There is at least one subclass that can use its weapon as a focus however they created the Ruby of the War Mage a common magic item that requires attunement : Etched with eldritch runes, this l-inch-diameter ruby allows you to use a simple or martial weapon as a spellcasting focus for your spells. For this property to work, you must attach the ruby to the weapon by pressing the ruby against it for at least 10 minutes. Thereafter, the ruby can't be removed unless you detach it as an action or the weapon is destroyed. Not even an antimagic field causes it to fall off. The ruby does fall off the weapon if your attunement to the ruby ends.
Based on this Item I would say you shouldn't be able to make your weapon a focus without the ruby.
That being said I have a Gloom Ranger/ Forge Cleric in AL that I used Blessing of the Forge to attach holy symbols to my Oath Bow, my +1 Long Bow, and my starting Long Bow. So far I haven't had anyone challenge it and it allows me to have a holy symbol in hand if I have my bow in hand. And I think it's fun to say that Guiding Bolt leaves the bow like an arrow but it does nothing mechanically.
I think that to see what might be possible with an arcane focus we just have to look at them as a group. If we look at the ring focus, it is equipped at all times and always on your hand. So there is no reason why this particular form of focus should have such an advantage over the others. (even though a crystal orb costs a fortune :D and does the same thing) Further more, we have spells that can be used along with a weapon, so there is no reason for a weapon to mess with the spell somehow, since other spells work fine with it. In 5e armor doesn't restrict casting as long as the caster is proficient with the type of armour. Any rules that made heavy armours interfere with magic (because metal, I hate it when I can't make my wizard staves out of metal) are not in 5e (which is why we have eldrich knight and war clerics)
So you have 1) spells that prove weapons are not a problem 2)armor is not a problem 3)an example of a focus that definitely supports this *4) if a staff can be a focus and a solid weapon at the same time (damn druids) who says a longsword (which has the same damage as shillelagg btw) couldn't be?
The addition of Ruby of the War Mage suggests that RAI is the weapons otherwise not be able to serve as an arcane focus. Even if you affix the crystal that can serve as an arcane focus to them.
If Xanathar's is to in play, and there for no Ruby of the War Mage, it seems to me reasonable that an arcane focus crystal could be affixed to a weapon and used for spell casting. The caster would only get the benefit of the crystal as a focus while they were holding the weapon. This could prove awkward in some social situations, and if the character lost the weapon they would lose the focus.
Using any old weapon as an arcane focus is not possible, unless you have the bardic ability.
A staff used as an arcane focus is specifically designed for use as such. You can't just grab any old quarterstaff and cast spells through it. The rules do not explicitly say either way if a staff designed for use as an arcane focus can also be used as a quarterstaff in combat. The Lord of the rings movies show a reasonable justification that it could.
Any material component or arcane focus requires a hand free to manipulate it during casting. With a holy symbol on a shield the shield can be manipulated along with the holy symbol. I would see this as the shield functioning as a holy symbol in this case.
So, ultimately DM's call as to whether or not to allow a crystal on a sword hilt to be used as an arcane focus. In general the rules seem to downplay the requirements of V, S, M spell components in favor of ease of play.
As for arcane focus vs component pouch, both can be taken away. A caster without either can still cast spells with a material component if they can access the appropriate component. Many common spell components should not be that hard to find, a pinch of sand, a tuft of wool, etc. Arcane foci and component pouches just mean you don't have th ebook keeping of which ones and how many you are carrying.
One of my players wants to modify his arcane focus staff into an arcane focus/double halberd/trident. I'm not sure if this combo should be allowed, but I searched, and nothing disputes it. I am still unsure, can some of you help me?
One of my players wants to modify his arcane focus staff into an arcane focus/double halberd/trident. I'm not sure if this combo should be allowed, but I searched, and nothing disputes it. I am still unsure, can some of you help me?
I'd say the equipment and weapon tables dispute it.
1) The staff, halberd, and trident are all listed as completely different weapons.
2) Normally, an arcane focus staff isn't usable as a weapon. See the DMG; if an arcane staff is usable as a weapon, its entry will specifically state that it can be.
One of my players wants to modify his arcane focus staff into an arcane focus/double halberd/trident. I'm not sure if this combo should be allowed, but I searched, and nothing disputes it. I am still unsure, can some of you help me?
