If you want to use a much more specific definition of "produce" to mean "to create" then the onus is on you to prove that this is the intended meaning, . . . Unless a word is used in a context whereby it can only mean one thing, you have to use its more common and more general definition,
First of all, as mentioned before, when googling this word the very first definition that comes up is "to bring into existence; give rise to; make or manufacture".
But beyond that, the context HAS been created within the text of the Feature, which is actually somewhat uncommon in the source books. They have gone out of their way in this case to make the context and the intended meaning clear:
The quill doesn't require ink. When you write with it, it produces ink
Just because the authors chose this punctuation instead of, say, a hyphen or a semicolon doesn't mean that these are two separate and totally unrelated statements. This is one idea. It is meant to be read together as a part of the one bullet point within this Feature. You are the ones who are choosing a meaning for the word that does not fit the context provided.
Actually it does [ alter time ], it says the copying takes 2 minutes instead of the usual 2 hours, so it's expressly altering time for the task somehow.
No. This is 100% false. That is not what altering time means and you know it.
. . . it normally takes 2 hours (120 minutes) per level to copy a spell, but we're never told how much of that is spent on experimentation vs. writing.
I mention casting times because there exist both spells that to cast them even once would take longer than 2 hours per level, as well as spells that take only a few seconds to cast, which means that if we're following the logic you're trying to apply to your argument, then experimentation can't be the bulk of that 2 hours per level.
In fact logically it follows that the bulk of the two hours (or one hour, i.e- 60 minutes, if you're a specialist in the appropriate school of magic) is mostly occupied by writing out the spell in whatever laborious, precise glyphs or whatever is required, and that it must be this that the Wizardly Quill somehow accelerates. We are given no reason to assume that the 2 minutes for the Wizardly Quill excludes any experimentation, because it doesn't say so.
First of all, yes, we are told and it has been quoted several times now. It is 1 hour for deciphering, experimenting and practicing and 1 hour for writing.
But beyond that, this whole statement above shows a gross misunderstanding of the process being described by the rule. Casting time and actual materials needed for the final spell have nothing to do with this process. The rule is explaining that one of the main aspects of this process is that the source spell is encoded / encrypted by the Wizard who wrote it down. The Wizard who is doing the copying is attempting to decipher this code and he runs experiments along the way in order to confirm that he is correctly interpreting the source spell. It's sort of like doing the calculations for a math problem and then "checking your work" to make sure that you haven't made a mistake. None of this has anything to do with actually casting the spell. We know this because, as you've mentioned, some spells take too long to cast. Some spells require material components that are too expensive. There is no mention of having to have the necessary spell slots available. And so on. This is a process of deciphering text -- nothing more. The decoding takes 1 hour. The subsequent encoding "into your own notation" takes another hour. Simple.
As for your comment "We are given no reason to assume that the 2 minutes for the Wizardly Quill excludes any experimentation" -- in fact, we are given a reason to make this educated assumption. Experimentation normally takes 1 hour and the Quill explicitly ONLY performs the transcription portion of the process and yet the entire process now takes 2 minutes. This is relatively easy logic. Although it doesn't say so explicitly, we can easily conclude that the source text simply doesn't need to be deciphered if we use the Quill for the transcription. That's a logical result of what the Feature actually does say. If you are the DM and can read this Feature and honestly come to a different conclusion then go ahead and rule it another way. This is not really a RAW discussion -- it's a ruling discussion based on how a specific situation is impacted by the RAW.
It literally says "you must practice the spell". 🤦♂️
When you practice an activity that does not necessarily mean that you perform the entire activity over and over again. A football team doesn't hold all of their practice sessions by lining up and playing through a full game. A gymnast doesn't always practice their floor routine by running through the entire routine. They might practice one skill at a time.
In the rule being discussed, the "practice" that is mentioned is in the context of attempting to decipher the source spell:
. . . deciphering the unique system of notation used by the wizard who wrote it. You must practice the spell until you understand the sounds or gestures required
This is a Wizard in a laboratory environment learning a spell. Obviously if a spell has a casting time that is much longer than the timeframe given by the rule to learn the spell then the learning of the spell does not involve actually fully casting the final spell -- the process of "practicing" the spell MUST be different than that.
Ergo an Awakened Spellbook is always part of the process, this is not optional.
False. There is no text whatsoever within the Wizardly Quill feature that indicates in any way that the Awakened Spellbook actively participates in this process of copying spells into the spellbook beyond just sitting there being copied into. To suggest otherwise is completely disingenuous. This is completely and totally unsupported by the text -- it will be impossible for you to quote anything from that text that even remotely supports these statements.
All you have to do is look at the rule which says that the process has a certain cost which represents the purchase of two things.
Neither of which the Wizardly Quill feature tells you to ignore. Again, the Wizardly Quill feature doesn't tell you that copying is now free of charge – if it was intended to be so, then all it had to do was say so.
The quill doesn't require ink. When you write with it, it produces ink
The time you must spend to copy a spell into your spell book equals 2 minutes per spell level
Saying anything more than that or drawing the conclusion for you would be redundant. The authors are choosing to not repeat themselves.
First of all, as mentioned before, when googling this word the very first definition that comes up is "to bring into existence; give rise to; make or manufacture".
"It says so in a Google search as you long as you don't dig into any of the results in any way whatsoever" is your best argument now?
And do you not realise that "give rise to" is the same as "bring forth"? And to make or manufacture something you use other components? Even bring into existence is debatable, when it's used to say things like "an animal produces young" in the sense of "gives birth to". There is no basis on which assume the quill can only mean "create", and you remain yet to prove otherwise since you're the one claiming something that isn't stated.
You are the ones who are choosing a meaning for the word that does not fit the context provided.
Incorrect. You are the one assuming that the use of "produce" must mean "create", when they could have easily just, oh I don't know… use the word create (as other similar features do) which would explicitly mean what you want.
