Flat out, if they only wanted it to mean a staff to work as as quarterstaff, it needs to say "works as a quarterstaff" instead of just adding "a quarterstaff" to the list of items that works as an arcane focus.
Flat out, if they wanted a 2 sp quarterstaff to be considered a viable Arcane Focus, they needed to give it its own entry on the chart listing Arcane Focuses
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)
The question the table answers is "What is an arcane focus?" and one of the several answers is "Staff (also quarterstaff)" yet you interpret that to mean that a quarterstaff isn't a focus?
That's a fair question, given the very terse, minimalist writing.
However, if you want to read it that way, it says that a quarterstaff-as-staff costs 5gp (that's the table row it's in), not 2sp. It's just a staff, by another name.
The question the table answers is "What is an arcane focus?" and one of the several answers is "Staff (also quarterstaff)" yet you interpret that to mean that a quarterstaff isn't a focus?
That's a fair question, given the very terse, minimalist writing.
However, if you want to read it that way, it says that a quarterstaff-as-staff costs 5gp (that's the table row it's in), not 2sp. It's just a staff, by another name.
Sure that's fine. considering no class that starts at level 1 with spellcasting also starts with less than 5 gp in cash -- even when they take items -- I don't see the problem. Let alone the fact that each and every class that starts at level 1 with Spellcasting has a focus in their starting package to begin with.
Also, please consider what the druid and wizard start with in their starting item packages.
Yeah, they start with a focus that can be used as a quarterstaff. That's the most reasonable (and effective, to the player) ruling.
I mean, it is listed as a quarterstaff in both item lists, not a staff or wooden staff. But it is true that its value is 5gp for the druid (or -45 gp in the case of the wizard). Apparently if you far overpay for a quarterstaff (or they pay you a bunch to take it off their hands), it can work as a focus.
Also, please consider what the druid and wizard start with in their starting item packages.
Yeah, they start with a focus that can be used as a quarterstaff. That's the most reasonable (and effective, to the player) ruling.
I mean, it is listed as a quarterstaff in both item lists, not a staff or wooden staff. But it is true that its value is 5gp for the druid (or -45 gp in the case of the wizard). Apparently if you far overpay for a quarterstaff (or they pay you a bunch to take it off their hands), it can work as a focus.
Not if you count up the value of the items in option A and compare to the 55GP presented for option B. Set A contains 2 daggers, a robe, a scholars pack (totaling 45GP), 5 GP cash, a 50 GP spellbook, and a focus. The total is 100 plus the cost of the arcane focus (quarterstaff).
To make them match, the value in the accounting for the staff must be -45GP (or the spellbook is absolutely free if you take items but almost all of your gold if you do not, which is just as incomprehensible).
Not if you count up the value of the items in option A and compare to the 55GP presented for option B. Set A contains 2 daggers, a robe, a scholars pack (totaling 45GP), 5 GP cash, a 50 GP spellbook, and a focus. The total is 100 plus the cost of the arcane focus (quarterstaff).
To make them match, the value in the accounting for the staff must be -45GP (or the spellbook is absolutely free if you take items but almost all of your gold if you do not, which is just as incomprehensible).
Flat out, if they only wanted it to mean a staff to work as as quarterstaff, it needs to say "works as a quarterstaff" instead of just adding "a quarterstaff" to the list of items that works as an arcane focus.
Mmm, I don't agree with how you're characterizing this. They did not just add "a quarterstaff" to the list of items that work as an arcane focus. If they had, there'd be no argument here. What they did was parenthetically append "also a quarterstaff" to one specific type of arcane focus. The plain English reading of this is quite clear; that a staff focus is also a quarterstaff, with no suggestion whatsoever of anything going the other direction. If we had a list of shapes of equal sides and one entry was "square (also a rectangle)" I think the meaning wouldn't be in dispute. And yeah, we already know the definitions that enforce that in that example, but the formatting isn't really unclear, even without our additional knowledge.
Flat out, if they only wanted it to mean a staff to work as as quarterstaff, it needs to say "works as a quarterstaff" instead of just adding "a quarterstaff" to the list of items that works as an arcane focus.
