I would argue that the mask is not really an issue and doesn’t really need to be directly held. I base this on PHB’s description of material components. Of course it’s noted that the focus is used “...in place of the components specified for a spell.” But in the paragraph after the next one it reads “A spellcaster must have a free hand to access these components, but it can be the same hand that he or she uses to perform somatic components.” Point being, since the components pouch doesn’t care if the hand is the same as the one casting, so long as it’s free, mechanics-wise, does it really matter if the focus is in the hand or on the face so long as a hand is free?
Note: if both you and your DM are new, you’d probably be ok ignoring the costly/consumed component rules at first until you’re more familiar with stuff. The main place they pop up for most groups is that Familiars cost 10 gp of incense to recreate each time they die (to discourage you from being careless with them), and that resurrection spells like Revivify need diamonds (to discourage you from just letting friends die).
My group doesn't feel that stuff adds anything to the game, so we don't track it anyways.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
In the game, I run I allowed the Wizard of the party to strap his Focus to the back of his hand allowing him to use his staff as a two-handed weapon when, in those rare occasions, he falls into melee combat. I have in my back pocket if a situation comes up where the player takes some serious damage there is a percentile chance the Focus could come loose and fall off.
In the game, I run I allowed the Wizard of the party to strap his Focus to the back of his hand allowing him to use his staff as a two-handed weapon when, in those rare occasions, he falls into melee combat. I have in my back pocket if a situation comes up where the player takes some serious damage there is a percentile chance the Focus could come loose and fall off.
I guess that works, but he could also just use a staff as focus as a quarterstaff? There have been discussions on this and most people allow the use of a non-magic item staff focus to count as a quarterstaff. For magical staves, it is outright RAW that unless the particular item says otherwise, those items can be used as quarterstaves. Or is he just that thematically tied to one particular focus?
In the game, I run I allowed the Wizard of the party to strap his Focus to the back of his hand allowing him to use his staff as a two-handed weapon when, in those rare occasions, he falls into melee combat. I have in my back pocket if a situation comes up where the player takes some serious damage there is a percentile chance the Focus could come loose and fall off.
I guess that works, but he could also just use a staff as focus as a quarterstaff? There have been discussions on this and most people allow the use of a non-magic item staff focus to count as a quarterstaff. For magical staves, it is outright RAW that unless the particular item says otherwise, those items can be used as quarterstaves. Or is he just that thematically tied to one particular focus?
In all honesty, the player said "I want the crystal focus to be tied to the back of my hand" I said OK because I could not see a reason why not, and the played asked nicely. That said I would agree to a quarterstaff as a focus if he asked or I could just bring it up but for now he just like the idea of his current focus placement.
In the game, I run I allowed the Wizard of the party to strap his Focus to the back of his hand allowing him to use his staff as a two-handed weapon when, in those rare occasions, he falls into melee combat. I have in my back pocket if a situation comes up where the player takes some serious damage there is a percentile chance the Focus could come loose and fall off.
I guess that works, but he could also just use a staff as focus as a quarterstaff? There have been discussions on this and most people allow the use of a non-magic item staff focus to count as a quarterstaff. For magical staves, it is outright RAW that unless the particular item says otherwise, those items can be used as quarterstaves. Or is he just that thematically tied to one particular focus?
It's outright RAW that a non-magical focus staff counts as a quarterstaff, unless some property of the staff says otherwise. The only discussion comes in as to whether a quarterstaff (magical or otherwise) counts as a focus staff.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Unless otherwise stated, any Staff can be used as a Quarterstaff, but a Quarterstaff cannot be used as a Staff. They gotta give you something for the extra 3gp. 🙄
There is no rule that explicitly says a Quarterstaff cannot be used as a Staff, though that is a common enough assumption that people make, and does have a certain logic to it (considering Staffs are more expensive than Quarterstaffs). Its an ambiguous rule without a difference, since there's no such thing as a magic quarterstaff that isn't a staff this is very much a a Tier-1-only problem.
There's literally no reason to believe that it can. An arcane focus staff is clearly called out by the rules to say it's allowed. Futhermore, under arcane focuses, it says that a focus is special to channel magic.
A standard staff is not designed to channel magic. They rules do not say it can. Therefore, it is not ambiguous at all. A quarterstaff cannot be a focus.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
There is no rule that explicitly says a Quarterstaff cannot be used as a Staff, though that is a common enough assumption that people make, and does have a certain logic to it (considering Staffs are more expensive than Quarterstaffs). Its an ambiguous rule.
That’s like saying there’s no rule that explicitly says a tree branch can’t be used as a (focus) staff. Sure, there isn’t, but there doesn’t need to be, because the book says what is a staff, and the weapon quarterstaff isn’t it anymore than a longsword is. The physical similarity is coincidental.
Conversely, there’s also no rule that explicitly says a non-magic item staff focus can be used as a quarterstaff, although, if I remember correctly, Sage Advice has made clear that that is the intent. But RAW, a focus staff can and should be treated as a quarterstaff weapon by the improvised weapon rules, for which the physical similarity is not coincidental, even if we don’t accept that the rules for magic item staves applies to mundane staff foci as well.
