D&D 5E Wand of the War Mage +1

[CapnZapp]

Rod of the pact keeper for warlocks.

Thanks.

So barring this exception there really isn't anything comparable to a +1 weapon for spellcasters in this edition.

(Since spells with saves are much more common and thus important than spells with attack rolls, I mean. I am fully aware the war mage wand is mechanically just that. I just think getting a +1 to attacks isn't "the +1" a spellcaster wants... Not yet, in any case. If and when there are lots more spells-with-attacks this may change)

 

[famousringo]

It would mean that the wizard has to put down the component pouch and pick up the wand in order to actually gain the benefit of it. It's not like you have to make a selection at level 1, and then you can never change your mind. All wizards are proficient with wands and staves and component pouches.

It's kind of like a fighter who chooses a battle axe at level 1, and then finds a magic longsword.

Your ruling makes pretty good sense, except...

Would that mean Chromatic Orb cannot possibly gain the bonus to attack because the 50GP gem it requires precludes the use of a focus to cast the spell? A niche case of a spell with both a GP material component and an attack roll, but still kind of a lame deal.

 

[seebs]

Interesting point. I think you can probably use both the material component AND the focus. Or just glue the gem to the focus.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Would that mean Chromatic Orb cannot possibly gain the bonus to attack because the 50GP gem it requires precludes the use of a focus to cast the spell? A niche case of a spell with both a GP material component and an attack roll, but still kind of a lame deal.

That's something for the DM to decide. The rules are kind of vague about it. Personally, I would rule that you can still use the wand as your focus, as long as your other hand is free to manipulate the expensive component.

The rules just say that you need to provide the component, and not that it must be used as the focus for the spell. And yes, that's very similar to the sort of logic that would allow a cleric or whatever to gain the bonus from the wand without using at as a focus, but this is 1) one specific corner-case spell; and, 2) vastly simpler than needing to track a different spellcasting attack bonus for every spell.

 

[famousringo]

Thanks.

So barring this exception there really isn't anything comparable to a +1 weapon for spellcasters in this edition.

(Since spells with saves are much more common and thus important than spells with attack rolls, I mean. I am fully aware the war mage wand is mechanically just that. I just think getting a +1 to attacks isn't "the +1" a spellcaster wants... Not yet, in any case. If and when there are lots more spells-with-attacks this may change)

IMO, it's scary enough pitting a non-proficient, non-scaling save against a caster's scaling save DC. High level casters would be devastating if they could apply their strong stat, proficient save DC against a target's non-proficient weak stat and then pile another +3 bonus on top. Gods save the poor bastard if that caster can apply disadvantage somehow.

Probably a good idea to keep save DC bonuses off the table.

 

[KarinsDad]

I would argue that you need to actually be using the wand as your focus in order to gain the bonus for your spell, for the exact same reason that holding a +1 dagger doesn't confer a +1 bonus to hit and damage with the battle axe you have in your other hand.

That's just me, though. It's not something I would really care about, if the DM ruled it the other way.

Except that the magic item itself appears to indicate that any spell caster can use it (as per the attunement section and the straight up text of the item).

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Except that the magic item itself appears to indicate that any spell caster can use it (as per the attunement section and the straight up text of the item).

Does the item also specify that it can be used as a focus, even if your class can't normally use a wand as a focus? If not, then the easiest solution is probably to assume that you can. That would make way more sense than a cleric waving a holy symbol and gaining a bonus from the wand in her back pocket.

 

[Uller]

Your ruling makes pretty good sense, except...

Would that mean Chromatic Orb cannot possibly gain the bonus to attack because the 50GP gem it requires precludes the use of a focus to cast the spell? A niche case of a spell with both a GP material component and an attack roll, but still kind of a lame deal.

I don't think so. Here's the relevant rules:

Material Components:

Casting some spells requires particular objects,
specified in parentheses in the component entry.
A character can use a component pouch or a
spellcasting focus (found in chapter 5) in place of
the components specified for a spell. But if a cost is
indicated for a component, a character must have that
specific component before he or she can cast the spell.

Chromatic Orb requires a 50gp diamond. Okay. So you must have a 50 gp diamond...I'd say presumably in your hand. You can also have a wand in your hand. I see no reason you can't gain the benefits of a magic spell casting focus such as a wand of the war mage while simultaneously using components that have a gp value.

 

[Beleriphon]

I think it was a 4e thing, but I don't remember that being a playtest thing.

Definitely 4E, but only because the different implements did different things.

 

[miniaturehoarder]

Your ruling makes pretty good sense, except...

Would that mean Chromatic Orb cannot possibly gain the bonus to attack because the 50GP gem it requires precludes the use of a focus to cast the spell? A niche case of a spell with both a GP material component and an attack roll, but still kind of a lame deal.

I'd say it's fine since few other spells give one so many choices for what energy to deal.