Mmm, I don't agree with how you're characterizing this. They did not just add "a quarterstaff" to the list of items that work as an arcane focus. If they had, there'd be no argument here. What they did was parenthetically append "also a quarterstaff" to one specific type of arcane focus. The plain English reading of this is quite clear; that a staff focus is also a quarterstaff, with no suggestion whatsoever of anything going the other direction. If we had a list of shapes of equal sides and one entry was "square (also a rectangle)" I think the meaning wouldn't be in dispute. And yeah, we already know the definitions that enforce that in that example, but the formatting isn't really unclear, even without our additional knowledge.
I mean, I don't agree that the plain English reading is so unidirectional, and apparently neither do the authors since they assume the other direction when assigning a quarterstaff as the focus given to both wizards and druids in the same way they assign a crystal to a sorcerer and an orb to a warlock in their initial items list.
Flat out, if they only wanted it to mean a staff to work as as quarterstaff, it needs to say "works as a quarterstaff" instead of just adding "a quarterstaff" to the list of items that works as an arcane focus.
Mmm, I don't agree with how you're characterizing this. They did not just add "a quarterstaff" to the list of items that work as an arcane focus. If they had, there'd be no argument here. What they did was parenthetically append "also a quarterstaff" to one specific type of arcane focus. The plain English reading of this is quite clear; that a staff focus is also a quarterstaff, with no suggestion whatsoever of anything going the other direction. If we had a list of shapes of equal sides and one entry was "square (also a rectangle)" I think the meaning wouldn't be in dispute. And yeah, we already know the definitions that enforce that in that example, but the formatting isn't really unclear, even without our additional knowledge.
I mean, I don't agree that the plain English reading is so unidirectional, and apparently neither do the authors since they assume the other direction when assigning a quarterstaff as the focus given to both wizards and druids in the same way they assign a crystal to a sorcerer and an orb to a warlock in their initial items list.
Hmm, Wolf's right, the class pages explicitly say a quarterstaff is a focus. Frankly that's dumb, but there's no other way to read it
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)
Flat out, if they only wanted it to mean a staff to work as as quarterstaff, it needs to say "works as a quarterstaff" instead of just adding "a quarterstaff" to the list of items that works as an arcane focus.
Mmm, I don't agree with how you're characterizing this. They did not just add "a quarterstaff" to the list of items that work as an arcane focus. If they had, there'd be no argument here. What they did was parenthetically append "also a quarterstaff" to one specific type of arcane focus. The plain English reading of this is quite clear; that a staff focus is also a quarterstaff, with no suggestion whatsoever of anything going the other direction. If we had a list of shapes of equal sides and one entry was "square (also a rectangle)" I think the meaning wouldn't be in dispute. And yeah, we already know the definitions that enforce that in that example, but the formatting isn't really unclear, even without our additional knowledge.
I mean, I don't agree that the plain English reading is so unidirectional, and apparently neither do the authors since they assume the other direction when assigning a quarterstaff as the focus given to both wizards and druids in the same way they assign a crystal to a sorcerer and an orb to a warlock in their initial items list.
Hmm, Wolf's right, the class pages explicitly say a quarterstaff is a focus. Frankly that's dumb, but there's no other way to read it
Flat out, if they only wanted it to mean a staff to work as as quarterstaff, it needs to say "works as a quarterstaff" instead of just adding "a quarterstaff" to the list of items that works as an arcane focus.
Mmm, I don't agree with how you're characterizing this. They did not just add "a quarterstaff" to the list of items that work as an arcane focus. If they had, there'd be no argument here. What they did was parenthetically append "also a quarterstaff" to one specific type of arcane focus. The plain English reading of this is quite clear; that a staff focus is also a quarterstaff, with no suggestion whatsoever of anything going the other direction. If we had a list of shapes of equal sides and one entry was "square (also a rectangle)" I think the meaning wouldn't be in dispute. And yeah, we already know the definitions that enforce that in that example, but the formatting isn't really unclear, even without our additional knowledge.
