Artificer spellcasting sucks, and here's why

[Greywander]

There's a rumor that Tasha's Hideous Cauldron will include some tweaks to the artificer, so maybe this will be address then, but I have my doubts. Now, the artificer is actually a pretty neat class, but I have a big problem with the way its spellcasting feature works as written in Rising from the Last War. See, artificers don't so much cast spells as use cool gadgets that produce the same effect. That's the fluff, anyway. As for the mechanics, they're mostly the same as any other spellcaster. Mostly. They added one small tweak that just makes it terrible, probably in a misguided attempt to play up the gadget-using-ness.

Here's the offending portion of the text:

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.

If you're thinking "what's the big deal?" then you probably haven't thought through the implications of the bolded portion. Which is fine; 5e might be more streamlined than older editions, but there's still a lot of rules, so it just isn't realistic for someone to read one rule and immediately see how that rule interacts with every other rule. But interact they do, and in this case, not in a good way. Here's my point-by-point breakdown of why casting spells as an artificer sucks.

1. You need to hold your spell focus.
This isn't how spell foci normally work. For any other spellcaster, and for spellcasting in general, you merely need to have the spell focus (or component pouch, or material component) on your person, and a free hand to use it. You can hold a spell focus and use it that way, but it's also totally fine for the wizard to keep his wand tucked into his belt. Pretty much the only time you would hold a spell focus is if it's doubling as a weapon (staff, rod) or shield (holy symbol), or if it's a magic item that needs to be held to gain its benefits.

2. You need a spell focus for all spells, not just spells with an M component.
If it wasn't bad enough that we need to hold a spell focus to use it, we also need a spell focus even for spells that lack an M component. It should also be noted that the spell focus requirement is entirely separate from component requirements, so by RAW this does not add an M component to spells that lack it. This is relevant because...

3. You still need V and S components for spells.
If artificer spells are supposed to be gadget-based, then why do I still need to pray to Shrek and do the Naruto hand signs to cast my spells? This makes no sense. The least they could have done is to replace normal component requirements with needing to hold a spell focus, but no, all we have are further restrictions. Restrictions including...

4. You need both hands to cast S-only or costly M spells.
By RAW, you can only perform S components with a hand holding a spell focus if that spell has an M component. If it does not, then you need a separate, free hand to do so. But an artificer must hold a spell focus in one hand to cast a spell. Thus, if a spell lacks an M component but has an S component, the artificer needs both hands: one to hold the spell focus and one to perform the S component. Similarly, a spell focus can't replace a costly M component, so for the same reason the artificer needs both hands for any spell with a costly M component.

You're free to argue that this isn't RAI. My argument is that the feature is just poorly written.

5. The artificer can't use magic item spell foci.
Unless, you know, you just happen to come across a set of Decorative Cake Froster's Tools +3. The only spell foci an artificer can use are tools or infused items, and magic items can't be infused. That said, if you come across, say, a Wand of the War Mage +3, you can still gain the bonus to spell attack rolls and ignore half cover, you just can't use it as a spell focus. Also, the wand needs to be held to gain those benefits. As in, held in your hand. You know, the one other hand that isn't holding your tools/infused item.

6. The artificer loadout is restricted.
So, if an artificer must hold a spell focus in their hand, what else might they be holding? (Honestly, probably a shield.) Well, if they're holding anything else, they'll be locked out of using S-only or costly M spells, but let's assume they're fine with that.

The problem here is that your loadout is essentially a forgone conclusion that depends only on which subclass you take. There is no room for flexibility, and it restricts some of the things you can do in ways that another caster would not be. A gish can always sheathe a weapon to free up a hand for spellcasting, and a free hand used to access a spell focus can also be used to interact with your environment (e.g. open a door) or use another item (e.g. a potion), or even to grapple. None of these are options for the artificer.

So here's your loadout, according to your subclass:

6a. Alchemist
An alchemist can only use a shield and alchemist's tools. Their 5th, 9th, and 15th level features all require alchemist's tools to use. No other tool will work, nor an infused item. It's not sufficient that it be a spell focus, it must be alchemist's tools, specifically. You can use another tool or an infused item, but you won't be able to use a lot of your subclass features.

6b. Artillerist
An artillerist will only use a shield and their arcane firearm. They're not as tied to it as the alchemist is to alchemist's tools, so if you're not casting damage spells or you won't miss that extra d8, you can swap the arcane firearm out for a tool or infused item. There's not really a point in using a different tool, but you might find value in using an infused item, depending on the infusion.

