To attune to this vial, you must place a few drops of your blood into it. The vial can’t be opened while your attunement to it lasts. If your attunement to the vial ends, the contained blood turns to ash. You can use the vial as a spellcasting focus for your spells while wearing or holding it, and you gain a bonus to spell attack rolls and to the saving throw DCs of your sorcerer spells. The bonus is determined by the vial’s rarity.
In addition, when you roll any Hit Dice to recover hit points while you are carrying the vial, you can regain 5 sorcery points. This property of the vial can’t be used again until the next dawn.
Really, that's not particularly different from a regular Holy Symbol, though phrased a little differenetly:
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. A cleric or paladin can use a holy symbol as a spellcasting focus, as described in chapter 10. To use the symbol in this way, the caster must hold it in hand, wear it visibly, or bear it on a shield.
Usually, we talk about Holy Symbols being on Shields, and really bypass the whole discussion of using them while "worn" elsewhere on your body in a way that doesn't implicate one of your hands. But other explicitly-worn focuses like Bloodwell Vial put that squarely before us: what would it mean to "use" a spell focus without holding it?
A character can use a component pouch or a spellcasting focus (found in chapter 5, “Equipment”) in place of the components specified for a spell. But if a cost is indicated for a component, a character must have that specific component before he or she can cast the spell.
If a spell states that a material component is consumed by the spell, the caster must provide this component for each casting of the spell.
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, a caster explicitly "must have a hand free to hold a spellcasting focus." But, Holy Symbol and Bloodwell Vial permit you to use a spellcasting focus without holding it. So....
Must a character have a hand free to "use" a spellcasting focus that can be used while worn?
I will say... a Component Pouch is probably (but not explicitly) worn as well, and yet PHB Chapter 10 might be read to require you to have a hand free to "access" the components that are found inside of it. It could be that there's a RAI vibe that you always need to use a free hand to at least "access" your focus, even if it's worn and you don't need to "hold" it... but I'm not seeing a RAW statement that connects that dot.
I usually say yes, they do need a free hand, I assume they must touch the focus as part of casting the spell. I think a lot of the mechanics work around you having two hands, and needing to make choices about what you're going to hold (weapon and shield, weapon and focus, focus and shield, weapon and weapon). SO even if you don't constantly hold on to the focus, you need a hand to interact with it. I think its also why they specifically call out loxodon's trunks not being able to be used for such things. Because if they could do all three at once it would give those characters a big advantage.
And, if you could wear it and not have to touch it, then who would ever do anything else? It would be the obviously mechanically superior choice, since you could then go weapon and shield. Heck, a wizard could roll around with two daggers, just in case they want to attack and then of hand attack -- it wouldn't work well, but just having it as a back up would be a sensible choice.
Plus if it can be worn and used without needing a free hand, what's the point of warcaster. At least, the part of warcaster that specifically exempts you from needing a free hand.
If you still need a free hand to use a holy symbol to cast spells with it, then clerics who use a weapon and shield have to drop their weapon to cast any spell that has a material component (to be clear: there is no RAW whatsoever to suggest that putting your holy symbol on your shield turns the shield into a holy symbol; people have literally just made that up). The bloodwell vial clearly permits wearing it as an alternative to holding it when using it as a spellcasting focus.
I think the SAC contains answers that suggest this isn't the intent, but it's the straightforward reading of the text that actually exists in the rules.
Wearing it would remove the requirement of carrying the focus (and therefore drawing/stowing it), but you would still need to hold it during the casting of spells. Basically it would help with item changes in your hands, since it would remove one object interaction.
If you cast a spell that does not require somatic components, but does have a material component that lacks a cost, you could use this item to cast that spell without holding the item in your hand. Say for example, you play as a sorcerer and use the subtle spell meta magic, which removes S and V components, but not M. However, unless I'm mistaken, there are no spells that have M but not S, so it's more of a role-play tool.
And, if you could wear it and not have to touch it, then who would ever do anything else? It would be the obviously mechanically superior choice, since you could then go weapon and shield.
Isn't that the point though? This is not applicable to all foci, just holy symbols (which as pointed out are completely intended to work this way or the core design of clerics and paladins fails) and the bloodwell vial, which is worded the same way as holy symbols.
Plus it's a magic item. It's like complaining that a longsword +1 is a mechanically superior choice to a longsword. Magic items are supposed to be superior to mundane items.
