I would guess it is this: "Rules as written, a component/focus is only used as part of the actual spell attack itself if the description for that spell specifies that the component/focus is specifically used as part of that attack. Unless of course a Bard, Cleric, Druid, Ranger, Paladin, Artificer, Eldritch Knight, or Arcane Trickster casts the spell because they cannot use an arcane focus."
That doesn't answer my question. Its a tautology: if the rules say it does, it does. That doesn't tell me what the rules actually say.
Actually, it doesn't even give any reason for disconnecting the spell attack from the spell. Its the same action.
Your mistake is in thinking that there is one singular answer to this question for all instances. What you are failing to realize is that it’s determined on a spell-by-spell basis.
So what is your pedantic ruling on how the rules for Arcane Focus say they are used in the spell, and how making a spell attack is "part of a spell"?
Booming blade: “You brandish the weapon used in the spell’s casting and make a melee attack with it against one creature within 5 feet of you. On a hit….”
So, in the case of Booming Blade, it specifically says that you make the attack with the weapon, so the answer is “Yes.” (🍾👌✅🆗👍)
Steel wind strike: “You flourish the weapon used in the casting and then vanish to strike like the wind. Choose up to five creatures you can see within range. Make a melee spell attack against each target. On a hit….”
In the case of Steel Wind Strike, it notable does not say that you attack specifically with the weapon. It never mentions the weapon in the same sentence as the attacking at all. In fact, there’s even an entire other sentence in between when it mentions the weapon in the casting, and the other sentence where it talks about the attacking. Ergo, in this case the answer is “No.” (💩🚫❌🆖👎)
Of course, I already summed all of that up way back when I posted this:
We get one specific spell pointing out a different way it is involved. And another (Magic Stone) that literally uses the components as ammunition without that same language.
The stones you throw/sling are no more the components of magic stone than your party member is a component of haste when you cast it on them.
True. Magic Stone doesn't bear on that.
The point stands: we get no rule saying components are not always a part of the spell attack. We get 2 cantrips saying they are in a specific way, and a general rule that most spell attacks are part of the cast a spell action.
I will say this however, Steel Wind Strike does at least imply that the weapon is used in the attacks, and if the PC can cast it they are either a 9th level Wis, or a, what, 17th level Ranger? So, if they min-maxed for just this occasion to maximize their “deadly Steel Wind Sneak Attack,” If that Ranger just so happens to be Ranger 17/Rogue 3 PC….
They are more than welcome to add another 2d6 Sneak Attack to a single one of those targets of the spell at my table. I’ll allow it as a houserule. Why? Because at Ranger 17/Rogue 3, who cares anymore?!? They’re demigods. As long as they don’t throw themselves off of a gimongous cliff yelling “I’m a golden god” they’re all but invincible anyway. By that point, I’ve already broken the needle off of the CR gauge and used it to pick the teeth of an encounter that singlehandedly ate three days XP budget and took 3 sessions to complete. (And that was the fight that got them from 19-20 already.)
If that extra 2d6 is gonna break the game at that point, then I have so seriously effed up it doesn’t matter anymore. If they instead went Wiz 9/ Rogue 11 (the most “abusable” combo), then they’re welcome to the 6d6 sneak attack too, and for the same reason. If 2d6 is nosewipe damage, but 6d6 is gonna break my encounter for a 20th level party, then what the eff am I doing behind the screen?!? If I’m that outta wack I don’t even belong behind a character sheet! I would barely qualifu as dice fluffer at that point. But that’s me. 🤷♂️ However, I know that is a houserule and not RAW. (And knowing is half the battle….)
I will say this however, Steel Wind Strike does at least imply that the weapon is used in the attacks, and if the PC can cast it they are either a 9th level Wis, or a, what, 17th level Ranger? So, if they min-maxed ...
...dice fluffer at that point. But that’s me. 🤷♂️ However, I know that is a houserule and not RAW. (And knowing is half the battle….)
A wise and valid ruling. Also please stop doing that to the dice. It's unsanitary.
I will say this however, Steel Wind Strike does at least imply that the weapon is used in the attacks, and if the PC can cast it they are either a 9th level Wis, or a, what, 17th level Ranger? So, if they min-maxed ...
