I had a wizard with the entertainer background, (With talk to the DM) I notched out part of the lute bridge to hold my arcane focus [wand] that would allow me to cast while he was performing. So I guess
DM in the kobold fight club "Yes i know this is insane, but my usual players are murderhobos." Birdman in adventures in faerun "Flapping wings" (telepathy) "The enemies are overwhelming us, i'll go break their minds." Irthos Bladesinger in trouble in timberbottom (DED) (All PbP)
Staff of the Magi is, in game terms, a staff. It has a property that allows it be wielded as a quarterstaff. Looking over the listing of magic staves, some of them have this property and some don't.
A magic item that can double as a weapon and a focus seems to be something that is exceptional. Strongly encouraging all magic users to cast with a staff seems very limiting and allowing focuses to just somehow be incorporated in whatever gear choice the spellcaster wants seems to defeat the purpose of components.
In my opinion, it should be similar to silvering a weapon: pay a certain cost to have the weapon designed (or re-designed) as an arcane focus for the benefit.
In my opinion, it should be similar to silvering a weapon: pay a certain cost to have the weapon designed (or re-designed) as an arcane focus for the benefit.
Yes. This. If they pay for both, it doesn't much matter what form they take. Obviously, the free arcane focus at character creation won't allow a character to grab a weapon that isn't otherwise in their starting gear list (or within their starting budget if they're buying), so no wizards starting with an arcane focus great sword unless they have some method of affording both right off the bat.
In my opinion, it should be similar to silvering a weapon: pay a certain cost to have the weapon designed (or re-designed) as an arcane focus for the benefit.
This feels reasonable, although you could always have a quest to find some very reactive material for the focus to be made out of. Quests are always good for making a character feel like they’ve really accomplished something. Afterwards perhaps have the character work and practice spellcasting through this focus to get the hang of it. As it seems that it is for flavor, I really don’t see too much of a difference between allowing this and letting the character use a free action to sheathe a weapon and grab something from a component pouch for casting.
Potential disruption would come if they had action surge or haste as I think this would allow them to cast a spell and make an attack with both the main hand and off-hand when they traditionally could not. Additionally, if they decided to take the dual wielder feat, they would be able to maintain the +1 to AC after casting a spell whereas they would normally lose it having had to put one weapon away.
Overall, in this particular instance I don’t feel like it would be too overpowered or disruptive. However, my actual play experience is a bit limited, and players always surprise you.
Just a quick note, you are allowed one item interaction per turn for free (draw/sheath a weapon) So you are allowed to sheath a weapon, cast a spell (using a component pouch on your side) Interacting with the components is considered part of the casting of the spell as long as you have a free hand available to do it.
If you are using a sword/shield there is a penalty to putting up your sword for a turn, in that you don't have it available for reaction attacks. But if you are dual wielding, you will still have a weapon available so there really isn't a penalty (other than using up your interaction each turn)
Turn 1. 2 Weapons Drawn. attack, bonus attack.
Turn 2. Put away 1 weapon, Cast a spell.
Turn 3. Draw weapon, Attack, bonus attack.
Basically the only drawback is if you wanted to use your interact to do something like open a door or the like on a turn you swapped. And of course if you have warcaster feat these only come into play when you are using a spell with material component.
For this situation, I would allow warcaster to also function like the eschew materials feat from long ago. So any spell which the components don't have a gp cost can be cast while without the material components. So now as long as a spell doesn't have a costly material, you can cast it with both hands occupied. And since you aren't introducing crystal ball hilts to weapons, other casters can't latch onto it to get effectively 1/2 of warcaster feat for free.
