In the future, please read everything you respond to before putting fingers to keys. WolfOfTheBees stated, "a [spellcasting] focus isn't an option for an EK without UA." This is a patently false statement, whether they knew it or not. I'm not going to call them a liar because we miss things all the time. Jeremy Crawford was asked about it and gave guidance on the matter here.
I was correcting a misconception. We were not discussing what books a DM might allow or disallow in their private game. Nor were we discussing what is and isn't legal in Adventuer's League; which operates under its own rules.
Certainly that may be the intent of the rule, but nothing in the Ruby or the class features sections indicates that Rangers, ATs or EKs say that the ruby grants those classes that are not already able to use a focus that ability. Only Jeremy's tweet does that. Reading the Ruby, it certainly doesn't lead me to believe that it does anything but allow a weapon to act as a focus. The ability to use a focus is granted by your spell-casting feature.
Without reading that tweet, none of your supposition would fall out of the text on the page.
I disagree, obviously. The general rule for using a spellcasting focus is found on page 203 of the PHB.
"A character can use a component pouch or a spellcasting focus (found in chapter 5, 'Equipment') in place of the components specified for the spell."
There are specific class features which allow certain classes to use certain items as a spellcasting focus. But this does not means they are the only classes capable of using a spellcasting focus. And the magic item in question carries no such restriction. It simply turns the affected weapon into a generic spellcasting focus for the attuned individual, and any spellcaster is potentially capable of using a spellcasting focus. This is a prime example of WotC "future-proofing" the game.
To insist otherwise is to say WotC created a magic item that turns weapons into spellcasting foci exclusively for classes that already have access to spellcasting foci. It's wholly redundant and, IMO, nonsensical.
EDIT: Originally typed this on mobile and I couldn't use the toolbar to properly embolden certain terms. I tried some shortcuts, but they didn't work.
See edit above. I think I have come around. It isn't obvious without re-reading carefully the specific language around spellcasting focus use within spellcasting features.
In the future, please read everything you respond to before putting fingers to keys. WolfOfTheBees stated, "a [spellcasting] focus isn't an option for an EK without UA." This is a patently false statement, whether they knew it or not. I'm not going to call them a liar because we miss things all the time. Jeremy Crawford was asked about it and gave guidance on the matter here.
I was correcting a misconception. We were not discussing what books a DM might allow or disallow in their private game. Nor were we discussing what is and isn't legal in Adventuer's League; which operates under its own rules.
That still requires the DM to buy into an unofficial ruling. See the SAC official ruling near the beginning:
Official Rulings
Official rulings on how to interpret rules are made here in the Sage Advice Compendium by the game’s lead rules designer, Jeremy Crawford (@JeremyECrawford on Twitter).
The public statements of the D&D team, or anyone else at Wizards of the Coast, are not official rulings; they are advice. Jeremy Crawford’s tweets are often a preview of rulings that will appear here.
Until it shows up in the SAC, it's unofficial. Are we assuming that all DMs buy into unofficial rulings when not all of them adhere to even the SAC?
No, but Jhfffan, his point is valid: any spellcaster can use an appropriate focus. It is just that before XGtE, the only foci available were available only to specific classes. Now there is exactly one available to all casters. This is likely to all change with variant options that I think are coming in TCoE anyway.
Putting your other hand on a Two-Handed weapon is a non-action.
Accessing components for a spell is a non-action.
We have a phrase to describe when someone runs their games differently from how the codified rules work: house rules.
Did you read my post? I said I perhaps misinterpreted the rule. If I read it wrong and misinterpreted it...it's not a house rule. In fact, earlier in the thread I said my group doesn't even track that crap. THAT is a house rule.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
No, but Jhfffan, his point is valid: any spellcaster can use an appropriate focus. It is just that before XGtE, the only foci available were available only to specific classes. Now there is exactly one available to all casters. This is likely to all change with variant options that I think are coming in TCoE anyway.
I concur that changes are likely to happen and I'm not discounting the fact that Crawford has said that the intent was to give foci to everyone. But you know as well as I do that not everyone holds the SAC to be valid as far as rulings and the SAC says that anything from anyone that is not in the SAC is not considered official. If we're operating on a base of Core books, it's not available at all, and operating on the assumption that a DM only deals with what is in the official rules means that the point needs to be addressed. DM ruling covers many things up to and including dismissing the need for components at all. Whereas other classes have language in the spellcasting ability to allow for certain foci, the lack of that language in regards to Ruby of the War Mage can be a limiting fact for some DMs. The Crawford quote is good but plenty of people discount what he says to at least put an asterisk on the thing and asking for rules clarifications gives players seeking out that remedy ammunition that they may need when discussing it with their DM.
This thread has derailed. OP's question was answered.