...dice fluffer at that point. But that’s me. 🤷♂️ However, I know that is a houserule and not RAW. (And knowing is half the battle….)
A wise and valid ruling. Also please stop doing that to the dice. It's unsanitary.
Thank you. And trust me, there are better reasons to never let me touch your dice, they might get tainted with my abysmal luck. I’m the only person you’re likely to ever meet who can get a Crit, and still roll below the average damage for a non-crit. I’m the guy who can roll 4d6 dropping the lowest and still roll 4, 9, 10, 12, 12, 12 for stats. (I’m not joking, that’s an actual array I rolled.)
But you’re right, there is no rule that dog’s can’t play basketball.
But you are saying the equivalent of their being a rule that dog's can play basketball.
I'm really not. In D&D, rules do what they tell you they do, they rarely tell you what you cannot do. Basketball is probably a terrible facsimile of that, because modern sports rulebooks are full of special rule changes made especially for the pedant coaches who kept just yelling "it isn't in the rulebooks!" A spell that wants you to attack with/using the components will say that. A spell that doesn't say that doesn't require that. It is fairly straightforward. "It doesn't say you don't" is an invalid response to rules questions (as opposed to RP flavor) in this system.
It is specifically problematic for the OP to ask the question "does this rule do that?" then say "it doesn't say it doesn't" when someone points out the painfully obvious "it doesn't say it does."
A arcane focus is used as a spellcasting focus for your wizard spells to channel it in place of the spell components specified for a spell. It is not used to delivered the attack through it unless specifically mentionned. Ex Booming Blade, Green Flame Blade.
A good rule of thumb to know if the attack is delivered through it as a weapon or spellcasting focus only is to verify where the proficiency bonus is from. If its from weapon proficiency bonus then its weapon-delivered, if it's from Spellcasting then it's focus delivered.
A arcane focus is used as a spellcasting focus for your wizard spells to channel it in place of the spell components specified for a spell. It is not used to delivered the attack through it unless specifically mentionned. Ex Booming Blade, Green Flame Blade.
A good rule of thumb to know if the attack is delivered through it as a weapon or spellcasting focus only is to verify where the proficiency bonus is from. If its from weapon proficiency bonus then its weapon-delivered, if it's from Spellcasting then it's focus delivered.
Does it matter that it is specifically used to deliver the attack though?
The requirement, Rules as written, for the features are:
Improved Pact Weapon
Prerequisite: Pact of the Blade feature
You can use any weapon you summon with your Pact of the Blade feature as a spellcasting focus for your warlock spells.
In addition, the weapon gains a +1 bonus to its attack and damage rolls, unless it is a magic weapon that already has a bonus to those rolls.
Finally, the weapon you conjure can be a shortbow, longbow, light crossbow, or heavy crossbow.
The weapon gains a +1 to attack and damage rolls, not to weapon attacks specifically.
Booming Blade and Green Flame Blade are good examples of spells that employ a weapon attack, but that doesn't really bear on what we are discussing, since RAW no requirement for a melee weapon attack is stated for the bonus to attack and damage rolls.
As for proficiency, there are already exceptions to the bearing of proficiency bonuses to whether or not an attack is made "with a weapon," such as Magic Stone used in conjunction with a sling, and Shadow Blade giving the caster proficiency with the weapon. It might be a general rule of thumb, but not a hard and fast rule. So again, that has no bearing on RAW.
the weapon gains a +1 bonus to its attack and damage rolls
A weapon gains a bonus to the weapon's(its) attacks and you don't know if it gains a bonus to attacks that aren't the weapons attacks (i.e. attacks made as part of casting a spell)?
Attacks with it would gain the bonus. Those would be weapon attacks and spell attacks that tell you they involve a weapon.
Again, I think it's important not to conflate "use" vs "are made with" or which "hit with" for "attacks that _____ your weapon/spell focus."
If you hold a spell focus (whether it's a focus, or a weapon-as-focus), and you cast a spell that makes an attack, that is an "attack that uses your spell focus/weapon." It is notan "attack that is made withyour spell focus/weapon," or an "attack that hits withyour spell focus/weapon."
