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

[machineelf]

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?

To be fair, these questions are not really relevant to the question at hand, and they side-step the rules-question. It may not be likely that both weapons are discovered by a party in a single campaign, or given to the same player, but both things are totally possible.

 

[Harzel]

Conceptually, they stack since as others have said there is nothing RAW that says they don't. However, I'm not sure that the caster* would have the necessary hand free to make the gestures for a spell that has a Somatic component and/or hold material components or a spell focus for a spell that has Material components. Those considerations are part of RAW even though a fair number of DMs** are inclined to ignore them.

* Assuming he has two or fewer prehensile appendages
** Sometimes including me.

 

[WilliamCQ]

Harzel thank you. I already knew about the intricacies of dual-wielding 2 magical staff but I could just as well not knew about it.

 

[Li Shenron]

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.

Why would I not be "sane" if I let them stack? They are both high-level magic items that count against your attunement limit and you need to wield them both simultaneously, which means you can cast only spells without somatic/material components.

I quickly checked from Donjon spells list and how many Warlock spells require an attack roll and no somatic/material components? Zero.

So I guess that this could be an issue only if your PC has a way to bypass those components. Maybe there's a Warlock invocation somewhere that allows so, but otherwise I think it would come up only in the very specific case of a multiclass Sorcerer/Warlock that has the right metamagic ability.

 

[pdegan2814]

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.

This isn't how it works. The description for a +1 weapon says it gives you a +1 bonus to attack and damage rolls made WITH that weapon. The Rod and the Staff grant their bonus to your spell attack modifier simply by holding the items. They say nothing about limiting the bonus to when you use that item as an arcane focus.

 

[jaelis]

Obviously the DM decides how their table will play, and not letting the rod and staff stack seems reasonable to me.

But there is a RAW answer here, it is not ambiguous. It is spelled out explicitly in Xanathar's:

Different game effects can affect a target at the same time. For example, two different benefits can give you a bonus to your Armor Class. But when two or more effects have the same proper name, only one of them applies while the durations of the effects overlap.

If you disagree with that, does that mean you don't let a ring of protection stack with magic armor?

Also, both the rod and staff simply need to be held. They don't need to be wielded or used as a focus. And both can be used as a focus, though, so there is no problem with supplying S,M components (except for costly material components, perhaps).

 

[Caliban]

So I guess that this could be an issue only if your PC has a way to bypass those components. Maybe there's a Warlock invocation somewhere that allows so, but otherwise I think it would come up only in the very specific case of a multiclass Sorcerer/Warlock that has the right metamagic ability.

You can do a spells somatic components using the same hand you are holding a spellcasting focus with. A staff is an arcane spellcasting focus. Per the PHB, page 203:

A spellcaster must have a hand free to access a spell’s material components—or to hold a spellcasting focus—but it can be the same hand that he or she uses to perform somatic components.

The bit about holding a spellcasting focus is not in the 1st printing of the PHB, but it is in the errata document and later printings.

 

[Caliban]

This isn't how it works. The description for a +1 weapon says it gives you a +1 bonus to attack and damage rolls made WITH that weapon. The Rod and the Staff grant their bonus to your spell attack modifier simply by holding the items. They say nothing about limiting the bonus to when you use that item as an arcane focus.

You obviously didn't understand what I was saying.

 

[Sorcerers Apprentice]

You can do a spells somatic components using the same hand you are holding a spellcasting focus with. A staff is an arcane spellcasting focus. Per the PHB, page 203:



The bit about holding a spellcasting focus is not in the 1st printing of the PHB, but it is in the errata document and later printings.

An Arcane Focus can be a staff, but that doesn't mean every staff is an arcane focus. RAW only the specific item listed as "Arcane Focus" in the PHB equipment list is actually an arcane focus, that and a few other items that are specifically listed as being a focus, such as the bladelock's Pact Blade. I couldn't find any rule saying that a magic staff works as an arcane focus, enlighten me if you know of such a rule.

 

[jaelis]

An Arcane Focus can be a staff, but that doesn't mean every staff is an arcane focus. RAW only the specific item listed as "Arcane Focus" in the PHB equipment list is actually an arcane focus, that and a few other items that are specifically listed as being a focus, such as the bladelock's Pact Blade. I couldn't find any rule saying that a magic staff works as an arcane focus, enlighten me if you know of such a rule.

Well, the staff of power says it is a staff, and a staff is a focus. Your argument sounds kind of like saying that a magic sword doesn't count as a martial weapon because it is a "magic sword" not a sword. Similarly for the rod.

 

[Caliban]

An Arcane Focus can be a staff, but that doesn't mean every staff is an arcane focus. RAW only the specific item listed as "Arcane Focus" in the PHB equipment list is actually an arcane focus, that and a few other items that are specifically listed as being a focus, such as the bladelock's Pact Blade. I couldn't find any rule saying that a magic staff works as an arcane focus, enlighten me if you know of such a rule.

