D&D 5E Magic Items for a Warlock

[ElterAgo]

Our PC's have the opportunity to possibly get some uncommon magic items through a deal. But before making such a momentous decision, I need to check on some things.

Can a warlock use both a +1 Rod of the Pact Keeper and a +1 Wand of the War Mage.
Gaining a +2 to hit, ignore half cover, and can regain a warlock spell slot?

Can a warlock use a Pearl of Power to regain a spell slot of 1 level lower than expended?

Do you need shield proficiency to make use of the non-armor qualities of the Sentinel Shield or Spellguard Shield?

Other suggestions?

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Rod and Wand: Bonuses usually stack in 5e, so I don't see why not. It uses 2 of their 3 attunement slots, so it has a cost. You would need to use both hands - rod in one, wand in the other.

Pearl: This would restore a spell slot at either the warlock's spell slot level or 3rd, whichever is lower. So a 7th level warlock would cast a spell at 4th level and regain a 3rd level slot. In the unlikely event that the warlock does not know any spells of lower than 4th level they would be unable to cast a spell with the slot. The warlock can of course, always cast a spell at a level lower than the slot if they know one.

Shield: you cannot use these items without shield proficiency.

 

[Pauln6]

I'm not sure that you can be said to be using the wand and rod at the same time but considering the cost, I don't think it's unbalanced.

 

[Ganders]

I'm going to approach the rod/wand issue from a RAW perspective.

Rules-wise, yes, you can use both. Except for the fact that you need a free hand to cast spells and you don't have a free hand. I suppose you could cast a spell that had no somatic or material component, but it turns out there are very few verbal-only spells that use an attack roll.

Ideally, the War Caster feat would solve that problem by allowing you to cast spells with your hands full. But it only allows you to cast while holding weapon or shield. Neither of those magic items is a weapon or a shield. So actually, it's of no help whatsoever.

The first big fix your DM might approve is to allow the Rod to double as a club. This is based on the 'improvised weapon' rules, especially the part about allowing a table leg, or any similar size item, to count as an actual club. Since it's now a weapon, the War Caster feat applies.

The second big fix is to allow either the Wand or the Rod to double as a Focus Item. That neatly allows you you cast somatic spells with hands full (but only if there's a material component), and doesn't even need a feat to make it work. Since wands and rods are both on the list of arcane foci, it's easy to argue.

If the DM allows both fixes, you can get away with some amazing things, for instance a combo like Shillelagh, Dissonant Whispers, and Booming Blade with War Caster to get some very nice opportunity attacks.


If you approach this from RAI, you very quickly run into one issue: The unwritten assumption seems to be that when you use the Wand, you are actually incorporating it into the somatic components. Specifically, you point with the wand and the spell shoots out through the wand, and that improves your aim. And possibly the same with the Rod, you tend to assume that it will be used in such a way that the spell is channelled through the rod. So it's hard to imagine using both at once.

In the end, almost every table house-rules the 'hands-free' and/or 'spell components' parts of the rules, because they really aren't written well enough to handle edge cases. So it will end up working as well or as badly as the DM wishes.

 

[ElterAgo]

Ah, forgot about needing hands for spell casting. I probably won't take war caster. And we are inexperienced enough that we try not to need to modify rules if possible.

Ok, so I will just aim toward the rod.

Thanks folks.

 

[Esker]

A spare rod makes for a spoiled warlock.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

You can perform somatic components with a hand that is holding a material component or focus (PHB p203).

If dual wielding wands is good enough for Harry Potter it's good enough for D&D.

 

[Esker]

You can perform somatic components with a hand that is holding a material component or focus (PHB p203).

If dual wielding wands is good enough for Harry Potter it's good enough for D&D.

So you can cast... Witch Bolt, I guess? Strict RAW you can't cast VS only spells (like, say, Eldritch Blast) with a focus in your hand.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

The text in the PHB doesn't actually say the spell MUST have a material component in order to use the same hand for s and m components.

 

[Esker]

The text in the PHB doesn't actually say the spell MUST have a material component in order to use the same hand for s and m components.

The text in the PHB doesn't say anything at all about being able to perform somatic components with a hand that's holding a focus; it says you can interact with material components using the same hand that you're using to perform somatic components. I realize it's not the clearest, but that seems to imply that the "same hand" waiver is only relevant when you're performing material components. The Sage Advice Compendium clarifies this:

If the ... cleric casts cure wounds, she needs to put the mace or the shield away, because that spell doesn’t have a material component but does have a somatic component. She’s going to need a free hand to make the spell’s gestures. If she had the War Caster feat, she could ignore this restriction.

That said, ignoring this is, IME, one of the most common house rules. But there is at least one balance reason to stick to this RAW: spells like Shield and Absorb Elements (but especially Shield). It's very powerful to be a sword-and-board gish who can cast Shield on top of having armor and a physical shield. This rule imposes a cost (the War Caster feat) on being able to do that.