Focus Items enchantment bonus?

Post/Author/DateTimePost
#1

Batla76

Nov 20, 2014 5:41:04

I can't find anywhere where this is addressed. When a caster uses an enchanted focus item, does it add to their Attack, Dmg, Sv DC? If a melee class gains the benefits of +1Atk/Dmg with a +1 sword, it seems like it should apply to a caster using a +1 item (staff, wand, etc.)

 

#2

eleran

Nov 20, 2014 6:15:18

A focus item only serves as a stand-in for mundane material components.  I don't find an enchanted focus item anywhere in the materials yet released.  Can you provide more info?

#3

Batla76

Nov 20, 2014 6:59:33

 

Thanks Eleran! There is nothing yet in print but a +1 staff or wand is not out of the question. I just think it is fair to give the caster the same bonus (with a focus item) that the melee gets with an enchanted weapon. Right now it is just a house rule. 

 

#4

mellored

Nov 20, 2014 9:32:38

Classicly, most caster stuff gives extra spells rather then a bonus to DC's.

 

i.e. you get a wand of holding, rather then a wand +1.

(Reply to #3)

Timborama

Batla76 wrote:
#6

Lawolf

Nov 20, 2014 11:58:51

They may eventually make magical focuses that act similarly to magical weapons.

 

Magical Focus +X

Increase your save DCs by X.

You gain a +X bonus to attacks with spells.

You gain a +X bonus to damage per die with spells.

#7

dafrca

Nov 20, 2014 13:49:43

Lawolf wrote:
#8

Batla76

Nov 20, 2014 19:46:53

Just an idea, and a house rule of ours. However, I was a little concerned about how it would affect "Bounded Accuracy" 

#9

Saelorn

Nov 20, 2014 23:47:04

Batla76 wrote:
(Reply to #9)

Timborama

Saelorn wrote:
#11

Sorxores

Nov 21, 2014 6:09:55

Batla76 wrote:
#12

intently

Nov 24, 2014 8:35:14

I love bounded accuracy. I may not give any +X items out. I love items that increase flexibility rather than just power. If I were going to do power, I'd give an item charges that let the caster impose disadvantage X times per day or something like that.

#13

Coredump00

Nov 24, 2014 13:49:06

Batla76 wrote:
(Reply to #12)

Coredump00

intently wrote: