D&D 5E Spell focus needs an errated rule

[Swarmkeeper]

If a spell doesn‘t require a material component but does require a somatic component, you have to use an empty hand for it. Its the height of annoying, but that‘s how it the designer ruled that RAW should be interpreted.

"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." PHB p203

Appears to me that you can be holding the spellcasting focus in the same hand you use for your somatic component. So, there's that.

No. Specific to the instrument of the bards.
Also even though only semi official, the reading of the level 6 feature is the same as mine.

So you agree it can or can't, per the semi-official declarations?
1. Spells such as Vicious Mockery and Healing Word won't benefit from this subclass feature as they only require verbal components.
2. Inflict Wounds, which synergizes with Spiritual Focus to deal an extra 1d6 of damage. (no material components, but yes verbal and somatic)

They describe what it means to be a spellcasting focus and when you can use them. And they only permit using them when replacing M components, and only focuses that work with that kind of spell.

Please quote where "they only permit using them when replacing M components". Maybe I'm missing it but I'm just not finding that restriction spelled out for a 5e spellcasting focus.

They are worded poorly.

Undoubtedly, otherwise there wouldn't be any confusion here.

 

[Steampunkette]

Unless they go on the official D&D beyond website, and see how WotC interpret it...

And I'm pretty sure that means it's going to be an issue for AL DMs.

Interpreted Spell Focuses or interpreted the specific ability of the College of Spirits Bard?

'Cause, again, most will just look at the class ability of the Bard and go "They must mean that the Spirit Bard's healing spells gain 1d6 healing, regardless of material component" and laugh off any confusion as a foible.

 

[Azzy]

Focuses (Foci?)

Both are correct.

 

[Nefermandias]

I'd wager that the overwhelming majority of players aren't going to split hairs over the definitions because this isn't 4e with it's hard-definition keyword focus.

On the other hand, if it WAS 4e, an issue like this one would never be a thing in first place.

 

[Sword of Spirit]

"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." PHB p203

Appears to me that you can be holding the spellcasting focus in the same hand you use for your somatic component. So, there's that.

Yes, which is what I said too. If a spell requires a material component and a somatic component you can provide both with the same hand. If a spell does not require a material component, you cannot hold a focus in that hand, because an arcane focus will not allow you to provide a somatic component unless it is also replacing a material component.

It’s stupid, but it‘s what Jeremy Crawford says the book says, and my reading of the text agrees.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Interpreted Spell Focuses or interpreted the specific ability of the College of Spirits Bard?

'Cause, again, most will just look at the class ability of the Bard and go "They must mean that the Spirit Bard's healing spells gain 1d6 healing, regardless of material component" and laugh off any confusion as a foible.

There is no doubt about this. Chances are good that it is also RAI, as it is copy pasted from the artificer alchemist... But there was probably a little oversight.
5e is user friendly, so an interpretor should assume the most user friendly variant. Which in this case means that you can just present your focus and add a d6.

 

[Mistwell]

Ehhh... I don't see it.

What I do see is people diving deep into the game's wording to try and play Carnap and Frege.

Is a Hotdog a Sandwich? A Definitive Study.

A philosophy webcomic about the inevitable anguish of living a brief life in an absurd world. Also Jokes

existentialcomics.com

Be Wittgenstein.

The developers clearly intended for the Bard's healing spells to gain the 1d6, independent of whether they had a material focus for their healing spells. This isn't rocket surgery.

I'd wager that the overwhelming majority of players aren't going to split hairs over the definitions because this isn't 4e with it's hard-definition keyword focus.

This was a known, discussed, existing issue long before this class was published. I think some tables kinda hand-waive components in general and others don't. I think a pretty meaningful portion of tables do follow the rules as written on this kind of topic pretty closely. Sword of Spirit points out a known really annoying issue related to this: you cannot voluntarily use a focus even if the spell doesn't call for one or a material component because if you could you could get around a different really annoying issue that Crawford has previously commented on regarding a spellcasters ability to have their hands full.

