I'm not sure what any of that has to do with my comment. You said: "You are specifically required to use artisans tools as a focus as an artificer for every spell that you cast" to suggest that the artificer couldn't benefit from their own enhanced arcane focus. I was just pointing out that an artificer can benefit from enhanced arcane focus, because they can use anything they've infused as a focus, not just artisan's tools.
Apparently nothing because your comment was just to nitpick my error, not to add to the conversation.
Pointing out that an artificer can certainly use their own mechanically beneficial enhanced focus is hardly nitpicking. And if someone comes away from it knowing this, instead of thinking they can't and thus missing out on that benefit, then I think it's added to the conversation for sure. There's no need to be so defensive.
And you did in fact point something else out to me too, that changed my thought on the subject. Artificers don't interface with any of these rules because they can use any infusion (or tools) as a focus and need a focus for all spell casting. If it weren't for you pointing the artificer focus rule out to me, I wouldn't have noticed the interaction.
This is particularly annoying with items such as a Wand of the War Mage, as they do count as arcane foci, but must be held, and thus if you want to use it to boost a ranged attack spell without a material component (e.g. Ray of Frost) you need two free hands.
Yes, exactly.
A wand of the warmage is no such thing when you can't use it to cast Firebolt.
And you did in fact point something else out to me too, that changed my thought on the subject. Artificers don't interface with any of these rules because they can use any infusion as a focus and need a focus for all spell casting. If it weren't for you pointing the artificer focus rule out to me, I wouldn't have noticed the interaction.
This is a bit of a tangent but not only do Artificers always use a focus, I'm not entirely convinced they have to deal with the other kinds of spell components RAW. The rules never explicitly say "you ignore V and S components" but this part:
To observers, you don’t appear to be casting spells in a conventional way; you look as if you’re producing wonders using mundane items or outlandish inventions.
...and the whole The Magic of Artifice sidebar very strongly imply there's no mystic words or hand gestures involved.
I'm very unlikely to stop my game mid-action to ask my casters if they have put away their wand or staff or shield or whatever in order to cast a spell. It's incredible unheroic. I also don't want my players to shout at me "Wait, wait! the shaman didn't drop his totem and dagger before casting that spell!"
Why not?
Would you do it to warriors? Would you ask the fighters if they have put away their bow before hitting a foe with a sword? Would you ask the rogues what they've done with their dual-wielded short swords before picking a lock? Would you ask the cleric if they have put away their hammer before throwing a flask of holy water?
Wouldn't your players shout at you, "Wait, wait! The shaman didn't drop their shield before attacking with a glaive!"
The action economy, including hand limitations, is in the game to force players to make choices with consequences. You can't do everything, and the things you can do all have tradeoffs.
This is a bit of a tangent but not only do Artificers always use a focus, I'm not entirely convinced they have to deal with the other kinds of spell components RAW. The rules never explicitly say "you ignore V and S components" but this part:
To observers, you don’t appear to be casting spells in a conventional way; you look as if you’re producing wonders using mundane items or outlandish inventions.
...and the whole The Magic of Artifice sidebar very strongly imply there's no mystic words or hand gestures involved.
For verbal I tend think of them going off on some technobabble pseudoscientific explanation like Doc Brown from Back to the Future or something. And for somatic I always imagine pulling out a gizmo from the steampunkiest utility belt ever and physically cranking handles to generate charge... or maybe some fire & forget thingamabobs that they always seem to have, like, twenty of....
You can hold an infinite number of items in a hand, switching items between hands is a non-action. You can only use one item in a hand, with the exception being a shield which is donned and can always be used, but items held in the shield hand cannot be used. It is VERY easy to have a free hand without dropping, stowing, sheathing, or leaning anything...
Yeah this, and it's why that's a dumb ruling by crawford. "I hold my mace with my shield hand, cast the spell than shift my mace back to my hand"
The only real impact would be the example of a rod or wand that you want to use because its boosts your spells but than not being able to hold a shield and having to drop it and pick it up. It's basically a rule that as clarified simply seeks to slow down the game for no reason
Not to mention it's just silly you can do a SM spell with your shield and mace but woah watch out M left the equation so the spell got harder! >.> whut?
Not to mention it's just silly you can do a SM spell with your shield and mace but woah watch out M left the equation so the spell got harder! >.> whut?
