Random thoughts: Fluffing holy symbols and other foci and the mechanical implications

[Quoxis]

The wizard has his elder wand, the druid a twig cut off of a holy tree, the paladin painted something on his shield that might be a tree or a hand or... is that supposed to be a face...?

Anyways, all spellcasters i've ever met or played have a spellcasting focus. Mostly used are the examples the phb gives, meaning most people are running around with a necklace in form of their deity's symbol, a component pouch or a magic walking sti- i mean staff.

It's been sage advised that any staff can be used like a quarterstaff (polearm master wizard ftw), and the phb mentions a holy symbol can be put on a shield.

I want different flavorful foci, i'd like to present a few ideas and would appreciate any thoughts or concerns about whether any of it would change the mechanics (as that's what repulses GMs most about allowing new stuff).

- instead of a shield, the holy smybol is a weapon. This makes obviously most sense for gods of war, but about every deity has a favored weapon a devotee could/would/should use (a clerics "spiritual weapon" looks like that by phb fluff text too). The only problem i see here could potentially be dualwielding, as i'm not entirely sure if by raw the caster has to stow a weapon to use the material component/focus (to perform a somatic component they have to, unless they got the warcaster feat). If the focus were a weapon, they wouldn't have to, potentially giving them an unfair advantage - seeing how 5e treats dualwielding i'd doubt that would break anything, even in case it's not obsolete due to me not reading carefully.

- something related to the deities' specific domain, like an actual coin or a tax book for gods of trade, a skull or other macabre stuff for deities of death (or related to it - the fluff text of some sea goddess whose name i forgot states her clergy sees body parts of drowned creatures as holy, why not make it a holy smybol then?), a spellbook or magic wand for arcana deities (one of them has a blue book as their symbol anyway, so instead of painting a book onto a shield, why not carry a haptic real book?)...

- this might be a bit of a stretch, but: shared focus when multiclassing. A druid/nature cleric could use the same holy twig for both his classes' castings, a wizard/arcana cleric could channel divine and arcane powers (where's the difference with that domain anyway?) alike, the paladin/cleric shouldn't even have that sort of problem... You wouldn't have to carry two foci, that's about everything i can imagine that could be a mechanical bonus of that.

Ideas, questions, comments, concerns?

[qube]

seems fine. Even if you allow sword&board clerics to cast spells without a feat - the warcaster feat is still a good feat - as mechanically, the best spells have concentration. (the idea behind the mechanic behind concentration is that you can have one powerful spell up, in combination with one or more other spells.) Advantage of concentration checks is something you definately want if you 'plan' to get hit.

dual wielding clerics are sub-par clerics. Again, concentration spell. less AC = getting hit more = more chance to lose the spell. And what do you get? Not woth the 'chance to deal 1d6 extra damage'.

[solidork]

If we're talking about tropes, "ritual dagger" is totally a thing. I got one on my Arcane Trickster Rogue and, like you noted, it didn't instantly solve all of my problems because of spells like Shield that I couldn't cast even though my offhand weapon was a focus. There are actually a couple of class options presented in Unearthed Arcana that allow you to use your weapon as a spellcasting focus.

[Quoxis]

seems fine. Even if you allow sword&board clerics to cast spells without a feat - the warcaster feat is still a good feat - as mechanically, the best spells have concentration. (the idea behind the mechanic behind concentration is that you can have one powerful spell up, in combination with one or more other spells.) Advantage of concentration checks is something you definately want if you 'plan' to get hit.

dual wielding clerics are sub-par clerics. Again, concentration spell. less AC = getting hit more = more chance to lose the spell. And what do you get? Not woth the 'chance to deal 1d6 extra damage'.

Give dualwielders some love! #dualwieldlifesmatter

[Quoxis]

If we're talking about tropes, "ritual dagger" is totally a thing. I got one on my Arcane Trickster Rogue and, like you noted, it didn't instantly solve all of my problems because of spells like Shield that I couldn't cast even though my offhand weapon was a focus. There are actually a couple of class options presented in Unearthed Arcana that allow you to use your weapon as a spellcasting focus.

Ah yeah, i remember something vaguely, wasn't there a new eldritch invocation turning a pact blade into a focus or something?
If that makes it to the books, i think it's less likely GMs will allow weapon foci without that, simply because there's a price on it now.

[Millstone85]

i'm not entirely sure if by raw the caster has to stow a weapon to use the material component/focus (to perform a somatic component they have to, unless they got the warcaster feat).If a spell has a somatic component but no material component, you need a free hand to do all the rock-paper-scissors-lizard-Spock required by the spell.

