Is it unbalanced to create a spell focus that cannot be taken away?












14












$begingroup$


I'm playing with the idea of combining an Ersatz Eye (XGtE, p137) with a spell focus. Since the Eye is stated as being irremovable "...by anyone other than you...", does it make the item unbalanced?



This is specifically in regards to a sorcerer, but I suppose it applies to any caster that can use a focus. It seems like it would generally be no big deal, but it ultimately means that the character could technically never be disarmed.






dnd-5e magic-items balance







share|improve this question











$endgroup$








  • 3




    $begingroup$
    How often characters become disarmed in your games?
    $endgroup$
    – enkryptor
    Jan 18 at 18:36






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Specifically, does your DM allow the optional Disarming rule?
    $endgroup$
    – NautArch
    Jan 18 at 19:31






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    Related on Can a glass eye be an arcane focus?
    $endgroup$
    – NautArch
    Jan 18 at 19:54






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    As it stands right now, it's not a duplicate (because it seems like you're not asking what you really wanted to know.) I'd probably leave it as-is and let folks answer. Up to you if you want to select an answer. But does the focus holding question really answer what you're looking for? If not, then you can try and...focus...a new question that clarifies what you're asking and how it's different.
    $endgroup$
    – NautArch
    Jan 18 at 20:10






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Here is a question about disarming in 5e - but it's important to consider that if your table decides to allow it, then enemies can do it to you, too.
    $endgroup$
    – NautArch
    Jan 18 at 20:11
















14












$begingroup$


I'm playing with the idea of combining an Ersatz Eye (XGtE, p137) with a spell focus. Since the Eye is stated as being irremovable "...by anyone other than you...", does it make the item unbalanced?



This is specifically in regards to a sorcerer, but I suppose it applies to any caster that can use a focus. It seems like it would generally be no big deal, but it ultimately means that the character could technically never be disarmed.






dnd-5e magic-items balance







share|improve this question











$endgroup$








  • 3




    $begingroup$
    How often characters become disarmed in your games?
    $endgroup$
    – enkryptor
    Jan 18 at 18:36






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Specifically, does your DM allow the optional Disarming rule?
    $endgroup$
    – NautArch
    Jan 18 at 19:31






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    Related on Can a glass eye be an arcane focus?
    $endgroup$
    – NautArch
    Jan 18 at 19:54






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    As it stands right now, it's not a duplicate (because it seems like you're not asking what you really wanted to know.) I'd probably leave it as-is and let folks answer. Up to you if you want to select an answer. But does the focus holding question really answer what you're looking for? If not, then you can try and...focus...a new question that clarifies what you're asking and how it's different.
    $endgroup$
    – NautArch
    Jan 18 at 20:10






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Here is a question about disarming in 5e - but it's important to consider that if your table decides to allow it, then enemies can do it to you, too.
    $endgroup$
    – NautArch
    Jan 18 at 20:11














14












14








14


1



$begingroup$


I'm playing with the idea of combining an Ersatz Eye (XGtE, p137) with a spell focus. Since the Eye is stated as being irremovable "...by anyone other than you...", does it make the item unbalanced?



This is specifically in regards to a sorcerer, but I suppose it applies to any caster that can use a focus. It seems like it would generally be no big deal, but it ultimately means that the character could technically never be disarmed.






dnd-5e magic-items balance







share|improve this question











$endgroup$




I'm playing with the idea of combining an Ersatz Eye (XGtE, p137) with a spell focus. Since the Eye is stated as being irremovable "...by anyone other than you...", does it make the item unbalanced?



