Wait, artificers need a tool/spell focus for ALL their spells?

[Greywander]

Apparently, artificers need a tool in their hand to cast their artificer spells, even if they don't require an M component.

This is a problem for me as I was considering using the artificer for homebrew ghost-like character. While incorporeal, the character can't use items, and I was counting on being able to use spells (that don't have an M component) in those situations. I suppose the easiest solution in this specific case is to houserule that only M spells require a tool or spell focus.

I'm guessing this was meant to balance out artificers getting proficiency with shields; you can't hold a weapon, shield, and tool all at once. But since you can also use an infused item, this point becomes moot as early as 2nd level. I just don't get the point. This strikes me as an attempt to mechanically enforce the fluff of an artificer, and I don't think I like it.

I'd consider it a valid trade-off if artificer spells didn't count as magic or spells (e.g. for Dispel Magic, Counterspell, Anti-Magic Field, Rakshasas, Magic Resistance, etc.) and/or didn't require any somatic or verbal components, but no, they apparently function exactly like other spells, except now all spells have an M component and aren't compatible with a component pouch. Heck, normal spellcasting rules don't even require you to have the spell focus in your hand, only that you have a free hand and a spell focus somewhere on your person.

Oh yeah, and recall that a spell focus can't be substituted for costly components (even those not consumed), and that using material components requires a free hand, but you also still have to be holding a tool in one hand. This means you need both hands in order to cast a spell with costly components.

[Dork_Forge]

You do, this isn't really much of an issue for the reason you've already mentioned: infused items count as foci for Artificers. Besides some juggling if you're picking up spells from other classes (though even this isn't much of an issue either) there's no mechanical hindrance and it allows Wizard's to show that Artificers aren't normal casters without having to create a new system for them that people would have to learn and playtest.

This is actually advantageous for Artificers as it means they can cast spells whilst wielding a shield and weapon without the need for Warcaster.

Regarding the costly material component, this is only really relevant in combat (in RP dealing with object interaction isn't really a problem most of the time) how many Artificer spells (besides maybe Revifiy) would you actually be casting in combat?

I'm not really sure why you would use the Artificer for a Ghost like character, the class makes items and being unable to use material components regardless is a big handicap for casters.

[Greywander]

This is actually advantageous for Artificers as it means they can cast spells whilst wielding a shield and weapon without the need for Warcaster.
The requirement that you need a spell focus doesn't actually add an M component to spells that don't have it. Somatic-only spells still require a free hand or Warcaster.


I'm not really sure why you would use the Artificer for a Ghost like character, the class makes items and being unable to use material components regardless is a big handicap for casters.
Heh, I've been wondering this myself. This bit of homebrew is in need of some playtesting to work out the kinks, so there's no telling exactly how things will shake out. The way it works now is that the character gains certain benefits while incorporeal, but can't use items. They also have to stay within a certain distance of a "soul anchor", which they can't carry while incorporeal. They can regain physicality by possessing various things, including objects, but then they lose their incorporeal benefits.

I needed to choose whether to build around being incorporeal or around the possession mechanic, and I decided to go with the latter (it seemed like the more interesting of the two, and the more in need of playtesting). So having a character who can make items and then possess those items makes a certain amount of sense. There's also lore reasons for it: in-universe, this particular type of undead is part of a greater civilization of various types of undead, and they're often involved in industrial applications. They have the ability to possess machinery and manipulate it directly, sort of like fantasy robotics, so it makes sense that they would be involved in a lot of craftsman type jobs.

I don't mind the character being limited in what they can do while incorporeal, that was always the point. I just didn't realize they'd lose access to all their spells. Almost none of their class features would be usable while incorporeal. At least they can hand out infused items to the rest of the party, which is still pretty nice.

Anyway, it seems like my options are to (a) stop being a baby and use the RAW, (b) tweak the rules to allow non-M spells to be used while incorporeal, (c) go Forge cleric instead, or (d) grab Magic Initiate for some spells to use while incorporeal (Thaumaturgy would be a great option). Or I guess (e) multiclass, but I was trying to avoid that.

[Spiritchaser]

The requirement that you need a spell focus doesn't actually add an M component to spells that don't have it. Somatic-only spells still require a free hand or Warcaster.


I disagree on this.

Based on the text of “tools required”, I think that adding the M component to all non M component spells is just exactly what that passage means. Casting a spell with an M component doesn’t require a free hand besides the one holding that m component so... By my read you don’t need warcaster provided you have an infused shield etc...

