Hello all. I searched for this and did not come up with this exact ruling on here. I've checked other sources and wanted to make sure this is correct.
I am currently in a situation where I have a level 4 Life Domain Cleric and level 2 Circle of the Stars Druid trying to be the ultimate healer if possible.
Have an Amulet of Devout +1 and Moon Sickle +1. It seems that the amulet by RAW effects all spells and the sickle effects only Druid/Ranger spells. So anything that overlaps between the two gets the bonus of each which also includes guiding bolt since it is a feature of the Circle of the Stars.
Now my DnD Beyond App seems to be applying the bonus to every spell instead of separating them out and I wanted to make sure that is incorrect, and I need to make sure to watch for this.
Spells are associated with the class you learned them through. Your druid and ranger spells are (in your case) only the spells you have prepared through your druid class, even if D&D beyond doesn't have the technology to easily separate those and apply the moon sickle bonus to those only. it has nothing to do with spell list overlap, and only to do with how you learned the spells on that character.
It should be stated that it probably isn't intended for the amulet to work on anything but your cleric and paladin spells, even though that isn't what the item says. Stacking them is definitely a balance problem and should probably be looked at very closely by your DM.
Spells are associated with the class you learned them through. Your druid and ranger spells are (in your case) only the spells you have prepared through your druid class, even if D&D beyond doesn't have the technology to easily separate those and apply the moon sickle bonus to those only. it has nothing to do with spell list overlap, and only to do with how you learned the spells on that character.
It should be stated that it probably isn't intended for the amulet to work on anything but your cleric and paladin spells, even though that isn't what the item says. Stacking them is definitely a balance problem and should probably be looked at very closely by your DM.
And since it is AL I believe they are bound by current RAW. So I definitely need to keep these separated it sounds like.
At first blush I thought this would not stack as both would be being used as a focus. After reading the descriptions of the items neither required that you use them as a focus for the bonus. They take up different magic item slots and each count towards attunement which does create it's own limitation.
Yes, according to the rules, your character would receive the bonus for spells that are part of the druid or ranger spell list including Guiding Bolt.
This being said, using two attunement slots for a 10% increase in success is a steep price to pay as the character levels. I could easily see choosing not to attune one of these items at a later date to make room for more powerful magic items.
Well, from RAW, as you said it seems like your druid spells should get both bonuses. But those are only the 2 + wisdom mod first level spells that you prepared as a druid plus the few you get for free from the subclass.
Your cleric prepared spells should only get the amulet bonus - even if they're on the druid list.
WolfOfTheBees is absolutely correct and in case you need a RAW source for this there is the following from the Multiclassing section of the PHB: "Each spell you know and prepare is associated with one of your classes, and you use the spellcasting ability of that class when you cast the spell."
As for whether this is worth the required attunement slots is a less simple matter than it might initially seem. Increasing your chance to hit by 2 does not increase your damage output by 10%. It will increase it by more than that with the exact amount depending on the targets AC. A common hit chance value to use when calculating expected damage is 60% and so a +2 would mean a 70% chance to hit which raises your expected damage by 16.667% assuming no advantage or disadvantage on the roll. The lower your base chance to hit the more impactful the +2 is. Also Druids have some mean save or suck spells like Entangle and Hold Person and the extra bonus to your save DC will be really impactful, especially against creatures with something like Magic Resistance.
The issue isn't the Multiclassing section of the PHB. The issue is the magic item. Since the magic item is a specific rule it overrides the general rule of the multiclassing section. This is paraphrased from the Introduction section of the PHB "Specific Beats General"
Moon Sickle, "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 character wants to cast Hold Person using a cleric spell slot.
Is Hold Person a Cleric Spell - Yes Does the character have the available spell slot - Yes Does the Amulet of the Devout trigger - Yes, the amulet is equipped and attuned to a cleric and Hold Person is a spell Does the Moon Sickle Trigger - Yes, the conditions of Moon Sickle are all met (1. attuned to a druid. 2. held by the character. 3. Hold Person is a druid spell as it is listed on the druid spell list.)
If the Moon Sickle was being restricted to only giving a bonus for a druid or ranger spell that is cast using a druid or ranger specific spell slot and prepared as part of the spells prepared by the druid or ranger that day, then we would add words to the magic item to accomplish this.
At its core I think this turns into a philosophical question. I generally follow the rule that if there is ambiguity in the rules, the rules benefit the player.
