+1 Wand, Staff, or Rod?

[Dalebert]

I've seen a couple items that add to spell attack rolls, usually really powerful items that have a lot of other abilities, but I'm surprised this isn't a thing. What about a magic focus item that is essentially the equivalent of a +1 sword but for a caster? It would act as a focus but additionally give +1 to spell attack rolls and/or +1 to DCs of spells cast using it. Is there some reason this isn't a standard item in the DMG? How rare should it be, if I decided to allow them in my game?

Alternatively, less powerful and more common versions could be limited to certain fields. For instance, some could only enhance cold-based spells or mind-affecting.

[SharkForce]

I've seen a couple items that add to spell attack rolls, usually really powerful items that have a lot of other abilities, but I'm surprised this isn't a thing. What about a magic focus item that is essentially the equivalent of a +1 sword but for a caster? It would act as a focus but additionally give +1 to spell attack rolls and/or +1 to DCs of spells cast using it. Is there some reason this isn't a standard item in the DMG? How rare should it be, if I decided to allow them in my game?

Alternatively, less powerful and more common versions could be limited to certain fields. For instance, some could only enhance cold-based spells or mind-affecting.

there is such an item. it's some form of wand, can't remember the name 100% but it's something like wand of the war mage or similar. it's a bonus to spell attack rolls only, requires attuning, and is generally speaking a piece of junk compared to a magical weapon of similar bonus (iirc it only works for cantrips as well, but I could be remembering wrong). but it is in fact in there.

(there's also a warlock-only item called a pact rod iirc which does both attack rolls and save DC, is much more powerful, and imo probably shouldn't exist in its current form).

with that said, I really don't think spell DC increases are a good idea to hand out personally anyways. the reason 2nd AD&D worked reasonably well in terms of class balance and 3.x D&D did not is not that 3.x made spells better. in fact, tbh, I'd say many of them got nerfed. no, what 3.x D&D did to break the balance completely was to make it so that a spellcaster could pump their spell DC so high that it was almost a sure thing, while in 2nd AD&D high level monsters generally speaking had at least a fairly decent chance of making a saving throw (and at really high levels you kinda had to find spells that give a penalty to the saving throw to be worth casting offensively, which meant that, say, finger of death was potentially really powerful, but was mostly incredibly unreliable and thus didn't leave non-casters obsolete so long as they were capable of dealing damage). in short, I consider the fact that you can't easily get DC boosts to be a feature, not a bug. as in earlier editions, casters are still better than non-casters at high levels... but, thanks to not letting spell DCs get out of hand, non-casters are at least useful to have along with you. I'd rather have non-casters get to be as awesome as casters, but at least in the meanwhile we've got a situation where they are useful, which is better than nothing.

[Daishain]

Wand of the War Mage, and Rod of the pact keeper from pages 212 and 197 respectively of the DMG. They each have a +1,+2, and +3 version, and each level is the same rarity as basic magic weapons of the same level. The wand only applies that bonus to spell attack rolls, but allows you to ignore half cover. The rod is Warlock only, but applies that bonus to both attack rolls and spell save DCs. It would not be difficult to take those stats and stamp it onto another focus item if you prefer a different flavor. It also shouldn't be too difficult to take the Warlock only item and tailor it to other spellcasting classes.

[Dalebert]

I can see why DC bonuses should be handed out more sparingly, but seems they should be potentially available, maybe with more restrictions. The save-or-die effects come to mind but there are a lot of effects where the DCs are almost exactly comparable to to-hit rolls like Sacred Flame.

[Draken]

I can see why DC bonuses should be handed out more sparingly, but seems they should be potentially available, maybe with more restrictions. The save-or-die effects come to mind but there are a lot of effects where the DCs are almost exactly comparable to to-hit rolls like Sacred Flame.

There are no save or die spells left. There are Save or Sucks, that is for sure. But nothing that causes instant defeat on the first failed save. So yes, a bonus to spell DCs is not much different from a to-hit bonus in pretty much any case.

[SharkForce]

a sufficiently high DC hold spell is functionally not that different from a save-or-die.

even with repeated attempts to break free, given a sufficiently high DC, you will be CC'd for long enough that you simply cannot escape before you are killed while unable to defend yourself.

and it gets worse with some effects that do not offer additional saves (or at least, not easily). these effects are less common, certainly, but that does not mean they don't exist.

[Dalebert]

a sufficiently high DC hold spell is functionally not that different from a save-or-die.

Whether it's a save-or-die has to do with the effect when you fail the save and nothing to do with how high the DC is. What you're essentially saying is "don't let DCs get too high because some effects are quite powerful and shouldn't be too hard to resist." Noted, and that's why I said you might want to hand out DC bonuses a little more sparingly or with more restrictions but I don't see a reason to take them completely off the table. After all, there are other ways to get them, though they're rare. For instance, some rare items allow you to boost your casting stat above 20.

[Mandragola]

AMagic weapons are balanced out by magic armour - and since spells often attack AC it makes sense to have items which boost your spell attack stat.

DCs aren't the same because items which add to your saving throws are rarer. So anything that makes saving throw DCs higher should be correspondingly rare. It's not really the same as improving +to hit.

[Rawrawrawr]

The thing is, weapon always attack the same defense - AC. A smart spellcaster, on the other hand, probably has at least 4 different modes of defense to go after (AC, Dexterity saves, Constitution saves, and Wisdom saves). Relatively speaking, casters are always attacking with a bonus, because they can go after the weak defense. Meanwhile, weapon-users can get magical bonuses to attack rolls because that's one of the only ways they can attack at a bonus.

[Shining Wrath]

Wand of the War Mage is less useful than a +1 sword because most higher level spells don't require a to-hit roll at all; they go straight to saving throws. The highest level spell I could find with a quick flip-through was Bigby's hand (L5). What you'll be using the Wand for is your cantrips, which do matter but they aren't your bread and butter.

[Rallicus]

What you'll be using the Wand for is your cantrips, which do matter but they aren't your bread and butter.

Tell that to a warlock.

Admittedly, the attunement requirement does lower the usefulness of a Wand of the War Mage though.

[Zariel]

+1 or more to DC is much better. But only warlocks get that.
And there is a lot of spells where you save or die... For example there is flesh to stone. Con save Level 6th. If DC for this would be 20(+6 prof, +5 attribute, +1or more) with 1 Uncommon rod. You fail this and you start doing death saves... With higher DC than them ;)

[Rilak]

+1 or more to DC is much better. But only warlocks get that.

Robe of the Archmagi. Ioun Stone (Mastery) ;)
Take Warlock 19/Wizard 1 and use all 3 for +6 DC :)

[SharkForce]

Robe of the Archmagi. Ioun Stone (Mastery) ;)
Take Warlock 19/Wizard 1 and use all 3 for +6 DC :)

nah, staff of the magi gives +2 as well. no need for the stone.

[Chronos]

And a tome of your primary ability. Re-use it, if you're a long-lived race.