If a character can use a +X magic weapon as a spellcasting focus, does it add the bonus to spell attacks or...












12












$begingroup$


My 5e College of Swords bard can use a weapon as a spell focus for their spell casting.



If they have a +1 rapier and cast a spell requiring a spell attack roll, do they get the +1 added to their spell attack bonus? What about spell damage?



Likewise, if they cast a spell requiring a saving throw, do they get the +1 added to the spell's DC?










share|improve this question











$endgroup$

















    12












    $begingroup$


    My 5e College of Swords bard can use a weapon as a spell focus for their spell casting.



    If they have a +1 rapier and cast a spell requiring a spell attack roll, do they get the +1 added to their spell attack bonus? What about spell damage?



    Likewise, if they cast a spell requiring a saving throw, do they get the +1 added to the spell's DC?










    share|improve this question











    $endgroup$















      12












      12








      12





      $begingroup$


      My 5e College of Swords bard can use a weapon as a spell focus for their spell casting.



      If they have a +1 rapier and cast a spell requiring a spell attack roll, do they get the +1 added to their spell attack bonus? What about spell damage?



      Likewise, if they cast a spell requiring a saving throw, do they get the +1 added to the spell's DC?










      share|improve this question











      $endgroup$




      My 5e College of Swords bard can use a weapon as a spell focus for their spell casting.



      If they have a +1 rapier and cast a spell requiring a spell attack roll, do they get the +1 added to their spell attack bonus? What about spell damage?



      Likewise, if they cast a spell requiring a saving throw, do they get the +1 added to the spell's DC?







      dnd-5e magic-items bard






      share|improve this question















      share|improve this question













      share|improve this question




      share|improve this question








      edited 11 hours ago









      V2Blast

      25.7k488158




      25.7k488158










      asked 15 hours ago









      ProtonfluxProtonflux

      9,63512067




      9,63512067






















          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes


















          21












          $begingroup$

          No they do not.



          D&D 5e is a game where things only do what the rules covering them say they do. Magic items each have their own description and they only do what that description specifically says, nothing more, unless there is another general rule somewhere covering their use.



          The description for +1, +2, or +3 weapons says:




          You have a bonus to attack and damage rolls made with this magic weapon. The bonus is determined by the weapon's rarity. (DMG p.213)




          So a longsword +1 grants a +1 bonus to attack and damage rolls, that's all. There is no rule anywhere else in the game that says anything like "The attack and damage bonus for a magic item will also apply to spell attacks and spell damage if the item can be used as a casting focus".



          If there is still any confusion as to whether "bonus to attack and damage" includes spell attack and spell damage rolls we can look at other items that specifically state that this is the case. For example the Staff of the Magi:




          This staff can be wielded as a magic quarterstaff that grants a +2 bonus to attack and damage rolls made with it. While you hold it, you gain a +2 bonus to spell attack rolls. (DMG p.203)




          As you can see it clearly differentiates between can be wielded as a magic quarterstaff that grants a +2 bonus to attack and damage rolls and you gain a +2 bonus to spell attack rolls in the description. If the +2 bonus to attack and damage rolls applied to spell attack rolls the description would not have included the specific rule about spell attack rolls.



          This is also the case for other magic items. For instance magic shields where the bonus only applies to AC, not to anything else:




          While holding this shield, you have a bonus to AC determined by the shield's rarity. This bonus is in addition to the shield's normal bonus to AC. (DMG p.200)




          Even if it has a cleric's holy symbol emblazoned on it and is used as a Holy Symbol to cast spells the bonus only applies to what it says it does, to AC.



