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

[jaelis]

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.

I wouldn't put it it that way myself, I would say that the person putting the spell in the ring sets those stats just like the creator of an item does. I would rather say that when the ring is used, the original caster is no longer involved. But, I'm not sure that is anything more than a semantic difference from what you say

(For instance, say the original caster levels up in the mean time and increases their casting ability... the DC of the stored spell would not change.)

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.

Also for the purpose of feats, class abilities, etc that might apply.

 

[MNblockhead]

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.

I didn't call anyone stupid.

But based on English and logic, how can the item's description be honestly interpreted as not involving two casters?

I posit that arguing otherwise indicates that you have not thought about it carefully or misread it. Bad logic or poor comprehension.

A: "1+1=2"
B: "No, it is still 1."
A: "That is not logical. Or perhaps you didn't understand what I'm saying."
B: "Don't call me stupid! Your opinion ceases to matter to me!"

Would it have mattered if I worded the phrase to say "despite the logical and plain English interpretation of the rules as written, your DM may still read them differently, or simply decide that he wants things to work differently in his campaign"? I feel that no matter how I word it, I'm going to offend some people because I don't think the meaning of words and the logical interpretation of language is purely a matter of opinion. Whether you feel those rules are "good" (well-written, enjoyable, sensible, etc.) is. And I don't begrudge you for playing the game in the way you enjoy.

Whether my opinion matters to you is not particularly important to me, but I have enjoyed the discussion and parsing out the description and thinking about how it could matter in a game. Exercises like these get the mind working and help me come up with ideas for my game. After a discussion like this, I can think of lots of ways to make use of a Ring of Spell Storing more interesting.

It is too bad that you were so turned off by that one line that you refuse to take part in the conversation. I am interested what makes you feel that the rest of my post was "meaningless jibber jabber." Despite your misuse of the word "jibber jabber", you obviously feel my points have no merit. Or you just don't find the discussion interesting or useful to you (in which case, why bother posting?) Or is it that you may have found the post worth discussing but that one turn of phrase was so offensive to you that you no longer find the rest of the post worthwhile?

For what its worth, I generally find your posts interesting—even those where the rules of logic and English prove your to be objectively wrong.

 

[Caliban]

I didn't call anyone stupid.

Sorry, your opinion on this topic is no longer relevant. Have a good day.

 

[guachi]

I wouldn't put it it that way myself, I would say that the person putting the spell in the ring sets those stats just like the creator of an item does. I would rather say that when the ring is used, the original caster is no longer involved. But, I'm not sure that is anything more than a semantic difference from what you say

(For instance, say the original caster levels up in the mean time and increases their casting ability... the DC of the stored spell would not change.)


Also for the purpose of feats, class abilities, etc that might apply.

I can see where the distinction might be useful. First level you casts firebolt into the ring (pretend this is something that would actually happen) and fifth level you discharges the spell. It still does 1d10 damage at whatever your attack bonus was at 1st level.

 

[Coroc]

How would you rule a potion of flying? Does the imbiber have to concentrate?
How would you rule a wand of magic missile? Do your metamagic apply? can you split a spell from a wand?
I would say the ring of spell storing uses the original casters DC and level. but it should rather work as a potion than a scroll read by the actual players char. So no concentration imho and no metamagic. Just replace the wording cast with unleash the charge. I am sure that this is for some reason not RAW but I would rule it like that.
Because for me as a DM a ring of spell storing is not an alternative to a scroll of bless only readable by the party cleric but an item to give a character a (or some) one shot spells he has no access to otherwise, no matter what class the PC is.
If I want to give out additional fireballs to a wizard I will let him find a wand not a ring of spellstoring. A ring of spell storing makes more sense from a plot view as a dm to allow e.g. for one or two single teleport spells or a disintegrate spell intended for an item or a via wall of force or a plane shift or a word of recall you get what I mean.

 

[Darkness]

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.

Sorry, your opinion on this topic is no longer relevant. Have a good day.

Keep it civil, please. Don't post if it's just to hassle your fellow posters.

 

[Harzel]

How would you rule a potion of flying? Does the imbiber have to concentrate?

RAW, as I read it, is no, and I would go with that.

How would you rule a wand of magic missile? Do your metamagic apply? can you split a spell from a wand?

RAW as I read it, yes and yes, and I would go with that.

I would say the ring of spell storing uses the original casters DC and level. but it should rather work as a potion than a scroll read by the actual players char. So no concentration imho and no metamagic. Just replace the wording cast with unleash the charge. I am sure that this is for some reason not RAW

Well the obvious reason would be that you changed the description, seemingly with the explicit intent of changing the meaning.

but I would rule it like that.

Ok, good to know. It's a notable change, but I don't think it will break anything. Getting rid of concentration will allow buff stacking, but that's true of potions as well.

Because for me as a DM a ring of spell storing is not an alternative to a scroll of bless only readable by the party cleric but an item to give a character a (or some) one shot spells he has no access to otherwise, no matter what class the PC is.
If I want to give out additional fireballs to a wizard I will let him find a wand not a ring of spellstoring. A ring of spell storing makes more sense from a plot view as a dm to allow e.g. for one or two single teleport spells or a disintegrate spell intended for an item or a via wall of force or a plane shift or a word of recall

Most of these will not fit in the 'standard' ring, so you'd have to tweak that, but I guess these might have just been examples off the top of your head.

you get what I mean.