I think this is the part of the argument against the rules that never made much sense to me. You are telling me that if I had a sword and a shield in my hands, that it shouldn’t be harder to, say, swing a greataxe (or pick a lock, etc)? Having your hands full of stuff unrelated to the current task should hinder you.
You can hold an infinite number of items in a hand, switching items between hands is a non-action. You can only use one item in a hand, with the exception being a shield which is donned and can always be used, but items held in the shield hand cannot be used. It is VERY easy to have a free hand without dropping, stowing, sheathing, or leaning anything...
Yeah this, and it's why that's a dumb ruling by crawford. "I hold my mace with my shield hand, cast the spell than shift my mace back to my hand"
There's no rule on how many items you can carry in one hand, but that also means there's no rule that explicitly allows you to do this either. This isn't necessarily trivial to do depending on the weapon and the type of shield you're using. E.g. Some swords and knives can have very elaborate hilts and guards. A top-heavy weapon like a hammer or mace could be hard to hold with a large viking-style shield with a center grip. If you've got a repeating hand crossbow, I could see that being particularly tricky to hold in your shield hand too.
This is one of those things you should work out with your DM, like exactly how many javelins you could hold in one hand before things start to get silly.
Not to mention it's just silly you can do a SM spell with your shield and mace but woah watch out M left the equation so the spell got harder! >.> whut?
A spell that requires holding a stick is obviously going to have different hand gestures compared to a spell that's designed to be cast empty-handed. Imagine trying to do sign language with a mace in your hand. E.g. This
There's no rule that allows that - at least not with any mechanical significance. As always, the game encourages you to spice up your roleplaying with as many narrative flourishes as you like as long as it doesn't conflict with the rules or you have the DM's blessing.
As an extreme example a bard isn't required to play the instrument they're using as a focus but I think most players assume that's how their spellcasting works and roleplay it as such.
Am I imagining it, but wasn't there a rule that allows a caster to add components to a spell willingly?
You might be thinking of Pathfinder 2e, which occasionally allows this. Each different component requires a separate action to fulfill, and some spells have additional effects with more components. Magic Missile, for example, lets you shoot one missile per component you provide.
Not to mention it's just silly you can do a SM spell with your shield and mace but woah watch out M left the equation so the spell got harder! >.> whut?
I think this is the part of the argument against the rules that never made much sense to me. You are telling me that if I had a sword and a shield in my hands, that it shouldn’t be harder to, say, swing a greataxe (or pick a lock, etc)? Having your hands full of stuff unrelated to the current task should hinder you.
I don't know many people that would argue that you can swing a greataxe with a sword and shield in hand. Picking a lock out of combat is a hand wave moment, just like casting a spell out of combat. There is no time crunch so of course you put your weapons away. What's 6 seconds when you're not keeping track of the seconds. In combat, I'd fully expect you to stow or "drop" (setting it on the ground) at least one hand's equipment to start picking a lock. The DC should be higher if you don't.
Not to mention it's just silly you can do a SM spell with your shield and mace but woah watch out M left the equation so the spell got harder! >.> whut?
I think this is the part of the argument against the rules that never made much sense to me. You are telling me that if I had a sword and a shield in my hands, that it shouldn’t be harder to, say, swing a greataxe (or pick a lock, etc)? Having your hands full of stuff unrelated to the current task should hinder you.
No because in the prior example I can gesture and hold the twigs and berrys I need in a single hand, or use a shields holy symbol and gesture with my hands to cast the spell. It HAS Somatics in the casting. but suddenly removing the need to use the twigs and berrys or the need for the symbol you suddenly can't gesture.
As for in-game impact what exactly does this do? as I said in my example what suddenly makes it s o the cleric can't just hold their mace with their shield hand than cast the spell n grip their mace again? Why make it easier to cast SM spells but than also make it harder to cast S spells?
I think this is one of those things DMs need to be super careful about suddenly being sticklers for or even other players cuse ppl are jus gonna bash them in over it. Nope sorry guy that pointed out my casting issues you cant do what you stated you want to try to do cuse theres not rule supporting it or you didnt declare sheathing your weapon before jumping for the rope to grab it. Nope sorry DM your BBEG doesn't cast that spell because he doesnt have a free hand, you didnt declare him shifting his weapons or sheathing. nyahaha!
Not to mention it's just silly you can do a SM spell with your shield and mace but woah watch out M left the equation so the spell got harder! >.> whut?
