I skimmed through a lot of this, as it's very long and repetitive, but I'd appreciate some clarification on how I interpret this RAW when combined with the Artificer's Spellcasting feature.
You must have a spellcasting focus—specifically thieves’ tools or some kind of artisan’s tool—in hand when you cast any spell with this Spellcasting feature.
(Boldface added for emphasis)
The key part of this for me is that Spellcasting is impossible for an artificer unless they're holding a focus. The class goes on to basically give them the option to make anything a focus, including weaponry, which means they're not constantly switching back and forth, but here's my query: if they're required to hold the focus to cast a spell without material components, do they also need a free hand to perform the somantic actions required?
There is no similar requirement for any other spellcasting class (I've checked Wizard, Warlock, Sorcerer, Paladin, Druid, Cleric; they all have a variation on the text quoted below. The Arcane Trickster, Ranger, and Eldrich Knight have no mention of spellcasting focuses.)
You can use an arcane/druidic focus/holy symbol/musical instrument (see the Adventuring Gear section) as a spellcasting focus for your [class] spells.
In short: can an Artificer wielding a staff (Arcane Firearm, so spellcasting focus) and a shield, cast spells such as Create Bonfire, Absorb Elements, or Catapult?
Thanks!
Answering this question in this thread is not worthwhile. I will give exactly one attempt.
As pointed out several pages ago, the literal letter of the rule for the Artificer feature says that it adds the requirement of tools or some other infusion to be used when casting spells — without changing the other requirements of the spell. There are other features that change the requirements of spells (I listed the ones that I could find in a post buried in the depths of this thread), and they are all explicit on what they do to components.
I’m not going to re engage the rest of the argument (Rav and the rest of us obviously disagree on how 5e works — whether the requirements of a spell are a property of that spell or what you happen to be holding instead). Whatever you think about the component rules, an artificer must add a focus to them too. I think you wouldn’t be able to use a staff and shield unless something was infused (or your arcane firearm, see below).
If the staff is their Arcane Firearm it can be used specifically as a Spellcasting focus.
Arcane Firearm
At 5th level, you know how to turn a wand, staff, or rod into an arcane firearm, a conduit for your destructive spells. When you finish a long rest, you can use woodcarver’s tools to carve special sigils into a wand, staff, or rod and thereby turn it into your arcane firearm. The sigils disappear from the object if you later carve them on a different item. The sigils otherwise last indefinitely.
You can use your arcane firearm as a spellcasting focus for your artificer spells. When you cast an artificer spell through the firearm, roll a d8, and you gain a bonus to one of the spell’s damage rolls equal to the number rolled.
That coupled with the other rules you mentioned pretty much covers it.
I just read this entire thread. What a slog. I originally started reading because I was looking for answers to some Artificer questions like the one dinnydorf eventually asked.
Not to open old wounds or resurrect a dead thread, but it seems pretty obvious to me, especially after reading through all of the nonsense in this thread, that the RAW for Arcane Foci and somatic components in the PHB are open to interpretation. The RAW are not entirely clear. Both readings seem like they could be valid.
Given the subtleties of the Artificer class and the Imbued Wood foci from ERLW, I think it is likely that the non-fiddly just-use-your-focus-and-forget-about-it interpretation are the RAI.
Since the Warcaster feat only mentions weapons and shields, can you cast a VS/S spell with a hand holding a spellcrafting focus? Like, if I am grappling an opponent and casting a spell, would Warcaster allow me to cast the VS/S spell while holding a dagger, but not while holding an orb?
To be honest, and as evidenced by the 29 page thread that you attached your question to, it is unclear.
If you take the sentence on its face, then no. having a hand occupied by a focus is not covered by this feat. That gets into confusing territory for Clerics and Paladins who can use a shield as a focus (though there are few individuals who have posted here who would disagree that a holy symbol on a shield makes the shield the focus).
If waving a wand isn't a somatic gesture, your rules are wrong.
PHB is wrong. Got it.
Any argument here is irrelevant because being unable to use a Focus for Somatic requirement violates Rule 0.
Rules can't violate the DMs ability to ignore rules. That is impossible. It is why it is rule 0.
If push came to shove, I'd quit playing altogether until this is errata'd, because it's not just a bad ruling, it's a bad concept.
Focus can be used for Somatic or GTFO with this stupidity.
It doesn't need to be errata'd, you've already pointed out how rule 0 exists so rules you don't like can be ignored.