Mmm, not sure. Seems like maybe you are saying you want all spell parameters fixed by the original caster, not dependent on the user of the ring. But to take one of your examples - normally, the chance for success of teleport is dependent on how familiar the caster is with the destination. Would you have that depend on the knowledge of the original caster or the user of the ring?

 

[Harzel]

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.

The original discussion seems sort of bizarre and pointless considering that the reply you got says "the spell has only 1 caster", and then promptly goes on to describe two casters. I mean, yes, the semantics of "The spell has two casters." is ambiguous. It can be clarified by context or subsequent explanation. Why is this a discussion?

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.

That seems to sum up the situation with respect to the original discussion nicely.

But the discussion this has spawned is interesting.

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?

Yes, in addition to things others have mentioned, there is one probably infrequent case that might bear some thought.

The spell uses the slot level, spell save DC, spell attack bonus, and spellcasting ability of the original caster, but is otherwise treated as if you cast the spell.

Slot level, spell save DC, and spell attack bonus are just numbers, so those seem pretty clear. But what are we to make of "spellcasting ability of the original caster"?

On a hit, the target takes force damage equal to 1d8 + your spellcasting ability modifier.

If "spellcasting ability of the original caster" literally means an "ability" (WIS, CHA, etc.) then the "spellcasting ability modifier" for Spiritual Weapon will be the ability modifier that the ring user has for the ability that the original caster used to cast the spell into the ring.

OTOH, if "spellcasting ability of the original caster" was intended to mean "spellcasting ability score of the original caster", then the "spellcasting ability modifier" will be the original caster's ability modifier.

I guess my bet is that the former is RAI since everywhere that I can think of "spellcasting ability" refers to an ability, not an ability score, and they could have said "ability score" or even "ability modifier" if that is what they meant. Although it does produce sort of a weird mash-up of the abilities of the original caster and the ring user.

Opinions?

 

[jaelis]

I would interpret any reference to spellcasting ability or spellcasting ability modifier to mean the original caster's spellcasting score.

So if a cleric stores Spiritual Weapon in the ring, the damage bonus is that cleric's wisdom mod, regardless of who is using the ring.

 

[MNblockhead]

How would you rule a potion of flying? Does the imbiber have to concentrate?
I would say the ring of spell storing uses the original casters DC and level. but it should rather work as a potion than a scroll read by the actual players char. So no concentration imho and no metamagic. Just replace the wording cast with unleash the charge. I am sure that this is for some reason not RAW but I would rule it like that.
Because for me as a DM a ring of spell storing is not an alternative to a scroll of bless only readable by the party cleric but an item to give a character a (or some) one shot spells he has no access to otherwise, no matter what class the PC is.
If I want to give out additional fireballs to a wizard I will let him find a wand not a ring of spellstoring. A ring of spell storing makes more sense from a plot view as a dm to allow e.g. for one or two single teleport spells or a disintegrate spell intended for an item or a via wall of force or a plane shift or a word of recall you get what I mean.

Regarding concentration:

According the Dungeon Master's Guide:

Some magic items allow the user to cast a spell from the item. The spell is cast at the lowest possible spell level, doesn't expend any of the user's spell slots, and requires no components, unless the item's description says otherwise. The spell uses its normal casting time, range, and duration, and the user of the item must concentrate if the spell requires concentration. Many items, such as potions, bypass the casting of a spell and confer the spell's effects, with their usual duration. Certain items make exceptions to these rules, changing the casting time, duration, or other parts of a spell. A magic item, such as certain staffs, may require you to use your own spellcasting ability when you cast a spell from the item. If you have more than one spellcasting ability, you choose which one to use with
the item. If you don't have a spellcasting ability-perhaps you're a rogue with the Use Magic Device feature- your spellcasting ability modifier is +0 for the item, and your proficiency bonus does apply.

DMG 141 (emphasis mine).

In the July 7th episode of Dragon Talk, Jeremy Crawford discusses magic items. Starting at 21:37 he discusses the reasoning behind the rule that a spell cast from a magic item that requires concentration requires the user who cast the spell from the magic item to use his or her concentration.

"If it is a spell that requires concentration, does the user of the magic item have to concentrate when they cast the spell from that magic item."

"The answer to that question is you do have to concentrate, unless the item says otherwise. And there are a few items that say you don't have to concentrate."

He says that they this is an issue they predicted when working on the DMG, which is why it is in the book.

"That is something that is at the heart of our design. Not only spell casting, but also with magic items, because you'll see how we limit concentration spells, how atunement works with magic items, we also want magic users in our game to have to make interesting and sometimes tough choices."

Potions are not an exception unless the descriptions specifies. For example:

POTION OF GASEOUS FORM
Potion, rare
When you drink this potion, you gain the effect of the gaseous form spell for 1 hour (no concentration required) or until you end the effect as a bonus action. This potion's container seems to hold fog that moves and pours like water.

With a potion of flying, however, the rule doesn't state that you gain the effect of the fly spell. It states that you gain a flying speed equal to your walking speed for one hour. I would argue that you would NOT have to concentrate.

Actually, it seems if most if not all of the potions in the DMG that have the imbiber gain the effects of a spell of concentration state that no concentration is required. None of the potion descriptions describe the imbiber as casting a spell, merely gaining the effects of the spell. To keep consistent with the general rule, they specifically state that no concentration is required when gaining the effects of a spell that would require concentration if cast.

This seems to be major benefit of potions over other magic items.

A ring of spell storing, however, seems to be clearly be an example where concentration is required, based on RAW.

A DM, however, is free to create magic items that operate differently.