So I stumbled upon this discussing how spell casting works. Arcane focuses/component pouches are *supposed* to be mechanically identical, but they aren't in practice. If you are a wizard and you have something equipped in one hand (let's say a shield), then if you use a component pouch to cast spells, you always have one hand free. If you use an arcane focus, you don't have any hands free. This means that you are unable to provide the somatic component for any spells that do not also require a material component, while with the component pouch this is not an issue. At least if it still works the same way it did in 2014 edition.
From sage advice:
What’s the amount of interaction needed to use a spellcasting focus? Does it have to be included in the somatic component?
If a spell has a material component, you need to handle that component when you cast the spell. The same rule applies if you’re using a spellcasting focus as the material component.
If a spell has a somatic component, you can use the hand that performs the somatic component to also handle the material component. For example, a wizard who uses an orb as a spellcasting focus could hold a quarterstaff in one hand and the orb in the other, and he could cast lightning bolt by using the orb as the spell’s material component and the orb hand to perform the spell’s somatic component.
Another example: a cleric’s holy symbol is emblazoned on her shield. She likes to wade into melee combat with a mace in one hand and a shield in the other. She uses the holy symbol as her spellcasting focus, so she needs to have the shield in hand when she casts a cleric spell that has a material component. If the spell, such as aid, also has a somatic component, she can perform that component with the shield hand and keep holding the mace in the other.
If the same cleric casts cure wounds, she needs to put the mace or the shield away, because that spell doesn’t have a material component but does have a somatic component. She’s going to need a free hand to make the spell’s gestures. If she had the War Caster feat, she could ignore this restriction."
This feels extremely weird, and like it has to be an oversight? Reasonably, the choice between a component pouch or arcane focus should *only* have an impact on the characters flavour, and not affect something like this.
One point in favor of the focus is that it's cheaper. So if your character loses all their gear and need to start up again it'll be quicker to buy the focus than the component pouch.
As the option to stow the focus is an item interactions it's also nearly mechanically the same as the only limitation would be not casting reaction spells with a material component, which isn't really a nerf.
Another factor, which equalizes them, is that I think most DMs are going to look at that Sage Advice answer and be like, "That's stupid. I'm saying you can still do Somatic components with a focus in your hand even if the spell doesn't have a material component."
Another factor, which equalizes them, is that I think most DMs are going to look at that Sage Advice answer and be like, "That's stupid. I'm saying you can still do Somatic components with a focus in your hand even if the spell doesn't have a material component."
Indeed, we absolutely disregard that rule at our tables. If you have a focus, you can do somatic components with that hand, whether the spell has a M component or not.
Honestly, I think people make more noise about the "issue" than it warrants; it's a minor nerf on builds that constantly have both hands full- which typically means shields or magic items- and a roleplay/verisimilitude rule reflecting how you'd need a free hand to make gestures if the gestures aren't supposed to incorporate waving an object around.
As the option to stow the focus is an item interactions it's also nearly mechanically the same as the only limitation would be not casting reaction spells with a material component, which isn't really a nerf.
That is true, the only time it would affect the PC is if the character is using the focus for something else (like an EK using a quarterstaff with Shillelagh). But then you already have a massive advantage to using an arcane focus over component pouch, so it evens out.
Another factor, which equalizes them, is that I think most DMs are going to look at that Sage Advice answer and be like, "That's stupid. I'm saying you can still do Somatic components with a focus in your hand even if the spell doesn't have a material component."
For arcane casters, absolutely I would make this ruling. Divine casters, mainly clerics, I'm not so sure. It's a pretty big buff since they can already put their holy symbol on their shields. Even though it still makes zero sense logically...
Ultimately, I think the ruling I will go with is that for spells with a casting time of 1a or less, you can use the focus for the somatic part no matter what.
Honestly, I think people make more noise about the "issue" than it warrants; it's a minor nerf on builds that constantly have both hands full- which typically means shields or magic items- and a roleplay/verisimilitude rule reflecting how you'd need a free hand to make gestures if the gestures aren't supposed to incorporate waving an object around.
Idk, I feel like this "forces" all casters to grab war caster. Not because it helps their build, or is a good roleplay feat etc, but rather just to fix broken mechanics.
