RAW, no. The only classes that can put a spellcasting focus on a shield are Cleric & Paladin. Your DM may have a house rule allowing it, but it's not something I'd allow.
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.
Casting some spells requires particular objects, specified in parentheses in the component entry. A character can use a component pouch or a spellcasting focus (found in chapter 5, “Equipment”) in place of the components specified for a spell. But if a cost is indicated for a component, a character must have that specific component before he or she can cast the spell.
If a spell states that a material component is consumed by the spell, the caster must provide this component for each casting of the spell.
A spellcaster must have a hand free to access a spell's material components — or to hold a spellcasting focus — but it can be the same hand that he or she uses to perform somatic components.
I would say you could wear it around your neck as long as you kept a hand free to manipulate it as part of your spellcasting, ex, by reaching up and touching it when you cast spells that need it.
It doesn't have to be running around with a stick in your hand the whole time.
I mostly use rings as focuses, because I like the thought of magic coming from an old family ring. Sometimes I use necklaces as well. I never go for the focusses in the PHB or the musical instruments as focus.
A bit more on topic though: I don't think a shield can be a focus.
So one more question. Could i wear a talisman as a containing mistletoe as a focus or does it need to be something held for a druid?
You need a free hand for druidic focuses, arcane focuses, and component pouches.
So, the rules are:
Spell components S - need a free hand Spell components M - need a free hand Spell components both M and S - require a free hand (just one, not two)
Holy symbols are an exception - they can be worn or attached to a shield. If a spell requires V but not M components then you don't need a free hand. How many Clerics spells does this cover? Light, word of radiance (whose component is a holy symbol anyway), and tongues.
So one more question. Could i wear a talisman as a containing mistletoe as a focus or does it need to be something held for a druid?
You need a free hand for druidic focuses, arcane focuses, and component pouches.
So, the rules are:
Spell components S - need a free hand Spell components M - need a free hand Spell components both M and S - require a free hand (just one, not two)
Holy symbols are an exception - they can be worn or attached to a shield. If a spell requires V but not M components then you don't need a free hand. How many Clerics spells does this cover? Light, word of radiance (whose component is a holy symbol anyway), and tongues.
Not exactly. These are the RAW requirements:
V - need to be able to speak normally.
S (but not M) - need a free hand.
M or both S and M - need either to be wielding a focus or have a free hand to touch focus/component pouch which is about your body somewhere.
So if a Cleric is holding their holy shield and a weapon they can cast any V, M, VM or VSM - but not S or VS, because they don't have an empty hand; that means Cure Wounds is out.
Yes, having the mistletoe around the neck or on your belt is actually better than wielding it in your hand.
So one more question. Could i wear a talisman as a containing mistletoe as a focus or does it need to be something held for a druid?
You need a free hand for druidic focuses, arcane focuses, and component pouches.
So, the rules are:
Spell components S - need a free hand Spell components M - need a free hand Spell components both M and S - require a free hand (just one, not two)
Holy symbols are an exception - they can be worn or attached to a shield. If a spell requires V but not M components then you don't need a free hand. How many Clerics spells does this cover? Light, word of radiance (whose component is a holy symbol anyway), and tongues.
Not exactly. These are the RAW requirements:
V - need to be able to speak normally.
S (but not M) - need a free hand.
M or both S and M - need either to be wielding a focus or have a free hand to touch focus/component pouch which is about your body somewhere.
So if a Cleric is holding their holy shield and a weapon they can cast any V, M, VM or VSM - but not S or VS, because they don't have an empty hand; that means Cure Wounds is out.
Yes, having the mistletoe around the neck or on your belt is actually better than wielding it in your hand.
You’re right about your specific cleric, but an important thing to note is that if you’re holding a focus, you can still do somatic components with that hand. So a druid who’s wielding a staff and a shield can cast all their spells freely, including Cure Wounds (except those with material components the staff focus can’t replace).
You’re right about your specific cleric, but an important thing to note is that if you’re holding a focus, you can still do somatic components with that hand. So a druid who’s wielding a staff and a shield can cast all their spells freely, including Cure Wounds (except those with material components the staff focus can’t replace).
No, that's the thing. It has been clarified by Jeremy that you can use a hand wielding a focus/material to perform a Somatic component *only* if the spell has both Material *and* Somatic components. So if a spell is Somatic only then a focus (like a holy shield or Druid staff) gets in the way. This is the correct interpretation of RAW.
That being said, I wouldn't argue that it is the simplest or most fun interpretation. In fact, the rules are are written very poorly to communicate that interpretation. I've adjusted the rules a little for my games to maintain a similar balance, but clearer for players wondering if they have to juggle their equipment.
