Another consideration is that a magical staff can be used as a nonmagical Quarterstaff, meaning it's bludgeoning damage can't overcome such resistance or immunity, which was not specified with 2014 Magic Staffs per se:
Staffs: Unless a staff’s description says otherwise, a staff can be used as a quarterstaff.
The rule you quoted earlier (and your list) leaves out druidic focuses, which are a completely separate category, per the rules. Apparently, the same rule does not apply to druids?
Also disagreeing with the_ace_of_rogues: there is exactly one place that describes an item called a quarterstaff functioning as an arcane focus (and exactly one where a quarterstaff is being described as a druidic focus), and that was my point with all of my posts in this thread. The rules set up an expectation then get it wrong in the equipment lists for wizards and druids. Little inconsistencies such as that and then the one where they apparently leave druidic focuses out of are problems for being able to understand the rules.
Am I really to understand that the intent is that a druid cannot use a magical staff as their focus?
Because of the distinction between Druidic Focus: Wooden staff and Arcane Focus: Staff, not all Staff are necessarily created equal. It has more to do with what kind of magic they were designed to channel.
One logic behind it could be that magic Staff can be used as an Arcane Focus specifically because of the magic infused in it.
Apparently you think this is intentional? Is that the distinction?
You seem to have pre-access to the DMG. I do not. Does any item description for a staff tell you that it works as a druidic focus? Namely ones like staff of the woodlands, staff of the python, staff of thunder and lightning, or even staff of birdcalls that would be common to give to druids? Do any of those even say that they are made of wood? Most in 2014 do not with a few exceptions.
I highly doubt the intentionality you ascribe to the rule.
Note also that in the 2014 ruleset, one had to assume a staff worked as a focus based on the descriptions of each type, rather than having a rule tell you that a staff works as (particularly one single type of) focus.
I personally would allow Druids to use it as a druidic focus if Druid is listed on the classes that can use that staff. Similarly if it was a druid only staff i would not have it be used as a arcane focus.
This is incorrect for the 2024 ruleset. Both the arcane focus and druidic focus tables list a quarterstaff as a suitable focus.
I believe that is just saying that either can be used as a quarterstaff, not the other way around. The 2014 DMG had the same rule. The foci cost what foci cost; a quarterstaff is not a cheaper replacement.
This may be a D&D flaw or an insight to RAI, but the Quaterstaff hyperlinks to the 2sp weapon entry. If the purpose was to call out that a Staff arcane focus can be used as a weapon, there are better ways to do it. I definitely read this as pulling in 2 sp Quarterstaves as a viable focus.
That does not really clarify things as the Arcane focus staff is called a staff which we already know can be used as a quarterstaff.
The quarterstaff is not listed as just a Staff though, so it does not clarify is a quarterstaff can be used as a staff(arcane focus)
No, it’s very simple- the item listed on the weapons table as a quarterstaff that costs 2 sp has no language that says it functions as an arcane focus anywhere, so it doesn’t. The item listed on the arcane focus table as a staff for 5 gp specifically has a note both in the PHB and now the DMG establishing that it also functions as the 2 sp item on the weapons table, but that is a one-way interaction in the rules. You can attempt to play the what about game or otherwise split semantic hairs, but it is patently obvious from all explicit rules and implicit context that while the 5 gp item may function as the 2 sp one, the 2 sp one may not function as the 5 gp one, and frankly any further arguments seem very likely to be in bad faith and I probably won’t respond to them.
The DMG has language that says clearly that, unless otherwise, any staff can be used as a quarterstaff. The PHB does not. If that was the intention, it was not clear.
You have a list of Arcane Focuses (also Druidic Focuses) that list a type and cost. The staff parenthetically attaches the quarterstaff to the list.
If you believe that "staff (also a quarterstaff)" can only be read as "a staff can also be used as a quarterstaff", then did you read in the first sentence of my previous paragraph, "... a list of Arcane Focuses (also Druidic Focuses)" as "a list of Arcane Focuses that can also be used as Druidic Focuses)"?
You made assumptions with reading both phrases, that I am guessing was not consistent between the two. The English of the rules is not as precise or clear as some would claim. RAI is not as clear as you claim.
I would have to take a look at my book, but "staff (can be used as a quarterstaff)" or just "staff (Treat as quarterstaff)" would be clearer, if that was their intent.