This is specifically in regards to a sorcerer, but I suppose it applies to any caster that can use a focus. It seems like it would generally be no big deal, but it ultimately means that the character could technically never be disarmed.






dnd-5e magic-items balance




dnd-5e magic-items balance






share|improve this question















share|improve this question













share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited Jan 18 at 19:17









KorvinStarmast

79k18247429




79k18247429










asked Jan 18 at 17:49









G. MoylanG. Moylan

1,213523




1,213523








  • 3




    $begingroup$
    How often characters become disarmed in your games?
    $endgroup$
    – enkryptor
    Jan 18 at 18:36






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Specifically, does your DM allow the optional Disarming rule?
    $endgroup$
    – NautArch
    Jan 18 at 19:31






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    Related on Can a glass eye be an arcane focus?
    $endgroup$
    – NautArch
    Jan 18 at 19:54






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    As it stands right now, it's not a duplicate (because it seems like you're not asking what you really wanted to know.) I'd probably leave it as-is and let folks answer. Up to you if you want to select an answer. But does the focus holding question really answer what you're looking for? If not, then you can try and...focus...a new question that clarifies what you're asking and how it's different.
    $endgroup$
    – NautArch
    Jan 18 at 20:10






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Here is a question about disarming in 5e - but it's important to consider that if your table decides to allow it, then enemies can do it to you, too.
    $endgroup$
    – NautArch
    Jan 18 at 20:11














  • 3




    $begingroup$
    How often characters become disarmed in your games?
    $endgroup$
    – enkryptor
    Jan 18 at 18:36






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Specifically, does your DM allow the optional Disarming rule?
    $endgroup$
    – NautArch
    Jan 18 at 19:31






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    Related on Can a glass eye be an arcane focus?
    $endgroup$
    – NautArch
    Jan 18 at 19:54






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    As it stands right now, it's not a duplicate (because it seems like you're not asking what you really wanted to know.) I'd probably leave it as-is and let folks answer. Up to you if you want to select an answer. But does the focus holding question really answer what you're looking for? If not, then you can try and...focus...a new question that clarifies what you're asking and how it's different.
    $endgroup$
    – NautArch
    Jan 18 at 20:10






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Here is a question about disarming in 5e - but it's important to consider that if your table decides to allow it, then enemies can do it to you, too.
    $endgroup$
    – NautArch
    Jan 18 at 20:11








3




3




$begingroup$
How often characters become disarmed in your games?
$endgroup$
– enkryptor
Jan 18 at 18:36




$begingroup$
How often characters become disarmed in your games?
$endgroup$
– enkryptor
Jan 18 at 18:36




1




1




$begingroup$
Specifically, does your DM allow the optional Disarming rule?
$endgroup$
– NautArch
Jan 18 at 19:31




$begingroup$
Specifically, does your DM allow the optional Disarming rule?
$endgroup$
– NautArch
Jan 18 at 19:31




2




2




$begingroup$
Related on Can a glass eye be an arcane focus?
$endgroup$
– NautArch
Jan 18 at 19:54




$begingroup$
Related on Can a glass eye be an arcane focus?
$endgroup$
– NautArch
Jan 18 at 19:54




1




1




$begingroup$
As it stands right now, it's not a duplicate (because it seems like you're not asking what you really wanted to know.) I'd probably leave it as-is and let folks answer. Up to you if you want to select an answer. But does the focus holding question really answer what you're looking for? If not, then you can try and...focus...a new question that clarifies what you're asking and how it's different.
$endgroup$
– NautArch
Jan 18 at 20:10




$begingroup$
As it stands right now, it's not a duplicate (because it seems like you're not asking what you really wanted to know.) I'd probably leave it as-is and let folks answer. Up to you if you want to select an answer. But does the focus holding question really answer what you're looking for? If not, then you can try and...focus...a new question that clarifies what you're asking and how it's different.
$endgroup$
– NautArch
Jan 18 at 20:10




1




1




$begingroup$
Here is a question about disarming in 5e - but it's important to consider that if your table decides to allow it, then enemies can do it to you, too.
$endgroup$
– NautArch
Jan 18 at 20:11




$begingroup$
Here is a question about disarming in 5e - but it's important to consider that if your table decides to allow it, then enemies can do it to you, too.
$endgroup$
– NautArch
Jan 18 at 20:11










3 Answers
3






active

oldest

votes


















10












$begingroup$

Unlikely, but may depend on your table



I've played a paladin whose focus was tattooed on his face for precisely this reason. At my table, component tracking isn't something we've really focused on, so we haven't seen any balance issues. However, if your table tracks components more closely it may be less balanced.



