I don't know why you think that spells without material components use the material component rules or what you think the mechanical implications of a spellcasting focus being part of a shield should be.
But these rules are written in the PHB, and the SA clarifies any confusion about those rules as written mean or how they interact with other rules. SA does not change the rules, that is why they are not errata.
You’re begging the question and we’re just talking in circles. You’ve been very polite, so feel free to PM me if you want to try to finish this conversation, but I have no interest in continuing this in a public space.
I think that another facet of this problem is that the variety of objects that qualify as a spellcasting focus are themselves somewhat nebulous and don't follow a clear pattern of usability. A ring, a necklace, a bracer, a crystal, a wand, a shield, a sprig of holly... One of the Bard colleges gets to use any weapon they are proficient with. You would wear, hold, or wield all of these objects differently. That itself creates a problem with trying to define a blanket rule to cover all of them.
-> If the focus is a ring, bracelet, or bangle, you effectively wouldn't need a free hand, because that's where the focus already is -- it's not occupying your hand, merely worn there
-> if the focus is a locket, amulet, or other necklace object, you need a hand to reach out and touch/hold it
-> if it's a wand, shield, or other carried object, you are already carrying it in a hand.... but is that still a 'free hand'? It's occupied by the focus.
So already you need 3 different sets of rules to cover the same thing. The concept of a spellcasting focus is interesting, but flawed in it's current implementation.
Further, the nature of the gestural component of a spell is also undefined. It could be anything from waving your arms around like Captain Jack Sparrow to performing a Jutzu like they do in Naruto. It could even be as simple as pointing. But in the first and third, there's no reason you couldn't simply use the sword you're holding to point. It's just that simple of a motion. But if you need to do the turbo-makarena, that wouldn't just need 1 hand, but your whole body. How would you even use a spellcasting focus, nevermind the material components, in that scenario?
Without better definitions to these subjects, there is inevitable hand-waving going on at any given table. The system is just vague, dated, and in need of refinement.
... 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?
Yes, this is the first step I took to "simplify" these rules in my mind. There is no such thing as an SM spell. All SM or VSM spells should just be M or VM.
S - need an empty hand.
M - need a hand wielding a focus or holding the required material component, or an empty hand which is able to touch your focus or the material component.
Both components are impossible if your hands are tied up.
For balance reasons I personally treat a focus that is also a weapon or shield (staff or holy shield) more strictly, while I consider a hand holding a sprig of mistletoe to also be empty for the purposes of S-component casting.
End result is many casters can cast M spells when their hands are full of shields and certain weapons (Cleric/Paladin shield, staff, Sword bard, Improved Pact Blade), but the only way to cast S spells while so encumbered is the War Caster feat.
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.
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?
Further, the nature of the gestural component of a spell is also undefined. It could be anything from waving your arms around like Captain Jack Sparrow to performing a Jutzu like they do in Naruto. It could even be as simple as pointing. But in the first and third, there's no reason you couldn't simply use the sword you're holding to point. It's just that simple of a motion. But if you need to do the turbo-makarena, that wouldn't just need 1 hand, but your whole body. How would you even use a spellcasting focus, nevermind the material components, in that scenario?
This.
There is definitely a point to having both components; it's just been botched in this edition. Having different requirements for specific spells serves two purposes: immersion & balance. The immersion factor (as it is presented in 5e) is a carryover from previous editions. This was a neat way of getting people into the mindset of playing a caster. Magic was rare (comparatively) and esoteric. It was also a way to keep the more powerful spells in check. Spellcasting foci did not exist, and all spells needed their specific material components (if there were any).
Now in 5e we have these foci as a literal hand-waving of these requirements, and the only reasons that material components even exist are for the handful of super powerful spells (that should be restricted in usage) or imprisonment scenarios. If anything, material components should be completely removed for all spells that do not specify their consumption. This is the reality of 5e already due to foci, so we might as well cut out the vestigial organ.
Alternatively, somatic components are a more necessary thing as otherwise everyone (that is capable) would strap on a shield (perk of Cleric/Paladin) or dual-wield whenever they wanted, but as mentioned the problem is that there are no guidelines on what a somatic component actually requires. The assertion by Crawford implies that the specific gestures of spells with only somatic components are somehow more complicated than spells with both somatic and material components (which is complete BS). This is not explicitly stated by anything in source materials. If this is to be believed, then the somatic component itself should be specified in the spell details just as the material component is.
