Spell focus

[Idea Man]

F-O-C-U-S
There, that's out of the way. :smalltongue:

So, when you cast a spell that uses a focus, what happens to the focus when you're finished? Do you need to keep the focus with you (or give it to the person you cast the spell on, naturally)? Does it occupy a magic item slot, if you get ingenious?

For example, true strike requires a small archery target. Wearing it around your neck is a practical, if slightly dangerous, way to carry it around. Should it take the place of an amulet while "holding the charge"?

Assuming you need to keep the focus on you, is a pocket or pouch good enough? How many could you hold in your hand, assuming they are all considered palm size? Extra-dimensional spaces are right out.

As a side note, has anyone ever lost a focus in game? Barring losing everything you own, of course.

[MCerberus]

This has nothing to do with adding DC to saves against your spells.

Anyway...

I've always thought focuses are either kept inside your component pouch or worn on your person for the more expensive ones.... and the big ones (the lab equipment for Clone) are kept elsewhere.

[Temp]

Foci aren't magical so there's no reason for one to need a slot.

They're usually so trivial to replace that I've never seen anyone rule anything more strictly about them than enforcing an open hand to use one during spellcasting.

[Ulzgoroth]

Focuses, unless explicitly stated, are unaffected by the spell. Presumably you have to have them in hand the same way you do spell components.

If you wore them, they wouldn't occupy magic item slots because they are completely mundane items.

[herrhauptmann]

Umm, the general interpretation is that a focus is just a material component that doesn't get used up.
Handing the focus to someone else only means that now they have your focus, and you can no longer cast that particular spell.
Item slots is only an issue in regards to magic items.
If you wanted, you could wear a dozen necklaces and 15 rings. But only 1 magic necklace and 2 magic rings will be active. If my players try to wear 5 differnt magic rings, I tell them to designate which finger (index, middle, ring, pinky, thumb) has an active magical ring. And if they want to swap, they'll actually need to switch rings.

[Idea Man]

Sorry about the title. It never occured to me about the feat. Whoops!

You do have to have the focus in hand to cast, but have you ever seen anyone put away a focus? Seems like one of those convieniently forgotten details. You would need to keep the focus on you while the spell is still active, though.

Working under the assumption that a focus doesn't take up a magic item spot (which I more or less presumed), how many would you realistically be able to wear without being a magical charms peddler, and how easy would it be to cut them off? One disarm attempt takes off...d6 foci?

[BardicDuelist]

Sorry about the title. It never occured to me about the feat. Whoops!

You do have to have the focus in hand to cast, but have you ever seen anyone put away a focus? Seems like one of those convieniently forgotten details. You would need to keep the focus on you while the spell is still active, though.

Working under the assumption that a focus doesn't take up a magic item spot (which I more or less presumed), how many would you realistically be able to wear without being a magical charms peddler, and how easy would it be to cut them off? One disarm attempt takes off...d6 foci?

Man, reading that gave the the idea on how to nerf wizards: Make them keep track of their material components/foci and get rid of Eschew Materials. Now, no one will ever play one because of the paperwork, and you just have to worry about clerics and druids ruining your game. :smallbiggrin:

[Idea Man]

Just a side note: a holy symbol is just a focus. It is non-magical.

Shatter. If you've got a bunch of foci on strings, it's a great opener. Extra points if you can actually get a cleric's symbol, long shot that it is. :smallamused:

Another thought: the focus is not intrinsically magical, but could you find it while "in use" using detect magic, or something stronger? Locate object should work, if you can identify the spell in effect first. Hmm, I may be on to something here...

[Kaelik]

You would need to keep the focus on you while the spell is still active, though.

No you wouldn't. You could burn the focus right after casting and it wouldn't matter.

[MCerberus]

Sorry about the title. It never occured to me about the feat. Whoops!


It's another ambiguous wording joke like "going down a level for more treasure". Greater spell focus:

F-O-C-U-S

[Temp]

Another thought: the focus is not intrinsically magical, but could you find it while "in use" using detect magic, or something stronger? Locate object should work, if you can identify the spell in effect first. Hmm, I may be on to something here... I'm afraid I don't understand either of these.

For Detect Magic, what's the point? If you see that a Wizard's waving a trinket around while casting a spell, wouldn't it be pretty safe to assume the trinket's involved in the spellcasting?

For Locate Object, why would it matter that the item you're looking for is a spell focus rather than... say... anything else the Wizard owns?


One disarm attempt takes off...d6 foci?There are rules for this and a Disarm attempt only removes one. A Sunder attempt only sunders one.


Assuming you need to keep the focus on you, is a pocket or pouch good enough? How many could you hold in your hand, assuming they are all considered palm size? Extra-dimensional spaces are right out.

...how many would you realistically be able to wear without being a magical charms peddler
It depends on the foci.

[Chronos]

You do have to have the focus in hand to cast, but have you ever seen anyone put away a focus?No, but I've never seen anyone get out a focus, either. What I see is a fellow sitting across the table from me say "I cast a spell", and it's assumed that his character fusses about with the components and does whatever else is involved, without the folks sitting at the table needing to know any of the details. If I can assume that he reaches into his pocket for a little bullseye, then I can assume that he puts the bullseye back into his pocket when he's done with it, too.