Improved Pact Weapon provides bonuses to "its" attack and damage rolls. I think its very debatable whether an attack that uses that weapon is "its" attack and damage roll, but I have no problem saying yesgo ahead and apply that +1, use="its"!
A Weapon +1 provides bonuses to attack and damage rolls "with" the weapon. Because the weapon isn't actually being used to deliver the attack or damage, just as part of the casting, that's not "with" the weapon, no , use=/="with"
To take a step back from weapons.... thinks of free hands! You make an attack "with" a weapon, and that attack will "use" your hand that you're wielding that weapon in, or even will "use" your body/anatomy in general to make the attack. That doesn't mean that you get to piggy back Unarmed Strike features onto the attack, it isn't an attack "with" that hand or "with" your body! If you had a magic glove that gave you +1 to hit and damage on attacks made "with" your fist, would you try to apply that to a sword? No!
Does that make sense, if not linguistically, at least in game terms? Every necessary element of an attack is an element that is "used" for that attack, be it spell component, anatomy, weapon, spell effect, etc... but only the damaging element that's delivering the attack/damage is counted as what that attack is made "with."
Use vs With obviously isn't spelled out explicitly as something to track, but again, across the breadth and depth of 5E you'll see "using" and "with" used in this way again and again, demonstrating to me that it's a RAI-enough way to think about things.
C_C, I don't think I agree with you, considering the language on, say, magical focii that have bonuses to attacks. Or maybe I'm not exactly sure what you're saying. But consider these three quotes from different staff magical items.
This staff can be wielded as a magic quarterstaff that grants a +2 bonus to attack and damage rolls made with it. While you hold it, you gain a +2 bonus to spell attack rolls.
or
While holding the staff, you gain a +1 bonus to spell attack rolls.
or
This staff can be wielded as a magic quarterstaff that grants a +2 bonus to attack and damage rolls made with it.
The rules seem to imply that "with it" is separate from 'spell attack rolls made using it as a focus.'
Unless otherwise mentioned (e.g. that magic staff), one does not add a weapons attack bonus to spell attacks made while casting spells while using the weapon as an arcane focus.
The only thing an arcane focus does is allow you to ignore non-expensive material components while casting spells with the focus in-hand.
Some specific spells (booming blade etc) require you to also make a weapon attack with the weapon you use for the material component (which is, btw, different from an arcane focus that happens to also be a weapon). Those weapon attacks do benefit from any magical bonuses on the weapon.
When you make a weapon attack with a Pact Weapon, you will use the bonus.
When you make a spell attack with the Pact Weapon, generally you don't, because you're simply replacing the material component of the spell with your pact weapon as a focus. Note that AFAIK, you still need another hand free to make any somatic components, unless you also have Warcaster.
C_C, I don't think I agree with you, considering the language on, say, magical focii that have bonuses to attacks. Or maybe I'm not exactly sure what you're saying. But consider these three quotes from different staff magical items.
This staff can be wielded as a magic quarterstaff that grants a +2 bonus to attack and damage rolls made with it. While you hold it, you gain a +2 bonus to spell attack rolls.
or
While holding the staff, you gain a +1 bonus to spell attack rolls.
or
This staff can be wielded as a magic quarterstaff that grants a +2 bonus to attack and damage rolls made with it.
The rules seem to imply that "with it" is separate from 'spell attack rolls made using it as a focus.'
Those items are specific in their language as to which kind of attacks they apply to. The Improved Pact Weapon is not.
It was never a consideration for +1 weapons at the beginning of 5e, since using weapons as arcane foci was a pretty niche possibility available only to clerics and Paladins (who hardly have any spell attacks compared to other casters to begin with).
But those examples do close the question of whether or not an arcane focus is used in a spell attack.
... The rules seem to imply that "with it" is separate from 'spell attack rolls made using it as a focus.'...
That is literally the point I'm trying (and failing) to make :)
I agree, attack rolls you make as a result of casting a spell "using" a focus, are not attacks rolls "with" the focus. They are attack rolls "with" the spell effect, instead, as described by the spell. An item that provided a +1 bonus to attacks "using" the item would apply when that item is used as a spell focus, one that provided a +1 bonus to attacks made "with" the item would not.
C_C, I don't think I agree with you, considering the language on, say, magical focii that have bonuses to attacks. Or maybe I'm not exactly sure what you're saying. But consider these three quotes from different staff magical items.