Material components get in the way of somatic components, not the other way around. Waving your arm around is hindered by needing to dig in your pack for materials. Using a focus removes the need to dig in your pack, thus removing the hindrance to the gesturing.
It would be better to rewrite spellcasting components & foci as follows:
Remove material components entirely from spells that don't actually consume the materials. If a DM wants to put a player/party in a "no spells" scenario, they have plenty of existing ways to do that.
Somatic components can be performed with either an empty hand, or a hand wielding/bearing a focus.
Warcaster overrides this just as it does now.
If a spell does require a material component, wielding/bearing a focus fulfills this requirement without affecting a somatic component.
The focus supplies the raw energy that non-consumed materials would have provided.
The focus automatically converts consumed materials on your person into the raw energy needed. It's magic, after all.
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.
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.
This.
Except that it is in the material components rules section, which you would only use if you were casting a spell with material components.This is the reason that all spells cannot be cast with a focus and something else occupying both hands. V,S and S spells don't use material component rules. If they did, they'd be V,S,M or S, M spells.
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.
This.
Of course they're different. They have different components. What is so hard to imagine about a spell requiring the use of gestures requiring the use of hands while a spell requiring the use of materials and gestures allowing you do have those materials in your hands while gesturing?
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?
Further, the nature of the gestural component of a spell is also undefined. It could be anything from waving your arms around like Captain Jack Sparrow to performing a Jutzu like they do in Naruto. It could even be as simple as pointing. But in the first and third, there's no reason you couldn't simply use the sword you're holding to point. It's just that simple of a motion. But if you need to do the turbo-makarena, that wouldn't just need 1 hand, but your whole body. How would you even use a spellcasting focus, nevermind the material components, in that scenario?
This.
Because they're different. The S component isn't well defined, as stated before. Some S components can be done with materials, and some cannot.
There is definitely a point to having both components; it's just been botched in this edition. Having different requirements for specific spells serves two purposes: immersion & balance. The immersion factor (as it is presented in 5e) is a carryover from previous editions. This was a neat way of getting people into the mindset of playing a caster. Magic was rare (comparatively) and esoteric. It was also a way to keep the more powerful spells in check. Spellcasting foci did not exist, and all spells needed their specific material components (if there were any).
Now in 5e we have these foci as a literal hand-waving of these requirements, and the only reasons that material components even exist are for the handful of super powerful spells (that should be restricted in usage) or imprisonment scenarios. If anything, material components should be completely removed for all spells that do not specify their consumption. This is the reality of 5e already due to foci, so we might as well cut out the vestigial organ.
Alternatively, somatic components are a more necessary thing as otherwise everyone (that is capable) would strap on a shield (perk of Cleric/Paladin) or dual-wield whenever they wanted, but as mentioned the problem is that there are no guidelines on what a somatic component actually requires. The assertion by Crawford implies that the specific gestures of spells with only somatic components are somehow more complicated than spells with both somatic and material components (which is complete BS). This is not explicitly stated by anything in source materials. If this is to be believed, then the somatic component itself should be specified in the spell details just as the material component is.
Material components get in the way of somatic components, not the other way around. Waving your arm around is hindered by needing to dig in your pack for materials. Using a focus removes the need to dig in your pack, thus removing the hindrance to the gesturing.
It would be better to rewrite spellcasting components & foci as follows:
Remove material components entirely from spells that don't actually consume the materials. If a DM wants to put a player/party in a "no spells" scenario, they have plenty of existing ways to do that.
Somatic components can be performed with either an empty hand, or a hand wielding/bearing a focus.
Warcaster overrides this just as it does now.
If a spell does require a material component, wielding/bearing a focus fulfills this requirement without affecting a somatic component.
The focus supplies the raw energy that non-consumed materials would have provided.
The focus automatically converts consumed materials on your person into the raw energy needed. It's magic, after all.
This is an interesting house rule system.
The other thing that I keep coming back to is that if the rule writers wanted it interpreted differently, then they'd probably have interpreted it differently when asked about it. In this case, it isn't like they're interpreting a translation or making a judgement, they're literally telling you what they meant when they wrote it.
If I'm a druud with a shield and staff in my hands, I picture it like this:
I can use my staff as the M component because that's what a druidic focus staff is literally for.
I can use my staff as my M component as well as my S component because I can do my 'swish and flick' with the staff as the magic channels through it, because the staff (M) is already an important piece of the spell.
If the spell only has an S, I need one hand free to do my Doctor Strange jazz hands because the ancient druids invented it to be done with an empty hand (no components), and a staff will just get in the way. The warcaster feat solves this 'S only' issue though.