          In case it is thought that this is not a deliberate and thought out rule/description for the Staff of the Magi, other items follow the same pattern. The Staff of the Woodlands, for instance, also specifically states that it has a +2 bonus to spell attack rolls in addition to the +2 bonus to attack and damage when wielded as a magic quarterstaff:




          This staff can be wielded as a magic quarterstaff that grants a +2 bonus to attack and damage rolls made with it. While holding it, you have a +2 bonus to spell attack rolls. (DMG p.204)




          The Rod of the Pact Keeper goes the other way:




          While holding this rod, you gain a bonus to spell attack roils and to the saving throw DCs of your warlock spells. (DMG p.197)




          It does not add to attack or damage rolls when used as a club, as it does not say it does. In fact, RAW, it is not a magic weapon at all, e.g. for the case where it is used against creatures with resistance to non-magical weapon's damage.






          share|improve this answer











          $endgroup$













          • $begingroup$
            I tweaked your edit a bit to remove the titles in the quote blocks (since you mention them in your body text already) and the unnecessary rarity and attunement info. That means I also moved the citation to the end. Feel free to revert, but I think the answer flows and looks much better now. (which is really important for a long answer especially I think).
            $endgroup$
            – Rubiksmoose
            15 hours ago












          • $begingroup$
            Can you be explicit about your use of "exceptio probat regulam in casibus non exceptis" (the existence of exceptions implies there is a general rule that they are in exception of)? I think it would improve your answer.
            $endgroup$
            – Yakk
            12 hours ago











          Your Answer





          StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
          return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
          StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
          StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["\$", "\$"]]);
          });
          });
          }, "mathjax-editing");

          StackExchange.ready(function() {
          var channelOptions = {
          tags: "".split(" "),
          id: "122"
          };
          initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

          StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
          // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
          if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
          StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
          createEditor();
          });
          }
          else {
          createEditor();
          }
          });

          function createEditor() {
          StackExchange.prepareEditor({
          heartbeatType: 'answer',
          autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
          convertImagesToLinks: false,
          noModals: true,
          showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
          reputationToPostImages: null,
          bindNavPrevention: true,
          postfix: "",
          imageUploader: {
          brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
          contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
          allowUrls: true
          },
          noCode: true, onDemand: true,
          discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
          ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
          });


          }
          });














          draft saved

          draft discarded


















          StackExchange.ready(
          function () {
          StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2frpg.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f143968%2fif-a-character-can-use-a-x-magic-weapon-as-a-spellcasting-focus-does-it-add-th%23new-answer', 'question_page');
          }
          );

          Post as a guest















          Required, but never shown

























          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes








          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes









          active

          oldest

          votes






          active

          oldest

          votes









          21












          $begingroup$

          No they do not.



          D&D 5e is a game where things only do what the rules covering them say they do. Magic items each have their own description and they only do what that description specifically says, nothing more, unless there is another general rule somewhere covering their use.



          The description for +1, +2, or +3 weapons says:




          You have a bonus to attack and damage rolls made with this magic weapon. The bonus is determined by the weapon's rarity. (DMG p.213)




          So a longsword +1 grants a +1 bonus to attack and damage rolls, that's all. There is no rule anywhere else in the game that says anything like "The attack and damage bonus for a magic item will also apply to spell attacks and spell damage if the item can be used as a casting focus".



          If there is still any confusion as to whether "bonus to attack and damage" includes spell attack and spell damage rolls we can look at other items that specifically state that this is the case. For example the Staff of the Magi:




          This staff can be wielded as a magic quarterstaff that grants a +2 bonus to attack and damage rolls made with it. While you hold it, you gain a +2 bonus to spell attack rolls. (DMG p.203)




          As you can see it clearly differentiates between can be wielded as a magic quarterstaff that grants a +2 bonus to attack and damage rolls and you gain a +2 bonus to spell attack rolls in the description. If the +2 bonus to attack and damage rolls applied to spell attack rolls the description would not have included the specific rule about spell attack rolls.



          This is also the case for other magic items. For instance magic shields where the bonus only applies to AC, not to anything else:




          While holding this shield, you have a bonus to AC determined by the shield's rarity. This bonus is in addition to the shield's normal bonus to AC. (DMG p.200)




          Even if it has a cleric's holy symbol emblazoned on it and is used as a Holy Symbol to cast spells the bonus only applies to what it says it does, to AC.