This staff can be wielded as a magic quarterstaff that grants a +2 bonus to attack and damage rolls made with it. While you hold it, you gain a +2 bonus to spell attack rolls.
or
While holding the staff, you gain a +1 bonus to spell attack rolls.
or
This staff can be wielded as a magic quarterstaff that grants a +2 bonus to attack and damage rolls made with it.
The rules seem to imply that "with it" is separate from 'spell attack rolls made using it as a focus.'
Those items are specific in their language as to which kind of attacks they apply to. The Improved Pact Weapon is not.
...
You are saying that "its attack and damage rolls" is different from "attack and damage rolls made with it?"
I would err on the side of "its attack and damage rolls" being at least as restrictive as "attack and damage rolls made with it"
C_C, I don't think I agree with you, considering the language on, say, magical focii that have bonuses to attacks. Or maybe I'm not exactly sure what you're saying. But consider these three quotes from different staff magical items.
This staff can be wielded as a magic quarterstaff that grants a +2 bonus to attack and damage rolls made with it. While you hold it, you gain a +2 bonus to spell attack rolls.
or
While holding the staff, you gain a +1 bonus to spell attack rolls.
or
This staff can be wielded as a magic quarterstaff that grants a +2 bonus to attack and damage rolls made with it.
The rules seem to imply that "with it" is separate from 'spell attack rolls made using it as a focus.'
Those items are specific in their language as to which kind of attacks they apply to. The Improved Pact Weapon is not.
...
You are saying that "its attack and damage rolls" is different from "attack and damage rolls made with it?"
My bad: long day. I thought you were citing an expanded text to a single Enhanced Arcane Foci from Eberron that I hadn't found.
I'll go back and take the different descriptions point by point,
This staff can be wielded as a magic quarterstaff that grants a +2 bonus to attack and damage rolls made with it. While you hold it, you gain a +2 bonus to spell attack rolls.
The distinction here is important because a quarterstaff and a staff capable of being an arcane focus are usually different pieces of equipment (one costs 2 sp and the other 5 g). A Wizard who finds a +1 quarterstaff has not automatically found a new arcane focus. And in this case, it still wouldn't be an arcane focus just based on that description alone.
While holding the staff, you gain a +1 bonus to spell attack rolls.
Its specific language barring getting +1 on rolls using it as an improvised weapon.
This staff can be wielded as a magic quarterstaff that grants a +2 bonus to attack and damage rolls made with it.
This is vague language allowing it to give +2 to any kind of attack made with it. But it would not automatically be valid as an arcane focus unless otherwise specified in the rest of its text.
I mean, you're implying that the consistent language in these three items is there for different reasons? how about the moon sickle?
This silver-bladed sickle glimmers softly with moonlight. 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 bonus is determined by the weapon’s rarity.
Your mistake is in thinking that there is one singular answer to this question for all instances. What you are failing to realize is that it’s determined on a spell-by-spell basis.
So, in the case of Booming Blade, it specifically says that you make the attack with the weapon, so the answer is “Yes.” (🍾👌✅🆗👍)
In the case of Steel Wind Strike, it notable does not say that you attack specifically with the weapon. It never mentions the weapon in the same sentence as the attacking at all. In fact, there’s even an entire other sentence in between when it mentions the weapon in the casting, and the other sentence where it talks about the attacking. Ergo, in this case the answer is “No.” (💩🚫❌🆖👎)
Of course, I already summed all of that up way back when I posted this:
I hope that helps.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
True. Magic Stone doesn't bear on that.
The point stands: we get no rule saying components are not always a part of the spell attack. We get 2 cantrips saying they are in a specific way, and a general rule that most spell attacks are part of the cast a spell action.
But you are saying the equivalent of their being a rule that dog's can play basketball.
I will say this however, Steel Wind Strike does at least imply that the weapon is used in the attacks, and if the PC can cast it they are either a 9th level Wis, or a, what, 17th level Ranger? So, if they min-maxed for just this occasion to maximize their “deadly Steel Wind Sneak Attack,” If that Ranger just so happens to be Ranger 17/Rogue 3 PC….
