Staff of the Woodlands cannot be used by Druids as written, because it’s not a Wooden Staff. Please quit tap dancing past that to oversimplify my concern here, and tell me straight: yes you are comfortable with that, or no you are not. And if you are not, what (if any) room fo you see to address it that does not create room for recognizing Quarterstaffs to be Staffs?
Staff of the Woodlands cannot be used by Druids as written, because it’s not a Wooden Staff. Please quit tap dancing past that to oversimplify my concern here, and tell me straight: yes you are comfortable with that, or no you are not. And if you are not, what (if any) room fo you see to address it that does not create room for recognizing Quarterstaffs to be Staffs?
Because a quarterstaff isn’t designed to channel magical power, a fundamental requirement of a focus.
And a Staff of the Woodlands can be used by a Druid, it says so. So no, I am not concerned, yes I am comfortable with it, and no, a Quarterstaff is not a Spellcasting focus.
Staff of the Woodlands cannot be used by Druids as written, because it’s not a Wooden Staff. Please quit tap dancing past that to oversimplify my concern here, and tell me straight: yes you are comfortable with that, or no you are not. And if you are not, what (if any) room fo you see to address it that does not create room for recognizing Quarterstaffs to be Staffs?
Where is the text that limits what a druidic focus must be rather than might be? It sounds to me that you're trying to cram a square peg into a round hole.
Certainly the fact that there are items that you can use as a druidic focus that you cannot buy as a druidic focus seems to limit the notion that the items in the list of druidic focus adventuring equipment is exhaustive.
And a Staff of the Woodlands can be used by a Druid, it says so. So no, I am not concerned, yes I am comfortable with it, and no, a Quarterstaff is not a Spellcasting focus.
It says it can be attuned by Druids, to do its stuff. Nowhere does it say it can serve as a Druidic Focus. A staff isn’t one. A Quarterstaff isn’t one.
Im getting the impression you’re dodging the issue. Fine
Bees, you’d have to read back a bit... but what you’re saying is precisely what I’m trying to argue FOR. Reading the Arcane/Druidic Focus entries as closed lists is ludicrous, and blatantly ignores their “other similar items” language.
And a Staff of the Woodlands can be used by a Druid, it says so. So no, I am not concerned, yes I am comfortable with it, and no, a Quarterstaff is not a Spellcasting focus.
It says it can be attuned by Druids, to do its stuff. Nowhere does it say it can serve as a Druidic Focus. A staff isn’t one. A Quarterstaff isn’t one.
Im getting the impression you’re dodging the issue. Fine
Bees, you’d have to read back a bit... but what you’re saying is precisely what I’m trying to argue FOR. Reading the Arcane/Druidic Focus entries as closed lists is ludicrous, and blatantly ignores their “other similar items” language.
I am not sure that we are on the same side of it though. If the list isn't exhaustive, then what is the problem with allowing a magic staff that is attunable only by druids that can be drawn from a tree (conversion back to a staff from the tree form) as a staff that fits the description of a druidic focus?
Again, you seem to be arguing for a distinction between a staff and a wooden staff other than the construction material, when there is no specific requirement that a druidic focus need that requirement. Certainly in the description of a druid focus, there is no plain statement that a staff constructed out of wood that is not drawn from a tree is or is not a druidic focus. And in fact, the statement in the text doesn't imply a construction material at all. Could a stone staff drawn whole out of a tree be used as a druidic focus?
The requirement for a focus is that it is deemed a suitable focus. Apparently, the game uses the terms staff and wooden staff to mean "a staff-shaped object that is suitable for use as a focus" and quarterstaff to mean "a staff-shaped object that is stable for hitting people with" and those two things have different sets of requirements. Essentially, the authors seem to have wanted a non-magic item name for a magic staff that didn't call it a magic staff because then people might think it was a magic item, so they called it a staff instead. Now we have a situation where we have a staff and a quarterstaff in the game and is a quarterstaff a staff? No because they fulfill different game roles with distinct properties. When we say staff, I really think you should think to yourself "non-magic item magic staff" and not "piece of wood." Yes that is different from everyday English, but it seems to fit the distinction between walking stick, focus staff, and quarterstaff quite well.
