8
\$\begingroup\$

Items such as the Reserved Ioun Stone and Ring of Spell Storing state that:

The spell uses the slot level, spell save DC, spell attack bonus, and spellcasting ability of the original caster, but is otherwise treated as if you cast the spell.

There is no mention of not needing components, which suggests that components are needed twice for these items: once to cast the spell into it and again when casting a spell from them.

Is this correct?

\$\endgroup\$
19
\$\begingroup\$

No. Components are required casting into the ring/stone but not out.

DMG p141 (emphasis mine) indicates that the item's description would have to explicitly indicate it would require material components.

The spell is cast at the lowest possible spell level, doesn't expend any of the user's spell slots, and requires no components, unless the item's description says otherwise.

The passage within the Ioun Stone and Ring of Spell Storing refers solely to the power level of the spell coming out of the ring or stone as opposed to a set level such as that found on a wand or scroll.

Components (including material) would have been used at the time of casting the spell to be stored in the items in the first place. Double whammy would be counter to the spirit of the item as well as the logic behind them in my opinion.

Another way of thinking... One way to think about it that may help make sense with relation to the base spellcasting rule from the beginning of the chapter is that the item doesn't have innate spells until it is granted one. Think of it as a variable instead of a constant. In the case of a wand the spell Web would be a constant and has specific parameters built in when it is created. Here you instead have a variable that you can set. Once you cast, let's say, Revivify into the Ring of Spell Storing you are making the spell inherent to the item once all parameters are set on the fly when you insert it into the ring, ready for consumption like any other magical item.

Recently I was thinking about this late one night with sleep deprivation and I must say that you could consider certain spells to be exceptions to this rule. See my follow up question.

\$\endgroup\$
0
\$\begingroup\$

Read the description of the Ring of Spell Storing. The specific description overrides the general rules of items from which spells are cast.

While wearing this ring, you can cast any spell stored in it. The spell uses the slot level , spell save DC, spell attack bonus, and spellcasting ability of the original caster, but is otherwise treated as if you cast the spell.

So, RAW, other than "the slot level , spell save DC, spell attack bonus, and spellcasting ability of the original caster", the wearer of the ring is treated as having cast the spell. Thus they must provide material components, draw things, select parameters (such as teleport sigils/destination), etc. Now, RAW, this would mean material components must be expended twice. If DMed this, I would house-rule - I would only require one expenditure of the material components - things that are integral to the functioning of the spell - like a teleport destination sigil sequence in circle that is drawn on the ground - would have to be drawn by the user of the ring. Components merely consumed at the start of the spell - like the 300gp diamond for revivify - would be only required when the spell is stored into the ring.

The spell is cast at the lowest possible spell level, doesn't expend any of the user's spell slots, and requires no components, unless the item's description says otherwise.

Indeed, the description of the Ring of Spell Storing does say otherwise.

\$\endgroup\$
-4
\$\begingroup\$

Yes, Components are still required

As quoted in the question, the magic items only utilize the slot level, save DC, attack bonus, and spellcasting ability of whomever cast into the item.

The magic items still make it:

as if you cast the spell.

This is not the magic item casting the spell via an action, but it is stating specifically as if you cast the spell and cites previously what IS brought over from the original casting (which is also very different than the general rule from the DMG on page 141).

In order to cast the spell out, whomever is doing it must provide any required components. For spells that include a costly component or a component that is used in the casting, it must be provided and used again.

These spells are not inherent to the magic item (and thus follow the general rules about magic item casting), but are specifically cast by another individual into the item to be recast by the user at another time (albeit with the aforementioned slot level, DC, attack, and spellcasting ability of the original caster.)

No components at all?

If no components are necessary at all, then there are neither verbal nor somatic components either, which seems at odds with as if you cast the spell.

The magic item is not being activated to cast via an action, you are still casting it.

\$\endgroup\$
  • \$\begingroup\$ "Some magic items allow the user to cast a spell from the item, often by expending charges from it." Where does it say that the spell had to be inherent to the item? The rules seem to apply to all magic items that allow the casting of spells. Do you have a source for your interpretation? Even the answer you cite seems to disagree with you. \$\endgroup\$ – Rubiksmoose Jun 18 '18 at 15:23
  • \$\begingroup\$ I do not (hence the downvotes), but I'm not sure an item that has spells native to it is identical to an item that has spells put it into that had component requirements originally. I'll take the downvotes, but I'm not certain that it's correct to apply that general rule to the specific items like the Ioun stone and Ring of Spell Storing. \$\endgroup\$ – NautArch Jun 18 '18 at 15:26
  • \$\begingroup\$ @NautArch My issue is how is it justified to have the cost to store the spell then also hit the player's with another set of cost to cast it? Seems really costly to do it, only upside is that you have one additional spell "prepared" but for some spells, like Revivify that would be really expensive to do but totally what some of my players have for extra usages from non-casters. \$\endgroup\$ – Slagmoth Jun 18 '18 at 15:32
  • \$\begingroup\$ @Slagmoth I hear you, i'm just not sold on no components necessary based on the language of the magic item (yet.) I'm very clearly in the minority here, but I think there is a question here - and not having to drop a spell slot is probably the bigger deal than the material component (even for something like Revivify.) \$\endgroup\$ – NautArch Jun 18 '18 at 15:36
  • \$\begingroup\$ To play devil's advocate here: the ring's description also doesn't mention that you don't need to use a spell slot to cast it from the ring (it uses the original caster's "slot level" but not necessarily the caster's spell slot). It seems to me that we either have to see the spell as requiring no spell slots or material components when a spell is cast from it, or requiring both. I think the latter is illogical. \$\endgroup\$ – Gandalfmeansme Jun 18 '18 at 15:49

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.