I'm trying to help a Player who has the Warcaster feat, thus allowing her to have two weapons drawn, one in each hand, and still cast spells that have a Somatic component. That's fine. But then there are those spells with a Material component.
Arguably she could just use a free action to sheathe one weapon and reach for the Material Component, but it's less stylish. And what is a dual-wielder without style? And it's a tad clunky to keep swapping the weapon around.
She has asked me if she can have a crystal attached to the pommel of her sword - or have a new sword specially made with a crystal attached.
Is this a legitimate Arcane Focus within the standard rules?
A crystal is a valid form of an Arcane Focus, but I can't find anything on including them within other items, as she would still like it to be a fully functional weapon. Clerics can have a Holy Symbol on a Shield, but this is a Wizard (Bladesinger) we're talking about.
I've tried scrying through Google but most discussions seems heavily divided or unclear.
Arcane Foci are purposely vague so that the player can be unique with each one, so I honestly don't see why not. However, I'm assuming that your player is casting a spell and then using their bonus action to do an off-hand attack? If this is true, that bit isn't correct. Off-hand attacks must be made after the Attack action is taken.
Appreciate the perspective, Vileo! It's what I was leaning towards in regards to the focus, but I'm curious to hear what other people think too.
It's my mistake in regards to the off-hand attack, just my thoughts getting out of hand.
We've also started talking about embedding the crystal within the palm of a glove. A little off-topic regarding my thread's title about weapons, but I'd also be interested to hear any thoughts people have on that. Is that enough to use it as a focus?
Any time! I certainly think that would be alright as well. Though, I don't see why it couldn't be put on the back of the glove instead. Having a solid object on the inside of the glove would likely make it impossible to hold things--or very uncomfortable. Classically any "power gloves" you see tend to have the gem/crystal on the back, anyway. As I said, so long as there's an appropriate cost for it, I don't see why not. If you want to be absolutely certain, you could have the player spend gold to acquire a unique arcane focus (priced comparably to one of the options listed in the PHB, of course) as opposed to the basic one that they get upon character creation. Just another thought to add to the pile!
One of my players is a tempest cleric that uses a mace and shield most of the time. However when shes casts spells she uses an amulet (holy symbol) as a focus. Her character has wrapped this amulet so that it is around her wrist allowing her to cast spells even with weapon and shield in hand. I allowed this mostly because she also took the War Casting feat.
I dont think it would be any different than a wizard using a sword with crystal impeded in it. Though I think as a risk reward type of think, the crystal might more prone to being damage since it is being used in melee combat. A bad roll in a bad situation might break the crystal causing the wizard to not be able to cast spells with it.
These are just my 2 cents on how I would run the game in your situation however. I tend to be pretty lax on some of the rules and instead compensate for this with harder encounters. Its pretty easy to just up the difficulty if you give one of your players an ability or item that you accidentally make over-powered.
The only time I know of where this is legal RAW is with a Staff, which is also useable as a quarterstaff. It's essentially the same thing with the only difference being that the arcane focus staff has been especially treated or imbued in some manner so that it works as a focus.
Otherwise it's a matter of balance. Allowing players to do it makes the War Caster feat less effective. It's also a limiting factor on spell-caster classes that is part of the balance of them. By disregarding it you're making them more powerful than their non-casting peers.
It should be noted that divine casters can use a holy shield as their casting focus RAW, just not a weapon.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Most people are other people. Their thoughts are someone else's opinions, their lives a mimicry, their passions a quotation."
I love the point about risk/reward - I can imagine not only the crystal breaking, but the whole hilt it's embedded in crumbling in a blast of wayward magic.
@Actuall - In a strange turn of fate, I want to point out that Clerics (and Paladins) can use their Shield as a Holy Symbol if you were not aware! This is specific to them and only them, as far as I have been able to find.
From the PHB:
Holy Symbol. <snip> A cleric or paladin can use a holy symbol as a spellcasting focus, as described in chapter 10. To use the symbol in this way, the caster must hold it in hand, wear it visibly, or bear it on a shield.
Part of the reason I'm asking about this for Arcane Foci is that the PHB specifically lists them as 'Arcane Focus. A special item - <snip> - as designed to channel the power of arcane spells.' Channeling the power sounds much more involved, which is why we were looking into weapon hilts and the palm-side of gloves - whilst the Cleric/Paladin seems to only need something that represents their deity on display on their person.
