Is a Focus a Material Component?

[andargor]

The Archmage High Arcana Spell-like Ability, which allows the conversion of a spell into an SPA, indicates the following:

The archmage does not use any components when casting the spell, although a spell that costs XP to cast still does so and a spell with a costly material component instead costs her 10 times that amount in XP.

The 9th-level spell Shapechange indicates the following:

Focus: A jade circlet worth no less than 1,500 gp, which you must place on your head when casting the spell. (The focus melds into your new form when you change shape.)

Does this mean that an Archmage that takes Shapechange spend 15,000 XP every time he/she uses it?

The SRD seems however to make a distinction between Material Component and Focus:

Material (M): A material component is one or more physical substances or objects that are annihilated by the spell energies in the casting process. Unless a cost is given for a material component, the cost is negligible. Don’t bother to keep track of material components with negligible cost. Assume you have all you need as long as you have your spell component pouch.

Focus (F): A focus component is a prop of some sort. Unlike a material component, a focus is not consumed when the spell is cast and can be reused. As with material components, the cost for a focus is negligible unless a price is given. Assume that focus components of negligible cost are in your spell component pouch.

Opinions?

Andargor

 

[hong]

No, a focus is not a material component.

 

[Dinkeldog]

I disagree. A focus is obviously meant to be a subset of material component. I don't think you should force Archmages to spend XP if they'd rather provide the expensive component themselves, though.

 

[Len]

I'm with hong. By the definitions, "focus" is not a subset of "material component", it's something different. Plus, the XP cost applies each time the spell-like ability is used, which doesn't seem fair because you only have to pay for a focus once.

 

[UltimaGabe]

Now, is that a misprint, or did they actually mean you have to pay 10 times the amount in XP? Both the Archmage and the Heirophant both list it as 10 times the amount in XP. Like that, someone with Raise Dead as a Spell-Like ability would have to spend 50,000 xp every time he wanted to cast it- in other words, he'd never be able to. "Bless Water" would cost 250 xp to cast as well. Identify would cost 1,000 xp. Analyze Dweomer would be 15,000 xp (and thus, nobody would ever cast it).

In other words, as it is, the XP cost is way, way, WAY too high, and the only reasoning I can find for the misprint is that they meant for it to be 1/10 the cost in XP, rather than 10 times the cost in XP. If that were the case, why would anyone pick anything with a material component cost as their Spell-Like Ability?

 

[Ottergame]

No where in any D&D does it say a Focus is a Material Component. And never assume the rule books say something they do not.

 

[fafhrd]

I'd think it would be fair to say that the focus is neccessary when the spell like ability is taken and the item gets subsumed in the process. To require xp like that just seems way to punitive. As far as the RAW goes, it seems like an oversight.

 

[James McMurray]

Now, is that a misprint, or did they actually mean you have to pay 10 times the amount in XP? Both the Archmage and the Heirophant both list it as 10 times the amount in XP. Like that, someone with Raise Dead as a Spell-Like ability would have to spend 50,000 xp every time he wanted to cast it- in other words, he'd never be able to. "Bless Water" would cost 250 xp to cast as well. Identify would cost 1,000 xp. Analyze Dweomer would be 15,000 xp (and thus, nobody would ever cast it).

In other words, as it is, the XP cost is way, way, WAY too high, and the only reasoning I can find for the misprint is that they meant for it to be 1/10 the cost in XP, rather than 10 times the cost in XP. If that were the case, why would anyone pick anything with a material component cost as their Spell-Like Ability?

Perhaps they meant to ensure that people didn't get SLAs of spells that were balanced because of material components? At 1/10 the price, SLA True Ressurrection would only cost 500xp.

For the original question: Foci are not Material components, thus spell-like abilities neither require them nor have to pay extra XP to emulate them.

 

[Bloodstone Press]

No, a focus is not a material component.

Agreed.

The good news is that a focus is not consumed by the spell casting so once you have it, you can reuse it.

 

[UltimaGabe]

Perhaps they meant to ensure that people didn't get SLAs of spells that were balanced because of material components? At 1/10 the price, SLA True Ressurrection would only cost 500xp.

No, it would cost 2500xp. That's more than an eighth of a level by the time you're able to cast it, and although it may be a bit low for such a costly spell, the rule as it is (ten times the cost in XP) is completely unusable. That way, nobody in their right mind would ever make a spell with a costly material component into a Spell-Like Ability unless they never intended to cast it.