It is not a bad concept or stupid for a magic system to require intricate hand gestures (which can't usually be done while holding something). It is a relic from older editions and has been phased out to a point where it barely effects gameplay.
Any argument here is irrelevant because being unable to use a Focus for Somatic requirement violates Rule 0.
Rules can't violate the DMs ability to ignore rules. That is impossible. It is why it is rule 0.
My point is that the rule as you describe it should never be applied, because it is an artifact of poor language & amounts to bad game design, both conceptually & in practice. The blame for any arguments this rule creates lay with the publisher for not fixing it, & whatever DM or player is arguing to apply it. It's bad & you should feel bad for arguing in favor of it. If the DM doesn't immediately handwave (ha!) that interpretation away, then they're being a bad DM. Bad rule; needs errata'd before more arguments arise, over a rule that impedes gameplay without adding anything interesting. I feel sorry for anyone who has to interact with someone who insists upon enforcing this. It's that bad.
If push came to shove, I'd quit playing altogether until this is errata'd, because it's not just a bad ruling, it's a bad concept.
Focus can be used for Somatic or GTFO with this stupidity.
It doesn't need to be errata'd, you've already pointed out how rule 0 exists so rules you don't like can be ignored.
It DOES need to be errata'd, because DMs aren't the only ones at the table. This thread didn't reach 29 pages by being uncontroversial. It's highly problematic phrasing, yet adds nothing to the game except to make turns take longer. At the very least it should be spelled out explicitly all in one section, to avoid confusion. Better yet, change it. Either way, there SHOULD be an errata, even if only for clarification.
It is not a bad concept or stupid for a magic system to require intricate hand gestures (which can't usually be done while holding something). It is a relic from older editions and has been phased out to a point where it barely effects gameplay.
Emphasis on USUALLY. Usually: When you're not using a Focus. Wands and staves are almost invariably depicted as being used for a somatic gesture, & to argue that they don't fulfill that criteria is just weird annoying nonsense. D&D magic can of course work differently than we see it depicted elsewhere, but hopefully there's at least a good reason. In this case there isn't.
A relic that's being phased out sounds like exactly what errata & revised editions are for. I would not say that it "barely effects gameplay"! It DEEPLY affects gameplay: It imposes a crippling number of object interactions, in the best case scenario.
I'll say it again (& again & again):
Focus can be used for Somatic or GTFO with this stupidity.
Focus can be used for Somatic or GTFO with this stupidity.
Yes, they absolutely can... as long as the spell in question also requires Material components. If the spell does not, then a focus cannot be used to conduct the Somatic components for that spell. It is what it is.
Since there have been 2-3 erratas to the PHB already, and since this was not included in any of them, that implies this is in fact by design and not by accident. If you don’t like this rule, then as a DM you are free to house rule otherwise for your table. If you are not the DM, then you are free to broach the subject with your DM and see if they are willing to house rule it for the table. If they are unwilling to adopt that house rule, then switch groups. As I said before, it is what it is.
Suggested by a differently abled friend when I mentioned this just now:
(Please someone make this happen!)
Step 1: Make Crawford play a Lvl1 Wizard with one arm.
Step 2: Map full of ladders & rope-climbing.
Just for laughs, mind you. The real issue is that gesturing with an object of Focus should fulfill Somatic requirement, because otherwise Wands are awful & the action economy becomes crippling for half-casters & anyone else who needs to wield things.
Remember that each spell lists its requirements, and components are ONLY "physical requirements you must meet in order to cast it." A spell with V, S has requirements of being able to speak and a free hand. That is all.
And yet it hasn't been errata'd for over 6 years while plenty of other erratas have. There have also been Sage advices confirming that the rule means what it says and says what it means. The rule is exactly what the devs intended and it will not be changed in 5e.
Rules can't violate the DMs ability to ignore rules. That is impossible. It is why it is rule 0.
My point is that the rule as you describe it should never be applied, because it is an artifact of poor language & amounts to bad game design, both conceptually & in practice. The blame for any arguments this rule creates lay with the publisher for not fixing it, & whatever DM or player is arguing to apply it. It's bad & you should feel bad for arguing in favor of it. If the DM doesn't immediately handwave (ha!) that interpretation away, then they're being a bad DM. Bad rule; needs errata'd before more arguments arise, over a rule that impedes gameplay without adding anything interesting. I feel sorry for anyone who has to interact with someone who insists upon enforcing this. It's that bad.
Well I just covered how the rule is not a mistake or misunderstanding and won't get changed above so moving to next point. I'm not arguing in favor of this rule, I'm only arguing that this is what the rule is. This is the rules forum, we answer what the rules are here. If you want to discuss what the rules should be, I suggest going to house rules forum.
It doesn't need to be errata'd, you've already pointed out how rule 0 exists so rules you don't like can be ignored.
It DOES need to be errata'd, because DMs aren't the only ones at the table. This thread didn't reach 29 pages by being uncontroversial. It's highly problematic phrasing, yet adds nothing to the game except to make turns take longer. At the very least it should be spelled out explicitly all in one section, to avoid confusion. Better yet, change it. Either way, there SHOULD be an errata, even if only for clarification.
DMs aren't the only ones at the table, but they are the ultimate rules authority at it. And this thread didn't get to be 29 pages long because people who like the rule defend it from those who dislike it, there are 29 pages because people who dislike the rule keep arguing that the rule is different. This forum is for official rules and rulings. It has been clarified in SAC and is already pretty clear in PHB, an errata is unnecessary.
It is not a bad concept or stupid for a magic system to require intricate hand gestures (which can't usually be done while holding something). It is a relic from older editions and has been phased out to a point where it barely effects gameplay.
Emphasis on USUALLY. Usually: When you're not using a Focus. Wands and staves are almost invariably depicted as being used for a somatic gesture, & to argue that they don't fulfill that criteria is just weird annoying nonsense. D&D magic can of course work differently than we see it depicted elsewhere, but hopefully there's at least a good reason. In this case there isn't.
I haven't seen any D&D media depicting wands being used for somatic gestures, but irrelevant. Foci absolutely can, do, and should be used to perform somatic components for spells that also have material components (as many of the most iconic ones do).
A relic that's being phased out sounds like exactly what errata & revised editions are for. I would not say that it "barely effects gameplay"! It DEEPLY affects gameplay: It imposes a crippling number of object interactions, in the best case scenario.
I'll say it again (& again & again):
Focus can be used for Somatic or GTFO with this stupidity.
Hello and welcome to 5th edition, a revised edition where material and somatic (and even verbal) components play a much smaller part in spellcasting than previous editions.
A crippling number of object interactions does not happen in "best case scenario." As I mentioned before, it barely happens in even the worst cases. You will rarely cast multiple spells per turn, so that is only 1 interaction per turn if you are constantly alternating between spells that do and don't have a focus. Most casters aren't great with weapons and can't use shields so their non-focus hand will probably be empty any way (that is 0 item interactions regardless of how many spells you cast). And lastly since most spells need an action to cast, you are likely not going to need anything other than what you need to cast the spell this turn. Arguing that there are too many item interactions is one that can easily be refuted, and if you are one of the 3 or so builds that this actually effects, good news there is a feat that makes it not effect you anymore.
Poking my head up to (potentially) add something to this super long thread.
DM here, my party consists of a Bladesinger Wizard, Arcane Trickster Rogue, War Cleric, Moon Druid, and a Sorcerer/Paladin. Everyone has a class that is allowed to use a spellcasting focus, except for the Rogue. With this class mix and a variety of weapon combinations present, as DM I spent quite a bit of time trying to understand the intent behind the spellcasting focus rules to make sure that I wasn't treating people unfairly. So was looking at the object interaction rules, spell component rules, and also for context the War Caster feat. In the end it was the War Caster feat that helped me to make my final decision on how to play this at my table.
Famously, the War Caster feat grants several features, one of which is that you can perform the somatic components of a spell with two weapons or a weapon and a shield in your hands. The key insight that I had is why this part of the feat is so critical, and it has very little to do with what you can do on your turn. The reason why this feature is so important is because War Caster also grants you the ability to use your reaction to cast a spell in place of an opportunity attack on another creature's turn. Without the ability to perform somatic components with both your hands occupied, casting a spell as a reaction would basically be impossible (with a few exceptions).
So in my mind, the main value of this part of the War Caster feat is in the context of taking a reaction outside of your turn. It's less relevant (I think) as to what you are allowed to do on your turn due to other rules coming into play (such as the object interaction rules).
Turning to what is possible on your turn, I probably don't have much to add to what has already been stated. I can see where both sides are coming from. The game balance implications for either interpretation seem fairly minimal. Within the object interaction rules, there seems to quite a bit of flexibility with regard to interpretation. For example, the PHB states:
You can also interact with one object or feature of the environment for free, during either your move or your action. For example, you could open a door during your move as you stride toward a foe, or you could draw your weapon as part of the same action you use to attack.
If I am wielding a two handed weapon I can open a door with one hand while holding my weapon in the other as my free object interaction, then attack with both hands. Strictly speaking, if I am holding a weapon and a shield then I need to sheathe my weapon before I have a free hand with which to open the door, at which point I have used my free object interaction and need to use an action to open the door. With this interpretation, two-handed weapon wielders have an advantage!
Is it imbalanced to allow a weapon and shield user to open the door as their free object interaction without formally having to stow their weapon? Probably not. Is this interpretation RAW? Probably not. It all just kinda depends on how strict you want to be as DM.
It seems to be accepted that you can drop a weapon on your turn with no action cost, cast a somatic spell, and then pick your weapon up using your free object interaction. Making players do this just seems a bit silly. Given this, allowing a player to use a spell casting focus for S spells as well as S, M spells is hardly game breaking.
Is this interpretation RAW? In the absence of the official Sage Advice ruling I can see how it could be based on the last paragraph of the components section of the PHB, which I find easiest to parse when the subclause is divided out:
A spellcaster must have a hand free to access a spell's material components but it can be the same hand that he or she uses to perform somatic components.
A spellcaster must have a hand free to hold a spellcasting focus but it can be the same hand that he or she uses to perform somatic components.
It seems to be accepted that you can drop a weapon on your turn with no action cost, cast a somatic spell, and then pick your weapon up using your free object interaction. Making players do this just seems a bit silly. Given this, allowing a player to use a spell casting focus for S spells as well as S, M spells is hardly game breaking.
Personally, rather than imagine they casually toss their weapon on the ground, I like to think that they stab it into the ground (terrain permitting) so it can be retrieved more gracefully.
I think it is only RAW if you assume that the idea of 'drawing your weapon as part of your attack' includes picking it up off of the ground. On the other hand, the PHB says "[t]he DM might require you to use an action for any of these activities when it needs special care or when it presents an unusual obstacle[,]" which might just mean that a DM who doesn't like this is within the rules to say no -- picking the sword up from the ground requires an action. The exact 'other activity on your turn' that you can do for free and the ones that require an action aren't clearly defined and DM dependent.
Why bother having any rules that require a free hand if players and DMs are allowed go to hand-wave it away, either by having a weapon dropped on the ground for 1 second, or having whatever is in the hand tucked under the shoulder of the other arm so as to release the hand for spell-casting?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Answering this question in this thread is not worthwhile. I will give exactly one attempt.
As pointed out several pages ago, the literal letter of the rule for the Artificer feature says that it adds the requirement of tools or some other infusion to be used when casting spells — without changing the other requirements of the spell. There are other features that change the requirements of spells (I listed the ones that I could find in a post buried in the depths of this thread), and they are all explicit on what they do to components.
I’m not going to re engage the rest of the argument (Rav and the rest of us obviously disagree on how 5e works — whether the requirements of a spell are a property of that spell or what you happen to be holding instead). Whatever you think about the component rules, an artificer must add a focus to them too. I think you wouldn’t be able to use a staff and shield unless something was infused (or your arcane firearm, see below).
Wolf,
If the staff is their Arcane Firearm it can be used specifically as a Spellcasting focus.
That coupled with the other rules you mentioned pretty much covers it.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Thanks Sposta. I guess I ignored that mention of arcane firearm in their post.
Happens
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Thanks all, I appreciate the input.
I made a Wrist Dagger, people seem to like it.
I just read this entire thread. What a slog. I originally started reading because I was looking for answers to some Artificer questions like the one dinnydorf eventually asked.
Not to open old wounds or resurrect a dead thread, but it seems pretty obvious to me, especially after reading through all of the nonsense in this thread, that the RAW for Arcane Foci and somatic components in the PHB are open to interpretation. The RAW are not entirely clear. Both readings seem like they could be valid.
Given the subtleties of the Artificer class and the Imbued Wood foci from ERLW, I think it is likely that the non-fiddly just-use-your-focus-and-forget-about-it interpretation are the RAI.
I won't be returning to argue. That's just my 2¢.
Since the Warcaster feat only mentions weapons and shields, can you cast a VS/S spell with a hand holding a spellcrafting focus? Like, if I am grappling an opponent and casting a spell, would Warcaster allow me to cast the VS/S spell while holding a dagger, but not while holding an orb?
To be honest, and as evidenced by the 29 page thread that you attached your question to, it is unclear.