The artillerist is also the only subclass that can really benefit from using the Enhanced Arcane Focus infusion, since they can use it on their arcane firearm. That said, you're probably better off handing this infusion to the party wizard anyway.

6c. Battle Smith
A battle smith will use a weapon and shield, one of which will be infused. At first, this doesn't sound like a bad deal, until you remember that magic items can't be infused. If you find both a magic weapon and a magic shield, you'll have to give up your spellcasting to use them both. Same for using a two-handed magic weapon. Also, just a reminder that Arcane Jolt isn't fueled by spell slots like paladin smites are, so it's not even like you can still use your spell slots without casting spells.

As you can see, there's not really a reason not to use a shield, no matter your subclass. If the shield is infused, you might be able to do something with your other hand, but otherwise your other hand is holding a tool or infused item. And not just any tool or infused item, but a specific one based on your subclass. And 2 out of 3 subclasses penalize you for using an infused shield over their subclass-specific spell focus. You could ditch the shield, but why? Everyone likes having AC, so whatever else you're doing with your hand had better be worth that loss. Maybe if you found a Wand of the War Mage, it might be worth it for an artillerist to dual-wield their wands.

How to fix this

Honestly, the quickest fix is to just say that artificer spellcasting works exactly like any other caster, but using a tool or infused item as their spell focus. No need to hold it in their hand, and no need to use it for non-M spells.

Alternatively, I wrote up a homebrew that removes spellcasting entirely and replaces it with an expanded spell-storing item system. You still cast spells, but you now do so via your spell-storing items, which you can also hand out to party members. Not sure if the numbers are balanced, so it needs some testing, but I think it is at least a lot more interesting than normal spellcasting, and in keeping with the style of the artificer as a support class. You can find the homebrew thread here: https://forums.giantitp.com/showthre...s-Spellcasting

[cutlery]

1. You need to hold your spell focus.
This isn't how spell foci normally work.

Maybe it should be? (And not just for artificers).

[stoutstien]

Well the can alternatively use any thing that is, or has, one of their infusions on it as a focus. In some ways it more limited and in others it has more freedom.

So far I haven't seen much complaints about it in play.

[Biffoniacus_Furiou]

You can make a shield that can function as a potter's wheel and you've got your focus right there in your hand.

Material (M)
Casting some spells requires particular objects, specified in parentheses in the component entry. 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.

Each of those three sections is separate. Why state that you can use a spellcasting focus or spell component pouch instead of a no-cost component, then go on to say that any component that's consumed by the spell must always be provided? Thus by both context and RAW the last line stands on its own, just like the others do - this always applies to how all spellcasting focuses work, it's not limited to just spells that have a material component. Therefore you can always use the hand holding your shield/potter's wheel item to cast your S spells, because all Artificer spells use that focus and the hand holding the focus can perform the S components.

[RifleAvenger]

Maybe it should be? (And not just for artificers).

About to say, I ran a 5e game using the Final Fantasy 14 homebrew supplement, and one of the first changes I made is that there are no material components and all casters MUST be wielding their catalyst to cast spells with an S or M component barring a feat or class ability to the contrary.

Issue #4 was solved by always treating the focus as both the S hand and the M hand, and allowing costly M components to merely be on the person (most were converted to various sorts of crystals anyways). Well, actually, more like I've always assumed the F hand can also be the S hand, just like the M hand can be the S hand. Looking at the post above me, that seems to be the case.

Anyways...
---------------------
1. Needing a "free hand to use it" implies to me that you need to be holding it when the spell actually goes off. In either case, this isn't a problem on its own, only in conjunction with later points.

2. Again, not a point of its own, only in conjunction with later points.

3. Is it so hard to believe magical technology could be voice activated (V), or require you to, say, press buttons on it (S)?

4. Edit: See above post. The F hand can also be the S hand. Problem solved, except maybe for expensive components. However, if you need two hands for those, so does everyone else.

5. Any sane GM will alter the loot to something the artificer can use, like a wand of the war magus reflavored to the artificer's choice of tools. I can only see this being an issue in Adventurer's League and with clueless or antagonistic GM's.

6. Perhaps this restriction is an intentional design element meant to balance the class? Yes, it seems irritating compared to other casters, but that's not a reason to dismiss it out of hand. Perhaps artificers are meant to choose between whether they're in "casting mode" or not.

I'd rather find a way to embrace this design difference rather than get rid of it.

