What the hell is the point of arcane foci? They're in the equipment section of the PH...

kys

>Alfried the Aged, Wizard of the North, Learns a New Spell.

Attached: 1322624126077.jpg (1024x709, 126K)

Attached: D6PfW.jpg (600x450, 35K)

This. Magic and supernatural powers in general are more interesting when they have distinct limitations. This leads to an arms race where people who don't have them try to exploit the weaknesses of the ability and those who do have them try to protect their weakness. For example, a wizard embeds their focus into their hand, so everyone makes sure to cut off a wizard's arms or hands to fully disarm them.

Except not this time because it is pretty clear that op talks about 5e.

Literally the only thing they mention is the player handbook, which could be any edition or even just from another book

>OP clearly talking about 5e
>depends on le system

holy shit end yourself

>implying I'd ever pick a spell with mat components that wasn't a ritual

But he isn't correct. "Hurr durr depends on the system" adds nothing to the conversation just like "have you tried not playing DnD" and other meme responses.

3 hours and no one asked OP for a source on his image yet. For shame. Alright OP, where can we find more?

Not OP, but looks like InCase to me.

Be warned, the man draws all kinds of dicks as well. You're gonna get futa, you're gonna get shortstacks, you're gonna get traps, you're gonna get damn near everything.

Only for things that have no cost.

Alfie, by InCase. Halfling girl leaves her village in pursuit of hot guys and gals. No futa, but there is a subby bisexual elf that taunts a middle aged halfling lady into domming him.

But what they all have in common is massive eyebrows, bimbo lips, and voluminous forests of wiry, black pubic and body hair.

While "have you tried not playing D&D" is a meme it could deal with 90% of the problems that people come with here.

He sure does love his pubic hair. And cunnilingus.

and it's an entirely correct response because arcane foci were also in 3.x and D&D is still shit

The simplest explanation is usually the correct one

Just like the feat.

They're just to put limitations on casters so they're not overpowered.

>A spell's components are the physical requirements you must meet in order to cast it. Each spell's description indicates whether it requires verbal (V), somatic (S), or material (M) components. If you can't provide one or more of a spell's components, you are unable to cast the spell. (p.203, PHB)
>one OR more
>vast majority of spells have all three components for you to choose from
>"arcane foci are there to balance casters!"

Attached: 1518397186192.png (916x1162, 1.91M)

I think you just rolled a critical fumble on your reading comprehension check. In a system that doesn't even do critical fumbles on skill checks.

You're reading that backwards, it's saying you need all the listed components to cast the spell.

>to choose from
But that's wrong. You just pasted an excerpt stating that you cannot cast a spell if you can't provide one of its components.

I remember when you posted this several months ago. It was stupid the. And it is stupid now.

It says you need one OR more, as in at least one.

This is ironic.

And, you know, snaking about the rules surrounding arcane foci - which is a 5e thing.

Again, reading comprehension.

The components are physical requirements. If there are one or more components you cannot provide, you are unable cast the spell.

That would make the Warcaster feat pretty useless then, since it only allows you to use somatic components while you have weapons and/or shield in hand, not use them as arcane focuses.

It says if you can’t provide one or more you can’t cast it, dingus.

That... wow, I've literally never read it that way before. And it's definitely not meant to be read that way. But yeah semantically you could definitely parse that sentence as "if you can provide one or more of the spell's components, you are able to cast the spell."

Our language is so fucky.

Normally you can't use somatic components when both of your hands are full (since somatic components are essentially magic gestures), so Warcaster lets you get around that.

Right, but if you needed all three, you would also need an arcane focus, which would defeat the point, which is being able to use somatic and verbal components while armed in both hands.

nearly all pop culture mages use things like wands, and rarely just their hands

makes sense to make the wizards require something like that

I don't see you suggesting anything, you fucking prick.

