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.)
Personally I think they should keep it; part of the function is to limit full sword and board Gish options, same as the rule that you need an empty hand for Somatic if the spell doesn’t use Material. Plus it standardizes the rules for all foci. If you want to spin the flavor or don’t feel like tracking held items, that’s your prerogative, but overall I think it helps balance options a bit and keep the rules straightforward.
Even clerics and paladins both can explicitly get away with not needing a free hand, even if few choose to go this route:
"A cleric or paladin can use a holy symbol as a spellcasting focus, as described in the Spellcasting section. To use the symbol in this way, the caster must hold it in hand, wear it visibly, or bear it on a shield."
The increasing lack of consistency with this--the items at least didn't exist in the core PHB, and most only appeared in TCoE--suggests DMs are no longer even violating the spirit of the rules by choosing to grant non-held focii to players (even if explicitly doing away with the "held" requirement altogether would still do so.)
Even clerics and paladins both can explicitly get away with not needing a free hand, even if few choose to go this route:
"A cleric or paladin can use a holy symbol as a spellcasting focus, as described in the Spellcasting section. To use the symbol in this way, the caster must hold it in hand, wear it visibly, or bear it on a shield."
The increasing lack of consistency with this--the items at least didn't exist in the core PHB, and most only appeared in TCoE--suggests DMs are no longer even violating the spirit of the rules by choosing to grant non-held focii to players (even if explicitly doing away with the "held" requirement altogether would still do so.)
Actually, none of your magic item examples actually have language that supersedes the requirement for a free hand. They only say that they count as a focus. Emblems exist specifically as what amount to a class feature for Clerics and Paladins so they can sword and board more easily, and even then they don’t actually overwrite the M component rules.
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 could simply add an S component to any spell with M component and that would allow one to use a ring as a focus and still require the PC to have their hand free.
Okay, on a more thorough look at emblem it might work with full hands if you are wearing it, but that’s the only instance I can find that has language to specifically overwrite the rules for M, so again we return to the point that it’s more a class feature than an inconsistency. All of the magic items listed lack the specific language an emblem uses. The others only confirm that they qualify as a focus, without indicating they change the rules for how one is handled.
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 could simply add an S component to any spell with M component and that would allow one to use a ring as a focus and still require the PC to have their hand free.
That would be an option, but my point was they’re obviously trying to avoid having a lengthy list of special interactions/circumstances, which I’ve heard was something that could crop up in earlier editions. Thus one set of rules for foci with a single exception for two classes who often have both hands full. Honestly, if they’d just dropped the bit about wearing it, that wouldn’t even have been a real difference.
Actually, none of your magic item examples actually have language that supersedes the requirement for a free hand. They only say that they count as a focus.
"You can use the shard as a spellcasting focus while you hold OR wear it."
(Emphasis added.)
Wearing it is purposely separate from holding it. It's not hold AND wear, it's hold OR wear. You can explicitly gain the benefit while NOT holding it.
For better or worse, that is the direction that 5e has moved towards. And if DMs are justified giving players the wearable spellcasting focii from Tasha's or Xanathar's, they're justified giving them homebrew items (such as rings, amulets, etc.) that do the same thing.
That's the inconsistency I'm pointing out. If they're going to move in that direction by releasing a slew of items that negate the need for holding your focii at all, they might as well just remove the requirement for everyone. (Really, they gave every spellcaster the possibility of becoming a gish as soon as they released Ruby of the War Mage, which is also a common. I understand not liking it, but that's clearly what the intent was.)
Saying something can be used as a focus doesn’t invalidate the need for it to be held at the time of casting. Compare that language to emblem, which explicitly says you can cast with it if you are wearing.
Saying something can be used as a focus doesn’t invalidate the need for it to be held at the time of casting. Compare that language to emblem, which explicitly says you can cast with it if you are wearing.
It doesn't JUST say that the item can be used as a focus. It EXPLICITLY says that you can use it as a focus while NOT holding it, but instead while WEARING it.
EDIT: Seriously, the language of the sentence only reads one way. You could argue they intended otherwise, but as written, you can use a Far Realm Shard while just wearing it and NOT holding it.
