Magic Spell Focii/Implements

[Starsinger]

Is there any indication in 5e so far of say, a +1 Holy symbol giving Clerics a +1 to hit and +1 damage with spells or anything? I only ask because I liked that casters in 4e had a toy comparable to a magic weapon.

[MadGrady]

So far, no indication of this, but we might see some items like this in the DMG when it comes out. I would, personally, be surprised if this were the case though due to the bounded accuracy mechanic in place. A +1 means a heck of a lot more than it did before.

[Slipperychicken]

Is there any indication in 5e so far of say, a +1 Holy symbol giving Clerics a +1 to hit and +1 damage with spells or anything? I only ask because I liked that casters in 4e had a toy comparable to a magic weapon.

Foci already allow spellcasters to add their proficiency bonus to spells' tohit and save DCs.

[MadGrady]

Foci already allow spellcasters to add their proficiency bonus to spells' tohit and save DCs.

Excellent point, totally forgot about that.

[Starsinger]

Foci already allow spellcasters to add their proficiency bonus to spells' tohit and save DCs.

No, I'm aware of that. But I mean since spells target AC, if Foci don't get +1 versions (and higher) eventually cantrips become very inaccurate compared to attacks, since it's not like there's Touch AC in 5e.

[Scirocco]

Foci actually aren't needed even for that benefit; they're just an alternative to component pouches.

As far as +1 foci go though, it's worth noting the bulk of a class's to hit is intended to come from its proficiency/attack stat. There's no guarantee that anyone's getting the magic weapon they want (bladelocks aside), though they'll get access to magic weapons when it's needed somehow.

You don't need +1 whatevers to be competitive; any you get will be just gravy and nothing you should expect the way you would in 3rd/4th.

[Slipperychicken]

No, I'm aware of that. But I mean since spells target AC, if Foci don't get +1 versions (and higher) eventually cantrips become very inaccurate compared to attacks, since it's not like there's Touch AC in 5e.

Not really. Tohit is [proficiency bonus+ stat] for both fighters and wizards, they both target regular AC, and the highest magic weapon bonus is supposed to be +3.

[silveralen]

Foci actually aren't needed even for that benefit; they're just an alternative to component pouches.

As far as +1 foci go though, it's worth noting the bulk of a class's to hit is intended to come from its proficiency/attack stat. There's no guarantee that anyone's getting the magic weapon they want (bladelocks aside), though they'll get access to magic weapons when it's needed somehow.

You don't need +1 whatevers to be competitive; any you get will be just gravy and nothing you should expect the way you would in 3rd/4th.

I think you are assuming a bit there. +1 weapons are still reasonably common in the premade adventures, and with your attack bonus only +5-+8 at low levels, an extra +1 is going to be very noticeable. You will certainly be less competitive if you lack them, and with potential +2 and higher weapons also official released it could be quite a big gap.

Personally they already exist in my group's current game and likely will continue to do so.


Not really. Tohit is [proficiency bonus+ stat] for both fighters and wizards, they both target regular AC, and the highest magic weapon bonus is supposed to be +3.

Which ould cap out at 6+5=+11 bonus max naturally. If the highest possible is +3, that's a big boost. It's the difference in chance to hit between an 8th level and 17th level character, assuming you hit your 20 cap by level 8.

[Cibulan]

I think you are assuming a bit there. +1 weapons are still reasonably common in the premade adventures, and with your attack bonus only +5-+8 at low levels, an extra +1 is going to be very noticeable. You will certainly be less competitive if you lack them, and with potential +2 and higher weapons also official released it could be quite a big gap.

Personally they already exist in my group's current game and likely will continue to do so.



Which ould cap out at 6+5=+11 bonus max naturally. If the highest possible is +3, that's a big boost. It's the difference in chance to hit between an 8th level and 17th level character, assuming you hit your 20 cap by level 8. The part you are missing here is that the monsters are balanced without the magic item in mind. The +1-3 is just gravy on top of the expected curve. That's the entire point of bounded accuracy.