[Joe the Rat]

Yeah, it would have been nice of them to simply say "all artificer spells require a Material component " then go on to explain tool foci. All of a sudden you don't need a free hand, since your casting hand is the one waving reagent bottles or a rune-etched scaling knife, per M+S component rules.

Since technomagic (or fetish casting) is the schtick, M for everything feels like the intent, but it is not entirely spelled out.

On wearable arcane foci: by the book, the only ones that don't need to be in hand are magic items - and there is probably an argument that you have to touch said item.
(Clerics get a pass with the whole "Soap on a Rope" schtick, or have the symbol painted on a shield which is certainly in hand. )

[Biffoniacus_Furiou]

My only question is, where is the RAW for using a spell focus other than in the material component rules? If it's nowhere else, then the only RAW we have for adjudicating spell focus use is what's contained in the material component rules. If that's the only rules on how a spell focus works, then it always applies to every spell focus, it's not just when it's replacing a material component.

[Tanarii]

How to fix this

Honestly, the quickest fix is to just say that artificer spellcasting works exactly like any other caster, but using a tool or infused item as their spell focus. No need to hold it in their hand, and no need to use it for non-M spells.

Or this plus add M component (spell focus) to all Artificer spells. But yes, I noticed the difference between holding the tool spell focus and the normal rule of having a free hand to access a focus right away.

[Greywander]

Maybe it should be? (And not just for artificers).

Well, this is an entirely different discussion. For a while, I actually thought that things like wands needed to be held to be used, and for that very reason I saw the component pouch as superior. Not only can it provide M components for different classes that use different types of spell foci (if multiclassed), but it also doesn't need to be held. If you make casters hold their foci, they'll just go back to using component pouches. Do note that a lot of magic item foci do need to be held to gain their benefits, as noted with the Wand of the War Mage. You can use them as a spell focus without holding them, but you won't gain the magic item benefits.

Well the can alternatively use any thing that is, or has, one of their infusions on it as a focus. In some ways it more limited and in others it has more freedom.

So far I haven't seen much complaints about it in play.

I mean, it's true that most of the time you're either going to be holding an infused item or have a free hand to hold a tool, it just irks me that it's so needlessly restrictive. As I said in the OP, I'd understand if there was some kind of trade-off, like not needing V or S components, but artificers get nothing extra. Sure, they can use an infused item, which could be a weapon or a shield, but this is really only relevant to the battle smith; alchemist needs alchemist's tools for 3 of their subclass features, and artillerist may as well use their arcane firearm.

This also makes multiclassing a lot more awkward. You need to hold a tool/infused item for your artificer spells, and have a hand free to use the spell focus for your other class (assuming it's a caster). I know not everyone is a fan of multiclassing, I just find this needlessly restrictive.

You can make a shield that can function as a potter's wheel and you've got your focus right there in your hand.

I'm doubtful that a DM would let this fly, and in any case (a) you still have to hold it in your hand, instead of accessing it with a free hand, and (b) each subclass still has their preferred spell focus. The battle smith is the only for whom this would actually be useful, and even then only if (a) you're giving your shield infusion to someone else (or you've already used all infusions), or (b) you're using a magic shield, in which case I'm doubly doubtful you could make it double as a potter's wheel.

Each of those three sections is separate. Why state that you can use a spellcasting focus or spell component pouch instead of a no-cost component, then go on to say that any component that's consumed by the spell must always be provided? Thus by both context and RAW the last line stands on its own, just like the others do - this always applies to how all spellcasting focuses work, it's not limited to just spells that have a material component. Therefore you can always use the hand holding your shield/potter's wheel item to cast your S spells, because all Artificer spells use that focus and the hand holding the focus can perform the S components.

You can only use a hand holding a spell focus for S components if the spell also has an M component*. Again, you can argue that it's RAI that all artificer spells have an M component, but strictly by RAW nothing says that they do. The requirement that you have to hold a spell focus to cast your spells is separate from any requirement to provide components. I'm not arguing about how it should work, I'm telling you that this is how it is written, and that it's written poorly. Maybe Tasha's will fix this; we'll see.

*And yes, it is strange that SM spells are "easier" to cast than S-only spells. To be honest, I probably would have done components differently, with each component putting a single restriction on the caster (e.g. this component breaks stealth, this component requires a free hand, this component makes it obvious that you're using magic, etc.).

1. Needing a "free hand to use it" implies to me that you need to be holding it when the spell actually goes off. In either case, this isn't a problem on its own, only in conjunction with later points.

