@RandomMagilla Does the +1 from Improved Pact Weapon carry through when used as a spell focus?
@JeremyECrawford The bonus to attack rolls conferred by Improve Pact Weapon applies to the weapon's attack rolls, not to a spell's attack rolls. #DnD
Yeah, that is definetly RAI.
Actually, it's RAW.
Improved Pact Weapon
Prerequisite: Pact of the Blade feature
You can use any weapon you summon with your Pact of the Blade feature as a spellcasting focus for your warlock spells.
In addition, the weapon gains a +1 bonus to its attack and damage rolls, unless it is a magic weapon that already has a bonus to those rolls.
Finally, the weapon you conjure can be a shortbow, longbow, light crossbow, or heavy crossbow.
Here, the weapon can serve two purposes. It can double as a spellcasting focus, and it can gain a magical +1 bonus. However, that bonus explicitly only applies to the attack and damage rolls made with the weapon. If the intent was to add to spell attack rolls, or the spell save DC, the invocation would say so. You can wield the affected item as a weapon or spellcasting focus, but it cannot be both at the same time.
When you [Tooltip Not Found], you cause one or more effects to happen and follow the spell's description to adjudicate the result. If the spell's description calls for one or more attacks, be they spell attacks or weapon attacks, then those are carried out. But the action has already been performed. The casting of the spell and the resulting attacks, if any, are distinct from one another.
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.
What the...?
The claim that the bonus system was written assuming such weapons could never be a spellcasting focus is straight up nonsense. No, it's not nonsense, it's a bold-faced lie. There are magical staves in the DMG which serve both as an arcane focus and as a magical quarterstaff. The distinction between bonuses to weapon attack rolls (and damage) and spell attack rolls has been hard coded into the game since November 28th, 2014.
First, the bonus is not explicitly applied only to weapon attacks. That is precise language which is not used here.
Second, the arcane focus is used in spell attacks. Separating the attacks from the item used to engage the action that created it is like saying "the attack action is totally separate from the actual attacks, thus weapons are not part of weapon attacks when used to make them" (which is a silly thing to say).
It is that simple. Pulling in how other items work has no direct bearing. Items do what they say they do.
First, the bonus is not explicitly applied only to weapon attacks. That is precise language which is not used here.
Second, the arcane focus is used in spell attacks. Separating the attacks from the item used to engage the action that created it is like saying "the attack action is totally separate from the actual attacks, thus weapons are not part of weapon attacks when used to make them" (which is a silly thing to say).
It is that simple. Pulling in how other items work has no direct bearing. Items do what they say they do.
Using a weapon as spellcasting focus is casting a spell with it, not directly attacking with it.
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.
What the...?
The claim that the bonus system was written assuming such weapons could never be a spellcasting focus is straight up nonsense. No, it's not nonsense, it's a bold-faced lie. There are magical staves in the DMG which serve both as an arcane focus and as a magical quarterstaff. The distinction between bonuses to weapon attack rolls (and damage) and spell attack rolls has been hard coded into the game since November 28th, 2014.
It's one thing to have a difference of informed opinion, but this ain't it.
None of those state they can be used as arcane foci. An arcane focus is "a special item designed to channel the power of arcane spells." An item is only valid as an arcane focus if it expressly designated as such.
Its why you can't use an unexpended spell scroll or any other generic item with a spell loaded into it as spell focus.
First, the bonus is not explicitly applied only to weapon attacks. That is precise language which is not used here.
Second, the arcane focus is used in spell attacks. Separating the attacks from the item used to engage the action that created it is like saying "the attack action is totally separate from the actual attacks, thus weapons are not part of weapon attacks when used to make them" (which is a silly thing to say).
It is that simple. Pulling in how other items work has no direct bearing. Items do what they say they do.
Using a weapon as spellcasting focus is casting a spell with it, not directly attacking with it.
Not a distinction that matters unless relevant features require a "weapon attack."
First, the bonus is not explicitly applied only to weapon attacks. That is precise language which is not used here.
