Was having this discussion with a player playing as a sorcerer in one of my ongoing campaigns, one of the things that's always seemed strange about sorcerers as innate casters is that they still need to use minor components or a casting focus to cast spells that supposedly come from within themselves. The same could probably be said of Warlocks.

Anyway, we were discussing the possibility of having a sorcerer not require a spellcasting focus by simply being their own focus, and I'm curious about whether people think it might have some unexpected side effects or not? I've allowed this in the past for a Bard to use their voice as a casting focus, but that had the benefit of meaning all spells cast that way have an added vocal component (it's counteracted by the risk that Silence negates more spells).

My gut feeling is that it wouldn't be OP, since sorcerers don't typically have much need to hold things in their hands anyway unless you've loaded them with staffs and wands. The only side effect I've thought of so far was that it makes them harder to "disarm" when thrown in prison or such, but that could be got around with magic dampening manacles or such so doesn't seem much of an obstacle.

So what are people's thoughts; should a sorcerer (and maybe warlock) count as their own spellcasting focus?

Hell, I had a home brew feat called Arcane Conduit, where the sorcerer was the Focus for OTHER people’s spells and he had to make an Charisma Save every time someone casted a spell through him!!! If he failed, and depending how bad he failed, the spell either went boom in his face and the caster, or he was subject to the effects as well

homebrew away!!! ….. just know you’re not playing by RAW…  I’d say if he was using himself as the focus, he would have to ALWAYS include somatic components and needed a free hand… but I don’t think it’s game breaking if it’s for a specific character design

There are two things you could allow along these lines that I think would be very balanced:

• Allow Subtle Spell to apply to non-costed M components, so the application to S components becomes more meaningful.  Use Psionic Sorcery from Aberrant Mind sorcerers for the wording.
• Allow Sorcerers to produce an Arcane Focus provided they have the downtime to do so, without any additional proficiency requirements beyond being a Sorcerer - the process comes naturally to them.

I've always just asked the DM if I could incorporate my arcane focus into my character and it seems to accomplish what you're saying in a mechanical sense. For instance they had a crystal embedded in their forehead which helped channel those weaves of chaotic sorcerer magic from within themselves and for material spells they'd need to touch the crystal still in order to "activate" it. Kinda helps fulfill what you had explained regarding the sorcerer being the focus, but not removing any sort of restraints on them.

The "Oh Noes, we can't disarm the Sorcerer now!" argument isn't very strong IMO.  This is thematically consistent homebrew rule your player is proposing.  You know what's also thematic?  NOT being able to use yourself as a spellcasting focus if you are Exhausted or Poisoned.  There.  No need for some fancy anti-schmagic field business just to "level the playing field" when you put the party in a literal prison.  

Quote from sfPanzer >>

So you're saying every single time someone wants to arrest a Sorcerer, be it in prison or by bandits or whatever, they're supposed to literally poison them or first somehow keep busy for a day and night or cast a spell or something to exhaust them? That's not feasible at all.

   How so?  If your foes have enough leverage to get the whole party to drop their weapons, how difficult would it be to get a venomous snake to bite the Sorcerer?  Oh, wait, don't tell me:  Beasts can't actually impose the Poison condition in 5E.  LOL.  What a ridiculous rule.   If you're the DM, just change that statblock.  It's thematic, it makes sense, and it gives your Rogues something else to look forward to exploiting.   

    How to impose Exhaustion?  Well, put the whole party (including Sorcerer) in a tundra or in lava environment.  Absorb Elements ain't gonna cut it.  Extended exposure to harsh climates can, per RAW, cause Exhaustion.  

Im not too worried about the need to disarm the sorcerer. The monk class already excels at "prison break" encounters since you can never fully 'disarm' them like you can a fighter or paladin. I dont see why sorcerers cant be given the same niche role on the caster side of things. The sorcerer would be a little better at this than the monk since they could potentially be useful even when bound and gagged thanks to subtle spell, but you could also still work around it if the situation calls for tight security. A knowledgable NPC might know to keep a sorcerer guarded in solitary confinement or with multiple guards ready to pounce, as their magic can be sometimes unpredictable. 

In any case, I think fitting the theme and giving the class something that further sets it apart as an "innate caster" outweigh the potential downsides to being unable to disarm them of a focus. 