For my part, I like there being a difference in an Arcane Focus and a Component Pouch. I've always interpreted the rules to mean that some or all of voice, somatic, material components ARE necessary to cast the spell. I take that to mean that in order to cast Fire Shield (PHB, p. 242) that a player needs V (a vocal component - magic word or mantra), S (a hand or body gesture) and M (in this case a bit of phosphorus or a firefly). Imagine an old crone uttering a spell over a boiling cauldron as she mutters the incantation (V) as her eyes roll back in her head (S) and sprinkles some ground frog legs into the pot (M). Note, in this image, the component is not in a pouch at the crone's hip but rather being manipulated in her hand during the course of the spell. It is my thought that a caster must have the material component in his/her hand (not just in a general pouch at his/her hip; yes, I own a pair of glasses, but they only do me good when I "wear" them; they do me no good in my pocket; same idea). This necessarily means that a magic user must forage in that component pouch each time he/she must use a spell. I know some will balk at this - but bear with me - I think this idea gives flavor and depth to casting magic.
By contrast, imagine Gandalf striding into Rhohirim's hall and Wormtongue crying out, "I thought I told you to take his staff!" Why would he be so concerned about taking Gandalf's staff? What if a magic user didn't have to forage through a component back to find the bit of spider's leg or firefly phosphorus to make a spell work? Instead, he or she need only use his/her arcane focus to cast his/her spells. In my thought, the Arcane Focus is a great advantage to a spell user. So, why have a component bag? Why use it?
Stand by for the flavor and depth.
What if a spell user were captured and his/her arcane focus was confiscated - or a thief stole the AF leaving the spell user much less powerful. Imagine in the darkest dungeon, having been captured and imprisoned a disheveled wizard huddled in the corner sees a firefly fly through the window. He smiles knowingly as he crushes the insect and smears the phosphorus on his finger as he awaits the guard's next approach where he will use a Fire Shield spell to force an escape!
While an enemy might indefinitely hold an AF from a wizard, it would be incredibly difficult to keep the world of material components from him. To me, this is the difference. The AF is convenient, swift and powerful but is susceptible to loss. The material components are just as powerful, inconvenient, and slow, but are ubiquitous.
It's UA, but the revised Bard College of Swords says the Bard can use any melee weapon they are proficient with as an arcane focus. So, there is precedent for using a blade as a focus.
So you are allowed to sheath a weapon, cast a spell (using a component pouch on your side) Interacting with the components is considered part of the casting of the spell as long as you have a free hand available to do it.
It's UA, but the revised Bard College of Swords says the Bard can use any melee weapon they are proficient with as an arcane focus. So, there is precedent for using a blade as a focus.
Yeah, but as a special class feature, meaning it's an exception to the rule that proves the rule.
So you are allowed to sheath a weapon, cast a spell (using a component pouch on your side) Interacting with the components is considered part of the casting of the spell as long as you have a free hand available to do it.
Pretty sure that counts as two interactions.
The manipulations of the spell components (V,S and M) is considered part of the spell. They do not require extra interaction.
So you are allowed to sheath a weapon, cast a spell (using a component pouch on your side) Interacting with the components is considered part of the casting of the spell as long as you have a free hand available to do it.
Pretty sure that counts as two interactions.
The manipulations of the spell components (V,S and M) is considered part of the spell. They do not require extra interaction.
Is there a Crawford reference for that? You could say the same thing about all other interactions. Drawing a sword is part of the attack but it counts as an interaction.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Most people are other people. Their thoughts are someone else's opinions, their lives a mimicry, their passions a quotation."
So you are allowed to sheath a weapon, cast a spell (using a component pouch on your side) Interacting with the components is considered part of the casting of the spell as long as you have a free hand available to do it.
Pretty sure that counts as two interactions.
The manipulations of the spell components (V,S and M) is considered part of the spell. They do not require extra interaction.
Is there a Crawford reference for that? You could say the same thing about all other interactions. Drawing a sword is part of the attack but it counts as an interaction.
So you are allowed to sheath a weapon, cast a spell (using a component pouch on your side) Interacting with the components is considered part of the casting of the spell as long as you have a free hand available to do it.
Pretty sure that counts as two interactions.
The manipulations of the spell components (V,S and M) is considered part of the spell. They do not require extra interaction.
Is there a Crawford reference for that? You could say the same thing about all other interactions. Drawing a sword is part of the attack but it counts as an interaction.
So you are allowed to sheath a weapon, cast a spell (using a component pouch on your side) Interacting with the components is considered part of the casting of the spell as long as you have a free hand available to do it.