Second, the arcane focus is used in spell attacks. Separating the attacks from the item used to engage the action that created it is like saying "the attack action is totally separate from the actual attacks, thus weapons are not part of weapon attacks when used to make them" (which is a silly thing to say).
It is that simple. Pulling in how other items work has no direct bearing. Items do what they say they do.
Using a weapon as spellcasting focus is casting a spell with it, not directly attacking with it.
Not a distinction that matters unless relevant features require a "weapon attack."
Those staffs are staffs, not quarterstaffs, so they may be used as focuses by some classes. But even when they are not used that way, they provide a bonus merely by holding them. A loxodon could hold three and get all three’s bonus, because they aren’t providing a bonus as spell foci, just as possessions.
First, the bonus is not explicitly applied only to weapon attacks. That is precise language which is not used here.
Second, the arcane focus is used in spell attacks. Separating the attacks from the item used to engage the action that created it is like saying "the attack action is totally separate from the actual attacks, thus weapons are not part of weapon attacks when used to make them" (which is a silly thing to say).
It is that simple. Pulling in how other items work has no direct bearing. Items do what they say they do.
You think those count as points?
A thing tells you what it does and how it works. If it's silent, then there's no impact. The weapon has a +1 bonus to attack and damage rolls. There is no text saying the bonus is also applicable to spell attack rolls, so it doesn't apply. Even just for the sake of consistency, that's now how it would be worded. Rather, we'd have a separate sentence saying, "While you hold it, you gain a +1 bonus to spell attack rolls." But that line doesn't exist, so we do not apply it so.
A spellcasting focus (arcane, divine, druidic, etc.) is only used to cast a spell if the spell has a material component cost. As a matter of fact, only five spells might qualify for your argument: flame blade, ice knife, Melf's acid arrow, thorn whip, and witch bolt. They're the only spells in the game which force a spell attack roll, as part of their casting, that aren't also dependent on a monied material component. This is why a wand of the war mage is so valuable. It doesn't care if its used or not, because the bonus applies regardless. All you have to do is be attuned to it and hold it in your hand.
Taken to its illogical conclusion, your train of thought would have us believe Improved Pact Weapon adds +1 to every spell attack roll and damage roll of eldritch blast. And, sorry not sorry, that's just now how its written. It's not RAW. It's not even RAI.
Give us a reason to take you seriously. I beg you.
The posters proclaiming that all "attack rolls" are by default "weapon attack rolls" unless called "spell attack rolls" are misguided. "Attack rolls" obviously includes both weapon and spell (and possibly even 'other') attack rolls, as a larger category.
Sneak Attack doesn't call for a weapon attack. It does call for an attack "using" a certain weapon. There is certainly a good argument to be made that Sneak Attack RAI means "weapon attack using".... , but it doesn't say that, so should probably get an errata. Especially because, spell focuses are explicitly "used" to cast spells, though again, there is a very good argument to be made that RAI and RAW, "using" a focus to cast a spell that makes an attack is attacking with a spell, not attacking with a focus.
There are legitimate ways to push back against Kronzy, without pretending that "attack roll" always means "weapon attack roll," or that features that don't ask for a "weapon attack" somehow do just because a weapon and an attack are mentioned separately in the feature. There are some ambiguous parts of the PHB and others, and talking about those ambiguities shouldn't anger anyone.
The posters proclaiming that all "attack rolls" are by default "weapon attack rolls" unless called "spell attack rolls" are misguided. "Attack rolls" obviously includes both weapon and spell (and possibly even 'other') attack rolls, as a larger category.
The point is not wether attack rolls can be weapon or spells, they are, the point is if a magic weapon give a bonus to attack and damage rolls with it, you have to apply it to attacks made with it.