I was convinced this was specifically a D&DBeyond issue; that there was something funky in the way they set up the item so that if a Wizard carried a Staff arcane focus it would also equip it as a weapon and add an attack for it on their character sheet, and the weirdness around the wording was a result of that back-end interactivity. Completely not that, though, since the actual text of the paper PHB lists "Arcane Focus (Quarterstaff)" in the Wizard's starting equipment there, too. I agree that an errata there that changes (Quarterstaff) to (Staff) would fix the confusion.
I'm also curious why the Arcane Focus (Staff) can act as a Quarterstaff, but the Arcane Focus (Rod) doesn't double as a Club? The Staff and the Quarterstaff are both long sticks that weigh 4 lbs, the Rod and the Club are both shorter sticks that weigh 2 lbs. I mean, I'm happy they didn't muddy the waters further, but in my head the Rod was distinct from a Wand because it was bigger and heavier, and thus you could bonk things with it.
Maybe it's not necessary to point it out because of the weapon equivalents rule for improvised weapons:
"Weapon Equivalents. If an improvised weapon resembles a Simple or Martial weapon, the DM may say it functions as that weapon and uses that weapon’s rules. For example, the DM could treat a table leg as a Club."
If they had changed the text here to read "For example, the DM could treat an Arcane Focus(Staff) as a Quarterstaff", and take out all of the other confusing X is a Y but Y is not necessarily an X logic out of it entirely, would that have made the issue clearer, or foggier? Not sure.
You have a list of Arcane Focuses (also Druidic Focuses) that list a type and cost. The staff parenthetically attaches the quarterstaff to the list.
If you read that as saying a quarterstaff is a valid focus, then it is also repricing a quarterstaff as 5gp.
That is not a given as the parenthesis isolates the quarterstaff, which has a predefined price.
That's a huge stretch. Either the parenthetical is a (very terse) way of saying the staff can be used as a quarterstaff (which lines up with the DMG), or it's adding quarterstaff to the table. If it's adding quarterstaff to the table, then the whole row counts.
You have a list of Arcane Focuses (also Druidic Focuses) that list a type and cost. The staff parenthetically attaches the quarterstaff to the list.
If you read that as saying a quarterstaff is a valid focus, then it is also repricing a quarterstaff as 5gp.
That is not a given as the parenthesis isolates the quarterstaff, which has a predefined price.
That's a huge stretch. Either the parenthetical is a (very terse) way of saying the staff can be used as a quarterstaff (which lines up with the DMG), or it's adding quarterstaff to the table. If it's adding quarterstaff to the table, then the whole row counts.
That's a stretch. A parenthetical insertion into a list in no way inherently causes the quarterstaff's basic properties to change. You need a line item in the rules to change the properties of the quarterstaff when used as an arcane focus. That's also why Arcane Focus (Quarterstaff) makes sense in the Wizard starting equipment. If a staff can be used as a quarterstaff, then Arcane Focus (Staff) would be sufficient.
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.
An Arcane Focus(Quarterstaff) is a specialized form of Quarterstaff that costs more than the basic weapon, as seen in both the cost in the arcane focus table and the calculated cost in the starting equipment. The starting equipment is not 2sp, it’s 5gp, which indicates that a normal Quarterstaff would not be sufficient.
As for the instrument, I suspect they attempted to average the costs of the various instruments. Adding them all together gets us 175 gold, and 11 instruments makes an average of 15.90 gp. 15-16 gp after rounding.
I suspect they divided by 10 instead of 11 to get 17.5, resulting in the 17gp in the bard’s starting equipment.
The arguments in this thread have already got me to change my mind. Clearly, "Arcane Focus (quarterstaff)" intends "Arcane Focus (staff) that can also be equipped as a quarterstaff" so that equipment gives access to a weapon and a focus. It is still a problem with RAW that the starting equipment lists a thing that you have to manufacture the meaning of, rather than an item you can find in the equipment chapter.
My point with the bard is that you cannot suggest that the price for a thing is exactly allotted in the value of the starting equipment, as no instrument costs the average price of instruments, so using a price argument out of the list of items allotted to the wizard or druid is not an exact correspondence: other focuses are given equipment values different than their actual values in the table.
Bard gives choice of Instrument, and doesn’t add up.
Cleric adds up.
Druid adds up.
Both options for Fighter add up.
Monk gives a choice of Artisans Tools or Instrument, and doesn’t add up
Paladin adds up.
Ranger adds up
Rogue adds up
Sorcerer shows 5 extra gold; Option B shows 50 gold, after equipment there should be 23 left, but option A shows 28 excess gold.
Warlock shows 15 extra gold; Option B shows 100 gold, after equipment there should be 0 gold, but option A shows 15 excess gold.
