I think the bastion rules might help here, as for a few of the special facilities it has a prerequisite for what we would usually consider spellcaster and that prerequisite is:
I think this is a easy and clear definition. If you have the ability to use a Spellcasting Focus (which is tied to the Spellcasting and Pact Magic features), you are a spellcaster. If you don't, you are not a spellcaster, just someone with some random spells for some reason.
That makes sense, but with the definition in the Magic Item section under Treasure answers the question as far as Prerequisites goes. As far as being considered a Spellcaster I am looking for a class that has a Spellcasting Feature.
My original question was just to see what others seem to think. A very nice thought provoking discussion stemmed from the question.
Thanks to all that participated and I look forward to other opinions.
I don’t think of it as an RP issue but a mechanics issue. RP has nothing to do with it. A paladin or a ranger doesn’t need to RP as a spellcaster. The fact that they have the spellcasting feature with a table showing spell slot progression is all they need. Even if they never ever cast a spell they are a spellcaster.
Spellcaster is not a defined rule in the game, there was a time when it was, but not any more. There are defined terms which are used by spell casting classes that separate casting from not casting, but "Spellcaster" is an undefined term, so it is in the hands of the players or DMs to describe and that is pure Roleplay.
There is a rule for Spellcasting Focus, that's it.
I don’t think of it as an RP issue but a mechanics issue. RP has nothing to do with it. A paladin or a ranger doesn’t need to RP as a spellcaster. The fact that they have the spellcasting feature with a table showing spell slot progression is all they need. Even if they never ever cast a spell they are a spellcaster.
Spellcaster is not a defined rule in the game, there was a time when it was, but not any more. There are defined terms which are used by spell casting classes that separate casting from not casting, but "Spellcaster" is an undefined term, so it is in the hands of the players or DMs to describe and that is pure Roleplay.
There is a rule for Spellcasting Focus, that's it.
I already linked the rules definition of “spellcaster” earlier in this thread. It’s anyone who can cast spells with their traits for features.
I already linked the rules definition of “spellcaster” earlier in this thread. It’s anyone who can cast spells with their traits for features.
while that rule was added to the 2024 DMG, it is actually vague and it only relates to the ability to attune to some magic items.
I will also point out it's not in the glossary but used as an example.
This means any Class, or subclass that gives access to a spell as described in chapter 7. Which like I said before technically includes Paladins and Rangers, and sometimes Bards. If you and Your DM want to call those classes "Spellcasters" that's on you, sure by rules they can attune to a Magical Item, or gain the Bastion Facilities that require Spellcasting Focus. But I'm not going to force a Melee damage character a Spellcaster if they don't want to.
Sometimes it's more about the Roleplay then the actual mechanics and in this case the rules are not clear or well defined.
list of magic items this rule is aimed at... and just be aware Paladin counts for them.
Ruby of the War Mage
Enspelled Staff
Wand of the War Mage
... after manually searching for a while I have 3 items. There is more, but that requirement is not common, and is a hold over to a different era. Most Caster gear specifies Caster Classes by name.
It's a poorly defined rule that leaves a lot up to the DM and player.
while that rule was added to the 2024 DMG, it is actually vague and it only relates to the ability to attune to some magic items.
The only example in this thread that didn't involve attunement to magic items was crafting spell scrolls, and the rules for spell scrolls are later specified to only allow crafting a scroll for a spell you have prepared.
If you can cast a spell, you are a spellcaster. Any spell counts, even Cantrips, but the character has to be able to cast it themselves, as opposed to getting spells from an attuned item. https://19216811.cam/
So pretty much all Elves are spellcasters, Warlocks, Wizards, etc are too, even Eldritch Knights and Arcane Tricksters.
Spellcaster is not defined either, that is what this thread is all about, and all we have is examples. We are forced to look at those examples to come up with our own definitions.
Looking at the Creatures and the Species every ability is listed at a Trait, Therefore by example they have defined trait as the abilities of a creatures.
Looking at classes all the abilities of the class is listed an a feature, Therefore by example they have defined Features and class abilities.
Re-reading the Feats section I had skipped over the first sentence that calls Feats a special feature not associated with a class. It is the second sentence that called them talents. So it looks like Feats are Special talents and spells from them should qualify you as a spellcaster as a prerequisite for attuning to a magic item.
If there are other example of features not referring to a class (or Feat) or a Trait not referring to a creatures abilities I would like to know.
As far as the attunement rules go, all Elves, Gnomes, Tieflings, and even Aasimar are spellcasters. Anyone with the Magic Initiate origin feat is a spellcaster. The Fey-Touched, Ritual Caster, Shadow-Touched, Telekinetic, and Telepathic feats qualify the character as a spellcaster for attunement. Wild Heart Barbarians, Shadow Monks, and Elements Monks are spellcasters.