It's just assumption after assumption with you; your entire argument hinges on a house of cards that collapses at the slightest scrutiny, and all so you can get something for nothing despite the text not saying you should get it?
Exactly, so it must therefore function as an ordinary quill by default
No. This is a magic quill with its own clearly defined features and benefits. Come on, man.
It's literally described as a quill, just as the copying rule literally states that you must practice the spell and all other things you've decided don't exist because they contradict your arguments.
But since we're fully into the "none of the words on the page mean anything" phase of your "argument" I think it's safe to stop right here, because this is never going to go anywhere when you're getting more and more desperate for the text to say things that it simply doesn't, and are actively denying that it says the things that it does. Only one side here is referring to what the rules say, and only to what they say, and I'll give you a hint; it's not yours.
And the part you just can't get away from is that the Wizardly Quill feature simply doesn't say that it eliminates the cost. It says it reduces the time (and only the time). The burden of proof is on those claiming otherwise, and you have shown you are incapable of doing so without relying on assumptions, conjecture, flawed logic, or calling everyone who disagrees with you an idiot.
I'm starting to remember why I had to remove you from my ignored list to see your posts.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
It's literally described as a quill, just as the copying rule literally states that you must practice the spell and all other things you've decided don't exist because they don't support your argument.
What on earth are you talking about now? What exactly have I decided doesn't exist? I have written and quoted the fact that practicing is part of this process at least a dozen times now. Perhaps you should go back and reread the thread so that you'll have some idea of what you are talking about.
And the fact you can't get away from is that the Wizardly Quill feature doesn't say that it eliminates the cost. The burden of proof is on those claiming otherwise
And yet, this has been proven over and over again. Perhaps the burden of proof is on those who read what is actually written and continue to ignore what it says.
And yet, this has been extensively proven and provided for you multiple times at this point. It is stated right here in the feature:
The quill doesn't require ink. When you write with it, it produces ink
…so not at all then, since this is literally not stating what you claim it does.
I can't help but notice that it says "it produces ink" (same as an ordinary quill can) as opposed to "it uncontrollably creates ink that you cannot prevent by any means, and also please disregard the use of the word quill because you can't use this quill as if it were a quill".
What on earth are you talking about now? What exactly have I decided doesn't exist?
You just two posts ago declared that the quill is not a quill, and now you're denying that too? So you deny the existence of wording in the rules, and now also deny your own words as well?
And yet, only one of us is consistently and repeatedly directly quoting the text from the Feature and from the Rule. Hint, it's not you.
Incorrect. Both myself and Quar1on have repeatedly quoted from the rules; we have simply done so less and less because you've made it abundantly clear that there is no wording that you will not either simply ignore if it contradicts what you claim, or you quote it then state something beyond what it said.
And yet, this has been proven over and over again. Perhaps the burden of proof is on those who read what is actually written and continue to ignore what it says.
The Wizardly Quill feature does not say it eliminates the cost; this is not something that is open to interpretation, as it is simply objective fact, one that you are clearly well aware of because your argument relies so heavily on trying to claim that it says so in other rules, when we've shown multiple times now why that isn't the case (because of all the assumptions required to make such claims even begin to work).
What it does say is that it reduces the time, and then it says… nothing about reducing the cost.
Even if (and I stress the "if") we were to accept that the quill can produce fine inks (which it never states), this is no basis upon which to reduce the cost of copying a spell because the fine inks are not the full cost of doing so, and we are never told how much. It only costs 10 gp for an ounce of ordinary ink, and for all you know very little fine ink might actually be required to copy a spell, meaning the fine inks could be the least of the cost of doing so, so any reduction in cost so could be negligible.
At which point you must still pay the full cost, but the Wizardly Quill at no point states that it fulfils the need for material components; deciding otherwise is pure invention, because it relies on the idea that the experimentation part of copying must account for most of the time, but you are never told this. In fact, to use your own argument it can't be since merely copying into a backup spellbook still takes half the time, but that's for a spell that has already been decoded, experimented with, and transcribed into a new form.
For a Divination wizard it's the same time it took them to initially copy the spell, meaning the writing would actually account for the entirety of the time it took them to copy the original spell, meaning the experimentation is either instantaneous (so entirely possible within the 2 minutes for Order of Scribes), or the experimentation is required to copy a spell into another spellbook as well, meaning the cost cannot be just fine inks, either way your argument that the Replace the Book section makes it free falls flat and the house of cards tumbles down once more.
I challenge you to directly quote one single instance anywhere on this forum in any thread where I have called someone an idiot.
I don't have to go far, literally two posts up:
But beyond that, this whole statement above shows a gross misunderstanding of the process being described by the rule
Because of course if someone disagrees with you it means they're too stupid to understand the rules, right?
You've done this multiple times throughout the last few pages; everybody who disagrees with you must surely just not understand the rules as well as the almighty up2ng. We are as children before you because we have made such foolish mistakes as believing the rules say what they state in words, rather than looking past those words at what the creators must surely have meant to say (yet mysteriously didn't).
Because when they wrote "you must practice the spell" they definitely meant to add "unless you don't want to", right? Just as when they wrote that it costs 50 gp per level to copy a spell that they must have purposefully omitted the clause "unless you don't feel like paying it" because clearly that is self evident from the fact that they didn't say it. 🤦♂️
I understand the normal rules for copying spells just fine, I've been using them for years. I understand that they very clearly state what the costs of copying a spell are, and that they provide no further breakdown beyond that without making assumptions. I gave a clear example of how those figures can be broken down in the same way to provide the exact opposite conclusion to the one you claim is the only one possible, which was my entire point in doing it (as I very clearly stated), as it proved your claim of "one true conclusion" to be false.
The fact that you immediately dismissed what is exactly the same kind of argument as your own as "a gross misunderstanding" shows a clear double standard, because you can't argue on a basis and then dismiss doing so as "gibberish".