Quote from sfPanzer >>

So you're suggesting for everyone who ever wants to "unarm" a Sorcerer to jump through several hoops or only fight in extremely specific environment, gotcha.

    Do you have a better solution while keeping the concept of the Sorc has their own spellcasting component?  You make it sound like it's some common thing to throw your players in prison.  That shouldn't be a frequent occurrence in the first place.  If it is, you're either playing with a group of low level Evil players, in which case, sure, raise the requirements for Sorcs to use Self as spellcasting component.  If your players are murder hoboes who are  seen as "Good" in your campaign world, then that's a much bigger problem than bestowing this small benefit on the Sorcerers.

Quote from sfPanzer >>

Since you're asking it's apparent you didn't even bother reading the thread ... and it's not even a long thread at that.

     I read that you put two Options forward.  The first isn't favorable in that it takes going through what are now well over 200 spells based on some obsure criteria.  The second doesn't really address the issue except to fold it into Subtle spell mmagics.  I don't see that as much more "breakable" than my suggestion, which puts forth quite explicit methods to limit the very power increase we are discussing.  So, IMO, you're not putting anything better on the table.  

How many times has the situation of 'disarming the sorcerer' actually come up? I mean, like, 95% of the time it's probably just you going with straight damage anyways and even in other situations it can be 'you wouldn't deprive an old man of his walking stick' type situations. My main sorcerer has her focus being her necklace (a hand-me-down from her mom who was a caster). While some people might target it for pickpocketing, to basically everyone who isn't in the know it's just a piece of jewelry. It feels like it's a rare enough situation. And, let's be honest here, there's classes like Monk who either can't be disarmed or wouldn't be slowed down much. Even with sorcs it just means they can't cast spells with material components if you take it away, not that they can't cast at all.

The problem is trying to keep it all straight.

Some classes, it makes sense to have a focus--Clerics, Druids, Paladin, Wizards. Other caster classes; Sorcerer, and Warlock, it seems "out of character" that they would need something. Their body is the channel for the magic--whether given by another higher power, or something innate in their being. Why would a Warlock need an Orb to focus the power from a fiend?

Then we have Bards and Artificers. Both SEEM like they should have a focus, but the way it is implemented is rather silly.

A Bard needs a musical instrument to be a focus, even if their College has no musical influence. And most musical instruments require two hands to operate, yet per the rules they only need one free hand to use a focus. Is their lyre permanently attached to their chest so they only need one hand to strum? A flute strapped to the shoulder so the can just turn their heads to play? But even an Eloquence Bard needs to play a song to cast a spell. Where is the logic in that?

Then we have the Artificers; even more ridiculous. Regardless of their backstory, a set of thieves' tools is all they need to cast a spell. Artillerist in full plate? So long as you have leatherworker's tools, you're good to go. Trying to cast Jump? Bring out your Brewer's Supplies and you can do it. Side note, per the rules, you don't even need to be proficient with the tools to use them, just so long as it's thieves's tool or any artisan's tools, it works. Then there is the extra special stupid with Alchemists. While the other classes can also use ANY of their infusions as a focus, for most of the Alchemist's class features to work, they MUST use Alchemical Supplies as the focus. Which means they literally are brewing their spells, in combat, with their one free hand. EVERY SPELL. Since for Alchemists, every spell has a material component. And for the rest of the class, they still need the "one free hand" even if they use the armor they are incased in (infused or class feature) to wield/use as a focus.

And to round it out, we have the non-caster types that don't even get the option of a focus: Rangers (although it's an option in Tasha's), Arcane Trickster Rogues, and a few others that are stuck with a bag of components.

So where does that leave us? Some casters that really should not need a focus, some that do need a focus, some that really need two hands to use, and some that have their focus thrust upon them.

In the end, to "simplify" everything, 5e said, to cast a spell you need either a focus or components. Unless the spell has a component that has a cost, in which case need a component, but that can be your focus also that that spell. And you need one "free" hand to touch and/or manipulate said focus/components. And you can say that a hand that is holding a focus (but not components) can also be used for the somatic portion of spells. Unless said spells don't need a material component, in which case you can't. Unless you have the War Caster feat, in which case you can.

