A player has asked me playing Tortle cleric if the spell focus (Emblem) is a tattoo on his chest? Since the Tortle does not wear any armor the tattoo would always be exposed for touching.
Question:
I came across a Sage Advice Compendium entry where the example:
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.
1) What would the difference be between a tattoo on the chest or the symbol on a shield? Of course, if the holy symbol needs to be a physical item then not have a tattoo and instead have the item embedded in his chest.
2) If the Tortle is using a war hammer in one hand and a shield in the other casting a spell that has martial components he would need one free hand to touch the emblem to cast the spell? If this was a somatic component then he could still have his hand strapped to the shield and be able to cast the spell?
3) If I'm getting this all wrong, but a tattoo would be a feasible holy symbol what are the pros and cons to this?
I'm really surprised by this Sage Advice, as it directly contradicts basic rules.
Essentially this just allows a character to have a 3rd hand. Warcaster feat is intended to let you cast with both hands equipped.
Essentially, this advice ruling means you can just tie your spell focus to your wrist and never have to hold it. I don't see why a shield would be considered special.
The problem with a tattoo is that nobody can take your focus away from you by disarming you of the object (e.g. a Battle Master's disarming attack will do that). Essentially, this hand-waives all non-gold-cost material component requirements for the rest of the game.
If the tattooed Tortle is ever captured, they have to be put to death rather than just disarming them and capturing them since it becomes impossible to remove their spellcasting ability.
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.
A player has asked me playing Tortle cleric if the spell focus (Emblem) is a tattoo on his chest? Since the Tortle does not wear any armor the tattoo would always be exposed for touching.
Question:
1) What would the difference be between a tattoo on the chest or the symbol on a shield? Of course, if the holy symbol needs to be a physical item then not have a tattoo and instead have the item embedded in his chest.
2) If the Tortle is using a war hammer in one hand and a shield in the other casting a spell that has martial components he would need one free hand to touch the emblem to cast the spell? If this was a somatic component then he could still have his hand strapped to the shield and be able to cast the spell?
3) If I'm getting this all wrong, but a tattoo would be a feasible holy symbol what are the pros and cons to this?
Hmm this is an interesting idea, but I'm not 100% sure it is RAW. Here is the rules description of holy symbol:
Holy Symbol. A holy symbol is a representation of a god or pantheon. It might be an amulet depicting a symbol representing a deity, the same symbol carefully engraved or inlaid as an emblem on a shield, or a tiny box holding a fragment of a sacred relic. A cleric or paladin can use a holy symbol as a spellcasting focus. To use the symbol in this way, the caster must hold it in hand, wear it visibly, or bear it on a shield.
With this in mind:
The biggest difference that might affect game balance is: an amulet or emblem can be taken/disarmed, a tattoo cannot.
Yes. You need a hand to either be empty or holding your focus to cast spells with material components. Somatic components also need an empty hand unless a hand is holding a needed material component or you have the war caster feat.
Pros: can't be disarmed/stolen. Cons: would still need it on shield to not need an empty hand to use it.
It basically functions the same way as an amulet or if the emblem was on armor, with the added bonus that it cant be stolen or turned over to security etc.
I'm really surprised by this Sage Advice, as it directly contradicts basic rules.
Essentially this just allows a character to have a 3rd hand. Warcaster feat is intended to let you cast with both hands equipped.
Essentially, this advice ruling means you can just tie your spell focus to your wrist and never have to hold it. I don't see why a shield would be considered special.
Thus is true only for clerics and paladins, because god says so. Arcane and druidic casters don't have such luck.
And it isn't just the RAI sage advice, it is in the RAW rules for what a holy symbol is.
I'm aware of the shield as holy symbol focus, and as someone who is petty "meh" about non high value material components* so I tend to follow the Sage Advice.
The thing about a tattooed tortle though.... The problem with a spell focus written on the body that unlike material components and spell foci, the tattooed holy symbol can't be taken away. I suppose you could use lingering injury optional rules if the Tortle is struck down the symbol is somehow defaced and the Tortle must go on some sort of pilgrimage quest to restore the symbol, or if they're captured a captor could deface the symbol, etc. But if components/foci/symbol literally matter to your game, the Tortle tattoo is a hack of that materiality.
Frankly in my game I overlook the materialness for almost everyone except Wizards as in my game's metaphysics the Cleric or Druid or Palladin is the material component on holy symbol. But that's heresy at orthodox tables.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
I never considered the possibility that the cleric abilities would not be able to have them taken away with a tattoo and I'll be honest I'm not so thrilled with that idea.