There are no “improvised spellcasting focus” rules, which is why this only works in one direction.
There is no rule that explicitly says a Quarterstaff cannot be used as a Staff, though that is a common enough assumption that people make, and does have a certain logic to it (considering Staffs are more expensive than Quarterstaffs). Its an ambiguous rule without a difference, since there's no such thing as a magic quarterstaff that isn't a staff this is very much a a Tier-1-only problem.
True, but the existence of a ruling that says a staff can be a quarterstaff, and the conspicuous lack of a ruling to confirm the inverse, it kinda stands out.
The focus is not “special arcane staff,” it is “staff.” . Is a quarterstaff a “staff”? Yes, it is a type of staff. Is a branch a staff? Yup, sure. Can staffs be used as arcane foci? Yes.
The other perspective that JC has endorsed is essentially that staffs are a type of quarterstaff, which... I mean whatever man. :p
The focus is not “special arcane staff,” it is “staff.” . Is a quarterstaff a “staff”? Yes, it is a type of staff. Is a branch a staff? Yup, sure. Can staffs be used as arcane foci? Yes.
From the PHB: “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.” That seems pretty clear to me.
The focus is not “special arcane staff,” it is “staff.” . Is a quarterstaff a “staff”? Yes, it is a type of staff. Is a branch a staff? Yup, sure. Can staffs be used as arcane foci? Yes.
The other perspective that JC has endorsed is essentially that staffs are a type of quarterstaff, which... I mean whatever man. :p
It’s like squares and rectangles. Every Staff is a Quarterstaff, but not all Quarterstaffs are Staves.
The focus is not “special arcane staff,” it is “staff.” . Is a quarterstaff a “staff”? Yes, it is a type of staff. Is a branch a staff? Yup, sure. Can staffs be used as arcane foci? Yes.
The other perspective that JC has endorsed is essentially that staffs are a type of quarterstaff, which... I mean whatever man. :p
It’s like squares and rectangles. Every Staff is a Quarterstaff, but not all Quarterstaffs are Staves.
To expand on this and clarify, the arcane focus called a “staff” is not “any staff by the standard real-world definition.” It is a “special arcane staff,” explicitly so. It is in this sense that Crawford means a staff is a type of quarterstaff. He means the “specially constructed staff” that is suitable for use as an arcane focus, not “any staff by the standard real-world definition.”
Well, a Staff is a Quarterstaff with special runes and junk carved into it and a crystal or something on top. It can still be used as a boppity stick. But a regular boppity stick without the decorations cannot focus a spell.
Well, a Staff is a Quarterstaff with special tunes and junk carved into it and a crystal or something on top. It can still be used as a boppity stick. But a regular boppity stick without the decorations cannot focus a spell.
Yeah, absolutely. I was just getting the impression that CC thought Crawford meant “literally any staff is a subtype of quarterstaff,” which would be linguistically incoherent. But that’s not what Crawford meant by “staff.” He was specifically talking about the arcane focus, which the PHB is very clear about being a special arcane staff.
Yeah, that all sounds perfectly healthy, exactly the sort of sensible streamlined play that is the core design philosophy of 5E. It’s certainly not RAW to throw out that tangle, point to the “or some similar item” language in Arcane Focus, and call it a day?
And here’s the real kicker... a wand? I’m sure you’ll all agree, a wand doesn’t work as an arcane focus, only a “wand-like piece of wood,” which is called a “Wand”, but which by definition is NOT a wand, only wand-like, and only wood. But! Don’t mix it up with a Yew Wand, which IS a wand (or sometimes a scepter?), but isn’t necessarily made of yew, it can be any other “special” wood, but is nevertheless called a Yew Wand even when it’s more of an Oaken Scepter :)
This is preposterous. A Quarterstaff is a Staff, or at the very least, is “some similar item” enough to be an Arcane Focus.
Don't all actual Wands say they can be used as an Arcane Focus, though? So it all follows the Rectangle is a Square but a Square is not a Rectangle metaphor.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I would argue that the mask is not really an issue and doesn’t really need to be directly held. I base this on PHB’s description of material components. Of course it’s noted that the focus is used “...in place of the components specified for a spell.” But in the paragraph after the next one it reads “A spellcaster must have a free hand to access these components, but it can be the same hand that he or she uses to perform somatic components.” Point being, since the components pouch doesn’t care if the hand is the same as the one casting, so long as it’s free, mechanics-wise, does it really matter if the focus is in the hand or on the face so long as a hand is free?
My group doesn't feel that stuff adds anything to the game, so we don't track it anyways.
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Tasha
In the game, I run I allowed the Wizard of the party to strap his Focus to the back of his hand allowing him to use his staff as a two-handed weapon when, in those rare occasions, he falls into melee combat. I have in my back pocket if a situation comes up where the player takes some serious damage there is a percentile chance the Focus could come loose and fall off.
I guess that works, but he could also just use a staff as focus as a quarterstaff? There have been discussions on this and most people allow the use of a non-magic item staff focus to count as a quarterstaff. For magical staves, it is outright RAW that unless the particular item says otherwise, those items can be used as quarterstaves. Or is he just that thematically tied to one particular focus?
