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

[Caliban]

Yeah, just thought I'd join in on the pointless posturing between you and sorc apprentice. Neither of you are portraying yourselves in a good light.

And you think you are portraying yourself in a good light right now? Interesting.

In any case, your unsolicited opinion has been noted. Thank you for your input.

 

[Lidgar]

I was told there was going to be cake at the end of this thread.

Now I realize that the cake was a lie.

 

[Charlaquin]

I was told there was going to be cake at the end of this thread.

Now I realize that the cake was a lie.

 

[ArchfiendBobbie]

I was told there was going to be cake at the end of this thread.

Now I realize that the cake was a lie.

The cake would like to respond:

 

[Stalker0]

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.

Since early we were asked to do a RAW analysis, we must look at the rules language.

And in this scenario...the rules are crystal clear.

Both items only require the item to be held. Not wielded, not as a focus...just held. We know that both a staff and a rod can each be held in one hand...for even two handed weapons can simply be held in one hand.

We know from the rules on bonus stacking that two effects that have different names stack.


And so...the effects stack by RAW. I don’t even really see any language that muddies it.

Now whether it’s RAI, that’s always a debate. But RAW debates are like lawyer debates...it’s all about what the law says.

 

[CapnZapp]

AFAIK a thread is made on the basis that it will be centered on the title and the OP. You may create a thread with the same name w/o the prepending RAW.

Oh so very much this.

Alas, that's not how it works in practice. Consider yourself lucky you learned this lesson only 41 posts in.

That is the worst aspect of this site. How there is absolutely zero moderation of posts that attack or derail the topic under discussion.

I wholeheartedly agree with WilliamCQ and believe the atmosphere here would have been much much less cantankerous if we had to actually discuss under the premises stated by the OP (or start a new thread obviously).

 

[Ganymede81]

I ...believe the atmosphere here would have been much much less cantankerous if we had to actually discuss under the premises stated by the OP (or start a new thread obviously).

This thread is nasty and horrible for reasons that go far beyond thread derailment.

 

[cmad1977]

And you think you are portraying yourself in a good light right now? Interesting.

In any case, your unsolicited opinion has been noted. Thank you for your input.

He’s in a significantly better light than the two of you guys.
Two people shaming themselves in embarrassingly typical fashion and one guy telling them that they’re doing it.

I’d say he’s got the right of it.
I truly hope you do take note of his input and adjust your behavior accordingly.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Caliban]

He’s in a significantly better light than the two of you guys.
Two people shaming themselves in embarrassingly typical fashion and one guy telling them that they’re doing it.

I’d say he’s got the right of it.
I truly hope you do take note of his input and adjust your behavior accordingly.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Pretty unlikely, as I don't think I've been "shaming" myself in any way. But feel free to be as judgmental and condescending as you wish, it makes no difference to me. I'm used to it around here.

Personally, I despise social manipulation tactics like this and actively resist them. I find them hypocritical and think both you and he should be ashamed of yourselves for engaging in it.

 

[Sorcerers Apprentice]

In case anyone is still interested, I've discovered one case where a caster is 100% permitted by RAW to dual wield a staff and rod to make spell attacks with both bonuses; the spell Crown of Stars from Xanathar's Guide. It is a spell that lasts for 1 hour when casts, and while active it allows the caster to make a ranged spell attack as a bonus action that does 4d12 radiant damage on a hit. Since this action is a special bonus action and not casting a spell, it doesn't require any spell components and so the caster can freely use both hands for holding magic items.