I think this is the part of the argument against the rules that never made much sense to me. You are telling me that if I had a sword and a shield in my hands, that it shouldn’t be harder to, say, swing a greataxe (or pick a lock, etc)? Having your hands full of stuff unrelated to the current task should hinder you.
No because in the prior example I can gesture and hold the twigs and berrys I need in a single hand, or use a shields holy symbol and gesture with my hands to cast the spell. It HAS Somatics in the casting. but suddenly removing the need to use the twigs and berrys or the need for the symbol you suddenly can't gesture.
As for in-game impact what exactly does this do? as I said in my example what suddenly makes it s o the cleric can't just hold their mace with their shield hand than cast the spell n grip their mace again? Why make it easier to cast SM spells but than also make it harder to cast S spells?
I think this is one of those things DMs need to be super careful about suddenly being sticklers for or even other players cuse ppl are jus gonna bash them in over it. Nope sorry guy that pointed out my casting issues you cant do what you stated you want to try to do cuse theres not rule supporting it or you didnt declare sheathing your weapon before jumping for the rope to grab it. Nope sorry DM your BBEG doesn't cast that spell because he doesnt have a free hand, you didnt declare him shifting his weapons or sheathing. nyahaha!
I think I will be unable to explain to you that something unrelated to a task hinders that task. I can make a melee attack with a sword, yet I still can't have one in my hand while I'm making a melee attack with a greataxe. I'm still making a melee attack, yet holding a(n unneeded) weapon in my hand somehow hinders that? Of course. It is that simple. Something that isn't part of an action (short sword or focus) and is unrelated to what you want to do (make a great axe attack or cast a spell without material components) prevents that action. It seems so obvious it hurts.
You seem to be writing from the impression that "since a material component has to do with spellcasting sometimes, then it cannot interfere with spellcasting ever." That is like saying "since a sword is sometimes used for melee attacks, holding one cannot interfere with any melee attack I want to make." The second is obviously wrong, yet people have trouble with the first.
How does that matter mechanically? That all depends on how picky your group is, and whether you count free object interactions. Shifting your mace to your shield hand is one, and shifting it back is a second, so they both should not be done on one turn RAW.
Not to mention it's just silly you can do a SM spell with your shield and mace but woah watch out M left the equation so the spell got harder! >.> whut?
I think this is the part of the argument against the rules that never made much sense to me. You are telling me that if I had a sword and a shield in my hands, that it shouldn’t be harder to, say, swing a greataxe (or pick a lock, etc)? Having your hands full of stuff unrelated to the current task should hinder you.
No because in the prior example I can gesture and hold the twigs and berrys I need in a single hand, or use a shields holy symbol and gesture with my hands to cast the spell. It HAS Somatics in the casting. but suddenly removing the need to use the twigs and berrys or the need for the symbol you suddenly can't gesture.
As for in-game impact what exactly does this do? as I said in my example what suddenly makes it s o the cleric can't just hold their mace with their shield hand than cast the spell n grip their mace again? Why make it easier to cast SM spells but than also make it harder to cast S spells?
I think this is one of those things DMs need to be super careful about suddenly being sticklers for or even other players cuse ppl are jus gonna bash them in over it. Nope sorry guy that pointed out my casting issues you cant do what you stated you want to try to do cuse theres not rule supporting it or you didnt declare sheathing your weapon before jumping for the rope to grab it. Nope sorry DM your BBEG doesn't cast that spell because he doesnt have a free hand, you didnt declare him shifting his weapons or sheathing. nyahaha!
I think I will be unable to explain to you that something unrelated to a task hinders that task. I can make a melee attack with a sword, yet I still can't have one in my hand while I'm making a melee attack with a greataxe. I'm still making a melee attack, yet holding a(n unneeded) weapon in my hand somehow hinders that? Of course. It is that simple. Something that isn't part of an action (short sword or focus) and is unrelated to what you want to do (make a great axe attack or cast a spell without material components) prevents that action. It seems so obvious it hurts.
You seem to be writing from the impression that "since a material component has to do with spellcasting sometimes, then it cannot interfere with spellcasting ever." That is like saying "since a sword is sometimes used for melee attacks, holding one cannot interfere with any melee attack I want to make." The second is obviously wrong, yet people have trouble with the first.