The issue isn't the Multiclassing section of the PHB. The issue is the magic item. Since the magic item is a specific rule it overrides the general rule of the multiclassing section. This is paraphrased from the Introduction section of the PHB "Specific Beats General"
Moon Sickle, "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 character wants to cast Hold Person using a cleric spell slot.
Is Hold Person a Cleric Spell - Yes Does the character have the available spell slot - Yes Does the Amulet of the Devout trigger - Yes, the amulet is equipped and attuned to a cleric and Hold Person is a spell Does the Moon Sickle Trigger - Yes, the conditions of Moon Sickle are all met (1. attuned to a druid. 2. held by the character. 3. Hold Person is a druid spell as it is listed on the druid spell list.)
If the Moon Sickle was being restricted to only giving a bonus for a druid or ranger spell that is cast using a druid or ranger specific spell slot and prepared as part of the spells prepared by the druid or ranger that day, then we would add words to the magic item to accomplish this.
At its core I think this turns into a philosophical question. I generally follow the rule that if there is ambiguity in the rules, the rules benefit the player.
The moon Sickle says "your druid and ranger spells" so for it to work with, for example, Hold person you need to have prepared Hold person as one of your druid spells. If it did not have the word your in 5here I would agree.
The amulet says "your spells"" so it works even if the spell is not a cleric or paladin spell.
The issue isn't the Multiclassing section of the PHB. The issue is the magic item. Since the magic item is a specific rule it overrides the general rule of the multiclassing section. This is paraphrased from the Introduction section of the PHB "Specific Beats General"
Moon Sickle, "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 character wants to cast Hold Person using a cleric spell slot.
Is Hold Person a Cleric Spell - Yes Does the character have the available spell slot - Yes Does the Amulet of the Devout trigger - Yes, the amulet is equipped and attuned to a cleric and Hold Person is a spell Does the Moon Sickle Trigger - Yes, the conditions of Moon Sickle are all met (1. attuned to a druid. 2. held by the character. 3. Hold Person is a druid spell as it is listed on the druid spell list.)
If the Moon Sickle was being restricted to only giving a bonus for a druid or ranger spell that is cast using a druid or ranger specific spell slot and prepared as part of the spells prepared by the druid or ranger that day, then we would add words to the magic item to accomplish this.
At its core I think this turns into a philosophical question. I generally follow the rule that if there is ambiguity in the rules, the rules benefit the player.
The moon Sickle says "your druid and ranger spells" so for it to work with, for example, Hold person you need to have prepared Hold person as one of your druid spells. If it did not have the word your in 5here I would agree.
The amulet says "your spells"" so it works even if the spell is not a cleric or paladin spell.
It definitely comes down to the need for more specific wording on items. It is very apparent that for some reason the wording on many items did not take into account multi-classing situations. Hopefully fixed in the next version of the rules. I agree with Yggdron that any ambiguity should favor the player.
The issue isn't the Multiclassing section of the PHB. The issue is the magic item. Since the magic item is a specific rule it overrides the general rule of the multiclassing section. This is paraphrased from the Introduction section of the PHB "Specific Beats General"
Moon Sickle, "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 character wants to cast Hold Person using a cleric spell slot.
There's no such thing as "a cleric spell slot." Spell slots are not associated with class.
Does the Moon Sickle Trigger - Yes, the conditions of Moon Sickle are all met (1. attuned to a druid. 2. held by the character. 3. Hold Person is a druid spell as it is listed on the druid spell list.)
Incorrect. The condition is not that spell be a druid spell. The condition is that the spell be one of your druid spells, which are the spells you have prepared by virtue of being a druid. If Hold Person was prepared as a cleric, it is not one of your druid spells. It's one of your cleric spells.
If the Moon Sickle was being restricted to only giving a bonus for a druid or ranger spell that is cast using a druid or ranger specific spell slot and prepared as part of the spells prepared by the druid or ranger that day, then we would add words to the magic item to accomplish this.
Again, there's no such thing as a "druid or ranger specific spell slot." That aside, the magic item already has the necessary word to accomplish this: "your."
At its core I think this turns into a philosophical question. I generally follow the rule that if there is ambiguity in the rules, the rules benefit the player.
There isn't any ambiguity here. While the lack of specificity in the amulet's text is probably an oversight, both items have very clear text. You're just ignoring part of it.
There is a simpler and more direct way to read the word "your" in the Moon Sickle. The simpler meaning is that the bonuses only apply to the spells cast by the character that the item is attuned. It limits Druid A that is attuned to the item from bestowing a bonus to Druid B that is not attuned to the item when Druid B casts a spell.
