D&D 5E Wand of the War Mage +1

[KarinsDad]

Does the item also specify that it can be used as a focus, even if your class can't normally use a wand as a focus? If not, then the easiest solution is probably to assume that you can. That would make way more sense than a cleric waving a holy symbol and gaining a bonus from the wand in her back pocket.

It doesn't state that, but why would you assume that it grants this additional benefit that it does not state that it grants.

The interpretation that seems easiest to arrive at is that it is a wand. A wand is a focus for some classes. It is not a focus for all classes. This magic item can be used by all spell casting classes, but it does not give them the new ability to use a wand as a focus. Err, so? The Cleric uses a Holy Symbol and this wand at the same time. The Holy Symbol is the spellcasting focus, the wand is a magic item that grants a bonus to hit with spells. The rules do not prevent both of these from being used at the same time.


If the item was called a toothbrush instead of a wand, I'm not sure that anyone would have come up with the idea that it could be used as a focus by all spellcasting classes.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

It doesn't state that, but why would you assume that it grants this additional benefit that it does not state that it grants?

That's how a wand is used - as a focus. Whatever beam or something that you're firing comes out of the wand. That's why you get the bonus to the attack roll. If you can use it, then you use it as a focus. There's no possible way to use a wand without using it as a focus.

It says any spellcaster can use it, ergo, any spellcaster can use it as a focus.

 

[KarinsDad]

That's how a wand is used - as a focus.

A wand cannot be used as a focus for Bards, Druids or Clerics as per the rules. Since this item does not state that it allows Bards, Druids and Clerics to use it as a spellcasting focus, they cannot.

PHB p.150:

Druidic focus: sprig of mistletoe, totem, wooden staff, yew wand
Holy symbol: amulet, emblem, reliquery

In addition, a Bard can use a musical instrument as a focus.

It says any spellcaster can use it, ergo, any spellcaster can use it as a focus.

Yes, it says that any spellcaster can use it to gain a bonus to hit with a spell. It does not say that any spellcaster can use it as a focus. The one does not follow from the other. You are adding a rule where one does not exist.


We have a magic longsword in our group that allows someone to cast a Daylight spell. Just because the magic longsword allows any PC to cast a Daylight spell does not mean that our party Druid can use the longsword as a proficient weapon. The one does not follow from the other.

 

[CapnZapp]

IMO, it's scary enough pitting a non-proficient, non-scaling save against a caster's scaling save DC. High level casters would be devastating if they could apply their strong stat, proficient save DC against a target's non-proficient weak stat and then pile another +3 bonus on top. Gods save the poor bastard if that caster can apply disadvantage somehow.

Probably a good idea to keep save DC bonuses off the table.

I would argue the same goes for +3 weapons.

I would leave that up to the DM, meaning I kind of want the DMG to include the option.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Yes, it says that any spellcaster can use it to gain a bonus to hit with a spell. It does not say that any spellcaster can use it as a focus. The one does not follow from the other. You are adding a rule where one does not exist.

I'm not adding a rule. I'm interpreting a rule. It says that they can use it, so I have to interpret that as use it in the manner in which it is intended. As far as can be gathered from context, there's no way to use a wand aside from as a focus.

I mean, I get what you're saying, and why you say it. If you were the DM, I would respect that ruling. It just seems really obvious to me that the intent of the rule doesn't line up with the exact letter of it, and I would expect most DMs to see it as I do.

 

[KarinsDad]

I'm not adding a rule. I'm interpreting a rule. It says that they can use it, so I have to interpret that as use it in the manner in which it is intended. As far as can be gathered from context, there's no way to use a wand aside from as a focus.

I mean, I get what you're saying, and why you say it. If you were the DM, I would respect that ruling. It just seems really obvious to me that the intent of the rule doesn't line up with the exact letter of it, and I would expect most DMs to see it as I do.

Intent? Usually, if the intent of an item is to do X, then the designers write down that it does X.

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree as to what is obvious here.

 

[famousringo]

I would argue the same goes for +3 weapons.

I would leave that up to the DM, meaning I kind of want the DMG to include the option.

I don't think they're comparable.

Everybody builds for at least a decent AC to start with, and the bonus from magic weapons is offset by magic armor, magic shields, items of protection and bracers of defense. Even with +7 more attack bonus from proficiency and a magic weapon as characters advance, attacks can actually fall behind in this race!

Weak saves can start all the way down at negative numbers, with nothing to bolster them except stat bonuses/feats (and those bonuses only improve 1 of 6 saves) and a much shorter list of protection items which all require attunement, as far as I can tell.

So yeah, a high level wizard can already target that barbarian's dump stat -1 CHA save with Banishment and the barbie only saves on a 20. No need to rob him of what little chance he might earn if he happens to have a couple rings of protection attuned.