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?
Read up on the rules for attacking objects if this is a question you have. But it seems wildly inappropriate to ask it in this thread.
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.
Haravikk Posting a reply in bigger font like you just did on internet is akin to yelling and is not a proper respectful use. For your information the PHB uses ''produce'' multiple times usually as synonym of creating.
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.
The magic quill DOES create the ink.
1. You conjure it.
2. It doesn't require ink.
3. It produces ink when you write.
Aka it creates the ink. This should be easily agreed to. What part is causing you problems?
Ps. Please a book and pg nunber for a mundane quill. Thanks.
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.
Haravikk Posting a reply in bigger font like you just did on internet is akin to yelling and is not a proper respectful use.
I already edited the post, but I'm glad you saw the original because it should give some indication as to how frustrated I am by your constantly repeating the same argument in response to what people have tried to tell you. Frankly not just frustrated but disappointed, as I considered you to be more reasonable than this.
For your information the PHB uses ''produce'' multiple times usually as synonym of creating.
The Player's Handbook uses the word "produce" exactly 15 times and each time the definition of "bring forth" is valid, and often more correct.
For example, the description for the swift quiver, which enables your quiver to "produce an endless supply of nonmagical ammunition". It's the "endless supply" part that is special about this, because producing ammunition is what you can already do using a mundane quiver, the difference is that a mundane quiver only holds a finite amount of ammunition, a swift quiver does not (until the spell ends).
Where does it say a quill produce ink? It isn't even defined in the game so i'm curious.
That's what a quill does.
But here we are right back onto the "Wizardly Quill isn't a quill" argument that you seem to have latched onto for some reason. If it's not a quill then why does it use the word seven times?
If you're seriously trying to get into a "lowest common denominator" race here then please feel free to point out where the rules define left and right, forward and back, up and down, feet, the ground, the sky, air, or any of the other common words that the rules use to describe 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.
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?
Read up on the rules for attacking objects if this is a question you have. But it seems wildly inappropriate to ask it in this thread.
Very funny, har har.
You known damn well that it's relevant whether or not wood is flammable. The answer is: yes. Duh. But it's not because it is defined as flammable within the game. Why would wood have to be defined as flammable within the game? The wood created by this feature is flammable because it's wood, and it's just common sense that wood is flammable.
Translate this to quills. Do quills have reservoirs? The answer is: yes. Duh. But it's not because they're defined as having reservoirs within the game. Why would quills have to be defined as having reservoirs within the game? The quill created by the feature has a reservoir because it's a quill, and it's just common sense that a quill has a reservoir.
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)
Haravikk Posting a reply in bigger font like you just did on internet is akin to yelling and is not a proper respectful use.
I already edited the post, but I'm glad you saw the original because it should give some indication as to how frustrated I am by your constantly repeating the same argument in response to what people have tried to tell you. Frankly not just frustrated but disappointed, as I considered you to be more reasonable than this.
For your information the PHB uses ''produce'' multiple times usually as synonym of creating.
The Player's Handbook uses the word "produce" exactly 15 times and each time the definition of "bring forth" is more correct.
For example, the description for the swift quiver, which enables your quiver "produces an endless supply of nonmagical ammunition", it's the "endless supply" part that is special about this, because producing ammunition is what you can already do using a mundane quiver, the difference is that a mundane quiver runs out, a swift quiver does not (at least until the spell ends).
Well i disagree i see many with synonymous to creating. Just your exemple is proof that the swift quiver creates ammunition as normal quiver don't produce any, they only hold them per its definition. Here's others;
School of Conjurations: As a conjurer, you favor spells that produce objects and creatures out o f thin air...
Tinker: Fire Starter. The device produces a miniature flame, which you can use to light a candle,
Your Pact Boon: Each Pact Boon option produces a special creature or an object that reflects your patron’s nature
Cantrip: Repeated practice has fixed the spell in the caster’s mind and infused the caster with the magic needed to produce the effect over and over
The School of Magic: Evocation spells manipulate magical energy to produce a desired effect.
Alarm: An audible alarm produces the sound of a hand bell
Control Weather: If this effect produced a wave, the wave repeats on the start of your next turn while the flood effect lasts
Where does it say a quill produce ink? It isn't even defined in the game so i'm curious.
