, the "can only use 1 focus" part, is supported by the rules.
A ring and a cloak are not the same type of source. Thus, a PC can wear one ring, one cloak and stack the benefits of each. On the other hand, a focus is a type of source, so you cannot get the benefit from two sources, even if you COULD use them to cast one spell (a spell is cast using only one focus).
Anyone have a rule quote that supports the claim that a spell can only use one focus?
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
I guess it comes down to english grammar. The core rules and official ruling always refer to a spellcasting focus in singular term. Plurial would indicate spellcasting focuses.
So nothing stops it then, gotcha.
You could use both like a wand of the war mage plus a rod of the pact keeper at the same time, for example.
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
it does, grammatically speaking. DM can stops using more then one focus or weapon during an attack, which similarly rely on singular term.
I'm not sure you're on topic here. Whether or not someone can attack with two weapons has nothing to do with using these magic items.
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
Magiic items that grant bonus when held are not necessarily used as spellcasting focus especially when the spell does not have material components.
For most (all) magic items whether you can "use" two foci simultaniously doesn't matter.
A moon sickle was mentioned, the text for the moon sickle is "While holding this magic weapon, you gain a bonus to attack and damage rolls made with it, and you gain a bonus to spell attack rolls and the saving throw DCs of your druid and ranger spells". The only requirement is to hold the moon Sickle (and be attuned to it as stated elsewhere). If this was not the case then a moon sickle would not be able ot boost the DC of a spell like Faerie Fire because all a focus does is replace the material component so a spell that does not require a material componant does not need a focus.
Clearly having two moon sickles does not work as the same effect does not stack but I see no reason RAW why you can not benefit from two different items. Interestingly if a Druid /Cleric multiclass attuned and holding a moon sickle and wearing an amulet of the devout the effects would stack for druid spells (as the amulet works for any spell) but not for cleric spells (as the moon sickle only works for druid/ranger spells).
Clearly if you are holding two foci you would not be able to cast a spell with a somantic component but no material component as you do not have the required free hand. So for example a stars druid can not cast guiding bolt while holding a moon sickle as they only know the spell when also holding their star map and that would mean they have no free hand for the somantic component (though a LOT of tables homebrew that they can)
While holding a Wand of the War Mage and a Rod of the Pact Keeper, you should gain a bonus to spell attack rolls your warlock spells. Those two specific magic items can stack but may not be both used as a spellcasting focus during the same spell though.
Both magic items can be held to gain the attack bonus even when you're not making use of a spellcasting focus, in the case of a spell without material component for exemple.
The Wand of the War Mage can even be used without being one of your spellcasting focus or without even casting a spell, in the case of abilities letting you make melee or ranged spell attack for exemple, such as a Vampirate Mage's Ray of Cold action.
We don't need to provide rule text which proves you can't do something. Rule text never does that. If you are arguing that the rules allow a character to use two or more focuses then you need to provide rule text to support that.
All text that allows casting a spell or using a focus says that you can use "a spellcasting focus". "A" is singular. The rules allow you to use one. I can find no text that specifically allows more than one.
The language allowing the use of a spellcasting focus to cast a spell in these rules is very similar to the rule text allowing the use of a weapon to make an attack. Rule allow one. You get bonuses associated with the one you are using.
I agree with everything except the last sentence. To get the bonus you need to do what the item says. For most if not all spell foci that provide bonuses you need to be wearing it or holding it not "using it" (which as I pointed out would prevent you gaining a bonus for spells without a material components (or a component the focus can not replace)