No, that's the thing. It has been clarified by Jeremy that you can use a hand wielding a focus/material to perform a Somatic component *only* if the spell has both Material *and* Somatic components. So if a spell is Somatic only then a focus (like a holy shield or Druid staff) gets in the way. This is the correct interpretation of RAW.
This is correct.
As for wearing a spellcasting focus. I would argue that (unless specified otherwise) it has to be held, not just touched while casting the spell. That will use the item interaction of the turn.
I had a sorcerer that had a crystal on a string necklace as his focus. As an item interaction, he could grasp the crystal, cast his spell as an action (or whatever), then drop the crystal as a free action, and it will fall back to his chest. He always had a hand free, so it didn't really matter.
I found the Sage Advice that talks about this and it contradicts the PHB twice in ways I find far more frustrating than helpful, haha. Insert that Samuel L. Jackson pic of him ignoring a decision because it’s stupid I guess.
I found the Sage Advice that talks about this and it contradicts the PHB twice in ways I find far more frustrating than helpful, haha. Insert that Samuel L. Jackson pic of him ignoring a decision because it’s stupid I guess.
Where? Quote or link please. I couldn't find anything contradictory in SA compendium.
I found the Sage Advice that talks about this and it contradicts the PHB twice in ways I find far more frustrating than helpful, haha. Insert that Samuel L. Jackson pic of him ignoring a decision because it’s stupid I guess.
Where? Quote or link please. I couldn't find anything contradictory in SA compendium.
First of all, let me be clear that I'm not arguing that Sage Advice doesn't say what it says. The Sage Advice is very clear, but it goes beyond clarifying something that the PHB didn't make clear and into "the PHB just flat out didn't say something that we wanted it do, so let's say it now" which is the part I find frustrating.
Case the first is the crux of this conversation: the PHB is very clear that holding a focus does not interfere with a caster's ability to fulfill somatic components of a spell. There is no mention of this being restricted to spells that have both somatic and material components. That restriction is new for Sage Advice.
The second is SA's specific example of the cleric and her shield. Nothing in the PHB says that a shield with a holy symbol emblazoned upon it becomes per se a holy symbol. The specific holy symbol rules do make clear that the cleric doesn't need a free hand to use them as a focus (having one on the shield or wearing one prominently and visibly is enough). So I would rule that that cleric who's wielding a weapon and a shield with a holy symbol on it can fulfill material components, but she would have to put away the weapon to fulfill somatic components, because she hasn't got a hand free otherwise (nor is she holding a focus in her hand). The idea that the shield is the holy symbol and thus the casting focus is one that has no basis in the PHB; again, this idea had to be added in Sage Advice.
I'm not against adding rules in this way, but the additions go beyond simple clarification; they belong in errata and should be added to the actual text of the PHB, not in some .pdf that many people don't even know exists.
Unrelated to your specific question, Sage Advice's ruling is stupid because it creates a situation where a spell with fewer casting components is more restrictive in its casting. I don't know if Crawford et al. just didn't think about that as a consequence or if they always intended it, but it's ass-backwards, haha.
Case the first is the crux of this conversation: the PHB is very clear that holding a focus does not interfere with a caster's ability to fulfill somatic components of a spell. There is no mention of this being restricted to spells that have both somatic and material components. That restriction is new for Sage Advice.
The second is SA's specific example of the cleric and her shield. Nothing in the PHB says that a shield with a holy symbol emblazoned upon it becomes per se a holy symbol. The specific holy symbol rules do make clear that the cleric doesn't need a free hand to use them as a focus (having one on the shield or wearing one prominently and visibly is enough). So I would rule that that cleric who's wielding a weapon and a shield with a holy symbol on it can fulfill material components, but she would have to put away the weapon to fulfill somatic components, because she hasn't got a hand free otherwise (nor is she holding a focus in her hand). The idea that the shield is the holy symbol and thus the casting focus is one that has no basis in the PHB; again, this idea had to be added in Sage Advice.
I'm not against adding rules in this way, but the additions go beyond simple clarification; they belong in errata and should be added to the actual text of the PHB, not in some .pdf that many people don't even know exists.
The PHB does say that a focus can only be used for material spells and that somatic spells with no material component still need a free hand.
If a spell requires a somatic component, the caster must have free use of at least one hand to perform these gestures.
A spellcaster must have a hand free to access a spell's material components -- or to hold a spellcasting focus -- but it can be the same hand that he or she uses to perform somatic components.
