Definition of a 'Spellcaster' for purposes of wand attunement

[Draco4472]

This is probably a dumb question I already know the answer to.

My party received a wand from a dead wizard, as a Wizard myself, I identified it as a wand of lightning bolts. This wand states in the DMG it requires attunement by a spellcaster, so obviously I as a wizard can use it.

But can the paladin in our party attune to it?

So in short, my question is for purposes of attunement to items such as this one, is a spellcaster anyone who can cast spells, or a character with a level of a full caster such as cleric, warlock, sorcerer, bard, etc ?

I suspect anyone who can cast spells can attune to this item, but our DM is unsure, and I would simply like clarity on this matter.

[Gignere]

It is anyone with a spell slot, I may rule that it must be spell slot from class features so racials spell casting doesn't count.

[Addaran]

Not sure there's a clarification in the books, but i'd say it's anyone who can cast a spell.
So magic initiate and racial spells would work.

It shouldn't unbalance anything, since some wands/staffs can be used by anyone (magic missiles one and the hold person one).

[MrStabby]

I believe anyone who casts spells so magic initiate would count as well. Monks who can cast spells, or those who get racial abilities.

[Erys]

This is probably a dumb question I already know the answer to.

My party received a wand from a dead wizard, as a Wizard myself, I identified it as a wand of lightning bolts. This wand states in the DMG it requires attunement by a spellcaster, so obviously I as a wizard can use it.

But can the paladin in our party attune to it?

So in short, my question is for purposes of attunement to items such as this one, is a spellcaster anyone who can cast spells, or a character with a level of a full caster such as cleric, warlock, sorcerer, bard, etc ?

I suspect anyone who can cast spells can attune to this item, but our DM is unsure, and I would simply like clarity on this matter.

To somewhat parrot what most have said already: Yes. the paladin could attune that wand.

You will note some items say 'Attunement by a Bard, Sorcerer, Warlock, or Wizard'; others just say 'spellcaster'. The latter means if you can cast spells, arguably eve if only by a race or a feat, you can attune the item.

[Draco4472]

I suspected as much.

I feel kind of silly for needing to ask this question. I did check the DMG for clarification for it to only state that some items have a prerequisite for attunement.

[hymer]

I did check the DMG for clarification for it to only state that some items have a prerequisite for attunement.

Well, this is 5e. :smallwink:

[Coffee_Dragon]

Someone with a Spellcasting class feature might qualify as a spellcaster. With this condition, racial abilities and feats would not make you a spellcaster.

[MrStabby]

Someone with a Spellcasting class feature might qualify as a spellcaster. With this condition, racial abilities and feats would not make you a spellcaster.

As in warlocks and Monks do not qualify?

[Joe the Rat]

One of the rulings from the Demogorgon of the Coast suggests that Magic Initiate:[class] means you count as that class for attunement purposes.

I think is was the Crawford head, which is saner than the Mearls head.

[hymer]

One of the rulings from the Demogorgon of the Coast suggests that Magic Initiate:[class] means you count as that class for attunement purposes.

I think is was the Crawford head, which is saner than the Meals head.

I was under the same impression, but I failed to turn it up when I wanted to link to it.

[Tanarii]

Someone with a Spellcasting class feature might qualify as a spellcaster. With this condition, racial abilities and feats would not make you a spellcaster.That was my first thought too, but I'm fairly sure they didn't intend these items not to be usable by Warlocks.

Furthermore under attunement it says "If the class is a spellcasting class, a monster qualifies if that monster has spell slots and uses that class's spell list." from that we can extrapolate that they're most likely using the term to mean "has spell slots from their class".

[Coffee_Dragon]

As in warlocks and Monks do not qualify?

Feels kinda right for monks. Pact Magic could just as well have been named Spellcasting, but I could see excluding that as well (because I hate warlocks rawr).

[MrStabby]

Feels kinda right for monks. Pact Magic could just as well have been named Spellcasting, but I could see excluding that as well (because I hate warlocks rawr).

One more nail in the coffin for 4elements monks then.

[Coffee_Dragon]

One more nail in the coffin for 4elements monks then.

