Not meaning used up, but since it is necessary for most attack spells or can be used for the somatic component of a spell, is it actively used in the spell attack?
Most magic items that this would matter for, they hedged their bets and used "held" instead of "used." But for those edge cases where it matters, it feels really unfair to tell a player that they have held a spell focus to satisfy the material components of their spell but not "used" that focus in doing so. Nuh-uh, you "use" a spell focus to cast your spell whenever you replace a component.
Really, I would allow a spellcaster to just "use" their focus whenever they cast a spell while holding it, even if it's a V-only spell with no components to replace. But that strays more into RAF than RAI/RAW.
Most magic items that this would matter for, they hedged their bets and used "held" instead of "used." But for those edge cases where it matters, it feels really unfair to tell a player that they have held a spell focus to satisfy the material components of their spell but not "used" that focus in doing so. Nuh-uh, you "use" a spell focus to cast your spell whenever you replace a component.
Really, I would allow a spellcaster to just "use" their focus whenever they cast a spell while holding it, even if it's a V-only spell with no components to replace. But that strays more into RAF than RAI/RAW.
This question you have answered is not the question the OP is actually asking. They are actually trying to use this question to win another debate on another thread about spell attacks.
That thread is currently debating whether firing a Magic Stone with a sling is defined as a Weapon Attack or a Spell Attack using a Weapon or something else. The consensus there (except for this OP) is that this is the only circumstance where a Spell Attack uses a weapon (and therefore could benefit from Sneak Attack or any other features that rely on making an "Attack with a weapon" or an "Attack using a weapon". The OP raised the red herring of focuses (or material components) that are also weapons, and is trying to argue that those focuses are "used" for the spell attack associated with any spell cast with such a focus.
The OP here is not asking whether the focus is used (needs to be wielded) in the casting of the spell. They are asking if the objects used to cast the spell can also be considered to be specifically "used to make the attack" of any spell attacks that are part of that spell - but not like in Booming Blade which specifically asks you to attack with the weapon. They will then be using that context-free answer to imply that casting Acid Arrow using a warlock's pact blade dagger focus to replace the M component will be valid for Sneak Attack because the attack roll in that spell becomes an "attack using a finesse weapon".
The answer to the OP's question is no, the spell components are used to cast the spell but they aren't "used to make the spell attack" unless the spell says they are, and the nature of the object-components will not then trigger any features or rules based on "attacks made with a weapon".
What more do you need to clarify my answer for you? How about this:
“Rules as written, a component/focus is only used as part of the actual spell attack itself if the description for that spell specifies that the component/focus is specifically used as part of that attack. Unless of course a Bard, Cleric, Druid, Ranger, Paladin, Artificer, Eldritch Knight, or Arcane Trickster casts the spell because they cannot use an arcane focus.
Most magic items that this would matter for, they hedged their bets and used "held" instead of "used." But for those edge cases where it matters, it feels really unfair to tell a player that they have held a spell focus to satisfy the material components of their spell but not "used" that focus in doing so. Nuh-uh, you "use" a spell focus to cast your spell whenever you replace a component.
Really, I would allow a spellcaster to just "use" their focus whenever they cast a spell while holding it, even if it's a V-only spell with no components to replace. But that strays more into RAF than RAI/RAW.
This question you have answered is not the question the OP is actually asking. They are actually trying to use this question to win another debate on another thread about spell attacks.
That thread is currently debating whether firing a Magic Stone with a sling is defined as a Weapon Attack or a Spell Attack using a Weapon or something else. The consensus there (except for this OP) is that this is the only circumstance where a Spell Attack uses a weapon (and therefore could benefit from Sneak Attack or any other features that rely on making an "Attack with a weapon" or an "Attack using a weapon". The OP raised the red herring of focuses (or material components) that are also weapons, and is trying to argue that those focuses are "used" for the spell attack associated with any spell cast with such a focus.
The OP here is not asking whether the focus is used (needs to be wielded) in the casting of the spell. They are asking if the objects used to cast the spell can also be considered to be specifically "used to make the attack" of any spell attacks that are part of that spell - but not like in Booming Blade which specifically asks you to attack with the weapon. They will then be using that context-free answer to imply that casting Acid Arrow using a warlock's pact blade dagger focus to replace the M component will be valid for Sneak Attack because the attack roll in that spell becomes an "attack using a finesse weapon".
The answer to the OP's question is no, the spell components are used to cast the spell but they aren't "used to make the spell attack" unless the spell says they are, and the nature of the object-components will not then trigger any features or rules based on "attacks made with a weapon".
So the casting and the spell attack are separate?
(Also, not trying to win that argument. Just exploring all the avenues the potential for weapons being involved with spell attacks opens up).