I'd say the equipment and weapon tables dispute it.
1) The staff, halberd, and trident are all listed as completely different weapons.
2) Normally, an arcane focus staff isn't usable as a weapon. See the DMG; if an arcane staff is usable as a weapon, its entry will specifically state that it can be.
3) There's no such thing as a double halberd.
My advice is to give the player a firm NO.
Omg, a double halberd! My PoM HexBlade (soon to be sentinel as well) would love that!
Now, why isnt there one is the question we should ask ourselves!
Personally, I don't have a problem with a weapon as an arcane focus IF it makes sense in the character's background. (Dwarf who forges a hammer set with arcane runes that awakens sorcery powers? Fine.) It's not like the character can cast AND attack with it in the same turn. The other things Warcaster does are so valuable for casters (cast a spell as a reaction, advantage on concentration saves) that the "cast while holding a weapon" part of it is basically RP fluff by comparison.
2) Normally, an arcane focus staff isn't usable as a weapon. See the DMG; if an arcane staff is usable as a weapon, its entry will specifically state that it can be.
And even without that the rules for improvised weapons generally support it as long as your particular DM doesn't decide that the focus staff is to frail to be hitting things with. I think the magic items in the DMG support this notion as well on a per item basis.
In many cases, an improvised weapon is similar to an actual weapon and can be treated as such. For example, a table leg is akin to a club. At the DM's option, a character proficient with a weapon can use a similar object as if it were that weapon and use his or her proficiency bonus.
My personal ruling on the matter would be that as long as the player has the money to buy a ruby of the war mage or have the item specially crafted to be used as a focus that it's fine. I would say the 10 or 20 gold cost of a rod or orb added on to a specially crafted weapon is fair, while the ruby is 50 gold - the value of common non-consumable magic items - but has the added benefit of being reusable whenever you get a weapon upgrade.
I see an arcane focus as being anything that the character would see as a precious item that they focus their will on to cast the spell. So it could be a Wedding Ring, Locket with the picture of a lost family member, a symbol on the hilt of a weapon like the crusaders had in the shape of a cross, etc.
It doesn't have to be a special wand or crystal ball.
I think you're looking for the Ruby of the war mage. There is a distinct mechanical advantage to being able to not have to get rid of your weapon before casting spells, which is why focii are not weapons generally.
I have one question regarding arcane focuses and somatic components. It says in the PHB that the hand used to hold the material component can also to the somatic components. So if you have a ruby of the war mage, can you cast spells with a somatic component even if both your hands are full and you don't have war caster, if you sword can be used as a arcane focus?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
DM: So, you doomed the world by betting on dinosauer races instead of doing a quest.
Players: But we got money! Now we can do whatever we want.
I have one question regarding arcane focuses and somatic components. It says in the PHB that the hand used to hold the material component can also to the somatic components. So if you have a ruby of the war mage, can you cast spells with a somatic component even if both your hands are full and you don't have war caster, if you sword can be used as a arcane focus?
Yes, you can use any object that counts as a magical foci for your class to complete the somatic component of a spell, however the spell in question must have both a material and a somatic component in order to use any focus this way even the normal tools from the adventuring gear section of the PHB. For example a cleric with a holy symbol engraved on their shield can cast Shield of Faith using their shield as the focus even with their other hand full because it has both a somatic and material component, however, in order to cast Inflict Wounds, which only has the somatic component, they have to fist put away their weapon because the shield can't be used to make the touch attack.
Additionally, the new Artificer class is unusual in that it requires all spells cast by this class to use a tool they are proficient with or an item they've infused as a spell focus when casting the spell regardless of whether the spell normally requires a material component or not.
It is also worth noting that when multi-classing, a spell focus is usually tied to the class that grants its use and can not be used when casting spells that are not on that class' spell list.
"You can use an arcane focus (see chapter 5, "Equipment") as a spellcasting focus for your wizard spells."
[edited my equation tables and text to be easier to read]
Arcane Focus. An arcane focus is a special item— an orb, a crystal, a rod, a specially constructed staff, a wand-like length of wood, or some similar item— designed to channel the power of arcane spells. A sorcerer, warlock, or wizard can use such an item.