[MadGrady]

The part you are missing here is that the monsters are balanced without the magic item in mind. The +1-3 is just gravy on top of the expected curve. That's the entire point of bounded accuracy.

Agreed. Your base line spell attack bonus of Ability Mod + Proficiency is no more/less powerful at 20th level, than a same level martial character's ability to swing a sword (this of course is not discussing multiple attacks, but that's why wizards get high damage single spells)

[silveralen]

The part you are missing here is that the monsters are balanced without the magic item in mind. The +1-3 is just gravy on top of the expected curve. That's the entire point of bounded accuracy.

So... magic users won't scale as well but it's okay because the enemies are balanced with the magic user in mind? That doesn't quite work, inter party balance is still worth considering. If you have you have to have both imo.

Also, it's a debatable point since enemies obviously assume the heroes have magic weapons at certain levels due to requiring magic weapons to damage them. Not to mention every adventure published still has them acquiring magical weapons.

[MadGrady]

So... magic users won't scale as well but it's okay because the enemies are balanced with the magic user in mind? That doesn't quite work, inter party balance is still worth considering. If you have you have to have both imo.

No no, Magic users WILL scale, and at the same rate as martial characters. Martial characters use Stat + Prof bonus to hit. Magic Users use Stat + Prof bonus to hit. Each class then scales proficiency at the same rate. The only things that will make a big difference here is ability score increases to each primary stat

And in many cases (don't want to say all) there is also a weapon material that bypasses resistances instead of magic (adamantine, silver, etc). So yes, a player does not ever have to get a magic weapon to stay effective all the way through level 20

[Draken]

The part you are missing here is that the monsters are balanced without the magic item in mind. The +1-3 is just gravy on top of the expected curve. That's the entire point of bounded accuracy.

Up to a point and for a particular sense of balanced. 5ed monsters are brutally dangerous, and more often than not magic items won't detract from this fact. There are some, however, (specially past level 15) that are flat impossible to defeat without magic weapons.

[Cibulan]

Up to a point and for a particular sense of balanced. 5ed monsters are brutally dangerous, and more often than not magic items won't detract from this fact. There are some, however, (specially past level 15) that are flat impossible to defeat without magic weapons.But that's to bypass damage resistance and not because of the +X to hit and damage. Magic users get past that resistance by default.

[silveralen]

No no, Magic users WILL scale, and at the same rate as martial characters. Martial characters use Stat + Prof bonus to hit. Magic Users use Stat + Prof bonus to hit. Each class then scales proficiency at the same rate. The only things that will make a big difference here is ability score increases to each primary stat

And in many cases (don't want to say all) there is also a weapon material that bypasses resistances instead of magic (adamantine, silver, etc). So yes, a player does not ever have to get a magic weapon to stay effective all the way through level 20

Yes, the fact that one group has an additional way to scale via magic items and the other doesn't will have absolutely no effect, because let's be honest how often are you actually going to give your party magic weapons? It'a certainly not the norm, as we can see from the starter adventure where there are enough to give everyone some sort of magic weapon by lvl 5.

[MadGrady]

Yes, the fact that one group has an additional way to scale via magic items and the other doesn't will have absolutely no effect, because let's be honest how often are you actually going to give your party magic weapons? It'a certainly not the norm, as we can see from the starter adventure where there are enough to give everyone some sort of magic weapon by lvl 5.

Not saying that I won't give out magic weapons, or they won't be present. That wasn't the point at all. The point was that they are not technically necessary to be effective.

They are hell of a lot of fun to have though, so my players will still get them

[silveralen]

Not saying that I won't give out magic weapons, or they won't be present. That wasn't the point at all. The point was that they are not technically necessary to be effective.

They are hell of a lot of fun to have though, so my players will still get them

So in effect, weapon users will scale better than magic users, because they scale the same internally and weapon users scale externally, disrupting inter party balance. If not, one group over contributes or one under contributes.

Which is why spell foci are needed balance wise if magic weapons are in play.

[MadGrady]

So in effect, weapon users will scale better than magic users, because they scale the same internally and weapon users scale externally, disrupting inter party balance. If not, one group over contributes or one under contributes.