DOUBLE-EDIT: Just to make it more clear, consider the case of Hat of Wizardry. While wearing it (presumably on your head) you can use it as a spellcasting focus. Do you really think the intention is that every time a wizard casts a spell through it, they're supposed to reach up and grab it and hold onto it?
Even clerics and paladins both can explicitly get away with not needing a free hand, even if few choose to go this route:
I thing I feel needs mentioning with the various magic items you listed is that, in exchange for a hands-free focus, you have to use an attunement slot. So that's a situation of "general beats specific" that does have a very real cost to it.
That said, I'm not exactly opposed to the idea of hands-free foci if they still fit the spirit of things. So long as the focus-ruling is helping achieve the fantasy of things and not exploiting things it's A-OK IMO.
For example I don't like the RAW that (V)SM spells can be cast with focus in hand but (V)S spells can't. The idea of a wizard casting a powerful fireball with a flourish of his wand only to have to put it away to be able to do the cantrip of [Tooltip Not Found] just seems silly to me. So breaking RAW to allow V(S) spells to be cast with focus in hand is perfectly find by me.
I do think it makes sense for your traditional fantasy full casters to have to keep one hand for a focus. (So I like that a wizard, for example, can't just be wielding two knives during combat and needs a hand for his focus.) But I also think that if your class is stereotypically armed, then it makes sense to give part of the warcaster feat for free and allow you to have your weapon. (Like you mentioned, a martial Paladin can already use the shield as a focus.) Consider Rangers for example, a bow-ranger can easily have a free hand. But a dual-wield ranger is taking the risks of melee combat and stereotyped with double-swords. And it's already a half-caster so I think it's fine to be like, "Hey, just carry a druidic focus around your neck and it's fine." Maybe enforce getting a free hand when it's more thematic to do so, but don't sweat it too much.
Even clerics and paladins both can explicitly get away with not needing a free hand, even if few choose to go this route:
"A cleric or paladin can use a holy symbol as a spellcasting focus, as described in the Spellcasting section. To use the symbol in this way, the caster must hold it in hand, wear it visibly, or bear it on a shield."
The increasing lack of consistency with this--the items at least didn't exist in the core PHB, and most only appeared in TCoE--suggests DMs are no longer even violating the spirit of the rules by choosing to grant non-held focii to players (even if explicitly doing away with the "held" requirement altogether would still do so.)
Any magic item that can be used as a spellcasting focus must still meet the requirement of spell material components unless noted otherwise, which is that a spellcaster must have a hand free to hold a spellcasting focus. Some exception exist but the post i was responding to isn't about them but a simple gem-encrusted ring .
Any magic item that can be used as a spellcasting focus must still meet the requirement of spell material components unless noted otherwise, which is that a spellcaster must have a hand free to hold a spellcasting focus.
Yes, exactly. And the items I listed above do note otherwise:
"You can use the shard as a spellcasting focus while you hold OR wear it."
(Emphasis added.)
Surely you wouldn't argue that WotC really did intend for wizards wearing a Hat of Wizardry to reach up and grab and hold onto the hat every time they cast a spell with it?
The increasing lack of consistency with this... suggests DMs are no longer even violating the spirit of the rules by choosing to grant non-held focii to players
IOW: Using a simple gem-encrusted ring as a spellcasting focus is pretty much in line with the direction WotC has been moving in.
EDIT: VitusW brought up an excellent point in that the newer wearable spellcasting focii all require attunement, so using a simple ring, as opposed to a homebrew magic item is still OP by comparison; but then as I said, given the direction WotC has been moving in, even using a "mundane" jeweled ring (like a "mundane" crystal) is probably just slightly ahead of the trend.
I see magic items and any other object symbol that can be used as spellcasting focus while worn rather than held to be specific vs general, and not necessarily a direction WoTC is going regarding other focus that can't considering that Cleric and Paladin can use an holy symbol as a spellcasting focus by wearring it visibly since day 1.