— Player's Handbook
Rods: A scepter or just a heavy cylinder, a magic rod is typically made of metal, wood, or bone. It's about 2 or 3 feet long, 1 inch thick, and 2 to 5 pounds.
Staffs: A magic staff is about 5 or 6 feet long. Staffs vary widely in appearance: some are of nearly equal diameter throughout and smooth, others are gnarled and twisted, some are made of wood, and others are composed of polished metal or crystal. Depending on the material, a staff weighs between 2 and 7 pounds. Unless a staff's description says otherwise, a staff can be used as a quarterstaff.
Wands: A magic wand is about 15 inches long and crafted of metal, bone, or wood. It is tipped with metal, crystal, stone, or some other material.
— Dungeon Master's Guide
"Yes" - The arcane/druidic focus staff can double as a quarterstaff.
Regular quarterstaves can not be used as an arcane focus, but the opposite is usually true. Arcane focus (staves) can usually be used as quarterstaves. An arcane focus must be specially constructed and designed to channel arcane powers. The most common way to use a melee weapon as an arcane focus is to get a hold of an arcane focus (staff), but it's really more like using an arcane focus as a melee weapon. I think it would be fair to assume that an arcane focus (rod) could be used as a club, but that would be up to the DM of any given game.
The DMG only tells us in broad terms, that an arcane focus is a special item designed to channel the power of arcane spells. It gives some examples, but quickly expands on them with the words "or similar item", ultimately settlig on nothing concrete. It goes on to describe three out of five suggested examples of arcane foci, leaving crystals and orbs to be interpreted solely by the DM. It states that rods, staves, and wands can be made of metal, wood, or bone, and suggests their typical lengths and weights. Plenty of weapons fit within those descriptors, so there's no real reason a weapon can't be an arcane focus.
With that in mind, shouldn't it cost more to make such an item? In my games, I allow any weapon to double up as an arcane focus with a boost in price. The weapon must be crafted with this purpose in mind, or re-crafted and tinkered with by a skilled artisan of the arcane arts. It simply has to be made to work with arcane spells in mind.
So, expanding on what was already told to use by the PHB and DMG, I came up with a guideline for how much such items should cost in my game settings.
Let's see if we can figure out a good price range for these arcane focus weapons. First we should take a look at the only focus which we already know can be used as a weapon.
A quarterstaff designed and constructed to additionally function as an arcane focus should therefore have a cost equivalent to the weapon's normal cost, multiplied by twenty five. (weapon cost × 25 =arcane focus weapon cost)
Quarterstaff = 0.2gp 0.2 × 25 = 5gp
If you like, you can simple multiply the cost of a weapon by 25 to come up with its value as an arcane focus weapon.
What about other types of arcane focus? An arcane focus (orb) cost ×4 what an arcane focus (staff) does, and (crystals), (rods), and (wands) cost ×2 what a (staff) does. If a sword, longbow, or whip is repurposed by a sculptor of arcane devices to MAKE it into a arcane focus, or if a weapon is crafted using arcane techniques during its initial production, what might that cost an adventurer?
If a weapon matches the description of a specific type of arcane focus (material, size, weight), how much would it cost to modify it into an arcane focus? Considering that an arcane focus (staff) costs 5gp and we determined that it is a multiplication of 25 after the cost of a quarterstaff, the other foci types should cost even more after adjustment. Here's how that looks;
Now let's see what that would look like using with a greatsword. Arcane foci (staves) can be made of metal, are 5 - 6ft long, and weigh 2 - 7 lbs. That matches the description of greatsword no problem. I would be hard pressed to use a greatsword and call in an orb... but that would cost a lot more anyway.
Let's try out some more price adjustments for weapons that could match the descriptions of crystals, orbs, rods, staffs, and wands.
Remember that chapter 15: Running the Game, of the DMG describes "crystal" as being much more fragile than iron and steel, so a crystal weapon might be made cheaper to compensate for the significantly lower AC (crystal's 13 AC vs iron/steel's 19 AC). In my opinion, the price of a crystal focus weapon should be halved. A possible narrative explanation might be due to the fact that crystal would require less/none crafting for it to work as an arcane focus, but they'd still be pricey as hell because of the added advantage of being arcane foci, and crystals being difficult to acquire.