It also makes absolutely zero logical sense. Imagine a wizard holding a wand in one hand and some object in the other. Why would he be able to swing his wand around to cast fireballs, but not fire bolts? Fireball *should* be more "complex" to cast given that it also requires material components, but in reality it's the other way around.
Honestly, I think people make more noise about the "issue" than it warrants; it's a minor nerf on builds that constantly have both hands full- which typically means shields or magic items- and a roleplay/verisimilitude rule reflecting how you'd need a free hand to make gestures if the gestures aren't supposed to incorporate waving an object around.
Idk, I feel like this "forces" all casters to grab war caster. Not because it helps their build, or is a good roleplay feat etc, but rather just to fix broken mechanics.
It also makes absolutely zero logical sense. Imagine a wizard holding a wand in one hand and some object in the other. Why would he be able to swing his wand around to cast fireballs, but not fire bolts? Fireball *should* be more "complex" to cast given that it also requires material components, but in reality it's the other way around.
Agreed. It just fits the fantasy aesthetic so much better. You can't imagine a scene like
Gandalf: Take my staff. Pippin: Why? Gandalf: Because I can't cast this next spell while holding it, Fool of Took!
And while getting into homebrew territory, I also feel like natural gishes are fine to be lax on the somatic/focus rules. Valor Bards and Eldritch Knights naturally lend themselves to sword and shield setups. So IMO it's fine to give them more options. Perhaps adopt the Cleric/Paladin rule and let them put a focus on the shield. Or put it on one of their weapons. (Like an attunement-free Ruby of the War Mage.) Helps to make life simpler, particularly since later gish classes did start getting rules to allow such a thing. It's a judgement call there, because it can lead to "Jeff, your Valor Bard can hold two daggers and still do Somatic components without Warcaster. Bob, I am not letting your wizard do the same!" But something to think of.
Because of this part of the text about using the holy item as a focus item, they are technically the same thing it's just a text flavor change to say "holy symbol" for the cleric's focus item. But that is really just flavor to bother with "holy symbol" and not just always say "spell casting focus" as the in use actual play mechanics:
"Holy Symbol: A holy symbol is a representation of a god or pantheon. It might be an amulet depicting a symbol representing a deity, the same symbol carefully engraved or inlaid as an emblem on a shield, or a tiny box holding a fragment of a sacred relic. Pantheons lists the symbols commonly associated with many gods in the multiverse. A cleric or paladin can use a holy symbol as a spellcasting focus. To use the symbol in this way, the caster must hold it in hand, wear it visibly, or bear it on a shield."
See, no one has to hold a spell focus in hand/wave it around if they do not want to. You can just wear it/attach it to a shield, or whatever along those lines. Imaging it as a bauble dangling off the hilt of your dagger maybe. Perhaps it is a bracelet on your wrist or an amulet around your neck. It is not interfering mechanically in anyway any differently than the component pouch.
Honestly, I think people make more noise about the "issue" than it warrants; it's a minor nerf on builds that constantly have both hands full- which typically means shields or magic items- and a roleplay/verisimilitude rule reflecting how you'd need a free hand to make gestures if the gestures aren't supposed to incorporate waving an object around.
Idk, I feel like this "forces" all casters to grab war caster. Not because it helps their build, or is a good roleplay feat etc, but rather just to fix broken mechanics.
It also makes absolutely zero logical sense. Imagine a wizard holding a wand in one hand and some object in the other. Why would he be able to swing his wand around to cast fireballs, but not fire bolts? Fireball *should* be more "complex" to cast given that it also requires material components, but in reality it's the other way around.
Agreed. It just fits the fantasy aesthetic so much better. You can't imagine a scene like
Gandalf: Take my staff. Pippin: Why? Gandalf: Because I can't cast this next spell while holding it, Fool of Took!
And while getting into homebrew territory, I also feel like natural gishes are fine to be lax on the somatic/focus rules. Valor Bards and Eldritch Knights naturally lend themselves to sword and shield setups. So IMO it's fine to give them more options. Perhaps adopt the Cleric/Paladin rule and let them put a focus on the shield. Or put it on one of their weapons. (Like an attunement-free Ruby of the War Mage.) Helps to make life simpler, particularly since later gish classes did start getting rules to allow such a thing. It's a judgement call there, because it can lead to "Jeff, your Valor Bard can hold two daggers and still do Somatic components without Warcaster. Bob, I am not letting your wizard do the same!" But something to think of.