Maybe so, but when settling on a ruling for what counts as a spellcaster I wouldn't consider "does class X need a boost?" to be a factor. If class X does need a boost that would be a separate question, and when you get around to that, "maybe we can relax the definition of spellcasters so they can use more stuff" probably isn't going to be among the primary suggestions. Maybe give them direct access to the elemental-based ones.

[MrStabby]

Maybe so, but when settling on a ruling for what counts as a spellcaster I wouldn't consider "does class X need a boost?" to be a factor. If class X does need a boost that would be a separate question, and when you get around to that, "maybe we can relax the definition of spellcasters so they can use more stuff" probably isn't going to be among the primary suggestions. Maybe give them direct access to the elemental-based ones.

I also don't consider that boosting classes should be part of a definition.

I will admit I go by the fairly intuitive definition that spellcaster=someone who can cast spells.

For me someone who can cast a spell by expending Ki is as much a caster as someone who casts spells by expending a spell slot.

[Dalebert]

The RAW and probably the intent is that if you can cast a spell on your own power (not with the help of an item. that would be circular reasoning) then you're a spellcaster. So racials would count. Magic Initiate would count.

[Plaguescarred]

A spellcaster is anyone who can do spellcasting as in cast a spell.

[JellyPooga]

The "if you can cast any spell, you're a spellcaster" definition doesn't quite sit right with me.

Totem Barbarians and Shadow Monks can both "cast" spells, but I wouldn't call either of them spellcasters, per se. I'd be loathe to call a 4E-Monk a spellcaster too (though I wouldn't argue too hard about it).

[MrStabby]

The "if you can cast any spell, you're a spellcaster" definition doesn't quite sit right with me.

Totem Barbarians and Shadow Monks can both "cast" spells, but I wouldn't call either of them spellcasters, per se. I'd be loathe to call a 4E-Monk a spellcaster too (though I wouldn't argue too hard about it).

I don't think I would have an issue with either of these be consider a caster. Not a real issue for me as I usually prefer to play a class with spell slots, but if i were to be a player that had been casting spells from level 3 onwards I would be somewhat concerned about a DM that ruled that my spells Didn't Count - especially if they hadn't said so from the start of the game.

[Dalebert]

... if i were to be a player that had been casting spells from level 3 onwards I would be somewhat concerned about a DM that ruled that my spells Didn't Count - especially if they hadn't said so from the start of the game.

This. Don't dump house rules on someone in the middle of a game. I had a DM decide to make illusions in Pathfinder way more powerful by nerfing the part about it becoming obviously an illusion and see-through if you successfully disbelieve it. "You are convinced it's an illusion" was his response. Then it bit my squishy spellcaster, HARD. He then explained his discontent with that aspect of illusions. To this day, that's a memorable DM-don't in my mind. It was infuriating. I was about to start getting a lot of illusion spells myself with that character so I was looking forward to making him regret that decision but then he fizzled and switched systems.

Exception: House rules that generally favor the characters, e.g. "I'll allow you the option of having Bless affect ability checks instead of the normal options, btw". Those will mostly be forgiven as pleasant surprises.

[shuangwucanada]

Spellcaster is any one with SPELLCASTING class feature. It's quite literal.

[MrStabby]

Spellcaster is any one with SPELLCASTING class feature. It's quite literal.

So another one who thinks warlocks are not spellcasters.

[Coffee_Dragon]

Warlocks should use d4s for hit points and save against meteorites every time they go outside

[Hrugner]

A spellcaster is anyone who can cast spells, it's quite literal. As per the PHB under "casting a spell" in the "spellcasting" chapter "When a character casts any spell, the same basic rules are followed, regardless of the character's class or the spell's effects". So yes, elves and totem barbarians are spellcasters.

[tieren]

The RAW and probably the intent is that if you can cast a spell on your own power (not with the help of an item. that would be circular reasoning) then you're a spellcaster. So racials would count. Magic Initiate would count.

Using that definition would you let someone with just ritual caster feat use it?

[Plaguescarred]

Spellcaster is any one with SPELLCASTING class feature. It's quite literal.Casting a Spell falls under Chapter 10: Spellcasting, which practionners must be called spellcasters. Otherwise your definition is too restrictive i.e warlock

[MrStabby]

Using that definition would you let someone with just ritual caster feat use it?