If you take the sentence on its face, then no. having a hand occupied by a focus is not covered by this feat. That gets into confusing territory for Clerics and Paladins who can use a shield as a focus (though there are few individuals who have posted here who would disagree that a holy symbol on a shield makes the shield the focus).
If waving a wand isn't a somatic gesture, your rules are wrong.
Any argument here is irrelevant because being unable to use a Focus for Somatic requirement violates Rule 0.
If push came to shove, I'd quit playing altogether until this is errata'd, because it's not just a bad ruling, it's a bad concept.
Focus can be used for Somatic or GTFO with this stupidity.
PHB is wrong. Got it.
Rules can't violate the DMs ability to ignore rules. That is impossible. It is why it is rule 0.
It doesn't need to be errata'd, you've already pointed out how rule 0 exists so rules you don't like can be ignored.
It is not a bad concept or stupid for a magic system to require intricate hand gestures (which can't usually be done while holding something). It is a relic from older editions and has been phased out to a point where it barely effects gameplay.
Waving a wand is A somatic gesture, just not the one you need to perform to cast the spell.
Yup. It happens: That's why errata exist.
My point is that the rule as you describe it should never be applied, because it is an artifact of poor language & amounts to bad game design, both conceptually & in practice. The blame for any arguments this rule creates lay with the publisher for not fixing it, & whatever DM or player is arguing to apply it. It's bad & you should feel bad for arguing in favor of it. If the DM doesn't immediately handwave (ha!) that interpretation away, then they're being a bad DM. Bad rule; needs errata'd before more arguments arise, over a rule that impedes gameplay without adding anything interesting. I feel sorry for anyone who has to interact with someone who insists upon enforcing this. It's that bad.
It DOES need to be errata'd, because DMs aren't the only ones at the table. This thread didn't reach 29 pages by being uncontroversial. It's highly problematic phrasing, yet adds nothing to the game except to make turns take longer. At the very least it should be spelled out explicitly all in one section, to avoid confusion. Better yet, change it. Either way, there SHOULD be an errata, even if only for clarification.
Emphasis on USUALLY. Usually: When you're not using a Focus. Wands and staves are almost invariably depicted as being used for a somatic gesture, & to argue that they don't fulfill that criteria is just weird annoying nonsense. D&D magic can of course work differently than we see it depicted elsewhere, but hopefully there's at least a good reason. In this case there isn't.
A relic that's being phased out sounds like exactly what errata & revised editions are for. I would not say that it "barely effects gameplay"! It DEEPLY affects gameplay: It imposes a crippling number of object interactions, in the best case scenario.
I'll say it again (& again & again):
Focus can be used for Somatic or GTFO with this stupidity.
Yes, they absolutely can... as long as the spell in question also requires Material components. If the spell does not, then a focus cannot be used to conduct the Somatic components for that spell. It is what it is.
Since there have been 2-3 erratas to the PHB already, and since this was not included in any of them, that implies this is in fact by design and not by accident. If you don’t like this rule, then as a DM you are free to house rule otherwise for your table. If you are not the DM, then you are free to broach the subject with your DM and see if they are willing to house rule it for the table. If they are unwilling to adopt that house rule, then switch groups. As I said before, it is what it is.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Suggested by a differently abled friend when I mentioned this just now:
(Please someone make this happen!)
Step 1: Make Crawford play a Lvl1 Wizard with one arm.
Step 2: Map full of ladders & rope-climbing.
Just for laughs, mind you. The real issue is that gesturing with an object of Focus should fulfill Somatic requirement, because otherwise Wands are awful & the action economy becomes crippling for half-casters & anyone else who needs to wield things.
Remember that each spell lists its requirements, and components are ONLY "physical requirements you must meet in order to cast it." A spell with V, S has requirements of being able to speak and a free hand. That is all.
And yet it hasn't been errata'd for over 6 years while plenty of other erratas have. There have also been Sage advices confirming that the rule means what it says and says what it means. The rule is exactly what the devs intended and it will not be changed in 5e.
Well I just covered how the rule is not a mistake or misunderstanding and won't get changed above so moving to next point. I'm not arguing in favor of this rule, I'm only arguing that this is what the rule is. This is the rules forum, we answer what the rules are here. If you want to discuss what the rules should be, I suggest going to house rules forum.