Not quite. Both before and after casting the spell, your hand is empty. During the spell? Maybe, but that's semantics. The point is you don't need to spend an item interaction drawing or sheathing your wand. You can draw a weapon on the same turn that you use a free hand to touch your spell focus to cast a spell.

3. Is it so hard to believe magical technology could be voice activated (V), or require you to, say, press buttons on it (S)?

No, even the homebrew I linked to allows voice-activation of your spell-storing items starting at 10th level. Pressing a button would be an M component, because you need the actual physical device. A big part of the point here is that they made a halfway effort at enforcing the "artificer spells are gadgets" concept, and it makes it weirdly difficult to either play as a gadget-based caster or a true spellcaster. They should have gone one way or the other instead of doing both at the same time.

4. Edit: See above post. The F hand can also be the S hand. Problem solved, except maybe for expensive components. However, if you need two hands for those, so does everyone else.

No, normal casters would either use a free hand for a spell focus or for material components, never both. If a spell has a costly component, you just reach for the component, not your spell focus. Artificers can't do this because they have to be holding their spell focus regardless.

The F hand is not the S hand. (This is another reason clerics/paladins might still want Warcaster.) You can houserule otherwise, but it is just that: a houserule. RAW, an artificer needs two hands for S-only and costly M spells. Yes, it's dumb, and yes, I will use a houserule if I'm the DM, or ask for a houserule if I'm a player, but that doesn't make the RAW any less dumb.

6. Perhaps this restriction is an intentional design element meant to balance the class? Yes, it seems irritating compared to other casters, but that's not a reason to dismiss it out of hand. Perhaps artificers are meant to choose between whether they're in "casting mode" or not.

Does this add anything to the game, though? Does it make it more fun? Does it make the game better? Or would it be better to houserule this away?

I'd rather find a way to embrace this design difference rather than get rid of it.

My main problem is that there's no trade-off; it's just an extra layer of restrictions with nothing given in return. Why shouldn't artificers feel like they're getting a raw deal? If you want to embrace this design difference, then you need to make it feel less like casting a spell and more like using a gadget. Again, I hate to keep harping on this, but removing V and S components would have gone a ways toward that. I'm sure there's other things they could have done as well.

My homebrew revision really leans into the "artificer spells are gadgets" concept, but does so by getting rid of spellcasting entirely (sort of). I'm embracing the concept behind it, but not so much that specific design difference (since I removed the entire feature that contained it). I like my version better because I think it actually accomplishes the goal of feeling more gadget-y than regular spellcasting. Artificer spellcasting failed on that front; it just feels like normal spellcasting with extra restrictions.

Yeah, it would have been nice of them to simply say "all artificer spells require a Material component " then go on to explain tool foci. All of a sudden you don't need a free hand, since your casting hand is the one waving reagent bottles or a rune-etched scaling knife, per M+S component rules.

Since technomagic (or fetish casting) is the schtick, M for everything feels like the intent, but it is not entirely spelled out.

Yeah, this is the problem. There are other ways they could have worded it that would have done more or less the same thing, but worked out a lot better. Explicitly making all artificer spells use an M component, then making their spell focus the component for anything that didn't already have an M component probably would have been sufficient, and would have avoided a lot of the headaches we see here.

On wearable arcane foci: by the book, the only ones that don't need to be in hand are magic items - and there is probably an argument that you have to touch said item.
(Clerics get a pass with the whole "Soap on a Rope" schtick, or have the symbol painted on a shield which is certainly in hand. )

Material components don't need to be held, you merely need a free hand to access them. A spell focus takes the place of material components. I used to think spell foci needed to be held, but this is actually wrong. The amulet is one example of a wearable spell focus. But all spell foci use the same rules, the only difference is in what types of items can be a spell focus, and for which class. You can fluff it as pulling out your wand and flicking it at your target, but RAW you only need to be able to touch it with a free hand. Yes, it makes senses that a wand would need to be held, but in this case it's a matter of game balance and consistent rules. It's easy to fluff it as holding the wand when you cast the spell, but this has no mechanical effect.

[Dork_Forge]

To be honest I think you're perceviing this as a far bigger issue than it actually is, the only person this negatively affects is 1st level Artificers and the Alchemist, which just means you're throwing bottles and splashing people. If you interpret the rules to mean you need a free hand and a focus, then yes that's worse (and imo just penalising the Artificer unnecessarily) but have you ever seen anyone actually require this? On the other hand needing a tool/infused item opens things up like using Cure Wounds whilst both hands are occupied.