"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. "
Sounds to me like if your wooden shield is made from a "special wood," it can be a druidic focus. Now, yeah, if it's just some random wooden shield you bought from Gorgar's Shield Emporium, it's probably not qualified, but hew it from yew under a full moon and bathe it with dryad tears or whatever, and IMO you've got a proper Druidic focus.
"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. "
Sounds to me like if your wooden shield is made from a "special wood," it can be a druidic focus. Now, yeah, if it's just some random wooden shield you bought from Gorgar's Shield Emporium, it's probably not qualified, but hew it from yew under a full moon and bathe it with dryad tears or whatever, and IMO you've got a proper Druidic focus.
Mind the 3 year bump. A wand or scepter can be a focus if made of yew or another special wood but the text implies it has to be a wand or scepter anything else such as a shield can not.
"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. "
Sounds to me like if your wooden shield is made from a "special wood," it can be a druidic focus. Now, yeah, if it's just some random wooden shield you bought from Gorgar's Shield Emporium, it's probably not qualified, but hew it from yew under a full moon and bathe it with dryad tears or whatever, and IMO you've got a proper Druidic focus.
Mind the 3 year bump. A wand or scepter can be a focus if made of yew or another special wood but the text implies it has to be a wand or scepter anything else such as a shield can not.
If a staff can be used, what about my (created for the example) barbarian/druid's great club. Couldn't that maul just be a large, fancy scepter (albeit with a dual function for crushing skulls - but potentially OK because it was also somewhat mercilessly "drawn whole out of a living tree"?
A GM might or might not allow the item to be a part of an item such as the handle of a shield or of a sickle or the haft of a spear. Then again that GM might allow you to just have a bit of somewhat crushed mistletoe in your sweaty shield hand. I think that this GM might be a little overly lenient.
Well, yeah, that's my point. This quote is literally right out of the 5E SRD. It just seems like a bizarre special pleading to say that even though a piece of sacred yew or a random "totem object" can be a focus, it suddenly doesn't work if it's in the shape of a shield. I mean, even if you go to a much stricter idea that's not RAW, like if you say "oh, it has to be sprig of mistletoe", just run a sprig of mistletoe through your shield strap. It's so trivial to work around that this supposed rule limitation has no real mechanical value. Insisting that it can't be a shield because that's supposedly an exclusive cleric/paladin prerogative isn't supported by RAW and it requires inferring a very strained exception to the actual rules.
I mean, it's magic, and most material components implement sympathetic magic as well. Just being the right type of wood isn't enough, it also needs to be in the right form.
Well, yeah, that's my point. This quote is literally right out of the 5E SRD. It just seems like a bizarre special pleading to say that even though a piece of sacred yew or a random "totem object" can be a focus, it suddenly doesn't work if it's in the shape of a shield. I mean, even if you go to a much stricter idea that's not RAW, like if you say "oh, it has to be sprig of mistletoe", just run a sprig of mistletoe through your shield strap. It's so trivial to work around that this supposed rule limitation has no real mechanical value. Insisting that it can't be a shield because that's supposedly an exclusive cleric/paladin prerogative isn't supported by RAW and it requires inferring a very strained exception to the actual rules.
Replace "focus" with "pencil." Could you write with a 3-foot diameter shield that had a lead tip at the bottom? Versus a two-foot stick? There is an expectation that magic is more than a dumb thrust towards your target. It's supposed to be a subtle thing.
Besides, a shield also differs in function. It's constantly getting slammed, battered, and sliced at by weapons. It needs to be durable in a way that a focus does not.
Also, the "mistletoe in your shield strap" wouldn't fly at any table I've been at. You need to hold a focus with a free hand to use it unless stated otherwise. Otherwise every class would be strapping weapons to their arms so they could have free hands to grapple and drink potions and do whatever else they wanted.
If you think it's a dumb rule, you are free to homebrew it differently. But trying to twist the RAW into justifying a druid using a shield as a focus is just blatantly starting with a goal and interpreting the rules with a clear bias to getting your goal to be legal.
So..... you're saying you don't think a staff gets "slammed, battered, and sliced at by weapons."? I'm just going by what the SRD says. You're going by some preconceived idea you have. Where I came from, I don't know.
So..... you're saying you don't think a staff gets "slammed, battered, and sliced at by weapons."? I'm just going by what the SRD says. You're going by some preconceived idea you have. Where I came from, I don't know.