Ultimately it's up to you to run your game in the most fun and creative way you can. The official rules of the game do imply that it is possible for a non-magical weapon to be used as an arcane focus without resorting to class features or magic items to do it for you. There are no rules for how much an item like that would cost, so it's up to you to invent the rules.
D&D will never have a rule for everything, which is why we need Dungeon Masters.
1.By RaW, there isn't a specific kind of item an arcane focus MUST be, common items are those such a wand, rod, staff, crystal, or Orb. they officially added "ruby of the war mage" which allows you to attach it permanently to a weapon with a 10 minute ritual, to turn said martial weapon into a focus, it is my opinion this would imply standard martial weapons cannot be used as an arcane focus, else this item would be pointless. .However that only applies to "standard" martial weapons, I see no reason a skilled blacksmith could not incorporate an arcane focus into a weapon's design, a crystal or orb at the pommel or crossguard, or worked into a gauntlet. A wand or rod as the grip, a magic staff as the haft of a pike or halberd, and the RotWM remains useful since it can be applied in the field without tools to a new weapon.
2. There is nothing in the RaW that states a focus must be held in your hand, it can be argued that it must merely be on your person, it could be a ring or amulet with a crystal in it.
3. Allowing a weapon to be a focus, or allowing it to be a non-held item, neither of which violates RaW, does NOT invalidate the warcaster feat, the warcaster feat has never removed the need for a focus. It only removes the need for somatic components(hand movements), many spells do in fact not require a focus to perform, such as finger of death or firebolt, the only time a focus is needed is in place of material components that do NOT have a required value attached to them. For example a focus may be used in place of "A small feather or piece of down" for the spell feather fall, but not in place of "a diamond worth at least 50 gp" for casting chromatic orb.
TLDR; a specially made weapon can be a focus, a focus does not need to be held in the hand to be used, and the war caster feat doesn't interact with a focus, iy just allows you to cast with no free hand.
1) Although technically true, each type of focus gives a list of examples, and arcane specifically says "or some similar item." This is by no means rigorously defined anywhere, but takes a big stretch of logic to jump from "similar item" to "any item I want because they are similar because I similarly want to be able to use either item as a focus."
2) The rules say that you need a free hand for material component spells (focii take the place of material components) or to hold a focus. You could make an argument "needing a free hand to hold a focus doesn't mean you have to hold a focus." That isn't what a reasonable person would think about a natural language sentence, so I think you'd be wrong to make that argument. Even so, if you don't need to hold a focus, you still need to be able to access it with a free hand. No matter how you read the sentence, you need a hand that is either occupied by holding the focus or cannot be occupied doing anything else anyway. One hand is no longer useful for something else while casting that spell.
3) The value of War Caster isn't in what it does for your spells with material components, it is what it does for your spells without them. Spells with S (but not M) components have a requirement for a free hand RAW, meaning you could not cast such a spell while holding a focus and some other item (such as a cleric with a melee weapon and a shield in their hands, or a druid holding a focus and a shield). With war caster, such a caster wouldn't need to put something away to cast S or VS component spells.
@Wolfofthebees so just wanted to reply to that, point 1 is simply intended a reasoned arguement that since a focus isn't clearly defined by RaW, it's fairly reasonable to work a small standard focus into a martial weapon, either by starting with it embedded in some fashion, or at a craftsman, still DM always has final say regardless. I feel it seems possible mostly due to how ambiguously Focii are described to begin with.
For the 2nd point. I honestly missed that bit, you're quite right, my bad.
and the 3rd point, yes? that's the point I was trying to emphasis since so many people seem to bring it up, though you may have been a bit clearer, especially given I was unaware hold materials/focii actually IS in RaW, but my intent was to show the feat is all about removing the Somatic component not the need for materials or Focii.
There is at least one subclass that can use its weapon as a focus however they created the Ruby of the War Mage a common magic item that requires attunement : Etched with eldritch runes, this l-inch-diameter ruby allows you to use a simple or martial weapon as a spellcasting focus for your spells. For this property to work, you must attach the ruby to the weapon by pressing the ruby against it for at least 10 minutes. Thereafter, the ruby can't be removed unless you detach it as an action or the weapon is destroyed. Not even an antimagic field causes it to fall off. The ruby does fall off the weapon if your attunement to the ruby ends.