This is only an issue with the strict reading and even then isn't terrible:

-Artificer casting as a whole isn't very combat centric, I mostly just used my spells outside of combat (like casting Aid on everyone, false life, longstrider etc.)
-Battle Smiths will have infused weapons or shields, if a DM actually makes this a problem and then also doesn't provide you with compatable loot, well you won't really fall behind since you can make your won loot but that seems like a DM I wouldn't want to play with personally.
-Artillerists can use any wand, rod or staff as their focus if they make it their Arcane Firearm, I don't see what other kind of magic item the blaster Artificer would have anyway? So a none issue.
-Alchemist, this is probably the most restricted by this, because of the subclass features, but why is that any different than holding an Orb or something? You don't have to try and wield a shield at the same time to max AC, having a free hand in general is extremely useful.

Here's another perspective, you can strip a Wizard of their spell book and focus/component pouch and severely handicap their casting ability. On the otherhand an Artificer not only has a broader number of things they can use as a focus (including borrowing the Rogue's Thieves' Tools) but as of 3rd level the can magically re-equip themselves during a rest. This puts Artificers up there with Monks in terms of shining in capture scenarios.

Some rules clarification in Tasha's would be nice, but their casting certainly doesn't suck by any stretch.

[Satori01]

Per Keith Baker, the intent was so that the tool could be flavored into the spell casting. An Alchemist using alchemist tools might be hurling flaming beakers, an Artillerist using Catapult might be loading junk into his blundebus (their wand) and firing away.

The Artificer is clearly designed to not actually be easy nor effective to multi-class.
We already have the Warlock. :)

The Alchemist can also enchant their Alchemist tools as their SSI.
10 free castings of Heat Metal, plus your INT modifier to damage from the 5th level feature adds up to a lot of barbecue.

I suspect that Tasha's will probably have some clearer rules, and possibly some minor tweaks.

[RifleAvenger]

Apparently there is a Sage Advice where Crawford supports the OP's statement that S component spells with no M require a completely free hand (no focus).

However....

The argument in support of Crawford is an argument of inversion in search of a premise: a pre-determined conclusion in search of a way to support it. The notion being: since using a focus for both S&M components is mentioned in the material component rule, that must mean that a somatic component is somehow fundamentally different when a material component is involved. It is the same as suggesting that there are actually four distinct spellcasting components: Verbal, Somatic, Somatic&Material, and Material.

Nowhere else is there any indication that a Somatic component's nature differs depending on what other components are used in the spell. If there is no difference in the nature of the somatic component, why is it possible to cast a SM spell with both in one hand, but not an S spell with something in hand? It can't be the description of the S components; most aren't described and those that are, like Burning Hands, are explicitly flavor text with no rules impact.

The entire Sage Advice point on S-only spells and focii seems to be a kneejerk reaction to defend the niche of warcaster for spellcasters who have a shield or a weapon as a focus option.

Beyond that, we've got Mearls on Twitter saying that you can totes stow a cleric's weapon in the shield hand and cast the spell anyways. "The rule isn't there to restrict." So jam the focus in the same hand as your shield/weapon and do your somatic components. That leaves expensive material component spells as the only remaining bugbear for an artificer with a shield (unless the argument is the tool can't be used in the Shield Hand; but then you could start doing the "drop a thing for free, do what I need, pick it up again as interaction schtick).

Given how the permissiveness of 5e is more relaxed than 3e and coded into the very rules, and that everyone here seems to agree that not being able to use the focus in S-only spells is dumb (and flavor text has described focuses being used for non-M spells like firebolt), why care that the RAW is badly written anyways? So are the interactions and effects of many spells.
--------------------
Also, iirc Sage Advice is not actual errata, merely suggestions from the designers, and ergo there's an argument to be made that the rule is up for interpretation anyhow. Without slanting one interpretation or another as "houserules."

[Tanarii]

Nowhere else is there any indication that a Somatic component's nature differs depending on what other components are used in the spell. If there is no difference in the nature of the somatic component, why is it possible to cast a SM spell with both in one hand, but not an S spell with something in hand? It can't be the description of the S components; most aren't described and those that are, like Burning Hands, are explicitly flavor text with no rules impact.

It isn't possible. What's possible is to have a free hand do the S component and also access the M component, or substitute component pouch / focus.

[RifleAvenger]

It isn't possible. What's possible is to have a free hand do the S component and also access the M component, or substitute component pouch / focus.