You will immediately cease making false accusations about me or you will be reported.
And now we've made it onto the threats phase of your "argument"… so welcome back to my ignore list, and this time it's permanent. Edit: …or not, because apparently it's now against the rules to use the ignored users feature, which barely even functions to begin with. Is it me or are these forums more and more of a toilet every day?
Good luck convincing a DM that you should get a benefit that a feature doesn't say you should, because if I were DMing for you I'd have killed off your character by now. 😉
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
The word produce doesn't really have multiple meanings in the sense of a quill though; when you talk about producing ink you're using produce in the sense of "to bring forth", which is the most common, general purpose meaning of the word.
Both meanings actually. When ink is brought forth on the writing surface when writing with it, since the Wizardly Quill doesn’t require ink because it produces ink in a color of your choice on the writing surface when writing with it, where does it come from if not produced by the magic quill out of nothing?
Both meanings actually. When ink is brought forth on the writing surface when writing with it, since the Wizardly Quill doesn’t require ink because it produces ink in a color of your choice on the writing surface when writing with it, where does it come from if not produced by the magic quill out of nothing?
The issue isn't whether it can create ink; clearly it can as it doesn't require ink, the feature states that at the start of the first bullet point. But what it does not state is that you cannot use any other ink; to say otherwise is an invention, because all quills "produce" ink, as if they didn't they'd be useless.
The difference is you don't need to put ink into a Wizardly Quill to write with it, and any ink that comes out can be a colour of your choice.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
But what it does not state is that you cannot use any other ink; to say otherwise is an invention, because all quills "produce" ink, as if they didn't they'd be useless.
The difference is you don't need to put ink into a Wizardly Quill to write with it, and any ink that comes out can be a colour of your choice.
What happen if you dip a Wizardly Quill in ink and write with it? The feature doesn't say so.
To me considering that it doesn't require ink and produce some, it would change nothing other than mess up transcriptions.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
Assuming a Wizardly Quill still has the property of a mundane quill's reservoir for ink it doesn't require, it would produce twice as much ink and mess up writing is what i meant as writing with the magic quill produce / create ink like we just said. It can't be turned off in other words.
Assuming a Wizardly Quill still has the property of a mundane quill's reservoir for ink it doesn't require
All quills have a reservoir, otherwise it wouldn't be a quill – the reservoir is the hollow part inside the shaft of the feather, that's why quills were used.
it would produce twice as much ink and mess up writing is what i meant as writing with the magic quill produce / create ink like we just said. It can't be turned off in other words.
That's not what it says; whether or not it is using ink you supply, or ink it creates, it is still producing ink. If you put ink into a mundane quill, it produces ink when you write with it. If you don't put ink into a Wizardly Quill it produces ink when you write with it.
Since the Wizardly Quill does not say that you cannot put ink into it, there is no reason to assume that it cannot be used in the same way as a mundane quill; the feature does not tell you to do this, therefore it would be an invention to rule otherwise. The Wizardly Quill feature also doesn't state that it uncontrollably creates ink, this too would be an invention.
All it effectively says is that it can still produce ink even if it wasn't supplied with ink. Because it doesn't require ink, it is not incapable of being supplied with ink, these are two different things.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
Just playing catchup on this thread... folks have spent three days and five pages arguing that a magical quill can create ink of any color out of thin air, but not change the color of any ink that gets put in it? Do I have that right?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
Just playing catchup on this thread... folks have spent three days and five pages arguing that a magical quill can create ink of any color out of thin air, but not change the color of any ink that gets put in it? Do I have that right?
You can't put ink into it. As a subclass feature it only does what it says. You're welcome to homebrew additional abilities for the scribes wizard at your tables, however. Including the ability to use a secondary reservoir for regular ink, or even fine ink. Maybe homebrew a little toggle button that lets you switch between the RAW functionality of it producing ink every time you write with it to your homebrewed custom ink option.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
Just playing catchup on this thread... folks have spent three days and five pages arguing that a magical quill can create ink of any color out of thin air, but not change the color of any ink that gets put in it? Do I have that right?
Let's not forget the claims that it takes enough ink to fill something like 20 entire spellbooks to scribe a single first level spell (and enough to fill something like 40 for a second level spell), that something that's very clearly and repeatedly called a quill shouldn't be assumed to be a quill, that the developers clearly intended for you to assume how much of the time and gold required to transcribe consists of ink, that the developers clearly intended for you to later assume that the rest of the gold doesn't apply because it "doesn't make sense," that the Oxford English Dictionary is wrong, and that quills don't produce ink onto writing surfaces.
Look at what you've done. You spoiled it. You have nobody to blame but yourself. Go sit and think about your actions.
Don't be mean. Rudeness is a vicious cycle, and it has to stop somewhere. Exceptions for things that are funny. Go to the current Competition of the Finest 'Brews! It's a cool place where cool people make cool things.
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat Off - Mod Hat Also Off (I'm not a mod)
Since the Wizardly Quill does not say that you cannot put ink into it, there is no reason to assume that it cannot be used in the same way as a mundane quill;
I think we all know that's not how subclass features work. They only do what they say they do.
If you can't agree on that point... we really need to move the conversation to Hombrew section of the forums.
The Wizardly Quill feature also doesn't state that it uncontrollably creates ink, this too would be an invention.
Actually it does. It says it produces ink on the writing surface "when you write with it". This has no clause that prevents it from doing this. Thus it always creates ink when you write with it, and always on the writing surface you write upon.
It is a conditional statement that is very specific.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
What happen if you dip a Wizardly Quill in ink and write with it? The feature doesn't say so.
The Wizardly Quill is explicitly identified as a quill;
Can you provide some information about where the game defines what a quill is? I could see this being an arguement, like how a magical +1 longsword is, sure, a separate item from a longsword, but still also has the properties of a longsword.