They are more than welcome to add another 2d6 Sneak Attack to a single one of those targets of the spell at my table. I’ll allow it as a houserule. Why? Because at Ranger 17/Rogue 3, who cares anymore?!? They’re demigods. As long as they don’t throw themselves off of a gimongous cliff yelling “I’m a golden god” they’re all but invincible anyway. By that point, I’ve already broken the needle off of the CR gauge and used it to pick the teeth of an encounter that singlehandedly ate three days XP budget and took 3 sessions to complete. (And that was the fight that got them from 19-20 already.)
If that extra 2d6 is gonna break the game at that point, then I have so seriously effed up it doesn’t matter anymore. If they instead went Wiz 9/ Rogue 11 (the most “abusable” combo), then they’re welcome to the 6d6 sneak attack too, and for the same reason. If 2d6 is nosewipe damage, but 6d6 is gonna break my encounter for a 20th level party, then what the eff am I doing behind the screen?!? If I’m that outta wack I don’t even belong behind a character sheet! I would barely qualifu as dice fluffer at that point. But that’s me. 🤷♂️ However, I know that is a houserule and not RAW. (And knowing is half the battle….)
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
A wise and valid ruling. Also please stop doing that to the dice. It's unsanitary.
Thank you. And trust me, there are better reasons to never let me touch your dice, they might get tainted with my abysmal luck. I’m the only person you’re likely to ever meet who can get a Crit, and still roll below the average damage for a non-crit. I’m the guy who can roll 4d6 dropping the lowest and still roll 4, 9, 10, 12, 12, 12 for stats. (I’m not joking, that’s an actual array I rolled.)
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Ability scores: 8 11 15 10 17 10
Attack: 11 Damage: 27
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
See! 👆 That’s 4d10+4 damage. That’s a high roll for me. (Average would be 26 damage.) Yeah, that 17 is solid, but the rest is average or lower.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
I'm really not. In D&D, rules do what they tell you they do, they rarely tell you what you cannot do. Basketball is probably a terrible facsimile of that, because modern sports rulebooks are full of special rule changes made especially for the pedant coaches who kept just yelling "it isn't in the rulebooks!" A spell that wants you to attack with/using the components will say that. A spell that doesn't say that doesn't require that. It is fairly straightforward. "It doesn't say you don't" is an invalid response to rules questions (as opposed to RP flavor) in this system.
It is specifically problematic for the OP to ask the question "does this rule do that?" then say "it doesn't say it doesn't" when someone points out the painfully obvious "it doesn't say it does."
A arcane focus is used as a spellcasting focus for your wizard spells to channel it in place of the spell components specified for a spell. It is not used to delivered the attack through it unless specifically mentionned. Ex Booming Blade, Green Flame Blade.
A good rule of thumb to know if the attack is delivered through it as a weapon or spellcasting focus only is to verify where the proficiency bonus is from. If its from weapon proficiency bonus then its weapon-delivered, if it's from Spellcasting then it's focus delivered.
Does it matter that it is specifically used to deliver the attack though?
The requirement, Rules as written, for the features are:
The weapon gains a +1 to attack and damage rolls, not to weapon attacks specifically.
Booming Blade and Green Flame Blade are good examples of spells that employ a weapon attack, but that doesn't really bear on what we are discussing, since RAW no requirement for a melee weapon attack is stated for the bonus to attack and damage rolls.
As for proficiency, there are already exceptions to the bearing of proficiency bonuses to whether or not an attack is made "with a weapon," such as Magic Stone used in conjunction with a sling, and Shadow Blade giving the caster proficiency with the weapon. It might be a general rule of thumb, but not a hard and fast rule. So again, that has no bearing on RAW.
A weapon gains a bonus to the weapon's(its) attacks and you don't know if it gains a bonus to attacks that aren't the weapons attacks (i.e. attacks made as part of casting a spell)?
Attacks with it would gain the bonus. Those would be weapon attacks and spell attacks that tell you they involve a weapon.
Again, I think it's important not to conflate "use" vs "are made with" or which "hit with" for "attacks that _____ your weapon/spell focus."
If you hold a spell focus (whether it's a focus, or a weapon-as-focus), and you cast a spell that makes an attack, that is an "attack that uses your spell focus/weapon." It is not an "attack that is made with your spell focus/weapon," or an "attack that hits with your spell focus/weapon."