Pretty sure that counts as two interactions.
The manipulations of the spell components (V,S and M) is considered part of the spell. They do not require extra interaction.
Is there a Crawford reference for that? You could say the same thing about all other interactions. Drawing a sword is part of the attack but it counts as an interaction.
@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.
So first off, I didn't read through all the previous posts, so if I say something repetitive then my bad.
My view on Arcane Focus is that it can be whatever the player/DM wants. Ultimately it is the DM's decision, so personally I do not care. I find material components silly, unless its something specific and expensive. If there is an option to fluff having everything (spell component pouch for example) I always go that route and allow my players to ignore the need for most of their spells. If they want to flavor it into their sword? no problem, but it does make me think about possibly stealing their weapon...
So first off, I didn't read through all the previous posts, so if I say something repetitive then my bad.
My view on Arcane Focus is that it can be whatever the player/DM wants. Ultimately it is the DM's decision, so personally I do not care. I find material components silly, unless its something specific and expensive. If there is an option to fluff having everything (spell component pouch for example) I always go that route and allow my players to ignore the need for most of their spells. If they want to flavor it into their sword? no problem, but it does make me think about possibly stealing their weapon...
Or giving them a cooler one so they have to decide between them lol
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I had a wizard with the entertainer background, (With talk to the DM) I notched out part of the lute bridge to hold my arcane focus [wand] that would allow me to cast while he was performing. So I guess
With allowing a second attack the off-hand weapon needs to be a light weapon
Hmm. Druid, Sorcerer, Wizard, Warlock can use quarterstaff.
Cleric and paladin can equip holiness on sheild.
Bard can use musical instrument as battleaxe.
Rangers are the only problem here.
(I'm presuming the quarterstaff is a staff (Focus) here. After all, the staff of the magi is a quarterstaff.)
I'm that cat guy, and i do stuff. Youtube account: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCGyrtkNMBOOCxyH4Eueno3w
Tabaxi Bard Level 15
DM in the kobold fight club "Yes i know this is insane, but my usual players are murderhobos."
Birdman in adventures in faerun "Flapping wings" (telepathy) "The enemies are overwhelming us, i'll go break their minds."
Irthos Bladesinger in trouble in timberbottom (DED)
(All PbP)
Staff of the Magi is, in game terms, a staff. It has a property that allows it be wielded as a quarterstaff. Looking over the listing of magic staves, some of them have this property and some don't.
A magic item that can double as a weapon and a focus seems to be something that is exceptional. Strongly encouraging all magic users to cast with a staff seems very limiting and allowing focuses to just somehow be incorporated in whatever gear choice the spellcaster wants seems to defeat the purpose of components.
In my opinion, it should be similar to silvering a weapon: pay a certain cost to have the weapon designed (or re-designed) as an arcane focus for the benefit.
This feels reasonable, although you could always have a quest to find some very reactive material for the focus to be made out of. Quests are always good for making a character feel like they’ve really accomplished something. Afterwards perhaps have the character work and practice spellcasting through this focus to get the hang of it. As it seems that it is for flavor, I really don’t see too much of a difference between allowing this and letting the character use a free action to sheathe a weapon and grab something from a component pouch for casting.
Potential disruption would come if they had action surge or haste as I think this would allow them to cast a spell and make an attack with both the main hand and off-hand when they traditionally could not. Additionally, if they decided to take the dual wielder feat, they would be able to maintain the +1 to AC after casting a spell whereas they would normally lose it having had to put one weapon away.
Overall, in this particular instance I don’t feel like it would be too overpowered or disruptive. However, my actual play experience is a bit limited, and players always surprise you.The ranger, by rule, does not have a spellcasting focus. It can use a component pounch, though:
http://www.sageadvice.eu/2016/02/11/do-rangers-use-spellcasting-focus/
Just a quick note, you are allowed one item interaction per turn for free (draw/sheath a weapon) So you are allowed to sheath a weapon, cast a spell (using a component pouch on your side) Interacting with the components is considered part of the casting of the spell as long as you have a free hand available to do it.