You both mention about wearing the focus on the back of a hand/wrist. I wasn't sure if that was enough based on what I'm quoting above but I'm definitely keeping the possibility in mind. Any more thoughts on that from anyone?
Ahem. Posted my last post before I saw dropbear's reply.
Is there a reason this is legal for staffs and not for other melee weapons?
I also don't quite see how it makes War Caster less effective. If anything, it makes it more appealing? Allows for Somatic components to be performed with both hands full - and Material components with some clever thinking. A lot of spells require both Somatic and Material parts, so I personally lean toward it keeping War Caster's integrity in check.
Fair points about the potential balance against the non-casting (and pure-casting) others. But if it's legal on a staff, why not another weapon within reason?
Part of the balance would be the cost/effort of purchasing/acquiring/making the item, I would think. Such an item would be very valuable in my imagination.
I probably knew that about the shield and holy symbol, but it definitely slipped my mind! I'll be sure to remember that in the future!
I also think that the part about "power to channel arcane spells" is more flowery language than a rule guideline. Though I can definitely see it being interpreted as such, in "reality" anything could be an arcane focus as long as magical energy can be channeled through it. Just like how a magic weapon is usually more durable than a normal weapon, a spell focus would also have higher properties to it than its normal equivalent.
I also definitely agree with VillianTheory about the idea of your player needing to have the item made, and the journey of attaining that would make the item more than balanced. It would be the same as going into a dungeon and finding a magic item as the reward for completing it. Devoting a session to needing to find the proper crystal or gem to be embedded into the hilt of the sword would provide a more personalized touch.
On the note of Clerics/Paladins just needing something that represents their God, I would argue that these holy symbols are not usually just something such as a plain wooden carving. As a representation of their faith they are usually of high quality or empowered with some type of spiritual magic. Unless of course their God is one representing poverty or is a God that takes a very minimalist approach, a holy symbol channels divine energy which can definitely be argued as holding the potential for more power than arcane forces. So basically, if the Gods can do it why wouldn't man try to emulate it?
I'm trying to help a Player who has the Warcaster feat, thus allowing her to have two weapons drawn, one in each hand, and still cast spells that have a Somatic component. That's fine. But then there are those spells with a Material component.
Arguably she could just use a free action to sheathe one weapon and reach for the Material Component, but it's less stylish. And what is a dual-wielder without style? And it's a tad clunky to keep swapping the weapon around.
She has asked me if she can have a crystal attached to the pommel of her sword - or have a new sword specially made with a crystal attached.
Is this a legitimate Arcane Focus within the standard rules?
A crystal is a valid form of an Arcane Focus, but I can't find anything on including them within other items, as she would still like it to be a fully functional weapon. Clerics can have a Holy Symbol on a Shield, but this is a Wizard (Bladesinger) we're talking about.
I've tried scrying through Google but most discussions seems heavily divided or unclear.
Help me DDB , you're my only hope.
- VT
I may be wrong, but does the bladesong impose to be single-wielder only?
I wouldn't be too concerned about letting the player utilize an uncommon focus for spellcasting - even if they make the blade itself the focus, with inlaid crystals and exotic materials, I'd personally allow it. Especially if it includes player excitement, images, descriptions, and the like. :)
See, as far as I understand, spellcasting components of <1gp cost are not a balance concern, just an immersion/flavor choice; a wizard can wield a greatsword, hold it with one hand while casting a Bonus Action spell, then grip it fully to make an attack with it. The choices in that character may be weird, but they do not conflict the rules.
As long as you do not break the "action economy" (such as by the example mentioned in the thread, about casting a spell and using a bonus attack), I don't see how it could be any problem.
the Bladesinger cannot use a two handed weapon (Greatsword) but can wield two one handed weapons (Longswords)
Ok, thanks!!
If you are doing two weapon fighting then both the main and off hand weapons need to have the light property. Longswords do not, but Shortswords and Daggers do.
@filcat - To elaborate further on the Bladesong, as I understand it you can't make an attack with two hands on one weapon, but you have anything in your off hand as long as it's not a shield, whether that is another one-handed weapon or otherwise.
@Actuall - We're a bit off topic again but I half-agree, half-disagree with your words on the topic of a holy symbol. I think a plain wooden carving could often suffice as long as it truly had significant value to the Cleric in question, or took them significant effort to claim somehow. As long as it proves your devotion. Needing some kind of 'divine' worth rather than material worth.