I don't see why not.

It is a spell still. You still cast it. You are a caster of spells. Feel free to use an item only spellcasters can. No problem.

I might be more forgiving if it were a world/fluff setting and the distinction applied to other things as well - you don't cast spells per se, so your spells can't be dispelled or countered for example. But that is a houserule rather than anything else (maybe not a bad one if you want to stop barbarians having nice things).

[Tanarii]

Still maintain that the "monster" example in the DMG section talking about attunement, saying for monsters is requires spell slots, gives us the intent of the term spellcaster for PCs for attunement. In other words, you must have spell slots. Not only that, since it attunement typically requires a spellcasting class, for PCs it must come from a class, so no Magic Initiate.

I feel like "can cast at least one spell by any means" is far too liberal an interpretation, and "Spellcasting feature only" is far to strict.

[Dalebert]

I feel like "can cast at least one spell by any means" is far too liberal an interpretation, and "Spellcasting feature only" is far to strict.

Why? Maybe they intend a liberal interpretation. After all, many items have no restriction at all on whom can attune to them. Why is it bad to have an extremely broad scope but yet a little more limiting than "anyone"? I'm really baffled why anyone is hung up on this.

Why can't the intent be that they want people who have just at least a vague operational understanding of magic to be able to operate it but not half-orc barbarians who can't even meet the eligibility requirements for Ritual Caster.

It just has the feel of a DM saying "No!" for no particular reason. If there's a balance reason, if you think it's going to break the game or something, please share that reasoning. So far it just seems like a preference. That's fine. You are the DM of your table and you don't have to justify your preferences but we are debating this on a forum where we often do just that.

[Coffee_Dragon]

The legacy argument, which is worth as much or as little as anyone wants it to, is that staffs and wands used to be a mage-only thing. They simply belonged within the scope of that archetype and seldom reached outside it.

[BiPolar]

I tend to be a literalist, so that colors my response to this. However, I think it's pretty clear what classes (including subclasses like Arcane Trickster) are spellcasters and which are not.

Dipping into a feat? I think that's a bigger question. I'm leaning NO to feat investments to get access to Spellcaster items, but I could quite easily accept the opposite because of said investment.

[Tanarii]

Why? Maybe they intend a liberal interpretation. After all, many items have no restriction at all on whom can attune to them. Why is it bad to have an extremely broad scope but yet a little more limiting than "anyone"? I'm really baffled why anyone is hung up on this.Sorry, I meant 'too liberal' as in more liberal than logical extension of rule for how monsters are done. And too strict vs that same. In other words, more liberal and more strict interpretations than the (to me) rather clear intent.

Not too liberal and too strict as in problematically liberal or strict.

[Dalebert]

Is there precedent for an item having racial restrictions on its use? Or is every restriction a class one? If the latter, that would at least be a sort of precedent for not allowing racial magic to make one a spellcaster. Maybe all the attunement restrictions are intended to be based on class. But that still leaves some ambiguity as feats are a class feature so what if you take a feat like Magic Initiate that lets you cast spells?

[BiPolar]

Is there precedent for an item having racial restrictions on its use? Or is every restriction a class one? If the latter, that would at least be a sort of precedent for not allowing racial magic to make one a spellcaster. Maybe all the attunement restrictions are intended to be based on class. But that still leaves some ambiguity as feats are a class feature so what if you take a feat like Magic Initiate that lets you cast spells?

Yes, the Dwarven Thrower is restricted to Dwarves. Please keep your dwarf throwing jokes to a minimum.

[Tanarii]

Is there precedent for an item having racial restrictions on its use? Or is every restriction a class one? If the latter, that would at least be a sort of precedent for not allowing racial magic to make one a spellcaster. Maybe all the attunement restrictions are intended to be based on class. But that still leaves some ambiguity as feats are a class feature so what if you take a feat like Magic Initiate that lets you cast spells?

The restriction in question is "spellcasting class", so other than the monster rule, it is pretty clearly a class restriction. Not from racial spells.

And Feats are not a class feature. ASIs are. There is an optional rule to allow feats to be gained in place of ASIs, but the class feature is the ASI not the feats.