Given that you can count the number of times any caster is likely to actually attack with a staff on one hand and it provides no AC bonus, yes.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I don't know why you think that spells without material components use the material component rules or what you think the mechanical implications of a spellcasting focus being part of a shield should be.
But these rules are written in the PHB, and the SA clarifies any confusion about those rules as written mean or how they interact with other rules. SA does not change the rules, that is why they are not errata.
You’re begging the question and we’re just talking in circles. You’ve been very polite, so feel free to PM me if you want to try to finish this conversation, but I have no interest in continuing this in a public space.
I think that another facet of this problem is that the variety of objects that qualify as a spellcasting focus are themselves somewhat nebulous and don't follow a clear pattern of usability. A ring, a necklace, a bracer, a crystal, a wand, a shield, a sprig of holly... One of the Bard colleges gets to use any weapon they are proficient with. You would wear, hold, or wield all of these objects differently. That itself creates a problem with trying to define a blanket rule to cover all of them.
-> If the focus is a ring, bracelet, or bangle, you effectively wouldn't need a free hand, because that's where the focus already is -- it's not occupying your hand, merely worn there
-> if the focus is a locket, amulet, or other necklace object, you need a hand to reach out and touch/hold it
-> if it's a wand, shield, or other carried object, you are already carrying it in a hand.... but is that still a 'free hand'? It's occupied by the focus.
So already you need 3 different sets of rules to cover the same thing. The concept of a spellcasting focus is interesting, but flawed in it's current implementation.
Further, the nature of the gestural component of a spell is also undefined. It could be anything from waving your arms around like Captain Jack Sparrow to performing a Jutzu like they do in Naruto. It could even be as simple as pointing. But in the first and third, there's no reason you couldn't simply use the sword you're holding to point. It's just that simple of a motion. But if you need to do the turbo-makarena, that wouldn't just need 1 hand, but your whole body. How would you even use a spellcasting focus, nevermind the material components, in that scenario?
Without better definitions to these subjects, there is inevitable hand-waving going on at any given table. The system is just vague, dated, and in need of refinement.
Yes, this is the first step I took to "simplify" these rules in my mind. There is no such thing as an SM spell. All SM or VSM spells should just be M or VM.
S - need an empty hand.
M - need a hand wielding a focus or holding the required material component, or an empty hand which is able to touch your focus or the material component.
Both components are impossible if your hands are tied up.
For balance reasons I personally treat a focus that is also a weapon or shield (staff or holy shield) more strictly, while I consider a hand holding a sprig of mistletoe to also be empty for the purposes of S-component casting.
End result is many casters can cast M spells when their hands are full of shields and certain weapons (Cleric/Paladin shield, staff, Sword bard, Improved Pact Blade), but the only way to cast S spells while so encumbered is the War Caster feat.
This.
This.
Not this.
This.
There is definitely a point to having both components; it's just been botched in this edition. Having different requirements for specific spells serves two purposes: immersion & balance. The immersion factor (as it is presented in 5e) is a carryover from previous editions. This was a neat way of getting people into the mindset of playing a caster. Magic was rare (comparatively) and esoteric. It was also a way to keep the more powerful spells in check. Spellcasting foci did not exist, and all spells needed their specific material components (if there were any).
Now in 5e we have these foci as a literal hand-waving of these requirements, and the only reasons that material components even exist are for the handful of super powerful spells (that should be restricted in usage) or imprisonment scenarios. If anything, material components should be completely removed for all spells that do not specify their consumption. This is the reality of 5e already due to foci, so we might as well cut out the vestigial organ.
Alternatively, somatic components are a more necessary thing as otherwise everyone (that is capable) would strap on a shield (perk of Cleric/Paladin) or dual-wield whenever they wanted, but as mentioned the problem is that there are no guidelines on what a somatic component actually requires. The assertion by Crawford implies that the specific gestures of spells with only somatic components are somehow more complicated than spells with both somatic and material components (which is complete BS). This is not explicitly stated by anything in source materials. If this is to be believed, then the somatic component itself should be specified in the spell details just as the material component is.
Material components get in the way of somatic components, not the other way around. Waving your arm around is hindered by needing to dig in your pack for materials. Using a focus removes the need to dig in your pack, thus removing the hindrance to the gesturing.
It would be better to rewrite spellcasting components & foci as follows:
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.
Except that it is in the material components rules section, which you would only use if you were casting a spell with material components.This is the reason that all spells cannot be cast with a focus and something else occupying both hands. V,S and S spells don't use material component rules. If they did, they'd be V,S,M or S, M spells.