The first rule applies to spells with somatic components, the second rule applies to spells with material components. If a spell has a somatic component, but not a material component, a spellcasting focus will get in the way. This is all in the PHB, the SA only clarifies these existing rules, it does not add to or change it.
The Holy symbol thing is less clearly described, but it is mentioned in the rules:
Holy Symbol. A holy symbol is a representation of a god or pantheon. It might be an amulet depicting a symbol representing a deity, the same symbol carefully engraved or inlaid as an emblem on a shield, or a tiny box holding a fragment of a sacred relic. A cleric or paladin can use a holy symbol as a spellcasting focus. To use the symbol in this way, the caster must hold it in hand, wear it visibly, or bear it on a shield.
And these rules are clarified, but not changed in the SA.
More components is still more restrictive because it requires a tool (focus). The fact that you have to put the focus away to use non-material spells is a restriction created by the material spells, not the other way around.
If you re-read the PHB knowing the RAI from sage advice, I'd say it makes sense and a careful reading agrees with it (i.e. reading the Somatic components section then the Material). The PHB says you need a free hand for a somatic component (I envision waving a free hand around), and that you also need a free hand to work with material components (I envision waving around those material components) and with errata it says that it can be the hand used for somatic components. I think they intend that for a S, M spell, the somatic component is done with the materials; but for a S, the somatic component require being done with an empty hand.
Think of it this way: If you had a S spell (but no M), and you could do that spells with spell materials in your hand, why couldn't you do it with a sword or anything else in your hand?
(throughout, you can replace "materials" with "focus").
Edit: Also
Holy Symbol. A holy symbol is a representation of a god or pantheon. It might be an amulet depicting a symbol representing a deity, the same symbol carefully engraved or inlaid as an emblem on a shield, or a tiny box holding a fragment of a sacred relic. A cleric or paladin can use a holy symbol as a spellcasting focus, as described in chapter 10. To use the symbol in this way, the caster must hold it in hand, wear it visibly, or bear it on a shield.
Case the first is the crux of this conversation: the PHB is very clear that holding a focus does not interfere with a caster's ability to fulfill somatic components of a spell. There is no mention of this being restricted to spells that have both somatic and material components. That restriction is new for Sage Advice.
The second is SA's specific example of the cleric and her shield. Nothing in the PHB says that a shield with a holy symbol emblazoned upon it becomes per se a holy symbol. The specific holy symbol rules do make clear that the cleric doesn't need a free hand to use them as a focus (having one on the shield or wearing one prominently and visibly is enough). So I would rule that that cleric who's wielding a weapon and a shield with a holy symbol on it can fulfill material components, but she would have to put away the weapon to fulfill somatic components, because she hasn't got a hand free otherwise (nor is she holding a focus in her hand). The idea that the shield is the holy symbol and thus the casting focus is one that has no basis in the PHB; again, this idea had to be added in Sage Advice.
I'm not against adding rules in this way, but the additions go beyond simple clarification; they belong in errata and should be added to the actual text of the PHB, not in some .pdf that many people don't even know exists.
The PHB does say that a focus can only be used for material spells and that somatic spells with no material component still need a free hand.
I've never suggested that the PHB says that you can use a focus for anything but material spells. And the PHB does not say that somatic spells "with no material component" need a free hand. It says that spells with a somatic component need a free hand, and then in the material component section, it says that if you're holding a focus, you can still use that hand to fulfill somatic components. Nowhere does it say that that only applies to spells that have both somatic and material components.
The first rule applies to spells with somatic components, the second rule applies to spells with material components. If a spell has a somatic component, but not a material component, a spellcasting focus will get in the way. This is all in the PHB, the SA only clarifies these existing rules, it does not add to or change it.
The Holy symbol thing is less clearly described, but it is mentioned in the rules:
Holy Symbol. A holy symbol is a representation of a god or pantheon. It might be an amulet depicting a symbol representing a deity, the same symbol carefully engraved or inlaid as an emblem on a shield, or a tiny box holding a fragment of a sacred relic. A cleric or paladin can use a holy symbol as a spellcasting focus. To use the symbol in this way, the caster must hold it in hand, wear it visibly, or bear it on a shield.
And these rules are clarified, but not changed in the SA.
Those rules are changed in the SA. I've already made clear the distinction, so I don't feel the need to reiterate it, but if there's anything specific in what I said that doesn't make sense to you, I'm happy to clarify.
More components is still more restrictive because it requires a tool (focus). The fact that you have to put the focus away to use non-material spells is a restriction created by the material spells, not the other way around.