[shuangwucanada]

At the end of PHB, the index for Spellcaster is in page 201. From the description of Page 201, spellcaster includes anyone who can cast a spell by any means. It doesn't matter if it comes from class features, race traits, or feats.

[Tanarii]

At the end of PHB, the index for Spellcaster is in page 201. From the description of Page 201, spellcaster includes anyone who can cast a spell by any means. It doesn't matter if it comes from class features, race traits, or feats.
Shenanigans. Page 201 doesn't say any such thing.

[Draco4472]

I was always under the assumption a spellcaster is any creature that can cast spells using spell-slots due to a class feature. To me, it makes sense a warlock should be able to use items such as wands and staffs due to their flavoring, but not monks, and certainly not barbarians.

It seems kinda unfair that a barbarian that can cast 1-2 rituals or a fighter with racial spells have the knowledge/ability to use magical artifacts otherwise left to wizards and sorcerers, especially since it would give them such a power boost over other barbarians of different archetypes, and other races without racial spells.

[Vogonjeltz]

This is probably a dumb question I already know the answer to.

My party received a wand from a dead wizard, as a Wizard myself, I identified it as a wand of lightning bolts. This wand states in the DMG it requires attunement by a spellcaster, so obviously I as a wizard can use it.

But can the paladin in our party attune to it?

So in short, my question is for purposes of attunement to items such as this one, is a spellcaster anyone who can cast spells, or a character with a level of a full caster such as cleric, warlock, sorcerer, bard, etc ?

I suspect anyone who can cast spells can attune to this item, but our DM is unsure, and I would simply like clarity on this matter.

Someone who casts spells (PHB 201)

[Vogonjeltz]

The restriction in question is "spellcasting class", so other than the monster rule, it is pretty clearly a class restriction. Not from racial spells.

And Feats are not a class feature. ASIs are. There is an optional rule to allow feats to be gained in place of ASIs, but the class feature is the ASI not the feats.

Per the MM all creatures that can be interacted with and killed count as Monsters. By game definition, PCs count as monsters.

[Tanarii]

Someone who casts spells (PHB 201)


Shenanigans. Page 201 doesn't say any such thing.

I'm just gonna requote myself in response to this nonsense claim that page 201 says anything of the sort.

[Erys]

Shenanigans. Page 201 doesn't say any such thing.

Under the heading Casting a Spell it says, "When a character cast any spell, the same basic rules are followed, regardless of the character's class or the spells effects."

Another point that reinforces the idea that anyone who casts spells is on the same page, under Rituals, it reads, "To cast a spell as a ritual, a spellcaster must have a feature that grants the ability to do so."

Admittedly neither of these are direct evidence of what deems a "spellcaster" for purposes of attunement, but does heavily imply that any one who casts a spell is, in fact, a spellcaster.

There is a third resource that some tend to ignore, but most take as RAW: Sage Advice.



Item attunement feat and races
May 21, 2015Zoltar

@SupahewokDoes a noncaster character with Magic Initiate qualify as spellcaster for purpose of item attunement, ie Wand of Fireballs?
Yep! Magic Initiate turns you into a spellcaster if you weren't one already.

— Jeremy Crawford (@JeremyECrawford) May 19, 2015

@ReubenFontanaBy the same token, does a race with some spellcasting ability (tiefling, or even high elf) qualify? Yes! @Supahewok

— Jeremy Crawford (@JeremyECrawford) May 19, 2015

For me, that is more than enough evidence for the OP's question.

[Draco4472]

I'm just gonna requote myself in response to this nonsense claim that page 201 says anything of the sort.

I checked the page myself and agree, nothing of the sort is written on page 201 of the PHB.

Can someone with a twitter account ask Mike Mearls to clarify the definition of a spellcaster for purpose of attunement?

EDIT: Didn't see the above post. nvm.

[Dalebert]

For me, that is more than enough evidence for the OP's question.

Woe, woe, woe! Hold the phone.

Is Jeremy Crawford trying to suggest that... a spellcaster... is someone who... casts spells?

Who hired this moron?!

[MrStabby]

Woe, woe, woe! Hold the phone.

Is Jeremy Crawford trying to suggest that... a spellcaster... is someone who... casts spells?