Which is why spell foci are needed balance wise if magic weapons are in play.

If magic users ONLY had spells that used attack rolls, I would agree and concede the point. But because magic users have spells that are save or X, no attack roll needed, they balance right back out.

[Cibulan]

So in effect, weapon users will scale better than magic users, because they scale the same internally and weapon users scale externally, disrupting inter party balance. If not, one group over contributes or one under contributes.

Which is why spell foci are needed balance wise if magic weapons are in play.That's certainly your opinion. We don't know if they'll get foci but they do get wands, staves, rods, etc.

[silveralen]

If magic users ONLY had spells that used attack rolls, I would agree and concede the point. But because magic users have spells that are save or X, no attack roll needed, they balance right back out.

Hmm okay than what about the caster class which depends on attack roles, warlock?

[Slipperychicken]

If magic users ONLY had spells that used attack rolls, I would agree and concede the point. But because magic users have spells that are save or X, no attack roll needed, they balance right back out.

They also have all kinds of non-comparable advantages, like being able to fly, teleport, summon minions, ride Shadowfax, target weak saves, target damage vulnerabilities, and do all kinds of utility things. I'd take that over a +3 to hit any day.

[MadGrady]

They also have all kinds of non-comparable advantages, like being able to fly, teleport, summon minions, ride Shadowfax, target weak saves, target damage vulnerabilities, and do all kinds of utility things. I'd take that over a +3 to hit any day.

*sigh* this is true, lol. It's why I almost always invariably play a caster.

[silveralen]

They also have all kinds of non-comparable advantages, like being able to fly, teleport, summon minions, ride Shadowfax, target weak saves, target damage vulnerabilities, and do all kinds of utility things. I'd take that over a +3 to hit any day.

So can every class but barbarian, if they actually want to at least.

[MadGrady]

Hmm okay than what about the caster class which depends on attack roles, warlock?

I guess let me rephrase my point, totally possible I screwed up what I was trying to say lol.

I'm not saying that magic weapons aren't beneficial. They TOTALLY are. In fact, I think they will be even MORE beneficial in this system due to bounded accuracy (+1 being a lot more powerful comparitively).

The point I was trying to make (wrong or right), is that I don't believe that magic weapons are essential for a character to be effective at higher levels. Unlike previous games, where AC's got so bloody high, that you HAD to have a bonus on your weapon to even dream of hitting, 5e kept those numbers in line so that a player without a magic weapon could hit consistently as they level up.

Magic weapons then become, I believe the term used in a previous reply, "gravy" on the cake because they give that character a little more edge to their attacks.

I wasn't arguing against the utility of magic weapons. What I was arguing (debating?) was that a player HAS to have have something magical to be any use to a party. This I don't believe to be true. So a Warlock who relies on attack invocations which use attack rolls will still be effective alongside the fighter all the way up through level 20. Anything magical on top of that just makes it even sweeter


EDIT ADDITIONAL THOUGHT; I mean, one of the biggest problems previous editions had was the clear outpacing of martial classes by magic users. They HAD to have magic weapons to be even close. Now, with magic users being brought back in line a little bit, magic swords become less....necessary (still utterly useful of course, but not essential)

[silveralen]

I guess let me rephrase my point, totally possible I screwed up what I was trying to say lol.

I'm not saying that magic weapons aren't beneficial. They TOTALLY are. In fact, I think they will be even MORE beneficial in this system due to bounded accuracy (+1 being a lot more powerful comparitively).

The point I was trying to make (wrong or right), is that I don't believe that magic weapons are essential for a character to be effective at higher levels. Unlike previous games, where AC's got so bloody high, that you HAD to have a bonus on your weapon to even dream of hitting, 5e kept those numbers in line so that a player without a magic weapon could hit consistently as they level up.

Magic weapons then become, I believe the term used in a previous reply, "gravy" on the cake because they give that character a little more edge to their attacks.