If you are using a sword/shield there is a penalty to putting up your sword for a turn, in that you don't have it available for reaction attacks. But if you are dual wielding, you will still have a weapon available so there really isn't a penalty (other than using up your interaction each turn)
Turn 1. 2 Weapons Drawn. attack, bonus attack.
Turn 2. Put away 1 weapon, Cast a spell.
Turn 3. Draw weapon, Attack, bonus attack.
Basically the only drawback is if you wanted to use your interact to do something like open a door or the like on a turn you swapped. And of course if you have warcaster feat these only come into play when you are using a spell with material component.
For this situation, I would allow warcaster to also function like the eschew materials feat from long ago. So any spell which the components don't have a gp cost can be cast while without the material components. So now as long as a spell doesn't have a costly material, you can cast it with both hands occupied. And since you aren't introducing crystal ball hilts to weapons, other casters can't latch onto it to get effectively 1/2 of warcaster feat for free.
For my part, I like there being a difference in an Arcane Focus and a Component Pouch. I've always interpreted the rules to mean that some or all of voice, somatic, material components ARE necessary to cast the spell. I take that to mean that in order to cast Fire Shield (PHB, p. 242) that a player needs V (a vocal component - magic word or mantra), S (a hand or body gesture) and M (in this case a bit of phosphorus or a firefly). Imagine an old crone uttering a spell over a boiling cauldron as she mutters the incantation (V) as her eyes roll back in her head (S) and sprinkles some ground frog legs into the pot (M). Note, in this image, the component is not in a pouch at the crone's hip but rather being manipulated in her hand during the course of the spell. It is my thought that a caster must have the material component in his/her hand (not just in a general pouch at his/her hip; yes, I own a pair of glasses, but they only do me good when I "wear" them; they do me no good in my pocket; same idea). This necessarily means that a magic user must forage in that component pouch each time he/she must use a spell. I know some will balk at this - but bear with me - I think this idea gives flavor and depth to casting magic.
By contrast, imagine Gandalf striding into Rhohirim's hall and Wormtongue crying out, "I thought I told you to take his staff!" Why would he be so concerned about taking Gandalf's staff? What if a magic user didn't have to forage through a component back to find the bit of spider's leg or firefly phosphorus to make a spell work? Instead, he or she need only use his/her arcane focus to cast his/her spells. In my thought, the Arcane Focus is a great advantage to a spell user. So, why have a component bag? Why use it?
Stand by for the flavor and depth.
What if a spell user were captured and his/her arcane focus was confiscated - or a thief stole the AF leaving the spell user much less powerful. Imagine in the darkest dungeon, having been captured and imprisoned a disheveled wizard huddled in the corner sees a firefly fly through the window. He smiles knowingly as he crushes the insect and smears the phosphorus on his finger as he awaits the guard's next approach where he will use a Fire Shield spell to force an escape!
While an enemy might indefinitely hold an AF from a wizard, it would be incredibly difficult to keep the world of material components from him. To me, this is the difference. The AF is convenient, swift and powerful but is susceptible to loss. The material components are just as powerful, inconvenient, and slow, but are ubiquitous.
It's UA, but the revised Bard College of Swords says the Bard can use any melee weapon they are proficient with as an arcane focus. So, there is precedent for using a blade as a focus.
"Most people are other people. Their thoughts are someone else's opinions, their lives a mimicry, their passions a quotation."
― Oscar Wilde.
"Most people are other people. Their thoughts are someone else's opinions, their lives a mimicry, their passions a quotation."
― Oscar Wilde.
"Most people are other people. Their thoughts are someone else's opinions, their lives a mimicry, their passions a quotation."
― Oscar Wilde.
So first off, I didn't read through all the previous posts, so if I say something repetitive then my bad.
My view on Arcane Focus is that it can be whatever the player/DM wants. Ultimately it is the DM's decision, so personally I do not care. I find material components silly, unless its something specific and expensive. If there is an option to fluff having everything (spell component pouch for example) I always go that route and allow my players to ignore the need for most of their spells. If they want to flavor it into their sword? no problem, but it does make me think about possibly stealing their weapon...