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

[Staffan]

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.

They're generally already restricted by weapon/armor proficiencies. Your wizard isn't going to be able to use a sword of sharpness properly, because wizards don't fight with swords. And martial classes have other benefits when it comes to using magic weapons, notably the Extra Attack feature - a Cleric of War might be able to use a vorpal sword, but a high-level (11+) fighter gets to use it three times per round.

 

[Staffan]

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

You say that as if it were a bad thing.

 

[thalmin]

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?)

Probably. Of course, the DM can always create various restrictions for magic items, so not a bad idea to decide for oneself. I will have some restrictions for my campaign, but, with rare possible exceptions, I will not place magic items the party will not be able to use, unless they are not supposed to use it (i.e. a crown they are sent after that will only work for the royal blood line).

 

[BrockBallingdark]

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.

I wrote what the DMG stated, so they used "monster", instead of "opponent" or "creature" or "foe".

So you're saying that monsters should be the main focus with attuning to magic items, so the DMG went with focusing on them over the PCs? They could have chosen the word: foe, opponent, or creature in its place but used monsters.

But you know what's cool about 5th Ed? You and I get to do it the way we think it works in our realms. I play a Wizard mostly and I'd hate to see a Bard or Ranger or even a Druid using a wand that casts spells that a Wizard uses. If it's a spell in their spell list, that's fine but then why need a wizard?

Aramis Erak made a valid point, what if someone took the Magic Initiate Feat, let's say a Ranger, then he could use a Wand of Fireballs. If you think that's fine to do in your world, go for it. I'm not going to do that in mine.

 

[BrockBallingdark]

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?)

I'm the one that stated this. Take a look at pg 136 and 138 in the DMB, it's not in the Scrolls rules section. It's in the Magic Items- Attunement section.

"If the prerequisite is a class, a creature must be a member of that class to attune to the item. (If the class is a spell casting class, a monster qualifies if that monster has spell slots and uses that class's spell list.)

 

[thalmin]

I plan to make many items attunable. A simple +1 item may also be attunable with prequisites. When a character reaches a certain level (or class or specific spellcasting ability), additional powers (or +'s) can be unlocked when attuned.

 

[Jaelommiss]

I'm the one that stated this. Take a look at pg 136 and 138 in the DMB, it's not in the Scrolls rules section. It's in the Magic Items- Attunement section.

"If the prerequisite is a class, a creature must be a member of that class to attune to the item. (If the class is a spell casting class, a monster qualifies if that monster has spell slots and uses that class's spell list.)"

Note that using a specific spell list is only taken into consideration for items that require a specific class for attunement. It makes sense that only creatures using the wizard spell list would qualify for magic items that can only be attuned to by wizards.

For items that require spellcasting to attune I would require the creature to have either the spellcasting feature or pact magic. For players this would come from one of their classes. Since the magic initiate feat and ritual caster feats do not grant the spellcasting or pact magic features I would not consider martial characters with them to be spellcasters. I also would not allow high elves, drow, forest gnomes, or tieflings to qualify despite having innate spells.

 

[Mouseferatu]

I'm the one that stated this. Take a look at pg 136 and 138 in the DMB, it's not in the Scrolls rules section. It's in the Magic Items- Attunement section.

"If the prerequisite is a class, a creature must be a member of that class to attune to the item. (If the class is a spell casting class, a monster qualifies if that monster has spell slots and uses that class's spell list.)

Yes, I read that. It doesn't limit PCs the way you're saying it does. "Monster" has a specific meaning in D&D, and it's not the same as "any creature."

So for two reasons, that doesn't apply. 1) it's talking about monsters with specific spells but no class levels, like the aforementioned flameskull.

2) It's talking about prerequisites of a specific class. The prerequisite "spellcaster" is not a specific class.

As you said, though, play how you want to play.

 

[Gradine]

I'm the one that stated this. Take a look at pg 136 and 138 in the DMB, it's not in the Scrolls rules section. It's in the Magic Items- Attunement section.

"If the prerequisite is a class, a creature must be a member of that class to attune to the item. (If the class is a spell casting class, a monster qualifies if that monster has spell slots and uses that class's spell list.)

There's a few things wrong here with this interpretation. First, this isn't 3rd edition, and monsters and PCs follow different rules. Most monsters don't pick up PC levels, but a lich should probably be able to use a wand that requires attunement by a wizard, so there needs to be a rule for that. This is that rule.

But here's the other, more important thing. "Spellcaster" is not a class. It is legally someone who can cast spells. Nothing more, nothing less. So that includes any class with full, half or even third spellcasting. It includes any monsters with the ability to cast spells. It includes the barbarian that took Magic Initiate or Spell Sniper or Ritual Caster.

Interestingly enough, it includes High Elves and Forest Gnomes and Tieflings too, which I think is pretty interesting commentary on the inherent magic of these races.

 

[Rune]

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

You say that like it's a problem. You are talking about spending a feat to be able use a subset of magic items.