DMs aren't the only ones at the table, but they are the ultimate rules authority at it. And this thread didn't get to be 29 pages long because people who like the rule defend it from those who dislike it, there are 29 pages because people who dislike the rule keep arguing that the rule is different. This forum is for official rules and rulings. It has been clarified in SAC and is already pretty clear in PHB, an errata is unnecessary.
I haven't seen any D&D media depicting wands being used for somatic gestures, but irrelevant. Foci absolutely can, do, and should be used to perform somatic components for spells that also have material components (as many of the most iconic ones do).
Hello and welcome to 5th edition, a revised edition where material and somatic (and even verbal) components play a much smaller part in spellcasting than previous editions.
A crippling number of object interactions does not happen in "best case scenario." As I mentioned before, it barely happens in even the worst cases. You will rarely cast multiple spells per turn, so that is only 1 interaction per turn if you are constantly alternating between spells that do and don't have a focus. Most casters aren't great with weapons and can't use shields so their non-focus hand will probably be empty any way (that is 0 item interactions regardless of how many spells you cast). And lastly since most spells need an action to cast, you are likely not going to need anything other than what you need to cast the spell this turn. Arguing that there are too many item interactions is one that can easily be refuted, and if you are one of the 3 or so builds that this actually effects, good news there is a feat that makes it not effect you anymore.
Hi!
Poking my head up to (potentially) add something to this super long thread.
DM here, my party consists of a Bladesinger Wizard, Arcane Trickster Rogue, War Cleric, Moon Druid, and a Sorcerer/Paladin. Everyone has a class that is allowed to use a spellcasting focus, except for the Rogue. With this class mix and a variety of weapon combinations present, as DM I spent quite a bit of time trying to understand the intent behind the spellcasting focus rules to make sure that I wasn't treating people unfairly. So was looking at the object interaction rules, spell component rules, and also for context the War Caster feat. In the end it was the War Caster feat that helped me to make my final decision on how to play this at my table.
Famously, the War Caster feat grants several features, one of which is that you can perform the somatic components of a spell with two weapons or a weapon and a shield in your hands. The key insight that I had is why this part of the feat is so critical, and it has very little to do with what you can do on your turn. The reason why this feature is so important is because War Caster also grants you the ability to use your reaction to cast a spell in place of an opportunity attack on another creature's turn. Without the ability to perform somatic components with both your hands occupied, casting a spell as a reaction would basically be impossible (with a few exceptions).
So in my mind, the main value of this part of the War Caster feat is in the context of taking a reaction outside of your turn. It's less relevant (I think) as to what you are allowed to do on your turn due to other rules coming into play (such as the object interaction rules).
Turning to what is possible on your turn, I probably don't have much to add to what has already been stated. I can see where both sides are coming from. The game balance implications for either interpretation seem fairly minimal. Within the object interaction rules, there seems to quite a bit of flexibility with regard to interpretation. For example, the PHB states:
If I am wielding a two handed weapon I can open a door with one hand while holding my weapon in the other as my free object interaction, then attack with both hands. Strictly speaking, if I am holding a weapon and a shield then I need to sheathe my weapon before I have a free hand with which to open the door, at which point I have used my free object interaction and need to use an action to open the door. With this interpretation, two-handed weapon wielders have an advantage!
Is it imbalanced to allow a weapon and shield user to open the door as their free object interaction without formally having to stow their weapon? Probably not. Is this interpretation RAW? Probably not. It all just kinda depends on how strict you want to be as DM.
It seems to be accepted that you can drop a weapon on your turn with no action cost, cast a somatic spell, and then pick your weapon up using your free object interaction. Making players do this just seems a bit silly. Given this, allowing a player to use a spell casting focus for S spells as well as S, M spells is hardly game breaking.
Is this interpretation RAW? In the absence of the official Sage Advice ruling I can see how it could be based on the last paragraph of the components section of the PHB, which I find easiest to parse when the subclause is divided out:
I think it is only RAW if you assume that the idea of 'drawing your weapon as part of your attack' includes picking it up off of the ground. On the other hand, the PHB says "[t]he DM might require you to use an action for any of these activities when it needs special care or when it presents an unusual obstacle[,]" which might just mean that a DM who doesn't like this is within the rules to say no -- picking the sword up from the ground requires an action. The exact 'other activity on your turn' that you can do for free and the ones that require an action aren't clearly defined and DM dependent.
Why bother having any rules that require a free hand if players and DMs are allowed go to hand-wave it away, either by having a weapon dropped on the ground for 1 second, or having whatever is in the hand tucked under the shoulder of the other arm so as to release the hand for spell-casting?