Timeline for answer to If you cast a spell with a focus that increases your DC, does the DC drop if you stow the focus? by ShadowRanger
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
Post Revisions
12 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 9 hours ago | comment | added | justhalf | On a special case, for Summon Dragon, it says the DC for its breath ability is "equal to your spell save DC". So in that case the DC seem to follow your current DC, it seems. | |
| 10 hours ago | comment | added | justhalf | DC changes can come from somewhere else though, easiest would be Innate Sorcery. | |
| 10 hours ago | comment | added | SeriousBri | @justhalf no because most casters don't equip and unequip stuff like this. It's not an obvious written rule because it's just not a common thing to do. When my casters get a DC boosting item I never even think about not using it, much less swapping it back and forth - and I imagine the writers didn't expect it either. | |
| 17 hours ago | comment | added | ShadowRanger | @ThomasMarkov: Eh. My conclusion draws more on the actual wording of the rules than the alternate conclusion. A single mention I'd discount, the fact that both the magic items and the rules for spellcasting use the same wording, describing the save DC as belonging to the spell, rather than the caster, convinces me. I understand DMs may disagree, and I'm not going to say they're committing some heinous sin by doing so, but the casting rules and magic item wording both support the interpretation that DC is tied to the (casting of the) spell. The whole "spells can survive death" issue seals it. | |
| 19 hours ago | comment | added | justhalf | @SeriousBri in this case, isn't it easier to have ongoing spell DC change according to your current spell DC so that there are no multiple spell DC to be kept track? | |
| yesterday | comment | added | SeriousBri | This is also consistent with the simplicity DND strives for, it absolutely does not want people tracking changing numbers every turn | |
| yesterday | comment | added | Nobody the Hobgoblin | I think the argument about spells that do not require concentration is strong, and maybe then to be consistent (especially as there are no detailed rules about it), it might make sense that one just extends handling it this way to all spells, including concentration spells. That certainly is the much more practical solution during play to avoid bookkeeping. | |
| yesterday | comment | added | Miral | This is considerably more ambiguous for spells that require concentration; in those cases the spell does require continuous effort from the caster to remain active and would end if they are slain or incapacitated, which strongly implies that other changes to the caster such as their DC could have a live impact as well. | |
| yesterday | comment | added | Tarod | Re: "The wording here describes a spell (which we can infer means a particular casting of a spell) " I don't think that inference is true. Also, would you rule the same way for Attack Rolls? It has a similar wording: "Here’s how to calculate the attack modifier for your spells" | |
| yesterday | comment | added | Tarod | Re" "there's a specific statement that merely being Incapacitated renders you unable to voluntarily end a spell" where is that rule? | |
| yesterday | comment | added | Thomas Markov | You very strongly draw your conclusion, but it is not at all clear that it follows from any rule(s). | |
| yesterday | history | answered | ShadowRanger | CC BY-SA 4.0 |