That's what a quill does.
Where does it say that? Do you have a link? You keep making that claim as its the interpratation you chose, but in the context of the feature, as with many other places in the PHB, produce is akin to create.
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?
Read up on the rules for attacking objects if this is a question you have. But it seems wildly inappropriate to ask it in this thread.
Very funny, har har.
You known damn well that it's relevant whether or not wood is flammable. The answer is: yes. Duh. But it's not because it is defined as flammable within the game. Why would wood have to be defined as flammable within the game? The wood created by this feature is flammable because it's wood, and it's just common sense that wood is flammable.
Translate this to quills. Do quills have reservoirs? The answer is: yes. Duh. But it's not because they're defined as having reservoirs within the game. Why would quills have to be defined as having reservoirs within the game? The quill created by the feature has a reservoir because it's a quill, and it's just common sense that a quill has a reservoir.
Sure it is. Read up on attack objects. It can be found in the DMG. But, again, it isn't at all relevant to this particular topic.
Specifically Chapter 8 of DMG. Objects.
Wood is listed in the AC table, alongside bone, as having an AC of 15. The whole section has excellent guidance to DMs on how to adjudicate damaging objects. It talks about HP and dmaage types and damage thresholds and all sorts of stuff to help you, presumably the DM, determine what happens when objects are damaged. It is a great read. Highly recommend.
Nothing at all to do with quills not existing in the item lists. So I really do suggest if any further clarification is needed we start a different thread for this.
But the simple fact is quills don't exist as a defined item. You are free to homebrew them, if you had a need to. But it'd be odd since inkpens do exist and essentially serve the same purpose as your homebrewed quill would.
Imagine for a moment you had a feature that created a "magical arming sword" and then it defined a bunch if stuff this feature could do.
You're over here arguing that this feature ALSO is a longsword. Because obviously a longsword is just another name for arming sword.
But that isn't at all how the rules work.
If they wanted this ability to function like an inkpen, they WOULD have called it a magical inkpen.
They didn't. So it doesn't.
Instead it just does exactly what it says it does.
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.
Haravikk Posting a reply in bigger font like you just did on internet is akin to yelling and is not a proper respectful use.
I already edited the post, but I'm glad you saw the original because it should give some indication as to how frustrated I am by your constantly repeating the same argument in response to what people have tried to tell you. Frankly not just frustrated but disappointed, as I considered you to be more reasonable than this.
For your information the PHB uses ''produce'' multiple times usually as synonym of creating.
The Player's Handbook uses the word "produce" exactly 15 times and each time the definition of "bring forth" is valid, and often more correct.
For example, the description for the swift quiver, which enables your quiver to "produce an endless supply of nonmagical ammunition". It's the "endless supply" part that is special about this, because producing ammunition is what you can already do using a mundane quiver, the difference is that a mundane quiver only holds a finite amount of ammunition, a swift quiver does not (until the spell ends).
Where does it say a quill produce ink? It isn't even defined in the game so i'm curious.
That's what a quill does.
But here we are right back onto the "Wizardly Quill isn't a quill" argument that you seem to have latched onto for some reason. If it's not a quill then why does it use the word seven times?
If you're seriously trying to get into a "lowest common denominator" race here then please feel free to point out where the rules define left and right, forward and back, up and down, feet, the ground, the sky, air, or any of the other common words that the rules use to describe things.
You keep insisting that a quill is defined in the game when it is not. An inkpen is. But if they wanted this subclass feature to behave like the mundane object "inkpen" they probably would have mentioned that. They don't. They don't even call it an inkpen at all.
They went out of their way to define it as an undefined object, a magical version of said undefined object, and then went on to decribe in detail how the thing DOES NOT NEED ink.
In no world does it make sense that their intent was for you to treat this like an regular inkpen.
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.
Well i disagree i see many with synonymous to creating. Just your exemple is proof as the quiver creates ammunition.
Yes it does, but not because of the word "produce" alone, because the word produce can be used with a mundane quiver as well, which is the entire point that you are very conspicuously ignoring.
School of Conjurations: As a conjurer, you favor spells that produce objects and creatures out of thin air...
The word "produce" alone does not mean create here, take a look at the rest of the wording.