-
On topic, whilst I'm leaning more heavily than ever toward it being acceptable (if with a hefty cost/effort requirement), I would still love more opinions/examples.
the Bladesinger cannot use a two handed weapon (Greatsword) but can wield two one handed weapons (Longswords)
Ok, thanks!!
If you are doing two weapon fighting then both the main and off hand weapons need to have the light property. Longswords do not, but Shortswords and Daggers do.
(Unless your DM allows for feats and you take the 'Dual Wielder' one!)
Arcane Foci are purposely vague so that the player can be unique with each one, so I honestly don't see why not. However, I'm assuming that your player is casting a spell and then using their bonus action to do an off-hand attack? If this is true, that bit isn't correct. Off-hand attacks must be made after the Attack action is taken.
I totally agree with this statement, that's why I allowed the Warlock of my party that has the Pact of the Blade Boon to use his pact blade as his arcane focus, since he uses his arcane energy to create it.
On topic, whilst I'm leaning more heavily than ever toward it being acceptable (if with a hefty cost/effort requirement), I would still love more opinions/examples.
I'd make the decision based on the character in question and the weapon being used, personally. A bookish wizard who has never swung a sword might be able to use a powerful artifact weapon as a focus, but trying to use a sword they looted off of a goblin might overload the blade and have it blow up in their face. An eldritch knight who weaves together their weapon and their spells might be able to cut it with a bog-standard weapon, and should have no trouble with one designed specifically to serve as a focus.
Semi-related, I'm vaguely considering a homebrew Warcaster class, one of the features of which is the ability to use a weapon as a spell focus. But that's a purposeful gish class.
I also definitely agree with VillianTheory about the idea of your player needing to have the item made, and the journey of attaining that would make the item more than balanced. It would be the same as going into a dungeon and finding a magic item as the reward for completing it. Devoting a session to needing to find the proper crystal or gem to be embedded into the hilt of the sword would provide a more personalized touch.
As all other Arcane Foci are super cheap and lumped under Adventuring Gear in the PHB (staff, rod, orb, wand, crystal, etc.) I don't think that a dungeon delve just to attune this would really be necessary. If you can walk into a store and buy something that can cast spells, I don't see why you wouldn't be able to find or create something that can be used in the same manner that wouldn't require an adventure to attune to. A short rest, as with any magic item, would probably work.
Otherwise it's a matter of balance. Allowing players to do it makes the War Caster feat less effective. It's also a limiting factor on spell-caster classes that is part of the balance of them. By disregarding it you're making them more powerful than their non-casting peers.
While I would prefer to agree here, if a Quarterstaff can double, than I am not sure where to draw the line myself. As far as War Caster, it is not that all that less effective, and spell with a Somatic component but no Material component will still require the War Caster feat (even if the character had a sword in one hand and a focus in the other):
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.
Another example: a cleric’s holy symbol is emblazoned on her shield. She likes to wade into melee combat with a mace in one hand and a shield in the other. She uses the holy symbol as her spellcasting focus, so she needs to have the shield in hand when she casts a cleric spell that has a material component. If the spell, such as aid, also has a somatic component, she can perform that component with the shield hand and keep holding the mace in the other.
If the same cleric casts cure wounds, she needs to put the mace or the shield away, because that spell doesn’t have a material component but does have a somatic component. She’s going to need a free hand to make the spell’s gestures. If she had the War Caster feat, she could ignore this restriction.
So even if the rules are interpreted to allow players to overcome some of these restrictions using creativity they will still need the War Caster feat to be able to cast spells with Somatic but not Material components, of which there are plenty.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Hello Beyonders!
I'm trying to help a Player who has the Warcaster feat, thus allowing her to have two weapons drawn, one in each hand, and still cast spells that have a Somatic component. That's fine. But then there are those spells with a Material component.
Arguably she could just use a free action to sheathe one weapon and reach for the Material Component, but it's less stylish. And what is a dual-wielder without style? And it's a tad clunky to keep swapping the weapon around.
She has asked me if she can have a crystal attached to the pommel of her sword - or have a new sword specially made with a crystal attached.
Is this a legitimate Arcane Focus within the standard rules?