The only argument that I see for it not working this way is that the text doesn’t spell that specific rules interaction out... but considering all the things that aren’t spelled out in 5e, I don’t personally find that to be a definitive argument.

[stoutstien]

The lantern of revealing would be a flavorful pick for a ghosty PC.
Later on you can switch it out for gloves of thievery

[MaxWilson]

The requirement that you need a spell focus doesn't actually add an M component to spells that don't have it. Somatic-only spells still require a free hand or Warcaster.

I'm AFB but I'm fairly certain that Rising From the Last War's Artificer text contains examples of using Artificer spell focii (maybe under the Artillerist's 5th level ability, or maybe under the general Artificer spellcasting section), and that some of those spells do not normally have material components. I remember thinking it was interesting that whoever wrote Rising From the Last War was clearly assuming that you can use spellcasting focii even for spells that are normally just V and S.

Wish I could give you a quote and page number but I'm AFB and my memory of the exact example is hazy. I don't think I'm thinking of the mechanical-spiders-as-Cure-Wounds thing, even though Cure Wounds is normally VS. I think I'm thinking of something which gives mechanical benefits to using an Artificer spell focus, and a textual example of getting those benefits with a specific spell.

[BarneyBent]

I'm AFB but I'm fairly certain that Rising From the Last War's Artificer text contains examples of using Artificer spell focii (maybe under the Artillerist's 5th level ability, or maybe under the general Artificer spellcasting section), and that some of those spells do not normally have material components. I remember thinking it was interesting that whoever wrote Rising From the Last War was clearly assuming that you can use spellcasting focii even for spells that are normally just V and S.

Wish I could give you a quote and page number but I'm AFB and my memory of the exact example is hazy. I don't think I'm thinking of the mechanical-spiders-as-Cure-Wounds thing, even though Cure Wounds is normally VS. I think I'm thinking of something which gives mechanical benefits to using an Artificer spell focus, and a textual example of getting those benefits with a specific spell.



Tools Required

You produce your artificer spell effects through your tools. You must have a spellcasting focus—specifically thieves' tools or some kind of artisan's tool—in hand when you cast any spell with this Spellcasting feature. You must be proficient with the tool to use it in this way. See chapter 5, "Equipment," in the Player's Handbook for descriptions of these tools.

After you gain the Infuse Item feature at 2nd level, you can also use any item bearing one of your infusions as a spellcasting focus.

Magical Tinkering

As an artificer, you use tools when you cast your spells. When describing your spellcasting, think about how you're using a tool to perform the spell effect. If you cast cure wounds using alchemist's supplies, you could be quickly producing a salve. If you cast it using tinker's tools, you might have a miniature mechanical spider that binds wounds. When you cast poison spray, you could fling foul chemicals or use a wand that spits venom. The effect of the spell is the same as for a spellcaster of any other class, but your method of spellcasting is special.
The same principle applies when you prepare your spells. As an artificer, you don't study a spellbook or pray to prepare your spells. Instead, you work with your tools and create the specialized items you'll use to produce your effects. If you replace cure wounds with heat metal, you might be altering the device you use to heal—perhaps modifying a tool so that it channels heat instead of healing energy.
Such details don't limit you in any way or provide you with any benefit beyond the spell's effects. You don't have to justify how you're using tools to cast a spell. But describing your spellcasting creatively is a fun way to distinguish yourself from other spellcasters.

No mention of benefits, just pure flavour in the magical tinkering section and specification that tools must be “in hand”. That does not mean spells have a material component necessarily, but it DOES specifically call out that they are a Spellcasting focus that is required for casting the spell. I’d say it’s firmly in the DM fiat area there, at least until we get a clarification/errata at some point.

What I think is interesting is... do Thieves Tools being held by an Arcane Trickster’s Mage Hand count as “in hand”?

[Greywander]

I disagree on this.

Based on the text of “tools required”, I think that adding the M component to all non M component spells is just exactly what that passage means. Casting a spell with an M component doesn’t require a free hand besides the one holding that m component so... By my read you don’t need warcaster provided you have an infused shield etc...
I think there's a reasonable argument that this was the RAI, and it might be changed in a later errata, but strictly by the RAW there are two different and separate things going on here:

You must be holding a tool or infused item* in your hand in order to cast artificer spells.
You can use a tool or infused item as a spell focus.

We can read between the lines to see a relation between these two, but a strict reading sees these as unrelated. In fact, you don't normally need to hold a spell focus anyway, so it's already notable that it calls that out specifically.

*Actually, rereading the text, you can only use an infused item as a spell focus, you're still required to hold a tool to cast any spells. Holding an infused item doesn't work, it must be a tool.