While I agree it appears intended in the way you're interpreting it, I don't actually know it was intended that way. They have not commented on it. And they don't always correct it or mean it the way we think: for example the Grappler feat was never intended the way we all took it for a year or more, even though much of the feat had no meaning because it turned out to be about a rule that never made it into the game.

 

[Mistwell]

Interpreted Spell Focuses or interpreted the specific ability of the College of Spirits Bard?

'Cause, again, most will just look at the class ability of the Bard and go "They must mean that the Spirit Bard's healing spells gain 1d6 healing, regardless of material component" and laugh off any confusion as a foible.

I am guessing you don't watch many of the videos out there by people about 5e rules? They're very popular.

 

[Steampunkette]

This was a known, discussed, existing issue long before this class was published. I think some tables kinda hand-waive components in general and others don't. I think a pretty meaningful portion of tables do follow the rules as written on this kind of topic pretty closely. Sword of Spirit points out a known really annoying issue related to this: you cannot voluntarily use a focus even if the spell doesn't call for one or a material component because if you could you could get around a different really annoying issue that Crawford has previously commented on regarding a spellcasters ability to have their hands full.

While I agree it appears intended in the way you're interpreting it, I don't actually know it was intended that way. They have not commented on it. And they don't always correct it or mean it the way we think: for example the Grappler feat was never intended the way we all took it for a year or more, even though much of the feat had no meaning because it turned out to be about a rule that never made it into the game.

The only alternative way it could work is that Spirit Bards get a bunch of useless detritus they can use as a Spellcasting Focus...

And since none of their Healing Spells have a Material Component, they're not allowed to gain the extra 1d6 healing their subclass specifically gets as a class feature on Healing Spells they use with their focus.

There's no reasonable person who could ever come out with that as the designer's intention for creating the extra 1d6 healing function. Which is -why- the errata is unneeded. The intention is crystal clear.

I am guessing you don't watch many of the videos out there by people about 5e rules? They're very popular.

I watch videos, I read forums, I've also got a Tumblr blog where I get to watch people be pedantic about rules as written, plus Tiktok's got it's own subsection of "Things in the PHB that don't make sense" Them being "Popular" doesn't mean they're "Important" or "Right". It just means people want to watch people talk about D&D so they watch a video about D&D. Particularly videos with Rules-Advice and Questions. It also doesn't mean the viewers unilaterally agree with the contents of the video.

All of it is incredibly narrow, focused, and specific interpretations of the words on the page to create a conflict where there really shouldn't be one by people who think semantics is a great pastime.

And, y'know? Cool for them. If that's how you wanna spend your time it works just great!

But.

Living that life of extreme semantic interpretation can lead a person to isolate themself from common vernacular and colloquial understanding. And lead them to see confusion where none, or practically none, exists. Hence threads like this where half a dozen people are SO CONFUSED or think it DOESN'T MAKE SENSE while everyone else is like "No, it clearly makes sense. You're trying to interpret it in a way to explicitly not make sense"

I guess, in the end, that is who errata is really -for-. 'Cause the rest of us don't -need- someone to come down from on high and correct an apparent foible in the text.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

The only alternative way it could work is that Spirit Bards get a bunch of useless detritus they can use as a Spellcasting Focus...

And since none of their Healing Spells have a Material Component, they're not allowed to gain the extra 1d6 healing their subclass specifically gets as a class feature on Healing Spells they use with their focus.

There's no reasonable person who could ever come out with that as the designer's intention for creating the extra 1d6 healing function. Which is -why- the errata is unneeded. The intention is crystal clear.

Clearly you don't know what "errata" means: what you describe is actually the exact reason why it need errata. The intend is clear, but rule wise it is wrong.
5e only in very rare cases changes rules through errata. Usually they change the wording to reflect the original intend.

I do think, that foci had exactly this problem for a while now. And the problem is that there is no rule for spellcasting foci on their own, only in the paragraph about material components.