Saying you need a free hand to use a focus that you explicitly do not have to hold is the kind of logic that makes me want to throw out spell component rules altogether.
Wearing it would remove the requirement of carrying the focus (and therefore drawing/stowing it), but you would still need to hold it during the casting of spells. Basically it would help with item changes in your hands, since it would remove one object interaction.
To the extent that Chapter 10 should be read to say that a spellcasting focus ordinarily must be held to be used, the items I've quoted are clearly specific exceptions that indicate they can be used without holding them by wearing them instead. So "you would still need to hold it during the casting of spells" isn't correct, explicitly, though I'm acknowledging that there's ambiguity whether one must nevertheless keep a free hand to perhaps "access" the worn focus.
But I think Saga and 54Mu31 have it right, that a properly-worn focus may be used to cast an M spell without a free hand, but that you wouldn't get the "and also Somatic components" benefit without accessing it with a free hand (or just using that free hand to perform the S components).
There are two ways to use a spellcasting focus: hold it, or touch it. A held focus might be a wand or staff, an equipped shield with holy symbol, a weapon with the magic ruby in it, etc. Any focus that you are not holding in your hand must be touched as part of the M component: an amulet or vial hanging around your neck, a crystal ball attached to your belt, a holy icon embroidered into your tunic, etc. An empty hand is required to touch that focus.
The same hand with either focus can do the S component of a SM spell. The situation is messier when you have an S spell with no M. In this case, a focus that you are holding in your hand will prevent you from using that hand for the S component. I find this an acceptable situation when you're using a weapon or shield focus, but if you are holding an otherwise useless focus object like a crystal then I think it is unfair to let that focus inconvenience you just because it isn't attached to a chain around your neck. I therefore houserule that situation away and allow any S components while holding a non-weapon/shield focus.
There are two ways to use a spellcasting focus: hold it, or touch it. A held focus might be a wand or staff, an equipped shield with holy symbol, a weapon with the magic ruby in it, etc. Any focus that you are not holding in your hand must be touched as part of the M component: an amulet or vial hanging around your neck, a crystal ball attached to your belt, a holy icon embroidered into your tunic, etc. An empty hand is required to touch that focus.
The same hand with either focus can do the S component of a SM spell. The situation is messier when you have an S spell with no M. In this case, a focus that you are holding in your hand will prevent you from using that hand for the S component. I find this an acceptable situation when you're using a weapon or shield focus, but if you are holding an otherwise useless focus object like a crystal then I think it is unfair to let that focus inconvenience you just because it isn't attached to a chain around your neck. I therefore houserule that situation away and allow any S components while holding a non-weapon/shield focus.
Okay, but where is the quotable rule that says that a worn component must be "touched"? That might be RAI (or might not!)... but I don't see a RAW statement that would suggest it.
There are two ways to use a spellcasting focus: hold it, or touch it. A held focus might be a wand or staff, an equipped shield with holy symbol, a weapon with the magic ruby in it, etc. Any focus that you are not holding in your hand must be touched as part of the M component: an amulet or vial hanging around your neck, a crystal ball attached to your belt, a holy icon embroidered into your tunic, etc. An empty hand is required to touch that focus.
The same hand with either focus can do the S component of a SM spell. The situation is messier when you have an S spell with no M. In this case, a focus that you are holding in your hand will prevent you from using that hand for the S component. I find this an acceptable situation when you're using a weapon or shield focus, but if you are holding an otherwise useless focus object like a crystal then I think it is unfair to let that focus inconvenience you just because it isn't attached to a chain around your neck. I therefore houserule that situation away and allow any S components while holding a non-weapon/shield focus.
Okay, but where is the quotable rule that says that a worn component must be "touched"? That might be RAI (or might not!)... but I don't see a RAW statement that would suggest it.
"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."
You either have to "access" the components or hold a focus. You can replace the components with a focus, so you either have to hold a focus or "access" a focus with your free hand. I interpret access to involve at least some physical contact in this context. There is no casting an M spell without a holding or an accessing.
My preferred non-magic arcane focus (for characters that have a shield) is a crystal necklace. Just keep 1 hand free to grab it or perform somatic components and you're golden.
I have always assumed you needed a free hand to handle a worn focus (per ch10), and have designed my characters around that and rule that way as a DM.
