I mean, you're implying that the consistent language in these three items is there for different reasons? how about the moon sickle?
This silver-bladed sickle glimmers softly with moonlight. While holding this magic weapon, you gain a bonus to attack and damage rolls made with it, and you gain a bonus to spell attack rolls and the saving throw DCs of your druid and ranger spells. The bonus is determined by the weapon’s rarity.
It is not an arcane focus, so it is not "used" in spell attacks.
It instead gives a bonus to attacks it is used in (which rarely, if ever, includes spell attacks), and then has a passive benefit of helping your spell casting in a non-foci way.
That is why it specifies both things.
The only way the two benefits would ever stack is for the pact of the blade Warlock, or used as the component in Steel Wind Strike. But they specifically require it be used by a Druid or Ranger, so it would only be a broken option for a Ranger at level 17, when every class is meant to be a bit broken anyways (unless you have a 9th level wizard doing multi-classing shenanigans to get Steel Wind Strike with this earlier, but that is a pretty huge sacrifice).
You are saying that "its attack and damage rolls" is different from "attack and damage rolls made with it?"
I would err on the side of "its attack and damage rolls" being at least as restrictive as "attack and damage rolls made with it"
I could be persuaded to put "its" in the "with" camp instead of the "uses" camp... but I think the structure of Improved Pact Weapon (where that bonus is mentioned alongside other benefits, including the benefit of using it as a spell focus) is a pretty good indication that the feature is intended to provide a single item that gives you +1 bonus on attacks and damage rolls using that item for both your weapon attacks and your spells.
I know there are magic items or features out there that key their bonus off of attacks "using" X, not just for attacks "while holding" X or "made with" X. Tracking them down right now is outside the time I have to invest in this discussion, but I think they're an important part of understanding that RAI there really is a difference between using a spell focus/spell component weapon to cast a spell, and attacking "with" that spell focus/component (which you're never invited to do, outside of the two SCAGtrips, or attacking with an already-cast Magic Stone using a Sling).
I am firmly in the camp of 'a weapon's ("its", in this case) attacks' require the weapon (i.e. if you could do it without that weapon, it's not that weapon's attacks). Nothing in the rules calls an attack made through a (non-weapon) focus the focus's attacks, does it?
Also, we have a good idea of the intention as to whether improved pact weapon should change your spell attack and damage rolls. Make a warlock.
I looked through Tasha's. Nothing about the Moon Sickle says it is an arcane focus. There is a heading above the magic items list in Tasha's mentioning that some of the items are arcane foci, but not all or even most of them are. Only ones that state that they are an arcane focus, like the https://www.dndbeyond.com/magic-items/bell-branch.
I am firmly in the camp of 'a weapon's ("its", in this case) attacks' require the weapon (i.e. if you could do it without that weapon, it's not that weapon's attacks). Nothing in the rules calls an attack made through a (non-weapon) focus the focus's attacks, does it?
Again, I'm not sure whether you're really asking me to support a position we both agree with, or disagreeing with me, or what. This is a tricky rule to talk about with the plain english so stacked against us :(
Sneak Attack is probably the feature where this is most important. All that Sneak Attack requires is "The attack must use a finesse or a ranged weapon." It is very very clear that spell focuses are "used" to cast their spells, there's no shortage of items and features that use "use" that way... but that doesn't quite split the hair whether "using" a focus to cast a spell that makes an attack is using the focus to make the attack. That extra step is what I've been trying to split off by calling that "attacking with."
I may be using the wrong language, maybe there's an easier way to talk about all this. On the one hand, it's obvious that holding a dagger and casting Fire Bolt is attacking with a spell, not with a dagger. On the other hand, its obvious that you're using the dagger to cast the spell that makes that attack, which could be phrased as using the dagger to make that attack without raising an english speaker's eyebrow. So what do we do with Sneak Attack, where's the off ramp to avoid the violence to RAI?
Most other features aren't phrased like Sneak Attack, Great Weapon Master and the like look for attacks "with" a weapon rather than attacks that "use" a weapon. That's better language, which I've relied on thus far to pump the brakes. Maybe Sneak Attack just needs an errata to "the attack must be made with a finesse or a ranged weapon" to bring it more in line with other weapon-keyed features?
- - -
Re: my point above that focuses are obviously "used" to cast spells... just look at the Artificer:
You can use your arcane firearm as a spellcasting focus for your artificer spells. When you cast an artificer spell through the firearm, roll a d8, and you gain a bonus to one of the spell’s damage rolls equal to the number rolled.
"Use" and "cast through" are about the same reference there.
Same with general Artificer focus/tools, "use" and "produce through"
You produce your artificer spell effectsthrough your tools. You must have a spellcasting focus—specifically thieves’ tools or some kind of artisan’s tool—in hand when you cast any spell with this Spellcasting feature (meaning the spell has an ‘M’ component when you cast it). You must be proficient with the tool to use it in this way. See chapter 5, “Equipment,” in the Player’s Handbook for descriptions of these tools.
After you gain the Infuse Item feature at 2nd level, you can also use any item bearing one of your infusions as a spellcasting focus.
By contrast, what Artificers attack "with" are the spells themselves, not the focuses "used" to cast them:
In addition, you use your Intelligence modifier when setting the saving throw DC for an artificer spell you cast and when making an attack roll with one.
When you cast a spell that deals radiant damage using this itemas your spellcasting focus, you gain a +1 bonus to one damage roll of the spell.
Again, even though the focus lets you provide a bonus when you "use" it, instead of just "hold" it like other similar items that were published with the core rules (like the Moon Sickle), it's still made clear that the spell is what is making the damage roll, not the focus.
I am firmly in the camp of 'a weapon's ("its", in this case) attacks' require the weapon (i.e. if you could do it without that weapon, it's not that weapon's attacks). Nothing in the rules calls an attack made through a (non-weapon) focus the focus's attacks, does it?
Also, we have a good idea of the intention as to whether improved pact weapon should change your spell attack and damage rolls. Make a warlock.
I was too, but then I was corrected in a forum question about Magic Stone on the language of sneak attack meaning that weapons can be used in spell attacks if circumstances allow.
It feels wrong, and definitely isn't RAI. But the vagueness leaves it RAW.
This silver-bladed sickle glimmers softly with moonlight. While holding this magic weapon, you gain a bonus to attack and damage rolls made with it, and you gain a bonus to spell attack rolls and the saving throw DCs of your druid and ranger spells. The bonus is determined by the weapon’s rarity. In addition, you can use the sickle as a spellcasting focus for your druid and ranger spells.
This silver-bladed sickle glimmers softly with moonlight. While holding this magic weapon, you gain a bonus to attack and damage rolls made with it, and you gain a bonus to spell attack rolls and the saving throw DCs of your druid and ranger spells. The bonus is determined by the weapon’s rarity. In addition, you can use the sickle as a spellcasting focus for your druid and ranger spells.
Oh, neat.
Meh, potentially broken new item then. Let Tasha's get some age on it and there might be an errata or official ruling to settle this issue.
I am firmly in the camp of 'a weapon's ("its", in this case) attacks' require the weapon (i.e. if you could do it without that weapon, it's not that weapon's attacks). Nothing in the rules calls an attack made through a (non-weapon) focus the focus's attacks, does it?
Also, we have a good idea of the intention as to whether improved pact weapon should change your spell attack and damage rolls. Make a warlock.
I was too, but then I was corrected in a forum question about Magic Stone on the language of sneak attack meaning that weapons can be used in spell attacks if circumstances allow.
It feels wrong, and definitely isn't RAI. But the vagueness leaves it RAW.
Hey, don't blame us for changing your mind on that. You were "corrected" that attacking using a sling and a magic stone is an attack using a ranged weapon (because the text of that spell makes that clear) - while simultaneously being clearly told repeatedly that using a focus that is also a ranged weapon to cast a spell that involves a spell attack is not an attack using a ranged weapon.
Handing out weapon bonuses to spell attacks that are made only using that weapon as a focus feels wrong because it is wrong. It isn't RAW. It isn't RAI. No errata is required.
I don't even think you believe that it is correct. I believe that you are still trying to get us to agree with your previous position on Magic Stone, hoping that continuing to create the false equivalency between a sling firing a rock and a focus casting a spell will confuse us into giving up. I repeat, we aren't confused about the difference between these two things. Sneak Attack will not be granted by a spell focus weapon.
I am firmly in the camp of 'a weapon's ("its", in this case) attacks' require the weapon (i.e. if you could do it without that weapon, it's not that weapon's attacks). Nothing in the rules calls an attack made through a (non-weapon) focus the focus's attacks, does it?