How does that matter mechanically? That all depends on how picky your group is, and whether you count free object interactions. Shifting your mace to your shield hand is one, and shifting it back is a second, so they both should not be done on one turn RAW.
And when people get rules lawyer-y you can simply point that the rules state that interacting with a second object requires your action, not the same object. So if you do use and track the free objects interaction rule your still only fiddling with the same object during your turn. You can also point out how drawing an arrow to fire isn't considered an interaction and is much the same level of effort as just holding your weapon.
Just saying its a poor rule to try enforce because there are a lot of ways out of it because the rules are pretty vague on how things work, and if it comes down to a player battle over enforcement you can expect said players to constantly nickle and dime every interaction at your table.
And when people get rules lawyer-y you can simply point that the rules state that interacting with a second object requires your action, not the same object. So if you do use and track the free objects interaction rule your still only fiddling with the same object during your turn. You can also point out how drawing an arrow to fire isn't considered an interaction and is much the same level of effort as just holding your weapon.
Just saying its a poor rule to try enforce because there are a lot of ways out of it because the rules are pretty vague on how things work, and if it comes down to a player battle over enforcement you can expect said players to constantly nickle and dime every interaction at your table.
The arrow is specifically mentioned in the rules. The interactions with the weapon are more vague and open to interpretation on that account.
If you feel like you're getting nickel and dimed with these interactions, this is probably a good thing to bring up at session zero. This way you'll have an idea of whether the DMs style and your style will be a good fit.
I think the majority of yall in this thread are dead wrong. Of course you can use the same hand holding your focus to do the somatic components. Rules says you can.
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.
That's the text in question that says you can do it, found in the Material Components section of the rules.
Yeah yeah, you argue it isn't relevant if the spell doesn't have material components but you're wrong. Here's why. Because you're holding an Arcane Focus, and the arcane focus ALSO has rules text to consider.
An arcane focus is a special item designed to channel the power of arcane spells. A sorcerer, warlock, or wizard can use such an item as a spellcasting focus, as described in the Spellcasting section.
This is from Arcane Focus. It specifically says that an arcane focus CAN channel your arcane spell... it makes no distinction that these spells must have a material component requirement. And when you do so, see the rules on the spellcasting focus in the Spellcasting section. And those rules... are the Material Component rules, as in the first quote.
What does that mean? It means you can channel any arcane spell through an arcane focus, and when you do so you are invoking the material components section of the rules and it states you can fulfil the somatic components with the same hand.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
There is nothing actually written about arcane foci or material components in the rule on somatic components...
EXACTLY. The rules tell you exactly what they do. The rules for somatic components tell you exactly what you need when you have a spell that has a somatic component. No more, no less. That is my entire point. They don't care about focii because they are unrelated to S components in so far as themselves. You are the one who is trying to add in text from the M rules to spells that don't have M components. I don't know why that makes me the wrong one, still. Say it in simple terms. Why is it that a spell with out the M component should be beholden to M rules?
Yeah this is an example of the wrong-think that's going on up in this thread. Yall straight up ignoring the rules of the arcane focus itself. Just... straight up have to pretend that that rules text is absent entirely. Again... Arcane Focus:
An arcane focus is a special item designed to channel the power of arcane spells. A sorcerer, warlock, or wizard can use such an item as a spellcasting focus, as described in the Spellcasting section.
So, you cast your S spell and channel it through the focus you're holding. See Spellcasting. Now we're bringing that Material Component section into play. Right there, the Arcane Focus text told us to do it. So we see the Spellcasting rules for spell focus, under the Material Component rules, and right there it tells us we can do S components in the same hand as the focus.
Yall need to stop trying to overcomplicate this. Seriously.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
Ravnodaus, if you read the rules or the SAC, you'll find that you are describing how you think it should work, not what is written or intended to work. Your whole argument hinges on using rules for components that spells don't have. The rules you're talking about for the focus refer to the rules that you're trying to ignore by pointing the focus rules out (your quote even has the link!!!!!). That is some seriously circular misunderstanding.
Let me ask it this way: Do I need to have the archery fighting style to add the +2 to attack rolls from it to my ranged attacks? Why?
Pointing out that an artificer can certainly use their own mechanically beneficial enhanced focus is hardly nitpicking. And if someone comes away from it knowing this, instead of thinking they can't and thus missing out on that benefit, then I think it's added to the conversation for sure. There's no need to be so defensive.
