So what does a component pouch do then or are they the same??
For all intents and purposes they are the same. Component Pouches provide the material components when they don't cost anything. Instead of holding the focus you hold the actual material.
The main difference is that some classes cannot use focuses and can only use the Component Pouch.
Artificer: Thieves Tools, any artisan's tool, or any item you have infused can be used as a spell focus required for all spells; component pouches not allowed
Bard: Can use musical instruments as spell focus, can use component pouches
Blood Hunter (Profane Soul): Can use weapon as a spell focus, can use component pouches
Cleric: can use a holy symbol (either hand-held, worn visibly, or displayed as a design on shield) as a spell focus, can use component pouches
Druid: can use a druidic focus (either a hand-held small item, or a wooden Quarterstaff) as a spell focus, can use component pouches
Fighter (Eldritch Knight): no spell focus, can use component pouches
Monk (Four Elements, Shadow): No components needed
Paladin: can use a holy symbol (either hand-held, worn visibly, or displayed as a design on shield) as a spell focus, can use component pouches
Ranger no spell focus, can use component pouches
Rogue (Arcane Trickster): no spell focus, can use component pouches
Sorcerer: can use an arcane focus (hand-held, or any Quarterstaff) as a spell focus, can use component pouches
Warlock: can use an arcane focus (hand-held, or any Quarterstaff) as a spell focus, can use component pouches
Warlock (w/ Improved Pact Weapon): can also use your summoned Pact Weapon as a spell focus, in addition to an arcane focus or component pouch
Wizard: can use an arcane focus (hand-held, or any Quarterstaff) as a spell focus, can use component pouches
As you'll note from Chicken_Champ's list, some of these options are just flavor, but some can be used as weapons or shields, which means switching what you are holding may not be required as often. For example, generally staffs can also be wielded as quarterstaffs.
Arcane and druidic foci can be a quarterstaff and holy symbols can be a shield. This leaves artificer, bard, ranger, and the 3rd casters as the odd ones out in this regard.
Artificer: Thieves Tools, any artisan's tool, or any item you have infused can be used as a spell focus required for all spells; component pouches not allowed
Huh, hadn't noticed that switch-up. Doubt it'll come up, but I'll have to remember that for when we (finally!) start playing in Eberron.
"Not allowed" might have been overstating it, their spells still have material components and component pouches provide no-cost material components. It's just that Artificers are required to hold their Tool/Infused Item in order to cast any spell, and that Tool/Item already operates as a spell focus doing away with no-cost material components, so a material component pouch is 100% redundant and just takes up a second hand for no reason.
Arcane Focus replaces all spell casting materials that don't have a cost. For example, it replaces the drop of blood required to cast Bane but does not replace the diamonds worth 300 gp to cast Revivify. A Component Pouch magically has any spell casting material you need other than those with a cost. So you reach into your Component Pouch for the drop of blood to cast Bane but you can't pull out diamonds worth 300 gp.
Not quite. An arcane focus staff (an item costing 5 GP) can be used as a weapon, but a quarterstaff (an item costing 2 SP) cannot be used as an arcane focus.
False! Doesn't say anywhere that quarterstaffs aren't staffs (or vice versa), so at worst it's ambiguous. And RAI, there's tweets etc. somewhere that I don't care to look up indicating that a Quarterstaff is a staff is a quarterstaff. And RAF, Gandalf carries one staff, not one to whack hobbits with and one to cast spells with, thank you very much.
Arbitrating whether a staff is a staff or a quarterstaff is just asking for the table to get bogged down in pedantic arguing, there's no harm and little reason not to let arcane casters walk around carrying one staff instead of two, and there's nothing in the rules text inviting the DM to make that a fight worth having.
Might be more pedantic hair splitting, but my interpretation was that the staff itself wasn't necessarily the Focus, but rather the thing holding whatever crystal or orb or what have you is the actual focus. The Quarterstaff itself isn't the focus, but the amulet or jewel set in or lashed to one end is the Focus.
A quarterstaff is a different thing than an staff. You may represent the difference between an arcane focus staff and a quarterstaff any flavorful way that you'd like in your game, but it is not necessarily because you've simply added another focus to a weapon. Generally, I think it is ruled that a staff can be used to make attacks as a quarterstaff, but a quarterstaff cannot be used as a focus. This is somewhat counter intuitive from the real world, but as always in these discussions, it is part of a game.
Shrug fine, quarterstaffs are just shitty staffs, carry a staff and use it as a quarterstaff and never look back.
youre still going to have to add a quarter staff to your dndbeyond character sheet to show the attack though, demonstrating why this hair splitting was never worth it.