It would help this line of argument if there was such a think as a quill defined by the game, though.
Inkpen? Sure. But the feature doesn't make a "magical inkpen" does it?
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
The Wizardly Quill is explicitly identified as a quill; if you dip a quill in ink you write using that ink, that's how quills work.
No, it isn't. It is explicitly identified as a magic quill that doesn't require ink. Why you keep wanting to bring up the functionality of a "mundane quill" is a mystery as that is irrelevant to the discussion.
And yet, this has been extensively proven and provided for you multiple times at this point. It is stated right here in the feature:
The quill doesn't require ink. When you write with it, it produces ink
. . . as opposed to "it uncontrollably creates ink that you cannot prevent by any means,
This is very simple logic. If a statement says "When you do X, then Y happens" then how do you propose that you prevent Y from happening when you do X? You cannot. It happens every time whether you want it to or not. When you do X, then Y happens. Every time.
You just two posts ago declared that the quill is not a quill, and now you're denying that too? So you deny the existence of wording in the rules, and now also deny your own words as well?
. . .
Incorrect. Both myself and Quar1on have repeatedly quoted from the rules; we have simply done so less and less because you've made it abundantly clear that there is no wording that you will not either simply ignore if it contradicts what you claim, or you quote it then state something beyond what it said.
These arguments are no longer based in reality so there is no longer a productive way to respond to them.
The Wizardly Quill feature does not say it eliminates the cost; this is not something that is open to interpretation, as it is simply objective fact
And I agree with this. It doesn't say so. Because it doesn't have to. The reduction in cost is a consequence of applying this feature to the existing rule.
I can see that this concept keeps getting missed in this thread for some reason so let's try an example:
A PC casts the Sleep spell in combat. In this case we're talking about a Spell and how it interacts with general rules instead of a Feature and how that interacts with general rules, but the concept is the same. The description for the spell states that it causes the unconscious condition. The description for the Sleep spell does NOT have to state that the unconscious creature is incapacitated. It does NOT have to state that the unconscious creature drops whatever it's holding and falls prone. It does NOT have to state that attack rolls against the unconscious creature have advantage. But all of these things DO happen. That's because we use the general rule for the unconscious condition and apply it to this situation. It doesn't have to say any of these things anywhere in the Sleep spell's description for them to happen as a consequence of the situation that is created by the Sleep spell.
Even if (and I stress the "if") we were to accept that the quill can produce fine inks (which it never states), this is no basis upon which to reduce the cost of copying a spell because the fine inks are not the full cost of doing so, and we are never told how much. It only costs 10 gp for an ounce of ordinary ink, and for all you know very little fine ink might actually be required to copy a spell, meaning the fine inks could be the least of the cost of doing so, so any reduction in cost so could be negligible.
This has now been covered extensively. The cost breakdown exists in the rule itself. The "material components" for the experimentation cost 40 gp and the fine inks cost 10 gp. This follows directly from simply reading the "Your Spellbook" Sidebar, which is the Rule being discussed in this thread.
At which point you must still pay the full cost, but the Wizardly Quill at no point states that it fulfils the need for material components; deciding otherwise is pure invention, because it relies on the idea that the experimentation part of copying must account for most of the time, but you are never told this.
Also covered extensively. The experimentation while deciphering takes 1 hour.
For some reason you keep wanting to bring up a totally separate feature from Arcane Tradition and how that Feature interacts with the general rule. I'm not sure why. That's not the feature being discussed in this thread.
In that case, the time and cost of the overall process is halved. The lore for this is that the Wizard gains additional expertise in their chosen specialty. Because of that, spells that are found in the wild which fit this specialty are easier and faster for this Wizard to decipher, requiring less (but still some) experimentation to confirm the correct meaning. He is also able to write these particular types of spells "in his own notation" easier and faster than for other spells. If you need an exact breakdown, that can be done. It's the same amount of ink even though the writing is done more quickly so that still costs 10 gp. The materials for experimentation therefore only cost 15 gp instead of 40 gp, which implies that the time spent deciphering and experimenting takes 3/8 of an hour, or 22.5 minutes instead of 1 hour. Based on that, the transcription takes 37.5 minutes instead of 1 hour. All of that makes perfect sense, and yet it is all irrelevant.
In the case of the Order of Scribes, when using the Wizardly Quill feature to do the transcription portion of the process, the entire process now takes 2 minutes. That is a completely different situation than what a Divination Wizard specialist experiences. In this case, the experimentation part of the process, which has nothing to do with the Quill, which used to take 1 hour, now doesn't. The transcription part of the process is greatly sped up. The conclusion for how this Feature interacts with the Rule is that transcription with this magic Quill does not require deciphering and quite obviously the ink is provided. Therefore, there is no cost. As long as there continues to be confusion about this I can continue to keep explaining it.
You've done this multiple times throughout the last few pages; everybody who disagrees with you must surely just not understand the rules as well as the almighty up2ng. We are as children before you because we have made such foolish mistakes as believing the rules say what they state in words, rather than looking past those words at what the creators must surely have meant to say (yet mysteriously didn't).
What?? That is the entire purpose of these forums. Usually a thread starts out with a post that poses a question because someone doesn't understand something about the rules. When another poster does understand the topic, they are free to chime in and explain it. That's how it works.
Usually when that happens the response is some variation of "Thanks!!!" And then sometimes, there are other types of responses . . .
Because when they wrote "you must practice the spell" they definitely meant to add "unless you don't want to", right? Just as when they wrote that it costs 50 gp per level to copy a spell that they must have purposefully omitted the clause "unless you don't feel like paying it" because clearly that is self evident from the fact that they didn't say it. 🤦♂️
Huh? Who has claimed this? I haven't noticed anyone making such a claim. That would be pretty strange.
I understand the normal rules for copying spells just fine, I've been using them for years. I understand that they very clearly state what the costs of copying a spell are, and that they provide no further breakdown . . .