Also, we have a good idea of the intention as to whether improved pact weapon should change your spell attack and damage rolls. Make a warlock.
I was too, but then I was corrected in a forum question about Magic Stone on the language of sneak attack meaning that weapons can be used in spell attacks if circumstances allow.
It feels wrong, and definitely isn't RAI. But the vagueness leaves it RAW.
Hey, don't blame us for changing your mind on that. You were "corrected" that attacking using a sling and a magic stone is an attack using a ranged weapon (because the text of that spell makes that clear) - while simultaneously being clearly told repeatedly that using a focus that is also a ranged weapon to cast a spell that involves a spell attack is not an attack using a ranged weapon.
Handing out weapon bonuses to spell attacks that are made only using that weapon as a focus feels wrong because it is wrong. It isn't RAW. It isn't RAI. No errata is required.
I don't even think you believe that it is correct. I believe that you are still trying to get us to agree with your previous position on Magic Stone, hoping that continuing to create the false equivalency between a sling firing a rock and a focus casting a spell will confuse us into giving up. I repeat, we aren't confused about the difference between these two things. Sneak Attack will not be granted by a spell focus weapon.
People said that again and again, but didn't give any logic for why from the rules. I agree, it is not the intention of the rules, but that doesn't mean it isn't allowed by the rules as written. If the weapon doesn't need to make the attack as a weapon attack to apply for "making an attack with a weapon", RAW, then it functions the same for a weapon that can be an arcane focus. It just so happens that the cases where this could happen are relatively rare.
So the logic flow chart would be like this:
Is the weapon used in the attack? Yes.
Does the weapon grant a bonus to attack rolls? Yes.
Is there a stated requirement for a weapon attack to apply that bonus? No.
Are any of these things wrong? Or is there another expressly written rule that adds another point to the chart?
Im looking for troubleshooting in this thread to see how far this concept applies.
And Im starting to wonder how much the developers would even care at this point. Tasha's released items that more directly give bonuses to weapon and spell attacks, so it isn't even a power question anymore.
If the weapon doesn't need to make the attack as a weapon attack to apply for "making an attack with a weapon", RAW, then it functions the same for a weapon that can be an arcane focus.
This is a false statement. You are making this false statement. I would ask you to back this up with evidence.
If the weapon doesn't need to make the attack as a weapon attack to apply for "making an attack with a weapon", RAW, then it functions the same for a weapon that can be an arcane focus. It just so happens that the cases where this could happen are relatively rare.
Has anyone but you claimed this? I’ve been claiming that making an attack with a weapon requires a weapon attack with a weapon (different from, say, an unarmed strike) or a spell that specifically states the attack is with a weapon.
So the logic flow chart would be like this:
Is the weapon used in the attack? Yes.
Does the weapon grant a bonus to attack rolls? Yes.
Is there a stated requirement for a weapon attack to apply that bonus? No.
Are any of these things wrong? Or is there another expressly written rule that adds another point to the chart?
Yes. All of it. You had excuses as to why each of the magic items that I linked didn’t work the way you wanted to, but they work the way they’re written. As written, the rules make a distinction between bonuses to attacks and damage (as a weapon) vs spell attacks using something as a focus. If that weren’t the case, then different staffs wouldn’t need different rules as to whether they wanted the bonus to weapon attacks, spells, or both.
That is something you never addressed. If your nonsensical interpretations on bonuses was correct, why, then, could I pull up 3 different staffs and get 3 different listings on their bonuses to either weapon attacks, spells, or both types of attack?
You can rationalize all you want, but that’s all you are doing. You aren’t working out rules.
That a weapon can be used in a spell attack? Yeah, several in a forum post about how Magic Stone works. It was like 5 people disagreeing with me about a weapon attack being necessary to fulfill the definition of "an attack with a weapon." That being the case, Im exploring this interaction since that avenue has opened up.
You had excuses as to why each of the magic items that I linked didn’t work the way you wanted to, but they work the way they’re written.
The way they were written specifically didn't put them in the same category as an improved pact weapon. A wizard cannot just pick up a +1 quarterstaff and use it as an arcane focus: an arcane focus is specially designed.
As written, the rules make a distinction between bonuses to attacks and damage (as a weapon) vs spell attacks using something as a focus.