Improved Pact Weapon for exemple says "In addition, the weapon gains a +1 bonus to ITS attack and damage rolls, unless it is a magic weapon that already has a bonus to those rolls." What do you think ITS refer to if not attack with weapon? #weaponattack
The posters proclaiming that all "attack rolls" are by default "weapon attack rolls" unless called "spell attack rolls" are misguided. "Attack rolls" obviously includes both weapon and spell (and possibly even 'other') attack rolls, as a larger category.
Sneak Attack doesn't call for a weapon attack. It does call for an attack "using" a certain weapon. There is certainly a good argument to be made that Sneak Attack RAI means "weapon attack using".... , but it doesn't say that, so should probably get an errata. Especially because, spell focuses are explicitly "used" to cast spells, though again, there is a very good argument to be made that RAI and RAW, "using" a focus to cast a spell that makes an attack is attacking with a spell, not attacking with a focus.
There are legitimate ways to push back against Kronzy, without pretending that "attack roll" always means "weapon attack roll," or that features that don't ask for a "weapon attack" somehow do just because a weapon and an attack are mentioned separately in the feature. There are some ambiguous parts of the PHB and others, and talking about those ambiguities shouldn't anger anyone.
Chicken, do you believe the RAW for Improved Pact Weapon grants a bonus to spell attacks and spell damage if you are using the weapon as a focus?
That is the question being answered here. The RAI is very, very, very obviously no. I'd argue the RAW is also very, very, very obviously no, because it uses the same language as every other +1 weapon that can't be used as a foci, and lacks the language every other +1 to spell attacks item uses. You don't make spell attacks with a foci, you make spell attacks with a spell, that's why it is called a spell attack bonus, instead of a foci attack bonus. The spell generates the attack, not the foci, because foci are never required to cast spells (unless you are an artificer, but there are no published +1 to spell attacks foci the artificer can use)
And regarding the bolded, The issue here is not a person calling out an ambiguity in the RAW for it's own sake, they are doing so to win an argument elsewhere. There are places to discuss issues with the RAW, but it should be clear for new players and those with actual questions what this is.
There are spell attacks and weapon attacks. An ability could say it requires spell attacks, and then it would require spell attacks. It could say it requires weapon attacks, and then it would require weapon attacks. Or, it could require attacks. In this case, it does care which, and works with either.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
There are spell attacks and weapon attacks. An ability could say it requires spell attacks, and then it would require spell attacks. It could say it requires weapon attacks, and then it would require weapon attacks. Or, it could require attacks. In this case, it does care which, and works with either.
I agree, but that's not the real question. Making the question agnostic and boiling it down, the question is, Do you make spell attacks with a foci?
If you do, then any +1 weapon that can be used as a foci would grant the +1 to spell attack rolls (and damage rolls). That is clearly not RAI, but if you claim the answer to the above question is yes, that would be the RAW reading
I know it isn't the RAI, because items exist that do grant their bonuses to both weapon attacks (using the same language as the general +1's and the improved pact weapon), and to spell attacks, using different and specific language (four of them were listed in an earlier post). I also know it isn't the RAW because the RAW in no location says that you make the spell attacks of a spell with a foci (or with a material component, since foci are not a requirement to cast, only an option).
There are spell attacks and weapon attacks. An ability could say it requires spell attacks, and then it would require spell attacks. It could say it requires weapon attacks, and then it would require weapon attacks. Or, it could require attacks. In this case, it does care which, and works with either.
I agree, but that's not the real question. Making the question agnostic and boiling it down, the question is, Do you make spell attacks with a foci?
If you do, then any +1 weapon that can be used as a foci would grant the +1 to spell attack rolls (and damage rolls). That is clearly not RAI, but if you claim the answer to the above question is yes, that would be the RAW reading
I know it isn't the RAI, because items exist that do grant their bonuses to both weapon attacks (using the same language as the general +1's and the improved pact weapon), and to spell attacks, using different and specific language (four of them were listed in an earlier post). I also know it isn't the RAW because the RAW in no location says that you make the spell attacks of a spell with a foci (or with a material component, since foci are not a requirement to cast, only an option).
