Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Spell focus needs an errated rule
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Mistwell" data-source="post: 8282315" data-attributes="member: 2525"><p>If people are not familiar with how this all stated, and why people might be suspicious that the designers do intend for this feature to work as wonky as it's written, you can see <a href="https://dnd.wizards.com/articles/sage-advice/rules-spellcasting" target="_blank">here</a>. It's not that fans are overly focused on semantics. It's that WOTC came out with an article with a weird ruling saying you cannot voluntarily use a spell focus to cast a healing spell which does not have a material component in the same way you could if it did have a material component. You instead have to do it a different way (or possibly are prevented from doing it at all if your other hand were full in that scenario).</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Get it now? WOTC came out with a Sage Advice article (not just a Tweet but a full-on clarification article) which includes specifically saying, "Nope, you cannot voluntarily use your spell focus to cast a healing spell which doesn't otherwise have a material component in the same way you could do it if the spell did have a material component." Somehow you can do the hand gestures with that spell focus in that same hand if it had material components, but you cannot do the exact same thing with that same hand and spell focus if it didn't have material components.</p><p></p><p>That is what started this stuff. Not some obsessive philosophy focus on semantics. It was WOTC stating that as a rules clarification. And a lot of people wondering why, since it doesn't seem to make a lot of logical sense. Which causes a lot of people to wonder if this is similarly an odd rule which runs contrary to what we think would be logical with the focus rules.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Mistwell, post: 8282315, member: 2525"] If people are not familiar with how this all stated, and why people might be suspicious that the designers do intend for this feature to work as wonky as it's written, you can see [URL='https://dnd.wizards.com/articles/sage-advice/rules-spellcasting']here[/URL]. It's not that fans are overly focused on semantics. It's that WOTC came out with an article with a weird ruling saying you cannot voluntarily use a spell focus to cast a healing spell which does not have a material component in the same way you could if it did have a material component. You instead have to do it a different way (or possibly are prevented from doing it at all if your other hand were full in that scenario). Get it now? WOTC came out with a Sage Advice article (not just a Tweet but a full-on clarification article) which includes specifically saying, "Nope, you cannot voluntarily use your spell focus to cast a healing spell which doesn't otherwise have a material component in the same way you could do it if the spell did have a material component." Somehow you can do the hand gestures with that spell focus in that same hand if it had material components, but you cannot do the exact same thing with that same hand and spell focus if it didn't have material components. That is what started this stuff. Not some obsessive philosophy focus on semantics. It was WOTC stating that as a rules clarification. And a lot of people wondering why, since it doesn't seem to make a lot of logical sense. Which causes a lot of people to wonder if this is similarly an odd rule which runs contrary to what we think would be logical with the focus rules. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Spell focus needs an errated rule
Top