You are right. I am sorry.
And you did in fact point something else out to me too, that changed my thought on the subject. Artificers don't interface with any of these rules because they can use any infusion (or tools) as a focus and need a focus for all spell casting. If it weren't for you pointing the artificer focus rule out to me, I wouldn't have noticed the interaction.
Yes, exactly.
A wand of the warmage is no such thing when you can't use it to cast Firebolt.
This is a bit of a tangent but not only do Artificers always use a focus, I'm not entirely convinced they have to deal with the other kinds of spell components RAW. The rules never explicitly say "you ignore V and S components" but this part:
...and the whole The Magic of Artifice sidebar very strongly imply there's no mystic words or hand gestures involved.
The Forum Infestation (TM)
Why not?
Would you do it to warriors? Would you ask the fighters if they have put away their bow before hitting a foe with a sword? Would you ask the rogues what they've done with their dual-wielded short swords before picking a lock? Would you ask the cleric if they have put away their hammer before throwing a flask of holy water?
Wouldn't your players shout at you, "Wait, wait! The shaman didn't drop their shield before attacking with a glaive!"
The action economy, including hand limitations, is in the game to force players to make choices with consequences. You can't do everything, and the things you can do all have tradeoffs.
For verbal I tend think of them going off on some technobabble pseudoscientific explanation like Doc Brown from Back to the Future or something. And for somatic I always imagine pulling out a gizmo from the steampunkiest utility belt ever and physically cranking handles to generate charge...
or maybe some fire & forget thingamabobs that they always seem to have, like, twenty of....
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Yeah this, and it's why that's a dumb ruling by crawford. "I hold my mace with my shield hand, cast the spell than shift my mace back to my hand"
The only real impact would be the example of a rod or wand that you want to use because its boosts your spells but than not being able to hold a shield and having to drop it and pick it up. It's basically a rule that as clarified simply seeks to slow down the game for no reason
Not to mention it's just silly you can do a SM spell with your shield and mace but woah watch out M left the equation so the spell got harder! >.> whut?
I think this is the part of the argument against the rules that never made much sense to me. You are telling me that if I had a sword and a shield in my hands, that it shouldn’t be harder to, say, swing a greataxe (or pick a lock, etc)? Having your hands full of stuff unrelated to the current task should hinder you.
There's no rule on how many items you can carry in one hand, but that also means there's no rule that explicitly allows you to do this either. This isn't necessarily trivial to do depending on the weapon and the type of shield you're using. E.g. Some swords and knives can have very elaborate hilts and guards. A top-heavy weapon like a hammer or mace could be hard to hold with a large viking-style shield with a center grip. If you've got a repeating hand crossbow, I could see that being particularly tricky to hold in your shield hand too.
This is one of those things you should work out with your DM, like exactly how many javelins you could hold in one hand before things start to get silly.
A spell that requires holding a stick is obviously going to have different hand gestures compared to a spell that's designed to be cast empty-handed. Imagine trying to do sign language with a mace in your hand. E.g. This
is very different from this
The Forum Infestation (TM)
Am I imagining it, but wasn't there a rule that allows a caster to add components to a spell willingly?
There's no rule that allows that - at least not with any mechanical significance. As always, the game encourages you to spice up your roleplaying with as many narrative flourishes as you like as long as it doesn't conflict with the rules or you have the DM's blessing.
As an extreme example a bard isn't required to play the instrument they're using as a focus but I think most players assume that's how their spellcasting works and roleplay it as such.
The Forum Infestation (TM)
You might be thinking of Pathfinder 2e, which occasionally allows this. Each different component requires a separate action to fulfill, and some spells have additional effects with more components. Magic Missile, for example, lets you shoot one missile per component you provide.
I don't know many people that would argue that you can swing a greataxe with a sword and shield in hand. Picking a lock out of combat is a hand wave moment, just like casting a spell out of combat. There is no time crunch so of course you put your weapons away. What's 6 seconds when you're not keeping track of the seconds. In combat, I'd fully expect you to stow or "drop" (setting it on the ground) at least one hand's equipment to start picking a lock. The DC should be higher if you don't.
No because in the prior example I can gesture and hold the twigs and berrys I need in a single hand, or use a shields holy symbol and gesture with my hands to cast the spell. It HAS Somatics in the casting. but suddenly removing the need to use the twigs and berrys or the need for the symbol you suddenly can't gesture.
