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


log in or register to remove this ad

Caliban

Rules Monkey
Anyway @Caliban 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 :)

If you don't give a damn, then don't waste your time and mine by engaging in semantic gymnastics in an attempt to avoid using the term "house rule". I find such antics distasteful at best and dishonest at worst.

If you don't care about druids wearing metal armor, just say so and remove that restriction.

If you don't want the bonuses from the Staff of Power and Rod of the Pact Keeper to stack, then be up front about it and say so. It's what I intend to do in the unlikely event that this comes up in my home campaign.

If you are the DM, make a ruling (house rule or otherwise doesn't matter - you are the DM) and move on.

If you are not the DM, then it is not your problem.
 

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?

Why are you taking this so personally? Just because I quote your post, it doesn't mean I'm looking for an argument with you, I'm just addressing the specific text in your post.
 

Oofta

Legend
I would rule that when the rules say "you can use a spellcasting focus" as they do everywhere I can find a reference that you are using one single spellcasting focus to cast that spell. You may have different spellcasting foci because they give you different benefits, but there's nothing that indicates you can use two at the same time.
 

jaelis

Oh this is where the title goes?
I would rule that when the rules say "you can use a spellcasting focus" as they do everywhere I can find a reference that you are using one single spellcasting focus to cast that spell. You may have different spellcasting foci because they give you different benefits, but there's nothing that indicates you can use two at the same time.
But the rod and staff don't require you to use them as a focus, you just need to hold them.
 

Caliban

Rules Monkey
Why are you taking this so personally? Just because I quote your post, it doesn't mean I'm looking for an argument with you, I'm just addressing the specific text in your post.


Translation: "I made a poor argument, and got called on it. So now I will try to change the subject rather than concede the point."
 



Caliban

Rules Monkey
No, I'm honestly curious why you're taking this matter so personally. Please do not put words in my mouth, it is quite rude.

Why are you taking this so personally? I wasn't putting words in your mouth, I was providing my understanding of the specific text in your post.

Maybe you should take a break and calm down a bit?
 

Why are you taking this so personally? I wasn't putting words in your mouth, I was providing my understanding of the specific text in your post.

Maybe you should take a break and calm down a bit?

I'm inclined to start taking things personally because you are insulting and denigrating me at every opportunity, for no obvious reason. Why are you so emotional about this issue?
 

Remove ads

AD6_gamerati_skyscraper

Remove ads

Upcoming Releases

Top