Based on this Item I would say you shouldn't be able to make your weapon a focus without the ruby.
That being said I have a Gloom Ranger/ Forge Cleric in AL that I used Blessing of the Forge to attach holy symbols to my Oath Bow, my +1 Long Bow, and my starting Long Bow. So far I haven't had anyone challenge it and it allows me to have a holy symbol in hand if I have my bow in hand. And I think it's fun to say that Guiding Bolt leaves the bow like an arrow but it does nothing mechanically.
I think that to see what might be possible with an arcane focus we just have to look at them as a group.
If we look at the ring focus, it is equipped at all times and always on your hand. So there is no reason why this particular form of focus should have such an advantage over the others. (even though a crystal orb costs a fortune :D and does the same thing)
Further more, we have spells that can be used along with a weapon, so there is no reason for a weapon to mess with the spell somehow, since other spells work fine with it.
In 5e armor doesn't restrict casting as long as the caster is proficient with the type of armour. Any rules that made heavy armours interfere with magic (because metal, I hate it when I can't make my wizard staves out of metal) are not in 5e (which is why we have eldrich knight and war clerics)
So you have 1) spells that prove weapons are not a problem 2)armor is not a problem 3)an example of a focus that definitely supports this *4) if a staff can be a focus and a solid weapon at the same time (damn druids) who says a longsword (which has the same damage as shillelagg btw) couldn't be?
My couple of thoughts,
The addition of Ruby of the War Mage suggests that RAI is the weapons otherwise not be able to serve as an arcane focus. Even if you affix the crystal that can serve as an arcane focus to them.
If Xanathar's is to in play, and there for no Ruby of the War Mage, it seems to me reasonable that an arcane focus crystal could be affixed to a weapon and used for spell casting. The caster would only get the benefit of the crystal as a focus while they were holding the weapon. This could prove awkward in some social situations, and if the character lost the weapon they would lose the focus.
Using any old weapon as an arcane focus is not possible, unless you have the bardic ability.
A staff used as an arcane focus is specifically designed for use as such. You can't just grab any old quarterstaff and cast spells through it. The rules do not explicitly say either way if a staff designed for use as an arcane focus can also be used as a quarterstaff in combat. The Lord of the rings movies show a reasonable justification that it could.
Any material component or arcane focus requires a hand free to manipulate it during casting. With a holy symbol on a shield the shield can be manipulated along with the holy symbol. I would see this as the shield functioning as a holy symbol in this case.
So, ultimately DM's call as to whether or not to allow a crystal on a sword hilt to be used as an arcane focus. In general the rules seem to downplay the requirements of V, S, M spell components in favor of ease of play.
As for arcane focus vs component pouch, both can be taken away. A caster without either can still cast spells with a material component if they can access the appropriate component. Many common spell components should not be that hard to find, a pinch of sand, a tuft of wool, etc. Arcane foci and component pouches just mean you don't have th ebook keeping of which ones and how many you are carrying.
One of my players wants to modify his arcane focus staff into an arcane focus/double halberd/trident. I'm not sure if this combo should be allowed, but I searched, and nothing disputes it. I am still unsure, can some of you help me?
Zargorth Dakzonar, High Elf Sorceror
I'd say the equipment and weapon tables dispute it.
1) The staff, halberd, and trident are all listed as completely different weapons.
2) Normally, an arcane focus staff isn't usable as a weapon. See the DMG; if an arcane staff is usable as a weapon, its entry will specifically state that it can be.
3) There's no such thing as a double halberd.
My advice is to give the player a firm NO.
DICE FALL, EVERYONE ROCKS!
Omg, a double halberd! My PoM HexBlade (soon to be sentinel as well) would love that!
Now, why isnt there one is the question we should ask ourselves!
There's not a double halberd, but there is a double-bladed scimitar.
Personally, I don't have a problem with a weapon as an arcane focus IF it makes sense in the character's background. (Dwarf who forges a hammer set with arcane runes that awakens sorcery powers? Fine.) It's not like the character can cast AND attack with it in the same turn. The other things Warcaster does are so valuable for casters (cast a spell as a reaction, advantage on concentration saves) that the "cast while holding a weapon" part of it is basically RP fluff by comparison.