I wasn't arguing that. What I was arguing (debating?) was that a player HAS to have have something magical to be any use to a party. This I don't believe to be true. So a Warlock who relies on attack invocations which use attack rolls will still be effective alongside the fighter all the way up through level 20. Anything magical on top of that just makes it even sweeter

EDIT ADDITIONAL THOUGHT; I mean, one of the biggest problems previous editions had was the clear outpacing of martial classes by magic users. They HAD to have magic weapons to be even close. Now, with magic users being brought back in line a little bit, magic swords become less....necessary (still utterly useful of course, but not essential)


Okay, and the point I'm making is that inter party balance is always more important. If you give one player gravy, every other member gets an equal amount of gravy. If one party member is less effective than another party member, in an area where both characters/classes are intended to be used, then you have encountered the only sort of balance issue that actually matters (assuming the DM is halfway competent and can adjust an encounter on the fly).

That's the issue. Saying no spell foci is the same as giving one fighter a +3 sword that deal 2d6 extra damage and another no magic weapon, it's going to cause issues, even if that non magic weapon using fighter is still technically on par.

Yes, the various changes mean that there is no longer a justification for giving one a bonus the other doesn't get. That's kind of the entire point.

[MadGrady]

Okay, and the point I'm making is that inter party balance is always more important. If you give one player gravy, every other member gets an equal amount of gravy. If one party member is less effective than another party member, in an area where both characters/classes are intended to be used, then you have encountered the only sort of balance issue that actually matters (assuming the DM is halfway competent and can adjust an encounter on the fly).

That's the issue. Saying no spell foci is the same as giving one fighter a +3 sword that deal 2d6 extra damage and another no magic weapon, it's going to cause issues, even if that non magic weapon using fighter is still technically on par.

I can agree with this. If magic weapons/items are to be used, then yeah they should be used equally to allow everyone to scale at roughly the same rate. Granted there will always be situations where one player might outshine another due to certain class features, but I get that this isn't what you were saying.

I am curious to see what kind of wands/staves the DMG will provide us.

[silveralen]

I can agree with this. If magic weapons/items are to be used, then yeah they should be used equally to allow everyone to scale at roughly the same rate. Granted there will always be situations where one player might outshine another due to certain class features, but I get that this isn't what you were saying.

I am curious to see what kind of wands/staves the DMG will provide us.

Awesome, we more or less agree on all points then.

I can't wait for the DMG, though I have a feeling there won't be anything like spell boosting foci in it.

[MadGrady]

Awesome, we more or less agree on all points then.

I can't wait for the DMG, though I have a feeling there won't be anything like spell boosting foci in it.

Yeah, it finally hit me that we were probably arguing the same dang thing, just f**** up the explanation of it lol

[Cibulan]

I'm still not convinced that you need to give casters +X foci to keep intra party balance. Take LMoP as an example, the party can find a +1 longsword and a wand of magic missiles. That wand lets the wizard cast magic missile (1d4 +1 dmg x3) for free nine times per day (assuming he doesn't risk the last charge and not empower the spell).(also aware that anyone can use a wand but let's just say for the sake of argument that the thematically appropriate items go to the appropriate classes)

+1 hit/dmg versus 9 castings of magic missile. Seems equitable to me but different. There's also the stave of defense and spider staff.

[silveralen]

I'm still not convinced that you need to give casters +X foci to keep intra party balance. Take LMoP as an example, the party can find a +1 longsword and a wand of magic missiles. That wand lets the wizard cast magic missile (1d4 +1 dmg x3) for free nine times per day (assuming he doesn't risk the last charge and not empower the spell).(also aware that anyone can use a wand but let's just say for the sake of argument that the thematically appropriate items go to the appropriate classes)

+1 hit/dmg versus 9 castings of magic missile. Seems equitable to me but different. There's also the stave of defense and spider staff.

But... anyone can use that wand. Same with the staffs, spider staff is actually a decent choice for a melee character due to the bonus poison damage. That's not really equivalent, and comparing the closest thing we would have to a melee/archer type, blaster warlock, it wouldn't actually help at all because magic missile would be extremely subpar by lvl 5, when you get that wand towards the end of that module.