Sword and Board/ both hands occupied



There are also relatively few instances where the material component becomes a hindrance. If your character is wielding a sword/board combo, then this can be more of an issue. My paladin was a heavy weapon specialist and the rules do allow for a hand to come off the weapon which minimizes the mechanical requirements there.



But a character whose hands are each occupied with two different things may tip the balance of this. If not, then it's of minimal impact from my experience.



Disarming/taking from other characters



If your DM allows the Disarm optional rule or if they allow a mechanic for taking items from other characters there is more of a concern here - but that's easily circumvented by multiple pouches/foci.



Downsides



One downside to my decision to tattoo myself and mark my armor is that I'm quite recognizable. At times it's been a benefit, at others we've had to figure out a way to conceal me.






share|improve this answer











$endgroup$













  • $begingroup$
    Paladins are probably a bad example; along with clerics, their focus items function simply by being worn.
    $endgroup$
    – T.J.L.
    Jan 18 at 19:21










  • $begingroup$
    @T.J.L. Yes, but the action economy issues are still pretty minor for other classes given that as long as you have the ability to release a hand (so every build but one that has two hands occupied by two different things), you can always access your component pouch/focus. Disarming is an issue, but that's very table dependent on that optional rule.
    $endgroup$
    – NautArch
    Jan 18 at 19:27












  • $begingroup$
    While I think the argument @Magua makes in his answer is the easy, conversational one that I will likely use when discussing this with my DM, I feel your response best answers the original spirit of the question by examining the rules and the potential ramifications of the decision. Thanks for all your help
    $endgroup$
    – G. Moylan
    Jan 18 at 20:18










  • $begingroup$
    @T.J.L. Especially for Paladins, since their focus can literally be their shield.
    $endgroup$
    – Captain Man
    Jan 18 at 21:50



















14












$begingroup$

Not unbalanced, since the Ersatz Eye requires attunement.



Since attunements are quite limited, that is a significant price to pay to make a focus non-removable. (You could use the Ersatz Eye as a focus without attuning it, but then you would not be able to see out of it, and it would still be removable, as those are its magic features.)






share|improve this answer









$endgroup$













  • $begingroup$
    You make a good point and I think this is a fair trade. Ultimately it will still be up to the DM, but I think this argument makes it a solid pitch. TY
    $endgroup$
    – G. Moylan
    Jan 18 at 19:54



















4












$begingroup$

The view from experience



I had a warlock in my game, that I DM, who had his arcane focus be a gem stone that was inset into their forhead by their patron. I breifly thought about whether or not this was an issue for me/had the player taken it to far. I decided it wasn't.



In-game there has never been a time (so far) where someone has been disarmed of their arcane focus, that doesn't mean there wouldn't be. In theory my player received a greater benefit but in my opinion it was a small one.



I don't believe it unbalanced the game at all, at any point, and that character lasted a good few months. In all the games I have played in the arcane focus is very rarely roleplayed out as well as it should be anyway.






share|improve this answer









$endgroup$













    Your Answer





    StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
    return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
    StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
    StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["\$", "\$"]]);
    });
    });
    }, "mathjax-editing");

    StackExchange.ready(function() {
    var channelOptions = {
    tags: "".split(" "),
    id: "122"
    };
    initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

    StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
    // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
    if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
    StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
    createEditor();
    });
    }
    else {
    createEditor();
    }
    });

    function createEditor() {
    StackExchange.prepareEditor({
    heartbeatType: 'answer',
    autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
    convertImagesToLinks: false,
    noModals: true,
    showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
    reputationToPostImages: null,
    bindNavPrevention: true,
    postfix: "",
    imageUploader: {
    brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
    contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
    allowUrls: true
    },
    noCode: true, onDemand: true,
    discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
    ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
    });


    }
    });














    draft saved

    draft discarded


















    StackExchange.ready(
    function () {
    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2frpg.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f139411%2fis-it-unbalanced-to-create-a-spell-focus-that-cannot-be-taken-away%23new-answer', 'question_page');
    }
    );

    Post as a guest















    Required, but never shown

























    3 Answers
    3






    active

    oldest

    votes








    3 Answers
    3






    active

    oldest

    votes









    active

    oldest

    votes






    active

    oldest

    votes









    10












    $begingroup$

    Unlikely, but may depend on your table



    I've played a paladin whose focus was tattooed on his face for precisely this reason. At my table, component tracking isn't something we've really focused on, so we haven't seen any balance issues. However, if your table tracks components more closely it may be less balanced.