Tinker: Fire Starter. The device produces a miniature flame, which you can use to light a candle,
You mean exactly like how a match or a tinderbox produces a flame? Yes, yes you do.
Your Pact Boon: Each Pact Boon option produces a special creature or an object that reflects your patron’s nature
From where does it produce it? It is a boon granted by your patron, i.e- given. The patron might well create it from nothing, but they equally may not.
Cantrip: Repeated practice has fixed the spell in the caster’s mind and infused the caster with the magic needed to produce the effect over and over The School of Magic: Evocation spells manipulate magical energy to produce a desired effect. Alarm: An audible alarm produces the sound of a hand bell
The definition "bring forth" is entirely valid here, this is not proving the case that you think it is.
Control Weather: If this effect produced a wave, the wave repeats on the start of your next turn while the flood effect lasts
Conveniently omitting key parts of the control water text such as "you control any freestanding water inside an area", not "you create a wave out of nothing". It is the rising water level that can potentially "produce" waves in exactly the same way that the moon "produces" waves by changing water level.
Where does it say a quill produce ink? It isn't even defined in the game so i'm curious.
That's what a quill does.
Where does it say that? Do you have a link? You keep making that claim as its the interpratation you chose, but in the context of the feature, as with many other places in the PHB, produce is akin to create.
Feel free to point out where the rules define common words such as left, right, up, down, ground, sky, air, sword, etc. The Wizardly Quill is described as a quill because the word "quill" describes what it is.
Your refusal to lookup what a quill is or how it works is not the winning argument you seem to think it is; because you've been told it's a quill, refusing to accept that proves nothing. Nor is your refusal to look up the definition of "produce" in favour of deciding it must always mean "create" because that's what you want it to mean.
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.
You're the one who keep claiming quill produce ink, without providing base for it.
Because it's what a quill does; it produces ink. That is how it works, otherwise it wouldn't do anything.
Trying to argue that a quill does not produce ink is like trying to argue that the ground is not something you can stand on or that water is not wet, it is a refusal of the most basic logic and fundamental meaning of words.
If you're going to insist on that position then we're just going to have to conclude you're firmly in the "Wizardly Quill is not a quill because I say so" camp and we can all just leave it at that, because it is not possible to produce a reasonable ruling by denying the meaning of the words involved.
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.
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?
Read up on the rules for attacking objects if this is a question you have. But it seems wildly inappropriate to ask it in this thread.
Very funny, har har.
You known damn well that it's relevant whether or not wood is flammable. The answer is: yes. Duh. But it's not because it is defined as flammable within the game. Why would wood have to be defined as flammable within the game? The wood created by this feature is flammable because it's wood, and it's just common sense that wood is flammable.
Translate this to quills. Do quills have reservoirs? The answer is: yes. Duh. But it's not because they're defined as having reservoirs within the game. Why would quills have to be defined as having reservoirs within the game? The quill created by the feature has a reservoir because it's a quill, and it's just common sense that a quill has a reservoir.
Sure it is. Read up on attack objects. It can be found in the DMG. But, again, it isn't at all relevant to this particular topic.
Specifically Chapter 8 of DMG. Objects.
Wood is listed in the AC table, alongside bone, as having an AC of 15. The whole section has excellent guidance to DMs on how to adjudicate damaging objects. It talks about HP and dmaage types and damage thresholds and all sorts of stuff to help you, presumably the DM, determine what happens when objects are damaged. It is a great read. Highly recommend.
Chapter 8 of the DMG doesn't say that wood is flammable. At no point in the game is wood defined as flammable. Wood is still flammable. Even when wood is created by a feature that doesn't say "the wood created by this feature is flammable," wood is flammable.
And stop acting like this is completely tangential, because it isn't. My style of argumentation is getting my opponent to agree on a separate yet similar issue, and then showing how the logic used to solve the issue that we agreed upon can be translated to the issue that we're arguing over. In this case, the logic used to say that quills don't have reservoirs can also be used to say that wood isn't flammable. This style of argumentation works very well, because it means that people either have to realize that they're wrong or say that wood isn't flammable. I've noticed that you tend to take the latter approach.
Imagine for a moment you had a feature that created a "magical arming sword" and then it defined a bunch if stuff this feature could do.