What an inane level of nit picking. I already said I wouldn't let this work, why are you choosing my posts to jump on? But, since you insist:

If you want to pretend a "Staff of Power" that specifically gives a bonus to spell attack rolls and is described as a "staff that can be wielded as a magic quarterstaff" isn't a "specially constructed staff" that could be used as an arcane spellcasting focus, more power to you. I think it's moronic, but go ahead.

But even then, a Rod specifically is a spellcasting focus, and the other item in this scenario is a "Rod of the Pact Keeper".

Are you also going to try and claim that the "Rod of the Pact Keeper" isn't actually a spellcasting focus?

 

[5ekyu]

Hmmm... personally i would not have any problem with a character using any eligible object, magic or not, as an arcane focus *especially if* they were attuned to it as long as its cost is at least as high as the Arcane focus.

Whether or not that is RAW, RAI, RAF or just "not violating my stupid rule" is left to others to fret over.

 

[Li Shenron]

You can do a spells somatic components using the same hand you are holding a spellcasting focus with. A staff is an arcane spellcasting focus.

Maybe I have overlooked something all this time, but an arcane focus can be a staff (among other things), but it's not true that every staff is an arcane focus.

I don't think the Staff of the Magi specifically says it can be used as an arcane focus, so it's up to the DM to decide if it can.

 

[jaelis]

Hmm. Could a warlock use an immovable rod as a spellcasting focus?

 

[Li Shenron]

Are you also going to try and claim that the "Rod of the Pact Keeper" isn't actually a spellcasting focus?

Well I guess discussing is just getting irritating now...

...all I wanted to say is that until today I've never thought about it because we've never found a magic staff or rod, but at the same time I always just thought that your arcane focus was your arcane focus, and that the shape was merely a cosmetic choice. I didn't even think that if you find a magic rod you can use that as an arcane focus, I just assumed they'd be separate objects. The whole spellcasting focus idea is crapped all over anyway, thanks to semi-flavor text like the one that allows a holy symbol (but not an arcane or druidic focus) to be simply worn. Obviously, I wouldn't have problems allowing a mundane staff to be used also as an arcane focus, considering that the Wizard is hardly ever going to take much advantage out of that combination. But since the point of the matter is how to deal with a potentially too-good stacking of two magic items, why not using this as a restriction?

 

[jaelis]

But since the point of the matter is how to deal with a potentially too-good stacking of two magic items, why not using this as a restriction?

Well it seems pretty crappy to give a caster either one of those items and then say they can't use it as a focus, and thus tying up both their hands. Plus it would look stupid.

I think a more reasonable restriction is to say that both items can be used as a focus, and that you only get the bonus when you use them as a focus to cast a spell. But that is an issue for V-only spells, since nominally you can't use a focus with them. I would fix that by saying you can use a focus with any spell if you want.

 

[Caliban]

Maybe I have overlooked something all this time, but an arcane focus can be a staff (among other things), but it's not true that every staff is an arcane focus.

I don't think the Staff of the Magi specifically says it can be used as an arcane focus, so it's up to the DM to decide if it can.

Now you are just repeating yourself. So I will repeat myself. If you truly want to pretend that a magical staff of power, created specifically to aid in the casting of spells, is not also an arcane focus, then go ahead.

Don't expect me to take your opinion seriously though.

 

[Li Shenron]

Now you are just repeating yourself.

No, I am another poster. I just didn't notice his previous answer.

 

[Li Shenron]

Anyway [MENTION=284]Caliban[/MENTION] I am sorry if I made you mad. This is why I hate the RAW, it always only causes trouble. But unfortunately the whole thread started off as a request to handle it within the RAW, and so I went along with it.

But if you want to know the truth, I don't give a damn about the rules about spellcasting focus. I believe they could be meant to provide a balancing factor in the "hands economy" (stupid term I just made up) i.e. to require to occupy one of your hands if you want to cast spells, just like a sword & board or 2WF character has 2 hands occupied, while a 1WF character has a free hand in case it matters. But there are just too many excuses that allows bypassing this (between passing items between hands, drop/pick up an item using the "object interaction rule", or the infamous holy symbol semi-flavor text), that it makes it quite pointless IMHO to bother enforcing the details.

And just to tell how much I despise and defile the RAW, I just gave our Druid a Chain Shirt, and called it "RAW-compliant" because the PHB says "druids will not wear armor or use shields made of metal", and "will" is in the future tense... so eventually they will not wear it but now they do. As soon as the future arrives, it's the present and the restriction is invalid

 

[Caliban]

No, I am another poster. I just didn't notice his previous answer.

Sorry. "Now you are repeating someone else's inane argument, so let me repeat my response to that argument."