D&D 5E "I am the one who casts!" (Ring of Spell Storing)

[James Gasik]

Ok, so, the Ring of Spell Storing. I can't have a single discussion about this item without getting into a stupid argument about it. Today, there was this exchange:

A spellcaster can cast a spell into the ring (direct quote: "any creature can cast a spell of 1st through 5th level by touching the ring as the spell is cast"). It uses their spell attack bonus and save DC when you use the ring, because that is set when the spell was cast.

HOWEVER, when you use the ring, you cast the spell (direct quote: "while wearing the ring you can cast any spell stored in it"). If it has concentration, you are the one who is concentrating on the spell.

So in this instance, the spell technically has two casters. The original caster, and the current one.

The reply:

No. The spell only has 1 caster. The first time it's cast into the ring, there is only one caster, and the time that the Attuned user casts the spell stored within the ring, it uses the Slot Level, DC, Attack Bonus, and Spellcasting Ability of the original caster but is otherwise treated as if you cast the spell.

There are no "two casters", there is the caster of the original spell, and the caster of the stored spell.

My confusion:

The ring uses the word "cast" both for the person placing the spell into the ring and the person who unleashes it's power later. If I cast, I am casting, and have cast. Does that not make me a caster? Especially since the ring wearer has to maintain concentration on the spell, you know, as if they cast it.

So who is the caster of the spell? Maybe I need to take a refresher course in English or something because it really sounds like a stored spell has two casters, by definition.

 

[LordEntrails]

I don't understand what your play related question is...

Are you worried about semantics or do you want to know who has to maintain concentration? The person who casts the spell using the ring (your second caster) is the one who has to maintain concentration. The other caster simple charged the ring with the spell (and therefore determined the spells casting DC, effects, etc).

 

[James Gasik]

No, I know the ring wearer has to use their concentration. There's no real ulterior motive here, there was a discussion about stored spells and who is considered the caster, and I brought up the Ring, the wording of which (to me, at least) implies that both the supplier of the spell and the ring wearer are said to cast the spell.

And then the reply, which just threw me for a loop- so 'casting' a spell does not make you a 'caster' of a spell...?

Enter this thread, where I try to get a second opinion (or maybe just get told I'm wrong some more, lol).

 

[jgsugden]

Let us know where you see a mechanical impact relating to whether there is 1 or 2 casters and we can look into it. Otherwise, the answer is that it doesn't matter.

 

[James Gasik]

Oh well, I was just weighing in on an argument in progress, I'm not sure what the actual point of contention was, lol. I just figured, hey, here's an example of this sort of thing...

And got told point blank that casting a spell does not make you a caster. I mean, with regards to the Ring, I guess some argument could come up with regards to Evocation Wizards or Life Clerics or any other game element that reads "when you cast x, y happens".

The Ring only talks about inheriting the save DC, spell slot, attack bonus and Spellcasting Ability, it doesn't go into things like "you may add your Int mod to the damage roll".

 

[Caliban]

Generally speaking, I interpret the "you cast a spell from a magic item" language to be mean "you activate the item and the item casts the spell".

Some magic items allow the user to Cast a Spell from the item...

You aren't the actual caster, the item is - so class abilities like the Life domain , Sorcerer Metamagic, or the lvl 10 Evocation Wizard ability don't apply.

However, I also consider the Ring of Spell Storying an exception to that rule. It specifically states "...but is otherwise treated as if you cast the spell." So there is only one caster - the person who casts it out of the ring. And if they are a Life Domain cleric, a Sorcerer, or a lvl 10 Evocation Wizard, then their class abilities apply as if they cast the spell.

YMMV.

 

[Greenstone.Walker]

I can think of one situation where the meaning of "caster" might be important, and that is attuning to items.

Having a ring of spell storing is not a prerequisite for an item that "requires attunement by a spellcaster". To attune to the item, you have to have "Spellcasting" as a feature (most of the time this is from your class).

 

[SkidAce]

Interesting.

So you are in a cursed temple, and anyone who casts a spell dies.

Does the person who charged the ring or the ring user die?

 

[Caliban]

Interesting.

So you are in a cursed temple, and anyone who casts a spell dies.

Does the person who charged the ring or the ring user die?

By my interpretation, the "...but is otherwise treated as if you cast the spell." bit of text means you would die. Hopefully there is a saving throw or upfront warning, I'd be complaining about the DM.

 

[SkidAce]

Hopefully there is a saving throw or upfront warning, I'd be complaining about the DM.

Ohh, of course....a cursed temple is useless for the story if there are no legends of the curse.