That implies one cannot cast a SM spell, without using their object interaction or dropping the focus mid-cast, if the focus is already in hand (as artificer requires and is highly likely with a shield-focus using cleric) and the opposite hand is full at the start of the turn.

Which is ridiculous.

Also, prior to the SAC ruling that says a focus cannot be used for an S-only spell (which is the strongest point in favor of S-only not working with focii), Crawford said you can do S-components with a material or focus in hand (assumedly in reference to SM spells, given his later Sage Advice about S-only spells).

A hand with a material component, including a spellcasting focus, can perform somatic components.

Even the one that denies using focii for S-only spells has this:

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.

Emphasis mine. Sounds like the orb is in the hand the entire time, even while executing the Somatic component.

[Greywander]

S components require a free hand. Full stop. M components also require a free hand, or a hand holding the component/spell focus, and you can use the same hand for S components. In other words, the exception that allows you to perform S components with a hand holding a spell focus (i.e. not a free hand) is a property of M components, not S components. If you could perform S components with a hand holding a spell focus, it should say so under the section on S components.

[Unoriginal]

S components require a free hand. Full stop. M components also require a free hand, or a hand holding the component/spell focus, and you can use the same hand for S components. In other words, the exception that allows you to perform S components with a hand holding a spell focus (i.e. not a free hand) is a property of M components, not S components. If you could perform S components with a hand holding a spell focus, it should say so under the section on S components.

What about how the rules say that a focus works like and in place of material components?

There is no reason to treat casting with focuses differently than with material components, outside of the explicitly stated.



Honestly does needing a free hand to cast mean the whole class suck? I disagree, personally.

[Biffoniacus_Furiou]

S components require a free hand. Full stop. M components also require a free hand, or a hand holding the component/spell focus, and you can use the same hand for S components. In other words, the exception that allows you to perform S components with a hand holding a spell focus (i.e. not a free hand) is a property of M components, not S components. If you could perform S components with a hand holding a spell focus, it should say so under the section on S components.

RAW the same rules that apply to M components also apply when you're using a spellcasting focus. No ifs, there's only one set of rules given to adjudicate the use of a spellcasting focus, that it happens to be in the M component section (because they're treated the same) doesn't mean it's ignored when the spell doesn't normally have a M component. Please provide a link to WotC rules that says otherwise.

[Tanarii]

That implies one cannot cast a SM spell, without using their object interaction or dropping the focus mid-cast, if the focus is already in hand (as artificer requires and is highly likely with a shield-focus using cleric) and the opposite hand is full at the start of the turn.

Which is ridiculous.

It doesn't take an object interaction to use a free hand to access a M component, component pouch, or focus as part of casting a spell. It just requires a free hand.

Yes, technically if you have a focus in hand to begin with you have to empty it first. Commonly house ruled away.

You definitely need to empty it during the casting, because the S component needs the same free hand to cast, not a hand occupied by a focus or M component. Also commonly house ruled away, especially since the SAC got the RAW on it wrong.

[Dark.Revenant]

I realized that the Tools Required feature doesn't really work as written.

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.

It identifies that thieves' tools and artisan's tools are your choices for spellcasting focus for Artificer spellcasting, and then gives you the ability to use an infused item as a spellcasting focus in general. This second clause is presented separately and has no restriction on class; every other class specifically identifies which class spells the focus will work for, but not the Artificer. By a strict, literal reading, this lets you use an infused item as a spellcasting focus for any class you multiclass into, but because this is a general ability, the specific restriction of the first paragraph prevents you from using your infused items as foci for Artificer spellcasting (unless those items happen to be tools). In other words, the Artificer is the only class unable to use most Artificer-made magic items as foci.

-----

As for the OP, the PHB's wording for material components actually don't support Sage Advice's ruling about somatic + material components:

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.

Even though this is in the "Materials" section (which might or might not imply some other intent), the straight RAW does not require that a spell must have material components in order to get away with holding a spellcasting focus while performing somatic components. So, for the Artificer, you could hold onto your beakers in the same hand you're fiddling with the somatic gestures for a VS spell.

[Inqy]

I realized that the Tools Required feature doesn't really work as written.



It identifies that thieves' tools and artisan's tools are your choices for spellcasting focus for Artificer spellcasting, and then gives you the ability to use an infused item as a spellcasting focus in general. This second clause is presented separately and has no restriction on class; every other class specifically identifies which class spells the focus will work for, but not the Artificer. By a strict, literal reading, this lets you use an infused item as a spellcasting focus for any class you multiclass into, but because this is a general ability, the specific restriction of the first paragraph prevents you from using your infused items as foci for Artificer spellcasting (unless those items happen to be tools). In other words, the Artificer is the only class unable to use most Artificer-made magic items as foci.