Attached: 1416730417714.jpg (374x384, 40K)

I don't see why it would be written that way, when it apparently means "you need at least two". In which case, even if you took away a caster's focus, they could still use verbal and somatic components.

It is a sentence that runs up against a limitation of the english language.

Whether the interpretation correctly should be:
>If there is ONE or more, of the components, that you cannot provide, then you cannot cast the spell.

or
> If you cannot provide at least ONE spell component, then you cannot cast the spell.

- is impossible to know from the text alone. It is a semantically confused sentence.

However, the intention in keeping with the game mechanics and the playing of D&D is clearly that you MUST provide all components.
Otherwise, casting a spell with more component requirements becomes easier than casting a spell with only one.

For example, I would be able to non-verbally and non-somatically (virtually invisibly) cast any spell that had a material component. That is clearly not the intention of the game.

>it apparently means "you need at least two"
No it doesn't, you esl brainlet.

It means you need all of them, and if one or more are missing you're fucked. If the spell lists one component, you only need the one. If it lists three components, you need all three.

Just use your component pouch for the material components then.

>DnDrone fails to comprehend systems other than yet another regurgitation of their favorite dish might exist

Don't be a faggot. It was clear from context, and I don't even play 5e.

It's not to let you use sword+shield+spells, or sword+sword+spells. It's clearly meant to allow you to use sword+focus, or shield+focus.

So back to the original question: is an arcane foci needed for semantic spells?

No. Foci substitute for THE MATERIAL COMPONENTS that are used to help shape the energies involved in spells. If a spell has no material components, foci provide no benefit.

In native English, you cannot assume the opposite of an if/then sentence structure. "If X, Y" doesn't automatically mean "if !X, !Y," the grammar structure is tied to the specific conditions.

Even high level stuff? Doesn't wish take like 10 000 gold in components of something? That seems legit broken if they could just swap that for a foci

>clearly 5e
Really? Because I can think of several other systems that list arcane foci in their PH.

No, it only replaces the things that have no listed gold cost. If you have to pay something worth X GP in value, you must actually have that material component.

But instead of having to dig a bat wing or a thimble out of your components pouch, you can just wave your magic wand or fondle your magic crystal in the same way a cleric would gesture with their holy symbol.

Ok. Well there's your answer OP. Successful thread.

OP had his answer, like, three posts in. This shit went on far longer then it needed to.

Would bat shit have a cost? You would initially think no - it's just shit. But I bet the finding and harvesting of guano is a pretty involved process, and I would sure as hell charge for it.

All I want is for combined arms to be playable.

idk what the context of this art is, but since it's InCase she's definitely summoning a dick

For simplicitys sake, you could just have the whole pouch have a 'refresh' cost. The PC would bring their pouch to an apothecary to have it restocked, giving them all the components needed to cast their spells for x amount of time. But if you're doing that, you should let your PC know how long their components are going to last for, not just spring it on them all of a sudden.

>clearly
Yet the feat explicitly mentions having a weapon/shield in one or both hands and being able to perform somatic components. No mention of material components at all. So you don't need all three.

Arcane foci are replacement for component pouches, offering a new method of ignoring material components.

Luna Lovegood getting ready to summon harry's dick

I just rework the magic system so it doesn't need components, but hits the caster with damage for the spell.

Tried that once, didn't work out
>Be in melee with a sorcerer who had turned traitor.
>Try to roll sleight of hand to steal their arcane focus from them
>DM tells me I cannot because he is aware of my position and would automatically try to protect his arcane focus.
It didn't matter in the end, we killed him anyways and I got to beat him to death with his own arcane focus but whether disarms work without battle master shit ultimately depends on the DM.

In retrospect, it should've been opposed strength rolls.

Does picking an item up from the ground count as a free action or a regular action? If it's the former, isn't disarming a complete waste of a turn?

The problem was that I tried to steal his arcane foci while he was holding it. IIRC, "Use Item" costs an action to do.

Clarification is important so as to provide better advice. :3c