Any Pact Weapon can be an arcane focus if you've got the Improved Pact Weapon Invocation.
DICE FALL, EVERYONE ROCKS!
Actually Mike Mearls has confirmed that a focus staff is usable as a quarterstaff in combat. https://twitter.com/GamerJosh/status/509454115861434368
And even without that the rules for improvised weapons generally support it as long as your particular DM doesn't decide that the focus staff is to frail to be hitting things with. I think the magic items in the DMG support this notion as well on a per item basis.
My personal ruling on the matter would be that as long as the player has the money to buy a ruby of the war mage or have the item specially crafted to be used as a focus that it's fine. I would say the 10 or 20 gold cost of a rod or orb added on to a specially crafted weapon is fair, while the ruby is 50 gold - the value of common non-consumable magic items - but has the added benefit of being reusable whenever you get a weapon upgrade.
I see an arcane focus as being anything that the character would see as a precious item that they focus their will on to cast the spell. So it could be a Wedding Ring, Locket with the picture of a lost family member, a symbol on the hilt of a weapon like the crusaders had in the shape of a cross, etc.
It doesn't have to be a special wand or crystal ball.
I think you're looking for the Ruby of the war mage. There is a distinct mechanical advantage to being able to not have to get rid of your weapon before casting spells, which is why focii are not weapons generally.
I have one question regarding arcane focuses and somatic components. It says in the PHB that the hand used to hold the material component can also to the somatic components. So if you have a ruby of the war mage, can you cast spells with a somatic component even if both your hands are full and you don't have war caster, if you sword can be used as a arcane focus?
DM: So, you doomed the world by betting on dinosauer races instead of doing a quest.
Players: But we got money! Now we can do whatever we want.
DM: You are all dead, you can't spend your money!
Players: Oh.
Also Artificer can use any infused item as an arcane focus, so a lvl 2 or 3 multiclass dip may be interresting.
Yes, you can use any object that counts as a magical foci for your class to complete the somatic component of a spell, however the spell in question must have both a material and a somatic component in order to use any focus this way even the normal tools from the adventuring gear section of the PHB. For example a cleric with a holy symbol engraved on their shield can cast Shield of Faith using their shield as the focus even with their other hand full because it has both a somatic and material component, however, in order to cast Inflict Wounds, which only has the somatic component, they have to fist put away their weapon because the shield can't be used to make the touch attack.
Additionally, the new Artificer class is unusual in that it requires all spells cast by this class to use a tool they are proficient with or an item they've infused as a spell focus when casting the spell regardless of whether the spell normally requires a material component or not.
It is also worth noting that when multi-classing, a spell focus is usually tied to the class that grants its use and can not be used when casting spells that are not on that class' spell list.
"You can use an arcane focus (see chapter 5, "Equipment") as a spellcasting focus for your wizard spells."
Yes. There are two ways.
1: Warlock, Pact of the Blade, Improved Pact Weapon Invocation allows the weapon to be used as a spellcasting focus.
2: Ruby of the War Mage, Common Item, requires atttunement by a spellcaster, allows any weapon to become a spellcasting focus via 10 minute ritual.
If there are more official ways I am not aware of them.
[edited my equation tables and text to be easier to read]
Regular quarterstaves can not be used as an arcane focus, but the opposite is usually true. Arcane focus (staves) can usually be used as quarterstaves.
An arcane focus must be specially constructed and designed to channel arcane powers. The most common way to use a melee weapon as an arcane focus is to get a hold of an arcane focus (staff), but it's really more like using an arcane focus as a melee weapon. I think it would be fair to assume that an arcane focus (rod) could be used as a club, but that would be up to the DM of any given game.
The DMG only tells us in broad terms, that an arcane focus is a special item designed to channel the power of arcane spells. It gives some examples, but quickly expands on them with the words "or similar item", ultimately settlig on nothing concrete. It goes on to describe three out of five suggested examples of arcane foci, leaving crystals and orbs to be interpreted solely by the DM. It states that rods, staves, and wands can be made of metal, wood, or bone, and suggests their typical lengths and weights. Plenty of weapons fit within those descriptors, so there's no real reason a weapon can't be an arcane focus.