Why would the first paragraph cancel out the second? The first paragraph of the "tools required" sets a rule that applies at level one. The second paragraph expands your competencies and allows you to use any infused item as a spellcasting focus. You may use your infused items as a casting focus for artificer spells.

In general, if a rule can be equally argued two different ways and one produces a manifestly absurd result and the other does not, you go for the interpretation that does not produce an absurd result.

[JackPhoenix]

I realized that the Tools Required feature doesn't really work as written.

It identifies that thieves' tools and artisan's tools are your choices for spellcasting focus for Artificer spellcasting, and then gives you the ability to use an infused item as a spellcasting focus in general. This second clause is presented separately and has no restriction on class; every other class specifically identifies which class spells the focus will work for, but not the Artificer. By a strict, literal reading, this lets you use an infused item as a spellcasting focus for any class you multiclass into, but because this is a general ability, the specific restriction of the first paragraph prevents you from using your infused items as foci for Artificer spellcasting (unless those items happen to be tools). In other words, the Artificer is the only class unable to use most Artificer-made magic items as foci.

Why do you think one part of the same feature is general ability, and the other is a specific restriction? It's a single feature, either both parts are general (they are not), or they are both specific.

[Amechra]

OK, so the rules for spell focuses are broken, and need to be houseruled. Gotcha.

Seriously, though, stuff like "You don't have to actually be wielding a wand for it to work as a focus" or "You can use the hand that you're holding a focus in for somatic components, but only if the spell also calls for material components" are broken rules. In the basic sense of "these rules do not support the fiction they're trying to portray".

[JackPhoenix]

OK, so the rules for spell focuses are broken, and need to be houseruled. Gotcha.

Seriously, though, stuff like "You don't have to actually be wielding a wand for it to work as a focus" or "You can use the hand that you're holding a focus in for somatic components, but only if the spell also calls for material components" are broken rules. In the basic sense of "these rules do not support the fiction they're trying to portray".

Because it's inconceivable that SM spells have gestures that account for holding something in your hand while S-only spells don't, and because it's impossible to draw the wand just for the moment it takes to cast a spell, right?

[Dork_Forge]

Because it's inconceivable that SM spells have gestures that account for holding something in your hand while S-only spells don't, and because it's impossible to draw the wand just for the moment it takes to cast a spell, right?

Not impossible surely, but it goes against what 5e gives us as understanding object interactions (you can normally only interact with a single object a turn for free but as needed you can draw a wand, make a gesture with it and then stow it?) and I think Amechra's point was that in fiction you don't usually have a character taking a wand out for a single casting and then putting it back as soon as the casting is over, whilst still in ocmbat and in active need of their magic.

[Greywander]

OK, so the rules for spell focuses are broken, and need to be houseruled. Gotcha.

Seriously, though, stuff like "You don't have to actually be wielding a wand for it to work as a focus" or "You can use the hand that you're holding a focus in for somatic components, but only if the spell also calls for material components" are broken rules. In the basic sense of "these rules do not support the fiction they're trying to portray".

It's because the rules need to be consistent between all spell foci. If I have the choice between a wearable focus that leaves my hand free versus a focus I need to hold in my hand, I'll take the wearable focus every time. Don't forget that the component pouch is also essentially a wearable focus. Using the same rules for all spell foci, even if it doesn't quite make sense in the case of things like wands or staves, allows me to choose the focus I want for fluff reasons without being penalized for taking a wand instead of a component pouch.

I realized that the Tools Required feature doesn't really work as written.

It identifies that thieves' tools and artisan's tools are your choices for spellcasting focus for Artificer spellcasting, and then gives you the ability to use an infused item as a spellcasting focus in general. This second clause is presented separately and has no restriction on class; every other class specifically identifies which class spells the focus will work for, but not the Artificer. By a strict, literal reading, this lets you use an infused item as a spellcasting focus for any class you multiclass into, but because this is a general ability, the specific restriction of the first paragraph prevents you from using your infused items as foci for Artificer spellcasting (unless those items happen to be tools). In other words, the Artificer is the only class unable to use most Artificer-made magic items as foci.