I just find it challenging to read "you can use the vial as a spellcasting focus while wearing it" as really meaning "you can use the vial as a spellcasting focus while wearing it if you also use a free hand to access it". Again, possibly RAI (though as Saga points out, that's a brutal interpretation for Clerics with symbols displayed on their shields), but not seeing the RAW there.
Mundane foci are allowed to be worn already, just look at an amulet. I don't think the intent is ever to say you don't have to touch the item, its just where on your body you can keep it. I don't see a clear enough difference in the item you are referencing and these mundane items to say that one works differently than another.
I just find it challenging to read "you can use the vial as a spellcasting focus while wearing it" as really meaning "you can use the vial as a spellcasting focus while wearing it if you also use a free hand to access it". Again, possibly RAI (though as Saga points out, that's a brutal interpretation for Clerics with symbols displayed on their shields), but not seeing the RAW there.
You hold the shield, which counts as holding the focus...the SAC made that very clear.
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.
True, but having your shield in hand is how you (arguably) "wear" a shield, so the fact that a shield in hand lets you use a Holy Symbol displayed on that shield as a spell focus could be just as analagous to saying that wearing the Vial lets you use it as a spell focus. If you're not requiring that a free hand access the holy symbol, only that the object it's on be properly equipped, than how is it any different to not require a free hand to access the vial that's worn around your neck, or the holy symbol that's displayed on your armor?
I just find it challenging to read "you can use the vial as a spellcasting focus while wearing it" as really meaning "you can use the vial as a spellcasting focus while wearing it if you also use a free hand to access it". Again, possibly RAI (though as Saga points out, that's a brutal interpretation for Clerics with symbols displayed on their shields), but not seeing the RAW there.
Clerics and Paladins are fine, because the SAC has, buried deep within it, the rule Saga mentioned that doesn't otherwise exist allowing a holy symbol mounted on a shield to work when the shield is wielded. The bigger problem isn't bloodwell vials, it's artificers in general and armorers specifically, because they can, in general, have unholdable foci. The worst-case example of this is a Spellwrought Tattoo on the roof of your mouth, but more broadly, you could have one on the back of your hand, or infuse any set of gauntlets with something to make them foci, and then things go well and truly sideways. Actually, I tell a lie. The worst-case example is an ersatz eye infusion.
There's very strong evidence that whomever wrote Tasha's has no experience playing with the focus rules - see artillerist artificers, whose L5 ability is word salad in game terms. However, the worn focus problem (much easier than the implanted prosthetic organ focus problem) is not new - the PHB and the DMG have exactly 0 wearable foci in them, but Xanathar's introduced two: the dark shard amulet and the hat of wizardry. Unfortunately, Xanathar's has no rules in it granting wearable foci an exception to the held rules, and clerics and paladins don't set a useful precedent, as they're holding their shields when they do their trick. I can find no evidence whatsoever that worn foci no longer need to be held.
I just find it challenging to read "you can use the vial as a spellcasting focus while wearing it" as really meaning "you can use the vial as a spellcasting focus while wearing it if you also use a free hand to access it". Again, possibly RAI (though as Saga points out, that's a brutal interpretation for Clerics with symbols displayed on their shields), but not seeing the RAW there.
You hold the shield, which counts as holding the focus...the SAC made that very clear.
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.
The SAC may have "made that very clear," but there's exactly zero textual support for it, which is the point here.
The actual rules in the PHB are this: in general, you need a free hand to use a spellcasting focus. Characters who can use holy symbols can do that, but they have two additional options: wearing it prominently, and emblazoning it on a shield. Neither of those options involves holding the focus, and the holy symbol rules are specific rules that beat the general rules for all spellcasting foci. A shield with a holy symbol on it does not become a holy symbol, and holding that shield does not count as holding the holy symbol. You don't need to hold a holy symbol.
The SAC response sets out a very different ruling; we're all aware of that. It's just that the SAC ruling is wholly unsupported by the actual rules.
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.
You need a free hand.
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.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Bloodwell Vial has a very interesting property in it:
Really, that's not particularly different from a regular Holy Symbol, though phrased a little differenetly:
Usually, we talk about Holy Symbols being on Shields, and really bypass the whole discussion of using them while "worn" elsewhere on your body in a way that doesn't implicate one of your hands. But other explicitly-worn focuses like Bloodwell Vial put that squarely before us: what would it mean to "use" a spell focus without holding it?