Who hired this moron?!

Someone who casts spells being a spellcaster! His most controversial tweet yet.

[RickAllison]

I was always under the assumption a spellcaster is any creature that can cast spells using spell-slots due to a class feature. To me, it makes sense a warlock should be able to use items such as wands and staffs due to their flavoring, but not monks, and certainly not barbarians.

It seems kinda unfair that a barbarian that can cast 1-2 rituals or a fighter with racial spells have the knowledge/ability to use magical artifacts otherwise left to wizards and sorcerers, especially since it would give them such a power boost over other barbarians of different archetypes, and other races without racial spells.

The thing is that wizards and sorcerers can have class-exclusive magical artifacts. Some examples of class-exclusive items (I don't know whether the rule on NPCs getting to use class-exclusive items for sharing a list applies to the 1/3-casters, so maybe those two get to fall under wizards, at the DM's discretion):

Holy Avenger: Paladin
Instrument of the Bards: Bard
Necklace of Prayer Beads: Cleric, Druid, or Paladin (divine casters only, though not Ranger despite being to the Druid what the Paladin is to Cleric...)
Robe of the Archmagi: Sorcerer, Wizard, or Warlock (only full and totally arcane casters allowed)
Rod of the Pact Keeper: Warlock
Rod of Resurrection: Cleric, Druid, or Paladin
Staff of Charming: Bard, Cleric, Druid, Sorcerer, Warlock, or Wizard (so restricted to only full casters)
Staff of Fire: Druid, Sorcerer, Warlock, or Wizard (so arcane magic, but Druid gets it for nature power)
Staff of Frost: See Staff of Fire
Staff of Healing: Bard, Cleric or Druid (so only full casters with healing magic)
Staff of Power: Sorcerer, Warlock, or Wizard
Staff of Swarming Insects: Bard, Cleric, Druid, Sorcerer, Warlock, or Wizard (full casters, again...)
Staff of the Adder: Cleric, Druid, or Warlock
Staff of the Magi: Sorcerer, Warlock, Wizard
Staff of the Python: Cleric, Druid, or Warlock
Staff of the Woodlands: Druid
Staff of Withering: Cleric, Druid, or Warlock
Tome of the Stilled Tongue: Wizard (intellectual casters only!)

This is opposed to the vague, spellcaster-only items:

Pearl of Power
Wand of Binding
Wand of Fireballs
Wand of Lightning Bolts
Wand of Paralysis
Wand of Polymorph
Wand of the War Mage
Wand of Web
Wand of Wonder

So we have lots of wands, and the Pearl of Power. Except that the Pearl of Power still effectively fits in the former category! It only replenishes spell slots, so Monks, Barbarians, racial spellcasting, and Innate Spellcasting monsters still can't use it. It opens it up to the Ranger, I guess. Other than that, all the magic items available to spellcasters in general are wands, and some of the wands don't even require any magical knowledge to use! I think what this really says is that wands are created to be for more general use and at most require basic knowledge of how magic works, while all other items needing knowledge of magic are locked to more experienced spellcasters.

So if you release a wand, any commoner elf or other race with innate spellcasting can use it or even the most magic-ignorant user can figure it out. If you release any other kind of magic item with a spellcaster restriction, it should be by class.

[Vogonjeltz]

I'm just gonna requote myself in response to this nonsense claim that page 201 says anything of the sort.

Beyond the outright proof provided by Erys, 201 states "Before a spellcaster can.use a spell"

Which is exactly what I said it said. That a spellcaster is someone who casts spells.

[shuangwucanada]

I'm just gonna requote myself in response to this nonsense claim that page 201 says anything of the sort.

Index at the end of PHB indicates the definition of the word. There are other places before that using the word spellcaster, but they are referring to the definition (not defining it), and page 201 has strong indication of a definition.

Some people just don't know how to read a technical book/article.

[Tanarii]

Under the heading Casting a Spell it says, "When a character cast any spell, the same basic rules are followed, regardless of the character's class or the spells effects."

Another point that reinforces the idea that anyone who casts spells is on the same page, under Rituals, it reads, "To cast a spell as a ritual, a spellcaster must have a feature that grants the ability to do so."

