Moon Sickle - RAW damage to spells as well?

[Eriol]

Strictly RAW (and this is more a debate, so not putting this in RAW thread, as it's not "simple" IMO), does the +1 Moon Sickle also affect the damage of spells that use it as a focus? The description from Tasha's is:

This silver-bladed sickle glimmers softly with moonlight. While holding this magic weapon, you gain a +1 bonus to attack and damage rolls made with it, and you gain a +1 bonus to spell attack rolls and the saving throw DCs of your druid and ranger spells. In addition, you can use the sickle as a spellcasting focus for your druid and ranger spells.

The reason I think it may, is the "you gain a +1 bonus to attack and damage rolls made with it". Why is spell damage any different? I would argue (on RAW, not on actual intent) that a spell that is cast using it as a focus (the last part of the paragraph) is "using" the weapon, thus the damage rolls are also affected.

If there is contradictory RAW, great, but this seems legit. I'm not doing it, but I think somebody could legitimately try, and I wanted other people's thoughts on it.

[RogueJK]

RAW, no. Magic items do what they specify, nothing more.

The Moon Sickle has three distinct properties, basically an amalgamation of three separate magic items:

1) It's a +1 magic weapon, which adds +1 to the weapon attack and weapon damage rolls. (Like a +1 Sickle.)
2) It adds +1 to spell attack rolls and spell save DCs. (Like a Wand of the War Mage, or a Rod of the Pact Keeper, or similar.)
3) You can use it as a spellcasting focus, eliminating the need to have a free hand to manipulate a separate spell focus. (Like a Ruby of the War Mage.)

[PhoenixPhyre]

RAW, no. Magic items do what they specify, nothing more.

The Moon Sickle has three distinct properties, basically an amalgamation of three separate magic items:

1) It's a +1 magic weapon, which adds +1 to the weapon attack and weapon damage rolls. (Like a +1 Sickle.)

I agree--for me, the kicker is the words "made with it" (referencing attacks). While you can uses it as a focus, you don't make the spell attacks with the focus. You make the spell attacks with the spell, the focus is just there.

Additionally, if the "+1 to attack rolls and damage rolls" piece kicked in for spell attacks, you'd actually get +2 to spell attack rolls OR that second line (+1 to spell attacks) would be surplus. Neither of which make any sense--the writers try not to hide elephants in mouse holes, as the legal saying goes.

Could they have been clearer? Absolutely. Just adding "weapon" to the first sentence would have done it. But I think it's clear enough that anyone trying this would justifiably be vulnerable to charges of munchkinry in the 3rd degree (1st degree munchkinry is worse, this is just minor munchkinry).

[Eriol]

Could they have been clearer? Absolutely. Just adding "weapon" to the first sentence would have done it. But I think it's clear enough that anyone trying this would justifiably be vulnerable to charges of munchkinry in the 3rd degree (1st degree munchkinry is worse, this is just minor munchkinry).

That's where I'm at too. I'm not trying to actually argue for this in AL or anything like that, but I want to be aware of the angles on this if somebody else does. And ya, the +2 thing would happen I think!

And while I can see where somebody comes from with the "the spell does the damage, not the focus" at the same time the focus is necessary thus it's "part of it." By the logic of "it's the spell not the weapon" then the CASTER didn't do damage either. It's all necessary for the spell, thus it all "collectively" did the damage. That's what makes more sense to me.

Though at this point, I know we're just going around on semantics, which is OK, sometimes that's what a board is for. ;) I just want to have more of a reason than "because I said so" when somebody else comes up with this screwy angle is all.

[PhoenixPhyre]

That's where I'm at too. I'm not trying to actually argue for this in AL or anything like that, but I want to be aware of the angles on this if somebody else does. And ya, the +2 thing would happen I think!

And while I can see where somebody comes from with the "the spell does the damage, not the focus" at the same time the focus is necessary thus it's "part of it." By the logic of "it's the spell not the weapon" then the CASTER didn't do damage either. It's all necessary for the spell, thus it all "collectively" did the damage. That's what makes more sense to me.

Though at this point, I know we're just going around on semantics, which is OK, sometimes that's what a board is for. ;) I just want to have more of a reason than "because I said so" when somebody else comes up with this screwy angle is all.

There are a lot of things phrased as "when you [take|deal] damage with a [cantrip|spell of 1st level or higher], [...]". So that's how I'd expect it to be phrased. Or added to the second sentence (which talks about spell attacks already).

Also, compare how things like the Instrument(s) of the Bards do it:

You can play the instrument while casting a spell that causes any of its targets to be charmed on a failed saving throw, thereby imposing disadvantage on the save. This effect applies only if the spell has a somatic or a material component.

Note that
a) simply using it as a focus is not enough to trigger this effect, you have to play the instrument
b) it only takes effect if the spell could use the instrument as a focus
c) it doesn't say that the spell is cast via this tool

Also note that none of the printed magic items elsewhere that enhance spellcasting (including the new items from Tasha's) improve spell damage. The All Purpose Tool (which is a focus for Artificers) specifically says that the trigger is holding (not casting spells through).

You don't cast a spell [using the focus]. You cast a spell and use the focus. The spell comes from you, not from the focus.

[PhantomSoul]

That's where I'm at too. I'm not trying to actually argue for this in AL or anything like that, but I want to be aware of the angles on this if somebody else does. And ya, the +2 thing would happen I think!

And while I can see where somebody comes from with the "the spell does the damage, not the focus" at the same time the focus is necessary thus it's "part of it." By the logic of "it's the spell not the weapon" then the CASTER didn't do damage either. It's all necessary for the spell, thus it all "collectively" did the damage. That's what makes more sense to me.

Though at this point, I know we're just going around on semantics, which is OK, sometimes that's what a board is for. ;) I just want to have more of a reason than "because I said so" when somebody else comes up with this screwy angle is all.

It's ok -- if going fully into semantics, it stops working again! (Caster is an agent in casting the spell so they hurt; the spell is their instrument for the hurting; the focus is just an instrument for the casting, not really for the hurting directly. "The spellcaster hurt you with their spell" works, but "the spellcaster hurt you with their focus" sounds like an improvised weapon or the weapon rather than spellcasting use of a staff! :) )

[Eriol]

It's ok -- if going fully into semantics, it stops working again! (Caster is an agent in casting the spell so they hurt; the spell is their instrument for the hurting; the focus is just an instrument for the casting, not really for the hurting directly. "The spellcaster hurt you with their spell" works, but "the spellcaster hurt you with their focus" sounds like an improvised weapon or the weapon rather than spellcasting use of a staff! :) )

I dunno. There's enough depictions in media of the "effect" coming out of the end of the wand/staff (even Tim the Enchanter in Monty Python shoots fire from his staff), not to mention the whole "Arcane Firearm" part of Artificer's Artillerist class, that it's perfectly reasonable IMO to say that the focus is the "weapon" and thus both "the warrior hurt you with their axe" and "the wizard hurt you with their Wand of the War Mage" have somewhat equal validity, in theatre of the mind, or mechanically.

All of this just reinforces in my mind that while we don't want or need legalese in our Sourcebooks, the language could still be a lot tighter while remaining just as or even more readable. So I'll lament the ambiguity and just deal with it!

[Segev]

It takes a reading that claims spells cast using a focus that cause damage are damage done "with" the focus for this to work at all under the RAW. Given how the paragraph is structured, I do not believe that it is intended to work that way, and I know not how you would word it to prevent it from counting spell damage that way without adding explicit text to exclude it.

Still, there is room to argue for it. I wouldn't; if it were intended, it would call it out again when it is calling out improving the spell attack to hit rolls and the spell save DCs.