On the subject of Staff of the Woodlands, it's item type is Staff. The section about Foci very explicitly gives the list of what kinds of items are allowed as Foci, of which, a Staff is one.
It is odd, though, that the last line in the second paragraph specifies it becomes a nonmagical Quarterstaff when it loses its properties, rather than a nonmagical Staff...
Soo... I wanna agree with CC a little bit here, but just on the Staff/Wooden Staff distinction for what can be a focus for Druids.
As far as I can tell, there are zero magic staves that are classified as a Wooden Staff for their base item. All of them are listed as a Staff; even the Druid specific ones, and the ones with descriptions containing "This wooden staff is..." As others have alluded, the list of Spellcasting Foci aren't necessarily exhaustive, but I'd be more conservative on that line of thought.
What I think it comes down to is short-sighted, poor writing. We still think of Druids as not using metal, so clearly they have to have something that's explicitly a Wooden Staff, right? Well, that's just not factually true in 5e... at all. There is no requirement for Druids to use equipment that is only wood, nor is there any consequence for a Druid doing otherwise; even if there is no wood in the object at all. The little bit of Druid fluff on the matter even explicitly mentions a preference for using things that are partially composed of wood, not the entire composition.
SACRED PLANTS AND WOOD
A druid holds certain plants to be sacred, particularly alder, ash, birch, elder, hazel, holly, juniper, mistletoe, oak, rowan, willow, and yew. Druids often use such plants as part of a spellcasting focus, incorporating lengths of oak or yew or sprigs of mistletoe.
Similarly, a druid uses such woods to make other objects, such as weapons and shields. Yew is associated with death and rebirth, so weapon handles for scimitars or sickles might be fashioned from it. Ash is associated with life and oak with strength. These woods make excellent hafts or whole weapons, such as clubs or quarterstaffs, as well as shields. Alder is associated with air, and it might be used for thrown weapons, such as darts or javelins.
Druids from regions that lack the plants described here have chosen other plants to take on similar uses. For instance, a druid of a desert region might value the yucca tree and cactus plants.
The existence of Wooden Staff at all seems like an oversight--like they were just trying to pay homage to prior editions without really thinking it through--and it's clear to me that WoTC considers all magical staves to be functional spellcasting foci for the class(es) which are able to use them.
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
On the subject of Staff of the Woodlands, it's item type is Staff. The section about Foci very explicitly gives the list of what kinds of items are allowed as Foci, of which, a Staff is one.
It is odd, though, that the last line in the second paragraph specifies it becomes a nonmagical Quarterstaff when it loses its properties, rather than a nonmagical Staff...
This is not the case. The actual description of Druidic Focus is quite vague about the items that could be considered a focus for a druid, and the list of items for sale as a druid focus in the equipment section don't even list all the things that the description offers. Saying that the description or that list is an exhaustive list is impossible since they're not even consistent with eachother.
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.
Ok, so I will not let my player have a Quarterstaff as a Staff for arcane focus. (If it ever comes up)
On the subject of Staff of the Woodlands, it's item type is Staff. The section about Foci very explicitly gives the list of what kinds of items are allowed as Foci, of which, a Staff is one.
No its not. The foci item is a "druidic focus (wooden staff)". DNDBeyond's character editor has it as "Wooden Staff (Gear • Druidic Focus)". The gear list also has "Staff (Gear • Arcane Focus)", as well as "Quarterstaff (Quarterstaff)". The magical staves are a different item type again, for example "Staff of the Woodlands (Staff)".
An arcane focus staff (staff) is not the same as a druidic focus wooden staff (wooden staff)is not the same as a quarterstaff is not the same as a magic item staff is not the same as a piece of wood you pick up off the ground (for which there are no rules in the book). All these items have different prices and different weights and different game uses in the rules.
Under the improvised weapons rules, if you hit someone with a druidic focus you can treat it as a quarterstaff but that does not mean that the spell focus is a quarterstaff.
You can pick up a piece of wood from the ground but you cannot use it to cast spells (the 5gp cost for the druidic focus item indictes that it is more ornate and special than just a plain piece of wood ripped from a tree).