Yes, that's a great example of why it doesn't work lmao... My goto was when Harry Potter runs around the chamber of secrets, imagine if he had to drop his wand to cast some spell because he held Godric Gryffindoors sword in the other... But then turning around and casting a way more advanced spells with no issues. If it was a movie, everyone would criticize the lack of consistency, and rightly so.
As for Gish, I think that is the one place where one should be *more* careful about this. Letting them cast spells with no issues while also being able to fight is actually a pretty decent buff when you have a class doing both. I still think they should be able to use the hand holding an arcane focus to use somatic though, but I would be hesitant to give them the divine caster option of attaching a focus to their shield, or an unattuned ruby. However, I think I might (for higher levels, 7-9+) give a E.K a ruby that, while being attuned, can be attached to a weapon such that it is part of the weapons attunement. Meaning, if you have an attuned weapon you don't need to waste a second slot on the ruby, essentially turning the weapon into a focus.
However, on the E.K I plan on playing next, I just get around this by grabbing magic initiate - Shillelagh and beating the crap out of everyone with my arcane focus lmao.
Because of this part of the text about using the holy item as a focus item, they are technically the same thing it's just a text flavor change to say "holy symbol" for the cleric's focus item. But that is really just flavor to bother with "holy symbol" and not just always say "spell casting focus" as the in use actual play mechanics:
"Holy Symbol: A holy symbol is a representation of a god or pantheon. It might be an amulet depicting a symbol representing a deity, the same symbol carefully engraved or inlaid as an emblem on a shield, or a tiny box holding a fragment of a sacred relic. Pantheons lists the symbols commonly associated with many gods in the multiverse. A cleric or paladin can use a holy symbol as a spellcasting focus. To use the symbol in this way, the caster must hold it in hand, wear it visibly, or bear it on a shield."
See, no one has to hold a spell focus in hand/wave it around if they do not want to. You can just wear it/attach it to a shield, or whatever along those lines. Imaging it as a bauble dangling off the hilt of your dagger maybe. Perhaps it is a bracelet on your wrist or an amulet around your neck. It is not interfering mechanically in anyway any differently than the component pouch.
That interpretation is flat out wrong. It specifically says "to use a SYMBOL in such a way", not "to use a FOCUS in such a way".
A holy symbol is a type of spellcasting focus, yes, but it has specific rules that only affects it. It's not *just* flavour.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
So I stumbled upon this discussing how spell casting works. Arcane focuses/component pouches are *supposed* to be mechanically identical, but they aren't in practice. If you are a wizard and you have something equipped in one hand (let's say a shield), then if you use a component pouch to cast spells, you always have one hand free. If you use an arcane focus, you don't have any hands free. This means that you are unable to provide the somatic component for any spells that do not also require a material component, while with the component pouch this is not an issue. At least if it still works the same way it did in 2014 edition.
From sage advice:
This feels extremely weird, and like it has to be an oversight? Reasonably, the choice between a component pouch or arcane focus should *only* have an impact on the characters flavour, and not affect something like this.
One point in favor of the focus is that it's cheaper. So if your character loses all their gear and need to start up again it'll be quicker to buy the focus than the component pouch.
As the option to stow the focus is an item interactions it's also nearly mechanically the same as the only limitation would be not casting reaction spells with a material component, which isn't really a nerf.
Another factor, which equalizes them, is that I think most DMs are going to look at that Sage Advice answer and be like, "That's stupid. I'm saying you can still do Somatic components with a focus in your hand even if the spell doesn't have a material component."
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
Indeed, we absolutely disregard that rule at our tables. If you have a focus, you can do somatic components with that hand, whether the spell has a M component or not.
Honestly, I think people make more noise about the "issue" than it warrants; it's a minor nerf on builds that constantly have both hands full- which typically means shields or magic items- and a roleplay/verisimilitude rule reflecting how you'd need a free hand to make gestures if the gestures aren't supposed to incorporate waving an object around.
That is true, the only time it would affect the PC is if the character is using the focus for something else (like an EK using a quarterstaff with Shillelagh). But then you already have a massive advantage to using an arcane focus over component pouch, so it evens out.
