A spellcasting focus is a spellcasting focus.

https://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/102252/can-a-multiclass-cleric-warlock-hold-a-holy-shield-and-an-arcane-staff-and-still?rq=1 https://www.sageadvice.eu/can-i-use-a-staff-of-frost-as-quarterstaff/

When I try to interprete the rules as literal as possible, multiclassing breaks down. That may or not be a bad thing based on how you feel about multiclassing but every time I've ever dug my heels into the ground about something I feel strongly about -- I regret it later. Spellcasting focuses is one of those.

I had the angleshooting around Artificer/Wizard multiclassing because I think giving proficiency on CON saves, medium armor, and a shield to a wizard is dumb and world/lore breaking. One of the first ways I tried to push back against that was to rule you need the given focus in your hand to cast those spells (e.g. If your artificer took Shield or Absorb Elements but you didn't have your Toolset focus out, you couldn't cast the spell). That brought down the power level a little bit but as a player, would I trade the inconvenience of swapping focuses for shield and medium armor? Absolutely.

So then we get into another world of spellcasting focuses with multiclassing. I recently played in a one-shot where I planned on being a Moon Druid with the option of multiclassing into Cleric (more than likely Life) if I felt the party needed the extra healing. I planned my character using DND Beyond and I noticed something odd when it came to the Moon Sickle and Cleric Spells. I received the bonus on spell attack rolls and DC saves even though Moon Sickle explicity says "druid and ranger spells"

Moon Sickle This silver-bladed sickle glimmers softly with moonlight. While holding this magic weapon, you gain a bonus to attack and damage rolls made with it, and you gain a bonus to spell attack rolls and the saving throw DCs of your druid and ranger spells. The bonus is determined by the weapon's rarity. In addition, you can use the sickle as a spellcasting focus for your druid and ranger spells.

I thought to myself that's surely a bug because Moon Sickle says "your druid and ranger spells" but I thought about it for a while. Is it worth punishing a player for multiclassing by requiring multiple focuses? Should I need to seek out both a Moon Sickle and an Amulet of the Devout so I can cast my spells more effectively? And then also burn two attunement slots on those items? Some DMs who dig their heels into the ground about multiclassing might say yes.

There's a non-sensicle argument that could be made about stacking focuses. The original concern about the Tasha's focuses is that a druid/cleric multiclass could attune to both of these for a +6 bonus to their spell attacks and DC saves and I was originally concerned about that, too. But again, after thinking about it... it's logical to say "Choose a spellfocus and cast the spell from there," you either get your bonus from one or the other focus but not both.

Why does this make sense to me? If you were to give a fighter access to multiple magical weapons, you're not going to allow your fighter to dual wield those weapons and have the +1/+2/+3 bonuses apply on each attack (even if they flavor it as if they were powerstancing those weapons). They might role-play their attack as swinging with both weapons each time they make an attack but the mechanics of the game say it's one weapon attack each time.

Along those lines, one of my favorite thought exercises when making a character is the prison scenario -- I'm in prison and I don't have access to any gear, how does my character work? Well, if you're a wizard the answer is "not great." So let's walkthrough this hypothetical question with a pure wizard. Let's say we're all level 5 and we're stuck in prison and it might take us a level or two to break out... maybe think of it as a work camp. If my Wizard player approaches me when I'm DMing and asked, "I know I don't have access to a spellfocus so I can't cast spells... if I were to multiclass into Artificer, could I use my toolkit as a focus to cast wizard spells?" My answer is an emphatic "absolutely." I'd even allow them to retcon their character to change their saving throw proficiencies to artificer if they want (I mean, they were hardened by the work camp, it makes total sense to me). After all, it's entirely within the rules for a DM to award free feats, proficency bonus, really anything at their own descretion. On top of that, Tasha's Cauldron made it pretty clear that minor changes should be made to characters as they gain access to ASI/feats. Futhermore, Adventurerer's League rules allow subclass swapping at 5th, 11th, 16th, and 20th level:

CHANGING YOUR SUBCLASS You can replace one of your character’s subclasses with another subclass at 5th level, 11th level, 16th level, and 20th level. This isn't subject to PH+1.

Do you see how that scenario has the same result as a wizard taking artificer at level one, then progressing as a wizard? How does the role-playing focused multiclass feel compared to the optimized (borderline powergamer) design feel?

There's an important lesson in all of this. Always ask your DM what they think, even if it's not 100% rules-as-written you might get a favorable ruling. Every DM is different and even "rule-as-written" is perfect. I found that out when I saw how DNDBeyond handles Moon Sickle with multiclassing.

If you're a DM, I'd almost always error on the side of giving your players adventageous rules with two things in mind: (1) if you ruled favorable for the player, that rule also applies to enemies/monster (and vice-versa), (2) exceptions can be made to the rule in edgecases that break the game, and (3) the rule can always be rolled back if it becomes abusive. In the case of the third point, I'd probably use the rule against them in an extreme situation then ask the party "Do you still like this rule?"

Spell focuses as a weapon

Staves act as Quarterstaffs. Other spell focuses do not typically act as a weapon but ask your DM.

Wands and Staves should be Arcane Focuses but it is not RAW. RAI, certain items say they can be used as a focus but no staves or wands have this text (this heavily impliess wands and staves are arcane focuses)

Is a Component Pouch "just better" anyways?

With the exception of War Caster, yeah.. probably. A free hand and a shield lets you cast spells...

Conceptually, this is really weird because of the edge case surrounding casting a focus with Somatic components that don't have material components.

The only time a focus might work better is in a random situation where you want to use a staff as a Quarterstaff and attack with 1d6 or 1d8. In those cases, it's probably better to attack with a Dagger anyways since most casters will have a higher DEX modifer than STR.

https://www.reddit.com/r/DMAcademy/comments/cmmnjq/how_exactly_does_a_component_pouch_work/

Components that are consumed with Spells

Regardless of using a spellcasting focus, if the spell consumes a component that component must be on hand to consume.

You might be able to argue the spell focus itself could be consumed when casting the spell but that's almost always going to be for flavor purposes than functionally being a good idea (as in, I need to cast this spell and there's no other way to do this besides consuming my focus).

https://www.dndbeyond.com/forums/dungeons-dragons-discussion/rules-game-mechanics/9699-protection-from-good-and-evil-material-component

From the DnDBeyond forum:

I then agree with FMB that every tweet about the subject has been fairly lukewarm. No one can say exactly how much holy water is used up casting PFE&G; one tweet suggested an entire vial - which puts it at the same cost as Ceremony, which specifically consumes costed materials. I feel that too many cooks have been involved in this particular broth now, and return to my decision to write off all uncosted materials, and to abstract all costed materials directly into gold in my games. I prefer to imagine that every wizard has a subtly or dramatically different formula for their spells anyway, so tracking silver and sulphur supplies actually limits immersion in my universe

Managed to get some answers from Jeremy on this one.

Can Protection From Evil and Good be cast with a component pouch or a focus?

If a spell consumes its material component, you must provide that component every time you cast it. https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/944272714910466048

So the material component should be interpreted as a vial of holy water worth 25 gold OR powdered silver worth 25 gold, correct?

The cost isn't a concern for that spell, only that you have some of the material for the spell to consume. It's a narrative device: sprinkling holy water or the powder. https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/944273559915864064

In practical terms, does that mean a flask of holy water could be reused for multiple castings of the spell?

If a DM was generous and allowed that. Typically, a DM will expect a flask to be used. https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/944274883084566528

Is the material component of the Protection from Evil and Good spell supposed to be that pricey? https://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/137685/is-the-material-component-of-the-protection-from-evil-and-good-spell-supposed-to

https://www.dndbeyond.com/forums/dungeons-dragons-discussion/rules-game-mechanics/16215-ruling-on-material-components-of-spells-that-has

Spells that have no cost but are consumed https://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/47300/are-normal-spell-components-consumed-by-the-spell https://www.reddit.com/r/DnD/comments/my4dee/material_components_with_no_cost_that_are_consumed/

From me:

Also on the bright side, it seems like Protection from Good and Evil is probably the literal worst example because it doesn't say how much is consumed. I'd say 1 Holy Water is mostly clear in the example but because it doesn't specify the amount of the powdered materials (it should say 25gp of powdered silver), I'd probably say "some indeterminate amount of powdered metal" is consumed or one full Holy Water -- meaning, use powdered metal unless you're in a jam, then use all of your Holy Water.

I want to see other spells that mentioned being consumed (but not stating the cost), this particular spell is probably handwaved and I'd say the unknown quantity of metals isn't consumed by the spell.

It's dumb because they want the narrative aspects of material costs for Protection from Good and Evil but then disregard the material costs of Fireball (bat guano and sulfur) for that spell. Like, it's implicit that the guano and sulfur is used to cast the spell but it doesn't specifically state it's consumed.

It's seem fairly safe to say that if a quantity isn't specified (and the quantity isn't implicit...which is unfortunate for Holy Water here) that it's consumption is probably safe to ignore.

Basically...

If the amount of materials consumed isn't specified (or clearly implicit), it's safe to ignore the consumption part as long as the materials are available.

Critical Role https://www.critrolestats.com/blog/2019/10/30/calebs-spellcasting-components-WJJK4 https://www.reddit.com/r/criticalrole/comments/7o7r8r/no_spoilers_how_are_spell_components_done_in_the/

Do magic items, like Wand of Fireballs or Staff of Power, require components to cast the spell? Can that spell be Counterspelled?

No, using an item to cast a spell does not require components of any kind -- material, verbal, and somatic components of the spell are ignored. This effectively gives spells cast from magic items the Subtle Metamagic trait (and technically cannot be Counterspelled, either).

For what it's worth, Jeremy Crawford responded to a question (that has been removed by the original author) with a non-answer that seemed to imply you could Counterspell a wand but follow up questions asking for clarification were unanswered:

Counterspell targets a creature casting a spell, no matter the source of the spell (the creature, an item, etc.). #DnD

- Jeremy Crawford (@JeremyECrawford)

Your DM may rule differently (and arguably should rule differently) but rules-as-written, spells cast from magic items shouldn't be Counterspelled because they don't require components (and is therefore undetectable from a spellcasting mechanic point-of-view). I'd say interacting with the Magic Item does something to indicate a spell is being cast and would probably allow the spell to be targeted by Counterspell.

Do magic items with similar abilities, like Wand of the War Mage and Amulet of the Devout, stack?

Yes, if you