With that in mind, shouldn't it cost more to make such an item? In my games, I allow any weapon to double up as an arcane focus with a boost in price. The weapon must be crafted with this purpose in mind, or re-crafted and tinkered with by a skilled artisan of the arcane arts. It simply has to be made to work with arcane spells in mind.
So, expanding on what was already told to use by the PHB and DMG, I came up with a guideline for how much such items should cost in my game settings.
Let's see if we can figure out a good price range for these arcane focus weapons.
First we should take a look at the only focus which we already know can be used as a weapon.
Arcane focus (Crystal) = 10gp
Arcane focus (Orb) = 20gp
Arcane focus (Rod) = 10gp
Arcane focus (Staff) = 5gp ◄◄◄
Arcane focus (Wand) = 10gp
Quarterstaff = 0.2gp
Arcane focus (Staff) = 5gp
5gp ÷ 0.2 = [25] ◄◄◄
A quarterstaff designed and constructed to additionally function as an arcane focus should therefore have a cost equivalent to the weapon's normal cost, multiplied by twenty five. (weapon cost × 25 = arcane focus weapon cost)
Quarterstaff = 0.2gp
0.2 × 25 = 5gp
If you like, you can simple multiply the cost of a weapon by 25 to come up with its value as an arcane focus weapon.
What about other types of arcane focus? An arcane focus (orb) cost ×4 what an arcane focus (staff) does, and (crystals), (rods), and (wands) cost ×2 what a (staff) does.
If a sword, longbow, or whip is repurposed by a sculptor of arcane devices to MAKE it into a arcane focus, or if a weapon is crafted using arcane techniques during its initial production, what might that cost an adventurer?
If a weapon matches the description of a specific type of arcane focus (material, size, weight), how much would it cost to modify it into an arcane focus? Considering that an arcane focus (staff) costs 5gp and we determined that it is a multiplication of 25 after the cost of a quarterstaff, the other foci types should cost even more after adjustment. Here's how that looks;
Arcane focus (Crystal) Weapon = 10gp → 25 = ×50
Arcane focus (Orb) Weapon = 20gp → 25 = ×100
Arcane focus (Rod) Weapon = 10gp → 25 = ×50
Arcane focus (Staff) Weapon = 5gp → 25 = ×25
Arcane focus (Wand) Weapon = 10gp → 25 = ×50
Now let's see what that would look like using with a greatsword. Arcane foci (staves) can be made of metal, are 5 - 6ft long, and weigh 2 - 7 lbs. That matches the description of greatsword no problem. I would be hard pressed to use a greatsword and call in an orb... but that would cost a lot more anyway.
Arcane focus (Crystal) Weapon = ×50
Arcane focus (Orb) Weapon = ×100
Arcane focus (Rod) Weapon = ×50
Arcane focus (Staff) Weapon = ×25 ◄◄◄
Arcane focus (Wand) Weapon = ×50
Greatsword = 50gp
50 x 25 (staff) = 1,250gp
Let's try out some more price adjustments for weapons that could match the descriptions of crystals, orbs, rods, staffs, and wands.
Remember that chapter 15: Running the Game, of the DMG describes "crystal" as being much more fragile than iron and steel, so a crystal weapon might be made cheaper to compensate for the significantly lower AC (crystal's 13 AC vs iron/steel's 19 AC).
In my opinion, the price of a crystal focus weapon should be halved. A possible narrative explanation might be due to the fact that crystal would require less/none crafting for it to work as an arcane focus, but they'd still be pricey as hell because of the added advantage of being arcane foci, and crystals being difficult to acquire.
War Pick = 5gp
5 × 50 (crystal) = 250gp
(suggested discount: 125gp)
Maul = 10gp
10 × 50 (crystal) = 500gp
(suggested discount: 250gp)
Morningstar = 15gp
15 × 100 (orb) = 1,500gp
Flail = 10gp
10 × 100 (orb) = 1,000gp
Crossbow, Light= 25gp
25 x 50 (rod) = 1,250gp
Shortsword = 10gp
10 x 50 (rod) = 500gp
Longbow = 50gp
50 x 25 (staff) = 1,250gp
Glave = 20gp
20 x 25 (staff) = 500gp
Dagger = 2gp
2 x 50 (wand) = 100gp
Whip = 2gp
2 x 50 (wand) = 100gp
Ultimately it's up to you to run your game in the most fun and creative way you can.