    Sword and Board/ both hands occupied



    There are also relatively few instances where the material component becomes a hindrance. If your character is wielding a sword/board combo, then this can be more of an issue. My paladin was a heavy weapon specialist and the rules do allow for a hand to come off the weapon which minimizes the mechanical requirements there.



    But a character whose hands are each occupied with two different things may tip the balance of this. If not, then it's of minimal impact from my experience.



    Disarming/taking from other characters



    If your DM allows the Disarm optional rule or if they allow a mechanic for taking items from other characters there is more of a concern here - but that's easily circumvented by multiple pouches/foci.



    Downsides



    One downside to my decision to tattoo myself and mark my armor is that I'm quite recognizable. At times it's been a benefit, at others we've had to figure out a way to conceal me.






    share|improve this answer











    $endgroup$













    • $begingroup$
      Paladins are probably a bad example; along with clerics, their focus items function simply by being worn.
      $endgroup$
      – T.J.L.
      Jan 18 at 19:21










    • $begingroup$
      @T.J.L. Yes, but the action economy issues are still pretty minor for other classes given that as long as you have the ability to release a hand (so every build but one that has two hands occupied by two different things), you can always access your component pouch/focus. Disarming is an issue, but that's very table dependent on that optional rule.
      $endgroup$
      – NautArch
      Jan 18 at 19:27












    • $begingroup$
      While I think the argument @Magua makes in his answer is the easy, conversational one that I will likely use when discussing this with my DM, I feel your response best answers the original spirit of the question by examining the rules and the potential ramifications of the decision. Thanks for all your help
      $endgroup$
      – G. Moylan
      Jan 18 at 20:18










    • $begingroup$
      @T.J.L. Especially for Paladins, since their focus can literally be their shield.
      $endgroup$
      – Captain Man
      Jan 18 at 21:50
















    10












    $begingroup$

    Unlikely, but may depend on your table



    I've played a paladin whose focus was tattooed on his face for precisely this reason. At my table, component tracking isn't something we've really focused on, so we haven't seen any balance issues. However, if your table tracks components more closely it may be less balanced.



    Sword and Board/ both hands occupied



    There are also relatively few instances where the material component becomes a hindrance. If your character is wielding a sword/board combo, then this can be more of an issue. My paladin was a heavy weapon specialist and the rules do allow for a hand to come off the weapon which minimizes the mechanical requirements there.



    But a character whose hands are each occupied with two different things may tip the balance of this. If not, then it's of minimal impact from my experience.



    Disarming/taking from other characters



    If your DM allows the Disarm optional rule or if they allow a mechanic for taking items from other characters there is more of a concern here - but that's easily circumvented by multiple pouches/foci.



    Downsides



    One downside to my decision to tattoo myself and mark my armor is that I'm quite recognizable. At times it's been a benefit, at others we've had to figure out a way to conceal me.






    share|improve this answer











    $endgroup$













    • $begingroup$
      Paladins are probably a bad example; along with clerics, their focus items function simply by being worn.
      $endgroup$
      – T.J.L.
      Jan 18 at 19:21










    • $begingroup$
      @T.J.L. Yes, but the action economy issues are still pretty minor for other classes given that as long as you have the ability to release a hand (so every build but one that has two hands occupied by two different things), you can always access your component pouch/focus. Disarming is an issue, but that's very table dependent on that optional rule.
      $endgroup$
      – NautArch
      Jan 18 at 19:27












    • $begingroup$
      While I think the argument @Magua makes in his answer is the easy, conversational one that I will likely use when discussing this with my DM, I feel your response best answers the original spirit of the question by examining the rules and the potential ramifications of the decision. Thanks for all your help
      $endgroup$
      – G. Moylan
      Jan 18 at 20:18










    • $begingroup$
      @T.J.L. Especially for Paladins, since their focus can literally be their shield.
      $endgroup$
      – Captain Man
      Jan 18 at 21:50














    10












    10








    10





    $begingroup$

    Unlikely, but may depend on your table



    I've played a paladin whose focus was tattooed on his face for precisely this reason. At my table, component tracking isn't something we've really focused on, so we haven't seen any balance issues. However, if your table tracks components more closely it may be less balanced.