No. This is false. The rules clearly state what the stated costs represent:
The cost represents material components you expend as you experiment with the spell to master it, as well as the fine inks you need to record it.
It's not just an arbitrary "pay this cost to do this thing". It is a process that is being described. Like, you don't just walk into a magic store and hand over the source code and your spellbook and have the shopkeeper say "Ok, that'll be 50 gp please, come back in 2 hours". I mean, as the DM you could set up a service like that if you wanted to, but that's not the rule. The rule describes costs that represent certain parts of the process of copying a spell. It is very explicit about that.
What happen if you dip a Wizardly Quill in ink and write with it? The feature doesn't say so.
The Wizardly Quill is explicitly identified as a quill;
Can you provide some information about where the game defines what a quill is? I could see this being an arguement, like how a magical +1 longsword is, sure, a separate item from a longsword, but still also has the properties of a longsword.
It would help this line of argument if there was such a think as a quill defined by the game, though.
Inkpen? Sure. But the feature doesn't make a "magical inkpen" does it?
School of Transmutation's Minor Alchemy:
You perform a special alchemical procedure on one object composed entirely of wood, stone (but not a gemstone), iron, copper, or silver, transforming it into a different one of those materials.
Suppose you use this feature to turn something that used to be iron into wood. Do you think that this wood would be flammable?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Look at what you've done. You spoiled it. You have nobody to blame but yourself. Go sit and think about your actions.
Don't be mean. Rudeness is a vicious cycle, and it has to stop somewhere. Exceptions for things that are funny. Go to the current Competition of the Finest 'Brews! It's a cool place where cool people make cool things.
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat Off - Mod Hat Also Off (I'm not a mod)
The Wizardly Quill feature also doesn't state that it uncontrollably creates ink, this too would be an invention.
It's the contrary, it doesn't state you can control if it produce ink or not, this property is always active, therefore ''when you write with it, it produces ink''
Just playing catchup on this thread... folks have spent three days and five pages arguing that a magical quill can create ink of any color out of thin air, but not change the color of any ink that gets put in it? Do I have that right?
Pretty much. Some other particular favourites of mine are:
A Wizardly Quill is not a quill (please ignore the multiple uses of the word "quill" in the feature).
A feature that only mentions reducing time must also reduce cost because it only reduces time.
"You must practice the spell" means "you don't have to bother practising the spell at all".
The word "produce" only means one thing because when googled it returns three different definitions as the first result.
It is possible to prove that the Wizardly Quill feature reduces cost by quoting the part where it doesn't mention reducing cost even once.
If I decide how much I want ink to be worth, I can ignore any and all costs for which only part of it is ink. Guess that means since any reasonable castle must include a study with an ink well in it, that means I can waive the 500,000 gp?
If this thread has produced one benefit, it is an extremely small amount of comedic value. 😂
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
The Wizardly Quill feature also doesn't state that it uncontrollably creates ink, this too would be an invention.
It's the contrary, it doesn't state you can control if it produce ink or not, this property is always active, therefore ''when you write with it, it produces ink''
Seriously, I don't know how else we can explain this to you; the word "produce" does not only mean "create", and that definition is the more specific of several possible definitions that are more valid in this case.
If you're refusing to accept that there is a broader definition that applies to both mundane and magical quills, then please at least be honest about that fact; give us some indication you are aware you are choosing an overly specific definition with the intended purpose of shutting down other arguments.
Because mundane quills produce ink, that is not unique to the Wizardly Quill. What is unique about it is that it does not require ink to be provided in order for it to produce ink, but that does not mean it is always creating ink out of nowhere, it does not say that, only that it doesn't require ink.
The Wizardly Quill is a quill. Until you can prove otherwise, it will always remain a quill and thereby it is capable of what a quill is capable of except where explicitly stated, it also means that words used to define the Wizardly Quill should be taken in the context of what a quill is and does, anything else is invention and therefore can't be Rules As Written because you're ignoring what you're being told in order to change the meaning.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
First of all, as mentioned before, when googling this word the very first definition that comes up is "to bring into existence; give rise to; make or manufacture".
But beyond that, the context HAS been created within the text of the Feature, which is actually somewhat uncommon in the source books. They have gone out of their way in this case to make the context and the intended meaning clear:
Just because the authors chose this punctuation instead of, say, a hyphen or a semicolon doesn't mean that these are two separate and totally unrelated statements. This is one idea. It is meant to be read together as a part of the one bullet point within this Feature. You are the ones who are choosing a meaning for the word that does not fit the context provided.
No. This is a magic quill with its own clearly defined features and benefits. Come on, man.
No. This is 100% false. That is not what altering time means and you know it.
First of all, yes, we are told and it has been quoted several times now. It is 1 hour for deciphering, experimenting and practicing and 1 hour for writing.
But beyond that, this whole statement above shows a gross misunderstanding of the process being described by the rule. Casting time and actual materials needed for the final spell have nothing to do with this process. The rule is explaining that one of the main aspects of this process is that the source spell is encoded / encrypted by the Wizard who wrote it down. The Wizard who is doing the copying is attempting to decipher this code and he runs experiments along the way in order to confirm that he is correctly interpreting the source spell. It's sort of like doing the calculations for a math problem and then "checking your work" to make sure that you haven't made a mistake. None of this has anything to do with actually casting the spell. We know this because, as you've mentioned, some spells take too long to cast. Some spells require material components that are too expensive. There is no mention of having to have the necessary spell slots available. And so on. This is a process of deciphering text -- nothing more. The decoding takes 1 hour. The subsequent encoding "into your own notation" takes another hour. Simple.