Admittedly neither of these are direct evidence of what deems a "spellcaster" for purposes of attunement, but does heavily imply that any one who casts a spell is, in fact, a spellcaster.None of that defines, directly or indirectly, that a spellcaster is "anyone that casts spells". It does however define that "casting spells all use the same mechanical rules." So yeah, again, page 201 says no such things. I'm still calling shenanigans on that claim. Otoh that becomes kind of pointless in the face of ...


There is a third resource that some tend to ignore, but most take as RAW: Sage Advice. Well, I don't ignore it. Thanks! :smallbiggrin:

[shuangwucanada]

None of that defines, directly or indirectly, that a spellcaster is "anyone that casts spells". It does however define that "casting spells all use the same mechanical rules." So yeah, again, page 201 says no such things. I'm still calling shenanigans on that claim. Otoh that becomes kind of pointless in the face of ...

Well, I don't ignore it. Thanks! :smallbiggrin:

There are two parts of this question. (1) Where to find the definition? If the index at the end of PHB says page 201, it is page 201. (2) What is the definition? Well, it is not clear. I give you that. I have different opinions myself.

There is indeed no direct definition here. There are, however, some pieces we can put together.

Page 201 defines spell first. Then the first time the word spellcaster appears, it says under Known and Prepared Spell section, "Before a spellcaster can use a spell, he or she must have the spell firmly fixed in mind, or must have access to the spell in a magic item."

If we ignore magic item part for now, a spellcaster is restricted anyone who can cast spell with their mind, some monsters included.

At the end of Known and Prepared Spell section, it goes, "In every case, the number of spells a caster can have fixed in mind at any given time depends on the character's level."

This restricts the definition of character spellcaster to that the number of spells he or she can known or prepare must depend on the character's level.

So according to this definition, apparently classes with spellcasting and pact magic qualifies; elemental monk qualifies; barbarian with spirit walker qualifies; race traits that allow character to cast certain spell at level 1/3/5 qualify; magic initiative or ritual caster feat DOES NOT qualify, because it doesn't depend on character level, but on if the character has the feat or not.

[MrStabby]

There are two parts of this question. (1) Where to find the definition? If the index at the end of PHB says page 201, it is page 201. (2) What is the definition? Well, it is not clear. I give you that. I have different opinions myself.

There is indeed no direct definition here. There are, however, some pieces we can put together.

Page 201 defines spell first. Then the first time the word spellcaster appears, it says under Known and Prepared Spell section, "Before a spellcaster can use a spell, he or she must have the spell firmly fixed in mind, or must have access to the spell in a magic item."

If we ignore magic item part for now, a spellcaster is restricted anyone who can cast spell with their mind, some monsters included.

At the end of Known and Prepared Spell section, it goes, "In every case, the number of spells a caster can have fixed in mind at any given time depends on the character's level."

This restricts the definition of character spellcaster to that the number of spells he or she can known or prepare must depend on the character's level.

So according to this definition, apparently classes with spellcasting and pact magic qualifies; elemental monk qualifies; barbarian with spirit walker qualifies; race traits that allow character to cast certain spell at level 1/3/5 qualify; magic initiative or ritual caster feat DOES NOT qualify, because it doesn't depend on character level, but on if the character has the feat or not.

I think for magic initiate it is the specific overruling the general. An optional special rule (feats) is being applied here over the top of the base rules-set.

[Tanarii]

There are two parts of this question. (1) Where to find the definition? If the index at the end of PHB says page 201, it is page 201. (2) What is the definition? Well, it is not clear. I give you that. I have different opinions myself.You're already making a huge leap in logic with #1, in assuming that 'spellcaster' is defined by the PHB index reference, when discussing the terms use in the DMG. Especially when they've already, in the DMG section on attunement, given you a example of what it means for monsters. Spells, Slots. Done. That's far better insight into the developer thinking & intent, given the location, than any amount of word mining & parsing in the PHB will ever give you.

[Plaguescarred]

A spellcaster is someone who does spellcasting, english wise.

But what is spellcasting if not casting a spell?!

Therefore, a spellcaster is someone who can cast a spell.