You're over here arguing that this feature ALSO is a longsword. Because obviously a longsword is just another name for arming sword.
I'm not arguing that an arming sword is a long sword, I'm arguing that an arming sword has a hilt and a sharp edge and a pointy end and all the other things that it's common knowledge for an arming sword to have. You're trying to make the claim that an arming sword doesn't have a hilt or a sharp edge or a pointy end or any of the other things that it's common knowledge for an arming sword to have.
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)
Not only is a mundane quill not defined in the game, but in this case we are actually talking about a magic quill which does not require ink.
Similarly, a magic car that does not require gas may or may not have a gas tank -- it's undefined. But if we had to guess, the most logical conclusion is that in fact this particular magic car does NOT have a gas tank, nor can it operate by using gas unless it is explicitly described as being able to do so.
But if we had to guess, the most logical conclusion is that in fact this particular magic car does NOT have a gas tank, nor can it operate by using gas unless it is explicitly described as being able to do so.
That is in no way a logical conclusion, any more than assuming that a magical crossbow that doesn't require ammunition can't operate if you put a bolt in it
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)
If this thread didn't exist at all and you and I bumped into each other on the street and struck up a conversation. . . . And I told you that I had invented a new kind of car. It's a magic car that doesn't require gasoline. It creates It's own propulsion when you drive it because this magic car is magical -- or perhaps it just uses this new magical stuff called electricity. In your mind you are picturing a car with a gas tank that you could put gasoline into as usual?
But if we had to guess, the most logical conclusion is that in fact this particular magic car does NOT have a gas tank, nor can it operate by using gas unless it is explicitly described as being able to do so.
That is in no way a logical conclusion, any more than assuming that a magical crossbow that doesn't require ammunition can't operate if you put a bolt in it
It's also not logical because if a mundane version of an object always features an element, and the magical version doesn't say that it lacks that element, then there is no logical basis on which to assume it would.
This is what brings it right back to the "Wizardly Quill is not a quill" argument which is as illogical as it sounds.
Proponents keep trying to argue that not requiring something is the same as being unable to use it, but that doesn't logically track either, and even other examples of requirement, such as zombies not requiring food don't support this, because while a zombie may not need to eat, it doesn't mean they can't do it anyway. While a vampire doesn't need air, they can still breathe in order to speak etc.
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.
This whole thread feels like one of those abstract paintings where you see a figure jump right out at you immediately, clear as day. So the portrait seems obvious. But then, inexplicably, others come along who somehow can't see it or they see something else and that just becomes baffling.
Like, the statement has a meaning and once you see it you can't unsee it because it's obvious. If others can't see it for some reason then it's difficult to move the conversation forward.
This magic quill does not require ink. It produces ink when you write with it.
It says what it says and it means what it means.
I think if we brought this statement into a school aged SAT prep class and ran a poll about what they think the statement means some people here would be shocked at how overwhelmingly one-sided the responses would be.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Read up on the rules for attacking objects if this is a question you have. But it seems wildly inappropriate to ask it in this thread.
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.
Haravikk Posting a reply in bigger font like you just did on internet is akin to yelling and is not a proper respectful use. For your information the PHB uses ''produce'' multiple times usually as synonym of creating.
Where does it say a quill produce ink? It isn't even defined in the game so i'm curious.
The magic quill DOES create the ink.
1. You conjure it.
2. It doesn't require ink.
3. It produces ink when you write.
Aka it creates the ink. This should be easily agreed to. What part is causing you problems?
Ps. Please a book and pg nunber for a mundane quill. Thanks.
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.
I already edited the post, but I'm glad you saw the original because it should give some indication as to how frustrated I am by your constantly repeating the same argument in response to what people have tried to tell you. Frankly not just frustrated but disappointed, as I considered you to be more reasonable than this.
The Player's Handbook uses the word "produce" exactly 15 times and each time the definition of "bring forth" is valid, and often more correct.
For example, the description for the swift quiver, which enables your quiver to "produce an endless supply of nonmagical ammunition". It's the "endless supply" part that is special about this, because producing ammunition is what you can already do using a mundane quiver, the difference is that a mundane quiver only holds a finite amount of ammunition, a swift quiver does not (until the spell ends).
That's what a quill does.