I mean, I don't agree that the plain English reading is so unidirectional, and apparently neither do the authors since they assume the other direction when assigning a quarterstaff as the focus given to both wizards and druids in the same way they assign a crystal to a sorcerer and an orb to a warlock in their initial items list.
This is a nonsequitur. The druid and wizard equipment tables make it clear that an arcane focus can be a quarterstaff, which is also what the arcane focus table says. We all agree that an arcane focus can be a quarterstaff. But we also know that a "quarterstaff" is not an "arcane focus (quarterstaff)," because they have different costs, and there's nothing in the book that suggests otherwise.
[...] But we also know that a "quarterstaff" is not an "arcane focus (quarterstaff)," because they have different costs, and there's nothing in the book that suggests otherwise.
If we ignore the text that suggests otherwise, there is nothing in the book that suggests otherwise.
Are you suggesting that an arcane focus (crystal) listed in the sorcerer's equipment is different from a crystal that is listed in the arcane focus table? Are you suggesting anything else in that list isn't the same as equipment in the equipment section? What is the actual difference in the wording if you are trying to suggest something else? For me, it is pretty clear that each of the spellcasters is given a focus, and for druids, wizards, warlocks, and sorcerers, you are told which one you get. For warlocks and sorcerers, they are the orb and crystal. Why would you assume that for druid and wizard they mean something other than exactly what is written?
Are you suggesting that the only possible bard musical instrument for their equipment is the instrument that costs 17 gold? If you are hung up on the cost and the only possible match is a thing that matches price, how do you account for the bard's item list?
But we also know that a "quarterstaff" is not an "arcane focus (quarterstaff)," because they have different costs, and there's nothing in the book that suggests otherwise.
I mean, I would certainly rule at my table that if a wizard or a druid took the cash in hand at level 1 and wanted a staff as a focus, it would cost 5 gp, but the starting equipment table lists no such cost. It just says quarterstaff, and the tooltip on DDB links you to the exact same quarterstaff that costs 2 sp
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)
If we ignore the text that suggests otherwise, there is nothing in the book that suggests otherwise.
Are you suggesting that an arcane focus (crystal) listed in the sorcerer's equipment is different from a crystal that is listed in the arcane focus table? Are you suggesting anything else in that list isn't the same as equipment in the equipment section? What is the actual difference in the wording if you are trying to suggest something else? For me, it is pretty clear that each of the spellcasters is given a focus, and for druids, wizards, warlocks, and sorcerers, you are told which one you get. For warlocks and sorcerers, they are the orb and crystal. Why would you assume that for druid and wizard they mean something other than exactly what is written?
You're not saying anything here that I disagree with or that I've previously expressed disagreement with, so I'm a bit confused. Genuinely not sure what you're getting at.
Are you suggesting that the only possible bard musical instrument for their equipment is the instrument that costs 17 gold? If you are hung up on the cost and the only possible match is a thing that matches price, how do you account for the bard's item list?
I can't find a musical instrument in the PHB with a cost of 17 gold. Can you clarify what you're talking about?
But we also know that a "quarterstaff" is not an "arcane focus (quarterstaff)," because they have different costs, and there's nothing in the book that suggests otherwise.
I mean, I would certainly rule at my table that if a wizard or a druid took the cash in hand at level 1 and wanted a staff as a focus, it would cost 5 gp, but the starting equipment table lists no such cost. It just says quarterstaff, and the tooltip on DDB links you to the exact same quarterstaff that costs 2 sp
It doesn't say quarterstaff, though. It says "arcane focus (quarterstaff)," and if we look at the arcane focus table and look for quarterstaff, we see that it's the same as a staff and costs 5gp. So I'd call that tooltip a data entry error. The actual rulebook says 5gp.
If we ignore the text that suggests otherwise, there is nothing in the book that suggests otherwise.