Right. I was having some difficulty following along through this thread, thanks for distilling it down. I'm a little surprised that that is the question. Okay.
"Do you make spell attacks with a foci?"
Answer: No. You make spell attacks with the spell that says to do the spell attack. (Unless otherwise specified as an exception)
Note how things which modify spell attacks tend to be worded:
While holding this wand, you gain a +1 bonus to spell attack rolls.
This staff can be wielded as a magic quarterstaff that grants a +2 bonus to attack and damage rolls made with it. While you hold it, you gain a +2 bonus to spell attack rolls.
This staff can be wielded as a magic quarterstaff that grants a +2 bonus to attack and damage rolls made with it. While holding it, you gain a +2 bonus to Armor Class, saving throws, and spell attack rolls.
They tend to require you to simply hold it to add a bonus to spell attacks. Because, strictly speaking, you're not making those spell attacks with it, only while holding it.
A weapon that adds to attack/damage on attacks made with it but doesn't specify that you gain these bonuses while holding it, would, indeed, only work if that spell also somehow was made with the weapon delivering it. Ala Booming Blade and the like.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
I haven't head anyone else endorse my "use" vs. "with" analysis, but it's where I draw my lines.
I think that the RAW and RAI for a Weapon +1 unambiguously shows that the +1 is for attacks "with" the weapon, not any other attacks that might merely "use" the weapon.
You have a +1 bonus to attack and damage rolls made with this magic weapon.
There are plenty of places, like the artificer features I quoted earlier (I won't take up space with it again, see post #49) which demonstrate that spell focuses are "used" to cast spells, but the resulting spell attacks are attacks "with" the spell, not the focus. So, a Weapon +1 used as a spell focus to cast a spell that makes a spell attack is not a spell attack "with" that weapon, no bonus.
I think that the RAW and RAI for an Imbued Wood Focus unambiguously shows that the +1 is for attacks that "use" the focus, not only attacks "with" it.
When you cast a damage-dealing spell using this item as your spellcasting focus, you gain a +1 bonus to one damage roll of the spell, provided the damage is of the type associated with the item's wood.
Other items that provide a bonus to spells while the item is "held", do not require that it be "used" as a focus, or that the attack be made "with" the item. No point even talking about them, hold the item, get the bonus, easy peasy.
Fair enough.... but Improved Pact Weapon is distinct from all of these extremes.
You can use any weapon you summon with your Pact of the Blade feature as a spellcasting focus for your warlock spells.
In addition, the weapon gains a +1 bonus to its attack and damage rolls, unless it is a magic weapon that already has a bonus to those rolls.
Maybe you think that line break is significant, maybe it isn't, but if there was a magic item that said "you can use this Gizmo as a spellcasting focus for your warlock spells. In addition, this Gizmo gains a +1 bonus on its attack and damage rolls"... you might wonder why it was worded so differently from other magic items that do similar functions, but I don't think it would be an uphill battle to say "Hey, that's a Gizmo that provides +1 bonus to attack and damage rolls for spells you cast through it!"
I think its pretty debatable whether "its attack rolls" more closely resembles a description of attacks "using it" or "with it". Like I said, I could be persuaded either direction, its novel language that the plain English could tip either way, so some other source of RAI is needed to resolve. Not an unreasonable thing to ask questions about.
Fair enough.... but Improved Pact Weapon is distinct from all of these extremes.
You can use any weapon you summon with your Pact of the Blade feature as a spellcasting focus for your warlock spells.
In addition, the weapon gains a +1 bonus to its attack and damage rolls, unless it is a magic weapon that already has a bonus to those rolls.
Maybe you think that line break is significant, maybe it isn't, but if there was a magic item that said "you can use this Gizmo as a spellcasting focus for your warlock spells. In addition, this Gizmo gains a +1 bonus on its attack and damage rolls"... you might wonder why it was worded so differently from other magic items that do similar functions, but I don't think it would be an uphill battle to say "Hey, that's a Gizmo that provides +1 bonus to attack and damage rolls from spells you cast with it!"