From PHB Chapter 10, Spellcasting, Components:
So, a caster explicitly "must have a hand free to hold a spellcasting focus." But, Holy Symbol and Bloodwell Vial permit you to use a spellcasting focus without holding it. So....
Must a character have a hand free to "use" a spellcasting focus that can be used while worn?
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
I will say... a Component Pouch is probably (but not explicitly) worn as well, and yet PHB Chapter 10 might be read to require you to have a hand free to "access" the components that are found inside of it. It could be that there's a RAI vibe that you always need to use a free hand to at least "access" your focus, even if it's worn and you don't need to "hold" it... but I'm not seeing a RAW statement that connects that dot.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
I usually say yes, they do need a free hand, I assume they must touch the focus as part of casting the spell. I think a lot of the mechanics work around you having two hands, and needing to make choices about what you're going to hold (weapon and shield, weapon and focus, focus and shield, weapon and weapon). SO even if you don't constantly hold on to the focus, you need a hand to interact with it. I think its also why they specifically call out loxodon's trunks not being able to be used for such things. Because if they could do all three at once it would give those characters a big advantage.
And, if you could wear it and not have to touch it, then who would ever do anything else? It would be the obviously mechanically superior choice, since you could then go weapon and shield. Heck, a wizard could roll around with two daggers, just in case they want to attack and then of hand attack -- it wouldn't work well, but just having it as a back up would be a sensible choice.
Plus if it can be worn and used without needing a free hand, what's the point of warcaster. At least, the part of warcaster that specifically exempts you from needing a free hand.
If you still need a free hand to use a holy symbol to cast spells with it, then clerics who use a weapon and shield have to drop their weapon to cast any spell that has a material component (to be clear: there is no RAW whatsoever to suggest that putting your holy symbol on your shield turns the shield into a holy symbol; people have literally just made that up). The bloodwell vial clearly permits wearing it as an alternative to holding it when using it as a spellcasting focus.
I think the SAC contains answers that suggest this isn't the intent, but it's the straightforward reading of the text that actually exists in the rules.
Wearing it would remove the requirement of carrying the focus (and therefore drawing/stowing it), but you would still need to hold it during the casting of spells. Basically it would help with item changes in your hands, since it would remove one object interaction.
If you cast a spell that does not require somatic components, but does have a material component that lacks a cost, you could use this item to cast that spell without holding the item in your hand. Say for example, you play as a sorcerer and use the subtle spell meta magic, which removes S and V components, but not M. However, unless I'm mistaken, there are no spells that have M but not S, so it's more of a role-play tool.
Isn't that the point though? This is not applicable to all foci, just holy symbols (which as pointed out are completely intended to work this way or the core design of clerics and paladins fails) and the bloodwell vial, which is worded the same way as holy symbols.
Plus it's a magic item. It's like complaining that a longsword +1 is a mechanically superior choice to a longsword. Magic items are supposed to be superior to mundane items.
Saying you need a free hand to use a focus that you explicitly do not have to hold is the kind of logic that makes me want to throw out spell component rules altogether.
My homebrew subclasses (full list here)
(Artificer) Swordmage | Glasswright | (Barbarian) Path of the Savage Embrace
(Bard) College of Dance | (Fighter) Warlord | Cannoneer
(Monk) Way of the Elements | (Ranger) Blade Dancer
(Rogue) DaggerMaster | Inquisitor | (Sorcerer) Riftwalker | Spellfist
(Warlock) The Swarm
To the extent that Chapter 10 should be read to say that a spellcasting focus ordinarily must be held to be used, the items I've quoted are clearly specific exceptions that indicate they can be used without holding them by wearing them instead. So "you would still need to hold it during the casting of spells" isn't correct, explicitly, though I'm acknowledging that there's ambiguity whether one must nevertheless keep a free hand to perhaps "access" the worn focus.
But I think Saga and 54Mu31 have it right, that a properly-worn focus may be used to cast an M spell without a free hand, but that you wouldn't get the "and also Somatic components" benefit without accessing it with a free hand (or just using that free hand to perform the S components).