Are you suggesting that an arcane focus (crystal) listed in the sorcerer's equipment is different from a crystal that is listed in the arcane focus table? Are you suggesting anything else in that list isn't the same as equipment in the equipment section? What is the actual difference in the wording if you are trying to suggest something else? For me, it is pretty clear that each of the spellcasters is given a focus, and for druids, wizards, warlocks, and sorcerers, you are told which one you get. For warlocks and sorcerers, they are the orb and crystal. Why would you assume that for druid and wizard they mean something other than exactly what is written?
You're not saying anything here that I disagree with or that I've previously expressed disagreement with, so I'm a bit confused. Genuinely not sure what you're getting at.
Why is an "arcane focus (quarterstaff)" not describing giving you a quarterstaff that is an arcane focus if "arcane focus (crystal)" is to be interpreted that way? Isn't the list telling you that the thing it gives you is a quarterstaff and that it counts as an arcane focus? Or are you saying that "arcane focus (quarterstaff)" and "arcane focus (crystal)" have different interpretations? Why? What is different? Is or is not a "crystal" different from an "arcane focus (crystal)" in the same way that you describe for a "quarterstaff" being different from an "arcane focus (quarterstaff)"?
Are you suggesting that the only possible bard musical instrument for their equipment is the instrument that costs 17 gold? If you are hung up on the cost and the only possible match is a thing that matches price, how do you account for the bard's item list?
I can't find a musical instrument in the PHB with a cost of 17 gold. Can you clarify what you're talking about?
You seemed to also argue based on the price of a "quarterstaff" not matching the price of an "arcane focus (quarterstaff)" as being the reason that we could tell that they're different. The only source we have for the price of an "arcane focus (quarterstaff)" is the value in the list of items that a wizard starts with, since otherwise that isn't an item. Again, along the same lines, if the price is the reason that makes you sure that they are different and that the equipment list gives you one and not the other, then the bard has issues. The bard is given a musical instrument with no parenthetical, but 17GP of their equipment is allotted to it. Clearly if the prices must match then the only option for that is a non-existent 17GP musical instrument.
Flat out, if they wanted a 2 sp quarterstaff to be considered a viable Arcane Focus, they needed to give it its own entry on the chart listing Arcane Focuses
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)
That's a fair question, given the very terse, minimalist writing.
However, if you want to read it that way, it says that a quarterstaff-as-staff costs 5gp (that's the table row it's in), not 2sp. It's just a staff, by another name.
Sure that's fine. considering no class that starts at level 1 with spellcasting also starts with less than 5 gp in cash -- even when they take items -- I don't see the problem. Let alone the fact that each and every class that starts at level 1 with Spellcasting has a focus in their starting package to begin with.
Also, please consider what the druid and wizard start with in their starting item packages.
Yeah, they start with a focus that can be used as a quarterstaff. That's the most reasonable (and effective, to the player) ruling.
I mean, it is listed as a quarterstaff in both item lists, not a staff or wooden staff. But it is true that its value is 5gp for the druid (or -45 gp in the case of the wizard). Apparently if you far overpay for a quarterstaff (or they pay you a bunch to take it off their hands), it can work as a focus.
Isn't it also 5 gp for a Wizard?
Arcane Focuses
Not if you count up the value of the items in option A and compare to the 55GP presented for option B. Set A contains 2 daggers, a robe, a scholars pack (totaling 45GP), 5 GP cash, a 50 GP spellbook, and a focus. The total is 100 plus the cost of the arcane focus (quarterstaff).
To make them match, the value in the accounting for the staff must be -45GP (or the spellbook is absolutely free if you take items but almost all of your gold if you do not, which is just as incomprehensible).
Oh, I see! It's true the spellbook is neither present as an item nor has value in the 2024 PHB: PHB2024 Potential Errata - Rules & Game Mechanics
However, as for the Quarterstaff as an Arcane Focus, it costs 5 GP as an Adventuring Gear item.