And once you follow all that logic, try adding, "Except certain classes which don't need focuses or components. Unless the spell has a component that has a cost, in which case they still need a component, but still not a focus."

Quote from Kaboom979 >>

Im not too worried about the need to disarm the sorcerer. The monk class already excels at "prison break" encounters since you can never fully 'disarm' them like you can a fighter or paladin. I dont see why sorcerers cant be given the same niche role on the caster side of things. The sorcerer would be a little better at this than the monk since they could potentially be useful even when bound and gagged thanks to subtle spell, but you could also still work around it if the situation calls for tight security. A knowledgable NPC might know to keep a sorcerer guarded in solitary confinement or with multiple guards ready to pounce, as their magic can be sometimes unpredictable. 

In any case, I think fitting the theme and giving the class something that further sets it apart as an "innate caster" outweigh the potential downsides to being unable to disarm them of a focus. 

       While I see the line of your argument, keep in mind two things:  1) Monks are considered by many to be underpowered relative to other martial classes in a game with magic weapons, so they need to shine at something.   2)  Sorcerers get access to most of the goodies on the Wizard spell list, which almost indisputably has the best mix of combat, control, and utility spells in 5E (outside of summoning).  As such, I'm not sure that these two classes should have exactly the same access to all their powers in a disarmed/stripped-of-equipmt prison scenario.

Quote from Song_of_Blues >>

Quote from Kaboom979 >>

Im not too worried about the need to disarm the sorcerer. The monk class already excels at "prison break" encounters since you can never fully 'disarm' them like you can a fighter or paladin. I dont see why sorcerers cant be given the same niche role on the caster side of things. The sorcerer would be a little better at this than the monk since they could potentially be useful even when bound and gagged thanks to subtle spell, but you could also still work around it if the situation calls for tight security. A knowledgable NPC might know to keep a sorcerer guarded in solitary confinement or with multiple guards ready to pounce, as their magic can be sometimes unpredictable. 

In any case, I think fitting the theme and giving the class something that further sets it apart as an "innate caster" outweigh the potential downsides to being unable to disarm them of a focus. 

       While I see the line of your argument, keep in mind two things:  1) Monks are considered by many to be underpowered relative to other martial classes in a game with magic weapons, so they need to shine at something.   2)  Sorcerers get access to most of the goodies on the Wizard spell list, which almost indisputably has the best mix of combat, control, and utility spells in 5E (outside of summoning).  As such, I'm not sure that these two classes should have exactly the same access to all their powers in a disarmed/stripped-of-equipmt prison scenario.

 As far as full casters are concerned, Sorcerers are kinda in the same boat as Monks are (with respect to martials). They both are seen as the most underpowered or lacking of their particular category. 

While I agree the Sorcerer has more potential as a caster in an unarmed situation than a monk does, I still dont think it would be overpowered unless that campaign is going to feature a heavy focus on being captured. 

I think the compromise would be just to make it an optional feature, so if a DM wants to run a prison-centric campaign and they are worried about the sorcerer ruining the fun they can just disallow that option. 

Quote from Kaboom979 >>

Quote from Song_of_Blues >>

Quote from Kaboom979 >>

Im not too worried about the need to disarm the sorcerer. The monk class already excels at "prison break" encounters since you can never fully 'disarm' them like you can a fighter or paladin. I dont see why sorcerers cant be given the same niche role on the caster side of things. The sorcerer would be a little better at this than the monk since they could potentially be useful even when bound and gagged thanks to subtle spell, but you could also still work around it if the situation calls for tight security. A knowledgable NPC might know to keep a sorcerer guarded in solitary confinement or with multiple guards ready to pounce, as their magic can be sometimes unpredictable. 

In any case, I think fitting the theme and giving the class something that further sets it apart as an "innate caster" outweigh the potential downsides to being unable to disarm them of a focus. 

       While I see the line of your argument, keep in mind two things:  1) Monks are considered by many to be underpowered relative to other martial classes in a game with magic weapons, so they need to shine at something.   2)  Sorcerers get access to most of the goodies on the Wizard spell list, which almost indisputably has the best mix of combat, control, and utility spells in 5E (outside of summoning).  As such, I'm not sure that these two classes should have exactly the same access to all their powers in a disarmed/stripped-of-equipmt prison scenario.