I think I actually brought this up in another thread a while back. Again, I'll assert that this feature is poorly written. As written, it looks like you need to hold a tool to cast a spell, even if you're using an infused item as a spell focus. But this interpretation makes zero sense. It's one of those situations where RAW is just so obviously wrong that one has to assume there must be a typo, or the editor didn't have enough coffee that morning. While I normally default to assuming RAW when discussing rules in general online, I think this is one case where it makes more sense to assume RAI because RAW is just doesn't make sense.

The difference is that, while it's dumb that artificers have a pointless restriction that requires them to hold their spell focus when other casters don't, it's actually a plausible restriction someone might choose to implement. Meanwhile, allowing an infused item to be used as a spell focus while still requiring a tool to be held simply isn't plausible, because the tool could be used as the spell focus so there's never a need for the infused item. One is bad design, the other is bad wording.

As for using infused items as a general spell focus for all classes, that's an interesting thought. The obvious intention would be that it can only be used for artificer spells, and that if it was meant to be used for any class it should say so. I think it's one of those cases where it's probably best to add the clarifying wording ("...you can also use any item bearing one of your infusions as a spellcasting focus for your artificer spells."), but I'm not entirely convinced that it specifically needs to.

[Tanarii]

It's because the rules need to be consistent between all spell foci. If I have the choice between a wearable focus that leaves my hand free versus a focus I need to hold in my hand, I'll take the wearable focus every time. Don't forget that the component pouch is also essentially a wearable focus. Using the same rules for all spell foci, even if it doesn't quite make sense in the case of things like wands or staves, allows me to choose the focus I want for fluff reasons without being penalized for taking a wand instead of a component pouch.

The most consistent ruling is the one in the PHB: the caster needs a free hand for S or M component spells, and for M component spells that free hand needs access to the M component, component pouch, or foci.

This is intentionally broken for holy symbols and Shields because Clerics and Paladins are traditionally S&B casters, but it causes inconsistency with S only spells.

It's also a problem for Staff focus wielders who want to do something with their other hand, because traditionally the place you keep a staff focus 'on you' is in a hand.

Basically, Artificers are in the same boat as someone that wants to us a staff focus. You can't do it with a Shield or while otherwise using the other free hand. (Unless it's V only or V/M of course).

[Greywander]

This is intentionally broken for holy symbols and Shields because Clerics and Paladins are traditionally S&B casters, but it causes inconsistency with S only spells.

It's also a problem for Staff focus wielders who want to do something with their other hand, because traditionally the place you keep a staff focus 'on you' is in a hand.

Do note that a cleric can still access their holy symbol for spellcasting while their shield is slung over their shoulder, i.e. not held or wielded. What makes it different from other spell foci is that you can access it with the same hand that is already wielding the shield, allowing you to benefit from using both a weapon and shield at the same time while still being able to access your spell focus.

Staff users are in a similar position, with the staff doubling as a weapon, allowing them to also wield a normal (non-spell-focus) shield in their other hand and still be able to use a spell focus. You can also dual-wield and still access your spell focus, although you need the feat for it because staves and rods/maces aren't light weapons.

This isn't as useful for staff-users as it is for clerics, because the staff is a weaker weapon while all shields are the same. And besides that, most casters would like having a shield, while only a gish would really need to have a weapon.

If you really want to, you can fudge things a bit and pretend that you're holding your staff in your hand while still having two hands free, mechanically speaking. Not all staves are suitable as weapons, and you probably dumped STR anyway, so mechanically the staff is just on your person but not using up a hand. You can then flavor things you do with that free hand as if you used the staff for it, such as tripping someone (shoving prone), hooking them on the staff (grappling), activating a combat enchantment (drawing the staff as a weapon), or even just letting go of the staff so it magically hovers in place while you fish out and drink a potion.

[Tanarii]

What makes it different from other spell foci is that you can access it with the same hand that is already wielding the shield, allowing you to benefit from using both a weapon and shield at the same time while still being able to access your spell focus.

Staff users are in a similar position, with the staff doubling as a weapon, allowing them to also wield a normal (non-spell-focus) shield in their other hand and still be able to use a spell focus. You can also dual-wield and still access your spell focus, although you need the feat for it because staves and rods/maces aren't light weapons.

The requirement for a free hand for S components is absolute though. Even with a focus. SAC not-withstanding. So staff-and-shield requires you to free up the hand at some point during the casting to use with any S component spells, including S/M spells. Just like an artificer.

If you're going to rule a staff occupying a hand allows S/M spells (house or RAI due to SAC, whichever you view it as) then there's no problem in also doing the same for the artificer. You've already done it for the base classes anyway.