If such rules existed, you could point to them. But as shown with each of those items, the distinction isn't clear. The bonuse system on weapons was made assuming they could never be arcane foci, never clarifying they only apply to weapon attacks, because their use in spell attacks was next to impossible.
Now they are trying to specify for weapons that can be arcane foci. That is neat. It still doesn't prevent interactions as written, even if not intended.
Bonuses to attack rolls are bonuses to all attack rolls, if the weapon is used.
You can rationalize all you want, but that’s all you are doing. You aren’t working out rules.
Im sorry for being rational. But please, point to the rule that says weapon bonuses only apply on weapon attacks. I respect that you are making a really strong argument for RAI, one I agree with, and that I think might be made RAW in a future errata or official ruling. But the rules as written do not provide any actual reason not to assume this works.
Rationalization is the hallmark of the irrational.
I pointed to 3 different staff descriptions that indicate a difference between attack bonus and spell bonuses. You ignored them. The rules themselves are written in a way that indicates that they count for one and not the other.
The pact weapon is written restrictively (more so than the staffs) and also can be made in D&D beyond. A hexblade’s improved pact weapon doesn’t provide any bonus to its spells.
I’ll concede I wasn’t in the other thread, but I’m not hearing Kronzy say anything in this thread worth the intensity y’all are replying to them with. They are right, that items that provide bonuses when used as focuses are subtly DIFFERENT than Quarterstaffs (that are not Staffs) that provide spell bonuses when held but not used as focuses. Whether that difference is meaningful in a way that helps them draw the conclusions you find objectionable, they’re not wrong that bonuses from holding an item aren’t the same function as bonuses from “using” a focus to cast a spell. The question of whether a warlock’s IPW is intended to provide spell focus bonuses like an Eberron special wood focus, or just weapon bonuses like a +1 weapon, is not an easy question to point to a black and white rule to clarify. The question of why sneak attack applies to a spell attack made “with” a sling, but not to a different spell attack made from a spell “using” the sling as a focus (aka cast “through” the focus), is a perfectly valid question to ask, and again, is short of easily quotable rule text to resolve.
I may not agree with Kronzy’s conclusions, but y’all seem to be overreacting rather severely to them asking the questions in the first place. If the other thread was unpleasant, leave that unpleasantness there.
That a weapon can be used in a spell attack? Yeah, several in a forum post about how Magic Stone works. It was like 5 people disagreeing with me about a weapon attack being necessary to fulfill the definition of "an attack with a weapon." That being the case, Im exploring this interaction since that avenue has opened up.
No. The claim that you and only you made was "If the weapon doesn't need to make the attack as a weapon attack to apply for making an attack with a weapon, RAW, then it functions the same for a weapon that can be an arcane focus". That is the claim you were asked to support.
We agree that firing a magic stone from a sling is an attack with a ranged weapon. We do not agree that this extends to using a weapon as a focus in a spell with a spell attack - that is a claim that would need some sort of evidence to back it up.
The existence of weapons which can be focuses (either inherently or via a class feature) that specify very separately that they apply bonuses to attacks made with the weapon and also apply bonuses to spell attacks while holding the weapon is evidence that your interpretation is wrong. There is also a direct response in Sage Advice clarifying that your interpretation is wrong.
A magic weapon used as a spellcasting focus does not add it's bonuses to spell attacks unless noted otherwise. Staff of Magi & Staff of the Woodlands are exemples of one that specifically does.
And even when they do, it never state it apply to damage rolls, only attack rolls. And rather than weild it, it says when you hold it to differentiate how it's used. The Rod of Pact Keeper is another item that can grant bonus to spell attack while holding it for exemple.
I’ll concede I wasn’t in the other thread, but I’m not hearing Kronzy say anything in this thread worth the intensity y’all are replying to them with. They are right, that items that provide bonuses when used as focuses are subtly DIFFERENT than Quarterstaffs (that are not Staffs) that provide spell bonuses when held but not used as focuses. Whether that difference is meaningful in a way that helps them draw the conclusions you find objectionable, they’re not wrong that bonuses from holding an item aren’t the same function as bonuses from “using” a focus to cast a spell. The question of whether a warlock’s IPW is intended to provide spell focus bonuses like an Eberron special wood focus, or just weapon bonuses like a +1 weapon, is not an easy question to point to a black and white rule to clarify. The question of why sneak attack applies to a spell attack made “with” a sling, but not to a different spell attack made from a spell “using” the sling as a focus (aka cast “through” the focus), is a perfectly valid question to ask, and again, is short of easily quotable rule text to resolve.