My ex-wife put it best about DnD, "They need to hire a technical writer! This is not how grammar works."
Novelists, storytellers and poets write powerful pieces that inspire us, but generally they are really bad at writing instruction manuals.
If there are anywhere near valid arguments about how a word like you/your, which is beginner level English, is used in a sentence, then we probably have ambiguity.
If there are anywhere near valid arguments about how a word like you/your, which is beginner level English, is used in a sentence, then we probably have ambiguity.
And there are not anywhere near valid arguments. The spellcasting rules for each individual class makes it extremely clear what the game means by "your [class] spells." Your argument relies on ignorance of the text. That's not a valid argument.
There's no such thing as "a cleric spell slot." Spell slots are not associated with class.
Again, there's no such thing as a "druid or ranger specific spell slot." That aside, the magic item already has the necessary word to accomplish this: "your."
Eh. There is actually. If you don't differentiate the slots in some rules, it causes problems. Like if you say there is no such thing as wizard slots, and then have a Cleric16/Wizard1 insist he can just add and prepare Wish to his spellbook because he has slots of that level. And, he does. But he has multiclass slots of that level, not wizard slots. If he was treated as a single classed character he'd only have 1st level wizard slots. So can only learn 1st level wizard spells.
With multiclassing this is absolutely something you need to pay attention to and differentiate. Because in practice he uses muticlass slots, but for preparation of spells hes treated as having two+ pools of class specific slots.
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.
Eh. There is actually. If you don't differentiate the slots in some rules, it causes problems. Like if you say there is no such thing as wizard slots, and then have a Cleric16/Wizard1 insist he can just add and prepare Wish to his spellbook because he has slots of that level. And, he does. But he has multiclass slots of that level, not wizard slots. If he was treated as a single classed character he'd only have 1st level wizard slots. So can only learn 1st level wizard spells.
With multiclassing this is absolutely something you need to pay attention to and differentiate. Because in practice he uses muticlass slots, but for preparation of spells hes treated as having two+ pools of class specific slots.
But that has nothing to do with spell slots it is about preparing / knowing spells.
A Cleric 9 / Wizard 9 has 9th level spell slots but which class would you say those spell slots belong given they can not prepare spells higher than level 5 is either class?
I know what you are getting at. A Cleric 16 /Wizard 1 prepares and learns spells as if they were a single class wizard at 1st level. A 1st level wizarrd is limited to 1srt level spells because their highest spell slot is 1st level. This is however nothing to do with using spell slots.
Yggdron referred to casting "using a druid or ranger specific spell slot and prepared as part of the spells prepared by the druid or ranger that day". The second part of that is correct if a cleric / druid multiclass wants ot prepare hold person they have to choose whether it counts among their druid spells know or their cleric spells known, but the first part is not correct. The druid ranger has a pool of spell slots for all their spells. In a day they are allowed to use all their spell slots casting cleric spells and not any druid spells.
Eh. There is actually. If you don't differentiate the slots in some rules, it causes problems. Like if you say there is no such thing as wizard slots, and then have a Cleric16/Wizard1 insist he can just add and prepare Wish to his spellbook because he has slots of that level. And, he does. But he has multiclass slots of that level, not wizard slots. If he was treated as a single classed character he'd only have 1st level wizard slots. So can only learn 1st level wizard spells.
With multiclassing this is absolutely something you need to pay attention to and differentiate. Because in practice he uses muticlass slots, but for preparation of spells hes treated as having two+ pools of class specific slots.
But that has nothing to do with spell slots it is about preparing / knowing spells.
A Cleric 9 / Wizard 9 has 9th level spell slots but which class would you say those spell slots belong given they can not prepare spells higher than level 5 is either class?
I know what you are getting at. A Cleric 16 /Wizard 1 prepares and learns spells as if they were a single class wizard at 1st level. A 1st level wizarrd is limited to 1srt level spells because their highest spell slot is 1st level. This is however nothing to do with using spell slots.
Totally true. It has nothing to do with using them. A spell slot is a spell slot is a spell slot when it comes to "using" it.
Yggdron referred to casting "using a druid or ranger specific spell slot and prepared as part of the spells prepared by the druid or ranger that day". The second part of that is correct if a cleric / druid multiclass wants ot prepare hold person they have to choose whether it counts among their druid spells know or their cleric spells known, but the first part is not correct. The druid ranger has a pool of spell slots for all their spells. In a day they are allowed to use all their spell slots casting cleric spells and not any druid spells.