There may be some bad faith middle ground I'm ignorant of, but the Sneak Attack/Sharpshooter with Magic Stone from a Sling is off on one side as "weird but true!", while something like Great Weapon Master on Eldritch Blast bolts cast through a Hexblade Pact Weapon Greatsword is off on the other as "no that's not an attack "with" the weapon, even though you "used" the weapon to cast the spell." (assuming, for sake of argument, that you can use a focus to cast a spell that doesn't require that focus to replace an M component)
There's some pretty fine hairs to split here, that the plain english terms don't necessarily split themselves, but which the breadth and depth of how these terms pop up in 5E provides some RAI boundaries for.
I'd agree generally that spell focuses are "used" for the spell attacks that are cast through them. I don't agree that necessarily those spell attacks are attacks "with" the focuses, such that "when you attack with..." or "when you hit with..." features are satisfied. The Sling in Magic Stone is a pretty specific exception to that, because you literally are instructed to "hurl with the sling"-as-weapon, not just satisfy some components with sling-as-focus.
I would guess it is this: "Rules as written, a component/focus is only used as part of the actual spell attack itself if the description for that spell specifies that the component/focus is specifically used as part of that attack. Unless of course a Bard, Cleric, Druid, Ranger, Paladin, Artificer, Eldritch Knight, or Arcane Trickster casts the spell because they cannot use an arcane focus."
They have already answered your question. Please ask a different question if you want a new answer.
I would guess it is this: "Rules as written, a component/focus is only used as part of the actual spell attack itself if the description for that spell specifies that the component/focus is specifically used as part of that attack. Unless of course a Bard, Cleric, Druid, Ranger, Paladin, Artificer, Eldritch Knight, or Arcane Trickster casts the spell because they cannot use an arcane focus."
That doesn't answer my question. Its a tautology: if the rules say it does, it does. That doesn't tell me what the rules actually say.
Actually, it doesn't even give any reason for disconnecting the spell attack from the spell. Its the same action.
I mean, it exactly answers the specific question you asked, it just relies on some nuance that you completely nuked in your poor summary. “You don’t make an attack with the components unless the spell asks you to” is different from “if the rules say it does, it does.” See booming blade for an example of a spell where you actually use the component to make an attack.
I mean, it exactly answers the specific question you asked, it just relies on some nuance that you completely nuked in your poor summary. “You don’t make an attack with the components unless the spell asks you to” is different from “if the rules say it does, it does.” See booming blade for an example of a spell where you actually use the component to make an attack.
Its a pretty exceptional case, but even then it isn't just saying the component is involved in the spell attack but that in that spell it is involved in a specific manner that is exceptional.
Yep, it is exceptional. So do other spells indicate that they use their components in the attacks? If not, well, you have your answer.
Its exceptional in requiring a different kind of attack using the component. Not in proving that other spells do not make use of components in attacks in the same action as casting the spell (something which is inseparable when happening on the same turn, ie if someone casts counterspell of your firebolt, you don't go ahead with the attack)
Are you looking for an answer or an argument? The thing that proves that a spell uses its components in its attack is the text of that particular spell. That is all there is to it. If you are looking for a general answer, that is the best that one can give. Check the spell.
Nothing generally requires that the spell components be involved in the actual attack. Only specific spells can change that.
Are you looking for an answer or an argument? The thing that proves that a spell uses its components in its attack is the text of that particular spell. That is all there is to it. If you are looking for a general answer, that is the best that one can give. Check the spell.
Nothing generally requires that the spell components be involved in the actual attack. Only specific spells can change that.
What says that though? Nothing says components are not always involved in the attack.
We get one specific spell pointing out a different way it is involved. And another (Magic Stone) that literally uses the components as ammunition without that same language.
The easier reading is that component is always involved.
We get one specific spell pointing out a different way it is involved. And another (Magic Stone) that literally uses the components as ammunition without that same language.
The stones you throw/sling are no more the components of magic stone than your party member is a component of haste when you cast it on them.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Not meaning used up, but since it is necessary for most attack spells or can be used for the somatic component of a spell, is it actively used in the spell attack?
AFACT, it has to be "in hand", but how it is used is vague, and probably up the to player.
I would say absolutely yes.
Most magic items that this would matter for, they hedged their bets and used "held" instead of "used." But for those edge cases where it matters, it feels really unfair to tell a player that they have held a spell focus to satisfy the material components of their spell but not "used" that focus in doing so. Nuh-uh, you "use" a spell focus to cast your spell whenever you replace a component.
Really, I would allow a spellcaster to just "use" their focus whenever they cast a spell while holding it, even if it's a V-only spell with no components to replace. But that strays more into RAF than RAI/RAW.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
RAW, only if the spell says so.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Does the spell say so if a component is necessary?
This question you have answered is not the question the OP is actually asking. They are actually trying to use this question to win another debate on another thread about spell attacks.