I may not agree with Kronzy’s conclusions, but y’all seem to be overreacting rather severely to them asking the questions in the first place. If the other thread was unpleasant, leave that unpleasantness there.
The annoyance (on my part) is by the continual misrepresentation and misunderstandings of my statements.
I pointed to three staffs and a sickle that indicate that "attack with it" bonuses ("grants a +2 bonus to attack and damage rolls made with it") and spell attack bonuses ("you gain a +2 bonus to spell attack rolls") are different. They weren't used as a point of evidence on the topic showing that these bonuses are indeed intended to apply differently, they were irrationally rationalized away.
They were three staff magic items from the basic rules that each could be wielded as quarterstaff according to the staff type rules in the DMG and a weapon that could be used as a focus. They rationalized the three different staffs having different combinations of spell and "attack with it" bonuses for 3 different reasons, then said the sickle was broken (after being corrected that it was in fact a focus according to its own rules). Nothing indicated that they even considered these three magic items from the same source might be intentionally different because those two sets of bonuses might actually just be different.
This isn't the kind of thread where anyone is trying to figure out rules, this is that other kind of thread.
It is not an arcane focus, so it is not "used" in spell attacks.
It instead gives a bonus to attacks it is used in (which rarely, if ever, includes spell attacks), and then has a passive benefit of helping your spell casting in a non-foci way.
That is why it specifies both things.
The only way the two benefits would ever stack is for the pact of the blade Warlock, or used as the component in Steel Wind Strike. But they specifically require it be used by a Druid or Ranger, so it would only be a broken option for a Ranger at level 17, when every class is meant to be a bit broken anyways (unless you have a 9th level wizard doing multi-classing shenanigans to get Steel Wind Strike with this earlier, but that is a pretty huge sacrifice).
It is a focus. I am sorry if you don't have access to Tasha's, I didn't quote that part.
I could be persuaded to put "its" in the "with" camp instead of the "uses" camp... but I think the structure of Improved Pact Weapon (where that bonus is mentioned alongside other benefits, including the benefit of using it as a spell focus) is a pretty good indication that the feature is intended to provide a single item that gives you +1 bonus on attacks and damage rolls using that item for both your weapon attacks and your spells.
I know there are magic items or features out there that key their bonus off of attacks "using" X, not just for attacks "while holding" X or "made with" X. Tracking them down right now is outside the time I have to invest in this discussion, but I think they're an important part of understanding that RAI there really is a difference between using a spell focus/spell component weapon to cast a spell, and attacking "with" that spell focus/component (which you're never invited to do, outside of the two SCAGtrips, or attacking with an already-cast Magic Stone using a Sling).
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
I am firmly in the camp of 'a weapon's ("its", in this case) attacks' require the weapon (i.e. if you could do it without that weapon, it's not that weapon's attacks). Nothing in the rules calls an attack made through a (non-weapon) focus the focus's attacks, does it?
Also, we have a good idea of the intention as to whether improved pact weapon should change your spell attack and damage rolls. Make a warlock.
I looked through Tasha's. Nothing about the Moon Sickle says it is an arcane focus. There is a heading above the magic items list in Tasha's mentioning that some of the items are arcane foci, but not all or even most of them are. Only ones that state that they are an arcane focus, like the https://www.dndbeyond.com/magic-items/bell-branch.
Again, I'm not sure whether you're really asking me to support a position we both agree with, or disagreeing with me, or what. This is a tricky rule to talk about with the plain english so stacked against us :(
Sneak Attack is probably the feature where this is most important. All that Sneak Attack requires is "The attack must use a finesse or a ranged weapon." It is very very clear that spell focuses are "used" to cast their spells, there's no shortage of items and features that use "use" that way... but that doesn't quite split the hair whether "using" a focus to cast a spell that makes an attack is using the focus to make the attack. That extra step is what I've been trying to split off by calling that "attacking with."
I may be using the wrong language, maybe there's an easier way to talk about all this. On the one hand, it's obvious that holding a dagger and casting Fire Bolt is attacking with a spell, not with a dagger. On the other hand, its obvious that you're using the dagger to cast the spell that makes that attack, which could be phrased as using the dagger to make that attack without raising an english speaker's eyebrow. So what do we do with Sneak Attack, where's the off ramp to avoid the violence to RAI?