So yeah, that's not really equitable, and there is no reason for the character in particular to get the magic missile wand... besides everyone else having better things to do.

[Cibulan]

But... anyone can use that wand. Same with the staffs, spider staff is actually a decent choice for a melee character due to the bonus poison damage. That's not really equivalent, and comparing the closest thing we would have to a melee/archer type, blaster warlock, it wouldn't actually help at all because magic missile would be extremely subpar by lvl 5, when you get that wand towards the end of that module.

So yeah, that's not really equitable, and there is no reason for the character in particular to get the magic missile wand... besides everyone else having better things to do. well I did say assuming the wand went to the wizard but okay.... But you're wrong about staves, you have to have the spell on your spell list to use staves.

So think of it this way, martial characters get magic items that increase their accuracy and damage. Magic classes get staves that give them extra spells per day, so if they miss or are resisted, they have more attempts.

You seem wedded (no judgment) to the idea that they need the same statistical chance to connect (like 4e) so I doubt that'll satisfy you but there appears to be an attempt to reach some manner of parity.

[silveralen]

well I did say assuming the wand went to the wizard but okay.... But you're wrong about staves, you have to have the spell on your spell list to use staves.

So think of it this way, martial characters get magic items that increase their accuracy and damage. Magic classes get staves that give them extra spells per day, so if they miss or are resisted, they have more attempts.

You seem wedded (no judgment) to the idea that they need the same statistical chance to connect (like 4e) so I doubt that'll satisfy you but there appears to be an attempt to reach some manner of parity.

To cast the spells, yes. The other benefits? No. So we can assume the staves probably go to the wizards, though the spider staff is a one handed greatsword which would certainly be appealing to others.

But again, the problem is martial characters can also gain access to items that allow them to cast spells, something they flat out can't do normally. If it works one way,have it ork the other ay as ell, let casters get more usage out of each spell.

Not really, I think it is ideal, but I full expect it won't be included in the DMG. I don't really see why it needs to reach some sort of parity, rather than actual parity.

[Mellack]

That's certainly your opinion. We don't know if they'll get foci but they do get wands, staves, rods, etc.

In 5e, wands, staves, etc are not limited to spell casters. There is no use magic device skill anymore.

Edit: Sorry, late to the party there. THe discussion moved on while I was away.

[Cibulan]

In 5e, wands, staves, etc are not limited to spell casters. There is no use magic device skill anymore. I'm afraid you are wrong. Wands can be used by anyone but scrolls and staffs have to be on your spell list. The thief gets use magic device at level 13.

[Mellack]

To use the spells, you need the spell on your list. TO use other powers, like the poison, you do not. Our group gave the spider staff to the fighter.

[Cibulan]

To use the spells, you need the spell on your list. TO use other powers, like the poison, you do not. Our group gave the spider staff to the fighter. okay fine, anyone can use the secondary rider effect of the staff but only a caster can use it like it's meant to be used which was my point and you know it. Anyone can use a +1 bow to bash someone over the head as an improvised weapon but only someone proficient in archery will get proper use out of it.

[silveralen]

okay fine, anyone can use the secondary rider effect of the staff but only a caster can use it like it's meant to be used which was my point and you know it. Anyone can use a +1 bow to bash someone over the head as an improvised weapon but only someone proficient in archery will get proper use out of it.

Well, they could shoot with it, they just wouldn't get the prof bonus.

[Cibulan]

Well, they could shoot with it, they just wouldn't get the prof bonus. it was more of s metaphor than an example.

The point is he said anyone can use a staff and there was no use magic device. Both are untrue.

Now we'll argue pointlessly about what constitutes "use". I'll fire the first shot and say not using the spells is not properly using it.

[Lonely Tylenol]

Magic weapons then become, I believe the term used in a previous reply, "gravy" on the cake

Whoa whoa whoa whoa whoa. Hold it right there, buster.

You put gravy on your cake?! :smalleek:

[Starsinger]

Whoa whoa whoa whoa whoa. Hold it right there, buster.