As for in-game impact what exactly does this do? as I said in my example what suddenly makes it s o the cleric can't just hold their mace with their shield hand than cast the spell n grip their mace again? Why make it easier to cast SM spells but than also make it harder to cast S spells?
I think this is one of those things DMs need to be super careful about suddenly being sticklers for or even other players cuse ppl are jus gonna bash them in over it. Nope sorry guy that pointed out my casting issues you cant do what you stated you want to try to do cuse theres not rule supporting it or you didnt declare sheathing your weapon before jumping for the rope to grab it. Nope sorry DM your BBEG doesn't cast that spell because he doesnt have a free hand, you didnt declare him shifting his weapons or sheathing. nyahaha!
I think I will be unable to explain to you that something unrelated to a task hinders that task. I can make a melee attack with a sword, yet I still can't have one in my hand while I'm making a melee attack with a greataxe. I'm still making a melee attack, yet holding a(n unneeded) weapon in my hand somehow hinders that? Of course. It is that simple. Something that isn't part of an action (short sword or focus) and is unrelated to what you want to do (make a great axe attack or cast a spell without material components) prevents that action. It seems so obvious it hurts.
You seem to be writing from the impression that "since a material component has to do with spellcasting sometimes, then it cannot interfere with spellcasting ever." That is like saying "since a sword is sometimes used for melee attacks, holding one cannot interfere with any melee attack I want to make." The second is obviously wrong, yet people have trouble with the first.
How does that matter mechanically? That all depends on how picky your group is, and whether you count free object interactions. Shifting your mace to your shield hand is one, and shifting it back is a second, so they both should not be done on one turn RAW.
And when people get rules lawyer-y you can simply point that the rules state that interacting with a second object requires your action, not the same object. So if you do use and track the free objects interaction rule your still only fiddling with the same object during your turn. You can also point out how drawing an arrow to fire isn't considered an interaction and is much the same level of effort as just holding your weapon.
Just saying its a poor rule to try enforce because there are a lot of ways out of it because the rules are pretty vague on how things work, and if it comes down to a player battle over enforcement you can expect said players to constantly nickle and dime every interaction at your table.
The arrow is specifically mentioned in the rules. The interactions with the weapon are more vague and open to interpretation on that account.
If you feel like you're getting nickel and dimed with these interactions, this is probably a good thing to bring up at session zero. This way you'll have an idea of whether the DMs style and your style will be a good fit.
Edit: Truncating quotes.
I think the majority of yall in this thread are dead wrong. Of course you can use the same hand holding your focus to do the somatic components. Rules says you can.
That's the text in question that says you can do it, found in the Material Components section of the rules.
Yeah yeah, you argue it isn't relevant if the spell doesn't have material components but you're wrong. Here's why. Because you're holding an Arcane Focus, and the arcane focus ALSO has rules text to consider.
This is from Arcane Focus. It specifically says that an arcane focus CAN channel your arcane spell... it makes no distinction that these spells must have a material component requirement. And when you do so, see the rules on the spellcasting focus in the Spellcasting section. And those rules... are the Material Component rules, as in the first quote.
What does that mean? It means you can channel any arcane spell through an arcane focus, and when you do so you are invoking the material components section of the rules and it states you can fulfil the somatic components with the same hand.
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
Yeah this is an example of the wrong-think that's going on up in this thread.
Yall straight up ignoring the rules of the arcane focus itself. Just... straight up have to pretend that that rules text is absent entirely.
Again... Arcane Focus:
So, you cast your S spell and channel it through the focus you're holding. See Spellcasting.
Now we're bringing that Material Component section into play. Right there, the Arcane Focus text told us to do it.
So we see the Spellcasting rules for spell focus, under the Material Component rules, and right there it tells us we can do S components in the same hand as the focus.
Yall need to stop trying to overcomplicate this. Seriously.
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
Ravnodaus, if you read the rules or the SAC, you'll find that you are describing how you think it should work, not what is written or intended to work. Your whole argument hinges on using rules for components that spells don't have. The rules you're talking about for the focus refer to the rules that you're trying to ignore by pointing the focus rules out (your quote even has the link!!!!!). That is some seriously circular misunderstanding.
Let me ask it this way: Do I need to have the archery fighting style to add the +2 to attack rolls from it to my ranged attacks? Why?