You cannot use shillelagh with that plain piece of wood, just as you cannot use shillelagh with a druidic focus wooden staff, arcane focus staff, or magic item staff (such as Staff of the Woodlands).
Allowing the magical items, especially the ones that require attunement by a Druid, to be used as a druidic focus and/or used with shillelagh is a great house rule, in my opinion (and one I use), but it's not in the rules, and this is the rules forum. :-)
On the subject of Staff of the Woodlands, it's item type is Staff. The section about Foci very explicitly gives the list of what kinds of items are allowed as Foci, of which, a Staff is one.
No its not. The foci item is a "druidic focus (wooden staff)". DNDBeyond's character editor has it as "Wooden Staff (Gear • Druidic Focus)". The gear list also has "Staff (Gear • Arcane Focus)", as well as "Quarterstaff (Quarterstaff)". The magical staves are a different item type again, for example "Staff of the Woodlands (Staff)".
An arcane focus staff (staff) is not the same as a druidic focus wooden staff (wooden staff)is not the same as a quarterstaff is not the same as a magic item staff is not the same as a piece of wood you pick up off the ground (for which there are no rules in the book). All these items have different prices and different weights and different game uses in the rules.
Under the improvised weapons rules, if you hit someone with a druidic focus you can treat it as a quarterstaff but that does not mean that the spell focus is a quarterstaff.
You can pick up a piece of wood from the ground but you cannot use it to cast spells (the 5gp cost for the druidic focus item indictes that it is more ornate and special than just a plain piece of wood ripped from a tree).
You cannot use shillelagh with that plain piece of wood, just as you cannot use shillelagh with a druidic focus wooden staff, arcane focus staff, or magic item staff (such as Staff of the Woodlands).
Allowing the magical items, especially the ones that require attunement by a Druid, to be used as a druidic focus and/or used with shillelagh is a great house rule, in my opinion (and one I use), but it's not in the rules, and this is the rules forum. :-)
Again, the actual rules for what constitutes a druidic focus in no way excludes magic items that require attunement by a druid. It is actually a house rule to limit the items that may be a druidic focus to only those listed either in the equipment section or in the equipment descriptions.
If we're going by the descriptions in the Druid Class Page, all anyone needs to do to make a Staff into a Druid spellcasting focus is to tie some flowers to it.
Seriously, the existence of Wooden Staff at all is a big **** up, and we really ought to view the distinction between the two only with regard to the two mundane items.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
”You can use a druidic focus (see the Adventuring Gearsection) as a spellcasting focus for your druid spells.”
”Druidic Focus. A druidic focus might be a sprig of mistletoe or holly, a wand or scepter made of yew or another special wood, a staff drawn whole out of a living tree, or a totem object incorporating feathers, fur, bones, and teeth from sacred animals. A druid can use such an object as a spellcasting focus.”
Druidic Focus I DO believe is worded in a way that indicates these Focus entries in the gear section are meant to be examples and suggestions, not closed lists... but if you DO read it as a closed list, regular old Staff is nowhere to be found, only a Wooden Staff, which has the whole “drawn whole from a living tree” baggage.
I read “...such an object” in Druidic Focus and “...some similar item” in Arcane Focus to tell the player “just pick a special item which feels thematic like this list, and takes one hand to use.” Even if you don’t see it QUITE that expansively, I think it’s sufficient language to justify Quarterstaff for both.
A druid holds certain plants to be sacred, particularly alder, ash, birch, elder, hazel, holly, juniper, mistletoe, oak, rowan, willow, and yew. Druids often use such plants as part of a spellcasting focus, incorporating lengths of oak or yew or sprigs of mistletoe.
Tie some mistletoe to your Staff, and it's now unquestionably a Druid focus.
This is why I say they really ****ed up by making Wooden Staff exist; it's really just a Staff that's flavored to Druids, and the differentiation only exists with regard to the mundane items.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
Hmm, I would not go so far as to say that section says “anything partly made of yew etc. is a Focus”... but again, I’m permissive on foci based the Druidic Focus section, so I don’t need that section to do that work. I see what you’re getting at though.