A crystal is a valid form of an Arcane Focus, but I can't find anything on including them within other items, as she would still like it to be a fully functional weapon. Clerics can have a Holy Symbol on a Shield, but this is a Wizard (Bladesinger) we're talking about.
I've tried scrying through Google but most discussions seems heavily divided or unclear.
Help me DDB , you're my only hope.
- VT
Site Rules & Guidelines - Please feel free to message a moderator if you have any concerns.
My homebrew: [Subclasses] [Races] [Feats] [Discussion Thread]
Arcane Foci are purposely vague so that the player can be unique with each one, so I honestly don't see why not. However, I'm assuming that your player is casting a spell and then using their bonus action to do an off-hand attack? If this is true, that bit isn't correct. Off-hand attacks must be made after the Attack action is taken.
"I encourage peace."
Appreciate the perspective, Vileo! It's what I was leaning towards in regards to the focus, but I'm curious to hear what other people think too.
It's my mistake in regards to the off-hand attack, just my thoughts getting out of hand.
We've also started talking about embedding the crystal within the palm of a glove. A little off-topic regarding my thread's title about weapons, but I'd also be interested to hear any thoughts people have on that. Is that enough to use it as a focus?
Site Rules & Guidelines - Please feel free to message a moderator if you have any concerns.
My homebrew: [Subclasses] [Races] [Feats] [Discussion Thread]
Any time! I certainly think that would be alright as well. Though, I don't see why it couldn't be put on the back of the glove instead. Having a solid object on the inside of the glove would likely make it impossible to hold things--or very uncomfortable. Classically any "power gloves" you see tend to have the gem/crystal on the back, anyway. As I said, so long as there's an appropriate cost for it, I don't see why not. If you want to be absolutely certain, you could have the player spend gold to acquire a unique arcane focus (priced comparably to one of the options listed in the PHB, of course) as opposed to the basic one that they get upon character creation. Just another thought to add to the pile!
"I encourage peace."
One of my players is a tempest cleric that uses a mace and shield most of the time. However when shes casts spells she uses an amulet (holy symbol) as a focus. Her character has wrapped this amulet so that it is around her wrist allowing her to cast spells even with weapon and shield in hand. I allowed this mostly because she also took the War Casting feat.
I dont think it would be any different than a wizard using a sword with crystal impeded in it. Though I think as a risk reward type of think, the crystal might more prone to being damage since it is being used in melee combat. A bad roll in a bad situation might break the crystal causing the wizard to not be able to cast spells with it.
These are just my 2 cents on how I would run the game in your situation however. I tend to be pretty lax on some of the rules and instead compensate for this with harder encounters. Its pretty easy to just up the difficulty if you give one of your players an ability or item that you accidentally make over-powered.
The only time I know of where this is legal RAW is with a Staff, which is also useable as a quarterstaff. It's essentially the same thing with the only difference being that the arcane focus staff has been especially treated or imbued in some manner so that it works as a focus.
Otherwise it's a matter of balance. Allowing players to do it makes the War Caster feat less effective. It's also a limiting factor on spell-caster classes that is part of the balance of them. By disregarding it you're making them more powerful than their non-casting peers.
It should be noted that divine casters can use a holy shield as their casting focus RAW, just not a weapon.
"Most people are other people. Their thoughts are someone else's opinions, their lives a mimicry, their passions a quotation."
― Oscar Wilde.
Great points again, thanks.
I love the point about risk/reward - I can imagine not only the crystal breaking, but the whole hilt it's embedded in crumbling in a blast of wayward magic.
@Actuall - In a strange turn of fate, I want to point out that Clerics (and Paladins) can use their Shield as a Holy Symbol if you were not aware! This is specific to them and only them, as far as I have been able to find.
From the PHB:
Holy Symbol. <snip> A cleric or paladin can use a holy symbol as a spellcasting focus, as described in chapter 10. To use the symbol in this way, the caster must hold it in hand, wear it visibly, or bear it on a shield.
Part of the reason I'm asking about this for Arcane Foci is that the PHB specifically lists them as 'Arcane Focus. A special item - <snip> - as designed to channel the power of arcane spells.' Channeling the power sounds much more involved, which is why we were looking into weapon hilts and the palm-side of gloves - whilst the Cleric/Paladin seems to only need something that represents their deity on display on their person.