Improved Pact Weapon provides bonuses to "its" attack and damage rolls. I think its very debatable whether an attack that uses that weapon is "its" attack and damage roll, but I have no problem saying yes go ahead and apply that +1, use="its"!
A Weapon +1 provides bonuses to attack and damage rolls "with" the weapon. Because the weapon isn't actually being used to deliver the attack or damage, just as part of the casting, that's not "with" the weapon, no , use=/="with"
To take a step back from weapons.... thinks of free hands! You make an attack "with" a weapon, and that attack will "use" your hand that you're wielding that weapon in, or even will "use" your body/anatomy in general to make the attack. That doesn't mean that you get to piggy back Unarmed Strike features onto the attack, it isn't an attack "with" that hand or "with" your body! If you had a magic glove that gave you +1 to hit and damage on attacks made "with" your fist, would you try to apply that to a sword? No!
Does that make sense, if not linguistically, at least in game terms? Every necessary element of an attack is an element that is "used" for that attack, be it spell component, anatomy, weapon, spell effect, etc... but only the damaging element that's delivering the attack/damage is counted as what that attack is made "with."
Use vs With obviously isn't spelled out explicitly as something to track, but again, across the breadth and depth of 5E you'll see "using" and "with" used in this way again and again, demonstrating to me that it's a RAI-enough way to think about things.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
C_C, I don't think I agree with you, considering the language on, say, magical focii that have bonuses to attacks. Or maybe I'm not exactly sure what you're saying. But consider these three quotes from different staff magical items.
or
or
The rules seem to imply that "with it" is separate from 'spell attack rolls made using it as a focus.'
Unless otherwise mentioned (e.g. that magic staff), one does not add a weapons attack bonus to spell attacks made while casting spells while using the weapon as an arcane focus.
The only thing an arcane focus does is allow you to ignore non-expensive material components while casting spells with the focus in-hand.
Some specific spells (booming blade etc) require you to also make a weapon attack with the weapon you use for the material component (which is, btw, different from an arcane focus that happens to also be a weapon). Those weapon attacks do benefit from any magical bonuses on the weapon.
When you make a weapon attack with a Pact Weapon, you will use the bonus.
When you make a spell attack with the Pact Weapon, generally you don't, because you're simply replacing the material component of the spell with your pact weapon as a focus. Note that AFAIK, you still need another hand free to make any somatic components, unless you also have Warcaster.
Those items are specific in their language as to which kind of attacks they apply to. The Improved Pact Weapon is not.
It was never a consideration for +1 weapons at the beginning of 5e, since using weapons as arcane foci was a pretty niche possibility available only to clerics and Paladins (who hardly have any spell attacks compared to other casters to begin with).
But those examples do close the question of whether or not an arcane focus is used in a spell attack.
Thank you for the constructive input.
That is literally the point I'm trying (and failing) to make :)
I agree, attack rolls you make as a result of casting a spell "using" a focus, are not attacks rolls "with" the focus. They are attack rolls "with" the spell effect, instead, as described by the spell. An item that provided a +1 bonus to attacks "using" the item would apply when that item is used as a spell focus, one that provided a +1 bonus to attacks made "with" the item would not.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
You are saying that "its attack and damage rolls" is different from "attack and damage rolls made with it?"
I would err on the side of "its attack and damage rolls" being at least as restrictive as "attack and damage rolls made with it"
My bad: long day. I thought you were citing an expanded text to a single Enhanced Arcane Foci from Eberron that I hadn't found.
I'll go back and take the different descriptions point by point,
The distinction here is important because a quarterstaff and a staff capable of being an arcane focus are usually different pieces of equipment (one costs 2 sp and the other 5 g). A Wizard who finds a +1 quarterstaff has not automatically found a new arcane focus. And in this case, it still wouldn't be an arcane focus just based on that description alone.
Its specific language barring getting +1 on rolls using it as an improvised weapon.
This is vague language allowing it to give +2 to any kind of attack made with it. But it would not automatically be valid as an arcane focus unless otherwise specified in the rest of its text.
I mean, you're implying that the consistent language in these three items is there for different reasons? how about the moon sickle?