They are pretty much the same. Mechanically they do the same thing with the same limitations like using an empty hand to wield it, which can be the same hand you make your somatic component gestures with. Foci just come in more shapes and sizes and can be all sorts of magical things that you may possible summon into your hand. Or they can be just a focus.
Like mentioned here before, not everyone can use a focus, but I think everyone can use a component pouch.
To me they are just a flavor thing. If I wanted a more grounded and descriptive play style, I might rule that every mage needs a component pouch. Kind of gets you that witchy feeling when you pick some ingredients from your pouch and turn them into a spell.
But usually I'm super liberal with component pouches and foci, mostly because it doesn't make any difference whatsoever. I let all classes use a focus if they want to, unless there is a narrative purpose for not having one. This is one of those things that should be very streamline IMO.
I also allow the focus to be of practically any shape. An amulet, a ring, a wand, a book, a headband, a staff, a crystal etc.. It doesn't have to be handheld, but the empty hand rule when using material and/or somatic components is still in place whether it's an amulet or a wand. :)
Regarding foci vs component pouches, it's also worth noting that technically any caster build that multiclasses between Arcane, Divine, Primal, and/or Bard technically would need different foci depending on what spell they wanted to cast, while a single component pouch would cover everything. Granted, I'm sure this is a detail that typically gets ignored for such builds, but it does expand on why the component pouch exists.
For example I don't like the RAW that (V)SM spells can be cast with focus in hand but (V)S spells can't. The idea of a wizard casting a powerful fireball with a flourish of his wand only to have to put it away to be able to do the cantrip of [Tooltip Not Found] just seems silly to me. So breaking RAW to allow V(S) spells to be cast with focus in hand is perfectly find by me.
I'm honestly not sure why this interpretation became so prevalent but it's just about universally agreed upon that that's the rule. It's everywhere. Developer tweets agree with this. Official looking articles which explain the 5e spellcasting rules to a wide audience agree with this. And yet there's almost no way that it was intended to be that way and the rules can definitely be read another way:
Somatic (S)
. . . If a spell requires a somatic component, the caster must have free use of at least one hand to perform these gestures.
Material (M)
. . . 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.
so I can see an obviously legitimate interpretation for this being that there is a general rule that a free hand is required for somatic components but then there is a specific exception to this where that same hand can also be holding a focus. In fact, it would be grammatically correct to rewrite that sentence like this: "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." There's nothing in that sentence that actually indicates that the spell in question must have an M component in order to be holding a focus in the free hand. It only says that it requires a free hand to hold one and it can be the same hand that is used to perform somatic components. So, in my opinion, pretty much everyone is wrong about this and there is nothing actually stopping a spellcaster from casting a (V)S spell while holding a focus in the free hand.
Personally I think they should keep it; part of the function is to limit full sword and board Gish options, same as the rule that you need an empty hand for Somatic if the spell doesn’t use Material. Plus it standardizes the rules for all foci. If you want to spin the flavor or don’t feel like tracking held items, that’s your prerogative, but overall I think it helps balance options a bit and keep the rules straightforward.
Unless it's a Genie Vessel. Or a Nature's Mantle. Or a Far Realm Shard or Shadowfell Shard or Astral Shard or Feywild Shard or Outer Essence Shard or Elemental Essence Shard or Dark Shard Amulet (all of which can be worn.) Or a Hat of Wizardry (which is a common item!)
Even clerics and paladins both can explicitly get away with not needing a free hand, even if few choose to go this route:
The increasing lack of consistency with this--the items at least didn't exist in the core PHB, and most only appeared in TCoE--suggests DMs are no longer even violating the spirit of the rules by choosing to grant non-held focii to players (even if explicitly doing away with the "held" requirement altogether would still do so.)
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
Actually, none of your magic item examples actually have language that supersedes the requirement for a free hand. They only say that they count as a focus. Emblems exist specifically as what amount to a class feature for Clerics and Paladins so they can sword and board more easily, and even then they don’t actually overwrite the M component rules.