The official rules of the game do imply that it is possible for a non-magical weapon to be used as an arcane focus without resorting to class features or magic items to do it for you. There are no rules for how much an item like that would cost, so it's up to you to invent the rules.
D&D will never have a rule for everything, which is why we need Dungeon Masters.
Visit (link) → MicroHomebrew, Arcanum Dice, and Ashfaera ← (link) Visit
Three main points I would like to make here
1.By RaW, there isn't a specific kind of item an arcane focus MUST be, common items are those such a wand, rod, staff, crystal, or Orb. they officially added "ruby of the war mage" which allows you to attach it permanently to a weapon with a 10 minute ritual, to turn said martial weapon into a focus, it is my opinion this would imply standard martial weapons cannot be used as an arcane focus, else this item would be pointless. .However that only applies to "standard" martial weapons, I see no reason a skilled blacksmith could not incorporate an arcane focus into a weapon's design, a crystal or orb at the pommel or crossguard, or worked into a gauntlet. A wand or rod as the grip, a magic staff as the haft of a pike or halberd, and the RotWM remains useful since it can be applied in the field without tools to a new weapon.
2. There is nothing in the RaW that states a focus must be held in your hand, it can be argued that it must merely be on your person, it could be a ring or amulet with a crystal in it.
3. Allowing a weapon to be a focus, or allowing it to be a non-held item, neither of which violates RaW, does NOT invalidate the warcaster feat, the warcaster feat has never removed the need for a focus. It only removes the need for somatic components(hand movements), many spells do in fact not require a focus to perform, such as finger of death or firebolt, the only time a focus is needed is in place of material components that do NOT have a required value attached to them. For example a focus may be used in place of "A small feather or piece of down" for the spell feather fall, but not in place of "a diamond worth at least 50 gp" for casting chromatic orb.
TLDR; a specially made weapon can be a focus, a focus does not need to be held in the hand to be used, and the war caster feat doesn't interact with a focus, iy just allows you to cast with no free hand.
1) Although technically true, each type of focus gives a list of examples, and arcane specifically says "or some similar item." This is by no means rigorously defined anywhere, but takes a big stretch of logic to jump from "similar item" to "any item I want because they are similar because I similarly want to be able to use either item as a focus."
2) The rules say that you need a free hand for material component spells (focii take the place of material components) or to hold a focus. You could make an argument "needing a free hand to hold a focus doesn't mean you have to hold a focus." That isn't what a reasonable person would think about a natural language sentence, so I think you'd be wrong to make that argument. Even so, if you don't need to hold a focus, you still need to be able to access it with a free hand. No matter how you read the sentence, you need a hand that is either occupied by holding the focus or cannot be occupied doing anything else anyway. One hand is no longer useful for something else while casting that spell.
3) The value of War Caster isn't in what it does for your spells with material components, it is what it does for your spells without them. Spells with S (but not M) components have a requirement for a free hand RAW, meaning you could not cast such a spell while holding a focus and some other item (such as a cleric with a melee weapon and a shield in their hands, or a druid holding a focus and a shield). With war caster, such a caster wouldn't need to put something away to cast S or VS component spells.
@Wolfofthebees so just wanted to reply to that, point 1 is simply intended a reasoned arguement that since a focus isn't clearly defined by RaW, it's fairly reasonable to work a small standard focus into a martial weapon, either by starting with it embedded in some fashion, or at a craftsman, still DM always has final say regardless. I feel it seems possible mostly due to how ambiguously Focii are described to begin with.
For the 2nd point. I honestly missed that bit, you're quite right, my bad.
and the 3rd point, yes? that's the point I was trying to emphasis since so many people seem to bring it up, though you may have been a bit clearer, especially given I was unaware hold materials/focii actually IS in RaW, but my intent was to show the feat is all about removing the Somatic component not the need for materials or Focii.
@Jety_Lefr Amazing maths. Might totally use this on my campaign.