I agree with you and for me, the key text in the description is "a druidic focus might be." It's clear to me that by laying out examples of what might constitute foci, whilst not identifying what can't be a focus, the intention was to allow for variability and a certain sense of "go find it out in nature." Where I think I disagree with you is on the premise that arcane foci share the same basic rules as druidic foci since the entry on arcane foci begins "an arcane focus is a special item." For me, this means that the "or some similar item" is meant to convey "similarly special" not similarly shaped or similarly constructed. So in this case a magical rod/staff/wand are similarly special in the sense that they're designed to channel magic, whereas a quarterstaff designed specifically for bopping has no such claim.
However, the game is clearly designed to be played however a group of players agree to play it, so in the end all of these arguments are pointless.
QUESTION: Does my spellcasting focus need to be hand held? Can it be a mask?
Up to your DM. The mechanical idea is that it require a free hand. A warlock in my game used a mask as her focus; "handling" it as required by the spellcasting rules involved lifting the mask to her face. The only spellcasting foci explicitly allowed by the rules are the ones listed in the book, but foci are such a great way to make a spellcaster interesting and unique that most DMs ought to be flexible as to the exact form it takes. Requiring a free hand is the only mechanically significant point (unless you're a cleric; they cheat).
Only if the spell has a material component. If it's V, S, they have to have a free hand. It's dumb, but that's the letter of the law.
So as a cleric if I had 2 shields with a holy symbol/emblem, where would you stand on somatic requirements. Technically my hands are free... Plus if I had gem or reliquary as a focus I would still need an additional free hand for somatics , unless I'm waving a weapon like a wand?
So as a cleric if I had 2 shields with a holy symbol/emblem, where would you stand on somatic requirements. Technically my hands are free... Plus if I had gem or reliquary as a focus I would still need an additional free hand for somatics , unless I'm waving a weapon like a wand?
A shield is carried in one hand. Even if you're wielding two shields you can benefit from only one shield at a time. Basically the other shield will be unnecessary to wield thus leaving you with a free hand for somatic movement.
I'm expecting a more experienced player to answer your second question, but I'll leave here a solution. If the spellcasting focus is small enough to fit into your hand, you can use the same hand for somatic movement.
SAY SQUARES AGAIN. I DARE YOU
Staff of the Woodlands cannot be used by Druids as written, because it’s not a Wooden Staff. Please quit tap dancing past that to oversimplify my concern here, and tell me straight: yes you are comfortable with that, or no you are not. And if you are not, what (if any) room fo you see to address it that does not create room for recognizing Quarterstaffs to be Staffs?
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
Because a quarterstaff isn’t designed to channel magical power, a fundamental requirement of a focus.
Squares.
And a Staff of the Woodlands can be used by a Druid, it says so. So no, I am not concerned, yes I am comfortable with it, and no, a Quarterstaff is not a Spellcasting focus.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Where is the text that limits what a druidic focus must be rather than might be? It sounds to me that you're trying to cram a square peg into a round hole.
Certainly the fact that there are items that you can use as a druidic focus that you cannot buy as a druidic focus seems to limit the notion that the items in the list of druidic focus adventuring equipment is exhaustive.
A house is a type of building, so all houses are buildings, but not all buildings are houses.
An Oak is a type of tree, so all Oaks are trees, but not all trees are Oaks.
A dresser is a type of furniture, so all dressers are furniture, but not all furniture are dressers.
Coffee is a type of beverage, so all coffee drinks are beverages, but not all beverages are coffee.
D&D is a type of TTRPG, but not all TTRPGs are D&D.
The world is full of these types of distinctions. Why is this one so anathema for you?
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
It says it can be attuned by Druids, to do its stuff. Nowhere does it say it can serve as a Druidic Focus. A staff isn’t one. A Quarterstaff isn’t one.
Im getting the impression you’re dodging the issue. Fine
Bees, you’d have to read back a bit... but what you’re saying is precisely what I’m trying to argue FOR. Reading the Arcane/Druidic Focus entries as closed lists is ludicrous, and blatantly ignores their “other similar items” language.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
I am not sure that we are on the same side of it though. If the list isn't exhaustive, then what is the problem with allowing a magic staff that is attunable only by druids that can be drawn from a tree (conversion back to a staff from the tree form) as a staff that fits the description of a druidic focus?