I gave it some thought and I do not think I mind a spellcaster who relies heavily on magic items. It suits some styles. I would still differentiate between what we consider a spellcaster in the game versus a spellcaster in regards to the attunement mechanic. If we can use level for multiple things I do not think using spellcaster in multiple way based on context is going to hurt the game.
I don’t think of it as an RP issue but a mechanics issue. RP has nothing to do with it. A paladin or a ranger doesn’t need to RP as a spellcaster. The fact that they have the spellcasting feature with a table showing spell slot progression is all they need. Even if they never ever cast a spell they are a spellcaster.
Spellcaster is not a defined rule in the game, there was a time when it was, but not any more. There are defined terms which are used by spell casting classes that separate casting from not casting, but "Spellcaster" is an undefined term, so it is in the hands of the players or DMs to describe and that is pure Roleplay.
There is a rule for Spellcasting Focus, that's it.
You asked for opinions and you can disagree if you like. But it is not pure role play. There are actual mechanics even if the book doesn’t specifically say spellcaster = X
Paladins have a class feature called spellcasting. It’s on the Paladin table and described as a level 1 paladin class feature in the 2024 PHB. Spellcasters do Spellcasting. You can RP that you don’t use spells with your paladin. You can RP that your paladin is not a paladin but a Welchazzer Grangcrusher, but you are still playing a paladin using the paladin mechanics.
And I can see including other traits and features that allows you to cast a spell making you a spellcaster. I just can’t wrap my head around a class that has a spellcasting feature not being a spellcaster because you RP they are not. Sorry.
Can a Wizard RP they are not a spellcaster and actually not be a spellcaster as it pertains to attunement or other game mechanics?
I do miss not having a Glossary of Terms with this spelled out, However I can see where they did not want to pigeon hole all DM's into accepting that and Spellcaster is anyone that has a Trait or Feature that allows you to cast a single spell . Yes there is Rule 0 that allows you to say I disagree with that so I will change it. It is easier to make it vague and have the DM apply it how they wish.
A SpellCaster in d&d is simply an entity that can cast any spell by any means provided the entity has the intelligence to do so.( Intelligence Score must be a 3 or higher to qualify as a SpellCaster. )
This is the general definition of a SpellCaster since the beginning of d&d. There is no hidden context, no hidden intent, just a broad definition that can be refined when placed in the context of where the word is used.
A spellcaster is the creature casting a spell. After that, in what context is the word “spellcaster” being used? If you can use an object to cast a spell, magic-user or not, you’re considered for that moment to be considered a “SpellCaster”.
And the object is usually the one that further refines a “SpellCaster”, and what possible limitations that are required for full understanding of the objects abilities.( aka, you have a prereq of needing to be of the say wizard class, then only a wizard classed character can unlock the full ability of the object. If there’s no prereq, then the object is universally accessible to anything capable of being considered as a “SpellCaster”.
After this, it’s in the DM’s hands. And that’s the point. Everyone runs it different, so the rules should be as simple as needs to be, and refined where it should be, remembering that refinement only applies to where the refinement is referenced.
Respectfully, you can't really use a definition for a term from earlier editions (assuming it existed as such) in a different edition with different rules. It would be like trying to use "paragon tier" in 5e. There is no such thing, even if we have a definition for it from earlier editions. Now, for this example, it's not a problem. A DM can choose to use the term and define it for their players, but the game never references it.
The problem here is that there is NO definition in the rules beyond implication and context within the rules that do reference the term. You do bring up a good point with magic items, though. In fact, as far as I can tell, every time the terms comes up, it simply indicates that it is "the person casting a spell". That would seem to include casting from a magic item. The rules for creating spell scrolls and attuning to magic items have additional stipulations that prevent a fighter with some kind of spell casting item to then scribe a scroll, for instance, but while they are casting a spell they are considered a "spellcaster".
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
That makes sense, but with the definition in the Magic Item section under Treasure answers the question as far as Prerequisites goes. As far as being considered a Spellcaster I am looking for a class that has a Spellcasting Feature.
My original question was just to see what others seem to think. A very nice thought provoking discussion stemmed from the question.
Thanks to all that participated and I look forward to other opinions.
Spellcaster is not a defined rule in the game, there was a time when it was, but not any more. There are defined terms which are used by spell casting classes that separate casting from not casting, but "Spellcaster" is an undefined term, so it is in the hands of the players or DMs to describe and that is pure Roleplay.
There is a rule for Spellcasting Focus, that's it.
I already linked the rules definition of “spellcaster” earlier in this thread. It’s anyone who can cast spells with their traits for features.
while that rule was added to the 2024 DMG, it is actually vague and it only relates to the ability to attune to some magic items.
I will also point out it's not in the glossary but used as an example.
