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

[FormerlyHemlock]

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.

Well, for instance, it could affect whether Disciple of Life triggers when you add a spell to the ring or not.

 

[jaelis]

The wizard casts the spell when the ring is charged. The fighter casts the spell when the ring is discharged.

So sure, there are two casters, but they are doing different things at different times, there shouldn't be any room for confusion.

In your temple, the wizard would die if he tried to charge the ring, the fighter would die if he tried to use it.

 

[ClaytonCross]

The wizard casts the spell when the ring is charged. The fighter casts the spell when the ring is discharged.

So sure, there are two casters, but they are doing different things at different times, there shouldn't be any room for confusion.

In your temple, the wizard would die if he tried to charge the ring, the fighter would die if he tried to use it.

I would argue that unlocking a spell is not spellcasting and the "curse" would attack the ring. This makes consumable/discharge items unusually use full in this rare case. Similarly, even though you drink a healing potion and receive magical healing, you are not casting a healing spell. That said, I agree that unlocking stored magic with a key word etc does not give you access to metamagic or other abilities that effect spells you cast. If the item says it uses your abilities and is effected by such things it would trigger a curse against you.

 

[jaelis]

Well the ring says when you use it, you cast the spell. Many other items use similar language, but potions do not.

 

[MNblockhead]

Does the gun fire the bullet or the person pulling the trigger?

A gun doesn't shoot by itself. A ring of spell storing doesn't fire off a spell on its own. To call a non-sentient ring of spell storing a "caster" is an illiteracy.

Perhaps a better analogy is a tape recorder.

I'm going to Russia. I can't speak Russian, so I ask a native-speaker of Russian to record a number of helpful phrases in Russian: a proposal for romantic activity, a request for directions to the nearest toilette, some profanity to cuss someone out, a request for medical attention, etc. I have buttons on my tape player that I can press to play the phrase I want.

If I play the recorded romantic proposal to an attractive woman, who turns out to be married, is the husband going to blame the tape recorder, the original speaker, or me—the person who pressed play while directing his wife's attention to it?

In the tape recorder example there are two communicators. The first is the Russian speaker who voiced the words, which were captured by the recorder, but not yet delivered to a recipient as a meaningful communication. The second is me, who pressed the button to play those words in a certain context, directed at one or more specific recipients. I'm not able to voice the Russian words with sufficient fluency to be understood, but am able to press a button and deliver a message.

Similarly, the original spell caster is fluent in a specific spell that I do not know. She casts it at the ring, which stores it. But the spell has not been directed at a target and has not impacted the world at this point, beyond being stored. It requires a second caster, who need not be fluent in the spell, but only attuned (i.e., knows how to use) the ring. The second caster selects the time, place, and target (if applicable) for the spell.

The temple curse discussed above should clearly affect the second castor, as THAT is the caster who cast the spell within the temple. There is some room for argument that BOTH casters may be affected (I wouldn't rule that way), but it would be illogical to claim that the second caster isn't a caster.

If the second caster has class abilities that can affect the spell, I would rule that his abilities apply to the stored spell when cast from the ring, even though the spell level, saving throw DC, and attack bonus is that of the first caster.

To beat a dead horse further:

• The ammunition manufacturer creates the cartridge, which will determine the velocity, penetration, expansion, and other aspects of the bullet's performance. The shooter provides the aim and the decision to pull the trigger.
• The speaker provides the language fluency, as well as the pleasantness, variation, and clarity of voice. The player provides audibility (via volume controls, selection of environment, etc.), audience, and venue.
• Caster 1 gives the spell power. Caster 2 decides the time, place, and target at which the spell is released / fired / cast.

TWO casters. It is RAW and, in this case, I strongly agree with the RAW.

Of course, your DM may decide otherwise. This may be either because he suffers from poor logic and poor English comprehension, or because he simply wants things to work different in his campaign. Either way, you just have to roll with it.

It is rarely going to come up in a game and when it does . . . well, few DMs are going to give it the amount of thought we have in this thread.

 

[CapnZapp]

*backs slowly out of thread*

Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app

 

[Guest 6801328]

Here's one: Mage Slayer.

Do you get a reaction attack against somebody using a Ring of Spell Storing?

 

[Caliban]

Meaningless jibber jabber...

Of course, your DM may decide otherwise. This may be either because he suffers from poor logic and poor English comprehension, or because he simply wants things to work different in his campaign. Either way, you just have to roll with it.

Ah yes, preemptively calling anyone who disagrees with you stupid. It was at this point your opinion on the topic ceased to matter to me.

 

[jaelis]

Here's one: Mage Slayer.

Do you get a reaction attack against somebody using a Ring of Spell Storing?

Sure!

Here's some other similar thoughts from twitter:

Q: is it possible to counterspell a magic item? Such as staff of the magi or staff of fire?
Mearls: Only if the magic item specifically says it allows you to cast a spell.

Q: Does casting a spell from a scroll, wand, etc. trigger arcane ward? Can magic item spells be twinned?
Crawford: Arcane Ward/Twinned Spell works when you cast a qualifying spell. It even works when an item says you cast one.

Q: forgive me if you have answered this before but does the counterspell work against wands? And the like?
Crawford: Counterspell targets a creature casting a spell, no matter the source of the spell (the creature, an item, etc.).

Q: Does casting Wish from a magic item (scroll, Luck Blade, Ring) have the same negative effects as the spell?
Mearls: yes, if the item specifies that you are casting the spell and makes no other exceptions

It seems pretty consistent that when an item says you cast a spell you do, in fact, cast the spell

 

[guachi]

So the person putting the spell in the ring is the caster for purposes of determining spell used, level of spell slot used, attack roll or save DC.

The person using the spell in the ring is the caster for purposes of targeting. Can the target be seen? Is it a valid target? Is it in range? He is also the caster for purposes of concentration.

Is that about right? Have I missed anything else?