Of course they're different. They have different components. What is so hard to imagine about a spell requiring the use of gestures requiring the use of hands while a spell requiring the use of materials and gestures allowing you do have those materials in your hands while gesturing?
Because they're different. The S component isn't well defined, as stated before. Some S components can be done with materials, and some cannot.
This is an interesting house rule system.
The other thing that I keep coming back to is that if the rule writers wanted it interpreted differently, then they'd probably have interpreted it differently when asked about it. In this case, it isn't like they're interpreting a translation or making a judgement, they're literally telling you what they meant when they wrote it.
If I'm a druud with a shield and staff in my hands, I picture it like this:
I can use my staff as the M component because that's what a druidic focus staff is literally for.
I can use my staff as my M component as well as my S component because I can do my 'swish and flick' with the staff as the magic channels through it, because the staff (M) is already an important piece of the spell.
If the spell only has an S, I need one hand free to do my Doctor Strange jazz hands because the ancient druids invented it to be done with an empty hand (no components), and a staff will just get in the way. The warcaster feat solves this 'S only' issue though.
"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. "
Sounds to me like if your wooden shield is made from a "special wood," it can be a druidic focus. Now, yeah, if it's just some random wooden shield you bought from Gorgar's Shield Emporium, it's probably not qualified, but hew it from yew under a full moon and bathe it with dryad tears or whatever, and IMO you've got a proper Druidic focus.
Mind the 3 year bump. A wand or scepter can be a focus if made of yew or another special wood but the text implies it has to be a wand or scepter anything else such as a shield can not.
If a staff can be used, what about my (created for the example) barbarian/druid's great club. Couldn't that maul just be a large, fancy scepter (albeit with a dual function for crushing skulls - but potentially OK because it was also somewhat mercilessly "drawn whole out of a living tree"?
A GM might or might not allow the item to be a part of an item such as the handle of a shield or of a sickle or the haft of a spear. Then again that GM might allow you to just have a bit of somewhat crushed mistletoe in your sweaty shield hand. I think that this GM might be a little overly lenient.
Well, yeah, that's my point. This quote is literally right out of the 5E SRD. It just seems like a bizarre special pleading to say that even though a piece of sacred yew or a random "totem object" can be a focus, it suddenly doesn't work if it's in the shape of a shield. I mean, even if you go to a much stricter idea that's not RAW, like if you say "oh, it has to be sprig of mistletoe", just run a sprig of mistletoe through your shield strap. It's so trivial to work around that this supposed rule limitation has no real mechanical value. Insisting that it can't be a shield because that's supposedly an exclusive cleric/paladin prerogative isn't supported by RAW and it requires inferring a very strained exception to the actual rules.
I mean, it's magic, and most material components implement sympathetic magic as well. Just being the right type of wood isn't enough, it also needs to be in the right form.
Replace "focus" with "pencil." Could you write with a 3-foot diameter shield that had a lead tip at the bottom? Versus a two-foot stick? There is an expectation that magic is more than a dumb thrust towards your target. It's supposed to be a subtle thing.
Besides, a shield also differs in function. It's constantly getting slammed, battered, and sliced at by weapons. It needs to be durable in a way that a focus does not.
Also, the "mistletoe in your shield strap" wouldn't fly at any table I've been at. You need to hold a focus with a free hand to use it unless stated otherwise. Otherwise every class would be strapping weapons to their arms so they could have free hands to grapple and drink potions and do whatever else they wanted.
If you think it's a dumb rule, you are free to homebrew it differently. But trying to twist the RAW into justifying a druid using a shield as a focus is just blatantly starting with a goal and interpreting the rules with a clear bias to getting your goal to be legal.
My homebrew subclasses (full list here)
(Artificer) Swordmage | Glasswright | (Barbarian) Path of the Savage Embrace
(Bard) College of Dance | (Fighter) Warlord | Cannoneer
(Monk) Way of the Elements | (Ranger) Blade Dancer
(Rogue) DaggerMaster | Inquisitor | (Sorcerer) Riftwalker | Spellfist
(Warlock) The Swarm
So..... you're saying you don't think a staff gets "slammed, battered, and sliced at by weapons."? I'm just going by what the SRD says. You're going by some preconceived idea you have. Where I came from, I don't know.
Given that you can count the number of times any caster is likely to actually attack with a staff on one hand and it provides no AC bonus, yes.