Such details don't limit you in any way
If only this were true. I understand them wanting to give artificers a different flavor, but I don't see the value in enforcing that flavor through the mechanics. If an artillerist pulls out a grenade for their Fireball, why do they need to be holding a tool? Why can't you just fluff it? Fireball might be a bad example, as it does have an M component, but you get the idea. Any spell with an S component can be fluffed as pulling out whatever gadget and using it.

What would have made the most sense to me would be to make it so that you can either (a) cast a spell normally using the regular components, or (b) hold a tool in your hand and ignore all (non-costly) components. And really, option (b) basically just ignores verbal components, as you'd need a free hand (i.e. the one holding the tool) for material or somatic components.


What I think is interesting is... do Thieves Tools being held by an Arcane Trickster’s Mage Hand count as “in hand”?
If so, this could be an interesting way around my particular issue. Technically, you only need to be holding the tool in a hand, so regular Mage Hand (via Magic Initiate or dip) might suffice. Mage Hand is also on the artificer list, so non-ghostly artificers could do it that way, but you'd still need a tool to cast Mage Hand in the first place. For my purpose, it can't be from the artificer spell list.

This would be easy to fluff, too. The Mage Hand is dragging around your box of gadgets, pulling out the specific gadget you need when you need it. There is a bit of an issue with somehow holding the tool while also retrieving the device from it that produces that spell effect, but eh.

[Spiritchaser]

I think there's a reasonable argument that this was the RAI, and it might be changed in a later errata, but strictly by the RAW there are two different and separate things going on here:

You must be holding a tool or infused item* in your hand in order to cast artificer spells.
You can use a tool or infused item as a spell focus.

We can read between the lines to see a relation between these two, but a strict reading sees these as unrelated. In fact, you don't normally need to hold a spell focus anyway, so it's already notable that it calls that out specifically.

*Actually, rereading the text, you can only use an infused item as a spell focus, you're still required to hold a tool to cast any spells. Holding an infused item doesn't work, it must be a tool.


Again I disagree

The first clause of feature requires that you must have a spell casting focus in hand in order to cast spells (explicitly a tool) with your spell casting feature. As before, I agree that there is a valid argument to be made that this does not explicitly call out that an M component is added to spells, but I consider it no less explicit than other things in 5e. If you need an M component in hand for all casting, then all spells need an M component.

In the second clause, we are told that an infused item may ALSO be used as a focus. This phrase is pretty clear. Once you can infuse items, your focus need no longer be a tool.

I don’t mean to say you don’t have a point, at least about the first clause. I disagree, but I think yours is a reasonable way to look at it.

With regards to your statement that you must hold a tool as well as an infused item to cast spells, I have to strictly disagree. I don’t see how that can be the correct interpretation.

[Dork_Forge]

I think there's a reasonable argument that this was the RAI, and it might be changed in a later errata, but strictly by the RAW there are two different and separate things going on here:

You must be holding a tool or infused item* in your hand in order to cast artificer spells.
You can use a tool or infused item as a spell focus.

We can read between the lines to see a relation between these two, but a strict reading sees these as unrelated. In fact, you don't normally need to hold a spell focus anyway, so it's already notable that it calls that out specifically.

*Actually, rereading the text, you can only use an infused item as a spell focus, you're still required to hold a tool to cast any spells. Holding an infused item doesn't work, it must be a tool.


In regards to whether or not you need tools if you have an infused item, the answer is no an infused item is sufficient. It states that you need a focus and specifies that said focus needs to be Thieves' Tools or another set of Artisan's Tools with which you are proficient. At the end of the same section it says that you can use an infused item as a spell focus. The same logic applies to the Artillerist, they can use something they have turned into their Arcane Firearm as a focus.

I don't understand why you think you don't need a focus in hand to cast spells. Whilst you may not need to have it in your hand to begin with, you must have a free hand to draw the focus as you would a material component. Besides some questionable object interaction cheese (can you draw and stow a focus like you presumably do with a non consumed component as part of casting a spell?) there's no real benefit mechanically to not just holding your staff, wand, tools etc. in your hand.

[Greywander]

Again I disagree

The first clause of feature requires that you must have a spell casting focus in hand in order to cast spells (explicitly a tool) with your spell casting feature.
I stand corrected. I'd thought it just said you need to be holding a tool, but it does indeed say you need to be holding a spell focus, specifically a tool. It's worded poorly, though, and a super strict reading would still require a tool in hand (which doesn't make sense, as there'd be no point in using an infused item as a spell focus). How it should probably read is that (a) you need to be holding a spell focus, full stop, and (b) you can use a tool or infused item as a spell focus.