If a spell has both a somatic component and a material component, then the somatic component is allowed to be some waving around of the material component.

Thus, if you have a quarterstaff or a shield that doubles as a spellcasting focus, and are wielding something in your other hand too, you need not stow or drop anything to cast S/M spells. But other S spells do require you to free a hand.

The War Caster feat lets you cast all S spells without having to part with any weapon or shield.

It is not clear in the PHB but here is a relevant 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 (PH, 203). 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.
Edit: Oh, sorry, I read too fast. Yeah, in the context of dual wielding, one of the weapons would have to be a spellcasting focus for you to cast a M spell without stowing a weapon, and War Caster wouldn't change that. The material component must be handled.

[Dudewithknives]

I played a gunslinger warlock, his rod of the pact keeper had a wooden handle and looked just like a revolver.

His spells looks like special bullets, and he carried a flask as a different spell focus for buffs and things.

[Quoxis]

If a spell has a somatic component but no material component, you need a free hand to do all the rock-paper-scissors-lizard-Spock required by the spell.

If a spell has both a somatic component and a material component, then the somatic component is allowed to be some waving around of the material component.

Thus, if you have a quarterstaff or a shield that doubles as a spellcasting focus, and are wielding something in your other hand too, you need not stow or drop anything to cast S/M spells. But other S spells do require you to free a hand.

The War Caster feat lets you cast all S spells without having to part with any weapon or shield.

It is not clear in the PHB but here is a relevant 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 (PH, 203). 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.
Edit: Oh, sorry, I read too fast. Yeah, in the context of dual wielding, one of the weapons would have to be a spellcasting focus for you to cast a M spell without stowing a weapon, and War Caster wouldn't change that. The material component must be handled.

Tl;dr:
Spell has...
...s only: needs free hand
...m only: needs to hold/handle focus
... s, m: needs to hold/handle focus

So neither are usable by, say, a wizard with two daggers, unless they have the warcaster feat, in which case they can do s only spells, but can't handle/hold the focus, therefore no m or s,m spells (by raw), correct?

Any objections against abolishing that mess and allowing one dagger to be a focus?

[Sariel Vailo]

I use a longzword or rapier as mg arcane focus

[Millstone85]

Tl;dr:
Spell has...
...s only: needs free hand
...m only: needs to hold/handle focus
... s, m: needs to hold/handle focusOn that note, it does seem super redundant for a spell to be S/M. Does anyone know a situation where the difference between S/M and M-only would matter?


So neither are usable by, say, a wizard with two daggers, unless they have the warcaster feat, in which case they can do s only spells, but can't handle/hold the focus, therefore no m or s,m spells (by raw), correct?Correct.


Any objections against abolishing that mess and allowing one dagger to be a focus?It does annoy me how, even in the simple case of a wizard with a staff, I could not describe all spells as being channeled through the staff. Some would have to come from the empty hand. Even when there's no mechanical hindrance, that feels wrong somehow.

As for, say, a dagger with a crystal at the guard or pommel, I think that should be a rather common item. It is not even a magic item per say.

[Lord Il Palazzo]

- instead of a shield, the holy smybol is a weapon. This makes obviously most sense for gods of war, but about every deity has a favored weapon a devotee could/would/should use (a clerics "spiritual weapon" looks like that by phb fluff text too). The only problem i see here could potentially be dualwielding, as i'm not entirely sure if by raw the caster has to stow a weapon to use the material component/focus (to perform a somatic component they have to, unless they got the warcaster feat). If the focus were a weapon, they wouldn't have to, potentially giving them an unfair advantage - seeing how 5e treats dualwielding i'd doubt that would break anything, even in case it's not obsolete due to me not reading carefully.
I've allowed this in a game I ran and nothing in particular broke. One of my players was a two-weapon-fighting paladin (with one level of fighter for the fighting style) who had his holy symbol first worked into the hilt of his sword and later received a holy spear that was a relic of his faith which he used as a holy symbol. For any spell with a material component, he could just hold his sword/spear aloft. If he needed to cast something without a material component, he could stow one of his weapons for a turn without it being too big a deal.

Even without having lost a level of his spellcasting class to get the extra fighting style, I don't think it would have been too powerful (even if I'd let him keep both weapons in hand.) Like you said, dual wielding isn't the most powerful option out of the gate so a slight bump for very specific (i.e. spell casting) builds wouldn't hurt anyone.

[orange74]

It seems to me that if you want to fluff using a weapon as a focus without a mechanical effect, you can just rule that using it as a focus requires both hands, because magic.