But here we are right back onto the "Wizardly Quill isn't a quill" argument that you seem to have latched onto for some reason. If it's not a quill then why does it use the word seven times?
If you're seriously trying to get into a "lowest common denominator" race here then please feel free to point out where the rules define left and right, forward and back, up and down, feet, the ground, the sky, air, or any of the other common words that the rules use to describe 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.
Very funny, har har.
You known damn well that it's relevant whether or not wood is flammable. The answer is: yes. Duh. But it's not because it is defined as flammable within the game. Why would wood have to be defined as flammable within the game? The wood created by this feature is flammable because it's wood, and it's just common sense that wood is flammable.
Translate this to quills. Do quills have reservoirs? The answer is: yes. Duh. But it's not because they're defined as having reservoirs within the game. Why would quills have to be defined as having reservoirs within the game? The quill created by the feature has a reservoir because it's a quill, and it's just common sense that a quill has a reservoir.
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)
Well i disagree i see many with synonymous to creating. Just your exemple is proof that the swift quiver creates ammunition as normal quiver don't produce any, they only hold them per its definition. Here's others;
School of Conjurations: As a conjurer, you favor spells that produce objects and creatures out o f thin air...
Tinker: Fire Starter. The device produces a miniature flame, which you can use to light a candle,
Your Pact Boon: Each Pact Boon option produces a special creature or an object that reflects your patron’s nature
Cantrip: Repeated practice has fixed the spell in the caster’s mind and infused the caster with the magic needed to produce the effect over and over
The School of Magic: Evocation spells manipulate magical energy to produce a desired effect.
Alarm: An audible alarm produces the sound of a hand bell
Control Weather: If this effect produced a wave, the wave repeats on the start of your next turn while the flood effect lasts
Where does it say that? Do you have a link? You keep making that claim as its the interpratation you chose, but in the context of the feature, as with many other places in the PHB, produce is akin to create.
Sure it is. Read up on attack objects. It can be found in the DMG. But, again, it isn't at all relevant to this particular topic.
Specifically Chapter 8 of DMG. Objects.
Wood is listed in the AC table, alongside bone, as having an AC of 15. The whole section has excellent guidance to DMs on how to adjudicate damaging objects. It talks about HP and dmaage types and damage thresholds and all sorts of stuff to help you, presumably the DM, determine what happens when objects are damaged. It is a great read. Highly recommend.
Nothing at all to do with quills not existing in the item lists. So I really do suggest if any further clarification is needed we start a different thread for this.
But the simple fact is quills don't exist as a defined item. You are free to homebrew them, if you had a need to. But it'd be odd since inkpens do exist and essentially serve the same purpose as your homebrewed quill would.
Imagine for a moment you had a feature that created a "magical arming sword" and then it defined a bunch if stuff this feature could do.
You're over here arguing that this feature ALSO is a longsword. Because obviously a longsword is just another name for arming sword.
But that isn't at all how the rules work.
If they wanted this ability to function like an inkpen, they WOULD have called it a magical inkpen.
They didn't. So it doesn't.
Instead it just does exactly what it says it does.
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.
You keep insisting that a quill is defined in the game when it is not. An inkpen is. But if they wanted this subclass feature to behave like the mundane object "inkpen" they probably would have mentioned that. They don't. They don't even call it an inkpen at all.
They went out of their way to define it as an undefined object, a magical version of said undefined object, and then went on to decribe in detail how the thing DOES NOT NEED ink.
In no world does it make sense that their intent was for you to treat this like an regular inkpen.
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.
Yes it does, but not because of the word "produce" alone, because the word produce can be used with a mundane quiver as well, which is the entire point that you are very conspicuously ignoring.
The word "produce" alone does not mean create here, take a look at the rest of the wording.
You mean exactly like how a match or a tinderbox produces a flame? Yes, yes you do.
From where does it produce it? It is a boon granted by your patron, i.e- given. The patron might well create it from nothing, but they equally may not.
The definition "bring forth" is entirely valid here, this is not proving the case that you think it is.
Conveniently omitting key parts of the control water text such as "you control any freestanding water inside an area", not "you create a wave out of nothing". It is the rising water level that can potentially "produce" waves in exactly the same way that the moon "produces" waves by changing water level.