I just look at DnD Beyond. Staff is tagged as Arcane Focus, Wooden Staff is tagged Druidic Focus, and Quarterstaff is tagged weapon. Part of the reason not to allow a Quarterstaff be used as a focus is it allows the player to make a melee attack with the quarterstaff and then a bonus action spell with a material component all while holding a shield (assuming you have the War Caster feat). Whereas having a quarterstaff and a staff you need a free hand to interact with the staff in order to cast the spell with the material component so you can't use a shield too.
But you CAN do that, RAW, with a staff. The PHB tells you “a staff may be used to attack as a quarterstaff” somewhere (on my phone, but it’s there), it’s just apparently the reverse which isn’t true. There is no mechanical reason justifying the difference, apparently it’s just about the extra 5 gp for a starting character for one vs. the other? Eyeroll.gif
A quarterstaff is a different thing than an staff. You may represent the difference between an arcane focus staff and a quarterstaff any flavorful way that you'd like in your game, but it is not necessarily because you've simply added another focus to a weapon. Generally, I think it is ruled that a staff can be used to make attacks as a quarterstaff, but a quarterstaff cannot be used as a focus. This is somewhat counter intuitive from the real world, but as always in these discussions, it is part of a game.
But you CAN do that, RAW, with a staff. The PHB tells you “a staff may be used to attack as a quarterstaff” somewhere (on my phone, but it’s there), it’s just apparently the reverse which isn’t true. There is no mechanical reason justifying the difference, apparently it’s just about the extra 5 gp for a starting character for one vs. the other? Eyeroll.gif
It is in the DMG under types of magic items. I believe JC confirmed in a tweet that this applied to non-magic staves too, but it is not in SAC and is up to DM.
Unless a staff’s description says otherwise, a staff can be used as a quarterstaff.
I really feel like a gem-encrusted ring should be usable as a spellcasting focus. It may be against the spirit of the rules, but it certainly satisfies every logical element of a magical focus.
They don’t have rings because the idea is the focus is something you need to hold in your hand, thus occupying it. Rings would be a really fuzzy point for that.
They don’t have rings because the idea is the focus is something you need to hold in your hand, thus occupying it. Rings would be a really fuzzy point for that.
You're technically right, but personally it's an element of the game that really should change IMO (and which I imagine many tables ignore.)
Take the Warlock's Genie subclass. You have a genie vessel of your choice that you can use as an arcane focus, and it explicitly allows for rings. Given that, why would you ever choose anything else, since choosing the ring still leaves you with two free hands, and the other choices (lamp, statuette, etc.) don't? When you wind up giving a (rather harsh) mechanical penalty to players for making a choice that's supposed to be purely flavor, it suggests that maybe your rules about how that choice affects gameplay are just a bit too strict.
WotC would be well-served by simply hand-waving the requirement to hold one's arcane focus in the next version. This would allow for rings, amulets worn around the neck, and other focii that make logical sense but are pretty much only barred/not listed because they break that implicit requirement (and besides, with things like Genie Vessels and Nature's Mantle, they seem to be going in this direction anyway.)
A spellcaster must have a hand free to hold a spellcasting focus, even a cleric's holy symbol emblazoned on a shield still occupy a hand for that matter.
I'd say a big storm giant crystal gem-encrusted ring could work! ;)
So what does a component pouch do then or are they the same??
For all intents and purposes they are the same. Component Pouches provide the material components when they don't cost anything. Instead of holding the focus you hold the actual material.
The main difference is that some classes cannot use focuses and can only use the Component Pouch.
Mega Yahtzee Thread:
Highest 41: brocker2001 (#11,285).
Yahtzee of 2's: Emmber (#36,161).
Lowest 9: JoeltheWalrus (#312), Emmber (#12,505) and Dertinus (#20,953).
Spellcasters and their focuses:
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
As you'll note from Chicken_Champ's list, some of these options are just flavor, but some can be used as weapons or shields, which means switching what you are holding may not be required as often. For example, generally staffs can also be wielded as quarterstaffs.
Arcane and druidic foci can be a quarterstaff and holy symbols can be a shield. This leaves artificer, bard, ranger, and the 3rd casters as the odd ones out in this regard.
Huh, hadn't noticed that switch-up. Doubt it'll come up, but I'll have to remember that for when we (finally!) start playing in Eberron.
Sterling - V. Human Bard 3 (College of Art) - [Pic] - [Traits] - in Bards: Dragon Heist (w/ Mansion) - Jasper's [Pic] - Sterling's [Sigil]
Tooltips Post (2024 PHB updates) - incl. General Rules
>> New FOW threat & treasure tables: fow-advanced-threat-tables.pdf fow-advanced-treasure-table.pdf
"Not allowed" might have been overstating it, their spells still have material components and component pouches provide no-cost material components. It's just that Artificers are required to hold their Tool/Infused Item in order to cast any spell, and that Tool/Item already operates as a spell focus doing away with no-cost material components, so a material component pouch is 100% redundant and just takes up a second hand for no reason.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
Arcane Focus replaces all spell casting materials that don't have a cost. For example, it replaces the drop of blood required to cast Bane but does not replace the diamonds worth 300 gp to cast Revivify. A Component Pouch magically has any spell casting material you need other than those with a cost. So you reach into your Component Pouch for the drop of blood to cast Bane but you can't pull out diamonds worth 300 gp.