For arcane casters, absolutely I would make this ruling. Divine casters, mainly clerics, I'm not so sure. It's a pretty big buff since they can already put their holy symbol on their shields. Even though it still makes zero sense logically...
Ultimately, I think the ruling I will go with is that for spells with a casting time of 1a or less, you can use the focus for the somatic part no matter what.
Idk, I feel like this "forces" all casters to grab war caster. Not because it helps their build, or is a good roleplay feat etc, but rather just to fix broken mechanics.
It also makes absolutely zero logical sense. Imagine a wizard holding a wand in one hand and some object in the other. Why would he be able to swing his wand around to cast fireballs, but not fire bolts? Fireball *should* be more "complex" to cast given that it also requires material components, but in reality it's the other way around.
Agreed. It just fits the fantasy aesthetic so much better. You can't imagine a scene like
Gandalf: Take my staff.
Pippin: Why?
Gandalf: Because I can't cast this next spell while holding it, Fool of Took!
And while getting into homebrew territory, I also feel like natural gishes are fine to be lax on the somatic/focus rules. Valor Bards and Eldritch Knights naturally lend themselves to sword and shield setups. So IMO it's fine to give them more options. Perhaps adopt the Cleric/Paladin rule and let them put a focus on the shield. Or put it on one of their weapons. (Like an attunement-free Ruby of the War Mage.) Helps to make life simpler, particularly since later gish classes did start getting rules to allow such a thing. It's a judgement call there, because it can lead to "Jeff, your Valor Bard can hold two daggers and still do Somatic components without Warcaster. Bob, I am not letting your wizard do the same!" But something to think of.
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
I see the sage advice POV as incorrect.
Because of this part of the text about using the holy item as a focus item, they are technically the same thing it's just a text flavor change to say "holy symbol" for the cleric's focus item. But that is really just flavor to bother with "holy symbol" and not just always say "spell casting focus" as the in use actual play mechanics:
"Holy Symbol: A holy symbol is a representation of a god or pantheon. It might be an amulet depicting a symbol representing a deity, the same symbol carefully engraved or inlaid as an emblem on a shield, or a tiny box holding a fragment of a sacred relic. Pantheons lists the symbols commonly associated with many gods in the multiverse. A cleric or paladin can use a holy symbol as a spellcasting focus. To use the symbol in this way, the caster must hold it in hand, wear it visibly, or bear it on a shield."
See, no one has to hold a spell focus in hand/wave it around if they do not want to. You can just wear it/attach it to a shield, or whatever along those lines. Imaging it as a bauble dangling off the hilt of your dagger maybe. Perhaps it is a bracelet on your wrist or an amulet around your neck. It is not interfering mechanically in anyway any differently than the component pouch.
For yeas I've seen GMs just straight up ignore Sage Advice in general because of its inconsistencies. This is a great example.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
Yes, that's a great example of why it doesn't work lmao... My goto was when Harry Potter runs around the chamber of secrets, imagine if he had to drop his wand to cast some spell because he held Godric Gryffindoors sword in the other... But then turning around and casting a way more advanced spells with no issues. If it was a movie, everyone would criticize the lack of consistency, and rightly so.
As for Gish, I think that is the one place where one should be *more* careful about this. Letting them cast spells with no issues while also being able to fight is actually a pretty decent buff when you have a class doing both. I still think they should be able to use the hand holding an arcane focus to use somatic though, but I would be hesitant to give them the divine caster option of attaching a focus to their shield, or an unattuned ruby. However, I think I might (for higher levels, 7-9+) give a E.K a ruby that, while being attuned, can be attached to a weapon such that it is part of the weapons attunement. Meaning, if you have an attuned weapon you don't need to waste a second slot on the ruby, essentially turning the weapon into a focus.
However, on the E.K I plan on playing next, I just get around this by grabbing magic initiate - Shillelagh and beating the crap out of everyone with my arcane focus lmao.
That interpretation is flat out wrong. It specifically says "to use a SYMBOL in such a way", not "to use a FOCUS in such a way".
A holy symbol is a type of spellcasting focus, yes, but it has specific rules that only affects it. It's not *just* flavour.