          In case it is thought that this is not a deliberate and thought out rule/description for the Staff of the Magi, other items follow the same pattern. The Staff of the Woodlands, for instance, also specifically states that it has a +2 bonus to spell attack rolls in addition to the +2 bonus to attack and damage when wielded as a magic quarterstaff:




          This staff can be wielded as a magic quarterstaff that grants a +2 bonus to attack and damage rolls made with it. While holding it, you have a +2 bonus to spell attack rolls. (DMG p.204)




          The Rod of the Pact Keeper goes the other way:




          While holding this rod, you gain a bonus to spell attack roils and to the saving throw DCs of your warlock spells. (DMG p.197)




          It does not add to attack or damage rolls when used as a club, as it does not say it does. In fact, RAW, it is not a magic weapon at all, e.g. for the case where it is used against creatures with resistance to non-magical weapon's damage.






          share|improve this answer











          $endgroup$













          • $begingroup$
            I tweaked your edit a bit to remove the titles in the quote blocks (since you mention them in your body text already) and the unnecessary rarity and attunement info. That means I also moved the citation to the end. Feel free to revert, but I think the answer flows and looks much better now. (which is really important for a long answer especially I think).
            $endgroup$
            – Rubiksmoose
            15 hours ago












          • $begingroup$
            Can you be explicit about your use of "exceptio probat regulam in casibus non exceptis" (the existence of exceptions implies there is a general rule that they are in exception of)? I think it would improve your answer.
            $endgroup$
            – Yakk
            12 hours ago
















          21












          $begingroup$

          No they do not.



          D&D 5e is a game where things only do what the rules covering them say they do. Magic items each have their own description and they only do what that description specifically says, nothing more, unless there is another general rule somewhere covering their use.



          The description for +1, +2, or +3 weapons says:




          You have a bonus to attack and damage rolls made with this magic weapon. The bonus is determined by the weapon's rarity. (DMG p.213)




          So a longsword +1 grants a +1 bonus to attack and damage rolls, that's all. There is no rule anywhere else in the game that says anything like "The attack and damage bonus for a magic item will also apply to spell attacks and spell damage if the item can be used as a casting focus".



          If there is still any confusion as to whether "bonus to attack and damage" includes spell attack and spell damage rolls we can look at other items that specifically state that this is the case. For example the Staff of the Magi:




          This staff can be wielded as a magic quarterstaff that grants a +2 bonus to attack and damage rolls made with it. While you hold it, you gain a +2 bonus to spell attack rolls. (DMG p.203)




          As you can see it clearly differentiates between can be wielded as a magic quarterstaff that grants a +2 bonus to attack and damage rolls and you gain a +2 bonus to spell attack rolls in the description. If the +2 bonus to attack and damage rolls applied to spell attack rolls the description would not have included the specific rule about spell attack rolls.



          This is also the case for other magic items. For instance magic shields where the bonus only applies to AC, not to anything else:




          While holding this shield, you have a bonus to AC determined by the shield's rarity. This bonus is in addition to the shield's normal bonus to AC. (DMG p.200)




          Even if it has a cleric's holy symbol emblazoned on it and is used as a Holy Symbol to cast spells the bonus only applies to what it says it does, to AC.



          In case it is thought that this is not a deliberate and thought out rule/description for the Staff of the Magi, other items follow the same pattern. The Staff of the Woodlands, for instance, also specifically states that it has a +2 bonus to spell attack rolls in addition to the +2 bonus to attack and damage when wielded as a magic quarterstaff:




          This staff can be wielded as a magic quarterstaff that grants a +2 bonus to attack and damage rolls made with it. While holding it, you have a +2 bonus to spell attack rolls. (DMG p.204)




          The Rod of the Pact Keeper goes the other way:




          While holding this rod, you gain a bonus to spell attack roils and to the saving throw DCs of your warlock spells. (DMG p.197)




          It does not add to attack or damage rolls when used as a club, as it does not say it does. In fact, RAW, it is not a magic weapon at all, e.g. for the case where it is used against creatures with resistance to non-magical weapon's damage.






          share|improve this answer











          $endgroup$













          • $begingroup$
            I tweaked your edit a bit to remove the titles in the quote blocks (since you mention them in your body text already) and the unnecessary rarity and attunement info. That means I also moved the citation to the end. Feel free to revert, but I think the answer flows and looks much better now. (which is really important for a long answer especially I think).
            $endgroup$
            – Rubiksmoose
            15 hours ago












          • $begingroup$
            Can you be explicit about your use of "exceptio probat regulam in casibus non exceptis" (the existence of exceptions implies there is a general rule that they are in exception of)? I think it would improve your answer.
            $endgroup$
            – Yakk
            12 hours ago














          21












          21








          21





          $begingroup$

          No they do not.