That's nonsense. To use this thread's topic as an example, if I'm a druid wielding a staff and a shield, I can freely cast SM spells while still having a reasonable (for a druid) melee attack option. But for non-material spells, I have to give something up in order to cast them. Whether you want to call it a restriction created by the material spells or the other way around doesn't matter. I lose functionality when a spell has fewer components.
And I think what really bugs me about the whole thing is that it means somatic components fundamentally work differently for material spells than for non-material spells. And from a design standpoint, I see no point whatsoever to having spells with both somatic and material components. What mechanical difference would it make for every SM spell to lose its somatic component?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Can this items be a wooden shield?
RAW, no. The only classes that can put a spellcasting focus on a shield are Cleric & Paladin. Your DM may have a house rule allowing it, but it's not something I'd allow.
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.
If you have a Ruby of the War Mage, which allows the weapon it is attached on to be a spellcasting focus, I would allow it.
Site Info: Wizard's ToS | Fan Content Policy | Forum Rules | Physical Books | Content Not Working | Contact Support
How To: Homebrew Rules | Create Homebrew | Snippet Codes | Tool Tips (Custom) | Rollables (Generator)
My Homebrew: Races | Subclasses | Backgrounds | Feats | Spells | Magic Items
Other: Beyond20 | Page References | Other Guides | Entitlements | Dice Randomization | Images Fix | FAQ
A Shield is not a weapon, though. So the Ruby should not allow targeting of the Shield.
Thank you for your quick response on this.
"For this property to work, you must attach the ruby to the weapon by pressing the ruby against it for at least 10 minutes."
I don't know about you, but I'd feel like a dork holding a rock against my sword hoping that it sticks.
So one more question. Could i wear a talisman as a containing mistletoe as a focus or does it need to be something held for a druid?
From the section on Material Components
I would say you could wear it around your neck as long as you kept a hand free to manipulate it as part of your spellcasting, ex, by reaching up and touching it when you cast spells that need it.
It doesn't have to be running around with a stick in your hand the whole time.
Site Info: Wizard's ToS | Fan Content Policy | Forum Rules | Physical Books | Content Not Working | Contact Support
How To: Homebrew Rules | Create Homebrew | Snippet Codes | Tool Tips (Custom) | Rollables (Generator)
My Homebrew: Races | Subclasses | Backgrounds | Feats | Spells | Magic Items
Other: Beyond20 | Page References | Other Guides | Entitlements | Dice Randomization | Images Fix | FAQ
I mostly use rings as focuses, because I like the thought of magic coming from an old family ring. Sometimes I use necklaces as well. I never go for the focusses in the PHB or the musical instruments as focus.
A bit more on topic though: I don't think a shield can be a focus.
A jack of all trades is a master of none, but oftentimes better than a master of one.
You need a free hand for druidic focuses, arcane focuses, and component pouches.
So, the rules are:
Spell components S - need a free hand
Spell components M - need a free hand
Spell components both M and S - require a free hand (just one, not two)
Holy symbols are an exception - they can be worn or attached to a shield. If a spell requires V but not M components then you don't need a free hand. How many Clerics spells does this cover? Light, word of radiance (whose component is a holy symbol anyway), and tongues.
Not exactly. These are the RAW requirements:
V - need to be able to speak normally.
S (but not M) - need a free hand.
M or both S and M - need either to be wielding a focus or have a free hand to touch focus/component pouch which is about your body somewhere.
So if a Cleric is holding their holy shield and a weapon they can cast any V, M, VM or VSM - but not S or VS, because they don't have an empty hand; that means Cure Wounds is out.
Yes, having the mistletoe around the neck or on your belt is actually better than wielding it in your hand.
You’re right about your specific cleric, but an important thing to note is that if you’re holding a focus, you can still do somatic components with that hand. So a druid who’s wielding a staff and a shield can cast all their spells freely, including Cure Wounds (except those with material components the staff focus can’t replace).
No, that's the thing. It has been clarified by Jeremy that you can use a hand wielding a focus/material to perform a Somatic component *only* if the spell has both Material *and* Somatic components. So if a spell is Somatic only then a focus (like a holy shield or Druid staff) gets in the way. This is the correct interpretation of RAW.
That being said, I wouldn't argue that it is the simplest or most fun interpretation. In fact, the rules are are written very poorly to communicate that interpretation. I've adjusted the rules a little for my games to maintain a similar balance, but clearer for players wondering if they have to juggle their equipment.
This is correct.
As for wearing a spellcasting focus. I would argue that (unless specified otherwise) it has to be held, not just touched while casting the spell. That will use the item interaction of the turn.
