D&D 5E My cleric can use a wand of lightning bolts?

[BrockBallingdark]

I don't think I'd allow Spell Thief to come into play at least until the Arcane Trickster at least actually had attained 17th level...then maybe (I do like the idea of rogues being able circumvent requirements on magic items)

Sorry, I actually meant I'd allow the Arcane Trickster with Spell Thief, which is at 17th level to then be able to use any magic item that attunes to a spell caster. But if I was doing a short adventure or one-shot (not a campaign), I might let a Rogue also circumvent this.
We're on the same page with that.

 

[machineelf]

Wouldn't it be somewhat redundant if there was a category that said "warlocks only" and a category that said "spellcasters" if the spellcasters category only allowed spellcasters that had the specific spell the wand does on their class spell list?

It seems to me that they meant "spellcasters" to be any spellcaster class.

 

[thalmin]

Wouldn't it be somewhat redundant if there was a category that said "warlocks only" and a category that said "spellcasters" if the spellcasters category only allowed spellcasters that had the specific spell the wand does on their class spell list?

It seems to me that they meant "spellcasters" to be any spellcaster class.

Some spells show up on multiple lists. Also, some classes (and feats) allow other spells to be added to someone's spell list. So I don't think it is redundant.

 

[machineelf]

Some spells show up on multiple lists. Also, some classes (and feats) allow other spells to be added to someone's spell list. So I don't think it is redundant.

Right, well that's why I said "somewhat redundant," but you're correct that it's not exactly the same thing. Still, I sort of dislike how limiting it makes those items less useful to a party, and unnecessarily so in my opinion. I'm also trying to understand what was intended by the rules designers, and it feels to me (I wish I could be less subjective than that) that they meant for the "spellcasters" designation to apply to spellcasters generally, or else they would have said "warlocks and wizards" or "druids and clerics and wizards," like they do with some items, to incorporate only those classes that have certain spells on their spell lists.

 

[machineelf]

Here's a second question. If I'm wrong, and I very well may be, then how do you deal with the problem of a party getting several magic items that are just useless to them. Limiting the "spellcasters" category that way would mean even more useless magic items could turn up on random magic item rolls.

 

[Mouseferatu]

Okay, maybe I'm missing something, but I'm finding nothing in the attunement rules to suggest that "having the spell on your class list" is a prerequisite. The only place it talks about such things is in the rules for monsters, and that's when a specific class is specified.

Barring any reference in the book that someone can point me to, I'd have to go with "spellcaster" just means "spellcaster," with no further consideration or limitation.

(Is it possible people are confusing the scroll rules--which do require a spell be on your class list--with the general ones?)

 

[Kobold Stew]

I would rule no but yes for the Eldritch Knight.

The Eldritch Knight casts spells. It is a spell caster.

Barring any reference in the book that someone can point me to, I'd have to go with "spellcaster" just means "spellcaster," with no further consideration or limitation.

Yes.

 

[Staffan]

AmerginLiath- I totally get your post. I would leave it up to the DM, if they want any spell caster to use a spell-caster Attunement item, go on and do it. The Attunement rule in the DMG specially is stating that if the class requirement is a spell casting class, the person qualifies if he uses spell slots and uses that class's spell list.

No, it doesn't. It states how you treat monsters with spellcasting. A PC is not a monster. The point of the rule is that, say, a Flameskull (which casts wizard spells and has proper casting slots, rather than the Innate Spellcasting trait) should be able to attune to magic items as well. If an item just says "requires attunement by a spellcaster," then any spellcaster will do. Bards, clerics, druids, eldritch knight fighters, paladins, rangers, arcane trickster rogues, sorcerers, warlocks, and wizards. Heck, I might even allow Totem Warrior barbarians and monks following the Way of Shadow or Way of the Four Elements (or any level 18+ monk for that matter), but that's pushing it.

 

[Uchawi]

I see it as a double standard, unless there are magic items with martial class restrictions. For example, a vorpal blade can only sever a limb with the appropriate investment in martial levels. Otherwise, it is just a sharp pointy blade for the untrained.

 

[aramis erak]

No, it doesn't. It states how you treat monsters with spellcasting. A PC is not a monster. The point of the rule is that, say, a Flameskull (which casts wizard spells and has proper casting slots, rather than the Innate Spellcasting trait) should be able to attune to magic items as well. If an item just says "requires attunement by a spellcaster," then any spellcaster will do. Bards, clerics, druids, eldritch knight fighters, paladins, rangers, arcane trickster rogues, sorcerers, warlocks, and wizards. Heck, I might even allow Totem Warrior barbarians and monks following the Way of Shadow or Way of the Four Elements (or any level 18+ monk for that matter), but that's pushing it.

By that standard, anyone can become a level 0 caster by taking the correct Magic Initiate type...