          D&D 5e is a game where things only do what the rules covering them say they do. Magic items each have their own description and they only do what that description specifically says, nothing more, unless there is another general rule somewhere covering their use.



          The description for +1, +2, or +3 weapons says:




          You have a bonus to attack and damage rolls made with this magic weapon. The bonus is determined by the weapon's rarity. (DMG p.213)




          So a longsword +1 grants a +1 bonus to attack and damage rolls, that's all. There is no rule anywhere else in the game that says anything like "The attack and damage bonus for a magic item will also apply to spell attacks and spell damage if the item can be used as a casting focus".



          If there is still any confusion as to whether "bonus to attack and damage" includes spell attack and spell damage rolls we can look at other items that specifically state that this is the case. For example the Staff of the Magi:




          This staff can be wielded as a magic quarterstaff that grants a +2 bonus to attack and damage rolls made with it. While you hold it, you gain a +2 bonus to spell attack rolls. (DMG p.203)




          As you can see it clearly differentiates between can be wielded as a magic quarterstaff that grants a +2 bonus to attack and damage rolls and you gain a +2 bonus to spell attack rolls in the description. If the +2 bonus to attack and damage rolls applied to spell attack rolls the description would not have included the specific rule about spell attack rolls.



          This is also the case for other magic items. For instance magic shields where the bonus only applies to AC, not to anything else:




          While holding this shield, you have a bonus to AC determined by the shield's rarity. This bonus is in addition to the shield's normal bonus to AC. (DMG p.200)




          Even if it has a cleric's holy symbol emblazoned on it and is used as a Holy Symbol to cast spells the bonus only applies to what it says it does, to AC.



          In case it is thought that this is not a deliberate and thought out rule/description for the Staff of the Magi, other items follow the same pattern. The Staff of the Woodlands, for instance, also specifically states that it has a +2 bonus to spell attack rolls in addition to the +2 bonus to attack and damage when wielded as a magic quarterstaff:




          This staff can be wielded as a magic quarterstaff that grants a +2 bonus to attack and damage rolls made with it. While holding it, you have a +2 bonus to spell attack rolls. (DMG p.204)




          The Rod of the Pact Keeper goes the other way:




          While holding this rod, you gain a bonus to spell attack roils and to the saving throw DCs of your warlock spells. (DMG p.197)




          It does not add to attack or damage rolls when used as a club, as it does not say it does. In fact, RAW, it is not a magic weapon at all, e.g. for the case where it is used against creatures with resistance to non-magical weapon's damage.






          share|improve this answer











          $endgroup$



          No they do not.



          D&D 5e is a game where things only do what the rules covering them say they do. Magic items each have their own description and they only do what that description specifically says, nothing more, unless there is another general rule somewhere covering their use.



          The description for +1, +2, or +3 weapons says:




          You have a bonus to attack and damage rolls made with this magic weapon. The bonus is determined by the weapon's rarity. (DMG p.213)




          So a longsword +1 grants a +1 bonus to attack and damage rolls, that's all. There is no rule anywhere else in the game that says anything like "The attack and damage bonus for a magic item will also apply to spell attacks and spell damage if the item can be used as a casting focus".



          If there is still any confusion as to whether "bonus to attack and damage" includes spell attack and spell damage rolls we can look at other items that specifically state that this is the case. For example the Staff of the Magi:




          This staff can be wielded as a magic quarterstaff that grants a +2 bonus to attack and damage rolls made with it. While you hold it, you gain a +2 bonus to spell attack rolls. (DMG p.203)




          As you can see it clearly differentiates between can be wielded as a magic quarterstaff that grants a +2 bonus to attack and damage rolls and you gain a +2 bonus to spell attack rolls in the description. If the +2 bonus to attack and damage rolls applied to spell attack rolls the description would not have included the specific rule about spell attack rolls.