You both mention about wearing the focus on the back of a hand/wrist. I wasn't sure if that was enough based on what I'm quoting above but I'm definitely keeping the possibility in mind. Any more thoughts on that from anyone?
Site Rules & Guidelines - Please feel free to message a moderator if you have any concerns.
My homebrew: [Subclasses] [Races] [Feats] [Discussion Thread]
Ahem. Posted my last post before I saw dropbear's reply.
Is there a reason this is legal for staffs and not for other melee weapons?
I also don't quite see how it makes War Caster less effective. If anything, it makes it more appealing? Allows for Somatic components to be performed with both hands full - and Material components with some clever thinking. A lot of spells require both Somatic and Material parts, so I personally lean toward it keeping War Caster's integrity in check.
Fair points about the potential balance against the non-casting (and pure-casting) others. But if it's legal on a staff, why not another weapon within reason?
Part of the balance would be the cost/effort of purchasing/acquiring/making the item, I would think. Such an item would be very valuable in my imagination.
Site Rules & Guidelines - Please feel free to message a moderator if you have any concerns.
My homebrew: [Subclasses] [Races] [Feats] [Discussion Thread]
I probably knew that about the shield and holy symbol, but it definitely slipped my mind! I'll be sure to remember that in the future!
I also think that the part about "power to channel arcane spells" is more flowery language than a rule guideline. Though I can definitely see it being interpreted as such, in "reality" anything could be an arcane focus as long as magical energy can be channeled through it. Just like how a magic weapon is usually more durable than a normal weapon, a spell focus would also have higher properties to it than its normal equivalent.
I also definitely agree with VillianTheory about the idea of your player needing to have the item made, and the journey of attaining that would make the item more than balanced. It would be the same as going into a dungeon and finding a magic item as the reward for completing it. Devoting a session to needing to find the proper crystal or gem to be embedded into the hilt of the sword would provide a more personalized touch.
On the note of Clerics/Paladins just needing something that represents their God, I would argue that these holy symbols are not usually just something such as a plain wooden carving. As a representation of their faith they are usually of high quality or empowered with some type of spiritual magic. Unless of course their God is one representing poverty or is a God that takes a very minimalist approach, a holy symbol channels divine energy which can definitely be argued as holding the potential for more power than arcane forces. So basically, if the Gods can do it why wouldn't man try to emulate it?
the Bladesinger cannot use a two handed weapon (Greatsword) but can wield two one handed weapons (Longswords)
I wouldn't be too concerned about letting the player utilize an uncommon focus for spellcasting - even if they make the blade itself the focus, with inlaid crystals and exotic materials, I'd personally allow it. Especially if it includes player excitement, images, descriptions, and the like. :)
See, as far as I understand, spellcasting components of <1gp cost are not a balance concern, just an immersion/flavor choice; a wizard can wield a greatsword, hold it with one hand while casting a Bonus Action spell, then grip it fully to make an attack with it. The choices in that character may be weird, but they do not conflict the rules.
As long as you do not break the "action economy" (such as by the example mentioned in the thread, about casting a spell and using a bonus attack), I don't see how it could be any problem.
Site Rules & Guidelines || How to Tooltip || Contact Support || Changelog || Pricing FAQ || Homebrew FAQ
If you have questions/concerns, please Private Message me or another moderator.
Wary the wizard who focuses on homebrew, for he can create nightmares that you wouldn't even dream of
@filcat - To elaborate further on the Bladesong, as I understand it you can't make an attack with two hands on one weapon, but you have anything in your off hand as long as it's not a shield, whether that is another one-handed weapon or otherwise.
@Actuall - We're a bit off topic again but I half-agree, half-disagree with your words on the topic of a holy symbol. I think a plain wooden carving could often suffice as long as it truly had significant value to the Cleric in question, or took them significant effort to claim somehow. As long as it proves your devotion. Needing some kind of 'divine' worth rather than material worth.
-
On topic, whilst I'm leaning more heavily than ever toward it being acceptable (if with a hefty cost/effort requirement), I would still love more opinions/examples.
Site Rules & Guidelines - Please feel free to message a moderator if you have any concerns.
My homebrew: [Subclasses] [Races] [Feats] [Discussion Thread]
Site Rules & Guidelines - Please feel free to message a moderator if you have any concerns.
My homebrew: [Subclasses] [Races] [Feats] [Discussion Thread]
Check out the many mes here!