Well, sorta. They don't have druid slots. They don't have ranger slots either. Instead they have multiclass spellcaster slots.
These spell slots can be used to cast spells from either class.
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.
It is very apparent that for some reason the wording on many items did not take into account multi-classing situations. Hopefully fixed in the next version of the rules.
There are unfortunately quite a few places in the rules where multi-classing isn't fully considered because it is an "optional" rule. And yes, hopefully they take a different approach for the next version. Allowing multi-classing can definitely be optional for each DM/table but the rules needs to treat it as a core rule because it is common enough in usage that it shouldn't create issues when allowing it.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Hello all. I searched for this and did not come up with this exact ruling on here. I've checked other sources and wanted to make sure this is correct.
I am currently in a situation where I have a level 4 Life Domain Cleric and level 2 Circle of the Stars Druid trying to be the ultimate healer if possible.
Have an Amulet of Devout +1 and Moon Sickle +1. It seems that the amulet by RAW effects all spells and the sickle effects only Druid/Ranger spells. So anything that overlaps between the two gets the bonus of each which also includes guiding bolt since it is a feature of the Circle of the Stars.
Now my DnD Beyond App seems to be applying the bonus to every spell instead of separating them out and I wanted to make sure that is incorrect, and I need to make sure to watch for this.
My character sheet is here for reference: https://www.dndbeyond.com/sheet-pdfs/NymbusCloudstrike_88651258.pdf
Spells are associated with the class you learned them through. Your druid and ranger spells are (in your case) only the spells you have prepared through your druid class, even if D&D beyond doesn't have the technology to easily separate those and apply the moon sickle bonus to those only. it has nothing to do with spell list overlap, and only to do with how you learned the spells on that character.
It should be stated that it probably isn't intended for the amulet to work on anything but your cleric and paladin spells, even though that isn't what the item says. Stacking them is definitely a balance problem and should probably be looked at very closely by your DM.
And since it is AL I believe they are bound by current RAW. So I definitely need to keep these separated it sounds like.
I'm sure the new OneDnd will fix this.
At first blush I thought this would not stack as both would be being used as a focus. After reading the descriptions of the items neither required that you use them as a focus for the bonus. They take up different magic item slots and each count towards attunement which does create it's own limitation.
Yes, according to the rules, your character would receive the bonus for spells that are part of the druid or ranger spell list including Guiding Bolt.
This being said, using two attunement slots for a 10% increase in success is a steep price to pay as the character levels. I could easily see choosing not to attune one of these items at a later date to make room for more powerful magic items.
"Find your next great gaming experience"
Discord: DmOz
Well, from RAW, as you said it seems like your druid spells should get both bonuses. But those are only the 2 + wisdom mod first level spells that you prepared as a druid plus the few you get for free from the subclass.
Your cleric prepared spells should only get the amulet bonus - even if they're on the druid list.
WolfOfTheBees is absolutely correct and in case you need a RAW source for this there is the following from the Multiclassing section of the PHB: "Each spell you know and prepare is associated with one of your classes, and you use the spellcasting ability of that class when you cast the spell."
As for whether this is worth the required attunement slots is a less simple matter than it might initially seem. Increasing your chance to hit by 2 does not increase your damage output by 10%. It will increase it by more than that with the exact amount depending on the targets AC. A common hit chance value to use when calculating expected damage is 60% and so a +2 would mean a 70% chance to hit which raises your expected damage by 16.667% assuming no advantage or disadvantage on the roll. The lower your base chance to hit the more impactful the +2 is. Also Druids have some mean save or suck spells like Entangle and Hold Person and the extra bonus to your save DC will be really impactful, especially against creatures with something like Magic Resistance.
The issue isn't the Multiclassing section of the PHB. The issue is the magic item. Since the magic item is a specific rule it overrides the general rule of the multiclassing section. This is paraphrased from the Introduction section of the PHB "Specific Beats General"
Moon Sickle, "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 character wants to cast Hold Person using a cleric spell slot.
Is Hold Person a Cleric Spell - Yes
Does the character have the available spell slot - Yes
Does the Amulet of the Devout trigger - Yes, the amulet is equipped and attuned to a cleric and Hold Person is a spell
Does the Moon Sickle Trigger - Yes, the conditions of Moon Sickle are all met (1. attuned to a druid. 2. held by the character. 3. Hold Person is a druid spell as it is listed on the druid spell list.)