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
There are two ways to use a spellcasting focus: hold it, or touch it. A held focus might be a wand or staff, an equipped shield with holy symbol, a weapon with the magic ruby in it, etc. Any focus that you are not holding in your hand must be touched as part of the M component: an amulet or vial hanging around your neck, a crystal ball attached to your belt, a holy icon embroidered into your tunic, etc. An empty hand is required to touch that focus.
The same hand with either focus can do the S component of a SM spell. The situation is messier when you have an S spell with no M. In this case, a focus that you are holding in your hand will prevent you from using that hand for the S component. I find this an acceptable situation when you're using a weapon or shield focus, but if you are holding an otherwise useless focus object like a crystal then I think it is unfair to let that focus inconvenience you just because it isn't attached to a chain around your neck. I therefore houserule that situation away and allow any S components while holding a non-weapon/shield focus.
Okay, but where is the quotable rule that says that a worn component must be "touched"? That might be RAI (or might not!)... but I don't see a RAW statement that would suggest it.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
"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."
You either have to "access" the components or hold a focus. You can replace the components with a focus, so you either have to hold a focus or "access" a focus with your free hand. I interpret access to involve at least some physical contact in this context. There is no casting an M spell without a holding or an accessing.
My preferred non-magic arcane focus (for characters that have a shield) is a crystal necklace. Just keep 1 hand free to grab it or perform somatic components and you're golden.
I have always assumed you needed a free hand to handle a worn focus (per ch10), and have designed my characters around that and rule that way as a DM.
I just find it challenging to read "you can use the vial as a spellcasting focus while wearing it" as really meaning "you can use the vial as a spellcasting focus while wearing it if you also use a free hand to access it". Again, possibly RAI (though as Saga points out, that's a brutal interpretation for Clerics with symbols displayed on their shields), but not seeing the RAW there.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
Mundane foci are allowed to be worn already, just look at an amulet. I don't think the intent is ever to say you don't have to touch the item, its just where on your body you can keep it. I don't see a clear enough difference in the item you are referencing and these mundane items to say that one works differently than another.
You hold the shield, which counts as holding the focus...the SAC made that very clear.
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.
True, but having your shield in hand is how you (arguably) "wear" a shield, so the fact that a shield in hand lets you use a Holy Symbol displayed on that shield as a spell focus could be just as analagous to saying that wearing the Vial lets you use it as a spell focus. If you're not requiring that a free hand access the holy symbol, only that the object it's on be properly equipped, than how is it any different to not require a free hand to access the vial that's worn around your neck, or the holy symbol that's displayed on your armor?
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
Clerics and Paladins are fine, because the SAC has, buried deep within it, the rule Saga mentioned that doesn't otherwise exist allowing a holy symbol mounted on a shield to work when the shield is wielded. The bigger problem isn't bloodwell vials, it's artificers in general and armorers specifically, because they can, in general, have unholdable foci. The worst-case example of this is a Spellwrought Tattoo on the roof of your mouth, but more broadly, you could have one on the back of your hand, or infuse any set of gauntlets with something to make them foci, and then things go well and truly sideways. Actually, I tell a lie. The worst-case example is an ersatz eye infusion.
There's very strong evidence that whomever wrote Tasha's has no experience playing with the focus rules - see artillerist artificers, whose L5 ability is word salad in game terms. However, the worn focus problem (much easier than the implanted prosthetic organ focus problem) is not new - the PHB and the DMG have exactly 0 wearable foci in them, but Xanathar's introduced two: the dark shard amulet and the hat of wizardry. Unfortunately, Xanathar's has no rules in it granting wearable foci an exception to the held rules, and clerics and paladins don't set a useful precedent, as they're holding their shields when they do their trick. I can find no evidence whatsoever that worn foci no longer need to be held.
The SAC may have "made that very clear," but there's exactly zero textual support for it, which is the point here.
The actual rules in the PHB are this: in general, you need a free hand to use a spellcasting focus. Characters who can use holy symbols can do that, but they have two additional options: wearing it prominently, and emblazoning it on a shield. Neither of those options involves holding the focus, and the holy symbol rules are specific rules that beat the general rules for all spellcasting foci. A shield with a holy symbol on it does not become a holy symbol, and holding that shield does not count as holding the holy symbol. You don't need to hold a holy symbol.
The SAC response sets out a very different ruling; we're all aware of that. It's just that the SAC ruling is wholly unsupported by the actual rules.
Saga gets it :)
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
You need a free 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.