Again, you seem to be arguing for a distinction between a staff and a wooden staff other than the construction material, when there is no specific requirement that a druidic focus need that requirement. Certainly in the description of a druid focus, there is no plain statement that a staff constructed out of wood that is not drawn from a tree is or is not a druidic focus. And in fact, the statement in the text doesn't imply a construction material at all. Could a stone staff drawn whole out of a tree be used as a druidic focus?
The requirement for a focus is that it is deemed a suitable focus. Apparently, the game uses the terms staff and wooden staff to mean "a staff-shaped object that is suitable for use as a focus" and quarterstaff to mean "a staff-shaped object that is stable for hitting people with" and those two things have different sets of requirements. Essentially, the authors seem to have wanted a non-magic item name for a magic staff that didn't call it a magic staff because then people might think it was a magic item, so they called it a staff instead. Now we have a situation where we have a staff and a quarterstaff in the game and is a quarterstaff a staff? No because they fulfill different game roles with distinct properties. When we say staff, I really think you should think to yourself "non-magic item magic staff" and not "piece of wood." Yes that is different from everyday English, but it seems to fit the distinction between walking stick, focus staff, and quarterstaff quite well.
On the subject of Staff of the Woodlands, it's item type is Staff. The section about Foci very explicitly gives the list of what kinds of items are allowed as Foci, of which, a Staff is one.
It is odd, though, that the last line in the second paragraph specifies it becomes a nonmagical Quarterstaff when it loses its properties, rather than a nonmagical Staff...
Soo... I wanna agree with CC a little bit here, but just on the Staff/Wooden Staff distinction for what can be a focus for Druids.
As far as I can tell, there are zero magic staves that are classified as a Wooden Staff for their base item. All of them are listed as a Staff; even the Druid specific ones, and the ones with descriptions containing "This wooden staff is..." As others have alluded, the list of Spellcasting Foci aren't necessarily exhaustive, but I'd be more conservative on that line of thought.
What I think it comes down to is short-sighted, poor writing. We still think of Druids as not using metal, so clearly they have to have something that's explicitly a Wooden Staff, right? Well, that's just not factually true in 5e... at all. There is no requirement for Druids to use equipment that is only wood, nor is there any consequence for a Druid doing otherwise; even if there is no wood in the object at all. The little bit of Druid fluff on the matter even explicitly mentions a preference for using things that are partially composed of wood, not the entire composition.
The existence of Wooden Staff at all seems like an oversight--like they were just trying to pay homage to prior editions without really thinking it through--and it's clear to me that WoTC considers all magical staves to be functional spellcasting foci for the class(es) which are able to use them.
None of that changes the fact that a Quarterstaff is neither a Staff nor Wooden Staff. It's just a Quarterstaff.
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
This is not the case. The actual description of Druidic Focus is quite vague about the items that could be considered a focus for a druid, and the list of items for sale as a druid focus in the equipment section don't even list all the things that the description offers. Saying that the description or that list is an exhaustive list is impossible since they're not even consistent with eachother.
Ok, so I will not let my player have a Quarterstaff as a Staff for arcane focus. (If it ever comes up)
No its not. The foci item is a "druidic focus (wooden staff)". DNDBeyond's character editor has it as "Wooden Staff (Gear • Druidic Focus)". The gear list also has "Staff (Gear • Arcane Focus)", as well as "Quarterstaff (Quarterstaff)". The magical staves are a different item type again, for example "Staff of the Woodlands (Staff)".
An arcane focus staff (staff) is not the same as a druidic focus wooden staff (wooden staff)is not the same as a quarterstaff is not the same as a magic item staff is not the same as a piece of wood you pick up off the ground (for which there are no rules in the book). All these items have different prices and different weights and different game uses in the rules.
Under the improvised weapons rules, if you hit someone with a druidic focus you can treat it as a quarterstaff but that does not mean that the spell focus is a quarterstaff.