I think its pretty debatable whether "its attack rolls" more closely resembles a description of attacks "using it" or "with it". Like I said, I could be persuaded either direction, its novel language that the plain English could tip either way, so some other source of RAI is needed to resolve. Not an unreasonable thing to ask questions about.
Yeah, but I still say that "its" means the weapon's. Spell attacks are (usually, and certainly in this context) the spell's, not the foci's, so if all you are doing with said pact weapon is using it as a foci for that spell, then that spell attack is not "its" (the weapons) attack or damage, it is the spell's
Now, if you have a magic weapon that allows you to make a spell attack as it's normal attack, I could see the bonus applying, but a spell's spell attack is the spells, not the foci's
Fair enough.... but Improved Pact Weapon is distinct from all of these extremes.
You can use any weapon you summon with your Pact of the Blade feature as a spellcasting focus for your warlock spells.
In addition, the weapon gains a +1 bonus to its attack and damage rolls, unless it is a magic weapon that already has a bonus to those rolls.
Maybe you think that line break is significant, maybe it isn't, but if there was a magic item that said "you can use this Gizmo as a spellcasting focus for your warlock spells. In addition, this Gizmo gains a +1 bonus on its attack and damage rolls"... you might wonder why it was worded so differently from other magic items that do similar functions, but I don't think it would be an uphill battle to say "Hey, that's a Gizmo that provides +1 bonus to attack and damage rolls from spells you cast with it!"
I think its pretty debatable whether "its attack rolls" more closely resembles a description of attacks "using it" or "with it". Like I said, I could be persuaded either direction, its novel language that the plain English could tip either way, so some other source of RAI is needed to resolve. Not an unreasonable thing to ask questions about.
Yeah, but I still say that "its" means the weapon's. Spell attacks are (usually, and certainly in this context) the spell's, not the foci's, so if all you are doing with said pact weapon is using it as a foci for that spell, then that spell attack is not "its" (the weapons) attack or damage, it is the spell's
Now, if you have a magic weapon that allows you to make a spell attack as it's normal attack, I could see the bonus applying, but a spell's spell attack is the spells, not the foci's
Yeah this. Plus, the additional context the feature adds that really drives it home is the "unless it is a magic weapon that already has a bonus to those rolls." This line clears it up if there was any doubt. It functions like a standard magic weapon. One which just happens to also function as a foci.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
The Devs also provided RAI on this specific question on twitter: https://www.sageadvice.eu/does-the-1-from-improved-pact-weapon-carry-through-when-used-as-a-spell-focus/?utm_source=ReviveOldPost&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=ReviveOldPost
@RandomMagilla Does the +1 from Improved Pact Weapon carry through when used as a spell focus?
@JeremyECrawford The bonus to attack rolls conferred by Improve Pact Weapon applies to the weapon's attack rolls, not to a spell's attack rolls. #DnD
Yeah, that is definetly RAI.
Actually, it's RAW.
Here, the weapon can serve two purposes. It can double as a spellcasting focus, and it can gain a magical +1 bonus. However, that bonus explicitly only applies to the attack and damage rolls made with the weapon. If the intent was to add to spell attack rolls, or the spell save DC, the invocation would say so. You can wield the affected item as a weapon or spellcasting focus, but it cannot be both at the same time.
When you [Tooltip Not Found], you cause one or more effects to happen and follow the spell's description to adjudicate the result. If the spell's description calls for one or more attacks, be they spell attacks or weapon attacks, then those are carried out. But the action has already been performed. The casting of the spell and the resulting attacks, if any, are distinct from one another.
What the...?
The claim that the bonus system was written assuming such weapons could never be a spellcasting focus is straight up nonsense. No, it's not nonsense, it's a bold-faced lie. There are magical staves in the DMG which serve both as an arcane focus and as a magical quarterstaff. The distinction between bonuses to weapon attack rolls (and damage) and spell attack rolls has been hard coded into the game since November 28th, 2014.