If the Moon Sickle was being restricted to only giving a bonus for a druid or ranger spell that is cast using a druid or ranger specific spell slot and prepared as part of the spells prepared by the druid or ranger that day, then we would add words to the magic item to accomplish this.
At its core I think this turns into a philosophical question. I generally follow the rule that if there is ambiguity in the rules, the rules benefit the player.
"Find your next great gaming experience"
Discord: DmOz
The moon Sickle says "your druid and ranger spells" so for it to work with, for example, Hold person you need to have prepared Hold person as one of your druid spells. If it did not have the word your in 5here I would agree.
The amulet says "your spells"" so it works even if the spell is not a cleric or paladin spell.
It definitely comes down to the need for more specific wording on items. It is very apparent that for some reason the wording on many items did not take into account multi-classing situations. Hopefully fixed in the next version of the rules. I agree with Yggdron that any ambiguity should favor the player.
There's no such thing as "a cleric spell slot." Spell slots are not associated with class.
Incorrect. The condition is not that spell be a druid spell. The condition is that the spell be one of your druid spells, which are the spells you have prepared by virtue of being a druid. If Hold Person was prepared as a cleric, it is not one of your druid spells. It's one of your cleric spells.
Again, there's no such thing as a "druid or ranger specific spell slot." That aside, the magic item already has the necessary word to accomplish this: "your."
There isn't any ambiguity here. While the lack of specificity in the amulet's text is probably an oversight, both items have very clear text. You're just ignoring part of it.
There is a simpler and more direct way to read the word "your" in the Moon Sickle. The simpler meaning is that the bonuses only apply to the spells cast by the character that the item is attuned. It limits Druid A that is attuned to the item from bestowing a bonus to Druid B that is not attuned to the item when Druid B casts a spell.
My ex-wife put it best about DnD, "They need to hire a technical writer! This is not how grammar works."
Novelists, storytellers and poets write powerful pieces that inspire us, but generally they are really bad at writing instruction manuals.
If there are anywhere near valid arguments about how a word like you/your, which is beginner level English, is used in a sentence, then we probably have ambiguity.
"Find your next great gaming experience"
Discord: DmOz
And there are not anywhere near valid arguments. The spellcasting rules for each individual class makes it extremely clear what the game means by "your [class] spells." Your argument relies on ignorance of the text. That's not a valid argument.
Eh. There is actually. If you don't differentiate the slots in some rules, it causes problems. Like if you say there is no such thing as wizard slots, and then have a Cleric16/Wizard1 insist he can just add and prepare Wish to his spellbook because he has slots of that level. And, he does. But he has multiclass slots of that level, not wizard slots. If he was treated as a single classed character he'd only have 1st level wizard slots. So can only learn 1st level wizard spells.
With multiclassing this is absolutely something you need to pay attention to and differentiate. Because in practice he uses muticlass slots, but for preparation of spells hes treated as having two+ pools of class specific slots.
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.
But that has nothing to do with spell slots it is about preparing / knowing spells.
A Cleric 9 / Wizard 9 has 9th level spell slots but which class would you say those spell slots belong given they can not prepare spells higher than level 5 is either class?
I know what you are getting at. A Cleric 16 /Wizard 1 prepares and learns spells as if they were a single class wizard at 1st level. A 1st level wizarrd is limited to 1srt level spells because their highest spell slot is 1st level. This is however nothing to do with using spell slots.
Yggdron referred to casting "using a druid or ranger specific spell slot and prepared as part of the spells prepared by the druid or ranger that day". The second part of that is correct if a cleric / druid multiclass wants ot prepare hold person they have to choose whether it counts among their druid spells know or their cleric spells known, but the first part is not correct. The druid ranger has a pool of spell slots for all their spells. In a day they are allowed to use all their spell slots casting cleric spells and not any druid spells.
Totally true. It has nothing to do with using them. A spell slot is a spell slot is a spell slot when it comes to "using" it.
Well, sorta. They don't have druid slots. They don't have ranger slots either. Instead they have multiclass spellcaster slots.
These spell slots can be used to cast spells from either class.
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.
Since the OP seems like they are satisfied I will step out of the conversation.
Have a good weekend! I hope all those PC's out there roll some nat 20's and the DM's see a lot of single digits!
"Find your next great gaming experience"
Discord: DmOz
There are unfortunately quite a few places in the rules where multi-classing isn't fully considered because it is an "optional" rule. And yes, hopefully they take a different approach for the next version. Allowing multi-classing can definitely be optional for each DM/table but the rules needs to treat it as a core rule because it is common enough in usage that it shouldn't create issues when allowing it.