You can pick up a piece of wood from the ground but you cannot use it to cast spells (the 5gp cost for the druidic focus item indictes that it is more ornate and special than just a plain piece of wood ripped from a tree).
You cannot use shillelagh with that plain piece of wood, just as you cannot use shillelagh with a druidic focus wooden staff, arcane focus staff, or magic item staff (such as Staff of the Woodlands).
Allowing the magical items, especially the ones that require attunement by a Druid, to be used as a druidic focus and/or used with shillelagh is a great house rule, in my opinion (and one I use), but it's not in the rules, and this is the rules forum. :-)
Again, the actual rules for what constitutes a druidic focus in no way excludes magic items that require attunement by a druid. It is actually a house rule to limit the items that may be a druidic focus to only those listed either in the equipment section or in the equipment descriptions.
If we're going by the descriptions in the Druid Class Page, all anyone needs to do to make a Staff into a Druid spellcasting focus is to tie some flowers to it.
Seriously, the existence of Wooden Staff at all is a big **** up, and we really ought to view the distinction between the two only with regard to the two mundane items.
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
What part?
”You can use a druidic focus (see the Adventuring Gearsection) as a spellcasting focus for your druid spells.”
”Druidic Focus. A druidic focus might be a sprig of mistletoe or holly, a wand or scepter made of yew or another special wood, a staff drawn whole out of a living tree, or a totem object incorporating feathers, fur, bones, and teeth from sacred animals. A druid can use such an object as a spellcasting focus.”
Druidic Focus I DO believe is worded in a way that indicates these Focus entries in the gear section are meant to be examples and suggestions, not closed lists... but if you DO read it as a closed list, regular old Staff is nowhere to be found, only a Wooden Staff, which has the whole “drawn whole from a living tree” baggage.
I read “...such an object” in Druidic Focus and “...some similar item” in Arcane Focus to tell the player “just pick a special item which feels thematic like this list, and takes one hand to use.” Even if you don’t see it QUITE that expansively, I think it’s sufficient language to justify Quarterstaff for both.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
The part I quoted in my first post:
Tie some mistletoe to your Staff, and it's now unquestionably a Druid focus.
This is why I say they really ****ed up by making Wooden Staff exist; it's really just a Staff that's flavored to Druids, and the differentiation only exists with regard to the mundane items.
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
Hmm, I would not go so far as to say that section says “anything partly made of yew etc. is a Focus”... but again, I’m permissive on foci based the Druidic Focus section, so I don’t need that section to do that work. I see what you’re getting at though.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
I agree with you and for me, the key text in the description is "a druidic focus might be." It's clear to me that by laying out examples of what might constitute foci, whilst not identifying what can't be a focus, the intention was to allow for variability and a certain sense of "go find it out in nature." Where I think I disagree with you is on the premise that arcane foci share the same basic rules as druidic foci since the entry on arcane foci begins "an arcane focus is a special item." For me, this means that the "or some similar item" is meant to convey "similarly special" not similarly shaped or similarly constructed. So in this case a magical rod/staff/wand are similarly special in the sense that they're designed to channel magic, whereas a quarterstaff designed specifically for bopping has no such claim.
However, the game is clearly designed to be played however a group of players agree to play it, so in the end all of these arguments are pointless.
So as a cleric if I had 2 shields with a holy symbol/emblem, where would you stand on somatic requirements. Technically my hands are free... Plus if I had gem or reliquary as a focus I would still need an additional free hand for somatics , unless I'm waving a weapon like a wand?
A shield is carried in one hand. Even if you're wielding two shields you can benefit from only one shield at a time. Basically the other shield will be unnecessary to wield thus leaving you with a free hand for somatic movement.
I'm expecting a more experienced player to answer your second question, but I'll leave here a solution. If the spellcasting focus is small enough to fit into your hand, you can use the same hand for somatic movement.
InkedBee (Undead_Analyst)
Covetous, Dragonish Thoughts - Jenviel Tsumara: Fallen Aasimar- Monk|Crimson Sands of Time - Navarra Iltazyara: Human- Druid/Warlock| Bleak Prospect - Ermasnietsz: Reborn- Clockwork Soul Sorcerer