That thread is currently debating whether firing a Magic Stone with a sling is defined as a Weapon Attack or a Spell Attack using a Weapon or something else. The consensus there (except for this OP) is that this is the only circumstance where a Spell Attack uses a weapon (and therefore could benefit from Sneak Attack or any other features that rely on making an "Attack with a weapon" or an "Attack using a weapon". The OP raised the red herring of focuses (or material components) that are also weapons, and is trying to argue that those focuses are "used" for the spell attack associated with any spell cast with such a focus.
The OP here is not asking whether the focus is used (needs to be wielded) in the casting of the spell. They are asking if the objects used to cast the spell can also be considered to be specifically "used to make the attack" of any spell attacks that are part of that spell - but not like in Booming Blade which specifically asks you to attack with the weapon. They will then be using that context-free answer to imply that casting Acid Arrow using a warlock's pact blade dagger focus to replace the M component will be valid for Sneak Attack because the attack roll in that spell becomes an "attack using a finesse weapon".
The answer to the OP's question is no, the spell components are used to cast the spell but they aren't "used to make the spell attack" unless the spell says they are, and the nature of the object-components will not then trigger any features or rules based on "attacks made with a weapon".
You asked this:
My answer was this:
What more do you need to clarify my answer for you? How about this:
Was that pedantically clear enough for you?
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
So the casting and the spell attack are separate?
(Also, not trying to win that argument. Just exploring all the avenues the potential for weapons being involved with spell attacks opens up).
There may be some bad faith middle ground I'm ignorant of, but the Sneak Attack/Sharpshooter with Magic Stone from a Sling is off on one side as "weird but true!", while something like Great Weapon Master on Eldritch Blast bolts cast through a Hexblade Pact Weapon Greatsword is off on the other as "no that's not an attack "with" the weapon, even though you "used" the weapon to cast the spell." (assuming, for sake of argument, that you can use a focus to cast a spell that doesn't require that focus to replace an M component)
There's some pretty fine hairs to split here, that the plain english terms don't necessarily split themselves, but which the breadth and depth of how these terms pop up in 5E provides some RAI boundaries for.
I'd agree generally that spell focuses are "used" for the spell attacks that are cast through them. I don't agree that necessarily those spell attacks are attacks "with" the focuses, such that "when you attack with..." or "when you hit with..." features are satisfied. The Sling in Magic Stone is a pretty specific exception to that, because you literally are instructed to "hurl with the sling"-as-weapon, not just satisfy some components with sling-as-focus.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
So what is your pedantic ruling on how the rules for Arcane Focus say they are used in the spell, and how making a spell attack is "part of a spell"?
Sounds like the rules say the Arcane Focus is used in the spell and the spell attack is part of the spell.
I would guess it is this: "Rules as written, a component/focus is only used as part of the actual spell attack itself if the description for that spell specifies that the component/focus is specifically used as part of that attack. Unless of course a Bard, Cleric, Druid, Ranger, Paladin, Artificer, Eldritch Knight, or Arcane Trickster casts the spell because they cannot use an arcane focus."
They have already answered your question. Please ask a different question if you want a new answer.
That doesn't answer my question. Its a tautology: if the rules say it does, it does. That doesn't tell me what the rules actually say.
Actually, it doesn't even give any reason for disconnecting the spell attack from the spell. Its the same action.
I mean, it exactly answers the specific question you asked, it just relies on some nuance that you completely nuked in your poor summary. “You don’t make an attack with the components unless the spell asks you to” is different from “if the rules say it does, it does.” See booming blade for an example of a spell where you actually use the component to make an attack.
Its a pretty exceptional case, but even then it isn't just saying the component is involved in the spell attack but that in that spell it is involved in a specific manner that is exceptional.
Yep, it is exceptional. So do other spells indicate that they use their components in the attacks? If not, well, you have your answer.
Its exceptional in requiring a different kind of attack using the component. Not in proving that other spells do not make use of components in attacks in the same action as casting the spell (something which is inseparable when happening on the same turn, ie if someone casts counterspell of your firebolt, you don't go ahead with the attack)
Are you looking for an answer or an argument? The thing that proves that a spell uses its components in its attack is the text of that particular spell. That is all there is to it. If you are looking for a general answer, that is the best that one can give. Check the spell.
Nothing generally requires that the spell components be involved in the actual attack. Only specific spells can change that.
What says that though? Nothing says components are not always involved in the attack.
We get one specific spell pointing out a different way it is involved. And another (Magic Stone) that literally uses the components as ammunition without that same language.
The easier reading is that component is always involved.
magic stone doesn’t have components.
But you’re right, there is no rule that dog’s can’t play basketball.
The stones you throw/sling are no more the components of magic stone than your party member is a component of haste when you cast it on them.
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)