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

[Oofta]

But the rod and staff don't require you to use them as a focus, you just need to hold them.

I think the rules are fuzzy on this one; after reading the items again you're probably right since it doesn't state anything about them being used as the spell focus. However, I still think it's a DMs call given the non-technical wording of 5E. Barring a Sage Advice column I don't think there is a single answer.

Having said that, an extra +1 or +2 isn't going to be game breaking considering the opportunity cost of using up attunement slots and that you're dealing with at least one very rare item.

 

[Caliban]

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?

Sir, I'm going to have to ask you to cease these unwarranted and rude accusations. Please attempt to be civil.

 

[Sorcerers Apprentice]

Sir, I'm going to have to ask you to cease these unwarranted and rude accusations. Please attempt to be civil.

Looks like we've started a competition on who can passive-agressively request the other poster to be civil in the most polite way. Since I doubt anyone else is interested in reading that I'm going to take of my internet psychiatrist hat and end this here.

My point still stands; nowhere does it say RAW that a magic staff or rod is an arcane focus. This is a RAW thread so rulings are not very relevant.

 

[jaelis]

Barring a Sage Advice column I don't think there is a single answer.

Speaking of, we do have twitter:

Q: Does the spell attack roll bonuses of Rod of the Pact Lord, and Wand of the War Mage stack? If a Warlock dual wield them.
A: The bonuses of different magic items can stack.
Q: So by that logic someone duel wielding two +2 magic swords gets a +4 on the damage and attack rolls of both....
A: Nope. The wording of the rod and the wand allow them to stack.

I don't know what the rod of the pact lord is; perhaps they meant pact keeper?
Wand of the war mage says "While you are holding this wand, you gain a +X bonus to spell Attack rolls."

 

[Caliban]

My point still stands; nowhere does it say RAW that a magic staff or rod is an arcane focus. This is a RAW thread so rulings are not very relevant.

You are simply repeating yourself now, so feel free to re-read my previous response to this "point" of yours.

 

[5ekyu]

My point still stands; nowhere does it say RAW that a magic staff or rod is an arcane focus. This is a RAW thread so rulings are not very relevant.

nowhere in RAW does it state that i can use my magical spear as a spit across a firepit to hold my dinner while it cooks... so by your interpretation that is what... against the rules... not allowed?

IMX trying to read an entire set of rules for any RPG system ever made using the "if it is not explicitly allowed it is not allowed" fails miserably. I cannot think i have ever seen anyone actually try to play that way.

The only cases i can recall ever seeing this type of logic applied was in rules arguments where it was being called up to support a single instance, single case... but when only invoked for a single case or subset of cases, a broadly defined criteria is a fallacious support - it basically says "in this case it is not explicitly stated as allowed so because i dont want to allow it that matters, while in all these others cases where it is not explicitly allowed where i want to allow them, it doesn't matter."

I come down myself to *even under RAW* if there is no rule allowing it (and no rule disallowing it) is there a compelling reason to say "no."

In this case, where to me the RAW seem to imply it can be done when it allows a focus to be a staff, i see no compelling reason to say no, so to me the answer yes is not only within RAW but appropriate.

 

[billd91]

I think this is an issue where you have to look at the rules and apply a modicum of sense to them. If you're holding a magic staff, rod, wand, orb, (or toilet seat for all I care) while casting a spell and getting a bonus on your spell attack rolls - you're pretty much using it as a magical focus. I'd say the rules pretty much imply that. I'd also say they imply you can't get a similar bonus from any other one of those devices you have in your possession since you're not using it as your spellcasting focus and can't use more than one as spellcasting focii - assuming you can even cast the spell while holding multiple things rather than having to leave one hand free for somatic components.

Really, it's a spellcaster's equivalent of a magical weapon. Don't try to rules lawyer multiple bonuses just because you've managed to hoard all of the spell focus-appropriate gear your group has come across and the rules aren't explicit in keeping your bonus begging impulses under control.

 

[Bacon Bits]

Do spell attack rolls modifiers stack (ie: dual-weilding Rod of the Pact Keeper & Staff of Power) ? It's important for answers to be Rules as Written (RAW).

RAW, the bonus stacks. A Warlock could conceivably have any combination of a +3 Rod of the Pact Keeper, a +3 Wand of the War Mage, a Staff of Magi or a Staff of Power all attuned. Whether or not you can "hold" a Staff, a Wand, and a Rod at the same time is left up to the DM, but you could conceivably have +8 to spell attack rolls.

Remember, of course, that you can't attune two items with the same name (DMG p138) so you need to find different items that grant the same bonus.

That said, I can imagine that many DMs would not allow these items to stack.

 

[5ekyu]

Speaking of, we do have twitter:

I don't know what the rod of the pact lord is; perhaps they meant pact keeper?
Wand of the war mage says "While you are holding this wand, you gain a +X bonus to spell Attack rolls."

Yeah i do not get the confusion at all as expressed in that tweet.

magic weapons even dual wielded ones typically have the following language:
"You gain a +1 bonus to attack and damage rolls made with this magic weapon. "

that makes it obvious to me their bonuses apply to only attacks made with them and DW does not allow this to combine weapons into one attack, it adds a bonus action off-hand attack with the second weapons.

meanwhile the staff of power and rod of the pact share this language:
"While holding this rod, you gain a bonus to spell attack rolls and to the saving throw DCs of your warlock spells. "
"While holding it, you gain a +2 bonus to Armor Class, saving throws, and spell attack rolls."

The staff even has this other benefit "This staff can be wielded as a magic quarterstaff that grants a +2 bonus to attack and damage rolls made with it. " that again shows the difference between dual-wielding two melee weapons to combine their plusses (not right) and the case of having two different items which provide broader spell attack bonuses not limited to "made by this weapon."

It seems not even close.

 

[ArchfiendBobbie]

You are simply repeating yourself now, so feel free to re-read my previous response to this "point" of yours.

I think Apprentice believes you are not getting the thrust of what he's saying, so he's taking another stab at it.

I personally agree that rulings are relevant. The rules themselves are intentionally vague in some areas, so rulings are what we have. Plus, in some cases (as my example on the first page), they are necessary to stop player shenanigans.