Wizard shows extra gold; Option B shows 50 gold, after equipment (spell book as a legacy item is worth 50, don’t know if we count that or not) we reach 105 if we count the cost of a spell book or 55 if we don’t. Option A shows 5 excess gold.
Which raises a question of why only spellcasters get extra starting gold when they select their equipment? I went into this thinking there would be some level of consistency, and to an extent there is; If you’re offered a choice between many options (Bard Monk) you take the average of all of them, and Martials other than bard and monk line up exactly.
Wizards and sorcerers account for 5 extra gold (wizards 55 if legacy cost of spell book is taken into account but I don’t think it was), but Warlocks get 15 extra gold for apparently no reason?
The results didn’t exactly reflect my hypothesis, but interesting data all the same.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Another consideration is that a magical staff can be used as a nonmagical Quarterstaff, meaning it's bludgeoning damage can't overcome such resistance or immunity, which was not specified with 2014 Magic Staffs per se:
The rule you quoted earlier (and your list) leaves out druidic focuses, which are a completely separate category, per the rules. Apparently, the same rule does not apply to druids?
Also disagreeing with the_ace_of_rogues: there is exactly one place that describes an item called a quarterstaff functioning as an arcane focus (and exactly one where a quarterstaff is being described as a druidic focus), and that was my point with all of my posts in this thread. The rules set up an expectation then get it wrong in the equipment lists for wizards and druids. Little inconsistencies such as that and then the one where they apparently leave druidic focuses out of are problems for being able to understand the rules.
Am I really to understand that the intent is that a druid cannot use a magical staff as their focus?
Unless noted otherwise, a magic Staff can be used as a nonmagical Quarterstaff and an Arcane Focus, not a Druidic Focus.
Because of the distinction between Druidic Focus: Wooden staff and Arcane Focus: Staff, not all Staff are necessarily created equal. It has more to do with what kind of magic they were designed to channel.
One logic behind it could be that magic Staff can be used as an Arcane Focus specifically because of the magic infused in it.
Apparently you think this is intentional? Is that the distinction?
You seem to have pre-access to the DMG. I do not. Does any item description for a staff tell you that it works as a druidic focus? Namely ones like staff of the woodlands, staff of the python, staff of thunder and lightning, or even staff of birdcalls that would be common to give to druids? Do any of those even say that they are made of wood? Most in 2014 do not with a few exceptions.
I highly doubt the intentionality you ascribe to the rule.
Note also that in the 2014 ruleset, one had to assume a staff worked as a focus based on the descriptions of each type, rather than having a rule tell you that a staff works as (particularly one single type of) focus.
judging if intentional is difficult but the Magic Staff entry specify only Arcane Focus.
You can access part of the DMG content in the Free rules D&D Free Rules (2024) - Free Rules - Dungeons & Dragons - Sources - D&D Beyond
I personally would allow Druids to use it as a druidic focus if Druid is listed on the classes that can use that staff. Similarly if it was a druid only staff i would not have it be used as a arcane focus.
This may be a D&D flaw or an insight to RAI, but the Quaterstaff hyperlinks to the 2sp weapon entry. If the purpose was to call out that a Staff arcane focus can be used as a weapon, there are better ways to do it. I definitely read this as pulling in 2 sp Quarterstaves as a viable focus.
How to add Tooltips.
My houserulings.
The DMG has language that says clearly that, unless otherwise, any staff can be used as a quarterstaff. The PHB does not. If that was the intention, it was not clear.
You have a list of Arcane Focuses (also Druidic Focuses) that list a type and cost. The staff parenthetically attaches the quarterstaff to the list.
If you believe that "staff (also a quarterstaff)" can only be read as "a staff can also be used as a quarterstaff", then did you read in the first sentence of my previous paragraph, "... a list of Arcane Focuses (also Druidic Focuses)" as "a list of Arcane Focuses that can also be used as Druidic Focuses)"?
You made assumptions with reading both phrases, that I am guessing was not consistent between the two. The English of the rules is not as precise or clear as some would claim. RAI is not as clear as you claim.
I would have to take a look at my book, but "staff (can be used as a quarterstaff)" or just "staff (Treat as quarterstaff)" would be clearer, if that was their intent.
How to add Tooltips.
My houserulings.
If you read that as saying a quarterstaff is a valid focus, then it is also repricing a quarterstaff as 5gp.
I was convinced this was specifically a D&DBeyond issue; that there was something funky in the way they set up the item so that if a Wizard carried a Staff arcane focus it would also equip it as a weapon and add an attack for it on their character sheet, and the weirdness around the wording was a result of that back-end interactivity. Completely not that, though, since the actual text of the paper PHB lists "Arcane Focus (Quarterstaff)" in the Wizard's starting equipment there, too. I agree that an errata there that changes (Quarterstaff) to (Staff) would fix the confusion.