Ladies and Gentlemen, I give you the staff of power, the staff of the magi, the staff of the woodlands, and the staff of thunder and lightning.
It's one thing to have a difference of informed opinion, but this ain't it.
I'll take this in 2 points:
First, the bonus is not explicitly applied only to weapon attacks. That is precise language which is not used here.
Second, the arcane focus is used in spell attacks. Separating the attacks from the item used to engage the action that created it is like saying "the attack action is totally separate from the actual attacks, thus weapons are not part of weapon attacks when used to make them" (which is a silly thing to say).
It is that simple. Pulling in how other items work has no direct bearing. Items do what they say they do.
Using a weapon as spellcasting focus is casting a spell with it, not directly attacking with it.
None of those state they can be used as arcane foci. An arcane focus is "a special item designed to channel the power of arcane spells." An item is only valid as an arcane focus if it expressly designated as such.
Its why you can't use an unexpended spell scroll or any other generic item with a spell loaded into it as spell focus.
RAF and RAI, sure. But not RAW.
Not a distinction that matters unless relevant features require a "weapon attack."
What feature exactly?
Those staffs are staffs, not quarterstaffs, so they may be used as focuses by some classes. But even when they are not used that way, they provide a bonus merely by holding them. A loxodon could hold three and get all three’s bonus, because they aren’t providing a bonus as spell foci, just as possessions.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
You think those count as points?
Taken to its illogical conclusion, your train of thought would have us believe Improved Pact Weapon adds +1 to every spell attack roll and damage roll of eldritch blast. And, sorry not sorry, that's just now how its written. It's not RAW. It's not even RAI.
Give us a reason to take you seriously. I beg you.
The posters proclaiming that all "attack rolls" are by default "weapon attack rolls" unless called "spell attack rolls" are misguided. "Attack rolls" obviously includes both weapon and spell (and possibly even 'other') attack rolls, as a larger category.
Sneak Attack doesn't call for a weapon attack. It does call for an attack "using" a certain weapon. There is certainly a good argument to be made that Sneak Attack RAI means "weapon attack using".... , but it doesn't say that, so should probably get an errata. Especially because, spell focuses are explicitly "used" to cast spells, though again, there is a very good argument to be made that RAI and RAW, "using" a focus to cast a spell that makes an attack is attacking with a spell, not attacking with a focus.
There are legitimate ways to push back against Kronzy, without pretending that "attack roll" always means "weapon attack roll," or that features that don't ask for a "weapon attack" somehow do just because a weapon and an attack are mentioned separately in the feature. There are some ambiguous parts of the PHB and others, and talking about those ambiguities shouldn't anger anyone.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
The point is not wether attack rolls can be weapon or spells, they are, the point is if a magic weapon give a bonus to attack and damage rolls with it, you have to apply it to attacks made with it.
Improved Pact Weapon for exemple says "In addition, the weapon gains a +1 bonus to ITS attack and damage rolls, unless it is a magic weapon that already has a bonus to those rolls." What do you think ITS refer to if not attack with weapon? #weaponattack
Chicken, do you believe the RAW for Improved Pact Weapon grants a bonus to spell attacks and spell damage if you are using the weapon as a focus?
That is the question being answered here. The RAI is very, very, very obviously no. I'd argue the RAW is also very, very, very obviously no, because it uses the same language as every other +1 weapon that can't be used as a foci, and lacks the language every other +1 to spell attacks item uses. You don't make spell attacks with a foci, you make spell attacks with a spell, that's why it is called a spell attack bonus, instead of a foci attack bonus. The spell generates the attack, not the foci, because foci are never required to cast spells (unless you are an artificer, but there are no published +1 to spell attacks foci the artificer can use)
And regarding the bolded, The issue here is not a person calling out an ambiguity in the RAW for it's own sake, they are doing so to win an argument elsewhere. There are places to discuss issues with the RAW, but it should be clear for new players and those with actual questions what this is.