Feel free to point out where the rules define common words such as left, right, up, down, ground, sky, air, sword, etc. The Wizardly Quill is described as a quill because the word "quill" describes what it is.
Your refusal to lookup what a quill is or how it works is not the winning argument you seem to think it is; because you've been told it's a quill, refusing to accept that proves nothing. Nor is your refusal to look up the definition of "produce" in favour of deciding it must always mean "create" because that's what you want it to mean.
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.
You're the one who keep claiming quill produce ink, without providing base for it.
Because it's what a quill does; it produces ink. That is how it works, otherwise it wouldn't do anything.
Trying to argue that a quill does not produce ink is like trying to argue that the ground is not something you can stand on or that water is not wet, it is a refusal of the most basic logic and fundamental meaning of words.
If you're going to insist on that position then we're just going to have to conclude you're firmly in the "Wizardly Quill is not a quill because I say so" camp and we can all just leave it at that, because it is not possible to produce a reasonable ruling by denying the meaning of the words involved.
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.
Chapter 8 of the DMG doesn't say that wood is flammable. At no point in the game is wood defined as flammable. Wood is still flammable. Even when wood is created by a feature that doesn't say "the wood created by this feature is flammable," wood is flammable.
And stop acting like this is completely tangential, because it isn't. My style of argumentation is getting my opponent to agree on a separate yet similar issue, and then showing how the logic used to solve the issue that we agreed upon can be translated to the issue that we're arguing over. In this case, the logic used to say that quills don't have reservoirs can also be used to say that wood isn't flammable. This style of argumentation works very well, because it means that people either have to realize that they're wrong or say that wood isn't flammable. I've noticed that you tend to take the latter approach.
I'm not arguing that an arming sword is a long sword, I'm arguing that an arming sword has a hilt and a sharp edge and a pointy end and all the other things that it's common knowledge for an arming sword to have. You're trying to make the claim that an arming sword doesn't have a hilt or a sharp edge or a pointy end or any of the other things that it's common knowledge for an arming sword to have.
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)
Not only is a mundane quill not defined in the game, but in this case we are actually talking about a magic quill which does not require ink.
Similarly, a magic car that does not require gas may or may not have a gas tank -- it's undefined. But if we had to guess, the most logical conclusion is that in fact this particular magic car does NOT have a gas tank, nor can it operate by using gas unless it is explicitly described as being able to do so.
Back in post #164 there were six bullet points detailing claims that were supposedly made in this thread.
In fact, not even one of those six claims were actually made by anyone in this thread at any time.
At least when Quar1on made a similar post previously, one or two of his statements actually had some truth buried within them.
That is in no way a logical conclusion, any more than assuming that a magical crossbow that doesn't require ammunition can't operate if you put a bolt in it
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)
Really??
If this thread didn't exist at all and you and I bumped into each other on the street and struck up a conversation. . . . And I told you that I had invented a new kind of car. It's a magic car that doesn't require gasoline. It creates It's own propulsion when you drive it because this magic car is magical -- or perhaps it just uses this new magical stuff called electricity. In your mind you are picturing a car with a gas tank that you could put gasoline into as usual?
Very interesting.
It's also not logical because if a mundane version of an object always features an element, and the magical version doesn't say that it lacks that element, then there is no logical basis on which to assume it would.
This is what brings it right back to the "Wizardly Quill is not a quill" argument which is as illogical as it sounds.
Proponents keep trying to argue that not requiring something is the same as being unable to use it, but that doesn't logically track either, and even other examples of requirement, such as zombies not requiring food don't support this, because while a zombie may not need to eat, it doesn't mean they can't do it anyway. While a vampire doesn't need air, they can still breathe in order to speak etc.
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.
This whole thread feels like one of those abstract paintings where you see a figure jump right out at you immediately, clear as day. So the portrait seems obvious. But then, inexplicably, others come along who somehow can't see it or they see something else and that just becomes baffling.
Like, the statement has a meaning and once you see it you can't unsee it because it's obvious. If others can't see it for some reason then it's difficult to move the conversation forward.
This magic quill does not require ink. It produces ink when you write with it.
It says what it says and it means what it means.
I think if we brought this statement into a school aged SAT prep class and ran a poll about what they think the statement means some people here would be shocked at how overwhelmingly one-sided the responses would be.