    Sword and Board/ both hands occupied



    There are also relatively few instances where the material component becomes a hindrance. If your character is wielding a sword/board combo, then this can be more of an issue. My paladin was a heavy weapon specialist and the rules do allow for a hand to come off the weapon which minimizes the mechanical requirements there.



    But a character whose hands are each occupied with two different things may tip the balance of this. If not, then it's of minimal impact from my experience.



    Disarming/taking from other characters



    If your DM allows the Disarm optional rule or if they allow a mechanic for taking items from other characters there is more of a concern here - but that's easily circumvented by multiple pouches/foci.



    Downsides



    One downside to my decision to tattoo myself and mark my armor is that I'm quite recognizable. At times it's been a benefit, at others we've had to figure out a way to conceal me.






    share|improve this answer











    $endgroup$



    Unlikely, but may depend on your table



    I've played a paladin whose focus was tattooed on his face for precisely this reason. At my table, component tracking isn't something we've really focused on, so we haven't seen any balance issues. However, if your table tracks components more closely it may be less balanced.



    Sword and Board/ both hands occupied



    There are also relatively few instances where the material component becomes a hindrance. If your character is wielding a sword/board combo, then this can be more of an issue. My paladin was a heavy weapon specialist and the rules do allow for a hand to come off the weapon which minimizes the mechanical requirements there.



    But a character whose hands are each occupied with two different things may tip the balance of this. If not, then it's of minimal impact from my experience.



    Disarming/taking from other characters



    If your DM allows the Disarm optional rule or if they allow a mechanic for taking items from other characters there is more of a concern here - but that's easily circumvented by multiple pouches/foci.



    Downsides



    One downside to my decision to tattoo myself and mark my armor is that I'm quite recognizable. At times it's been a benefit, at others we've had to figure out a way to conceal me.







    share|improve this answer














    share|improve this answer



    share|improve this answer








    edited Jan 18 at 20:14

























    answered Jan 18 at 19:04









    NautArchNautArch

    56k8198373




    56k8198373












    • $begingroup$
      Paladins are probably a bad example; along with clerics, their focus items function simply by being worn.
      $endgroup$
      – T.J.L.
      Jan 18 at 19:21










    • $begingroup$
      @T.J.L. Yes, but the action economy issues are still pretty minor for other classes given that as long as you have the ability to release a hand (so every build but one that has two hands occupied by two different things), you can always access your component pouch/focus. Disarming is an issue, but that's very table dependent on that optional rule.
      $endgroup$
      – NautArch
      Jan 18 at 19:27












    • $begingroup$
      While I think the argument @Magua makes in his answer is the easy, conversational one that I will likely use when discussing this with my DM, I feel your response best answers the original spirit of the question by examining the rules and the potential ramifications of the decision. Thanks for all your help
      $endgroup$
      – G. Moylan
      Jan 18 at 20:18










    • $begingroup$
      @T.J.L. Especially for Paladins, since their focus can literally be their shield.
      $endgroup$
      – Captain Man
      Jan 18 at 21:50


















    • $begingroup$
      Paladins are probably a bad example; along with clerics, their focus items function simply by being worn.
      $endgroup$
      – T.J.L.
      Jan 18 at 19:21










    • $begingroup$
      @T.J.L. Yes, but the action economy issues are still pretty minor for other classes given that as long as you have the ability to release a hand (so every build but one that has two hands occupied by two different things), you can always access your component pouch/focus. Disarming is an issue, but that's very table dependent on that optional rule.
      $endgroup$
      – NautArch
      Jan 18 at 19:27