They could simply add an S component to any spell with M component and that would allow one to use a ring as a focus and still require the PC to have their hand free.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Okay, on a more thorough look at emblem it might work with full hands if you are wearing it, but that’s the only instance I can find that has language to specifically overwrite the rules for M, so again we return to the point that it’s more a class feature than an inconsistency. All of the magic items listed lack the specific language an emblem uses. The others only confirm that they qualify as a focus, without indicating they change the rules for how one is handled.
That would be an option, but my point was they’re obviously trying to avoid having a lengthy list of special interactions/circumstances, which I’ve heard was something that could crop up in earlier editions. Thus one set of rules for foci with a single exception for two classes who often have both hands full. Honestly, if they’d just dropped the bit about wearing it, that wouldn’t even have been a real difference.
But they do. From Far Realm Shard:
(Emphasis added.)
Wearing it is purposely separate from holding it. It's not hold AND wear, it's hold OR wear. You can explicitly gain the benefit while NOT holding it.
For better or worse, that is the direction that 5e has moved towards. And if DMs are justified giving players the wearable spellcasting focii from Tasha's or Xanathar's, they're justified giving them homebrew items (such as rings, amulets, etc.) that do the same thing.
That's the inconsistency I'm pointing out. If they're going to move in that direction by releasing a slew of items that negate the need for holding your focii at all, they might as well just remove the requirement for everyone. (Really, they gave every spellcaster the possibility of becoming a gish as soon as they released Ruby of the War Mage, which is also a common. I understand not liking it, but that's clearly what the intent was.)
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
Saying something can be used as a focus doesn’t invalidate the need for it to be held at the time of casting. Compare that language to emblem, which explicitly says you can cast with it if you are wearing.
It doesn't JUST say that the item can be used as a focus. It EXPLICITLY says that you can use it as a focus while NOT holding it, but instead while WEARING it.
EDIT: Seriously, the language of the sentence only reads one way. You could argue they intended otherwise, but as written, you can use a Far Realm Shard while just wearing it and NOT holding it.
DOUBLE-EDIT: Just to make it more clear, consider the case of Hat of Wizardry. While wearing it (presumably on your head) you can use it as a spellcasting focus. Do you really think the intention is that every time a wizard casts a spell through it, they're supposed to reach up and grab it and hold onto it?
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
I thing I feel needs mentioning with the various magic items you listed is that, in exchange for a hands-free focus, you have to use an attunement slot. So that's a situation of "general beats specific" that does have a very real cost to it.
That said, I'm not exactly opposed to the idea of hands-free foci if they still fit the spirit of things. So long as the focus-ruling is helping achieve the fantasy of things and not exploiting things it's A-OK IMO.
For example I don't like the RAW that (V)SM spells can be cast with focus in hand but (V)S spells can't. The idea of a wizard casting a powerful fireball with a flourish of his wand only to have to put it away to be able to do the cantrip of [Tooltip Not Found] just seems silly to me. So breaking RAW to allow V(S) spells to be cast with focus in hand is perfectly find by me.
I do think it makes sense for your traditional fantasy full casters to have to keep one hand for a focus. (So I like that a wizard, for example, can't just be wielding two knives during combat and needs a hand for his focus.) But I also think that if your class is stereotypically armed, then it makes sense to give part of the warcaster feat for free and allow you to have your weapon. (Like you mentioned, a martial Paladin can already use the shield as a focus.) Consider Rangers for example, a bow-ranger can easily have a free hand. But a dual-wield ranger is taking the risks of melee combat and stereotyped with double-swords. And it's already a half-caster so I think it's fine to be like, "Hey, just carry a druidic focus around your neck and it's fine." Maybe enforce getting a free hand when it's more thematic to do so, but don't sweat it too much.
This is a signature. It was a simple signature. But it has been upgraded.
Belolonandalogalo, Sunny | Draíocht, Kholias | Eggo Lass, 100 Dungeons
Talorin Tebedi, Vecna: Eve | Cherry, Stormwreck | Chipper, Strahd
We Are Modron
Get rickrolled here. Awesome music here. Track 48, 5/23/25, Immaculate Mary
Any magic item that can be used as a spellcasting focus must still meet the requirement of spell material components unless noted otherwise, which is that a spellcaster must have a hand free to hold a spellcasting focus. Some exception exist but the post i was responding to isn't about them but a simple gem-encrusted ring .