I'm also curious why the Arcane Focus (Staff) can act as a Quarterstaff, but the Arcane Focus (Rod) doesn't double as a Club? The Staff and the Quarterstaff are both long sticks that weigh 4 lbs, the Rod and the Club are both shorter sticks that weigh 2 lbs. I mean, I'm happy they didn't muddy the waters further, but in my head the Rod was distinct from a Wand because it was bigger and heavier, and thus you could bonk things with it.
Maybe it's not necessary to point it out because of the weapon equivalents rule for improvised weapons:
"Weapon Equivalents. If an improvised weapon resembles a Simple or Martial weapon, the DM may say it functions as that weapon and uses that weapon’s rules. For example, the DM could treat a table leg as a Club."
If they had changed the text here to read "For example, the DM could treat an Arcane Focus(Staff) as a Quarterstaff", and take out all of the other confusing X is a Y but Y is not necessarily an X logic out of it entirely, would that have made the issue clearer, or foggier? Not sure.
That is not a given as the parenthesis isolates the quarterstaff, which has a predefined price.
How to add Tooltips.
My houserulings.
That's a huge stretch. Either the parenthetical is a (very terse) way of saying the staff can be used as a quarterstaff (which lines up with the DMG), or it's adding quarterstaff to the table. If it's adding quarterstaff to the table, then the whole row counts.
That's a stretch. A parenthetical insertion into a list in no way inherently causes the quarterstaff's basic properties to change. You need a line item in the rules to change the properties of the quarterstaff when used as an arcane focus. That's also why Arcane Focus (Quarterstaff) makes sense in the Wizard starting equipment. If a staff can be used as a quarterstaff, then Arcane Focus (Staff) would be sufficient.
How to add Tooltips.
My houserulings.
An Arcane Focus(Quarterstaff) is a specialized form of Quarterstaff that costs more than the basic weapon, as seen in both the cost in the arcane focus table and the calculated cost in the starting equipment. The starting equipment is not 2sp, it’s 5gp, which indicates that a normal Quarterstaff would not be sufficient.
As for the instrument, I suspect they attempted to average the costs of the various instruments. Adding them all together gets us 175 gold, and 11 instruments makes an average of 15.90 gp. 15-16 gp after rounding.
I suspect they divided by 10 instead of 11 to get 17.5, resulting in the 17gp in the bard’s starting equipment.
Since you replied directly to me, I will respond.
The arguments in this thread have already got me to change my mind. Clearly, "Arcane Focus (quarterstaff)" intends "Arcane Focus (staff) that can also be equipped as a quarterstaff" so that equipment gives access to a weapon and a focus. It is still a problem with RAW that the starting equipment lists a thing that you have to manufacture the meaning of, rather than an item you can find in the equipment chapter.
My point with the bard is that you cannot suggest that the price for a thing is exactly allotted in the value of the starting equipment, as no instrument costs the average price of instruments, so using a price argument out of the list of items allotted to the wizard or druid is not an exact correspondence: other focuses are given equipment values different than their actual values in the table.
Barbarian adds up.
Bard gives choice of Instrument, and doesn’t add up.
Cleric adds up.
Druid adds up.
Both options for Fighter add up.
Monk gives a choice of Artisans Tools or Instrument, and doesn’t add up
Paladin adds up.
Ranger adds up
Rogue adds up
Sorcerer shows 5 extra gold; Option B shows 50 gold, after equipment there should be 23 left, but option A shows 28 excess gold.
Warlock shows 15 extra gold; Option B shows 100 gold, after equipment there should be 0 gold, but option A shows 15 excess gold.
Wizard shows extra gold; Option B shows 50 gold, after equipment (spell book as a legacy item is worth 50, don’t know if we count that or not) we reach 105 if we count the cost of a spell book or 55 if we don’t. Option A shows 5 excess gold.
Which raises a question of why only spellcasters get extra starting gold when they select their equipment? I went into this thinking there would be some level of consistency, and to an extent there is; If you’re offered a choice between many options (Bard Monk) you take the average of all of them, and Martials other than bard and monk line up exactly.
Wizards and sorcerers account for 5 extra gold (wizards 55 if legacy cost of spell book is taken into account but I don’t think it was), but Warlocks get 15 extra gold for apparently no reason?
The results didn’t exactly reflect my hypothesis, but interesting data all the same.