D&D 5E RAW: Spell attack rolls modifiers stack?

[Caliban]

Do as you wish but all I can say is that I'd treat these bonuses the same as a regular weapon bonus. Holding two +1 short swords doesn't give you a total +2 to hit, it gives you a +1 to hit with each. Each time you cast an attack spell you'd have to choose whether to use the rod's bonus of the staff's bonus.

This. I think RAW allows them to stack, but I have no problem house ruling that in my game, and think any sane DM should do the same.

 

[RedShirtNo5.1]

It's important for answers to be Rules as Written (RAW).

No it isn't.

 

[WilliamCQ]

No it isn't.

AFAIK a thread is made on the basis that it will be centered on the title and the OP. You may create a thread with the same name w/o the prepending RAW.

 

[Ganymede81]

AFAIK a thread is made on the basis that it will be centered on the title and the OP. You may create a thread with the same name w/o the prepending RAW.

Alas, that's not how it works in practice. Consider yourself lucky you learned this lesson only 41 posts in.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

My questions are:
1. What DM is giving out both of these items in one campaign?
2. Assuming there’s a good reason for these items both being awarded in a single campaign, what party is not sharing these items between two spellcasters?

 

[RedShirtNo5.1]

Alas, that's not how it works in practice. Consider yourself lucky you learned this lesson only 41 posts in.

I certainly think that threadcrapping is possible when disagreeing with the premise of a thread. For example, if someone asks for advice on how to build a fighter, then being told to play a wizard instead is pretty clearly threadcrapping. RAW discussions were common in 3e (and Caliban who already posted is probably the best RAW interpreter I ever saw). But in 5e, where "As a referee, the DM interprets the rules and decides when to abide by them and when to change them," pointing out that OP's premise is flawed isn't threadcrapping. If WilliamCQ is asking as a player, then the DM can make a ruling regardless of RAW (and even in Adventurer League, I don't think there would be any question that this is an interpretation issue open to the DM discretion). If WilliamCQ is asking as a DM, then again, what the RAW is, while interesting, is less important than the factors in making a good decision. If WilliamCQ disagrees, he can report me and we'll let Morrus sort it out.

 

[WilliamCQ]

Perhaps next time I have a RAW question I should include something like: RAI & RAF is no help to me; it's very easy to create another thread with the same name replacing RAW by RAI & RAF.

Sarcasm doesn't always go through by text, I won't do that. However I think pointing to the most important part of the OP and saying it's invalid is flaming.

 

[cbwjm]

If you want RAW for this question then prepare to be disappointed because as far as I know there aren't any. There is something about being unable to stack the same spells but as magical items aren't spells that doesn't apply. This is a case where it is less RAW/RAI/RAF and more DM judgement.

 

[Bardbarian]

The simple version is RAW they stack because there is no RAW source that says they don't. Some DMs can customize rules as they see fit or make interpretations of rulings to fit their playstyle but there is no Raw source that covers this so there is nor reason in the books they do not stack.

 

[machineelf]

They are essentially two separate foci, you can use one or the other but you can't duel wield them for twice the bonus.

I like this answer. The player is not using both as a foci at the same time if two magical items give bonuses in magical attacks. But I think pdegan2814 nails it with his answer. They are not both given out the same kind of bonuses, it seems.