In all honesty, the player said "I want the crystal focus to be tied to the back of my hand" I said OK because I could not see a reason why not, and the played asked nicely. That said I would agree to a quarterstaff as a focus if he asked or I could just bring it up but for now he just like the idea of his current focus placement.
It's outright RAW that a non-magical focus staff counts as a quarterstaff, unless some property of the staff says otherwise. The only discussion comes in as to whether a quarterstaff (magical or otherwise) counts as a focus staff.
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Tasha
Unless otherwise stated, any Staff can be used as a Quarterstaff, but a Quarterstaff cannot be used as a Staff. They gotta give you something for the extra 3gp. 🙄
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
There is no rule that explicitly says a Quarterstaff cannot be used as a Staff, though that is a common enough assumption that people make, and does have a certain logic to it (considering Staffs are more expensive than Quarterstaffs). Its an ambiguous rule without a difference, since there's no such thing as a magic quarterstaff that isn't a staff this is very much a a Tier-1-only problem.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
There's literally no reason to believe that it can. An arcane focus staff is clearly called out by the rules to say it's allowed. Futhermore, under arcane focuses, it says that a focus is special to channel magic.
A standard staff is not designed to channel magic. They rules do not say it can. Therefore, it is not ambiguous at all. A quarterstaff cannot be a focus.
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Tasha
That’s like saying there’s no rule that explicitly says a tree branch can’t be used as a (focus) staff. Sure, there isn’t, but there doesn’t need to be, because the book says what is a staff, and the weapon quarterstaff isn’t it anymore than a longsword is. The physical similarity is coincidental.
Conversely, there’s also no rule that explicitly says a non-magic item staff focus can be used as a quarterstaff, although, if I remember correctly, Sage Advice has made clear that that is the intent. But RAW, a focus staff can and should be treated as a quarterstaff weapon by the improvised weapon rules, for which the physical similarity is not coincidental, even if we don’t accept that the rules for magic item staves applies to mundane staff foci as well.
There are no “improvised spellcasting focus” rules, which is why this only works in one direction.
True, but the existence of a ruling that says a staff can be a quarterstaff, and the conspicuous lack of a ruling to confirm the inverse, it kinda stands out.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
The focus is not “special arcane staff,” it is “staff.” . Is a quarterstaff a “staff”? Yes, it is a type of staff. Is a branch a staff? Yup, sure. Can staffs be used as arcane foci? Yes.
The other perspective that JC has endorsed is essentially that staffs are a type of quarterstaff, which... I mean whatever man. :p
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
From the PHB: “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.” That seems pretty clear to me.
It’s like squares and rectangles. Every Staff is a Quarterstaff, but not all Quarterstaffs are Staves.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Linguistically incoherent, but technically supported by RAW and Jeremy Crawford. Blech 🤢
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
To expand on this and clarify, the arcane focus called a “staff” is not “any staff by the standard real-world definition.” It is a “special arcane staff,” explicitly so. It is in this sense that Crawford means a staff is a type of quarterstaff. He means the “specially constructed staff” that is suitable for use as an arcane focus, not “any staff by the standard real-world definition.”
Well, a Staff is a Quarterstaff with special runes and junk carved into it and a crystal or something on top. It can still be used as a boppity stick. But a regular boppity stick without the decorations cannot focus a spell.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Yeah, absolutely. I was just getting the impression that CC thought Crawford meant “literally any staff is a subtype of quarterstaff,” which would be linguistically incoherent. But that’s not what Crawford meant by “staff.” He was specifically talking about the arcane focus, which the PHB is very clear about being a special arcane staff.
So a “Staff” is a type of “Quarterstaff” (which is a type of staff, according to common English), but a “Quarterstaff” is not a “Staff.” And a Druid’s “Wooden Staff” may or may not be another type of “Quarterstaff,” but is certainly not a “Staff” either, and a “Staff” or “Quarterstaff“ made of wood is not a “Wooden Staff” unless it’s drawn from living wood.
Yeah, that all sounds perfectly healthy, exactly the sort of sensible streamlined play that is the core design philosophy of 5E. It’s certainly not RAW to throw out that tangle, point to the “or some similar item” language in Arcane Focus, and call it a day?
And here’s the real kicker... a wand? I’m sure you’ll all agree, a wand doesn’t work as an arcane focus, only a “wand-like piece of wood,” which is called a “Wand”, but which by definition is NOT a wand, only wand-like, and only wood. But! Don’t mix it up with a Yew Wand, which IS a wand (or sometimes a scepter?), but isn’t necessarily made of yew, it can be any other “special” wood, but is nevertheless called a Yew Wand even when it’s more of an Oaken Scepter :)
This is preposterous. A Quarterstaff is a Staff, or at the very least, is “some similar item” enough to be an Arcane Focus.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
Don't all actual Wands say they can be used as an Arcane Focus, though? So it all follows the Rectangle is a Square but a Square is not a Rectangle metaphor.