As for your comment "We are given no reason to assume that the 2 minutes for the Wizardly Quill excludes any experimentation" -- in fact, we are given a reason to make this educated assumption. Experimentation normally takes 1 hour and the Quill explicitly ONLY performs the transcription portion of the process and yet the entire process now takes 2 minutes. This is relatively easy logic. Although it doesn't say so explicitly, we can easily conclude that the source text simply doesn't need to be deciphered if we use the Quill for the transcription. That's a logical result of what the Feature actually does say. If you are the DM and can read this Feature and honestly come to a different conclusion then go ahead and rule it another way. This is not really a RAW discussion -- it's a ruling discussion based on how a specific situation is impacted by the RAW.
When you practice an activity that does not necessarily mean that you perform the entire activity over and over again. A football team doesn't hold all of their practice sessions by lining up and playing through a full game. A gymnast doesn't always practice their floor routine by running through the entire routine. They might practice one skill at a time.
In the rule being discussed, the "practice" that is mentioned is in the context of attempting to decipher the source spell:
This is a Wizard in a laboratory environment learning a spell. Obviously if a spell has a casting time that is much longer than the timeframe given by the rule to learn the spell then the learning of the spell does not involve actually fully casting the final spell -- the process of "practicing" the spell MUST be different than that.
False. There is no text whatsoever within the Wizardly Quill feature that indicates in any way that the Awakened Spellbook actively participates in this process of copying spells into the spellbook beyond just sitting there being copied into. To suggest otherwise is completely disingenuous. This is completely and totally unsupported by the text -- it will be impossible for you to quote anything from that text that even remotely supports these statements.
Saying anything more than that or drawing the conclusion for you would be redundant. The authors are choosing to not repeat themselves.
"It says so in a Google search as you long as you don't dig into any of the results in any way whatsoever" is your best argument now?
And do you not realise that "give rise to" is the same as "bring forth"? And to make or manufacture something you use other components? Even bring into existence is debatable, when it's used to say things like "an animal produces young" in the sense of "gives birth to". There is no basis on which assume the quill can only mean "create", and you remain yet to prove otherwise since you're the one claiming something that isn't stated.
Incorrect. You are the one assuming that the use of "produce" must mean "create", when they could have easily just, oh I don't know… use the word create (as other similar features do) which would explicitly mean what you want.
It's just assumption after assumption with you; your entire argument hinges on a house of cards that collapses at the slightest scrutiny, and all so you can get something for nothing despite the text not saying you should get it?
It's literally described as a quill, just as the copying rule literally states that you must practice the spell and all other things you've decided don't exist because they contradict your arguments.
But since we're fully into the "none of the words on the page mean anything" phase of your "argument" I think it's safe to stop right here, because this is never going to go anywhere when you're getting more and more desperate for the text to say things that it simply doesn't, and are actively denying that it says the things that it does. Only one side here is referring to what the rules say, and only to what they say, and I'll give you a hint; it's not yours.
And the part you just can't get away from is that the Wizardly Quill feature simply doesn't say that it eliminates the cost. It says it reduces the time (and only the time). The burden of proof is on those claiming otherwise, and you have shown you are incapable of doing so without relying on assumptions, conjecture, flawed logic, or calling everyone who disagrees with you an idiot.
I'm starting to remember why I had to remove you from my ignored list to see your posts.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
And yet, this has been extensively proven and provided for you multiple times at this point. It is stated right here in the feature:
What on earth are you talking about now? What exactly have I decided doesn't exist? I have written and quoted the fact that practicing is part of this process at least a dozen times now. Perhaps you should go back and reread the thread so that you'll have some idea of what you are talking about.
And yet, only one of us is consistently and repeatedly directly quoting the text from the Feature and from the Rule. Hint, it's not you.
And yet, this has been proven over and over again. Perhaps the burden of proof is on those who read what is actually written and continue to ignore what it says.
I challenge you to directly quote one single instance anywhere on this forum in any thread where I have called someone an idiot.
You will immediately cease making false accusations about me or you will be reported.
…so not at all then, since this is literally not stating what you claim it does.
I can't help but notice that it says "it produces ink" (same as an ordinary quill can) as opposed to "it uncontrollably creates ink that you cannot prevent by any means, and also please disregard the use of the word quill because you can't use this quill as if it were a quill".
You just two posts ago declared that the quill is not a quill, and now you're denying that too? So you deny the existence of wording in the rules, and now also deny your own words as well?
Incorrect. Both myself and Quar1on have repeatedly quoted from the rules; we have simply done so less and less because you've made it abundantly clear that there is no wording that you will not either simply ignore if it contradicts what you claim, or you quote it then state something beyond what it said.
The Wizardly Quill feature does not say it eliminates the cost; this is not something that is open to interpretation, as it is simply objective fact, one that you are clearly well aware of because your argument relies so heavily on trying to claim that it says so in other rules, when we've shown multiple times now why that isn't the case (because of all the assumptions required to make such claims even begin to work).
What it does say is that it reduces the time, and then it says… nothing about reducing the cost.
Even if (and I stress the "if") we were to accept that the quill can produce fine inks (which it never states), this is no basis upon which to reduce the cost of copying a spell because the fine inks are not the full cost of doing so, and we are never told how much. It only costs 10 gp for an ounce of ordinary ink, and for all you know very little fine ink might actually be required to copy a spell, meaning the fine inks could be the least of the cost of doing so, so any reduction in cost so could be negligible.
At which point you must still pay the full cost, but the Wizardly Quill at no point states that it fulfils the need for material components; deciding otherwise is pure invention, because it relies on the idea that the experimentation part of copying must account for most of the time, but you are never told this. In fact, to use your own argument it can't be since merely copying into a backup spellbook still takes half the time, but that's for a spell that has already been decoded, experimented with, and transcribed into a new form.
For a Divination wizard it's the same time it took them to initially copy the spell, meaning the writing would actually account for the entirety of the time it took them to copy the original spell, meaning the experimentation is either instantaneous (so entirely possible within the 2 minutes for Order of Scribes), or the experimentation is required to copy a spell into another spellbook as well, meaning the cost cannot be just fine inks, either way your argument that the Replace the Book section makes it free falls flat and the house of cards tumbles down once more.