Most other features aren't phrased like Sneak Attack, Great Weapon Master and the like look for attacks "with" a weapon rather than attacks that "use" a weapon. That's better language, which I've relied on thus far to pump the brakes. Maybe Sneak Attack just needs an errata to "the attack must be made with a finesse or a ranged weapon" to bring it more in line with other weapon-keyed features?
- - -
Re: my point above that focuses are obviously "used" to cast spells... just look at the Artificer:
"Use" and "cast through" are about the same reference there.
Same with general Artificer focus/tools, "use" and "produce through"
By contrast, what Artificers attack "with" are the spells themselves, not the focuses "used" to cast them:
See also the special wood foci from Eberron:
Again, even though the focus lets you provide a bonus when you "use" it, instead of just "hold" it like other similar items that were published with the core rules (like the Moon Sickle), it's still made clear that the spell is what is making the damage roll, not the focus.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
I was too, but then I was corrected in a forum question about Magic Stone on the language of sneak attack meaning that weapons can be used in spell attacks if circumstances allow.
It feels wrong, and definitely isn't RAI. But the vagueness leaves it RAW.
Did you try reading the magic item description?
Oh, neat.
Meh, potentially broken new item then. Let Tasha's get some age on it and there might be an errata or official ruling to settle this issue.
Hey, don't blame us for changing your mind on that. You were "corrected" that attacking using a sling and a magic stone is an attack using a ranged weapon (because the text of that spell makes that clear) - while simultaneously being clearly told repeatedly that using a focus that is also a ranged weapon to cast a spell that involves a spell attack is not an attack using a ranged weapon.
Handing out weapon bonuses to spell attacks that are made only using that weapon as a focus feels wrong because it is wrong. It isn't RAW. It isn't RAI. No errata is required.
I don't even think you believe that it is correct. I believe that you are still trying to get us to agree with your previous position on Magic Stone, hoping that continuing to create the false equivalency between a sling firing a rock and a focus casting a spell will confuse us into giving up. I repeat, we aren't confused about the difference between these two things. Sneak Attack will not be granted by a spell focus weapon.
People said that again and again, but didn't give any logic for why from the rules. I agree, it is not the intention of the rules, but that doesn't mean it isn't allowed by the rules as written. If the weapon doesn't need to make the attack as a weapon attack to apply for "making an attack with a weapon", RAW, then it functions the same for a weapon that can be an arcane focus. It just so happens that the cases where this could happen are relatively rare.
So the logic flow chart would be like this:
Are any of these things wrong? Or is there another expressly written rule that adds another point to the chart?
Im looking for troubleshooting in this thread to see how far this concept applies.
And Im starting to wonder how much the developers would even care at this point. Tasha's released items that more directly give bonuses to weapon and spell attacks, so it isn't even a power question anymore.
This is a false statement. You are making this false statement. I would ask you to back this up with evidence.
Has anyone but you claimed this? I’ve been claiming that making an attack with a weapon requires a weapon attack with a weapon (different from, say, an unarmed strike) or a spell that specifically states the attack is with a weapon.
Yes. All of it. You had excuses as to why each of the magic items that I linked didn’t work the way you wanted to, but they work the way they’re written. As written, the rules make a distinction between bonuses to attacks and damage (as a weapon) vs spell attacks using something as a focus. If that weren’t the case, then different staffs wouldn’t need different rules as to whether they wanted the bonus to weapon attacks, spells, or both.
That is something you never addressed. If your nonsensical interpretations on bonuses was correct, why, then, could I pull up 3 different staffs and get 3 different listings on their bonuses to either weapon attacks, spells, or both types of attack?
You can rationalize all you want, but that’s all you are doing. You aren’t working out rules.
And just to back up with Sage advice - all these questions have been asked and answered:
https://www.sageadvice.eu/dd-scholars-if-you-have-a-1-weapon-and-can-use-weapon-as-a-spell-focus-you-get-that-1-for-spells-too-right/amp/
https://www.sageadvice.eu/magic-stone-sneak-attack/
That a weapon can be used in a spell attack? Yeah, several in a forum post about how Magic Stone works. It was like 5 people disagreeing with me about a weapon attack being necessary to fulfill the definition of "an attack with a weapon." That being the case, Im exploring this interaction since that avenue has opened up.