But before I unsubscribe, I'll chime in my interpretation on material components and item interactions. I don't see anything in the rules that says getting out material components is any different from drawing a wand, so it should use an interaction. I've always considered getting all needed materials to be a single interaction however.
Etched with eldritch runes, this 1-inch-diameter ruby allows you to use a simple or martial weapon as a spellcasting focus for your spells.
is not significantly different from the wording
You can use an arcane focus (see the Adventuring Gear section) as a spellcasting focus for your wizard spells.
and is consistent with the universal wording from the material component section:
A character can use a component pouch or a spellcasting focus (found in “Equipment”) in place of the components specified for a spell.
Granted, that's part of the reason that I didn't think about it until the response was brought up. But that's not clear that it includes classes that couldn't use a focus before and a conservative read could discount the application.
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.
The focus must be held while the components must be accessed. Without clarification that holding must be involved, accessing a material could simply be touching the material while doing whatever other thing is needed. Even a somatic component could simply be flicking the component like you may have to your little brother as a kid. Some of the components are more explicit, but most are not.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I disagree, obviously. The general rule for using a spellcasting focus is found on page 203 of the PHB.
"A character can use a component pouch or a spellcasting focus (found in chapter 5, 'Equipment') in place of the components specified for the spell."
There are specific class features which allow certain classes to use certain items as a spellcasting focus. But this does not means they are the only classes capable of using a spellcasting focus. And the magic item in question carries no such restriction. It simply turns the affected weapon into a generic spellcasting focus for the attuned individual, and any spellcaster is potentially capable of using a spellcasting focus. This is a prime example of WotC "future-proofing" the game.
To insist otherwise is to say WotC created a magic item that turns weapons into spellcasting foci exclusively for classes that already have access to spellcasting foci. It's wholly redundant and, IMO, nonsensical.
EDIT: Originally typed this on mobile and I couldn't use the toolbar to properly embolden certain terms. I tried some shortcuts, but they didn't work.
See edit above. I think I have come around. It isn't obvious without re-reading carefully the specific language around spellcasting focus use within spellcasting features.
That still requires the DM to buy into an unofficial ruling. See the SAC official ruling near the beginning:
Official Rulings
Official rulings on how to interpret rules are made here in the Sage Advice Compendium by the game’s lead rules designer, Jeremy Crawford (@JeremyECrawford on Twitter).
The public statements of the D&D team, or anyone else at Wizards of the Coast, are not official rulings; they are advice. Jeremy Crawford’s tweets are often a preview of rulings that will appear here.
Until it shows up in the SAC, it's unofficial. Are we assuming that all DMs buy into unofficial rulings when not all of them adhere to even the SAC?
No, but Jhfffan, his point is valid: any spellcaster can use an appropriate focus. It is just that before XGtE, the only foci available were available only to specific classes. Now there is exactly one available to all casters. This is likely to all change with variant options that I think are coming in TCoE anyway.
Did you read my post? I said I perhaps misinterpreted the rule. If I read it wrong and misinterpreted it...it's not a house rule. In fact, earlier in the thread I said my group doesn't even track that crap. THAT is a house rule.
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Tasha
I concur that changes are likely to happen and I'm not discounting the fact that Crawford has said that the intent was to give foci to everyone. But you know as well as I do that not everyone holds the SAC to be valid as far as rulings and the SAC says that anything from anyone that is not in the SAC is not considered official. If we're operating on a base of Core books, it's not available at all, and operating on the assumption that a DM only deals with what is in the official rules means that the point needs to be addressed. DM ruling covers many things up to and including dismissing the need for components at all. Whereas other classes have language in the spellcasting ability to allow for certain foci, the lack of that language in regards to Ruby of the War Mage can be a limiting fact for some DMs. The Crawford quote is good but plenty of people discount what he says to at least put an asterisk on the thing and asking for rules clarifications gives players seeking out that remedy ammunition that they may need when discussing it with their DM.
This thread has derailed. OP's question was answered.
But before I unsubscribe, I'll chime in my interpretation on material components and item interactions. I don't see anything in the rules that says getting out material components is any different from drawing a wand, so it should use an interaction. I've always considered getting all needed materials to be a single interaction however.
I think their point is that the wording
is not significantly different from the wording
and is consistent with the universal wording from the material component section:
Granted, that's part of the reason that I didn't think about it until the response was brought up. But that's not clear that it includes classes that couldn't use a focus before and a conservative read could discount the application.
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.
The focus must be held while the components must be accessed. Without clarification that holding must be involved, accessing a material could simply be touching the material while doing whatever other thing is needed. Even a somatic component could simply be flicking the component like you may have to your little brother as a kid. Some of the components are more explicit, but most are not.