You put gravy on your cake?! :smalleek:

I wish there was an upvote or like button on this forum, just for this post.

[silveralen]

Whoa whoa whoa whoa whoa. Hold it right there, buster.

You put gravy on your cake?! :smalleek:

You've never had turkey and stuffing cake with gravy icing?

[Slipperychicken]

Whoa whoa whoa whoa whoa. Hold it right there, buster.

You put gravy on your cake?! :smalleek:

I think he means that it's the wrong flavor and only makes things worse.

[Scirocco]

Point being here: this isn't 4th, everyone doesn't need the same stuff. Casters already get plenty of nice things (and are generally SAD), they don't need plus whatever foci. Which is not to say something like that won't exist, but the expectation that there should be the functional equivalent to generic magic weapons is baseless.

[Izha]

I can agree with this. If magic weapons/items are to be used, then yeah they should be used equally to allow everyone to scale at roughly the same rate. Granted there will always be situations where one player might outshine another due to certain class features, but I get that this isn't what you were saying.



You can't talk about scaling balance of magic weapons/sumbols/foci and then just handwave away the drastic differences in scaling between casters and martials. Martials could have a pretty large advantage in terms of magical weaponry and still not scale anywhere near the way a caster does.

You don't get balance by micromanaging the minute and ignoring the massive.

[MukkTB]

There is intent to make casters weaker than than melee when it comes to dealing reliable damage. Casters have so many other things going for them. Anyone who claims that cantrips without magic item support are up to par with weapons that have magic item support is just wrong. At the same time parity isn't desirable in this field. Martial should at least be good in combat, even if they suck at everything else.

[Townopolis]

For what it's worth, cantrips without magic item support aren't up to par with weapons without magic item support (assuming the weapons are being wielded by one of the martial classes). Warriors make attacks because it's what they do. Casters use cantrips because the situation is beneath the expenditure of an actual spell.

If the fighter is getting a +3 Flaming Sword, the equivalent for a caster isn't a +3 Orb of Fire; it's a Ring of Wizardry.

[silveralen]

For what it's worth, cantrips without magic item support aren't up to par with weapons without magic item support (assuming the weapons are being wielded by one of the martial classes). Warriors make attacks because it's what they do. Casters use cantrips because the situation is beneath the expenditure of an actual spell.

If the fighter is getting a +3 Flaming Sword, the equivalent for a caster isn't a +3 Orb of Fire; it's a Ring of Wizardry.

Yet we literally have a casting class built upon using cantrips as the main form of attack, for whom a ring of wizardry would work oddly at best. I see no reason they should fall further behind when they already need to use buffing spells to just keep even.


There is intent to make casters weaker than than melee when it comes to dealing reliable damage. Casters have so many other things going for them. Anyone who claims that cantrips without magic item support are up to par with weapons that have magic item support is just wrong. At the same time parity isn't desirable in this field. Martial should at least be good in combat, even if they suck at everything else.

Yes, because with the improved skill system, the heavily cut high level spells per day, the fact that all classes have some access to spell casting if they choose, and the overall weakening of casters in general, nothing has changed in most people's minds.

If you make a character who sucks at everything that isn't combat in 5e, you really had to work at it.

[TheOOB]

We don't have the DMG yet, so we don't know how certain magic items work. Some released magic wand type items require the user to be a caster of that type of spell, some do not. We'll have to wait and see.

I'm on the fence about magic foci. If they existed I'd want them to enhance attack rolls and only attack rolls. Saving throws could get out of hand with magical buffs(and an item that just enhances your casting stat would do that anyways), and I don't see any elegant way to increase spell damage without ruining balance.

[JoeJ]

In 5e, wands, staves, etc are not limited to spell casters. There is no use magic device skill anymore.

Edit: Sorry, late to the party there. THe discussion moved on while I was away.

Not a skill, but UMD does exist as a class ability for rogues taking the thief archetype. At 13th level they can ignore class, race, and level requirements for using magic items. Which implies there will be a non-trivial number of magic items with such requirements.