7
\$\begingroup\$

Fifth Edition has a number of items that require attunement by a spellcaster.

If the prerequisite is to be a spellcaster, a creature qualifies if it can cast at least one spell using its traits or features, not using a magic item or the like.

I am creating a magic item that I would like to restrict to creatures that are not spellcasters. Using another franchise, the wording would be:

Requires attunement by a muggle

Is there an term for this set of creatures in any of the official rules?

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

Non-spellcaster

Eberron: Rising from the Last War, p.226, "Library Vault Adventures":

Destroy a scroll containing an incantation that allows even non-spellcasters to animate the dead.

A search of D&D Beyond for the term non-spellcaster suggests that it's not a very commonly used term, perhaps because very few game mechanics exist which exclusively affect people who cannot cast spells.

There is a parallel term for creatures who cannot fly, non-flying creature, which does appear in the DMG, as does "a creature of non-lawful alignment" (a prerequisite of the artifact Blackrazor), and "non-dwarf" (a curse on the Axe of the Dwarvish Lords).

| improve this answer | |
\$\endgroup\$
7
\$\begingroup\$

There is no official terminology for non-spellcasters other than "non-spellcasters."

From the DMG Errata (P.1):

About Attunement (PHB 136)

The first paragraph ends with a new sentence: “If the prerequisite is to be a spellcaster, a creature qualifies if it can cast at least one spell using its traits or features, not using a magic item or the like.”

For the purpose of attunement:

If a creature is able to cast a spell by virtue of their own ability (not from an item), whether that be race, class, or feature, they are a spellcaster.

If a creature isn't able to cast a spell by virtue of their own ability (not from an item), whether that be race, class, or feature, they aren't a spellcaster.

The books until Eberron: Rising from the Last War offers no further terminology about non-spellcasters that goes beyond "creature" which also applies to spellcasters, so for the purpose of the restriction and clarity I recommend the term "non-spellcaster" which are defined as lacking all the qualities a spellcaster has without introducing any lingo.

I have done so while homebrewing magic-items and my table understood what non-spellcasters were after I told them how they are distinct from spellcasters.

In Eberron: Rising from the Last War non-spellcasters are mentioned exactly once on the table for Library Vault Adventures (ERftLW 226)

Destroy a scroll containing an incantation that allows even non-spellcasters to animate the dead.

There is no consistent use of that language elsewhere.

| improve this answer | |
\$\endgroup\$
  • \$\begingroup\$ I'm not the downvote, but I find non-spellcaster a bit clunky to explain. It is my current default though. \$\endgroup\$ – raithyn Feb 15 at 22:51
  • \$\begingroup\$ If you want you can use the distinction of "warrior" which has been used before, but from my experience the concept of a spellcaster is much easier to explain, and therefore also what a non-spellcaster is. @raithyn \$\endgroup\$ – Akixkisu Feb 15 at 22:54

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.