Mmm, I don't agree with how you're characterizing this. They did not just add "a quarterstaff" to the list of items that work as an arcane focus. If they had, there'd be no argument here. What they did was parenthetically append "also a quarterstaff" to one specific type of arcane focus. The plain English reading of this is quite clear; that a staff focus is also a quarterstaff, with no suggestion whatsoever of anything going the other direction. If we had a list of shapes of equal sides and one entry was "square (also a rectangle)" I think the meaning wouldn't be in dispute. And yeah, we already know the definitions that enforce that in that example, but the formatting isn't really unclear, even without our additional knowledge.
I mean, I don't agree that the plain English reading is so unidirectional, and apparently neither do the authors since they assume the other direction when assigning a quarterstaff as the focus given to both wizards and druids in the same way they assign a crystal to a sorcerer and an orb to a warlock in their initial items list.
Hmm, Wolf's right, the class pages explicitly say a quarterstaff is a focus. Frankly that's dumb, but there's no other way to read it
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 also think a Quarterstaff can be a Focus, but a "special" one. And not just for Druids, but also for Wizards:
And if you do the math, in both cases it costs 5 GP. For the Wizard, it only costs 5 GP if you consider the Spellbook costs 0 GP.
This is a nonsequitur. The druid and wizard equipment tables make it clear that an arcane focus can be a quarterstaff, which is also what the arcane focus table says. We all agree that an arcane focus can be a quarterstaff. But we also know that a "quarterstaff" is not an "arcane focus (quarterstaff)," because they have different costs, and there's nothing in the book that suggests otherwise.
Thanks for summarizing it better than I did.
If we ignore the text that suggests otherwise, there is nothing in the book that suggests otherwise.
Are you suggesting that an arcane focus (crystal) listed in the sorcerer's equipment is different from a crystal that is listed in the arcane focus table? Are you suggesting anything else in that list isn't the same as equipment in the equipment section? What is the actual difference in the wording if you are trying to suggest something else? For me, it is pretty clear that each of the spellcasters is given a focus, and for druids, wizards, warlocks, and sorcerers, you are told which one you get. For warlocks and sorcerers, they are the orb and crystal. Why would you assume that for druid and wizard they mean something other than exactly what is written?
Are you suggesting that the only possible bard musical instrument for their equipment is the instrument that costs 17 gold? If you are hung up on the cost and the only possible match is a thing that matches price, how do you account for the bard's item list?
I mean, I would certainly rule at my table that if a wizard or a druid took the cash in hand at level 1 and wanted a staff as a focus, it would cost 5 gp, but the starting equipment table lists no such cost. It just says quarterstaff, and the tooltip on DDB links you to the exact same quarterstaff that costs 2 sp
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)
You're not saying anything here that I disagree with or that I've previously expressed disagreement with, so I'm a bit confused. Genuinely not sure what you're getting at.
I can't find a musical instrument in the PHB with a cost of 17 gold. Can you clarify what you're talking about?
It doesn't say quarterstaff, though. It says "arcane focus (quarterstaff)," and if we look at the arcane focus table and look for quarterstaff, we see that it's the same as a staff and costs 5gp. So I'd call that tooltip a data entry error. The actual rulebook says 5gp.
Why is an "arcane focus (quarterstaff)" not describing giving you a quarterstaff that is an arcane focus if "arcane focus (crystal)" is to be interpreted that way? Isn't the list telling you that the thing it gives you is a quarterstaff and that it counts as an arcane focus? Or are you saying that "arcane focus (quarterstaff)" and "arcane focus (crystal)" have different interpretations? Why? What is different? Is or is not a "crystal" different from an "arcane focus (crystal)" in the same way that you describe for a "quarterstaff" being different from an "arcane focus (quarterstaff)"?
You seemed to also argue based on the price of a "quarterstaff" not matching the price of an "arcane focus (quarterstaff)" as being the reason that we could tell that they're different. The only source we have for the price of an "arcane focus (quarterstaff)" is the value in the list of items that a wizard starts with, since otherwise that isn't an item. Again, along the same lines, if the price is the reason that makes you sure that they are different and that the equipment list gives you one and not the other, then the bard has issues. The bard is given a musical instrument with no parenthetical, but 17GP of their equipment is allotted to it. Clearly if the prices must match then the only option for that is a non-existent 17GP musical instrument.