          This is also the case for other magic items. For instance magic shields where the bonus only applies to AC, not to anything else:




          While holding this shield, you have a bonus to AC determined by the shield's rarity. This bonus is in addition to the shield's normal bonus to AC. (DMG p.200)




          Even if it has a cleric's holy symbol emblazoned on it and is used as a Holy Symbol to cast spells the bonus only applies to what it says it does, to AC.



          In case it is thought that this is not a deliberate and thought out rule/description for the Staff of the Magi, other items follow the same pattern. The Staff of the Woodlands, for instance, also specifically states that it has a +2 bonus to spell attack rolls in addition to the +2 bonus to attack and damage when wielded as a magic quarterstaff:




          This staff can be wielded as a magic quarterstaff that grants a +2 bonus to attack and damage rolls made with it. While holding it, you have a +2 bonus to spell attack rolls. (DMG p.204)




          The Rod of the Pact Keeper goes the other way:




          While holding this rod, you gain a bonus to spell attack roils and to the saving throw DCs of your warlock spells. (DMG p.197)




          It does not add to attack or damage rolls when used as a club, as it does not say it does. In fact, RAW, it is not a magic weapon at all, e.g. for the case where it is used against creatures with resistance to non-magical weapon's damage.







          share|improve this answer














          share|improve this answer



          share|improve this answer








          edited 15 hours ago









          Rubiksmoose

          59.6k10287440




          59.6k10287440










          answered 15 hours ago









          ProtonfluxProtonflux

          9,63512067




          9,63512067












          • $begingroup$
            I tweaked your edit a bit to remove the titles in the quote blocks (since you mention them in your body text already) and the unnecessary rarity and attunement info. That means I also moved the citation to the end. Feel free to revert, but I think the answer flows and looks much better now. (which is really important for a long answer especially I think).
            $endgroup$
            – Rubiksmoose
            15 hours ago












          • $begingroup$
            Can you be explicit about your use of "exceptio probat regulam in casibus non exceptis" (the existence of exceptions implies there is a general rule that they are in exception of)? I think it would improve your answer.
            $endgroup$
            – Yakk
            12 hours ago


















          • $begingroup$
            I tweaked your edit a bit to remove the titles in the quote blocks (since you mention them in your body text already) and the unnecessary rarity and attunement info. That means I also moved the citation to the end. Feel free to revert, but I think the answer flows and looks much better now. (which is really important for a long answer especially I think).
            $endgroup$
            – Rubiksmoose
            15 hours ago












          • $begingroup$
            Can you be explicit about your use of "exceptio probat regulam in casibus non exceptis" (the existence of exceptions implies there is a general rule that they are in exception of)? I think it would improve your answer.
            $endgroup$
            – Yakk
            12 hours ago
















          $begingroup$
          I tweaked your edit a bit to remove the titles in the quote blocks (since you mention them in your body text already) and the unnecessary rarity and attunement info. That means I also moved the citation to the end. Feel free to revert, but I think the answer flows and looks much better now. (which is really important for a long answer especially I think).
          $endgroup$
          – Rubiksmoose
          15 hours ago






          $begingroup$
          I tweaked your edit a bit to remove the titles in the quote blocks (since you mention them in your body text already) and the unnecessary rarity and attunement info. That means I also moved the citation to the end. Feel free to revert, but I think the answer flows and looks much better now. (which is really important for a long answer especially I think).
          $endgroup$
          – Rubiksmoose
          15 hours ago














          $begingroup$
          Can you be explicit about your use of "exceptio probat regulam in casibus non exceptis" (the existence of exceptions implies there is a general rule that they are in exception of)? I think it would improve your answer.
          $endgroup$
          – Yakk
          12 hours ago




          $begingroup$
          Can you be explicit about your use of "exceptio probat regulam in casibus non exceptis" (the existence of exceptions implies there is a general rule that they are in exception of)? I think it would improve your answer.
          $endgroup$
          – Yakk
          12 hours ago


















          draft saved

          draft discarded




















































          Thanks for contributing an answer to Role-playing Games Stack Exchange!


          • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

          But avoid



          • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

          • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


          Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


          To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




          draft saved


          draft discarded














          StackExchange.ready(
          function () {
          StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2frpg.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f143968%2fif-a-character-can-use-a-x-magic-weapon-as-a-spellcasting-focus-does-it-add-th%23new-answer', 'question_page');
          }
          );

          Post as a guest















          Required, but never shown





















































          Required, but never shown














          Required, but never shown












          Required, but never shown







          Required, but never shown

































          Required, but never shown














          Required, but never shown












          Required, but never shown







          Required, but never shown







          Popular posts from this blog

          Færeyskur hestur Heimild | Tengill | Tilvísanir | LeiðsagnarvalRossið - síða um færeyska hrossið á færeyskuGott ár hjá færeyska hestinum

          He _____ here since 1970 . Answer needed [closed]What does “since he was so high” mean?Meaning of “catch birds for”?How do I ensure “since” takes the meaning I want?“Who cares here” meaningWhat does “right round toward” mean?the time tense (had now been detected)What does the phrase “ring around the roses” mean here?Correct usage of “visited upon”Meaning of “foiled rail sabotage bid”It was the third time I had gone to Rome or It is the third time I had been to Rome

          Slayer Innehåll Historia | Stil, komposition och lyrik | Bandets betydelse och framgångar | Sidoprojekt och samarbeten | Kontroverser | Medlemmar | Utmärkelser och nomineringar | Turnéer och festivaler | Diskografi | Referenser | Externa länkar | Navigeringsmenywww.slayer.net”Metal Massacre vol. 1””Metal Massacre vol. 3””Metal Massacre Volume III””Show No Mercy””Haunting the Chapel””Live Undead””Hell Awaits””Reign in Blood””Reign in Blood””Gold & Platinum – Reign in Blood””Golden Gods Awards Winners”originalet”Kerrang! Hall Of Fame””Slayer Looks Back On 37-Year Career In New Video Series: Part Two””South of Heaven””Gold & Platinum – South of Heaven””Seasons in the Abyss””Gold & Platinum - Seasons in the Abyss””Divine Intervention””Divine Intervention - Release group by Slayer””Gold & Platinum - Divine Intervention””Live Intrusion””Undisputed Attitude””Abolish Government/Superficial Love””Release “Slatanic Slaughter: A Tribute to Slayer” by Various Artists””Diabolus in Musica””Soundtrack to the Apocalypse””God Hates Us All””Systematic - Relationships””War at the Warfield””Gold & Platinum - War at the Warfield””Soundtrack to the Apocalypse””Gold & Platinum - Still Reigning””Metallica, Slayer, Iron Mauden Among Winners At Metal Hammer Awards””Eternal Pyre””Eternal Pyre - Slayer release group””Eternal Pyre””Metal Storm Awards 2006””Kerrang! Hall Of Fame””Slayer Wins 'Best Metal' Grammy Award””Slayer Guitarist Jeff Hanneman Dies””Bullet-For My Valentine booed at Metal Hammer Golden Gods Awards””Unholy Aliance””The End Of Slayer?””Slayer: We Could Thrash Out Two More Albums If We're Fast Enough...””'The Unholy Alliance: Chapter III' UK Dates Added”originalet”Megadeth And Slayer To Co-Headline 'Canadian Carnage' Trek”originalet”World Painted Blood””Release “World Painted Blood” by Slayer””Metallica Heading To Cinemas””Slayer, Megadeth To Join Forces For 'European Carnage' Tour - Dec. 18, 2010”originalet”Slayer's Hanneman Contracts Acute Infection; Band