I had a sorcerer that had a crystal on a string necklace as his focus. As an item interaction, he could grasp the crystal, cast his spell as an action (or whatever), then drop the crystal as a free action, and it will fall back to his chest. He always had a hand free, so it didn't really matter.
I found the Sage Advice that talks about this and it contradicts the PHB twice in ways I find far more frustrating than helpful, haha. Insert that Samuel L. Jackson pic of him ignoring a decision because it’s stupid I guess.
Where? Quote or link please. I couldn't find anything contradictory in SA compendium.
First of all, let me be clear that I'm not arguing that Sage Advice doesn't say what it says. The Sage Advice is very clear, but it goes beyond clarifying something that the PHB didn't make clear and into "the PHB just flat out didn't say something that we wanted it do, so let's say it now" which is the part I find frustrating.
Case the first is the crux of this conversation: the PHB is very clear that holding a focus does not interfere with a caster's ability to fulfill somatic components of a spell. There is no mention of this being restricted to spells that have both somatic and material components. That restriction is new for Sage Advice.
The second is SA's specific example of the cleric and her shield. Nothing in the PHB says that a shield with a holy symbol emblazoned upon it becomes per se a holy symbol. The specific holy symbol rules do make clear that the cleric doesn't need a free hand to use them as a focus (having one on the shield or wearing one prominently and visibly is enough). So I would rule that that cleric who's wielding a weapon and a shield with a holy symbol on it can fulfill material components, but she would have to put away the weapon to fulfill somatic components, because she hasn't got a hand free otherwise (nor is she holding a focus in her hand). The idea that the shield is the holy symbol and thus the casting focus is one that has no basis in the PHB; again, this idea had to be added in Sage Advice.
I'm not against adding rules in this way, but the additions go beyond simple clarification; they belong in errata and should be added to the actual text of the PHB, not in some .pdf that many people don't even know exists.
Unrelated to your specific question, Sage Advice's ruling is stupid because it creates a situation where a spell with fewer casting components is more restrictive in its casting. I don't know if Crawford et al. just didn't think about that as a consequence or if they always intended it, but it's ass-backwards, haha.
The PHB does say that a focus can only be used for material spells and that somatic spells with no material component still need a free hand.
The first rule applies to spells with somatic components, the second rule applies to spells with material components. If a spell has a somatic component, but not a material component, a spellcasting focus will get in the way. This is all in the PHB, the SA only clarifies these existing rules, it does not add to or change it.
The Holy symbol thing is less clearly described, but it is mentioned in the rules:
And these rules are clarified, but not changed in the SA.
More components is still more restrictive because it requires a tool (focus). The fact that you have to put the focus away to use non-material spells is a restriction created by the material spells, not the other way around.
If you re-read the PHB knowing the RAI from sage advice, I'd say it makes sense and a careful reading agrees with it (i.e. reading the Somatic components section then the Material). The PHB says you need a free hand for a somatic component (I envision waving a free hand around), and that you also need a free hand to work with material components (I envision waving around those material components) and with errata it says that it can be the hand used for somatic components. I think they intend that for a S, M spell, the somatic component is done with the materials; but for a S, the somatic component require being done with an empty hand.
Think of it this way: If you had a S spell (but no M), and you could do that spells with spell materials in your hand, why couldn't you do it with a sword or anything else in your hand?
(throughout, you can replace "materials" with "focus").
Edit: Also
Holy Symbol. A holy symbol is a representation of a god or pantheon. It might be an amulet depicting a symbol representing a deity, the same symbol carefully engraved or inlaid as an emblem on a shield, or a tiny box holding a fragment of a sacred relic. A cleric or paladin can use a holy symbol as a spellcasting focus, as described in chapter 10. To use the symbol in this way, the caster must hold it in hand, wear it visibly, or bear it on a shield.
Those rules are changed in the SA. I've already made clear the distinction, so I don't feel the need to reiterate it, but if there's anything specific in what I said that doesn't make sense to you, I'm happy to clarify.
That's nonsense. To use this thread's topic as an example, if I'm a druid wielding a staff and a shield, I can freely cast SM spells while still having a reasonable (for a druid) melee attack option. But for non-material spells, I have to give something up in order to cast them. Whether you want to call it a restriction created by the material spells or the other way around doesn't matter. I lose functionality when a spell has fewer components.
And I think what really bugs me about the whole thing is that it means somatic components fundamentally work differently for material spells than for non-material spells. And from a design standpoint, I see no point whatsoever to having spells with both somatic and material components. What mechanical difference would it make for every SM spell to lose its somatic component?