 As far as full casters are concerned, Sorcerers are kinda in the same boat as Monks are (with respect to martials). They both are seen as the most underpowered or lacking of their particular category. 

While I agree the Sorcerer has more potential as a caster in an unarmed situation than a monk does, I still dont think it would be overpowered unless that campaign is going to feature a heavy focus on being captured. 

I think the compromise would be just to make it an optional feature, so if a DM wants to run a prison-centric campaign and they are worried about the sorcerer ruining the fun they can just disallow that option. 

      Granted, if the DM puts the PCs in a prison, it's so that they can eventually break out anyway.  

      My point is, rather, that Sorcerers are not terrible as full casters; it's just that they tend to feel too limited by spells known and by # of Metamagics.  So they are forced to be specialists in a ways that Bards and Wizards are not.  However, the breadth of useful spells to choose from is easily superior to the Cleric spell list and arguably superior to those of non-Lore Bards.  Sorcerers have fewer spells known, but judicious use of Metamagic and spell selection makes those spells significantly more flexible and potentially more powerful as well.   As such, a Self-as-Focus Sorcerer built by an experienced players is actually OP in a scenario where all the other casters have their foci and weapons removed from them.  This is why I suggested a few ways to practically limit when they could use themselves as their casting foci.  

Quote from Cyberfunkr >>

The problem is trying to keep it all straight.

Some classes, it makes sense to have a focus--Clerics, Druids, Paladin, Wizards. Other caster classes; Sorcerer, and Warlock, it seems "out of character" that they would need something. Their body is the channel for the magic--whether given by another higher power, or something innate in their being. Why would a Warlock need an Orb to focus the power from a fiend?

Then we have Bards and Artificers. Both SEEM like they should have a focus, but the way it is implemented is rather silly.

A Bard needs a musical instrument to be a focus, even if their College has no musical influence. And most musical instruments require two hands to operate, yet per the rules they only need one free hand to use a focus. Is their lyre permanently attached to their chest so they only need one hand to strum? A flute strapped to the shoulder so the can just turn their heads to play? But even an Eloquence Bard needs to play a song to cast a spell. Where is the logic in that?

Then we have the Artificers; even more ridiculous. Regardless of their backstory, a set of thieves' tools is all they need to cast a spell. Artillerist in full plate? So long as you have leatherworker's tools, you're good to go. Trying to cast Jump? Bring out your Brewer's Supplies and you can do it. Side note, per the rules, you don't even need to be proficient with the tools to use them, just so long as it's thieves's tool or any artisan's tools, it works. Then there is the extra special stupid with Alchemists. While the other classes can also use ANY of their infusions as a focus, for most of the Alchemist's class features to work, they MUST use Alchemical Supplies as the focus. Which means they literally are brewing their spells, in combat, with their one free hand. EVERY SPELL. Since for Alchemists, every spell has a material component. And for the rest of the class, they still need the "one free hand" even if they use the armor they are incased in (infused or class feature) to wield/use as a focus.

And to round it out, we have the non-caster types that don't even get the option of a focus: Rangers (although it's an option in Tasha's), Arcane Trickster Rogues, and a few others that are stuck with a bag of components.

So where does that leave us? Some casters that really should not need a focus, some that do need a focus, some that really need two hands to use, and some that have their focus thrust upon them.

In the end, to "simplify" everything, 5e said, to cast a spell you need either a focus or components. Unless the spell has a component that has a cost, in which case need a component, but that can be your focus also that that spell. And you need one "free" hand to touch and/or manipulate said focus/components. And you can say that a hand that is holding a focus (but not components) can also be used for the somatic portion of spells. Unless said spells don't need a material component, in which case you can't. Unless you have the War Caster feat, in which case you can.

And once you follow all that logic, try adding, "Except certain classes which don't need focuses or components. Unless the spell has a component that has a cost, in which case they still need a component, but still not a focus."

 

 There isn’t even any special benefit of using a focus over a component pouch other than flavor. I would give the guys borrowing wizard spells arcane focus as an option.

The rules on components are strange. Why when a paladin casts a v/s/m spell they can use their shield with a holy symbol to cast, but not for a v/s spell?