Not that I don't see him/party being captured in the near future but that is still one situation I don't want to remove from my toolbox of possibilities just to allow a cool visual.
Yeah, I could mutilate the Tortal symbol but as others pointed out it could lead to a good sidequest but that stunts the cleric until a new holy symbol is established.
As a side note, I was looking through Tasha's regarding the magical tattoo, trying to get some inspiration on what the player wanted to do with the tortle.
Blending magic and artistry with ink and needles, magic tattoos imbue their bearers with wondrous abilities. Magic tattoos are initially bound to magic needles, which transfer their magic to a creature.
Once inscribed on a creature’s body, damage or injury doesn’t impair the tattoo’s function, even if the tattoo is defaced. When applying a magic tattoo, a creature can customize the tattoo’s appearance. A magic tattoo can look like a brand, scarification, a birthmark, patterns of scale, or any other cosmetic alteration.
And that was pretty much it. I was hoping there was some information about what can impact or deactivate the tattoo, (though unwritten I assume antimagic zones) but I think you've all put more thought into this thread than what's Tasha's talks about on the subject.
And that was pretty much it. I was hoping there was some information about what can impact or deactivate the tattoo, (though unwritten I assume antimagic zones) but I think you've all put more thought into this thread than what's Tasha's talks about on the subject.
Yeah, those magic tattoos are magic items and follow the same rules as magic items (including being shut down by antimagic field). Spellcasting foci (like holy symbols) don't have to be magic items, but some magic items are spellcasting foci.
We assume the tattoo of a holy symbol would be of the nonmagical variety.
(Of course whether a spellcasting focus still works in an anti magic field is irrelevant since spells can't be cast...)
I spoke with the player regarding the tattoo and I gave her the option that a normal holy symbol that the caster must hold in hand, wear it visibly, or bear it on a shield would be preferred. Otherwise, you can take a chance with the tattoo where possibility the enemy will be smart enough to recognize that as your focus/symbol, and with that knowledge, the tattoo could be mutilated/destroyed and take away your abilities.
The player thought that over and as she seems pretty set with the visual of the tattoo asked if she could have the tattoo AND a physical amulet like a bracelet on her wrist as a backup. I explain multi-focus items works-- how nothing in the rules says you cannot have more than one. Since the player is trying to get the best of both worlds I did give a stipulation if the physical focus is not used for a very long time the Tortle may need to 'reattune' to it so he can channel the deity entity powers.
The player thought that over and as she seems pretty set with the visual of the tattoo asked if she could have the tattoo AND a physical amulet like a bracelet on her wrist as a backup. I explain multi-focus items works-- how nothing in the rules says you cannot have more than one. Since the player is trying to get the best of both worlds I did give a stipulation if the physical focus is not used for a very long time the Tortle may need to 'reattune' to it so he can channel the deity entity powers.
It doesn't get around the basic idea that the tattoo can't be taken away, or disarmed, or otherwise easily disabled.
The player thought that over and as she seems pretty set with the visual of the tattoo asked if she could have the tattoo AND a physical amulet like a bracelet on her wrist as a backup. I explain multi-focus items works-- how nothing in the rules says you cannot have more than one. Since the player is trying to get the best of both worlds I did give a stipulation if the physical focus is not used for a very long time the Tortle may need to 'reattune' to it so he can channel the deity entity powers.
It doesn't get around the basic idea that the tattoo can't be taken away, or disarmed, or otherwise easily disabled.