This means any Class, or subclass that gives access to a spell as described in chapter 7. Which like I said before technically includes Paladins and Rangers, and sometimes Bards. If you and Your DM want to call those classes "Spellcasters" that's on you, sure by rules they can attune to a Magical Item, or gain the Bastion Facilities that require Spellcasting Focus. But I'm not going to force a Melee damage character a Spellcaster if they don't want to.
Sometimes it's more about the Roleplay then the actual mechanics and in this case the rules are not clear or well defined.
list of magic items this rule is aimed at... and just be aware Paladin counts for them.
Ruby of the War Mage
Enspelled Staff
Wand of the War Mage
... after manually searching for a while I have 3 items. There is more, but that requirement is not common, and is a hold over to a different era. Most Caster gear specifies Caster Classes by name.
It's a poorly defined rule that leaves a lot up to the DM and player.
Respectfully, you’re splitting semantic hairs over how the word is used as a technical term and your personal head canon of what the word should mean.
The only example in this thread that didn't involve attunement to magic items was crafting spell scrolls, and the rules for spell scrolls are later specified to only allow crafting a scroll for a spell you have prepared.
I would disagree with feats, Feats are Talents not Traits. Creatures (including Species) have traits and Classes have Features.
"Talents" is not a thing in D&D and there is no formal definition of "traits" or "features".
If you can cast a spell, you are a spellcaster. Any spell counts, even Cantrips, but the character has to be able to cast it themselves, as opposed to getting spells from an attuned item. https://19216811.cam/
So pretty much all Elves are spellcasters, Warlocks, Wizards, etc are too, even Eldritch Knights and Arcane Tricksters.
Spellcaster is not defined either, that is what this thread is all about, and all we have is examples. We are forced to look at those examples to come up with our own definitions.
Looking at the Creatures and the Species every ability is listed at a Trait, Therefore by example they have defined trait as the abilities of a creatures.
Looking at classes all the abilities of the class is listed an a feature, Therefore by example they have defined Features and class abilities.
Re-reading the Feats section I had skipped over the first sentence that calls Feats a special feature not associated with a class. It is the second sentence that called them talents. So it looks like Feats are Special talents and spells from them should qualify you as a spellcaster as a prerequisite for attuning to a magic item.
If there are other example of features not referring to a class (or Feat) or a Trait not referring to a creatures abilities I would like to know.
As far as the attunement rules go, all Elves, Gnomes, Tieflings, and even Aasimar are spellcasters. Anyone with the Magic Initiate origin feat is a spellcaster. The Fey-Touched, Ritual Caster, Shadow-Touched, Telekinetic, and Telepathic feats qualify the character as a spellcaster for attunement. Wild Heart Barbarians, Shadow Monks, and Elements Monks are spellcasters.
I gave it some thought and I do not think I mind a spellcaster who relies heavily on magic items. It suits some styles. I would still differentiate between what we consider a spellcaster in the game versus a spellcaster in regards to the attunement mechanic. If we can use level for multiple things I do not think using spellcaster in multiple way based on context is going to hurt the game.
You asked for opinions and you can disagree if you like. But it is not pure role play. There are actual mechanics even if the book doesn’t specifically say spellcaster = X
Paladins have a class feature called spellcasting. It’s on the Paladin table and described as a level 1 paladin class feature in the 2024 PHB. Spellcasters do Spellcasting. You can RP that you don’t use spells with your paladin. You can RP that your paladin is not a paladin but a Welchazzer Grangcrusher, but you are still playing a paladin using the paladin mechanics.
And I can see including other traits and features that allows you to cast a spell making you a spellcaster. I just can’t wrap my head around a class that has a spellcasting feature not being a spellcaster because you RP they are not. Sorry.
Can a Wizard RP they are not a spellcaster and actually not be a spellcaster as it pertains to attunement or other game mechanics?
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?
I do miss not having a Glossary of Terms with this spelled out, However I can see where they did not want to pigeon hole all DM's into accepting that and Spellcaster is anyone that has a Trait or Feature that allows you to cast a single spell . Yes there is Rule 0 that allows you to say I disagree with that so I will change it. It is easier to make it vague and have the DM apply it how they wish.
Respectfully, you can't really use a definition for a term from earlier editions (assuming it existed as such) in a different edition with different rules. It would be like trying to use "paragon tier" in 5e. There is no such thing, even if we have a definition for it from earlier editions. Now, for this example, it's not a problem. A DM can choose to use the term and define it for their players, but the game never references it.
The problem here is that there is NO definition in the rules beyond implication and context within the rules that do reference the term. You do bring up a good point with magic items, though. In fact, as far as I can tell, every time the terms comes up, it simply indicates that it is "the person casting a spell". That would seem to include casting from a magic item. The rules for creating spell scrolls and attuning to magic items have additional stipulations that prevent a fighter with some kind of spell casting item to then scribe a scroll, for instance, but while they are casting a spell they are considered a "spellcaster".