D&D (2024) Defining a "Spellcaster"

[Ashrym]

So...

If a creature must be a spellcaster to attune to an item, the creature qualifies if it can cast at least one spell using its traits or features

• Path of the Wild Heart Barbarians qualify as spellcasters for attunement starting from 3rd level.
• Psi Warrior Fighters qualify as spellcasters for attunement starting at 18th level even though they have magic actions earlier
• Warrior of Shadow and Warrior of the Elements Monks qualify as spellcasters for attunement starting from 3rd level.
• Soulknife Rogues do not qualify as spellcasters for attunement despite having magic actions.
• Aasimar, Elves, Gnomes, and Tieflings all qualify as spellcasters for attunement.
• Backgrounds that include Magic Initiate or taking the Magic Initiate feat through other means qualifies the character as a spellcaster for attunement.
• The Fey-Touched, Ritual Caster, Shadow-Touched, Telekinetic, and Telepathic feats qualify the character as a spellcaster for attunement.

It seems to me that this would have been better off as a tag on classes, subclasses, et al. However, any thoughts on what magic item combinations might come up with some of these options?

 

[Yaarel]

For me, a "mage" is any character that wields "magic". (Wielding a magic item doesnt count.)

So, a Psi Warrior is a mage, but isnt a spellcaster unless, mechanically, actually casting a spell from the spell list.

Elves, Aasimar, Tieflings, etal, are "spellcasters", even when casting spells innately.

 

[jmartkdr2]

I understand why they didn't go with a tags system: it doesn't look like a fantasy book if you do that. I know that's not a great reason, but it's a big part of why so many players didn't like 4e.

As for combos - I'd need to see the list of magic items. Mot such items either expand one's spellcasting in small ways (ie pearl of power) or have more stringent requirements (ie staff of healing) in the 2014 rules.

 

[Gorck]

If I had to make a determination for this in my game, I would say that a "Spellcaster" is anyone who has either the Spellcasting or Pact Magic class feature (or subclass feature like the Eldritch Knight and Arcane Trickster).

 

[GMMichael]

I don't know about the player side, but casting one spell is what NPCs do to become fantasy NPCs, not "spellcasters." Wanna make your " ice wolf" cool? Give it an ice spell. That doesn't make it a spellcaster though, and it doesn't need to be attuning magic items.

 

[Distracted DM]

If I had to make a determination for this in my game, I would say that a "Spellcaster" is anyone who has either the Spellcasting or Pact Magic class feature (or subclass feature like the Eldritch Knight and Arcane Trickster).

That's probably the best definition I've seen.

 

[Umbran]

I don't know about the player side, but casting one spell is what NPCs do to become fantasy NPCs, not "spellcasters." Wanna make your " ice wolf" cool? Give it an ice spell. That doesn't make it a spellcaster though, and it doesn't need to be attuning magic items.

Well, if you don't want an NPC to be attuning items, as the GM you just don't give them attuned items, and you're done. You don't need to justify it. The rules interpretation is only necessary for clearing up which PCs can attune items for Spellcasters, if they want to use them.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I understand why they didn't go with a tags system: it doesn't look like a fantasy book if you do that. I know that's not a great reason, but it's a big part of why so many players didn't like 4e.

I mean, it's doubly not-great because several extremely popular, well-received computer games--including the riotously successful BG3--specifically use a tag system. Nobody complains BG3 stopped being D&D because it includes tags.

Seems to me, if classic D&D fans find tags offensive...maybe the problem isn't that tags are bad. They're quite useful, and one of the best ad campaigns D&D has ever had used them pretty extensively.

 

[DEFCON 1]

I make it easy on myself. I don't worry about it. If a player wants their PC to attune to a magic item then I almost never are concerned whether they are "the right person to do so" (via requirements or whatnot.) Especially considering my players are pretty good about divvying up loot so it goes to what they feel are the right characters to have them... and that usually means the so-called attunement requirements get followed anyway. So needing "official" or "more clear" rules on the subject is not anything to me personally.

Obviously other players would prefer the game to be more codified and stringent on who gets what things and the best ways to indicate that via the rulebooks and whatnot... and that's fine. But it's not anything I'm ever going to concern myself about.