I don't have to go far, literally two posts up:
Because of course if someone disagrees with you it means they're too stupid to understand the rules, right?
You've done this multiple times throughout the last few pages; everybody who disagrees with you must surely just not understand the rules as well as the almighty up2ng. We are as children before you because we have made such foolish mistakes as believing the rules say what they state in words, rather than looking past those words at what the creators must surely have meant to say (yet mysteriously didn't).
Because when they wrote "you must practice the spell" they definitely meant to add "unless you don't want to", right? Just as when they wrote that it costs 50 gp per level to copy a spell that they must have purposefully omitted the clause "unless you don't feel like paying it" because clearly that is self evident from the fact that they didn't say it. 🤦♂️
I understand the normal rules for copying spells just fine, I've been using them for years. I understand that they very clearly state what the costs of copying a spell are, and that they provide no further breakdown beyond that without making assumptions. I gave a clear example of how those figures can be broken down in the same way to provide the exact opposite conclusion to the one you claim is the only one possible, which was my entire point in doing it (as I very clearly stated), as it proved your claim of "one true conclusion" to be false.
The fact that you immediately dismissed what is exactly the same kind of argument as your own as "a gross misunderstanding" shows a clear double standard, because you can't argue on a basis and then dismiss doing so as "gibberish".
And now we've made it onto the threats phase of your "argument"… so welcome back to my ignore list, and this time it's permanent. Edit: …or not, because apparently it's now against the rules to use the ignored users feature, which barely even functions to begin with. Is it me or are these forums more and more of a toilet every day?
Good luck convincing a DM that you should get a benefit that a feature doesn't say you should, because if I were DMing for you I'd have killed off your character by now. 😉
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
Both meanings actually. When ink is brought forth on the writing surface when writing with it, since the Wizardly Quill doesn’t require ink because it produces ink in a color of your choice on the writing surface when writing with it, where does it come from if not produced by the magic quill out of nothing?
The issue isn't whether it can create ink; clearly it can as it doesn't require ink, the feature states that at the start of the first bullet point. But what it does not state is that you cannot use any other ink; to say otherwise is an invention, because all quills "produce" ink, as if they didn't they'd be useless.
The difference is you don't need to put ink into a Wizardly Quill to write with it, and any ink that comes out can be a colour of your choice.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
What happen if you dip a Wizardly Quill in ink and write with it? The feature doesn't say so.
To me considering that it doesn't require ink and produce some, it would change nothing other than mess up transcriptions.
The Wizardly Quill is explicitly identified as a quill; if you dip a quill in ink you write using that ink, that's how quills work.
Hardly, it makes transcriptions actually possible, as otherwise you wouldn't have access to the fine inks you're paying 50 gp per spell level for.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
Assuming a Wizardly Quill still has the property of a mundane quill's reservoir for ink it doesn't require, it would produce twice as much ink and mess up writing is what i meant as writing with the magic quill produce / create ink like we just said. It can't be turned off in other words.
.
All quills have a reservoir, otherwise it wouldn't be a quill – the reservoir is the hollow part inside the shaft of the feather, that's why quills were used.
That's not what it says; whether or not it is using ink you supply, or ink it creates, it is still producing ink. If you put ink into a mundane quill, it produces ink when you write with it. If you don't put ink into a Wizardly Quill it produces ink when you write with it.
Since the Wizardly Quill does not say that you cannot put ink into it, there is no reason to assume that it cannot be used in the same way as a mundane quill; the feature does not tell you to do this, therefore it would be an invention to rule otherwise. The Wizardly Quill feature also doesn't state that it uncontrollably creates ink, this too would be an invention.
All it effectively says is that it can still produce ink even if it wasn't supplied with ink. Because it doesn't require ink, it is not incapable of being supplied with ink, these are two different things.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
Just playing catchup on this thread... folks have spent three days and five pages arguing that a magical quill can create ink of any color out of thin air, but not change the color of any ink that gets put in it? Do I have that right?
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
You can't put ink into it. As a subclass feature it only does what it says. You're welcome to homebrew additional abilities for the scribes wizard at your tables, however. Including the ability to use a secondary reservoir for regular ink, or even fine ink. Maybe homebrew a little toggle button that lets you switch between the RAW functionality of it producing ink every time you write with it to your homebrewed custom ink option.
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
Let's not forget the claims that it takes enough ink to fill something like 20 entire spellbooks to scribe a single first level spell (and enough to fill something like 40 for a second level spell), that something that's very clearly and repeatedly called a quill shouldn't be assumed to be a quill, that the developers clearly intended for you to assume how much of the time and gold required to transcribe consists of ink, that the developers clearly intended for you to later assume that the rest of the gold doesn't apply because it "doesn't make sense," that the Oxford English Dictionary is wrong, and that quills don't produce ink onto writing surfaces.
Look at what you've done. You spoiled it. You have nobody to blame but yourself. Go sit and think about your actions.
Don't be mean. Rudeness is a vicious cycle, and it has to stop somewhere. Exceptions for things that are funny.
Go to the current Competition of the Finest 'Brews! It's a cool place where cool people make cool things.
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat Off - Mod Hat Also Off (I'm not a mod)
I think we all know that's not how subclass features work. They only do what they say they do.
If you can't agree on that point... we really need to move the conversation to Hombrew section of the forums.
Actually it does. It says it produces ink on the writing surface "when you write with it". This has no clause that prevents it from doing this. Thus it always creates ink when you write with it, and always on the writing surface you write upon.
It is a conditional statement that is very specific.
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
Can you provide some information about where the game defines what a quill is? I could see this being an arguement, like how a magical +1 longsword is, sure, a separate item from a longsword, but still also has the properties of a longsword.
It would help this line of argument if there was such a think as a quill defined by the game, though.