This was for a one-shot so YMMV, but I've made a cleric with tattoos for holy symbols. He wore a breastplate, and had full sleeve tattoos (they also crept up his neck and eventually, when we re-assembled the party for another one-shot, he'd shaved his head for more real estate)
However, the way I played it was he had a specific tattoo keyed to each spell he wanted to cast. Which meant, if we'd played this out as a campaign, every time he leveled up and gained access to a new level of spells, he would have had to go get more ink, and if I hadn't thought to make a tattoo to represent a certain spell, he would have had some restrictions on preparing spells on a long rest. Tattoos also factored into the character's backstory (I basically created a new kind of clan crafter and he had proficiency in a tattooist's kit, although obviously he couldn't just tattoo himself, he had to go seek out a true Master Inker to do the holy symbol tats)
You may want to approach it from that angle -- the player can have a tattoo(s) for a holy symbol, but there has to be some sort of other tradeoff in exchange for the benefit of having a holy symbol that can't be easily taken from them
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
This was for a one-shot so YMMV, but I've made a cleric with tattoos for holy symbols. He wore a breastplate, and had full sleeve tattoos (they also crept up his neck and eventually, when we re-assembled the party for another one-shot, he'd shaved his head for more real estate)
However, the way I played it was he had a specific tattoo keyed to each spell he wanted to cast. Which meant, if we'd played this out as a campaign, every time he leveled up and gained access to a new level of spells, he would have had to go get more ink, and if I hadn't thought to make a tattoo to represent a certain spell, he would have had some restrictions on preparing spells on a long rest. Tattoos also factored into the character's backstory (I basically created a new kind of clan crafter and he had proficiency in a tattooist's kit, although obviously he couldn't just tattoo himself, he had to go seek out a true Master Inker to do the holy symbol tats)
You may want to approach it from that angle -- the player can have a tattoo(s) for a holy symbol, but there has to be some sort of other tradeoff in exchange for the benefit of having a holy symbol that can't be easily taken from them
I am in love with this idea. I kind of want to do this with a bard so I don't have to worry about the spell issue on long rest.
If the rules for the holy symbol as stated is that it has to be either held in hand, born on a shield, or be visible, it would make sense to me that tattoos can be taken away. Possibly more readily than an actual pendant, depending on a clerics ability to hide the amulet and deceive interrogators. A holy symbol can be hidden, and if it is something small like thors hammer on a leather thong, may go unnoticed if party thief hides it somewhere not sacreligious, or maybe just doesn’t tell the cleric where it was hidden. Tattoos on the other hand would need a disguise kit. This would still pose a problem to the cleric as he would have to clean himself off to make that symbol fully visible again. Not something easy to do when bound. A pendant on the other hand can be dropped back into the hand, even if the hands are bound behind the back.
TL;DR - just cover the tattoos with mud, cloth, or paint. Holy symbol needs to be plainly visible. Hidden tattoos are no holy symbol.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Setup:
A player has asked me playing Tortle cleric if the spell focus (Emblem) is a tattoo on his chest? Since the Tortle does not wear any armor the tattoo would always be exposed for touching.
Question:
I came across a Sage Advice Compendium entry where the example:
1) What would the difference be between a tattoo on the chest or the symbol on a shield? Of course, if the holy symbol needs to be a physical item then not have a tattoo and instead have the item embedded in his chest.
2) If the Tortle is using a war hammer in one hand and a shield in the other casting a spell that has martial components he would need one free hand to touch the emblem to cast the spell? If this was a somatic component then he could still have his hand strapped to the shield and be able to cast the spell?
3) If I'm getting this all wrong, but a tattoo would be a feasible holy symbol what are the pros and cons to this?
I'm really surprised by this Sage Advice, as it directly contradicts basic rules.
Essentially this just allows a character to have a 3rd hand. Warcaster feat is intended to let you cast with both hands equipped.
Essentially, this advice ruling means you can just tie your spell focus to your wrist and never have to hold it. I don't see why a shield would be considered special.
The problem with a tattoo is that nobody can take your focus away from you by disarming you of the object (e.g. a Battle Master's disarming attack will do that). Essentially, this hand-waives all non-gold-cost material component requirements for the rest of the game.
If the tattooed Tortle is ever captured, they have to be put to death rather than just disarming them and capturing them since it becomes impossible to remove their spellcasting ability.
This other paragraph may change your opinion
Hmm this is an interesting idea, but I'm not 100% sure it is RAW. Here is the rules description of holy symbol:
With this in mind:
It basically functions the same way as an amulet or if the emblem was on armor, with the added bonus that it cant be stolen or turned over to security etc.
Thus is true only for clerics and paladins, because god says so. Arcane and druidic casters don't have such luck.
And it isn't just the RAI sage advice, it is in the RAW rules for what a holy symbol is.
I'm aware of the shield as holy symbol focus, and as someone who is petty "meh" about non high value material components* so I tend to follow the Sage Advice.
The thing about a tattooed tortle though.... The problem with a spell focus written on the body that unlike material components and spell foci, the tattooed holy symbol can't be taken away. I suppose you could use lingering injury optional rules if the Tortle is struck down the symbol is somehow defaced and the Tortle must go on some sort of pilgrimage quest to restore the symbol, or if they're captured a captor could deface the symbol, etc. But if components/foci/symbol literally matter to your game, the Tortle tattoo is a hack of that materiality.