The way they were written specifically didn't put them in the same category as an improved pact weapon. A wizard cannot just pick up a +1 quarterstaff and use it as an arcane focus: an arcane focus is specially designed.
If such rules existed, you could point to them. But as shown with each of those items, the distinction isn't clear. The bonuse system on weapons was made assuming they could never be arcane foci, never clarifying they only apply to weapon attacks, because their use in spell attacks was next to impossible.
Now they are trying to specify for weapons that can be arcane foci. That is neat. It still doesn't prevent interactions as written, even if not intended.
Bonuses to attack rolls are bonuses to all attack rolls, if the weapon is used.
Im sorry for being rational. But please, point to the rule that says weapon bonuses only apply on weapon attacks. I respect that you are making a really strong argument for RAI, one I agree with, and that I think might be made RAW in a future errata or official ruling. But the rules as written do not provide any actual reason not to assume this works.
Rationalization is the hallmark of the irrational.
I pointed to 3 different staff descriptions that indicate a difference between attack bonus and spell bonuses. You ignored them. The rules themselves are written in a way that indicates that they count for one and not the other.
The pact weapon is written restrictively (more so than the staffs) and also can be made in D&D beyond. A hexblade’s improved pact weapon doesn’t provide any bonus to its spells.
I’ll concede I wasn’t in the other thread, but I’m not hearing Kronzy say anything in this thread worth the intensity y’all are replying to them with. They are right, that items that provide bonuses when used as focuses are subtly DIFFERENT than Quarterstaffs (that are not Staffs) that provide spell bonuses when held but not used as focuses. Whether that difference is meaningful in a way that helps them draw the conclusions you find objectionable, they’re not wrong that bonuses from holding an item aren’t the same function as bonuses from “using” a focus to cast a spell. The question of whether a warlock’s IPW is intended to provide spell focus bonuses like an Eberron special wood focus, or just weapon bonuses like a +1 weapon, is not an easy question to point to a black and white rule to clarify. The question of why sneak attack applies to a spell attack made “with” a sling, but not to a different spell attack made from a spell “using” the sling as a focus (aka cast “through” the focus), is a perfectly valid question to ask, and again, is short of easily quotable rule text to resolve.
I may not agree with Kronzy’s conclusions, but y’all seem to be overreacting rather severely to them asking the questions in the first place. If the other thread was unpleasant, leave that unpleasantness there.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
No. The claim that you and only you made was "If the weapon doesn't need to make the attack as a weapon attack to apply for making an attack with a weapon, RAW, then it functions the same for a weapon that can be an arcane focus". That is the claim you were asked to support.
We agree that firing a magic stone from a sling is an attack with a ranged weapon. We do not agree that this extends to using a weapon as a focus in a spell with a spell attack - that is a claim that would need some sort of evidence to back it up.
The existence of weapons which can be focuses (either inherently or via a class feature) that specify very separately that they apply bonuses to attacks made with the weapon and also apply bonuses to spell attacks while holding the weapon is evidence that your interpretation is wrong. There is also a direct response in Sage Advice clarifying that your interpretation is wrong.
A magic weapon used as a spellcasting focus does not add it's bonuses to spell attacks unless noted otherwise. Staff of Magi & Staff of the Woodlands are exemples of one that specifically does.
And even when they do, it never state it apply to damage rolls, only attack rolls. And rather than weild it, it says when you hold it to differentiate how it's used. The Rod of Pact Keeper is another item that can grant bonus to spell attack while holding it for exemple.
The annoyance (on my part) is by the continual misrepresentation and misunderstandings of my statements.
I pointed to three staffs and a sickle that indicate that "attack with it" bonuses ("grants a +2 bonus to attack and damage rolls made with it") and spell attack bonuses ("you gain a +2 bonus to spell attack rolls") are different. They weren't used as a point of evidence on the topic showing that these bonuses are indeed intended to apply differently, they were irrationally rationalized away.
They were three staff magic items from the basic rules that each could be wielded as quarterstaff according to the staff type rules in the DMG and a weapon that could be used as a focus. They rationalized the three different staffs having different combinations of spell and "attack with it" bonuses for 3 different reasons, then said the sickle was broken (after being corrected that it was in fact a focus according to its own rules). Nothing indicated that they even considered these three magic items from the same source might be intentionally different because those two sets of bonuses might actually just be different.
This isn't the kind of thread where anyone is trying to figure out rules, this is that other kind of thread.