To Bring In Guest Guitarist””Cannibal Corpse's Pat O'Brien Will Step In As Slayer's Guest Guitarist”originalet”Slayer’s Jeff Hanneman Dead at 49””Dave Lombardo Says He Made Only $67,000 In 2011 While Touring With Slayer””Slayer: We Do Not Agree With Dave Lombardo's Substance Or Timeline Of Events””Slayer Welcomes Drummer Paul Bostaph Back To The Fold””Slayer Hope to Unveil Never-Before-Heard Jeff Hanneman Material on Next Album””Slayer Debut New Song 'Implode' During Surprise Golden Gods Appearance””Release group Repentless by Slayer””Repentless - Slayer - Credits””Slayer””Metal Storm Awards 2015””Slayer - to release comic book "Repentless #1"””Slayer To Release 'Repentless' 6.66" Vinyl Box Set””BREAKING NEWS: Slayer Announce Farewell Tour””Slayer Recruit Lamb of God, Anthrax, Behemoth + Testament for Final Tour””Slayer lägger ner efter 37 år””Slayer Announces Second North American Leg Of 'Final' Tour””Final World Tour””Slayer Announces Final European Tour With Lamb of God, Anthrax And Obituary””Slayer To Tour Europe With Lamb of God, Anthrax And Obituary””Slayer To Play 'Last French Show Ever' At Next Year's Hellfst””Slayer's Final World Tour Will Extend Into 2019””Death Angel's Rob Cavestany On Slayer's 'Farewell' Tour: 'Some Of Us Could See This Coming'””Testament Has No Plans To Retire Anytime Soon, Says Chuck Billy””Anthrax's Scott Ian On Slayer's 'Farewell' Tour Plans: 'I Was Surprised And I Wasn't Surprised'””Slayer””Slayer's Morbid Schlock””Review/Rock; For Slayer, the Mania Is the Message””Slayer - Biography””Slayer - Reign In Blood”originalet”Dave Lombardo””An exclusive oral history of Slayer”originalet”Exclusive! Interview With Slayer Guitarist Jeff Hanneman”originalet”Thinking Out Loud: Slayer's Kerry King on hair metal, Satan and being polite””Slayer Lyrics””Slayer - Biography””Most influential artists for extreme metal music””Slayer - Reign in Blood””Slayer guitarist Jeff Hanneman dies aged 49””Slatanic Slaughter: A Tribute to Slayer””Gateway to Hell: A Tribute to Slayer””Covered In Blood””Slayer: The Origins of Thrash in San Francisco, CA.””Why They Rule - #6 Slayer”originalet”Guitar World's 100 Greatest Heavy Metal Guitarists Of All Time”originalet”The fans have spoken: Slayer comes out on top in readers' polls”originalet”Tribute to Jeff Hanneman (1964-2013)””Lamb Of God Frontman: We Sound Like A Slayer Rip-Off””BEHEMOTH Frontman Pays Tribute To SLAYER's JEFF HANNEMAN””Slayer, Hatebreed Doing Double Duty On This Year's Ozzfest””System of a Down””Lacuna Coil’s Andrea Ferro Talks Influences, Skateboarding, Band Origins + More””Slayer - Reign in Blood””Into The Lungs of Hell””Slayer rules - en utställning om fans””Slayer and Their Fans Slashed Through a No-Holds-Barred Night at Gas Monkey””Home””Slayer””Gold & Platinum - The Big 4 Live from Sofia, Bulgaria””Exclusive! Interview With Slayer Guitarist Kerry King””2008-02-23: Wiltern, Los Angeles, CA, USA””Slayer's Kerry King To Perform With Megadeth Tonight! - Oct. 21, 2010”originalet”Dave Lombardo - Biography”Slayer Case DismissedArkiveradUltimate Classic Rock: Slayer guitarist Jeff Hanneman dead at 49.”Slayer: "We could never do any thing like Some Kind Of Monster..."””Cannibal Corpse'S Pat O'Brien Will Step In As Slayer'S Guest Guitarist | The Official Slayer Site”originalet”Slayer Wins 'Best Metal' Grammy Award””Slayer Guitarist Jeff Hanneman Dies””Kerrang! Awards 2006 Blog: Kerrang! Hall Of Fame””Kerrang! Awards 2013: Kerrang! Legend”originalet”Metallica, Slayer, Iron Maien Among Winners At Metal Hammer Awards””Metal Hammer Golden Gods Awards””Bullet For My Valentine Booed At Metal Hammer Golden Gods Awards””Metal Storm Awards 2006””Metal Storm Awards 2015””Slayer's Concert History””Slayer - Relationships””Slayer - Releases”Slayers officiella webbplatsSlayer på MusicBrainzOfficiell webbplatsSlayerSlayerr1373445760000 0001 1540 47353068615-5086262726cb13906545x(data)6033143kn20030215029