    • $begingroup$
      While I think the argument @Magua makes in his answer is the easy, conversational one that I will likely use when discussing this with my DM, I feel your response best answers the original spirit of the question by examining the rules and the potential ramifications of the decision. Thanks for all your help
      $endgroup$
      – G. Moylan
      Jan 18 at 20:18










    • $begingroup$
      @T.J.L. Especially for Paladins, since their focus can literally be their shield.
      $endgroup$
      – Captain Man
      Jan 18 at 21:50
















    $begingroup$
    Paladins are probably a bad example; along with clerics, their focus items function simply by being worn.
    $endgroup$
    – T.J.L.
    Jan 18 at 19:21




    $begingroup$
    Paladins are probably a bad example; along with clerics, their focus items function simply by being worn.
    $endgroup$
    – T.J.L.
    Jan 18 at 19:21












    $begingroup$
    @T.J.L. Yes, but the action economy issues are still pretty minor for other classes given that as long as you have the ability to release a hand (so every build but one that has two hands occupied by two different things), you can always access your component pouch/focus. Disarming is an issue, but that's very table dependent on that optional rule.
    $endgroup$
    – NautArch
    Jan 18 at 19:27






    $begingroup$
    @T.J.L. Yes, but the action economy issues are still pretty minor for other classes given that as long as you have the ability to release a hand (so every build but one that has two hands occupied by two different things), you can always access your component pouch/focus. Disarming is an issue, but that's very table dependent on that optional rule.
    $endgroup$
    – NautArch
    Jan 18 at 19:27














    $begingroup$
    While I think the argument @Magua makes in his answer is the easy, conversational one that I will likely use when discussing this with my DM, I feel your response best answers the original spirit of the question by examining the rules and the potential ramifications of the decision. Thanks for all your help
    $endgroup$
    – G. Moylan
    Jan 18 at 20:18




    $begingroup$
    While I think the argument @Magua makes in his answer is the easy, conversational one that I will likely use when discussing this with my DM, I feel your response best answers the original spirit of the question by examining the rules and the potential ramifications of the decision. Thanks for all your help
    $endgroup$
    – G. Moylan
    Jan 18 at 20:18












    $begingroup$
    @T.J.L. Especially for Paladins, since their focus can literally be their shield.
    $endgroup$
    – Captain Man
    Jan 18 at 21:50




    $begingroup$
    @T.J.L. Especially for Paladins, since their focus can literally be their shield.
    $endgroup$
    – Captain Man
    Jan 18 at 21:50













    14












    $begingroup$

    Not unbalanced, since the Ersatz Eye requires attunement.



    Since attunements are quite limited, that is a significant price to pay to make a focus non-removable. (You could use the Ersatz Eye as a focus without attuning it, but then you would not be able to see out of it, and it would still be removable, as those are its magic features.)






    share|improve this answer









    $endgroup$













    • $begingroup$
      You make a good point and I think this is a fair trade. Ultimately it will still be up to the DM, but I think this argument makes it a solid pitch. TY
      $endgroup$
      – G. Moylan
      Jan 18 at 19:54
















    14












    $begingroup$

    Not unbalanced, since the Ersatz Eye requires attunement.



    Since attunements are quite limited, that is a significant price to pay to make a focus non-removable. (You could use the Ersatz Eye as a focus without attuning it, but then you would not be able to see out of it, and it would still be removable, as those are its magic features.)






    share|improve this answer









    $endgroup$













    • $begingroup$
      You make a good point and I think this is a fair trade. Ultimately it will still be up to the DM, but I think this argument makes it a solid pitch. TY
      $endgroup$
      – G. Moylan
      Jan 18 at 19:54














    14












    14








    14





    $begingroup$

    Not unbalanced, since the Ersatz Eye requires attunement.



    Since attunements are quite limited, that is a significant price to pay to make a focus non-removable. (You could use the Ersatz Eye as a focus without attuning it, but then you would not be able to see out of it, and it would still be removable, as those are its magic features.)






    share|improve this answer









    $endgroup$



    Not unbalanced, since the Ersatz Eye requires attunement.



