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

[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."