Inkpen? Sure. But the feature doesn't make a "magical inkpen" does it?
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
No, it isn't. It is explicitly identified as a magic quill that doesn't require ink. Why you keep wanting to bring up the functionality of a "mundane quill" is a mystery as that is irrelevant to the discussion.
This is very simple logic. If a statement says "When you do X, then Y happens" then how do you propose that you prevent Y from happening when you do X? You cannot. It happens every time whether you want it to or not. When you do X, then Y happens. Every time.
These arguments are no longer based in reality so there is no longer a productive way to respond to them.
And I agree with this. It doesn't say so. Because it doesn't have to. The reduction in cost is a consequence of applying this feature to the existing rule.
I can see that this concept keeps getting missed in this thread for some reason so let's try an example:
A PC casts the Sleep spell in combat. In this case we're talking about a Spell and how it interacts with general rules instead of a Feature and how that interacts with general rules, but the concept is the same. The description for the spell states that it causes the unconscious condition. The description for the Sleep spell does NOT have to state that the unconscious creature is incapacitated. It does NOT have to state that the unconscious creature drops whatever it's holding and falls prone. It does NOT have to state that attack rolls against the unconscious creature have advantage. But all of these things DO happen. That's because we use the general rule for the unconscious condition and apply it to this situation. It doesn't have to say any of these things anywhere in the Sleep spell's description for them to happen as a consequence of the situation that is created by the Sleep spell.
This has now been covered extensively. The cost breakdown exists in the rule itself. The "material components" for the experimentation cost 40 gp and the fine inks cost 10 gp. This follows directly from simply reading the "Your Spellbook" Sidebar, which is the Rule being discussed in this thread.
Also covered extensively. The experimentation while deciphering takes 1 hour.
For some reason you keep wanting to bring up a totally separate feature from Arcane Tradition and how that Feature interacts with the general rule. I'm not sure why. That's not the feature being discussed in this thread.
In that case, the time and cost of the overall process is halved. The lore for this is that the Wizard gains additional expertise in their chosen specialty. Because of that, spells that are found in the wild which fit this specialty are easier and faster for this Wizard to decipher, requiring less (but still some) experimentation to confirm the correct meaning. He is also able to write these particular types of spells "in his own notation" easier and faster than for other spells. If you need an exact breakdown, that can be done. It's the same amount of ink even though the writing is done more quickly so that still costs 10 gp. The materials for experimentation therefore only cost 15 gp instead of 40 gp, which implies that the time spent deciphering and experimenting takes 3/8 of an hour, or 22.5 minutes instead of 1 hour. Based on that, the transcription takes 37.5 minutes instead of 1 hour. All of that makes perfect sense, and yet it is all irrelevant.
In the case of the Order of Scribes, when using the Wizardly Quill feature to do the transcription portion of the process, the entire process now takes 2 minutes. That is a completely different situation than what a Divination Wizard specialist experiences. In this case, the experimentation part of the process, which has nothing to do with the Quill, which used to take 1 hour, now doesn't. The transcription part of the process is greatly sped up. The conclusion for how this Feature interacts with the Rule is that transcription with this magic Quill does not require deciphering and quite obviously the ink is provided. Therefore, there is no cost. As long as there continues to be confusion about this I can continue to keep explaining it.
What?? That is the entire purpose of these forums. Usually a thread starts out with a post that poses a question because someone doesn't understand something about the rules. When another poster does understand the topic, they are free to chime in and explain it. That's how it works.
Usually when that happens the response is some variation of "Thanks!!!" And then sometimes, there are other types of responses . . .
Huh? Who has claimed this? I haven't noticed anyone making such a claim. That would be pretty strange.
No. This is false. The rules clearly state what the stated costs represent:
It's not just an arbitrary "pay this cost to do this thing". It is a process that is being described. Like, you don't just walk into a magic store and hand over the source code and your spellbook and have the shopkeeper say "Ok, that'll be 50 gp please, come back in 2 hours". I mean, as the DM you could set up a service like that if you wanted to, but that's not the rule. The rule describes costs that represent certain parts of the process of copying a spell. It is very explicit about that.
Good for you. Why would I play in a game like that? Games are supposed to be fun.
School of Transmutation's Minor Alchemy:
Suppose you use this feature to turn something that used to be iron into wood. Do you think that this wood would be flammable?
Look at what you've done. You spoiled it. You have nobody to blame but yourself. Go sit and think about your actions.
Don't be mean. Rudeness is a vicious cycle, and it has to stop somewhere. Exceptions for things that are funny.
Go to the current Competition of the Finest 'Brews! It's a cool place where cool people make cool things.
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat Off - Mod Hat Also Off (I'm not a mod)
It's the contrary, it doesn't state you can control if it produce ink or not, this property is always active, therefore ''when you write with it, it produces ink''
Pretty much. Some other particular favourites of mine are:
If this thread has produced one benefit, it is an extremely small amount of comedic value. 😂
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
Seriously, I don't know how else we can explain this to you; the word "produce" does not only mean "create", and that definition is the more specific of several possible definitions that are more valid in this case.
If you're refusing to accept that there is a broader definition that applies to both mundane and magical quills, then please at least be honest about that fact; give us some indication you are aware you are choosing an overly specific definition with the intended purpose of shutting down other arguments.
Because mundane quills produce ink, that is not unique to the Wizardly Quill. What is unique about it is that it does not require ink to be provided in order for it to produce ink, but that does not mean it is always creating ink out of nowhere, it does not say that, only that it doesn't require ink.
The Wizardly Quill is a quill. Until you can prove otherwise, it will always remain a quill and thereby it is capable of what a quill is capable of except where explicitly stated, it also means that words used to define the Wizardly Quill should be taken in the context of what a quill is and does, anything else is invention and therefore can't be Rules As Written because you're ignoring what you're being told in order to change the meaning.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.