As before, I agree that there is a valid argument to be made that this does not explicitly call out that an M component is added to spells, but I consider it no less explicit than other things in 5e. If you need an M component in hand for all casting, then all spells need an M component.
Just to be clear, I'm not arguing that it should be this way, in fact I think it's pretty dumb. It would mean you need to be holding a spell focus and keep a hand free for those S-only spells. However, I do think this is what the rules are saying. Whether or not it is intentional is a different question, and I actually expect some kind of errata on this subject, as I don't think it is intentional. I'm not sure what exactly they would change (as someone pointed out, if all spells gain an M component then Warcaster is diminished in value), but I'd like to see the requirement to hold the spell focus dropped.


I don't understand why you think you don't need a focus in hand to cast spells. Whilst you may not need to have it in your hand to begin with, you must have a free hand to draw the focus as you would a material component. Besides some questionable object interaction cheese (can you draw and stow a focus like you presumably do with a non consumed component as part of casting a spell?) there's no real benefit mechanically to not just holding your staff, wand, tools etc. in your hand.
There is a mechanical benefit to not holding a spell focus: you must have a free hand to cast spells with an S component, but not an M component. Spells with an M component allow you to use a spell focus you're holding to perform any S components, but spells lacking an M component do not, ergo you can't use a hand holding a spell focus to cast an S-only spell. I think this is one of those cases where the rules don't make intuitive sense from what we would "realistically" expect, but they do follow from the strict logic of the game.

S-only spells require a free hand, a hand holding a spell focus won't work. This is most likely because a spell focus can be a weapon (rod or staff) or shield (holy symbol). Making a spell S-only is a way of preventing the player from casting it while wielding both a weapon and shield. Basically, the game gives us three options: weapon, shield, or spell, and we can pick two of them.

But now consider something like a wand. A wand is not a weapon, nor is it a shield; in fact, its only mechanical use is as a spell focus. If we're holding the wand, it prevents us from casting S-only spells (unless we free up our other hand), which isn't fair since that hand is already dedicated to spellcasting, as the wand has no other use. The solution to this is that, from a strictly mechanical perspective, you don't need to hold a spell focus to use it, you can also simply have it on your person and have a free hand (whereas weapons and shields must be held to use them). This allows us to cast both S spells (since we have a free hand) and M spells (since we have a free hand and a spell focus), fulfilling the game's requirement of having a hand dedicated to spellcasting while giving us access to all our spells.

You can still fluff it as you "holding" your spell focus; from an RP perspective, it's in your hand, but from a mechanical perspective it's merely on your person while you keep a hand free. Any time you need to use that hand for something else (like grappling, or using another item), you're essentially putting the spell focus away as a free action, then pulling it out as a free action once your hand is free again.

Finally, it's also worth mentioning that some magic items can be used as spell foci, but some require you to hold the item in order to gain some or all of its benefits (e.g. a bonus to spell attack rolls or spell save DC). You could probably still use it as a spell focus if it was just on your person, but to get the full benefits it would need to actually be in your hand (which would require freeing up your other hand to cast S-only spells).

Oh, I suppose I should also point out that some spell foci, like the amulet, are worn and can't be held in your hand (I mean, I guess you could take it off and hold it). I assume you merely need to touch the amulet to use it as a spell focus, like someone gripping a crucifix while saying a prayer. I think the rules are the way they are so they can keep them simple; all spell foci work the same way, thus a wand works like an amulet (at least mechanically).

Bringing this back in a full circle, the problem with all artificer spells gaining an M component is that it removes the choice of weapon, shield, or spell, pick two. Now it's just: infused weapon or infused shield, jk you can do both. The only real choice is whether to give your infusions to a party member or keep them for yourself, but this stops being a choice later on when you have more infusions and your party has more magic items.

[Spiritchaser]

I think warcaster IS diminished in value for this class, and it should be intentional that such is the case. The artificer, or certainly at least the battlesmith is intended to have the option to cast in combat while lugging around a weapon and shield. Other classes who can do this generally have a feature that permits, or at least supports this. Perhaps they can use their shield as a focus. Perhaps they can summon a hastily dropped weapon back to their hand, or maybe the weapon itself can become the focus. These are all existing features in 5e which reduce the value of one aspect of warcaster.

I read the semantics very differently than you. I think I have a different preference for this particular aspect of the game design as well...

Which is also fine... Though I really don’t like how self conflicting your interpretation would make some artificer class features.