Frankly in my game I overlook the materialness for almost everyone except Wizards as in my game's metaphysics the Cleric or Druid or Palladin is the material component on holy symbol. But that's heresy at orthodox tables.
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
I never considered the possibility that the cleric abilities would not be able to have them taken away with a tattoo and I'll be honest I'm not so thrilled with that idea.
Not that I don't see him/party being captured in the near future but that is still one situation I don't want to remove from my toolbox of possibilities just to allow a cool visual.
Yeah, I could mutilate the Tortal symbol but as others pointed out it could lead to a good sidequest but that stunts the cleric until a new holy symbol is established.
As a side note, I was looking through Tasha's regarding the magical tattoo, trying to get some inspiration on what the player wanted to do with the tortle.
And that was pretty much it. I was hoping there was some information about what can impact or deactivate the tattoo, (though unwritten I assume antimagic zones) but I think you've all put more thought into this thread than what's Tasha's talks about on the subject.
Yeah, those magic tattoos are magic items and follow the same rules as magic items (including being shut down by antimagic field). Spellcasting foci (like holy symbols) don't have to be magic items, but some magic items are spellcasting foci.
We assume the tattoo of a holy symbol would be of the nonmagical variety.
(Of course whether a spellcasting focus still works in an anti magic field is irrelevant since spells can't be cast...)
I spoke with the player regarding the tattoo and I gave her the option that a normal holy symbol that the caster must hold in hand, wear it visibly, or bear it on a shield would be preferred. Otherwise, you can take a chance with the tattoo where possibility the enemy will be smart enough to recognize that as your focus/symbol, and with that knowledge, the tattoo could be mutilated/destroyed and take away your abilities.
The player thought that over and as she seems pretty set with the visual of the tattoo asked if she could have the tattoo AND a physical amulet like a bracelet on her wrist as a backup. I explain multi-focus items works-- how nothing in the rules says you cannot have more than one. Since the player is trying to get the best of both worlds I did give a stipulation if the physical focus is not used for a very long time the Tortle may need to 'reattune' to it so he can channel the deity entity powers.
It doesn't get around the basic idea that the tattoo can't be taken away, or disarmed, or otherwise easily disabled.
True. Unless there is divine intervention.
This was for a one-shot so YMMV, but I've made a cleric with tattoos for holy symbols. He wore a breastplate, and had full sleeve tattoos (they also crept up his neck and eventually, when we re-assembled the party for another one-shot, he'd shaved his head for more real estate)
However, the way I played it was he had a specific tattoo keyed to each spell he wanted to cast. Which meant, if we'd played this out as a campaign, every time he leveled up and gained access to a new level of spells, he would have had to go get more ink, and if I hadn't thought to make a tattoo to represent a certain spell, he would have had some restrictions on preparing spells on a long rest. Tattoos also factored into the character's backstory (I basically created a new kind of clan crafter and he had proficiency in a tattooist's kit, although obviously he couldn't just tattoo himself, he had to go seek out a true Master Inker to do the holy symbol tats)
You may want to approach it from that angle -- the player can have a tattoo(s) for a holy symbol, but there has to be some sort of other tradeoff in exchange for the benefit of having a holy symbol that can't be easily taken from them
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
I am in love with this idea. I kind of want to do this with a bard so I don't have to worry about the spell issue on long rest.
DM mostly, Player occasionally | Session 0 form | He/Him/They/Them
EXTENDED SIGNATURE!
Doctor/Published Scholar/Science and Healthcare Advocate/Critter/Trekkie/Gandalf with a Glock
Try DDB free: Free Rules (2024), premade PCs, adventures, one shots, encounters, SC, homebrew, more
Answers: physical books, purchases, and subbing.
Check out my life-changing
Take the hand
If the rules for the holy symbol as stated is that it has to be either held in hand, born on a shield, or be visible, it would make sense to me that tattoos can be taken away. Possibly more readily than an actual pendant, depending on a clerics ability to hide the amulet and deceive interrogators. A holy symbol can be hidden, and if it is something small like thors hammer on a leather thong, may go unnoticed if party thief hides it somewhere not sacreligious, or maybe just doesn’t tell the cleric where it was hidden. Tattoos on the other hand would need a disguise kit. This would still pose a problem to the cleric as he would have to clean himself off to make that symbol fully visible again. Not something easy to do when bound. A pendant on the other hand can be dropped back into the hand, even if the hands are bound behind the back.
TL;DR - just cover the tattoos with mud, cloth, or paint. Holy symbol needs to be plainly visible. Hidden tattoos are no holy symbol.