Yes, exactly. And the items I listed above do note otherwise:
Surely you wouldn't argue that WotC really did intend for wizards wearing a Hat of Wizardry to reach up and grab and hold onto the hat every time they cast a spell with it?
Indeed. They were saying they felt "like a gem-encrusted ring should be usable as a spellcasting focus." I addressed the idea:
IOW: Using a simple gem-encrusted ring as a spellcasting focus is pretty much in line with the direction WotC has been moving in.
EDIT: VitusW brought up an excellent point in that the newer wearable spellcasting focii all require attunement, so using a simple ring, as opposed to a homebrew magic item is still OP by comparison; but then as I said, given the direction WotC has been moving in, even using a "mundane" jeweled ring (like a "mundane" crystal) is probably just slightly ahead of the trend.
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
I see magic items and any other object symbol that can be used as spellcasting focus while worn rather than held to be specific vs general, and not necessarily a direction WoTC is going regarding other focus that can't considering that Cleric and Paladin can use an holy symbol as a spellcasting focus by wearring it visibly since day 1.
They are pretty much the same. Mechanically they do the same thing with the same limitations like using an empty hand to wield it, which can be the same hand you make your somatic component gestures with. Foci just come in more shapes and sizes and can be all sorts of magical things that you may possible summon into your hand. Or they can be just a focus.
Like mentioned here before, not everyone can use a focus, but I think everyone can use a component pouch.
To me they are just a flavor thing. If I wanted a more grounded and descriptive play style, I might rule that every mage needs a component pouch. Kind of gets you that witchy feeling when you pick some ingredients from your pouch and turn them into a spell.
But usually I'm super liberal with component pouches and foci, mostly because it doesn't make any difference whatsoever. I let all classes use a focus if they want to, unless there is a narrative purpose for not having one. This is one of those things that should be very streamline IMO.
I also allow the focus to be of practically any shape. An amulet, a ring, a wand, a book, a headband, a staff, a crystal etc.. It doesn't have to be handheld, but the empty hand rule when using material and/or somatic components is still in place whether it's an amulet or a wand. :)
Finland GMT/UTC +2
Regarding foci vs component pouches, it's also worth noting that technically any caster build that multiclasses between Arcane, Divine, Primal, and/or Bard technically would need different foci depending on what spell they wanted to cast, while a single component pouch would cover everything. Granted, I'm sure this is a detail that typically gets ignored for such builds, but it does expand on why the component pouch exists.
I'm honestly not sure why this interpretation became so prevalent but it's just about universally agreed upon that that's the rule. It's everywhere. Developer tweets agree with this. Official looking articles which explain the 5e spellcasting rules to a wide audience agree with this. And yet there's almost no way that it was intended to be that way and the rules can definitely be read another way:
so I can see an obviously legitimate interpretation for this being that there is a general rule that a free hand is required for somatic components but then there is a specific exception to this where that same hand can also be holding a focus. In fact, it would be grammatically correct to rewrite that sentence like this: "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." There's nothing in that sentence that actually indicates that the spell in question must have an M component in order to be holding a focus in the free hand. It only says that it requires a free hand to hold one and it can be the same hand that is used to perform somatic components. So, in my opinion, pretty much everyone is wrong about this and there is nothing actually stopping a spellcaster from casting a (V)S spell while holding a focus in the free hand.
Frankly, most of the action economy surrounding “free hands” bog the game down and is ignored at a great many tables.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Yyyyup.
⌜╔═════════════ The Board ══════════════╗⌝
...and started me on my way into my next chapter in life...
⌞╚════════════ Extended Signature ════════════╝⌟
Yondor, I love your short signature. My mind is blown.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Hah, thanks bud
It just popped into my mind as I bit into a breakfast burrito.
⌜╔═════════════ The Board ══════════════╗⌝
...and started me on my way into my next chapter in life...
⌞╚════════════ Extended Signature ════════════╝⌟