Not quite. An arcane focus staff (an item costing 5 GP) can be used as a weapon, but a quarterstaff (an item costing 2 SP) cannot be used as an arcane focus.
False! Doesn't say anywhere that quarterstaffs aren't staffs (or vice versa), so at worst it's ambiguous. And RAI, there's tweets etc. somewhere that I don't care to look up indicating that a Quarterstaff is a staff is a quarterstaff. And RAF, Gandalf carries one staff, not one to whack hobbits with and one to cast spells with, thank you very much.
Arbitrating whether a staff is a staff or a quarterstaff is just asking for the table to get bogged down in pedantic arguing, there's no harm and little reason not to let arcane casters walk around carrying one staff instead of two, and there's nothing in the rules text inviting the DM to make that a fight worth having.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
Might be more pedantic hair splitting, but my interpretation was that the staff itself wasn't necessarily the Focus, but rather the thing holding whatever crystal or orb or what have you is the actual focus. The Quarterstaff itself isn't the focus, but the amulet or jewel set in or lashed to one end is the Focus.
A quarterstaff is a different thing than an staff. You may represent the difference between an arcane focus staff and a quarterstaff any flavorful way that you'd like in your game, but it is not necessarily because you've simply added another focus to a weapon. Generally, I think it is ruled that a staff can be used to make attacks as a quarterstaff, but a quarterstaff cannot be used as a focus. This is somewhat counter intuitive from the real world, but as always in these discussions, it is part of a game.
Shrug fine, quarterstaffs are just shitty staffs, carry a staff and use it as a quarterstaff and never look back.
youre still going to have to add a quarter staff to your dndbeyond character sheet to show the attack though, demonstrating why this hair splitting was never worth it.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
I just look at DnD Beyond. Staff is tagged as Arcane Focus, Wooden Staff is tagged Druidic Focus, and Quarterstaff is tagged weapon. Part of the reason not to allow a Quarterstaff be used as a focus is it allows the player to make a melee attack with the quarterstaff and then a bonus action spell with a material component all while holding a shield (assuming you have the War Caster feat). Whereas having a quarterstaff and a staff you need a free hand to interact with the staff in order to cast the spell with the material component so you can't use a shield too.
But you CAN do that, RAW, with a staff. The PHB tells you “a staff may be used to attack as a quarterstaff” somewhere (on my phone, but it’s there), it’s just apparently the reverse which isn’t true. There is no mechanical reason justifying the difference, apparently it’s just about the extra 5 gp for a starting character for one vs. the other? Eyeroll.gif
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
Right. This.
It is in the DMG under types of magic items. I believe JC confirmed in a tweet that this applied to non-magic staves too, but it is not in SAC and is up to DM.
https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/dmg/treasure#Staffs
I really feel like a gem-encrusted ring should be usable as a spellcasting focus. It may be against the spirit of the rules, but it certainly satisfies every logical element of a magical focus.
They don’t have rings because the idea is the focus is something you need to hold in your hand, thus occupying it. Rings would be a really fuzzy point for that.
You're technically right, but personally it's an element of the game that really should change IMO (and which I imagine many tables ignore.)
Take the Warlock's Genie subclass. You have a genie vessel of your choice that you can use as an arcane focus, and it explicitly allows for rings. Given that, why would you ever choose anything else, since choosing the ring still leaves you with two free hands, and the other choices (lamp, statuette, etc.) don't? When you wind up giving a (rather harsh) mechanical penalty to players for making a choice that's supposed to be purely flavor, it suggests that maybe your rules about how that choice affects gameplay are just a bit too strict.
WotC would be well-served by simply hand-waving the requirement to hold one's arcane focus in the next version. This would allow for rings, amulets worn around the neck, and other focii that make logical sense but are pretty much only barred/not listed because they break that implicit requirement (and besides, with things like Genie Vessels and Nature's Mantle, they seem to be going in this direction anyway.)
Sterling - V. Human Bard 3 (College of Art) - [Pic] - [Traits] - in Bards: Dragon Heist (w/ Mansion) - Jasper's [Pic] - Sterling's [Sigil]
Tooltips Post (2024 PHB updates) - incl. General Rules
>> New FOW threat & treasure tables: fow-advanced-threat-tables.pdf fow-advanced-treasure-table.pdf
A spellcaster must have a hand free to hold a spellcasting focus, even a cleric's holy symbol emblazoned on a shield still occupy a hand for that matter.
I'd say a big storm giant crystal gem-encrusted ring could work! ;)