[shuangwucanada]

You're already making a huge leap in logic with #1, in assuming that 'spellcaster' is defined by the PHB index reference, when discussing the terms use in the DMG. Especially when they've already, in the DMG section on attunement, given you a example of what it means for monsters. Spells, Slots. Done. That's far better insight into the developer thinking & intent, given the location, than any amount of word mining & parsing in the PHB will ever give you.

DMG doesn't have spell caster indexed... Also if the players need to know what qualifies as a spell caster, it should be accessible in PHB. What a huge leap.

[MrStabby]

A spellcaster is someone who does spellcasting, english wise.

But what is spellcasting if not casting a spell?!

Therefore, a spellcaster is someone who can cast a spell.

I think you are missing the point. The point isn't to interpret the rules like a normal human being speaking English. The point is to rules lawyer them by twisting grammar, straining syntax and linking together seemingly unrelated scattered paragraphs until you get the answer you want. Then look on in puzzled anger when people disagree with you.

You are doing it wrong. :smallcool:

[BiPolar]

I think you are missing the point. The point isn't to interpret the rules like a normal human being speaking English. The point is to rules lawyer them by twisting grammar, straining syntax and linking together seemingly unrelated scattered paragraphs until you get the answer you want. Then look on in puzzled anger when people disagree with you.

You are doing it wrong. :smallcool:

Please keep logic and level-headed discussion and interpretation out of this. Sheesh.

[shuangwucanada]

I think for magic initiate it is the specific overruling the general. An optional special rule (feats) is being applied here over the top of the base rules-set.

Yeah they are on the edge. This ruling is totally acceptable.

[Tanarii]

DMG doesn't have spell caster indexed... Also if the players need to know what qualifies as a spell caster, it should be accessible in PHB. What a huge leap.Or they could, yknow, just read the section on attunement, and assume that if monsters with spell slots count as spellcasters, it's pretty clear that's the definition for PCs in regards to attunement as well.


I think you are missing the point. The point isn't to interpret the rules like a normal human being speaking English. The point is to rules lawyer them by twisting grammar, straining syntax and linking together seemingly unrelated scattered paragraphs until you get the answer you want. Then look on in puzzled anger when people disagree with you.

You are doing it wrong. :smallcool:Hey, I often resemble that remark! :smallbiggrin:

[Asmotherion]

My definition would be "Anyone with the Spellcasting trait as a class/archetype ability". That would include the Arcane Trickster and Eldritch Knight, but no clever shenenigans such as being a High Elf/Drow Elf/Tiefling or whatever has racial spells and automatically count as a spellcaster, or taking the magic initiate/spell sniper/ritual caster feats or being a Totem Barbarian to quallyfy.

If I was to be a bit more strict, I would also add a sentance of "also being able to cast cantrips", as cantrips (aka at-will magic) show a degree of mastery over magic in their own respective way, and in my humble oppinion, someone who wants to be called a spellcaster should be able to use magic as often as they feel like in a day. This is the reason why I see 1/3 casters more as spellcasters than half casters, besides their higher spell slots. Paladins and Rangers are mostly Magically Enhanced Fighters IMO, wile the Eldritch Knight Ironically feels more like a Warrior who also happens to be a Wizard's Apprentice.

PS: Before I get a reply about what was and what was not happening back in 3.5, I'll clearify that this is the exact reason I used to always play a Warlock, (sometimes an Eldritch Theurge, but Always a Warlock.) Also, in the rare occasions I made something diferent (stil warlock-diped though), I made sure to get a reserve feat for the same purpose (Flame Burst comes to mind).

[Plaguescarred]

I think you are missing the point. The point isn't to interpret the rules like a normal human being speaking English. The point is to rules lawyer them by twisting grammar, straining syntax and linking together seemingly unrelated scattered paragraphs until you get the answer you want. Then look on in puzzled anger when people disagree with you.

You are doing it wrong. :smallcool:like a pointmisser you mean? If a grammartwisteris a twister of grammar and a syntaxstrainer a strainer of syntax, shouldn't a spellcaster be a caster of spell? :smallsmile:

[Coffee_Dragon]

If I exclaim "your clothes are really ugly" as I land a blow, it should be a critical hit, because the words really imply this.