There are spell attacks and weapon attacks. An ability could say it requires spell attacks, and then it would require spell attacks. It could say it requires weapon attacks, and then it would require weapon attacks. Or, it could require attacks. In this case, it does care which, and works with either.
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
I agree, but that's not the real question. Making the question agnostic and boiling it down, the question is, Do you make spell attacks with a foci?
If you do, then any +1 weapon that can be used as a foci would grant the +1 to spell attack rolls (and damage rolls). That is clearly not RAI, but if you claim the answer to the above question is yes, that would be the RAW reading
I know it isn't the RAI, because items exist that do grant their bonuses to both weapon attacks (using the same language as the general +1's and the improved pact weapon), and to spell attacks, using different and specific language (four of them were listed in an earlier post). I also know it isn't the RAW because the RAW in no location says that you make the spell attacks of a spell with a foci (or with a material component, since foci are not a requirement to cast, only an option).
Right. I was having some difficulty following along through this thread, thanks for distilling it down. I'm a little surprised that that is the question. Okay.
"Do you make spell attacks with a foci?"
Answer: No. You make spell attacks with the spell that says to do the spell attack. (Unless otherwise specified as an exception)
Note how things which modify spell attacks tend to be worded:
They tend to require you to simply hold it to add a bonus to spell attacks. Because, strictly speaking, you're not making those spell attacks with it, only while holding it.
A weapon that adds to attack/damage on attacks made with it but doesn't specify that you gain these bonuses while holding it, would, indeed, only work if that spell also somehow was made with the weapon delivering it. Ala Booming Blade and the like.
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
I haven't head anyone else endorse my "use" vs. "with" analysis, but it's where I draw my lines.
I think that the RAW and RAI for a Weapon +1 unambiguously shows that the +1 is for attacks "with" the weapon, not any other attacks that might merely "use" the weapon.
There are plenty of places, like the artificer features I quoted earlier (I won't take up space with it again, see post #49) which demonstrate that spell focuses are "used" to cast spells, but the resulting spell attacks are attacks "with" the spell, not the focus. So, a Weapon +1 used as a spell focus to cast a spell that makes a spell attack is not a spell attack "with" that weapon, no bonus.
I think that the RAW and RAI for an Imbued Wood Focus unambiguously shows that the +1 is for attacks that "use" the focus, not only attacks "with" it.
Other items that provide a bonus to spells while the item is "held", do not require that it be "used" as a focus, or that the attack be made "with" the item. No point even talking about them, hold the item, get the bonus, easy peasy.
Fair enough.... but Improved Pact Weapon is distinct from all of these extremes.
Maybe you think that line break is significant, maybe it isn't, but if there was a magic item that said "you can use this Gizmo as a spellcasting focus for your warlock spells. In addition, this Gizmo gains a +1 bonus on its attack and damage rolls"... you might wonder why it was worded so differently from other magic items that do similar functions, but I don't think it would be an uphill battle to say "Hey, that's a Gizmo that provides +1 bonus to attack and damage rolls for spells you cast through it!"
I think its pretty debatable whether "its attack rolls" more closely resembles a description of attacks "using it" or "with it". Like I said, I could be persuaded either direction, its novel language that the plain English could tip either way, so some other source of RAI is needed to resolve. Not an unreasonable thing to ask questions about.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
Yeah, but I still say that "its" means the weapon's. Spell attacks are (usually, and certainly in this context) the spell's, not the foci's, so if all you are doing with said pact weapon is using it as a foci for that spell, then that spell attack is not "its" (the weapons) attack or damage, it is the spell's
Now, if you have a magic weapon that allows you to make a spell attack as it's normal attack, I could see the bonus applying, but a spell's spell attack is the spells, not the foci's
Yeah this. Plus, the additional context the feature adds that really drives it home is the "unless it is a magic weapon that already has a bonus to those rolls." This line clears it up if there was any doubt. It functions like a standard magic weapon. One which just happens to also function as a foci.
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.