    Since attunements are quite limited, that is a significant price to pay to make a focus non-removable. (You could use the Ersatz Eye as a focus without attuning it, but then you would not be able to see out of it, and it would still be removable, as those are its magic features.)







    share|improve this answer












    share|improve this answer



    share|improve this answer










    answered Jan 18 at 18:18









    MaguaMagua

    1,207126




    1,207126












    • $begingroup$
      You make a good point and I think this is a fair trade. Ultimately it will still be up to the DM, but I think this argument makes it a solid pitch. TY
      $endgroup$
      – G. Moylan
      Jan 18 at 19:54


















    • $begingroup$
      You make a good point and I think this is a fair trade. Ultimately it will still be up to the DM, but I think this argument makes it a solid pitch. TY
      $endgroup$
      – G. Moylan
      Jan 18 at 19:54
















    $begingroup$
    You make a good point and I think this is a fair trade. Ultimately it will still be up to the DM, but I think this argument makes it a solid pitch. TY
    $endgroup$
    – G. Moylan
    Jan 18 at 19:54




    $begingroup$
    You make a good point and I think this is a fair trade. Ultimately it will still be up to the DM, but I think this argument makes it a solid pitch. TY
    $endgroup$
    – G. Moylan
    Jan 18 at 19:54











    4












    $begingroup$

    The view from experience



    I had a warlock in my game, that I DM, who had his arcane focus be a gem stone that was inset into their forhead by their patron. I breifly thought about whether or not this was an issue for me/had the player taken it to far. I decided it wasn't.



    In-game there has never been a time (so far) where someone has been disarmed of their arcane focus, that doesn't mean there wouldn't be. In theory my player received a greater benefit but in my opinion it was a small one.



    I don't believe it unbalanced the game at all, at any point, and that character lasted a good few months. In all the games I have played in the arcane focus is very rarely roleplayed out as well as it should be anyway.






    share|improve this answer









    $endgroup$


















      4












      $begingroup$

      The view from experience



      I had a warlock in my game, that I DM, who had his arcane focus be a gem stone that was inset into their forhead by their patron. I breifly thought about whether or not this was an issue for me/had the player taken it to far. I decided it wasn't.



      In-game there has never been a time (so far) where someone has been disarmed of their arcane focus, that doesn't mean there wouldn't be. In theory my player received a greater benefit but in my opinion it was a small one.



      I don't believe it unbalanced the game at all, at any point, and that character lasted a good few months. In all the games I have played in the arcane focus is very rarely roleplayed out as well as it should be anyway.






      share|improve this answer









      $endgroup$
















        4












        4








        4





        $begingroup$

        The view from experience



        I had a warlock in my game, that I DM, who had his arcane focus be a gem stone that was inset into their forhead by their patron. I breifly thought about whether or not this was an issue for me/had the player taken it to far. I decided it wasn't.



        In-game there has never been a time (so far) where someone has been disarmed of their arcane focus, that doesn't mean there wouldn't be. In theory my player received a greater benefit but in my opinion it was a small one.



        I don't believe it unbalanced the game at all, at any point, and that character lasted a good few months. In all the games I have played in the arcane focus is very rarely roleplayed out as well as it should be anyway.






        share|improve this answer









        $endgroup$



        The view from experience



        I had a warlock in my game, that I DM, who had his arcane focus be a gem stone that was inset into their forhead by their patron. I breifly thought about whether or not this was an issue for me/had the player taken it to far. I decided it wasn't.



        In-game there has never been a time (so far) where someone has been disarmed of their arcane focus, that doesn't mean there wouldn't be. In theory my player received a greater benefit but in my opinion it was a small one.



        I don't believe it unbalanced the game at all, at any point, and that character lasted a good few months. In all the games I have played in the arcane focus is very rarely roleplayed out as well as it should be anyway.







        share|improve this answer












        share|improve this answer



        share|improve this answer










        answered Jan 18 at 20:13









        GPPKGPPK

        1,160628




        1,160628






























            draft saved

            draft discarded




















































            Thanks for contributing an answer to Role-playing Games Stack Exchange!


            • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

            But avoid …



            • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

            • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


            Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


            To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




            draft saved


            draft discarded














            StackExchange.ready(
            function () {
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2frpg.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f139411%2fis-it-unbalanced-to-create-a-spell-focus-that-cannot-be-taken-away%23new-answer', 'question_page');
            }
            );

            Post as a guest















            Required, but never shown





















































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown

































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown







            -

            Popular posts from this blog

            Human spaceflight

            Image
            Human spaceflight From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to navigation Jump to search "Space traveler" redirects here. For other uses, see Space traveler (disambiguation). @media all and (max-width:720px){.mw-parser-output .tmulti>.thumbinner{width:100%!important;max-width:none!important}.mw-parser-output .tmulti .tsingle{float:none!important;max-width:none!important;width:100%!important;text-align:center}} Apollo 11 crewmember Buzz Aldrin on the Moon, 1969 International Space Station crewmember Tracy Caldwell Dyson views the Earth, 2010 Space Shuttle Discovery heads into space with a crew aboard, STS-121 in 2006 Inside a space suit on the Canadarm, 1993 Human spaceflight (also referred to as crewed spaceflight or manned spaceflight ) is space travel with a crew or passengers aboard the spacecraft. Spacecraft carrying people may be operated directly, by human crew, or it may be e...
            Read more

            Can not write log (Is /dev/pts mounted?) - openpty in Ubuntu-on-Windows?

            Image
            0 1 What exactly does the error message beginning with E: mean? I assume it has to do with the file structure on Ubuntu-on-Windows, but what exactly? The following package was automatically installed and is no longer required: os-prober Use 'apt-get autoremove' to remove it. The following extra packages will be installed: libxslt1.1 The following NEW packages will be installed: libxslt1.1 xmlstarlet 0 upgraded, 2 newly installed, 0 to remove and 0 not upgraded. Need to get 435 kB of archives. After this operation, 1023 kB of additional disk space will be used. Get:1 http://archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/ trusty/main libxslt1.1 amd64 1.1.28-2build1 [145 kB] Get:2 http://archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/ trusty/universe xmlstarlet amd64 1.5.0-1 [290 kB] ...
            Read more

            張江高科駅

            Image
            張江高科駅 ちょうこうこうか Zhangjiang Hi-Tech Park 所在地 中国上海市浦東新区 所属事業者 上海地鉄運営有限公司（上海軌道交通・駅詳細） 上海浦東現代有軌交通有限公司（駅詳細） テンプレートを表示 張江高科駅 各種表記 繁体字： 張江高科站 簡体字： 张江高科站 拼音 ： Zhàngjiāng Gāokē Zhàn 発音： ヂャンジャン ガオクー ヂャン 英文： Zhangjiang Hi-Tech Park Station テンプレートを表示 張江高科駅 （ちょうこうこうか-えき）は中華人民共和国上海市浦東新区に位置する、上海軌道交通2号線の駅である。 なお、張江高科駅前にある張江軌道電車の 張江地鉄駅駅 についてもここで述べる。 目次 1 利用可能な鉄道路線 2 沿革 3 駅構造 3.1 上海軌道交通 3.2 張江軌道電車 4 駅周辺 5 隣の駅 6 注釈 7 関連項目 利用可能な鉄道路線 上海軌道交通 ■ 2号線 上海浦東現代有軌交通有限公司 ■ 張江軌道電車 沿革 高架駅時代の姿 2000年12月27日 - 2号線の駅が高架駅として開業。 2010年 1月1日 - 張江軌道電車の開業に伴い、張江地鉄駅駅（停留所）を設置。 2月13日 - 駅地下化に伴い高架駅の運用停止。 2月24日 - 10日間の閉鎖を経て地下新駅の開業。 2017年2月9日 - リニューアル工事を経て再開業。乗降客の増加に対応し、ホームへのエレベーター、エスカレーターを増設、券売機エリアを拡張した [1] 。 駅構造 上海軌道交通 上海軌道交通 張江高科駅 5号口 ちょうこうこうか Zhangjiang Hi-Tech Park ◄ 竜陽路 (2.60km) (1.61km) 金科路 ► 所在地 中国上海市浦東新区松涛路 祖冲之路 （中国語版） 北緯31度12分11秒 東経121度34分50秒  /  北緯31.2...
            Read more